How Effective Are Vitamins?--NYTImes article

Thanks for sharing this.  Very interesting.

I've read a couple of other articles essentially saying the same thing.  My feeling is that, unless you're taking regular medication (such as an AI that is known to potentially cause osteoporosis due to the lack of estrogen), and if you regularly eat a healthy diet (fresh, not processed foods) then you really shouldn't require a multivitamin or mineral supplement.  Everything should be coming from the food you consume.  The exception seems to be Vitamin D, especially for those of us living a fair ways north of the equator.

There are 3 problems, however:  #1 is that MDs don't learn about nutrition in med school, so can't really advise us on what supplements we need if we're taking certain medications; #2 is that we're swamped with ads for supplements on tv, over the internet, in magazines, and every time we enter a drugstore -- which makes us feel we SHOULD be taking them all! and #3 is that most regular blood tests don't check for a lack of vitamins or minerals, so we have to exhibit symptoms first.  Better to try to prevent the symptoms of illness first.

Just my thoughts!

Linda 

I read about another study done about a year ago that indicated that no positive effect can be detected from multi-vitamins whatsoever - in fact, the particular study I'm remembering specifically stated that the stats for people with death from heart disease were actually higher for the groups that took multivitamins, although there is not necessarily any correlation there. 

The main point of these studies is the fact that wholesome food and a good diet provides the vitamins the system needs - fresh fruit, veggies, whole grains, and healthy fats most efficiently nourishes the system.

You can tell a huge difference in how you feel if you start eating 5 serving of fruits and veggies every single day along with whole grains and healthy oils.  I did it last year, then fell off the wagon, but it resolved a lot of problems I was having and I felt great.

I don't think it can hurt to take a multivitamin every day for good measure, although I personally think they're just not necessary unless you have some sort of condition such as anemia, which a physician will treat with iron supplements. 

Physicians are always happy to direct you to a licensed nutritionist if you have reservations.

Hi, Deja -

It IS hard to eat 5 fruits and veggies a day, isn't it?  You have to make a point of it and keep track. 

Last year I went on Weight Watchers Core Plan, something I loved because there are many, many things you can eat on that plan that you don't have to count points on.  I lost 20 lbs in about 2 1/2 months.  I felt so good while I was eating like that!  I had to start my day with fresh fruit every morning. 

Any type of hot cereal, oats, and corn meal are considered whole grains on this diet and do not count.  So, every morning I would make a bowl of oatmeal from rolled oats and cook it with a banana or I would add a small container of applesauce afterwards.  That way I had one fruit down for the day.  Often I would eat another bowl of oatmeal at night when I was feeling the urge to snack.  The diet requires 2 tsps of healthy oil a day (olive or canola), so I would also put a couple of tsps in the oatmeal on days I wasn't planning on using that oil in a meal.  You honestly cannot taste the oil.

Since I'm over 50, the diet also calls for 3 servings of non-fat dairy a day, which actually helps you lose weight.  A study in Sweden indicates that the calcium molecules bind with fat and help you excrete the fat without your body absorbing calories from it.  (Of course you still have to make sure you're not eating too much fat.)

I HAVE to go back to that way of eating.  It's hard getting all those fruits and veggies down, but about 2 weeks after doing that religiously, you'll feel a lot better.

That's true, LJ, and another thing people don't realize is that a half cup of most veggies is a serving.  That's not as much as some people might think of as a "serving."  I believe fresh, leafy salad veggies are one cup per serving, so a large salad will provide 2-3 servings as well.

 63% of America's crops now use these seeds.

Genetically modified (GM) foods are food items that have had their DNA changed through genetic engineering. Unlike conventional genetic modification that is carried out through conventional breeding and that have been consumed for thousands of years, GM foods were first put on the market in the early 1990s. The most common modified foods are derived from plants: soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil. For example, a typical GM Food could be a strawberry that must survive in cold climates. Cultured cells from the strawberry and of a similar plant that is more resilient to cold are grown. Researchers use the Polymerase Chain Reaction method of replication to create millions of the desired DNA fragment safely and accurately. Researchers then insert these fragments, along with RNA "instructions" into plasmids or modified protein capsules, called "protein coats," much like those of viruses. These plasmids, along with DNA ligase and other enzymes, are injected into the cultured strawberry cells. The enzymes sever the DNA of the strawberry at a specific precoded point, and the fragment of 'frost resistance' DNA is placed in the gap. DNA ligase then binds the severed DNA ends. The cells of the strawberry plant grown from culture are now more likely to be resistant to frost.^[1][2]

Genetically engineered crops and foods are controversial. These commonly focus on the long-term health effects for anyone eating them, environmental safety, labeling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, environmental conservation, and potential disruption or even possible destruction of the food chain. Proponents claim the technology to be a boon for the human race, while critics believe it to be a potential or actual health or ecological disaster.

[edit] Development

The first commercially grown genetically modified whole food crop was the tomato (called Flavr Savr), which was made more resistant to rotting by Californian company Calgene.^[3] Calgene was allowed to release in 1994 without any special labeling.^[4] It was welcomed by consumers who purchased the fruit at two to five times the price of regular tomatoes. However, production problems^[3] and competition from a conventionally bred, longer shelf-life variety prevented the product from becoming profitable. A variant of the Flavr Savr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996.^[5] The labeling and pricing were designed as a marketing experiment, which proved, at the time, that European consumers would accept genetically engineered foods.

Currently, there are a number of foods of which a genetically modified version exists.

In addition, various microorganisms have been genetically engineered to produce aspartame, amino acids, and various chemicals. ^[7]

A list of FDA Approved GMO Foods is public information on the FDA website^[8]

View a list of commercialized GM crops in the US as of July 2007^[9]

[edit] Growing GM crops

Between 1995 and 2005, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 50, from 17,000 km² (4.2 million acres) to 900,000 km² (222 million acres), of which 55 percent were Brazil.

Although most GM crops are grown in North America, in recent years there has been rapid growth in the area sown in developing countries. For instance in 2005 the largest increase in crop area planted to GM crops (soybeans) was in Brazil (94,000 km² in 2005 versus 50,000 km² in 2004.)^[10] There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002. (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed.) It is predicted that in 2008/9 32,000 km² of GM cotton will be harvested in India (up more than 100 percent from the previous season). Indian national average cotton yields of GM cotton were seven times lower in 2002, because the parental cotton plant used in the genetic engineered was not well suited to the climate of India and failed. The publicity given to transgenic trait Bt insect resistance has encouraged the adoption of better performing hybrid cotton varieties, and the Bt trait has substantially reduced losses to insect predation. Though controversial and often disputed, economic and environmental benefits of GM cotton in India to the individual farmer have been documented.^[11][12]

In 2003, countries that grew 99% of the global transgenic crops were the United States (63%), Argentina (21%), Canada (6%), Brazil (4%), China (4%), and South Africa (1%).^[13] The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient^[14] . In particular, Bt corn, which produces the pesticide within the plant itself is widely grown, as are soybeans genetically designed to tolerate glyphosate herbicides. These constitute "input-traits" are aimed to financially benefit the producers, have indirect environmental benefits and marginal cost benefits to consumers.

In the US, by 2006 89% of the planted area of soybeans, 83% of cotton, and 61% maize were genetically modified varieties. Genetically modified soybeans carried herbicide tolerant traits only, but maize and cotton carried both herbicide tolerance and insect protection traits (the latter largely the Bacillus thuringiensis Bt insecticidal protein). In the period 2002 to 2006, there were significant increases in the area planted to Bt protected cotton and maize, and herbicide tolerant maize also increased in sown area.^[15]

However, several studies have found that genetically modified varieties of plants do not produce higher yields than normal plants.^[16]

[edit] Coexistence and traceability

In many parts of the world such as the European Union, Japan, Malaysia and Australia consumers demand labelling so they can exercise choice between foods that have genetically modified, conventional or organic origins.^[17][18] This requires a labelling system as well as the reliable separation of GM and non-GM organisms at production level and throughout the whole processing chain.^[17][18] Research suggests that this may prove impossible, reason why GM opponents use the 'genie out of a bottle' analogy.

For traceability, the OECD has introduced a "unique identifier" which is given to any GMO when it is approved. This unique identifier must be forwarded at every stage of processing.

Many countries have established labelling regulations and guidelines on coexistence and traceability. Research projects such as Co-Extra, SIGMEA and Transcontainer are aimed at investigating improved methods for ensuring coexistence and providing stakeholders the tools required for the implementation of coexistence and traceability.

The GM food controversy is a dispute over the advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified food crops. See Genetically modified food controversies.

[edit] Controversy

Main article: GM food controversy

Some scientists^[19] argue that there is more than enough food in the world and that the hunger crisis is caused by problems in food distribution and politics, not production, so people should not be offered food that may carry some degree of risk.^[20][21]

A media firestorm erupted in 1999 when scientist Árpád Pusztai found that consumption of potatoes genetically modified to contain lectin had negative intestinal effects on rats.^[22] As a consequence he became the victim of a smear campaign but was eventually vindicated.^[23] The results he argued that the effects could not be attributed entirely to lectin, which is known to have toxic effects, and stated that "other parts of the GM construct, or the transformation, could have contributed to the overall effects".^[22] He appeared on television where he said that the government and companies were using the population as guinea pigs. Europeans were outraged, and within a week every major food company on the continent including McDonalds, Nestlé and Burger King, all committed to not purchase GM foods. Later, the Royal Society released a review of the which concluded that the work was flawed and that no conclusions should be drawn from it.^[24]

The attitude towards GM foods only got worse after outbreaks of Mad Cow Disease weakened consumer trust in government regulators, and protesters rallied against the introduction of Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" soybeans.^{[citation needed]} The next GM crops included insect-resistant cotton^[25][26] and herbicide-tolerant soybeans^[27] both of which were commercially released in 1996. GM crops have been widely adopted in the United States. They have also been extensively planted in several other countries (Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) where the agriculture is a major part of the total economy. Other GM crops include insect-resistant maize and herbicide-tolerant maize, cotton, and rapeseed varieties.

Genetic modifications often have significant unforeseen consequences, both in the initially modified organisms and their environments. For example, certain strains of maize have been developed that are toxic to plant eating insects (see Bt corn). It has been alleged those strains cross-pollinated with other varieties of wild and domestic maize and passed on these genes with a putative impact on Maize biodiversity.^[28] Subsequent to the publication of these results, several scientists pointed out that the conclusions were based on experiments with design flaws. It is well known that the results from polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods of analysing DNA can often be confounded by sample contamination and experimental artifacts. Appropriate controls can be included in experiments to eliminate these as a possible explanation of the results - however these controls were not included in the methods used by Quist and Chapela.^[29] After this criticism Nature, the scientific journal where this data was originally published concluded that "the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper".^[30] More recent attempts to replicate the original studies have concluded that genetically modified corn is absent from southern Mexico in 2003 and 2004.^[31] Also in dispute is the impact on biodiversity of the introgression of transgenes into wild populations.^[32] Unless a transgene offers a massive selective advantage in a wild population, a transgene that enters such a population will be maintained at a low gene frequency. In such situations it can be argued that such an introgression actually increases biodiversity rather than lowers it.

Activists and many scientists opposed to genetic engineering say that with current recombinant technology there is no way to ensure that genetically modified organisms will remain under control, and the use of this technology outside secure laboratory environments represents multiple unacceptable risks to both farmed and wild ecosystems.

Potential impact on biodiversity may occur if herbicide-tolerant crops are sprayed with herbicide to the extent that no wild plants ('weeds') are able to survive. Plants toxic to insects may mean insect-free crops. This could result in declines in other wildlife (e.g. birds) which feed on weed seeds and/or insects for food resources. The recent (2003) farm scale studies in the UK found this to be the case with GM sugar beet and GM rapeseed, but not with GM maize (though in the last instance, the non-GM comparison maize crop had also been treated with environmentally-damaging pesticides subsequently (2004) withdrawn from use in the EU).

Although some scientists have claimed that selective breeding is a form of genetic engineering,^[33] (e.g., maize was modified from teosinte, dogs have evolved with human intervention over the course of tens of thousands of years from wolves), others assert that modern transgenesis-based genetic engineering is capable of delivering changes faster than, and sometimes of different types from, traditional breeding methods.^[34]

Proponents of current genetic techniques as applied to food plants cite hypothetical benefits that the technology may have, for example, in the harsh agricultural conditions of Africa. They say that with modifications, existing crops could possibly be able to thrive under the relatively hostile conditions providing much needed food to their people. Proponents also cite golden rice and golden rice 2, genetically engineered rice varieties (still under development) that contain genetically-modified elevated vitamin A levels. Some hope that this rice may alleviate vitamin A deficiency that contributes to the death of millions and permanent blindness of 500,000 annually.^[35]

Proponents claim that genetically-engineered crops, although patented for economic benefit, are not significantly different from those modified by nature or humans in the past. They also argue that modified crops are as safe, or even safer, than those created through such time-tested methods. There is gene transfer between unicellular eukaryotes and prokaryotes. They argue that animal husbandry, Food irradiation and crop breeding are also forms of genetic engineering that use artificial selection instead of modern genetic modification techniques. It is politics, they argue, not economics or science, that causes their work to be closely investigated, and for different standards to apply to it than those applied to other forms of agricultural technology.

Proponents also believe the technology could possibly prove harmless because species or genetic barriers have been crossed in nature in the past, sometimes utilizing other better time-tested and natural methods. An oft-cited example is today's modern red wheat variety, which is the result of two natural crossings made long ago. It is made up of three groups of seven chromosomes. Each of those three groups came from a different wild wheat grass. First, a cross between two of the grasses occurred, creating the durum wheats, which were the commercial grains of the first civilizations up through the Roman Republic. Then a cross occurred between that 14-chromosome durum wheat and another wild grass to create what became modern red wheat at the time of the Roman Empire.

[edit] Economic and political effects

• Some opponents of current genetic engineering claim that increasing use of GM in major crops has caused a major power shift in agriculture towards Biotechnology companies, which, they claim, are gaining more control over the production chain of crops and food, and over the farmers that use their products, as well.^{[citation needed]}

• Many proponents of some current genetic engineering techniques claim that it will lower pesticide usage and has brought higher yields and profitability to many farmers, including those in developing nations.^[36] A few genetic engineering licenses allow farmers in less economically developed countries to save seeds for next year's planting.^{[citation needed]}

• In August 2003, Zambia cut off the flow of Genetically Modified Food (mostly maize) from UN's World Food Programme. This left a famine-stricken population without food aid.
• In December 2005 the Zambian government changed its mind in the face of further famine and allowed the importation of GM maize.^[37] However, the Zambian Minister for Agriculture Mundia Sikatana has insisted that the ban on genetically modified maize remains, saying "We do not want GM (genetically modified) foods and our hope is that all of us can continue to produce non-GM foods."^[38][39]
• In April 2004 Hugo Chávez announced a total ban on genetically modified seeds in Venezuela.^[40]
• In January 2005, the Hungarian government announced a ban on importing and planting of genetic modified maize seeds, although these were agreed authorized by the EU.^[41]
• On August 18, 2006, American exports of rice to Europe were interrupted when much of the U.S. crop was confirmed to be contaminated with unapproved engineered genes, possibly due to accidental cross-pollination with conventional crops.^[42] The U.S. government has since declared the rice safe for human consumption, and exports to some countries have since resumed, but in the past years more crops have started to cross-pollinate which leaves a problem that is yet to be solved.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Intellectual property

Main article: Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser

Enforcement of patents on genetically modified plants is often contentious, especially because of gene flow. In 1998, 95-98 percent of about 10 km² planted with canola by Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser were found to contain Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready gene although Schmeiser had never purchased seed from Monsanto.^[43] The initial source of the plants was undetermined, and could have been through either gene flow or intentional theft. However, the overwhelming predominance of the trait implied that Schmeiser must have intentionally selected for it. The court determined that Schmeiser had saved seed from areas on and adjacent to his property where Roundup had been sprayed, such as ditches and near power poles.^[44]

Although unable to prove direct theft, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for piracy since he knowingly grew Roundup Ready plants without paying royalties(Ibid). The case made it to the Canadian Supreme Court, which in 2004 ruled 5 to 4 in Monsanto's favor.^[43][44] The dissenting judges focused primarily on the fact that Monsanto's patents covered only the gene itself and glyphosate resistant cells, and failed to cover transgenic plants in their entirety. All of the judges agreed that Schmeiser would not have to pay any damages since he had not benefitted from his use of the genetically modified seed.

In response to criticism, Monsanto Canada's director of public affairs stated that "It is not, nor has it ever been Monsanto Canada's policy to enforce its patent on Roundup Ready crops when they are present on a farmer's field by accident...Only when there has been a knowing and deliberate violation of its patent rights will Monsanto act."^[45] Currently Percy Schmeiser spends a large amount of his time traveling and speaking about how Monsanto ruined his career as a farmer. He also talks about the possible harms of genetic modification and why others in addition to himself should be protesting it.

[edit] Future developments

Future envisaged applications of GMOs are diverse and include drugs in food, bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B,^[46] metabolically engineered fish that mature more quickly, fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, foods no longer containing properties associated with common intolerances, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties.^[47] While their practicality or efficacy in commercial production has yet to be fully tested, the next decade may see exponential increases in GM product development as researchers gain increasing access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects. Safety testing of these products will also at the same time be necessary to ensure that the perceived benefits will indeed outweigh the perceived and hidden costs of development. Plant scientists, backed by results of modern comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops.^[48][49]

[edit] Health Risks

Several people are dying from the allergic reactions that are caused by the addition of the harmful pesticide chemicals, and added genes in the GM foods/crops. Currently there are only a few dozen peer reviewed studies completed on the health effects of genetically modified foods. The results of many of these studies strongly challenges the industry and government standard of substantial equivalence.

Gene Transfer:

As of January 2009 there has only been one human feeding study conducted on genetically modified foods. The study involved seven human volunteers who had their small intestines removed. These volunteers were to eat GM Soy to see if the DNA of the GM soy transferred to the human gut bacteria. Researchers identified that three of the seven volunteers had transgenes from GM soy transferred into their gut bacteria.^[50]

"This transgene was stable inside the bacteria and appeared to produce herbicide-tolerant protein... In the only human feeding study ever conducted on GM crops, long standing assumptions that genes would not transfer to human gut bacteria were overturned. The findings should prompt immediate comprehensive follow-up tests to determine the implications for health among both the general population and at-risk groups."^[51]

Allergies:

Since 2004 some cotton workers in India have experiencing allergic reactions to only Bt cotton, and not to other conventional varieties. The longer the workers were exposed to the genetically modified Bt cotton the more sever their symptoms were. An investigation concluded that reactions included: "mild to sever itching.. in severe cases eyes also became red, and swollen"^[52] One doctor reported that he had seen approximately 150 cases of allergies to Bt Cotton in 2005, and another 100 in 2004. ^[53]

In the mid 1990's Pioneer Hi-Bred began to genetically modify a soybean that would take a gene from a Brazil nut in the hopes that soy would increase the production of of the amino acid methionine. While this particular new crop was being designed for animal feed, as the case of StarLink corn clearly showed that food only for animal consumption will undoubtedly enter the human food supply. Pioneer Hi-Bred decided to test the new GM soybean with the Brazil nut gene for allergens as many people are allergic to Brazil nuts. To the companies surprise in three separate tests (radioallergosorbent testing, immunoblotting, and skin-prick testing) all studies showed that individuals allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic to the new gm soybean.^[54] "In trying to build a better soybean the company had made a potentially deadly one."^[55]

In 1999 soy allergies in the United Kingdom increased from 10%-15% in a single year. Coincidentally GM soy entered the UK shortly before 1999. One study using skin prick test showed that of the 49 subjects 13 individuals experienced a positive reaction to non-GM soy, 8 individuals reacted to the GM soybeans, and "one patient had a positive skin test result to GMO soybeans only."^[56] This study again proves that a particular genetically modified food can cause an allergic reaction in a person who does not have an allergy to the natural variety

Where the h*ll is the FDA?  Noted congress has yet to pass a single law intended to manage this! How many years has this been going on?

Flalady

I use to think my European friends were just finding another way to bash us when they turned up their noses at American food. Then I tasted a strawberry from a market in France. I had never truly tasted a strawberry before. I made a recipe for creme brulee that tasted totally different than what my French friend had made, because our dairy is pasterized, even though they invented this process. One of the reasons American is having such an epidemic of obesity is because of all the preservatives in prepared foods, msg, which is pure poison, and all the hormones given to animals, which we end up eating. All these things fuel cancer too.

Even when we try to eat healthy, we get too much bad stuff in our foods, and not enough of the good stuff.

I think I am going to have to double my garden this summer and can my fruits and veggies the way my grandmothers did. Maybe that is why they lived into their 80's and 90's and never got cancer!

Additional Soil Damage Caused by Synthetic Fertilizers and CAFO Manure
Although synthetic fertilizers add necessary nutrients to cropland, unlike manure, they fail to restore organic matter to the soil and have been shown to adversely affect soil productivity. Regular use of synthetic fertilizers causes long-term depletion of organic matter, soil compaction, and degradation of overall soil quality.^xxivOver-fertilization also causes important minerals such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium to gradually leach out of the soil.^xxv

Manure from CAFOs can also degrade soil quality. For instance, since heavy metals are added to animal feed in order to promote growth, manure can contain trace amounts of metals such as arsenic, copper, selenium, and zinc.^xxvi The high concentration of manure in CAFO lagoons enable heavy metals to accumulate in the surrounding environment, contaminating soil, poisoning wildlife, and polluting groundwater.^xxvii

CAFO manure also contains disease-causing pathogens and residues of hormones and antibiotics. When untreated manure is applied to fields, these substances can be washed over and through soil, contaminating groundwater and surface water.

For more information about the damages caused by CAFOs, see the Environment and Public Health Threats pages.

Sustainable Nutrient Management
Sustainable nutrient management techniques allow farmers to maintain healthy, productive soils for crops without degrading the environment.

Small-scale sustainable farms are able to recycle nutrients by fertilizing their crops using compost and manure produced by their livestock. While CAFOs raise hundreds or thousands of animals, producing far too much manure to be safely absorbed by the surrounding land, sustainable farms only raise small numbers of animals, creating just enough manure to fertilize crops without polluting the environment or jeopardizing human health.

This enables sustainable farms to avoid using harmful chemical fertilizers. Natural fertilizers (fertilizers composed entirely of organic materials such as manure and compost) have been shown to cause much less pollution than synthetic fertilizers. One ten-year study of maize fields revealed that fields treated with chemical fertilizers released 60% more nitrates into groundwater than fields treated with natural fertilizers.^xxviii

The USDA currently requires all Certified Organic produce to be grown without synthetic fertilizers. Likewise, organic meats must come from animals that were fed organic crops grown without chemical fertilizers.

Pam, I don't make as many during the winter either. But they sure are good in summer !

I did wonder as to whether cancer cells get fed by some of the 'good for us' nutrients like any other cells.  I do try to take most of nutrients from food but do take selenium, kelp and vitamin D in a supplement form.