Theory

The diet centers on a “40:30:30″ ratio of calories obtained daily from carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, respectively. The ideal formula has been under debate, although studies over the past several years (including a non- scientific study by the PBS documentary show Scientific American Frontiers) have shown that it can produce weight loss at reasonable rates. The Scientific American Frontiers study compared the effectiveness of several popular ‘diet’ regimes including the Zone; somewhat to the surprise of the show’s staff, the participants on the Zone experienced the greatest fat loss while simultaneously gaining muscle mass. Participants also reported the Zone as the easiest regime to adjust to, i.e. having the fewest adverse affects such as fatigue or hunger. Most people who report fatigue find that the fatigue diminishes by day 2 or 3.

“The Zone” is Sears’ term for proper hormone balance. When insulin levels are neither too high nor too low, and glucagon levels are not too high, then specific anti-inflammatory chemicals (types of eicosanoids) are released, which have similar effects to aspirin, but without downsides such as gastric bleeding. Sears claims that a 30:40 ratio of protein to carbohydrates triggers this effect, and this is called ‘The Zone.’ Sears claims that these natural anti- inflammatories are heart and health friendly.

Additionally, the human body in caloric balance is more efficient and does not have to store excess calories as fat. The human body cannot store fat and burn fat at the same time, and Sears believes it takes time (significant time if insulin levels were high because of unbalanced eating) to switch from the former to the latter. Using stored fat for energy causes weight loss.

Another key feature of the Zone diet, introduced in his later books, is an intake of a particular ratio of Omega-3 to Omega-6 fatty acids. Dr. Sears is believed to have popularized the taking of pharmaceutical-grade Omega 3 fish oils.

Hormonal paradoxes

Sears emphasizes a hormonal paradox contrary to the “low-fat” rationale, namely that low-fat diets increase the production of the hormone insulin, causing the body to store more fat. The example proposed by him is the cattle ranching practice of fattening livestock efficiently by feeding them lots of low-fat grain. He and others also point out the supposed irony that human diets in the West for the last twenty years have been full of low-fat carbohydrates, yet people are considered more obese now.

Additionally, Sears suggests fat consumption as essential for “burning” fat.

His rationale is: Monounsaturated fats in a meal contribute to a feeling of fullness and decreases the rate at which carbohydrates are absorbed into the bloodstream. Slower carbohydrate absorption means lower insulin levels which means less stored fat and a faster transition to fat burning. If the body needs energy and can’t burn fat because of high insulin levels, a person feels tired as their brain starves and metabolism slows to compensate. This occurs because the brain runs on glucose and high insulin levels deplete blood glucose levels. Such a condition, rebound hypoglycemia, causes sweet cravings (which just starts the high-insulin cycle all over again).

Sears describes a Zone meal as follows: “Eat as much protein as the palm of your hand, as much nonstarchy raw vegetables as you can stand for the vitamins, enough carbohydrates to maintain mental clarity because the brain runs on glucose, and enough monounsaturated oils to keep feelings of hunger away.”

Comparison to low-carb diets

The Zone is considered a low-carb diet. It is not as restrictive in total carbohydrate intake as some of the other low-carbohydrate diets (e.g. the Atkins diet) that became extremely popular throughout the United States in 2003 and 2004. Sears claims these other diets miss the point. According to him, they ignore the importance of hormonal balance, as well as the influence of dietary balance on digestion and hormone production.

Specific cases

Italy

The introduction of the Zone in Italy began in 1997 by a physician, Aronne Romano M.D. who applied this nutritional style to patients and athletes. Since the 2nd edition of the book “Come Raggiungere la Zona” (The Zone), in 1999, the Chef Memo Romano and his brother Aronne modified the original recipes and menu to suit the local food and habits.

Famous obesity case

Possibly the most famous case of someone using the diet effectively has been Manuel Uribe. After weighing in at around 560 kg (1234 lbs or over 88 stone) but within 2 years had lost about 184 kg. (Now he weighs 376 kg). After decades of failed weight-loss methods, including a botched liposuction that nearly killed him, devotion to the Zone Diet has been the only weight-loss program to have such a positive impact on the man, whose weight once topped 1,200 lbs. Dr. Barry Sears, along with two of Mexico’s most prestigious physicians, Dr. Silvia Orozco Avina and Dr. Gustavo Orozco Avina, are at the helm of the interdisciplinary team of doctors, nutritionists and exercise physiologists who continue to work diligently to help Manuel reach his goal.

Manuel’s current diet consists of about 2,000 calories per day broken up into six meals. His specially-designed menu includes a wide variety of meals including egg-white omelets, fresh salads, chicken fajitas and fish filet in a bed of spring greens. In fact, Manuel’s biggest problem is not lack of appetite control, but eating all the food he is supposed to eat.

Despite his weight, Dr. Sears considers Manuel one of the healthiest men in Mexico. He is not at risk for diabetes, and his blood pressure and triglyceride levels are normal. In addition, his resting heart rate averages 62 beats per minute, a level usually found in trained athletes. Even though Manuel is confined to his bed, his medical team designed a tailored exercise regimen that includes sit-ups, pull-ups and hand-biking to help build muscle mass and accelerate fat loss.

Famous Followers

Several Hollywood stars, including Jennifer Aniston, Renee Zellweger, Cindy Crawford, Charlie Sheen, Tiger Woods, and Tom Cruise are believed to have followed the Zone diet.

Criticism

The American Heart Association does not recommend the Zone Diet due to high protein, lack of essential nutrients, and little information on long-term effects. However, Sears believes the characterization of the Zone diet as ‘high- protein’ is inaccurate. In his book, he advocates a formula based on lean body mass and activity level to determine the appropriate daily intake of protein. For example, a female of average height and average build who has a moderately active lifestyle is encouraged to eat around 60g of protein daily.

Most vegetarian or vegan diets, according to Sears, are highly dissimilar from The Zone because they generally utilize very little protein relative to carbohydrate consumption. This, says Sears, prohibits the body from operating truly efficiently. As critical as Sears is of vegetarian and vegan diets, individuals who promote a vegetarian diet are also very critical of aspects of the Zone and similar diets. In 2000 Dr. Sears published the Soy Zone where he outlined a zone diet based around soy protein, making it more vegetarian- friendly.

Other nutritional experts, including some of Sears’ former colleagues, are critical of his conclusions from the scientific evidence, contending that he has distorted or exaggerated the meaning of much of the basic research. They point out that no direct studies to verify his conclusions have been performed.

A vegetarian diet can be very healthy as many plant foods are lower in saturated fat and higher in dietary fibre. However, a healthy vegetarian diet requires careful planning to make sure it is well balanced, including a wide variety of foods to meet nutritional needs.

A vegetarian diet is based on plant foods. There are different types of vegetarian diets including:

• Vegan - only plant foods are included

• Lacto - dairy food is included

• Ovo-laco - dairy food and eggs are included

Vegetarian diets can be healthful when carefully planned and monitored, they can improve obesity, constipation, coronary heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and diverticular disease. They also may reduce the incidence of breast cancer, colon cancer and gallstones. Vegetarians tend to have less appendicitis, hiatal hemia, irritable bowel syndrome, hemorrhoids and varicose veins. Fibre intake is recommended at 25 – 35g per day and vegetarian diets can easily provide this level.

The Diet was created by Dr. Arthur Agatston, a highly respected cardiologist, to work with your body safely and effectively. This diet works in phases, the first two for a specific timeframe and the third phase for life. With this new approach, you can stop counting calories, stop weighing food portions, and stop feeling as though you are deprived from eating good-tasting and satisfying food! Actually, you will be eating three, normal-size meals but wait, that not all! You will also get two snacks each day and with meal plans that are designed to be flexible, you can enjoy a variety, based on what sounds good to you on any particular day.

Best of all, you will see amazing results in a short amount of time. Your hips, thighs, and stomach will be thinner, the number on the scales will go down, and all those overwhelming food cravings will be gone! Just imagine losing weight while still enjoying many of your favorite foods. With the diet, you can dine on mouth-watering foods like Chicken en Papillote, Shrimp Louis, and even Chocolate Sponge Cake and still lose the weight!

South Beach Diet Phase

There are basically three phases in SB Diet. You eat normal portion sizes In Phase 1, but all carbohydrate are restricted. This is the strictest phase in the diet and will last for two weeks. It emphasizes lean meats, such as chicken, turkey, fish, and shellfish. Low-Glycemic-index vegetables are allowed as well as low-fat cheese, nuts, eggs. Dieters should expect to lose somewhere between 8 to 12 pounds. In Phase 2, some of the banned food are slowly introduced while weight loss continue to around 1-2 pounds per week. You should remain on it until you lost your desired amount of weight. Phase 3 is for maintenance and should be followed for life. Is all about maintaining your desired weight with a healthy balanced diet. Should your weight begin to climb, simply return to Phase 1.

To learn what the phases consist of, how South Beach Diet plan works, and what you can eat, keep reading!

Caution:

As with any new diet, if you have any illness, are pregnant, or have questions or concerns, consult your physician prior to starting. Specific to the diet, if you have kidney problems, or have diabetes that might have impaired your kidney function, talk to your physician before starting this diet.

This answer is brought to you by many of the Australian nutrition professionals who regularly contribute to a nutrition email discussion group.

The ‘Paleolithic Era’ was the period commonly known as ‘the Stone Age’. It commenced well before modern people emerged from Africa and spread through Europe, Asia, Australia and the Americas (a migration that is thought to have begun about 130,000 years ago). It ended with the development of agriculture and the construction of the first cities about 10,000 years ago. During the Paleolithic Era, it is believed that rapid evolution of the human species was taking place. By about 40,000 years ago, our remote ancestors were virtually genetically identical to modern people.

During the Paleolithic Era, all people were hunter-gatherers, that is, animals were hunted and plant foods were gathered. Until about 10,000 years ago, no society existed that farmed animals or grew crops. So during the Paleolithic Era there were no crops of cereal foods such as rice and wheat — staples in most societies today — and no-one ate milk products or drank milk after weaning.

So what did our distant ancestors eat, if they didn’t have milk, milk products or cereal foods?

Many studies have been conducted to answer this question. The first point to make is that there was no single ‘Paleolithic Diet’: Just as desert Aborigines ate different foods to those who lived in temperate coastal areas or in tropical rainforests, so too Paleolithic diets varied considerably. The range of available foods varied not only geographically (ie, from one part of the world to another) but also seasonally. Unlike today, our early ancestors often had no choice but to eat the food that was available in season. Nevertheless, it is believed that our distant ancestors made use of a greater number of species of animals and plants than most people do today, and that this variety probably contributed to a greater intake of vitamins, minerals and other food constituents that may be important to health, such as antioxidants.

It is also appropriate to admit that we do not really know exactly what foods were eaten in the Paleolithic Era. The relative contributions of plants and animals to food intake are also not known: it is extremely difficult to accurately determine the food intake of people who are alive today, let alone those who lived 50,000 years ago! So that lessons might be learned from our early ancestors’ eating habits, the remainder of this FAQ uses the term ‘Paleolithic Diet’ (ie, singular) to refer to the likely common features of the wide range of diets that probably existed tens of thousands of years ago.

Based on the foods that were available at that time, and on the diets of modern hunter-gatherer societies (such as the Bushmen of southern Africa and Australian Aborigines), it is believed by many nutritionists that Paleolithic people ate a diet that was surprisingly high in protein — derived largely from meat and offal — compared to the typical, present-day, Western diet. Protein intake may have been up to twice as high as that of the average Australian today. It is also worth noting that the animals hunted by Paleolithic people were ‘game’ animals, and so would probably have been relatively low in fat. The fish and other seafood (molluscs such as oysters and mussels, crustacea such as prawns) that would have been caught by people who lived near the sea, rivers or lakes, were also relatively low in fat, and, in particular, low in saturated fat.

Some authorities believe that fat intake may still have been quite high — perhaps even higher than now — because much offal is high-fat and offal was probably eaten along with the lean muscle meat. But even if this is correct, the fat would have been mostly monounsaturated and polyunsaturated, not saturated. (The likely beneficial effects to health of relatively high monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat intakes are not discussed in this article.)

The typical Paleolithic diet must also have included many primitive forms of leafy vegetables, root vegetables (such as yams and sweet potatoes), fruits, berries, probably some grass seeds (perhaps including the forerunners of the later ‘cereal foods’ such as primitive forms of rice and wheat), some nuts and (for the very brave Paleolithic person) the occasional taste of honey. Because much of the energy needed for hunting and gathering had to come from food sources other than cereal foods and milk-based foods (which provide much of our kilojoule intake) Paleolithic people must have eaten huge quantities of fruits and vegetables. It is possible that root vegetables in particular made a significant contribution to the energy needs of many early people. As a result, intakes of most essential nutrients and dietary fibre were likely to have been much higher than now, with one notable exception: average salt intake was probably no more than about one-fifth that of most Australians today. However, rather than being a drawback of the Paleolithic diet, this is regarded as being beneficial, because low salt intake is strongly associated with reduced risk of hypertension (excessive blood pressure).

So the Paleolithic diet was mostly meat, fruits and vegetables, with little, if any, cereal food and no milk or milk products. What is the significance of this to the health of people today?

The potential significance of the Paleolithic diet to the health of modern people is a topic of keen debate among nutritionists. Some argue that the Paleolithic diet was the diet that Homo sapiens consumed during the period of most rapid evolution, so it represents the ‘natural diet’. According to this school of thought, eating cereal foods and milk products is not appropriate today, because we did not evolve on diets that included large quantities of these foods. It is perhaps relevant here to point out that among recent hunter- gatherer populations there is an almost total absence of the diseases that afflict so many of us in developed, Western countries. Heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis (chalkiness of the bones) and rheumatoid arthritis (among other diseases) were very rare among the Bushmen, Amazonian Indians and Australian Aborigines until they started to eat Western foods and adopt our lifestyles. However, not all Western, degenerative diseases come from our diet — many relate to lack of exercise, cigarette smoking, exposure to pollutants and so on. Nevertheless, adherents to the Paleolithic diet believe that lessons do exist for us from the Paleolithic (and more recent) hunter- gatherer diets and lifestyles.

So far the discussion has been mainly about older people. Is there anything about the feeding of infants during the Paleolithic Era that might be of relevance to the present day?

Infant nutrition in the Paleolithic Era was far more basic than now. Breastfeeding (currently recommended as the sole source of nutrition for about six months) was probably continued for several years. Of course, until recently, there were no alternatives such as cow’s milk, soy milk or artificial formulas. The ‘naturalness’ of breastfeeding, and its many advantages to both mother and baby, are fully recognised by nutritionists today. For example, one of Australia’s dietary guidelines is: ‘Encourage and support breastfeeding’.

So there is some evidence of health benefits from ‘more natural’ diets. What exactly do the Paleo enthusiasts recommend we should do to improve our diet?

Proponents of the Paleolithic diet believe that we should increase intake of lean meats (as mentioned above, all the meat eaten in the Paleolithic Era was game and therefore probably low-fat), offal, fish and other seafoods, eggs, fruit, vegetables (especially root vegetables, but not potatoes), berries and nuts (excluding peanuts). Of relevance here is that Australian beef and lamb generally come from pasture-fed animals and so are usually lower in fat than European and American meat (which comes mostly from grain-fed animals). It is also worthy of mention that Australia is a source of a true ‘game meat’: kangaroo meat comes from animals that have been hunted, not farmed. It is a red meat, with all the nutritional benefits of red meat (rich in protein, iron and other minerals and B group vitamins) but is lower in fat than beef or lamb, and has a more favourable ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fat.

Foods recommended for exclusion from the modern version of the Paleolithic diet include sugar, dairy products (although some suggest that low-fat dairy products are needed for calcium), grains (including cereals, corn, breads, pasta), potatoes, beans, soy beans and lentils. The resulting diet would be high- protein, medium-fat, low/medium-carbohydrate, high-fibre, low-salt, and very rich in essential vitamins, minerals and antioxidants. Although it was not available to Paleolithic people, moderate alcohol consumption is regarded by many ‘Paleos’ as being compatible with good health while adhering to the other recommendations.

Are these recommendations supported by most nutritionists?

While recognising the basic healthfulness of this ‘modern day’ Paleolithic diet, many nutritionists question whether it would assist substantially in overcoming modern, Western health problems. Although there seems every reason to believe that the Paleolithic diet provided benefits to survival, at least during the reproductive years, that does not necessarily argue for health benefits in old age. Our diet-related problems show up mainly in middle age and beyond. It is highly unlikely that many Paleolithic people (or more recent hunter-gatherers) lived to the age when diseases such as heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis became major problems.

It is also true that our remote ancestors must have been more physically active than most people are now. Today, most Australians can buy all the food they need at the local supermarket, or call into a restaurant while driving home from work and ‘pick up a takeaway’. If Paleolithic people wanted to eat, they had to walk to find plant foods and walk (or, perhaps more commonly, run) to hunt game animals. Analysis of skeletons of Paleolithic people shows that they were generally tall and strongly-built, as a result of their diet and physical activity. One lesson we can all learn from the study of our early ancestors is that the human body was designed for movement: we adopt sedentary lifestyles at our peril!

It appears that there are some unresolved issues about the relevance of the Paleolithic diet to modern-day people. How would you sum up the present level of agreement between the proponents of Paleo diets and those who are not convinced?

There are substantial areas of agreement between the proponents of the Paleolithic diet and the majority of nutritionists who have not (or at least not yet) been convinced that we should all try to become ‘Paleos’. For example, both schools of thought agree that increased intake of fruits and vegetables, and reduced intake of saturated fat are very likely to be beneficial. Everyone agrees that most people today need to increase their activity levels. But a majority of nutritionists disagree that reduced- or low-fat milk and milk products, cereal foods (such as bread, rice and pasta) and beans are inappropriate foods for modern people.

Another major problem with the proposal that ‘Paleo is the way to go’ is that in a world of six billion people, with the population projected to reach as many as ten billion by the middle of the 21st Century, it is not possible for even a large minority of people to adopt a truly ‘Paleolithic’ diet: there simply isn’t enough food of a suitable kind. There would also be massive disruption to the environment and to the current system of food production if most people stopped eating bread, pasta, rice, beans, milk and milk products, and significantly increased their intake of meat.

Although there is little doubt that the potential of the Paleolithic diet (or at least of some aspects of this diet) to improve the health of people in developed nations is worthy of further research, it is probably inappropriate (at least at this stage) to recommend widespread adoption of the diet. Increased fruit and vegetable consumption, a reduction in saturated fat intake, and increased moderately-vigorous activity are aspects of the Paleolithic diet and lifestyle that are highly recommended by virtually all nutritionists.

Organic food production is legally regulated. Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada , Japan and many other countries require producers to obtain organic certification in order to market food as organic.

Historically, organic farms have been relatively small family-run farms — which is why organic food was once only available in small stores or farmers’ markets. However, since the early 1990s organic food production has had growth rates of around 20% a year, far ahead of the rest of the food industry, in both developed and developing nations. As of April 2008, organic food accounts for 1-2% of food sales worldwide. Future growth is expected to range from 10-50% annually depending on the country.

Identifying organic food

Processed organic food usually contains only organic ingredients. If non-organic ingredients are present, at least a certain percentage of the food’s total plant and animal ingredients must be organic (95% in the United States and Australia) and any non-organically produced ingredients are subject to various agricultural requirements. Foods claiming to be organic must be free of artificial food additives, and are often processed with fewer artificial methods, materials and conditions (no chemical ripening, no food irradiation, and no genetically modified ingredients, etc.).

They may also be required to be produced using energy-saving technologies and packaged using recyclable or biodegradable materials when possible.

Early consumers interested in organic food would look for non-chemically treated, fresh or minimally processed food. They mostly had to buy directly from growers: “Know your farmer, know your food” was the motto. Personal definitions of what constituted “organic” were developed through firsthand experience: by talking to farmers, seeing farm conditions, and farming activities. Small farms grew vegetables (and raised livestock) using organic farming practices, with or without certification, and the individual consumer monitored. As demand for organic foods continues to increase, high volume sales through mass outlets such as supermarkets are rapidly replacing the direct farmer connection. However, for supermarket consumers, food production is not easily observable, and product labeling, like “certified organic”, is relied on. Government regulations and third-party inspectors are looked to for assurance. A “certified organic” label is usually the only way for consumers to know that a processed product is “organic”.

Legal definition

To be certified organic, products must be grown and manufactured in a manner that adheres to standards set by the country they are sold in:

• Australia: NASAA Organic Standard
• Canada: Canada Gazette, Government of Canada
• European Union: EU-Eco-regulation
  • Sweden: KRAV
  • United Kingdom: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
• India: NPOP, (National Program for Organic Production)
• Japan: JAS Standards
• United States: National Organic Program (NOP) Standards

Environmental impact

Several surveys and studies have attempted to examine and compare conventional and organic systems of farming. The general consensus across these surveys is that, in the short term, organic farming is less damaging for the following reasons:

• Organic farms do not consume or release synthetic pesticides into the environment — some of which have the potential to harm soil, water and local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.
• Organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining diverse ecosystems, i.e., populations of plants and insects, as well as animals.
• When calculated either per unit area or per unit of yield, organic farms use less energy and produce less waste, e.g., waste such as packaging materials for chemicals.

However, critics of organic farming methods believe that the increased land needed to farm organic food could potentially destroy the rainforests and wipe out many ecosystems.

Yield

One study found a 20% smaller yield from organic farms using 50% less fertilizer and 97% less pesticide. Studies comparing yields have had mixed results. Supporters claim that organically managed soil has a higher quality and higher water retention. This may help increase yields for organic farms in drought years.

One study from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found that, area-for-area, organic farms of potatoes, sugar beet and seed grass produce as little as half the output of conventional farming. Findings like these, and the dependence of organic food on manure from low-yield cattle, has prompted criticism from many scientists that organic farming is environmentally unsound and incapable of feeding the world population. Among these critics are Norman Borlaug, father of the “green revolution,” and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who asserts that organic farming practices can at most feed 4 billion people, after expanding cropland dramatically and destroying ecosystems in the process. Third world countries have saved millions from starvation by utilizing fertilizers and pesticides to increase yields of wheat, rice, and corn in the Green Revolution.

A 2007 study compiling research from 293 different comparisons into a single study to assess the overall efficiency of the two agricultural systems has concluded that

organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base.

The researchers also found that while in developed countries, organic systems on average produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms in developing countries, because the materials needed for organic farming are more accessible than synthetic farming materials to farmers in some poor countries. On the other hand, communities that lack sufficient manure to replenish soils would struggle with organic farming, and the soil would degrade rapidly.

Energy Efficiency

Some studies are also consistent in showing that organic farms are more energy efficient. However, alternative views hold that this may be deceptive, based on fossil fuel usage but ignoring energy costs of plowing and other laborious practices used on organic farms to maintain yields.

Pesticides and farmers

There are studies detailing the effects and side effects of pesticides upon the health of farm workers. Even when pesticides are used correctly, they still end up in the air and bodies of farm workers. Through these studies, organophosphate pesticides have become associated with acute health problems such as abdominal pain, dizziness, headaches, nausea, vomiting, as well as skin and eye problems. In addition, there have been many other studies that have found pesticide exposure is associated with more severe health problems such as respiratory problems, memory disorders, dermatologic conditions, cancer, depression, neurologic deficits, miscarriages, and birth defects. Summaries of peer-reviewed research have examined the link between pesticide exposure and neurological outcomes and cancer in organophosphate-exposed workers.

Imported fruits and vegetables from South America are more likely to contain high level of pesticides, even pesticides banned for use in the United States. Migratory birds, such as Swainson’s hawks, have wintering grounds in Argentina where thousands of them were found dead from monocrotophos insecticide poisoning.

Pesticide residue

A study published in 2002 showed that “Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods.”

Monitoring of pesticide residues in the United States is carried out by the Pesticide Data Program (part of USDA, which was created in 1990. It has since tested over 60 different types of food for over 400 different types of pesticides - with samples collected close to the point of consumption. Their most recent results found in 2005 that:

“These data indicate that 29.5 percent of all samples tested contained no detectable pesticides (parent compound and metabolite(s) combined), 30 percent contained 1 pesticide, and slightly over 40 percent contained more than 1 pesticide.”

Several studies corroborate this finding by having found that while 77 percent of conventional food carries synthetic pesticide residues, only about 25 percent of organic food does.

A study published by the National Research Council in 1993 determined that for infants and children, the major source of exposure to pesticides is through diet. A recent study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 schoolchildren before and after replacing their diet with organic food. In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet. Food residue limits established by law are set specifically with children in mind and consider a child’s lifetime ingestion of each pesticide.

There are controversial data on the health implications of certain pesticides. For example, the herbicide Atrazine has been shown in some experiments to be a teratogen, causing demasculinization in male frogs exposed to small concentrations. Under the effects of Atrazine, male frogs were found to have greatly increased occurrencesof either malformed gonads, or testicular gonads which contain non-degenerate eggs. Effects were however significantly reduced in high concentrations, as is consistent with other teratogens affecting the endocrine system, such as estradiol.

Organic farming standards do not allow the use of synthetic pesticides, but they do allow the use of specific pesticides derived from plants. The most common organic pesticides, accepted for restricted use by most organic standards, include Bt, pyrethrum, and rotenone. Some organic pesticides, such as rotenone, have high toxicity to fish and aquatic creatures with some toxicity to mammals. It causes Parkinson’s disease if injected into rats.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies periodically review the licensing of suspect pesticides, but the process of de-listing is slow. One example of this slow process is exemplified by the pesticide Dichlorvos, or DDVP, which as recently as the year 2006 the EPA proposed its continued sale. The EPA has almost banned this pesticide on several occasions since the 1970s, but it never did so despite considerable evidence that suggests DDVP is not only carcinogenic but dangerous to the human nervous system — especially in children. The EPA “has determined that risks do not exceed levels of concern”, a study of longterm exposure to DDVP in rats showed no toxic effects.

These concerns over the particular impact of pesticides on children have not gone unheeded. Fio360, an eco early-care center in Atlanta, GA, has even gone so far as to prepare organic foods for its clients’ children.

Taste and nutritional value

The biggest study ever of organic food was completed in 2007 and found that organic fruit and vegetables contain up to 40% more antioxidants than conventional equivalents, and that the figure was 60% for organic milk. The 4-year study was funded by the European Union and was the largest of its kind ever undertaken. These results were simply announced to the popular press, and have not yet undergone the rigors of scientific peer review, so conclusiveness of this study is debatable.

Some studies have shown higher nutrient levels in organic fruit and vegetables compared with conventionally grown products. However, due to the difficulty with designing such experiments, the evidence was not considered conclusive.

A 2001 study by researchers at Washington State University concluded, under judgement by a panel of tasters, that organic apples were sweeter. Along with taste and sweetness, the texture as well as firmness of the apples were also rated higher than those grown conventionally. These differences are attributed to the greater soil quality resulting from organic farming techniques compared to those of conventional farming.

A 2002 meta-analysis (a review of all past studies on the subject) found no proof that organic food offers greater nutritional values, more consumer safety or any distinguishable difference in taste.

Cost

Organic products typically cost 10 to 40% more than similar conventionally produced products. Processed organic foods vary in price when compared to their conventional counterparts. An Australian study by Choice magazine in 2004 found processed organic foods in supermarkets to be 65% more expensive, but noted this was not consistent. Prices may be higher because organic produce is produced on a smaller scale, and may need to be milled or processed separately. Furthermore, there is an increase in shipping costs from more centralized production in otherwise regional markets. In the case of dairy and eggs, the animal’s requirements such as the number of animals that can be raised per acre, or the breed of animal and its feed conversion ratio affects the cost.

Related movements

Various alternative organic standards are emerging. They generally bypass formal certification, which can be expensive and cumbersome, and provide their own definition of organic food. One such, the Authentic Food standard, proposed by leading US organic farmer Eliot Coleman, includes criteria that are incompatible with current agribusiness:

• Fresh fruits and vegetables, milk, eggs and meat products are produced within a 50-mile radius of their place of their final sale.
• The seed and storage crops (grains, beans, nuts, potatoes, etc.) are produced within a 300-mile radius of their final sale.
• Only traditional processed foods such as cheese, wine, bread and lactofermented products may claim, “Made with Authentic ingredients.”

Some are also implementing new approaches to defining and buying food. Community-supported agriculture (CSA) is one such approach, that cuts out all the middlemen by having consumers partner with local farmers. CSA members prepurchase “shares” in a season’s harvest, and pick up their weekly portions from distribution sites. Thus, consumers provide direct financing for farms, participate in the risks and rewards of annual growing conditions, and participate with farmers in distribution networks.

CSA is one example of “buying locally,” which is often valued by both the organic food consumer and producer. Generally speaking, locally-grown seasonal food can be brought to market more quickly than food that has to be transported long distances, and therefore can be better tasting and to some degree more nutritious by virtue of its freshness. Additionally, the act of buying foods that are locally-grown benefits local farmers and other employers. This local food approach is seen as a direct investment in one’s own community and a way to reduce economic dependence.

Organic food is also often linked with the fair trade movement, based on the principle that social and environmental sustainability are inextricably interdependent.

The “buy local” movement is also related to the organic movement. Michael Pollan, author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”, notes that in the whole chain of food production and distribution, only one-fifth of the energy is used on the farm, the rest in distribution. Yet a report published by DEFRA, Britain’s environment and farming ministry, concluded that shifts toward a local food production and distribution system, as advocated by many organic food proponents, would actually increase the amount of energy being invested in food due to the a higher level of small-scale transport systems, which suffer from inefficiencies compared to standard large-scale supermarket systems.

As highlighted by a recent New York Times article, food supply is a global issue that will become increasingly prominent in the near future. “Everywhere, the cost of food is rising sharply. Whether the world is in for a long period of continued increases has become one of the most urgent issues in economics. … Farmers the world over are producing flat-out. American agricultural exports are expected to increase 23 percent this year to $101 billion, a record. The world’s grain stockpiles have fallen to the lowest levels in decades. ‘Everyone wants to eat like an American on this globe,’ said Daniel W. Basse of the AgResource Company, a Chicago consultancy. ‘But if they do, we’re going to need another two or three globes to grow it all.’” Given the debate around Organic’s ability to match the yields of conventional methods and the rising global demand for food, this debate is likely to see increased scrutiny in the future.

Facts and statistics

While organic food accounts for 1–2% of total food sales worldwide, the organic food market is growing rapidly, far ahead of the rest of the food industry, in both developed and developing nations.

• World organic food sales jumped from US $23 billion in 2002 to $40 billion in 2006.
• The world organic market has been growing by 20% a year since the early 1990s, with future growth estimates ranging from 10%-50% annually depending on the country.

North America

United States:

• Organic food is the fastest growing sector of the American food marketplace.
• Organic food sales have grown by 17 to 20 percent a year for the past few years while sales of conventional food have grown at only about 2 to 3 percent a year.
• In 2003 organic products were available in nearly 20,000 natural food stores and 73% of conventional grocery stores.
• Organic products account for 2.6% of total food sales in the year 2005.
• Two thirds of organic milk and cream and half of organic cheese and yogurt are sold through conventional supermarkets.

Canada:

• Organic food sales surpassed $1 billion in 2006, accounting for 0.9% of food sales in Canada.
• Organic food sales by grocery stores were 28% higher in 2006 than in 2005.
• British Columbians account for 13% of the Canadian population, but purchased 26% of the organic food sold in Canada in 2006.

Europe

In the European Union (EU25) 3.9% of the total utilized agricultural area is used for organic production. The countries with the highest proportion of organic land are Austria (11%) and Italy (8.4), followed by Czech Republic and Greece (both 7.2%). The lowest figures are shown for Malta (0.1%), Poland (0.6%) and Ireland (0.8%).

Austria:

• 11.6% of all farmers produced organically in 2007. The government has created incentives to increase the figure to 20% by 2010.
• 4.9% of all food products sold in Austrian supermarkets (including discount stores) in 2006 were organic. 8000 different organic products were available in the same year.

Italy:

• Since 2005 all school lunches must be organic by law.

Poland:

• In 2005 168,000 ha of land were under organic management. 7 percent of Polish consumers buy food that was produced according to the EU-Eco-regulation. The value of the organic market is estimated at 50 million Euros (2006).

UK:

• Organic food sales increased from just over £100 million in 1993/94 to £1.21 billion in 2004 (an 11% increase on 2003).

Caribbean

Cuba:

• After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, agricultural inputs that had previously been purchased from Eastern bloc countries were no longer available in Cuba, and many Cuban farms converted to organic methods out of necessity. Consequently, organic agriculture is a mainstream practice in Cuba, while it remains an alternative practice in most other countries. Although some products called organic in Cuba would not satisfy certification requirements in other countries (crops may be genetically modified, for example), Cuba exports organic citrus and citrus juices to EU markets that meet EU organic standards. Cuba’s forced conversion to organic methods may position the country to be a global supplier of organic products.

History

The most commonly-understood version of the Mediterranean diet was presented by Dr. Walter Willett of Harvard University’s School of Public Health in the mid- 1990s. Based on “food patterns typical of Crete, much of the rest of Greece, and southern Italy in the early 1960s”, this diet, in addition to “regular physical activity,” emphasizes “abundant plant foods, fresh fruit as the typical daily dessert, olive oil as the principal source of fat, dairy products (principally cheese and yogurt), and fish and poultry consumed in low to moderate amounts, zero to four eggs consumed weekly, red meat consumed in low amounts, and wine consumed in low to moderate amounts”. Total fat in this diet is 25% to 35% of calories, with saturated fat at 8% or less of calories. The diet is often cited as beneficial for being low in saturated fat and high in monounsaturated fat and dietary fiber.

Although it was first publicized in 1945 by the American doctor Ancel Keys stationed in Salerno, Italy, the Mediterranean diet failed to gain widespread recognition until the 1990s. It is based on what from the point of view of mainstream nutrition is considered a paradox: that although the people living in Mediterranean countries tend to consume relatively high amounts of fat, they have far lower rates of cardiovascular disease than in countries like the United States, where similar levels of fat consumption are found. A parallel phenomenon is known as the French Paradox.

One of the main explanations is thought to be the large amount of olive oil used in the Mediterranean diet. Unlike the high amount of animal fats typical to the American diet, olive oil lowers cholesterol levels in the blood. It is also known to lower blood sugar levels and blood pressure. Research indicates olive oil prevents peptic ulcers and is effective in treatment of peptic ulcer disease, and may be a factor in preventing cancer. In addition, the consumption of red wine is considered a possible factor, as it contains flavonoids with powerful antioxidant properties.

The principal aspects of this diet include high olive oil consumption, high consumption of legumes, high consumption of unrefined cereals, high consumption of fruits, high consumption of vegetables, moderate consumption of dairy products (mostly as cheese and yogurt), moderate to high consumption of fish, low consumption of meat and meat products, and moderate wine consumption.

Michael Pollan suggests the explanation is not any particular nutrient, but the combination of nutrients found in unprocessed food.

Dietary factors may be only part of the reason for the health benefits enjoyed by these cultures. Genetics, lifestyle (notably heavy physical labor), and environment may also be involved.

Although green vegetables, a good source of calcium and iron, as well as goat cheese, a good source of calcium, are common in the Mediterranean diet, concerns remain whether the diet provides adequate amounts of all nutrients, particularly calcium and iron.

This diet is not typical of all Mediterranean cuisine. In Northern Italy, for instance, lard and butter are commonly used in cooking, and olive oil is reserved for dressing salads and cooked vegetables. In North Africa wine is traditionally avoided by Muslims. In both North Africa and the Levant, along with olive oil, sheep’s tail fat and rendered butter (samna) are traditional staple fats.

Medical research

The Seven Countries Study found that Cretan men had exceptionally low death rates from heart disease, despite moderate to high intake of fat. The Cretan diet is similar to other traditional Mediterranean diets: consisting mostly of olive oil, bread, abundant fruit and vegetables, fish, and a moderate amount of dairy foods and wine.

The Lyon Diet Heart Study set out to mimic the Cretan diet, but adopted a pragmatic approach. Realizing that some of the people in the study (all of whom had survived a first heart attack) would be reluctant to move from butter to olive oil, they used a margarine based on rapeseed (canola) oil. The dietary change also included 20% increases in vitamin C rich fruit and bread and decreases in processed and red meat. On this diet, mortality from all causes was reduced by 70%. This study was so successful that the ethics committee decided to stop the study prematurely so that the results of the study could be made available to the public immediately.

According to a study published in the British Medical Journal (May 29, 2008), the traditional Mediterranean diet provides substantial protection against type 2 diabetes. The study involved over 13,000 graduates from the University of Navarra in Spain with no history of diabetes, who were recruited between December 1999 and November 2007, and whose dietary habits and health were subsequently tracked. Participants initially completed a 136-item food frequency questionnaire designed to measure the entire diet. The questionnaire also included questions on the use of fats and oils, cooking methods and dietary supplements. Every two years participants were sent follow-up questionnaires on diet, lifestyle, risk factors, and medical conditions. New cases of diabetes were confirmed through medical reports. During the follow-up period (median 4.4 years) the researchers from the University of Navarra found that participants who stuck closely to the diet had a lower risk of diabetes. A high adherence to the diet was associated with an 83% relative reduction in the risk of developing diabetes.

A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (July 17, 2008) examined the effects of the three diets: Low-carb, Low-fat, and Mediterranean. The study involved 322 participants and lasted for the a duration of 2 years. The low-carb and Mediterranean diet resulted in the highest weight-loss, 12 lbs and 10 lbs, respectively. The low-fat diet resulted in a loss of 7 lbs. One caveat of the study is that 86% of the study participants were men. The low-carb and Mediterranean diets produced similar amounts of weight loss in the overall study results and in the men. In the remaining participants who were women, the Mediterranean diet produced 3.8 kg (8.4 lbs) more weight loss on average than the low-carb diet.

The LEARN diet is classified as a low-fat diet along with the Ornish diet. A comparison of Atkins diet, Zone diet, Ornish diet, and LEARN diet in premenopausal women found that after 12 months the Atkins diet participants lost the most weight (–4.7 kg) with no significant differences among the other three diets (Zone, –1.6 kg; LEARN, –2.6 kg; Ornish, –2.2 kg). Other randomized controlled trials have found a similar effect from the LEARN diet and lifestyle program versus structured aerobic exercise and benefit from adding the LEARN to sibutramine pharmacologic therapy.

The diet has just enough protein for body growth and repair, and sufficient calories to maintain the correct weight for age and height. The “classic” ketogenic diet contains a 4:1 ratio by weight of fat to combined protein and carbohydrate. This is achieved by eliminating foods high in carbohydrates (starchy fruits and vegetables, bread, pasta, grains and sugar) while increasing the consumption of foods high in fat (cream and butter).

Most dietary fat contains long chain triglycerides (LCT), but a form of coconut oil can be manufactured that contains only medium-chain triglycerides (MCT), which are much more ketogenic. A variant of the diet known as the MCT ketogenic diet uses MCT oil to provide between 30 and 60% of the calories. Carbohydrates and protein can be increased a little, which allows for greater freedom in planning meals.

Developed in the 1920s, the ketogenic diet’s popularity waned with the introduction of effective anticonvulsant drugs. In the mid 1990s the Hollywood producer Jim Abrahams, whose son’s severe epilepsy was effectively controlled by the diet, created the Charlie Foundation to promote it. Publicity included an appearance on NBC’s Dateline programme and .First Do No Harm (1997), a TV movie starring Meryl Streep. The foundation sponsored a multicentre research study and the results, which were published in 1996, marked the beginning of renewed scientific interest in the diet. The potential use of the diet as a treatment for medical conditions other than epilepsy is, as of 2007, still at the research stage.

In 2008, a randomised controlled trial showed a clear benefit for treating refractory epilepsy in children. This added weight to conclusions drawn from the many earlier uncontrolled trials of the ketogenic diet’s efficacy and safety, which already provided sufficient evidence to recommend clinical use. In children with refractory epilepsy, the ketogenic diet is more likely to be effective than trying an alternative anticonvulsant drug. There is some evidence that adults with epilepsy may benefit from the diet, and that a less strict regime, such as a modified Atkins, could be effective.

D’Adamo’s premise is that human blood type is key to the body’s ability to differentiate self from non-self. Lectins in foods, he asserts, react differently with each ABO blood type and to a lesser extent with an individual’s secretor status. Throughout his books he cites the works of biochemists and glycobiologists who have researched blood groups, claiming or implying that their research supports this theory. In his book, Eat Right 4 Your Type, “Lectins: The Diet Connection”, and in following chapters, lectins which interact with the different ABO type antigens are described as incompatible and harmful, therefore the selection of different foods for A, AB, B, and O types to minimize reactions with these lectins.

The consensus among dietitians, physicians, and scientists is that the theory is unsupported by scientific evidence.

The Atkins franchise, a business formed to provide products to those individuals on the diet, was highly successful due to the popularity of the diet, and is considered the driving entity of the larger “low-carb craze” during the early millennium. Various factors, however, led to its dwindling success and the company founded by Dr. Atkins in 1989, Atkins Nutritionals of Ronkonkoma, New York, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July of 2005, two years after the death of Dr. Atkins. The company re-emerged in January 2006, and the Atkins logo is still highly visible through licensed-proprietary branding for food products and related merchandise.