Halloween Special: Beets

Anytime I mention ''beets,'' people recoil in horror and tell me how much they hate canned beets. I agree with them, canned beets taste terrible. Not only that, they are not fresh, and probably contain sugar and preservatives, not to mention BPA from the can in which they are found.
But I am talking about real beets. The ones that you choose from a bin, check to make sure that they are nice and firm, and scrape off the excess dirt before you put them in your shopping bag. If you are lucky enough to find them freshly picked, you can also eat their leaves as you would eat collards, mustard or turnip greens: brazilian style of course, finely chopped and sautéed with garlic/olive oil, or bacon (see How to Cook Greens).
Now that you have dared to buy your first beets, lets get bloody. Lightly wash them in order to get the excess dirt off, and put them in a pot with enough filtered water to cover them. Bring to a boil, then bring the fire down to low and simmer for about 1 hour (add water if needed to keep beets covered), or until you can stick a regular knife through them. If the knife does not easily go through the beet, it means it is not ready. If you have a pressure cooker, your beets will be ready in about 10 to 15 minutes. Make sure not to cook them too long (too soft); if they are overcooked they lose their flavor. 

Once they are cooked, bring them under running water, or a bowl of cold water, and pass your fingers on their skin. The skin will come out off quickly and easily. If you have cooked them and don't have time to ''deal'' with them, stick them in the fridge (discard the cooking water first!) until you are ready to peal and cut them. These guys on the left sat in the fridge for 24 hours before I had time to prepare them. 
This is how they look once they are cooked and peeled. 

Cut off the ends, cut the beets in half, then cut them into 1/4 slices (half-moon slices). Why cut them in halves first? So that they don't roll around, and you end up cutting yourself instead. 
Now that they are cut, and your hands have a nice red tint to them, put them in a bowl. Add olive oil, salt, and if you wish, chopped parsley. They are ready to eat! If you are preparing them right after cooking them, make sure to let them get cold before you eat them, as they do not taste good at all when warm.

This is how they look when mixed with olive oil, sea salt and chopped parsley. 
If you are trying to figure out what on earth you can serve with ''beets'', you guessed it: rice and beans.
They complement rice and beans beautifully well. They make an incredibly cheap meal, which is also filling, and nourishing to your body. 

Ask Umbra: Should I wash out my zip-lock bags?

24 OCT 2011 6:00 AM

Cherry-pick your food containers and leave plastic baggage behind.

Dearest readers,

Once in a while, your separate letters decide to link arms and chant in unison to ensure that they're really heard. Today they are telling me that many of you are losing sleep over plastics and food. But may I gently suggest that your insomnia is misplaced.

Instead of gazing into the darkness and wondering whether you should wash out your zip-lock baggies, you should be chewing your pillow in fury over the fact that a household good could be so bad. The plastics industry, built on the concept of "better living," could in fact be poisoning us all.

The chemicals in some plastics can leach into foods and beverages, and have been linked to respiratory issues, reproductive issues, and cancer. Check out the article "Even BPA-Free Plastic Not Always Safe," which discusses the "estrogenic activity" of various plastics heated in a lab. To quote a dear friend, "big yuck."

As I suggested in my recent plastics from plants column, our primary goal should be to reduce the amount of plastic in our lives. So I hereby challenge each of you, this week, to start cutting the plastic out of your kitchen. Just summarily recycle one item -- and then tell us about it in the comments section.

If you can't part with your plastic, at least follow these helpful guidelines to make sure you're using the safe(r) types.

Now let's see if I can ease the minds of a few anxious readers:

To Colleen in Boston, whose coworker is haranguing her for washing zip-lock bags: Yes, she's right that you are probably using more water than was used to make the bags in the first place. Yes, you're right that you are saving on raw materials, shipping impacts, and landfill space. So feel free to keep rinsing if you wish, and consider it a wash. But I do recommend that you and all your fellow zip-lock reusers -- and there are scads and scads of you, I know -- take your admirable energy and put it into finding alternatives to plastic instead. You might start your search at Reuseit.com or Life Without Plastic.

To Kate in Chapel Hill, N.C., who uses shower caps to cover food in the fridge: I wish I could call your solution harebrained, just for pun, but it's actually quite creative. However, your husband is right that washing these caps creates its own impact. On the question of whether they are dangerous because they're not food-grade plastic, I say food-grade plastics are dangerous enough in their own right. So go ahead and find another purpose for the caps -- and use stainless steel or glass storage containers in your fridge instead.

To Sara in Fond du Lac, Wis., whose work inside a prison means she cannot bring metal or glass containers but who wants an alternative to microwaving her #5 plastic: For you I have boundless admiration, if not boundless suggestions. Depending on the sloppiness of your lunches, I would suggest you look into ceramics, bamboo, or silicone. As far as heating food in plastic goes, there'sheated debate, and as is often the case in these situations, your choice will come down to whether you trust the feds, in this case the FDA. I suppose you could simply eat your meals cold -- but I imagine that's not too appealing in Fond du Lac, especially this time of year.

That's it for now, dearest readers. Promise me you won't fret too much, whatever you decide. We all need to get a little rest.

Polymerrily,
Umbra.

Weekly Grist

Agave: The Nectar of Deceit. ~ Dr. Paul Gannon

Via elephantjournal.comon Oct 18, 2011

Photo: eamonn


Recently I was at a party and someone brought a cake, touting it as sugar free.
Had someone actually come up with an alchemical mix for making stevia work in baking? My husband is a pastry chef and I couldn’t wait to try this. Anything that may be guilt free to suggest to you all.Oohs and ahhs came from all who consumed the morsel of interest.

I finally got a piece — the cake was so sweet I couldn’t have a second bite. I disposed of it without anyone finding out (I hope!). Later I asked the chickadee who brought it what it was made of, and she said, “agave!”

Photo: Dennis Mojado

“Really?” I said, as I thought to myself, “Agave IS sugar” and bit my tongue, realizing that I do like parties, and I do like desserts, and I do want to be invited back. Far be it from me to be Debbie Downer and judge what we put in our mouths — at a party! But here, judgment takes front seat in this context and forum, as your health and informed decisions for it, is a whole nutter butter snack cracker.

So after the sugar shockwave cake, I was curious. Really? Is agave that great? Is it even a little guilt-free?

For years now we have been led to believe that agave nectar is a good, perhaps even a “healthy” choice, as it is labeled as a low glycemic sweetener (some even label it as raw, which would be impossible to create). What I found shocked me, hence what you are reading now. Agave is actually 70-90% fructose. The very highest fructose sweetener on the market to date (barring pure fructose itself). That is even more than the dreaded high fructose corn syrup receiving hype of avoidance in the past few years, which is 55% fructose. Low glycemic? You bet! Glycemic index is based on glucose, another sugar altogether than fructose. Labeling agave ‘low glycemic index’ is like labeling oranges, “apple free”.

Low glycemic index is something that I have talked about many times before. What is it exactly? Simply that the consumption of the food is less apt to raise glucose levels, and hence will mean less insulin released from the pancreas. Extra insulin release is not desirable and one of the biggest reasons to maintain strength in the face of desserts. Keep your insulin levels in better balance, and decrease your risk of diabetes, high blood pressure and high triglycerides.

But somehow along the way, as witnessed everyday when I speak to my health conscious patients, agave became synonymous with a ‘healthy choice’ when deciding what to put in your coffee, tea, or pot luck presentation. This most likely occurred from it being labeled as a low glycemic sweetener. One website even says “Rather than increasing body fats, agave nectar assists in the breaking down of body fats through the gallbladder.” Where are the internet police when you need them?!

Photo: Jonathan Cohen

You see, where the caveat is with agave nectar, and other high fructose products like pure fructose, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup is that fructose bypasses insulin. This means that when the fructose gets into your blood, insulin ignores it, and passes the buck onto the liver — you know, that organ tucked under your lower right ribs that takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin’. (we should do a “Love Your Liver Day” where we don’t have caffeine, alcohol, toxins, or fructose!).

Glucose can be used all over the body on the other hand, so is not as big of a burden to the liver. But remember it causes insulin release. Hello, Mr. Moderation!

High fructose corn syrup and white table sugar both have a about the same 1:1 ratio of glucose to fructose. But there are differences that are not readily pointed out by the people pushing the fructose laden products. The fructose and glucose in HFCS and agave are both isolated as their own molecules, whereas the fructose in white table sugar is bound to glucose by one of those high school chemistry class bonds (covalent or one of its cousins) and needs an enzyme to break down the bond between the fructose and glucose. That means more time for Lucy and Ethel to wrap the chocolates. When it comes to supplemental sugar in things though, I am not sure if that extra time (meaning a more gradual absorption of the sugar into the bloodstream) is anything to hang your hat on. All sugar must be looked at with a crooked eye.

The high fructose containing sweeteners like agave and corn syrup are a big health problem, blocking leptin release (the hormone making you realize you are full) causing one to overeat, along with a resume of rat study and human findings implicating these isolated fructose products to fatty liver and the childhood obesity epidemic.

The Corn Syrup Refiners Association has incidentally put in a request to the FDA to change the name of “high fructose corn syrup” and “corn syrup” to “corn sugars”, a move to bunk the bad rap HFCS is getting for its link to abdominal weight gain amongst other evils like childhood obesity and adult onset diabetes in high school students. Change the name to whatever you want, we won’t be fooled. The sugar industry is now fighting that request, as they don’t want anything to do with the baker formerly know as corn syrup, tainting the sweet name of “sugar”. 

SO, is white sugar better than agave?

Photo: Uwe Hermann

Let’s say it is the lesser of two evils. The point here, for cute little hippie bakers to the soccer moms of the world, is that agave is not a healthier choice as a sweetener, and not a free dessert, as many have been falsely believing.

On “Love Your Liver Day”, I would choose white table sugar over agave — oh wait, it’s “Love Your Liver Day”, so no sugar at all on this sacred detoxing day. (I anticipate this will be a controversial topic of discussion over milk thistle tea).

Do realize that no sweetener is a health food and something to be used in moderation or avoided completely. Serious health problems will only be made worse by excess consumption of sugars, regardless of the source, whether that be maple syrup, honey, corn syrup, agave or white table sugar. I would recommend that if a person has any liver problems, from hepatitis to cirrhosis, to be adamant about avoiding the fructose sweeteners especially.

Fructose in REAL Fruit

The fructose contained in fruit is part of the levulose molecule, which does not act the same as these isolated fructose sweeteners. It is safer, part of a whole food matrix and absorbed and processed differently than the sweeteners.

The Future

We have to ask, how did agave get such mass acclaim and arrive as a choice in most coffee shops all of a sudden? If we are to believe that HFCS is in fact the villain causing all those lab rats to become obese, and the cause of all those high school students getting adult onset diabetes from their 48 ounce morning sodas, then what are we to make of agave nectar? Can we extrapolate the studies of HFCS to apply to agave nectar? Well, technically we don’t know. But agave looks worse than HFCS from a chemistry point of view due to its fructose content being so much higher.

But one thing is clear. The higher cost of agave nectar, along with its marketing to people who actually know what glycemic index is, means that this is now being tested in a sort of reverse, socio-economic way. Meaning the more money you make, or the more you shop at health food stores, the more likely you would be to buy agave nectar over white table sugar. As obesity is higher in lower socio-economic classes, its use will most likely be more moderate anyway amongst those who choose it, and most likely never affect health too overtly, allowing it to remain on the island.

I can see my grandmother now. Shaking her head in disapproval of this dissertation with a cute little pursed mouth smile, saying, “It’s a pie! Not like you eat this every day!” Well Gram, you aren’t married to a pastry chef. I just needed to know for myself if the white sugar needs to be replaced by agave. I’ll let him stand his ground on keeping the white sugar in the cupboard, and I’ll stick to more important things like keeping chlorine out of the house.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Paul Gannon has been leading detoxification programs for groups and individuals for over seven years.  His experience working with hundreds of people in this field has lead him to develop the most comprehensive and effective cleanse program available today. Dr. Gannon earned his Doctorate of Naturopathic Medicine from Bastyr University in Seattle, which is recognized worldwide as the leader in education and scientific study for naturopathic medicine. Besides offering phone consultations to accommodate your busy lifestyle, Dr. Gannon has offices in Miami Beach and Aspen. Visit his website here.

Study debunks myths on organic farms

BY PAUL HANLEY, SPECIAL TO THE STARPHOENIXSEPTEMBER 27, 2011

The results are in from a 30-year side-by-side trial of conventional and organic farming methods at Pennsylvania's Rodale Institute. Contrary to conventional wisdom, organic farming outperformed conventional farming in every measure.

There are about 1,500 organic farmers in Saskatchewan, at last count. They eschew the synthetic fertilizers and toxic sprays that are the mainstay of conventional farms. Study after study indicates the conventional thinking on farming - that we have to tolerate toxic chemicals because organic farming can't feed the world - is wrong.

In fact, studies like the Rodale trials (www.rodaleinstitute.org/ fst30years) show that after a three-year transition period, organic yields equalled conventional yields. What is more, the study showed organic crops were more resilient. Organic corn yields were 31 per cent higher than conventional in years of drought.

These drought yields are remarkable when compared to genetically modified (GM) "drought tolerant" varieties, which showed increases of only 6.7 per cent to 13.3 per cent over conventional (non-drought resistant) varieties.

More important than yield, from the farmer's perspective, is income, and here organic is clearly superior. The 30-year comparison showed organic systems were almost three times as profitable as the conventional systems. The average net return for the organic systems was $558/acre/ year versus just $190/acre/year for the conventional systems. The much higher income reflects the premium organic farmers receive and consumers pay for.

But even without a price premium, the Rodale study found organic systems are competitive with the conventional systems because of marginally lower input costs.

The most profitable grain crop was the organically grown wheat netting $835/acre/year. Interestingly, no-till conventional corn was the least profitable, netting just $27/acre/year. The generally poor showing of GM crops was striking; it echoed a study from the University of Minnesota that found farmers who cultivated GM varieties earned less money over a 14-year period than those who continued to grow non-GM crops.

Importantly, the Rodale study, which started in 1981, found organic farming is more sustainable than conventional systems. They found, for example, that:

. Organic systems used 45 per cent less energy than conventional.

. Production efficiency was 28 per cent higher in the organic systems, with the conventional no-till system being the least efficient in terms of energy usage.

. Soil health in the organic systems has increased over time while the conventional systems remain essentially unchanged. One measure of soil health is the amount of carbon contained in the soil. Carbon performs many crucial functions: acting as a reservoir of plant nutrients, binding soil particles together, maintaining soil temperature, providing a food source for microbes, binding heavy metals and pesticides, and influencing water holding capacity and aeration. The trials compared different types of organic and conventional systems; carbon increase was highest in the organic manure system, followed by the organic legume system. The conventional system has shown a loss in carbon in recent years.

. Organic fields increased groundwater recharge and reduced run-off. Water volumes percolating through the soil were 15-20 per cent higher in the organic systems. Rather than running off the surface and taking soil with it, rainwater recharged groundwater reserves in the organic systems, with minimal erosion.

Organic farming also helps sustain rural communities by creating more jobs; a UN study shows organic farms create 30 per cent more jobs per hectare than nonorganic. More of the money in organic farming goes to paying local people, rather than to farm inputs.

With results like these, why does conventional wisdom favour chemical farming? Vested interests. Organic farming keeps more money on the farm and in rural communities and out of the pockets of chemical companies. As the major funders of research centres and universities, and major advertisers in the farm media, they effectively buy a pro-chemical bias.

Still, the global food security community, which focuses on poor farmers in developing countries, is shifting to an organic approach. Numerous independent studies show that small scale, organic farming is the best option for feeding the world now and in the future. In fact, agroecological farming methods, including organic farming, could double global food production in just 10 years, according to one UN report.

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

Music and Emotions.

I have been told by friends and teachers I am emotional. I looked up the meaning of ''emotional'' in the dictionary : ''characterized by intense feeling; (of a person) having feelings that are easily excited and openly displayed.'' 

My cello teacher, L. Lesser, told me to try to reign in my emotions a bit, ''take a step back'', act ''cold'' when playing. I never completely grasped the meaning of what he was saying. If I could not let myself be inspired by the music, why play? So I continued on, with emotion.

A couple years ago, I prepared for an audition with, amongst others, an excerpt for Mahler 5, which I love. Of all the music I had to prepare for the audition, I felt Mahler was the one I connected with most and understood best, and would be easy to perform. 

I practiced the Mahler excerpt with just as much care as the others. When the time came to audition, I walked onstage, conjured up my feelings for this excerpt, and played. It was all downhill from there. The sound was not focused, the timing of the shifts was not right, and it did not flow. Later that day, I received comments on the performance: ''unfocused, dragging, uneven.'' Emotions did nothing for me, or Mahler. 

This was not the first time I ''fell'' in a performance. I struggled to understand where I stumbled with this piece. Why could I not execute this music successfully, when it spoke so much to me?

I had learned to use emotion to fly over fear. It seemed to carry me well and to inspire me to deliver the music above technical difficulties. Why was I stumbling in performances? Why did I make mistakes on physical moves that I had perfected through much practice? 

I realized it was my emotions that were interfering with my playing. When I dwelt in them, I was not present. I could not listen to the music, react to the sound, or make my next move; and so I would ''trip''- make a mistake. 

When I really listen, I experience all the emotions that the music stirs up in me, but what is different now is that I let them go and am able to move forward. Through this practice of attentive listening I am alert to the music, and free to play in the moment. 

I walk on stage and prepare to perform a piece that I love. I take a moment to quiet my mind, and listen. As I play, I focus on letting the music speak through my instrument. I finish the piece and stand up to bow. I am grinning, inspired by music, energized by the performance. I am happy my hard work preparing for this event has paid off. I performed well. 

Garden, today

mustard greens,

collards,

rosemary...

nothing fancy.

keeping it simple...

and realistic.

hardy vegetables are...

dark leafy greens...

great for your blood

and spirit...

Is Susan G. Komen Denying the BPA-Breast Cancer Link?

Critics claim the leading breast-cancer research group is in the pocket of its BPA-happy sponsors.

By Amy Silverstein | Mon Oct. 3, 2011 2:30 AM PDT

---

Main Content

If you've ever bought something pink to support breast-cancer research, there's a good chance a portion of the money went to Susan G. Komen for the Cure [1], the largest nonprofit in the world solely dedicated to eradicating the disease. Famous for its fundraising races and pink gear, the foundation has been fighting breast cancer for three decades. So it may come as a surprise that Komen has posted statements on its website that dismiss links between the common chemical bisphenol A (BPA) and breast cancer, even while funding research that explores that possible connection.

Which foods have the most BPA? [2] What does BPA do to your body [3]? And does Governor Paul LePage of Maine really think that the worst-case scenario of BPA exposure is "some women may have little beards [4]"?

BPA is found in all manner of consumer goods, from plastic water jugs to receipts to the liners of food cans. Critics have pointed out that Komen receives generous donations from private industries who use those same chemicals in their products, and who also downplay health concerns. Is that what's driving Komen's position on BPA? "Absolutely not," said Katrina McGhee, Komen's Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer. In multiple interviews with Mother Jones, Komen executives were adamant that their sponsors have no effect on any of their policy decisions.

"I want to be very clear," said Komen President Elizabeth Thompson. "We are not influenced at all by any subpart of any one of our funders."
And yet, it's hard to ignore mounting scientific evidence that strongly suggests a link between BPA and cancer. The United States' President's Cancer Panel concluded[5] in 2010 that "more than 130 studies have linked BPA to breast cancer, obesity, and other health problems. A number [6] of studies [7] have found that the chemical causes breast cancer in lab animals. In human cell cultures, BPA has caused breast cancer cells to proliferate [8] and has also reduced the effectiveness of chemotherapy[9]. In September, a study by the California Pacific Medical Center [10] found that BPA even made healthy breast cells behave like cancer cells and decreased the effectiveness of yet another breast cancer drug. Frighteningly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says [11] that BPA is in the urine of more than 90 percent of the United States population. Researchers believe this figure reflects continuous exposure to the chemical.
In April 2010 Komen posted an online statement [12] saying that BPA had been "deemed safe." And a more recent statement on Komen's website about BPA, from February 2011, begins [13], "Links between plastics and cancer are often reported by the media and in email hoaxes." Komen acknowledges in its older statement that the Food and Drug Administration is doing more studies on BPA, but also says that there is currently "no evidence to suggest a link between BPA and risk of breast cancer."
Just one of many pink-packaged products whose sales support Susan G. Komen for the Cure.Cambodia4kidsorg [14]/Flickr"I think that's at best, misleading, and at worst, demonstrating really significant ignorance by whoever at the Komen Foundation wrote that," said University of Missouri biology professor and BPA expert Dr. Frederick vom Saal in a telephone interview, reacting to Komen's 2011 BPA statement. "When you think of this as a foundation that's out there supposedly protecting women from factors that are involved in breast cancer, I find that statement to be just astounding."
Komen's chief scientific advisor, Dr. Eric Winer, dismissed the criticisms as inflammatory. "If a woman is particularly worried about plastics, she can avoid plastics in her life," he told me.

"If a woman is particularly worried about plastics, she can avoid plastics in her life," Komen's chief scientific advisor told me.

That's not as easy as it sounds, since the chemical is found in so many products. The list of Komen sponsors that use BPA include the Coca-Cola Bottling Company (which says BPA is safe, but that it is nonetheless looking for alternatives [15] for its canned soda) and General Mills, which still uses the chemical in most canned foods, but did recently introduce BPA-free organic tomato cans [16]. Another sponsor is Georgia-Pacific, a subsidiary of famously anti-regulation Koch Industries [17] and major manufacturer of epoxy resins that contain BPA [18].
Another manufacturing company, 3M, maker of of Scotch Tape, has donated more than $1 million since 2007 and is a member of the American Chemistry Council, a powerful trade group that argues that BPA is safe. Komen also has a partnership with DS Waters, which delivers the type of water bottle cooler that you're likely to find in an office setting, The bottles get a pink cap [19] for the Komen partnership, but Komen doesn't mention that those pink-topped bottles are made from polycarbonate plastic that contains BPA.
Reacting to Komen's April 2010 statement on BPA, Dr. Megan Schwarzman, a family physician and research scientist at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health noted in a telephone interview that "The people who produce chemicals often cite language like that to justify business as usual."
And indeed the American Chemistry Council did use that statement to justify business as usual, with a post [20] on its Facebook page reading, "Leading breast cancer org Susan G. Komen says no evidence to suggest a link between BPA & risk of breast cancer."
In an in-person interview, Komen president Thompson agreed that there are still many unanswered questions about environmental toxins and breast cancer. Komen's chief scientific advisor, Winer, joining in the interview by phone, said that because of those unanswered questions, Komen executives do not yet want to make "definitive" statements about chemicals on the website. In response, I asked: "You don't want to make a definitive statement, then why do you say that BPA, in that one statement [from April 2010], has been deemed safe?"
"I can only say that we've spent hours," said Thompson. "Hours and hours and hours looking at the wording."
Throughout the interview, Winer deflected other experts' criticisms by stressing personal responsibility. "Nothing stops an individual woman from living her life a certain way. And if she chooses to do that, she can do that."

Komen's downplaying of the link between chemicals and cancer isn't limited to BPA; the foundation also lists exposure to organochlorine pesticides, a category that includes the infamous DDT, as one of six "Factors That Do Not Increase Risk." But like BPA, many pesticides have estrogen-like traits. A 2007 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives even suggested that women exposed to DDT as adolescents were five times more likely to develop breast cancer during adulthood.
Komen's position on chemicals' role in cancer reflects a larger debate within the public-health community over the importance of addressing the influence of environmental factors on cancer. Only about 10 percent of cases of breast cancer in the United States can be traced to hereditary factors, research shows. "We now know from just a whole lot of science that environmental variables have a strong influence on gene expression," said Dr. Ted Schettler, Science Director of the Science and Environmental Health Network.
Yet scientists, including the President's Cancer Panel report [21] released in 2010, say that research on the environment and cancer as a whole remains grossly under-funded. "There traditionally has been tremendous resistance to looking at environmental issues. And that's because there are very powerful interest groups lobbying against doing that," said vom Saal.

Ranked in the 2010 Harris Interactive Polls as the second most trusted nonprofit in America, Komen awarded researchers $55 million worth of grants in 2011. Critics accuse major cancer organizations of pouring every dollar into drug studies, but in Komen's case, that's actually not true. In the 2011 research portfolio, a small portion of Komen’s funding is going toward specific environmental exposures—including a $450,000 study on BPA by a Komen-funded researcher who hypothesizes [22] that BPA "causes or accelerates breast cancer."

A small portion of Komen’s funding is going toward specific environmental exposures—including a $450,000 study on BPA by a Komen-funded researcher who hypothesizes that BPA "causes or accelerates breast cancer."

Winer said that before 2011, Komen also decided to fund an approximately $1.25 million panel [23] at the Institute of Medicine on environmental exposures, precisely because of such intense debate around the issue. The results will be announced in December, he said. "If the Institute of Medicine comes forward and concludes that there are statements on the website, or statements that any of us have made that are not accurate, we're going to correct those."
In 2007, Komen funded another review [24] of studies on environmental toxins and breast cancer through the Silent Spring Institute. This made Komen's online statements all the more disturbing to the institute's executive director, Dr. Julia Brody. She says that she wrote to Winer twice about her concerns. "I felt a particular obligation to bring these issues to Komen's attention because the information on the website conflicts in various ways with the findings of the science review that we conducted with Komen funding," Brody told me via email.

For its part, Komen maintains that its close ties with industry are critical to its success. Indeed, the foundation's diverse group of sponsors has helped it invest close to $2 billion in its mission. The money funds projects like national research and free biopsies for uninsured women. "For anyone to suggest that the reason that the environment isn't studied is because, somehow, doctors are interacting with pharmaceutical companies over drugs, is truly an inaccurate statement," Winer said. "And bordering in my mind as a very offensive statement."
Searches of Winer's published research show that he has received grant money from pharmaceutical companies AstraZeneca and Genentech in the past. In an interview, he said he's also served as an unpaid and paid consultant to various pharmaceutical companies.
"I'm less involved from a financial standpoint than almost anyone I know," Winer said. In addition to his work at Komen, Winer is the Director of the Breast Oncology Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical Center. "I actually, for many years, accepted no personal honoraria from any pharmaceutical company. And this is a time, when in fact, what we desperately need are for people in academia and people in industry to work closely together. Because people in industry, or the companies, are the ones that have the drugs."
In any case, some have argued that debates over specific cases of industry influence miss the larger point: That it's the government's job to protect consumers through better regulation of chemicals. But because of gaps in the Toxic Substances Control Act, the EPA has toxicity data on less than 1 percent of the 83,000 chemicals in commerce, according to a widely cited paper [25] published in Environmental Health Perspectives. And the US Food and Drug Administration can't seem to make up its mind on the subject. The agency said that BPA is safe in a draft report [26] in 2008. But the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel then broke the news [27] that the FDA had based its draft report on industry-funded studies. (The FDA has since said it has some concern over health risks of BPA.) Even such mainstream groups as the American Nurses Association are lobbying [28] to reform the United States' chemical regulation policy. But until that policy reform actually happens, it's up to consumers to research potentially unsafe, everyday products themselves.
On September 19, after the troubling results from the California Pacific Medical Center study on BPA were announced, Komen's website shows that it updated its "Factors That Do Not Increase Risk" page. But for the pesticide and plastics statements, not a word was changed.