| Chef 的个人资料Healthy Cooking Tips照片日志列表 |  工具  帮助 |
Give Me Life or Chemicals3,000 Food AdditivesOver and above the chemical fertilizers and pesticides, there are over 3,000 chemical food additives in use today.
The average American consumes a full pound of them per year! Monosodium glutamate, sugar substitutes, dyes, preservatives, nitrites, emulsifiers, fillers, waxes, sprayed on vitamins made from coal tars, tenderizers, texturizers, antifreezes, hormones and antibiotics are just a few we consume in processed foods. Hormones have been implicated in the development of breast cancer and other cancers in humans. Feeding livestock antibiotic-laced feed can promote strains of bacteria that are resistant to our present arsenal of antibiotic drugs, putting humans at risk of dangerous infections. Waxes on produce can seal pesticides in our food. Fungicides, used to retard spoilage, are sometimes combined in the wax (which makes them more difficult to wash off), and at least two fungicides are listed as probable human carcinogens. Some artificial colors have been found to be hazardous to our health. Red No. 3, aka erythrosine, was banned from most uses because it produced thyroid tumors in rats but it is still used in pistachio nuts, maraschino cherries and other foods. Yellow No. 5, aka tartrazine, still in use, can cause hives, itching, runny nose, headaches, or breathing problems in sensitive individuals. Sodium nitrite is added to bacon, ham, bologna, hotdogs and other processed meats as a preservative and flavor enhancer. In the stomach, nitrite may combine with other compounds, secondary amines, to form powerful cancer-causing chemicals called nitrosamines. Unfortunately, that's not all. These 3,000 additives do not include the indirect additives which encompass an additional 12,000 chemicals used in packaging, some of which migrate to our foods. Most of the milling of our refined rice, sugar, wheat, (etc), are used primarily in feed for pigs, cattle, chickens, (etc), destined for slaughter. We buy the ultra-refined, chemically contaminated, lifeless, degeneration-promoting food that's left. And as for the Amish or any other group, you first need to know whether the meat has been raised on a organic diet and if the meat is consumed immediately or if chemicals have been added to give the item shelf life! Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™
Chef Tim
Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips
© 2006 Chef Tim & Associates. All Rights Reserved.
Does Anyone Really CareU.S. Accepts First Irradiated Fruit Imports
As of may 2, 2007 the United States began to accept shipments of irradiated mangoes from India, the first U.S. imports of irradiated fruit. Irradiation is the process of exposing food to ionizing radiation to disinfect, sanitize, sterilize, preserve food or to provide insect disinfestation. It serves as an alternative to other pest control methods such as fumigation and cold and heat treatments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says irradiated food does not become radioactive, and the nutritional value of the food is "essentially unchanged." Irradiation was approved in 2002 as a treatment for all pests in some fruits and vegetables entering the United States. In 2006, irradiation was approved for a wider range of food products, including Indian mangoes, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA. USDA's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service approved commercial shipments of fresh mangoes from India that are treated with specified doses of irradiation at an APHIS certified facility prior to export to ensure that plant pests do not enter the United States. "This is a significant milestone that paves the way for the future use of irradiation technology to protect against the introduction of plant pests," said Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns. The nonprofit public interest group Public Citizen objects to irradiated food, which it says caused "a myriad of serious health problems in laboratory animals that ate irradiated foods, including premature death, fatal internal bleeding, a rare form of cancer, stillbirths and other reproductive problems, mutations and other genetic damage, organ malfunctions, stunted growth and vitamin deficiencies." Concerns have been expressed by public health groups that irradiation, by killing all bacteria in food, can serve to disguise poor food-handling practices that could lead to other kinds of contamination. In the United States, wheat flour, white potatoes, fruits and vegetables, herbs and spices, pork and poultry are USDA approved for irradiation. U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said import of the irradiated fruit "signals the determination of both India and the United States to forge deeper and stronger trade ties and create significant new economic opportunities for the people of both of our vast countries." U.S.-India trade has been growing at an average rate of almost 20 percent a year since 2002. The United States and India want to double their bilateral trade to $60 billion by 2008, said Schwab. Schwab said more Indian organic food products certified according to USDA standards by Indian agents are expected to begin flowing soon into the United States. Irradiation is not permitted on organic foods. Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips Chef Tim Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™ Danger Will Robinson
Is your fish raised in untreated sewage Fish products consumed by Americans treated with dangerous drugs, chemicals China is the leading exporter of seafood to the U.S., is raising most of its fish products in water contaminated with raw sewage and compensating by using dangerous drugs and chemicals, many of which are banned by the Food and Drug Administration.
The stunning news follows WND's report last week that FDA inspectors report tainted food imports from China are being rejected with increasing frequency because they are filthy, are contaminated with pesticides and tainted with carcinogens, bacteria and banned drugs. China has consistently topped the list of countries whose products were refused by the FDA – and that list includes many countries, including Mexico and Canada, who export far more food products to the U.S. than China. While less than half of Asia has access to sewage treatment plants, aquaculture – the raising of seafood products – has become big business on the continent, especially in China. In China, No. 1 in aquaculture in the world, 3.7 billion tons of sewage is discharged into rivers, lakes and coastal water – some of which are used by the industry. Only 45 percent of China has any sewage-treatment facilities, putting the country behind the rest of Asia.
According to a new report by Food & Water Watch, the aquaculture industry crams fish and shellfish into facilities to maximize production, generating large amounts of waste, contaminating water and spreading disease if left untreated. The industry tries to control the spread of bacterial infections, disease and parasites by pumping the food supplies with antibiotics and the waters with fungicides and pesticides. Many of the products used are banned in the U.S. Traces of these drugs have been showing up increasingly in imports – especially from China. "In addition to potentially making people sick, overuse of such drugs is contributing to antibiotic resistance, a growing public health concern in a variety of foods," says Food & Water Watch in its report "Import Alert: Government Fails Consumers, Falls Short on Seafood Inspections." But the grave news on China's seafood exports is worsened by the FDA's inability to inspect imports. The percentage of important seafood shipments with samples taken for laboratory inspection has decreased over the past four years, from 0.88 percent in 2003 to 0.59 percent in 2006 – this while seafood consumption in the U.S. was rising and more of that seafood was coming from China. China became the leading exporter of seafood to the U.S. in 2004 – and amounts are rising fast. Chinese imports were up 14 percent in 2005 and 23 percent in 2006. This year, so far, they are up 34 percent over 2006. "China's imports of aquaculture products are increasing despite the country's history of violations for veterinary drug residues," says Food & Water Watch. "Between 2003 and 2006, 35 percent of all refusals for veterinary drug residues were found on shipments from China. In 2006, 62.4 percent of all refusals for veterinary drug residues came from there." Every year, one in four Americans is afflicted with a food-borne illness, with seafood being responsible for about 18 percent of 20 percent of those cases – or 15.2 million. "The Food and Drug Administration can't find what it's not looking for," says Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter. "FDA's appalling record on inspecting seafood imports is irresponsible and poses a real threat to both the health of the American public and to homeland security." Meanwhile, as the heat on China's export policies increases, Beijing is adamant that it is doing nothing wrong, and brands warnings issued by U.S. officials irresponsible – as in the case the latest scare over toothpaste contaminated with diethylene glycol. "So far we have not received any report of death resulting from using the toothpaste," fumed China's General Administration of Quality Supervision. "The U.S. handling (of this case) is neither scientific nor responsible." The FDA issued a warning Friday after toothpaste containing DEG was detected in a shipment seized at the border. The government says at least 100 people died after taking cough syrup containing DEG, an industrial solvent used in paint and antifreeze. China's dismal drug-safety record was underscored this week by a Chinese court's decision to sentence to death the country's former top drug regulator. Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips Chef Tim Johnson Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™
Have Your Cake and Additives too!Most Artificial Food Additives And Synthetic Vitamins Now Produced Overseas
When I began researching the ingredients for Twinkies, I naively
thought that their raw materials were extracted from nuts, beans,
fruit, seeds or leaves, and that they came from the United States. I
was looking to link places with foods - along the lines of California
wine or Maine lobster, but for thiamine mononitrate. It turned out that
I was way off.Although eight of the ingredients in the beloved little snack cake come from domestic corn and three from soybeans, there are others - including thiamine mononitrate - that come from petroleum. Chinese petroleum. Chinese refineries and Chinese factories. And there are other unexpected ingredients that are much harder to trace. So much for the great "All-American" snack food. When you bite into a Twinkie, you are chewing on an international nexus of suppliers. Most of our processed foods - salad dressing, ice cream, meal-replacement drinks - are processed with foreign additives: essential ones, like B vitamins for fortifying flour and the preservative sorbic acid, as well as Malaysian or Indonesian palm oil products, European wheat gluten, Peruvian colorants, Chadian gums and Swiss niacin, made from Swiss water, Swiss air (nitrogen) and North Atlantic or Middle Eastern oil. It's a nice contrast to recall that Champagne comes only from Champagne, France. Like many other industries, food additives have been off-shored. No major domestic vitamin or sorbic acid manufacturers remain in the U.S. Our last vitamin C plant closed in 2005 - in fact, it closed as I was speaking to an employee about a tour - and most of our artificial colors and flavors come from abroad as well. Our chemical industry is rapidly dismantling its expensive domestic plants and either forming joint ventures with Chinese companies or simply buying chemicals from them. This leads to lower food and pharmaceutical prices, but perhaps at the cost of quality control. How can you have quality control when you don't even know where the ingredient is coming from? During my Twinkie research, I was particularly surprised that many American food additive "manufacturers" buy chemicals, especially vitamins, from distributors and do not know, or don't ask, where they come from. The distributors usually sing the same song, as they often buy from importers, and the importers buy from exporters who - no surprise - are often not able or willing to identify all of their sources. Now that the tainted pet food scandal has made us more aware that many additives come from overseas, and China in particular - and that some unscrupulous or, at the very least, unprofessional Chinese manufacturers mix cheaper and poisonous adulterants into some food or pharmaceutical products - most of us would like to see some action. What can be done? First, Chinese and any other foreign manufacturers should fall under both their home country's and the U.S. government's regulations and controls. This would take a concerted education effort in China, which has the challenge of teaching small, uneducated and very independent entrepreneurs the market value of meeting American standards. Second, we need to increase U.S. inspection of imported foods and additives. This means increased personnel and budgets and a serious commitment from the government to a tight, professional program. The Food and Drug Administration should classify additive adulteration the same way the Agriculture Department classifies meat contamination: totally unacceptable. Congress would have to reverse the trend of underfunding the FDA. Finally, as consumers, we can swallow hard and decide to pay just a little more for well-inspected processed food - or eat more local fruits, vegetables and whole grains and buy minimally processed and sustainably farmed foods. Smart processed-food and pharmaceutical companies are scrambling to find guaranteed safe alternatives. But consumers must be prepared to pay a higher price for safe food - and to make informed choices about what ingredients go into our food and where they come from. If you want to have your snack cake and eat it too, you have to remember: You are what you eat. Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips Chef Tim Johnson Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™ And You Still Don't Believe?Soda Ingredients Linked to Cirrhosis and Cancer
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has reported that it found a high level of cancer-causing benzene in five of the 100 soft drinks and beverages that it tested. The levels of benzene were more than the recommended 5 parts per billion limit for drinking water. The FDA said that it had alerted the companies that make the soft drinks in which benzene was over the prescribed limit. All companies had agreed to reformulate their drinks or have already done so, the FDA revealed on Friday. It maintained that there was no cause for concern although some environmental groups have expressed dismay at these findings. The five soft drinks/beverages, which had excess levels of benzene, were * Safeway Select Diet Orange - one lot was found to have 79.2 parts per billion of benzene * AquaCal Strawberry Flavored Water Beverage - one lot was found to have 23.4 parts per billion * Crystal Light Sunrise Classic Orange - one lot was found to have 87.9 parts per billion * Giant Light Cranberry Juice Cocktail - one lot was found to have 10.7 parts per billion * Crush Pineapple - one lot was found to have 9.2 parts per billion Benzene in soft drinks has become a very sensitive matter these days. The chemical id formed as a result of a reaction between Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and either sodium benzoate or potassium benzoate, which are contained in soft drinks and beverages. However the reaction does not occur as a rule, but takes place as an exception when the conditions are ideal for the reaction to take place. Benzene is a chemical, which is linked to cancer in humans. It is released into the air from automobile emissions, burning coal and oil. Benzene is also used extensively in industries, which produce chemicals, dyes, detergents, synthetic fibers, solvents, rubber and some plastics. Workers in chemical industry, gas stations, gasoline distribution jobs, rubber industry, printing industry and leather industry are also at a high risk since they are chronically exposed to benzene. As such the FDA does not have a upper limit for benzene in soft drinks. Rather it follows the five parts per billion (ppb) limit set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for drinking water. The FDA's website says that benzene can cause harm at "very low levels." It adds that exposure to light can trigger the formation of benzene in the soft drinks. The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization reacted to these findings by the FDA by saying that it is time the agency recognized the problem of high levels of cancer-causing benzene in soft drinks. "FDA's test results confirm that there is a serious problem with benzene in soda and juices," said Richard Wiles, senior vice president at Environmental Working Group. "There is no excuse for deliberately putting chemicals that form high levels of potent cancer-causing benzene in popular drinks," Wiles added. "This is a wake-up call for the beverage industry. It is time to get benzene-forming ingredients out of sodas and juices." The issue of benzene in soft drinks came to the attention of the FDA in the 1990s. Since then the FDA conducted a food testing program called the Total Diet Study between 1995 to 2000 according to the EWG. It tested 24 samples of diet soda for benzene in the study. Around 79 percent (nineteen) of the soft drinks were found to have benzene above the permitted levels. Earlier this year, officials in Britain pulled some soft drinks and juices that contained benzene from the shelves. Mr Wiles feels that the FDA should do the same, "FDA should do what British food safety officials did: Disclose the test results that taxpayers have paid for. Tell consumers which products contain high levels of benzene," he said. "Tell consumers the circumstances under which benzene is more likely to be formed - such as prolonged storage under warm conditions." Mr Wiles feels that telling the public would automatically force manufacturers to reformulate the products, "Once people have this information, we are convinced that food and drink manufacturers will simply reformulate their products, as many already have done, and as FDA originally intended in 1990." There is no dispute on the cancer-causing potential of benzene "Benzene is carcinogenic to humans and no safe level of exposure can be recommended," the World Health Organization has maintained. Benzene causes leukemia and can also cross the placenta affecting the fetus. Courtesy of healthy Cooking Tips Chef Tim Johnson Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™ wConsumer Alert: Move Beyond Bottled Waterit takes more water to make a plastic bottle than the amount it holds! Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips Chef Tim Johnson Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live! Plastic bottles and jars, Why I shouldn't Use ThemGlass baby bottles making comebackStores selling out after health alarms raised about plastics
Glass baby bottles, replaced decades ago by unbreakable plastic, are making such a comeback that parents can't get their hands on them.
Online and brick-and-mortar retailers report a run on glass baby bottles in recent weeks that they say was spurred by reports that the most common type of plastic in baby bottles may leach a toxic chemical. San Francisco resident Sean Mullins said he decided to switch his 6-month-old son, Mickey, from plastic to glass bottles last month despite manufacturers' insistence that plastic bottles are safe. "You want to avoid anything that could be a health risk to a baby," Mullins said. "You try to give them the best start." But after searching stores in the Bay Area and Lake County, checking Web sites and being outbid on eBay, "we could not find them anywhere." A friend finally found some glass bottles after searching online for more than two hours, but they were back-ordered and aren't expected to be shipped until late this week. Independent tests done for The Chronicle and reported in November found bisphenol A, a chemical that mimics estrogen, in a baby bottle and several toys. Bisphenol A is also found in the lining of food cans, some anti-cavity sealants for teeth, and electronics. Then, in late February, Environment California, an advocacy group, released a report titled "Toxic Baby Bottles" that drew intense national media coverage. When heated, five of the most popular brands of polycarbonate -- the clear, shatterproof plastic used in baby bottles -- leached bisphenol A at levels that have been found to cause harm in laboratory animals, Environment California found. Even at low levels, bisphenol A has been linked to abnormalities in the mammary and prostate glands and the eggs of laboratory animals, scientists say. Animal tests also show bisphenol A can speed up puberty and add to weight gain, and may cause changes that can lead to breast and prostate cancer. "Parents are so concerned," said Dan Jacobson, Environment California's legislative director. Jacobson said the baby bottle report prompted more calls and e-mails, from all over the country, than any other study the organization has issued. "When parents get ready to have a kid, they put plastic covers on the outlets, they test their walls for lead paint, they get the right kind of crib," Jacobson said. "Then you find out the baby bottle, of all things, is a problem." Makers of polycarbonate bottles and industry representatives say parents have been alarmed unnecessarily about a product that meets federal standards and has been in widespread use for more than 25 years. And some questioned using glass bottles. "I think parents are arguably being misled into buying products that may not be as safe," said Steve Hentges, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, which represents manufacturers of bisphenol A -- sometimes known as BPA -- and other chemicals. It's irrefutable that glass can shatter, Hentges said. But there is "no scientific basis to conclude that BPA is something to be concerned about ... at the extremely low levels that people might be exposed to from use of consumer products." That didn't stop San Francisco from approving a ban on children's products containing bisphenol A and certain phthalates, the chemicals that soften polyvinyl chloride, or PVC. Animal studies also have shown that phthalates interfere with sex hormones. Manufacturers and retailers have sued the city over the ban, which has yet to be implemented. The Board of Supervisors will consider amendments to the ordinance Tuesday, including repealing the ban on bisphenol A, pending action by the state, which is considering similar legislation. Many parents say they're not taking any chances. After reading The Chronicle's November story about bisphenol A and phthalates, David Lippman of Berkeley switched his 16-month-old daughter, Lucina, to glass bottles and sippy cups made of softer, opaque plastic, which some environmental health advocates are promoting as a safer alternative to polycarbonate. "She's going to be exposed to enough plastics in the world that I can't be so obsessed about it," Lippman said. But "it was something small I could do in my own home." The Web site naturalbabyhome .com reported at least a tenfold increase in sales of glass bottles last month, which it attributed to the Environment California report. The company eventually ran out. Jen Thames, general manager of Natural Baby in North Canton, Ohio, said that small company received 300 orders for glass bottles the day the report was released, some from frantic parents who wanted overnight shipping. The company, which has been selling glass bottles for 10 years, saw its monthly sales of popular 4-ounce glass Evenflo bottles increase from an average of 60 a month to 600 last month. Sales of 8-ounce glass bottles jumped from 100 to 1,300. Evenflo, which makes the glass bottles most commonly found in stores and online, acknowledged an increase in demand, but representatives declined to comment further. The Ohio manufacturer says the polycarbonate bottles it also makes are safe. Monica Meneses, manager of Baby World on College Avenue in Oakland, said last week that she was out of glass bottles. Some Bay Area Babies "R" Us stores, including those in Emeryville, Union City and Redwood City, also were out of stock. Tasha Bullard of Elk Grove (Sacramento County) last month switched to polyethylene bottle liners, also promoted as a safer plastic, to feed her 6-month-old son, Mason -- the day after she heard media reports on the possible dangers of plastic bottles. "I typically don't react to these things," she said. "There are 9 million things that are bad for you. You try to temper everything with common sense." But "this isn't something I want to take a chance on when it comes to my child's well-being." Online resources For information on possible risks and alternatives to plastics for children: www.environmentcalifornia.org/reports/environmental-health/environmental-health -reports/toxic-baby-bottles www.ewg.org/reports/bisphenola/consumertips.php For information from plastics manufacturers: What you can do Environmental health advocates offer the following tips for minimizing children's exposure to bisphenol A and phthalates : -- Avoid bottles and other food containers made of clear, hard polycarbonate plastic (made from bisphenol A), which may be labeled #7 or PC on the underside. Also avoid polyvinyl chloride (PVC), labeled #3, which can contain phthalates. -- Choose plastic food containers, bottles and cups made of #1, #2 and #4 (polyethylene) and softer, opaque #5 (polypropylene) plastics, glass or stainless steel. -- Avoid canned foods, including baby formula, which may contain bisphenol A in their lining. -- Avoid foods wrapped in plastic. -- Do not microwave children's food in plastic or polystyrene. -- Do not put plastics in the dishwasher, and dispose of any plastic containers or dishware that look scratched or hazy. -- Do not let children put plastic toys in their mouths. -- Choose wooden toys or look for products labeled "PVC-free," though most children's products are not labeled. Soft plastic toys such as teethers, dolls and bath books may be made of PVC. -- Call manufacturers to find out whether products contain bisphenol A or phthalates. Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips Chef Tim Johnson Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™ |
|
|
