Farming | Bonnie Modugno, MS, RD

WHAT’S WITH WHEAT TODAY? I’m testing if it’s the gluten

May 21, 2013 by Bonnie

I notice when I eat bread I start to hiccup. So strange, but it’s been going on for years. I figured out the role of insulin resistance over twenty years ago and I eat mostly low glycemic starches. I grew up on pasta and bread, and learned in my 30′s that a high carbohydrate diet was packing on the pounds. I eat even less bread and fewer grains today, but I wonder if I can’t even handle that.

Monday I was feeling hungrier than usual, and knew I needed a bit more carbohydrate to be satisfied. I grabbed a few pretzels after a delicious Greek salad and headed out the door. I immediately started to hiccup. Ok, this is familiar. Then I started to burp and my belly felt tight and hard, like it was bloated. Yes, that happens sometimes, too. Minutes later my gut started churning. Soon I was hunched over in the car with a gripping kind of cramp. Nothing more, but I endured the distress for over an hour. What is happening?

There is evidence that since 1980 food sensitivities and food allergies are increasing. According to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) website 20% of all Americans today suffer from allergies and asthma:

Approximately 6% of allergy sufferers have food/drug allergies as their primary allergy.
Food allergy is more common among children than adults.
90% of all food allergy reactions are cause by 8 foods: milk, soy, eggs, wheat, peanuts, tree nuts, fish and shellfish.

WHAT IS CAUSING MORE FOOD ALLERGIES?

The AAFA website doesn’t address what may be causing the increasing incidence of food allergies. The Allergy Kids Foundation suggest environmental chemical contaminants could be to blame. This hypothesis is increasingly provocative when you realize that industry spews tens of thousands of chemicals into our environment. The compounds infiltrate the air, soil and water and eventually end up in the food supply. These compounds also bio-accumulate throughout the food chain. Those of us at the top bio-accumulate the most. We track only about 200 of these agents, and study even fewer. Who knows the role they play?

There is also much speculation regarding the role of genetically modified and engineered foods. There is no genetically modified wheat used commercially in the US, so I can rule that out in my case. Still, the jury is out on the role of genetically modified foods in the role of food allergies. In a 2007 review, the author concludes the paper by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies involved in commercial GM foods?”

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO WHEAT

Most of my symptoms surface when I eat wheat. The wheat we eat today is very different than the wheat families consumed decades ago. Today wheat doesn’t grow as tall and can easily be harvested with mechanical equipment. A recent USDA publication asserts that changes in wheat protein concentration are not significant, not likely the cause of increasing incidence of celiac disease, and suggests maybe it’s the imported wheat gluten. I’m not convinced.

In the NY Times best seller, Wheat Belly, Dr William Davis states two different protein fractions are probably causing harm, both gluten and gliadin. Both quantity of wheat and wheat protein content increased during the 21st century. The protein content of wheat allows bread to rise–a desirable quality. It is not much of a stretch to think farmers figured this out. In addition, the use of artificial fertilizers (which has been the norm especially since the 1950′s) is known to increase the protein content of wheat. What is behind the drive for greater protein content in wheat? In a word, profits.

A 2012 study of active duty US military showed a 400% increase in celiac disease ( a severe form of gluten intolerance) between 1999 and 2008. No one really knows what causes celiac disease, but it indicates that your gut experiences a dramatic inflammatory response to gluten that results in a damaged GI tract. The solution is to eliminate food sources of gluten. Of note, the greatest increases were seen in people in their 40′s and 50′s. Could this be happening to me?

Yesterday I purchased a bag of gluten free pretzels and a few other items. After a few handfuls, no hiccups, no burping, and no bloating or cramps. This should be interesting.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: carbohydrate, celiac disease, farming, GF, gliaden, gluten, gluten free, gmo, health, insulin resistance, profits, protein, USDA, weight, wheat, wheat belly, whole grains, William Davis

Are the Benefits of Organic Farming In Doubt?

September 4, 2012 by Bonnie

A recently published Standford study casts doubt on benefits of organic, but only if you don’t ask all the pertinent questions

There are glaring problems and omissions with the recently published research regarding organic produce. The scientists looked at studies that asked which product has more vitamin C or other specific nutrient, foods grown organically or foods grown with conventional farming methods.

This is classic reductionist thinking. The researchers are focused on quantifying specific nutrients instead of looking at the full impact of conventional farming versus the full impact of organic farming. In the grand scheme of our food supply, it is foolhardy to be preoccupied with which product has more vitamin C if one form of farming pollutes the water supply, creates dead zones in the oceans, compromises biodiversity, encourages pests to become more resistant to pesticides, encourages bacteria to be more resistant to antibiotics, and spews chemicals in the environment that are known to impair thyroid function, glucose tolerance, increase risk of cancer and more.

MORE THAN VITAMINS AND MINERALS

Food is much more than merely a delivery system for vitamins and minerals. The limits of this review are many. There is not enough attention to the consequence of pesticides and petroleum based fertilizers. There is no attention to the ecology of the soil or run off creating dead zones in the oceans. There is virtually no attention to the cost of contaminating our planet and compromising biodiversity.

And the biggest problem of all? No reality check with what matters to consumers: which one tastes better? Have you tasted both? Which do you prefer? Produce that is cultivated for taste or produce cultivated to look good and travel far no matter what.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: cancer, dead zones, farming, glucose tolerance, minerals, organic, persistent organic pollutants, pesticides, pollution, produce, taste, thyroid function, vitamins, water

Why We Need Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

June 5, 2012 by Bonnie

Today Californians vote in our state primary elections, but November’s election is the bigger deal–on both the political and food front.

Californians are set to vote in November on a law to require mandatory labeling of all GMO (genetically modified organisms) and GE (genetically engineered) ingredients in processed foods and to also ban the routine industry practice of mislabeling foods containing GMO ingredients as “natural”. As reported by Digital Journal, so far, polls show that almost 90% of California’s voters plan to vote “yes”. I’m hoping it stays that way.

Mother Jones, May 31, 2012

As a nutritionist I have been somewhat alarmed about GE foods, but even I felt the issue was mixed. For years, I have encouraged clients to eat “close to the earth”. I avoid most highly processed foods and that naturally keeps me away from most GE products. After reading The Unhealthy Truth by Robyn O’Brien, I am paying more attention than ever.

We don’t know all the risks regarding GE foods because the studies haven’t been done. FDA has failed to require basic studies to determine potential risk of the GE foods we eat. I have to come to believe our supposedly safe food supply isn’t.

As the election season continues to churn, expect lots of money to be poured into California, hoping to change our minds about labeling GMO/GE foods. There are three common positions that proponents of GE use to muddle the issues. Here are fundamental arguments why we should resist all the propaganda.

1. GE/GMO foods are designed to improve upon nature

The proponents of GE foods celebrate that old tag line, “better living through chemistry”. I don’t think we are living better today because our food supply has been chemically transformed over the last fifty years. We live with an obscenely adulterated food supply. In some ways it was easier to eat when we were hunting and gathering. Man just had to worry about getting enough. Most chronic diseases today are linked to a poor diet and other lifestyle factors.

2. Genetic engineering isn’t all that different than the breeding and grafting farmers have engaged in for hundreds of thousands of years.

There is nothing that farmers could do to resemble genetic engineering. What is natural about using foreign proteins from different species to change the nature of a food? GE foods are designed by breaching the natural barriers between species. DNA from bacteria, insects and other food species are forcibly inserted into the DNA of the target food. There is little control over how this happens, nor any collateral damage to the rest of the DNA sequence. The characteristics of GMO foods could never be cross bred in the traditional way.

3. Genetic engineering is a way to feed the world and reduce hunger and malnutrition

Even the USDA has acknowledges that GE crops yields may not increase, and some GE hybrid crops that produce their own pesticides have decreased yields, something called yield drag in agricultural circles.

Ironically inadequate access to food is the result of problems regarding the global food supply, not the cause. Skewed agricultural policies, misguided development, and lack of social resources contribute to the myriad of factors that divert land and other resources from people to produce their own food. From my reading, I gather that relying on GE foods will only increase the distortions in the marketplace.

POTENTIAL RISKS, LITTLE DATA

GE foods have been commercially produced since the mid 1990′s. Foreign proteins are introduced into more than 11 GMO produced foods, including soybeans, cotton (cottonseed oil), corn, canola, sugar beets, potatoes, tomatoes, rice, flax, squash/zucchini, papaya, and chicory (radicchio).

Questions swirl about the safety of these foods, but few studies have been done. Proteins are at the root of most food allergies and food sensitivities. Are GE foods involved with rising incidence of both?

Inflammation is the underlying condition linked to most major life cycle diseases: heart disease, diabetes, auto-immune diseases, even cancer. Do GE foods increase our body’s state of inflammation as well? With Monsanto’s virtual monopoly on GE seeds, very little independent research is likely.

CONSUMERS DESERVE TO VOTE WITH THEIR DOLLARS

Many other countries have followed a more prudent course called the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle simple expects “as long as you don’t know how it’s going to affect us, don’t put it in our food.” (O’Brien, 2009) Until labeling becomes mandatory, choosing organic sources of the big 11 is one way to avoid genetically modified foods. Given that soy and other ingredients are found in most processed foods, it is more important than ever to eat “close to the earth.”

All of Europe and Great Britain, Australia, Japan and Russia require GE foods to be labeled. Let’s make sure California is next.

Filed Under: Blog, Uncategorized Tagged With: allergies, asthma, cancer, consumers, diabetes, farming, FDA, food, food labeling, genetic, genetically engineers, genetically modified, gmo, heart disease, immune function, inflammation, Monsanto, organic, Robyn O'Brien

Dueling Dietary Guidelines: The Weston Price Foundation challenges the USDA

October 18, 2011 by

March is National Nutrition Month. Recently both the USDA and Weston Price Foundation published dueling dietary guidelines.

People are confused about food. Too many studies, too many experts, and all sorts of contrary ideas are floated as evidence of the right way to eat. Makes me wonder if there is a single “right” way to eat that works for everyone.

The Weston Price Foundation (WPF) threw down the gauntlet on February 14, 2011, introducing “Healthy 4 Life” in direct competition with the recently released USDA 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Why are food recommendations so controversial?

WPF followers see significant harm in the current approach recommended by the committee who drafted the USDA guidelines. They are not the only ones heaping criticism on the latest rendition of the guidelines. Comments by Walter Willet and Marion Nestle charge that USDA guidelines are overly influenced by commercial and corporate interests. Both Drs. Nestle and Willet contend that food interests are very powerful in this country. They say it is all a matter of following the money.

USDA RECOMMENDATIONS FOCUS ON CALORIES AND NUTRIENT-DENSE FOODS

USDA opens with two over-arching concepts. The first is a statement about Calorie balance and sustaining a healthy weight, basically committee speak for too many Americans are fat and need to lose weight. WPF states that meeting energy needs with recommended whole foods eliminates the need to count calories and will naturally lead to a healthier weight.

Secondly USDA recommends focusing on consuming nutrient-dense foods and beverages. WPF also encourages eating nutrient dense food, but their Food 4 Health guide looks remarkably different than the USDA 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Both organizations herald experts in their respective disciplines. How do they come to such differing positions on something as basic as what we eat?

WHAT IS A NUTRIENT DENSE FOOD?

USDA tends to focus on nutrients and nutrition science. USDA is very quantitative and evidence based. The Weston Price Foundation hones in on the quality of the soil, methods of food production and food preparation.WPF reinforces the value of eating traditional foods in a traditional way, pointing out that the last 40 years of nutrient based science parallels alarming increases in lifestyle disease states and obesity in this country and the world.

Both groups encourage the consumption of fruits and vegetables. USDA presses for more fiber, WPF presses for eating whole foods, organically grown.

WPF encourages beans and legumes in the diet as a compliment to animal products. USDA Dietary Guidelines suggest eating beans and legumes as a healthy substitute for animal products, which they say contribute excessive fat, saturated fat and cholesterol to the diet.

WHAT ABOUT FAT AND SUGAR?

Beyond these basic concepts, the rest of the guidelines couldn’t be more disparate. The USDA Dietary Guidelines continue to admonish Americans to avoid saturated fat, cholesterol, sugar and salt. WPF disagrees with most of these positions, encouraging healthy fats like butter and whole milk from grass fed animals. Ironically, WPF’s position is most aligned with current scientific thinking. Both of the groups agree trans fat is a problem. Interestingly, the FDA (a co-regulator of the food supply) continues to allow trans fats GRAS status. This means that in the world of food additives it is “generally regarded as safe”.

Both groups discuss the problem of excessive sugars and refined starches, but WPF definitely has the stronger voice. The USDA guidelines still allow for 10% of Calories from refined sugar. The USDA guidelines encourage Americans to eat more fiber, but not enough is said about eating less refined starch. Again, FDA’s position does not help. The FDA allows high fructose corn syrup along with a growing list of alternative sweeteners GRAS status, despite significant research linking these substances to metabolic issues and health problems.

FOCUS ON NUTRIENTS LITTLE MORE THAN BIOCHEMICAL MANIPULATION

I respect the science behind the USDA Dietary Guidelines, but the focus on nutrients often misses the point of eating. The science is easily manipulated into reductionist sound bites. The focus on nutrients distracts attention from critical aspects of soil ecology, farming, and food production.

Consumers have been taught to be preoccupied with the nutrient label. They often miss the big picture as they are eating mostly packaged foods. I have clients who eat berries for antioxidants, eat cottage cheese for leucine, avoid meat because of saturated fat and cholesterol, and drink sodium ladened sports drinks while telling me how they avoid salt in the diet. This is not eating. It is little more than biochemical manipulation.

CELEBRATING WHOLE FOODS

There is much to celebrate with the whole foods approach of Healthy 4 Life, as outlined by the Weston Price Foundation. Likewise, an argument can be made that there is value in learning about the role of individual nutrients in foods as encouraged by the USDA Dietary Guidelines. A problem occurs when preoccupation with individual nutrients trumps the value of eating whole foods.

Given the polarized nature of these two different sets of recommendations, the enduring challenge for consumers will be to determine an approach to food that works. This is the public health nightmare. It may be that there is no one right way to eat. The question remains, what approach to food works for you?

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: calories, cholesterol, Dietary Guidelines, eating, farming, fat, FDA, fiber, food, food label, food nutrient, fruit, health, high fructose corn syrup, Marion Nestle, public health, satruated fat, sodium, soil, starch, sugar, trans fat, USDA, vegetable, Walter Willet, weight, Weston Price Foundation

Why I celebrate McDonald’s New Happy Meal

October 18, 2011 by

McDonald’s announced it’s newest Happy Meal version yesterday. Media swarmed at the news and Michelle Obama added her words of encouragement.

The newest Happy Meal version includes 1/4 cup of apples and a smaller 100 calorie (1.1 oz) portion of French fries along with a choice of entree and beverage. McDonald’s estimates calorie savings up to 20% for any one Happy Meal. Most weight loss experts celebrate that kind of change. But not everyone has nice things to say.

A CRESCENDO OF CRITICS

There is a rising crescendo of voices that want to denigrate every food option that doesn’t meet their idea of acceptible or healthy. Andy Bellitti complains that there aren’t adequate nutrients in the Happy Meal. Mark Bittman tweets, “It is McD’s ‘job’ to make money, mostly by selling junk.” Yoni Freedhoff retweets Andy Bellitti’s assumptions and tells everyone, “we need to cook.” Marion Nestle says “I’m not impressed.”

The collective angst directed at McDonald’s no matter what they do is curious to me. I am a dietitian, seeing private patients for 25 years in Santa Monica. I taught at Santa Monica College for 15 years, 12 at UCLA Extension. I am no slouch when it comes to addressing nutrition science or working with real patients as they navigate food in their real world.

At the same time, I have consulted with McDonald’s Operators of Southern California (MOASC) for almost 20 years.(1) I see the food that they buy. I observe their crew cooking the same. This food is purchased from the same vendors supplying our neighborhood supermarkets.

I am left to wonder about all the angst and condemnation directed to fast food in general, and McDonald’s specifically.

DATA DISTORTION

Public health authorities tagged fast food as the culprit in the escalating incidence of obesity–especially for children– decades ago. We keep getting fatter despite it all. Has all their noise been ineffective? Could it be that the considerable amount of time and energy denigrating fast food is misdirected?

Part of the problem may be rooted in data distortion. Recently I was scouring the Report of the Dietary Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. I came across this statement:

“There is not enough evidence at this time to similarly evaluate eating out at other types of restaurants and risk of weight gain, overweight, and obesity.”

Does this mean that fast food has been the primary focus just because there was no other data to address eating at sit down restaurants?

I wonder what we will find out. Most sit down restaurants offer hamburgers topping 1000, 1200, 1500 calories and more. French fries are often served in only one size–a lot. For years one restaurant offered French fries in only one serving size, a one pound basket. Now they offer “endless fries”.

The largest hamburger at McDonald’s yields 770 calories, the smallest at 210 calories. McDonald’s offers small, medium and large fries–ranging from 2.5 oz. (230 cal) to 5.4 ounces (500 cal) per serving.

OBESITY IS A FOOD PROBLEM, NOT A FAST FOOD PROBLEM

In all the criticism about fast food, it is easy to miss the bigger picture. Our entire food supply is incredibly abundant and adulterated. The increasing incidence of obesity and disease is overwhelming to anyone who understands the trends.

Is the answer to continue to denigrate every effort by McDonald’s as not good enough? I don’t think so.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines Scientific Advisory Committee, many researchers and clinicians agree. The obesity problem is too big for any of us to solve on our own. I hear the call for all sectors of society to step up:

individuals, families, physicians and allied health professionals, public health advocates, policy makers, scientists and small and large businesses, including farmers, agricultural producers, food scientists , food manufacturers and food retailers of all kinds.

EVERY FOOD VENUE NEEDS TO STEP UP, BUT SO DOES GOVERNMENT

We need to address the issues of abundance and adulteration of the food supply at every point of purchase: supermarkets, convenience stores, food marts at gas stations and snacks offered in pharmacies and drug stores. We need to look at every sector of catering and restaurant industry, from quick service restaurants to fine dining. Every entertainment venue, food cart, food truck and vending machine deserves the same scrutiny.

But mostly we need the government to step up, specifically the USDA, the FDA, and the EPA. As long as problematic ingredients, additives, animal feed and husbandry practices, and farming practices are deemed safe and/or legal, the rest of the sectors are left to go it alone.

As for everyone wanting to believe that eliminating fast food is the answer, I would remind you that research colleagues in science labs tell us even the lab rats are getting bigger. What are they feeding the mice?

(1) The opinions expressed here are my own. This blog is not supported nor sponsored by any commercial interest.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Andy Bellatti, animal feed, animal husbandry, calories, children, EPA, farming, fast food, FDA, food, food additives, food science, French fries, Happy Meal, Marion Nestle, Mark Bittman, McDonalds, Michelle Obama, obesity, restaurants, USDA, weight loss, Yoni Freedhoff

THE FOOD CHAIN: Human Nutrition Gets It Backwards

October 18, 2011 by

My degree is in Food and Nutrition, Human nutrition that is. When I read research studies the emphasis is on what happens to humans. There is all kind of debate whether animal models are a good surrogate for the human experience. Mostly nutrition science agrees that studies with human subjects are best to determine what is important for humans. Maybe. But we need to look far beyond the human experience to address many of the nutrition and health concerns of our day.

Last Sunday I spoke at the Good Food Fest celebrating 30 years of the Santa Monica’s Farmer’s Market.

As I prepared my talk I looked for a picture of a food chain to insert into my Power point presentation. Many show humans, or at least a carnivore, at the top of the chain. I started to wonder how much these graphics reflect and influence our thinking.

BACTERIA FRONT, CENTER, EVERYWHERE

I chose one of the graphics, copied it and then adulterated the second picture with the missing component. Bacteria.

My graphic was more of a circle of life than a chain. I plopped a picture of bacteria in between “the degraders” (vultures, worms, insects) and soil. Then and cut and pasted a picture of the bacteria at every stage of the chain. I think bacteria is at the top of the food chain, at the beginning, and at every incremental stage in the circle of life.

WHAT ABOUT THE FOOD

On Sunday afternoon I spoke on a panel with Keith Eichenauer, the dairy/deli assistant manager at the Santa Monica Coop and Nate Pietso, owner of Maggie’s Farm. Keith defined organic, cage free, free range, grass fed and other notions of sustainably grown food. Nate discussed how this plays out on a farm and defined what it means to the farmer to grow food sustainably.

I followed. My first quip was something about humans not being the center of the universe. Bacteria probably is. It was the first time I had spoken these words and they resonated. I was struck by how this simple concept had eluded me until that very moment.

I spoke of the nutritional benefits of sustainably, organically grown food. More often than not organically grown food is more nutrient dense. More vitamins, more minerals and especially more antioxidants. In this day of inflammation involved with everything from diabetes to cancer and heart disease, more antioxidants in food is a good thing.

TROUBLING CONSEQUENCES OF CONVENTIONAL FARMING

I spoke of the very troubling consequences of conventional farming. I showed pictures depicting the extent of pesticide contamination and the impact of persistent organic pollutants. Many are known endocrine disruptors and are linked to major metabolic disease.

I discussed the impact of fertilizer run off and dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico come every spring. Excessive nitrogen in the run off drives algae overgrowth. The growth and death of algae sucks the oxygen from the waters. The entire ecosystem suffers, and a “dead zone” is created.

I spoke of antibiotic resistant bacteria from overuse and abuse of antibiotics in animal feed. Seventy percent of antibiotics used in this country are used in animals, mostly in feed to enhance their growth and minimize infection as they live in disease inducing conditions. I spoke of growth hormones used in animals being measured in ground water and the oceans.

REDEFINING THE STUDY OF HUMAN NUTRITION

I basically redefined human nutrition. My guess is that this awareness has been percolating for years. Now it feels obvious. Nutrition encompasses more than the study of nutrients in food. I can no longer be preoccupied by such a limited definition. Preparing for this presentation allowed me to formalize the notion that the entire food chain and all of the challenges of growing food are encompassed in the study of nutrition. They all influence the nutritional status and health of humans.

Today I am more curious than ever about the role of bacteria in nutrition and health. Research is poking at links with health and disease. All kinds of gastrointestinal (GI) tract and metabolic disorders are linked with bacteria. Our bodies host 10 times more bacteria cells than our own human cells. There are estimates of 500-1000 different types of bacteria in our guts and another 500-1000 species on our skin. We live symbiotically with these organisms, whether we pay attention to them or not.

BACTERIA AND RAW MILK

I showed a slide depicting a grass fed cow and the words “raw milk”. In the words of the moderator, the subject struck like a lightning bolt in the room.

Raw milk is a contentious topic, especially on the West side. Recent raids on Rawsome in Venice, CA, and confiscation of raw milk all over the country have raw milk afficcionados up in arms. Statements by the FDA claiming grave danger from raw milk seem out of proportion to documented risks.

My position is simple. We don’t live in the same world as Louis Pasteur. Science should be able to ensure adequate safety standards so that raw milk can be sold and consumed without undue risk to consumers who want their milk and milk products raw. After all, breast milk is “raw” and we don’t find too much trouble with collecting. storing and feeding that to our babies.

Maybe we need to rethink our position on food, period. Our food supply is safe, often too sanitary, and lack of adequate healthy bacteria is linked to many disease states. People now spend money for supplemental bacteria in the form of probiotics. They pay extra to feed bacteria in the form of prebiotics. Maybe we all could benefit from consuming healthy bacteria from carefully chosen raw, fermented and fresh-from-the-farm foods.

What is your take? Is there a need to get enough healthy bacteria from our food supply? Is raw milk the health risk that the FDA claims– or a vital living source of good bacteria?

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: animal feed, antibiotic resistant bacteria, antibiotics, bacteria, dairy, dead zone, ecosystem, farming, FBI, FDA, food chain, gastrointestinal disease, Good Food Fest, grass fed, growth hormones, Gulf of Mexico, human nutrition, Maggie's Farm, nitrogen, nutrition, organic, pasteurization, pesticides, prebiotics, probiotics, raw milk, rawsome, santa monica farmer's market, Santa Monica Food Coop, smfms, sustainability

WHAT’S WITH WHEAT TODAY? I’m testing if it’s the gluten

Are the Benefits of Organic Farming In Doubt?

Why We Need Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

Dueling Dietary Guidelines: The Weston Price Foundation challenges the USDA

Why I celebrate McDonald’s New Happy Meal

THE FOOD CHAIN: Human Nutrition Gets It Backwards

Search

Follow Bonnie

WHAT’S WITH WHEAT TODAY? I’m testing if it’s the gluten

Are the Benefits of Organic Farming In Doubt?

Why We Need Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

Dueling Dietary Guidelines: The Weston Price Foundation challenges the USDA

Why I celebrate McDonald’s New Happy Meal

THE FOOD CHAIN: Human Nutrition Gets It Backwards

Search

Follow Bonnie

Topics