For a long time, we have known that organophosphorus (OP) pesticides, like chlorpyrifos and diazinon, are bad for humans, as well as pests. Almost two decades ago, they began to be phased out for residential use due to the risks. Unfortunately, they’re still heavily utilized in agriculture, and researchers in California decided to identify how much of these, and other, harmful pesticides, children are actually ingesting.

The Study Focused on Low-Income Children in Urban and Agricultural Areas

If it feels like you’ve already heard this information, you probably have, but not quite in this way. Previous studies have focused on pesticide levels of children in non-agricultural and suburban areas. As most of us know, these studies have shown that children have lower levels of pesticides when they go organic. The difference with this new study is that children in urban and agricultural areas are exposed to more pesticides in the environment, especially those in low-income families. Therefore, the question was not whether organic diets reduce pesticide levels- we know that they do, but whether children who are exposed to environmental pesticides have reduced levels when they go organic as well. For this reason, the study included participants from the Fruitvale area of Oakland, California, an urban area, and also from Salinas, California, a largely agricultural region.

Children Between the Ages of Three and Six were Analyzed

The study lasted only 16 days, but the results were incredibly apparent. For the first four days, 40 kids between the ages of three and six ate their normal diet, were monitored by an in-home personal trainer before or after extracurricular activities. They then ate an organic diet for seven days and switched back to their regular diet for the remainder of the study. Urine samples were collected every day of the study, and scientists analyzed the samples for pesticide residue and markers.

The Amount of Two Pesticides Reduced By 50% on an Organic Diet

The study revealed that reside for two specific pesticides was cut in half when children went on an organic diet. Levels of a common herbicide also dropped by about one-fourth. Asa Bradman, an author of the study and Associate Director of the Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health at the University of California, Berkeley, acknowledges, “There’s evidence that diet is one route of exposure to pesticides, and you can reduce your exposure by choosing organic food.” However, she cautions people not to cut regular fruits and vegetables out of their diet, because they both provide health benefits.

Sadly, Levels of Three of the Most-Common Pesticides Did Not Decline

The study showed that pesticides commonly used in residential applications did not decline. So although there is benefit in going organic, it’s only part of the solution to an overall problem. However, the study did uncover another remarkable find. Because food diaries were also kept, researchers noted that kids ate more healthy grains and produce when they were on the organic diet. In other words, choosing to stick with an organic diet can have other unexpected health benefits.

Pesticides are Linked to Childhood Cancer and Low IQ, Among Other Issues

There is a laundry list of issues that scientists have linked to pesticides. Recently, a study published in the October issue of Pediatrics linked pesticides with a higher risk of developing leukemia and lymphoma. Though that particular study focused on children who were exposed to insecticides indoors, a 47% and 43% increase in cancer rates were noted, respectively. Chensheng Lu, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who headed up the study, said that instances of other cancers, like bladder and prostate, may also increase with exposure to insecticides. Additional studies link pesticides to low IQ and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, as well as minor conditions like nausea, skin irritation, and headaches. The same issue of Pediatrics that features this study also covers the story of a seven-month-old victim of SIDS. Analysis of her brain tissue revealed high levels of a pesticide known as DBNP, which she may have been exposed to two weeks prior to her death when her father sprayed the house for flies.

These cases are not rare. Pesticide use can cause acute health issues, and the compounds can build up over time undetected, resulting in long-term health consequences. Keeping children on an organic diet is an essential part of limiting exposure to dangerous and deadly chemicals. However, it’s also clear that parents should take steps to limit environmental exposure as well.

• How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children
• Five Things You Can Do to Help Your Child Manage ADHD Naturally
• Children, Cell Phones & Health

If you enjoy salmon, eat your fill now. The Food and Drug Administration has announced approval for the first genetically modified animal for consumption, and it’s the Atlantic salmon…and the Pacific-Chinook salmon…and the ocean pout, a creature also known for inspiring a synthetic contribution to less-fattening ice cream, all rolled up into one sentient creation.

The possibility of a genetically engineered salmon is not an unfamiliar one, as biotech company AquaBounty has been attempting to bring the Frankenfish to the public for twenty years. The fish is said to be advantageous because it grows at twice the rate of a regular salmon and requires 75% less food. The company is not planning on letting consumers know that the fish is genetically modified, claiming that as “…the first and only, labeling is a dangerous decision. We’d like to label it as a premium product, but we’ll probably introduce it as Atlantic salmon.” It’s ironic that they use the word dangers in conjunction with actual labeling, as the health and environmental dangers of this fish don;t seem to concern  AquaBounty or the FDA.

Safety Concerns Over the Next Step in GMOs

The debate over the GM salmon from AquaBounty (officially referred to as the AquaAdvantage) has been going on for quite some time, although the approval from the FDA has shifted abstract concepts into something very real and potentially scary. Food and Water Watch and the Consumer’s Union have both expressed concerns about the fish and its impact on health and the environmental threat of a possible escape. Like all GMOs, the salmon has been labeled safe to eat by the FDA. That alone is suspect when you consider the amount of countries worldwide who are banning GMOs, but there are also concerns regarding allergies and how the mix of different fish genetics combined into one fish will affect people. Consumer’s Union has been claiming that the research used to make the decision to approve the salmon suffers from inadequate analysis and a sample size that is too small.

But What if Gets Loose?

Meanwhile, Food and Water Watch is viewing the AquaAvantage from a different angle, and seeing a different problem – escape. The salmon are grown in land-based, contained tanks in Canada and Panama that are sealed completely off and all fish grown for food, as opposed to breeding, are sterile. Or at least they are sterile by FDA standards, which require 95% sterility. Setting aside the questions of what and where exactly the fish for breeding are kept (or if there is even a need for breeding fish when they’re potentially raised in a lab), the FDA maintains that even if the fish were to escape, they would be unable to thrive and establish themselves. Even if the fish aren’t able to sustain a population out in the natural environment, isn’t it naive to assume there won’t be other consequences? Wild salmon that come in contact with farmed salmon have registered a population drop of more than half due to parasites and disease. At what point does the desire for cheap salmon outweigh the increasing delicate needs of the actual wild salmon providing the genes for the Frankenfish? Despite claims that the potential of escape is highly unlikely, Food and Water Watch remains committed to making sure that GMO salmon does not reach the marketplace.

More Care is Needed in Introducing GM Meats

The marketplace at the moment has a slightly different view from the FDA. Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s have been critical of the AquaAdvantage and have publicly pledged not to sell the salmon. Other retailers like Safeway and Kroger also have no plans to stock the product. The criticism from consumer and environmental groups, as well as the lack of support from stores, have the potential to stop the forward march (swim, really) of the GMO salmon. Anything can happen within the two-year period from approval to market. If you oppose GM salmon, now is the time for your voice to be heard.

Extensive research occurs when new varieties of conventional foods like fruits and vegetables are introduced. A newly developed type of apple, for instance, takes an average of 15 years. A salmon spliced together from three different fish and altered at the base genetic level is a huge step in the food system and should not have any room for groups to claim inadequate analysis. The consequences of unleashing the Frankenfish could permanently damage the oceanic ecosystem or even play out like a science fiction movie. Do we want to be the at the mercy of our own ill-advised creation because the population is looking for cheaper salmon? At the very least we should be able to know what we’re being sold.

Recommended Reading:

• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods
• What Vaccines and GMOs Have in Common
• Celebrities Against GMOs
• Grocery Manufacturers Association – Leading opponents of GMO labeling
• Wild Caught? Maybe Not – Salmon sold to you may have been farm-raised

Sources:

• FDA Approves GMO Salmon, A First For Food Supply. Shouldn’t It Be Labeled? – Washington Post
• The FDA Just Approved GMO Salmon For Human Consumption – Grub Street
• Farmed Salmon Decimating Wild Salmon Worldwide – National Geographic

By policy, the FDA considers GMO foods to be substantially equivalent to their non-genetically modified counterparts, and to be generally recognized as safe. GMOs do after all, look very similar to their conventional counterparts and they are grown under somewhat similar conditions. Under FDA guidelines, this leaves foods that are newly invented to be poorly tested, and the FDA assumes them to be safe without sufficient evidence to reach such conclusions. Under the limitations of our current biotechnology, whenever genes are artificially manipulated, unintended consequences inevitably result.

Independent Scientists Are Finding That GMOs are Not Substantially Equivalent to Their Conventional Counterparts

A new study from Cambridge University demonstrates that GMO soy is less nutritious and more toxic than conventional soy. Each GMO crop is unique, and this study focused solely on one type of genetically modified soy. Undoubtedly, more research is needed on other GMOs. So far the FDA’s notions of substantial equivalence, are not holding up in independent research. As is often the case, independent science is yielding objective results, giving us the good news with the bad.

The Revolving Door Told Us GMOs Were Safe

FDA assumptions of substantial equivalence were at best based upon wishful thinking, but much more likely to have been decisions made with the intention of prioritizing profit over health. The FDA is after all, staffed by a revolving door of management level biotech and pharmaceutical employees. FDA hierarchy move back and forth between the private and public sectors, reaping huge benefits along the way. Consumer advocates don’t work at the FDA; it is the industry insiders who do. The independent scientists are doing the testing for safety that the FDA should have done.

System Biology is Yielding New Insight Into GMOs

Using a systems biology approach, two researchers from Cambridge University have demonstrated how the genetic modifications made to CP4 EPSPS, better known as Roundup Ready soy, has resulted in significant systemic changes to the plant’s nutritional value, rendering the GMO soy bean less nutritious and more toxic.

Dr. Ayyadurai and Dr. Deonikar’s results show how instead of the plant producing normal levels of enzymes and antioxidants such as glutathione and super oxide dismutase, Round Up Ready soy is almost completely devoid of glutathione. This GMO soy produces significant amounts of formaldehyde, a substance that is widely known to be toxic and a carcinogen.

Formaldehyde Is Not The Kind of Chemical That You Would Want in Your Food

Formaldehyde has a lot of uses in manufacturing. It is often used as an additive in glue, in wrinkle free shirts, as an additive in hair straighteners, and it has been used as an embalming agent for thousands of years. (It is believed that the Egyptians were the first to use formaldehyde). The chemical is falling out favor with many funeral directors. When used in embalming, great effort is made to avoid accidentally breathing in the fumes. Despite improved ventilation and modern protective gear, many funeral homes refuse to work with formaldehyde simply because it is too dangerous. Its ubiquitous use in manufacturing has come under scrutiny as well.

We can add formaldehyde as yet another one of the ingredients that is being hidden in our food. The struggle to label genetically modified soy can be thought of as the struggle to label formaldehyde laden, antioxidant deficient soy as well. There is no scientific justification to assume that GMOs are substantially equivalent to other foods. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that GMOs kill beneficail microbes in our gut and damage our digestive system (see Leaky Gut Syndrome and Autoimmune Diseases). Afterall, that’s what they’re designed to do.

Recommended Reading:

• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods
• Scientists Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done The Research
• Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done The Research
• Celebrities Against Circumcision

Sources:

• Do GMOs Accumulate Formaldehyde and Disrupt Molecular Systems Equilibria? Systems Biology May Provide Answers – Scientific Research
• Seeding Fear – Neal Young.com
• Artificial Versus Natural Genetic Modification & Perils Of GMOs – Permaculture Research Institute
• Despite Risk, Embalmers Still Embrace Preservative – New York Times

Monsanto has spent a lot of money trying to fight state labeling laws. Despite millions of dollars and deceitful ad campaigns, they haven’t been entirely successful. Laws mandating GMO labeling came close to passing in Oregon, California, and Washington. Vermont successfully passed a GMO labeling law, and initiatives to label genetically modified foods are being introduced all over the country.

Monsanto needed a federal solution to their problem, a federal law that could overturn the people’s will in Vermont and in other states. Unfortunately, Congress agreed. The bill is titled the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. It is better known by its critics as the DARK Act (which stands for Denying Americans the Right to Know). Despite vocal opposition from the public, independent scientists, and celebrities, the bill has passed the House and it is currently in the Senate’s agriculture committee. This bill, and California’s failed attempt to pass a GMO labeling law, motivated public responses from world-class celebrities. Refusing to passively accept corporate rule, many stars have become outspoken and have begun to use their fame in order to make it clear that they want to know what is in their food. Neil Young tells us in song.

Neil Young

If you don’t like to rock Starbucks A coffee shop
Well you better change your station ’cause that ain’t all that we got
Yeah, I want a cup of coffee but I don’t want a GMO
I like to start my day off without helping Monsanto

… From the fields of Nebraska to the banks of the Ohio
The farmers won’t be free to grow what they want to grow
When corporate control takes over the American farm
With fascist politicians and chemical giants walking arm in arm

… When the people of Vermont wanted to label food with GMOs
So that they could find out what was in what the farmer grows
Monsanto and Starbucks through the Grocery Manufacturers Alliance
They sued the state of Vermont to overturn the people’s will

Chuck Norris

In 2007 alone, the agricultural sector applied between 180 million and 185 million pounds of glyphosate to crops in this country. The home and garden sector applied 5 million to 8 million pounds, and industry, commerce, and government applied 13 million to 15 million pounds of glyphosate. It was the most widely used herbicide in U.S. agriculture and second-most widely used herbicide in the home and garden sector.

The reason it should be on our radar now is that glyphosate is under a standard registration review by the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency is determining whether glyphosate use should continue as is or be limited or even halted.

For years, various interest groups, as well as researchers and scientists from several countries, have complained that heavy use of glyphosate is causing problems for plants and animals, including humans. Studies have been conducted, and findings have been made.

…What do I believe when I read that even the EPA’s technical fact sheet on glyphosate states, for example, that chronic long-term exposure can cause kidney damage and reproductive effects?

And when an MIT study argues that glyphosate’s “negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body”?

Do I read this as it sounds – that maybe what is being called insignificant or low-risk in the short term could escalate into having a significant impact on health over the years? Is it something that could shorten a person’s life?

Jennifer Garner

My friend Gisele [Bundchen] and I are fed up with being kept in the dark about GMO and non-GMO labeling, I got involved because she said, “Do you know what’s happening?” She’s a firecracker. She said, “You have to educate yourself.”

It’s easy for me to shop at places where foods are labeled. Only 3% of the food we produce is non-GMO. But if that 3% is available to you, you kind of take that for granted, but the rest of the country is being fed food—certainly all of the animals that are being turned into our meat, they’re all being fed food that’s been genetically modified.

I cook for my kids, and we have a garden. We try to grow whatever we can, although I can’t say we have the hugest crop in the world, but I do try to pay close attention, and I do my best.

Gwyneth Paltrow

Next week I am going to DC to speak with members of the Senate about voting against a law that would let genetically modified organisms into our food supply without any labels! Monsanto and other big food do not want any GMO labeling. 89% of Americans do. And this law, which passed in the house last week, would overturn the states who have passed labeling laws. The evidence suggests that GMO’s are an environmental disaster, both in the long term and in the short. But I am not asking you to weigh in on whether they are good or bad. We just want a label! We have a right to know what is in our food like the 64 other countries who label or don’t allow GMO’s at all.

… Much the way I want to know if my food is farm-raised or wild or if my orange juice is fresh or from concentrate, I also believe I have the right, and we as Americans all have the right, to know what’s in our food. I’m not here as an expert. I’m here as a mother, an American mother, that honestly believes I have the right to know what’s in the food I feed my family.”

Roseanne Barr

The big island of Hawaii made GMOs illegal. We banned them. We worked so hard…Monsatan I call them. We banned their ass from the big island… It was signed into law.

Dave Matthews

Why would you want to know what’s in your food?

…. Here in America you don’t get the right to know if you’re eating genetically modified organisms.

… If there’s nothing wrong with GMOs, why not put it on the label?…MADE WITH GMOS!!

Tom Colicchio

It’s not surprising that as a chef, I want to know what I am feeding my customers. It’s also not surprising that as a father, I want to know what I am feeding my family. What is surprising is that some in Congress are working so hard to keep consumers like me in the dark as to what’s in the food we eat.

More and more consumers are taking an interest in the ingredients in the products they buy from the grocery store, including whether or not the food contains genetically modified organisms. However, in most cases, there is no way to determine whether or not what you buy at the grocery store contains GMOs. Even when packaging reads “All Natural,” it’s no guarantee that the product has not been genetically modified.

Who’s afraid of transparency? Who’s afraid of disclosure? People who have something to hide.

In a recent national survey, more than 90% of Americans favor GMO labeling. We should all be cheered by the fact that consumers want to be more knowledgeable about the foods they eat. That’s why it’s so disturbing that instead of making it easier for consumers to understand what’s in the food they are buying, there are some in Congress who are actively trying to deny us the basic right to know what we are putting in our bodies.

… I just want to know, I want to know what’s in my food. I really want to know what I’m feeding my family.

Eric Ripert

You don’t have to be a chef to know what is in your food.

Sara Gilbert

All we’re asking is to know what we’re eating and what our kids are eating.

Bill Maher

China labels GMOs – they put lead in baby food. We can’t have that in America, you know why? In America, corporations run the show. Even though nine out of ten Americans would at least like foods to be labeled. At least we know they are Frankenfoods. But it would hurt sales, so shut up and eat your mutant chili.

…Throughout the course of food labeling history, giant processed food companies have claimed that giving consumers basic information about their food would raise the cost of food and guess what? It never has. But that hasn’t stopped the chemical and junk food companies from using this faulty argument to mislead Californians into believing that a label to tell them if their food has been genetically engineered will raise the cost to their food. Enough with the scare tactics already don’t buy their BS.

Michael J Fox

I have a right to know what’s in my food, and you do, too.

… Until we know more about these newly invented foods, just label it.

Jack Johnson

I definitely think people have the right to know what’s in their food. I just shot a public service announcement for the Just Label It campaign, and I’m definitely behind Prop 37 [California’s attempt to pass a labeling law] and the idea that we are what we eat, so we should know what we’re eating. We all have the right to know what’s in our food. When you look at the fact that the European Union has completely banned GMOs, I think we have the right to at least know if we’re eating GMOs.

Julie Bowen

Every modern family has the right to know… What is in their food!!!! And I have the right to know what’s in my food! Don’t you want to know?!

James Franco

Large processed food companies have always claimed that giving consumers basic information about their food, using labels, would increase their grocery costs. And every time it’s been a lie.

Now those same companies are at it again, making more outlandish claims that your grocery bill will skyrocket under Proposition 37, which requires labels for GMOs, well it’s not true, and we’re fighting back with the truth.

… Isn’t labeling genetically modified foods just a fair idea?

Jim Carrey

I’m here to plant a seed today, a seed that will inspire you to go forward in your life with enthusiastic hearts and a clear sense of wholeness. The question is, will that seed have a chance to take root or will I be sued by Monsanto?

Ann Heche

We deserve to know what is on our food. The fact is, we are not being told the truth and there are no laws that demand it.

Rob Schneider

CALL YOUR SENATOR! TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THE DARK ACT 1599!! DEMAND THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT’S IN YOUR CHILD’S FOOD!

More Celebrities Who Have Spoken Out Against GMOs and Monsanto

• Alexandra Paul
• Ali Larter
• Alicia Silverstone
• Amy Smart
• Barbara Streisand
• Bianca Jagger
• Bill Maher
• Blue Sky Drive (Band)
• Chevy Chase
• Caley Chase
• Carter Oosterhouse
• Danny DeVito
• Darryl Hannah
• Dave Matthews
• Elijah Wood
• Emily Deschanel
• Emily VanCamp
• Exene Cervenka
• Frances Fisher
• Frank Delgado
• Gabriel Mann
• Glenn Howerton
• Ian Somerhalder
• James Taylor
• Jayni Chase
• Jillian Michaels
• John Cho
• Jordana Brewster
• Josh Bowmen
• Julie Bowen
• KaDee Strickland
• Kaitlin Olson
• Kimberly Elise
• Kimberly Van Der Beek
• Kristin Bauer van Straten
• Leah Segedie
• Mariel Hemingway
• Maroon 5 (Band)
• Mehcad Brooks
• Nell Newman, founder, Newman’s Own Organics
• Nick Wechsler
• Rashida Jones
• Roseanne Barr
• Russell Simmons
• Sarah Michelle Gellar
• Suzanne Somers
• Wilder Valderrama
• Ziggy Marley

None of these celebrities are presenting themselves as scientists. So far, scientific objections to genetic engineering (which are many, and well founded) have been completely ignored. Instead of raising scientific objections to genetic engineering, these celebrities are objecting to being denied the right to know what is in our food. At the heart of the matter is freedom, the freedom to choose what goes into our bodies. They want to know what is in their food. Don’t you want to know as well?

Recommended Reading:

• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods
• Scientists Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done The Research
• Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done The Research
• Celebrities Against Circumcision

Sources:

• “A Rock Star Bucks a Coffee Shop” – Neil Young
• Do GMOs Accumulate Formaldehyde and Disrupt Molecular Systems Equilibria? Systems Biology May Provide Answers – Scientific Research An Academic Publisher
• Chuck Norris Raises Red Flag Over Monsanto – World Net Daily
• ‘Top Chef’ judge Colicchio on GMOs, and his food activism – MSNBC
• Americans have a right to know when GMOs are in their food: Why the DARK Act is such a huge threat – NY Daily News
• Sara Gilbert: Moms have power, make it count – She Knows
• Bill Maher on the Truth Behind Prop 37 – Food & Water Watch
• Jennifer Garner Grows Her Own Food – E Online
• Jim Carrey takes swipe at Monsanto during commencement speech – St. Louis Business Journal
• Gwyneth Paltrow on GMOs: ‘They could possibly be harmful’ – Nicholas Ballasy
• Gwyneth Paltrow and Neil Young vs. Monsanto – We Are Anonymous
• Celebrities Who Endorse Prop 37 – GMO Labeling
• Conceal or Reveal – Just Label It
• Celebrities Unite Against GMO Foods – Documentary Archive
• Right to Know – Vote Yes on Prop 37 – Food & Water Watch
• Celebrities Against GMOs – Free Your Mind TV
• These celebs want GMOs labeled – Grist

A growing number of health-conscious and environmentally concerned people of all ages are adopting a vegan diet so they can live more efficiently and improve their overall health. A vegan diet promotes efficient living because it requires fewer resources to grow vegetables than to raise animals.

Statistics show that since 2009, the percentage of people eating a non-meat diet have doubled in the U.S. Today, 5 % of the population, an estimated 16 million people, are vegetarians, and one-half of them are vegan. That’s about 8 million people.

The vegan diet is growing in popularity, as many celebrities (Bill Clinton, Carrie Underwood, Tobey Maguire, Natalie Portman, etc.) and top athletes (Mike Tyson, Dave Scott, etc.) are promoting it. But the diet has continued to stir controversy because it is such a drastic lifestyle change from the traditional meat eater diet that has been the mainstay of American culture for hundreds of years.

Vegans don’t eat any meat, fish, honey, or dairy products, which includes milk, eggs, cheese, yogurt, etc. Strict vegans also avoid using cosmetic or chemical products made with animal-derived ingredients, and they don’t wear fur, leather, or wool clothing. Most vegans do not eat refined white sugar (made with charcoal from bone fragments) and some types of wine (includes isinglass, fish bladders).

7 Common Benefits of Eating a Vegan Diet

1-Better Overall Health

People on a vegan diet eat a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains, nuts, berries, beans, and soy. As a result, they tend to have lower blood pressure and cholesterol and a lower risk of cardiovascular and heart disease; type 2 diabetes; prostate, colon and breast cancers; macular degeneration; cataracts; arthritis; osteoporosis; PMS; migraines; and allergies.

2-Weight Loss

A U.S. News and World Report article named the vegan diet as the best for overall weight loss, heart health, diabetes prevention, and long-term weight loss. Vegans have lower rates of obesity and weigh 5 to 20 pounds less than those on a meat diet. Studies show that vegans tend to eat fewer calories than meat-eaters and therefore have a lower body mass index (a measure of body fat). The vegan diet contains fewer saturated fats, so vegans have a better chance of losing weight and keeping the weight off.  One study showed that people who eat a low-fat vegetarian (vegan) diet averaged a 24 pound weight loss the first year and kept the weight off 5 years later.

3-Increased Energy

Many successful athletes are vegans. Too much fat in your bloodstream from eating meat prevents arteries from opening to supply oxygen to the muscles. Vegetarian diets are high in carbohydrates that are good for efficient energy conversion.  Vegan athletes include marathon runner Scott Jurek, triathlete and ironman champion Dave Scott, NFL player Tony Gonzalez, and Olympian track and field star Carl Lewis.

4-Healthier Skin and Hair

Meat-based diets are high in fats that can clog skin pores, but a plant-based diet is low in fat and high in vitamins and antioxidants that are good for skin. Fiber and whole grains help your body flush out toxins, and vitamins C, A and E from a variety of vegetables and nuts help fight wrinkles and brown spots. The zinc found in beans may help to decrease acne.

5-Reduced Body Odor

One study in the Czech Republic found that those who ate a plant-based diet (vegetarians and vegans) were judged to have a more pleasant body odor than the study group who ate meat. The conclusion was that meat consumption has a negative impact on body odor. This is because the meat diet does not have an adequate intake of phytochemical and micronutrients, so cellular detoxification is impaired. Some vegans report fewer problems with bad breath and others have discontinued the use of deodorant products.

6-Boost Immune System

Eating fruits and vegetables means a diet high in fiber, vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants that help improve your immune system. A good immune system means your body’s cells and organs are working efficiently, so your body has defenses that protect you from the threats posed by bacteria and viruses. Your diet works in partnership with other good health practices such as getting enough sleep, reducing stress levels, and exercising.

7-Live Longer  

A recent study of 173,000 people showed that vegetarians (and vegans) have a 20 percent lower mortality rate than meat-eaters. This means they live about 10 years longer. A 30-year study in Okinawa attributed the longevity of centenarians there to a fiber-rich diet of fruits, vegetables, unrefined complex carbohydrates, and soy.

Another recent study published in The Daily Mail, found that a poor diet is the biggest contributor to premature deaths across the globe. One in five deaths are caused by diets that are high in red meat consumption and sugary drinks and lacking in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Unhealthy eating is contributing to the rise in heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.

A long-term study of more than 121,000 men and women in the U.S. found that eating beef, pork, lamb, or processed meat such as bacon, bologna, hot dogs, salami, or sausage, increased the chances of early death by 12 percent.

Conclusion

When you consider the advantages of a vegan diet, including improved health, weight loss, increased energy, healthier skin and hair, reduced body odor, a boosted immune system, and longer life, eating vegan is a very tempting choice, anyway you look at it.

Recommended Reading:

• 10 Vegan-Friendly Sources Of Protein
• Animal vs. Plant Protein – What’s Better?

Sources:

• 2014, The Year of the Vegan – One Green Planet
• Vegan Diet – U.S. News
• Why Go Veg? – Vegetarian Times
• Body Odor: Do Nutritarians Smell Better? – Dr. Fuhrman’s Disease Proo
• Go Vegetarian, Live Longer – Men’s Journal
• Red Meat Consumption Increases Risk of Early Death – Scientific American
• 42 Health Benefits of Going Vegan – Wildflower

Consumer Reports tested 300 samples (458 pounds) of hamburger from 103 stores from 26 cities for bacterial contamination, comparing “sustainable” meat to conventional meat. (Sustainable, in this study, referred to beef from cattle that was not given antibiotics). What they found was both enlightening and truly disturbing.

Beef samples were tested for 5 types of bacteria:

• Salmonella
• Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
• Coli (7 strains)
• Clostridium perfringens (CDC estimates 1 million cases of food poisoning due to this bacteria each year.)
• Enterococcus

Consumer Reports published the following results:

All 458 pounds of beef we examined contained bacteria that signified fecal contamination (enterococcus and/or nontoxin-producing E. coli), which can cause blood or urinary tract infections. Almost 20 percent contained C. perfringens, a bacteria that causes almost 1 million cases of food poisoning annually. Ten percent of the samples had a strain of S. aureus bacteria that can produce a toxin that can make you sick. That toxin can’t be destroyed—even with proper cooking.

Just 1 percent of our samples contained salmonella. … salmonella causes an estimated 1.2 million illnesses and 450 deaths in the U.S. each year.

Consumer Reports then tested the bacteria they found and discovered that 18 percent of conventional beef samples were contaminated with superbugs—dangerous bacteria that are resistant to three or more classes of antibiotics. While testing out to contain half that amount, 9%, sustainably produced beef also contained superbugs.

A full 97% of the beef sold is obtained from conventionally raised cattle that are crowded into feedlots and left to stand in their own manure. They are fed corn and soy (both of which are usually GMO), candy, slaughtered parts of pigs and chickens and dried chicken manure and litter rather than the grasses and other plants they were meant to eat. They are also fed plastic pellets for roughage and routine antibiotics.

Although sustainable beef is clearly better and cleaner, all of the samples, even organic beef samples, were contaminated. Consumer Reports strongly recommends cooking hamburger to an internal temperature of 160 degrees – medium, rather than rare or medium rare. Rare hamburger, it seems, is much more likely to cause disease than other cuts of beef due to the fact that it is ground up and the bacteria is inside as well as outside. With other cuts of beef, the bacteria would only be found on the surface, where it is more likely to be killed by the heat source. If you’ve been eating conventionally grown meat, consider a GMO detox.

Further Reading:

• The Way We Used To Eat – The Real Paleo Diet
• Food For Naught: 5 Reasons To Kick Factory Farmed Meats Off Your Plate 
• Candida, Gut Flora, Allergies, and Disease
• Detox Cheap and Easy Without Fasting – Recipes Included
• Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

Sources:

• How Safe Is Your Ground Beef? – Consumer Reports

When you shop for produce and see that higher price placed on the organic varieties, chances are you think there probably isn’t that much difference between the two. Surely conventional agriculture doesn’t waste chemicals. They only use them when they need to – when insects or fungus attacks the crops, right? Wrong.

Conventional produce has been through a storm of chemical treatments. The use of chemicals is so insidious, it often begins with treating the dirt and the seeds before planting. Then chemical fertilizers are used in addition to insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides during cultivation. Some fruits have been tested to find 13-15 different pesticides remain after harvesting. Now a new practice is being employed – pre-harvest desiccation. Crops are drenched with an herbicide prior to harvest to hasten and even out ripening and to control weeds for the next crop.

Unfortunately this process results in huge pesticide residues in our food, even in certified non-GMO food. That’s right, your food could be non-GMO Project verified and still have been drenched in glyphosate just prior to harvest. The foods that are approved for Roundup application and/or another pesticide just prior to harvest are as follows:

• Wheat
• Cotton (cottonseed oil)
• Alfalfa
• Oats
• Sugar cane
• Beans
• Mustard
• Oilseed rape
• Rye/Triticale
• Lentils
• Peas
• Flax
• Sunflower
• Pulses
• Soy Bean
• Sugar beet
• Potatoes
• Chick Peas
• Feed barley
• Canola
• Corn

Unfortunately, Roundup is not the only chemical approved for use just prior to harvest. Other approved pre-harvest chemical desiccants include:

• Reglone
• Diquat
• Glufosinate
• Carfentrazone-Ethyl
• Cyanamide
• Paraquat
• Diquat Dibromide
• Carfentrazone
• Cyclanilide
• Diquat
• Endothall
• Thidiazuron
• Tribufos

No one denies that these chemicals are toxic. The argument in favor of desiccation and other synthetic chemical treatments is that the dose of toxin is so low, it isn’t harmful to apply it.

Toxicology is based on the following 500-year-old idea that is fundamentally flawed.

All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison from a remedy. –Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim Paracelsus

While it is true that even water can kill you if you drink an excessive amount, the idea that small doses of poison can’t hurt you is illogical. In conventional agriculture, everything you eat includes poison. Why would you want to eat any poison with every meal, increasing your toxic load each day?

Recently, we are learning more and more about how toxic glyphosate truly is.

Unfortunately, the other chemical treatments are not any better. A drop of Reglone on your fingernail can cause your nail to shrivel up, fall off, and never grow back. Any exposure to the eyes can blind you, permanently. It doesn’t take very much Reglone to kill you, and in higher amounts it can even be fatal from contact on the skin.

The more we realize how pervasive the chemical treatments are in conventional agriculture, the more we realize the value of voting with our dollars for organic food.

Further Reading:

• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods
• Scientists Against GMOs

Sources:

• Crops Are Drenched with Roundup Pesticide Right Before Harvest – Washingtons Blog
• Defoliants and Desiccants – University of Florida EDIS
• Desiccation Programmes – AHDB Potatoes
• Direct Harvest: Do you need a desiccant or a pre-harvest glyphosate? – Field Crop news
• Glyphosate Found in Human Urine – GM-Free Cymru
• Herbicide Options to Enhance Harvesting FAQ – Government of Saskatchewan
• Herbicides found in Human Urine – Journal for ecology, winegrowing and climate farming
• Novel desiccant targeted for stale seed-bed clean up – Farmers Weekly
• Pesticide Fact Sheet: Carfentrazone-ethyl – EPA
• Preharvest Staging Guide – Roundup
• The Dose Makes the Poison – Assessing Toxic RiskTips for Pre-Harvest Glyphosate and Desiccation – Real Agriculture