What is Wrong With Food Irraditation
February 2002
Irradiation damages the quality of
food.
 Irradiation damages food by breaking
up molecules and creating free
radicals. The free radicals kill some
bacteria, but not all! The free radicals
bounce around in the food, damage
vitamins and enzymes, and combine
with existing chemicals (like
pesticides) in the food to form new
chemicals, called unique radiolytic
products (URPs).
 Some of these URPs are known toxins
(e.g., benzene, formaldehyde). Some
are unique to irradiated foods and
never studied. In the approval of
irradiation, the long-term effect of
these new chemicals in our diet were
never studied.
 Irradiated foods lose 5%-80% of
vitamins A, C, E, K or B complex.
That’s a big range, but foods vary
greatly. Different foods lose different
vitamins. Also, the amount of loss
changes when the dose of irradiation
or storage time is changed.
 Most of the food in the American diet is
already approved for irradiation by
the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA): beef, pork, lamb, poultry,
wheat, wheat flour, vegetables, fruits,
eggs in the shell, seeds for sprouting,
spices, herb teas. (Dairy is already
pasteurized). The FDA is currently
considering a food industry petition
to irradiate luncheon meats, salad bar
items, sprouts, fresh juices and frozen
foods. The USDA is considering


irradiation for imported fruits and
vegetables.
Like cooking, irradiation damages the
enzymes found in raw foods. This
means our bodies must work harder
to digest them.
Irradiation by any source--electron
beams, x-rays or nuclear gamma
rays—has the same effect on the
food.
Science has not proved that a diet high
in irradiated foods is safe in the long
term.
 The longest human feeding study was
15 weeks, in China. The data is not
available in English. No one knows the
health effects of a life-long diet that
includes a large number of foods that
can already be legally irradiated in the
U.S., such as meat, chicken,
vegetables, fruits, salads, eggs and
sprouts.
 There are no studies on the effects of
feeding normal babies or children
diets containing irradiated foods. A
very small study from India on
malnourished children showed health
effects.
 Studies on animals fed irradiated foods
have shown increased tumors,
reproductive failures and kidney
damage. Some possible causes are:
irradiation-induced vitamin
deficiencies, the inactivity of enzymes
in the food, DNA damage, and toxic
radiolytic products in the food.
© 2013 Nourish Mama. All rights reserved. Certified Nutritional Wisdom for the Childbearing Years® Practitioner



The FDA based its approval of
irradiation for poultry on only seven
of 441 animal-feeding studies
submitted. Marcia van Gemert, Ph.D.,
the toxicologist who chaired the FDA
committee that approved irradiation,
later said, "These studies reviewed in
the 1982 literature from the FDA were
not adequate by 1982 standards, and
are even less accurate by 1993
standards to evaluate the safety of
any product, especially a food
product such as irradiated food." The
seven studies are not a good basis for
approval of irradiation for humans,
because they showed health effects
on the animals or were conducted
using irradiation at lower energies
than those the FDA eventually
approved.
The FDA based its approval of
irradiation for fruits and vegetables
on a theoretical calculation of the
amount of URPs in the diet from one
7.5 oz. serving/day of irradiated food.
Considering the different kinds of
foods approved for irradiation, this
quantity is too small and the
calculation is irrelevant.
Even with current labeling
requirements, people cannot avoid
eating irradiated food. That means
there is no control group, and
epidemiologists will never be able to
determine if irradiated food has any
health effects.
Irradiation covers up problems that
the meat and poultry industry should
solve
 Irradiation covers up the increased fecal
contamination that results from

speeded up slaughter and decreased
federal inspection. Prodded by the
industry, the USDA has allowed a
transfer of inspection to company
inspectors. Where government
inspectors remain, they are not
allowed to condemn meat and poultry
now that they condemned 20 years
ago.
Because of this deregulation, the meat
and poultry industry since the ‘90s has
lost money and suffered bad publicity
from food-poisoning lawsuits and
expensive product recalls. Irradiation
is a “magic bullet” that will enable
them to say that the product was
“clean” when it left the packing plant.
(Irradiation, however, does not
sterilize food, and any bacteria that
remain can multiply to toxic
proportions if the food is not properly
stored and handled.)
Labeling is necessary to inform people
so they can choose to avoid irradiated
foods.
 Because irradiated foods have not been
proven safe for human health in the
long term, prominent, conspicuous
and truthful labels are necessary for
all irradiated foods. Consumers
should be able to easily determine if
their food has been irradiated. Labels
should also be required for irradiated
ingredients of compound foods, and
for restaurant and institutional foods.
 Because irradiation depletes vitamins,
labels should state the amount of
vitamin loss after irradiation,
especially for fresh foods that are
usually eaten fresh. Consumers have
© 2013 Nourish Mama. All rights reserved. Certified Nutritional Wisdom for the Childbearing Years® Practitioner


the right to know if they are buying
nutritionally impaired foods.
Current US labels are not sufficient to
enable consumers to avoid irradiated
food. Foods are labeled only to the
first purchaser. Irradiated spices, herb
teas and supplement ingredients,
foods that are served in restaurants,
schools, etc., or receive further
processing, do not bear consumer
labels. Labels are required only for
irradiated foods sold whole (like a
piece of fruit) or irradiated in the
package (like chicken breasts). A
radura is required. The text with the
declaration of irradiation can be as
small as the type face on the
ingredient label. The US Department
of Agriculture requirements have one
difference: irradiated meat or poultry
that is part of another food (like a TV
dinner) must be disclosed on the
label.
The US Food and Drug Administration
is currently rewriting the regulation
for minimum labeling, and will release
it for public comment in 2002. They
may eliminate all required text labels.
If they do retain the labels, Congress
has already told them to use an
alternative term instead of
“irradiation.”
Electron-beam irradiation today
means nuclear irradiation tomorrow.
 The original sponsor of food irradiation
in the US was the Department of
Energy, which wanted to create a
favorable image of nuclear power as
well as dispose of radioactive waste.
These goals have not changed.


Many foods cannot be irradiated using
electron beams. E-beams only
penetrate 1-1.5 inches on each side,
and are suitable only for flat, evenly
sized foods like patties. Large fruits,
foods in boxes, and irregularly shaped
foods must be irradiated using x-rays
or gamma rays from nuclear materials.
Countries that lack a cheap and reliable
source of electricity for e-beams use
nuclear materials. Opening U.S.
markets to irradiated food encourages
the spread of nuclear irradiation
worldwide for export crops.
Irradiation using radioactive materials
is an environmental hazard.
 Nuclear irradiation facilities have
already contaminated the
environment. For example, in the state
of Georgia in 1988, radioactive water
escaped from an irradiation facility.
The taxpayers were stuck with $47
million in cleanup costs. Radioactivity
was tracked into cars and homes. In
Hawaii in 1967 and New Jersey in
1982, radioactive water was flushed
into the public sewer system.
Numerous worker exposures have
occurred in food irradiation facilities
worldwide.
Irradiation doesn't provide clean food.
 Because irradiation doesn't sterilize
(kill all the bacteria in a food), the
ones that survive are by definition
radiation-resistant. These bacteria will
multiply and eventually work their
way back to the 'animal factories'.
Eventually, the bacteria that
contaminate the meat will no longer
be killed by currently approved doses
© 2013 Nourish Mama. All rights reserved. Certified Nutritional Wisdom for the Childbearing Years® Practitioner


of irradiation. The technology will no
longer be usable, while stronger
bacteria contaminate our food supply.
Irradiation doesn't kill all the bacteria
in a food. In a few hours at room
temperature, the bacteria remaining
in meat or poultry after irradiation
can multiply to the level existing
before irradiation.
Some bacteria, like the one that causes
botulism, as well as viruses and prions
(which are believed to cause Mad
Cow Disease) are not killed by current
doses of irradiation or by doses that
leave the food palatable.
centralization of agriculture and loss
of family farms, the potential longterm damage to human health, and
the possibility of irradiation-resistant
super-bacteria. All of these
developments should be (but are not)
considered when regulators and
public health officials evaluate the
benefits of food irradiation.
Brought to you by: Organic Consumers
Association
<http://www.organicconsumers.org/irr
adlink.html>
Irradiation does nothing to change the
way food is grown and produced.
 Irradiated foods can have longer shelf
lives than nonirradiated foods, which
means they can be shipped further
while appearing 'fresh.' Food grown
by giant farms far away may last
longer than nonirradiated, locally
grown food, even if it is inferior in
nutrition and taste. Thus, irradiation
encourages centralization and hurts
small farmers.
 The use of pesticides, antibiotics,
hormones and other agrochemicals,
as well as pollution and energy use,
are not affected. Irradiation is applied
by the packer after harvest or
slaughter.
 Free-market economists say irradiation
is 'efficient': it provides the cheapest
possible food for the least possible
risk. But these economists are not
considering the impaired nutritional
quality of the food, the environmental
effects of large-scale corporate
farming, the social costs of
© 2013 Nourish Mama. All rights reserved. Certified Nutritional Wisdom for the Childbearing Years® Practitioner
Heart Surgeon Speaks Out About What Really
Causes Heart Disease
By Dr. Dwight Lundell
We physicians with all our training, knowledge and authority often acquire a rather
large ego that tends to make it difficult to admit we are wrong. So, here it is. I freely
admit to being wrong. As a heart surgeon with 25 years experience, having performed
over 5,000 open-heart surgeries, today is my day to right the wrong with medical and
scientific fact.
I trained for many years with other prominent physicians labelled "opinion makers."
Bombarded with scientific literature, continually attending education seminars, we
opinion makers insisted heart disease resulted from the simple fact of elevated blood
cholesterol.
The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet
that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower
cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered
heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice.
It Is Not Working!
These recommendations are no longer scientifically or morally defensible. The discovery
a few years ago that inflammation in the artery wall is the real cause of heart disease is
slowly leading to a paradigm shift in how heart disease and other chronic ailments will
be treated.
The long-established dietary recommendations have created epidemics of obesity and
diabetes, the consequences of which dwarf any historical plague in terms of mortality,
human suffering and dire economic consequences.
Despite the fact that 25% of the population takes expensive statin medications and
despite the fact we have reduced the fat content of our diets, more Americans will die
this year of heart disease than ever before.
Statistics from the American Heart Association show that 75 million Americans currently
suffer from heart disease, 20 million have diabetes and 57 million have pre-diabetes.
These disorders are affecting younger and younger people in greater numbers every
year.
Simply stated, without inflammation being present in the body, there is no way that
cholesterol would accumulate in the wall of the blood vessel and cause heart disease
© 2013 Nourish Mama. All rights reserved. Certified Nutritional Wisdom for the Childbearing Years® Practitioner
and strokes. Without inflammation, cholesterol would move freely throughout the body
as nature intended. It is inflammation that causes cholesterol to become trapped.
Inflammation is not complicated -- it is quite simply your body's natural defence to a
foreign invader such as a bacteria, toxin or virus. The cycle of inflammation is perfect in
how it protects your body from these bacterial and viral invaders. However, if we
chronically expose the body to injury by toxins or foods the human body was never
designed to process, a condition occurs called chronic inflammation. Chronic
inflammation is just as harmful as acute inflammation is beneficial.
What thoughtful person would wilfully expose himself repeatedly to foods or other
substances that are known to cause injury to the body? Well, smokers perhaps, but at
least they made that choice wilfully.
The rest of us have simply followed the recommended mainstream diet that is low in fat
and high in polyunsaturated fats and carbohydrates, not knowing we were causing
repeated injury to our blood vessels. This repeated injury creates chronic inflammation
leading to heart disease, stroke, diabetes and obesity.
Let me repeat that: The injury and inflammation in our blood vessels is caused by the
low fat diet recommended for years by mainstream medicine.
What are the biggest culprits of chronic inflammation? Quite simply, they are the
overload of simple, highly processed carbohydrates (sugar, flour and all the products
made from them) and the excess consumption of omega-6 vegetable oils like soybean,
corn and sunflower that are found in many processed foods.
Take a moment to visualize rubbing a stiff brush repeatedly over soft skin until it
becomes quite red and nearly bleeding. You kept this up several times a day, every day
for five years. If you could tolerate this painful brushing, you would have a bleeding,
swollen infected area that became worse with each repeated injury. This is a good way
to visualize the inflammatory process that could be going on in your body right now.
Regardless of where the inflammatory process occurs, externally or internally, it is the
same. I have peered inside thousands upon thousands of arteries. A diseased artery
looks as if someone took a brush and scrubbed repeatedly against its wall. Several times
a day, every day, the foods we eat create small injuries compounding into more injuries,
causing the body to respond continuously and appropriately with inflammation.
While we savor the tantalizing taste of a sweet roll, our bodies respond alarmingly as if
a foreign invader arrived declaring war. Foods loaded with sugars and simple
carbohydrates, or processed with omega-6 oils for long shelf life have been the
mainstay of the American diet for six decades. These foods have been slowly poisoning
© 2013 Nourish Mama. All rights reserved. Certified Nutritional Wisdom for the Childbearing Years® Practitioner
everyone.
How does eating a simple sweet roll create a cascade of inflammation to make you
sick?
Imagine spilling syrup on your keyboard and you have a visual of what occurs inside the
cell. When we consume simple carbohydrates such as sugar, blood sugar rises rapidly. In
response, your pancreas secretes insulin whose primary purpose is to drive sugar into
each cell where it is stored for energy. If the cell is full and does not need glucose, it is
rejected to avoid extra sugar gumming up the works.
When your full cells reject the extra glucose, blood sugar rises producing more insulin
and the glucose converts to stored fat.
What does all this have to do with inflammation? Blood sugar is controlled in a very
narrow range. Extra sugar molecules attach to a variety of proteins that in turn injure the
blood vessel wall. This repeated injury to the blood vessel wall sets off inflammation.
When you spike your blood sugar level several times a day, every day, it is exactly like
taking sandpaper to the inside of your delicate blood vessels.
While you may not be able to see it, rest assured it is there. I saw it in over 5,000
surgical patients spanning 25 years who all shared one common denominator -inflammation in their arteries.
Let's get back to the sweet roll. That innocent looking goody not only contains sugars, it
is baked in one of many omega-6 oils such as soybean. Chips and fries are soaked in
soybean oil; processed foods are manufactured with omega-6 oils for longer shelf life.
While omega-6's are essential -they are part of every cell membrane controlling what
goes in and out of the cell -- they must be in the correct balance with omega-3's.
If the balance shifts by consuming excessive omega-6, the cell membrane produces
chemicals called cytokines that directly cause inflammation.
Today's mainstream American diet has produced an extreme imbalance of these two
fats. The ratio of imbalance ranges from 15:1 to as high as 30:1 in favor of omega-6.
That's a tremendous amount of cytokines causing inflammation. In today's food
environment, a 3:1 ratio would be optimal and healthy.
To make matters worse, the excess weight you are carrying from eating these foods
creates overloaded fat cells that pour out large quantities of pro-inflammatory
chemicals that add to the injury caused by having high blood sugar. The process that
began with a sweet roll turns into a vicious cycle over time that creates heart disease,
© 2013 Nourish Mama. All rights reserved. Certified Nutritional Wisdom for the Childbearing Years® Practitioner
high blood pressure, diabetes and finally, Alzheimer's disease, as the inflammatory
process continues unabated.
There is no escaping the fact that the more we consume prepared and processed foods,
the more we trip the inflammation switch little by little each day. The human body
cannot process, nor was it designed to consume, foods packed with sugars and soaked
in omega-6 oils.
There is but one answer to quieting inflammation, and that is returning to foods closer
to their natural state. To build muscle, eat more protein. Choose carbohydrates that are
very complex such as colorful fruits and vegetables. Cut down on or eliminate
inflammation-causing omega-6 fats like corn and soybean oil and the processed foods
that are made from them.
One tablespoon of corn oil contains 7,280 mg of omega-6; soybean contains 6,940 mg.
Instead, use olive oil or butter from grass-fed beef.
Animal fats contain less than 20% omega-6 and are much less likely to cause
inflammation than the supposedly healthy oils labelled polyunsaturated. Forget the
"science" that has been drummed into your head for decades. The science that
saturated fat alone causes heart disease is non-existent. The science that saturated fat
raises blood cholesterol is also very weak. Since we now know that cholesterol is not the
cause of heart disease, the concern about saturated fat is even more absurd today.
The cholesterol theory led to the no-fat, low-fat recommendations that in turn created
the very foods now causing an epidemic of inflammation. Mainstream medicine made a
terrible mistake when it advised people to avoid saturated fat in favor of foods high in
omega-6 fats. We now have an epidemic of arterial inflammation leading to heart
disease and other silent killers.
What you can do is choose whole foods your grandmother served and not those your
mom turned to as grocery store aisles filled with manufactured foods. By eliminating
inflammatory foods and adding essential nutrients from fresh unprocessed food, you
will reverse years of damage in your arteries and throughout your body from consuming
the typical American diet.
© 2013 Nourish Mama. All rights reserved. Certified Nutritional Wisdom for the Childbearing Years® Practitioner
Organic Food
Misconception Number 16: Organic food is too expensive.
source:
http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/1_arguments_for_oa/criticisms_misconceptions/
misconceptions_no16.html
Summary of Counter-Arguments:
1) The overall cost to society of producing food organically is actually lower than
the cost of conventional production. The price of conventional food is artificially
lowered by production-oriented subsidies. Better policies could address this
problem.
2) For northern consumers, the organic premium is declining due to increasing
economies of scale in processing and commercialization of organic products as
the sector develops. Nevertheless, it is likely that a premium will remain due to
additional certification costs, higher consumer demand, and more demanding
production standards.
3) In developing countries, uncertified organic food is generally cheaper to produce
and sold at the same price as conventional food.
Details of Counter-Arguments:
Conventional agriculture carries many hidden costs, such as the external
environmental and social costs that such production systems create. These external
costs are not included in the cost of production and in the final price because they
remain externalities to the farm production system.
One example of such an externality is the need for, and cost of, water treatment and
environmental protection measures due to pesticide use in conventional farming;
pesticide manufacturers pass on the costs of cleaning up pesticides to farmers, who
pass it on to water companies, who in turn pass it on to consumers via water bills. In
effect, the polluter gets a hidden subsidy from anyone who pays a water bill, while the
non-polluter – the organic farmer – receives no such subsidy.
The yearly total cost of removing pesticides from the water supply in the UK is £120
million. Another example is the BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy) epidemic,
which originated from a conventional practice aimed at reducing production costs by
© 2013 Nourish Mama. All rights reserved. Certified Nutritional Wisdom for the Childbearing Years® Practitioner
feeding cows on rations that included meat and bone meal (that was contaminated), but
resulted in a huge collective cost.
On the contrary, prices of organic foods include not only the cost of the food
production itself, but also a range of other factors that are not captured in the price of
conventional food, such as:
1) Environmental enhancement and protection (and avoidance of future expenses
to mitigate pollution)
2) Higher standards for animal welfare
3) Avoidance of health risks to farmers due to inappropriate handling of pesticides
and to consumers due to a healthier food and water supply (and avoidance of
future medical expenses)
4) Rural development by generating additional farm employment and assuring a
fair and sufficient income to producers.
A study carried out by Professor Jules Pretty calculated that the total hidden or
“external” cost to the environment and to human health of organic farming was
much lower than for conventional agriculture, probably no more than a third the
cost, and that organic farming also has higher positive externalities [1].
The World Resources Institute, an environmental policy think tank, also reported that
after accounting for all the external costs of soil loss, water contamination, and
environmental degradation caused by conventional farming practices, the average
farm shows a net loss instead of a net profit, which suggests that the total cost of
food production to the society is much higher than current conventional food prices.
If the hidden costs were included in the shelf price, consumers would be
paying the real costs of food and organic food would be cheaper than
conventional food because these additional costs are much lower.
Certified organic food is generally sold at a premium price compared to
conventional food, although in some cases, certified products can be cheaper. This
price difference reflects both higher production costs due to alternative
production practices (e.g., higher animal welfare standards, restricted use of
chemicals, and soil fertility enhancement), and a higher demand from
consumers for organic products.
© 2013 Nourish Mama. All rights reserved. Certified Nutritional Wisdom for the Childbearing Years® Practitioner
In some cases, the price difference is the result of the specific willingness of
consumers to pay higher prices and does not reflect a higher cost of production.
This can be the case for instance in community-supported agriculture schemes
where consumers agree with the farmer on the price of his or her products
beforehand, keeping in mind the objective of establishing a local fair trade system
and of encouraging the maintenance of agricultural families in rural areas.
For non-certified organic food in developing countries, the situation is very different.
There are many agricultural systems that fully meet the requirements of organic
agriculture, but are not certified organic. The produce of these systems is usually
consumed by the farming household or sold locally (e.g., in urban and village
markets) at the same price as their conventional counterparts. Although the
uncertified produce does not benefit from price premiums, some cases have been
documented where non-certified Organic Agriculture increases productivity of the
total farm agro-ecosystem and reduces the amount of purchased external inputs,
which means that the production cost of these organic products is actually
lower than that of conventional products.
Most importantly, the true cost of a food product is not simply the price for which it
is sold. It is widely acknowledged that the price of non-organic food is often
influenced by subsidies and other public support schemes. National or regional
programs and subsidies are mostly geared towards large-scale, chemically intensive
agriculture, and artificially lower the price of conventional products. As an example,
the European Union pays €40 billion a year towards agricultural subsidies under the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Taxes-payers’ money is used to subsidize the
production of farmers who mainly use non-organic farming practices. The taxpayer
gains little in terms of environmental or health benefits.
If this support were to be diverted away from production-linked aid towards
support, that encourages all farmers to adopt more environmentally friendly forms
of farming, such as organic, the price of organic food would be comparable to that
of conventional products. Unfortunately, the current allocation for rural development
program, which embodies some of these objectives, is just five percent of the total
CAP budget. Organic agriculture is still facing unfair competition in the
marketplace due to the competition distorting effect of current subsidy
schemes.
The organic supply chain currently suffers from costs linked to handling small
quantities for niche markets. The greater diversity of enterprises in organic
production means that economies of scale are less easily achieved. Post-harvest
handling of relatively small quantities of organic foods results in higher costs,
especially given the mandatory segregation of organic and conventional produce,
particularly for processing and transportation.
© 2013 Nourish Mama. All rights reserved. Certified Nutritional Wisdom for the Childbearing Years® Practitioner
Marketing and the distribution chain for organic products are relatively inefficient
and costs are higher because of the relatively small volume. As demand for organic
food and products increases and the sector develops, technological
innovations and economies of scale are likely to reduce costs of production,
processing, distribution, and marketing for organic produce. This phenomenon
is already perceived by consumers in the main organic markets such as Germany and
the US, where some organic products are now being sold through usual marketing
channels.
In conclusion, the price of organic food is not too high – rather, it is the price of
conventional food that is too low. Consumers are in fact paying for non-organic
food three times over, through the sticker price, taxation (which mainly subsidizes
non-organic farming), and payments that remedy damage that conventional farming
and food production has inflicted on the environment and human health.
If the production, distribution, and trade systems accounted for the real
environmental and social costs, consumers’ incentive to buy organic products
would be triggered, because they would actually be less expensive than the
conventional products.
© 2013 Nourish Mama. All rights reserved. Certified Nutritional Wisdom for the Childbearing Years® Practitioner
The Differences between Natural supplements vs Synthetic Ones by Dr. Edward Group
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/synthetic-vs-natural-vitamins/
What is a “Synthetic” Vitamin?
Most vitamin and mineral supplements are manufactured synthetically with chemicals
and do not come from food. They are made to mimic the way natural vitamins act in our
bodies with only 50% efficiency. Natural vitamins however are derived directly from
plant material.
Many synthetic vitamins lack the transporters and co-factors associated with naturallyoccurring vitamins because they have been “isolated.” The Organic Consumers
Association emphasizes that isolated vitamins cannot be used or recognized by the
body in the same way as the natural version.
The natural form come in groups of co factors - other vitamins, enzymes and minerals
that control the way the body recognizes, metabolizes and uses them to make what it
needs.
Isolated vitamins can’t always be used by the body, and are either stored until you
obtain or create the nutrients required to use them effectively or are excreted. Synthetic
vitamins are also devoid of necessary trace minerals and must use the body’s own
mineral reserves which may lead to mineral deficiencies.
Synthetic versions of vitamins contain chemical compounds that were not meant for
human consumption and do not occur in nature. Evolution has dictated that we eat the
food we can gather from the earth, not the food we create in a lab.
We might not always get what we’re expecting from synthetics. The synthetic version of
Vitamin E is often referred to as the dl- form. The dl- form is a combination of the dform (which, by the way, is the naturally occurring form) and the l-form. No big deal,
right?
Well it might not be, except that the body doesn’t actually use the l-form- we excrete it!
Fat soluble vitamins in their synthetic form are especially dangerous because they can
build up in your fatty tissues and cause toxicity. The reason that the synthetic form is
more dangerous is because you get a high, concentrated dose of the vitamin rather
than the amount that you would get from a food-based form.
Vitamins A, D, E and K are all fat soluble.
Fat soluble vitamins are found naturally in butter, fish oils, nuts, and green leafy
vegetables.
© 2013 Nourish Mama. All rights reserved. Certified Nutritional Wisdom for the Childbearing Years® Practitioner
Excesses of fat soluble vitamins are stored in the liver and fatty tissues.
Most people do not get sufficient amounts of fat soluble vitamins from their diet.
How do I know if the vitamins I’m buying are synthetic or natural?
The Organic Consumers Association has published an ingredient chart (see cheat
sheets) to help consumers identify natural vs. synthetic vitamins. Many vitamin
producers want you to believe that you are getting a “natural product” because it seems
more wholesome to take “natural” vitamins.
Unfortunately, vitamins can be labeled as natural if they contain as little as 10% of the
natural form of the vitamin. This means that your “natural” vitamin could contain 90% of
synthetically produced chemicals! B-Vitamins and Vitamin C are also usually
synthetically produced.
Common Synthetic Vitamins to Avoid:
Take a minute and look at the supplements that you currently consume. Are the
vitamins synthetic?













Vitamin A: Acetate and Palmitate
Vitamin B1 (Thiamine): Thiamine Mononitrate, Thiamine Hydrochloride
Vitamin B2 (Riboflavin): Riboflavin
Pantothenic Acid: Calcium D-Pantothenate
Vitamin B6 (Pyridoxine): Pyridoxine Hydrochloride
Vitamin B12: Cobalamin
PABA (Para-aminobenzoic Acid): Aminobenzoic Acid
Folic Acid: Pteroylglutamic Acid
Choline: Choline Chloride, Choline Bitartrate
Biotin: d-Biotin
Vitamin C (Ascorbic Acid): Ascorbic Acid
Vitamin D: Irradiated Ergosteral, Calciferol
Vitamin E: dl-alpha tocopherol, dl-alpha tocopherol acetate or succinate
NOTE: The “dl” form of any vitamin is synthetic.
Other Toxic Ingredients to Avoid In Supplements:
1) Magnesium stearate (or stearic acid) inhibits immune response
2) Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) disguised as “natural flavors”
3) Carnauba wax is used in car wax and shoe polish
4) Titanium dioxide is a carcinogen
© 2013 Nourish Mama. All rights reserved. Certified Nutritional Wisdom for the Childbearing Years® Practitioner