Showing posts with label Food and Recipes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Food and Recipes. Show all posts

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Your diet affects your grandchildren's DNA, studies say

Thanks for the link Sarah!

This is a no-shit, Sherlock sort of thing for me... and I hope a lot of you out there... but I suppose some folks haven't gotten the message yet.
________________
Original Article

By
Christopher Wanjek

Your Diet Affects Your Grandchildren's DNA, Scientists Say
By: Christopher Wanjek, LiveScience Bad Medicine Columnist
Published: 07/27/2012 10:00 AM EDT on LiveScience
You are what you eat, the saying goes. And, according to two new genetic studies, you are what your mother, father, grandparents and great-grandparents ate, too.
Diet, be it poor or healthy, can so alter the nature of one's DNA that those changes can be passed on to the progeny. While this much has been speculated for years, researchers in two independent studies have found ways in which this likely is happening.
The findings, which involve epigenetics, may help explain the increased genetic risk that children face compared to their parents for diseases such as obesity and diabetes.
The punch line is that your poor dietary habits may be dooming your progeny, despite how healthy they will try to eat. [10 Worst Hereditary Conditions]

Epigenetics
Epigenetics refers to changes in gene expression from outside forces. Different from a mutation, epigenetic changes lie not in the DNA itself but rather in its surroundings -- the enzymes and other chemicals that orchestrate how a DNA molecule unwinds its various sections to make proteins or even new cells.
Recent studies have shown how nutrition dramatically alters the health and appearance of otherwise identical mice. A group led by Randy Jirtle of Duke University demonstrated how mouse clones implanted as embryos in separate mothers will have radical differences in fur color, weight, and risk for chronic diseases depending on what that mother was fed during pregnancy.
That is, the nutrients or lack of thereof changed the DNA environment in such a way that the identical DNA in these mouse clones expressed itself in very different ways.
Of mice and humans
Building upon this Duke University work, a new study led by Torsten Plosch of University of Groningen, The Netherlands, delineated the numerous ways in which nutrition alters the epigenome of many animals, including adult humans. The paper has been submitted to the journal Biochimie with lead author Josep C. Jimenez-Chillarón of the Paediatric Hospital Sant Joan de Deu, in Spain.
The researchers said that the diet of human adults induces changes in all cells -- even sperm and egg cells -- and that these changes can be passed on to offspring.
Such effects on a single generation have been known: Children born to mothers during the Dutch famine at the end of WWII had susceptibilities to various diseases later in life, such as glucose intolerance and cardiovascular disease, depending on the timing and extent of the food shortage during pregnancy.
In 2010, Jimenez-Chillaron and his colleagues took this a step further and found that overfed male mouse pups developed the telltale signs of metabolic syndrome -- insulin resistance, obesity and glucose intolerance -- and passed some of these traits to their offspring, which then developed elements of metabolic syndrome without overeating.
But what still is missing, Jimenez-Chillaron told LiveScience, is an understanding of how such information is remembered from generation to generation. Unlike a gene mutation, all of the epigenetic inputs to the DNA environment should be forgotten when a newly formed embryo begins to divide.
"The dogma is that during the process of meiosis [cell division], all epigenetic marks are erased," said Jimenez-Chillaron. "But our work, as well as [the work] from many others, suggests that this is not completely true. Although the majority of epigenetic marks is erased, some marks are spared for unknown reasons."
Attack on the DNA
A second study, led in part by Ram B. Singh of the TsimTsoum Institute in Krakow, Poland, published this month in the Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, examined nutrients that affect the chromatin. The chromatin is like the chemical soup in which DNA operates.
Aside from creating epigenetic marks, Singh's group speculates that these nutrients also can cause mutations, both good and bad. But the evidence is still inconclusive.
Hints of this were reported in a 2011 paper in Nature by Stanford University scientists who found lingering, positive effects on longevity from nutrition on three generations of the C. elegans worm.
"It is possible that eating more omega-3 fatty acids, choline, betaine, folic acid and vitamin B12, by mothers and fathers, possibly can alter chromatin state and mutations, as well as have beneficial effects...leading to birth of a 'super baby' with long life and [lower risk] of diabetes and metabolic syndrome," Singh told LiveScience. "This is just a possibility, to be proven by more experiments." [10 New Ways to Eat Well]
Both teams of scientists said that cells in an early state of development are more prone to epigenetic changes from nutrition than adult cells, hence the most notable changes are seen fetuses and infants.
Yet it may be only a matter of time, they added, until there is evidence of how we pass along to subsequent generations the consequences of our own nutritional habits.
Christopher Wanjek is the author of a new novel, "Hey, Einstein!", a comical nature-versus-nurture tale about raising clones of Albert Einstein in less-than-ideal settings. His column, Bad Medicine, appears regularly on LiveScience.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

The Low-Down On Organic Veggies for Yer Family

Feeding Your Family: Organic Veggies on a Budget

"Anybody who's shopped for organically-grown produce has probably experienced the sticker-shock that goes along with it. It's a fact that in most cases organically-grown supermarket produce is more expensive than its non-organic counterpart, but I think a larger number of parents would likely grab the organic stuff if the two were closer in price..."Read More...

I'm really lucky to live in the Pacific Northwest, where we have superb access to organic, locally grown foods without expending much effort. But, with the current trend of 'going green' being set by places of such ill-repute as Fred Myer and Wal_Mart hopefully everyone will soon be informed as to the benefits, politics, pitfalls and corporate scams revolving around the food we eat.

I would add to this nice little snippet from Strollerderby a few things: Food Co-Ops are a great way to save money, support local agriculture and dine on organic foods without signing on to a yearly CSA plan, which some family incomes cannot logically support (directory of food cooperatives); I would also recommend growing your own food! Check out the book Growing Vegetables West of the Cascades by Steve Solomon, or, if you live in an urban area, research rooftop gardens to see if your building can support one or start a kitchen garden. Think you have no room? Ha!

Think again. In a hundred square feet with twenty minutes a day one can grow enough fruit and vegetables to heavily supplement their family's food needs. And, if you live in a tiny apartment you'd still be shocked at the amount of plants you could cram in there and the money you'll save growing your own food. Also, I'd like to throw a few reasons why Organic Foods are awesome (this is from Wikipedia):

For the environment

In several surveys that have looked at smaller studies to build an overall comparison between conventional and organic systems of farming a general agreement on benefits has been built. In these surveys it has been found that:

  • Organic farms do not release synthetic pesticides into the environment—some of which have the potential to harm local wildlife.
  • Organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining diverse ecosystems, i.e., populations of plants and insects, as well as animals.
  • When calculated either per unit area or per unit of yield, organic farms use less energy and produce less waste, e.g., waste such as packaging materials for chemicals.

See "Organic FAQs" in the journal Nature for more details.

One study found a 20% smaller yield from organic farms using 50% less fertilizer and 97% less pesticide. Studies comparing yields have had mixed results. Supporters claim that organically managed soil has a higher quality and higher water retention. This may help increase yields for organic farms in drought years. One study of two organic farming systems and one conventional found that, in one year's severe crop season drought, organic soybean yields were 52% and 96% higher than the conventional system and organic maize yields were 37% higher in one system, but 62% lower in the other. Studies are also consistent in showing that organic farms are more energy efficient.

For producers

For those who work on farms, there have been many studies on the health effects of pesticide exposure. Even when pesticides are used correctly, they still end up in the air and bodies of farm workers. Through these studies, organophosphate pesticides have become associated with acute health problems such as abdominal pain, dizziness, headaches, nausea, vomiting, as well as skin and eye problems. In addition, there have been many other studies that have found pesticide exposure is associated with more severe health problems such as respiratory problems, memory disorders, dermatologic conditions, cancer, depression, neurologic deficits, miscarriages, and birth defects. Summaries of peer-reviewed research have examined the link between pesticide exposure and neurological outcomes and cancer in organophosphate-exposed workers.

For consumers

A study published by the National Research Council in 1993 determined that for infants and children, the major source of exposure to pesticides is through diet.A recent study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 schoolchildren before and after replacing their diet with organic food. In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet.

Most conventionally grown foods contain pesticides and herbicide residues. There is controversial data on the health implications of certain pesticides. The herbicide Atrazine, for example, has been shown in some experiments to be a teratogen, even at concentrations as low as 0.1 part per billion, to emasculate male frogs by causing their gonads to produce eggs – effectively turning males into hermaphrodites.

The US Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies periodically review the licensing of suspect pesticides, but the process of de-listing is slow. One example of this slow process is exemplified by the pesticide Dichlorvos, or DDVP, which as recently as the year 2006 the EPA proposed its continued sale. The EPA has almost banned this pesticide on several occasions since the 1970s, but it never did so despite considerable evidence that suggests DDVP is not only carcinogenic but dangerous to the human nervous system – especially in children.

Friday, March 9, 2007

Poisoned Baby Bottles! - Bisphenol A - Time to switch from plastic back to glass?



Hey folks,

By now you have likely seen some of the national attention our recent report about Bisphenol A (BPA), an ingredient used in plastic bottles and in the lining of food cans, has generated. BPA has been shown to be toxic in low doses, and has been linked to breast and prostate cancer, diabetes and infertility. Pregnant women and infants are most at-risk, and yet there are currently no safety standards established.

After a recent report by Environment California and a blog post by Julie Deardorff, the top manufacturers of glass baby bottles have had their supply completely depleted.

So, we here at EWG have come up with a plan to make several more glass bottles available, and hopefully raise a few bucks to put toward our continued research and advocacy to keep kids safe from toxic chemicals.

Currently listed on Ebay, here, here, here, and here, are gently used, 4-oz glass breastmilk collection and storage bottles made by Lansinoh. They were used by an EWG staffer, who realizes the importance of non-plastic alternatives for collecting and storing nature's best food for babies--breastmilk.

We would appreciate your help spreading the word and giving our auction a mention to you readers.

Thanks everyone.

Have a great weekend,


Matthew

environmental working group
1436 u st., nw ste. 100
washington, dc 20009

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

The Carbon Footprint of a Burger



Via Treehugger but originating (and containing a complete breakdown) at Jamais Cascio's new site: Open the Future. Jamais was the former managing editor over at Worldchanging, one of my favorite eco-chic ass-kicking sites...

anyway, he... "recently got to wondering: with all the recent hubbub surrounding carbon footprints, credits and offsets, what do everyday, common items contribute to our warming globe? He started with an American institution: the cheeseburger, and, after a little digging and number-crunching he came up with 6.3 to 6.8 pounds (2.85 to 3.1 kg) of carbon emissions per burger. This includes a myriad of factors, from growing the feed for the cattle for the beef and cheese, growing the produce, storing and transporting the components, as well as cooking them all, and he appears to have done a fairly thorough job. So, why choose burgers? The average American eats three burgers per week, or about 150 burgers per year; that's a lot of beef, cheese, shipping and grilling, and it really adds up. According to Jamais' calculations, America's love of burgers contributes approximately 941 to 1023 pounds (that's 428-465 kg) of greenhouse gas per person, per year -- the rough equivalent of the annual carbon output from 7,500-15,000 SUVs if the 300 million US citizens hit the 3 burgers/week average. Will Carbon McCredits soon be appearing on menus across the country (and the world)? Jamais' discerning look at this common food item suggests we may want to think about it."

I'd also like to point out how creepy McDonald's UK site is, and that it's vastly better than the U.S. one, however disturbing.