Just the facts folks – The lowdown on the Dirty Dozen

Security is; a guy with an M16 rifle guarding your world, at least that’s what I grew up thinking. I was an Air Force brat which meant trusting in a government agency was inbred so the fascination with TV crime drama came to me fairly easily. I am an idealist at heart and let’s face it most cop shows, even those based on reality, offer the ideal. On TV we had Detective Sergeant Joe Friday, in all his perfection sticking to the facts and in the end solving the case. In real life it is not quite so ideal. In real life you can’t always trust government agencies. In real life you have to gather your own facts. In real life quite often you have to become a watchdog, blow some whistles and police your own world - these are the facts.

It was my original intent to write yet another article touting the benefits of sticking to the Environmental Working Groups “Dirty Dozen” list. If you are not familiar with this list, it is commonly known for providing consumers with information regarding twelve produce commodities, containing the highest number of synthetic pesticide residues. Instead what I intend to instill, as you read, is a thought that this list even with critical reviews from some sectors of agriculture; contributes to a system of checks and balances that keeps our idea of democracy true to form.

Much of the criticism the “List” and the EWG takes on are accusations of using fear mongering tactics to deter the public from consuming fresh vegetables. I read articles attempting to discredit the data and research put out by this informative group. The “Dirty Dozen” list takes direct hits from organizations that back conventional agriculture and their right to use synthetic pesticides on our food supply, no big surprise there. They are also criticized for putting out information to further their own political agenda.

However, doing my own detective work, I have not found on the EWG site any information to back these accusations. A direct statement from Ken Cook, co-founder of EWG is as follows: "We recommend that people eat healthy by eating more fruits and vegetables, whether conventional or organic,”… “But people don’t want to eat pesticides with their produce if they don’t have to. And with EWG’s guide, they don’t."

Taken directly from the EWG website: “Since many shoppers can't find or afford organic produce, they can use the Shopper's Guide to avoid those conventional fruits and vegetables found to be highest in pesticides - the Dirty Dozen - and, instead, choose items from the Clean Fifteen list.” The list in total consists of 49 products from best to worst levels of contamination. The “Clean Fifteen” list offers alternative suggestions from the fruit and vegetable category with lowers levels of pesticide contamination. http://static.foodnews.org/pdf/EWG-shoppers-guide.pdf
Now, I will ask you to take a look at the EWG chart where the pesticide residue statistics of the 49 products have been compiled. Please keep in mind the information on this chart is based on data from the USDA and FDA. http://static.foodnews.org/pdf/2010-foodnews-data.pdf   After looking at this chart I am alarmed at the number of pesticide residues that might accumulate in ones body at the end of the day. Sticking to the Dirty Dozen list alone, let’s say you have yogurt with freshly sliced peaches for breakfast, a spinach salad with celery slices and dried cherries (concentrated pesticides) for lunch, some grapes for an afternoon snack, a piece of meat with potatoes and sautéed bell peppers for dinner and some cottage cheese with fresh strawberries and blueberries for dessert. Now look at the chart and total up the accumulated of pesticides in your system by the end of the day. Oh and let’s not forget about the antibiotics, hormones and pesticides in the dairy products you consumed.

As to the accusations of furthering their own political agenda – who cares!? I for one, would be thrilled to be represented by and support an organization whose mission is as follows: http://www.ewg.org/about

1. “To protect the most vulnerable segments of the human population—children, babies, and infants in the womb—from health problems attributed to a wide array of toxic contaminants.“

2. “To replace federal policies, including government subsidies that damage the environment and natural resources, with policies that invest in conservation and sustainable development.”

Also, keep in mind the EWG, a non-profit, raises most of its own money donated by like-minded environmentally concerned philanthropists who see a real need for their work. This is the way today’s world functions and it is no different than large name companies like “Exponent: a member of Croplife America” financially backing studies to refute findings by the NIH linking Parkinson’s and pesticide contamination. These studies have proven; pesticide exposure even in minute quantities, at certain times of life can increase the chances of getting this disease.

Ultimately it seems as though the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing because; “Recently, the California Department of Food and Agriculture…awarded $180,000 in federal funds to finance an agribusiness-chemical industry plan to combat its critics - Environmental Working Group and other health, consumer and organic farming advocates who have campaigned against overuse of pesticides on food crops.” Federal funds are tax dollars folks and that is a fact.   
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/09/21-15

I could go on and on providing you with information to back my beliefs of what constitutes safe and healthy food. I know I have put much into my investigations and feel secure about my conclusions. However, my intent was to plant a seed of thought so you do your own research on this topic and find your own voice. Today’s technology has made it so much easier to do this detective work. No pounding the pavement needed. Most of the information necessary to protect your health and the environment can be found at your fingertips - literally. From Iphone apps, http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/iphoneapp.jsp  to printed lists you can carry with you to the grocery store. There is not much effort you have to exert to protect yourself and with your buying choices you, in turn make a stand for the protection of others as well; now that’s democracy at its finest.

It would take a lifetime for any agricultural watchdog group to provide you will all the facts regarding synthetic pesticide contamination of our food supply. However, together, as a community we can “protect and serve” to ensure the safety of our food. Rachel Carson opened our eyes to the dangers of pesticide pollution of our environment, with her book “Silent Spring” (1962) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson;  her work “spurred a reversal in national pesticide policy—leading to a nationwide ban on DDT and other pesticides”. Ms. Carson had the courage to question the industry that told us our foods were safe to consume with residues of highly toxic environmental pollutants, on, in and around them; in the fight to prove this argument the Environmental Protection Agency was born.

The Environmental Working Group is a listed organization on the Rachel Carson.org website http://www.rachelcarson.org/?page=researchguide. They are but one out of many groups who have made it their mission to do the research, ask the right questions and watch over us much in the manner of my beloved fictional public servant; his name was “Friday” and he carried a badge. In my own way, I too will contribute to an ongoing effort of making certain agricultural agencies-meant to keep us healthy and safe - do just that very thing - my name is Dina and I carry a pen.

Organics: To buy or not to buy…that is the question!

Rest at ease, I will not wax poetic over the eternal debate regarding the dichotomy of purchasing organic products. Although I am absolutely passionate about the topic, I do realize with my paraphrase from Hamlets soliloquy, Shakespeare was talking about death and the morality in deciding ones own fate; the debate of organics vs conventional seems far removed from this seriousness…or is it? .  While refreshing my memory of this inspiring piece of writing, I realize the ethics of what Hamlet was struggling with, has an affinity in whether or not supporting organic agriculture is worthwhile…aye; there’s the rub! 

Hamlet in brief; deals with trust issues, mortality, accusations, and lots and lots of death by poison. In its entirety, the Shakespearian tragedy is not nearly a side by side comparison to my argument, but let’s really take a look at the debate over organics and see how some of this fits. 

Trust issues

 

In general, trust issues are greatly based on a fear of the unknown. Many people do not believe "organic" is better than "conventional" because they don’t know enough about the growing process, and they trust their brand name products.  The reality is, there are many “brand name” companies involved in the organic industry; Kraft, Heinz; Nestle, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kellogg, Hershey and General Mills; to name a few.  http://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/themes/Cornucopia/downloads/OrganicT30J09.pdf  

These companies not only have found it worthwhile to invest in the organic trade, but also know it is wise to trust in a growing method that is tried and true.  Before WWII and the onset of industrial agriculture, produce was grown without synthetic chemicals; in fact, many of the chemicals first used on agricultural crops were, shall we say, leftovers, from nerve gases used during the war.  Chemicals, like DDT, before the 1970 ban, were eventually revealed as a major carcinogenic risk to humans, not to mention the rampant destruction it caused to the environment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide

   

Mortality

 

Could the decision to buy organic products really be a matter of life and death?  Well--in some cases it might, especially if you have a poor or compromised immune system, are a candidate for high risk pregnancy, or are pre-disposed to cancer, endocrine disorders, heart and kidney failure, or liver disease!  By not overloading your system with pesticides, your body will utilize the required energy to heal instead of using it in a desperate attempt to tackle the onslaught of chemicals you will innocently ingest eating so called “fresh foods”.  

Your vital organs are filters for your body and they absorb toxins like those on the food you eat or products you may put on your skin, including beauty products and clothing!  The pesticides used on and in these products are touted as non-toxic by the EPA-- but does this mean they are healthy to inhale, ingest or absorb? I hardly think so!

Take Glyphosate for example; a class III herbicide widely used in agriculture to control weeds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate  A study conducted by a well known chemical company indicates that the weeds sprayed with Glyphosate are becoming resistant to this treatment. 

One problem the manufactures of Glyphosate are experiencing is; “you can’t fool mother nature” and true to form, she has found a way to prevail once again! This simply means that the applications of this herbicide are not working very well in order to kill weeds.  A pesticide/herbicide combination called, "2, 4-D" is now offered as an alternative choice.  The product is said to have low toxicity to humans, http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mp6B8000.pdf , yet the International Agency for Research on Cancer has found "2, 4-D" to be a carcinogen.

The EPA listing reads; “In longer-term studies, at dose levels above the threshold of saturation for renal clearance, "2, 4-D" is toxic to the eye, thyroid, kidney, adrenals, and ovaries/testes.”  This product has been approved by the EPA for agricultural use and can be applied residentially to lawns. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/24d_fs.htm .  How about sending your kids out to play on that?

   

Does anyone know what “Restricted Entry Interval” REI means? This is the time frame before a farmer or farm worker should re-enter the field without protective clothing or gear, after a pesticide has been applied.  The time frame on this is usually 12 hours to 3 days, but in some cases, it can extend over several weeks!   So- if this residue is still that dangerous after such a long period of time, why are we allowed to ingest these products?

 

“The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), or H.R.1627, was passed unanimously by Congress in 1996”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Quality_Protection_Act.

Under this act, the FQPA established a new safety standard (reasonable certainty of no harm) that must be applied to all food commodities; in addition to the new standard the EPA now has to consider the specific risks pesticides might have for infants and children.”  “The FQPA required the re-testing of all existing pesticide tolerance levels within 10 years.”  Reasonable certainty?!!  Ten years?!!

 
 

In 2001, scientists from Seattle and Atlanta published results of a study linking pesticides in children's urine to pesticide residues on food. What they found was, “children who switched to eating organically-grown food greatly reduced their exposure to organophosphate insecticides.” http://www.pesticide.org/the-buzz/eating-organic-food-protects-children-from-pesticide-exposure.  

Organophosphate exposure has been linked to higher incidence of ADHD in children. One of the major crops this neurotoxin pesticide is used on is apples; I guess this surely negates the “apple a day, keeps the doctor away” recommendation!

Pet products, such as flea killers, have also been highly contaminated with a “family of chemicals" called organophosphates.  Even though many of these have been outlawed, there are still dangerous chemicals on your pet store shelves.  You may wash your produce often, but how often do your wash your pet? -- and-- unless you never touch your pet, these products are most likely absorbed by you through your skin or nasal passages!  So remember, there are many organic pet products available to protect your fuzzy loved one.  http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/npets.asp  

 

Accusations

Which growing method is doing the most for the greater good? Is it better to focus on synthetic and/or GMO growing methods with pesticides and growth stimulators, in an effort to feed the masses?  We are told that organic agriculture cannot feed a nation, yet as reported by Brian Halweil, Senior Researcher at the World Watch Institute: “of the reviewing 154 growing seasons' worth of data on various crops grown on rain-fed and irrigated land in the United States, University of California-Davis agricultural scientist Bill Liebhardt found that organic corn yields were 94 percent of conventional yields, organic wheat yields were 97 percent, and organic soybean yields were 94 percent. Organic tomatoes showed no yield difference.”  http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060 . 

 

Seriously, as a nation with an obesity problem, do we really need greater yields from the commodity crops that are bases for foods contributing to this disease?  The Center for Disease Control reports: “In 2009, no state met the "Healthy People 2010" obesity target of 15%, and the self-reported overall prevalence of obesity among U.S. adults had increased 1.1 percentage points from 2007”, these statistics are frightening. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm59e0803a1.htm?s_cid=mm59e0803a1_e%0D%0A  

Deaths by poison

 

January 3, 2011, Jerry Brown's first day of office, the people of California submitted more than 52,000 signatures to the "Brown Administration", opposing the use of methyl iodide in their state.” “U.S. EPA staff confirmed in August 2010 that they would re-open their national decision on methyl iodide for public comment.

 

“On December 1, 2010, in the 11th hour of the ‘Schwarzenegger Administration’, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) approved the use of methyl iodide as a soil fumigant pesticide in agriculture. Yes, this was approved, despite scientist recommendations, and more than 53,000 comments from Californians sent directly to the Agency.”  http://www.panna.org/issues/related-umbrella-campaign/cancer-free-strawberries.

Not all pesticide exposure ends in death, but certainly near death-- and horrific experiences from some chemicals, like Methyl iodide; a pesticide classified as highly toxic (see Material Safety Data Sheet link) http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927669. The science is in and it is unequivocal. However, they still have not made this happen.” Please keep in mind, this pesticide is often used on strawberries and California strawberries are shipped nationwide; for this reason alone, you should always buy organic strawberries.

http://www.panna.org/issues/related-umbrella-campaign/cancer-free-strawberries

Many stories of direct exposure come from farm workers which, of course, can be passed off as a "work hazard"-- but, how about the woman who was exposed by just standing in her driveway as a crop duster flew overhead.  Within 72 hours all her vital organs were failing!  She survived to tell her story; will you? https://www.pesticidewatch.org/uploads/2e/48/2e48d177ff7a83806226173103a7eecf/CPRMeIProfiles.pdf

  

My own experience with pesticide exposure occurred at age 10 while enjoying a Halloween school carnival. As I recall, I emerged from the fun house, wheezing, and within minutes I had passed out, only to awaken in the emergency room with a technician beating on my chest in an attempt to revive me. I was told it was an allergic reaction to “something”.  This attack was in late October, during active crop dusting applications over the cotton fields adjacent to my elementary school.  I spent the remainder of my years, while living in that area, on heavy medication for severe asthma attacks. After leaving the area, my condition returned to normal.

 

A 2001 University of North Carolina, at Chapel Hill study found, “living close to areas where agricultural pesticides are applied may boost the risk of fetal death due to birth defects.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010214075018.htm

So what if you don’t live in an agricultural area?  Who cares, right?  After all, you wash your produce; isn’t that enough?  Well then, what about a nice fuzzy peach? Do you think any amount of washing will get pesticides off that skin? How about apples? Apples have their pesticides sealed in with a nice coat of wax! -- and grapes--they absorb most of their pesticides through the water! Oh, -- and let's not forget flowers; how many of us have gotten a bouquet and the first thing we do is stick our noses in and take a great big inhalation of…what?  

Now, have a look at the EPA (United States) standard for rating pesticides:  The United States Environmental Protection Agency uses four Toxicity Classes. Classes I to III are required to carry a Signal Word on the label. Pesticides are regulated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Toxicity Class I

• most toxic;
• requires Signal Word: "Danger-Poison", with skull and crossbones symbol, possibly followed by:
• "Fatal if swallowed", "Poisonous if inhaled", "Extremely hazardous by skin contact--rapidly absorbed through skin", or "Corrosive--causes eye damage and severe skin burns"
• Class I materials are estimated to be fatal to an adult human at a dose of less than 5 grams (less than a teaspoon).

Toxicity Class II

• moderately toxic
• Signal Word: "Warning", possibly followed by:
• "Harmful or fatal if swallowed", "Harmful or fatal if absorbed through the skin", "Harmful or fatal if inhaled", or "Causes skin and eye irritation"
• Class II materials are estimated to be fatal to an adult human at a dose of 5 to 30 grams.

Toxicity Class III

• slightly toxic
• Signal Word: Caution, possibly followed by:
• "Harmful if swallowed", "May be harmful if absorbed through the skin", "May be harmful if inhaled", or "May irritate eyes, nose, throat, and skin"
• Class III materials are estimated to be fatal to an adult human at some dose in excess of 30 grams.

Toxicity Class IV

• practically nontoxic
• no Signal Word required since 2002

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity_Class

 

“Practically non-toxic”?!  Is that the best we get?!  Imagine this; you have a cancerous tumor and you go through surgery to have it removed. Later, in the Recovery Room, the surgeon informs you they had to fit as many patients as they could possibly fit in to operate on this day.  As a result, your surgery was a "little rushed", but.... they got practically all the cancer removed and maybe it won’t grow back!  In this same vein, we, the consumers, are offered “practically non-toxic” products, using the excuse that these pesticides are necessary in order to get more produce out of a crop. This reasoning is ludicrous and antiquated; you/we, deserve better!

I have to be honest with you, even with my negative reaction to pesticides and my knowledge of organic agriculture; I haven’t always purchased organic products, excusing myself for of lack of time, money and the imagination to try new recipes using organic ingredients made available to me from our area.  However, after completing the research required writing this article, I can tell you that I will be more attentive to my purchases from here on in! 

   

Having read through pages and pages of toxicity reports from EPA approved chemicals; I must emphatically say that I am terrified in regards to the health of our people and our soil.  On February 26, 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt said “the nation that destroys its soil; destroys itself”.  

Today we literally have the power to change things at our fingertips.  Write or call your state representatives and Commissioner of Agriculture. Let them know where you stand on this issue, and remind them, as you are their constituent, they work for you!  It is all very well and good to use science and innovation in the name of progress, but we also need to take from the past and give to the present and future, always keeping in mind that all farming was “organic” before industrial methods of growing were introduced just after WWII. 

 

It should also be feasible to have a round table discussion and an official department represented by all the leaders of agriculture; Organic, Sustainable, Conventional, Biodynamic, and any others that can develop best management practices for farming. This would ensure the health and safety of our food and other bodily products; really, it could very well be this easy people, we just need to speak up!

 

I urge you to sign up for newsletters at http://www.panna.org/ , the Organic Consumers Association http://www.organicconsumers.org/ , The Rodale Institute http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/ , as well as the Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/.  At the EWG website, you will find the “Dirty Dozen” list and please stick to this list as if your life depended on it; after all, it just might!!-- http://www.foodnews.org/walletguide.php.

 

I also encourage you to read the book; “Fatal Harvest:  The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture” by Andrew Kimbrell. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1559639415/sr=1-1/qid=1156796709/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9726292-4532103?i 

 

Armed with information and greater numbers demanding what’s right, we can use our voices and our vote; we can make a difference!

So as you can see, Conventional agriculture put up against Organic agriculture is very Shakespearean in that it is painstakingly tragic, and hard to understand. Making a decision, in the end, becomes, at some point, like playing a game of Russian roulette (anyone remember the POW scene from “The Deer Hunter”?).  Do you spend the extra money and effort purchasing organic products? I mean--what if you are one of the lucky ones that are never affected by the adverse reactions related to pesticide exposure?  

   

Well, I know people who will research for hours on end, agonizing over which car to buy with just the right safety rating, whether it comes with airbags; the best tires; antilock brakes and state- of- the- art anti-theft systems!  A considerable amount of time as well as money is spent on this information, without knowing, or even bothering to inquire, if they will ever need these devices in the lifespan of this particular vehicle, while it is in their possession!  The same applies to health insurance and home/rental insurance.  All of this effort is exerted with the thought of bodily protection in mind; "you know…just in case". 

   

So, organics: to buy or not to buy; is it really a question?

Our planet, our cities, ourselves

I am an eco-warrior extraordinaire!  No really, in fact, my whole family has it all together when it comes to saving our planet.  Our “best green rated”, one car for a family of five, comes fully equipped with all our credentials on the bumper.  Everybody around knows we belong to the ‘Organic-tree hugging-green-sierra-amnesty-wildlife-save the farmers federations.  We walk or bike to local events and our little garden is organically grown and rain barrel watered.  We dress to the nines, all from thrift stores, not adding to the overly consumptive supply and demand world of fashion. I personally find great pleasure in reducing-reusing and recycling and each time I take a load of plastics and such to the bin I smugly remind myself, as an eco-warrior, I am worthy of such a title for all that I do for our planet. You would think through saving the world we would be contributing to our community but in fact, we are not, we could do more…we could buy local!

We do get a great amount of satisfaction out of our conservation efforts, this contributes to feel good hormones spilling around in our systems, reducing stress and adding years to our lives.  We eat a mostly vegetarian diet supplemented with an occasional cage free-cruelty free protein and buying organic versions of all, as much as possible.  We buy all these products from one place so why would I even think of “buying local”.  The mere thought of running around from produce stand to u-pick farms, egg and dairy farms is exhausting and where would I even begin to find these farms.  Our supermarket has suitable provisions even if much of their produce has been carted across the nation, if not parts of the world. What reasons would ever be good enough for us exert ourselves further? 

Top reasons to “buy local”

1. TASTE:  Who wants to eat what does not taste good?  I find when buying local produce I get a fresh product that is crisp and flavorful. In fact, if I don’t get around to using the product right away the shelf life is usually much longer than store bought and I have not had to consider the travel time, shipping and storage conditions of the product, because of this factor I can cut down on the frequency of visits to local farms.  Also many of these farms bring their product to our farmer’s markets so I can buy “direct” while getting to walk around in fresh air, with my own basket and introduced to many other local products I would not otherwise know existed.
2. NUTRIENTS:  I am not a scientist but even I know the overall nutrient content is better in foods that have not been picked either too soon or sat for too long.  Looking for organic products is first on my list for higher quality produce and as Chris Bell of InterNatural Marketing, an organic produce marketing company with twenty-two years of experience, reminds me “small farms that grow with organic practices and have sales less than $5000.oo a year are able to use the word organic when marketing their product.”  Looking for an organic product produced locally ensures the quality of our food with the added bonus of freshness.
3. KNOW YOUR FARMER:  The beauty of buying local is getting a chance to find out how our food is grown!  A trip with the kids to get produce now becomes an educational event without even trying.  Talking to our local farmers either at the farm or the farmer’s market gives us an idea of their growing practices.  We sample product and even pick our own so we really feel a part of the process. Many farms even have social events to attend with great food, music and drink.
4. TAKING CARE OF THE LAND:  Farmers tend to be good stewards of the land, especially organic farmers.  We find out which of our local farms use sustainable and organic growing practices.  These farms tend to grow a variety of crops and grow seasonably. Eating seasonably is one way our family tries new foods and we eat more of what is meant to grow in our climate zone.
5. LOWER COSTS/COMMUNITY DOLLARS:  Not having to calculate added shipping cost for our food to be carted across the nation, adds up!  At our farmer’s market we buy value added products that are locally grown, packaged and produced so our money goes to helping our community thrive.  Also our local farms supply our local restaurants and when we go out we make certain to patronize those restaurants that buy local foods.
6. CARBON FOOTPRINT:  If food travels an average of 1500-2500 miles from farm to plate then buying local, even with its varied definition of mileage, certainly cuts our carbon footprint considerably. We make every attempt to buy as much as we can at our local farmers market and participate in farm box programs that deliver to designated areas where many others can also pick up their product.  In this way we share the mileage with the farm truck.    
7. KEEPING UP WITH THE JONESES:   Yes, buying local even gives this old pastime an eco twist.  We jump at the chance to share information with our neighbors and friends about our latest finds at the farmers market or the newest restaurants that buy local produce.  Spreading the word helps the community thrive and encourages growth of local farms and markets.

Our family still makes every effort to save the planet and make the best decisions regarding our health but we have changed with the times. We learned to embrace the idea of buying local and put in at least the amount of effort we exerted on researching and buying from the best thrift stores, coffee shops, household and sporting goods; all the things we feel we need to live a comfortable life. 

It turned out getting started was easier than we thought with help from organizations like “Local Harvest” who make it easy to find local farms, farmers markets, CSA’s and the like just by entering our zip code. http://www.localharvest.org/   “Sustainable Table” offers another online tool, where we learned what seasonable produce is grown in the US, in which month and state http://www.epicurious.com/articlesguides/seasonalcooking/farmtotable/seasonalingredientmap .


By buying local we now directly affect the health of our planet, our cities and ourselves and who couldn’t feel good about that! 

A long and healthy life!

My great grandmother Ignacia Ramirez Vd. de Becerra lived to 108 years old.  She passed away in 1979 when the average life expectancy was 61 years of age.  Statistics  from that era showed that the average female smoker would lose about 2.2 years of life (803 days).*  Doña Ignacia chain smoked, hand rolled, unfiltered cigarettes of pure tobacco and took one shot of her daily ‘medicine’ from a cork topped clay jug she kept in a kitchen cabinet.  The last time I saw her she was 105 not in ill health, just not as mobile due to muscle weakness, yet her mind was very sharp. She was happy and healthy. I have often wondered were good genes the only factor…could it be that simple?

A study carried out by researchers at the Boston University School of Medicine have indicated the presence of a longevity gene, however there are skeptics that consider these findings inconclusive.**  It does seem wise for one to remain objective when reading articles that contain wording such as; studies show, recent findings and proof positive. After all, if we do not have centenarians in our family line are we meant to just throw in the towel? Do the experts really have any insight as to how long a person will live?  On the other hand, based upon studies comparing life expectancy of twins raised separately; gerontologists agree the most common explanation is 70-80% environment and 30-20% genes.***

Ignacia was born in 1871 in Oaxaca, Mexico. Even though she lived through stressful years of a revolution; as the wife of a political official, she led somewhat of a charmed life.  She had someone to tend her garden and a cook.  The food for her meals were bought daily at the market or grown on her own land. These foods consisted of tomatoes, beans, figs, squash, rich dark chocolate, corn, chili and a selection of fresh caught game.  The game was a variety that included fish, wild turkey, deer, boar, armadillo and iguana. She ate locally and seasonably and all food was grown and caught in the fertile rivers and valleys surrounding her homeland. She walked daily and kept her mind active.    

So what can be done in present day to live such a life in comparison? As for myself, I often think of Doña Ignacia and her daily habits, good and bad; I then get to work on taking even the smallest steps to create a healthier community in my little corner of the world.  Here in our chemically induced and stress filled environment we will have to work harder to, as Gandhi said “be the change you wish to see in the world”. We are challenged to set examples for ourselves, our children (even if we have none of our own) and our community.  This article will be the first in a series to provide examples of the many ways you can create change to improve your own environment. I will offer you information on what is already taking place in our country today and possibilities for a future that will not promise us a long and healthy life but certainly increase the odds.

* http://bluestonechiro.com/pdf/HealthRisks-LifeExpct-Article_32-03.cohen%5B1%5D.pdf

**http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/07/the-little-flaw-in-the-longevity-gene-study-that-could-be-a-big-problem.html

***http://www.bumc.bu.edu/centenarian/overview/