7 Foods You Should Never Eat

By Eddie Sage on 30 December 2011 in blog, Health

"1. The Endocrinologist Won’t Eat: Canned Tomatoes
Fredrick Vom Saal, is an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A.
The problem: The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Unfortunately, acidity (a prominent characteristic of tomatoes) causes BPA to leach into your food. Studies show that the BPA in most people’s body exceeds the amount that suppresses sperm production or causes chromosomal damage to the eggs of animals. “You can get 50 mcg of BPA per liter out of a tomato can, and that’s a level that is going to impact people, particularly the young,” says vom Saal. “I won’t go near canned tomatoes.”
The solution: Choose tomatoes in glass bottles (which do not need resin linings), such as the brands Bionaturae and Coluccio. You can also get several types in Tetra Pak boxes, like Trader Joe’s and Pomi.
Budget tip: If your recipe allows, substitute bottled pasta sauce for canned tomatoes. Look for pasta sauces with low sodium and few added ingredients, or you may have to adjust the recipe.
————————————————————————————————————————————————-
2. The Farmer Won’t Eat: Corn-Fed Beef
Joel Salatin is co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of half a dozen books on sustainable farming.
The problem: Cattle evolved to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. But more money for cattle farmers (and lower prices at the grocery store) means a lot less nutrition for us. A recent comprehensive study conducted by the USDA and researchers from Clemson University found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium; lower in inflammatory omega-6s; and lower in saturated fats that have been linked to heart disease. “We need to respect the fact that cows are herbivores, and that does not mean feeding them corn and chicken manure,” says Salatin.
The solution: Buy grass-fed beef, which can be found at specialty grocers, farmers’ markets, and nationally at Whole Foods. It’s usually labeled because it demands a premium, but if you don’t see it, ask your butcher.
Budget tip: Cuts on the bone are cheaper because processors charge extra for deboning. You can also buy direct from a local farmer, which can be as cheap as $5 per pound. To find a farmer near you, search eatwild.com.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
3. The Toxicologist Won’t Eat: Microwave Popcorn
Olga Naidenko, is a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group.

The problem: 
Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans, according to a recent study from UCLA. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize–and migrate into your popcorn. “They stay in your body for years and accumulate there,” says Naidenko, which is why researchers worry that levels in humans could approach the amounts causing cancers in laboratory animals. DuPont and other manufacturers have promised to phase out PFOA by 2015 under a voluntary EPA plan, but millions of bags of popcorn will be sold between now and then.
The solution: Pop natural kernels the old-fashioned way: in a skillet. For flavorings, you can add real butter or dried seasonings, such as dillweed, vegetable flakes, or soup mix.
Budget tip: Popping your own popcorn is dirt cheap
—————————————————————————————————————————————
4. The Farm Director Won’t Eat: Nonorganic Potatoes
Jeffrey Moyer is the chair of the National Organic Standards Board.

The problem:
 Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes–the nation’s most popular vegetable–they’re treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they’re dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting. “Try this experiment: Buy a conventional potato in a store, and try to get it to sprout. It won’t,” says Moyer, who is also farm director of the Rodale Institute (also owned by Rodale Inc., the publisher of Prevention). “I’ve talked with potato growers who say point-blank they would never eat the potatoes they sell. They have separate plots where they grow potatoes for themselves without all the chemicals.”

The solution: 
Buy organic potatoes. Washing isn’t good enough if you’re trying to remove chemicals that have been absorbed into the flesh.
Budget tip: Organic potatoes are only $1 to $2 a pound, slightly more expensive than conventional spuds.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
5. The Fisheries Expert Won’t Eat: Farmed Salmon
Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, published a major study in the journal Science on contamination in fish.
The problem: Nature didn’t intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT. According to Carpenter, the most contaminated fish come from Northern Europe, which can be found on American menus. “You could eat one of these salmon dinners every 5 months without increasing your risk of cancer,” says Carpenter, whose 2004 fish contamination study got broad media attention. “It’s that bad.” Preliminary science has also linked DDT to diabetes and obesity, but some nutritionists believe the benefits of omega-3s outweigh the risks. There is also concern about the high level of antibiotics and pesticides used to treat these fish. When you eat farmed salmon, you get dosed with the same drugs and chemicals.
The solution: Switch to wild-caught Alaska salmon. If the package says fresh Atlantic, it’s farmed. There are no commercial fisheries left for wild Atlantic salmon.

Budget tip: 
Canned salmon, almost exclusively from wild catch, can be found for as little as $3 a can.
————————————————————————————————————————————————
6. The Cancer Researcher Won’t Drink: Milk Produced With Artificial Hormones
Rick North is project director of the Campaign for Safe Food at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility and former CEO of the Oregon division of the American Cancer Society.

The problem:
 Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers. “When the government approved rBGH, it was thought that IGF-1 from milk would be broken down in the human digestive tract,” says North. As it turns out, the casein in milk protects most of it, according to several independent studies. “There’s not 100 percent proof that this is increasing cancer in humans,” admits North. “However, it’s banned in most industrialized countries.”
The solution: Check labels for rBGH-free, rBST-free, produced without artificial hormones, or organic milk. These phrases indicate rBGH-free products.
Budget tip: Try Wal-Mart’s Great Value label, which does not use rBGH.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
7. The Organic-Foods Expert Won’t Eat: Conventional Apples
Mark Kastel, a former executive for agribusiness, is codirector of the Cornucopia Institute, a farm-policy research group that supports organic foods.
The problem: If fall fruits held a “most doused in pesticides contest,” apples would win. Why? They are individually grafted (descended from a single tree) so that each variety maintains its distinctive flavor. As such, apples don’t develop resistance to pests and are sprayed frequently. The industry maintains that these residues are not harmful. But Kastel counters that it’s just common sense to minimize exposure by avoiding the most doused produce, like apples. “Farm workers have higher rates of many cancers,” he says. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides (from all sources) with Parkinson’s disease.
The solution: Buy organic apples.
Budget tip: If you can’t afford organic, be sure to wash and peel them. But Kastel personally refuses to compromise. “I would rather see the trade-off being that I don’t buy that expensive electronic gadget,” he says. “Just a few of these decisions will accommodate an organic diet for a family.”"

Fonte e imagem:
http://worldtruth.tv/7-foods-you-should-never-eat/

F de Feijão

in Jornal Público,  
Por Pedro Carvalho, nutricionista*
 
"Um dia perguntaram ao intelectual italiano Umberto Eco qual tinha sido para ele o facto mais importante do 2º milénio. Provavelmente o leitor poderá achar que está o ler o texto errado e a perguntar-se o que é que isto tem a ver com o feijão. Pois bem, a resposta de Umberto Eco a esta pergunta foi: “a introdução do feijão na Europa”! E de facto, o feijão juntamente com outras leguminosas como a fava, lentilha e grão tiveram em tempos um papel crucial no combate à desnutrição que se abatia em toda a Europa.
Mudam-se os tempos, mudam-se as vontades, e hoje, é muito provável que a razão pela qual exista um certo preconceito em relação ao feijão, seja essa lembrança de outros tempos com menos recursos em que o feijão foi utilizado como substituto da carne e do peixe. E este preconceito pode-nos sair caro quer no que diz respeito à nossa saúde, quer na manutenção da nossa identidade gastronómica que é algo do qual nos devemos orgulhar e não envergonhar. Com efeito, a feijoada é considerada muitas vezes um prato excessivamente pesado… e ainda bem! Muito do que por vezes entendemos como “pesado” refere-se à capacidade saciante do alimento em causa, e a este nível ninguém bate o feijão. A única maneira de tornarmos uma feijoada pesada em termos nutricionais é a adição de carnes demasiado gordas e enchidos que esses sim, desequilibram um prato que pode traduzir igualmente uma simbiose empírica entre arroz e feijão na procura da complementaridade proteica dos seus constituintes.
O feijão, à semelhança de outras leguminosas desempenha um papel fundamental no controlo do apetite pois para além de ser pouco calórico (cerca de 100kcal por 100gramas) tem uma grande quantidade de proteína e fibra. E são estas mesmas fibras que juntamente com outros fitoquímicos como o ácido fítico, flavonoides e compostos fenólicos, fazem do feijão um super-alimento na temática da prevenção do cancro. Sendo certo que o ácido fítico é responsável pela diminuição da absorção do ferro e cálcio, ele compensa essa menos-valia com uma grande capacidade antioxidante e antimutagénica que em conjunto com a produção de ácidos gordos de cadeia curta resultantes da fermentação da fibra do feijão diminuem o risco de cancro, particularmente o colo-rectal.
Assim, na sopa, na salada, em feijoadas à portuguesa ou brasileira, com marisco, lulas ou búzios, a ingestão de feijão é uma questão de saúde. É difícil encontrar algo que o feijão não tenha. Tem proteínas de elevada qualidade para um alimento de origem vegetal, tem hidratos de carbono de absorção lenta, tem grande quantidade de fibra promotora da saciedade, tem um vasto portfólio micronutricional com ferro, cálcio, zinco, ácido fólico e outras vitaminas do grupo B. Enfim, é daqueles alimentos que justificam o uso do cliché: O feijão tem tudo… Só não tem comparação!"

*Professor Assistente Convidado da Faculdade de Ciências da Nutrição e Alimentação da Universidade do Porto pedrocarvalho@fcna.up.pt

Fonte e imagem:

A de Alho

in Jornal Público,  
Por Pedro Carvalho, nutricionista*

"O alho tem tudo para ser considerado um alimento com elevada capacidade medicinal e, em boa verdade, sempre o foi. Desde suplemento alimentar com vista a aumentar a força de escravos egípcios para a construção das pirâmides e atletas greco-romanos em eventos desportivos, até à cura de lepra, asma, varíola, picadas de escorpião, para tudo o alho serviu como medicação chegando ao ponto de ter sido utilizado em tempos como moeda, tão elevada era a sua valorização. Existe mesmo o mito de que Hipócrates, o pai da medicina, teria um repertório de mais de 300 remédios que incluíam alho para além de canela e alecrim.
E a nossa gastronomia proporciona-nos uma grande familiarização com este legume quer nas excepcionalmente típicas açordas e marinadas ou com a feliz trilogia de alho, azeite e tomate. Embora as quantidades em que é consumido não façam dele um alimento a ter em conta para a satisfação das necessidades de algum nutrimento, o alho é particularmente rico em vitamina C, B6, cálcio, cobre e selénio.
Aquilo de que menos gostamos no alho é justamente a fonte de todas as suas virtudes. A alicina, um composto organossulfurado, tanto nos oferece aquele indistinguível hálito, como aporta o seu grande potencial de prevenção de doença. Embora não se possa dizer categoricamente que a ingestão de alho reduz o risco de cancro, a verdade é que essa é uma forte probabilidade, sobretudo quando falamos do cancro da próstata, esófago, ovário e cancro colo-rectal. As suas propriedades antibacterianas e antivirais consubstanciam o seu uso ancestral como “desinfectante” sendo igualmente interessantes os seus efeitos moderados no que à diminuição da pressão arterial, colesterol (total e LDL) e triglicerídeos diz respeito.
Todos estes benefícios esbarram muitas vezes no modo como o alho é consumido,  que tanto os pode potenciar como os pode eliminar. Em Portugal, o refogado ou estrugido é quase sempre o ponto de partida para muito do que cozinha. Não sendo consensual que o alho faça parte desta “instituição” lusa, o certo é que as altas temperaturas atingidas (às quais o azeite é também submetido) destroem muitos dos seus compostos organossulfurados. Por outro lado, o seu consumo em cru (principalmente esmagado ou picado), a sua adição a marinadas, açordas e legumes salteados ou até esfregado em pão com azeite resultando num pão de alho caseiro, serão formas de consumo mais apelativas ao paladar e à saúde.
Assim, de hoje em diante, tente encarar o hálito a alho não como um obstáculo social mas sim como um sinónimo de saúde."

*Professor Assistente Convidado da Faculdade de Ciências da Nutrição e Alimentação da Universidade do Porto
pedrocarvalho@fcna.up.pt

Fonte e imagem:

The Connection Between Good Nutrition and Good Cognition

Alice G. Walton - Alice G. Walton is a health-and-science journalist who writes on medical issues, particularly those related to the brain and behavior. She holds a Ph.D. in biopsychology and is an editor at TheDoctorWillSeeYouNow.com.

Jan 13 2012
A study that looked at biomarkers in the blood to correlate vitamins and brain function found very clear links between nutrition and brain health.

A new study goes deeper in understanding the connection between good nutrition and a healthy brain. Previous studies have linked individual vitamin deficiencies to cognitive decline. But new research looks at a wider range of vitamins, and even better, it uses biomarkers in the blood to correlate vitamins with brain health, both good and bad.

Many studies exploring the relationship between nutrition and cognitive health rely on people's personal reports of their diets -- a notoriously unreliable way to gather personal nutritional information. For this reason, the researchers behind the current study decided to use a more objective means of studying the nutrition-brain link: they looked at biomarkers in the blood to measure the vitamin levels in 104 participants. They also had participants take tests to measure thinking and memory function, and 42 participants had MRI scans to measure their brain volume.

The researchers found some striking connections between nutrition and brain health. People who had higher levels of B family vitamins, as well as vitamins C, D, and E had higher scores on cognitive tests than people with lower levels. The same positive relationship was found for omega-3 fatty acids, which have previously been linked to better brain health.

On the flipside, people with higher levels of trans fats in their blood had poorer performance in thinking and memory tests. Their MRI scans also revealed more brain shrinkage than people who had lower trans fats levels. Trans fats are found in a variety of junk foods, like fried, packaged, and fast foods.
The researchers also determined the portion of the cognitive test scores the participants' nutrient statuses accounted for. They found that nutrient biomarkers accounted for 17 percent of the variation in the tests of thinking and memory function. Other variables, like age, education, and having high blood pressure accounted for more: 46 percent. But for brain volume, the role of nutrition was larger, accounting for 37 percent of the variation. 

Author Gene Bowman said that the team's findings "need to be confirmed, but obviously it is very exciting to think that people could potentially stop their brains from shrinking and keep them sharp by adjusting their diet." 

More and more research is showing that there's a lot of truth to the old adage you are what you eat -- and the same goes for the brain since, after all, it is an organ too. Genetic and environmental factors also play a role in the development of disease, but we can do our best to give our brains the nutrients they need for good cognitive health.

The study was carried out at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, and is published in Neurology

Image: Lightspring/Shutterstock."

Fonte e imagem:

How Does Meat in the Diet Take an Environmental Toll?

David Pimentel of Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences says that the grain currently fed to some seven billion livestock in the United States could feed nearly 800 million people directly. Image: Digital Vision/Thinkstock

"Dear EarthTalk: I heard that the less meat one eats, the better it is for the environment. How so?
-- Jason K., Sarasota, FL

Our meat consumption habits take a serious toll on the environment. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the production, processing and distribution of meat requires huge outlays of pesticides, fertilizer, fuel, feed and water while releasing greenhouse gases, manure and a range of toxic chemicals into our air and water. A lifecycle analysis conducted by EWG that took into account the production and distribution of 20 common agricultural products found that red meat such as beef and lamb is responsible for 10 to 40 times as many greenhouse gas emissions as common vegetables and grains.

Livestock are typically fed corn, soybean meal and other grains which have to first be grown using large amounts of fertilizer, fuel, pesticides, water and land. EWG estimates that growing livestock feed in the U.S. alone requires 167 million pounds of pesticides and 17 billion pounds of nitrogen fertilizer each year across some 149 million acres of cropland. The process generates copious amounts of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide, while the output of methane—another potent greenhouse gas—from cattle is estimated to generate some 20 percent of overall U.S. methane emissions.

“If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,” reports ecologist David Pimentel of Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He adds that the seven billion livestock in the U.S. consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire U.S. population.

Our meat consumption habits also cause other environmental problems. A 2009 study found that four-fifths of the deforestation across the Amazon rainforest could be linked to cattle ranching. And the water pollution from factory farms (also called concentrated animal feeding operations or CAFOs)—whereby pigs and other livestock are contained in tight quarters—can produce as much sewage waste as a small city, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Further, the widespread use of antibiotics to keep livestock healthy on those overcrowded CAFOs has led to the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that threaten human health and the environment in their own right.

Eating too much meat is no good for our health, with overindulgence linked to increasing rates of heart disease, cancer and obesity. Worldwide, between 1971 and 2010, production of meat tripled to around 600 billion pounds while global population grew by 81 percent, meaning that we are eating a lot more meat than our grandparents. Researchers extrapolate that global meat production will double by 2050 to about 1.2 trillion pounds a year, putting further pressure on the environment and human health.

For those who can’t give up meat fully, cutting back goes a long way toward helping the environment, as does choosing meat and dairy products from organic, pasture-raised, grass-fed animals. “Ultimately, we need better policies and stronger regulations to reduce the environmental impacts of livestock production,” says EWG’s Kari Hammerschlag “But personal shifting of diets is an important step.”"

Fonte e imagem:

Investigadora portuguesa premiada por comprovar que comer devagar emagrece

Adriano Miranda
in Jornal Público,
01.01.2012 - 10:13 Por Lusa

"A velocidade com que ingerimos os alimentos tem influência no peso corporal e comer devagar tem resultados equiparáveis aos de uma cirurgia bariátrica, revela um estudo realizado por uma investigadora portuguesa que ganhou um prémio internacional.

A investigação premiada de Júlia Galhardo durou um ano e teve por base 500 jovens obesos que estavam a ser acompanhados no Hospital Pediátrico de Bristol, em Inglaterra, com o objectivo de estudar as hormonas que estão relacionadas com os hábitos alimentares. São duas hormonas do sistema digestivo que circulam no sangue: a grelina, segregada pelo estômago e que induz a sensação de fome e o peptídeo tirosina-tirosina (PYY), segregado pelo intestino e que dá a sensação de saciedade.

Os jovens foram divididos em dois grupos e a um foi dada uma balança computorizada na qual colocavam o prato com os alimentos do almoço e do jantar e que media a velocidade a que comiam, sendo que o ritmo pré-formatado era de cerca de 300-350 gramas em 12-15 minutos. Caso a velocidade fosse superior, o computador dizia para comerem mais devagar.

Ao segundo grupo (de controlo) foi apenas fornecido aconselhamento dietético e físico.

“Passados esses doze meses fomos ver o índice de massa corporal (IMC) do grupo de controlo e do grupo estudado e o grupo relacionado com a balança tinha uma diminuição do índice de massa corporal significativamente superior à do grupo de controlo. Isto deixou-nos muito contentes porque era uma forma barata e acessível de todos diminuírem o peso”, revelou à agência Lusa a investigadora.

Júlia Galhardo apontou que é do senso comum que comer devagar faz com que se fique saciado mais depressa e não se ganhe peso, mas que ninguém tinha antes estudado o que acontecia a nível hormonal.

“No fundo há uma comunicação entre o aparelho digestivo e o cérebro, em que o aparelho digestivo diz: ‘estamos com fome, venha daí comida’. Depois de estarmos a comer, ele diz: ‘já chega, já estamos saciados, não é preciso vir mais comida’”, explicou a investigadora.

De acordo com Júlia Galhardo, quando as crianças e os adolescentes comiam de forma lenta, as hormonas que regulam a fome e a saciedade, e que tinham estado totalmente alteradas pelos maus hábitos alimentares, ficaram novamente reguladas, regularizando também a comunicação entre o sistema digestivo e o cérebro.

Segundo Júlia Galhardo, nunca se deve perder menos de trinta minutos a comer, tendo em conta que cada uma das refeições deve incluir uma sopa de legumes e um prato principal.

A investigadora espera que esta descoberta seja divulgada nos centros de saúde, campanhas de esclarecimento ou mesmo nos estabelecimentos de ensino, lembrando que este é um caso de saúde pública.

Júlia Galhardo foi premiada este ano com o Henning Andersen da Sociedade Europeia de Endocrinologia Pediátrica."

Fonte e imagem:
http://www.publico.pt/Ci%C3%AAncias/investigadora-portuguesa-premiada-por-comprovar-que-comer-devagar-emagrece--1527140

Começa hoje programa para incentivar consumo de fruta nas escolas

Foto: João Henriques
in Jornal Público, 03.01.2012 - 07:35 Por Lusa

"A Associação Portuguesa Contra a Obesidade Infantil (APCOI) inicia hoje nas escolas um programa educativo para incentivar o consumo de fruta no lanche escolar nos jardins-de-infância e escolas do primeiro ciclo.


O programa “Heróis da fruta - lanche escolar saudável” começa num colégio do concelho da Amadora, um dos 516 jardins-de-infância e escolas do primeiro ciclo que adeririam à iniciativa de intervenção escolar de âmbito nacional.

O projecto, que vai decorrer ao longo de seis semanas, até 10 de Fevereiro, pretende incentivar as crianças até aos 10 anos a dar importância ao consumo diário de fruta e a adoptar definitivamente este hábito alimentar.

Segundo a Comissão Europeia, Portugal está entre os países da Europa com maior número de crianças com excesso de peso: 32% das crianças entre os 6 e os 8 anos têm excesso de peso e 14% são obesas. O sexo feminino apresenta valores superiores aos do sexo masculino.

O último estudo do Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge (INSA) sobre obesidade infantil revela também que mais de 90% das crianças portuguesas come fast-food, doces e bebe refrigerantes, pelo menos quatro vezes por semana. Isto ao mesmo tempo que menos de 1% das crianças bebe água todos os dias e só 2% consome fruta fresca diariamente."

Fonte e imagem:
http://www.publico.pt/Educa%C3%A7%C3%A3o/comeca-hoje-programa-para-incentivar-consumo-de-fruta-nas-escolas-1527362