Playing online casino Malaysia through Alibaba33 online casino Malaysia can be a fun and rewarding experience for those who enjoy playing games for fun. trusted online casino malaysia alibaba33Bet on your favourite slots, live, sporting events and win big! If you enjoy sports, slots like Mega888 ewallet Alibaba33 online casino Malaysia has something for you.

Viagra Malaysia treat erectile dysfunction with the original ED treatment that has helped men feel confident in bed for decades. We’ll connect you with a licensed viagra malaysia healthcare provider to evaluate if our prescription ED treatments could be right for you, including super-affordable generic Viagra viagramalaysiaofficial Viagra is an oral ED medication that works by suppressing an enzyme in the body called PDE5.

Category: Agriculture - Organic Lifestyle Magazine Category: Agriculture - Organic Lifestyle Magazine

New Study Reports Pesticides In Conventional Produce Lowers Fertility

The study involved 325 women who went to a fertility clinic in Boston. Data on their eating habits and pregnancy outcomes were examined by researchers. The findings showed women in the study who ate fruits and vegetables with higher levels of pesticide residue impaired their ability to get pregnant and sustain pregnancy.

Women in this study were participating in the Environment and Reproductive Health Study. The objective was to identify determinants of fertility among couples studied at the Fertility Center. Variables were considered, including smoking, diet habits, and supplement intake. Researchers concluded:

“…intake of high–pesticide residue [fruits and vegetables] was associated with lower probabilities of clinical pregnancy and live birth among women undergoing infertility treatment.

Related: Dicamba – The Herbicide Monsanto is Promoting to Replace Roundup’s Glyphosate

They report that their findings are consistent with animal studies that have shown low-dose pesticide ingestion likely causes adverse effects to fertility.

We already knew that women occupationally exposed to pesticides and women exposed to pesticides used in agriculture by virtue of living in or near agricultural production areas experience greater risk of infertility, pregnancy loss and other adverse reproductive outcomes.” – Dr. Jorge Chavarro of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Women in the study were 35 years old on average. Most were white and had at least a college education. They all underwent fertility treatments between 2007 and 2016.

Researchers estimated that replacing a single serving day of produce containing high levels of pesticide residue with a different, lower-pesticide option could increase pregnancy odds by 79 percent, and increase the chances of a live birth by 88 percent.

Recommended: You Need Sulforaphane – How and Why to Grow Broccoli Sprouts 

Women in the study were 35 years old on average, typically white, and they had at least a college education.

Dr. Chavarro stated that the study is the first to show that low doses of pesticide residue in conventionally grown fruits and vegetables can have adverse health effects. He also stated that washing produce does not reduce pesticide exposure, and buying organic fruits and vegetables makes sense for foods that typically have high levels of pesticide residue.

Pesticide Levels In Produce

The environmental working group puts out a list of the worst offenders and the better choices for conventional produce, helpful to those on a budget or who don’t have access to enough organic produce. The * indicates the item may be genetically modified. And don’t forget, grow your own!

Related: How to Regrow Your Favorite Herbs and Save Lots of Money

EWG’s Clean Fifteen

  1. Sweet Corn*
  2. Avocados
  3. Pineapples
  4. Cabbage
  5. Onions
  6. Sweet peas frozen
  7. Papayas*
  8. Asparagus
  9. Mangos
  10. Eggplant
  11. Honeydew Melon
  12. Kiwi
  13. Cantaloupe
  14. Cauliflower
  15. Grapefruit

EWG’s Dirty Dozen

  1. Strawberries
  2. Spinach
  3. Nectarines
  4. Apples
  5. Peaches
  6. Pears
  7. Cherries
  8. Grapes
  9. Celery
  10. Tomatoes
  11. Sweet bell peppers
  12. Potatoes
Recommended Reading:
Sources:



Dicamba – The Herbicide Monsanto is Promoting to Replace Roundup’s Glyphosate

Dicamba is the active ingredient, or is one of a few active ingredients, in herbicidal products the same way glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. It’s been commonly used for over seventy years in professional landscaping as well as home gardening, and its recent popularity is on the rise thanks to the public gaining knowledge regarding the harmful effects of Monsanto’s Roundup. Monsanto has reintroduced Dicamba as the herbicide for the “next-generation.”

The product is causing damage when it drifts onto other fields, and many state agriculture authorities have either banned the substance or are considering such bans. Dicamba lawsuits from commercial farmers are becoming more frequent as well.

Recommended: White Pigment In Processed Food Worsens Inflammatory Bowel

What is Dicamba?

First developed in England during the Second World War, dicamba is a broad-spectrum herbicide found in several brands of commercial weed killer, including Ortho Weed B Gon, Ace Lawn Weed Killer and Roundup Max. Chemically, it’s part of a group known as the chlorophenoxy family. More specifically, it is an organochloride, a carbon-based compound, the molecules of which contain atoms of the element chlorine. It is derived from benzoic acid, a substance occurring naturally in several plant species and commonly used as a food preservative.” – Dicamba Drift Lawsuit Lawyer – Crop Damage Compensation

Recommended: Too Much Sugar Can Lead to a Higher Risk of Cancer – Study Confirms

For a toxin, Dicamba may be safer to humans than glyphosate. It seems we pass it through our urine, and studies indicate that residues do not bioaccumulate in biological systems. To say a product is “safer,” compared to glyphosate, certainly does not indicate that the product is safe, and no long term studies have been done on the health effects of Dicamba. It’s clearly not good for the environment, and it doesn’t belong in our food supply.

Almost exactly a year ago, on Oct. 27, 2016, farm worker Allan Curtis Jones allegedly shot and killed soybean farmer Mike Wallace on a county road in Arkansas. The sheriff later told reporters that the two men had been arguing. Their dispute, the sheriff said, apparently revolved around a phenomenon known in the region as ‘dicamba drift.’ – NBC News

Related: PCBs, Roundup, and Dicamba – Monsanto’s Current Problems

In the heartland states, NBC reports that farmers are pitted against each other. Farmers not using the product report the chemical has wafted onto their fields and damaged their crops which are not genetically modified to withstand Dicamba.

Jones has pleaded not guilty to a first-degree murder charge. He is slated to go to trial in December.

According to the state’s farm bureau website, Arkansas ranks third in domestic cotton production, accounting for approximately 7 percent of the national crop. The state comes in at 10 in soybean production, and about half of that is exported.

Must Read:
Sources:



Why Are Our Natural Pollinators in Decline?

The loss of biodiversity is a worldwide, urgent crisis. Plant biodiversity is closely connected to insect biodiversity because pollinators assist the plants with reproduction and genetic variation. Research shows that commercial honey bee populations (various species) have decreased in the United States by 30-40% since 2006. Since the majority of food production relies on honey bees, it is important to determine the causes of these changes and implement the necessary solutions, such as reducing pesticide use on crops and implementing more organic agricultural practices. As consumers, our choices directly impact the environment, because many environmental issues are connected to the mass production of food and other goods. Sometimes we do not know about these issues until it is too late to fix them.

Pollinator Decline

The process used to detect declines in insect pollinator populations is very challenging, expensive, and time-consuming. It can take up to 20 years of monitoring to detect a small decline per year in some species such as birds, fish, and plants. With insects, it can take even longer due to the necessary sample sites, and long-term studies to determine the abundance and diversity of species, and it can be difficult to identify specimens to the species level. Although it would require a large investment to establish accurate pollinator monitoring programs at the regional, national or international level, it is worth the investment.

Agricultural and Ecological Value of Pollinators

The value of worldwide insect-pollinated crops is estimated around $200 billion per year. Insect pollination increases the size, quality, and quantity of fruit and/or seeds for the majority of our major crops worldwide. Global agricultural production will decrease significantly if pollinators drastically decline in number, requiring extensive investment to increase their numbers. If too many pollinator species were to go extinct, it would also require the use of alternative pollination techniques in order to maintain current food production rates. This would increase prices for consumers because other pollinating methods, hand or mechanical, are very expensive. It would be advisable to proactively prevent the decline of pollinators before the declines reach crisis levels.

Most of the insect decline research has been focused on “managed” honey bee colonies that are raised by beekeepers. However, there are not many programs that monitor the status of native bees and other wild pollinators such as flies, wasps, moths, and butterflies, which actually can be more effective pollinators of crops than managed honey bees.

In addition to pollinating crops, approximately 75 to 90 percent of all flowering plants are pollinated with the help of insects and other animals. Insects and flowering plants also serve a vital role as a food source for many species within ecosystems around the world. The ecological value of the insects and the plants they pollinate cannot truly be quantified, but it exceeds the contributions to agriculture.

Organic Certification

One potential solution to pollinator species decline would be an increase in organic agricultural practices. Overall, these practices are safer for pollinators and other wildlife. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a certification process for organic products. In order to qualify for certification, crops must meet a strict set of criteria established by the National Organic Program (NOP) which preserve natural resources and biodiversity (see USDA under “sources” for details). In general, USDA organic crops cannot be exposed to:

  • Radiation
  • Sewage
  • Prohibited pesticides
  • Synthetic fertilizers
  • Genetic modification

Organic livestock regulations include:

  • No antibiotics
  • No growth hormones
  • Fed 100% organic diet
  • Have access to the outdoors
  • Meet animal health and welfare standards

If a multi-ingredient product is labeled USDA organic, it must contain at least 95% organic ingredients. Residue testing is done on an annual basis by accredited certifying agents. The USDA Organic Seal is a leading global standard in organic agriculture.

Colony Collapse Disorder

The causes of pollinator decline are still being researched. Although there has been a decline in pollinators for many years, colony collapse disorder (CCD) was first reported in the U.S. in 2006, when whole colonies of adult honey bees began mysteriously dying. Studies have linked CCD to viruses, bacteria, fungi, mites, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, habitat loss and cross-country transport. Pollinators also become malnourished as their habitat is destroyed, and as climate change leads to changes in flowering seasons.

Impacts of Chemicals Used in Conventional Agriculture

Herbicides

Although honey bees have received the most attention, species such as the monarch butterfly have also drastically declined since 2012. As herbicides destroy their larval food source, milkweed, they experience nutritional deficiency and habitat loss. Monarchs are known for their long migrations, and they require sufficient nutrition to survive such journeys. Pollinators are dependent on vegetation, just as vegetation is dependent on pollinators. When herbicides kill targeted plants, there are unintended consequences on many other plant species and the animals that rely on their presence. One example of this is the monarch butterfly, which has been negatively affected by the loss of milkweed. Many species of insects rely on very specific plant species for nectar, pollen, and nesting material. Applying herbicides can reduce the abundance of arthropods in general, which includes butterflies, moths, true bugs, flies, and bees among many others. Not only does this reduce insect biodiversity, but the other animals that feed on them, such as birds are also affected. Overall, it is important to minimize the areas of herbicide exposure, especially to native habitat surrounding croplands. It is also important to use selective herbicides that will not affect non-targeted plant species.

Fungicides

Some studies have shown that fungicide presence can contribute to CCD in honey bees. In contrast, other studies have shown that a fungal gut infection, could be the cause of the collapse in bee populations and that a fungicide could reduce CCD. It most likely depends on the type of fungicide used, and whether it is applied to crops or given directly to hives to treat a fungal infection. Because CCD is so complex, continued research is necessary to determine whether a fungicide is one potential solution, but it appears there are positive and negative effects.

Insecticides

A class of insecticides called neonicotinoids have been linked to immune suppression in honey bees, which allows for an increase in fungal infections. The European Commission has banned three neonicotinoids while further research is conducted; however, it is known that neonicotinoids can remain in the environment for at least six years. Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted studies on the residues of neonicotinoids in agricultural environments, there have not been very many studies focused on the levels existing in water sources, due to insecticide runoff. Most species rely on natural water sources for survival, in which case, these chemicals could potentially be found in many animal species.

Two types of neonicotinoids are major pesticides used to treat corn and soybeans in the United States. In addition, plants used for backyard landscaping, that are sold in commercial nurseries, may also have been grown using these pesticides. The toxicity for oral exposure in bees is much higher than contact exposure. For instance, according to the calculated LD50 (lethal dose, and the amount it takes to kill half of an adult hive in 24 hours), and the quantities applied to corn fields, the amount of neonicotinoid in one corn kernel would be enough to kill an entire colony. These findings suggest that testing the drinking water of bees is an important factor when determining the level of toxicity, which typically is underreported. The repeated exposure to various pesticides in nectar, pollen and drinking water, have a direct effect on the decline of bees and other insects.

The costs of neonicotinoids outweigh the benefits which the EPA may have overestimated. They may increase the yield of some crops, but have the potential to reduce biodiversity, negatively impacting species at multiple levels in ecosystems. Ultimately, a growing human population increases the demand for pollinator-dependent crops to meet worldwide consumer needs, yet pollinators continue to decline. This imbalance between supply and demand would most likely cause a food shortage, increasing the price of food for consumers.

Fertilizers

The use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers instead of manure-based methods can cause significant nitrate contamination of nearby freshwater systems. The use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers allows farmers to continually grow crops on the same land without waiting for nutrients to return naturally. This appears to be a practical solution to feeding a growing human population; however, studies also show that there is enough food produced annually to feed the current population, it is just an issue of distribution and waste. While issues surrounding food distribution and waste production are very complex, the simple solution of overusing synthetic fertilizers is having negative long-term effects on the environment. Runoff from agricultural land can cause “dead zones” in bodies of water where the oxygen is depleted due to eutrophication (algal bloom, death, and decomposition). This leads to the collapse of local ecosystems and loss of biodiversity because species, such as fish and other invertebrates can die from a lack of oxygen.

Organic methods have a lower yield than conventional methods, which is partially due to the prohibited use of synthetic fertilizers. However, the price we pay for ecosystem damage caused by excess nitrogen is tremendous. One potential solution is the use of leguminous cover crops, such as beans, peas, and clover, to perform nitrogen fixation at a sufficient rate to increase crop yield. Legumes are known for attracting nitrogen-fixing bacteria to their roots. When used as a cover crop (planted over the soil in the offseason), they can help to add nutrients and organic matter to the soil for future crops while also reducing erosion.

Crop yield and GMOs

Reducing wasted food is key to meeting the food demands of the world. Americans waste 215 meals per person, per year. Some argue that in order to use organic farming methods to produce enough food for the world, it would require more land to produce the same amount of food, which would lead to further deforestation and biodiversity loss. Another argument is that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) help us provide enough food for the world, and genetic modification is not permitted by USDA organic certification. However, organic agriculture could produce enough food for the current population, and a potentially larger population without increasing the land use, partially through the use of leguminous cover crops for nitrogen fixation. Organic agricultural methods around the globe do have a lower yield than conventional; however, it depends on the context, and can range from 5 to 34 percent lower. It depends on the crop type, growing conditions and standard of organic practices. Perennial plants, fruit trees, legumes and oilseed crops are the best candidates for high output under organic conditions. Growing a diverse selection of crops, that are grown without insecticides or genetic modification, can protect pollinator populations while maximizing crop yield.

Instead of debating crop yield between conventional and organic agriculture, the focus should be shifted to how much food is wasted, and learning how to be more resourceful with our food, in order to supply enough nutrition worldwide. In this way, we can utilize safer farming methods that support biodiversity while still providing food for a growing human population.

Related: Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods

Conclusion

It is estimated that organic food sales have increased by approximately 20 percent each year since 1990. As consumers continue to become more educated about organic certification and the ways it can affect the environment and their health, the demand will most likely increase. From a long-term environmental perspective, we cannot afford to continue to use conventional agricultural practices. The price premium on organic products today should be considered an investment in the future for our planet and our ability to feed the world.

If insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and synthetic fertilizers have been shown to negatively affect pollinators and many other species, it can be assumed that the use of USDA organic standards in agriculture could be one way to decrease the rate of decline in wildlife populations, and preserve biodiversity. The majority of worldwide crops rely on pollinators for efficient yield. If pollinator populations continue to decline, there will be a significant reduction in food production and an increase in prices for consumers. Purchasing organic foods directly supports an industry using methods found to be safer for bees and other pollinator species. It also meets the demand for higher standards in production and health. If consumers demand certified organic garden and landscaping plants, or at least plants grown without neonicotinoid pesticides, they can assist local pollinator populations with a safe food source. As a result of this demand, the agriculture and retail industries will respond, and organic options will become more affordable and readily available.

Sources:



Safe Fish to Eat and the Fish to Avoid

We’ve always been told fish is a nutritious choice, a good source of lean protein and healthy fats. But is it still a good choice today? Whether we choose cooked fish or sushi in a restaurant, we buy our fish at the market, or we hook a worm and catch our own, it may not be healthy or safe to eat. And if we bought it, we may be a victim of seafood fraud.

Fishy Bait and Switch Schemes

Seafood fraud is serious business. Oceana has found that, on average, 1 in 5 samples of seafood is mislabeled at every sector of the supply chain. In other words, there is a 1 in 5 chance that the fish you buy at a restaurant or market may not be what you thought you were buying. Chances are, it may not be what they thought they were buying, either.

Oceana reports, “Asian catfish, hake, and escolar were the three types of fish most commonly substituted. Specifically, farmed Asian catfish was sold as 18 different types of higher-value fish.”

This isn’t just a scam that affects your pocketbook; it may affect your health. “More than half (58 percent) of the samples substituted for other seafood posed a species-specific health risk to consumers, meaning that consumers could be eating fish that could make them sick.”

In April 2017, George Washington University published their findings from testing the fish from 6 popular Washington D.C. restaurants. They discovered 1 in 3 samples were not what they claimed to be.

Fish substitution is not only a racket to sell a lower priced fish at a higher price, it is also a means to sell illegally caught endangered fish.

Related: 5 Tons of GM Fish Sold for Human Consumption (And only the producer knows where they are)

Radioactive Fish

Yes, you can find articles claiming that we are being poisoned by radioactive fish, but the sources are… questionable. But then again, can we trust the FDA when they say we are not in danger? The following is a response to a direct inquiry.

“To date, FDA has no evidence that radionuclides are present in the U.S. food supply at levels that would pose a public health concern. This is true for both FDA-regulated food products imported from Japan and U.S. domestic food products, including seafood caught off the coast of the United States. Consequently, FDA is not advising consumers to alter their consumption of specific foods imported from Japan or domestically produced foods, including seafood. FDA continues to closely monitor the situation at and around the Fukushima Dai-ichi facility, as it has since the start of the incident and will coordinate with other Federal and state agencies as necessary, standing ready to take action if needed, to ensure the safety of food in the U.S. marketplace.”

So we are eating radioactive fish, but the contamination is at such a low level we don’t need to worry? Ah, okay…

Old McDonald Had a Farm…

Think of everything you’ve ever read or seen about the horrors of factory farming with pigs, chickens, and cows and imagine it’s worse for fish – much worse. Half of the fish consumed today are raised in aquafarms under horrific conditions of extreme overcrowding and filth. Some fish are genetically modified to accelerate growth. Hormones are injected to change reproduction. Antibiotics are added to the water in some countries. Fish that normally eat plants are fed fish and fish oils.

There is a high mortality rate among farm-raised fish. A high percentage of the fish are deaf or blind. Parasitic infestations are common. PETA reports, “Sea lice, for example, eat at the fish, causing their scales to fall off and creating large sores. In severely crowded conditions, these parasites often eat down to the bone on fish’s faces, resulting in what is sometimes called a “death crown.”

So, we are not only looking at genetic modification, disease, hormones, antibiotics, filth, starvation, genetically modified feed, and inhumane treatment, we also color fish. Salmon have artificial coloring added to their feed that changes the color of their flesh. Farm raised salmon are not naturally pink. They are gray. Chemicals are added to their feed to cause their flesh to turn pink. So we are also ingesting those chemicals when we eat farm-raised salmon. Bon appétit!

Related: Genetically Modified Salmon Is On Its Way To Your Store

The Mercurial Rise and More

The level of mercury in fish remains a serious health concern. We are warned to avoid certain fish. Scientific American lists the following as carrying “proportionately large mercury burden.”

  • bluefin tuna
  • walleye
  • king mackerel
  • marlin
  • bluefish
  • shark
  • swordfish
  • wild sturgeon
  • opah
  • bigeye tuna

Other fish that are “Also of concern, but to a slightly lesser extent” are:

  • orange roughy
  • Chilean sea bass
  • blue crab
  • lingcod
  • Spanish mackerel
  • spotted seatrout
  • wahoo
  • grouper
  • snapper
  • halibut
  • tile fish
  • rock fish
  • sable fish
  • blackfin, albacore, and yellowfin tuna.

Top level predators in the fish world accumulate mercury due to longevity and a constant diet of smaller, mercury laden fish. Concentrations in fish can be 1-10 million times higher than the mercury concentration in the water.

The Environmental Defense Fund tells us, “The problem of mercury-contaminated fish is widespread. According to the EPA’s National Listing of Fish Advisories:

  • Mercury advisories increased 95% between 2003 and 2010 (from 2,362 to 4,598). This is largely due to greater monitoring, not necessarily greater pollution.
  • All 50 states currently issue mercury advisories.
  • As of 2010, almost 18 million lake acres and approximately 1.4 million river miles were covered by some type of consumption advisory.
  • Currently, 28 states have statewide mercury advisories in freshwater lakes or rivers, and 19 states have statewide advisories for mercury in their coastal waters.”
Related: Top 5 Foods that Detox Heavy Metals and Toxins – With Protocol

The EPA says, “The 2011 total of 4,821 advisories covers 42% of the Nation’s total lake acreage and 36% of the nation’s total river miles.” But the EPA tells us mercury is not the only contaminant causing concern. “Ninety–four percent of all advisories in effect in 2011 involved five bioaccumulative chemical contaminants: mercury, PCBs, chlordane, dioxins, and DDT.” Remember these facts are 6 years old. How much worse is it now?

What Fish Should We Eat?

If you choose to eat fish, which fish should you choose? Clearly, this should be a simple question with an agreed upon list – but it isn’t. If you search through article after article on the Internet, zeroing in on trusted sources, you will still find widely varying lists. Although it is common knowledge that tuna is high in mercury, you will find tuna on many of these lists along with shellfish (the scavengers of the sea), and varieties of farm raised fish.

The most agreed upon healthy choices are:

  • Alaskan salmon (wild caught)
  • Cod
  • Mackerel (though Spanish Mackerel is on the “also of concern” list)
  • Sardines
  • Herring

We advise taking the time to research. Fish is not the same from one store to another. Look into the sustainability and health issues with each source.

Also: Seafood & Mercury – What’s Safe To Eat & What’s Not

Pollution is the Key

We can hook that worm or cast the perfect fly to catch a fish from a crystal clear lake or flowing stream. But we’d better check the local advisories before we eat it. There’s a good chance we’ll be advised to limit how much we eat or to avoid feeding our catch to pregnant women, small children, or the elderly.

It’s a no brainer. If we continue to pollute the water, we continue to pollute the fish. Although you’d never know it based on our current behavior, our oceans are not a dumping ground. If we continue to burn fossil fuels, we will continue to pump mercury into the air. Mercury will fall to the ground to contaminate the earth and our water. If we continue to use toxic chemicals that run off into our waterways, they will come back to us full circle through our food chain.

We have choices to make. Let’s make the right ones. For now? Be careful of the fish you choose to eat.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:



Thousands of Farm Raised Salmon Escape in the Pacific Northwest

In the fish version of a great escape, thousands of Atlantic salmon have escaped from their holding pen at a fish farm in Washington state. The official estimate is currently at 4000 to 5000 escapees, and crews are currently working to recover as many fish as they can. Even so, this is hardly good news for anyone involved, as the invasive Atlantic salmon may breed with native Chinook salmon and pose a threat to the food supply. There were higher than usual tides in the area due to the eclipse, but most of the experts investigating the breach conclude that the culprit was faulty holding pens.

No Concrete Answers

Cooke Aquaculture, the owners of the farm the salmon escaped from, are not sure of the number of fish that escaped, leaving marine ecologists and Washington state wildlife officials to guess at the extent of the damage done. Wildlife officials have invited fishers in the area to help in the repair effort. In a statement from Ron Warren “Our first concern, of course, is to protect native fish species…So we’d like to see as many of these escaped fish caught as possible.” There is the possibility that these escaped fish will also pass diseases onto the delicate Pacific salmon populations.

Future Implications

Michael Rust, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researcher, brings up a good point when he points out that these fish are unlikely to pass on diseases to other salmon, saying “These things are kind of couch potatoes. They are domesticated. Imagine a dairy cow getting lost out in the Serengeti. It doesn’t last very long.”

Perhaps a salmon disease epidemic is unlikely with these particular fish, but there is no way to measure the effect it would have on the animals consuming it. This also calls into question the industry’s ability to handle the ramifications of the new genetically modified salmon, the first genetically modified animal available for consumption. Many of the supporters of the fish claim the chance of escape will be unlikely should feel very uneasy after a mishap of this magnitude.

Related Reading:
Sources:



Impossible Burger Meets FDA Bureaucracy

“Meat” grown in a lab is a hot trend right now, with manufacturers jumping over each other in a quest to be in on the next big food craze. Scientists, environmentalists, and entrepreneurs are extremely excited by the prospect of meeting the world’s growing demand for meat with only a fraction of the resources needed by our current factory farming system. One company, Impossible Foods, has been carried away in that excitement. They began selling their soy leghemoglobin derived Impossible Burger in 2016, despite not being generally recognized as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

Putting Sustainability First

Cultured “meat” is an enticing proposition. The Impossible Burger uses 95% less land, 74% less water, and creates 87% less greenhouse gas emissions than its cow-sourced counterparts. It’s also free of antibiotics, artificial ingredients, and hormones. This particular cultured meat is made from soy leghemoglobin genes and a genetically modified yeast not unlike that found in common Belgian beers.

Leghemoglobin is a hemoprotein found in the root nodules of leguminous plants – in this case, soy. Once these hemoproteins are broken down, they release heme. Heme contains iron and carries oxygen in the blood, making the veggie burger “bleed” and giving it a meaty texture and flavor. Making the burger entirely out of these root nodules would be expensive and would increase its negative environmental impact, but Impossible Foods, the company behind Impossible Burger, combines the soy leghemoglobin gene to a yeast strain and then grows the yeast via fermentation.  

Can You Eat It?

Sustainable? Yes. But is it safe?

Impossible Foods says yes. The burger has been reviewed by a panel of experts, with scientists from the University of Nebraska, University of Wisconsin and Virginia Commonwealth University generally recognizing it as safe. Rats studies have been conducted, and there were no adverse effects from the soy leghemoglobin protein, even when feeding the rats 200 times the amount a human is expected to consume.

But the magical yeast that allows the company to produce their burger causes other problems. There are more than 40 other unidentified proteins in the impossible burger. In the words of Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumer’s Union, “It’s only 73 percent pure, the other 27 percent is from proteins from the genetically engineered yeast that produces it, and these [proteins] have an unknown function…” Due to these unidentified proteins, the FDA told Impossible Foods that the burger was unlikely to be recognized as safe.

What is Progress?

The Impossible Burger has been available at select restaurants since 2016. Impossible Foods does not need the FDA to categorize the burger as generally recognized as safe to sell it. This isn’t actually illegal, as the FDA’s self-affirmation program does not require new ingredients to be approved. We only have any of this information because Impossible Foods tried to go one step further in the regulation process, applying for the FDA’s GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status.

Impossible Foods has a mission, and that mission is an admirable and necessary one. Forget about figuring out if it’s real or not, climate change is here. Factory farming is not sustainable, even as the demand for meat is still growing. More consumers are looking for quality sustainable or vegan/vegetarian options, and Impossible Foods wants to serve that market. Their website emphasizes their sustainability.

They also make a point to push transparency and encourage questions. That will be crucial for a generation that is looking for corporations to step in where the government is not addressing their needs and concerns.

The food system has to change or it will collapse. Many companies have been stepping up their environmental bona fides in response the Environmental Protection Agency’s current irresponsibility. It remains to be seen if the FDA can cope with the demands of the rapidly evolving demands and realities of a sustainable food system. 

Sources:



We Consume Livestock Vaccines When We Ingest Meat

In this day and age, you’re either pro-vaccine, or you’re an “anti-vaxxer.”  And if you have one problem with one vaccine, or even just one vaccine ingredient, you are labeled not only anti-vaxxer but also anti-science.

Consider a person in the “pro-vaccine” camp. Let’s say this person approves of all of the vaccines from the CDCs Immunization Schedule page, and of course, they also get the flu shot.

Would said person mind, say… “drinking” additional vaccines? Not a specific amount or at a specific time, and not in any way that can be measured. Would it be ok if those vaccine concoctions were developed for livestock, and deemed not fit for humans?

Of course, we’re not drinking vaccine ingredients, but chances are very good that meat eaters are eating them.

If you’re anti-GMO, you can get organic meat. If you’re anti-antibiotics, that’s another good reason to buy organic meat (supposedly). But what if you don’t want to consume vaccine ingredients?

Related: How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children

Livestock Vaccines

So what kind of animal vaccines are you eating? It depends.

The amount and type of vaccines given to an animal depend on what animal is it. Currently, there are vaccines on the market for pigs, cows, sheep, goats, poultry (chicken, ducks, and turkeys), and fish. There a few different vaccine delivery systems, from injections to spray droplets and through drinking water.

There’s also a difference between modified live viruses (MLV) and killed viruses.

MLVs are a vaccine consisting of a live virus, usually freeze-dried. They provoke a stronger immune response, are less likely to contain adjuvants, and result in fewer lesions at the injection site. They are designed to be a single dose. The downside of these immunizations is a lack of stability, as they must be used within 1-2 hours of being reconstituted and are susceptible to heat and sunlight. These vaccines also shed and must be carefully monitored when given to female cows so as not to interfere with pregnancy.

Killed viruses are seen as safer than MLVs.  They don’t shed and are safer for pregnant or immunocompromised animals. But without a live vaccine to provoke an immune response, killed vaccines frequently have adjuvants designed to increase that response, like oils, formalin (formaldehyde), thimerosal, and aluminum hydroxide. These are more likely to cause lesions at the injection sites and require the animal to be dosed twice. Most farmers prefer the one shot advantage offered by the modified live vaccines.

The average calf receives a minimum of three vaccines in their first 2-3 months. One of these vaccines is always a 7 or 8 shot for clostridial viruses, and another is a shot for 3-5 different bovine respiratory disorders. They receive boosters shortly before weaning. Other commonly given cattle vaccines include pinkeye, Pasteurella, Brucellosis, tetanus, and scours. Pigs are supposed to be immunized for Leptospirosis, Parvovirus, Erysipelas, E. coli, and Atrophic rhinitis. For poultry it depends, there’s chicken, turkey, and duck.

Related: Influenza Vaccine – A Comprehensive Overview of the Potential Dangers and Effectiveness of the Flu Shot

Speaking of Preservatives…

A Google search for livestock vaccines shows how easy it is to obtain these vaccines. This also makes it easier to check the ingredients, although some products are still reluctant to list anything not considered an active ingredient. Many livestock vaccines actually have antibiotics as preservatives, whereas as others use various forms of aluminum, formaldehyde, and thimerosal.

Thimerosal is particularly of note, as the human vaccine debate frequently centers around thimerosal and its role in the development of autism and other developmental disorders. There is no such debate in livestock vaccines. After all, no cares if your cow is unable to function properly in society or experiences random seizures.

The preservatives in animal vaccines also make them very toxic to humans. Workers who are accidentally injected with these vaccines deal with side effects from the oil-based adjuvants in livestock vaccines (particularly cattle vaccines) for months after an accidental injection. A dose meant for a 1,000-pound animal is clearly too much for the average person, but the vaccine is specifically designed to stimulate a response in the cattle for a period of weeks to months. Removing the oil-based preservatives from the human body can sometimes involve surgery.

Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

The adjuvants in animal vaccines are what make them dangerous to people. Still, most of us won’t be handling livestock anytime soon. Many of the companies that make livestock vaccines make people vaccines, but those meant for people are not oil-based, even if some of the other preservatives are the same.

Livestock Vaccines Are Not Safe for People

Any insert will tell you that livestock vaccines are not safe for people.

Each year, livestock producers give thousands of injections to calves and cows. The vast majority of those injections go off without a problem. However, there are times when producers may accidentally inject the vaccines or antibiotics into themselves or other helpers. So what happens when a product, meant for a 1,000-pound cow, winds up inside a 200-pound human? The results can be deadly.” – The Prairie Star

So, vaccines given to humans are perfectly safe, vaccines given to animals are dangerous to humans if taken accidentally, but ingesting livestock vaccine ingredients randomly is acceptable.

Self-injection with veterinary vaccines is an occupational hazard for farmers and veterinary surgeons. Injection of vaccine into a closed compartment such as the human finger can have serious sequelae including loss of the injected digit. These injuries are not to be underestimated. Early debridement and irrigation of the injected area with decompression is likely to give the best outcome. Frequent review is necessary after the first procedure because repeat operations may be required.” – NCBI

We don’t value the life of livestock the way we do humans. This is why they get differing grades for feed. But beyond the stray injection or accidental interaction suffered by a handler, no one is being exposed to these vaccines. Except when we ingest the meat. The same with antibiotics being fed to farm animals. We were told that we didn’t have to worry about those… but now we have microbial revolution consisting of antibiotic resistant superbugs we are unprepared to deal with.

The extent to which veterinary vaccines pose a health hazard to humans is unclear. The increased use of veterinary vaccines may be accompanied by an increase in human exposure to the vaccine strains, thus increasing the potential for adverse effects. Also, new methods of vaccine administration may result in an increased likelihood of inadvertent exposure. For example, increased use of aerosol administration may result in greater human exposure to animal vaccines. For some animal vaccines, such as those administered to prevent “kennel cough” in dogs, aerosol administration is becoming the preferred route. Also, oral administration of vaccines that contain live agents is becoming more common. Orally administered vaccines have been developed for rabies prophylaxis in wildlife, and millions of baits have been distributed. The administration of live vaccines to animals destined for the human food supply may result in human exposure to a vaccine strain. Illness subsequent to such an exposure is unlikely to be recognized by the patient or the physician as a potential consequence of an animal vaccine exposure.” – Oxford Academic

Conclusion

What’s a meat eater to do? My wife and I shop at the local farmers market. We know our vendors. They are the farmers. We buy ground beef for our dog and the farmer is about as fond of vaccines as we are. I recommend that everyone grow as much of their own food as they can and get to know everything about the people involved in growing and processing anything else you consume.

Sources: