Agent Orange in America?

My FiL died of pancreatic cancer recently. He was a Vietnam veteran, exposed to Agent Orange during his tour of duty, serving our country. 


May FiL's cancer was officially attributed to Agent Orange exposure by the U.S. Government. 


How generous of Uncle Sam.


It took thirty years of veterans battling Uncle Sam and the misinformation of big corporations before the government acknowledged that Agent Orange caused damage to multiple systems in the human body. Evidently the dead wildlife and birth defects associated with prenatal exposure in Vietnam wasn't a sufficient indicator of harm to humans.  

A major ingredient in AO is the herbicide called 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). This herbicide is commonly used on commercial crop to control weeds. 
According to a new article at Mercola.com

What is new – and disturbingly so – is that now that staple crops like soy and corn have been engineered to be resistant to 2,4-D, it may soon be applied to U.S. arable land on an unprecedented scale -- not unlike its indiscriminate application during Vietnam.

The whole point of engineering resistance to an herbicide within a GMO plant, of course, is so that you can "carpet bomb" an entire field, leaving only your "Frankenfoods" standing, without having to exert even a fraction of the effort required raise crops organically and sustainably.

I have been seeing a lot of articles about the dangers of genetically modified food when consumed by humans. 


So we have two issues here, herbicides and GM food. Which is why I raise my own food.


I don't use herbicides or pesticides on anything. I don't use GM seeds. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a purist, I will use hybrid seeds. Creating hybrids has been around for centuries, and is proven beneficial and safe. 


But when you start tinkering with genetic structure, let's face it, we humans just don't know enough about the interacting systems that form our building blocks--much less the building blocks of plants--to start  distributing it on a commercial scale. It should not be out of the lab for a long time. 


Do readers remember Dolly the cloned sheep? After all the excitement of successful cloning, didn't we find out that Dolly's cells were found to be the same chronological age as the donor cells? This lamb started out older than a normally conceived newborn. 


I'm all for research and innovation. But in their excitement, scientists overlook the impact of their amazing discoveries on people, our economy and on the environment. 


Don't mistake me for a rabid environmentalist, I'm more of a responsible steward who believes in common sense and moderation when introducing new technologies. After all, so many formerly-touted-as-completely-safe technologies are being found to be harmful and even downright dangerous today. 

If corn and soy are on the GM list, then it's time to stop buying it at the grocery store. 


I grow my own corn. I don't eat soy. 


I can find nothing that shows sustainable methods of growing food is harmful. It's not even that much more difficult, if you set up your process to be as efficient as possible. It can be done, I do it. 


Why are people so afraid of a little work?

Day 5 Sans MIcrowave

Today is our fifth day without using the microwave. Yesterday I mentioned about DH's ability to taste the difference in microwaved baked potatoes when we were first married nearly thirty years ago. I never noticed a taste difference back then, but perhaps my palate was uneducated.

But, much to my surprise, breakfast has been remarkably better when it's not cooked in the microwave or on Teflon.

It's the same ingredients, eggs laid by our chickens, and bacon (or ham or sausage). Along with the egg(s) and meat,  DH has a piece of whole wheat toast, a banana, an apple and coffee. I have half a grapefruit and my sugar-free white chocolate mocha. This is our breakfast every day. Oh, every now and then we'll add old-fashioned oatmeal, the kind that 's thick and takes twenty minutes to cook, when we need a fiber boost. Often I'll add oat bran to mine and it solves the problem. Or for a treat, whole wheat waffles or french toast with pure maple syrup. But always the eggs and breakfast meat. Protein is important for breakfast.

Formerly, the bacon was microwaved and the milk for my coffee drink was zapped to warm it up. The eggs were cooked over-easy in a Teflon griddle.

Cooking on cast iron griddle. Notice the darker yellow-orange
color of the egg yolks laid by free range chickens. 

Now, I've been using a cast iron griddle to cook the bacon and eggs. I heat the milk in a saucepan over a flame.

I could taste the difference. It actually surprised me that I could taste the difference, even in the eggs,  I did not expect that. I was only experimenting with eliminating toxic food preparation methods.

The flavor of the bacon was richer, more alive, as was my coffee drink. Both contained a depth and nuance that was not present when it was cooked with the microwave. The flavor was fuller and complex compared to cooking it in the microwave. Microwaved food tastes bland in comparison. How can microwaves kill flavor? That is very curious.

Even the eggs were better, and not because I cooked them in bacon fat, because I didn't. I cooked them at the other end of the griddle and the bacon grease drained off on it's side. It's pretty hard to improve on fresh eggs laid by free range chickens, but cooking them on cast iron instead of Teflon accomplished the impossible.

DH said the enhanced flavor really made breakfast a treat, while apologizing for the added work. But really, it was not that much more work, considering the unexpected bonus of dramatically better flavor.  The cleanup was no more work, the eggs don't stick, the only difference is a few more minutes to properly heat the griddle and cook the bacon. No big deal. Especially when you consider that food cooked in cast iron, ceramic or stainless steel cookware is safer than cooked on Teflon or in the microwave.

Cast iron is easy to cook on and care for, if you do it right. Most people today don't know how to do it right, so they won't use it. But cast iron is an old technology that is actually better for us than newer cooking technologies. It does not introduce any toxins into our food during preparation.

If we are going to make the effort to obtain untainted food for our dinner table, it only makes sense to insure we don't introduce any toxins or alter it so that our bodies cannot assimilate it properly as we prepare it.

I've used cast iron all my life, but with the advent of Teflon and microwave, I was lured by the false promises. Seduced by lies, I strayed. I pushed my cast iron to the back of the shelf and flirted with the new technology for years, only to learn it is harmful.

Like the prodigal, I return, contrite and repentant.

Tune in again and I'll talk about the proper care and use of cast iron cookware.

The Microwave Has Got to Go?

It came in the email, as warnings often do.  Microwaved food is bad, bad, bad for you. A school child's science experiment proved it, a plant watered with cooled, microwaved water died. Research proved microwaving alters the food to make in unrecognizable or harmful to our bodies.

DH and I discussed this experiment (which has been debunked on snopes.) We discussed how only one plant for each variable was not a reliable demonstration. Snopes used three, but again, only one for microwaved, cooled water, one for boiled cooled water and one for unaltered water. Again, proving nothing in my book.

You need a number of the same variety plants for each variable. Say, three at least.  So, I'll attempt it and report on it as the experiment is conducted. Hey, it's no skin off my nose, and I'd like to see for myself.

As for the research. You can find both anti-microwave and pro-microwave on the Internet. So, I look to who's publishing what and what their stake in it is. Especially who is saying "microwaved food is as good as food that isn't microwaved." If they make microwave or components of microwaves, or if it is the government, my experience tells me to take their findings with a vary large grain of salt.

I'm not taking a position on this debate, but I do concede that there are legitimate concerns that give me pause. First, the arguments about what microwaves do are entirely plausible from a scientific standpoint. Second, the nay-sayers have a history of cooking their research books to arrive at predetermined "safe" findings. Frankly, there is precious little I trust at face value, especially on the Internet.

My jury is out, but pending my consideration of the issue, my microwave will be seeing less duty. If it affects the environment, pacemakers, transmissions and emits radiation, common sense says there is probably something we don't necessarily know about. So I make my decision on common sense. That, and the fact that DH could taste the difference between microwaved and conventionally cooked food--for example baked potatoes--when we first got married nearly thirty years ago. If you can taste a difference, there must be a reason for that difference.

However, I will observe that people today seem to be a lot more stupid and have more brain problems than thirty years ago. . .just about the time that microwaves were found in every home. The claims that microwaves cause brain damage might just be valid. . . Or maybe that's when  big Pharmaceutical made it's major move. . .Whatever it is, something is not right.

Which is why I'm leaning more and more to natural solutions. It seems to be a whole lot safer in the long run.

Sugar vx. High Fructose Corn Syrup

It seems sugar is squaring off with high fructose corn syrup in court about their ad campaign that claims HFCS is no different than sugar.



The National Law Journal at law.com reports,

Three sugar companies initially filed suit on April 22, 2011, asserting that a CRA (Corn Refiners Associaiton, Inc.)  advertising campaign makes false and misleading claims that high fructose corn syrup is "natural," that "sugar is sugar," that "your body can't tell the difference" and that it's "nutritionally the same as table sugar." The suit cites a "citizen's petition" that the CRA's members gave to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 14, 2010, seeking to replace the label "high fructose corn syrup" with "corn sugar" on ingredient labels.

The sugar industry is suing for false and misleading advertising.

This is like the pot calling the kettle black. Neither one is good for you, not even in moderation. They both contribute to a wide array of health issues.

This is a fight that I don't care who wins. Their market share is diminishing as more Americans cut sugar and HFCS from their diets, so they are fighting for a diminishing return on their investment.  I don't feel sorry for them.

On a recent shopping trip, I had to buy some sugar. Yes, I use sugar, but a five pound bag lasts a long time in this household. But they don't sell five pound bags of sugar any more. The sugar bags are now four pounds, at the same price a five pound bag was. And sugar complains about HFCS deceiving the public?

I've converted to using stevia and other alternatives to sugar and HFCS. I don't buy products that have HFCS, and if there is sugar, it is a small amount. . .way below moderate. They lost a bunch of my business years ago.