The Food Safety Risk of Organic versus Conventional

The Food Safety Risk of Organic versus Conventional.jpeg

The stated principles of organic agriculture are "health, ecology, fairness, and care," but if you ask people why they buy organic, the strongest predictor is concern for their own health. People appear to spend more for organic foods for selfish reasons, rather than altruistic motives. Although organic foods may not have more nutrients per dollar (see my video Are Organic Foods More Nutritious?), consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Food safety-wise, researchers found no difference in the risk for contamination with food poisoning bacteria in general. Both organic and conventional animal products have been found to be commonly contaminated with Salmonella and Campylobacter, for example. Most chicken samples (organic and inorganic), were found to be contaminated with Campylobacter, and about a third with Salmonella, but the risk of exposure to multidrug-resistant bacteria was lower with the organic meat. They both may carry the same risk of making us sick, but food poisoning from organic meat may be easier for doctors to treat.

What about the pesticides? There is a large body of evidence on the relation between exposure to pesticides and elevated rate of chronic diseases such as different types of cancers, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and ALS, as well as birth defects and reproductive disorders--but these studies were largely on people who live or work around pesticides.

Take Salinas Valley California, for example, where they spray a half million pounds of the stuff. Daring to be pregnant in an agricultural community like that may impair childhood brain development, such that pregnant women with the highest levels running through their bodies (as measured in their urine) gave birth to children with an average deficit of about seven IQ points. Twenty-six out of 27 studies showed negative effects of pesticides on brain development in children. These included attention problems, developmental disorders, and short-term memory difficulties.

Even in urban areas, if you compare kids born with higher levels of a common insecticide in their umbilical cord blood, those who were exposed to higher levels are born with brain anomalies. And these were city kids, so presumably this was from residential pesticide use.

Using insecticides inside your house may also be a contributing risk factor for childhood leukemia. Pregnant farmworkers may be doubling the odds of their child getting leukemia and increase their risk of getting a brain tumor. This has lead to authorities advocating that awareness of the potentially negative health outcome for children be increased among populations occupationally exposed to pesticides, though I don't imagine most farmworkers have much of a choice.

Conventional produce may be bad for the pregnant women who pick them, but what about our own family when we eat them?

Just because we spray pesticides on our food in the fields doesn't necessarily mean it ends up in our bodies when we eat it, or at least we didn't know that until a study was published in 2006. Researchers measured the levels of two pesticides running through children's bodies by measuring specific pesticide breakdown products in their urine. In my video, Are Organic Foods Safer?, you can see the levels of pesticides flowing through the bodies of three to 11-year olds during a few days on a conventional diet. The kids then went on an organic diet for five days and then back to the conventional diet. As you can see, eating organic provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to pesticides commonly used in agricultural production. The study was subsequently extended. It's clear by looking at the subsequent graph in the video when the kids were eating organic versus conventional. What about adults, though? We didn't know... until now.

Thirteen men and women consumed a diet of at least 80% organic or conventional food for seven days and then switched. No surprise, during the mostly organic week, pesticide exposure was significantly reduced by a nearly 90% drop.

If it can be concluded that consumption of organic foods provides protection against pesticides, does that also mean protection against disease? We don't know. The studies just haven't been done. Nevertheless, in the meantime, the consumption of organic food provides a logical precautionary approach.

For more on organic foods:

For more on the infectious disease implications of organic versus conventional, see Superbugs in Conventional vs. Organic Chicken. Organic produce may be safer too. See Norovirus Food Poisoning from Pesticides. Organic eggs may also have lower Salmonella risk, which is an egg-borne epidemic every year in the US. See my video Who Says Eggs Aren't Healthy or Safe?

More on Parkinson's and pesticides in Preventing Parkinson's Disease With Diet.

Those surprised by the California data might have missed my video California Children Are Contaminated.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Image Credit: IFPRI -IMAGES / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

The Food Safety Risk of Organic versus Conventional

The Food Safety Risk of Organic versus Conventional.jpeg

The stated principles of organic agriculture are "health, ecology, fairness, and care," but if you ask people why they buy organic, the strongest predictor is concern for their own health. People appear to spend more for organic foods for selfish reasons, rather than altruistic motives. Although organic foods may not have more nutrients per dollar (see my video Are Organic Foods More Nutritious?), consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Food safety-wise, researchers found no difference in the risk for contamination with food poisoning bacteria in general. Both organic and conventional animal products have been found to be commonly contaminated with Salmonella and Campylobacter, for example. Most chicken samples (organic and inorganic), were found to be contaminated with Campylobacter, and about a third with Salmonella, but the risk of exposure to multidrug-resistant bacteria was lower with the organic meat. They both may carry the same risk of making us sick, but food poisoning from organic meat may be easier for doctors to treat.

What about the pesticides? There is a large body of evidence on the relation between exposure to pesticides and elevated rate of chronic diseases such as different types of cancers, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and ALS, as well as birth defects and reproductive disorders--but these studies were largely on people who live or work around pesticides.

Take Salinas Valley California, for example, where they spray a half million pounds of the stuff. Daring to be pregnant in an agricultural community like that may impair childhood brain development, such that pregnant women with the highest levels running through their bodies (as measured in their urine) gave birth to children with an average deficit of about seven IQ points. Twenty-six out of 27 studies showed negative effects of pesticides on brain development in children. These included attention problems, developmental disorders, and short-term memory difficulties.

Even in urban areas, if you compare kids born with higher levels of a common insecticide in their umbilical cord blood, those who were exposed to higher levels are born with brain anomalies. And these were city kids, so presumably this was from residential pesticide use.

Using insecticides inside your house may also be a contributing risk factor for childhood leukemia. Pregnant farmworkers may be doubling the odds of their child getting leukemia and increase their risk of getting a brain tumor. This has lead to authorities advocating that awareness of the potentially negative health outcome for children be increased among populations occupationally exposed to pesticides, though I don't imagine most farmworkers have much of a choice.

Conventional produce may be bad for the pregnant women who pick them, but what about our own family when we eat them?

Just because we spray pesticides on our food in the fields doesn't necessarily mean it ends up in our bodies when we eat it, or at least we didn't know that until a study was published in 2006. Researchers measured the levels of two pesticides running through children's bodies by measuring specific pesticide breakdown products in their urine. In my video, Are Organic Foods Safer?, you can see the levels of pesticides flowing through the bodies of three to 11-year olds during a few days on a conventional diet. The kids then went on an organic diet for five days and then back to the conventional diet. As you can see, eating organic provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to pesticides commonly used in agricultural production. The study was subsequently extended. It's clear by looking at the subsequent graph in the video when the kids were eating organic versus conventional. What about adults, though? We didn't know... until now.

Thirteen men and women consumed a diet of at least 80% organic or conventional food for seven days and then switched. No surprise, during the mostly organic week, pesticide exposure was significantly reduced by a nearly 90% drop.

If it can be concluded that consumption of organic foods provides protection against pesticides, does that also mean protection against disease? We don't know. The studies just haven't been done. Nevertheless, in the meantime, the consumption of organic food provides a logical precautionary approach.

For more on organic foods:

For more on the infectious disease implications of organic versus conventional, see Superbugs in Conventional vs. Organic Chicken. Organic produce may be safer too. See Norovirus Food Poisoning from Pesticides. Organic eggs may also have lower Salmonella risk, which is an egg-borne epidemic every year in the US. See my video Who Says Eggs Aren't Healthy or Safe?

More on Parkinson's and pesticides in Preventing Parkinson's Disease With Diet.

Those surprised by the California data might have missed my video California Children Are Contaminated.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Image Credit: IFPRI -IMAGES / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Clostridium difficile in the Food Supply

Clostridium difficile in the Food Supply.jpeg

Clostridium difficile is one of our most urgent bacterial threats, sickening a quarter million Americans every year, and killing thousands at the cost of a billion dollars a year. And it's on the rise.

As shown in C. difficile Superbugs in Meat, uncomplicated cases have been traditionally managed with powerful antibiotics, but recent reports suggest that hypervirulent strains are increasingly resistant to medical management. There's been a rise in the percentage of cases that end up under the knife, which could be a marker of the emergence of these hypervirulent strains. Surgeons may need to remove our colon entirely to save our lives, although the surgery is so risky that the operation alone may kill us half the time.

Historically, most cases appeared in hospitals, but a landmark study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that only about a third of cases could be linked to contact with an infected patient.

Another potential source is our food supply.

In the US, the frequency of contamination of retail chicken with these superbugs has been documented to be up to one in six packages off of store shelves. Pig-derived C. diff, however, have garnered the greatest attention from public health personnel, because the same human strain that's increasingly emerging in the community outside of hospitals is the major strain among pigs.

Since the turn of the century, C. diff is increasingly being reported as a major cause of intestinal infections in piglets. C. diff is now one of the most common causes of intestinal infections in baby piglets in the US. Particular attention has been paid to pigs because of high rates of C. diff shedding into their waste, which can lead to the contamination of retail pork. The U.S. has the highest levels of C. diff meat contamination tested so far anywhere in the world.

Carcass contamination by gut contents at slaughter probably contributes most to the presence of C. diff in meat and meat products. But why is the situation so much worst in the US? Slaughter techniques differ from country-to-country, with those in the United States evidently being more of the "quick and dirty" variety.

Colonization or contamination of pigs by superbugs such as C. difficile and MRSA at the farm production level may be more important than at the slaughterhouse level, though. One of the reasons sows and their piglets may have such high rates of C. diff is because of cross-contamination of feces in the farrowing crate, which are narrow metal cages that mother pigs are kept in while their piglets are nursing.

Can't you just follow food safety guidelines and cook the meat through? Unfortunately, current food safety guidelines are ineffective against C. difficile. To date, most food safety guidelines recommend cooking to an internal temperature as low as 63o C-the official USDA recommendation for pork-but recent studies show that C. diff spores can survive extended heating at 71o. Therefore, the guidelines should be raised to take this potentially killer infection into account.

One of the problems is that sources of C. diff food contamination might include not only fecal contamination on the surface of the meat, but transfer of spores from the gut into the actual muscles of the animal, inside the meat. Clostridia bacteria like C. diff comprise one of the main groups of bacteria involved in natural carcass degradation, and so by colonizing muscle tissue before death, C. diff can not only transmit to new hosts that eat the muscles, like us, but give them a head start on carcass break-down.

Never heard of C. diff? That's the Toxic Megacolon Superbug I've talked about before.

Another foodborne illness tied to pork industry practices is yersiniosis. See Yersinia in Pork.

MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staph aureus) is another so-called superbug in the meat supply:

More on the scourge of antibiotic resistance and what can be done about it:

How is it even legal to sell foods with such pathogens? See Salmonella in Chicken & Turkey: Deadly But Not Illegal and Chicken Salmonella Thanks to Meat Industry Lawsuit.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Image Credit: USDA / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Clostridium difficile in the Food Supply

Clostridium difficile in the Food Supply.jpeg

Clostridium difficile is one of our most urgent bacterial threats, sickening a quarter million Americans every year, and killing thousands at the cost of a billion dollars a year. And it's on the rise.

As shown in C. difficile Superbugs in Meat, uncomplicated cases have been traditionally managed with powerful antibiotics, but recent reports suggest that hypervirulent strains are increasingly resistant to medical management. There's been a rise in the percentage of cases that end up under the knife, which could be a marker of the emergence of these hypervirulent strains. Surgeons may need to remove our colon entirely to save our lives, although the surgery is so risky that the operation alone may kill us half the time.

Historically, most cases appeared in hospitals, but a landmark study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that only about a third of cases could be linked to contact with an infected patient.

Another potential source is our food supply.

In the US, the frequency of contamination of retail chicken with these superbugs has been documented to be up to one in six packages off of store shelves. Pig-derived C. diff, however, have garnered the greatest attention from public health personnel, because the same human strain that's increasingly emerging in the community outside of hospitals is the major strain among pigs.

Since the turn of the century, C. diff is increasingly being reported as a major cause of intestinal infections in piglets. C. diff is now one of the most common causes of intestinal infections in baby piglets in the US. Particular attention has been paid to pigs because of high rates of C. diff shedding into their waste, which can lead to the contamination of retail pork. The U.S. has the highest levels of C. diff meat contamination tested so far anywhere in the world.

Carcass contamination by gut contents at slaughter probably contributes most to the presence of C. diff in meat and meat products. But why is the situation so much worst in the US? Slaughter techniques differ from country-to-country, with those in the United States evidently being more of the "quick and dirty" variety.

Colonization or contamination of pigs by superbugs such as C. difficile and MRSA at the farm production level may be more important than at the slaughterhouse level, though. One of the reasons sows and their piglets may have such high rates of C. diff is because of cross-contamination of feces in the farrowing crate, which are narrow metal cages that mother pigs are kept in while their piglets are nursing.

Can't you just follow food safety guidelines and cook the meat through? Unfortunately, current food safety guidelines are ineffective against C. difficile. To date, most food safety guidelines recommend cooking to an internal temperature as low as 63o C-the official USDA recommendation for pork-but recent studies show that C. diff spores can survive extended heating at 71o. Therefore, the guidelines should be raised to take this potentially killer infection into account.

One of the problems is that sources of C. diff food contamination might include not only fecal contamination on the surface of the meat, but transfer of spores from the gut into the actual muscles of the animal, inside the meat. Clostridia bacteria like C. diff comprise one of the main groups of bacteria involved in natural carcass degradation, and so by colonizing muscle tissue before death, C. diff can not only transmit to new hosts that eat the muscles, like us, but give them a head start on carcass break-down.

Never heard of C. diff? That's the Toxic Megacolon Superbug I've talked about before.

Another foodborne illness tied to pork industry practices is yersiniosis. See Yersinia in Pork.

MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staph aureus) is another so-called superbug in the meat supply:

More on the scourge of antibiotic resistance and what can be done about it:

How is it even legal to sell foods with such pathogens? See Salmonella in Chicken & Turkey: Deadly But Not Illegal and Chicken Salmonella Thanks to Meat Industry Lawsuit.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Image Credit: USDA / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Original Link

Ciguatera Poisoning & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

NF-Sept22 Ciguatera Poisoning & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.jpeg

Ciguatera is one of the most common forms of food poisoning, which occurs after the consumption of fish contaminated with neurotoxins produced by certain microalgae that build up the food chain. Just a few bites can be sufficient to induce the condition. Disturbingly, affected fish looks, smells, and tastes normal, and ciguatoxins are resistant to all forms of cooking. So, there is no straightforward method to predict whether a seafood meal can turn into a ciguatera nightmare.

It literally can cause nightmares; about one in six may experience signs of hallucinatory poisoning: lack of coordination, hallucinations, depression, and nightmares. Most suffer some kind of neurological symptoms such as tingling, numbness, and a burning cold sensation. Sometimes a reversal of temperature sensation occurs, where cold objects feel hot and vice versa. For instance, ciguatera sufferers have reported that a refreshing dive in the ocean actually caused burning pain, or that drinking cool beer felt like too hot coffee.

The toxin may also be apparently sexually transmitted, or as one of my favorite public health bloggers put it, "when hot sex turns cold and painful, blame it on dinner."

As seen in my video Ciguatera Poisoning & Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, the symptoms can persist for months or even years. Ongoing research has shown that people with chronic fatigue syndrome may actually be suffering the long-term effects of this fish food poisoning or a condition called polymyositis, which causes diffuse muscle aches, pains, and inflammation. Some individuals intoxicated by fish consumption 25 years previously experience a recurrence of the main neurological disturbances during periods of overwork, fatigue, or stress. You can still find the toxins stuck in your body decades later.

Recent outbreaks in New York City have drawn attention to the problem. For example, a man ate grouper at a Manhattan restaurant and went from swimming two miles a day to having difficulty walking that lasted for months. But these aren't just rare anecdotes. Ciguatera fish poisoning affects an estimated 15,000 Americans every year, causing hundreds of hospitalizations and even a few deaths. Because the toxins are colorless, odorless, tasteless, and not destroyed by cooking, CDC scientists suggest "education aimed at the prevention of seafood intoxication by avoidance of high-risk fish altogether."

The AMA put out a similar advisory, suggesting that the only way to prevent it is to avoid eating fish like red snapper or grouper, but the problem is that a third of fish sold in the United States is mislabeled, so we don't know what we're getting. Some suggest first feeding a portion of the fish meal to a cat, treating them like a court tester, and if they're okay six hours later, we can dig in -- but this was considered inhumane. But if it's inhumane to feed it to your cat, how is it not inhumane to feed it to other members of the family?

Many more are killed by more conventional food poisoning bugs (Chicken Salmonella Thanks to Meat Industry Lawsuit), but how scary that you can get these toxins stuck in you and ruin your life? Reminds me of my Amnesic Seafood Poisoning video.

Other neurotoxin videos include Preventing Parkinson's Disease With Diet and Essential Tremor and Diet.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations--2013: Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, 2014: From Table to Able: Combating Disabling Diseases with Food, 2015: Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet, and my latest, 2016: How Not To Die: The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers.

Image Credit: Pen Waggener / Flickr

Original Link

Antibiotic-Resistant "Superbugs" in Meat

NF-Mar10 MRSA Superbugs in Meat.jpeg

As a rule, "high-ranking public-health officials try to avoid apocalyptic descriptors. So it's worrying to hear those like the Director of the CDC warn of a coming health 'nightmare' and a 'catastrophic threat.'" A number of prominent publications recently warned of the threat of antibiotic resistance. The CDC estimates that at a minimum, more than two million people are sickened every year with antibiotic-resistant infections in the United States, with at least 23,000 dying as a result (See MRSA Superbugs in Meat).

We may be at the dawn of a post-antibiotic era. Achievements in modern medicine that we today take for granted, such as surgery and the treatment of preterm babies, would not be possible without access to effective treatment for bacterial infections. For example, without antibiotics, the rate of postoperative infection after a procedure like a hip replacement would be 40-50% and about one in three of those patients would die. So the so-called worst case scenarios where resistant infections could cost $50 billion a year might still be an underestimate. "From cradle to grave, antibiotics have become pivotal in safeguarding the overall health of human societies."

So the dire phrasing from head officials may be warranted. There are now infections like carbapenem-resistant enterobacter that are resistant to nearly all antibiotics, even to so-called drugs of last resort. Worryingly, some of these last resort drugs are being used extensively in animal agriculture.

According to the World Health Organization, more antibiotics are fed to farmed animals than are used to treat disease in human patients. Doctors overprescribe antibiotics, but huge amounts of antibiotics are used in fish farming and other intensive animal agriculture, up to four times the amount used in human medicine. Why? "Suboptimum growth to slaughter weight caused by unsanitary conditions can be compensated with the addition of antibiotics to feed." Instead of relieving any stressful overcrowded unhygienic conditions, it may be cheaper to just dose the animals with drugs.

In this way, factory farms are driving the growth of antibiotic-resistant organisms that cause human diseases. "This may help bolster the industry's bottom line, but in the process, bacteria are developing antimicrobial resistance, which affects human health."

In the United States, the FDA reports that 80% of antimicrobial drugs in the United States are used in food animals, mainly to promote growth in this kind of high-density production. This can select for antibiotic-resistant bacteria like methicillin-resistant Staph aureus, or MRSA, considered a serious threat in the United States.

These industrial pig operations may provide optimal conditions for the introduction and transmission of MRSA. U.S. pork producers are currently permitted to use 29 antibiotic drugs in feed--all without a prescription. Antiobitics are currently added to about 90% of pigs starter feeds.

When animals receive unnecessary antibiotics, bacteria can be come resistant to the drugs, then travel on meat to the store, and end up causing hard-to-treat illnesses in people.

MRSA present in retail raw meat may serve as a possible source of bacterial infections of food preparers in the food industry and the hands of consumers in the home. Once MRSA gets into our homes on meat, it can transfer to our cutting boards, knives, and onto our skin at a rate similar to the rate of transmission from touching an infected patient contaminated with MRSA. Washing of hands after touching raw pork is advised.

I know I've already covered this topic before, but it never fails to shock me that the meat industry can get away with something so forcefully and universally condemned by the public health community. What other industrial sector could get away with putting people at such risk? It speaks to the combined might of the livestock industry and the pharmaceutical industry in holding sway over our democratic process, no matter what the human health consequences.

If you've missed my other MRSA videos, check out:

And for more on this critical issue in general:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, From Table to Able, and Food as Medicine.

Image Credit: Jellaluna / Flickr

Original Link

Where Do You Get Your Fiber?

NF-Sep29 Do Vegetarians get enough Protein?.jpg

Vegetarians and vegans are all too familiar with the question: Where do you get your protein?

Well, we can finally put to rest the question of whether vegetarians get enough protein thanks to a large study that compared the nutrient profiles of about 30,000 non-vegetarians to 20,000 vegetarians and about 5,000 vegans, 5,000 flexitarians (vegetarian most of the time), and 5,000 pescetarians (no meat except fish). The average requirement is 42 grams of protein a day. As you can see in the graph in the video, Do Vegetarians Get Enough Protein, meat eaters get way more than they need, and so does everyone else. Vegetarians and vegans average 70% more protein than the recommendation every day.

It's surprising that there's so much fuss about protein in this country when less than 3% of adults don't make the cut, presumably because they're on extreme calorie-restricted diets and aren't eating enough food period. But 97% of Americans get enough protein.

There is a nutrient, though, for which 97% of Americans are deficient. That nutrient is fiber.

Less than 3% of Americans get even the recommended minimum adequate intake of fiber. That's something we really have to work on.

On average, we get only about 15 grams a day. The minimum daily requirement is 31.5, so we get less than half the minimum. Men are particularly deficient. If we break down intake by age and gender, after studying the diets of 12,761 Americans, the percent of men between ages 14 and 50 getting the minimum adequate intake is zero. (The only nutrient Americans may be more deficient in than fiber is potassium. See 98% of American Diets Potassium Deficient.)

This deficit is stunning in that dietary fiber has been protectively associated in population studies with the risk of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and various cancers as well high cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugars. Therefore, it is not surprising that fiber is listed as a nutrient of concern reported by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Protein is not.

One problem is that most people have no idea what's in their food; more than half of Americans think steak is a significant fiber source. By definition, fiber is only found in plants. There is no fiber in meat, dairy or eggs, and little or no fiber in junk food. Therein lies the problem. Americans should be eating more beans, vegetables, fruits, and whole grains--but how are they doing?

96% of Americans don't eat the minimum recommended daily amount of beans, 96% don't eat the measly minimum for greens, and 99% don't get enough whole grains. Nearly the entire U.S. population fails to eat enough whole plant foods.

Even semi-vegetarians make the fiber minimum, though. Those eating completely plant-based diets triple the average American intake. When closing the fiber gap, you'll want to do it gradually though, no more than about five extra grams a day each week until you can work your way up. But it's worth it. "Plant-derived diets tend to contribute significantly less fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and food-borne pathogens, while at the same time offering more fiber, folate, vitamin C, and phytochemicals, all essential factors for disease prevention, optimal health, and well being." And the more whole plant foods the better. If we compare the nutritional quality of vegan versus vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian and omnivorous diets, traditional healthy diet indexing systems consistently indicate that the most plant-based diet is the healthiest one.

For more on how S.A.D. the Standard American Diet is, see Nation's Diet in Crisis.

Americans eating meat-free diets average higher intakes of nearly every nutrient. See my video Nutrient-Dense Approach to Weight Management.

Isn't animal protein higher quality protein though? See my videos:

For more on protein, see: Plant Protein Preferable and Prostate Cancer Survival: The A/V Ratio.

And for a few on fiber:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, From Table to Able, and Food as Medicine.

Image Credit: Nathan Rupert / Flickr

Original Link

What is ‘Meat Glue’?

NF-Apr16 What is

The so-called "meat glue enzyme" transglutaminase is used by the meat industry to add value to meat by gluing together smaller scraps into a larger chunk. And it's not just used to make fake steak--the American Meat Institute estimates that it's used in about "eight million pounds of meat every year in the United States." Transglutaminase can be used to cross-link pieces of any type of meat, fish, or meat product, and hence can be used to produce large chunks of virtually intact looking meat or fish out of small meat or fish cuttings. When researchers actually tested for transglutaminase in 20 samples of meat from the supermarket, they found meat glue in only two of the samples--in a sample of salmon and a sample of turkey (See Is Meat Glue Safe?)

Where does meat glue come from? For decades, the sole commercial source of transglutaminase was from the livers of guinea pigs. Now it can be sourced much cheaper. However, the future of meat glue remains uncertain because of "communication difficulties."

One of the reasons the industry uses meat glue enzymes is because, "restructured meat can be made from underutilized portions of the carcasses." For example, you can get away with adding up to 5% tendons to beef, and some people can't tell the difference.

This has raised food safety concerns. There is a "risk that otherwise discarded leftovers of questionable microbial quality could find their way into the reconstituted meat."

One can actually take a microscope and see introduced E. coli O157:H7 along the glue lines where meat pieces were enzymatically attached, which shows that the restructuring process can translocate fecal matter surface contamination into the interior of the meat.

Furthermore, people who have problems with gluten may develop problems when ingesting meat treated with the meat glue enzyme, since it functions as an auto-antigen capable of inducing an autoimmune reaction. (Many gluten reactions may not actually be to gluten, though. See my video Is Gluten Sensitivity Real? and most need not worry about gluten sensitivity. See my video Is Gluten Bad For You?).

Some meat additives, however, may actually improve food safety. See Meat Additives to Diminish Toxicity, Viral Meat Spray and Maggot Meat Spray.

More on E. coli O157:H7 in my video, Meat May Exceed Daily Allowance of Irony. For those interested in the politics of this "Jack-in-the-Box" strain, see my blogs E. coli O145 Ban Opposed by Meat Industry and Supreme Court case: meat industry sues to keep downed animals in food supply. From a population perspective, the E. coli in chicken is more of a concern. See my video Avoiding Chicken To Avoid Bladder Infections.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Wheeler Cowperthwaite / Flickr

Original Link

Peeks Behind the Egg Industry Curtain

NF-Mar19 Who Says Eggs Aren't Healthy or Safe?.jpg

The American Egg Board is a promotional marketing board appointed by the U.S. government whose mission is to "increase demand for egg and egg products on behalf of U.S. egg producers." If an individual egg company wants to run an ad campaign, they can say pretty much whatever they want. But if an egg corporation wants to dip into the 10 million dollars the American Egg Board sets aside for advertising every year, because the board is overseen by the federal government, corporations are not allowed to lie with those funds. This leads to quite revealing exchanges between egg corporations that want to use that money and the USDA on what egg companies can and cannot say about eggs.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act I was able to get my hands on some of those emails. Of course a lot of what I got were pages with nearly all of the text blacked out (you can see these in my video, Who Says Eggs Aren't Healthy or Safe?). But I did find some illuminating correspondence. For example, one email shows an egg company trying to put out a brochure on healthy snacking for kids. But because of existing laws against false and misleading advertising, the head of the USDA's poultry research and promotion programs reminds the company that eggs or egg products cannot be couched as being healthy or nutritious. "The words nutritious and healthy carry certain connotations, and because eggs have the amount of cholesterol they do, plus the fact that they're not low in fat, [the words healthy and nutritious] are problematic." This is the United States Department of Agriculture saying this!

However, the USDA official helpfully suggests, "I believe you can say something that's just as strong if not stronger, that is 'naturally nutrient-dense.'" Why can we say eggs are nutrient-dense but not nutritious? Because there's no legal definition of nutrient-dense. We can say Twinkies and Coca Cola are nutrient dense, but legally, we can't say something is nutritious unless it's actually... nutritious.

For example, the egg industry wanted to run an ad calling eggs a nutritional powerhouse that aids in weight loss. The USDA had to remind the industry that they can't portray eggs as a diet food because of the fat and cholesterol content. In fact, eggs have nearly twice the calories of anything that can be called "low-calorie."

"Nutritional powerhouse" can't be used either. Fine, the industry said, they'll move to plan B, and headline the ad "Egg-ceptional Nutrition." They couldn't say that either because, again, given the saturated fat and cholesterol you can't legally call eggs nutritious. So the headline ended up as, "Find true satisfaction," and instead of weight loss they had to go with "can reduce hunger." The USDA congratulated them on their cleverness. Yes, a food that when eaten can reduce hunger--what a concept!

They can't even say eggs are "relatively" low in calories. Can't say eggs are low in saturated fat--they're not. Can't say they're relatively low in fat, they're not. Can't even call them a rich source of protein, because, according to the USDA, they're not.

It's illegal to advertise that eggs pack a nutritional wallop, or that they have a high nutritional content. Eggs have so much cholesterol, we can't even say they "contribute nutritionally." Can't say eggs are "healthful," certainly can't say they're "healthy." Can't even say eggs contribute "healthful components."

Since we can't say eggs are a healthy start to the day, the USDA suggests a "satisfying start." Egg corporations can't call eggs a healthy ingredient, but they can call eggs a "recognizable" ingredient. Can't truthfully say eggs are good for us, either. By law, according to the USDA, the egg industry "needs to steer clear of words like 'healthy' or 'nutritious.'"

For a food to be labeled "healthy" under FDA rules, it has to be low in saturated fat (eggs fail that criteria) and have less than 90mg of cholesterol per serving (even half an egg fails that test). For the same reason we can't tout ice cream for strong bones, we can't say eggs are healthy because they exceed the threshold for cholesterol.

Egg corporations aren't even allowed to say things like "Eggs are an important part of a well balanced, healthy diet" on an egg carton because it would be considered misleading according to the USDA's National Egg Supervisor, since eggs contain significant amounts of fat and cholesterol and therefore can contribute to the leading killer in the United States, heart disease.

The industry can't afford to tell the truth about the eggs, or even the hens that lay them. The industry crams five to ten birds in cages the size of a file cabinet their whole lives, but when providing footage to the media, the American Egg Board instructs, "do not show multiple birds in cages--they look too crowded and open us up to activist criticism."

Not only is the industry barred from saying eggs are healthy, they can't even refer to eggs as safe because more than a hundred thousand Americans are food poisoned by Salmonella from eggs every year.

The egg board's response to this egg-borne epidemic is that Salmonella is a naturally occurring bacterium. An internal egg industry memo didn't think that should necessarily be the key message, fearing that "it may be counterproductive by implying there is no avoiding Salmonella in eggs aside from avoiding eggs altogether."

The food poisoning risk is why the American Egg Board can't even mention anything but eggs cooked hard and dry. No soft-boiled, no over-easy, no sunny-side up--because of the Salmonella risk. The American Egg Board's own research showed that the sunny-side up cooking method should be considered "unsafe."

In light of bird flu viruses, both the white and yolk must be cooked firm. The VP of marketing for the Egg Board complained to the USDA saying they'd "really like to not have to dictate that the yolks are firm," and cites a Washington Post article saying runny yolks may be safe for everyone except pregnant women, infants, elderly, or those with chronic disease. It turns out it was a misquote--eggs can't be considered safe for anyone.

Instead of safe, they can call eggs "fresh," the USDA marketing service helpfully suggests. But they can't call eggs safe, and they can't say eggs are "safe to eat." They can't even mention safety at all.

Wait a second, not only can eggs not be called healthy they can't even be called safe? Says who? Says the United States Department of Agriculture.

For more peeks behind the egg industry curtain see:

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture / Flickr

Original Link

Meat Industry Wins Right to Sell Tainted Meat

NF-Mar10 Meat Industry Successfully sued to sell tainted meat.jpg

In my last post, I talked about a particularly virulent strand of Salmonella traced to Foster Farms. But while even Mexico banned the importation of Foster Farms' chicken on public health grounds, it was still sold in the United States. Why wasn't there a recall? How could Foster Farms continue to legally sell chicken contaminated with this virulent strain of Salmonella? It all goes back to Supreme Beef v. USDA, a court case in which the meat industry sued the USDA after they had the audacity to try to shut down a slaughter plant that was repeatedly found violating Salmonella standards. The meat industry won. The Federal Appeals Court ruled that it wasn't illegal to sell contaminated meat; what was illegal was the USDA trying to protect the public by shutting down the plant. Because normal cooking practices destroy Salmonella, the presence of Salmonella in meat does not render the meat "injurious to health." Salmonella-infected meat is thus legal to sell to the consumer.

We can get infected no matter how well the meat is cooked though. According to researchers, even though consumers "may eliminate Salmonella on ready-to-cook chicken by proper cooking, they could still be exposed to and acquire a Salmonella infection from cross-contamination of other foods with Salmonella from raw chicken during meal preparation." If we measure the transfer rate from naturally contaminated poultry legs purchased in supermarkets to cutting boards in the kitchen, overall, 80% of the leg skins in contact with the cutting board for ten minutes transferred Campylobacter (another dangerous bacteria found in chicken feces) infection to the cutting board. And then if we put cooked chicken back on that same cutting board, there's about a 30% chance it too will become contaminated.

Even though people know that washing hands can decrease the risk of food poisoning, only about 2/3 say they actually do it. Even though most people know about cross contamination, 1/3 don't even say they wash their cutting boards. Though awareness appears to be growing, even when people wash the cutting boards with hot soapy water we can still find Salmonella and Campylobacter (see Avoiding Chicken to Avoid Bladder Infections). The reason most people have more bacteria from feces in their kitchen than their bathroom is because people rinse their chickens in the sink, not the toilet .

Foster Farms swore they'd try to reduce the number of chickens they were producing with this virulent strain of Salmonella from 1 in 4 to just 1 in 20. Why not a zero tolerance policy in countries such as Sweden? Because then, as the head of food safety for Costco noted, "you wouldn't have a poultry industry."

Other countries have been able to raise chickens without Salmonella. One industry-funded scientist complained that if the entire onus to produce safe products is placed on industry, "it then gives the consumer no personal responsibility to handle their product correctly." That's like a car company saying we can't make safe cars because then no one will wear a seat belt.

I've touched on this topic before in my videos Salmonella in Chicken and Turkey Deadly but Not Illegal, Zero Tolerance to Acceptable Risk, and Unsafe at Any Feed.

More on the issue of cross-contamination in:

Note when it comes to egg-borne infection the issue is not just cross-contamination, given Salmonella can survive the most common egg cooking methods. Check out my video Total Recall.

Though some meat additives may make meat safer (Viral Meat Spray and Maggot Meat Spray), others may increase the food safety risk. See my video Phosphate Additives in Chicken.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my free videoshere and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: Danny Huizinga / Flickr

Original Link