The Penalty For Eating Healthy

There is a downside to eating healthy. It is more expensive. There are a lot of reasons for the cost differential between organic and non-organic fruits and vegetables and more so from organic to processed/packaged foods. They range from the need for crop rotation, more labor, natural fertilizers, and organic certification costs.

 

Perhaps the most frustrating reason, though, is that the government subsidizes unhealthy, chemical-laden foods while it penalizes organic foods. It all comes down to the approval and certification processes that are currently in place. When a chemical company or food manufacturer wants to bring a new chemical or food additive to market, the process is grossly in favor of the petitioning company. The majority of food additives in our food, which reduce nutritional value and lower the costs of making such food, are added to the food supply through a self-approval process known as GRAS, which stands for generally recognized as safe.

 

Herein lies the problem. A company can use public or private research to determine the safety of a chemical and whether or not it qualifies as GRAS. If it does pass, the FDA doesn't even have to be notified. It's a voluntary program. So basically the company who will profit from the sale of the chemical or food item is the one who stamps it as safe and they don't even have to report it. As you can see, it is very cheap and easy to bring new additives to market. Unfortunately, this has led to the rise in use of artificial sweeteners, flavors, and dyes as well as untested preservatives and other chemicals.

 

On the other hand, in order for a farm or food manufacturer to use the government's USDA Organic label, it must pass inspection. The onus and cost is on the organic farmer to prove that his/her product is legitimately organic, which makes sense. My issue with the whole process is the dichotomy. Why are food additives and their chemistry labs not held to the same standard? Why are they allowed to approve their own chemicals? It's absurd. And we are all at risk because of it.

 

Some may think petitioning the government for change is the best course of action. Pushing legislation is a possibility, however, the process is the way it is because of the powerful food industry and their influence on the government. The only power we have in our hands is how we choose to spend our money.  


 

The best option we have to rectify this situation is to eat healthier, which will give organic farms the ability to leverage their fixed costs and expand their operations. This will lower overall costs and reduce retail prices. If we purchase less refined and processed foods, the opposite will happen. Profitability will decline for these products. For most companies, this is the only message they will understand. The power is in our hands to force change. We just need to utilize it.

 

How To Boost Your Metabolism

This is a slight deviation from my typical post, but I wanted to share some key things you can do to boost your metabolism if you want to lose weight.


Eat more lean protein. Shoot for 1g per pound of body weight.

Stay hydrated. Drink 1oz per pound of body weight. Ice water is an added kicker.

Eat small, frequent meals. Target 5-7 per day, preferably all with some protein. I also recommend eating breakfast within an hour of waking up and with a good amount of protein.

Eat whole foods while avoiding refined/processed products to avoid chemicals, and the typical unhealthy trio of sugar, fat, and salt that often come with process foods.  

In terms of exercise, high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for cardio is much better for metabolism than long, slow and low-intensity training. Weight lifting will have a huge impact as well. A good workout can boost your metabolism for up to 48 hours.

Get proper rest. You won't eat healthy or exercise if you're tired.

 

Eat healthy fats and consider spicy foods, if you like. Cinnamon is also known to boost metabolism.


Good luck!

Natural vs. Added Sugar

I've read a lot about nutrition over the years and have tried a variety of diets, including Atkins and other low-carb varieties. I'm not going to asses any particular weight loss strategy, but what I want to do is highlight a popular misconception that low carb dieters have, one that is often also shared by the  typical healthy eater: avoid fruit. They do this because of the sugar content. Unfortunately, health and consumer advocates have pounded home the anti-sugar message while failing to distinguish between good (natural) sugar and bad (added). The same thing has happened with the anti-fat message. Their are a variety of essential, healthy fats that our bodies need that the no-fat and low-fat food craze come up short on.

Back to sugar. Avoiding all sugar, particularly from fruit, is a poor health choice. There appears to be a distinct difference in how the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit versus added sugar in a processed food or drink, like a candy bar, cereal, or soda. Fruit does not spike blood sugar like added sugar does while it contains more vitamins per calorie than any other food. Most fruit also has a high water content, which is good for hydration, and is high in fiber, which is important for good digestive health and makes you feel fuller, so you eat less than you would with the same amount of sugar from processed foods.

I recommend eating at least five pieces of fruit per day, ranging in colors to benefit from the diverse vitamin and antioxidant content of different fruits.

Satire and the FDA

I love The Onion. If you're not familiar with the newspaper/website, they make up ridiculous news stories. They are usually hysterical. This one was right up my alley. It's funny, but also not that far off from the ridiculousness of what goes on in the food industry.




http://www.theonion.com/articles/fda-recommends-at-least-3-servings-of-foods-with-w,36699/

Convenience Vs. Health

I was just at the grocery store picking up a few items, thinking about what to write about next when the woman in the checkout aisle next to mine spoon fed me this topic, so to speak. As she was unpacking her cart (loaded with processed foods), she pre-emptively states to everyone within earshot, "Don't judge me," as she unloads four boxes of frozen pizza. She proceeds to tell the woman behind her how busy she is with kids and how the pizza is a quick, cheap meal. I get it. I have two active kids myself and eating healthy is expensive.




This encounter highlighted to me how real the tradeoff is between cost/convenience and eating healthy. It's made every day in every grocery store. However, the cost/convenience choice is flawed and shortsighted- it's the choice of least resistance, but it's a poor one at best. The problem does not lie with an occasional convenience meal or a dinner out, but when these choices become the norm.


Eating healthier, organic foods is more costly, at least while checking out at the grocery store. But what about the long-term health benefits they provide? How do you put a price on that? People invest for college and retirement. Why don't people invest for longevity and wellness? People buy life insurance. Why not consider organic food expenditures as insurance against illness and debilitating conditions that could hinder your lifestyle later in life? Conversely, I would ask, is childhood obesity convenient? Is diabetes cheap?




I would also argue that eating organic fruits, vegetables, and lean protein would help with energy levels. Refined and processed foods are not only loaded with dangerous chemicals, they also carry little nutrition. I assure you that athletes, who need more energy than anyone (except maybe parents), don't eat food stuffed with saturated fats, sugar/sweeteners, and sodium with few vitamins and minerals.




If you want more energy now and a healthier, more active lifestyle later in life, there is only one choice. A few extra bucks saved at the grocery store or the time saved by microwaving a frozen pizza as opposed to cooking a whole food meal is not worth the tradeoff.    

I Told You Food Was Dangerous!

http://m.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/kelly-lawyer/man-arrested-assault-deadly-mashed-potatoes?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=B-Arrest-Potatoes

An interesting shopping list to help decipher the healthiest food options.

http://whole30.com/downloads/whole30-shopping-list.pdf

Faux Food Part 3

If you read the first two parts of Faux Food, you know that my intent was to help others understand why our food is filled with so many dangerous chemicals, including pesticides, artificial sweeteners and flavors, preservatives, and food coloring/dyes. The previous posts discussed the Toxic Substances and Control Act of 1976 and the Food Additives Amendment of 1958. Together, these laws are the foundation on which the chemical and food additive approval process are built on. And this foundation is no better than building a house on quicksand. It basically allows chemical companies to approve their own products. The EPA and FDA are seemingly window dressing.

 

This is the final part of the series and my intent is to discuss the reason why the system exists as it does. It is because we allow it. It's as simple as that. We continue to buy these products with reckless abandon- fat-free cookies, diet soda, frozen pizza, fast food whatever. It's all garbage filled with dangerous chemicals yet we keep shoving it down our throats and lining the food and chemical companies' pockets. If they keep making money from refined/processed foods by pumping them with cheap ingredients, they are going to keep producing them. It's simple self interest and economics. They are going to do what makes them money. We need to take the profit out of these chemical experiments masquerading as food by making healthier food choices.

 

We have also let the government and politicians run amuck. Some of us have put too much trust in the government and politicians to protect us while others are so disgusted with the process that they don't bother paying attention anymore. Neither strategy works. We've left our politicians unchecked and they've traded their power for money from the food lobby. They don't work for us anymore. American citizens have let that happen. We need to demand changes to the processes that are not protecting us from poison in our food supply. We need to pay attention to what are politicians are voting for and against, and vote for or against them based on how well they are representing our needs, not those of the food manufacturers. We are being poisoned and the average American is allowing it to happen. It's up to each and every one of us to take action to end this corrupt system.

 

 

BIO: I am a researcher and the author of They Put That In My Food? (theyputthatinmyfood.com). My aim is to increase awareness surrounding the dangerous chemicals and additives in our food supply in order to help others eat a healthier and cleaner diet.

Faux Food Part 2

If you read the first part of my article, Faux Food Part 1, you know that the intent of this series of articles is to attempt to answer the question, "why are there so many dangerous chemicals in our food?". I started with a discussion on the shortcomings of the Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, which grandfathered in over 60,000 known chemicals as approved with no actual approval process other than the fact that they were already in products we were consuming. The law also put the onus on the government and EPA to prove a new chemical coming to market was dangerous, and they have 90 days to do it. The focus will now shift to another outdated law, which is just as preposterous as the TSCA.

 

The Food Additives Amendment of 1958 provide the framework for how a chemical company brings a new ingredient to the food supply and it has the loop hole of loop holes, called GRAS or generally recognized as safe. But let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

 

There are two main paths to get a food additive into a processed food: premarket approval and GRAS. Let's start with premarket approval by the FDA. This is required if the additive is not considered GRAS. A company must submit an application, and here's the kicker, it comes complete with all of the company's research conducted on the supposed safety of the ingredient and why it should be allowed in the food supply. The FDA then reviews that information and typically signs off on the approval. How much weight would you put on your child's report card if he or she was allowed to grade his or her own papers and tests? This doesn't make any sense. And unfortunately, this is by far the more stringent path a company can take to get its chemical approved for use in our food.

 

The second path, GRAS, is even worse. GRAS means that a substance added to food is considered safe by experts, and so is exempted from the usual FDA food additive application process discussed above. Guess who determines if an additive is GRAS? That's right, the company who is selling the ingredient. As mindblowingly-disturbing as that is, it's only part of the story. The chemical company doesn't even have to report the newly-dubbed GRAS ingredient to the FDA- there is only a voluntary notification program. Say what? You read it correctly. The FDA doesn't know what these companies are self approving and putting into the food supply. The FDA has virtually no authority over any part of this process.

 

Even more nonsensical is once a company determines a food ingredient is safe, it "may market the substance, even if the FDA finds that the notice does not provide a sufficient basis for a GRAS", according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which has been advocating for a significant overhaul of this process for many years.

 

So let's summarize what we've learned so far. If a chemical company chooses to go the first route, premarket approval, it provides its own research as to the safety of the product. The FDA then reads this likely-biased research and approves the additive. If a company goes the second route, they stamp their own approval on their new additive, don't have to tell the FDA, and even if the FDA becomes aware of the ingredient and determines it is not safe, the company does not have to stop selling it. Are you comfortable with that? I assure you that I am not. This process needs to be scrapped and quickly. It is unbelievable to me that this process has been in place for literally decades.

Please stay tuned for the final part of this series- Part 3.   

 

BIO: I am a researcher and the author of They Put That In My Food? (theyputthatinmyfood.com). My aim is to increase awareness surrounding the dangerous chemicals and additives in our food supply in order to help others eat a healthier and cleaner diet.

Faux Food Part 1

Faux Food: Why Is There Poison In Our Food Supply? Part One
By Cliff Walsh

As consumer groups and the public at large continue to wake up to the vast amount of dangerous chemicals in our daily lives (pesticides, GMOs, artificial sweeteners, preservatives, etc.), I keep asking myself why has this happened? I will attempt to answer this question in a multi-part article that will point the finger at a number of guilty parties and how they're responsible for the many toxic chemicals in our food supply and consumer products. I will also provide some information about what we can do to make changes to the flawed system that creates, approves, and oversees the usage of chemicals in our country.

The first point of blame is the foundation of our approval system, which is the U.S. Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. This law was passed by congress to regulate new and existing chemicals. The law falls short in many ways and boggles my mind as to why it has not been improved over the past 38 years. First, the law grandfathered in over 60,000 chemicals already in existence without assessing the risk or long-term concerns of any of these. They were simply approved because they were already in use. That does not appear to be a very effective way to protect against "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" as the law was meant to do. It's actually downright ludicrous, which doesn't surprise me since it came from Washington D.C.

The law was also designed to regulate the use of new chemicals coming to market. The EPA is responsible for this task. A chemical company will submit an application for a new chemical to be approved. Zero safety information needs to be provided. The EPA has to use its own modeling capabilities to project potential risks. If it cannot determine unreasonable risk to humans or to the environment within 90 days, the chemical is approved for use. No trials. No testing. No long-term studies. Innocent until proven guilty may work great in the courts, but it doesn't make any sense when our lives are at risk.

So the chemical industry's strategy has become to overwhelm the government. Thousands of new chemical formulations are submitted each year, the majority of which sail through the approval process, most likely because the EPA lacks the proper tools and does not have an adequate time frame to prove that these new chemicals are harmful. Compare this to the FDA's drug approval process, which takes years and tens of millions of dollars (if not hundreds of millions) to get a drug approved. The onus should be on the companies bringing these chemicals to market, not on the government/tax payer, and certainly shouldn't be putting the general public at risk so the chemical industry can gamble with our health to make a few bucks or billions.

The very foundation of our system is broken. The TSCA needs to be scrapped and replaced with something that puts public safety above the chemical industry's bottom line. I'm all for innovation, but the current system is downright reckless. Please stay tuned for part 2 coming up soon.  


BIO: I am a researcher and the author of They Put That In My Food? (theyputthatinmyfood.com). My aim is to increase awareness surrounding the dangerous chemicals and additives in our food supply in order to help others eat a healthier and cleaner diet.