On the heels of my post about the new Arctic Apple on Wednesday, another post on the subject on Real Agriculture. I love this post by Debra Murphy. Thanks to a couple of my twitter friends for sharing it!
I have a few things I want to say about GMOs as there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding them and I’ve had a couple of people suggest related topics for blog posts.
1. The Arctic apple was approved for production by the FDA and the CFIA a few weeks ago. Some
food manufacturers people are pretty excited about this because it means that you will now be able to slice or bite an apple without having to worry about unsightly enzymatic browning. I mean, god forbid that your apple innards not be a pristine white. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that this was approved at the same time as everyone’s expressing such enthusiasm for “ugly” vegetables and fruits?
It’s this sort of use of genetic modification that makes me particularly angry. The primary argument in support of GMOs is that they will help to feed the world through hardier higher yielding crops. An apple that doesn’t brown is going to be of no benefit to people living in drought stricken regions. It’s not going to help alleviate the hunger of anyone except the food manufacturers who think that apples need to be pre-sliced and packaged in plastic pouches at exorbitant prices. Did you know that an apple comes with a lovely natural protective skin on it and that it can be sold intact? Did you know that you can eat an apple without slicing it first? And that there are kitchen tools called knives that enable you to slice an apple yourself if that’s your preferred method of consumption. Come on. Creating an apple that doesn’t brown when exposed to the air should not have been a priority for engineers. Do something worthwhile.
2. Non-GMO is not the same thing as organic. Based on the current definitions, all organic foods must be non-GMO but not all non-GMO foods are organic. Organic foods must also be grown without the use of synthetic pesticides. Which leads to number three…
3. Mamavation’s top 10 reasons to feed your family organic which are basically a list of lies. One and two being true (although not necessarily good reasons to feed your family organic) and the rest, aside from number six, being misleading at best and completely false at worst. 3. Organic foods have been found to contain residual pesticides. Organic farmers are permitted to use pesticides, they just can’t use inorganic (i.e. synthetic pesticides). In addition to those pesticides, organic crops also become contaminated with inorganic pesticides through air, rain, and soil contamination. 4. Have you ever looked at any of the packaged organic foods in your local supermarket? Products containing preservatives are plentiful. While they may not contain artificial flavours or colours this doesn’t make them nutritionally superior. Natural fallacy anyone? Beaver anal glands (can’t miss an opportunity to mention them!). 5. No antibiotics or hormones. You won’t find these in any Canadian milk regardless of whether or not it’s organic. In fact, you’ll only find hormones in beef and antibiotics in some animals (1). 7. There is no evidence, despite numerous studies, that organic foods contain more nutrients than non-organic foods. 8. Better taste. How to argue with subjectivity? I have had some delicious organic foods and some that taste terrible. I think that freshness and variety are more important factors in flavour profile than organic is. 9. Support the farmer and the farm. Organic is irrelevant here. I think that she’s confusing conventional agriculture with factory farms. Many smaller farming operations may be organic without being certified organic, they may also not use organic practices. You can also buy organic foods that come from large-scale farming operations. A better suggestion: buy local, know your farmer. 10. Reduces pollution and saves energy. Again, this is confusing farm-scale with organic and conventional farming practices.
While I’m not a supporter of genetic modification, I’m even more opposed to ignorant fear mongering.
Part of me is a little hesitant to address the op-ed piece by Dr Dean Ornish in the New York Times last week. This because, the low-fat zealots have already attacked me for criticizing Dr Esselstyn in the past. But, you know me, when something gets under my skin I can’t leave it well enough along.
The piece was titled: The Myth of High-Protein Diets. One would think that the accompanying article would be about pitfalls to following a high-protein diet. However, Dr Ornish focusses solely on animal protein, with an emphasis on meat and fat. The gist of his argument is that if you eschew animal products you will live longer, as will the planet. Okay, so it’s not the myth of high-protein diets. It’s the myth of high-animal products diets.
One of the studies Ornish cites is one that I blogged about a year ago. At the time it ignited headlines proclaiming that protein was akin to smoking and that animal protein would contribute to our premature demise. Suffice to say, the study was flawed and these conclusions were tenuously drawn. In fact, in older adults, diets that were higher in protein were actually positively correlated with reduced mortality. And there was no negative effect from plant sources of protein at any age. So, even with the poor quality of this research, some of the results were in direct opposition to Ornish’s interpretation of them.
I read articles like this and think to myself “it’s no wonder that people are confused about what to eat and don’t trust any health care professionals”. You have one doctor insisting that a low-carb diet is the key to a long healthy life, another insisting that it’s low-fat, another insisting that it’s high-carb, another insisting that it’s blahblahblah. Of course, they all have the book to sell you. Maybe they’re all right. Maybe you can be healthy one any of their highly-restrictive diets. As I’ve said before, the best diet is the one that you can enjoy and follow for life. For me, that involves eating fat, protein, and carbs from both plant and animal sources. Yeah, I know it’s not sexy, but balance and variety are the hallmarks of a nutritious diet.
Something that I’ve been hearing a fair amount recently is that you can drink too much water. Ever since the eight cups of water rule-of-thumb was debunked a few years ago it seems that popular opinion is swinging the other way and people are concluding that we should drink less water.
While it’s certainly possible to drink too much water, it’s highly unlikely that the average person will manage to do so in the run of a day. The people dying from hyponatremia (low sodium levels in the body which can be caused by excessive water consumption) are usually athletes who are consuming more water than their bodies have lost and/or not enough accompanying electrolytes. I could also sit at a desk and chug a gallon of water with the same effect, but no one’s ever suggested that this is a good idea.
Okay, so you may not be likely to die from hyponatremia but aren’t you still putting a strain on your kidneys by drinking water throughout the day? Unless you have a medical condition, healthy kidneys can excrete as much as 12 litres of urine a day! (this is according to Krause’s Food & Nutrition Therapy by Mahan and Escott-Stump). That’s a damn sight more than 8 cups, 2-3 litres, or whichever recommendation you’ve heard. It’s highly unlikely that you’re going to cause damage to your kidneys by drinking water throughout the day and you’re more likely to suffer from dehydration than over-hydration.
Of course, the amount of water each person needs varies. It depends on how much water you’re losing through sweat, your altitude, pregnancy and breastfeeding, health status, etc. According to the Institute of Medicine, the average adult woman needs about 2.2 litres of fluids a day, the average adult man, about 3 litres. Thirst is certainly a great indicator that you should have something to drink. And it’s true that other beverages (yes, even coffee and tea) and foods can contribute to your overall hydration. Water is the most commonly recommended choice as it doesn’t contain any added calories, sugar, or other substances you might wish to avoid. It’s can also be free and is generally easily obtained.
Don’t be scared off by people saying that you can drink too much water. And don’t use it as an excuse to avoid drinking water all day. We are approximately 60% water and we need to consume adequate fluids to maintain healthy body function. Don’t ditch your water bottle!
Lots of drama in the dietetic world last week. No, I’m not talking about the wildly popular Dietitians Day. First, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) in the US brokered a facepalm worthy deal with Kraft to have their logo placed on process cheese slices. Dietitians everywhere (myself included) were outraged, certainly not shocked, but definitely outraged. And rightfully so. How are people supposed to take us seriously when an organization claiming to represent thousands of dietitians is promoting process cheese. A product that the majority of us would neither consume nor recommend to clients. On the defensive, AND released a statement (you may need to scroll down a bit to find the post) claiming that the prominent placement of their logo on the process cheese was not indicative of endorsement. Rather, the logo was indicative of Kraft’s support of AND. Right. We all know that doesn’t matter. It’s the perception that matters and everyone perceived the placement of the AND logo as an endorsement of the questionable product. Especially since the initial accompanying pronouncement stated that AND was proud to have their logo appearing on Kraft singles as many children don’t consume enough calcium and vitamin D. AND will be forming a committee to address the concerns of members regarding this deal with Kraft, in MAY. If you agree that this “partnership” is wrong then please take a minute to sign the Change.org petition asking AND to “repeal the seal”.
Hot on the heels of the AND Kraft debacle was the news that a number of dietitians had promoted mini-Coke cans as “healthy snacks”. These dietitians were likely all paid for
selling their souls this work, although one of them couldn’t recall if she was paid by Coke or not. Gee, I wish I was making so much money that I could forget whether or not I was paid for something. While I hate to rag on fellow dietitians, it frustrates me to no end to hear of others doing such a disservice to our profession.
Both of these stories exemplify how the relationship between the food industry and dietetics/dietitians undermines our integrity as health professionals. There is a larger problem here. Dietetic organizations need sources of funding that do not come with conflicts of interest. Dietitians need more and better job opportunities. I understand that it’s a tough job market. Believe me, I’m not raking in the dough and I’m only quasi working as a dietitian. However, I would sooner give-up my status as a registered dietitian than to use it to promote questionable food and beverage choices. With the constantly changing science and messages in nutrition it’s hard enough to convince people to trust us. Is it really worth sacrificing our credibility to make a buck?