Caution: Eating may be hazardous to your health.
With everything from pesticides to demon cholesterol lurking in our foods, it`s no wonder figuring out which foods are safe is a challenge.
But the alternative-not eating-has its own sticky drawbacks. So we face a dilemma: How to choose foods with minimal ill effects and, ideally, maximum benefits.
This is easier today than it was 100 years ago, when there was scant refrigeration and food regulation was more, shall we say, laissez-faire. Eating canned food, for example, was like playing gastronomical roulette, with botulism an ever-present threat.
Today we rarely face such adventures. However, we are deluged with a maddening array of information, some of it contradictory, about which foods are good and which are harmful. For example, one study said that a daily glass of wine may help prevent heart attacks, while another links moderate alcohol consumption with breast cancer.
Not only must we slog through health and nutrition claims, avoiding foods such as saturated fats and stocking up on things such as omega-3 oils-both of which affect heart health-we also must cast a wary eye on substances in food that could contribute to cancer and other unsavory conditions. Many, such as flavorings and preservatives, are added, but a number occur naturally, such as mold toxins. And through improper storage and preparation, safe foods can become toxic or carcinogenic.
Do you need to be a nutritionist to keep up with it all? It would help, but even nutritionists scramble to stay on top of the latest findings.
At the moment, the safe-and-good-for-you food that`s a hit with many experts is (drum roll, please): broccoli.
This cruciferous vegetable not only precludes the risk of colon cancer, but is rich in vitamins A and C and contains calcium. But who among us would seriously consider a diet revolving around broccoli? Something would be missing, something like . . .
. . . breast milk, which is probably the purest of all foods. But even its wholesomeness depends on what the mother eats and drinks. And how many of us have access to a steady supply of breast milk anyway?
Most experts do agree that the fewer processed foods you eat, the less likely you are to ingest something you don`t need. But additives and processing are a double-edged sword. You don`t hear people complain about moldy bread, for example, as they did 50 years ago. Mold retardants have nipped that. On the other hand, you can buy a lemon cream pie that contains no eggs, no cream and no lemons-just chemical simulators.
Most additives, be they natural or synthetic, fall on the Food and Drug Administration-approved ”GRAS” list-that is, they are ”generally recognized as safe” for most people. Some of these substances, such as ascorbic acid
(vitamin C), prompt little concern. But others stir up all kinds of debate-and action.
For instance, sulfites, which are used to keep fruits and vegetables fresh-looking.
”For the vast majority of the population, sulfites are safe,” said Dr. Harold Newman, an FDA regional medical officer. ”For a minority they can be deadly. The way we (the FDA) handle it is to require labeling and restrict their use in situations where people have no opportunity to read a label-like salad bars. We also suggest alternatives to sulfites.”
This does not necessarily solve the problem. Sulfites also are added to beer and wine, for example, to keep them clear. But alcoholic beverages, which fall under the domain of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, don`t require ingredient labeling.
Still, one of the best strategies in the safe-eating game is to read labels. ”And,” Newman adds, ”a well-labeled product is better than an unlabeled one.”
But labels also have shortcomings. So it pays to know something about what you`re reading. A label may boast of anything-as long as it`s true. This may seem innocent enough, but a little truth can be dangerous.
Take ”all-vegetable shortening” that ”contains no cholesterol.” The statements are true as far as they go. Cholesterol is found only in foods of animal origin, such as egg yolks. But the level of cholesterol in your blood is also affected by plain old saturated fats, which, by a process not fully understood by medical science, can send your blood cholesterol count climbing. What the shortening label fails to add is that the ”all-vegetable”
product almost always contains palm or coconut oil, two saturated vegetable fats that may be as bad for you as cholesterol itself. So monitoring blood cholesterol involves not only avoiding foods high in cholesterol but also those rich in saturated fats. Animal products are a double whammy: Butter, cheese and some meats contain hefty portions of both cholesterol and saturated fats.
Olive oil has emerged as the new darling of the oil set, since it is high in monounsaturated fats, which may help control blood cholesterol. Puritan brand oil, made from rapeseed, also is high in monounsaturated fats and low in saturated fats.
You could drive yourself mad or go very hungry trying to find and eat only foods that are free of additives, carcinogens, toxins, saturated fats and cholesterol, as well as other potentially harmful substances such as pesticides, herbicides, hormones, antibiotics and salt.
In fact, even that ideal broccoli could be flawed unless it is organic, which theoretically means free of pesticides. But most experts put fresh fruits and vegetables, organic or not, at the top of their safe-to-eat-and-good-for-you list. In an imperfect world, these represent some of the best choices.
”Most pesticides used (in the United States) have a biological half-life, and used properly at certain times, the product will dissipate,”
says Newman. Problems arise with misuse, he says.
The ”organic” tag, however, does not guarantee a pesticide-free product. Ideally, produce labeled ”organic” has been grown without synthetic substances, such as herbicides and pesticides. But usually, organic produce is available only in health-food stores, and consumers have to take its origins on faith because there are no laws governing the use of the word.
There are guidelines, however. Most states are patterning these after those developed by the California Certified Organic Growers Association, an independent regulatory organization. California supplies 90 percent of the organic produce grown in the nation.
Man, of course, does not live by broccoli, olive oil, unprocessed foods and fresh fruits and vegetables alone-unless he is among those few who are extremely dedicated and disciplined. Most of us are tempted by the flesh, and the current vogue in flesh food is (drum roll, please): fish. Especially fish such as salmon, mackerel and sardines, which are high in omega-3 fatty acids, those heroes of the heart set that appear to lower blood cholesterol.
But not all fish are created equal. Like us, fish are what they eat. And if you eat fish that have feasted in polluted waters, you are more likely to feast on pollution, too, in the form of two harmful chemicals, PCBs and DDT, according to fisheries biologist Milton S. Love at the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Your best defense against ingesting these substances is to know where your fish slept last night. Avoid fish from water near urban or industrial centers. Fish such as white croakers (a Pacific Ocean relative of the redfish), which feed off organisms that live on the bottom, or shellfish that are sedentary (like oysters) also may be suspect. Figuring all this out, too, is a tricky business, because a fish like halibut, which feeds close to the bottom, is not a problem.
Love`s advice: ”My intuition is it`s safer eating farm-raised fish (such as tilapia, trout and catfish) because there is more control (over the environment).” He emphasizes that it helps to know the water and food sources.
Meanwhile, chicken has fallen slightly from grace, the salmonella scare last spring having dampened some consumers` enthusiasm. But it has hardly been dealt a fatal blow: The Wall Street Journal recently reported that for the first time ever, per capita chicken consumption has surpassed beef.
If example is the best teacher, the diet of one U.S. group is worth noting. Studies show that Seventh-day Adventists live longer than other Americans. Dr. Gary Fraser, a cardiovascular epidemiology expert at Loma Linda University Medical Center who has studied Seventh-day Adventists, says they also experience a lower mortality rate from heart disease, hypertension, lung disease, diabetes and cancer.
Some of this may be attributed to their dietary practices, as well as a lifestlye that excludes smoking and the consumption of alcoholic beverages and caffeinated products.
Seventh-day Adventist guidelines recommend eating lots of fresh fruit, vegetables and grains. Seventh-day Adventists are discouraged from eating red meat but do eat ”white” meat, such as chicken, fish and veal. Their understanding of the Bible precludes their eating pork. They further advocate a diet low in fat, sugar and salt, and encourage exercise.
Does this sound like something you`ve heard before? Most of us who relish food are reluctant to go as far as the Seventh-day Adventists, despite the clear implications for a longer, healthier life. We content ourselves instead with eating a relatively-as opposed to absolutely-safe diet.
But then there is the opinion of one foodie who can`t be bothered:
”Which is worse? Dying of cancer or dying of boredom?”
