David Thomas: Depletion of minerals in mdern diet

I'm reading 'Eat Your Heart Out' by Felicity Lawrence who writes on food for the Guardian newspaper here in the UK. One of her concerns is the effect of modern farming practices on the nutritional value of our food. She refers to the work of David Thomas, a geologist turned chiropractor and nutritionist (who also sells supplements) who has studied the official government tables of the chemical composition of food, published as McCance and Widdowson's 'The Composition of Foods'. He found (inter alia) that magnesium in milk decreased by 21% between 1940 and 2002.

Here are some of the relevant links I found by Googling. Sorry, I don't know how to make them short or 'live'.

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/feb/02/foodanddrink
www.foodcomm.org.uk/PDF%20files/meat_dairy2.pdf
www.foodcomm.org.uk/PDF%20files/meat_dairy2.pdf
www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2005/may/15/foodanddrink.shopping3
www.mineralresourcesint.co.uk/research.html

Hope this is of interest to some of you diet and supplement gurus.

Sorry, that should be 'modern'.

Babs - excellent resource. Thanks for posting. The more people can become aware that our food supply is miserably deficient, the quicker we can begin staying taking preventive measures to insure we either get healthy or remain healthy. Home grown foods offer some solution; imported foods that permeate the marketplace post risks of both lack of nutritient content as well as exposure to chemical fertilizers, manure, sewage and recycled sewage plus the pesticides, fungicides etc.

It's a sad story and bound to become worse with the increasing populations everywhere demanding more cheap "food."

Jackie

Babs,

Live links can be made simply by surrounding the URL with < and > (no spaces between the < and > and the URL).

Also, include the http:// before the www

So except for the spaces I've added, it would look like:

< [www.guardian.co.uk] >

with the spaces removed, it becomes live:

[www.guardian.co.uk]

George

For more on this topic read this Life Extension Magazine article:

Vegetables Without Vitamins
[www.lef.org]

Well just to give the other side, I have just read a report that states that there is no difference between the vitamin content of organic versus food farmed with pesticides.

It is very difficult to farm on a large scale without using some kind of pesticides/fertilizers, we would not have the food supply that we have without using those components, is it better to have starvation or food that is a little less than desirable.

DDT was once used on a large scale to erradicate diseases, it worked, but due to outcrys ddt was banned, people are again dying of those diseases, so is that better?

Liz

There may very well be no difference in vitamin content, however I find it difficult to believe that consuming traces of biological poisons is good for us.
Doesn't stop me from eating poisoned peaches though.

People have been dying of all sorts of diseases since the beginning of the neolithic age. Chemical agriculture is just another burden.

William

Timely - Dr. Mercola offers foods from the list that can be non-organic and have low levels of pesticides:
[articles.mercola.com]

Be sure to read what he reports about nutrient value etc.

Just as we see controversy over the benefits of supplemental vitamins, minerals and other nutrients in functional medicine versus pharmaceutical medicine, the controversy over nutrient value of organic v. conventionally grown food will continue to rage on because of the very obvious problems involved with how the truth impacts the bottom line. Once again, awareness becomes a key issue and then we all need to make informed choices when options are available. We do the best we can under our own circumstances.

On the toxic chemical burden, however, as pointed out in the very excellent article (following) on environmental influences on health and discoveries in the new field of Epigenetics, it is important also, to be aware that environmental toxins such as pesticides on foods or toxic fluoride in the water have a far-reaching impact on the health of everyone including generations forward. It’s not just about eating a couple apples laced with pesticides. It’s about a lifetime accumulation and that impact that may even be with us before we were born.

Neurosurgeon, Russell L. Blaylock, MD, has devoted his life to creating awareness over the neurotoxic effects from excitotoxins based on his observations during attempts to prolong the lives of those affected by such exposure. He reminds us that it is not typically just one toxin that causes the problem, but the fact that we are bombarded with multiple doses of multiple substances and combinations have the potential to do significant harm. It’s not only infants who are placed at risk for toxic burden.

The liver can only detoxify so much. Toxins have an affinity for fatty tissue like brain, liver and adipose accumulations so we must consider the impact of a lifetime of accumulation. Even worse, infants today are bombarded with vaccines that contain harmful residues that their small organ systems cannot always process efficiently. It’s not just infants.

A considerable amount of research indicates that Gulf War Syndrome (GWS), as well as autism, is triggered by combining too many vaccines over too short a period of time. This error is compounded by numerous other toxic events, especially in the Gulf War veteran. These events include exposure to pesticides, aspartame breakdown products, combat stress, high intake of food-based excitotoxins, possible exposure to released nerve agents, and exposure to contaminated vaccines. (Blaylock)

Throughout the entire period since the first Gulf War the Pentagon has been reluctant to admit to a connection between this devastating syndrome — which has left tens of thousands of soldiers and their families chronically ill and many of their children deformed — and military policies on vaccination. Our soldiers were given approximately 17 vaccinations during a short period of time, despite manufacturers’ warnings that many of the vaccines were to be spaced over a one-year period.

Several hypotheses for the cause of this syndrome have been proposed, including neurotoxic and immunotoxic effects of pesticides, aspartame degradation products, released chemical warfare agents, toxins from spent uranium shells, combat stress and vaccines.(Blaylock)

This, alone, sets up populations for the impact of cumulative and additive effects of chemicals that the body does not require for health and we must consider the long-term impact of the whole picture. We need to be aware to avoid what we can if at all possible because of long-term consequences.

In one of his Wellness Reports, he says this:

How Scientists Really Think
It is characteristic of modern science, and especially
medicine, to always look for one central cause
of a problem rather than explore additive effects —
or even synergic toxicity of many agents (two toxins
acting on the body together may be much more
dangerous when they work in combination).
Yet medicine is gaining new understanding about
the “science of toxin synergy” in your body — and
finding some surprising effects when as few as two
weak toxins are in your body simultaneously.
For example, it is known that when two weakly
toxic pesticides are used alone, neither causes
Parkinson’s syndrome in experimental animals, but
when combined, they can cause full-blown
Parkinsonism very rapidly.

The same is true of fluoride. We know that both
fluoride and aluminum, individually, are brain toxins,
but when combined, as we see in fluoridated
water, the mix constitutes an extremely powerful
brain toxin, destroying numerous neurons in the
part of the brain associated with memory and emotional
functions.

It is rare for government agencies to test potentially
toxic chemicals or even food additives in combination,
despite extensive scientific studies showing
toxic synergy for many such compounds.

As in the examples above, we are seeing more
instances of chemicals causing devastating injury
when combined, yet being either mildly toxic or
even nontoxic when used alone.

Few laymen realize that vaccines contain many
chemical additives in addition to the infectious
organism being targeted. A typical vaccine could
include aluminum, mercury, hydrolyzed proteins,
monosodium glutamate, oils, and many complex
molecules known as immune adjuvants. Several of
these (aluminum, mercury, hydrolyzed protein and
MSG) are known to be directly toxic to the brain.
(Blaylock Wellness Report May 2004)
www.newsmax.com $48/year


RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #819
[www.rachel.org]
June 9, 2005

A NEW WAY TO INHERIT ENVIRONMENTAL HARM

by Tim Montague*

New research shows that the environment is more important to
health than anyone had imagined. Recent information indicates
that toxic effects on health can be inherited by children and
grandchildren, even when there are no genetic mutations
involved.[1] These inherited changes are caused by subtle
chemical influences, and this new field of scientific inquiry
is called "epigenetics."[2]

Since the 1940s, scientists have known that genes carry
information from one generation to the next, and that genes
gone haywire can cause cancer, diabetes, and other diseases.
But scientists have also known that genes aren't the whole
story because identical twins -- whose genes are identical --
can have very different medical histories. One identical twin
can be perfectly healthy while the other develops schizophrenia
or cancer -- so the environment must play a significant role,
not merely genes.

What's surprising is that scientists are now revealing that
these environmental effects can be passed from one generation
to the next by a process called "epigenetics," with
far-reaching implications for human health. Epigenetics is
showing that environmental influences can be inherited -- even
without any mutations in the genes themselves[1] -- and may
continue to influence the onset of diseases like diabetes,
obesity, mental illness and heart disease, from generation to
generation.

In other words, the cancer you get today may have been caused
by your grandmother's exposure to an industrial poison 50 years
ago, even though your grandmother's genes were not changed by
the exposure.[1] Or the mercury you're eating today in fish may
not harm you directly, but may harm your grandchildren.

This emerging field of epigenetics is causing a revolution in
the understanding of environmental influences on health. The
field is only about 20 years old, but is becoming
well-established. In 2004, the National Institutes of Health
granted $5 million to the Johns Hopkins Medical School in
Baltimore to start the Center for Epigenetics of Common Human
Disease.

The latest information appears in a new study by Michael
Skinner and colleagues at the University of Washington,
published in the June 3 issue of Science magazine. Skinner
found that mother rats exposed to hormone-mimicking chemicals
during pregnancy gave birth to four successive generations of
male offspring with significantly reduced fertility.[3] Only
the first generation of mothers was exposed to a toxin, yet
four generations later the toxic effect could still be
detected.

Prior to this study, scientists had only been able to document
epigenetic effects on the first generation of offspring. These
new findings suggest that harm from toxins in the environment
can be much longer lasting and pervasive than previously known
because they can impact several generations.

And therefore a precautionary approach to toxics is even more
important that previously believed. (See Rachel's 765, 770, 775,
781, 787, 789, 790, 791, 802, 803, 804.)

Over the past sixty years doctors and scientists have pieced
together a picture of the genetic basis for life and some of
the genetic causes of! human and animal disease. Genes regulate
the production of proteins -- the essential building blocks of
life. Genes are composed of a finite series of letters (a code
made up of Cs, Ts, As, and Gs, each representing a nucleotide)
embedded in long strands of DNA. DNA is the large molecule,
composed of genes, that carries the genetic inheritance forward
into the next generation.

There are approximately three billion 'letters' in the human
genetic code. Science has long understood that when a gene
mutates -- that is, when a typo is introduced -- it can have
far-reaching effects for the cell, the tissue and the organism
as a whole. For example, a genetic mutation caused by too much
sun (ultraviolet radiation), could result in abnormal
uncontrolled cell growth which could lead to skin cancer which
could spread throughout your body. Stay in the shade and you
reduce your risk.

But now scientists are seeing that disease can be passed from
generation to generation without any genetic mutations.[1] The
DNA molecule itself gets another molecule attached to it, which
changes the behavior of the genes without changing the genes
themselves.[1] The attachment of these additional molecules is
caused by environmental influences -- but these influences can
then be passed from one generation to the next, if they affect
the germ cells, i.e., the sperm or the egg.

Scientists have, so far, discovered three different kinds of
"epigenetic" changes that can affect the DNA molecule and thus
cause inheritable changes. One is the methyl molecule.

Scientists began to see direct connections between human
diseases like cancer and these subtle genetic variations like
methylation in 1983 when Andrew Feinberg and his colleagues at
Johns Hopkins found that cancer cells had unusually low
incidence of DNA-methylation.[4]

Methyl is a molecule of one carbon atom and three hydrogen
atoms. Together they attach to a strand of DNA altering its
three-dimensional structure and the behavior of specific genes
in the DNA strand. It turns out that methylation works like a
volume control for the activity of individual genes. Whereas
genetic mutations are typos and relatively easy to test for,
epigenetic changes are analogous to the formatting of the text
(e.g. font, size, and color) and are much less-well understood.
Over the past 20 years, Feinberg and many other cancer
specialists have documented the wide-spread influence of
epigenetics on the development of cancer in humans and
laboratory animals.[5]

So epigenetics is changing our traditional picture of common
chemicals, like DDT. DDT is a powerful environmental toxin --
once it enters a living thing it mimics the behavior of natural
hormones -- resulting in abnormal sexual and reproductive
development. Widespread use of DDT in the 1940s and 1950s is
associated with large scale declines in some bird populations
(like the Peregrine falcon) because DDT causes birds' eggshells
to thin, and thus the eggs crack before the embryo can develop
into a chick.

When persistent environmental pollutants (like DDT) are phased
out, we might be falsely lulled into believing that we have
solved the problem. The thinking is logical -- remove the toxin
from the environment and you get rid of the toxic effects. Not
so according to the findings of Skinner and his colleagues.

The Skinner study tells us that phasing out dangerous toxins
doesn't end the problem -- because the damage done by exposures
decades ago could still flow from generation to generation via
epigenetic pathways.

Skinner and his colleagues treated groups of pregnant rats,
some with methoxychlor and some with vinclozolin. Methoxychlor
is a replacement for DDT, a pesticide used on crops and
livestock and in anima! l feed. Vinclozolin is a fungicide widely
used in the wine industry. It is just one of a suite of widely
used chemicals from flame-retardants to ingredients in plastics
that can cause reproductive abnormalities in laboratory
animals.

Both methoxychlor and vinclozolin are known hormone disruptors
(see Rachel's 486, 487, 499, 501, and 547). Male offspring of
these pesticide-treated mothers had reduced fertility (lower
sperm count, reduced sperm quality), which was not a surprising
finding. The scientists then bred these offspring, and again
the male offspring had reduced fertility. This came as a complete
surprise. Over 90% of the male offspring in four generations of
the test animals had reduced fertility.

Skinner's report concludes that genetic mutations are highly
unlikely to produce such a strong signal in the treated animals
and that DNA-methylation is the likely mechanism responsible
for the observed decline in male fertility.

Treating the mother rats during pregnancy apparently
re-programmed the genetic material in the male offspring so
that all subsequent male offspring suffered lower fertility
from this environmental factor.

Skinner believes that his findings in rats could explain the
dramatic rise in breast and prostate cancers in humans in
recent decades (see Rachel's 346, 369, 375, 385 and 547) as
partly due to the cumulative effects of multiple toxins over
several generations.

Skinner acknowledges that the doses he gave his rats were high,
compared to the doses humans might expect to receive from
environmental exposures. He is continuing his rat experiments
with lower doses now.

Of course all this new information makes the control of toxic
chemicals even more important that previously thought. The
health of future generations is at stake.

The development of epigenetics also greatly complicates
toxicity tes! ting, and chemical risk assessment. Epigenetics
tells us that much additional toxicity testing will
be needed. So far, there are no standardized,
government-approved protocols for conducting epigenetic tests.
Until such protocols emerge (which could take years), and a
great deal of expensive testing has been completed (requiring
many more years), risk assessors will have to acknowledge that
-- so far as epigenetics is concerned -- they are flying blind.

=====

* Tim Montague is Associate Director of Environmental Research
Foundation. He holds an M.S. degree in ecology from
University of Wisconsin-Madison and lives in Chicago.

[1] Here we define a genetic mutation as a change in the
sequence of nucleotide bases (C,A,T,G). We recognize that
epigenetic changes are heritable changes to the DNA, but they
are not sequence changes.

[2] To see nine articles on epigenetics from the popular press,
including an excellent series from the Wall Street Journal, go
to [www.rachel.org]

[3] M. Anway, A. Cupp, M. Uzumcu, and M. Skinner, "Epigenetic
Transgenerational Actions of Endocrine Disruptors and Male
Fertility," SCIENCE Vol. 308 (June 3, 2005), pgs. 1466-1469.
Michael Skinner is director of the University of Washington's
Center for Reproductive Biology; [www.skinner.wsu.edu]

[4] Andrew Feinberg and Bert Vogelstein, "Hypomethylation
distinguishes genes of some human cancers from their normal
counterparts," NATURE Vol. 301 (January 6, 1983), pgs. 89-92.

[5] Andrew Feinberg and Benjamin Tycko, "The history of cancer
epigenetics," NATURE REVIEWS (February 2004) Vol. 4, pgs.
143-153.


ORGANOCHLORINES:
These pesticides are chlorine containing compounds including DDT, aldrin, dieldrin and lindane. The organochlorines act through disruption of neurotransmission. PCB's, which are not used as pesticides, are also organochlorines with similar human action and thus have the potential for an additive effect.

• The greatest concern with the organochlorines are the long term effects. The U.S. EPA has concluded that DDT, DDE and DDD are probable human carcinogens. On this basis both Canada and the U.S. banned the organochlorines; however, they continue to be very prevalent posing long- term health risks.

• The organochlorines are still widely used in developing countries including Central and South America, India, China and many other countries. Products imported from these countries are obvious sources of DDT and other organochlorines. They are also transported in air, oceans and bioaccumulate in organisms.15

• Food is the primary route of exposure. Foods which may contain DDT include: meat, fish and poultry, dairy products and root and leafy vegetables. Fish from the Great Lakes Basin and inland waters are a large food source of organochlorine exposure.

• A study of the concentrations and dietary intake of selected organochlorines in fresh food composites grown in Ontario demonstrated that organochlorine residues were detected in all of the food composites. This included all types of fresh food grown in Ontario including beef, poultry, fruits and vegetables (it did not include fish). The Findings suggest that consumption of eggs and meat is also a significant source of exposure to the majority of organochlorine chemicals studied.16
[www.caps.20m.com]

Jackie:

We know that chemicals are not good, however, DDT eradicated many diseases caused by mosquitoes and other insects in third world countries. Third world countries do not have the sanitary system that we and other advanced countries enjoy. DDT saved a lot of lives, these lives are being lost needlessly because of misguided do-gooders.

Isn't it nice to sit in our clean shinny houses and tell everyone how bad this and that is, what is your solution and does it work. For a start let everyone get off their lazy butts and have their own garden, years ago all my neighbors had gardens, now it is too much work, easier to buy it and grouse.

Jackie do you remember "Slient Spring" by Rachel Carson, she said that we wouldn't have any birds because of all the pesticides being used, well she was wrong, we have a ton of birds, they eat all my cherries.

Liz

Another timely clip on environmental toxins.

In the Aug/Sept 08 issue of Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, a previous interview by Robert Crayon, MS (August 07) titled: Cancer, Pancreatic Enzymes and Politics – an Interview With Nicholas Gonzales, MD, had a couple of timely comments that are on this topic of food and pesticides.

He’s talking about caring for cancer patients but obviously, prevention is preferred to treatment after the fact.

RC – question How important are organic foods?

NG response: Absolutely critical. Who wants to take neurotoxins? Pesticides kill insects, because they poison their nervous system.
How much intelligence does it take? Do you want to fill your body over a 50-, 60-70, 80-year period with neurotoxins that kill insects? I don’t want to do that. I want to take things into my body that would help insects grow: organic food. Insects love organic foods. There are ways of protecting the plant from insects, of course, but I’m saying there are all the nutrients in there. There’s nothing poisoning us. You don’t want these neurotoxins coming in.

New studies show this; the orthodox scientists tended to laugh at it. The Internet’s a wonderful think in that regard. I pulled out a very legitimate study that found laboratory animals raised on organic food live longer, are healthy, even get along with each other better than animals raised on the same types of food grown non-organically. Guess what? These little animals, their brains were getting poisoned with the pesticides. Maybe the neurotoxins are not that much in a single piece of broccoli, but when you eat broccoli over 50 years, toxicity starts adding up if it’s not organic. We insist that all of our patients eat as much organic foods as they can. I live that way. I’ve lived on organic food for 26 years, and I tell you, it makes a difference. When I don’t eat organically, I don’t feel as well.

RC: There was a paper in The Lancet recently that showed that the more produce people eat, the greater their risk for a neurodegenerative condition, which has to point to pesticides. I don’t know what else it could be.

NG - Of course. Yes. It’s not the food itself. It’s obviously the pesticides in the food. Pretty soon, you won’t be able to eat anything. Youlook at some of the studies with animal fat that says animal fat causes cancer. Well, what kind of animal fat are they talking about? Are they talking about organic caribou from the Artic? Are they talking about feed-lot raised animals that have hormones and pesticides and fungicides and insecticides, etc?

A lot of these chemicals are fat-soluble so they get stored in the fat cells. You don’t pee them out quickly. You eat a hamburger, and youget all that chemical stuff from the fat. So, yes, that’s exactly right. It’s getting to the point where scientists are going to realize that people can’t eat anything. They’ll just have to stand on the street and starve to death. It’s a real problem.

We think organic is absolutely critically important. We started doing this 15 or 20 years ago. It was hard to get organic produce. Even in New York City, it wasn’t that easy. Now , of course, it’s easier to get, although they’re trying to dilute the definition of organic. More people are demanding organic foods – correctly and rightfully. They should demand it.

Quoted p. 87 – Townsend Letter.
Aug/Sept 2008
www.townsendletter.com
$51/year


Continuing on in this issue is a book review “Casualties of Modern Life – Disabled Brains” (p. 129) that also relates to environmental toxins.

“Dyslogic Syndrome: Why Millions of Kids are “Hyper,” Attention-Disordered, Learning Disabled, Depressed, Aggressive, Defiant or Violent – and What we Can Do About It” by Bernard Rimland
Jessica Kingsley Publishers Philadelphia ISBN 978-1-8430-877-1

“Insert: Reversing the trend of more children with brain dysfunctions will require changes for everyone. We will need to reduce toxins in the air, water, and soil. We will need to improve the quality of our food supply. We will need to reevaluate potentially dangerous medical practices such as excessive immunizations of infants.

The book supplies a well-referenced discussion of the many new factors to consider. First we must learn that we are all genetically different. Then we can look at our every-changing food supply. In addition to what w call food and accept ands nutrition now includes food, dyes, additives and artificial sweeteners that are known to affect behavior.”

Liz - I hear you. Most of my neighbors do have gardens but many people I know do not have the space or as you say the inclination to raise their own healthy food.

I couldn't live without my own organic garden. If the food shortage and crisis continues as expected, more people may see the light and begin to garden again out of necessity.

I'm old enough to remember that during WWII, everyone had Victory Gardens. Food was scarce. Meat and other items were rationed. We were issued food ration coupons and we stood in line to choose a one or two items of meat. Often beef tongue was the only meat available. Sugar was non-existent. We saved fat left from cooking in a can to take to a collection site where it was recycled for use in the War effort. We washed out and collapsed tin cans which were also recyled for the War effort. Even shoes were rationed. I was growing and managed to use up my parents and grandparents shoe rations! Imagine!

Raising our own food was the only way we could really remain healthy. Many of my mother's relatives lived in the city where gardens weren't possible or at least an easy choice. We shared what we had including the chickens and rabbits we raised as a meat source and for eggs.

Who knows, we may revert back to those basics sooner than anyone thinks.

Jackie