Food Choices for Healthy People and a Healthy Planet

All posts in Food to Avoid



bycatch lg

Overfishing means taking more individuals of a species than is sustainable – there aren’t enough left to produce future generations. Bycatch means catching sea creatures you don’t even want, but they die anyway, choked in nets, dead or dying on trawler decks, or dumped back into the ocean.

“The Tragedy of the Commons” is a famous essay from 1968, in which Garrett Hardin pointed out that if each person acts only in his or her own self-interest with common goods such as public land, eventually the common good is used up. Destroyed. This is what has happened with fishing. Each fisher, or more likely trawling corporation, grabs as much as possible, heedless that they are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

BUT far-sighted scientists, agencies, non-profits (especially Environmental Defense Fund) and some fishers themselves have been working for years to balance present needs with future ones. I’ve written about this before. More good news came out last month, when the European Union’s parliament voted overwhelmingly to restore fish stocks in the next 7 years. That’s restore, not merely slow down the overfishing. Restore, with a date to end overfishing and rewards for fishers who work more sustainably.

“An overwhelming number of members of the European Parliament from all political groups made history today, by voting to reverse decades of overfishing by the EU and by setting ambitious targets for the restoration of fish stocks,” said Uta Bellion of The Pew Charitable Trusts in a press release.

What you can do: Eat less seafood, or if you do, make sure it’s sustainably procured.  Support your elected and appointed representatives who stand behind environmental regulations.  And remember to heave a sigh of relief and gratitude when steps in the right direction are made.




burger eater 1078574XSmall

Dining out can be a restful break from routine, but it can also be an unfortunate opportunity to indulge in salty, fatty foods (even at sit-down and fine dining establishments). Apart from what they serve, we should think about how much. A dozen years ago, when I first began writing about food, health, and the environment, I wrote:

“We eat too much. In the 1990s, Americans consumed several hundred more calories a day than we did in the 1950s. Restaurant portion sizes have increased, in some cases by 100%. More restaurants are serving gigantic portions. One restaurant in Texas offers a meal of a 72-ounce steak (yes, four and a half pounds) plus shrimp cocktail, potato, salad, and bread.”

The obesity epidemic has many causes (such as government policies that make junk food cheaper than healthy food), as I’ve written in a professional health journal, but surely sheer quantity of food consumed is one of them. Restaurant portions have been part of the problem, especially in fast food places, because big chains can “supersize” a meal and charge much more for the upgrade than the actual ingredients cost. I think the habit of big portions just percolated through the industry, even to good restaurants. When is the last time you dined out and were able to eat everything on your plate? I thought so.

Could there be a change coming? New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom has found numerous chain restaurants are now offering lighter, healthier fare. Not just lettuce salad, either; they’re reworking some of their standard offerings – and giving smaller servings.

I think this is a good idea. Unless you bring your own doggie bag, taking food home from a restaurant uses packaging (paper, foil, plastic, or all three). Not earth-friendly!

So next time you go to your favorite restaurant, consider praising the staff for offering smaller servings – or ask for them.




mbayaq sefood guide

It’s natural to think that there are always more fish in the sea, but our modern fishing methods – which are more like floating industrial packing factories – are scooping up millions of tons of fish. Did you know that trawlers may use heavy nets that reach the ocean bottom to scrape up everything in their path? Such trawlers have left muddy trails so wide and so long that they can be seen from the International Space Station.

As I mentioned in my book, “Fish aren’t the only ones to suffer. Jobs disappear when fisheries go out of business from overfishing; 40,000 jobs were lost when Canada’s Atlantic cod fishery collapsed in the 1990s, and it has yet to recover. Over 72,000 jobs were lost in the Pacific Northwest due to declining stocks. In 2008 and 2009, the fishing season was closed on the West Coast.”

But the problem now faces New England states. According to John Bullard, a member of the New England Fishery Management Council, “We are headed, slowly, seeming inexorably, to oblivion… It’s midnight and getting darker when it comes to how many cod there are,” he said. “There [aren’t] enough cod for people to make a decent living.”  The article describes the anguish of fishers afraid of losing their livelihood, furious that the agency wants to set lower catch limits.

What a dilemma! But should we allow today’s fishers to exterminate the entire stock of fish? I’m reminded of the redwood debate of a decade or so ago, when a wise soul opined: “We’re going to stop cutting down redwoods. The only question is, When shall we do it? Right now, or after they’re all gone?”

What you can do: Go to Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch to see what fish are acceptable to eat, which ones are dubious choices, and which should be strictly off your menu. Better yet: say goodbye to fish altogether.




bromine_water

Just when you thought there couldn’t be one more unholy chemical concoction in our food, another one emerges from obscurity. BVO – brominated vegetable oil. It’s found mostly in citrus-flavored sodas, so maybe I shouldn’t say it’s in our “food” – but some of us are ingesting it anyway. And it isn’t even a new invention – according to an article in the New York Times, it’s been in food since the 1930s, and attempts to establish safe levels in humans are inadequate, so BVO has coasted on a grandfathered or interim regulatory status for decades.

And, as we are sadly aware, the U.S. is far behind other countries in protecting its citizens. BVO has not been approved in other countries, or even outright banned: European Union, India, Japan. Could they know something we don’t? One young woman, 15-year-old Susan Kavanagh, investigated this and found that Gatorade has somehow magically found a substitute formulation to sell in those other countries—but doesn’t use it here.

Interested in being heard? Susan set up an online petition to ask Gatorade to stop adding BVO. Your signature would be added to the signatures of 200,000 other people.

Just over a year ago, Scientific American weighed in on the issue and pointed out that BVO was patented as a flame retardant and can be found in 10% of the sodas in the U.S. (including Mountain Dew, Squirt, Fanta Orange, Gatorade Thirst-Quencher Orange, and Fresca Original Citrus). Joseph Mercola, a prominent physician and food activist (he made a major donation to the Proposition 37 campaign) has some eye-opening information. Bromine – the element that chemists bond with vegetable oil to make this concoction – is an endocrine disruptor, and can displace absorption of iodine, which our bodies need.

Soda is my own (very) guilty pleasure but I’ll sure check labels for BVO from now on.




You may have heard about nanoparticles – they are tiny bits of matter, microscopic in size, that are being used in a variety of ways. In medicine, nanos are used in detecting disease, delivering drugs, gene engineering, MRI studies, and more.

They are found in over 1,000 consumer products, including car batteries, appliances, alum foil, cosmetics, sunscreens, and computers.  Let’s look at food and kitchen. Nanotech can be round in certain brands of oil, tea, shakes, cutting boards, cleansers, nonstick pans, vitamins, and more. Check out the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) list of consumer products with nanos in them.

So what’s the problem? Nanoparticles have not been tested for health of safety to people and environments! Once again, our dreams of scientific wizardry have come true – and regulators have been outfoxed again. Nanos are able to pass through cell membranes and we don’t know what they can do to us, our children, food, pets, and habitats. According to Ethan Huff, staff writer at Natural News, “Deconstructing and reassembling molecular components and injecting these altered molecules back into our clothing, furniture, cars, and food is really more of a giant experiment in human health than it is a successful technological breakthrough.”

Here’s an interesting email exchange between a writer at E Magazine and a representative of the FDA:

E Magazine: What can you tell me about the prevalence of nanomaterials in our food supply?
Sebastian Cianci:
FDA does not have a list of food products that contain nanomaterials.

E: Where are nanomaterials most often found within food products? In colorings or additives?
S.C.:
FDA does not maintain a list of food products that contain nanomaterials so we cannot reliably answer this question.

I admire the creativity and dedication of scientists — and I also believe we need to test inventions before unleashing them on the public.




We’re lucky that our food has been labeled for many nutritional facts for decades. (Of course, it took a big battle to get a law in place to require labeling). I’m old enough to remember when you had no idea what was inside that soup can or cereal box.

For the last 15 years, the labeling fight has moved to other health issues such as salt, sugar, and additives. Even more recently, justice for humans, animals, and ecosystems has taken front page, so we can put our dollars where our morals are.

Well, that’s the hope, anyway. Unfortunately, manufacturers try to dilute this movement by using meaningless words like “natural” or giving false reassurance with phrases like “cage free.” As a result, some labels are truer and more meaningful than others. Earthwatch Institute put up a wonderful page not long ago with detailed assessment of 27 labels.

Here are some of the labels they consider reliable:

Bird-Friendly

Certified Humane Raised and Handled

USDA Certified Organic

Country of Origin

Dolphin-Safe from Earth Island Institute

Fair Trade Certified

Marine Stewardship Council

Rainforest Alliance Certified

Salmon Safe

And here are some that are questionable or frankly misleading:

Cage Free

Grass Fed

Hormone Free

Natural  or  All Natural

Pasture Raised

I encourage you to visit the Earthwatch page to get the details! That way, we can all support the genuine earth-friendly food producers and avoid the fakers.