2013-05-23T22:20:09-04:00 Harriet Sugar-Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=harriet-sugarmiller Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Harriet Sugar-Miller Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2907228 2013-04-09T12:27:56-04:00 2013-04-09T12:34:09-04:00

Harriet Sugar-Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harriet-sugarmiller/
The pungent, stinky, tear-inducing qualities come from a host of sulfur compounds in the onions,
explained Dr. Irwin Goldman, a researcher and prof at the University of Wisconsin who's wild about onions and agriculture and their relation to human health. And the sulfur compounds are extremely healthy -- harbouring the potential to lower your blood sugar, blood pressure and cholesterol, to thin your blood, to bolster your immune system and to fight cancer directly by helping your liver detox carcinogens.

Vidalias are sweet because they're grown in the low sulfur soils of Georgia, USA.

Onions grown in high sulfur soils are the most potent, Goldman said in a phone interview, and
and long-storage onions -- the red and yellow ones grown all over the world above the 40 degree latitude -- are highest in sulfur.

Onions also contain flavonoids, pigments that produce colour and act as antioxidants, protecting your DNA from damage.

And again, the dark yellow and red varieties come out on top -- containing more flavonoids and exhibiting more antioxidant activity than sweet southern Vidalias and pure white onions. In fact, shallots -- the small onions with yellow skins -- actually rank highest.

One of those flavonoids, quercetin, has been identified as inhibiting the body's production of VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor), a protein produced by cells that stimulates the growth of blood vessels and thus promotes the growth and spread of tumors.

Quercetin is higher in yellow and red onions than in white ones, and concentrates in the outer layers, including the skin. That means select the smaller onions, peel them gently -- and throw the precious skins into your next soup stock, or at least your compost pile.

Onions require some advance prep: Cut them and then let them sit for about a half an hour, Goldman advised. That will allow the enzymes in the onions to get to work and develop the full complement of sulfur compounds -- at least 50 of them, it seems

And while you're waiting, might it be useful to stick around and snort some of those sulfur fumes? Funny you should ask, suggested Goldman. He's been hoping to study people working at onion ring processing plants, who cry every day. Might they be inhaling some anti-cancer and other health benefits from sulfur in the air? If only he could get the funding...

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2128491 2012-11-14T08:02:40-05:00 2013-01-14T05:12:01-05:00

Harriet Sugar-Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harriet-sugarmiller/
Here's a primer, based on an interview with Dr. Suhasini Modem, a PhD in plant physiology at Michigan's Wayne State University who studies the potent species.



Best Practices for Using Garlic

1. Smash, crush or cut it, and then let it sit for 15 minutes or so before using it. That will allow the enzyme allinase to convert the compound allin to its active form, allicin, which fights cancer, Modem says. "Finely sliced garlic should be stable for a few ( four to six) hours at room temperature," she adds, and two to three days in the fridge. Don't waste your money on pre-chopped versions; they've lost their potential.

2. Eat garlic raw. By adding garlic raw at the end of your recipe, instead of cooking with it, you'll preserve all the anti-cancer properties, says Modem. Sauteeing garlic at medium temperatures for two minutes completely destroys its ability to inhibit the growth of cancer cells, Modem says (and yes, she let the garlic sit before cooking it.)

Boiling garlic also destroys its anti-cancer benefits. On the other hand, other researchers have found that cooking garlic (microwaving for 60 seconds, cooking it 45 minutes in the oven) partially -- but not totally -- destroyed its anti-cancer properties, again assuming you let the garlic percolate.

My take on the conflict? Your decision, but in this case -- albeit not always -- raw's the safer bet.

3. And combine your fresh, raw garlic with other healthy foods-perhaps with olive oil, Modem suggests. Or, according to an Italian study, perhaps with onions. Studies from India indicate tomatoes. Or according to another study, even with selenium, found in Brazil nuts and selenium-rich soils.

Hmmm. Anybody itching to sample a recipe for green beans with Brazil nut-garlic paste?]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1964928 2012-10-26T17:47:55-04:00 2012-12-26T05:12:01-05:00

Harriet Sugar-Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harriet-sugarmiller/ is filled with anti-cancer compounds, but you have to know how to handle it to reap the special rewards.

I recently conducted an email interview with food scientist Dr. Paul Thornalley, of the University of Warwick, who has lots of advice for us consumers.

Rule #1: Keep the touch gentle. Eat cabbage raw or lightly cooked.

Cooking cabbage at high temperatures for prolonged periods destroys the active enzyme myrosinase, needed to turn compounds called glucosinolates into others called isothiocyanates, which in turn are responsible for the anti-cancer actions.

Translation please? Cabbage rolls just won't deliver the goods. In fact, by boiling leaves in water, Thornalley says, the healthy glucosinolates will end up in the liquid.

Rule #2: When you cut cabbage, make sure the pieces are fairly large -- a centimetre or more. (That's a little less than half an inch, and yes, that's big). Smaller cuts, says Dr. Thornally, will destroy the enzyme's ability to create that cascade of actions.

Rule #3: Don't let cut cabbage sit on the counter for more than two to three hours.
It will lose its magic compounds. Instead, keep cut cabbage in the fridge, where the compounds should last for several days, he says.

So if you're not counting on cabbage rolls or finely-shredded coleslaw for your daily dose of cancer-fighting crucifers, what can you do with that hardy head of cabbage instead? Here are some ideas (from my humble kitchen, not Thornalley's lab):

BLOG CONTINUES BELOW SLIDESHOW



• Chunky Coleslaw -- Dress it with extra virgin cold pressed olive oil and a little vinegar. Add scallions, cut on the diagonal, and some caraway or cumin seeds. For an Asian vinaigrette, use a dash of cold sesame oil.

• Steamed cabbage -- Use a steamer and a little bit of water, and cook quickly. Then add some tasty seeds or sauce. Or throw the plain steamed cabbage into a bowl of already-cooked soup (instead of cooking it for a long time with the soup, which will destroy the essential enzymes.)

• Lightly sautéed cabbage -- Saute briefly in olive oil on low to medium heat. Place the mixture inside a lettuce wrap with some other veggies and an Asian-inspired dressing or use as the base for a moo shu platter.

• Sauerkraut -- It's simply raw cabbage that's been fermented, meaning healthy bacteria are added, which increases the cancer-fighting properties. Look for local brands that haven't been pasteurized (heated in order to destroy germs.) Or make your own. For a more potent anti-cancer recipe, add some extra turmeric to mustard and mix with the kraut.

• Kimchi- -- fermented cabbage, Korean style. Find a local supplier who doesn't use loads of sugar to counter the intensity. And be forewarned: Korean red pepper powder can be explosive. Once again, a light touch prevails!]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2017859 2012-10-25T13:28:09-04:00 2012-12-25T05:12:01-05:00

Harriet Sugar-Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harriet-sugarmiller/ are not declining as should be expected, reports marine chemist Dr. Ken Buesseler in an article appearing tomorrow in Science magazine. We need to know why, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute scientist has been saying publicly for months now.

Buesseler has been at the forefront of an international effort to study Fukushima's footprint and recently analyzed the data Japan publishes regularly on contamination levels in fish. His conclusion: Perhaps there's a continuing source of radioactive material in the ocean -- hotspots of contamination on the ocean floor and/or low level leaks that haven't been plugged.

How are the Japanese reacting? While Japan's government has been sampling fish extensively, its work is "more about seeing if levels in fish are below some threshold, and less about oceanographic context and interpretation of various sources and sinks, " Buesseler said in an email interview.

The problem is primarily radioactive cesium, which accumulates in fish and can stick around in the environment for up to 300 years.

According to Buesseler's analysis of Japan's nearly 9000 samples, bottom-feeding fish register the most contamination -- a category that includes cod, conger, flounder, halibut, pollock, rockfish, skate and sole. In August, a pair of greenlings, bottom feeders caught 20 kilometres offshore of Fukushima, contained the highest levels yet -- 258 times those that Japan deems safe for human consumption. Up to then, the highest levels had been seen in Japan's cherry salmon.

Indeed, fish that live near the surface -- called "pelagic" fish and including salmon, mackerel, seabass, tuna and amberjack -- are also continuing to show contamination, as are freshwater fish, which excrete radiation less efficiently than ocean species. But according to the stats, the vast majority of fish caught off the northeast coast of Japan are within the limits deemed safe for consumption -- limits that Japan tightened significantly earlier this year. Reassuring, but is eating their fish worth the risk?

Last week, to my chagrin, my husband ordered sushi in one of Montreal's finest Japanese restaurants. Among the offerings: flounder -- bottom feeders -- from somewhere in Japan. From where? They didn't know.

Fortunately, Japan's federal authorities have restricted fishing off of Fukushima prefecture (other than for sampling), but elsewhere, fishing is allowed. Fish do migrate, of course. And until Japan's Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters deems otherwise, safety is in the hands of the prefects, not the feds. If radiation exceeds standards in any sample of fish caught within the prefect's jurisdiction, the local government must request that fishing of that species stop. "To date, the reactions of fishers have been in full conformity with the requests made," Japan's website states.

Nice to know, but Japan does need to address Buesseler's concern: Why are the radiation levels not declining, as they should be if the water were cleaner?

Next month, Buesseler is off to the troubled land to lead a scientific symposium in conjunction with his colleague at the University of Tokyo. Let's hope they can get the authorities to start figuring out why the situation is still fishy.

Read the Woods Hole press release.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1723226 2012-08-03T09:23:19-04:00 2012-10-03T05:12:02-04:00

Harriet Sugar-Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harriet-sugarmiller/
For more than 20 years, the grande dame of flaxseed research, Dr. Lilian Thompson of the University of Toronto, has been studying the effects of flaxseed on cancer, especially in the breast.


How does it work?

Flaxseed is rich in an omega 3 fatty acid called alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), which inhibits inflammatory chemicals that stimulate the growth of malignant cells, as well as in lignans, compounds that have been shown to reduce the growth and spread of cancer cells.

Lignans, in fact, are phytoestrogens -- that is, estrogens from plants -- and contrary to what many of us have been led to believe, plant estrogens may protect us from the stronger estrogens our bodies produce and the xenoestrogens found in environmental chemicals. How's that?

"Phytoestrogens have been estimated to be 500-1,000 times weaker than human estrogen," says Dr. Jeanne Wallace, a PhD in nutrition who counsels cancer patients on diet and supplements. "By docking on estrogen receptors in the body, phytoestrogens may prevent activation of these receptors by our own estrogen and xenoestrogens."

Plus, flaxseed increases Sex Hormone Binding Globulin, a compound that binds estrogen, thus potentially reducing the amount of freely circulating estrogen that can act on breast tissue.

All estrogen, in fact, is not created equal. The liver metabolizes estrogen and changes it into different daughter compounds, "which have differing effects on breast tissue. 2-OH estrogens are favorable, offering protective effects, whereas 16-OH estrogens are unfavorable, and a preponderance of 16-OH estrogen is linked with an increased risk of breast cancer," says Wallace.

Cruciferous vegies, soy foods and fish oil shift the balance toward the good 2-OH estrogens, according to Wallace.

So does flaxseed, Thompson says.

"Flaxseed (10 to 25 g/daily) has been shown to increase the ratio (of 2 to 16 estrogens) in pre- and post-menopausal women, indicating a protective effect," explains Thompson, in a chapter she wrote recently for "The Encyclopedia of Dietary Supplements."

Other mechanisms are also possibly at work here, she adds, and include reducing the activity of enzymes such as aromatase that are involved in estrogen synthesis and the expression of some genes, proteins, hormones and other growth factors that stimulate tumors.

Let's look at the studies thus far

The animal studies: Several studies indicate that flaxseed has anti-cancer effects and does not promote breast tumor growth, Thompson writes, in article published this year by the U.S. Flax Institute.

The epidemiological studies (studies of human populations with and without disease) suggest that lignans can reduce the risk of breast cancer and prolong survival of those living with it, including pre and especially postmenopausal women, she points out. High lignan intake has been associated with tumors with more favorable prognostic factors. And while lignans appear to be effective on both estrogen positive and estrogen negative tumors, one study showed they have a stronger effect on ER-PR- than on ER+PR+ ones, she says.

It's the clinical studies in humans that are considered the gold standard, however, assuming they're conducted at their best (i.e., subjects include a control group, are randomly allocated and double-blinded so that nobody knows if she's taking the flaxseed or placebo.)

Several years ago, Thompson conducted the first clinical trial of flaxseed -- on postmenopausal women with breast cancer. She fed 25 g flaxseed or placebo for approximately five weeks to women awaiting surgery. The results were promising, showing significant changes for the better in the tumors of those who ate flaxseed.

"Clinical studies on breast cancer patients or premenopausal women with high risk of getting breast cancer are very limited," says Thompson, "but those that have been conducted suggest that flaxseed is able to reduce the growth of breast tumors in postmenopausal women and that SDG (the main lignan) may also reduce the risk of getting breast cancer."

Today, several clinical trials continue to investigate the almighty seed.

So, based on the evidence thus far, would it be reasonable to incorporate flaxseed into your diet?

If you don't have breast cancer, yes, eat it, Thompson said in an email interview.

If you do have breast cancer, her answer is "Maybe, based on our clinical trial but more clinical trials with larger number of patients may be needed to confirm it."

And what if you're taking other anti-cancer drugs or doing radiation? Again, it's too early for the wise doctor to answer. "Animal studies suggest that flaxseed does not interfere with tamoxifen treatment but rather enhances its effectiveness," she said in the interview, and flaxseed oil has been shown to increase the effectiveness of herceptin, but clinical trials have not yet been done. One is in progress, however, on the interaction of flaxseed with aromatase inhibitors, a primary drug used to treat the disease. But no study has looked at radiation and the seed. Meanwhile, you'll have to make your own decision: Talk to your doctor; weigh the evidence and the risks.

What kind and dose of flaxseed is best?

Choose either brown or yellow flaxseed but be sure you're getting the most potent kind: One form of the yellow flaxseed called solin has been genetically engineered to have low ALA.

Health guru Dr. Andrew Weil recommends 1-2 tablespoons of ground flaxseed a day for healthy women, and Thompson agrees it's a reasonable dose -- even for those with breast cancer, she said, based on her qualifiers discussed above.

Thompson's breast cancer studies have used 25 grams -- or 2 ½ T -- of ground flaxseed per day. "It's unknown what the effects of greater than 25 grams/day might be," she said in the interview. "Considering current data, we know that up to 25 g (2.5 T) did not cause adverse effect on breast cancer patients in short term studies. In healthy postmenopausal women, up to 40 g also did not show adverse effects."

Because pulverizing the seeds releases the lignans and fragile fatty acids, it's good to grind daily -- and keep any leftover powder in a small, dark airtight container in the freezer or fridge. Chew well, and drink plenty of water. In addition to its anti-cancer effects, flaxseed is a laxative, so start small and gradually increase your dose.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1664331 2012-07-12T07:57:45-04:00 2012-09-11T05:12:10-04:00

Harriet Sugar-Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harriet-sugarmiller/ they've been shown to inhibit cancer cell progression and induce cell death.


Think lemons, limes, oranges -- especially the peel. In fact, the highest content of limonene is found in the white spongy inner parts. Steep them in water, sip in teas, munch on the softened rinds (but not too much or it will do a number on your teeth.)

And it's not just the limonene at work here. Another terpene called perillyl alcohol, derived from citrus peel (and from lavender and mint and lemongrass and more), has also demonstrated anti-cancer properties in some studies.

The research on these aromatic molecules has been done in several types of cancer cells -including liver, gastric, colon and lymphoma. Structurally some terpenes are similar to human hormones, and some research has shown them effective against breast and prostate cancer cells as well.

How do they supposedly work? The proposed mechanisms are many, including stimulating production of enzymes that help the liver detox carcinogens and causing cancer cells to differentiate into a more benign version.

So far, most of the work has been done in the petri dish and lab animals, but promising results have some scientists calling for research and use in humans. "The efficacy of terpenoids ...against breast or prostate cancers as demonstrated in pre-clinical studies provides strong support for their clinical use in treatment and even prevention of human hormone-related cancers," says one group of researchers.

Naturally, more studies are needed before science can declare them proven to help- or not, but with so much encouraging evidence, what's the harm in swigging a bit of citrus water all day long? Just make sure the citrus is organic.

Here's how to make a refreshing limonene concoction: Add lemon juice plus the rinds of organic lemons, limes and oranges to a pitcher of water, and keep refilling with liquid. Refrigerate overnight. The rinds will keep releasing their intense flavours for days.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1638053 2012-07-03T07:54:09-04:00 2012-09-02T05:12:16-04:00

Harriet Sugar-Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harriet-sugarmiller/
Open heart surgery in her infancy, two months on a respirator, her first five in hospital, nine more surgeries in her short 18 years (fortunately, not open heart ones). That's my courageous, loving, happy daughter, fortunately living in Canada, for I cannot imagine what it must cost in the US to raise a special needs kid.

I need a Rolodex to keep up with her doctors (showing my age, I know) -- cardiology, immunology, endocrinology, orthopedics, physiatry, ENT. And those are just the diagnosticians. Then we have the therapists: speech, physical, occupational therapists, whom she's been seeing all her life. All of this for free.

Schooling for kids with physical handicaps? intellectual disabilities? Yes, that's free, too.

Organizations like The Friendship Circle that provide a social life outside of cyberspace -- free.

Inquiring minds at McGill open to exploring alternative therapies -- such as immobilizing her "good" arm and forcing the stroke-damaged one to do repetitive activities. Free, plus it helped.

On Canada Day, my daughter and several of her special needs friends were working at the Y Country Camp in the Laurentians, where the directors have embraced our kids and given them jobs in the dining hall. Not only is it free -- but the kids are getting paid!

What do I love about Canada? On a visit to Montreal, Bill Clinton put his finger on it: We're a culture set on helping our fellow humans.

Dear Canada and dear Canadians, thank you for making this journey possible. Dear parents of special needs kids living in the U.S., are you broke yet?

Note: The author was born and reared in the U.S., then fell in love with a Canadian and his country. She's been here 30 years.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1617930 2012-06-25T12:28:53-04:00 2012-08-25T05:12:04-04:00

Harriet Sugar-Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harriet-sugarmiller/
Butyrate "exerts a potent anti-microbial action against bacteria, viruses and toxins," said Dr. Roberto Berni Canani in an email interview. Canani is an MD, PhD with the European Laboratory for the Investigation of Food Induced Diseases at the University of Naples in Italy.

According to his and other studies, butyrate protects against colon cancer.

How so? Butyrate exerts several positive effects on colon cells. He explains:

• It regulates cell growth and differentiation. (Cancer cells that are well differentiated, or low grade, behave more like normal cells; they grow more slowly and are less likely to spread than poorly differentiated ones.)

• It stimulates the growth of normal healthy cells, and inhibits the growth of abnormal, potentially cancerous ones.

• And it has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant capacities.

And there's more, plenty more. Butyrate heals the lining of the colon and can lessen the side effects of chemo, said Dr. Jeanne Wallace in an email interview. Wallace, a PhD in nutrition, runs a consulting company for people with cancer.

Plus, by promoting good colon health, butyrate can protect you against other kinds of cancers -- including estrogenic ones, she says. Sound like an odd connection?

Your liver breaks down estrogens and other toxins and then dumps them into your gut, where fibre binds them and moves them out your body -- or so you hope. If your colon doesn't function well -- your transit time is slow, you don't have enough fiber or good intestinal bacteria -- all those bad bacteria thriving in your gut can reabsorb the hormones and carcinogens and put them back into your system.

For that reason, nutrition consultants often recommend fibre, fermented foods, plus a good brand of probiotics, which also contain lots of healthy bacteria.

Sauerkraut has firepower -- butyrate, fiber and is from the cruciferous family of veggies, which contain several compounds that fight cancer. Few foods can boast all that.

Trouble is: many people don't like its strong taste. To soften the bite, add some mustard, peppercorns, juniper berries and grape tomatoes, and warm up the mixture. Then, toss some caraway seeds on top to neutralize the incendiary after-effects.

And P.S. -- Please hold the hot dog!]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1568048 2012-06-11T15:47:04-04:00 2012-08-11T05:12:07-04:00

Harriet Sugar-Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harriet-sugarmiller/
In Bush's case, he simply side-stepped Congress, the branch of government that's supposed to make laws, and surreptitiously destroyed decades of environmental improvements by rewriting rules at the administrative level of government instead.

What do I mean?

When the U.S. Congress passes a bill, the administrative agency responsible for the dossier creates regulations that allow it to carry out the law's intention. Administrative agencies and departments -- the Environmental Protection Agency, the departments of Justice and Energy -- are part of the Executive branch of the federal government, and when a new Chief Executive takes office, he's free to hire, fire and review the regulatory framework that he inherits. While Congressional representatives are highly accountable, changes made through regulations often occur without public scrutiny.

Bush was able to destroy the substantial gains the U.S. had made in air and water quality over several decades by changing the rules and rulers within his EPA and Energy departments. But like Harper has recently done, he tripped up when he overstepped his bounds.

In 2002, unable to get his environmental agenda through Congress, Bush, through rule changes, blocked progress on addressing carbon emissions and effectively eliminated many environmental safeguards, including regulations protecting wildlife in national forests and others requiring old power plants to install pollution control devices when they made significant improvements.

That did it! Citizens groups and several states took the Bush administration to court, arguing that the regulatory changes were so sweeping that they violated the mandates of the laws Congress had adopted. Fortunately, the U.S. system of checks and balances allows the judicial branch to kick in when the executive branch gets out of control.

"Over and over again during the Bush administration, the courts overturned agency actions that threatened to gut environmental safeguards," said Trip Van Noppen, President of Earthjustice, a U.S. environmental law group active in many of the cases. "The public, speaking through many citizen groups and through state governments, were able to show that the Bush actions were contrary to sound science and to the law," he said in an email interview.

So how does this apply to Harper? Granted, our system of parliamentary "democracy" functions differently, but is this just something we have to accept with a majority government?

Recently, more than 1,000 employees at the Department of Oceans and Fisheries were told their jobs may be in jeopardy. Harper is eliminating the DFO program that monitors contaminants in our oceans. We also learned, through media leaks, that he's eliminating key smokestack monitors who oversee our air.

The proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that will feed Asia will have to cross 600 rivers and streams to bring energy from Alberta to B.C., and Harper is bulldozing his authority to make sure he gets his way.

Like Bush, he's trying to replace statutes, laws written by Parliament, with regulations, much easier to change, and with ministerial discretion, giving his cabinet ministers huge leeway in deciding the scope of environmental assessments.

But he goes even further than Bush: With the help of his docile MPs, he's gutting statutes -- the Fisheries Act, for example, which requires federal review if a project is to adversely impact fish habitats. (Many scientists are outraged. The new laws limit review to fish valuable for First Nations, commercial or recreational purposes.)

He's repealing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act altogether and replacing it with "another weaker statute that does not legally require any environmental assessment of any project and mainly serves as a framework to maximize the discretion in the Prime Minister's hands on any given environmental assessment," University of Ottawa law professor Stephen Hazell explained in an email interview. (The new statute also makes it harder for environmental groups to intervene in the assessment process.)

And he's embedding his proposed environmental changes in a 400-plus page budget bill, thus leaving decisions to a finance committee instead of a more appropriate one, such as the Standing Committee on Oceans and Fisheries.

Unlike Bush, however, much of what Harper is doing is perfectly legit, Hazell says. "The difference between Bush's and Harper's approach is that Harper has a majority of MPs in Parliament so he can destroy environmental statutes as well as regulations."

Ouch!

Are you as outraged by Harper's modus operandi as the rest of Canadians who've taken to protesting? If so, you can express your concern by signing this petition along with more than 40,000 others who have already done so.

Harper, we know what you're up to -- and we're not going to let you get away with Bush-whacking our precious resources.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1553537 2012-05-30T14:44:05-04:00 2012-07-30T05:12:13-04:00

Harriet Sugar-Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harriet-sugarmiller/ Buck and Upton warned us. They're the two U.S. scientists who told the U.S. government early this year that there might be a problem with some migratory fish. Possible culprits: your salmon and tuna.

How correct were they? How will history's largest accidental deposit of radiation in the ocean affect our Pacific fish?

Despite the decades of nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean, most experts agree that up to now, Pacific fish have been quite clean, when it comes to radiation. The reason: Pacific Ocean currents are so strong and waters so vast that radiation gets extremely diluted.

What are researchers finding post-Fukushima?
Dr. Ken Buesseler, a world expert in marine radioactivity with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, is leading an international research team tracking Fukushima's trails in the Pacific. He -- and other scientists -- have found radiation up to 600 km off Japan's coast. The amount they've found thus far does not pose a risk to humans or marine life, they say, although a few scientific voices are raising doubts.

But Buesseler warns there is a problem: The reactors are still leaking, and the radioactivity levels in the ocean at the power plant have not been declining in recent months. "Levels of radioactivity found in fish are not decreasing and there appear to be hot spots on the seafloor that are not well mapped," he said. He calls the trend worrisome and is encouraging scientists worldwide to work together in order to understand Fukushima's full impact.

"We still don't know the answers to many important questions concerning the impacts of Fukushima radionuclides on the oceans. For example, we still don't have a good handle on how much radioactivity was released, and we don't fully understand where it has ended up, and that holds for the ocean waters, seafloor sediments, and for marine biota, such as tuna," he explained in an email interview.

And what are the specific concerns?
When it comes to radiation in the waters, cesium- 134 and 137 are among the key elements. They stick around much longer than the short lived radioactive iodine you've heard about -- 134 for about two decades; 137 for about 300 years. (A general rule of thumb: radionuclides remain in the environment for about 10 times their physical half lives.) These elements travel in water, with the currents, and in air, thus getting deposited in rain; and cesium-137, along with strontium-90, can both accumulate in fish.

Then there's plutonium, which can stick to particles that settle on the sea floor or to sediments directly. Plutonium is highly reactive. (Buesseler has also detected radioactive silver from Fukushima. Results of tests for plutonium and strontium are pending.)

Understandably, experts are much more worried about the poor Japanese than those of us sitting comfortably across the Pacific. "I am very concerned...for those Japanese who may consume contaminated food from the areas surrounding Fukushima," said Jarvis Caffrey in an email. Caffrey is a radiation health specialist at the University of Oregon and a member of Buesseler's research team. "I am still not worried about us here in North America."

And what are the Japanese finding?
Fortunately, the Japanese are being somewhat transparent, testing the marine life in the affected area -- both fish life and plants -- and posting results regularly on the Internet. As they readily admit, they've detected levels of radiation higher than their own standards in many seaweed and fish located near the reactor.

The sand lance, for example, which lives on the coastal surface and is used to make fish feed, was among the first organisms in which excess radiation was detected. The seabass -- a species that dwells in the mid-level waters -- also revealed high levels.

Scientists agree, however, and the Japanese numbers suggest, that the biggest concern at this point are the fish that feed on sediments at the bottom of the sea along with filter feeders such as mussels and clams that take in food by filtering water and accumulate toxins.

"Many of the bottom dwelling fish off Fukushima have levels of radioactive cesium that remain above the limits considered safe for seafood consumption in Japan," said Buesseler. "I worry primarily about the near-shore crab, flounder, mussel/clam and seaweed pathways over there," Caffrey added in an email interview.

Will any of these contaminated plants or fish work their way up the food chain or directly onto our North American plates?

What seafoods are the Japanese selling?
Fortunately, the Japanese have shut down fishing in the immediate area and banned the selling of contaminated species. They appear to be engaged in intensive surveillance -- inspecting fish from offshore nearby prefectures as well. And effective April 1, 2012, their standards for acceptable levels of radiation became much stricter -- in the case of cesium-137, 10 times as strict as U.S. and Canadian standards.

But Japan is still exporting some fish. From where? It's hard to know. Japan's ban on fishing only covers an area 30 km from the site, and nobody seems to know much more than that about exactly where the fish are coming from. Both Canada and the U.S. are still importing Japanese foods, including fish from their seas.

What are the U.S. and Canadian governments doing to protect us?
This we know for sure: they're not inspecting all Japanese imports. Right after the incident, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) launched an emergency plan -- a sampling and testing strategy to monitor radiation in Japanese products. All food products they tested were "well below Health Canada's actionable levels for radioactive material," they said. In June 2011, they discontinued that plan. Since then, products from Japan have been getting the same scrutiny as products from elsewhere. The government still monitors radiation in imported foods to the same degree it did prior to the disaster; at this point, they have no plans for extensive testing of foods from Japan.

And the FDA? Since March 2011, the FDA has tested 199 samples of seafood coming in from Japan and performed field exams, using radiation detectors, on 40 per cent of the seafood products entering the U.S. To date, nothing has been of concern.

Almost 200 samples in 14 months, amid reports that radiation levels are not declining? Does that put you at ease? The FDA's post-Fukushima seafood statement still proclaims loudly and clearly that the Japanese sandlance is "the only Japanese fish with levels of radiation exceeding standards," and it buries the truth -- that many other fish exceed standards -- in fine print hidden elsewhere on its site.

Beyond Japan: Tuna and salmon and other migratory fish

At the start of the crisis and in spring 2012, the Canadian government tested a few samples of domestic migratory fish. Again, results were "well below the actionable level for radionuclides. ... At the present time, the CFIA is not planning further testing of domestic fish from the Pacific region for radionuclides," said a spokesperson in an email. Health Canada, however, will be examining the Vancouver food supply in the upcoming year, including fish caught off its shores.

Does the FDA have plans to test domestic migratory fish? They won't tell us unless and until they implement a program, said a spokesperson. Well, should they be testing?

"Radioactive contamination from the nuclear disaster in Japan has not emerged as a food safety problem for consumers in the United States," concluded natural resources policy experts Eugene H. Buck and Harold F. Upton in a report they prepared for the U.S. Congress.

Neither the radiation carried through ocean currents nor the radiation carried through atmospheric currents and deposited via rainfall in North America and the Pacific is a problem, they conclude. (The report is dated January 2012; much of the evidence it relies on is from the early days of the disaster.)

But the authors raise this possibility: migratory fish from Japan or from elsewhere in the Pacific could feed in contaminated waters and then swim to U.S. or Canadian waters and get caught. Albacore tuna and salmon, they suggest, are two potential culprits.

So what about our tuna?
Tuna, we know, do migrate across the Pacific. And now comes a report from Dr. Nicholas S. Fisher, a professor at the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences at State University of New York, that bluefin tuna caught off the San Diego coast just 4 months after the disaster are carrying Fukushima's footprint. Not to worry, however, Fisher tells us. The levels are low, he says, and "there is little evidence that these radioactivity levels would pose a risk to public health." He'll better understand any risks after measuring radioactivity in tuna arriving from Japan this summer, he said in an email interview. "But we do not expect serious risks from these newly arriving fish."

"This new article is a clear example of how a contaminant release on one side of the Pacific can quickly reach the other side and be detected, here in tuna," said Buesseler. I wonder what will happen to those tuna as toxins build up over their long lives.

What about our salmon? Is that a problem?
With wild Pacific salmon caught off the U.S. and Canadian coasts, you have nothing to worry about, says Dr. David Welch, a world expert on salmon migratory patterns. Salmon from Japan do not migrate as far as the North American coast, he says, and likewise, our North American species do not migrate as far west as Japan's coastal waters.

Mackerel, another migratory species, also don't cross the Pacific, he says. Instead, they travel up and down the coast.

But look what's coming our way -- the Kuroshio Current
You have to see this map -- a moving projection of the Kuroshio, a strong ocean current that flows eastward off the coast of Japan and could be carrying many of the longer-lived radioactive elements.

The current moves toward the U.S. Pacific coast (in fact, it kept the radiation from travelling southwards), then mixes with another current and moves up to Alaska. The elements in the current are projected to arrive near the U.S. west coast in about four years. (Don't confuse this with the debris you've seen; that gets pushed along faster by the wind. In fact some of it has already arrived, but many experts say it probably doesn't present a radiation problem. The tsunami pushed the debris offshore before most of the radiation was released.)

By the time any Fukushima elements arrive here in that current, most experts say, they will be so diluted as to have no effect. Meanwhile, could our fish become contaminated by feeding in that current -- or by feeding on fish that have fed there? Again, Welch is not concerned about our salmon. "Nothing we currently know about salmon suggests that any North American salmon go anywhere close to the areas of higher radiation levels," he said.

But what about your beloved tuna? We'll have to wait for those answers. Personally, I've been avoiding it for years because much of it is laden with mercury. Most tuna live longer than salmon and thus have more time to accumulate pollutants. As Salmon Says, wild Pacific salmon's a healthier choice.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1527921 2012-05-19T12:35:12-04:00 2012-07-19T05:12:11-04:00

Harriet Sugar-Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harriet-sugarmiller/
The catch with salmon and all oily fish is that the healthy omega-3s you're after and the pollutants from industry you're trying to avoid BOTH live in fat. That means you need to eat enough fish to get your omega-3 ration, but limit your intake to avoid too many toxins.

Because all the species of salmon differ in the quantity and quality of their fat, your weekly ration will depend on the type you're eyeing. With sockeye, you'd need around a small can a week. With pink, you could almost double that amount. Why the difference? Sockeye is fattier and lives longer, hence it accumulates more pollutants.

1/ And what about fresh salmon? The wild Pacific? It's almost salmon season in the Pacific Northwest -- those few months of the year when the fish are running and consumers can finally find fresh wild Pacific salmon in stores everywhere. Sockeye and pink are just two of the many species of wild Pacific salmon that live in the cold waters of the north Pacific -- from northern California up to Alaska -- and beyond. Chum, another Pacific species, is as clean as pink but so lean that it lacks omega-3s. And steelhead swims so close to the surface that it rarely gets caught.Then there's coho and Chinook, the king of salmon. Coho and sockeye are similar in fat content; with both, you need about 400 grams of fresh salmon a week for your omega-3 intake. Chinook is the highest in fat of all the wild Pacific species, hence tasty but greatest in pollutants. Cap consumption at 300 grams weekly.

(These recommendations are general: Every single piece of fish you buy will differ in its omega-3 content, and the amounts suggested assume that salmon is your only source of those healthy fats. If you're eating other "3s from the sea," then decrease your salmon.)

Does it really matter where your wild Pacific salmon comes from? Is Alaskan salmon really the best? The Bering Sea in northern Alaska is as pristine as it gets, says Ikonomou. But below that, the waters off southern Alaska and northern British Columbia are similar -- a few small plumes of pollution and population centres dotting an otherwise clean coast. In fact, some of the very best sockeye, according to an Alaskan fish distributor, are from rivers in northern B.C. Offshore pollution, however, is a problem when people and industry abound onshore; and from southern B.C. down to northern California, the waters are hurting. What does that mean for the consumer? Check the source.

2/ And what about Atlantic salmon? It's a species in itself and unlike wild salmon, usually farmed, produced in countries that don't necessarily abut the Atlantic Ocean: Norway (the world's biggest producer), Chile (in second place), other European countries, Canada and to a small extent, the U.S. Because of the concern with pollutants in farmed salmon, experts recommend no more than two portions a week -- 200 to 250 grams maximum.

But unlike wild salmon, the industrial pollutants in farmed salmon have little to do with the waters they're raised in. Their feed consists to a large degree of fish and fish parts, all sources of omega-3s, and what's crucial are the waters surrounding the fish used for feed. Back in the mid 2000s, farmed Atlantic salmon got a bad rap when a study came out showing it was loaded with industrial pollutants. The source of the problem: the feed was manufactured from fish in the filthy Baltic and North Seas.

Over the years, the Europeans have adopted stricter limits on pollutants, and fish feed manufacturers have cleaned up their act, sourcing cleaner species, sometimes decontaminating feeds and substituting plants and, in North and South America, animal parts, including those of chickens and pigs. The result? Today's farmed salmon is cleaner than it was a decade ago. But because the plants and animal parts are full of omega-6 fatty acids, already overabundant in our diets, some experts are concerned that farmed salmon, especially if from the Americas, suffers from omega-6 overload.

And then there's the problem with chemicals. Aquaculture uses a load of them. A large study sponsored in part by the World Wildlife Federation found that pesticides to control parasites, including sea lice, and disinfectants, which have been linked to cancer, are particularly troubling.

One salmon-phile who commented on my blog witnessed fish with "double-sized heads, huge stomachs, no tails and major deformations...being sold at reduced prices" in a local market in Chile. One potential result of chemicals?

Is organic salmon any better? Over the past two decades, several organizations in Europe have adopted standards for organic fish farming. But contrary to what you might think, the movement did not evolve to protect you, the consumer. Its main concern: the environmental effects of fish farming, especially the wholesale vacuuming up of large supplies of fish used for feed. For that reason, organic standards require the feed be made from the trimmings of fish destined for human consumption -- including bones, organs, heads and eyes. (They're full of omega-3s.)

Organic farmers do use fewer chemicals than conventional farmers, but they still use chemicals, to varying degrees. All the organic standards coming out of Europe differ; and while the U.S. and Canada have not yet adopted organic standards, their Whole Foods retail outlets sell salmon under a premium label that has stricter rules on chemical use than many organics.

The main factor contributing to your human health, however, is likely not chemical use but the quality of the feed. And it's impossible to know whether organic feed is cleaner than conventional feed without knowing exactly what fish are used in each feed, in what proportions and where they come from. No manufacturer in its right mind would tell me that. What they did tell me is that organic feed has a higher fish component than regular feed, with its animal and plant substitutes. And that brings us to the bottom line: The high proportion of fish used in organic feed increases the possibility of more omega-3s but also of more pollutants; hence, it's wise to follow the same limits as conventional -- 200 to 250 grams max a week. You might even want to err on the low side.

To get your omega-3 ration, however, you have to eat the fat in salmon. And where is that? It's not in the little white zigzagging lines you see in the fresh salmon. Those are cartilage, which act as borders between the muscles. In fact, you can't see most of the fat in salmon -- it's distributed throughout the pinky flesh. But if you buy a salmon steak that's cut from the tail end of the salmon, you'll see dark red triangles on either side of the steak. That's an area of fat called the lateral line, and it's full of omega-3s. And when you cook fresh salmon or open up a can (it's already been cooked), you'll see some grey parts. That's also fat -- the layer right next to the skin. Eat it. Don't cut it away. As for the skin, that's your call. It's also fat, hence omega-3s and pollutants, but too slimy for my personal tastes.

If you buy canned salmon, however, make sure you pick up containers that don't contain the chemical Bisphenol-A. For many years, BPA was used as a glue to keep cans together. Unfortunately, it's also been linked to cancer. Many companies have responded to consumer pressure and stopped using it, but some well-known brands still do. Here's a handy shopping list.

This piece is summary of several posts from Harriet Sugar-Miller's blog.]]>