Dioxins in Food and Water Could Cause Diabetes
By Paul Rogers
Agent Orange - from imjoshdotcom
I’ve been aware of an increasing number of recent studies that seem to show that the chemical pollutants called POPs – dioxins and similar compounds – could be at least partly responsible for the current epidemic of type 2 diabetes. Now it’s not conclusive, but some aspects of these investigations are certainly interesting. Like the fact that when controlled for dioxin content of tissue, even obese people were at no higher risk of type 2 diabetes if their dioxin levels were low. This could be a chance occurrence, or other factors could cause this to occur, but overall there are some compelling aspects to this research.
Here is what one author had to say:
“The strong associations seen in quite different studies suggest the possibility that exposure to POPs could cause diabetes. One striking observation is that obese persons that do not have elevated POPs are not at elevated risk of diabetes, suggesting that the POPs rather than the obesity per se is responsible for the association. ” [Rev Environ Health. 2008 Jan-Mar;23(1):59-74. Review.]
POPs are “persistent organic pollutants.” This class of pollutants includes dioxins, PCBs, DDT, DDE and many chlorinated organic pesticides. They accumulate in your body and in the fat of the animals we eat.
History of Dioxins and Diabetes
Some years ago I worked in occupational and environmental health and safety, advising on toxic chemicals and health. As well as working to establish the first chemical list for Australia’s National Pollutant Inventory, I also helped out the local Vietnam vets with their Agent Orange herbicide case. Much of the finer detail of the toxic risk assessments involved dioxins — exotic chemical contaminants that result from chemical manufacture and combustion. Levels of dioxin were very high in Agent Orange. There are over 200 varieties of dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) – chemicals with somewhat similar structure and varying toxicities to humans. Sometimes the toxicity of these dioxin-like chemicals are referred to collectively with ‘toxic equivalents’ or TEQ.
Studies of manufacturing workers exposed to dioxins and similar compounds had already revealed a higher incidence of diabetes, and animal tests had confirmed this possibility to some degree.
The early emphasis of dioxin toxicity research was on birth defects and cancer. However, it took some time for the US Veterans Affairs Department to acknowledge limited evidence in support of a connection of Agent Orange exposure with type 2 diabetes, to the extent that disability pensions are now paid on this basis.
Other pieces of research seem to fit the puzzle. It seems that endocrine disrupting chemicals in general, especially ones that persist in the environment, are associated with diabetes. And a most recent research study suggests that the much-publicized plastics residue bisphenol-A is also possibly involved.
POPs and Diabetes: What You Can Do
While these contaminants are everywhere – from the Antarctic to the purest looking lake water – they also contaminate food by accumulating in animal fats – and which we consume in meat, chicken, dairy and fish products and fats.
If you want to reduce your intake, you really need to either find wild or organic and lean products from pristine places, or reduce your intake of animal foods, especially fat, or perhaps do a combination of both. This issue is also another reason why high-meat and fat diets like Atkins low-carb can be a recipe for disaster. And as for those so-called diet gurus who say we should eat more saturated fat . . . here’s a very good reason not to.
- Rignell-Hydbom A, Rylander L, Hagmar L. Exposure to persistent organochlorine pollutants and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2007 May;26(5):447-52.
- Rylander L, Rignell-Hydbom A, Hagmar L. A cross-sectional study of the association between persistent organochlorine pollutants and diabetes. Environ Health. 2005 Nov 29;4:28.
- Ropero AB, Alonso-Magdalena P, García-García E, Ripoll C, Fuentes E, Nadal A. Bisphenol-A disruption of the endocrine pancreas and blood glucose homeostasis. Int J Androl. 2008 Apr;31(2):194-200. Epub 2007 Oct 31. Review.
- Wang SL, Tsai PC, Yang CY, Leon Guo Y. Increased risk of diabetes and polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins: a 24-year follow-up study of the Yucheng cohort. Diabetes Care. 2008 Aug;31(8):1574-9. 2008 May 16.
- Michalek JE, Pavuk M. Diabetes and cancer in veterans of Operation Ranch Hand after adjustment for calendar period, days of spraying, and time spent in Southeast Asia. J Occup Environ Med. 2008 Mar;50(3):330-40.
The Truth About Organic Food
By Paul Rogers
Photo by bittenword
I’ve been a keen gardener most of my life, following a strong family tradition. We’ve grown everything from flowers and ornamentals to fruit trees and vegetables — with varying measures of success. Organic growing in a home garden, and wherever feasible commercially, just seems like sensible environmental management to me . . . and it’s especially applicable to home gardening. I’ve also written about organic growing and been a member of a growers group for decades.
Organics may not be the only solution
Even so, I’m not an absolutist, and I am a pragmatist . . . I accept that there may be other farming and cultivation systems that could indeed be regarded as “sustainable and healthy” even though they may not pass organic certification. But that’s not my argument here. I’m going to look critically at the notion of why you should buy organic food and whether the advantages stack up — give or take a few generalisations.
Here are the usual reasons for supporting organic food production:
- It’s healthier because few, and low-toxic pesticides are used and residues on crops are not a problem
- It’s healthier because organic food is higher in dietary nutrients
- It’s more sustainable because soil is managed better without chemical fertilizers
- It’s safer and sustainable because beneficial organisms like bees and predatory organisms and wildlife are not poisoned by pesticides
- It’s safer because humans are not poisoned by pesticides as they use them.
Pesticide residues
Even allowing for cheating, it is clear from testing that organic food has fewer residues of detectable pesticides than non-organic food. The issue is whether the presence of residues in non-organic food is a health hazard. Clearly, in some cases it is. The cases of aldicarb pesticide poisoning from melons in California is a classic case. This was only detected because of the severe symptoms. Many other cases are likely in which the victim has less acute symptoms and the cause remains unidentified. And, the effect of long-term exposure to small quantities of residues is unknown, but could be significant.
Testing for safe food. With the world food supply increasingly traded across borders, ensuring “clean” food by monitoring it for contaminants has become increasingly difficult. Recent issues in food safety in relation to food products imported from China make this all too clear.
Organic food has more nutrients
This is the one the professional agriculture, health and nutrition communities have resisted so strongly for so many years. In essence, it is a complex issue. To measure this accurately, you really need to set up controlled growing conditions for a reasonable comparison, and even though quite a few early studies showed advantages for organics in some nutrients like vitamin C, iron, omega-3s and a few other minerals, the design was often somewhat amateurish — until the European Union Newcastle University study came along. Read the results here: “Organic produce better for you”.
Variability abounds. The authors caution that variations in qualities exist across the organic and non-organic spectrum. What this might mean for you, as a purchaser, is that a badly grown organic apple could very well be inferior to a well-grown non-organic apple. One might expect that across a continuum of organic produce, the nutrient value may be higher, but don’t expect that any one purchase will give you that guarantee.
Phytonutrients finally. Over the years of this organic nutrient debate, the one thing that has mostly been absent is an evaluation of the non-vitamin and mineral nutrients. These are the antioxidants, the polyphenolics, carotenes, sulphur compounds, the omega-3s and many more that are known to be health-giving principles in foods. Finally, this also seems to have been answered. In the Newcastle University study:
They found levels of antioxidants in milk from organic cattle were between 50% and 80% higher than normal milk.
This is not surprising, overall, because Alyson Mitchell, associate professor and food chemist at the University of California, Davis, found exactly the same thing in her work analysing tomatoes. Soluble fertilisers, especially nitrogen, and strong pesticides may inhibit the plant production of phenolic compounds. See Mitchell again for a discussion.
One would have to say that early professional bias against the idea of organics having higher overall nutrient values, in a dietary sense, seems to have been ill-founded and perhaps influenced by various vested interests. However, this should not suggest that eating organic foods, even with a premium supply of antioxidants, results in superior health outcomes: that is yet to be proven.
Organic growing is more sustainable
As a general rule this is probably true, and is likely to be more so for smallholdings rather than large commercial enterprises. The definition and evaluation of “sustainability” is variable, but one issue is the recycling of inputs to the system versus importing inputs like organic fertilizers from elsewhere. Sustainability is about being able to make systems last without degrading the system.
Nevertheless, several recent studies — University of Michigan, the USDA and the FAO and others, have found that organics actually outperform conventional agriculture in measures of soil sustainability and biological sustainability — and may even approach the production efficiency of non-organic farms in some cases.
Safer for wildlife and diversity
New Scientist reports: “Organic farming boosts diversity”.
Organic farming increases biodiversity at every level of the food chain – all the way from lowly bacteria to mammals. This is the conclusion of the largest review ever done of studies from around the world comparing organic and conventional agriculture.
Enough said about that one.
Occupational health and safety
This is the sleeper issue in organic production. It receives less attention than other aspects. The human health legacy of toxic pesticides in developing nations has been monumental. And even in the developed nations, the misuse and overuse of pesticides has resulted in substantial impacts on human health. The US Agricultural Health Study has reported on some such results.
Here is what esteemed toxicologists Levine and Doull said about pesticide poisoning worldwide in 1992:
Global estimates of acute pesticide morbidity and mortality. Levine RS, Doull J. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol. 1992;129:29-50.
Mathematical models have projected increasing numbers of pesticide poisoning throughout the world, rising from 500,000 cases/yr in 1972 to 25,000,000 cases/yr in a 1990 estimate.
Summing up
Organic food is more expensive; you have to decide if it’s worth it. In addition, the science of organics is a bit fuzzy at times. Some modern pesticides actually have lower toxicity than approved organic pesticides. The more popular and affordable organic food becomes, the more we will see mainstream food manufacturers taking advantage of it. No folks, the organic pop tart is not a health food. Overall, though, organics is a neat package of environmental health and safety practice. I support it strongly.
Subscribe RSS
