Omega-3s PROVEN better than statins for Heart patients

Daily Omega-3 Supplement, But Not Statin, Benefits Chronic Heart Failure Patients

by Lara Pizzorno, MDiv, MA, LMT

Omega-3 fatty acid supplements, but not statin drugs, can help patients with chronic heart failure, show two parallel studies conducted for the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell’Infarto Miocardico Heart Failure (GISSI-HF) trial and released for early online publication in the Lancet August 31, 2008.

Omega-3s’ positive outcomes are especially important since few effective options exist for patients with chronic heart failure.

In one study, Italian researchers gave 3,494 heart failure patients 1 gram/day of omega-3 fatty acids, while roughly the same number, (3,481), got a placebo. In the parallel study, the same team of Italian doctors gave 2,285 patients 10 mg daily of rosuvastatin (Crestor, AstraZeneca) and 2,289 patients a placebo.

After 3.9 years, omega-3 fatty acids had reduced all-cause mortality 9% and hospital admission for cardiovascular reasons (cardiovascular-induced death, nonfatal heart attack, or stroke) by 8%, while the statin drug produced no similar benefits.

Despite the fact that treatment with rosuvastatin lowered LDL cholesterol 27% at 3 years—down from 123 mg/dL at the beginning of the study to 90 mg/dL—the statin did not provide heart failure patients with the cardio-protective benefits delivered by omega-3 fatty acids.

Why might omega-3 fats help? Cell membranes, where key metabolic enzymes are embedded, are largely composed of fats. The higher the DHA content, the more flexible the cell membrane, and the more effectively enzymes can maneuver. EPA, which also concentrates in cell membranes, is the precursor of anti-inflammatory eicosanoids.  Plus omega-3s have been shown to increase levels of HDL cholesterol and to stabilize heart cells’ electrical system, promoting a lower QTc interval and lessening the chance of arrhythmias. In contrast, statin drugs lower potentially harmful LDL cholesterol, which may not have much impact on heart failure.

While researchers were disappointed with statins’ failure to help heart failure patients, their response to omega-3s’ cardio-protective potential has been uniformly enthusiastic.

“This study changes the certainty of the evidence we have about fish oils,” said president of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. Douglas Weaver, who also noted that U.S. guidelines would likely change to recommend that heart patients eat more fish or take omega-3 fatty acid supplements. “This is a low-tech solution and could help all patients with cardiovascular problems,” said Weaver.

Chair of the GISSI-HF steering committee, Dr Luigi Tavazzi, presented the omega-3 data to the media during a European Society of Cardiology press conference, calling treatment with omega-3s an “effective, safe, simple, and cheap” option for patients with chronic heart failure. And in an editorial accompanying the two studies in the Lancet, Dr Gregg Fonarow at U.C.L.A seconded Tavassi, writing “…supplementation with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids should join the short list of evidence-based life-prolonging therapies for heart failure.”

Additional compelling evidence for omega-3s cardiovascular benefits comes from a June 2008 Mayo Clinic Proceedings review of 3 large controlled trials of 32,000 participants randomized to receive omega-3 supplements containing docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) or placebo. These trials showed reductions in cardiovascular events of 19% to 45% in those given omega-3s.

Review authors noted that while target DHA and EPA consumption levels are about 1 gram/day for those with known coronary artery disease, and at least 500 mg/day for those without cardiovascular disease, patients with high triglycerides benefit from treatment with 3 to 4 grams/day of DHA and EPA, a dosage that lowers triglyceride levels by 20% to 50%.

They also emphasized that combination therapy with omega-3 fatty acids and a statin is a safe and effective way to improve lipid levels and cardiovascular prognosis beyond the benefits provided by statin therapy alone.

The July 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association notes one caveat: High intakes of omega-3s can cause excessive bleeding in some individuals. Patients taking more than 3 grams/day of EPA and DHA (the long chain omega-3 fatty acids) should do so only under a physician’s care. The US Food and Drug Administration has set the “generally regarded as safe” level for long-chain omega-3s at 3.0 g/day.

References

GISSI-HF investigators. Effect of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in patients with chronic heart failure (the GISSI-HF trial): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2008; DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61241-6.
GISSI-HF investigators. Effect of rosuvastatin in patients with chronic heart failure (the GISSI-HF trial): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2008. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61241-6.
Fonarow GC. Statins and n-3 fatty acid supplementation in heart failure. Lancet 2008; DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61239-8.
Lee JH, O’Keefe JH, Lavie CJ, et al. Omega-3 fatty acids for cardioprotection. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 Mar;83(3):324-32.
Kris-Etherton PM, Hill AM. N-3 fatty acids: food or supplements? J Am Diet Assoc. 2008 Jul;108(7):1125-30.

Again: The Dangers of Soy

Many health-conscious Americans, in an effort to improve their eating habits, have switched to eating tofu in place of meat or eggs. The soy industry would have you believe that this is a smart move for your heart health, but in reality processed soy, which includes tofu, is not a health food.

You are much better off eating organic eggs, grass-fed meat and raw dairy products than you are eating processed soy.

“Unlike in Asia where people eat small amounts of whole soybean products, western food processors separate the soybean into two golden commodities–protein and oil. There’s nothing safe or natural about this,” says Dr. Kaayla Daniel, Ph.D, a board-certified nutritionist and author of The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food.

Dr. Daniel, along with other leading scientists, recently petitioned the FDA to retract the currently allowed soy-prevents-heart-disease health claim.

According to Dr. Daniel, “Today’s high-tech processing methods not only fail to remove the anti-nutrients and toxins that are naturally present in soybeans but leave toxic and carcinogenic residues created by the high temperatures, high pressure, alkali and acid baths and petroleum solvents.”

The worst of the worst when it comes to soy products are the fractionated products like soy protein isolate and hydrolyzed plant protein, as all processed soy contains phytates that block mineral absorption and trypsin inhibitors that block proper digestion.

Tofu is one step up because it’s a whole soy product, but it still contains the anti-nutrients mentioned above.

Health Problems Linked to Soy

Among the many health problems linked to a high-soy diet are:

• Thyroid problems, including weight gain, lethargy, malaise, fatigue, hair loss, and loss of libido
• Premature puberty and other developmental problems in babies, children and adolescents
• Cancer
• Brain damage
• Reproductive disorders
• Soy allergies

Meanwhile, studies reviewed by Dr. Daniel and colleagues have found that soy does not reliably lower cholesterol, and in fact raises homocysteine levels in many people, which has been found to increase your risk of heart disease, stroke, and birth defects. In fact, according to Dr. Daniel, soy can increase your risk of heart disease.

As a result, she and other experts have sent a 65-page petition to the FDA asking them to retract the “soy prevents heart disease” health claim that they approved back in 1999, and let’s hope they do the right thing and comply.

It’s very important to know also that children and babies, who are still developing, are particularly vulnerable to soy’s hormone-mimicking effects. A Lancet study showed that the daily exposure to estrogen-imitating chemicals for infants who consume soy formulas was 6-11 times higher than adults consuming soy foods.

And the blood concentration of these hormones was 13,000 to 22,000 times higher than estrogen in the blood. An infant exclusively fed soy formula receives the estrogenic equivalent (based on body weight) of up to five birth control pills per day. So please do not feed your baby soy infant formula, or your toddler soy foods (if you can’t breastfeed and are looking for a formula alternative, here’s a recipe for a healthy homemade infant formula http://www.westonaprice.org/children/recipes.html). The effects are so potent that even pregnant women should avoid eating soy products for the safety of their unborn child.

And there’s more:

• Soybeans are high in natural toxins, also known as antinutrients. This includes a large quantity of inhibitors that deter the enzymes needed for protein digestion. Further, these enzyme inhibitors are not entirely disabled during ordinary cooking. The result is extensive gastric distress and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake, which can result in dangerous pancreatic impairments and cancer.

• Soybeans contain hemaglutinins, which cause red blood cells to clump together. Soybeans also have growth-depressant substances, and while these substances are reduced in processing, they are not completely eliminated.

• Soy contains goitrogens, which can frequently lead to depressed thyroid function.

• Most soybeans (over 80%) are genetically modified, and they contain one of the highest levels of pesticide contamination of all foods.

• Soybeans are very high in phytates, which prevent the absorption of minerals including calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc, all of which are co-factors for optimal biochemistry in your body.

Here Are Some Ways to Safely Enjoy Soy

There are a few types of soy that are healthy, and all of them are fermented. After a long fermentation process, the phytic acid and antinutrient levels of the soybeans are reduced, and their beneficial properties — such as the creation of natural probiotics — become available to your digestive system.

It also greatly reduces the levels of dangerous isoflavones, which are similar to estrogen in their chemical structure, and can interfere with the action of your own estrogen production.

So if you enjoy soy and want to eat it without damaging your health — and in fact gain health benefits — the following are all healthy options:

1. Natto, fermented soybeans with a sticky texture and strong, cheese-like flavor. It’s loaded with nattokinase, a very powerful blood thinner. Natto is actually a food I eat regularly, as it is the highest source of vitamin K2 on the planet and has a very powerful beneficial bacteria, bacillus subtilis. It can usually be found in any Asian grocery store.

2. Tempeh, a fermented soybean cake with a firm texture and nutty, mushroom-like flavor.

3. Miso, a fermented soybean paste with a salty, buttery texture (commonly used in miso soup).

4. Soy sauce: traditionally, soy sauce is made by fermenting soybeans, salt and enzymes, however be wary because many varieties on the market are made artificially using a chemical process.

Remember, though, that all processed soy products — soy milk, soy burgers, soy cheese, soy energy bars, soy ice cream, soy protein powders, etc. — are not health foods. And to truly avoid all types of damaging soy products, you need to avoid processed foods as the vast majority of them contain soy ingredients.

“The best — and maybe the only — way to completely avoid soy in the food supply is to buy whole foods and prepare them ourselves,” Dr. Daniel says. “For those who prefer to buy readymade and packaged products, I offer a free Special Report, “Where the Soys Are,” on my Web site. It lists the many “aliases” that soy might be hiding under in ingredient lists — words like “bouillon,” “natural flavor” and “textured plant protein.” http://www.wholesoystory.com/

The basics of healthy eating — unprocessed, fermented, and fresh foods are ideal, while processed foods should be avoided — apply to soy as well, so stick to these tenets and you’ll be on the right track.

(Additional information from Dr. Joseph Mercola, M.D.)

Tainted Baby Formula: China’s latest shame

From the New York Times

By JIM YARDLEY
BEIJING — China’s Ministry of Health on Monday announced that two babies have died in recent months and 1,253 others have been sickened by contaminated milk powder in a widening food safety scandal that has exposed persistent weaknesses in the country’s regulatory system.

More than 340 infants remain hospitalized, including 53 in serious condition. Inspection teams are visiting dairy farms and processing centers in the country’s four main milk-producing provinces to ensure that producers are not violating safety standards.

The Chinese authorities have confirmed that the tainted baby formula was laced with melamine, a chemical additive sometimes used to make plastics and fertilizer. Last year, after thousands of pets became ill in the United States, the same chemical was found in pet food and traced to a Chinese ingredient.

The tainted milk powder has been traced to the Sanlu Group, one of China’s biggest dairy producers, which operates as a joint venture with a New Zealand-based dairy conglomerate, Fonterra. China does not export milk powder to the United States.

Last week, Sanlu ordered a belated recall of its milk powder even though Chinese state media has reported that some parents had been complaining of problems since March. More than 10,000 tons of milk powder have been seized or recalled, according to the Health Ministry, and the authorities have ordered the company to halt production.

Sickened infants have suffered from kidney stones and investigators are trying to determine how the formula became contaminated and whether Sanlu concealed the problem before announcing the recall.

The tainted milk has renewed concerns about China’s system of food safety regulation, even as Communist Party leaders have pledged to improve oversight, with the country now a major food exporter.

Chinese regulators have repeatedly failed to detect food safety problems in a timely manner. Moreover, despite ample evidence that secrecy tends to compound safety problems, companies and local officials still appear determined to minimize or cover-up problems in the food supply rather than alert the public.

Four years ago, at least 13 Chinese babies died of malnutrition after their parents unwittingly fed them fake baby formula that lacked any nutritional value.

Officials say they are questioning nearly 80 people suspected of involvement in the latest scandal. On Monday, the police arrested two brothers who ran a milk collection center in Hebei Province suspected of adding melamine to diluted milk, according to the official Xinhua News Agency. Adding the chemical makes the material test at higher concentrations of protein. Fonterra, the New Zealand conglomerate that owns a 43 percent share in Sanlu, said it first learned last month that the Chinese company was selling contaminated powder. On Monday, New Zealand officials blamed local Chinese officials for failing to take action until the New Zealand government contacted the central authorities in Beijing.

Prime Minister Helen Clark said Fonterra officials had been “trying for weeks to get official recall and the local authorities in China would not do it.”

“I think the first inclination was to try and put a towel over it and deal with it without an official recall,” she said, according to Television New Zealand, a government network. Chinese health officials said physicians had examined 10,000 infants who had been fed the Sanlu formula and found that 1,253 had been sickened. Ma Shaowei, a vice health minister, said many of the ailing children were from poorer areas, according to a transcript on the Internet. But at least three babies were hospitalized as far away as Hainan, the island province not far from Vietnam.

It seems likely that contaminated formula had been distributed for several months.

The two deaths attributed to the bad formula, both in Gansu, occurred long before the scandal became public. One was a 5-month-old boy who died on May 1; the other was an 8-month-old girl who died on July 22, according to the Health Ministry.

Last year, the pet food scandal touched off a trade dispute between the United States and China.

Chinese regulators responded last year with a high-profile crackdown and banned such uses of melamine. Regulators expressed outrage about the latest problems, but did not clarify why it took so long to uncover.

Li Changjiang, minister of the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, visited Sanlu’s hometown in Hebei Province and was shown bags of the tainted milk powder seized by police. “It’s shocking,” Mr. Li said, according to China Daily. “It’s a crime against the people.”

Mr. Li said the result of the probe would be announced later this week but suggested that the problem occurred at milk processing centers rather than on farms. These milk stations collect milk from farmers and then pool it together to be sold to larger dairy concerns.

“It’s unlikely that dairy farmers mixed the industrial chemical melamine in fresh milk,” Mr. Li said, according to China Daily. “We believe the contamination is more likely to have occurred at milk collecting stations.”

China’s state media reported the formula scandal last Wednesday. The next day, the Sanlu Group recalled all formula that the company had produced before Aug. 6.

But state media has also reported that parents had begun complaining about the formula in March — and that Sanlu did not order a recall.

The Sanlu Group, located in Hebei Province, could not be reached for comment on Monday morning. But a Sanlu official, vice president Zhang Zhenling, read a formal apology during a news briefing on Monday in the city of Shijiazhuang, where the corporation is based. “The serious safety accident of the Sanlu formula milk powder for infants has caused severe harm to many sickened babies and their families,” Mr. Zhang said, according to Xinhua. “Sanlu Group expresses its most sincere apology to you.”

Huang Yuanxi contributed research.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/world/asia/16milk.html

Chicken nuggets anyone?

WATCH WHAT YOU BUY.

As with many booming industries, the fresh/slow/organic movement is drawing new converts everyday, both consumers and providers, but where there’s profit there’s always greed and potential danger.

Yet another depressing example are HIGHLINER FISH PRODUCTS.

You see, even though the box says ‘ product of Canada’ the fish are imported from China and ‘processed’ in Canada where the coating is added and then the food is packaged!

HIGHLINER fish are raised in pens using chemicals that are banned in Canada and the U.S. as cancer causing but legal in China.
(This was exposed on CBC TV’s Marketplace.)

MORE ON IMPORT SAFETY

BUY YOUR FOOD AT WAL-MART?

Again, read read read labels and be sure to check the “country of origin” or call and ask the company if it’s not stated on the package (which is rare). Anything labeled China, Hong Kong Thailand, or Vietnam should be approached with some thought.

While it’s true that there are many Chinese and Asian companies doing legitimate business and following ethical business practices, the frightening truth is that due to sheer volume and lack of adequate personnel, it’s simply impossible to control and verify all of their exports. Unfortunately, China has come up time and again for it’s lack of safety and controls on many export items, including children’s toys, jewelry and food.
If you think that all imports are processed in a sanitary manner and thus safe to eat, then take a look at this!!

REMEMBER WAL-MART is one of the LARGEST BUYERS OF CHINESE PRODUCTS.
These undercover enclosed pictures speak a thousand words…

Early dawn, this worker starts the day by riding around to collect dead chickens.


Asking around for dead chickens.


A total of 5 riders are hired by this “company” to ride to farms
to buy dead chickens.


A dead chicken cost 1 RMB and would be sold at 9 RMB after processing.


Storage for the dead chickens in the court yard.


Carcasses are thrown everywhere.


And on the floor….


Four employees start de-feathering the dead fowl
after soaking in boiling water from a rusty wok.

Enduring the pungent odor, sometime it gets so terrible
that even the most experienced of the workers puke.

Workers rushing to get the chickens de-feathered.


A discarded bath tub being used to soak the plucked dead chickens….
the contaminated water accelerates the decomposition process.


Wearing slippers walking among the chickens during the coloring process.

After the color is added, its creepy to find that they are actually quite atractive.

And now presenting the mouth watering Charcoal Roasted Chicken!

Again, Take the time to read your food labels and look or ask for the country of origin!

NOTE ADDED ON 9/9/08

WHILE THESE PARTICULAR CHICKENS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN EXPORTED, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW FOR SURE.

YOUR BEST BET IS TO CHECK EACH COUNTRY’S “TRACK RECORD” AND ASSUME THAT FOR EACH TIME THEY GET CAUGHT ON HEALTH OR SAFETY ISSUES, THEY DON’T GET CAUGHT AT LEAST 10 TIMES.

Big Pharma, Big Biz

The Real Agenda

Do Restaurants lie about ingredients?

Restaurants often cheat on “Organic” label

It turns out that menu items touted as “local” and “organic” at restaurants aren’t always either. They may actually come from a huge national vendor like Sysco rather than a small or family-owned farm.

Since there are no actual “truth-in-menu” laws, this practice isn’t even illegal (though it IS pretty rotten, slimy and greedy).

Once again, the word organic can be used pretty loosely. Remember, there’s a vast difference between the term “organic,” which may mean food raised without pesticides or antibiotics, and the more intensive “certified organic,” which is legally regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The phrase “all-natural,” only means “minimally processed” at best, with no artificial ingredients or colors. But there’s a lot of stuff out there that’s natural that you still wouldn’t want in your food!

A restaurant can call its ingredients organic whether they’re factory-farmed Chilean products grabbed from the shelves of Wal-Mart or hand delivered by a small farm after being picked that morning.

Ultimately, diners need to be aware, self-educate, and ask questions. Diners also should pay attention to their taste buds. Organic generally tastes better — produce is more earthy and pungent, and tomatoes have higher sugar and acidity.

Sources:

• AZCentral.com August 13, 2008

What did your burger eat for lunch?

If you guessed potato chips, M&Ms, and a bunch of other old corn and husks mixed together then you must be either a) in the beef biz, b) already a convert to grass-fed beef or c) a vegetarian!

Check out this delightful short video report on how escalating corn and feed prices are affecting the industry, and the product.

from the Wall Street Journal:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid452319854?bctid=1667996405

FDA lets us down AGAIN

FDA Declares Bisphenol-A Plastics Chemical Safe Enough for Babies to Drink

(NaturalNews) In a move that surprised no one, the FDA has aligned itself with the chemical industry and declared that Bisphenol-A, a plastics chemical previously linked to neural defects, is safe enough for babies to drink! Echoing the profit-minded desires of the chemical companies that manufacture plastic products, the FDA said in a draft report that the chemical poses no harm to adults or infants when consumed at typical exposure levels.

This is no surprise to anyone who has watched the FDA for very long: The agency’s decisions are almost unanimously in favor of private industry and almost never seek to protect the public from exposure to dangerous chemicals, pharmaceuticals or food ingredients. The FDA, it could be reasonably stated, has flatly abandoned the public and sold out to the very industries it is supposed to regulate.

Several months ago, The National Toxicology Program (part of the National Institutes of Health) issued a report that warned Bisphenol-A could cause neural problems and behavioral problems in infants and children.

Nobody knows if Bisphenol-A is safe for children
Even the FDA had to admit, in its draft report, that “complete certainty of absolute harmlessness is scientifically impossible to establish.” In other words, they don’t know if it’s harmless to children. Yet interestingly, they’ve decided to give it their stamp of approval anyway, potentially exposing tens of millions of children to a chemical that may cause neural development problems.

This does not seem to concern the FDA. Or at least it does not seem to outweigh the influence and pressure from the plastics industry, which is of course claiming the chemical is absolutely harmless. Is this yet another example of the FDA selling out to industry? On the surface, it certainly seems so.

Even the Environmental Working Group (www.EWG.org) strongly criticized the FDA’s report, saying “We have long since lost faith in FDA’s ability to be an impartial authority on FDA’s safety. Time and again, FDA has sided with special interests instead of the public interest on this chemical.”

Protecting industry, not consumers
The FDA, you see, has a long and well-documented history of erring on the side of disaster. Rather than taking the default position that a possibly harmful chemical with unknown exposure levels should be restricted from the food supply until further research is done, the FDA does the opposite: It declares the chemical to be safe until evidence proves it to be dangerous.

This is a reckless strategy that will only lead to disaster for the health of the population. It is my belief that all synthetic chemicals should be assumed dangerous unless proven safe, and they should only be allowed in the food supply (via food packaging, beverage bottles, etc.) if they are proven safe with overwhelming scientific evidence.

FDA decisions are based on fiction, not fact
So how much scientific evidence does the FDA have right now, demonstrating Bisphenol-A to be safe on human babies? None. All they have is a LACK of evidence showing the chemical to be dangerous. And that’s not sufficient scientific support upon which decisions about toxic chemical exposure should be made.

The Environmental Working Group issued a statement strongly criticizing the FDA’s assessment of Bisphenol-A safety. The original statement is found at http://www.ewg.org/node/27024 and says:

1. The FDA limited its assessment to studies that conformed to rigid, 50-year old study designs that feed animals high amounts of BPA and analyze the animals for overt signs of poisoning and toxicity. FDA admits in their assessment that the studies they use to set the safety level do not adequately address the impacts of early life exposure to the developing brain, behavior and the reproductive system. Notably, the only studies that conformed to these 50-year old study designs, were those funded by industry.

2. By adhering to what it euphemistically calls studies that follow “good laboratory practices,” the FDA ignores more than 100 studies, including many funded by the National Toxicology Program, showing toxic effects of BPA at very low doses.

3. FDA’s so called 2,000-fold margin of safety evaporates if current exposures are compared to any of the low dose studies, particularly the 12 studies the National Toxicology Program highlights in their April 14, 2008 BPA assessment as raising concerns for the safety of infant exposure to BPA.

4. FDA’s exposure calculations underestimate infant ingestion. They calculate formula intake for the average infant instead of focusing on babies who eat the most, thus underestimating risks for half of all infants. They also assume that liquid formula has 2.5 parts per billion (ppb) BPA, even though their own testing of just 14 liquid formulas found up to 5 times more than this (13 ppb). These errors contradict the accepted risk assessment practice of focusing on risks to the most highly exposed population. FDA claims that its analysis was comprehensive, but in reality it underestimates risks to the most vulnerable infants by a wide margin.

So once again, we have the FDA putting the public in harm’s way, betraying the public trust and siding with the chemical industry on a decision that deserves a whole lot more scrutiny. Are plastics really dangerous for your health? I suspect they are, but regardless of what I think, the FDA needs to err on the side of caution, not on the side of industry.

Counterfit Organics

Ok, so the Olympic ceremonies were beautifully orchestrated and yeah, the stadiums and games were pretty great too, but when it comes to imports China (and others) have badly let us down.

The USDA has announced that they are putting 15 out of 30 federally accredited organic certifiers they audited on probation, allowing them 12 months to make corrections or lose their accreditation. At the heart of the problems were imported foods and ingredients from other countries, including China.

Chinese imports have made headlines for contaminated pet food, toxic toys, and recently, certified organic ginger contaminated with levels of a pesticide called aldicarb that can cause nausea, headaches and blurred vision. The ginger, sold under the 365 label at Whole Foods Market, contained a level of aldicarb not even permissible for conventional ginger, let alone organics.

The Chinese government does not allow foreigners to inspect Chinese farms, and even if a Chinese inspector notices illegal pesticide use, he or she might feel pressured to stay silent.

Sources:
AlterNet August 7, 2008