Jerky is a Traditional and Historic Whole Food

For the most part, jerky is simply dried meat. Although there’s a considerable amount of controversy surrounding the healthfulness of meat, evidence suggests that it was a significant part of our pre-agricultural diet,¹ and the sound reasoning of the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis suggests that it was also a critical factor in our evolution, particularly in regard to our dramatic increase in brain capacity.^2,3 Given the hot and dry climate that humans are believed to have emerged from, it’s believed that witnessing the natural drying of meat under the sun may have provoked early humans to rely on drying as a method of preserving meat. Unfortunately, this is very difficult for archaeologists to prove,⁴ but it’s well known that many indigenous cultures have long relied on drying to preserve meat.⁵

The ability to store dried meat allowed indigenous humans, particularly those such as the Eskimos and Native American Indians who subsisted primarily on animal meat, to avoid starvation during shortages of wild game.⁶ Although food shortages are now much less of a concern in most areas of the world, jerky still offers a lot of value by providing the nutritional quality of a whole food in a convenient and long lasting form.

Despite not always being recognized as such, meat is a good source of vitamins and minerals, particularly iron, zinc, and the B vitamins.⁷ Although the dehydration process used to prepare jerky is likely to reduce the content of some B vitamins,⁸ jerky is still likely to be much more nutritious than most processed snack foods and is also an excellent snack choice for anyone looking to consume more protein or less carbohydrate.

Why You Should Consider Making Your Own Jerky

The jerky that’s commonly available at most grocery stores is likely to be made from the lesser quality meat of animals that have been raised inappropriately under industrial farming conditions. This type of jerky is also likely to contain potentially harmful additives such as refined sugar or MSG. Making your own jerky is easy to do, and most importantly, it gives you control of meat quality, ingredient selection, and the temperature and duration used for dehydration. If you still prefer to buy jerky instead of making it yourself, U.S. Wellness Meats makes theirs with high quality pasture raised meat, and they offer it plain without any additives other than natural Celtic sea salt. However, good quality jerky is typically expensive which is another convincing reason to make it yourself.

Although the prospect of making your own jerky might seem difficult and laborious, it’s actually quite easy. You can even dehydrate the meat in your oven, but if you’d prefer to use a lower temperature than what your oven can accommodate, an electric dehydrator is a better option. Dehydrators also tend to use less electricity than ovens and are relatively inexpensive. Although people who dry a lot of foods tend to prefer Excalibur dehydrators, I use the less expensive Nesco American Harvest dehydrator which has worked well for me.

Selecting Quality Meat for Jerky

It should go without saying that the nutritional quality of jerky is dependent upon the quality of the meat used to make it. For this reason, it’s best to choose pasture raised meat in favor of the meat typically sold at grocery stores. The latter is more likely to have been mass produced, be of poorer nutritional quality,^9,10 and contain potentially harmful chemical residues.¹¹ High quality meat can be purchased from a trustworthy local farmer or online from U.S. Wellness Meats or Blackwing Quality Meats. Two excellent resources for finding local farmers are EatWild.com and LocalHarvest.org.

Considerations Regarding Fat

Dehydration is an effective way to preserve meat because it minimizes bacterial growth.¹² However, lipid oxidation is another significant cause of meat rancidity and occurs during heating and storage.^13,14,34 For this reason, it’s generally recommended to make jerky from lean cuts of meat. In addition, oxidized lipids act as free radicals that can cause cellular damage and have been associated with heart disease, cancer, arthritis, and accelerated aging.^{15,16,17,18,35} Of course, there’s also the concern surrounding saturated fat, cholesterol, and heart disease, but saturated fat is necessary for good health,⁴⁰ and the association between heart disease and natural dietary sources of fat and cholesterol has been convincingly scrutinized.^36,37,38,39 Furthermore, saturated fat is much more resistant to oxidation.^14,20

Despite the concerns regarding free radicals, they’re a natural part of every day life. They’re produced within the body during a variety of normal physiological functions including routine energy production.^{17,18,19,20,35} They can be generated in even greater quantities during exercise²¹ and are even produced for advantageous purposes such as immune function.^18,20,22,33 As such, it shouldn’t be surprising that the body can naturally defend itself against free radical damage. This defense occurs primarily through the utilization of antioxidants such as glutathione and vitamins C and E,^{15,16,17,18,20,21,22,23,35} all of which should be obtainable in adequate amounts from a healthy diet based on natural whole foods.

Although it depends on the temperature and duration, it’s arguable that dehydrating meat doesn’t cause any more lipid oxidation than regular cooking. Either way, given that it’s impractical to completely avoid lipid oxidation, a more realistic and balanced approach to reducing the potential of health implications is to avoid the use of high cooking temperatures and reduce storage time as much as possible while also supporting the body’s natural defenses by regularly consuming whole foods. Based on this, I think it’s reasonable to make jerky with fattier meat as long as it will be refrigerated, consumed relatively quickly, and dehydrated at a relatively low temperature. In fact, dehydrated meat has been shown to be more resistant to lipid oxidation during storage than cooked or fresh meat providing it’s not dehydrated too much.¹⁴

Although jerky is most commonly made with beef, any type of meat or fish can be used. However, it should be taken into consideration that polyunsaturated fatty acids are much more susceptible to oxidation^13,14,20 and that some meats contain more of it than others. For example, pork, chicken, and turkey tend to contain more polyunsaturated fat than beef and are therefore more susceptible to lipid oxidation.^14,24 This variation can also depend on how an animal is raised and fed^9,10,25 which is yet another reason to choose meat from pasture raised animals. The use of fish presents some concerns as well. Although fish is often regarded as a healthful source of essential fatty acids,²⁶ these fatty acids are polyunsaturated which suggests that fish is perhaps a less desirable choice for jerky. Then again, indigenous Eskimos seemed to have fared quite well for many years despite their preference for rancid fish.⁶ As with animal meat, the quality of the fish is also an important consideration.

Making Jerky with Ground Meat

It can be preferable to use ground meat to make jerky because it’s easier to work with, produces jerky that tends to be more flavorful and easier to chew, and is typically the least expensive form of pasture raised meat. However, ground beef is more likely to be contaminated with pathogens due to increased exposure to grinding equipment and the combining of meat from different animals and different farms.^27,28 For this reason, meat quality becomes even more important.

Outbreaks of food borne illness have been traced to both commercially produced and homemade jerky.²⁹ However, 8 hours of drying at 145° F has been shown to reduce inoculated populations of E. coli in ground beef containing 5% and 20% fat to levels considered acceptable by the USDA.³⁰ Despite this, the USDA still recommends preheating meat to 160° F and poultry to 165° F prior to dehydrating it.³¹ This may be worth considering since the thermostats of some electric dehydrators have been shown to be inaccurate.³⁰

If you decide to make jerky with ground meat, I highly recommend using a jerky gun which makes it very easy to create strips of meat. If you’d like to use ground meat but are concerned about the increased risk of contamination, another option is to buy regular cuts of meat and grind it yourself.

Adding Flavor to Your Jerky

A significant part of what makes jerky an appealing snack is the combination of spices and marinades that add to its flavor. Although there’s nothing wrong with plain jerky, a bit of seasoning can make it a lot tastier. Spices such as garlic powder, onion powder, pepper, nutmeg, and ginger are all popular choices and are even believed to have impressive health benefits.

Soy sauce and worcestershire sauce are often used to add even more flavor, but it’s important to realize that sauces tend to be a hidden source of unhealthy ingredients. Soy itself has been associated with a number of undesirable health effects, and although the fermentation of soy sauce can make this much less of a concern, some brands are not fermented adequately.³² Similarly, the many ingredients typically found in worcestershire sauce take away from the natural simplicity of jerky. But because jerky is typically consumed as a snack, and because only small amounts of these sauces are needed to add flavor, there’s some room for compromise. Two sauces that I use, San-J Organic Wheat Free Tamari Soy Sauce and The Wizard’s Organic Worcestershire, appear to be of high enough quality to make this issues less of a concern.

For more information on drying and cooking methods, meat selection, equipment needs, and recipes relating to jerky, I recommend reading Jerky by A.D. Livingston.

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

People who struggle with motivation often embrace the latest trends hoping that it will be what they need to keep them focused. However, given the large number of health related products and programs that exist, and the also large number of people who continue to struggle with motivation, it should be obvious that such an approach is unlikely to result in long term success. While it’s hard to criticize anything that encourages people to embrace healthier habits, the latest trends and technologies will rarely provide the substance needed to inspire lasting motivation.

The Importance of Inspiration

Due to the many unhealthy influences and temptations that have become such a common part of modern living, promoting and maintaining good health can require a lot of effort. However, just about any type of accomplishment requires commitment and hard work, and this shouldn’t necessarily be perceived with discouragement. The effort required to achieve a goal is often proportional to the fulfillment that it brings, and people who dedicate themselves to healthy living can enjoy a sense of accomplishment in addition to the benefits of improved health. However, none of this is possible without a daily commitment to healthy habits, and this commitment will be very difficult to make and maintain without a meaningful source of inspiration to do so.

How Strong is Your Inspiration?

One of the most common reasons why people consider making changes to their diet or exercise habits is to lose weight. In many cases, this is based more on appearance than health or wellness. However, many people find that such a source of inspiration isn’t strong enough to help them overcome their cravings for unhealthy foods or their lack of desire to exercise. Perhaps this is why so many people are stuck in a seemingly endless pattern of abandoning a new diet or exercise program, feeling guilty about doing so, and looking for the latest and greatest alternative to start the cycle over again.

Other Weak Sources of Inspiration

In my opinion, the P90X workout program and Reebok’s EasyTone shoes are two examples of how the novelty of something new and popular can be a powerful but short lived source of motivation. I’ve received a lot of criticism for having a negative opinion of these products, particularly because of their potential to encourage otherwise sedentary people to exercise. If such an individual makes a lifelong commitment to healthier habits after being inspired by products like these, it’s a great thing. However, if the disappointment of being overweight and more vulnerable to debilitating conditions has failed to inspire a long term commitment to good health, then it’s highly unlikely for the novelty of the latest fitness or diet fad to have any more of a lasting impact.

Regardless of the quality or effectiveness of products like the P90X program or Reebok’s EasyTone sneakers, their novelty can indeed motivate people to adapt healthier habits. However, once the novelty wears off, which it inevitably will, inspiration and motivation will likely fade away too. I consider this type of inspiration to be weak because it’s based on something other than the direct benefits of the tasks or activities that require motivation. While it may “get someone off the couch,” it won’t keep them off the couch for long unless it facilitates the recognition of a deeper and more meaningful source of inspiration.

How to Identify a Meaningful Source of Inspiration

There’s no single way to describe the meaning of life. It can vary greatly based on individuality, and although not everyone fully recognizes what aspects of life are most meaningful to them, we each have a unique set of values that represent what we care about most. Regardless of what these values are, they can be a tremendous source of inspiration and motivation, and as such, they can inspire the dedication needed to achieve challenging and long term goals. A great way to take advantage of this is to identify ways in which your values are dependent upon your goals.

Consider someone who’s naturally inspired by the fulfillment they gain from helping others but can’t find the motivation they need to lose weight. By identifying ways in which weight loss could make their generosity more productive and fulfilling, such a person will naturally be more motivated to implement healthier habits. For example, a more fit and healthy appearance would be a demonstration of self empowerment that could increase their credibility and influence, and the extra energy that typically results from improved health could increase their capacity and allow them engage in more of the generous behavior that fulfills them. Furthermore, relying on a sensible exercise program and a truly healthy diet to lose weight will more than likely improve their quality of life, and this is a benefit that should be meaningful to anyone. In short, the key to building motivation is recognizing an honest and realistic way to associate your goals with a stronger sense of urgency, and basing the association on personal values is an excellent way to accomplish this.

A great example of this concept comes from Andre Agassi’s autobiography. Andre’s time as a professional tennis player can easily be regarded as a dramatic transition from a young and flamboyant punk who took his talent for granted to a mature and dedicated veteran who made the most of what he had. Although he hated doing the very same thing that brought him his fame, he eventually recognized his passion for helping others and chose to use his tennis talent to pursue it further. This passion inspired him, and recognizing a way to associate it with tennis gave him the motivation that he previously lacked to fully commit himself to his career as a professional athlete. As a result, he was finally able to live up to his potential as a world class tennis player and enjoy consistent and long term success. More importantly, this helped him achieve his true goal of establishing the highly successful Andre Agassi Prepatory Academy which provides underprivileged children in Las Vegas with a good education and an opportunity for a better life.

Be Inspired By Enjoyment

A much more simple approach to cultivating inspiration, and one that doesn’t require much thought at all, is enjoyment. People who enjoy exercising and eating nutritious whole foods generally don’t have much trouble making these healthy habits a consistent part of their lifestyles. For example, I’ve always enjoyed working out and playing sports, especially tennis, and as such, it’s very easy for me to stay active. Likewise, with my appreciation for the importance of a healthy diet, I’ve become more aware of preferences that I have for certain whole foods and look forward to meals that include them.

Just about anyone should be able to identify a few physical activities that they find enjoyable and a variety of nutritious whole foods that they find delicious. The key is being open minded enough to discover what they are, and once this happens, healthy living will very likely become much easier. Those who find a way to enjoy healthy habits will likely find that their commitment to them seems effortless.

Change is Difficult

For many people, a large part of the reason why implementing healthier habits is so difficult is the discomfort of changing their existing habits. A strong source of inspiration, whether it be based on personal values or simple enjoyment, helps to overcome this sometimes overwhelming obstacle. Although habits relating to health are often the hardest to change and are most frequently related to diet and exercise, finding a strong source of inspiration can help a great deal in making any type of change.

Another common problem with change is starting out with too much ambition. For example, someone who exercises hard every day or excessively cuts calories will be more likely to lose their motivation regardless of how strong their source of inspiration is. As such, balance is critical, and within reason, doing less often provides more benefit than doing more, especially when the only other alternative is doing nothing at all.

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

How Sugar Can Ruin Your Life

This is a big claim, and as such, it shouldn’t be surprising that I’ve received several requests to provide references. In addition to adding information about advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) and Candida overgrowth, I’ve provided references from scientific journals to support all of the claims made in the article. Sugar and refined carbohydrates have become such a common part of the modern diet, even for people who think they’re eating healthy, that I think this article provides extremely important information that everyone should be familiar with. Read the article to see if you might be harming your health by consuming too much of these foods.

A Hidden Danger with Nuts, Grains, Beans, and Seeds

Each of these foods are commonly recognized as part of a healthy diet, so what could possibly be dangerous about them? Aside from the risks associated with soy and the gluten sensitivity issues associated with grains, there’s not much to be concerned about as long as they’re prepared properly. However, if such precautions aren’t taken to reduce certain antinutrients, these foods can compromise one’s health by interfering with digestion and mineral absorption. I’ve added more information about these antinutrients as well as how to remove them, and I’ve also added quite a few references from scientific journals. Read the article to learn how to reduce the possibility of these foods detracting from your health.

Are Your Shoes Causing Foot and Ankle Dysfunction?

Most people don’t pay much attention to their feet, but they’re one of the most complex structures of the human body and we depend on them extensively every day just to stand and walk. When something goes wrong with their function, we often pay the price by experiencing pain in a variety of places and being forced to restrict our activity. As surprising as it may seem, shoes may have a lot to do with instigating such problems. I’ve added additional information on how this can happen and have also provided a number of references from scientific journals. This article is especially relevant to the new trend of toning shoes such as the Reebok EasyTone, Sketcher Shape Ups, and Avia Avi Motion. Read the article to learn how your shoes may be influencing your physical health and what you can do to promote foot function that is more natural and more likely to keep you pain free.

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

The first article in this series discussed the impressive health benefits of chocolate including its high antioxidant capacity, its potential to reduce the risk of heart disease and certain cancers, and its ability to improve circulation and even skin health. The second article described the less desirable characteristics of chocolate such as its potential to impair digestion, alter mood, and be contaminated with potentially toxic heavy metals. The intent of this final article is to consider how chocolate can fit into a truly healthy diet and to identify the factors that can make it more of a health promoting food than an indulgence.

How Chocolate Measures as a Healthy Food

In my opinion, the healthiest foods are those which can be eaten in their natural and whole form and will promote optimal health when consumed frequently. Despite its benefits, chocolate obviously doesn’t fall into this category. It’s highly processed which means that many of the nutrients from the original cacao beans are lost, damaged, or destroyed. Furthermore, because pure chocolate is extremely bitter, nearly all chocolate products contain added sugar, and many contain other unhealthy additives as well. The problems associated with sugar alone are enough to qualify chocolate as a food that shouldn’t be eaten in significant amounts, and this doesn’t take into account the undesirable nutrients that naturally exist in chocolate.

Much of the research that has shown chocolate to have beneficial effects is based on the daily consumption of a full chocolate bar or close to it. Most people would probably agree that eating this much chocolate on a regular basis is excessive and is likely to negate any possible health benefits. However, some of the research that has shown chocolate to have vascular and cognitive benefits is based on much more moderate consumption levels ranging from 6 to 10 grams per day^1,2,3 which would be about the equivalent of one or two small squares.

Despite the health promoting aspects of chocolate, I think its less desirable characteristics still qualify it as an indulgence food that should be enjoyed in moderation, especially since it’s possible to obtain at least some of the health benefits from eating it in small amounts. As such, I think it would be questionable to use chocolate’s potential health benefits as justification to eat more of it. However, those who truly enjoy chocolate can take added pleasure from knowing that it has much more nutritional value than most other indulgence foods. In addition, those who are willing to be more selective about quality may be able to eat more of it without experiencing negative effects.

A Better Approach to Promoting Health and Preventing Disease

The health promoting benefits associated with chocolate can also be obtained by a well rounded healthy lifestyle, and the results of this approach are likely to be much more effective. Furthermore, regardless of how impressive the benefits of chocolate are, they won’t compensate for unhealthy habits. For example, it’s highly doubtful that the potential benefits of chocolate would make much of a difference for someone who’s eating a lot of processed food, dealing with too much stress, and not getting enough sleep.

Many of the beneficial nutrients found in chocolate can be obtained from other foods that can be eaten more frequently with fewer drawbacks. For example, apples, blackberries, blueberries, cherries, cranberries, grapes, raspberries, strawberries, almonds, pecans, hazelnuts, and walnuts have all been shown to be good sources of flavonoids,^4,5 and unlike chocolate, they can easily be eaten in their natural whole form. As such, it would be inadvisable to eat chocolate specifically for its potential health benefits when more sensible alternatives are available.

In general, I think it would be a mistake to consider chocolate as a health promoting food without regarding basic healthy habits and the consumption of whole foods as much more important priorities. Although this may seem obvious, some people act as if the potential health benefits of a specific food or supplement will solve all of their problems. While this may be true in some cases, a broader perspective on health is generally more effective.

Using Chocolate to Boost Mood or Energy

Many people consistently rely on coffee to get through the day, and some people rely on sweets or other foods in a similar way. Because chocolate can provide a boost in both mood and energy, some people eat it primarily for these effects. As Julia Ross explains in The Mood Cure, consistently relying on foods to provide a lift in mood or energy can cause neurotransmitter deficiencies and lead to chronic problems including mood disorders and fatigue. Although there’s probably little harm in using chocolate to occasionally boost mood or energy, doing so on a regular basis can be problematic and difficult to stop. This is yet another reason why chocolate shouldn’t be consumed solely for its potential health benefits, especially in large amounts.

Maximizing Chocolate’s Benefits

Although I don’t consider chocolate to be a health food, it still makes a lot of sense for those who truly enjoy it to make it as healthy of an indulgence as possible. Fortunately, there are several ways to accomplish this.

The most important factor regarding the health promoting potential of chocolate is how much cacao it contains which is usually specified as a percentage. As you would expect, products with a higher percentage of cacao content will contain a larger quantity of beneficial nutrients while also containing less sugar and other additives. Chocolate that has a high percentage of cacao is referred to as dark chocolate which typically contains 70% cacao or more. Most chocolate products that are of good quality will list the percentage on the label. The ones that don’t are more likely to have a lower percentage. The only potential downside to dark chocolate is that it has a somewhat bitter taste which intensifies as the percentage of cacao increases. However, someone who mostly eats whole foods will be less likely to have a preference for excessive sweetness and more likely to appreciate the bitter taste.

As described in the previous article, the potential for the phytic acid, enzyme inhibitors, and oxolate found in chocolate to impair digestion is another important consideration. Although enzyme inhibitors are probably inactivated by the heating that chocolate undergoes during processing, this is much less likely to be the case for phytic acid and oxalate. Reducing phytic acid typically requires soaking, and reducing oxalate typically requires steaming or boiling. Unfortunately, this can only be done if you make your own chocolate from cocoa powder or cacao beans. Since phytic acid and oxalate are probably not much of a concern in small amounts, especially for those who consume a variety of nutritious foods, this added effort may only be worth while for those who wish to consume chocolate more frequently.

Avoiding Unnecessary and Potentially Harmful Ingredients

Because chocolate manufacturers use cacao beans that are grown all over the world, including places that have weak regulations for soil contamination and the use of agricultural chemicals, it’s a good idea to buy chocolate that is certified organic. Doing so should reduce your exposure to pesticide residues and possibly the heavy metals discussed in the previous article. As with any type of food, choosing chocolate that has the fewest ingredients is also a good idea. Some chocolate is made with undesirable ingredients such as soy derivatives or even trans fat. Even if these ingredients exist in a small enough amount to not pose much of a risk, why take the chance when there are better alternatives available?

For those who prefer milk chocolate, another ingredient that poses some concern is milk powder which is highly processed and often contains oxidized cholesterol.⁶ Research has found oxidized cholesterol to increase atherosclerosis in rabbits and mice, and it’s believed to do the same in humans.^7,8,9

The chocolate that I typically eat contains only three ingredients: chocolate liquor, cocoa butter, and sugar. As I mentioned in the first article, chocolate liquor has no association with alcohol. It’s the mixture of cocoa powder and cocoa butter, both of which come from the cacao bean.

Supporting Fair Labor Practices

The chocolate industry seems to have a lot of ties to abusive labor practices including child slavery. This generally occurs with the farming of cacao beans, some of which are purchased by major chocolate manufacturers.¹⁰ An organized social movement called fair trade has been established to fight such labor practices and consists of four international networks that promote better trading and working conditions. These four networks are the Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International (FLO), the World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO), the Network of European Worldshops (NEWS), and the European Fair Trade Association (EFTA).¹¹ You can support fair labor practices across the world by purchasing chocolate that’s labeled as fair trade through any organization that’s certified by one of these four networks.

My Favorite Chocolate

Despite my slightly negative opinion of chocolate, it’s one of my favorite indulgences. Although I’d like to eventually try making my own chocolate from cocoa powder, I currently resort to the convenience of buying chocolate bars. My three favorites are Vivani 72% Dark Chocolate, Askinosie 77% Dark Chocolate from the Philippines, and Askinosie 70% Dark Chocolate from Ecuador. The Vivani chocolate is certified organic, and although the Askinosie chocolate isn’t, they claim to buy from organic farmers. In fact, you can even learn about the farmers they buy from on their website. Although neither company has a fair trade designation on their labels, both claim to support fair labor practices.

If you have any favorite chocolate products or recipes of your own, please share them below!

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

The previous article presented the many impressive health benefits of chocolate including a remarkably high antioxidant capacity, a reduced risk of heart disease and diabetes, a reduced growth rate of several cancers, and even improved skin health. However, since each of these benefits can be obtained in other ways, the remaining question that needs to be answered is if chocolate should be consumed specifically to promote good health despite having some potentially harmful characteristics. The following issues provide some of the insight needed to answer this question.

Chocolate Can Impair Digestion and Absorption

Chocolate can be a rich source of minerals including calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorous, potassium, and zinc.^1,2 However, as with most seeds, the cacao bean also contains phytic acid³ and enzyme inhibitors.⁴ Phytic acid allows seeds to maintain the nutrients they need to germinate by binding to minerals such as iron, calcium, magnesium, and zinc. However, research has shown that phytic acid impairs our ability to absorb these minerals.^{5,6,7,8,9,10,11} The protease inhibitors that exist in cacao beans cause another problem by inactivating digestive enzymes in the human digestive tract which reduces the efficiency of protein digestion. This also puts an additional burden on the pancreas to produce more enzymes which has the potential to impair its function and cause it to enlarge.^12,13

The potential for phytic acid and enzyme inhibitors to interfere with mineral absorption and protein digestion applies to the nutrients found in chocolate as well as any other foods eaten with it. If phytic acid and enzyme inhibitors are consumed frequently in high enough concentrations, they can impair overall digestion and increase the potential for nutrient deficiencies and subsequent health issues. As such, this is an important consideration. In most cases, the amount of phytic acid and enzyme inhibitors can be reduced by soaking and cooking. However, because chocolate manufacturers are very unlikely to do so, phytic acid and enzyme inhibitors may very well exist in their final products. Although enzyme inhibitors are likely to at least be partially inactivated by the heating involved in the processing of chocolate,¹⁶ this is not the case with phytic acid which has been found in chocolate at relatively high levels.^14,15

Oxalate, another substance that can interfere with digestion, has also been found in chocolate.¹⁴ Oxalate impairs the absorption of calcium¹⁷ and can therefore increase the risk of developing osteoporosis.¹⁸ Foods that contain oxalate are also thought to increase the risk of kidney stones,¹⁹ and this risk is believed to be made even worse by the combination of sugar and oxalate that exists in chocolate.²⁰ Although steaming and especially boiling can reduce the oxalate content in food, baking has been shown to not have this effect.²¹ As such, the heat that chocolate is exposed to during processing is unlikely to have much of an impact on its oxalate content. This has been made evident by the detection of oxalate in chocolate products that have already been processed.¹⁴

Some Chocolate is Contaminated with Heavy Metals

Plants are extremely effective at absorbing minerals from the soil. In some cases, the roots of plants can contain mineral concentrations that are 10,000 times that of the soil, and this is an important aspect of their survival. Because of this absorption capability, plants are often used to remove environmental contamination through a process called phytoremediation.²² Unfortunately, this absorption capacity can also result in the contamination of plants that are used for food.

Potentially toxic heavy metals including lead, cadmium, and arsenic have been found in chocolate products from a variety of origins.^23,24,25,26 These metals can be absorbed directly by the Theobroma cacao tree or be introduced during the manufacturing process, but either way, they can still exist in the final product. Although the levels of these metals are often within acceptable ranges, it’s important to realize that they accumulate in the body and can become quite toxic over an extended period of exposure to small amounts. Many chocolate manufacturers claim that the amounts are small enough to not be a concern,²⁷ but the American Environmental Safety Institute considered it a large enough concern to file suit against a number of manufacturers in 2002 and petition for required contaminant labeling.²⁸

The concentration of heavy metals may very well be too low to be of significant concern, but it’s definitely a legitimate reason to avoid eating sizable portions of chocolate on a regular basis. Furthermore, because the cacao beans used to make chocolate come from all over the world, the amounts of heavy metals that they contain can vary widely. Although there’s no guarantee, certified organic chocolate is less likely to be produced from cacao beans that have been grown in a contaminated environment or exposed to contaminants during processing.

Chocolate can Alter Your Mood

Chocolate is the most commonly craved food in North America by a large margin, especially among women.²⁹ As such, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that it can alter your mood considerably. Although some people might consider this a benefit, it’s often a compensatory measure that can have undesirable long term effects, just like relying on coffee for energy.

Despite the amount of research that’s been done on this aspect of chocolate, a lot of questions remain unanswered and there’s quite a bit of disagreement regarding the mechanisms through which the cravings and mood alterations associated with it might occur.

Chocolate as a Stimulant

Chocolate often contains a substance called phenylethylamine (PEA)³⁰ which is believed to act as a stimulant that can increase energy, elevate mood, and promote aggression.³¹ This substance is one of the most common explanations for the mood alterations and intense cravings that are often associated with chocolate. However, there’s some doubt about this because other foods such cheese and sausage contain greater quantities of PEA and aren’t associated with cravings.²⁹

Another somewhat common explanation for chocolate’s addictive properties is its caffeine content, but because chocolate contains such a small amount of caffeine, it’s unlikely to have much of an influence. However, chocolate does contain much larger quantities of a substance called theobromine which is similar to caffeine and is therefore believed to be a stimulant with addictive properties, but to a lesser extent.^32,29 As such, theobromine is believed to possibly play a role in the cravings and mood alterations associated with chocolate.

In addition to their energizing effects, many stimulants are believed to be a potential trigger for migraine headaches, and there’s evidence suggesting that this may be the case for chocolate as well.³³

Chocolate as a Mood Enhancer

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that’s associated with feelings of euphoria and satisfaction and is well known for having a significant influence on mood. Chocolate contains a derivative of dopamine named salsolinal which is naturally produced in the brain of humans and has been shown to have a strong affinity for dopamine receptors. As such, it’s believed to play a role in the reinforcement and reward system associated with addiction. Salsolinal has also been shown to decrease the production of the neurologically influential substances β-endorphin and ACTH which is a common characteristic of addiction³⁴ and can have an undesirable long term effect on mood.

Chocolate contains a notable amount of magnesium^1,2 which is another reason why it’s believed to influence mood and cravings. A deficiency in magnesium can cause a depletion of dopamine, and based on this, it’s believed that the magnesium in chocolate may induce cravings because of its potential to alleviate the deficiency. However, this too is uncertain because similar amounts of magnesium are found in a variety of nuts that generally aren’t associated with cravings.²⁹

Chocolate as a Drug

Chocolate has been found to contain several compounds constituting a lipoprotein called anandamide. This substance naturally exists in the human brain and is known to produce the heightened sensitivity and sense of euphoria associated with cannabinoid drugs such as marijuana.²⁹ As such, these compounds are believed to be another potential cause of the addictive and mood altering characteristics of chocolate, but other researchers disagree and believe that chocolate doesn’t contain enough of these compounds to have such an effect.^35,36

Just Another Sweet Craving?

Sweet and palatable foods in general are believed to invoke an immediate opiate response, which includes the release of β-endorphin, and this is believed to be a possible explanation for the satisfaction associated with eating certain foods.^37,38,39,40 Sweet foods are also believed to influence mood through the neurotransmitter serotonin which is known to provoke a general sense of wellbeing. When carbohydrates are consumed, especially those which cause a rapid rise in blood sugar, the resulting release of insulin causes more amino acids to be absorbed by cells. However, tryptophan is left behind which results in a higher concentration that can enter the brain more easily and be used to produce serotonin.^41,42

Whether the potential for chocolate to alter mood and cause cravings is because of one or more of its ingredients, the simple fact that it’s sweet and tastes good, or if it’s just a matter of psychology is still up for debate.^29,35 Regardless of the actual cause, research has clearly acknowledged the existence of these effects, and it would be prudent to regard them as more of a potential concern than a benefit.

A Combination of Good and Bad

Although the impressive health benefits associated with chocolate have been getting a lot of attention, it’s arguable that these benefits are negated by issues relating to digestion, toxicity, and mood. In addition, the extent to which chocolate can promote or harm one’s health can vary considerably depending on a number of factors which makes it even more difficult to determine if the benefits justify the risks. Part three of this article discusses how chocolate can fit into a healthy diet as well as some of the considerations that can make it more of a health food and less of an indulgence.

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

Surprisingly, there’s an overwhelming amount of research and opinion existing on chocolate and its potential to alter mood, cause intense cravings, and influence health. As such, there’s a lot of important information to discuss, but too much to include in one article, so this will be the first of three. This article will discuss the beneficial aspects of chocolate, the next one will consider if and how chocolate can detract from health, and the final article will include my opinion on whether chocolate is a so called superfood or just an indulgence as is commonly thought. In this last article, I’ll also share what my three favorite chocolates are as well as some important information regarding selection.

From Bean to Bar: The Origin of Chocolate

To understand the health implications of chocolate, it’s important to first be familiar with its origin. Chocolate is manufactured from cacao beans which are the seeds of the pods that grow on the Theobroma cacao tree. Each pod contains about 40 beans, and once the beans are harvested, they’re fermented to improve their flavor. Following fermentation, the beans are dried, cleaned, and roasted. By a process called winnowing, the shells of the beans are removed, and then the beans are milled and pressed. Milling produces chocolate liquor which is a mix of the beans’ solids and liquified fat. Despite the name, chocolate liquor has no association with alcohol. This is important to realize because chocolate liquor is often listed as an ingredient for a variety of chocolate products.

When chocolate liquor is pressed, it’s separated into cocoa butter and cocoa powder, each of which are later recombined in various proportions and mixed with other ingredients such as sugar, vanilla, and milk powder to produce a final product. In some cases, cocoa powder is treated with an alkali, or “Dutched”, to give the chocolate a milder flavor and make it darker in appearance. This final mix is eventually molded into the bars and candies that we’re all familiar with, for better or worse.¹

Can Chocolate Prevent Disease?

Although it would be a stretch to say that chocolate was a part our evolution, the consumption of cacao is believed to date back more than 3,000 years ago when the early Mayans are thought to have used cacao beans as part of a beverage.² The idea of chocolate promoting good health isn’t new either. The Aztecs are documented to have used the cacao bean hundreds of years ago to treat a long list of medical conditions. This medicinal use of cacao was eventually adopted in Europe as well as other regions of the world.¹

Evidence suggests that chocolate can help prevent heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. This has been supported by a traditional population of Kuna Indians that live on a small island off the coast of Panama named San Blas. The Kuna Indians are believed to consume more cocoa than any other community and drink a beverage derived from it as their primary source of fluid. Epidemiological evidence has shown the Kuna Indians to have significantly lower rates of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes than those living on the mainland of Panama where the cocoa is of poorer quality and generally consumed in much smaller amounts. The Kuna Indians are also known for having optimally low blood pressure that doesn’t rise much with age.^3,4 As can be seen from the work of Dr. Weston A. Price, it’s not at all surprising for a traditional culture that’s isolated from the stress, chemicals, and processed foods of modern society to enjoy much better health, but nonetheless, this still provides strong support for the potential health benefits of chocolate.

Such support has been found in other research as well. Out of a population of 471 elderly men studied over a duration of 15 years, those who consumed chocolate on a regular basis were shown to have lower blood pressure and reduced mortality. The reduction in mortality applied to heart disease alone as well as all causes of death combined.⁵ Although such a correlation doesn’t provide proof of cause and effect, it’s certainly a strong indication that should be considered further. Fortunately, it has been considered quite extensively.

Many of the disease preventing benefits associated with chocolate, including its high antioxidant capacity, are largely attributed to the large quantity of flavonoids it contains. Flavonoids represent a class of phytochemicals that are also found in some fruits, nuts, and vegetables. They’re also the reason for some of the health benefits commonly associated with red wine and especially green tea,¹ but research suggests that chocolate can contain a significantly larger quantity of flavonoids and other beneficial plant nutrients than both red wine and green tea.⁶ Chocolate is also a notable source of the popular antioxidant resveratrol, but contains less than red wine and grape juice.⁷ Resveratrol is believed to help prevent heart disease and cancer, but is also a phytoestrogen which means that it can act as estrogen in the human body and potentially have undesirable effects.⁸

Chocolate is Very High in Antioxidants

Antioxidants are becoming a popular way of assessing the nutritional value of various supplements and foods. When a molecule loses an electron, in many cases to oxygen, it is said to have been oxidized. This loss of an electron causes the molecule to be charged and therefore more reactive. As such, it’s called a free radical. Because free radicals have the capacity to strip electrons from other molecules, they are often associated with cell damage and recognized as a potential health risk. Antioxidants are believed to reduce this damage by providing electrons to free radicals without becoming unstable free radicals themselves. Although it’s arguable that too much emphasis is placed on antioxidants and that there are circumstances in which free radicals are necessary for proper physiological function,⁹ it stands to reason that obtaining antioxidants from natural sources is beneficial.

Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC) is a popular method of measuring antioxidant capacity. Most people are aware that fruits are particularly high in antioxidant capacity, especially berries. According to 2007 USDA data, all of which is based on 100 gram serving sizes, cranberries have a very impressive average total ORAC score of 9,584. Blueberries also have an impressive score of 6,552 with blackberries not too far behind at 5,347. The score for raspberries and strawberries is 4,882 and 3,577 respectively. Primarily because of its exceptional flavonoid conent, dark chocolate has more than double the antioxidant capacity of any of these fruits with an average total ORAC score of 20,823! Cocoa powder is even higher at 80,933.¹⁰ Research has confirmed this potential benefit of chocolate by showing an increase in antioxidant capacity and a decrease in oxidation byproducts in those who consume it.¹¹ Although it would be unwise to eat chocolate in place of fruits and vegetables, this is convincing support for the argument that chocololate may contribute to the benefits of a healthy diet.

Chocolate Can Reduce the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease

Arguably the most important health benefit associated with chocolate is its potential to reduce the risk of heart disease, and this is mostly attributed to the flavonoids it contains, particularly catechin and epicatechin. These flavonoids are believed to improve vascular function by increasing the availability of nitric oxide, and in turn, promoting the dilation or widening of blood vessels by causing the smooth muscle tissue surrounding them to relax. This can alleviate common circulatory conditions such as high blood pressure and heart disease.^{12,13,14,15,16} In fact, research has shown that chocolate consumption can reduce blood pressure^{14,17,18,19,20}, but other research supporting the vascular benefits of chocolate didn’t show any such change.^13,21

Research has also shown chocolate to reduce blood clotting,^{21,22,23,24,25,26} decrease inflammation by reducing c-reactive protein levels,³⁷ and modulate the immune response,^26,27,28 all of which are important factors in cardiovascular disease. Chocolate has also been shown to improve resistance to oxidative DNA damage which may contribute to atherosclerosis.²⁹

It can even be argued that chocolate can make you smarter and reduce the risk of strokes and cerebrovascular diseases such as dementia. Research has shown that its vascular benefits result in increased blood flow to brain,^15,30 and an evaluation of 2031 elderly men and women found that those who consumed chocolate on a regular basis showed stronger cognitive performance.³⁸

Chocolate and Diabetes

Because of the increased availability of nitric oxide that improves vascular function, chocolate consumption has also been shown to improve insulin sensitivity.^17,20 This could be beneficial for anyone who is susceptible to blood sugar fluctuation or suffers from diabetes or insulin resistance. However, chocolate tends to also contain added sugar which can reduce or negate these benefits by causing high blood glucose levels and impairing the dilation of blood vessels.^31,32

Chocolate and Cancer Prevention

The beneficial phytochemicals in plants are often associated with cancer prevention. In contrast, processed foods and sugar are often mentioned as potential causes of cancer. Although chocolate falls into both of these categories, preliminary research has shown that the flavonoids it contains can inhibit the growth of breast cancer³³ and prostate cancer.³⁴

Chocolate Can Promote Healthy Skin

Antioxidants help prevent the skin damage that can be caused by the sun’s ultraviolet radiation. Adequate consumption of fat and water can also prevent skin damage because they are essential components of the cell membrane and can improve and support the resilience of skin cells. Good circulation can also contribute to skin health by supplying skin cells with more water and nutrients. In addition to protecting the skin, each of these factors can also improve its quality and appearance.

Chocolate is a good source of both antioxidants and fat and can also improve circulation. As such, it’s not surprising that it’s been shown to improve the skin’s resistance to ultraviolet radiation while also improving its texture, thickness, quality, and general appearance.^35,36

Is Chocolate a Forbidden Superfood?

Despite chocolate’s reputation as a forbidden pleasure, its impressive benefits give it the characteristics of a superfood. However, before you use this as justification to eat chocolate without restraint, keep in mind that there’s more to consider. Chocolate contains substances that can impair digestion, cause toxicity, and alter mood. Although some people regard the potential for chocolate to provide a temporary lift in mood and energy as a benefit, the long term effects of this can be much less desirable. In addition to these unfavorable characteristics, there are many factors that dictate the quality of chocolate, and this can have a significant influence on the extent of its benefits. All of this is discussed in much more detail in part two and part three of this article.

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

When an organism is genetically modified, a gene from one organism is extracted, modified, and inserted into the DNA of another organism. Generally, the insertion of this gene is intended to provide the recipient organism with a trait that it doesn’t normally possess. For example, the gene in jellyfish that’s responsible for bioluminescence has been used to engineer pigs, mice, and rabbits that glow in the dark. A more relevant use of genetic engineering that’s already in use is the creation of food crops that can produce their own pesticides or be more resistant to other pesticides that are externally applied. The outcome of these genetic alterations can be very unpredictable, and as a result, they present many legitimate concerns relating to our health. They also threaten to disrupt the intricate balance of our ecosystem which can have significant implications as well.

Genetics is a very complex subject that we have yet to fully understand. Considering that it took billions of years for the current gene pool to evolve to be what it is today, is it really a good idea for us to be so casual about altering it?

Genetically Modified Foods May Contain Harmful Proteins

Genes influence an organism’s function and appearance through the production of proteins that act as hormones, enzymes, antibodies, structural support, or transportation molecules. It was originally believed that each gene produced only a single protein which would be extremely convenient for genetic engineering. However, when the Human Genome Project determined in 2003 that humans possess only 20,000 to 25,000 genes¹, it became obvious that this was untrue because this would provide for far too few proteins to support the complexity of human function. As such, it was suddenly clear that a single gene can produce multiple proteins. In fact, a particular gene in the fruit fly can produce more than 38,000 different proteins.² As such, when a gene from one organism is inserted into another, it may cause the recipient organism to produce numerous proteins in addition to the ones desired. This presents a significant concern in regard to the safety and reliability of genetic engineering.

If a genetically modified organism is destined to become food, some of the new proteins that are produced as a result of the genetic alteration may act as toxins or allergens when consumed. Even the nutrient content of the food can be altered. In some cases, a combination of several foreign genes are inserted into the recipient organism which increases the chances of unintended and undesirable proteins being produced. The interactions that may occur between these proteins add even more uncertainty and potential for problems. Despite the fact that the FDA has approved the use of genetically modified foods, albeit hastily, some of their own research has acknowledged the risk of these foods containing increased levels of natural toxins and having reduced nutritional value.¹⁶

Once a protein is synthesized, certain molecules such as phosphate, sulfur, sugar, or lipids may be added to alter its function.³ In addition, chaperone proteins can further change the function of a protein molecule by altering how it’s folded.⁸ It’s possible for the cells of a genetically modified organism to make any of these changes to proteins that are produced by foreign DNA, and when they do, the chances of these proteins being harmful can be even greater. In fact, misfolded proteins can even lead to a number of fatal brain diseases.⁹

Genetic Engineering is Imprecise and Unpredictable

To say that a foreign gene is inserted into the DNA of an organism implies precision, but to say that genetic engineering is precise is very questionable. A gene is essentially a portion of DNA that contains instructions for the synthesis of specific proteins. As previously mentioned, the production of such proteins is how the characteristics of a particular gene are expressed. Because only a small portion of a gene’s DNA contains the instructions for protein synthesis, scientists once believed that the large amount of remaining DNA was useless and was therefore referred to as “junk DNA.” Although genetic engineers hope for foreign genes to be inserted into these junk sections of DNA, they have little control of where in the recipient organism’s DNA it’s actually incorporated.

As it turns out, junk DNA isn’t the useless junk it was once thought to be and is now believed to influence which proteins a gene produces.³ As such, even if a foreign gene is successfully inserted into the junk DNA of the recipient organism, the outcome is still unpredictable and there’s still a chance for the expression of the native gene to be altered in undesirable ways. If the foreign gene misses the junk DNA and is inserted into a section of the native DNA containing sequences that direct protein synthesis, then there’s even more potential for unpredictable and undesirable effects.

The uncertainty of genetic engineering is clearly shown by a study in which a foreign gene was inserted into petunia plants to give them red flowers. Although the scientists expected all of the plants to have red flowers, the color varied based on where the foreign gene happened to be incorporated into the DNA. In addition, the color of the plant also varied depending on the time of year which indicates that environmental factors can influence the expression of foreign genes as well.⁷ Likewise, it’s been shown that the same gene inserted into a number of plants of the same species was expressed at different levels and with differing side effects.^11,12,13

Given the variety of factors that influence gene expression, the insertion of foreign genes and the alterations to native genes that can result can also influence the expression of other genes. Research relating to the treatment of cystic fibrosis has found that gene insertion can significantly alter overall gene expression by as much as 5%.⁵ This means that 1 out of every 20 genes can be effected which can mean thousands of genes in some organisms. As unsettling as this may seem, the outcome of genetic engineering can be catastrophic even if the expression of just a single gene is altered. In a study done on mice embryos, the insertion of foreign DNA caused a single native gene to be silenced and resulted in death.⁶

Many scientists believe that research on genetically modified foods has generated more questions than answers, that the undesirable effects could be immediate or take many years, and because genetically modified foods are already a common part of our food supply, that the general public is being forced to participate in a giant experiment. In fact, one team of researchers concluded that “controversies and knowledge gaps appear to be present at all levels.”²⁴ Given the volatility of genetic engineering, it’s very difficult to be certain of what you’re eating when you consume genetically modified foods and what the risks may be.

The Roundup Ready Soybean and More Uncertainty

The Roundup Ready soybean, created and patented by Monsanto, is one of the most popular genetically modified foods on the market. Monsanto, one of the largest agricultural companies in the world, also happens to be largely responsible for the existence of some of the most infamous toxins such as DDT, Agent Orange, and PCBs. They also manufacture the controversial sweetener aspartame. However, when it comes to Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybean, which is genetically modified to resist to their own Roundup pesticide, they claim it’s for the good of humanity.

In 2001, years after the Roundup Ready soybean was introduced to the food supply, researchers found it to contain a DNA sequence of 534 base pairs that don’t naturally exist in the soybean and aren’t part of the Roundup gene intended for insertion.²² While it’s possible that this unidentified sequence of DNA could have been a rearrangement of native DNA resulting from the insertion process as opposed to it having been directly inserted, Monsanto has already admitted to unintentionally inserting two other DNA fragments into their Roundup Ready soybeans²³. Either way, it’s enough DNA to produce new and potentially harmful proteins and is a legitimate concern.

93 percent of soy in the US is grown from seeds that are genetically modified based on Monsanto’s patents.²⁵. If you eat any soy, there’s a good chance that you’re eating the mysterious DNA fragments that come along with it as well as the byproducts that these fragments may produce.

Altered DNA Can Become Part of Your Intestines

Hundreds of strains of bacteria amounting to as much as 5 pounds reside in the human intestines. Many of these bacteria are critical to our immunity, digestion, and are even a source of nutrients. If the balance or function of these bacteria is altered, it can have a significant impact on human health. As such, it would be of great concern if the foreign DNA in the cells of genetically modified food could be incorporated into the bacteria cells in the intestines. Although it was once believed that the DNA in food wouldn’t survive digestion, research has shown that genetically modified genes can indeed end up in human digestive bacteria which happened to be the case with a gene used in soybeans to improve herbicide resistance.¹⁰

Another significant concern regarding genetically modified foods and intestinal bacteria is antibiotic resistance. During the DNA insertion process, the foreign DNA is only incorporated into a small number of target cells. As such, scientists need a way to differentiate the cells with the foreign DNA from those without it. One of the ways this is accomplished is to add something called an Antibiotic Resistant Marker gene to the foreign gene being inserted. This has the effect of making the cell resistant to a specific antibiotic, and when the scientist applies the antibiotic to the targeted cells, it becomes easy to identify which ones the foreign gene was successfully inserted into. However, if the Antibiotic Resistant Marker gene is transferred to intestinal bacteria and eventually other types of bacteria, it can greatly reduce the effectiveness of certain antibiotics.

The Forced Expression of Foreign Genes

A number of factors determine if and when a gene can be expressed. Because these factors may not be satisfied when a foreign gene exists in a genetically modified organism, genetic engineers add to the gene a regulatory element called a promoter to maximize its expression. Unfortunately, this can have the undesirable effect of influencing the expression of native genes in the recipient organism, even if they’re a far distance from the foreign gene or part of a separate chromosome.¹³ The maximized expression also requires additional energy and resources from the recipient organism which could deprive other important physiological systems.

As previously mentioned, the foreign DNA in genetically modified organisms can be transferred to other organisms. This is the case with promoters as well. Research done by the Norwegian Institute for Gene Ecology found that the CaMV promoter, which is commonly used in genetically modified foods, transferred to the tissue of the rats it was fed to. They also found the promoter to be active in rat, fish, and human cells inside test tubes.³³ More recent research has confirmed this promoter to be active in human cells.³⁸ The transfer of this promoter is believed to have the ability to reactivate dormant viruses, cause new viruses, and is also believed to be a legitimate cancer risk.¹⁵

Allergic Reactions to Genetically Modified Foods

Food allergies and sensitivities typically involve adverse reactions to proteins. Because genetically modified foods can contain new varieties of proteins, the risk of adverse reactions is increased. Not only is it possible for new and unpredictable allergies to develop, but also for known allergens to appear in unsuspecting foods. This is exactly what happened when a seed company now owned by DuPont used a gene from the Brazil nut to improve the protein quality of soybeans. Fortunately, these genetically modified soybeans were tested before being introduced to the market, which hasn’t always been the case, and were found to contain what the researchers considered very likely to be a major allergen from the Brazil nut.¹⁷

Another alarming case of a genetically modified food being allergenic is StarLink corn. This corn was genetically modified with a gene from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, often abbreviated Bt, to produce its own pesticide. Because the approval of pesticides is handled by the EPA, they oversaw the approval of StarLink corn instead of the FDA and decided to not approve it because of its potential to be allergenic. However, the EPA did approve StarLink corn as feed for pigs, cows, and other livestock, but relied on the farmers who grew the corn to keep it segregated from any corn grown for human consumption. Unfortunately, StarLink corn eventually made its way into the food supply and caused a massive recall which is estimated to have involved tens of millions of products.¹⁸ StarLink corn ended up in tacos, tortillas, and other corn products and caused reactions in some people that ranged from abdominal pain, diarrhea, and skin rashes to life threatening anaphylactic shock. Even inhaling the pollen of StarLink and other Bt crops has been shown to be a likely cause of allergic reaction.¹⁹

Aventis, the maker of StarLink, was faced with numerous lawsuits and the difficult task of preventing any further contamination of the human food supply. However, after admitting that it would be impossible to completely irradiate StarLink and that it would be part of the food supply forever, Aventis petitioned the EPA to deem the existing level of contamination as acceptable.²⁰ Although the allergenic response to StarLink has been downplayed by the FDA, Keith Finger, an optometrist from Florida who suffered anaphylactic shock after eating tortillas containing StarLink corn, was able to reproduce his severe reaction by consuming a verified sample of StarLink.²¹ This is despite the FDA testing that concluded Finger isn’t allergic to StarLink.

Animals Avoid Genetically Modified Feed

According to a report written by the Soil Association on genetically modified crops, a number of farmers have noticed their livestock having an aversion towards eating them.²⁶ There have been numerous instances of cattle, pigs, elk, and rodents being able to naturally identify genetically modified crops and choosing to avoid them. One farmer even reported on his cattle breaking through a fence to eat regular corn crops despite genetically modified corn crops being readily accessible to them. We seem to have lost this innate ability of animals to choose healthful food, probably as a result of our intelligence. However, in the case of genetically modified food, perhaps we’re too smart for our own good.

According to one of the scientists involved in testing the Flavr Savr tomato, one of the first genetically modified foods to be tested, they had difficulty getting the rats used in the research to eat them.²⁷ A Dutch undergraduate student found similar results after giving mice a choice between regular food and its genetically modified equivalent. The mice ate 61% regular food and 39% genetically modified food.²⁸. A report published by Acres U.S.A. includes additional accounts of animals avoiding genetically modified foods. This includes deer devouring regular soy crops and raccoons eating regular corn crops with both animals completely avoiding adjacent genetically modified crops of the same foods .²⁹ Although this doesn’t prove anything about the safety of genetically modified foods, it’s certainly raises some questions.

A Dangerous Genetically Modified Supplement

A number of supplements are produced by various strains of bacteria, some of which are genetically modified to yield greater quantities of the desired substance. This was the case for a tryptophan supplement produced by a Japanese company named Showa Denko. Tryptophan is an amino acid required for the synthesis of the neurotransmitter serotonin, and in turn, the production of the hormone melatonin. Based on the actions of serotonin and melatonin, tryptophan is often used as a natural method of alleviating depression and improving sleep. However, in 1990, it was estimated that between 5,000 and 10,000 people had contracted a debilitating neurological disorder called eosinophillia-myalgia syndrome from the use of a tainted tryptophan supplement which was later isolated to Showa Denko³⁰ and confirmed to be genetically engineered.³¹

As previously stated, it’s difficult to predict what type of proteins a genetically modified organism will produce, and in some cases, this may lead to the direct or indirect production of toxic substances. Although the impurities that caused the eosinophillia-myalgia outbreak aren’t proven to be the result of genetic engineering, the indications are pretty strong. As such, it would be in your best interest to verify that any supplements you use are not manufactured with genetically modified bacteria.

The Politics of Genetically Modified Foods

As with most health related controversies, there’s plenty of political and corporate influence behind the approval genetically modified foods, their introduction into the food supply, and the claim that they’re just as safe as their natural counterparts. Much of this has been driven by Monsanto, the producer of the Roundup Ready Soybean discussed earlier. The U.S. government’s support of the biotechnology industry, mostly based on its potential for economical growth, has been a significant factor as well. Monsanto has been accused on numerous occasions of influencing the FDA to gain approval of their genetically modified products and bullying the media to gain public acceptance of the supposed safety of genetically modified foods. The extent of this warrants a separate article which will be coming soon.

The misfortune of Arpad Pusztai, a very highly regarded researcher and one of the first to truly assess the safety of genetically modified foods, shows how destructive the political influence of a major industry can be. Pusztai and his colleagues conducted a study on potatoes that were genetically modified to produce their own pesticide.³² Despite being an advocate of genetically engineered foods and expecting not to find any issues, Pusztai was alarmed to discover that the rats fed the genetically modified potatoes suffered from impaired immunity, damage to the thymus and spleen, underdevelopment of the brain, liver, and testicles, and enlargement of the pancreas and intestines. When he realized that similar foods were already approved and introduced into the food supply, he was disgusted and felt obligated to make the general public aware of his findings. In exchange for his honest intentions, he was suspended from his job, put under a gag order, and harshly criticized by the biotechnology industry and its supporters.³³

The Supposed Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods

Many proponents of genetically modified foods, particularly the biotechnology companies that produce them, claim that they deliver higher crop yields, require less use of pesticides, and increase profit for farmers. However, the opposite has proven to be true in many cases. After switching to genetically modified seeds, many farmers observed a decrease in crop yield, became more reliant on pesticides, and made less money. It has also been claimed that genetically modified crops would improve the nation’s economy, but because other nations have refused to import them, it’s estimated that the transition to these crops has caused a loss of more than $12 billion between 1999 and 2001.²⁶

Biotechnology proponents even go as far as saying that genetically modified foods are the answer to alleviating world hunger, and this was even a major objective for President Bush in 2003. However, considering that genetically modified foods have been shown to incur added costs and potentially decrease crop yield, this seems like more of a marketing ploy than anything else. This especially seems to be the case with “golden rice” which was genetically modified to produce vitamin A. The supposed motivation behind this rice was to reduce the prevalence of vitamin A deficiency in African and Asian children which often results in blindness. However, according to Greenpeace, an adult would need to consume nearly 20 pounds of cooked golden rice to obtain their daily vitamin A requirement. Despite this obvious obstacle, one of the companies owning patents on golden rice claimed that delaying its approval by just a month would cause 50,000 children to go blind.³⁴ At the time, more than $100 million had been invested in the development of golden rice with another $50 million slated for advertising.³⁵ In contrast, UNICEF has found that two annual doses of a high potency vitamin A supplement, at the cost of just 4 cents per child, can cure and prevent vitamin A deficiency.³⁶

Most of the supposed benefits of genetically engineered foods have been proven on multiple occasions to not be true, but even if this weren’t the case, would the benefits be worth the potential health risks? Or how about the irreversible and unpredictable alterations to our food supply? Once a genetically modified crop is introduced to the food supply, it can cross pollinate with other crops and become a permanent fixture in the gene pool. This has already happened on a number of occasions. In 2002, Mexico admitted to a major contamination of their corn crops with 95% of the sites analyzed having contaminated seeds.³⁷ How far will we go in allowing the biotechnology industry to endanger our health, our environment, and our future?

How to Minimize Your Risk

As previously stated, at least 93% of soy and 80% of corn in the United States is genetically modified.²⁵ To make matters worse, soy and corn exist in most processed foods which is something that many people don’t realize. As such, many people are unknowingly eating foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. A large majority of canola is also frequently genetically modified as is about half of the papaya that comes from Hawaii. Because the derivatives of these genetically modified crops can sometimes be very difficult to identify in ingredients lists, the best way to avoid them is to choose products that are certified organic, or even better, to follow a diet based mostly on natural whole foods obtained from reputable farms.

For more information on the risks and politics associated with genetically modified foods, I highly recommend reading Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey M. Smith.

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

There’s a wide variety of weight loss diets to choose from, and while they all make big claims about delivering results, the diets are often drastically different. Furthermore, each of these diets typically have their share of glowing success stories as well as reports of making people feel miserable. Although there are many factors that contribute to the success or failure of a weight loss diet, perhaps the most obvious conclusions that can be drawn from these discrepancies are that we each respond to food in different ways and that the type of diet that works extremely well for one person may very well cause problems for another. Could genetic testing be the solution to this uncertainty?

More Support for Metabolic Individuality

Nearly half a century ago, a researcher by the name of George Watson was already studying the varying influence of food on people’s wellbeing. While the evidence and understanding of this relationship have increased greatly since then, many people are still unaware of it. Recent research that has caught the attention of mainstream media may change this.

A company called Interleukin Genetics has developed a DNA test called the Weight Management Genetic Test which predicts several of an individual’s metabolic tendencies based on the existence of genes related to fat absorption, fat cell formation, the utilization of stored fat, and fat breakdown.¹ Since 2008, Interleukin Genetics has been working with Stanford University researchers to determine if individuals who follow a diet suited to their genetics, as determined by this test, would lose more weight than those who don’t.

Although the research hasn’t been published, investigators from Stanford University reported on their findings during an oral presentation at the American Heart Association’s 50th Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism conference. According to the presenters, those following a diet appropriate for their genotype lost 5.3% of their body weight whole those who followed a diet not appropriate for their genotype lost 2.3%. In other words, those who ate in accordance with their genetic tendencies lost an average of more than twice as much weight in relation to their total body weight.

The results are even more dramatic when only the participants following either the Atkins or Ornish diets are considered. Of all the diets included in the research, the Atkins diet was the lowest in carbohydrates and the Ornish diet was the lowest in fat. The participants following the diet appropriate for their genetics lost 6.8% of their body fat while those following the diet not appropriate for their genetics lost only 1.4%. On average, the group eating according to their genetic tendencies lost more than 4 times as much weight in relation to their total body weight.²

Metabolic Individuality is About More than Weight Loss

The ability to make health improving decisions based on genetic analysis is as promising as it is fascinating. Perhaps it will be a fundamental aspect of living a healthy lifestyle in the not too distant future. However, this technology is still in its infancy and tests like the one offered by Interleukin only provide a glimpse of one’s metabolic tendencies.

In my opinion, the most important aspect of this research is not the availability of a test that can identify the best weight loss diet for a particular individual, but rather the convincing evidence that each of us respond differently to the food we eat. As desperate as some people are to lose weight, it’s important to realize that eating a diet based on accommodating metabolic tendencies has implications that are much more significant. Doing so is an important factor in achieving optimal health, and weight loss tends to occur naturally and effortlessly as part of the process.

A Better Way to Assess Your Metabolic Individuality

The research described above is an extension of previous research on the effectiveness of a variety of diets that were either low in carbohydrate, low in fat, or evenly balanced.³ As I mentioned previously, each of these diets tend to provide incredible results for some while making others miserable. The research done with Interleukin’s genetic test gives us a good indication of why this is the case.

The macronutrient ratios of the three types of diets studied are similar in nature to the ratios that are a part of Metabolic Typing. However, the factors that Metabolic Typing are based on involve much more than just a handful of genes that give an indication of fat storage and utilization tendencies. Most notably, these factors include individual variations in cellular respiration which indicate how effective or ineffective an individual is at metabolizing protein, fat, and carbohydrates for energy production, and autonomic nervous system dominance which predicts how certain foods will influence an individuals nervous system, and in turn, physiological function in general.

Although Metabolic Typing is based on a more subjective assessment that relies on the accurate assessment of one’s physical attributes and typical reactions to certain types of foods and meals, it has a high rate of success. As the field of genetic testing advances, perhaps it will one day be a part of Metabolic Typing and will provide a more accurate and in depth method of testing to compliment a well rounded holistic approach to optimal health. The possibilities are very exciting!

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

Researchers from Tufts University analyzed the calorie content of a variety of supermarket and restaurant foods and found themselves asking the same question. In many cases, the actual calorie content of the food varied considerably from number of calories listed by the manufacturer or restaurant. This has significant implications for people who count calories to lose or maintain weight.

The entire basis of calorie counting is dependent on accurately assessing and adjusting one’s daily caloric intake based on their caloric needs. People looking to maintain their weight will generally consume about the same amount of calories that they need for the day, and those who want to lose weight will typically try to eat slightly less. Inaccurate calorie data could easily cause someone to consume more calories than intended and result in them gaining weight instead of losing or maintaining it.

A Rough Guesstimate at Best

The 29 restaurant meals and side dishes evaluated by the Tufts researchers were found to contain an average of 18% more calories than stated, and the 10 frozen meals from supermarkets were found to contain an average of 8% more. When applied to the typical 2,000 calorie per day diet, a caloric excess of just 5% can cause 10 pounds of weight gain in a single year. What’s even more alarming is that some of the foods evaluated had more than twice as many calories as stated.

You might wonder how restaurants and food manufacturers can get away with these discrepancies, but such a thought assumes that there are strict standards in place. There aren’t. The FDA only requires that the calorie content of packaged foods doesn’t exceed the stated amount by more than 20%. For restaurant foods, there’s no limit at all.

Some Surprising Examples

Some of the calories in food aren’t digested or assimilated. Although these calories are excluded from the calorie amounts listed on food labels and menus, laboratory methods used to measure calorie content includes them. To eliminate this discrepancy, total calorie amounts were calculated for each food based on its stated amount of macronutrients. As such, the stated amount of calories mentioned for each food is slightly higher than what you’d see on a label or menu.

A Denny’s veggie-cheese omelette with egg beaters contains 394 total calories for a 340 gram serving. The actual sample was found to be a 270 gram serving that contained 419 calories. Although this is only an excess of 25 calories, the serving size of the actual sample was considerably less than the stated serving size. If the actual serving size had been closer to the stated value, the calorie content would have likely been much higher.

A piece of toast from Denny’s is stated to have a 28 gram serving size and contain 97 total calories. The actual sample of toast was a 72 gram serving that contained 283 calories which is almost three times the stated amount. Denny’s grits are supposed to have a 113 gram serving size and contain 86 calories, but the actual sample was a 262 gram serving containing 253 calories. Like the toast, this is almost three times the stated amount. In addition to these inaccuracies, the total calorie content of the omelette meal is nearly doubled when combined with either of these two side dishes. Since the price of a meal typically includes a side dish, it’s very likely for most people to order one.

Another surprising example is P.F. Chang’s Sichuan style asparagus meal which is stated to have a 348 gram serving size and contain 260 total calories. The actual sample was exactly the same serving size, but contained 558 calories which is more than twice the stated amount. No need for a side dish to double the calories here!

To be fair, some of the foods evaluated contained fewer calories than stated. For example, a piece of toast at Ruby Tuesday’s is stated to be a 27 gram serving size containing 171 gross calories. The actual sample was the same serving size and contained 110 calories. Although this may seem more desirable than the previous examples, it’s important to realize that it could potentially create too much of a calorie deficit which can be just as bad as a caloric excess.

Packaged Foods are Slightly More Reliable

Like the restaurant foods, the packaged supermarket foods varied from the stated values in both directions. Lean Cuisine’s shrimp and angel hair pasta meal is stated to have a serving size of 283 grams and contain 250 total calories. The actual sample was a 345 gram serving that contained 319 calories. Weight Watcher’s lemon herb chicken piccata meal is stated to have a 255 gram serving size and contain 252 gross calories, but the actual sample was a 318 gram serving that contained 306 calories. Ironically, these same brands are specifically marketed to people who are concerned about calories.

What to Make of This

Like some of the ridiculous claims made on food labels, it appears that you can’t always trust nutritional data either, at least not for anything more than a rough estimate. It also seems that the nutritional information provided by restaurants, if it’s even made available, is considerably less accurate than that for packaged supermarket foods. However, it’s also important to consider that this is based on a relatively small sampling of 39 items.

In my opinion, the most important conclusion to draw from this study is that there’s little value in counting calories. While some might argue that more regulation is needed from the FDA to improve the accuracy of nutritional data, I think it’s more important to realize that calorie counting is a flawed practice to begin with and that increasing the accuracy of this data probably wouldn’t make much of a difference. Besides, the FDA is so heavily influenced by industry that such a change is unlikely to happen anyway.

The Flawed Thinking Behind Calorie Counting

On occasion, counting the number of calories consumed per day can provide useful information. This is especially the case if the counting is broken down by macronutrient. However, trying to limit yourself to a specific number of calories each day can not only be frustrating and ineffective, but it also promotes a misguided perspective on healthy eating that emphasizes quantity over quality.

Although appetite is a somewhat subjective matter that’s difficult to define, it’s clearly a complex subject and is influenced by a number of factors. The body’s ability to sense which nutrients it needs is very likely to be one of the most significant. As such, nutritional quality should be given more consideration than quantity. Many people who eat according to this perspective find that they can achieve and maintain an ideal weight without counting calories. In contrast, those who fail to realize that not all calories are created equal typically tend to continue eating lesser quality foods and try to compensate by resisting their body’s craving for nutrition. Such an approach tends to become more a battle of will than the pursuit of optimal health that it should be.

A More Simple and Satisfying Approach

Most people who choose to follow a truly healthy diet consisting mostly of natural whole foods such as meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, and nuts find that they satisfy their appetite more easily and rarely have to deal with food cravings, all while losing or maintaining weight. This has been the case for me as well. In fact, I find it very satisfying to know that I’m providing my body with good nutrition while also enjoying what I eat and not having to resist my appetite. It’s a much more pleasurable approach to weight loss and healthy eating.

For more information on the study done by Tufts researchers, you can read the abstract or purchase the full text here. For more information on a sensible and pleasurable approach to weight loss, I highly recommend reading The Slow Down Diet by Marc David.

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.

Milk is the primary source of nutrition for young mammals before they’re able to eat and digest other types of food. It’s an excellent source of protein, vitamins, and minerals, all of which are critical to proper development. This applies to the fat content of milk as well. When the fat is removed, so is a portion of its nutritional quality and its ability to support healthy development. The recommendation to avoid milk fat is not only based on questionable science, but is also influenced by the profit based motives of the dairy industry.

Could Nature Be This Inconsistent?

Despite the common misconceptions about heart disease, the saturated fat and cholesterol in milk have important benefits. Although we’re the only mammals that consume milk as adults and also from other species, it’s obvious that milk provides the optimal mix of nutrients for human development and is the result of millions of years of development.

Heart disease is a leading cause of death worldwide, and despite a lack of supporting evidence that can withstand unbiased scrutiny, saturated fat and dietary cholesterol have taken much of the blame. It’s highly unlikely that the very same nutrients that are so critical to human development can be so deadly later in life. In fact, research including the work of Dr. Weston A. Price has shown the opposite to be true. His work, completed in the 1930s, describes the health of a number of isolated cultures that consume significant amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol from a variety of traditional and natural sources including cow’s milk. He consistently found that these people enjoy immunity to many of today’s most common diseases including heart disease.

There’s clearly a significant inconsistency between conventional dietary beliefs and the evidence provided to us by nature. Which is more trustworthy?

A Closer Look at Fat

The many important benefits of saturated fat include stable cell membranes and healthy brain, lung, and skin function. It can also boost immunity and is also an important source of energy and fat soluble vitamins. Another advantageous characteristic of saturated fat is that it’s very stable.¹

To decrease the production cost of processed foods and increase their shelf life, the food industry uses a process called hydrogenation to turn oils containing unstable polyunsaturated fats into a substance that is more stable and more similar to saturated fat. However, the unstable polyunsaturated fatty acids in the oil are easily oxidized during this process which results in free radicals that may cause cellular damage and increase the risk of heart disease. In addition, the substance resulting from hydrogenation, commonly referred to as trans fat, is similar enough in structure to saturated fat to be used by the body, but different enough to cause significant problems.² Although natural saturated fat has been labeled as the dietary villain, trans fat is a much more likely cause of heart disease as well as many other problems.

According to conventional wisdom, the risk of heart disease is reduced by choosing skim or low fat milk instead of whole milk and using polyunsaturated vegetable oils instead of saturated fat. However, more and more evidence is indicating that this belief is not only wrong, but completely backwards.

The Ironic Risks of Drinking Low Fat Milk

It’s standard practice for dairy producers to improve the protein content of skim milk and low fat milk by adding dried milk powder to it. This dried milk is produced by forcing skim milk through tiny holes at high temperatures and pressures which damages its nutrients. This also causes the milk’s cholesterol to become oxidized which is a legitimate risk for heart disease.^2,3,4 Ironically, the milk’s natural and nutritious saturated fat is removed because it’s supposedly unhealthy, but then a more likely promoter of heart disease is added. Although the amount of oxidized cholesterol in skim milk and reduced fat milk may be small, there’s really not much point in taking the risk.

Another potential problem with consuming skim milk or low fat milk is vitamin A deficiency. Because vitamin A is a fat soluble vitamin, its concentration in milk is reduced through the removal of fat. As a result, when skim milk or low fat milk is consumed and digested, the vitamin A needed for the assimilation of its protein is drawn from the liver. This can deplete the body’s reserve of vitamin A, and in turn, increase the risk of autoimmune disease and cancer.⁵

The Politics of Low Fat Milk

We’re consistently told by the USDA and dietitians that skim milk and low fat milk are the healthiest choices, and probably not by coincidence, this is exactly what the dairy industry wants us to believe. This is because the cream that’s extracted from whole milk to reduce its fat content can be used for other dairy products and therefore generate more profit from the same quantity of milk.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the dairy industry donated nearly $5 million to political campaigns⁶ and spent nearly another $5 million on lobbying⁷. Based on this, the dairy industry is clearly interested in keeping politicians on their side, and their contributions are very likely to be a significant factor behind the mainstream belief that it’s healthier to drink skim milk and low fat milk.

Homogenization is Another Cause for Concern

Homogenization changes the nutritional quality of milk by altering the structure of its fat molecules. During homogenization, milk is forced at high pressure and temperature through tiny holes to break its fat molecules into smaller globules. This results in fat molecules with a much higher than normal membrane concentration of casein and whey proteins which has the potential to increase their allergenic properties. In addition, beneficial components have been found in the membrane of the fat molecules in milk that help suppress pathogenic organisms and protect against multiple sclerosis, Alzehimer’s disease, depression, and stress, but homogenization eliminates these benefits.⁵

Most of the milk available in grocery stores is both pasteurized and homogenized. Even though pasteurization reduces the quality of milk and promotes the use of poor dairy farming practices, it at least serves an arguably important purpose. It destroys many of the pathogens that can contaminate milk and cause infection. In contrast, the only benefit of homogenization is that it prevents the cream in milk from separating and rising to the top by keeping its fat molecules evenly dispersed. This is nothing more than a matter of convenience and aesthetics, neither of which justify the alteration of a food’s nutrients.

More About Milk

For more information about the history, politics, and health benefits of milk, including the controversies surrounding pasteurization, I highly recommend reading The Untold Story of Milk by Ron Schmid ND. For more information on the chemistry and health benefits of fat, I recommend reading Know Your Fats by Mary Enig PhD.

Another important issue to consider is the potentially dangerous A1 beta casein that exists in the milk produced by certain breeds of cattle. You can find more information on the risks associated with A1 beta casein in Devil in the Milk by Keith Woodford.

Written by Vin Miller for NaturalBias.com.