Recently ISAAA, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, estimated that collectively, an area the size of Peru is globally farming GM, genetically modified, crops for a variety of benefits such as higher yields, hardier plants, which lead to a longer growing season, which leads back to higher yields, more efficient soil turnover, improved irrigation and improved pestilence resistant treatments and varieties.   But what are the negative affects of such practices? From a financial perspective, Europe is less charmed, fearing erosion of the livelihood of small farmers who can't compete in this new costly, large scale, farming order. Biologically, the effects of genetic splicing and dicing have yet to be dissected, or studied at length, but one thing is clear,  a rose, by any other name, may not necessarily smell as sweet as a rose, more like a rose hybrid, something Shakespeare never considered. Those who suffer from food allergies now have a whole host of other concerns, what is the 'safe' ingredient now laced with? Is the field that produced one crop, after that harvest, then used to harvest another, for example peanuts, and what trace amounts of allergen are found in the soil that can lead to reaction? or when planted in proximity to other crops for 'agricultural biodiversity'?  All unpopular questions given that Monsanto, The Gates Foundation, and other agricultural organizations see GM as a panacea to world hunger and poverty, using the bounty reaped to feed populations and prosperity via exports.   However, to ignore such issues and the impact of these advancements on crops is to operate in a vacuum.

Many of our subscribers are allergic to yeast. Rising gluten intolerance, the veritable 'kitchen sink' of grain based crops, and a staple of most baked and prepared goods, has led manufacturers to respond with gluten-free product lines.

The catastrophic phenomenon of the collapse of bee colonies, is a curious development.  Has our toying with crops resulted in confusion, disorientation, rejection and illness for bees?   This correlation and consequence seems plausible, as the experts have studied many other theories and are still at loss. Decreased pollination is already wreaking havoc with harvest yields and prices, and it is estimated to continue exponentially until a cause, and cure, are determined. I am not a botanist, but here's my two cents until evidence suggests otherwise: you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mother Nature.

Commercials invading the NY airwaves this week claim to seek support for taxing sugary sodas as a means to make a dent in obesity and weight based illnesses; a sound approach until you look more closely at the vagueness of the proposal.     While soda products do not possess any nutritional value,  healthy juice products can  also have high carbohydrate and sugar content.  Further, the  alternative diet products contain skyrocketing sodium content,  can lead to high blood pressure and circulatory diseases, so where will legislature draw the line? PKU sufferers cannot ingest aspartame, and will likely have to apply for exemption under this proposal to escape such tax.  And will that tax extend to school cafeterias and vending machines? Small businesses, like restaurants and mom & pop owned convenience stores, will particularly feel this pinch.

For all the revenue estimated with proposals like this, comes the waste on payroll for staff  'required' to monitor it, and grant exceptions.   Instead, I propose a modern era Prohibition on purchasing soda with food stamps, heck, let's not stop there, how about prohibiting the purchase of all crap with food stamps?  NY State has over 10% of its population eligible/receiving food stamps.   According to several studies by the US Dept of Agriculture, Ohio State University, food stamp recipients, particularly women, were heavier, with higher BMI and increased risk of obesity than their non-eligible counterparts.    Interestingly, the overweight female food stamp recipients did not see themselves as having  a weight problem, which compounded their poor health, as they were unlikely to  discontinue poor dietary choices.   To drive the point home, the Bronx leads the nation with 29% of its population receiving food stamps; no surprise it weighs in with the highest rates of  Obesity and Diabetes.   Prohibition will also save in the long term by decreasing the added expense of caring for these individuals in their later diabetic, diseased-plagued years.   And here's the rub, since this is all state taxpayer supported, even if the non-eligible make responsible consumption choices, taxpayers will still get stuck paying the tax tab for the food stamp recipients, since they aren't paying their grocery bill to begin with! 

The well-meaning soda health-tax is really a way to take more money from food stamp ineligible residents [read: middle class pockets].  Interestingly, there is no initiative to increase the taxes on alcohol.  Perhaps that is because, while alcohol certainly takes its toll, that limits the revenue pool to only those over 21.   Since even a 3 year old can order a soda, millions of children will no longer be excluded from officially joining the ranks of taxpayers. 

Yesterday, while in my local supermarket, I passed the bricks of Armour Lard relegated to the marked-down mini fridge where just last weekend sat the Christmas cookie dough.   Studying the label, I came to learn that true lard is only from pigs; all my efforts to store meat dripppings, because I know of no environmentally harmless means of disposal,  has been wasted on .......pseudo-lard?  That prompted some research and I found that lard is undergoing something of a renaissance; famous restaurants and cooks favor it for flaky crusts and sauteing, forgoing oils that once replaced it, that are reportedly not so healthy after all.  And yet, while fat is gruesome, it is self defining, and dare I say, genuine; unlike so many other substances in our foods I don't need a PhD to decipher the chemical compounds and additives.   Liquid or solid form,  it looks pretty much how it would look attached to our hips.  But what does transfatty acid look like?  Like most consumers I've never seen it in its natural/unnatural form.    The FDA tells us it's bad for us.   A couple decades ago, we were told that sugar was bad too, and artificial sweetners and corn sweeteners proliferated the marketplace and wound up in manufactured products.    No surprise that many of our subscribers are allergic to corn and corn derivative products when 20 years ago such reaction and intolerance were rare.

Consider this:  Outside the executive suite, today's most highly paid  positions among food manufacturers are chemists/chemical engineers.   Aunt Jemima may have worn an apron in her kitchen but today's staff is more likely to be donning a white coat in a laboratory.       A little Splenda in my coffee may be harmless, however, the prospect of baking with cups of it and serving it to my children bears more scrutiny.   According to pharmainfo.net, the average drug product undergoes an average of  6 years of consumer safety testing before its release to the public, yet no similar scrutiny is required for artificial food substances which could affect a much larger percentage of the population.  Why is that, when both are created in a lab?   The few articles available on the web are dedicated to how the heating process can render artificial sweeteners, un-sweet, requiring even larger amounts than what the package states is equivalent.  While I'm aware of the tests performed on the packet quantities, including great grand daddy of them all, sweet n low, I have not been able to find any studies on recent brands used in mass quantities, since artificial sweeteners for baking purposes is relatively new.   I am always seeking ways to improve my diet and that of my family,  but I'll wait this one out until I see some studies  several years from now that measure incidence of cancer, hypoglycemia, or other ailments from well-meaning substitutes.  It seems I'm in good company; manufacturers, most recently Pepsi,  are touting their products with "100 % natural sugar".   Everything old really IS new again!

I have been fairly critical of recent studies regarding rising Autism rates and today another explanation rankled me.  In haste to find a more credible reason now that vaccines were debunked, the medical community is looking toward toxins and chemicals in the environment, which sounded plausible until I read what the basis was:

According to a recent study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, "Researchers measured the levels of suspect chemicals called phthalates in the urine of pregnant women. Among women with higher levels of certain phthalates (those commonly found in fragrances, shampoos, cosmetics and nail polishes), their children years later were more likely to display disruptive behavior."  I must have missed some major news where  'disruptive behavior' became an accepted definition of Autism.  It is equally as likely that these women, still manicuring and coiffing themselves post-pregnancy, completely ignored their children!  and baring osmosis, I fail to see how phthalates wind up in one's urine when used externally.

Being involved in special education I see some interesting trends.   Incidence of diagnosis runs in families but I often wonder if the evaluator would still render a diagnosis of autism if  conducted without knowledge of another family member's diagnosis. Still, assuming  prevalence in families, are there traits common among those diagnosed, or their parents?   Is it possible that during pregnancy the mother/fetus is lacking certain nutrients?  This would account for multiple incidence in families since there is little evidence to assert  a genetic link.

Dr. Ellen Grant studied this correlation, British Medical Journal, Oct 14, 2004: "Mineral and vitamin and essential fatty acid deficiencies are real causes of impaired brain function, especially zinc and copper imbalance.    The damaging effect of dental amalgam fillings in early pregnancy is potentially a real cause of severe irreversible brain damage to children. This dental practise is now being discontinued hopefully.  The commonest toxic metal in autistic children causing DNA-adducts in a screening study of 61 autistic children was cadmium, presumably from parental smoking."  

In an earlier related study, reported in the same publication, August 29, 2004, Dr. Grant poses the following questions: '"What happened to cause such large increases in childhood illnesses? Similar increases seem to have occurred in dyslexia, hyperactivity and autism. Why has the sex ratio of childhood allergies changed from being twice as common in boys to equal prevalence in girls?"

Conclusion: "A single cohesive explanation may be the increasing use by younger women of hormonal contraceptives, and also smoking and alcohol before conception. Hormone use lowers zinc and magnesium levels and causes copper imbalances. It is important to correct these abnormalities before conception to prevent unexplained infertility or recurrent miscarriages, or health problems in future children.2,3 Low maternal zinc levels during early pregnancy can impair homeostatic mechanism and stress-coping mechanisms throughout future growth and development in animals. It is likely that the increases in allergic illnesses in children could be stemmed if hormonal contraception, smoking and alcohol use were avoided by young women before conception. Monitored nutritional supplementation for parents before conception, mothers during pregnancy and children when growing is very useful."

Dr. Grant makes a compelling argument that increased usage of oral contraceptives is concurrent with with increased allergy and autism incidence.   More troubling however, is that on this side of the Atlantic, there is an absence of studies on the affects of contraceptives on the fetus.    Perhaps it would put a damper on our sexual freedom to suggest that birth control usage can unleash harmful affects on your yet-to-be-conceived child even before you meet Mr. Maybe.  So, your mother was right; don't smoke, don't drink, [cussing is OK] and the best protection is abstinence.

I read label content regularly and wanted to share a most interesting statistic; it seems the majority of cereals have between 100-150 calories per serving.   What coincidence.  Yet, read further and you'll note that a serving for some cereals is 6 ounces, and did I mention that was without milk?   Based on the current manufacturer's recommended serving sizes, I may never need a bowl again; just a few tablespoons to set me on my day and think of all the water and detergent saved on running my dishwasher!  Likewise, a single [serving] Pop-Tart can't possibly keep a student's appetite at bay until lunch and I will only briefly mention  the annoying commercial with cartoon Moms in their size 2 clothes high-fiving their cartoon sons as if they had just made a great frosting-based food choice.   Hoping my readers can enlighten me:  Is "The Frosting Group" at the top of the Food Pyramid or the bottom?  So, while  it is a welcome change that the FDA recently announced it will prod manufacturers to place realistic serving sizes on their packages, and adjust the nutritional values accordingly, that does not excuse us from exercising common sense.

I have been doubling the daily values on all my packaged products for years, since that is what actually fills up my cereal bowl but still leaves room for the milk,  or 4 cookies instead of the serving size of 2 that the manufacturer cops to, along with a large glass of skim milk for dunking,   a realistic sized afternoon snack.   I have taught my children to do likewise, and they caught on early, however that doesn't mean they always make healthy choices, they are just aware by how much they've exceeded the displayed number, which they, and we,  know is  "bogus".    And that's the point, reminding ourselves and teaching our kids, the truth in this numbers game, regardless of manufacturers' illusion.