Blog

Beyond Frankenfoods and Toxics: OCA’s Ten Reasons to Buy Organic

  • By Ronnie Cummins
    Organic Consumers Association, August 17, 201

Read the original article here

Oganic foods and products are the fastest growing items in America’s grocery carts. Thirty million households, comprising 75 million people, are now buying organic foods, clothing, body care, supplements, pet food, and other products on a regular basis. Fifty-six percent of U.S. consumers say they prefer organic foods.

Here are 10 reasons why you should buy organic foods and products:

1. Organic foods are produced without the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Consumers worry about untested and unlabeled genetically modified food ingredients in common supermarket items. Genetically engineered ingredients are now found in 75% of all non-organic U.S. processed foods, even in many products labeled or advertised as “natural.” In addition, the overwhelming majority of non-organic meat, dairy, and eggs are derived from animals reared on a steady diet of GM animal feed. Although polls indicate that 90% of Americans want labels on gene-altered foods, government and industry adamantly refuse to respect consumers’ right to know, understanding quite well that health and environmental-minded shoppers will avoid foods with a GMO label.

2. Organic foods are safe and pure. Organic farming prohibits the use of toxic pesticides, antibiotics, growth hormones, nano-particles, and climate-destabilizing chemical fertilizers. Consumers worry about pesticide and drug residues routinely found in non-organic produce, processed foods, and animal products. Consumer Reports has found that 77% of non-organic produce items in the average supermarket contain pesticide residues. The beef industry has acknowledged that 94% of all U.S. beef cattle have hormone implants, which are banned in Europe as a cancer hazard. Approximately 10% of all U.S. dairy cows are injected with Monsanto and Elanco’s controversial genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone, banned in most industrialized nations. Recent studies indicate that an alarming percentage of non-organic U.S. meat contains dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

3. Organic foods and farming are climate-friendly. Citizens are increasingly concerned about climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas pollution (CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide), 35-50% of which in North America comes from our energy-intensive, chemical-intensive food and farming system. Organic farms and ranches, on the other hand, use far less fossil fuel and can safely sequester large amounts of CO2 in the soil (up to 7,000 pounds of CO2 per acre per year, every year.) Twenty-four billion pounds of chemical fertilizers applied on non-organic farms in the U.S. every year not only pollute our drinking water and create enormous dead zones in the oceans; but also release enormous amounts of nitrous oxide, a super potent, climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas.

4. Organic food certification prohibits nuclear irradiation. Consumers are justifiably alarmed about irradiating food with nuclear waste or electron beams, which destroy vitamins and nutrients and produce cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene and formaldehyde. The nuclear industry, large food processors, and slaughterhouses continue to lobby Congress to remove required labels from irradiated foods and replace these with misleading labels that use the term “cold pasteurization.” The USDA and large meat companies have promoted the use of irradiated meat in school lunches and senior citizen facilities. Many non-organic spices contain irradiated ingredients.

5. Consumers worry about rampant e-coli, salmonella, campylobacter, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and fecal contamination in animal products coming out of the nation’s inhumane and filthy slaughterhouses. The Centers for Disease Control have admitted that up to 76 million Americans suffer from food poisoning every year. Very few cases of food poisoning have ever been linked to organic farms or food processors.

6. Consumers are concerned about billions of pounds of toxic municipal sewage sludge dumped as “fertilizer” on 140,000 of America’s chemical farms. Scientific evidence has confirmed that municipal sewage sludge contains hundreds of dangerous pathogens, toxic heavy metals, flame-retardants, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, pharmaceutical drugs and other hazardous chemicals coming from residential drains, storm water runoff, hospitals, and industrial plants. Organic farming categorically prohibits the use of sewage sludge.

7. Consumers worry about the routine practice of grinding up slaughterhouse waste and feeding this offal and blood back to other animals, a practice that has given rise to a form of human mad-cow disease called CJD, often misdiagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease. Animals on organic farms cannot be fed slaughterhouse waste, manure, or blood – daily rations on America’s factory farms.

8. Consumers care about the humane treatment of animals. Organic farming prohibits intensive confinement and mutilation (debeaking, cutting off tails, etc.) of farm animals. In addition to the cruel and unhealthy confinement of animals on factory farms, scientists warn that these CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) produce enormous volumes of manure and urine, which not only pollute surface and ground water, but also emit large quantities of methane, a powerful climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas.

9. Consumers are concerned about purchasing foods with high nutritional value. Organic foods are nutritionally dense compared to foods produced with toxic chemicals, chemical fertilizers, and GMO seeds. Studies show that organic foods contain more vitamins, cancer-fighting anti-oxidants, and important trace minerals.

10. Consumers care about preserving America’s family farms, world hunger, and the plight of the world’s two billion small farmers. Just about the only small farmers who stand a chance of making decent living these days are organic farmers, who get a better price for their products. In addition study after study has shown that small organic farms in the developing world produce twice as much food per acre as chemical and GMO farms, while using far less fossil fuel and sequestering large amounts of excess CO2 in the soil. Yields on organic farms in the industrialized world are comparable to the yields on chemical and GMO farms, with the important qualification that organic farms far out-produce chemical farms under extreme weather conditions of drought or torrential rains. Of course, given accelerated climate change, extreme weather is fast becoming the norm.

For all these reasons, millions of American consumers are turning to organic foods and other organic items, including clothing and body care products – part of an overall movement toward healthy living, preserving the environment, and reversing global warming.

Fukishima Update – Nuclear facts, news and resources

60 Minutes Presents: Japan using Fukushima people as human Guinnea Pigs

The speaker in the above video is Helen Mary Caldicott

Helen Mary Caldicott (born 7 August 1938) is an Australian physician, author, and anti-nuclear advocate.  She hosts a weekly radio program, If You Love This Planet.  Born in Melbourne, Australia, Caldicott attended the Fintona Girls’ School, and received her medical degree in 1961 from the University of Adelaide Medical School. In 1977 she joined the staff of the Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Boston, and taught pediatrics at the Harvard Medical School from 1977 to 1978.  She has been awarded 20 honorary doctoral degrees and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling. She was awarded the Lannan Foundation Prize for Cultural Freedom in 2003, and in 2006, the Peace Organisation of Australia presented her with the inaugural Australian Peace Prize “for her longstanding commitment to raising awareness about the medical and environmental hazards of the nuclear age”. The Smithsonian Institution has named Caldicott as one of the most influential women of the 20th century. She is a member of the scientific committee of the Fundacion IDEAS, a progressive think tank in Spain.

——————————————————————————————–

Michio Kaku on CNN: Fukushima – “They Lied to Us” – June 21, 2011

——————————————————————————————–

Fukushima Day 99- Infant Deaths up 48% in Philadelphia USA since Japan meltdowns – June 19, 2011

——————————————————————————————–

Lethal Levels of Radiation at Fukushima Infer Millions Dying – August 8, 2011

——————————————————————————————–

Experts warn off-scale levels of radiation, which are at their highest levels since the disaster began almost 5 months ago, infers hundreds millions dying from the nuclear fallout.

Deborah Dupre, Human Rights Examiner
August 5, 2011

Fukushima nuclear power plant radiation recordings of external gamma radiation have been so high this week, they went off scale said veteran nuclear expert Arnie Gunderson on Thursday after the famous physicist, Dr. Chris Busby told the Japanese people this week that radioactive air contamination there now is 300 times that of Chernobyl and 1000 times the atomic bomb peak in 1963, possibly inferring that hundreds of millions of people are now dying from Fukushima radiation, including people in the United States.

If noticing unusual amounts of hair falling out, confusion, nose bleeds or other odd symptoms typical of radiation sickness, it might be due to the United States record high levels of radiation, now multiple times acceptable safety limits not only on the west coast, but also in other locations around the nation.

Because Fukushima radiation data retrieval and interpretation has been so complex or non-existent for the concerned public, citizen reporters in Japan and United States have now established easily accessible ways to view radiation levels on the internet.

Fukushima radiation depopulation unfathomable: Possibly 100s of millions deaths

Dr Janette Sherman, a highly respected physician and acknowledged expert in radiation exposure who has reported a north-east United States 35% baby death spike since Fukushima fall-out reached the nation, concurs with estimates that world wide, the Chernobyl Kill is one million people killed to date reported NOVA News. Extrapolating, worldwide deaths by Fukushima radiation could eventually be hundreds of millions of people, becoming the most significant depopulation event to date.

Dr. Chris Busby, world famous physicist, said tests conducted at the respected Harwell Radiation Laboratory in England demonstrate that airborne radiation in Japan is 1,000 times higher than radioactive “fallout” at the peak in 1963 of H-Bomb detonations by nuclear powers. In March, Busby had estimated that Fukushima radiation to be 72,000 times greater than what the United States released at Hiroshima.

“Let’s wipe the Tokyo Electric Power Company and the General Electric officials and policy makers off the face of the Earth, as they manifestly deserve,” asserted Dr. Busby when addressing the Japanese this week.

Thirty-nine year nuclear industry veteran Arnie Gunderson of Fairwinds stated Tuesday,”There will continue to be enormous spikes for at least ten years.”

Dr. Busby advocates not only independent studies of the nuclear catastrophe. He received a resounding applause when he told the Japanese people this week that in his opinion, scientists who said this accident was not a problem must be prosecuted.

“Many nuclear scientists said it was not a problem when the knew it was a serious accident. People who listened to those scientists and did not run away when they should have. Because of that, people will die.”

Busby explained that the World Health Organization is tied to the Nuclear Industry so their research is bogus. In studying Fukushima, the World Health Organization expects to find no effects “and so that’s what they’ll find,” he said.

According to Dr. Helen Caldicott, WHO’s subjugation to the nuclear industry has been widely known since May 28, 1959, when at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drafted an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) granting the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA, the group many people, including some journalists, think is a neutral watchdog but is, “in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry.”

”The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world,” the founding papers state, as reported in The Age.

Latest nuclear ‘peace, health and prosperity’ spike

TEPCO discovered a hot spot location on the Fukushima nuclear power plant site a few days ago with lethal levels of external gamma radiation.

How the latest radiation spike at Fukushima might have been deposited and also how similar radioactive material would have been released off-site was presented this week by Gunderson, with over 25-years of experience in nuclear decommissioning oversight, co-authored the first edition of the Department Of Energy (DOE) Decommissioning Handbook. (See embedded Vimeo, “Lethal Levels of Radiation at Fukushima: What Are the Implications?“, Arnie Gunderson, Fairwinds)

Gunderson noted that over 1000 REMs were released according to TEPCO earlier this week, an amount that, “if there, would mean death within a couple of days.”

“Those kinds of exposures cause extensive neurological breakdowns that can’t be reversed medically,” Gunderson reported.

Fukushima nuclear power plant radiation recordings of external gamma radiation have been so high this week, they went off scale said veteran nuclear expert Arnie Gunderson on Thursday after the famous physicist, Dr. Chris Busby told the Japanese people this week that radioactive air contamination there now is 300 times that of Chernobyl and 1000 times the atomic bomb peak in 1963, possibly inferring that hundreds of millions of people are now dying from Fukushima radiation, including people in the United States.

If noticing unusual amounts of hair falling out, confusion, nose bleeds or other odd symptoms typical of radiation sickness, it might be due to the United States record high levels of radiation, now multiple times acceptable safety limits not only on the west coast, but also in other locations around the nation.

Because Fukushima radiation data retrieval and interpretation has been so complex or non-existent for the concerned public, citizen reporters in Japan and United States have now established easily accessible ways to view radiation levels on the internet.

Read the rest of the article here

——————————————————————————————–

 Related Posts

Top 30 Worst Foods in America

Today’s food marketers have loaded many of their offerings with so much fat, sugar, and sodium that eating any of the foods in this article on a daily basis could destroy all your hard work and best intentions of eating healthy. Beware! This list is brought to you by Eat This Not That and Men’s Health.

1. Worst Meal in America

Carl’s Jr. Six Dollar Guacamole Bacon Burger with Medium Natural Cut Fries and 32-oz Coke

1,810 calories – 92 g fat (29.5 g saturated, 2 g trans) – 3,450 mg sodium

Of all the gut-growing, heart-threatening, life-shortening burgers in the drive-thru world, there is none whose damage to your general well-being is as potentially catastrophic as this. A bit of perspective is in order: This meal has the caloric equivalent of 9 Krispy Kreme Original Glazed doughnuts, the saturated fat equivalent of 30 strips of bacon, and the salt equivalent of 10 large orders of McDonald’s French fries!

2. Worst Drink

Baskin-Robbins Large Chocolate Oreo Shake

2,600 calories – 135 g fat (59 g saturated, 2.5 g trans) – 1,700 mg sodium – 263 g sugars

We didn’t think anything could be worse than Baskin-Robbins’ 2008 bombshell, the Heath Bar Shake. After all, it had more sugar (266 grams) than 20 bowls of Froot Loops, more calories (2,310) than 11 actual Heath Bars, and more ingredients (73) than you’ll find in most chemistry sets. Yet the folks at Baskin-Robbins have shown that when it comes to making America fat, they’re always up to the challenge. The large Chocolate Oreo Shake is soiled with more than a day’s worth of calories and 3 days’ worth of saturated fat. Worst of all, it takes less than 10 minutes to sip through a straw.

3. Worst Ribs

Outback Steakhouse Baby Back Ribs

2,580 calories

Let’s be honest: Ribs are rarely served alone on a plate. When you add a sweet potato and Outback’s Classic Wedge Salad, this meal is a 3,460-calorie blowout. (Consider that it takes only 3,500 calories to add a pound of fat to your body. Better plan for a very, very long “walkabout” when this meal is over!)

4. Worst Pizza

Uno Chicago Grill Classic Deep Dish Individual Pizza

2,310 calories – 165 g fat (54 g saturated) – 4,920 mg sodium – 120 g carbs

The problem with deep dish pizza (which Uno’s knows a thing or two about, since they invented it back in 1943) is not just the extra empty calories and carbs from the crust, it’s that the thick doughy base provides the structural integrity to house extra heaps of cheese, sauce, and greasy toppings. The result is an individual pizza with more calories than you should eat in a day and more sodium than you would find in 27 small bags of Lays Potato Chips. Oh, did we mention it has nearly 3 days’ worth of saturated fat, too? The key to success at Uno’s lies in their flatbread pizza.

5. Worst Mexican Dish


Chili’s Fajita Quesadillas Beef with Rice and Beans, 4 Flour Tortillas, and Condiments

2,240 calories – 92 g fat (43.5 g saturated) – 6,390 mg sodium – 253 g carbs

Since when has it ever been a smart idea to combine 2 already calorie- and sodium-packed dishes into one monstrous meal? This confounding creation delivers nearly a dozen Krispy Kreme original glazed doughnuts worth of calories, the sodium equivalent of 194 saltine crackers, and the saturated fat equivalent of 44 strips of bacon. Check please.

6. Worst Seafood Dish


Romano’s Macaroni Grill Parmesan Crusted Sole

2,190 calories – 141 g fat (58 g saturated) – 2,980 mg sodium – 145 g carbs

Fish is normally a safe bet, but this entrée proves that it’s all in the preparation. If you fry said fish in a shell of cheese, be prepared to pay the consequences. Here that means meeting your daily calorie, fat, saturated fat, and sodium intake in one sitting.

7. Worst Chinese Dish

P.F. Chang’s Combo Lo Mein

1,968 calories – 96 g fat (12 g saturated) – 5,860 mg sodium

Lo mein is normally looked at as a side dish, a harmless pile of noodles to pad your plate of orange chicken or broccoli beef. This heaping portion (to be fair, Chang’s does suggest diners share an order) comes spiked with chicken, shrimp, beef, and pork, not to mention an Exxon Valdez-size slick of oil. The damage? A day’s worth of calories, 1 ½ days’ worth of fat, and 2 ½ days’ worth of sodium. No meat-based dish beats out the strip.

8. Worst Appetizer

On the Border Firecracker Stuffed Jalapenos with Chili con Queso

1,950 calories – 134 g fat (36 g saturated) – 6,540 mg sodium

Appetizers are the most problematic area of most chain-restaurant menus. That’s because they’re disproportionately reliant on the type of cheesy, greasy ingredients that catch hungry diners’ eyes when they’re most vulnerable—right when they sit down. Seek out lean protein options like grilled shrimp skewers or ahi tuna when available; if not, simple is best—like chips and salsa.

9. Worst Burger


Chili’s Smokehouse Bacon Triple Cheese Big Mouth Burger with Jalapeno Ranch Dressing

1,901 calories – 138 g fat (47 g saturated) – 4,201 mg sodium

Any burger whose name is 21 syllables long is bound to spell trouble for your waistline. This burger packs almost an entire day’s worth of calories and 2 ½ days’ worth of fat. Chili’s burger menu rivals Ruby Tuesday’s for the worst in America, so you’re better off with one of their reasonable Fajita Pitas to silence your hunger.

10. Worst Sandwich

Quizno’s Large Tuna Melt

1,760 calories – 133 g fat (26 g saturated, 1.5 g trans) – 2,120 mg sodium

In almost all other forms, tuna is a nutritional superstar, so how did it end up as the headliner for America’s Worst Sandwich? Blame an absurdly heavy hand with the mayo the tuna is mixed with, along with Quiznos’ larger-than-life portion sizes. Even though they’ve managed to trim this melt down from the original 2,000-plus calorie mark when we first tested it, it still sits squarely at the bottom of the sandwich ladder.

11. Worst Salad

On the Border Grande Taco Salad with Taco Beef and Chipotle Honey Mustard

1,700 calories – 124 g fat (37.5 g saturated) – 2,620 mg sodium

The dismal dawn of the 1,700-calorie salad is upon us. With as much saturated fat as 37 strips of bacon and more calories than 11 Taco Bell Fresco Beef Tacos, this abdomen expander earns a well-deserved spot on our list of the Worst Foods in America.

12. Worst Dessert

Romano’s Macaroni Grill New York Cheesecake with Caramel Fudge Sauce

1,660 calories – 97 g fat (57 g saturated) – 950 mg sodium – 165 g carbs

Considering the fact that Macaroni Grill’s savory menu is already cluttered with one of the country’s most potent arrays of calorie, fat, and sodium bombs, its lineup of destructive desserts only adds insult to injury. There’s the Dessert Ravioli (1,630 calories), the Lemon Passion (1,360 calories), and the always classic and catastrophic caramel-smothered cheesecake, which, with more calories than 3 Big Macs and as much saturated fat as 57 strips of bacon, is the worst dessert in America. Seek solace in a scoop of sorbetto—one of the country’s best sit-down sweets

13. Worst Pancake Breakfast


Bob Evans Stacked & Stuffed Caramel Banana Pecan Hotcakes

1,543 calories – 77 g fat (26 g saturated, 9 g trans) – 2,259 mg sodium – 109 g sugars

This appalling platter is stacked and stuffed with the sugar equivalent of 7 Twinkies, the caloric equivalent of 8 Dunkin’ Donuts glazed doughnuts, the sodium equivalent of 6 ½ large order of McDonald’s French fries, and 4 ½ times your daily limit of trans fat. It’s made numerous lists in our newest book, Eat This, Not That! The Best (and Worst!) Foods in America, including Worst Foods, Most Sugar-Packed Foods, and Trans-Fattiest Foods. Above all of these dubious distinctions, it’s the undisputed Worst Breakfast in America.

14. Worst Omelet Breakfast

IHOP’s The Big Steak Omelette

1,490 calories

We’re not sure what’s more concerning: IHOP’s never-ending stacks of margarine-slathered sweets or their reckless attempts at covering the savory side of breakfast with entrees like this one. With close to three-quarters of a day’s worth of calories folded into its eggy shell (thanks to a heaping portion of fatty beef), you’re committing to eating rice cakes for your next 2 meals when you start your morning off with this bomblette. Why not enjoy the substantial Garden Scramble and 2 more real meals instead?

15. Worst “Healthy” Sandwich

Applebee’s Chicken Fajita Rollup

1,450 calories

For some curious reason, wraps have come to be viewed as a healthy upgrade from sandwiches, as if those massive tortillas can be filled with nothing but anticalories. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. The problem with wraps is that they function as holding tanks for fluids, so hurried fry-cooks can squirt in as much sauce as they want without making it look messy. With Applebee’s rollup, the offending sauce is a Mexi-ranch sauce, which looks suspiciously more like ranch than anything eaten in Mexico. But here’s the final insult: This “healthy” meal is served with fries. Eat them and you tack on 400 extra calories.

16. Worst Sliders

Ruby Tuesday Bacon Cheddar Minis

1,358 calories – 86 g fat – 75 g carbs

Diminutive dishes are one of the hottest trends in the restaurant world right now (probably since most are looking for ways to stretch a buck), and you’d think that would serve health-conscious eaters well. But not under the reckless watch of the burger barons at Ruby Tuesday, who manage to turn 4 “mini” burgers into the caloric equivalent of 7 Dunkin’ Donuts Sugar Donuts.

17. Worst Kids’ Meal

Uno Chicago Grill Kids Kombo with French Fries

1,270 calories – 79 g fat (11.5 g saturated) – 2,850 mg sodium

For food marketers, the color of money isn’t green—it’s beige. Any parent knows that most foods kids clamor for, from fries to white bread to chicken nuggets, come in beige. It’s also a marker of cheap, calorie-rich, nutritionally bankrupt foodstuffs. So when you see this monochromatic cluster of cheese sticks, dinosaur-shaped chicken and fried potatoes, you know your kid’s in trouble. Make it a rule when eating out: All dishes must come with at least two colors (and ketchup doesn’t count).

18. Worst Vegetarian Sub

Blimpie Special Vegetarian Sub (12″)

1,186 calories – 60 g fat (19 g saturated) – 3,532 mg sodium – 131 g carbs

“Vegetarian” doesn’t automatically translate to “healthy.” Sure, this sandwich has vegetables, but it also has 3 different kinds of cheese and a deluge of oil tucked into a hulking 12” roll. No wonder it contains more than half a day’s worth of calories and a cascade of carbs. For a truly healthy pile of vegetables, try the garden salad. If a sandwich is the only thing that will do, you’ll have to settle for the small VeggieMax, still far from a model of meatless eating.

19. Worst Frozen Meal

Stouffer’s White Meat Chicken Pot Pie

1,160 calories – 66 g fat (26 g saturated) – 1,780 mg sodium

The potpie is one of the world’s worst dietary inventions to begin with, and the damage is all the more extreme when the pie seems as big as a child’s head. Stouffer’s tries to get away with it by falling back on the serving-size sleight of hand; that is, to list as 2 servings what every person with a fork will consume as 1. Nobody splits potpies, and eating this whole thing will fill your belly with more saturated fat than you should eat in an entire day.

20. Worst Mall Treat

Cinnabon Regular Caramel Pecanbun

1,110 calories – 56 g fat (10 g saturated, 5 g trans) – 151 g carbs – 47 g sugars

Cinnabon and malls are inseparable. Consider it a symbiotic relationship: Researchers have found that men are turned on by the smell of cinnamon rolls, and further studies have shown that men are more likely to spend money when they’re thinking about sex. But just because Cinnabon might be good for Gap doesn’t mean it’s at all good for you. This dangerously bloated bun contains nearly an entire day’s worth of fat and more than half of your daily allotment of calories. (For those keeping score, that’s as much as you’ll find in 8 White Castle hamburgers.)

21. Worst Breakfast For Your Blood Pressure

Arby’s Sausage Gravy Biscuit

1,040 calories – 60 g fat (22 g saturated, 2 g trans) – 4,699 mg sodium

This is absolutely one of the worst ways you could start your day. Make a date with this and you’ll have consumed 2 full days’ worth of sodium before the noon hour. The key to maintaining a reasonable blood pressure for most folks is to take in at least the equivalent amount of sodium and potassium throughout your day. (A 1:1 ratio is seen as ideal.) The problem with this biscuit is that you’re consuming a heart-stopping level of sodium and almost no potassium. Throw in an abundance of calories and trans fat and you may have been better off sleeping in.

22. Worst Adult Beverage

Red Lobster Traditional Lobsterita

890 calories 183 g carbs

Lobsterita means a lobster tank-sized glass filled with booze and high-fructose corn syrup. You’d have to drink 4 regular on-the-rocks margaritas to outdo the massive caloric load. Pair that with a dinner and you might be pushing a full day’s calories in one meal. If you want to get drunk, take a shot. If you want to enjoy a cocktail, make sure it doesn’t start with a bottle of mix—your body and your taste buds will thank you.

23. Worst Frozen Breakfast


Jimmy Dean Pancake and Sausage Breakfast Bowl

710 calories – 31 g fat (11 g saturated) – 890 mg sodium – 34 g sugars

A disastrous trifecta of refined carbs from the pancakes, saturated fat from the sausage, and added sugar from the syrup. Jimmy’s got his name attached to more than a few solid breakfast choices, so find one less than 400 calories immediately and make the switch. Hint: Look to the breakfast sandwiches and the D-Lights line.

24. Worst Frozen Pizza


DiGiorno for One Supreme pizza with Garlic Bread Crust

840 calories 44 g fat (16 g saturated, 3.5 g trans) 1,450 mg sodium

Regardless of the crust you choose, DiGiorno’s For One line is dominated by nutritional duds. The bloated crust and the greasy toppings will saddle you with 60 percent of your day’s sodium, 80 percent of your day’s saturated fat, and nearly twice the amount of trans fat you should take in daily. Hands off!

25. Worst Side Dish For Your Arteries

Jack in the Box Bacon Cheddar Potato Wedges

760 calories – 52 g fat (16 g saturated, 13 g trans) – 960 mg sodium

It’s no surprise this side dish is bursting with fat and calories—it’s a plate of fried potatoes topped with bacon and melted cheese. The Jack in the Box menu is so thoroughly swaddled in trans fats that they truly have earned the bottom slot on our list of the trans-fattiest foods in America—not to mention, the title of Trans-Fattiest Restaurant in America. The good news is that not all of Jack’s items are filled with the bad stuff—a smarter appetizer or side dish would be the Grilled Chicken Pita Snack.

26. Worst Supermarket Kids’ Lunch


Oscar Mayer Maxed Out Turkey & Cheddar Cracker Combo Lunchables

680 calories – 22 g fat (9 g saturated) – 1,440 mg sodium – 61 g sugars

The Maxed Out line is the worst of the lackluster Lunchables, with a back label that reads like a chemistry textbook. By cramming dessert and a superweet drink into the box, Oscar manages to saddle this already-troubled package with more added sugar than your child should take in all day. This meal has the sugar equivalent of 10 Dunkin’ Donuts jelly-filled doughnuts!

27. Worst Gas Station Treat


Hostess Chocolate Pudding Pie

520 calories – 24 g fat (14 g saturated, 1.5 g trans) – 45 g sugars

This is the type of snack you pick up at a gas station in a pinch and feel vaguely guilty about, not knowing that you just managed to ingest nearly three-quarters of a day’s worth of saturated fat before your tank finishing filling up. And considering these little packages of doom cost a buck or less across the country, the pudding pie qualifies as one of the cheapest sources of empty calories in America.

28. Worst Supermarket Drink

Sobe Pina Colada Liz Blizz (20 oz bottle)

325 calories – 0 g fat – 78 g sugars

Don’t be fooled by the natural motifs that adorn Sobe’s bottles. It has more sugar than you’ll find in two Snickers bars! We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Don’t buy products with cartoon animals on the front.

29. Worst Snack For Your Arteries

Pop Secret Kettle Corn (1/3 bag)

180 calories – 13 g fat (2.5 g saturated, 5 g trans) – 150 mg sodium

The only “secret” here is that the company has no qualms about trans fat. Eat an entire bag of this kettle corn, and you’ll consume 15 grams of the artery-clogging junk—that’s more than 7 times your recommended daily limit. Choose Orville Redenbacher’s Movie Theater Butter for fewer calories and no trans fat.

30. Worst Canned Fruit

Del Monte Peach Chunks Yellow Cling Peaches in Heavy Syrup

100 calories – 23 g sugars

Peaches themselves aren’t bona fide junk food; they are, after all, still fruit. But why manufacturers feel the need to can, packaged, and bottle nature’s candy with excess sugar is a question we will never stop asking. In this case, the viscous sugar solution clings to the fruit like syrup to a pancake, soaking every bite with utterly unnecessary calories. Looking for cheap sources of fruit to have on hand at any time? Opt for the frozen stuff—it’s picked at the height of season and flash frozen on the spot, keeping costs low and nutrients high.

Source: www.eatthis.menshealth.com/slideshow…

The Dangers of Estrogens in Our Environment

Posted in Green/Organic/Eco-Conscious on September 26th, 2010

The Dangers of Estrogens in Our Environment

.

The natural environment is one of great splendor. Beautiful trees, lush fields, flowing waters and a myriad of colorful plants are all within grasp for humans to touch and behold.

This same landscape, however, is also full of chemicals known to be gravely dangerous. These are called xenoestrogens, and mounting evidence implicates them in a vast assortment of human and wildlife health problems.

Xenoestrogens essentially mimic the estrogen that occurs naturally within human bodies. An estimated 70,000 registered chemicals contain xenoestrogens, which enter a person’s endocrine system and disrupt normal processes. In addition to being carcinogenic and toxic, xenoestrogens increase the body’s real estrogen production and can cause infertility, a variety of cancers, chronic diseases and a host of other health complications that do not quickly cease.

Personal Care Products

One of the foremost ways that xenoestrogens enter the body is through personal care products. This is especially true of women’s products, including cosmetics, face and body lotions, nail polish remover and acrylic nails. Such ingredients as phthalates, parabens, triclosan and hydroquinone are illegal in the European Union because they have been proven to cause cancer and reproductive developmental toxicity. In the United States, however, such ingredients continue to be readily found in a variety of cosmetic products.

Dr. Phillippa Darbre with the University of Reading’s School of Biological Sciences in England wrote a report that investigated the connection between breast cancer and cosmetics use. As the skin does not act to prevent such chemicals from entering the body, she contended that xenoestrogens are largely responsible for many breast cancer occurrences. This is based upon the fact that 90 percent of breast cancers are environmental in origin, and the major influence is constant exposure to estrogen.

Judi Vance, author of Beauty to Die For: the Cosmetic Consequence, claims that female hormonal imbalances are only a North American problem that may also be connected to cosmetic use. According to her research, countries like China and Japan do not suffer from such problems as PMS and menopausal symptoms. This is because xenoestrogens communicate with cells as if they were natural estrogen. Such common products as bubble bath, hair conditioner and shampoo all have the potential to contain xenoestrogens.

Estrogen in the Food and Bottled Water Supply

According to researchers, 75 percent of all Americans will be overweight by the year 2015. Some scientists attribute this statistic to a sedentary lifestyle, but others believe that estrogen is the culprit. According to Ori Hofmekler, author of The Anti-Estrogenic Diet, “Most conventional food is estrogenic.” This is because meat and dairy products are ridden with hormones, while fruits and vegetables are laced in pesticides. Such chemicals are intended to protect and procure meat and produce. Once inside the body, however, those hormones mimic the actions of estrogen. Hofmekler further states that this is responsible for breast cancer in women and infertility in men.

Indeed, studies show that xenoestrogens substantially lower sperm counts in men. In the past 50 years, male sperm counts have plummeted by 50 percent. Today, the average man’s testosterone and sperm levels have dropped 20 percent compared to just 20 years ago. Researchers believe this is owed to heavily processed foods with additives and, again, personal care products.

Dr. Russell Blaylock concurs with Hofmekler and also takes the estrogen theory one step further. Not only is estrogen present in the foods consumed by humans, but also in bottled waters. This is because xenoestrogens appear in plastic containers. When foods or liquids sit in those containers, they absorb the xenoestrogens and pass them to humans during consumption. Dr. Blaylock states, “Studies show that xenoestrogens from plastics appear to cause premature menses in young girls, decreased sperm in men and a dramatic increase in breast disease.”

How to Avoid the Estrogen Environment

Individuals can take proactive measures to avoid such an overload of estrogen, as caused by the environment. For example, grocery purchases should include only organic meats and produce items. Personal care products should also be used minimally and include organic ingredients.

In order to become healthier, experts agree that people need to first become informed. This means reading the labels of all commercial products, making conscious decisions and staying abreast of new consumer developments.

Sources:

http://www.organicauthority.com/health/health/cosmetics-and-breast-cancer.html

http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303213610

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/85704.shtml

Gluten then and now

Monday, June 27, 2011 by: Julie McGinnis, Published in Natural News
Read the Original Article Here

(NaturalNews) Over the past decade, the frequency of conversations about gluten intolerance (GI) and celiac disease (CD) in the United States has gone from almost unheard of to commonplace. Chances are your local supermarket sells dozens of items labeled “gluten free” where none existed five years ago. Restaurants and school lunch programs frequently offer gluten-free alternatives. What happened?

Before I dive into that discussion, I want to clarify some terms to minimize confusion. “Gluten” is the general term for a mixture of tiny protein fragments (called polypeptides), which are found in cereal grains such as wheat, rye, barley, spelt, faro, and kamut. Gluten is classified in two groups: prolamines and glutelins. The most troublesome component of gluten is the prolamine gliadin. Gliadin is the cause of the painful inflammation in gluten intolerance and instigates the immune response and intestinal damage found in celiac disease. Although both conditions have similar symptoms (pain, gas, bloating, diarrhea), or sometimes no gastrointestinal symptoms at all, celiac disease is an autoimmune reaction to gluten that can cause severe degradation of the small intestine; whereas, gluten intolerance/sensitivity is an inability to digest gliadin with no damage to the intestines.

The medical community’s use of improved diagnostic tools (saliva, blood, and stool tests; and bowel biopsies) as well as self-diagnosis by aware individuals has certainly contributed to the swelling ranks of people afflicted with these maladies; however, that’s not the whole story. A combination of hybridized grains, America’s growing appetite for snacks and fast food, and the genetics of gluten intolerance and celiac disease have brought discussions of these once uncommon conditions front and center.

New evidence indicates that the hybrid versions of grains we eat today contain significantly more gluten than traditional varieties of the same grains. Experts such as Dr. Alessio Fasano, medical director of the Center for Celiac Research at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, believe this recent increase in the amount of gluten in our diet has given rise to the number of people suffering from gluten intolerance and celiac disease.

According to Fasano, “The prevalence of celiac disease in this country is soaring partly because changes in agricultural practices have increased gluten levels in crops.” He further states, “We are in the midst of an epidemic.”

For example, the ancient wheat that Moses ate was probably very different from our wheat today. Moses lived about 3,500 years ago, when wheat, spelt, and barley were all popular grains. Modern wheat varieties, however, have been bred to grow faster, produce bigger yields, harvest more efficiently, and bake better bread. The downside to today’s hybridized cereal grains is that they contain more gluten.

Celiac disease was once considered a rare malady and was estimated to have afflicted approximately 1 in 2,000 people in the United States. According to research done by the Mayo Clinic, CD is four times more common today that it was five decades ago. This increase is due to increased awareness and diagnostics, and the estimate today is that 1 out of every 133 people in the United States has celiac disease. To read more facts and figures please read The University of Chicago Celiac Disease center at http://www.uchospitals.edu/pdf/uch_…

Here are estimates for other parts of the world:
· 3 in 100: United Kingdom
· 1 in 370: Italy
· 1 in 122: Northern Ireland
· 1 in 99: Finland
· 1 in 133: United States
· Once thought rare for African-, Hispanic- and Asian-Americans, current estimates in these populations: 1 in 236
· 1 in 30 are estimated to have gluten intolerance in the United States.

More than 6,000 years before Moses was born, an agricultural revolution took place in the Middle East that allowed humans to embrace farming (sewing and harvesting wild seeds), herding, and other forms of agriculture and move away from our hunter-fisher-gatherer ancestors. This was the first major introduction of gluten into the human diet.

According to Dr. Loren Cordain, PhD, author of The Paleo Diet, “The foods that agriculture brought us — cereals, dairy products, fatty meats, salted foods, and refined sugars and oils- proved disastrous for our Paleolithic bodies…. studies of the bones and teeth early farmers revealed that they had more infectious diseases, more childhood mortality, shorter life spans, more osteoporosis, rickets, and other bone mineral density disorders than their ancestors thanks to the cereal-based diet. They were plagued with vitamin and mineral deficiencies and developed cavities in their teeth.”
In other words, people traded their health for sustainable food sources and a less nomadic way of life.

Two hundred years ago, the global diet received another big injection of gluten with the birth of the Industrial Revolution and steam-powered mills that were able to produce refined-grain flours that had significantly longer shelf lives, making flour (aka: gluten) more accessible and available to an almost global market. “We were able to mill and process grains for consumption and eat them in larger quantities than we had ever done in the past,” writes Cordain.

Jack Challem, “The Nutrition Reporter,” offers a different long view of human consumption of gluten: “Look at in another way, 100,000 generations of people were hunter-gatherers, 500 generations have depended on agriculture, and only 10 generations have lived since the start of the industrial age, and only two generations have grown up with highly processed fast foods. This short period of time in the course of man’s existence that grains have been around has proven that many of us are not physiologically able to tolerate gluten.”

Historical evidence of people having trouble digesting gluten was first documented in the 2nd century A.D. when the Greek physician Aretaeus of Cappadocia, diagnosed patients with celiac disease. The symptoms included “wasting and characteristic stools.” Since Aretaeus’ time, the disease has gone by a variety of names, including “non-tropical sprue,” “celiac sprue,” “non-celiac gluten intolerance,” “gluten intolerance enteropathy,” and “gluten sensitive enteropathy.”

Fast forward to 1950, when the Dutch pediatrician Willem-Karel Dicke proposed wheat gluten was the cause of the disease. His theory was based on observations that celiac children improved during World War II when wheat was scarce in Holland.

As Challem points out, today, thanks in large part to the fast food and snack food industries, gluten is in just about every kind of food imaginable.

So Why Can’t Everyone Handle Gluten?

People who that carry any of the genes for CD and GI (expressed or not) are more susceptible to developing either condition. You can carry two dominate genes for celiac disease and perhaps end up developing CD or you can carry one dominant gene and one recessive gene and develop only GI. Your genes determine the body’s immune response in the presence of gluten, and many different health problems may result from that response. Some people may have their brain affected and develop cognitive problems such as depression or impaired brain function, while others suffer pancreatic problems and develop diabetes. Research still needs to be done to answer the question as to why these maladies affect different parts of the body in different people.
When populations that are genetically predisposed to CD and GI are exposed to cereal grains with higher gluten content, there’s little wonder why more people are having these genes “turned on” and develop gluten insensitivity on a much larger scale — especially now that the flour made from these grains are part of the “hidden ingredients” in foods from ice cream to lunch meats.

OK, Now What?

So, gluten has changed, and we have changed, and it appears not for the better. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, identifying and eliminating the foods and ingredients from your life that do not work for your body is the only answer. There is no magic pill to take to make it all go away.

If you, or someone you know, is experiencing major health issues that aren’t getting better, enlisting a knowledgeable physician who understands the complexities of CD and GI testing is an excellent idea; however, on average, it takes the medical community 10 years to diagnose people who are suffering with severe health problems from undiagnosed CD and GI.?

The Bottom Line

Gluten intolerance is not a fad diet. I have seen countless cases display miraculous improvements in?long standing ailments — simply by adapting this lifestyle. Even if you have a test for CD and it comes back negative?and medical community clears you to continue?eating gluten, but you feel better without it,?listen to your body. You?know yourself far better than anyone else and you deserve?good health. If you have doubts about your diet, try going gluten-free for two weeks and see how you feel. Those with more advanced illnesses (autoimmune diseases and such) will usually not experience changes until they have been gluten-free for six months to a year.

About the author:
Julie McGinnis, M.S., R.D., certified herbalist holds a Master’s degree in nutrition from the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut and has been involved in the field of nutrition for twenty years. Upon completion of her herbal certification she began her career in complementary health and worked for years in research and development for a professional line of nutrition supplements. She has written professional nutrition and health literature for national retailers and other small businesses. She is one of three owners of The Gluten Free Bistro in Boulder, CO a manufacturer of gluten-free pizza, pasta and flour.www.theglutenfreebistro.com

Are Your Kids Allergic To Food – Or What’s In It?

Posted on Healthy Child, Healthy World, Written by Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Executive Director/CEO, Healthy Child Healthy World
Necessary News, Thursday, June 23, 2011
…………………………………………………………..

This week, it’s all about food. A study released by Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine found that childhood food allergies are twice as common as experts previously thought, with one in 13 kids affected, WebMD reported.

The survey of 38,000 was the largest ever to track childhood food allergies in the United States, and found that eight percent of kids under 18 are allergic to at least one food, with peanuts, milk and shellfish as the top three offenders. Previous studies, including a government survey published in 2009, had estimated four percent. Many food allergies are mild, but this new study found that 40% of children had experienced severe, potentially life-threatening reactions.

Why are these childhood staples now considered poisonous to so many?

Some are pointing fingers at new introductions of genetically modified organisms. Doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec are set to publish a study in the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology that found pesticides associated with Genetically Modified (GM) crops in the blood of women, as well as pregnant women, their placentas and their infants. In their coverage of the study, Food Consumer referenced an article in the UK’s Daily Mail reporting that organizations in England and New Zealand are now calling for a halt to the growth of GM crops until more investigations can take place. This type of investigation is exactly what Healthy Child Healthy World Parent Ambassador Robyn O’Brien has been calling for since she founded Allergy Kids in 2010, after one of her four kids experienced a life-threatening food allergy reaction.

Robyn’s theory, which she espoused in the YouTube sensation that is her Austin TedX talk—viewed by nearly 200,000 people—as well at a private luncheon hosted by Stonyfield Farm, which I was lucky enough to attend last week, is that the dramatic rises in allergy rates that we’ve seen over the past few years are the direct result of the dramatic increase in the genetically modified organisms that the food industry is now using to grow crops.

Our kids may not be allergic to food. They may be allergic to what’s in the food. Today, nearly 75 percent of the food on your grocer’s shelves contains genetically modified ingredients, yet manufacturers are not required to label them as such.

Since the introduction of genetically engineered foods in the 1990s, there has been a 265 percent increase in the rates of hospitalizations due to food-related allergic reactions, according to the Huffington Post’s Jennifer Grayson.

What can you do to protect your kids?

Healthy Child Healthy World’s 5 Easy Steps recommends choosing organic foods whenever possible; by law, organic foods must be made without genetically modified ingredients (as well as pesticides and insecticides). Then take it a step further and sign the Allergy Kids petition to force U.S. manufacturers to disclose GM ingredients in their foods so that Americans can make an informed choice about the foods we feed our families. “They may be only 30 percent of the population,” Robyn said, “but they’re 100 percent of our future.” I couldn’t agree with her more.

Read more: http://healthychild.org/blog/comments/are_your_kids_allergic_to_food_or_whats_in_it/#ixzz1QZb5ryZg

Gulf Update: Sick Fish, Human Risks and a Federal Agency Trying to Keep the Lid on a Crisis

Read the original article here

This article was published in the Stuart Smith Blog, written by Smith Stag, LLC 2011

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has confirmed – for the first time since the BP disaster – that fish are sick in the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, the number of “sick fish” sightings has risen so dramatically, primarily in federal waters off Alabama, and the risks to humans are becoming such a serious concern that NOAA has released guidelines on what anglers should do when they come across visibly sick fish, including a “minimal to no handling” warning.

Many of the reports describe large lesions on the fish, particularly red snapper. And with the June 1 opening of recreational red snapper season, the reports of sick fish are bound to keep rolling in and the risk of human exposure will grow exponentially.

Some experts, including many with whom I work, suspect the BP oil spill is connected to the spike. Not much of a surprise there. We’ve been seeing an undeniable trend toward “unexplained” occurrences of sick, stranded and dead marine life – like record numbers of dead dolphins and sea turtles – for months now. The prime suspect, of course, is the 200 million gallons of crude and the 2 million gallons of the toxic dispersant Corexit that continue to foul the Gulf of Mexico.

From a May 25 article in the Pensacola News Journal (PNJ):

The reports of sick fish correlate with areas most impacted by the BP oil spill, said Jim Cowan Jr., the Louisiana State University Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences scientist who is at the center of the sick fish studies off the Alabama coast.

The “sick fish” sightings first raised eyebrows nearly two months ago. An April 17 article in the St. Petersburg Times describes the severity of the deformities:

The fish had dark lesions on their skin, some the size of a 50-cent piece. On some of them, the lesions had eaten a hole straight through to the muscle tissue. Many had fins that were rotting away and discolored or even striped skin. Inside, they had enlarged livers, gallbladders, and bile ducts.

The St. Pete Times quoted Professor Cowan as saying: “The fish have a bacterial infection and a parasite infection that’s consistent with a compromised immune system. There’s no doubt it’s associated with a chronic exposure to a toxin.” Hmmmm, I wonder what that could be? Any ideas?

In September 2010, my research team sampled red snapper caught off the coast of Pensacola – and the results are very much in line with the “sick fish” epidemic we’re seeing now. The certified lab results show (see link to my previous post below) the viscera, or internal organs, to be contaminated with nearly 3,000 PPM of total petroleum hydrocarbons. That’s a dangerous level by any standard.

Although NOAA is sticking by its claim that Gulf seafood is safe to eat (see link to HuffPo article below), the agency is recommending the following steps be taken if you catch a sick fish:

Release the fish back into the water with minimal to no handling. Use a fishhook-remover device. Avoid contact with skin, especially if you have cuts or sores on your skin.

Document where you caught the fish, and if possible, photograph it. A website is being developed on which anglers may post their findings.

Anglers are not advised to keep the sick fish because of the risks of the fish transmitting disease to humans.

If you bring in a red snapper with lesions, it does count toward your fishing quota.

The “minimal to no handling” recommendation should concern us all, signaling that it may be time take another look at NOAA’s “all clear” declaration on seafood safety. After all, the agency has publicly admitted that the fish shouldn’t be handled, and they may pose health risks if eaten raw.

Although Professor Cowan cautions that more research needs to be conducted before a definitive connection can be established, he doesn’t hide his concern: “I’m very worried because I’ve talked to both commercial and recreational fishermen who have been in the business 30 to 40 years and no one has seen anything like this.” One such fishermen is Donnie Waters: “I’m seeing things I’ve never seen before. I’m deeply concerned about the long-term impact of the fishery of the eastern Gulf.”

Like Waters, Professor Cowan also believes there are sick fish, not just off Alabama, but across the entire area of the Gulf hit by the BP spill. Research is taking place now to determine if the problem is, in fact, that widespread.

From the PNJ article:

The Sea Lab is collecting fish samples this week for further scrutiny by the FDA. A broader survey is poised to begin to determine whether the sick fish extend to areas beyond Alabama coastal waters. And NOAA is setting up a website on which recreational anglers can report any sick fish they find.

My guess is that NOAA and the FDA will ultimately confirm that there are sick, contaminated fish all over the northeastern quadrant of the Gulf of Mexico. This is a serious issue that has obvious implications for seafood safety as well as for the overall post-spill health of the Gulf. A highly contaminated link in the food chain can wreak havoc on the rest of the ecosystem.

If the government finally comes around to addressing these marine life issues head-on, before this is all through, we could very well see the re-closing of waters once deemed “all clear” for fishing. Stay tuned…

Catch up on NOAA’s “sick fish” guidelines here: http://www.pnj.com/article/20110525/NEWS01/105250328/NOAA-confirms-sick-fish-Gulf

Read my previous post on the most urgent problems, including seafood safety, that must be resolved before the Gulf Coast can realize a full recovery: http://www.stuarthsmith.com/a-year-into-the-nightmare-three-of-the-most-urgent-issues-facing-the-gulf-coast

Read my Dec. 16 post on exclusive test results that show red snapper samples taken off the coast of Pensacola to be highly contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons: http://www.stuarthsmith.com/exclusive-test-results-red-snapper-sample-from-off-pensacola-shows-dangerously-high-levels-of-contamination-%E2%80%93-nearly-3000-ppm-of-total-petroleum-hydrocarbons

See the St. Pete Times story on sick fish here: http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/wildlife/sick-fish-suggest-oil-spill-still-affecting-gulf/1164042

Read a good seafood testing story here at HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-buchanan/private-seafood-tests-unc_b_820002.html

5 Facts about Fracking Every Family Needs to Know

Read the original article here

Written By Leah Zerbe

More and more science is starting to call out the practice of natural gas fracking for what it is—dirty, and a threat to everybody’s health. Get up to speed on what science says about natural gas drilling, so you can join the conversation and protect your family.

.
Gulp. Pollutants from natural gas fracking could end up in your drinking water, even if you don’t live near a fracking site.

RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA—Fracking may not be a household word yet, but we’ve been talking about this form of natural gas drilling—and its potential effects on your family’s health—for some time. Now it seems more voices are about to join the conversation.

On Saturday, a ranking congressman on the House Committee on Natural Resources questioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s competence in protecting Americans from toxic exposures, after a New York Times exposé on hydraulic fracturing, a.k.a fracking, uncovered major threats to human health.

As previously reported on Rodale.com, fracking releases uranium and other radioactive material and brings them to the surface in wastewater laced with carcinogenic industrial chemicals, heavy salts, and other contaminants. Because this toxic wastewater is often trucked to other municipalities for treatment, fracking affects not just families in the immediate drilling zones, but in surrounding states, too. Inadequately treated water from fracking often contains dangerous levels of radioactive materials and other hazardous waste, and is routinely released into rivers that supply drinking water to people, according to the NYT article.

“These disturbing revelations raise the prospect that natural gas production has turned our rivers and streams into this generation’s Love Canals,” Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement. “The natural gas industry has repeatedly claimed that fracking can be done safely. We now know we need a full investigation into exactly how fracking is done and what it does to our drinking water and our environment.”

Other unpleasant consequences of drilling for natural gas in shale formations around the country are front and center in the documentary Gasland, a documentary that was nominated for top honors in Sunday’s Academy Awards (but didn’t win). According to recent reports, including one on Salon.com, the natural gas industry actually urged the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to withdraw its nomination of Gasland.

While the film is full of compelling, but mostly anecdotal, evidence of families falling ill and animals dying after the big drilling rigs, chemical cocktails, and compressor stations move into town, it’s important to note that a growing body of scientific evidence is finding that yes, fracking is harmful to not just the environment, but to us, too. Don’t live near a fracking site? Keep reading anyway: This still concerns you.

Here are five important natural gas facts to share with your friends and family.

1. Natural gas is not clean. Natural gas burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels, but in the course of its entire life cycle, it’s actually worse than coal, long touted as the dirtiest of our fossil fuels. Because fracking involves mixing millions of gallons of water laced with chemicals into the ground at high pressure, it creates fissures in the shale that release the natural gas. Life cycle analysis expert Robert Howarth, PhD, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University, discovered that anywhere from 3.6 to nearly 8 percent of the methane from shale gas drilling escapes through venting and leaks. Methane is a greenhouse gas about 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Howarth’s latest life cycle calculations updated in January 2011 find that when considering the burning of natural gas, and the methane leaks that fracking creates, shale gas produces 1.20- to 2.1-fold more greenhouse gas emissions when compared to coal during a 20-year time period. Methane leaks are worse during the actual fracking process, but they continue to slowly seep over long periods of time. When considering this, natural gas is on par with coal when looking at greenhouse gas production over a 100-year period, the Cornell research shows.

2. Fracking chemicals are extremely dangerous. Since most natural gas drilling companies will not disclose all of the products they use in the drilling process, Theo Colborn, PhD, founder and president of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, set out to figure out what’s in the chemical cocktails used to drill wells and frack. She and her team found 649 different chemicals, more than half of which are known to disrupt the endocrine system. Exposure to these types of chemicals has been linked to certain cancers, diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome (the name for a group of risk factors that occur together and increase the risk for heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes). Fifty-five percent of the chemicals cause brain and nervous system damage, and many are linked to cancer and organ damage. The threat of exposure to these chemicals occurs via contaminated air, water, and soil. “They’re getting away with absolute murder; it’s criminal, the things they’re doing,” says award-winning scientist Colborn. “If you destroy an aquifer, you’ve lost it. You’ve destroyed your drinking water supply.”

3. Natural gas drilling turns clean country air to smog. Even if drilling and the fracking process run completely according to plan with no leaks, no methane migration into drinking water wells, no explosions, and no issues dealing with wastewater, air pollution from fracking is inevitable. It’s part of the process, as huge condensate tanks and compressor stations release toxic hydrocarbons like benzene, toluene, xylenes, and ethylbenzene (BTEX) into surrounding communities. At high levels, exposure to BTEX vapors may cause irreversible damage. That, paired with chemicals used in the initial drilling process, make it very harmful to live in the vicinity of a drilling operation, Colborn says. Her study in the International Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment found that 36 percent of the identifiable chemicals used are volatile, meaning they become airborne. Among those, 93 percent have been shown to harm the eyes, skin, sensory organs, respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, or liver.

4. Fracking releases uranium. That’s right, the radioactive stuff. The 2005 Energy Act included what is known as the Halliburton Loophole, which exempts the natural gas drilling industry from many safeguards, such as the Clean Water Act, intended to protect citizens from industrial corporate activities that pollute. While the chemical cocktail used in fracking has been of much concern, new research is pointing to another fact: Contaminants and dangerous substances trapped deep underground become mobilized when fracking creates mini-earthquake-like explosions underground. A 2010 study out of the University of Buffalo found that natural gas drilling using the fracking method could potentially contaminate water supplies with uranium.

5. Fracking affects everyone. A natural gas survey released in December 2010 found that regardless of political leanings, most people are concerned about fracking. Even if you don’t live atop a major shale deposit, the pollution generated in fracking could affect you. Conrad Dan Volz, DrPH, MPH, director of the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities and the GSPH Environmental Health Risk Assessment Certificate Program at the University of Pittsburgh, notes that as more wells are installed in various states, there’s more toxic wastewater to deal with. Wastewater from fracking operations is often sent to municipal treatment plants that are not properly equipped to handle contamination by more than 600 chemicals, and possibly radioactive material. This wastewater is often shipped to locations where fracking isn’t even taking place, threatening rivers and drinking water supplies in those towns.

Aside from the toxic wastewater issue, fracking could also blemish your nature vacation. Drilling is allowed on public lands, and it’s particularly on display in the now not-so-picturesque parks of Colorado and Wyoming. Just last week, Pennsylvania’s new governor, John Corbett, revoked a ban on new drilling in the state’s parks (PA residents may not have noticed, since the move was announced on a Saturday).