The food you’re eating could be killing you…slowly

By: JACK M.

It’ll hardly come as a shock to learn that so-called “experts” frequently disagree. Put three experts in a room to work on some problem, and there’s a fair chance you’ll get three different opinions. And it doesn’t seem to matter what discipline the experts are offering their learned opinions on. There are areas that affect us all profoundly, such as health, finance and climate change to name just a few. And then there are those who pontificate and proselytize about topics and issues that most of us probably don’t really give a rat’s ass about – what the best brand of golf equipment is, where to get the best artery-clogging cheeseburger, what the best footwear is, or who’s going to win the Stanley Cup. But there’s one area where disagreement among those in whom most of us have put our trust is not a joke, far from it…the food we eat. I’m not talking here about the obscene amounts of food that many of us – and North Americans in particular – shovel down our gullets with all the savoir faire of an alley cat in heat. Nor am I talking here about how many of us have gotten to a place in history where we have allowed our craven selves to pay homage to the three seductive sirens of the food industry – sugar, salt and fat. What I’m talking about here is the crap that goes into, and onto, the foods that we eat and the foods that we feed to our children. I’m talking here about chemistry – colourings, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, preservatives, emulsifiers, artificial flavourings, flavour enhancers, anti-foaming agents, anti-caking agents, anti-oxidising agents, anti-microbial agents, thickening agents, thinning agents, stabilizers, humectants, binders, growth enhancers, growth inhibitors, tenderizers, texturizers. I think I’ll stop here before I drive myself right to the very brink of paranoia.

Before I carry on here, a word in my own defense. Lest I’m accused of being some sort of a card-carrying, pulpit-pounding conspiracy theorist, relax. I don’t share the stage with wide-eyed UFO enthusiasts, apocalyptic prognosticators or promoters of a clandestine cabal of world-ordering puppeteers. And I have no intention of sending you off to the nearest organic farmer’s market, armed with little more than a copy of Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma (an interesting read, by the way) and a couple of biodegradable shopping bags. I consider myself to be a thinking, rational, reasonably intelligent, caring and ever-curious member of our species. But right now, I’m also a little pissed off! At whom, and why? At the “experts” in their ivory towers, and because they can’t agree! There are thousands of additives and pesticides – here’s a more comprehensive list put out by the FDA – that food processors and growers put into and onto our food to make it look better, last longer and cheaper to bring to the supermarket shelves and restaurant tables. And I’m certainly not suggesting that some, perhaps many, of these products are indeed not just innocuous, but they’re also beneficial in many ways. But here’s the kicker…some of them have been identified (by yet more “experts”) as being anywhere from suspect to downright threatening not just to our health, but also to the health of farm animals, wildlife and the environment. Here’s a brief summary of a partial list of suspects:

1. Azodicarbonamide

More commonly known as ADA, it is considered a food additive. This chemical is used as a bleaching agent in flour and as a dough “conditioner” in bread; and interestingly, it is also used in the plastics and leather industries. It is certainly not among the most potentially noxious of food additives, but it has been identified as a probable cause of asthma and other respiratory ailments. It is legal to use ADA in the United States and Canada, but it has been banned in Europe and Australia.

2. Potassium bromate

This chemical is also used as a dough conditioner in the baking industry. However, unlike azodicarbonamide, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has identified this additive as a possible carcinogen. It is available for use in the United States, but has been banned in many other major countries around the world, including Canada, most European countries, Brazil and, of all places, China.

3. Diphenylamine

Also known as DPA, this product is used mainly in the fruit industry, and in particular as a coating on apples to prevent them from spoiling during long periods of storage. It is banned in Europe but is legal for use in Canada and the United States. The American CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) lists the following health concerns for DPA: irritation of the eyes, skin and mucous membrane; eczema; tachycardia; hypertension; coughing; sneezing; methemoglobinemia; increased blood pressure and heart rate; proteinuria and hematuria (blood in the urine) and bladder injury. However, of much greater concern is the fact that DPA can, according to the Environmental Working Group, also cause the synthesis of a far more dangerous group of chemicals, nitrosamines, which have been strongly associated with the formation of a number of different cancers.

4. Atrazine

This chemical is widely used as an herbicide (weed killer) by corn and sugar cane farmers. It is available for use in Canada and the United States, but has been banned in Europe since 2009. It’s considered to be a major source of groundwater contamination, and results of EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) tests have shown that atrazine is both an endocrine disruptor, a potential cause of birth defects and is suspect in adverse health effects on wildlife. Syngenta, a major manufacturer of atrazine, was the defendant in a class action lawsuit concerning its adverse effects in human water supplies. The corporation lost, and the suit was settled in May of 2012, with Syngenta paying out $105 million.

5. Paraquat

This is another widely-used herbicide that has been strongly linked to the development of Parkinson’s Disease. But paraquat also has the rather dubious distinction of being the mode of choice for committing suicide and murder, particularly in developing countries, because of its relatively low cost and easy availability. It has been banned in Europe, but is freely used in both Canada and The United States.

6. Butylated hydroxyanisole & Butylated hydroxytoluene

These two chemicals are also known by the rather benign-sounding BHA and BHT respectively. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Center for Science in the Public Interest and other organizations have voiced a number of less-than-favourable opinions, including carcinogenicity, on these products, which are used as food preservatives. They are widely used in The United States and Canada, but have been banned in Japan, the U.K. and a number of other European countries.

7. Recombinant bovine growth hormone and recombinant bovine somatotropin

Once again, these are known by the somewhat euphemistic rBGH and rBST respectively. They are artificial hormones that are injected into dairy cows to increase milk production. Because of the increased health risks to the animals themselves, and because these chemicals can eventually find their way into the human food chain, a number of well-respected agencies have raised red flags about rBGH and rBST, including the possibility of carcinogenicity. These products are available in the United States and a number of Central and South American countries, but they are banned in Canada (although other artificial growth hormones are permitted there), Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and Europe. By way of an interesting aside, American and Canadian beef, and beef products, that have been exposed to growth hormones have been banned in Europe.

8. Ractopamine

This is a drug that acts as a growth promoter. It is used to promote weight gain in cattle, pigs and turkeys, and has been identified as being suspect in cardiovascular disease and cancer in humans. It is available for use in the United States, Canada and Japan, but has been banned in Europe, Russia and China.

9. Antibiotics

The use of antibiotics in farm animals has been a contentious practice for decades. They are used widely around the world, but far less in Europe than in other jurisdictions. When used for treating disease and infection, there is little doubt as to their need and efficacy. However, like ractopamine above, antibiotics can also be used to promote weight gain. Because humans can consume residual amounts of the same antibiotics, it contributes to antibiotic-resistance in humans and farm animals alike.

10. Artificial colourings

There are simply too many of them to list. They tend to come and go, and like most other chemicals, their use varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Food colourings tend to have very polite names like Blue Number 2 (5,5′-indigodisulfonic acid sodium salt) or Yellow Number 5 (Tartrazine), and their purpose, of course, is to make food products look more appetizing and “natural”, so we’ll buy more of them.

As mentioned previously, this is a very limited outline of what’s going on under the covers and behind the scenes of the food industry. Brominated vegetable oil, propyl gallate, ethyl malthol, formaldehyde, heptylparaben, olestra, inosinic acid…the list goes on. The opinions expressed by the “experts” are as broad and diverse as the topic is complex and controversial. And when agencies as renowned as the United States FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), Health Canada, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), WHO (World Health Organization), the NIH (National Institutes of Health) and a plethora of National Research Councils find themselves at loggerheads, red flags have to be raised. One very obvious fact that can be discerned not just from the brief dissertation above, but from an examination of the use of food additives in general, is how diametrically opposed are the regulations in the United States (and Canada, to a lesser degree) and those in Europe and other jurisdictions. Is the science that is practiced in North America so different from that in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan? Hardly. Are one country’s regulatory agencies more powerful and vigilant than another’s? Possibly, but I like to think not. Are Europeans as a group more sensitive and disease-prone than their North American cousins? Obviously not. So why the disparity of opinion and governance?

By any yardstick, America is the most powerful nation on Earth. It represents less than five percent of the world’s population, but more than twenty percent of its GDP. It has one of the highest literacy rates in the world, but it also ranks among the highest for rates of cancer, diabetes, obesity and heart disease. And a study by the United Nations on life expectancy puts an interesting perspective on things. Americans spend more money per capita than any other country in the world on health care and prescription drugs, but they are also one of largest consumers of the very products that this article has discussed! You don’t have to be a rocket scientist, or a statistician or even have an IQ above room temperature to connect the dots…the crap in the food is killing us, slowly. The correlation between the use of chemistry-complemented food and the instance of ill-health seems difficult to refute. It’s certainly not my intention to cast the United States in the role of a pariah – far from it – or to suggest that Europe is a real–world Shangri-La, but the contrast between the two dominions is so indisputable that it warrants a closer look.

So, why does this disparity of opinion and governance exist at all? First off, there’s money. The food industry – and have no illusions or delusions about it, it is an industry – in most industrialized nations, but in the United States in particular, is a powerful industry, with enough money and power to purchase influence in the halls of power. Lobbying – and its cousin, crony capitalism – are alive and well in the home of the brave and land of the free. What do Dick Armey, Tom Daschle and Trent Lott have in common? Answer: they are all former politicians who became lobbyists after they left the public arena. And I’m not suggesting for a moment that this questionable use of power is not alive and well in other jurisdictions, but it seems to be particularly prevalent in the United States. Secondly, there’s the problem of conflict of interest. I can’t help but think that when an executive of a company like Monsanto (one of the manufacturers of the notorious Agent Orange) or DuPont, two of the world’s largest companies in the chemicals industry, ends up as part of the decision-making process with a regulatory agency like the FDA or the EPA, there has to be more than just the appearance of conflict. Michael Friedman and Suzanne Sechen, both presumably capable and well-educated people, have held positions of authority with both the chemical giant Monsanto and the FDA. Linda Fisher has had a place at the head table of Monsanto, DuPont and the EPA. And this duplicitous and unholy alliance is not limited to politicians; a former president of McDonald’s, Linda Fisher, is on the Board of Directors of Monsanto. It’s a little like putting the fox in charge of the hen house, or the inmates in charge of the asylum. Thirdly, state-run agencies contradict each other in matters of health. When agencies inside the same country do this, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. And I’m not talking about a couple of no-name laboratories throwing a hissy-fit over who’s got the biggest Bunsen burner. But when the “experts” at agencies as esteemed as Health Canada, the FDA and the NIH can’t get their act together, it doesn’t leave a whole lot of wiggle room for optimism. Here’s a question for you: what food additive does the Food and Drug Administration boast as “generally recognized as safe,” while the National Institutes of Health states as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen?” Answer: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), as discussed above. Check it out for yourself. “Atrazine is the number one contaminant found in drinking water in the U.S. and probably in the world”, says University of California at Berkeley, scientist Tyrone Hayes. Yet governmental agencies allow its extensive use. According to Health Canada, “because atrazine has been classified in Group III (possibly carcinogenic to humans)”, an acceptable amount in drinking water has been set at five parts per billion. In the United States, the level has been set at three parts per billion; maybe Canadians drink less water than Americans. However, I believe that the most serious contributor to this disparity of opinion lies in the fact that there is an intractable disconnect in the philosophical approach to the question. Whereas American (and Canadian, although to a lesser extent) authorities have adopted the model of “trying it” until it has been proven detrimental to our health, their European counterparts have adopted the reverse approach – put it on the shelf until it has been proven harmless. Putting it all together, perhaps the only rational conclusion that can be arrived at is that the “science” of the “experts” is so corrupted with bias, politics and conflict of interest that the recommendations as to what is and is not safe is little more than a toss of a coin. The only really safe path to take may be no path at all. Avoid everything. Easier said than done. So, what’s a thinking, rational, reasonably intelligent, caring and ever-curious consumer to do? If I venture too close to that “brink of paranoia” and I am in danger of falling into a black hole of despair and gloom, I’ll consider moving into a cave somewhere in Greenland and waste away the hours eating wild berries and puffin eggs, while contemplating my navel. I am, however, physically and emotionally shackled to my creature comforts here in the big city, so I’m going to go with plan ‘B’. If you’re at all concerned about what you’re putting into your belly, you might want to give a little thought to the following. Firstly, make yourself aware of organizations that advocate for the consumer, organizations such as the Environmental Working Group and Pesticide Action Network; they’re a panoply of interesting facts and figures. Secondly, know what you’re swallowing. There’s what has become known as The Dirty Dozen – a group of fruits and vegetables that have more chemical residues than most – and The Clean Fifteen – the ones that have significantly less residues than most. You can check them out here. Thirdly, check the label for additives and pesticides. Labels don’t always tell the whole truth, but processors and manufacturers are obliged to give some indication as to what their products contain; if in doubt, contact them. Lastly, use common sense and buy organic if available and your budget allows for it. A little common sense can sometimes go a long way – wash and/or peel your fresh produce before eating it; it doesn’t remove all the possible contaminants, but even a little will help. And if at all possible, buy organic; yes, it’s typically (but not always) more expensive and not always available, but I bet you’ll sleep better at night. As something of an aside, food that has been produced or processed in the United States, Canada or the European Union has to abide by rigorous and well-enforced sets of regulations before it can be certified as organic, so it is probably a certification that you can rely on; if it has been produced outside these jurisdictions it’s probably a toss of a coin. Anyway, forewarned is forearmed. Sources: ieatfreshfruit.com,  cbsnews.com,  healthyreader.com,  mnn.com,  theecologist.org,  examiner.com,  thedailybeast.com,   newhope360.com,  theorganicsinstitute.com,  thehealthylifechoice.com