Why I Chose To Get Rid of The Microwave...

For a while now, I've felt uncomfortable about having a microwave in my kitchen.

Not only did it clutter up my small kitchen, and take up valuable bench space, but on the odd occasions I used it to reheat leftovers, it just didn't "feel right".

Because, all the while, I was thinking about how it works - by making water molecules in the food vibrate at high frequencies, turning it into steam, and thereby heating the food.

But it also changes the chemical structure of the food, by distorting and deforming the molecules. One scientist even proved that it can destroy DNA.

I couldn't help wondering what that food  would do inside my body? Inside my children's little bodies?

If the structure was changed, could our bodies even recognise that it was "food"?

I was remembering how one independant organisation (Powerwatch) says that even when a microwave is working correctly, the radiation levels in your kitchen are likely to be higher than those coming from the local mobile phone tower.

(See Dr Mercola's article for more info.)

And then there were those studies that showed a decrease in white blood cells after people ate microwaved food. Less white blood cells equals less immune function - not exactly something I aspire to...

And even though I used it less and less, I still held onto it...."just in case"....

But with our house going up for sale, I decided to take the plunge. The microwave with the chipped paintwork inside (who knows what fumes it was depositing into our food?) is gone! For good...

And so far, I haven't missed it at all. And I'm revelling in the extra bench space and lack of clutter!

I have reached the conclusion that there is nothing which cannot be heated by placing under a grill, put into boiling water, or warmed in the oven.

I rarely used the microwave for defrosting, but if you do, it just takes a little forethought to get around that issue. Simply take the food out of the freezer a day or two in advance, and defrost in the fridge.

I figure that we are already being bombarded with radiation from every angle, so any changes which equal less radiation inside our own home, can only be positive...

Return to The Ingredient Detective website

Uncovered: The Secrets That Allow Dodgy Foods and Additives Onto Our Shelves

Ever since I began to investigate food and food additives, I've been puzzled over how some of these things were allowed into our food supply. Who on earth decided they were safe? And why?

After all, you don't need to be a genius to track down the nasty side-effects of some of these products, like MSG, or sodium nitrite, or aspartame.

So, how did they ever come to be approved?

I've been digging up some dirt on how the Australian approval process works, and I can't begin to tell you how thoroughly disgusted I am.

Which is why I'm writing it on my blog. I want the world to see this and be disgusted, too. This is my protest....

The Australian government body in charge of approving new foodstuffs, and ensuring the safety of our food, is called Food Standards Australia New Zealand (Henceforth referred to as FSANZ).

Their website reassures us that their vision is to ensure a safe food supply and a "well-informed" public.

(Yes! I agree! I am about to do my bit to inform the public.)

It may surprise you to know that when a company applies to get approval for their food/additive, FSANZ are allowed to accept a "fee" from that company to "expedite the approval process".

Their 2009 - 2010 budget estimate (which is available online if you do some digging around) reveals almost $1.5 million income from sources listed simply as "Other".

When questioned via Twitter, they conceded that companies may pay between $50,000 - $125,000 to "speed up the application process".

Now, $125,000 is probably peanuts when compared to the expense of developing the product, and the expected revenue once it hits the market, but...

How much pressure does this place on scientists to rule in favour of a company? Can they, in all honesty, claim to be "independant" when they are recieving funds from entities with a huge vested interest in their decisions?

Now, you would think that an organisation charged with the safety of our food supply, would be interested only in....the safety of our food supply!! But for some reason that I have yet to fathom, FSANZ must take into account World Trade Organisation obligations, such as "Barriers to Trade" when considering whether to approve novel foods (like Genetically Modified Foods) or food additives.

Now, lets think about this for a moment....

The World Trade Organisation's aim is to promote international trade, and to make sure that member countries do not "put up barriers" to trade from other member countries.

Right. So, when huge international corporations like Monsanto, apply to get their genetically modified crops approved in Australia, which is more important?? The safety of those crops, or worrying about whether we are "putting up trade barriers"....?

Apparently, refusing a product on the grounds that the public opposes it, is not a good enough excuse for the World Trade Organisation.

The body in charge of food safety needs to concern itself with food safety!! Please. Let someone else worry about WTO "obligations".

But the thing that infuriated me the most, was reading through their assessment for products currently seeking approval into Australia (At the time of writing, this includes two lines of genetically modified soybeans to be grown here in Australia, genetically modified corn for import, and a new artificial sweetener).

I have never taken it apon myself to read this literature before (but you can be assured that I will be, from here on in...) and I was shocked to discover that their assessment read more like a marketing proposal, than the unbiased, scientific assessment that I was expecting.

Just to give you an idea, here's a few things that I picked up from the application for the new artificial sweetener (it is no longer open for public submissions, but the Risk Assessment can still be found here.)

This new artificial sweetener, called Advantame, comes from the Ajinimoto Company (one of the world's largest suppliers of aspartame and MSG), and doubles as a flavour enhancer (how convenient.)

Advantame is 100 times sweeter than aspartame, and 20,000 times sweeter than sucrose. (Remember aspartame? The neurotoxin? You can refresh your memory here). It has been synthesised from aspartame and it's real name is: (Brace yourself...) L-Phenylalanine, N-[3-(3-hydroxy-4-methoxyphenyl) propyl]-L-alpha-aspartyl-, 2-methyl-ester, monohydrate.

 "According to the Applicant" there were several "related substances" that have been identified in the final product as "manufacturing impurities...These appear to include lead and arsenic. But only in trace amounts. (That's comforting.)

The toxicological database for Advantame is "extensive" and consists entirely of "unpublished studies sponsored by the applicant" (Even more comforting). In other words, the company did all the studies themselves, and have not published any, so none have been subjected to peer-review.

Among the issues brought up in the various animal studies, there was

  - lowered blood counts (including lowered Red Blood Cell count and T lymphocytes - possibly related to the point further down regarding the thymus gland - the site of T-Cell maturation),

 - mineralisation of the kidney's in females,

 - smaller weight of thymus gland (the thymus gland plays an important role in immune function - this sounds alarm bells to me...)

 - congestion of the lungs in males,

 - higher water consumption but lower urinary output (??? More alarm bells...)

 - lowered prothrombin times (this indicates how long it takes for blood to clot - an abnormal prothrombin time can be an indicator of liver disease).

- lowered spleen weight, and uterus and cervical weights in female dogs.

 - enlarged livers in male mice

 - rabbits appeared to be particularly sensitive to Advantame with female deaths reported, decreased ovarian weights, and also miscarriage.

Alarm bells getting louder and louder.

Many of these issues came up in several different studies involving different animals. The smaller thymus in males, for instance, was observed in studies with rats, and also with dogs. In fact, the male dogs being treated with high doses of Advantame, had thymus glands that were approximately half the size of the dogs in the control group!

Are you disturbed yet? I certainly am.

But here's what's even more disturbing....

For all of the problems mentioned above - every single one of them - there was an excuse for why these problems were not caused by the "treatment" (ie. feeding them Advantame). One of the excuses listed several times, was that the problem mustn't be treatment related, because it did not show up in both males AND females.

I am no scientist, but do we not make any allowances for differences between the sexes? Males and females are different! Some things may affect one sex more than the other, due to differences in body weight, metabolism or hormones.

Now, maybe they are right. Perhaps all of the problems mentioned are entirely coincidental...

But what if they're not...?

This product is proposed for use in flavoured milk products (among other things)....which are especially attractive to children. Would you take the risk? (No. Not me!)

The assessment concludes by saying: "There are no public health and safety issues associated with the proposed addition of Advantame to food". (Are you sure about that?!)

The assessments put forward for the genetically modified foods are no more reassuring, I'm afraid.

FSANZ does not take it apon themselves to perform any safety or toxicology studies. They rely apon the information given to them by the applicant.

And not only that, but once approved, FSANZ relies apon the applicant to inform them if any problems or health issues come to their attention. (Yes. Good luck with that!).

I am so outraged by this!! I believe this is too important to be taking risks with - we're talking about our food here, the very thing that sustains us - and it infuriates me to see our regulatory agencies glossing over problems.

I rang FSANZ and requested a meeting with their scientists. They told me this was not the "done thing", but changed their minds apon learning that I was planning to stand outside their building with a large sign.

After several attempts to organise a meeting, after which they did not return my calls, I decided I needed a new strategy. (I have since returned to work, so the standing out the front with a large sign plan has been put on the back-burner)

At first, I had a good mind to go to the Health Minister, however I've heard from several sources recently, that getting a hearing with the Health Minister is like "pulling hen's teeth".

I am now wondering if it would be more effective to go to my local Member of Parliament and voice my concerns. In my opinion, FSANZ needs a complete overhaul, not to mention more funding. It is embarrassing (not to mention puts them in a compromising position) that a government department needs to take fees from companies in order to run their agency.

Not good enough!!!

Return to The Ingredient Detective website

The Rise and Rise of GMO's in Australia.

More than 90% of cotton grown in Australia, is now genetically modified, and around 50,000 hectares of GM canola is now being grown in Victoria and Western Australia.

Bio-tech giant, Monsanto (the same company that gave the world Agent Orange) owns the patents on 90% of the world's 134 million hectares of GM crops. They are currently seeking approval to release GM soy in Australia.

The latest news out: researchers in the U.S are developing a GM corn that will contain swine flu vaccine...

It appears that GM has arrived, whether we like it or not.

Despite the questions over safety (animal studies in which rats were completely infertile after just 3 generations, increases in the amount of offspring who were stillborn or died shortly after birth, pigs giving birth to bags of water, etc, etc.).

And the issue of cross-contamination (that happened recently to an organic farmer in Western Australia, who can no longer be certified organic, because his neighbours GM canola escaped into his crop), it seems that the bio-tech companies are going to push this technology on us, and our governments are going to let it happen.

The vast majority of Australians would be shocked (and probably appalled) to discover that they are already eating genetically modified food. It is NOT on the label, nor will it be put on the label anytime soon.

The current labelling laws say that highly refined food (such as oils), GM food additives and flavours where the gene is not present in the finished food, less than 1% "unintended" contamination, meat/dairy that have been fed GM feed, and food prepared at point of sale do not have to be labelled.

(Basically, the vast majority of GM ingredients can get away with not being labelled.)

American estimates put GM ingredients in 70-90% of processed food. I'm not sure the figures would be that high in Australia, but I'm betting the numbers would still shock most people.

If you are one of those people and this is all news to you, don't feel guilty. The mainstream media have failed miserably to make the public aware of this. Apparently Charlie Sheen's partying habits are of more importance than the future of our food supply...

If YOU care about the future of our food supply (and I hope you do) here are 3 things you can start doing today.

1.) Learn how to grow some of your own vegetables, even if it's just salad greens on the windowsill and SAVE your seeds. Monsanto has been quietly buying up seed companies all over the world, and if the public stays apathetic about this issue, the day is going to come where you will not be able to buy a seed except a genetically modified one from Monsanto...

2. Download a copy of The True Food Guide (it's free) and then send the link to everyone you know. We are never going to make a difference on this, whilever so few people know what's really going on.

3. Watch The World According to Monsanto documentary. It goes for almost 2 hours so it takes a while to download but oh, so worth it! It's very hard to grasp the scale of this, or the corruption and arm-twisting going on behind the scenes, until you've watched the whole movie. I was in tears by the end.

Surveys consistently tell us that most consumers want proper labelling so that they can make an informed decision about the food they buy.

Recently, FSANZ (government body in charge of food safety and labelling, etc) handed down their Food Labelling Review Report, otherwise known as the Blewitt report.

(Or should that be the Blown-It Report...?)

After months of submissions by the public, and interest groups, they conceded that the issue of genetically-modified food had recieved the greatest number of submissions of any other topic...

Yet their new recommdations hardly differ from the current guidelines:

- Meat and dairy that have been fed GM feed will still not need to be labelled.

- Highly refined products will still not need to be labelled. (It would be too much burden on the food industry and too hard to police, so they say.)

- There is still the 1% "accidental" loophole, although they now recommend it be followed up with testing (which at least might stop one certain company, who was now been caught out 10 times with "accidental" contamination in baby formula.)

 - Restaurants will need to advise customers if their food contains a GM ingredient that would have been labelled, but most ingredients still won't be labelled, so it kind of defeats the whole purpose....

The other issue that bothers (annoys?) me is that when considering an application to allow a GM crop into Australia, the FSANZ do not conduct any of their own studies.

They rely on the company seeking approval to provide the studies (this is craziness, when you are dealing with companies who have wilfully and knowingly fudged studies and stooped to corruption and cover-ups in the past)...

AND they generally do not require any animal feeding studies to be done. Apparently, FSANZ can assess the safety of GM foods without the help of animal feeding studies, thank you very much!

(It says so right here on their website. Straight from the horses mouth. Pardon the pun.)

So the rats who were completely infertile after 3 generations don't count. Neither do the pigs giving birth to bags of water. Or guinea pigs with hair growing inside their mouths. Or the chickens and sheep who died after eating GM feed.

And...well. You get the picture..

Please, people. Do me a favour. Educate yourself on this issue. And everyone you know. Our governments have shown that they will not protect us when it comes to food safety.

FSANZ still maintains that if it's in our food supply it's safe to eat.

I beg to differ.

Return to The Ingredient Detective website

Why We DON'T Pay Enough For Our Food.

I've got a confession to make...

Up until last year, I did all my shopping based on price. I was completely proud of what a bargain-hunter I was, and that I could manage to feed my family of 3 (at the time), on $100 per week, including meat, fruit, vegetables and nappies.

This equated to roughly 1/10th of our total weekly income.

I bought 99c packets of white pasta without a smudgeon of a second thought, grabbed loaves of 99c bread.

I knew they weren't exactly healthy. But I didn't think they were overly unhealthy, either...

As I've read more and "educated" myself (None of this stuff was taught in school. Why, oh why not?!) I've had a change of heart about being a bargain-hunter.

I've come to realise that the shelf price in the supermarket doesn't reflect the true price of a product - not even the half of it.

Cheap food does not reflect the huge loss of biodiversity that intensive farming methods have caused, or huge swathes of rainforests - home to native tribes for thousands of years - lopped down to make way for those awfully useful soybean crops, that seem to end up in just about every processed food on the shelves, in some form or another.

Or the soils, completely destroyed of nutrients because the ground is forced to produce three harvests a year, instead of one, to maximise output. When that soil cannot produce any more, it is simply excavated out, and a new lot brought in.

It doesn't take into account the millions of illegal immigrants around the world, exploited and used to prop up the system, working long hours for pittance (if they're lucky), and living in absolute hell-ish conditions. If you doubt me, go and read Felicity Lawrence's book "Not On The Label" and be horrified over the injustice going on right under our noses.

The international slave trade is alive and well. It just has a different face now.

It gives no hint to hens living (existing) in less than an A4 page amount of space, fed a constant of supply of antibiotics and hormones in their drinking water, and never seeing the light of day, or feeling the grass beneath their feet.

Or hens bred specially to have breasts that are so disproportionately large (because we all want to eat chicken breast) that by the time they are killed, most birds are lame or cannot even hold themselves up.

Nor does it tell of intensive farmed livestock, like cows, being fed other ground up animals for protein, to make them grow as quickly as possible. Or standing knee-deep in their own urine and faeces.

Not so much as a newspaper headline, of third-world countries forced to open up their markets in the name of "globalisation", only to see their livelihoods and land swallowed up by giant transnational conglomerates who use up the resources, wreak havoc, send local farmers out of business and when the land can no longer cope, they pack up and leave.

Don't be fooled. Free trade does not equal fair trade.

The shelf price doesn't reflect the millions of tonnes of sugar and coffee dumped on the world markets by European countries, or corn and soy from the U.S, at artifically low prices because they've been produced with the help of massive government subsidies.

Nor does it reflect the third world farmers who grow those same products (without any subsidies) on land that is often better suited to those commodities, yet are gradually forced out of business because they simply cannot compete.

It certainly doesn't hint at the explosion in health-care costs due to "affluenza" diseases like hypertension, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and the likes. Or the parents who are continually struggling with hyperactive and difficult children, because of additives and colours in foods.

The point I'm trying to make is: the shelf price rarely (if ever) reflects the true price of a product. If we want to continue buying cheap food, you can be sure we are going to be paying for it in other areas. In higher taxes, loss of languages and cultures and biodiversity, loss of small businesses and family farms, loss of soil quality, loss of nutrition, loss of communities...Some of these are priceless!

Only a few decades ago, we spent one third of our incomes on food. Today, we spend just 10%.

As our incomes have grown, we've preferred to spend our new-found affluence on leisurely pursuits, entertainment and technology, rather than what sustains us.

The ironic part is that consumers hold enormous power - probably much more than a voter does, and most people seem blissfully unaware, that each time they buy a product, they are effectively casting their vote for that company and their practices and ethics.

The simple fact of the matter is, that companies will go where the money flows. Whilever we focus on buying cheap food, they'll use cheap means and cheap labour to produce it.

If we, on the other hand, prove our willingness to pay more for food that is better quality and has been produced ethically and responsibly, then companies will provide it. It's not rocket science!

The fact that we now have organic food in supermarkets is testament to the power of the consumer.

Please. Make an effort to learn where your food comes from and how it's been made, and if you don't like what you learn, then vote with your hip pocket. And even better, contact the company and tell them why you will/or will not be buying their product in future.

They'll soon get the hint. Their shareholders will see to that.

Return to The Ingredient Detective website

Toxic Waste....On Tap.

Greetings of the Season, everyone! I had grand visions in the weeks leading up to Christmas, of sharing recipes and tips for healthy finger food and desserts, but exams and essays got in the way.

But here's a promise...by next Christmas there will be a plethora of recipes and tips that you can use to create a healthy - but yummy - celebration meal.

In 2011, I plan to get more involved in several activist causes. One of those causes is fluoride in our drinking water.

A couple of months ago, I sent an email to members of my local parliament, raising concerns about the use of fluoride in our water supplies.

I got several fob-you-off letters (you know the kind? Polite but unmoved.). One minister helpfully informed me that our local government now uses fluorosilicic acid, because it is "safer for those handling it".

Right.

No mention of safety for the people drinking it...No mention either, that fluorosilicic acid is a waste product from the fertiliser industry, and if that industry were to dispose of it properly, it would cost them millions of dollars.

I wonder if she has ever read the Material Safety Data Sheet, which clearly states that it is a Schedule 7 poison.

(Schedule 7 poisons are "substances with a high potential for causing harm at low exposure and which require special precautions during manufacture, handling, storage or use".)

The Health Minister informed me it was their stance, that water fluoridation is the most "socially equitable" and efficient means of preventing dental caries across the community.

(Strangely, no-one made any mention of tackling one of the causes of the dental caries problem - high amounts of sugar in the diet. Guess that belongs in the too-hard basket.)

Personally, I fail to see anything socially equitable about forcing people to buy bottled water or expensive filters, in order to avoid a toxic waste in the tap water.

The other issue I have with fluoride is infant exposure due to powdered formula-feeding. Here are a few comments on the issue:

"If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride." (American Dental Association, 2006.)

"In Boston, for example, more than 60% of exclusively formula-fed babies exceed the safe dose of fluoride on any given day." (Environmental Working Group, 2006.)

"infant formulas should still be prepared using non-fluoridated water". (Clarkson JJ and McLoughlin J, International Dental Journal, 2000.)

Here's the thing. Of all the infant formulas I've looked at, none of them listed any instructions regarding fluoride on the label. It simply says to use cooled boiled water.

But boiling water does not remove fluoride...

Meanwhile, my busy Health Minister has been throwing fundraising barbeques for cancer and opening new hospital wards.

Which is rather ironic, since fluoride has been linked to cancer AND genetic damage, SIDS, Depression, Down's Syndrome, Thyroid Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, Osteoporosis...to name just a few!!

So, my "representatives" can expect to hear more from me in 2011.

Return to The Ingredient Detective website