“What’s Wrong with the U.S. Dietary Guidelines?” & Other Nutrition & Weight Loss Qs Answered by Adele Hite, RD, MPH

March 29, 2012 in Academics, Debunking Myths, Evidence-Based Science, Food Movement, Interview

A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of interviewing Adele Hite, RD, MPH and PhD-in-training at the UNC Gillings School of Public Health. I contacted Adele after watching her speak at the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Press Conference. I found her speech so simple to comprehend — and yet so full of wisdom and inspiring — that I simply had to hear more. The interview that ensues is just me picking her brain for ways to fix our broken food and healthcare systems (yeah, it’s a huge undertaking!). She also shares insight on the nutrition degree options, how to pick a good program, her own personal health and weight loss journey, legit resources for health and nutrition, and tips to go about hacking what Adele calls the “scientific industrial food complex.”

The real problem, in Adele’s opinion, is the skewed dietary guidelines, which only propagate myths (Yeah, I too was shocked to hear that saturated fats can be good for you(!) about a year ago). Despite years of trying to follow the US dietary guidelines, Americans have seen obesity and lifestyle diseases like diabetes and heart disease increase as never before … Something is terribly wrong, and we can’t stay quiet much longer. My friends, I introduce to you the passionate Adele Hite:

And the second part:

An Interview with Nutrition Student and PhD Candidate Adele Hite, RD MPH

On getting a nutrition degree …

1. What’s the best route to take for someone interested in dispensing nutrition information? 

First of all, I think it’s terrific that you want to get involved — right now it seems like a lot of people kicking away at this problem on their own. It’s important to find a way to collaborate and join forces. The route you will want to take will depend on what you want to do. If you want to write books, you can do that now. If want to publish online on blogs, it will depend on state regulations how much ‘advice’ you can give, even for free. Take a look at state licenses and requirements; once you figure out what those are, you have some choices. There are a number of certifications out there besides the traditional RD route; you can get a clinical nutritionist certification or a nutritional specialist certification. You have to have a Master’s degree or a PhD to apply for these certifications, so they’re quite rigorous. There are also interning hours you’ll have to complete. I like these certifications because they’re associated with the American College of Nutrition, an organization that has recently passed a resolution stating they will not take funding from industry, and that the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) would do well to follow suit.

Healthy Nation Coalition

The Healthy Nation Coalition

There are other options as well – you can be a nutritional therapist or a health coach. But if you want people to take you seriously, you have to get established credentials. At the same time, getting established credentials means you have to slog through the established curriculum. That could be painful but it can also be very illuminating. I didn’t know the system was so broken until I got involved in the system myself.

I had a wonderful mentor through this, Pam Schoenfeld, co-founder of the Healthy Nation Coalition. She contacted me while I was still working at the Duke Clinic. She has been sort of going “You’ll be okay Adele; you’ll live through it”, which has been a big support for me! And now her daughter [Laura has a great paleo-focused blog called Ancestralize Me], is here at UNC in my program. We all just try to support each other, even if we have different views about how much of the message we want to pass along. It all depends on how controversial you’re willing to be — I’ve gotten some heat for my perspectives on nutrition … but that’s okay since I’m still a student!

2. What is the most ‘valid’ real food, science-based nutrition program out there?

The certified nutrition specialist is the up-and-coming one. I think that’s what people are going to start turning to instead of the Registered Dietitian (RD) degree. Part of the reason for its popularity is that it requires a higher degree of education — you have to have a Master’s or PhD. To be an RD, you can just have a bachelor’s, so it’s not as rigorous in training. I have a friend who actually set up a program at  the NY Chiropractic College and we talked about it a good deal. If I had to do it all over again, that’s the kind of program I’d want. It’s teaching you how to understand what’s going on with the person in terms of lab values and lifestyle and really personalizes nutrition. Best of all, it’s free of a lot of the dogma that you get when you go through AND.

However, it’s important to note that those who are certified nutrition specialists or health coaches and are not certified by the AND can be asked to stop practicing nutrition if the state in which they reside passes a law stating that one needs an RD degree to practice. This is important to some degree because we don’t want people who don’t know anything about nutrition advertising themselves as nutritionists. But at the same time, as with doctors who can be an MD or a DO, there is more than one way to be certified as a professional in nutrition. Just because the AND doesn’t want to recognize this just yet doesn’t mean it’s not so. If you got one of those certifications, it would be worth fighting for, now wouldn’t it?

3. If everyone who wants to practice nutrition has to get an RD degree, is there a program that you recommend?

I would recommend my program at UNC, and for good reason. I recommended it to Pam’s daughter – she wouldn’t want her daughter to go through a program where Laura’s opportunities to learn and inquire are squashed at every turn. That is not the way that UNC operates at all. I imagine that there are similarly good programs out there, but I don’t know them. However, I can give you some tips on figuring out how to go about selecting a program:

  1. Find out who is the director of program
  2. Learn about his or her educational background
  3. If they have lot of research done in areas that are well-established in the field but that we know to be erroneous, this is a red flag — is it all whole grains and fiber? Is the focus on polyunsaturated fats? I’m making sweeping generalizations, but there is a possibility that that program would be less open to questioning that standard way of thinking.
  4. Look at the faculty members’ backgrounds since they are going to be giving the instruction, and you want to ask the same question: are these people really invested in the status quo, and for what reasons?
  5. Find out if in that department of nutrition, there is a five-hundred-pound gorilla who is the big name in that department who gets all the funding, who writes all the books, and who has his or her name on 800 different articles every month. If so, there’s a good chance that this person is likely inflexible and embedded in the status quo.

Again, these indications wouldn’t necessarily mean that the program itself will be inflexible; it just means you may run into more issues, or not be able to raise the questions that you want to raise as easily.

Adele’s journey and food philosophy

4. You were a vegetarian for many years before becoming a convert to real foods (including animal protein and high-quality fats). What prompted this change? Was there an “aha moment” for you?

I can put my finger right on that moment. When I have an exam or another paper to write, or when I’m just overwhelmed by the material, I remember a patient I met at the clinic whose circumstances and story I’ve been able to relate to on a personal level. When I was working at the Duke Clinic, I was educating her about the low-carb diet that we use in the clinic. I start telling her about the importance of eating good delicious food, but the need to give up sugary desserts. She started crying, and I felt bad for her. I realized that most people don’t want to be told to give up anything and so I started telling her about sugar-free cheesecake recipes she can make, etc. Then, she looked up at me with a furious look on her face and I realized she’s mad at me! In a shaky voice, she said: “I have already given up almost everything. I gave up desserts and sweets years ago. I haven’t had a piece of chocolate in forever.” So, she’d already given up everything we’d asked her to give up years ago. But she was also surprised and relieved to find out from me that she can eat real food … that she can have eggs for breakfast and blue cheese dressing — and still lose weight.

First, she didn’t believe me. But then she said: “If what you’re telling me is true, then I’ve been hungry for the past twenty years for no good reason.” And that just struck me to the bone! Because if we see a child who is hungry, we don’t want him to feel one single hunger pang; we want to feed him. But a middle-aged woman who is overweight or obese … our reaction is often: “Let her be hungry; that’s her tough luck!” And that just infuriates me now when I think about it. If we’re overweight or obese, we’re expected to just be hungry and deal with it. And there is something deeply wrong with that.

We got her straightened out, and she started losing weight, gaining energy and getting her life back, and she’d say to me, “Hey Adele, when are you going to get started? When are you going to fix this problem?” This is what really inspired me — I saw it as a social injustice!

I was also one of these people; I was obese, struggling to lose weight, eating less and exercising more, and just being marginally successful at best. And people would give a most discouraging reaction, like “you must not be trying your best” or “you must be lying to yourself or others about what you are eating”. These statements are not only condescending, but also devaluing of another person’s human experience. You get that a lot — even in studies. We assume that people lie about their intake, but we don’t question the intake instrument: Are they accurately probing? Do fat people want to just hide their dietary habits from us? To suggest this is just offensive.

I was a vegetarian for my first two pregnancies, and I had difficult pregnancies; one baby was born 4 weeks early and another 6 weeks early … just a lot of problems. With my third pregnancy, my OB-GYN said “you will eat protein at every meal.” And he made such a big deal out of it; so I did it, and my pregnancy went smoothly! Now, did I put two and two together? No, I did not! After I gave birth, I went back to low-fat vegetarian eating and 6 months after I gave birth, I weighed more than before I gave birth! My weight went in the wrong direction, which was so frustrating. I joined a gym, did everything I was supposed to do, but I was miserable.

There’s that moment when you go “I’ll just have to live as a fat person, because I can’t live like this!” Then, I thought there has got to be a better way to do this. “Maybe there’s something wrong with me — surely it’s my thyroid”, I thought. I went to my family practitioner’s office and they found that my blood pressure and blood glucose were going up. Their solution? I should eat less and exercise more! I was so upset about that, the doctor left and sent in the Physician’s Assistant, who finally gave me some truly useful advice: “Don’t worry so much about the fat; make sure you’re getting protein at every meal.” And then I thought “What’s all this about protein? I thought a plant-based diet was best and all this red meat was bad for you …”, and I just didn’t believe a word he said, but it was the second time I had heard that message.

I went over to the Health Sciences Library at UNC with my littlest one in the stroller, and I was using the then-high-tech tool called the Internet, scrounging as much information as I could. I understood two pieces of information: carbohydrates were mostly for energy, and that body fat is stored energy! In my brain I said “Why am I putting energy into my body when obviously I have been storing plenty of it?” I didn’t know about the insulin thing or anything like that, but that just sort of struck me. Then I picked up the book Protein Power by Mike and Mary Eades, and there was a sentence in there that said there is no dietary requirement for carbohydrate, which again, I did not believe at the time. But I starred and underlined it, and thought maybe there’s something here.

Putting together the advice to increase protein and reduce carbohydrates, I changed my diet. My God, was it a life-changer for me! I started losing weight and feeling great … and started to acquire muscle, which was a brand new thing for me because when I was thin, I still wasn’t muscular. Eight or nine months down the road, I decided that I was doing so well that I had to go back to my old dietary habits! I added more plant-protein, some eggs, and low-fat cheese, and I gained 15 pounds in a month, felt terrible again, and decided it’s not what I need to be doing. It really is all about experimentation; it’s important to find out what works best for each of us, individually. It’s true that some parameters have been hidden from the public, such as the information about the fat-storing consequences of carbohydrates. There’s also misinformation that has been propagated, such as the lipid hypothesis. Additionally, the supposed dangers of saturated fats were overstated. That doesn’t mean that everybody will do well on one particular diet, but there is a range of normal …

This is what makes being a nutritionist really important — to tailor advice to peoples’ needs. Well-trained nutritionists can help people evaluate the science, see how it applies to them, evaluate their own body’s messages, because that can be an art by itself. We haven’t been taught as Americans to understand what the body is trying to tell us. Nutritionists can be especially valuable to help people make these educated guesses about their own dietary habits and lifestyle.

5. A lot of people who are trying their best to lose weight on a “low-fat” diet are struggling, and now we know that this is because they are likely consuming a large amount of simple carbs instead. As a result of the media indoctrinating the public about the supposed danger of fats, many are hesitant to increase their fat intake. What are some resources you would recommend that would help to convince someone to consider a more traditional diet that doesn’t shun fats?

It’s tricky, because some of the resistance comes from “I love the foods I’m eating now, even though I can see quite plainly that they’re not providing me with the best health.” So you have to look at the population that you’re trying to approach. The Weston A. Price Foundation is a good resource for families; Nourishing Traditions is a good resource for mothers raising children. NT is not about weight loss; it’s just about returning to a way we used to eat before all these industrial processed foods entered our food system. For younger people, I think the Paleo lifestyle really captures their imagination. I really like Robb Wolf’s book, The Paleo Solution, and his approach because he has that attitude of “don’t just take my word for it; look at some other evidence.” The audience for the low-carb lifestyle seems to be people who are already severely disregulated, who are obese, diabetic, etc — this makes sense because they need a stronger prescription. The book that just came out by Stephen Phinney and Jeff Volek called The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living is a valuable resource. There’s lots of material out there; you have to simply address the specific needs of who you are trying to help.

6. There’s a lot of contention in the food blog world regarding grains and whether or not we need them for good health. Primal and paleo circles are strictly against grains, and gluten-free cooking has become mainstream, while many people in the WAPF (Weston A. Price Foundation) camp are zealously defending properly (traditionally) prepared grains. What are your thoughts, especially as some archaeological evidence shows that wild grains and tubers were eaten by our ancestors 100,000 years ago?

I guess if someone asked me “should I stop grains?”, I’d ask them why they’re eating them in the first place! What’s your motivation for eating them now? If you’re eating grains just because you like them or you’re used to eating them, then how much pain is it going to cause you to give that up? Is it going to be a real struggle for you? Then, we are looking at other issues besides just nutritional content. I thought this was a good question actually, because we do see a lot of zealotry or moralizing about food in the world, and I think it’s interesting especially when we’re looking at ancestral ways of eating. Do we look at the far, far past — the caveman’s diet? I’m taking a food culture and anthropology class and one of the things we know is that we ate a lot of insects and grubs when we were at sustenance-level eating, but I don’t see anybody zealously defending eating bugs! I think a lot of times what we’re defending are our own cultural norms and our own personal proclivities, and maybe even addictions.

If you’re a person who likes puttering around in the kitchen and like sprouting stuff, pickling stuff, and fermenting stuff, then getting grains to the point where they’re not toxic can be fun for you. For someone else, these processes can be seen as additional chores, and it may not be worth it for them, so they cut it out completely.

On hacking the food/healthcare system …

7. What do you think is the biggest problem with our industrial food system? Can you think of actionable ways to gather together like-minded people beyond the grass-roots level to effect real change?

When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail; so my answer to the biggest problem is going to be the dietary guidelines. I used to not think this way, but it seems that all major barriers that I run into when it comes to reform have the dietary guidelines behind them. “We can’t do this” or “we can’t change this” because of what it says in the dietary guidelines. As long as the USDA and the HHS own the definition of “healthy”, there is so much we are unable to change — our agricultural food supply structure, the labeling of products, the advice we give people in medical care and health care systems, the information distributed in the media, our health educational system, all funding for studies — each one of those is tied back to the guidelines. I’m not saying we need to necessarily change the guidelines; I’m saying we might just need to dismantle the system or try a different way to talk to the public about how to achieve health by making food choices that are appropriate for individuals. It’s not necessarily going to be the current top-down system that we’ve got, because goodness knows — it just has not worked all that well!

Graph taken from the Healthy Nation Coalition website.

To me, it’s a real puzzle. If I put up another graph that shows installation of a plastics factory and at the bottom it’s cancer incidence … and you saw an inflection point like that, people will definitely think there is some type of relationship to this crazy slope. But when you relate obesity to the dietary guidelines, this is the response I get: “Well, people are moving less.” I think there’s not that big of a difference between how much we were moving in 1980 and how much people are moving now … but there weren’t a lot of fat people in 1980! I was alive and remember it. My parents didn’t own a pair of jogging shoes; in fact, no adults I knew “exercised” when I graduated from high school. Kids had sports in high school but adults didn’t play sports or exercise, but no one I knew was really fat. So, what changed? There are all sorts of excuses … women in the workforce, automobiles, etc.  But what it comes down to is when we added the guidelines; it affected every aspect of our food system. It changed the way that Americans thought about food and their health. They were taught to think that they can get health out of a box. They were no longer taught to listen to their own bodies or their grandmother’s advice, or pay attention to what is real food or isn’t. If it comes from a manufacturer and if it’s been quantified, labeled and health-claimed, then it’s okay … and everything else — an egg, a pork chop — is suspect. It has fundamentally changed the way that we think about our food.

So what can we do about it?

First of all, I think we have to get rid of these silos; we have to stop saying “my diet is better than your diet” to everybody, including vegetarians. It’s vital to acknowledge that there are different paths people are going to take to health, but we are going to agree on the fact that our current industrialized food system isn’t working. This doesn’t mean that we have to eliminate it or that it’s going to go away; it just means that it’s going to be different than how it works now. The best thing as I’ve said before is to join forces — those who are in the slow food movement, the agricultural reform movement, WAPF, paleo, low-carb, healthcare reform movement … all these people, if they came together as one and were willing to simply agree on the fact that what we’ve been doing up until now is not working, we can start to push for things to change. We don’t have the answers. If we create another top-down, one-size-fits-all system — another dietary prescription that we think is right for everyone — we will fail again, because there will be unintended consequences that we don’t know about just like there were unintended consequences from 1980 that they didn’t know about.

The work that you’re doing — just getting the word out — is so important. Tell stories like yours over and over again. I share that I tried following the rules, and they didn’t work for me. Why aren’t we questioning the status quo? Being in the academic scientific community, we are simply not asking the questions. It’s almost forbidden to “go there”. This is not because scientists don’t care or are afraid. I think they ask the questions by themselves, but once they get to a certain status, they need to stop asking questions in order to secure funding or get accepted into the club. The system is rigged — not necessarily against people, but rigged for other peoples’ special interests. There’s a lot of political bullying, pressure in the form of funding, etc without taking into account what happens when you hand the nutrition business over to the agency whose real mandate is to promote agricultural products. At what point [is the USDA] going to recommend a change in diet that’s going to really hurt some of the big agricultural businesses? It doesn’t make a lot of sense.

8. What is the simplest way to convince the general public that the current dietary recommendations are sub-par?

The joke always is “I have a copy of Good Calories, Bad Calories, but only read the first half” because once you get into the second half, you’ll just want to cry! The first half is a page-turner; it’s just fabulous. Go to the library and just read the first half; don’t feel guilty about not reading the second half [because it's known to be very difficult to understand] — that’s a great place to see where it sort of all went awry. Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s good documentation yet of what happens next. I wrote my Master’s paper on this,  which I just put up on the web, so more people have access to it, and hopefully that’s the whole purpose of starting a blog — just so I’ll have an outlet for that. What the public doesn’t understand is that we tend to blame a lot of this on industry. That’s not entirely unfounded, but the big industrial culprit at work here is what I call the “scientific industrial food complex”. A lot of people make their living from funding to study science that is sort of geared to prove the theory behind the [current] guidelines. It’s biased from the outset. Scientists come to science with their own biases, with their own microscopic view of the world … because they’ve been taught to specialize and narrow their focus.

When it comes to nutrition, it’s exacerbated because we have this giant umbrella called the dietary guidelines. So if you’re a scientist putting together a study and you want to know what the “healthy diet” is going to be, you don’t have to guess; you’re programmed to look to the dietary guidelines. If you put in any other diet in there and call it healthy, you will be going against the organization that is funding you! So if you want to study nutrition, you have to study the nutrition of the dietary guidelines. People have the reaction of  “where’s the science that says …” or, “well I read in Fuhrman’s book and he quotes lots of studies that show …” Well, he also tells us that broccoli has more protein than steak, which is just goofy! Until we begin to be skeptical of who we’re believing when we think we’re believing science, we will remain confused. It’s a culture change or a paradigm shift, and it will take some time for things to change.

People in the medical establishment also have to be on board. Doctors are not taught proper preventive care. The healthcare community is one of those threads that when you start tugging at food and nutrition policy in America, you get tangled up in … because the funding for studies about cholesterol and about saturated fats, sodium, and all these other measurements of heart-health, come from — to a large extent — the NIH, which is housed in Health and Human Services, which is one of the places that creates the dietary guidelines in the first place! So, it’s not an independent agency. Therefore, you have a funding agency that is going to want to fund studies that support the guidelines that the other part of the agency has already come up with and already said that these are what should be. The agency is not going to try to undermine its own work, so it will try to limit funding in areas that might upset the status quo. And that’s the core of the problem.

In America, we’ve been taught that medication and surgery are going to fix us. And that’s an expensive and ineffective route to go. Statin drugs are a perfect example of causing more problems than they solve for some people. That said, as Americans, we need to step up and take up responsibility for our own health.

9. So, factory farmed beef versus an organic granola bar. What are your thoughts?

I would rather have someone have factory-farmed beef over organic granola bars. That’s my take on it based on what I saw in the clinic. From a clinical perspective, the meat is going to make the person better faster than the so-called healthy whole grains. The organic granola bar is going to raise the blood sugar faster and the person will have a harder time losing weight. From an environmental perspective, not so much. We have a little burger place by our house and we call it the “Magic McDonald’s”. All their food is handmade: meat is ground on the premises, the fries are hand-cut and fried in non-GMO oil (I’d be happier if they were fried in lard, but they have to cater to their consumer base). Just think how much better it would be to turn McDonald’s into this. It’s still burger and fries, but the quality is incomparable. And it’s a local business, so I’m supporting the local economy too.

You can’t have impossible standards right out of the gate. You have to help people find what can make their health better, and then we can figure out how to make the world better. If I could change one thing for most people, I would encourage them to switch from cereal to eggs for breakfast everyday, and so many other things will fall into place!

On making locally-grown foods more accessible …

10. My topic of greatest interest at this point is this: I’m trying to understand what are the main barriers to making locally and sustainably sourced food more directly available to consumers, and what it would take for more farmers to embrace a more organic and sustainable (and traditional) approach to farming. What would it really take to change the paradigm and the ecosystem of agriculture and food economics?

I’m right on board with you. I think it’s a very interesting issue to tackle. I’m taking a social entrepreneurship class and working on a project that addresses this. I think what it’s going to take is a combination of top-down policy change and bottom-up culture change and consumer awareness. There are some barriers that policy changes can reduce: enforcing anti-trust regulations in the food industry so we are no longer centralizing all of our meat processing, for example.  That’s a real problem for consumers because everything we want to eat comes from these centralized processing plants where everything gets processed the same way. It’s a problem for farmers because they end up being contractors in a vertically-organized system instead of being their own entrepreneurs on the farm. So we need to encourage and support smaller circles of production, processing and retail, through state funds and local funds. Instead of food being grown in North Carolina, shipped out of state for processing, and brought back in to be sold, let’s keep it all local.

If we keep things local, we keep things in our local community, and we have a lot more control over the extent of the processing, and the farmers end up having more control over what their part of the production line is. They control what they grow, and who they sell to. It diversifies what is happening on the farm, gives them a more stable basis for income, and it’s good for the consumer because we are getting things a lot closer to home. But to make this work, we have to increase demand by consumer information through the health care system. So if doctors were recommending a whole foods diet, if their first-line treatment for diabetes were farmers’ market produce and meat, that would change consumer demand! You can’t tell me that buying prescriptions from the drugstore is cost-effective compared to even buying more expensive meat products.

Again, I sound like a broken record, but it comes down to the dietary guidelines — they tell our healthcare providers what to recommend! My nephew is in medical school now and he was told (and I was so pleased to hear it) that a low-carb diet is the best treatment for diabetes. But then he was told that the patient won’t follow through with it, so a medication would still be necessary. But just because someone might not follow through with something doesn’t mean you should not provide her with the correct information and let her decide! We need to lower the barriers for the consumer instead of blaming the consumer for not wanting to follow a lifestyle treatment that is going to be really effective.

If demand increases, industry will follow. The industry will go to where the consumer will put his/her money. The flip side of that is industry also regulates what the consumer wants; by putting certain health claims on the packages of food, that manipulates consumer demand. Consumers may think that the absence of a health claim on broccoli or pork chop is weird, and that somehow the presence of a health claim on Cheerios — no matter how unscientific or meaningless — overrides the real food items. So we need to have a more informed consumer base; and I think industry will shift according to consumer demand.

Who is Adele Hite? 

Taken from her new blog, Eathropology, Adele is “a PhD graduate student in Nutrition Epidemiology at UNC-Chapel Hill. She completed a Masters of Public Health/Registered Dietitian (RD MPH) program, a Masters of Arts in Teaching, and a BA in English at the same institution and she still doesn’t care much about basketball. She’s a mom, a yoga instructor, an omnivore, a songwriter, proud co-founder of the Healthy Nation Coalition, and a general thorn in the side of the nutrition establishment.”

 

 

 

 

*This post has been shared on Butter Believer’s Sunday School and Real Food Freak’s Freaky Friday.

Why You Have a Right to Know If Your Food Is Genetically Modified (& Actionable Steps to Avoid GMOs)

March 27, 2012 in Environment, Evidence-Based Science, Food Movement, Health News, Sustainability

monsanto cartoon

Circa 1999. Yes, the fight has been long, but we're not giving up.

I have the right to know what I am eating. You have the right to know. Really, anyone who is paying hard-earned money for a food or drink, or anything that is going to be ingested and absorbed into the bloodstream, has the right to know. Think about it: you’re at the grocery store, trying to find healthy foods to feed your your family. You pick up a few slices of fresh Atlantic salmon … fatty fish like salmon is a good source of Omega-3s, you’ve heard. But what if I told you that soon enough (as in, sometime this year in 2012) you may be buying “Atlantic salmon” that has been genetically modified … without having a clue that it is, because it’s simply not labeled as such. There is currently no law that requires the labeling of genetically modified foods. And that, my friends, is absolutely absurd. Let me tell you why.

Just Label It Infographic

What the heck is a genetically modified food?

Quite simply (… or not), genetically modified foods are plants (or animals, in the case of fish) that have had their genetic makeup tweaked in the lab. Scientists cut-and-splice genes from a particular organism and add it to another plant or animal to give it a particular characteristic, such as resistance against forces of nature such as weeds, pests or drought. (It must escape them that these calamities can be dealt with more effectively without the genetic modification due to biodiversity and the organism’s own evolutionary adaptive mechanisms, humph). Another goal is to increase plants’ yield, or make animals grow faster, for larger profits — never mind the possible health and environmental ramifications. Finally, genetic modification may be done with the intent of making the plant or animal look artificially more ripe or fresh even when it really isn’t … which I’d consider a deceptive practice of course.

Whether or not you think this sounds like quackery, you probably agree that these genetically modified foods should at least be labeled, so that consumers can have a choice. Over 93% of Americans, on both sides of the debate, think that labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), also known as genetically engineered (GE) food or bioengineered food, is a basic right. Just Label It is a wonderful campaign aimed at mobilizing the public to demand that GM foods be labeled - sign the petition and share!

Are you currently eating genetically modified foods unknowingly?

Okay, so you don’t eat farm-raised Atlantic salmon … think you’re off the hook? Are you still consuming genetically modified food unknowingly? Here’s the simple answer: If you live in America, and if you eat, period, genetically modified foods will find their way to your plate, unless you’re extremely vigilant (more on that later). After all, the United States is the largest producer of genetically modified crops in the world. And 10% of all the world’s crops are genetically modified. By the way, many European countries including Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, France, Germany, Greece, and Luxembourg have put a ban on GMOs. The UK requires labeling as do the 15 European Union nations, Russia, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries. Even China, whose residents distrust its unsafe food practices, has suspended the commercialization of genetically engineered rice. The United States would do well to follow suit.

Do you eat grains? What about other animal products? Do you eat vegetables? About 86% of corn and 93% of soy grown in the United States are genetically modified. These form the bulk of the diet of conventionally-raised animals who spend their entire lives in cramped, filthy feedlots. Oh, you’re a vegan? Think you’re immune to GM foods? Think again. If you eat cereals, granola bars, store-bought veggie burgers, cheese substitutes, or even edamame in ‘whole form’, then you’re out of luck, because each of these is almost guaranteed to contain genetically modified ingredients unless it specifies otherwise. And since there’s no regulation of what constitutes non-GMO foods, companies aren’t forced to adhere to any rules before claiming that a GM, pesticide-and-preservative doused food is still, somehow, “all-natural”. Yes, believe me when I say that the “all natural” label means nothing at all. In fact, not only do I walk away, but I run from a food product when I see the all-natural claim — because through my real food journey, I’ve learned that nine times out of ten, it’s the farthest-thing-from-natural, and in fact, the claim that something is “all natural” increases the probability that it is questionable. Usually, the company claiming it is natural is not one that I would trust with my body and my health.

Even WebMD – which I don’t consider to be a beacon of light in the health movement — admits these facts in regards to genetically-modified foods:

Experts say 60% to 70% of processed foods on U.S. grocery shelves have genetically modified ingredients. The most common genetically modified foods are soybeans, maize, cotton, and rapeseed oil. That means many foods made in the U.S. containing field corn or high-fructose corn syrup, such as many breakfast cereals, snack foods, and the last soda you drank; foods made with soybeans (including some baby foods); and foods made with cottonseed and canola oils could likely have genetically modified ingredients. These ingredients appear frequently in animal feed as well (WebMD).

Oh, but you shop at Whole Foods! Surely, this establishment committed to as many organic foods as possible (53% of products are organic there) cannot be deceiving you and selling you “all-natural” foods that are contaminated with GMOs. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case. In this interview with Joseph Mercola, DO, Senior VP of Whole Foods admits that some products sold at Whole Foods, even some that bear the “all-natural” label, are contaminated with GMOs. There are no saints in the corporate game. If you’re a non-discerning  Whole Foods consumer, there’s a big chance you’re still buying GE (genetically engineered) foods, and paying a premium for it.

So, you want to avoid GE foods, huh? Well, here are the biggest offenders …

These top 10 ways to avoid GMOs according to Maria Rodale, chairwoman and CEO of Rodale, Inc. are really helpful, and a good place to start. Also her endearingly hand-drawn flowchart below is quite useful:

These above are general guidelines, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find an exhaustive list of genetically modified foods, simply because there are no rules mandating that GM foods be identified, singled out, or labeled! But, as mentioned in the link and flowchart above, we do know that there are a number of foods that are most commonly genetically modified and are used ubiquitously in processed and packaged foods and in conventional animal agriculture.

Here are some of the worst offenders:

*Among each of these crops grown in the U.S., the approximate percentage that is genetically modified is shown in parentheses. For more information, take a look at the FDA’s List of Completed Consultations on Bioengineered Foods; it doesn’t tell you which of these is actually at your local supermaket, but at least you have an idea of what the FDA has approved.

Sugar Beets (95%): I love beets, but always make sure to buy them certified organic. Any processed foods containing sugar is also suspect because the sugar therein is typically extracted from GE beets.

Soy (93%): Can you believe that a whopping “82% of edible fats and oils consumed in the U.S. are soy-based”? (Healthy Child)  Other soy products to watch out for include soy beverages, tofu, meat-substitutes, soy oil, soy flour, lecithin. I personally avoid soy products like the plague, for a number of reasons; this GMO issue is just  the cherry on top! If it’s a packaged product with a list of non-organic ingredients, it will likely have a GM soy by-product. Read ingredient labels scrupulously.

Canola / Rapeseed (93%): ”Heart-healthy” canola oil? Think again. Besides 93% of it being genetically modified, the rapeseed plant, used to make canola oil, is industrially processed and refined. Steer clear of this rancid junk!

Cotton / Cottonseed Oil (93%): Did you know that this cheap industrial oil is used in many packaged “salad dressings, baked goods and snack foods”? (Healthy Child) Don’t eat anything with cottonseed oil, GM or not. You might want to invest in organic cotton clothes for your baby if you can afford it too. I personally can’t afford all organic cotton clothes for myself, but I think it’s worth it if it’s within the budget.

Corn / Maize (86%): Everyone who knows anything about health has heard of the evil high fructose corn syrup, which has gotten a lot of media attention in recent years. Besides this sugary syrup, corn is pretty much in every other processed food product. The newest kind of GE corn is extra scary, because it is a herbicide-tolerant mutant crop “that can survive being sprayed with the infamous herbicide 2,4-D, an Agent Orange ingredient with documented serious human health impacts, from cancer to immunosuppression, reproductive damage,  and neurotoxicity” (Organic Consumers). Yummy, eh?

Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%): “More than 50 percent of papaya from Hawaii is genetically modified to resist a virus. Most U.S. papayas come from Brazil, Mexico, or the Caribbean, however, where there are no GM varieties” (Smith). Emily of Butter Believer (who lives in the lovely Hawaii) recently wrote a great post about how to differentiate GM papayas from non-GM varieties. Good thing, because I love the taste of fresh papayas!

Squash and Zucchini (13%): I haven’t found enough information about the prevalence of GM squashes, except that the Crookneck variety seems to be the most popular GM kind out there. Nothing beats the taste of summer squash, in season, from the local farmer’s market!

Alfalfa: ”On January 27, the US Department of Agriculture reached a decision on genetically engineered Roundup Ready® alfalfa, having reached the end of the review period for the environmental impact statement (EIS). Out of the three possible options—regulation, partial deregulation, and complete deregulation—the USDA chose the worst possible option: full non-regulated status [...] Deregulation is dangerous. Without regulation, GM alfalfa will encroach on non-GM alfalfa, irretrievably contaminating it” (ANH).  Alfalfa is a big deal because dairy cows graze liberally on it. If there is nothing regulating this high probability of cross-contamination, then the integrity of organic milk can really be in question, with cows grazing on GM alfalfa. And no testing will be done to ensure that it isn’t actually GM alfalfa. If it sounds fishy, it’s because it is. Again, nothing beats buying dairy locally.

- Honey: Apparently, “Some Canadian honey comes from bees collecting nectar from GM canola plants. This has shut down exports of Canadian honey to Europe” (Disabled). Yes, the EU is smart enough to ban GE-contaminated honey … It’s best to buy local honey, from a farm you trust.

- Potatoes (some of the GM varieties include Atlantic, Russett Burbank, Russet Norkatah, and Shepody): GM or not, it’s probably wise to buy only organic potatoes if you can, because they’re one of the most heavily sprayed crops.

- Dairy from cows injected with rBGH:  [As of 2002], about 22 percent of cows in the U.S. are injected with recombinant (genetically modified) bovine growth hormone (rbGH). Dairies generally collect their milk from many sources. In the U.S., if a dairy product is not labeled organic, non-GMO, or made without hormones, it is likely that a portion of the product came from cows that were injected with rbGH” (Smith). On a similarly disturbing note, scientists have recently been able to engineer cow’s milk to make it more similar to human breast milk, through genetic modification. It might be coming to a supermarket near you in the next few years, so beware. I drink my pure, unadulterated cow’s milk raw from a local farmer I trust in order to avoid all this nonsense.

- Atlantic Salmon (made by US-based company AquaBounty): pending FDA approval. Just don’t buy farmed fish, especially if imported from another country, capisce? Well, that is if you want to avoid antibiotics, toxic chemicals and artificial fish feed and dyes!

- Enzymes, Additives & Sweeteners: “Genetically modified bacteria and fungi are used in the production of enzymes, vitamins, food additives, flavorings and processing agents in thousands of foods on the grocery shelves as well as health supplements. Aspartame, the diet sweetener, is a product of genetic engineering” (Smith). And by the way, there’s a new artificial sweetener in town called Neotame, also brought to you by Monsanto. Told ya; it’s probably a good idea to avoid any and all packaged foods!

- Synthetic Vitamins: “Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is often made from corn, vitamin E is usually made from soy. Vitamins A, B2, B6, and B12 may be derived from GMOs as well as vitamin D and vitamin K may have ‘carriers’ derived from GM corn sources, such as starch, glucose, and maltodextrin” (Disabled). Another reason to ditch the Centrum!

What’s the big deal with GM foods anyway?

gmo cartoon

What’s wrong with genetically engineered salmon, you ask? Oh, well, we really don’t know yet. We do know that it’s manipulated enough to cause it to grow three times faster than regular salmon, that it’s more aggressive and much larger than normal salmon, and yet is weaker and has a higher mortality rate than its non-GM counterpart. Yikes. It’s also farm raised, and since it has no access to nourishing natural food in the form of living plankton and krill, farmed fish are given artificial feed like genetically modified corn, soy and synthetic supplements, a big dose of antibiotics to “prevent disease” (I wonder if they ever heard that this may cause antibiotic-resistance?), and are artificially dyed orange-red to mask their nutrient-deficient white color (the bright red color is naturally present in wild fish because they eat plankton). All this, and there’s a large chance that many of these Franken-fish can escape and contaminate fish in the wild. Appetizing, eh? Still think this antibiotic-filled, artificially-colored, genetically-modified fish can be in any way good for health? I think not.

Salmon aside, you might think it odd that the FDA and USDA completely gloss over studies like these, which have found genetically modified foods to be damaging to the organs of mammals and causing weight gain, even though the longest of the trials only studied the effect over a 90-day period and already found it damaging! Also, despite claims by big biotech firms like Monsanto that the GM properties would be ‘destroyed in the gut’, “a landmark study found 93 per cent of blood samples taken from pregnant women and 80 per cent from umbilical cords tested positive for traces of the chemicals” (Daily Mail). Hmm, would you like to wait to find out if over-consumption of GE foods can hurt you or your baby? Kill some kidney cells and ruin your digestive functions in the process; no real harm done, right? Wouldn’t it be wiser to practice a more precautionary attitude when it comes to novelties in science and health … especially because there are such studies that already shed light on possible dangers?

Plus, what if I told you that the genetically modified foods were starting to be ineffective in their sole job to kill weeds and pests? And what if I told you that the pests and weeds are becoming resistant to the technology, and that more manipulation via genetic engineering is required to keep these crops alive, and to keep the farmers who depend on them employed? How would you feel about that?

The shadiness of it all …

The truth of the matter is that large bioengineering firms like Monsanto, which develop these GM foods, will never admit that their product is fundamentally flawed, has a negative impact on health and environment, and strips traditional farmers the world over of their natural farming methods needlessly, or that their practices are irreversibly altering our ecosystem. The companies will not admit it; but the companies cannot be expected to self-regulate. That’s what the government is for — to protect the rights of the people to be informed to make their own decisions, and to monitor these companies’ practices to ensure that they are lawful. If these companies would like to mess with some part of nature, they need to maintain that their activities are not destroying other parts of nature. And if they are destroying more than allotted belongings, then they’re responsible! But guess what? The exact opposite is happening.

Monsanto and other biotech giants own GM seeds; they have their patents registered with the government. So, farmers whose organic crops have been contaminated by GM seeds (due to wind or cross-pollination; not because the farmers have planted the GM seeds themselves) end up being harassed and sued by Monsanto for patent infringement … the very company that is ruining their crops and livelihood! Oh, the irony. And when the farmers recently tried to band together to sue the corporate behemoth, they lost the case … for no good reason. Money talks, I tell you! And if we don’t stand up as concerned citizens and demand transparency, pretty soon our children can be susceptible to indoctrination and brainwashing by these corporate giants.

gmo cartoon

You’d think that enough testing takes place before these genetically modified foods hit the market, but the reality is that corporate interests often supersede public health; so, foods, medications, vaccinations, substances — anything manufactured, often gets approved in a shoddy, unscientific way, without enough testing to deem them safe for humansWithin the past few decades, opinions have been reversed after people have been burned using things like asbestospainkillers, and even “organic” baby foods and products, as a result of hasty approval and poor regulations. I wonder … will GM foods be next?

Down the road, after humans use these medications and buy this food, without knowledge of their side effects, a lot of bad things can start to happen. People may die. They may get sick. Babies can be born with more birth defects and complications. We are then forced to face the reality that maybe this so-called “promising” invention isn’t so promising after all, but only when it’s too late. And the recommendations to consume these things is often rescinded, but often after the damage has been done to a large segment of the population. And if precedent is any indicator, the companies responsible, with their powerful attorneys and billions invested in marketing, slip away with only a couple of million of dollars worth of lawsuits … chump change in their book. The real victims? People who fell for the scam, and have suffered needlessly.

Some resources to help you navigate the GM-free food scene

If you want to avoid GMOs in your food, you have to be vigilant. As mentioned earlier, buy only certified organic foods, limit your purchases of anything packaged, eliminate processed foods and shop at your local farmer’s market or join a CSA that sources from local farms.

There are a number of labels and food guides available for free to help you navigate the isles at your grocery store. Look for foods with the Non-GMO Project certification label (to the left) and/or the USDA organic certification label.

There’s a neat Non-GMO shopping guide by the Institute for Responsible Technology (You can even download the guide on your iPhone!). There’s another True Food Shopper’s Guide by the The Center for Food Safety to help you identify which brand(s) have GMO-free ingredients. Dr. Joseph Mercola of the health news site Mercola.com frequently shares posts on GMOstheir dangers, and how to avoid them. A number of real food bloggers have also put together lists, including Jenny of Nourished Kitchen who has a handy-dandy list of brand names that are GMO free, and Raine of Agriculture Society who busts the top 10 myths about GMOs in this post. Any other resources that you’re aware of? Share in the comments, and I’ll update the article.

What you can do to demand your rights

gmo cartoon

As you can see in the cartoon at the very beginning of this post, we’ve been fighting for labeling of GM foods for a long time. But don’t throw in the towel just yet! Here are some things you can do to demand your rights:

- Raise awareness: Share this post and similar posts with friends and family. Share this article on Facebook. Pin the cartoons and infographic on PinterestTweet about the petitions you have signed — all in an effort to help inform more of your social circle that they can demand that GM foods are labeled, and why it makes a lot of sense to avoid Frankenfoods in the first place.

- Vote with our dollars: It’s no secret that money talks. As demand for organic, non-GMO foods increases, supply will increase and industry will follow. Don’t buy any processed food products, diligently read ingredient labels of any packaged foods that you do buy, and look for the certified organic and the non-GMO project labels on foods before you purchase.

- Buy local: If you buy from small local farms either directly or through buying clubs, farmers’ markets or CSAs, you can easily verify the source of your foods, visit the farms anytime and ask your farmers the hard questions. As a bonus, you keep the money circulating in your local economy, and you promote sustainability in agricultural practices and carbon emissions while you’re at it!

- Petition the U.S. government to require the labeling of genetically modified foods: Call your congresspersons and senatorssend letters to the White House and FDA, and sign petitions left and right like it’s nobody’s business. One of the best campaigns working on this initiative is Just Label It - it is as straightforward as it sounds … sign their petition addressed to the FDA. A few clicks here and there, and you’ve voiced your opinion … quickly, easily and for free!

- Donate: You can donate to the Organic Consumers Fund - “Every dollar donated goes directly into the fund that will be used to support Ballot Initiative signature gatherers, media experts, consultants, and lawyers who will work together to get GMO labeling on the ballot, and pass this law in November.” There’s also the Label GMOs grassroots campaign, a California ballot initiative to label GMOs in our food; donate to the organization here.

I bet you didn’t know that President Obama has promised to label GMOs (Watch this one minute video below). As citizens of the United States, we can demand that he follow through on his promise:

Through it all, don’t lose hope. Every attempt to get the word out matters … a lot. Don’t underestimate your power as a consumer to effect real change.

gmo cartoon

Update: On March 27, 2012, the Just Label It campaign announced that they have already collected 1 million signatures from concerned U.S. citizens, demanding that they have the right to know if the food that they are purchasing has been genetically modified. Below is the updated infograph shared on the Just Label It website. Let’s keep up the pressure — there is power in numbers!

Labeling GMOs in the US

Like this post? Share it, and sign up for my posts via the ‘Subscribe’ email link to the right of this page.

*This post has been shared on Butter Believer’s Sunday School and Real Food Freak’s Freaky Friday.

Going Gluten-Free: Is the Hype Legit? Diana Ghazzawi of ‘Free Kitchen’ Shares Her Experience

March 11, 2012 in Culture, Evidence-Based Science, Health News, Interview, Remedy

A second interview on My Life in a Pyramid … already? Yes, my friends, I am serious about my 2011 blog resolutions (a year late isn’t too bad, right?)  This time, I bring to you Diana Ghazzawi, whose recent gluten-intolerance discovery has made her familiar with the subject of gluten and its dangers, but it has also reinforced her love of cooking real food. In this post, she answers my questions about gluten in very digestible terms (her answers don’t make the gluten any more digestible though, hah). Diana blogs at Free Kitchen, a site dedicated to simple recipes that are free of many common allergens (gluten being the obvious one, but also soy), and also free of sugar and caffeine. She admits she doesn’t use recipes when cooking, a fact that is easy to verify if you take a look at her minimalist and easy-to-follow blog. Many of her posts consist of a picture and a few lines of descriptive text, but measurements don’t feature heavily. That’s because cooking is all about creativity! To follow her posts for awesome gluten-free inspiration, like her blog’s page on Facebook.

Real quick – I wanted to clarify my personal stance on grains. I mentioned in a previous blog post that I have drastically cut down my grain consumption as of late. However, with the Orthodox Lenten fast focused on vegan meals, I’m eating brown rice and quinoa quite frequently, but still avoiding glutenous grains. I haven’t touched bread since last August, mostly because all the ones sold in stores are overly processed (I’ve been vowing I’ll make sourdough sprouted bread ever since, but uh, my baking skills aren’t quite ready to be put to the test). Anyway, whether or not you’re thinking about taking gluten out of your diet, you need to read this post. I am personally not advocating a gluten-free diet for everyone, because who am I to tell you what to eat or avoid? I simply wish that more people are informed. When you have the knowledge, you are better equipped to make your own decisions. Okay, I’ll stop babbling now and make way for Diana’s excellent answers!

Interview with Diana Ghazzawi, author of the blog Free Kitchen

1. Tell us a little bit about why you are drawn to real food and health. What inspired you to start Free Kitchen?

I grew up in a household, and an extended family, that ate almost exclusively real, whole foods. This is how my family cooked when they lived in the Middle East, as do most people there. When we moved here, there was nothing particularly appealing about the typical American diet or style of cooking that would have convinced my family to change their ways. We’ve always cooked practically everything from scratch; we’ve never even owned a microwave! Now, to be fair, there is the occasional quick dinner of hot dogs and potato tots, but those sorts of meals are very few and far between. At my house, you’re more likely to find a freshly made, bubbling lentil soup or a crisp salad rather than something that comes in a box or pouch. Additionally, I’ve always been exposed to natural foods as medicine: mint and sage tea for abdominal pain, parsley as a blood purifier, etc. The only big mistake my family has been making is eating gluten all these years, up until my experience in the summer of 2010.

I’ve been cooking since I was a kid, and in recent years I often considered having a blog that showcased my dishes, but I never got around to it. Once I figured out I was gluten intolerant, I knew that the mission of my blog would be to share my dishes with the world, dishes that just happen to be gluten-free. I also label the dishes according to the allergens they are free of. Free Kitchen really is about being free to eat well, being free from potentially unsafe foods, and being freed of the idea that gluten-free food is complicated.

2. You quit gluten after discovering you have gluten-intolerance. Let’s start with the basics: what exactly is gluten?

Gluten is a protein found in wheat, rye, barley, and a few other grains. The immune system, much of which is housed in the digestive system, has to recognize the various substances that we consume as food, thus allowing them to pass through unmolested, so that they can be properly digested and absorbed. However, many people’s immune systems have not evolved to recognize the gluten protein as food. In an effort to protect you, the immune system attacks this unrecognized oddity, because it sees it as unsafe. Your immune system is just doing its job. The problem is, by eating gluten, you are introducing an overwhelming amount of this molecule, which your immune system will immediately begin attacking. This unrelenting attack ends up wreaking havoc on your health. I outline the process more fully here.

3. What is the difference between gluten-intolerance, gluten-sensitivity, and celiac disease?

Gluten intolerance and gluten sensitivity are terms that are often used interchangeably. (I use gluten intolerance.) In both gluten intolerance and celiac disease, the immune system attacks gluten and creates a host of problems, as you can read about in the link I provided. With celiac disease, there is the added autoimmune component of the immune system attacking and destroying the cilia of the small intestine; this does not happen in gluten intolerance, though there may still be severe irritation to the intestines.

The idea is often touted that gluten intolerance is not as bad as celiac, or that someone “only” has gluten intolerance, as opposed to the more severe celiac. This concept of gluten intolerance being less dangerous than celiac is totally wrong. The two conditions are virtually identical, other than the aforementioned autoimmune component. They have all the same symptoms and are treated in the exact same way: a life-long gluten-free diet. In fact, someone with advanced gluten intolerance can be far worse off than someone at the early stages of celiac.

There’s also the misconception that if your celiac tests come back negative, you’re in the clear. This is absolutely false. Just because you don’t have celiac, it doesn’t mean you are not gluten intolerant. Celiac affects 1 in 133 people (most of whom are undiagnosed). Research estimates that anywhere from 1 in 7 to 40% of people are gluten intolerant; almost all of these people are also undiagnosed. In other words, there is a very good chance that you, dear reader, are gluten intolerant. There are some blood tests for gluten intolerance, but they aren’t accurate. In fact, mine came back low enough to be considered negative, but there is no doubt that I have this condition.

Quick note from HebaIf you’d like an in-depth look, check out this video from Dr. Peter Osbornea chiropractic doctor and certified nutritionist, who founded the Gluten Free Society to educate the public and those in the medical profession about the condition.  In this 37-minute video, he discusses the difference between gluten sensitivity, gluten intolerance and celiac disease:  

4. For those who are not gluten-intolerant, are there any merits to going gluten-free, in your opinion?

Actually, the problem is that most people assume that they are not gluten intolerant. I know I did. When my aunt suggested that it might be my issue, I was lying on a couch, my entire body in extreme pain, barely able to move. My response to her? “No, I don’t think that’s the problem.” After all, I’d been eating wheat my whole life. Little did I realize that my long-time anemia, my years of thinning hair, my gallstones that caused my gall bladder removal, and my lactose intolerance were all caused by gluten.

The point is, gluten intolerance is so common that you should probably assume that you have it. Try a strictly gluten-free diet for at least 3 months (to give your body time to clear out the gluten and then to repair itself), and see what happens. Maybe that tiredness you always experience will go away. Or your hair will get thicker, like mine did. Perhaps you’ll no longer have indigestion or that rash that keeps popping up. Maybe your thyroid problem will settle. If you stop eating gluten and your symptoms improve or disappear, guess what? You’re gluten intolerant. It makes sense, right? If you eat gluten and you have a reaction, and this reaction stops when you don’t eat gluten, then, logically, your problem is the gluten!

Do not be fooled by the pharmaceutical companies and the wheat industry, who control much of the information in mainstream media on this topic. They do not want to you to stop buying their products, be they endless drugs for your gluten symptoms or the gluten products themselves. They’ll pay news shows to tell you that it’s dangerous to go gluten-free, or that gluten-free eating is too expensive, or that you need a doctor for a diagnosis, and other ridiculous, intentionally misleading claims. Additionally, about 80% of the medical research in America is done by drug companies, and the skewed, drug-centered results are passed on to doctors. As a result, many of even the best-educated, best-intentioned doctors will know little or nothing about the effects of gluten. Sadly, you can’t always trust your doctor’s information on the topic, because it’s usually limited at best.

Don’t have any reservations about going gluten-free. It’s not dangerous. No one needs gluten; in fact, there are entire cultures that traditionally have eaten little or no gluten for thousands of years, and they are perfectly fine. Gluten-free diets need not be expensive. Yes, the typical gluten-free loaf of bread is much more expensive than a loaf of wheat or rye, but bread, pasta, cake, and cookies, even the gluten-free variety, should not make up the bulk of your diet anyway. Shift your diet towards more vegetables, fruit, beans, and healthy meat and seafood, and the more expensive gluten-free foods should fit easily into your budget.

Finally, you don’t need a doctor to officially tell you you’re gluten-intolerant. (Actually, it’s very difficult to find one who even has a true understanding of the condition.) The only true test is how you respond to a gluten-free diet. Keep track of your symptoms before, including any blood test results, and see what happens to them after going gluten-free. I diagnosed myself, and the more research I did, the more I realized that all of my mother’s family is gluten intolerant. I do not work in the medical field but I diagnosed them; those relatives who have gone gluten-free are now free of their symptoms, some of which they’ve had for years. Furthermore, there are quite a few friends and acquaintances to whom I, upon hearing their symptoms, suggested that they were gluten intolerant. They went gluten-free, and lo and behold, their symptoms have improved or disappeared. I say this not to pat myself on the back, but to prove that you don’t need a doctor to discover what the problem is.

5. What are some gluten-free cooking and health-related resources that you would recommend for someone who wishes to learn more about the subject?

The doctors at HealthNow Medical Center are doing great work in the fields of gluten intolerance and other nutrition-related conditions. In addition to their book, they have videos you can watch and articles you can read.

I realized I had a gluten problem when I read the message boards at Celiac.com, for which I am eternally grateful. There are people on the site who aren’t very well informed, so you have to be a little careful, but it’s still a great resource that offers personal experiences that you can learn from. For example, my most extreme symptom was the intense muscle and joint pain and borderline paralysis. If I relied on the limited, superficial information given out by most hospitals or other medical organizations, I would have deduced that gluten can cause nothing more than some simple aches and that what I was experiencing was not gluten-related. I would have assumed I had some other “more serious” disease. But when I did a search in the message boards for these symptoms, I got people’s accounts of the very same severe pain and immobility I had, accounts I was totally shocked to read. I then started searching to see if people had my other symptoms (lactose intolerance, gallstones, thinning hair, anemia…) and it all finally made sense! To clarify, you don’t have to have celiac specifically to have gluten intolerance; most people have a non-celiac gluten intolerance. But as I mentioned previously, because the conditions and their symptoms and treatments are virtually one and the same, almost any information on celiac (such as what is on Celiac.com) applies to gluten intolerance.

Celiac.com also offers very extensive lists of safe and unsafe ingredients for gluten-free eating. They also have a list of safe alcoholic beverages. Some of these “safe” ingredients, such as food coloring and aluminum, are not healthy and should not be part of a natural, whole foods diet. They should be avoided, even if they are gluten-free.

6. For those who are intolerant or sensitive to gluten, eating a whole foods diet (as opposed to eating processed food from packages) is critical. Why is that?

If you’re gluten intolerant, most likely your health has been comprised for quite some time. It is likely that you haven’t been absorbing the vitamins and minerals you need. For example, I had almost no iron or vitamin D in my body, and I was low on B12 and folic acid, in spite of my healthy eating. You may also have some joint damage, osteoporosis, or other conditions. Your body can and will repair itself, but you must give it the building blocks in the form of clean, unprocessed, nutrient-rich (gluten-free!) food for it to do so. As long as you offer your body these natural essentials, it will know what to do with them. Moreover, the less processed food you eat, the less chance there is of consuming hidden sources of gluten.

Eggs, Potatoes and Onions - a recipe from Free Kitchen

7. How difficult is it to avoid gluten? Please share some of your favorite substitutions for common foods that contain a lot of gluten.

It depends on what your cooking and eating habits were before going gluten-free. If you were totally reliant on eating out and packaged food, you may have some difficulty. For most people, it is neither the easiest nor the most difficult thing you will do. Rather, just like any undertaking, it will take some effort. I do not feel deprived at all, but I do feel I have to be constantly vigilant. Even something like chewing a piece of gum is no longer done mindlessly. I have to check what’s in it first. This vigilance, too, soon becomes second nature. I think most people struggle with willpower more than actually finding gluten-free foods. (In my case, the experience was so traumatic that I have no desire to eat even a single crumb that would cause me that much pain again.)

There are so many gluten-free options, that it shouldn’t be a problem to cook almost any dish you like. (And yes, you’ll probably have to do more cooking for yourself, because you can’t trust everything cooked in a restaurant or that comes in a package.) In addition to breads and dessert items, I’ve seen gluten-free lasagna, pizza crusts, chicken nuggets, bread crumbs…. This is not to say that you should start gobbling down boxes of processed gluten-free chicken nuggets, but they are out there should you ever want some. And anything you can’t find at your local stores you can probably find online.

Most substitutions are easy to make. Spaghetti and meatballs? Use rice pasta; it tastes practically the same as your typical wheat pasta. Need a crispy coating? Cornstarch works well on its own, or you can mix it with rice flour or corn meal. Replace regular soy sauce (which usually has wheat in it) with a gluten-free one. Experiment! I found that I became more adventurous in my cooking after I went gluten-free.

Rice Pasta with Pesto, Andouille, and Red Pepper - a recipe from Free Kitchen

For more tips on gluten-free shopping and eating, click here.

8. What about eating out? How do you navigate the menus at restaurants?

Growing up, we rarely went out to eat. Even in my adult gluten-eating days, I didn’t eat out much, because I would often get sick, though this was not related to gluten but likely to the cleanliness of the food preparation. Now that I’m gluten-free, I still rarely eat out, but I do have a few tips. First, try out restaurants that have gluten-free menus, such as your local P.F. Chang’s or an independent place that has special selections. Additionally, some cuisines, such as Thai or Mexican, are more likely than your local pizzeria to have naturally gluten-free options. Indian cuisine and sushi (don’t forget to check the soy sauce!) are also fairly safe options. Second, opt for dishes that probably do not contain gluten. You obviously shouldn’t be choosing the breaded chicken cutlet or the apple pie, but a roast chicken or the sorbet may be safe. Once you’ve made a potentially safe selection, ask your server how it’s cooked and explain your gluten-free needs. Make it clear that you food needs to be cooked in a clean pan with clean utensils. Ask what’s in the sauce or broth. You also have to think a few steps ahead. For example, potatoes are gluten-free, but almost all restaurants coat their fries with flour and/or fry it in the same oil as their battered and breaded foods, making restaurant fries unsafe to eat. Opt for the baked potato, which is likely to be safe. If you don’t feel comfortable that the server or chef understands your needs, or don’t believe the food is safe to eat, don’t eat it. Finally, pack a snack. It may not sound glamorous, but if you end up not finding something to eat, you can always order a juice or water and munch on your snack. It’s much better than getting sick!

Massaman Curry - a recipe from Free Kitchen

9. Do you have any tips for beginners to gluten-free cooking?

Very little of my cooking has changed since going gluten-free. Why? Because most whole foods are naturally gluten-free! The most important tip is this: do not be daunted, and do not make it more difficult for yourself than it needs to be. Many people, upon going gluten-free, start attempting gluten-free soufflés and crepes, and get discouraged if they prove to be difficult. This is not necessary, at least not at first. Why not make a simple omelet? How about some roasted sweet potatoes? Grilled fish? Shrimp sautéed in olive oil and garlic? A rice pilaf? Grass-fed steak? Vegetable soup? Fruit salad? Soon you’ll realize that there are so many foods that you can eat without having to make substitutions, and others that can be made gluten-free with the simplest changes. In fact, this is the idea behind Free Kitchen: I make healthy, delicious food that doesn’t require you to go out of your way to convert to gluten-free.

Potato and Mushroom Soup - a recipe from Free Kitchen

10. What are your favorite on-the-go healthy snacks?

Fruit! I’ve been salting my fruit recently; I love the saltiness and sweetness together. And if I’m truly on the go, dried fruit! Trader Joe’s unsweetened, unsulfured dried mango is a favorite.

Who is Diana Ghazzawi?

Diana Ghazzawi has been cooking since she was about 11 years old, using whole, natural foods almost exclusively, an outlook on cooking and nutrition which she learned from her family. In 2010, soon after discovering she is gluten intolerant, she started Free Kitchen, a blog that archives the dishes she cooks. Though her favorite cuisine is her own Arab one, she does cook dishes from a variety of traditions, as well as ones she improvises. The goal of Free Kitchen is to show that gluten-free cooking is not restrictive or complicated, and that many recipes are naturally gluten-free. The dishes are labeled according to the other allergens they are free of, so that readers can decide what fits into their nutritional needs.
Diana’s mission is to raise awareness of gluten intolerance, a serious condition which is very common and easily treated by a gluten-free diet, but which goes undiagnosed in almost every person who has it. If you have any questions about gluten intolerance or gluten-free cooking, contact her at askFreeKitchen[at]gmail[dot]com.

 

**This post was submitted at Butter Believer’s Sunday School and The Healthy Home Economist’s Monday Mania blog carnival.

My Raw Milk Conversion: Why & How I Decided to Embrace Fresh, Local Milk

March 9, 2012 in Evidence-Based Science, Food Movement, Health News, Nutrients, Sustainability

Raw_Milk_is_Delicious

There's absolutely nothing more refreshing to drink than fresh raw milk. Hands down.

I’ve been buying raw (unpasteurized) milk straight from a local dairy farmer for almost a year now. I’ve had this draft on my blog that I’ve been meaning to complete and publish for … close to a year. It’s about time for me to share the good news! To be honest, it took some time for me to warm up to the idea of drinking whole milk, unpasteurized. Wouldn’t I gain weight? (Hah, I was glad to learn that the opposite is true!) Was it dangerous? To put it lightly, I wasn’t immediately comfortable with the idea of drinking milk straight from a farm animal, without any “disinfection”. I initially made the decision out of necessity. Now, almost a year into it, I can honestly say that raw dairy – including full-fat milk, yogurt, cheese, cream, butter – is my favorite food group, and that I’ve only experienced health and weight loss from drinking the stuff; never any kind of health issue or disease. What? You need more details to believe me? Well, read on, dear friends …

First Things First: An Introduction to Raw Milk

What is raw milk? 

Raw milk is milk straight from the cow, goat or sheep – whole, unfiltered, unheated, unrefined, with full fat. It is unpasteurized and unhomogenized.

Not all raw milk is equal. Most people who are proponents of it, when they discuss raw milk, are referring to milk from pasture-raised cows that are at least mostly grass-fed, and that are free of antibiotics and growth hormones. However, when anti-raw-milk people discuss it, they usually refer to studies that do not take the source of the milk into account, and might include milk from feedlot (conventionally-raised) cows. It also does not necessarily take into account practices, whether raw milk is from cows that are tested, how frequently they are tested, etc. All is lumped into one “raw” category typically.

What is pasteurization and homogenization? 

All milk sold in grocery stores – even the organic ones – are pasteurized. While pasteurization kills bacteria that could be harmful, it also kills good bacteria and destroys enzymes that are helpful for digesting the milk (this is why many people are lactose intolerant). Most milk  nowadays – yes, even organic - is ultra-pasteurized (UHT) which means that it’s been subjected to even higher temperatures (i.e. kills more bacteria and destroys more nutrients and enzymes) and can last for several weeks (sometimes up to 2 months) in the fridge. But if you leave the carton of pasteurized or UHT milk out on the counter for a day, or when it’s past the date, it rots and smells putrid. It becomes completely unfit to drink or cook with. Raw milk on the other hand doesn’t really rot or “expire”; it just sours. Clabbered milk, or soured milk, is a whole food that is perfectly safe to drink or use in cooking. Heat-sensitive lactic acid producing bacteria in the raw milk proliferate, and you are left with a probiotic-rich drinkable yogurt that is actually good for your digestion.

Raw unhomogenized milk produces a natural creamline, where the lighter fat molecules rise to the top and separate from the liquid. Homogenization is an invasive process that breaks down the milk’s fluffy fat molecules into tiny parts that are integrated into the liquid part of the milk. The problem with this process is that it subjects these fats to oxidation. There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that oxidized fats are a real health problem; and that they contribute to heart disease and high blood pressure. If you’re curious about the process, this is what happens:

“The milk is pumped under high pressure which smashes the milk molecules so hard. Homogenization splits and exposes the molecules.” The hard science goes like this: A raw milk molecule is surrounded by a membrane, which protects it from oxygen. Homogenization decreases the average diameter of each fat globule and significantly increases the surface area. Because there’s now not enough membrane to cover all of this new surface area, the molecules are easily exposed to oxygen, and the fats  become oxidized (Wartman).

Aris_Cow_Raw_Milk

The beautiful Guernsey cow, Aris, at Sunny Knoll Ecofarm in Virginia.

Our Raw Milk Testimony

As I mentioned before, we initially sought out raw milk out of necessity. You see, my husband caught a terrible stomach bug when he was in Hawaii for a conference in 2009, which landed him in the hospital a week before our wedding. Yeah, to say that I was pretty freaked out is an understatement! Thank God, he somehow became well enough to get married to me a week later. Unfortunately, the severity of the bug and the cocktail of antibiotics he was given left his stomach really sensitive, and he became completely unable to digest store-bought dairy products. We dabbled with lactose-free dairy for a bit, but it was too processed for my liking, and it tasted nothing like the real whole milk we have been used to drinking all our lives. And cheese … almost no lactose-free cheese existed in stores and those that were available did not taste good. The lactase pills my husband took from time to time to aid in digesting even foods with a little bit of dairy didn’t really do their job … We exhausted all conventional options before exploring others.

There had to be another solution to my husband’s dairy intolerance. He wanted to enjoy milk as before, and I wanted to drink it without feeling guilty! After days of online research, I came across this FAQ about raw dairy, which gave me a glimmer of hope:

Chances are good that you may [be able to digest raw milk], even if you’re of African or Asian descent, assuming you can find a reliable source near your home. Unheated milk contains its full complement of enzymes and lactase-producing bacteria needed by our bodies to break down and assimilate the milk sugar lactose. These helpful bacteria are killed in the pasteurization and homogenization process. Fermented milk products, such as yogurt and kefir, naturally lower in lactose due to the actions of various Lactobacillus and other lactic acid-producing bacteria, may be better tolerated by some.

Prior to reading this, I had no idea that unheated (unpasteurized) milk has lactase already in it! That’s why so many people are “lactose-intolerant”. They’ve been drinking denatured milk, with a whole lot of lactose and no enzyme to effectively digest it! After reading many anecdotal experiences online of people whose digestive systems, allergies, and other serious conditions have been alleviated or even healed by drinking raw milk, I was … skeptical. It can’t be this simple, I thought. These stories have to be so few and far between, and there must be a good reason why pasteurization came about! Weren’t people dying left and right before this noble process? (Actually, the story of pasteurization is more complicated than it seems.)

I did what anyone considering raw dairy would do: I consulted with a physician. Not so smart, it seems, because apparently physicians have almost no nutritional training, and most have no idea that there are people who actually still consume raw milk. The basic response from the doc amounted to “You’re nuts. Your husband should just quit the dairy and keep taking the lactase pills whenever necessary.” I was not thrilled with his answer, and so I discarded it.

As all good things start, two friends – each from a different background – started raving about raw milk. One of them is a mom with four young children, and she gives them raw milk frequently from a local farmer. The other friend is a young working professional who started reading about the importance of healthy saturated fats, and discovered that the milk that is sold in stores is nutritionally inferior to the raw stuff. When I started reading about the importance of healthy fats, I decided to look into raw milk more closely. But because raw milk has been so demonized in media and conventional medicine, I was really suspicious at first. I read a lot of information about the risks associated with raw milk as well as the supposed benefits, and I decided to give it a shot.

I contacted the Weston A. Price Chicago local chapter leader, and she recommended a few local sources. After all that research, I finally knew what I was after:

  • Exclusively grass-fed: The raw milk had to come from exclusively grass-fed cows, goats or sheep (I prefer the taste of cow milk to the other two though), but in all cases, I was not comfortable with any grain supplementation.
  • Organic pasture: This grass has got to be organically cared for. No synthetic fertilizers or pesticides on there, please.
  • Older breed of cowsThe breed of the cows was important, I’d learned. Older breeds like most African and Asian cows, as well as most Guernseys, Brown Swiss and Jerseys produce an A2 beta casein (milk protein) that is more digestible by the human body. All milk found in North American grocery stores is produced by newer breeds like Holsteins. The milk proteins that the newer breeds produce (A1 beta casein) is mutated, and even linked to chronic conditions in scientific experiments documented by Keith Woodford, author of Devil in the Milk: Illness, Health and the Politics of A1 and A2 Milk. (Check out this 2 minute video explaining the difference between the two casein types). So, I was on a mission to find a pretty Guernsey, Jersey or Brown Swiss that is tested to make sure the milk produced is A2 milk.
  • Pathogen testing: The cows should be routinely tested for pathogens.
  • Unprocessed in any way: I wanted my milk full-fat and unhomogenized … which I didn’t have to even worry about, because all raw milk is naturally unprocessed in that way!
  • Small local farm: The dairy had to be from a small local farm that I can visit any time I’d like, and whose practices I can verify.
  • Glass packaging: I wanted the dairy packaged in glass. Why ruin perfect raw milk by having it packaged in plastic with all the BPA and other chemicals leaching into it?

In May 2011, after we found a source for raw milk that met every one of these criteria, we placed an order through email, and went to the designated pick-up location to pick up the dairy in the city. The creamy raw milk, pastured soy-free eggs, and other delicious raw dairy products were exchanged with cash from the back of a van at a street intersection (yeah, the interaction is as funny as it sounds).

We went home, and took out two glasses for the both of us. Hands a little shaky, I twisted the tin caps off the glass jars, and carefully poured half a glass first. I brought it up to my mouth, and sniffed a bit before gulping down a generous sip. Seriously — and I swear I’m not exaggerating — it was the tastiest sip of cool creamy milk I had ever tasted. I had fallen in love, and I was never going back to that ultra-pasteurized grocery store junk that pretended it was real milk ever again.

Raw_Milk_with_Raw_ABC_Cookie

Here's my first cup of raw milk with a raw vegan ABC cookie (recipe on my blog!)

You want to know the craziest part? The raw milk (and other raw dairy) was not only fully tolerated by my lactose-intolerant husband; but it actually improved his overall digestion over time. The probiotics in the milk helped his gut flora repopulate over time, making his digestion more resilient. (FYI, it was found that healthy gut flora improves immunity.)

Dealing with the Doubters & Haters

Yes, I know what you may be thinking: “It’s rash. There are risks associated with raw milk.” To that, I have two answers:

Isn’t there a risk with everything in this life? Crossing the street, driving a car, eating at many restaurants (each sourcing its food from random places), flying a plane, confessing your love to a good friend – I can go on – but you get the point. At the same time, risks can be controlled in different ways: for example, I would never in a million years drink unpasteurized milk from conventionally raised cows. The criteria I mentioned above for selecting my source of raw milk certainly mitigates the risks substantially. What I am not trying to do in this post is try to defend the decision to drink raw milk; but I am simply sharing my experience as well as some resources you may find interesting or helpful. I am by no means implying that everyone should drink raw milk – or even drink dairy at all if it does not make sense to you – but I want to share some of the information I have come across recently, because knowledge is power … or something like that.

If you listen to government health officials and conventional medical staff, you will probably not relate to this post. That’s up to you. But I personally don’t trust that the government is in a position to make reliable health recommendations and I find most government guidelines to be misguided or problematic at best, especially when it comes to food freedom. And I’m not alone. Apparently, a small survey revealed that 93% of raw milk drinkers don’t trust the government for dietary advice either. This is also why I don’t believe that the government’s cracking down on local farms is ethical. In fact, if you take the time to watch the documentary Farmageddon, you’ll see why I think these crackdowns are downright evil.

Well, they’re not evil if they actually save people from infections; right? If raw milk is dangerous, as the CDC insists it is, then these crackdowns on small family farms would be understood. But here’s the thing: the crackdowns have nothing to do with the milk’s safety, and everything to do with the dairy industry’s monopoly and its connection to government officials. Take family farmer Vernon Hershberger for instance who faces up to three years in prison, and fines up to $10,000 simply for providing organic raw milk to consenting persons who have never been sick from consuming the milk he provides! Simultaneously, with twenty-nine people dead from a recent listeria outbreak from cantaloupes, another outbreak from ground turkey, what are the legal actions that have been taken against these producers, who actually caused people to get sick and a number of them to die?

Someone somewhere decided that raw milk isn’t safe to consume, but raw fish (sushi), raw meat (steak tartar), and raw eggs (eggnog) are perfectly fine … despite the lack of scientific evidence that raw milk is “inherently dangerous” and somehow more dangerous than other raw foods which are sold in stores, and also despite the fact that some of the sources of these other raw foods might be highly questionable and people have gotten sick from them! Whack. I won’t go into details here, but just consider that the largest foodborne salmonella outbreak related to milk was in 1985. In that case, the pasteurized low fat (2%) milk came from a large dairy farm and yet, it killed 9 people and infected 5,295 people.

The Legal (Fishy) Issues

In Hershberger’s case, raw milk sales aren’t legal in his state. Yes, raw milk is  ’illegal’ in 15 states, and ‘restricted’ in 26 others, which I find udderly ridiculous (pun intended). Besides the obvious fact that the U.S. laws should guarantee the freedom of buying whatever foods you deem fit for your consumption (and should not control individuals’ buying choices), this article from Counter Think does a good job of humorously explaining the irony behind the government’s choice to ban raw milk specifically while failing to regulate or ban actually harmful artificial ingredients in processed foods and carcinogenic chemicals in personal care products … But, I digress – raw milk is not only not harmful; in many cases (if you know the source) it is one of the most beneficial sources of nutrition for humans!

In Chicago, I bought raw milk directly from a farmer, which is legal. When I moved to Virginia, I had to join a cow-share (also known as a herd share). So, instead of “buying milk”‘; I technically own a part of a Guernsey cow, and the milk it provides is mine to deal with. Yes, it’s not the most convenient way to get the milk, but I’m thankful it’s there, because otherwise, it would be technically completely illegal to even drink the milk. Whack again, I know.

Raw Milk is Better than Gold 

So, why do I think raw milk is so great? Oh let me count the ways … these are just off the top of my head:

(1) Knowing the source of your dairy, and being sure your milk doesn’t have the rBGH (hormone) or antibiotics - Nowadays, most conventional milk is laced with a ton of antibiotics (antibiotic-resistance, anyone?) and some are even tainted with growth hormones. Gross. I’d steer clear from that kind of milk if you’re looking for good health.

While organic milk is better than conventional milk because it at least guarantees that the animal received no antibiotics or growth hormones, buying organic milk does not guarantee that the animal is pasture-raised (free roaming) or grass-fed (it could be grain fed, and that’s not traditional cow/goat/sheep food because they are naturally grazing animals). If you buy milk from a local farm, you can visit the farm yourself to see the way the animals are raised, where they’re milked and how the milk is handled.

Guernsey_Cows_Raw_Milk

The lovely Guernsey cows, RuthAnn & her calf Buttercup, at Sunny Knoll Ecofarm in Virginia.

And let me tell you, it’s very reassuring to know where your food comes from (as was customary in the days prior to the industrial revolution), and to visit the farm yourself if you want to see the cows grazing on lush grass, as I did last year when deciding on a local farm to own my cow share and get my dairy.

(2) Vitamins, bacteria and enzymes are preserved – According to this post from Nourished Kitchen, raw milk is a living food:

“Several of milk’s natural components including beneficial bacteria, food enzymes, natural vitamins and immunoglobulins are heat-sensitive.  These health-promoting components of natural, raw milk are destroyed by heating and therefore not present in pasteurized or UHT milk. Indeed, many foods – milk included – provide best nutrition when consumed in a raw or minimally cooked state. While heating milk doesn’t change the mineral composition to any great degree, it does, however, change its bioavailability rendering all that lovely calcium less absorbable”.

Here’s a more specific fact for you: raw grass-fed milk has five times more cancer-fighting conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) than regular milk; it contains more omega-3 fats, as well as more beta-carotene.

(3) Protection from asthma and other health disorders – There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence to show that many have been healed by consuming raw milk. Improvements in autism, asthma, metabolic syndrome, mood disorders, irritable bowl syndrome (IBS), Crohn’s disease … I can go on. To read some testimonials, click here. But for all you doubters out there, a large European study known as the GABRIELA study has shown that children who drink raw milk are 40% less likely to develop allergies and asthma than children who drink pasteurized milk. In my husband’s case, raw milk was not only more digestible; the probiotics (good bacteria) therein actually helped repair his digestion. And frankly, that’s good enough evidence for me.

(4) Supporting local agriculture as opposed to oppressive feedlots - Buying milk that has been shipped from miles away compromises the milk’s freshness and supports big agribusiness which often has less than stellar practices within the dairy industry. Besides the antibiotics, hormones, and damaging effects of homogenization and pasteurization mentioned earlier, the milk in a carton in your local grocery stores is not from one or two … or three cows. It’s a mix of hundreds of cows from different dairies, so it’s practically impossible to trace back to one farm or source. You can’t verify the quality even if you wanted to. Additionally, the cost of the milk is divided among many: the grocery store, the supplier, the dairy farm and the farmer. If you buy locally-produced milk, you can know your farmer and your cow, and the money you pay for your milk goes to support an honest worker in your local economy. Local farming is – beyond a doubt – more sustainable for the environment, your health, and your local economy. Wins all around.

Raw_Milk_is_Safer_than_Pasteurized

Who can say no to raw cream and pastured eggs?

Feedback on the Harvard Raw Milk Debate

On February 16, 2012, the Harvard Food Law Society hosted a debate on the legal, nutritional, and safety aspects of raw milk. I scheduled the debate on my calendar ahead of time, and listened with intent as each of the panelists shared her or his point of view. I took copious notes, as I didn’t know whether the debate would be recorded (it was). It’s an hour and half long – feel free to listen to as much of it as you’d like. My comments are below the video. 

Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, and David Gumpert, author of The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America’s Emerging Battle Over Food Rights were on the pro-raw milk side. Lawyer Fred Pritzker and Dr. Heidi Kassenborg, director of the Agriculture Department’s Dairy and Food Inspection Division in the state of Minnesota, were on the anti-raw milk side. Both sides presented their evidence, and in my estimation, the pro-raw milk side won by a landslide.

As expected, safety of raw milk was questioned over and over again during the debate, even though the two debating against raw milk could not provide any evidence to show that raw milk is especially unsafe as to warrant banning. In an upcoming post in the near future, I’ll write up highlights from the debate and give a brief explanation of why I think the pro raw milk side was more convincing based on what was presented. In the meantime, feel free to watch it and I’d be curious to find out what you conclude from it! Please share in the comments.

How to Advocate for Raw Milk

Even if you’re not passionate about raw milk, or if you’re not even convinced it’s a food that you would like to consume, you should still advocate for food freedom. How would you like it if your favorite local foods – certain vegetables, nuts, sushi, etc – were not only heavily regulated, but also banned in your area? Wouldn’t you be outraged? I urge you to sign this petition to ask your U.S. Representative to co-sponsor HR 1830, a bill introduced by Rep. Ron Paul to allow the interstate shipment of raw milk and raw milk products for human consumption. Click here to sign the petition. Join the raw milk revolution.

If you’re interested in obtaining raw milk for you or your family, your best bet is to navigate this page “Where Can I Find Raw Milk?” on the Real Milk website, which lists local farmers by state. It’s definitely not an exhaustive list though, because some farmers who have gotten in legal trouble are wary of posting their information so publicly. Another good resource is the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nonprofit with the sole goal of educating people about real food, traditional food preparation, and supporting local farmers. You can find a local chapter leader of the foundation in many parts of the world. Don’t be shy to send a short email to ask about raw milk in your hometown (feel free to link this post and say that I sent you). To my knowledge, these are the best two resources. You can also always ask people you trust who drink raw milk about the sources they use to buy it.

Having read this expose, I’m curious to hear your thoughts: how do you feel about raw dairy? Have you tried it? Would you try it?

**This post was submitted at Butter Believer’s Sunday School and The Healthy Home Economist’s Monday Mania blog carnival.

Debunking Myths: Not All Salt is Created Equal! Which Kind of Salt is Healthiest?

February 12, 2012 in Debunking Myths, Evidence-Based Science, Health News, Nutrients

Introducing … the “Debunking Myths” Series

I’m fed up. So many things touted as ‘healthy’ are in fact, responsible for robbing us of our health (ahem, low-fat yogurt, anyone?). So I’m launching a series. A lifelong series on My Life in a Pyramid, that I will call “Debunking Myths.” Every time I come across a health-related topic that is widely accepted by the general public as being true, even though it is in reality an unproven myth, I’ll write a post about it. If you follow me on Facebook, you can see a lot of the articles I read and share about health and nutrition, and a lot of them go against the conventional wisdom. A couple of days ago I posted a Harvard study I came across that explains the importance of a substance in dairy fat that can significantly lower the chance of getting Type 2 diabetes. (Yes, that means Paula Deen really should keep eating her butter, as long as it’s from pastured cows … but she should probably cut down or eliminate the refined carbohydrates and excess sugar). Politically incorrect recommendations (that go against conventional wisdom)  are often scientifically correct!

The Myth that Sodium Is Bad

Himalayan_Pink_Mineral_Salt

Let me tell you the problem: People want simple, easy answers. Either sodium is bad for health or it isn’t. Everyone wants to see the science. What do the studies say? Does salt increase blood pressure or does it not? Most people know what they’ve heard through media for the past 25 years: Sodium increases blood pressure and should be decreased in the diet … well, if you want to avoid heart disease and an early death. But what the media pundits, scientists, physicians, and statisticians don’t tell you is that the correlation isn’t that clear cut:

Consider, for example, the Intersalt study, one of the largest observational studies that medical journals cite to this day as being proof that there’s a strong relationship between salt in the diet and high blood pressure. The study, done in 1988, was based on a sample of 10,079 men and women aged 20-59 from 52 populations around the world. As renowned science writer Gary Taubes writes in this piece titled “The (Political) Science of Salt,” the results from the study (and many others before and after it) were not consistent, not significant and misrepresented. “In fact, the population that ate the most salt, about 14 grams a day, had a lower median blood pressure than the population that ate the least, about 7.2 grams a day” (Scientific American). The misrepresentation of the results happened in several ways. For the first edition of the study, the 20-29 age group had no difference in blood pressure from the high-salt diet, but this data was dropped from the conclusion because it did not support the scientists’ hypothesis.

Somehow, after statistical manipulation, the authors of the study concluded that  the correlation between high-sodium intake and hypertension is a strong one. Misleading and unscientific? Yes. But does it mean that there is a correlation there or not? Possibly, but it has likely been exaggerated. Could it be that salt has little or no effect on blood pressure, and that blood pressure increases with age in those who live sedentary lives and eat an otherwise unhealthy diet? Could be. We’ll never find out because many of these studies can’t be controlled easily. Changing the amount of salt on the diet invariably leads to eating more fresh foods and dairy (the DASH diet)… which can be related to the decrease in blood pressure if a decrease is indeed observed. Generally, it’s extremely difficult in these kinds of studies to control or account for other variables and confounding factors in the diet or lifestyle.

According to this article by Joseph Mercola, there are many other studies that have failed to show any correlation between high-salt diets and cardiovascular diseases and deaths. In fact, some studies, like this one from 2011, have shown the inverse to be true!

Sodium is Necessary for Human Health

In other words, don’t wait for a study to prove that our bodies need salt. Basic science and human pathology show us that sodium is a necessary substance in our bodies, for a variety of vital functions:

  • Taking nutrients in and out of your cells
  • Regulating blood pressure
  • Regulating nerve impulses
  • Helping the brain and muscles communicate efficiently, so that your muscles can move on demand
  • Proper thyroid and adrenal functioning
  • Digestion of proteins and carbohydrates
  • Maintaining electrolyte and osmotic balance

It probably has other functions that we are just beginning to discover, but the truth boils down to one fact: we cannot live without sodium. So, if we can’t live without sodium, it can’t be an evil substance. Water and oxygen are both things we cannot live without, but that doesn’t mean that more of them is always better. There is a limit and a balance to what we can consume without hurting our health. It’s the same for salt!

In fact, just as extremely high amounts of salt are damaging, several studies have shown that a diet too low in salt can be damaging for health. Here are a few of the effects of a too-low-salt diet:

So How Much Sodium Does the Body Need to Function Optimally?

So how much salt should we consume? According to the FDA, the sweet spot is between 1,500 to 2,300 mg (about 1.5-2.3 grams a day, or 2/3 to 1 teaspoon).

This remains up for debate, but based on some of the latest research, somewhere between 9 and 18 grams a day is recommended by the WAPF and The Salt Institute, except for those who are salt-sensitive. WAPF publicist and health food blogger Kimberly Hartke shares Sally Fallon’s answer and Morton Satin’s answer (of The Salt Institute) to the question “How much salt should you eat?”

“Yes, our consumption prior to the ‘50s was around 18 grams salt (almost 3 teaspoons) per day because salt was the primary means of food preservation. As refrigeration quickly took over that function after WWII, by the end of the 50s, our consumption dropped to approximately 9 grams (1-1/2 teaspoons) of salt per day and has remained there ever since. [...] And, in fact, the latest study (JAMA Dec 2011) by O’Donnel et shows the dose-response curve and indicates that the area of lowest risk to negative health outcomes is  between 9 and 18 grams of salt (equivalent to 3,450 – 7,000 mg sodium per day, or between 1-1/2 to 3 teaspoons salt daily). Anything below or above that range poses a much higher risk to health” (Hartke is Online).

The FDA has been on a mission to significantly reduce sodium concentration in foods for the past few years. There is even talk about using an untested salt substitute from the biotech company Senomyx to mask the blandness of foods without adequate salt seasoning. This substitute falls under the “flavors” category, so it’s not required to be specifically labelled on foods. The Weston A. Price Foundation has warned the FDA in a press release, that changing the dietary guidelines to reduce salt for the entire population (and not just for the salt-sensitive minority) can have negative implications on the health of many. The Salt Institute’s Morton Satin discusses some of the implications of a low-salt diet on health, in a statement on the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. This detailed article from Sally Fallon Morell of the Weston Price Foundation explains why we need salt, and discusses some of the mix-ups that have led may to believe in the myth that sodium is inherently an evil substance.

I believe that the body self-regulates. If you end up eating too much salt, your body will tell you. You might feel excessively thirsty, bloated (fluid retention), irritable, or feel lethargic. If you eat too little salt, you might start craving salty foods, and feeling fatigue, headache, muscle cramping, loss of appetite, nausea and vomiting. Make sure to listen to your body in each case, and respond accordingly.

Here’s the Caveat: The Quality Makes All the Difference

I’ve known for a while now that — despite what doctors and conventional nutritionists will tell you — the quality of a real food determines whether or not it’s healthy or unhealthy; not the type of real food itself. Consider the egg. Not all of them are created equally. The nutritional profile of a truly pastured, cage-free egg is completely different (and looks different!) than that of an “organic” store-bought egg or even a factory-farmed egg from an abused and antibiotic-pumped hen. It’s the same with salt, and virtually every other real food (and by real food, I mean foods found in nature, not those manufactured in a lab).

The problem is that sodium (and it’s derivatives) is found in excess in a lot of processed and pre-packaged foods, and most people eat a lot of those unhealthy foods. I’m not going to be discussing the danger of processed foods, because you should know by now they are not real foods and can’t be digested properly by the body. Also, it’s important to note that these processed junk foods are full of refined salt. “What, so there are differences in salt quality too?” you may be wondering. Oh yeah! Not all salts are created equally!

Like all industrial foods, commercial table salt undergoes a whole lot of processing. It’s heated to upwards of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit, bleached with toxic solvents and ferro cyanide and aluminum to make it white, thereby stripping it of its minerals, and then mixed with anti-caking agents and free-flowing agents to keep it from sticking together. Oh, and then iodide — one synthetic nutrient — is added on because back in the 1920s they found that otherwise, people get iodine-deficiency, resulting in goiter. The problem is that this iodine in processed salt isn’t enough for the body, as seen in a study published in 2008, which found that a lot of Americans are still iodine-deficient.

Processed_Table_Salt

What you probably don’t know is that this heating, bleaching and processing with other chemicals end up stripping the natural salt from many other minerals that our body needs like calcium, potassium, copper, sulfate, iodine (hah! It’s found naturally in the real stuff), iron, manganese, magnesium, silicon, phosphorus, vanadium and zinc (Mercola). In fact, the processing only leaves the sodium and chloride, which amount to 97%-99% of table salt ingredients. Unrefined salts contain about 85% sodium, and the rest is composed of other minerals and trace elements.

In many unrefined salts, you can see the color that the minerals impart – the salts of the earth are as colorful as many other foods, with some being gray, red, brown, black and even pink! Many people nowadays are deficient in these nutrients, because the salt they are adding to their foods is a processed product, and because many of even the fresh vegetables and fruits we are consuming are grown in nutrient-deficient soils (the chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides tend to do that).  Additionally, a processed-foods diet has made most people magnesium-deficient. Unrefined mineral salt is an excellent source of magnesium, and according to Lawrence Wilson,

“The blood pressure-raising effect of table salt can be due to its high content of sodium with not enough magnesium to balance it.  This has a magnesium-lowering effect that can constrict the arteries and raise blood pressure. Sea salt contains plenty of magnesium, which is why it usually does not affect blood pressure at all, or does so much than table salt and should be eaten by most people.  Also, if one’s magnesium status is adequate because one has other food sources of magnesium, salt-eating will have less effect or no effect on blood pressure.”

The solution then is not to throw up your hands in the air and say ‘the heck with it’. There’s a much better solution: buy unrefined mineral salt! Yes, these salts exist. There are a few salt companies out there that are producing salt the old-fashioned way. The company I use (and it’s pretty economical as their prices aren’t staggeringly expensive) is called SaltWorks. So far, I’ve only tried their Himalayan Pink Sea Salt, and I usually buy it in bulk. Only $19 for a 5 lb. bag (often with free shipping) is a great deal, especially as compared to the prices I’ve seen in health food stores! There are many fusion salts (salt infused with other ingredients, like balsamic vinegar or chili peppers) on SaltWorks, but I prefer to buy the pure varieties so it doesn’t impact the taste of the different meals I prepare.

Real_Salt__Healthy_Himalayan_Pink_Sea_Salt1

Another company I’ve used before is HimalaSalt. I bought a small shaker of the stuff from Whole Foods to try it out a while back, and it tasted great, but was more expensive than the SaltWorks version. This is what HimalaSalt has to say about refined salt on their website:

Common Table Salt is an industrial by-product, stripped by chemical processing of all elements except sodium and chloride – detrimental to health in isolated form. Anti-caking and flow agents are added, yet the FDA Code 21CFR101.100(a)(3), does not require their disclosure to consumers. Table salt comes from the same lots as vacuum-refined industrial salt and is treated with caustic soda or lime to remove all traces of magnesium salts, which are important for health.

Important minerals are removed because they provide large corporations with staggering profits for use in agricultural and industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, ammunitions, and other unsustainable industries.

After extreme chemical processing and heated at up to 1200 degrees, table salt cannot support health and no longer combines with our body fluids.  Table salt can also cause a deficiency of important essential trace minerals, which are abundantly present in HimalaSalt.

If you’re in the United States, and looking for something more local than Himalayan salt (which is usually harvested in Pakistan), there’s a company called Redmond’s Real Salt in Utah that uses traditional harvesting methods to produce unrefined mineral salt. I haven’t yet tried it myself, but a few fellow bloggers who live in the U.S. have tried it and rave about it! In this brochure, Redmond’s Real Salt promotes the use of most unrefined mineral salts including both Himalayan salt and Celtic salt, but describes the Real salt brand as “sweeter”, as compared to the Himalayan salt which is more “earthy”. I’m looking forward to trying the Real brand soon! I’ll be sure to report back on any difference in taste …

Don’t Be Fooled by the Word “Sea” in Front of Your Salt

As Emily of Butter Believer warns us in her post about salt, the word “sea” in front of salt is not enough to ensure that you’re not buying refined and processed salt. Since all salt is technically “from the sea”, many manufacturers use the qualifier ”sea” liberally (and deceptively) to describe their salt, even though it’s the same processed salt — only coarser. It is not the coarseness of the grain that matters; it’s the processing the salt undergoes. So, yes, sorry to all my Costco-loving friends, but the Kirkland “Mediterranean Sea” Salt is NOT the unrefined mineral salt I’ve described above. Don’t buy it!

How I Use Himalayan Sea Salt

Since becoming a convert to using real unrefined mineral salt, I’ve only tried the Himalayan salt, though I plan to vary it up a bit to get other minerals that may not be found in this variety. Himalayan salt comes from the Himalayas, so it’s fairly pure and free from most environmental toxins. It also doesn’t have any additives. Here are a few things to keep in mind when using unrefined mineral salts:

  • Unrefined salts are not as salty as table salt. They contain less sodium chloride and more minerals. I use the same amount of salt as when I previously used table salt, and I’m enjoying the more natural and subdued taste of unrefined salt.
  • Himalayan Sea Salt can also be used topically in bath soaks, to treat skin conditions, as a sinus flush, or as a throat gargle (Mercola).

Real_Salt__Healthy_Himalayan_Pink_Sea_Salt3

So that’s it for my first post of debunking myths. Don’t be afraid of high-quality unrefined mineral salt. Listen to your body, and remember to take most conventional health advice with several grains of salt!

P.S. Be sure to sign up for my newsletter, to receive these posts right to your email inbox! Simply enter your email address in the “Sign up” field on the right of this page. Thanks a bunch!

*This post has been shared with the Butter Believer’s Sunday School Blog Carnival and Monday Mania at the Healthy Home Economist.

Evidence-Based Science: Video Shows Impact of Processed Foods on Human Digestion

January 25, 2012 in Evidence-Based Science, Health News

This past weekend, I tuned into TEDx Manhattan 2012, “Changing the Way We Eat”, a day-long seminar with inspirational speakers from the food world. Needless to say, I was stoked! My “highlights” review will be featured in a guest post on the real food blog Hartke is Online. Until then, I thought to share a little snippet from the seminar. One of my favorite presentations was not a talk, but a recorded video that shows rather than tells how the human body digests processed food as opposed to real (whole) food. For all the doubters out there, this is hard-core evidence that the body was not meant to digest Cheetos, Gatorade, Cheerios, Ramen noodles, or any of the synthetic so-called “foods” out there. If you’re still not convinced that you need to abandon your junk food ways, I urge you to watch this video; it’ll speak for itself:

Stefani Bardin is the talented media maker behind this video. In collaboration with Dr. Braden Kuo who conducted the trial at Massachusetts General Hospital, she filmed the “M2A: The Fantastic Voyage”, a video that for the first time in human history actually brings us into the digestive tract while the food is being digested, and compares the difference between how the body processes synthetic food and real food. The M2A pill, which has a wireless camera, and the SmartPill which comes with sensors, both track how liquids and solids ingested are processed by the body.

We see how blue Gatorade stains the stomach lining because of the artificial color added (a petrochemical derivative!), and how Ramen noodles are not effectively broken down in the digestive tract (they contain TBHQ which is related to butane) … ugh, gross! The “whole food meal”, while definitely more nutritious than the junk food alternative, is still not ideal, but  at least the body knows what to do with it! This goes to show you that even incremental changes in your diet can either heal or further complicate your digestion…

So, next time a medical doctor urges you to give your sick child a colorful Gatorade to “replenish his electrolytes” when he or she has a fever (advice that makes me recoil in horror every time), I urge you to email him or her this video … and then find yourself another doctor!

Saturated Fats Are … Good for You?!

May 12, 2011 in Culture, Evidence-Based Science, Food Movement, Health News, Nutrients

The rationale? “Increased consumption of low-fat, fat-free ‘foods’ results in us eating more sugars and carbohydrates. These products don’t satisfy our hunger and leave us wanting to eat more. Eating good animal fat does, so you eat less” (Salon). Who knew!? Yes, it defies everything I have ever learned about diet and nutrition, as is probably the case for you. But if you have 50 minutes, give this video below a listen – it’s revolutionary

**The original videos I posted in this article were of Mary Enig talking about the misconceptions that surround ‘saturated fats’ in the diet. Since this posting, the videos have been taken down from YouTube. Instead, I have posted the video below of Donald W. Miller, M.D. talking about the importance of saturated fats.**

In case you were wondering about the original videos, here’s little background on Mary Enig, PhD: “Mary Gertrude Enig, PhD (born 1931) is a nutritionist and researcher known for her unconventional positions on the role fats play in diet and health. Enig was an early opposer of trans fats, years before their dangers were widely accepted. She has continued to promote skepticism towards the scientific consensus that high saturated fat diets lead to heart disease, while she advocates for a diet based in whole foods and rich in certain saturated fats, such as those found in coconut oil and butter.” (from Wikipedia)

Yes, this pretty much confirms that any and all processed, refined – and especially “low-fat” foods – are unnatural. If we were to eat the way our great-great-grandmothers ate (actually if our lifestyle were similar as a whole, with more slow physical movements, and a tighter-knit community), our health would be way better than it is now, and our earth more sustainable than it is now (<–if you click on this link, get ready for a shocker.)

And now for a little background on Donald Miller, this is from his website: “As a professor of surgery, I teach cardiac surgery at the University of Washington School of Medicine and the Seattle VA Medical Center. As a physician, I research and write articles on the importance of natural and nutritional medicine for maintaining optimum health. I also study and write articles about history, philosophy, book collecting, medical and legal evidence, politics, and various orthodoxies in the climate and biomedical sciences.” 

Take a look at this video:

Here’s the catch though: eating saturated fats through animals that are pasture-raised, grass-fed and antibiotic-and-hormone-free (ideally locally sourced from a close-by farm) is essential. If we’re eating saturated fats from conventionally-raised meats, they are loaded with toxins (antibiotics and added hormones) that are deposited in the fat tissue. So I cannot stress the importance of pastured and organic here if you will heed this researcher’s advice and introduce whole milk to your diet, for example.

Another good reason to cook using animal fat (as opposed to partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, i.e. trans fats, or oils that don’t withstand high heat):

“Unlike vegetable oils, animal fats are very stable and don’t turn rancid easily. This makes them ideal for cooking, which involves heating the fat. And they have no trans fats.

Animal fats have lots of good fatty acids that fight disease, help absorb vitamins and lower cholesterol. Your body burns the short-chained fatty acids found in animal fats and stores the long-chained ones found in polyunsaturated fat. It is a myth that eating animal fat makes you fat.

But best of all, fat—with its big round molecules—tastes good, it feels good in your mouth, on your tongue and it carries flavors” (Serious Eats).

Oh, and another word about diets in general: while no one diet works for all people, as a general rule of thumb, eating a lot of organically-grown plants and eating healthy saturated fats in quantities that leave us satiated but not full is a good guideline in general. I’m learning that portion control – in relation to the amount of physical activity being exerted throughout the day – is really vital. I don’t count calories, because I find that to be too calculated and unnecessary for a healthy lifestyle (personal choice), but I do think it’s really important to be conscientious about the signals your body is giving you, and the quality of the food you eat.

In other words, as Kristin from Food Renegade says, “if your great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize it as real food, don’t eat it!” Yes, that means ditch most of the packaged stuff, and start spending some time making your food from scratch!

Off to the farmers’ market I go this weekend! :)