Category Archives: Nutrition

Connecticut Leads Nation in Banning BPA in Receipts

On June 9, Connecticut become the first state in the nation to ban the chemical bisphenol A, otherwise known as BPA, in “thermal receipt paper” that customers receive at retailers, banks and gas stations.

The chemical is used as a coating on receipt paper so that it prints in color when heated. BPA is not bound to the paper, as it is to, say, baby bottles, making it easily transferable to skin and anything else it brushes against.

“We’ve discovered that 60 percent of our thermal receipts contain BPA,” said Rep. Lonnie Reed, D-Branford, leading a four-long debate in the state House, according to The New Haven Register.

Members approached of the Coalition for a Safe & Healthy Connecticut Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Branford, who later introduced the bill, about their concerns of BPA in thermal receipt paper.

The Official Food Control Authority of the Canton of Zürich in Switzerland performed a study that found BPA from receipts can be absorbed into the skin, raising the risk that the chemical “infiltrates the skin’s lower layers to enter the bloodstream directly.”

If BPA gets into our bodies, what might be the consequences? The chemical has been proven to mimic the hormone estrogen potentially leading to negative health effects. According to the National Institutes of Health, animal studies indicate BPA is associated with diabetes, obesity, early onset puberty, hyperactivity and developmental problems in children, reproductive disorders and development of prostate, breast and uterine cancers.

BPA is of course not just found in our receipts. BPA is also used in the production of polycarbonate plastics and is found in water and infant bottles, food storage containers, CDs, as well as in epoxy resins used to coat metal products in water supply pipes, bottle tops and food cans.

Last year, Canada became the first country to declare BPA as a toxic substance, and both Canada and European Union banned its use in baby bottles.

In this nation, a ban on BPA in baby food jars and reusable food and drink containers, passed by the legislature last year, takes effect in Connecticut on Oct. 1.

According to, a former employee of Polaroid and organic chemist John C. Warner, revealed that many receipts contain not a little, but a lot of BPA.

In an article in ScienceNews, Warner said that, in an urban environment “the biggest exposures [to BPA], in my opinion, will be these cash register receipts.

The article went on to detail the BPA content on receipts from different stores, including a McDonald’s from Clinton, Conn., which had approximately 13 milligrams of BPA.

This is the same amount of BPA found in 126 cans of Chef Boyardee Overstuffed Beef Ravioli in Hearty Tomato & Meat Sauce, “one of the products with the highest concentrations of BPA in EWG’s 2007 tests of canned foods,” according the article. Receipts from CVS and Wal-Mart also had significant amounts of BPA.

How many of you will remember to wash your fingers before next reading a newspaper, magazine or book and licking your fingers to turn the page? Will you scrub those hands before putting food into your mouth? Otherwise, you also risk putting traces BPA directly into your body.



Filed under Environment, Nutrition

Pesticides from GM Crops Present in Bloodstream of Unborn Babies

There has been much debate about the safety of genetically modified, or GM, foods since they were first put on the market in the early ‘90s. The industry has stood by its claim that any potentially harmful chemicals from pesticides added to crops—like soybeans, canola and corn—would pass through the body with ill-effect.

However, the results of a study published earlier this month add more fuel to the fire that the consumption of GM foods is more dangerous than suspected. These findings reveal that toxins from pesticides used on GM foods are showing up in the bloodstreams of women and unborn babies.

The study, conducted in eastern townships of Quebec, revealed that traces of the chemicals were found in 93 per cent of blood samples taken from the dozens of pregnant women and 80 percent of samples taken from umbilical cords.

According to the British publication, The Telegraph, it appeared that chemicals were being passed into the body through the ingestion of meat, milk and eggs from farm livestock fed GM corn.

Why is this so concerning to those of us in America? A significant number of our farms grow genetically engineered seed for the only crops that can survive these very same pesticides. GM corn that contains these toxins is, in turn, fed to livestock that we also consume.

Not only are Americans getting toxins through vegetables and plants, but through meat and dairy products as well.

What exactly is GM food and why are we growing and consuming it in the first place? The DNA of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is altered in a way that does not occur in nature. Selected individual genes can be transferred from one organism into another, as well as between non-related species. This is how GM plants are created, which are then used to grow GM crops.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the initial aim of developing GM plants was to improve crop protection. GM crops are designed to be resistance to plant diseases caused by insects or viruses and/or to have increased tolerance to the type of pesticides called herbicides.

It was previously claimed that these toxins were destroyed in the digestive tract of the animals that consumed GM products. However, a 2010 article in The Huffington Post reported a study released by International Journal of Biological Sciences, linking the GM corn of the bio-agricultural and chemical giant Monsanto to organ damage in rats. Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the “two major diet detoxification organs,” stated the IJBS. Effects on the heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were frequently noted as well.

In response to the IJBS findings, Monsanto conducted a 90-day study, too short to assess chronic problems, found the crops safe for consumption. The response from IJBS: “Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health.”

Indeed numerous sources assert that much of the global research used to demonstrate the safety of GM crops has been funded by the industry itself.

Industry companies claim there biotech crops are as wholesome, nutritious and safe as conventional crops. However, there have been other studies to suggest this isn’t necessarily the case.

WHO cites the danger of GM crops solely approved for feed for use in products for human consumption. In one high profile case in 2002, StarLink corn, by Aventis Crop Sciences, was approved for animal feed, but found in Taco Bell taco shells. Twenty-eight people reported allergic reactions after eating these corn products. At that time, Central African nations refused to accept aid containing StarLink corn, and the Southern farmers suffered great economic loss.

According to, the first commercially grown GM crop, FlavrSavr tomato, considered bland in taste, led to stomach lesions in female rats. Arpad Pusztai, PhD, a leading expert in GM food safety assessments said the crop “could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage,” particularly in the elderly.

Also concerning is research presented earlier this year by Purdue University’s Emeritus Professor Don M. Huber. As reported in February in The Huffington Post, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GM crops contain “an organism, previously unknown to science,” which can cause miscarriages in farm animals.

This most recent Canadian study strikes such a chord because chemicals intended to kill pests on crops are making their way to the womb and unborn children. While the effect of this is still unclear, the British publication, The Daily Mail, says there is speculation that blood toxicity “could lead to allergies, miscarriage, abnormalities or even cancer.”

Unlike the European Union, Japan and Australia, the United States and Canada do not require the labeling of GM foods. The implication of this to American consumers: We could be ingesting GM foods and not even know it. Thus, pesticide toxins could also be making their way into our bloodstream, and we would have no way to trace it unless our bodies began showing signs of poor health. Scary thought, no?

Stay tuned next week for discussion on the lively debate surrounding organic and non-organic foods.

Leave a comment

Filed under Nutrition

Is Our Fascination With Diet Even Affecting Our Unborn Children?

As information continues to flow about how maternal health impacts fetal health, expectant mothers have increasingly more to consider when it comes to diet and their unborn children.

Most are aware of the importance of having a calcium-rich diet for developing bones and getting enough folic acid to help prevent neural tube defects like spina bifida. Certain types of fish, like swordfish and king mackerel, are a no-no due to high levels of mercury. And public health campaigns have been successful at spreading the word to cut alcohol consumption during pregnancy to help prevent premature delivery, mental retardation, birth defects and low birth weight babies.

Recent studies reveal that a mother’s behavior and habits may have an even further-reaching impact on her child’s life. Earlier this year, the journal Diabetes reported a study suggesting that a woman’s diet, particularly in the first trimester of pregnancy, may alter the DNA of her baby in the womb and increase the risk of obesity.

 The BBC’s report on the study, explained it this way: “It is thought that a developing baby tries to predict the environment it will be born into, taking cues from its mother and adjusting its DNA.”

Studies in animals have shown that changes in diet can alter the function of genes–a process called epigenetic change. In this most recent study, researchers found children with a high degree of epigenetic change were more likely to develop a metabolism that “lays down more fat” leading to obesity, which can be carried into adulthood.

According to Yahoo! Health, one theory for this change is that an expectant mother who eats fewer carbs, which provide energy to the body, alters her baby’s metabolism by nurturing it in a carbohydrate-deprived environment.

Linking “epigenetic marker” with children carrying an average 6.6 pounds more than their peers by the ages six and nine, Professor Peter Gluckman from Auckland University’s Liggins Institute said the additional fat was likely to be carried well into adulthood.

Simply put, this study suggests a mother’s diet might impact her child’s risk of adulthood obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

Note I said ‘might.’ The jury is still out on just how direct this association is, so let’s not jump to find another reason to blame our mothers for those extra pounds we can’t get rid of. We still have accountability to ourselves to take care of our bodies through good nutrition, exercise and other healthy behaviors.

We’re familiar with the adage: You are what you eat. It increasingly appears that you are also what your mother eats while you’re still in the womb. Stay tuned for tomorrow’s piece on other aspects of the maternal diet whose path is not so clear-cut to trace.

Leave a comment

Filed under Nutrition