Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Contraceptive Devices... in Fish?


            Birth control—meant to be protection but could have generational and environmental repercussions. 62% of women at the reproductive age in the United States claim to use some form of contraception, and of that population, 27%, or 10.2 million women, claim to use the pill method. A widely praised, and obviously popular, method for contraception and balancing hormones is seemingly harmless, however the basic ingredients prove to have various dangerous complications, as with any substance that alters the body. These synthetic hormones need to pass through the digestive system without being denatured by the acidic environment, thus meaning they wind up as waste products; these waste products eventually end up in the ecosystem and can therefore cause unintentional implications in any living organism that may digest it second hand.
            Women who consume hormonal birth control first hand might not seem to have any lingering implications, however studies have shown an increase in difficulty getting pregnant or sterility altogether after ceasing use. In 1966, Barbara Seaman commented on the pill’s ability to disrupt menstruation cycles in women either making them irregular or nonexistent altogether. In her book, The Doctor’s Case Against The Pill, she also introduced reader’s to a theory known as “oversuppression syndrome,” coined by Dr. M. James Whitelaw, in where the underuse causes atrophy and thus damage to the lining in the uterus. He also concluded this rate of infertility to have increased 10% due to the use of hormonal birth control. Dr. Roy Hertz built off Dr. M James Whitelaw’s claims saying hormonal birth control could damage the endometrium microscopically and increase the possibility of atrophy and cancer. The endocrine system in the human body is very specific and reactive, so even the smallest amounts of synthetic hormones could disrupt it and the production of the natural hormone.
            Second hand digestion also has caused a variety of implications. As formerly stated, these synthetic hormones will eventually end up as waste products and invade the water supply; this invasion renders all living organisms susceptible to consumption. Ethinyl estradiol, an active substance in this form of contraception, mimics estrogen, but has 100x stronger of an effect than that of the natural hormone. That being said, Canadian researchers conducted a study in 2007 to analyze the effects of this chemical on aquatic animals; they estimated the level of waste product that would invade the environment and concluded that this hormone caused a “near extinction” of the fathead minnow population since the Ethinyl estradiol feminized the male fish. Effects also reached green frogs and mink frogs. Similarly, the United States Geological Survey found that 80% of male bass living in the Shenandoah and Monocacy Rivers were beginning to grow eggs. Obviously, the invasion of this chemical has detrimental effects on the environment and can even cause extinction of certain populations thus radically altering the diversity and ecosystem.
            Contraceptive devices are valuable, and should continue to be an option, however the side effects must be considered and combated to prevent any consequential changes in the environment. There are two routes to be considered to fix this problem: increasing the advertisement of non-hormonal contraception or bettering the sewage system to remove the Ethinyl estradiol from entering the water source. The first option should be the most cost effective, however it still has a variety of challenges facing it. Cost effectiveness and accessibility are the number one things contributing to the popularity of the oral contraceptive device; other methods are either inaccessible or are not cost effective for women. The latter option is harder to enforce and less cost effective as the technology and sewage systems would have to be updated. Either way, these studies provide evidence of the detrimental effects these synthetic hormones have on the environment, and it is something that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

References:

Monday, March 26, 2018

Roots of the GMO Panic!


On mentioning GMOs to modern consumers, reactions might vary from ambivalence at best to fear and loathing at worst. Along with the rise in modern consumer self- advocacy has come a wide variety of non-FDA labels catering to customer interests. While many of these new product labels lead to better educated shoppers making healthier decisions, one source of turmoil has grown around GMOs and food labels from organizations such as the Non-GMO Project. With the experimental consensus having not found significant risk in GMOs, this appeal to natural products has the potential to stifle growth in technologies central to expanding food access to a growing population. This fear was most likely born of reasonable skepticism given the nature of the means of developing and privately determining how best to use GMO foods rather than from a fear of the technology itself--in short, mistrust of large, centralized agricultural firms such as Monsanto.

The potential benefits of GMO crops are both extremely broad and deep. From adding potato blight resistance, as BASF has recently done to a strain yet to be released on the market, to shortening growing times and increasing crop yields, the initial payoff for GMOs has been massive (Bawa). However, the public reaction is frequently nothing but scorn, and rarely actual understanding. Despite requiring FDA approval, 57% of American adults reported that they did not consider GMO crops safe to eat (Funk). A highly likely cause for this disconnect is not distrust of scientists or “new” products as a whole, but distrust of large companies with histories of deceitful practices pushing these new products.

Monsanto has recently been at the center of a number of international scandals revolving around glyphosate, the active ingredient in its signature weed-killer, Roundup. In one case, Monsanto was reported by Spiegel as having covered up and unduly influenced studies concerning a link between cancer and glyphosate (Bethge). Obviously such practices periodically coming to light would influence consumer views on any and every product related to such companies and industries. While a certain level of skepticism regarding novel ideas or methods is both healthy and in fact necessary, when these products are tied to deliberate efforts to obfuscate safety concerns for financially linked products, as in the case of Monsanto and glyphosate, this healthy skeptic response can easily turn into fear and distrust of all related new products. A key requirement for public trust, is open disclosure of risks and clear behavior towards protecting public health rather than purely pursuing profit above all else. While organizations, such as the Non-GMO Project are not exactly helping smooth public concern, such concern clearly has a basis in reality with such scandalous cover-ups by corporate giants. Accordingly, the roots of this panic most likely come from fear of corporate control rather than from public distrust of scientific research itself.

References:

Bawa, A. S., & Anilakumar, K. R. (2013, December). Genetically modified foods: Safety, risks and public concerns—a review. Retrieved March 24, 2018, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249/

Bethge, P. (2017, October 24). Monsanto Faces Blowback Over Cancer Cover-Up. Retrieved March 24, 2018, from http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/monsanto-papers-reveal-company-covered-up-cancer-concerns-a-1174233.html

Funk, C., & Raine, L. (2015, July 1). Http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-6-public-opinion-about-food/. Retrieved March 24, 2018, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-6-public-opinion-about-food/




Sunday, March 25, 2018

GM-What?

GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, are living organisms that have altered genetic material that are made in laboratories using various genetic engineering techniques. Okay, that definition sounds a little scary. Basically, they are organisms that have been edited to be better in some fashion, whether through taste, insecticide-resistance, or nutritional value.

“GMO” has been quite the buzzword in the past few years, especially in the sense of avoiding them. There became this stigma of how “evil” genetically modified organisms are and how unnatural it is to consume foods that contain them. Walking down the aisles of the grocery store, packages boast NON-GMO or GMO-FREE in all capital letters and bright colors to prove their biological nature. But, what most people don’t realize, is that a Non-GMO label does not signify the healthiness of a food item, prove it was grown without pesticides, or say its harmless to the environment. Unfortunately, the FDA has not standardized the use of the Non-GMO sticker, so essentially any company could slap the sticker on their product. There have been times where companies have used the sticker and have been proven to be using GMO ingredients in their products. However there is a third-party company called the Non-GMO Project that has its own verification label. It has a regulated and particular process for deciding whether products can earn their namesake label and certifies companies’ claims.

But why avoid GMOs? Most require less water and pesticides to flourish, helping the environment and increasing the amount of usable crops. Some GMOs can be made to resist even the harshest of weather, including drought-resistant crops, ensuring that some food will be available during a difficult time or during a dry season. There are herbicide-tolerant crops that allow farming companies to use no-till farming methods, reducing soil erosion and runoff that would flow into rivers and local water systems. Certain GMOs can reduce food waste by resisting bruising or other superficial effects of travels. And of course, there are GMOs that have enhanced nutritional aspects, creating healthier and more impactful crops, such as the well-known Golden rice. This genetically modified rice has an abundance of Vitamin A and can be used to aid in Vitamin A deficiencies that affect millions of children worldwide.

The future with GMO science is equally as exciting. There is the possibility of having more crops on the market that could have increased health and environmental benefits, aiding all people. One in particular that could be extremely useful is the creation of the hypoallergenic peanut.  

In the end, it seems education on this topic is the best way to decide opinions on whether or not to purchase GMO vs. Non-GMO. Either choice should be researched and supported with science, not with societal fads. 


References:


Why Not Gluten?

          In the 21st Century, it’s always about the latest and hottest trends.  In the past few years, one of the most increasing trends is being on a gluten-free diet.  You see the phrase “Gluten-free” everywhere, it can be in the grocery store, on the news, celebrities deciding to go on the diet, but what even is gluten?  Gluten is the substance in cereal grains, like wheat, that is responsible for the elastic texture of dough.  Well, that doesn’t seem too awful, but for someone with Celiac Disease or sensitive to gluten, it could cause a variety of adverse effects.  The thing is, not everyone has Celiac Disease, but tons of people follow this diet, why?
Gluten can trigger an immune response that damages the small intestine, interfering with the absorption of nutrients from food which could lead to other problems like nerve damage, osteoporosis, seizures, and infertility in a person with Celiac Disease.  If a person is non-celiac gluten sensitive, they could develop similar symptoms to celiac disease, but without the intestinal damage.  However, a gluten-free diet has become a “fad diet” where people are uninformed on how to balance their diet without an intake of essential whole grains.  For this reason, I believe people should not follow a gluten-free diet unless they have Celiac Disease, gluten sensitivity, or have done extensive research on it.
Going gluten free can cause a variety of nutritional deficiencies.  Fortified breads and cereals are major sources of vitamin B, which a person would be lacking if they went on a gluten-free diet.  One of these essential vitamins is folate which prevents birth defects.  Whole grains like wheat, barley, and rye are linked to reduced risk of coronary heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, and other chronic diseases.  According to a study published in the journal Epidemiology, a gluten-free diet puts people at risk of increased exposure to arsenic and mercury.  The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found, “That people who said they were eating gluten free diets had higher concentrations of arsenic in their urine and mercury in their blood than people who were not avoiding gluten,” (Gregor).   Not only does it have the potential for nutritional deficiencies, following a gluten-free diet is time consuming, expensive, and restrictive.  It takes more time to find foods that don’t contain gluten, most of the time those foods are more expensive, and you’re going to be restricted on what foods you can buy/eat.  There was a study out of Spain that found in a month on a gluten-free diet may hurt a person’s gut flora and immune function, potentially setting those on gluten-free diets up for an overgrowth of harmful bacteria in their intestines (Gregor).
            No, I’m not saying being on a gluten-free diet is the worst decision someone could make.  The diet could improve cholesterol levels, promote digestive health, increase energy levels, and it cuts out a lot of unhealthy foods.  If you’re thinking about going on this diet, make sure to eat a variety of foods to receive all the necessary nutrients.  However, because the gluten-free diets are being popularized by social media and celebrities, the odds of participants understanding how to replace the nutritional deficits is slim.  Therefore, the gluten-free diet should be reserved for people that have Celiac Disease, gluten sensitivity, or are passionate about nutrition.

Greger, M. (n.d.). How a Gluten-Free Diet Can Be Harmful. Retrieved March 26, 2018, from https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/02/23/how-a-gluten-free-diet-can-be-harmful/

Jones, D. N. (2018, March 20). Is a gluten-free diet good for you - if there's no medical reason for it? Retrieved March 26, 2018, from https://chicago.suntimes.com/lifestyles/is-a-gluten-free-diet-good-for-you-if-theres-no-medical-reason-for-it/

Strawbridge, H. (2018, January 08). Going gluten-free just because? Here's what you need to know. Retrieved March 26, 2018, from https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/going-gluten-free-just-because-heres-what-you-need-to-know-201302205916