Have Label, Will Eat?

So even though the holidays have scrapped my healthy-eating streak for the time being, I have always been relatively health conscious. Since 2006 I've been mostly vegetarian (I do eat seafood though) and have gone through many periods attempting to be vegan. A subject that has interested me this year was that of GM foods and whether or not they should be labelled. There are obviously many other labels floating around our produce these days but wanted to tackle the three most common ones. The myth is what I and most people assume the labels mean, while the reality is what is really out there.

Natural
Myth: A product that has no artificial colors and/or flavors and made with all natural ingredients.
Reality: Was always skeptical about this vague label. The FDA has not actually developed a definition for this term as it's too difficult to determine whether or not a food product is natural. Generally the term is permitted when the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.

Organic
Myth: Fruits and vegetables that are grown on land that is completely free from pesticides. In the case of animals, they are not injected with growth hormones.
Reality: An ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.

Free Range/Run
Myth: A cruelty-free farm that doesn't cage its animals in small spaces but lets them roam free and spend lots of time outdoors.
Reality: The reality of this one couldn't be more further from the truth. It means that hens are not kept in cages but are often kept indoors at almost the same density as if they were in cages. There is virtually no regulation on this term and as long as a window is present in the barn this may be enough to deem the eggs from filthy, overcrowded barns "free range".

List of common food labels: Label Decoding
General information on battery cages: Humane Food
For differences between organic certification labels: Comparison Chart

Up Close and Flowerful

Thankfully the world hasn't ended yet, although flower season in Ottawa is definitely over for now. I have traveled to many wonderful countries and intend on visiting many more in my lifetime. One of the things I tend to do in these different places is to take close-up photographs of unique flowers. South Korea, Kuwait, and Canada are where I've seen some of the most unforgettable ones. Here are a few of my favorite close-ups from around the world. I've also given up on trying to format the pics in any kind of orderly fashion. 

       

    

     

Real or Fake Tree?

Christmas is here next week and although most people who actually celebrate it have probably already bought their trees, some might be on the fence about which kind of tree to buy; real or fake? Growing up my family always bought a real Christmas tree but many of my friends and relatives had fakes ones and until recently I never really gave it much thought. As a child, choosing a new tree every year was part of what made each year different from the one before. So here are a few pros and cons on both kinds of trees so you can judge for yourself which tree would be more suitable for your family:

REAL XMAS TREES

Pros: They are mostly grown on "Xmas tree farms" and for every chopped tree usually 2-3 more are planted. These plantations are therefore certainly renewable and boost farmers nationwide economically. Once the tree has served its purpose, it can be turned into mulch making it useful as a fertilizer for other plants. Year after year one can choose trees of different shapes and sizes which can be decorated in unique ways. They also smell very nice for a few weeks and add a touch of nature to an otherwise technologically dominated household.

Cons: Like most living things, insects and parasites can be a problem. Pesticides are the obvious go-to solution and Monsanto's Roundup is most farmer's pesticide of choice. Some people are more sensitive to it than others, but trees with heavy doses of the pesticide obviously pose a higher risk for animals and humans. The other cons involve human laziness; purchasing a tree every year, setting up and removing decorations, and disposing of the tree along with the thousands of needles that inevitably fall in every household's nook and cranny.

FAKE XMAS TREES

Pros: Human laziness is satisfied with this type of tree. They only need to be purchased once (although generally families purchase 2-3 in their lifetime) and can come pre-decorated. After the holidays, they don't leave a mess and are easily stored somewhere until the following December.

Cons: Most of them are made with Plastic Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) which is a toxic chemical that is released when the "trees" are made in various parts of the world. Some of them have been found to contain lead and other other hormone disrupting chemicals. They generally come with warning labels to wash hands after handling to avoid ingesting any metals that could cause brain damage.  These trees are obviously non-recyclable so remain with a family until they decide it's not modern enough at which point it sits in a landfill for centuries. 

Got Mercury?

A little known fact is about mercury poisoning is that it was originally discovered in Minamata, Japan in the 1950s when people began experiencing intense tremors and inexplicably dying. Experiments were done on cats and other animals and they found organic mercury to be the main cause. It turned out that a petrochemical company called Chisso Corporation had been disposing mercury and other heavy metal waste into the sea for over 35 years. The government banned fishing from that area for several years and the company obviously compensated the victims, but that did little to make up for the approximately 5000 people who died as a result and over 50,000 others affected by the mercury poisoning in other ways.

Everyone knows that it is not recommended to eat canned tuna while pregnant. But it was recently brought to my attention that no one should eat more than one can of tuna per week. I found this rather surprising as I was consuming 2-3 cans on a weekly basis, so I decided to look into it. Turns out canned tuna contains one of the highest levels of mercury of all typical grocery store seafood. What's interesting is that certain species of fish contain a lot more mercury than others. Apparently the bigger the fish, the more toxins it harbors. Some seafood should be avoided AT ALL COSTS such as Marlin, Shark, Swordfish, Tilefish and Ahi Tuna. Here are some examples of low, moderate, and highest mercury levels present in common seafood:

Low: (<3/week)                                                 
Anchovies, catfish, clams, crabs (Albacore), haddock (Yellowfin), herring, mackerel, oysters, pollock, salmon, sardines, scallops, shrimps, sole, squid, tilapia, and trout.  

Moderate: (<6/month) 
Bass, carp, cod, halibut, lobster, mahi mahi, perch, snapper, and tuna (light canned).

High: (<3/month)
Bluefish, grouper, sea bass, tuna (Albacore and Yellowfin).

For mercury levels in commercial fish/shellfish: FDA Mercury Levels       
To check your own levels of mercury: Got Mercury?

Boston Public Garden

Add Boston to the list of cities that has one of the cutest public gardens in North America. On a 2010 trip to the harbor city I accidentally discovered the quaint little garden that seems to be perfect for young children. There's a little set of bronze commemoration statues for Robert McCloskey whose award-winning picture book "Make Way for Ducklings" (1941) continues to inspire children around the world. Apparently youngsters play on them so much since 1987 that they have never needed professional polishing. It's a great place to check out if you are ever in the vicinity and a great book to read to children of almost any age.

For more on this Public Garden: City of Boston or the statue: Make Way for Ducklings

Going Green?

Universities are generally considered a place of forward thinking and "Going green" seems to be on top of every teacher's agenda. The problem I have with that is that it's not really true. Although post-secondary institutions are pushing for more online and hybrid courses (part online/part in-class) the amount of paper being produced has not really declined, only shifted; It now falls on the responsibility/decision of the student to print what the teacher assigns. While there are some who are more than happy to read 10-50 page articles on their iPads or other handheld reading devices, the rest of us are left opting for a printer as it's less harsh on the eyes. I suppose this may be a transition period and in 10-20 years there will be no such things are students without tablets and printers will be a thing of the past. In the mean time, I believe schools are jumping a little too early on the bandwagon and falsely advertising themselves as "green" institutions.