by Dr Gene | Jul 3, 2025 | Health
Chewing gum has long been a staple of modern life—a quick breath-freshener, a post-meal treat, or just a habit picked up in childhood that never really went away. It’s found at every checkout counter, tucked into purses and glove compartments, and offered as a polite after-dinner gesture. But behind the sweet flavors and minty freshness lurks an unsettling truth: most commercial chewing gum contains microplastics.
That means every time you pop a piece into your mouth, you may be chewing on plastic. Literally.
While attention to microplastics in bottled water, seafood, and cosmetics has grown in recent years, few consumers realize that one of the most direct routes of exposure to plastic in daily life is right between their teeth. Let’s dive into what’s actually in most gums, why it matters, and what you can do about it.
What Are Microplastics?
Microplastics are tiny plastic particles—generally defined as less than five millimeters in size—that originate from the breakdown of larger plastic products or are manufactured intentionally for use in consumer goods. These particles are now found everywhere: in oceans, soil, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and increasingly, inside our bodies.
Studies have confirmed the presence of microplastics in human blood, lungs, feces, and even placental tissue (Leslie et al., 2022; Ragusa et al., 2021). Scientists are still working to understand the long-term consequences of internal microplastic accumulation, but early findings suggest troubling links to inflammation, cellular damage, and potential disruption of endocrine and immune function.
The Plastic in Your Gum
Most people are shocked to learn that the majority of chewing gum contains synthetic polymers—essentially plastic—as the base ingredient. Gum was once made from chicle, a natural latex from the sapodilla tree. But over time, as companies sought to cut costs and increase shelf stability, chicle was replaced with synthetic rubber.
Today, nearly all commercial chewing gums list “gum base” on the ingredients panel, a vague term that often includes polyethylene, polyvinyl acetate, and butyl rubber—materials also used in plastic bags, adhesives, and tires. In many countries, food labeling laws don’t require companies to disclose exactly what’s in the gum base, leaving consumers unaware of what they’re really chewing.
According to a report by the Center for Environmental Health (2020), some of the most widely sold gums in the U.S., including well-known brands like Trident and Orbit, contain synthetic polymers and plasticizers that qualify as microplastic ingredients. While the FDA currently permits these substances in food products under the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) designation, this doesn’t mean they’re without harm—especially with long-term exposure.
How Microplastics Affect Human Health
The human body is not designed to ingest or retain plastic. And yet, every time we chew synthetic gum, microscopic bits can be swallowed, absorbed, or inhaled. Here’s why that matters:
1. Inflammation and Immune Disruption
Research from the University of Newcastle in Australia found that the average person consumes approximately 5 grams of plastic each week—the equivalent of a credit card (WWF, 2019). This plastic doesn’t just pass through the digestive system harmlessly. Microplastics have been shown to trigger chronic low-grade inflammation, damage intestinal tissue, and disrupt gut microbiota (Hirt & Body-Malapel, 2020). The immune system may also respond to plastic particles as foreign invaders, potentially leading to autoimmune flare-ups and increased vulnerability to illness.
2. Endocrine Disruption
Many plastics used in consumer products, including those found in chewing gum, contain phthalates and bisphenols—chemicals known to mimic human hormones. Studies published in Environmental Health Perspectives have shown that even low doses of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can interfere with hormone regulation, affecting metabolism, fertility, mood, and child development (Gore et al., 2015).
3. Chemical Contaminants
Microplastics aren’t just plastic—they’re also carriers of environmental toxins. Because of their porous nature, they can absorb heavy metals, pesticides, and industrial chemicals from the environment. When ingested, these chemicals can be released into the body, contributing to toxic load. Some studies suggest that microplastics act as a “Trojan horse” for pollutants, intensifying their effects once inside the digestive system (Koelmans et al., 2016).
A Legal Loophole That Keeps Consumers in the Dark
One of the most frustrating aspects of the microplastics-in-gum issue is the lack of transparency. In the U.S., companies are not required to list individual components of the gum base on packaging, making it nearly impossible for consumers to make informed choices unless they dig into manufacturing disclosures or third-party testing.
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) recently announced new restrictions on intentionally added microplastics in consumer products, including cosmetics and cleaning supplies. Yet food products—particularly chewing gum—have not received the same level of scrutiny.
In many European countries, however, consumers have a wider selection of natural chewing gum brands made from chicle, tree resin, or plant-based waxes. These alternatives do not include plastic and are biodegradable. The U.S. market is slowly beginning to catch up, but major brands still dominate store shelves.
Plastic Pollution and the Bigger Picture
Microplastics from chewing gum don’t just affect individual health—they contribute to global plastic pollution. Spent chewing gum is one of the most littered items in cities worldwide. When improperly disposed of, gum hardens into rubbery black spots on sidewalks or gets washed into storm drains, eventually reaching waterways and oceans.
Once there, it becomes yet another source of microplastic pollution. Marine organisms ingest these particles, mistaking them for food. This not only harms aquatic life but can also pass plastic up the food chain—right back to humans.
In a 2018 review published in Science, researchers found microplastics in over 100 aquatic species consumed by humans. These particles have even been detected in table salt and beer (Kosuth et al., 2018). The idea that we are now eating the very pollution we’ve created is sobering, especially when chewing gum is one of the most direct and avoidable contributors.
Children and Teenagers Are at Higher Risk
Children and adolescents are among the most frequent consumers of chewing gum—and the most vulnerable to its risks. Their developing bodies, hormonal systems, and still-forming brains are more sensitive to environmental toxins and chemical exposure.
Moreover, kids tend to chew gum more vigorously and for longer periods, potentially increasing their exposure to microplastic particles. Some brands aimed at children are especially problematic, combining synthetic dyes, artificial sweeteners, and plastic gum base into a trifecta of toxic ingredients.
Recent research suggests that early-life exposure to EDCs and microplastics may contribute to later-life health issues, including obesity, reproductive problems, and behavioral disorders (Trasande et al., 2020). These risks highlight the importance of educating parents and schools about healthier gum alternatives—and pushing for regulatory reform.
Is There a Safer Way to Chew?
Yes, and it starts with awareness. There are a growing number of natural gum brands that use plant-based alternatives instead of plastic. Look for products made from:
- Chicle (natural latex from the sapodilla tree)
- Mastic gum (from the mastic tree, popular in the Mediterranean)
- Resin or wax-based gums
- Certified biodegradable materials
Brands such as Simply Gum, Glee Gum, and True Gum pride themselves on transparency, clean ingredients, and compostable packaging. These options are not only safer for your health but also more sustainable for the planet.
What Needs to Change
We’re at a critical juncture in our relationship with plastic. Awareness of its dangers is growing, but regulatory change often lags behind scientific evidence. To address the dangers of microplastics in chewing gum, several actions are needed:
- Regulatory transparency: Require companies to disclose all gum base ingredients on labels.
- Updated safety assessments: Reevaluate the GRAS status of synthetic polymers in food, particularly in light of recent microplastic research.
- Public education: Launch awareness campaigns to inform consumers—especially parents—about the risks of plastic-containing gum.
- Encourage industry innovation: Support companies that develop safe, natural, and biodegradable alternatives.
Final Thoughts: It’s Time to Spit Out the Plastic
Chewing gum may seem harmless—just a sweet, chewy habit to pass the time or freshen your breath. But if you’re chewing conventional gum, you’re likely exposing yourself to microplastics every day, directly through the mouth’s mucous membranes and potentially into your bloodstream.
The science is clear: these plastics aren’t inert. They affect cells, tissues, and possibly every system in the body. They also persist in the environment, contributing to a plastic crisis that’s poisoning oceans, animals, and ecosystems.
But knowledge is power. By switching to safer gum alternatives and advocating for clearer labeling and stricter regulations, we can protect our bodies and our planet. It starts with one choice at a time.
So next time you reach for a piece of gum, ask yourself: am I chewing on flavor… or plastic?
References:
- Leslie, H. A., et al. (2022). Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environment International, 163, 107199.
- Ragusa, A., et al. (2021). Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environment International, 146, 106274.
- Gore, A. C., et al. (2015). EDC-2: The Endocrine Society’s Second Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals. Endocrine Reviews, 36(6), E1–E150.
- Hirt, N., & Body-Malapel, M. (2020). Immunotoxicity and intestinal effects of nano- and microplastics: A review of the literature. Particle and Fibre Toxicology, 17(1), 57.
- Koelmans, A. A., et al. (2016). Microplastic as a vector for chemicals in the aquatic environment: Critical review and model-supported reinterpretation of empirical studies. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(7), 3315–3326.
- Kosuth, M., Mason, S. A., & Wattenberg, E. V. (2018). Anthropogenic contamination of tap water, beer, and sea salt. PLOS ONE, 13(4), e0194970.
- WWF. (2019). No Plastic in Nature: Assessing Plastic Ingestion from Nature to People. University of Newcastle, Australia.
- Trasande, L., et al. (2020). Environmentally relevant exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and their effects on children’s health. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 16(3), 139–151.
- Center for Environmental Health. (2020). The Dirty Truth About Chewing Gum.
by Dr Gene | Jun 24, 2025 | Health
Each decade seems to introduce a new nutritional adversary. First, fat was cast as the villain, then sugar, and now, seed oils have taken center stage in the debate over diet and health. These oils are being blamed for contributing to obesity, chronic diseases, and overall declining health. Yet, avoiding them is nearly impossible. They are found in countless everyday products—from fast food and salad dressings to protein bars and even infant formula. While some argue that seed oils are harmful, others maintain they are a cost-effective, safe, and even beneficial component of modern diets.
The reality is far more complex than a simple good-or-bad verdict. Discussions surrounding seed oils are often oversimplified, reducing a nuanced issue to polarized viewpoints. Even the term “seed oil” itself is misleading, as it encompasses both traditional oils that have been staples in diets for centuries and those engineered for mass food production. To fully grasp the debate, it’s necessary to examine how these oils are processed, how they are consumed, and what impact they may have on overall health.
At their core, seed oils are extracted from seeds, much like olive oil comes from olives or coconut oil from coconuts. However, not all seed oils are created equal. Some, like sesame and flaxseed oil, have been consumed for generations and are extracted using traditional cold-press methods, which help retain their nutritional value and antioxidant content. Others, particularly industrial seed oils—such as soybean, corn, canola, sunflower, safflower, cottonseed, grapeseed, and rice bran—are heavily processed through high-heat extraction and chemical solvents like hexane to maximize output. These oils undergo refining, bleaching, and deodorizing, making them neutral in taste and extending their shelf life, but at the cost of losing beneficial compounds like vitamin E and natural antioxidants.
Many of these oils were originally never meant for human consumption. Canola oil, for example, was initially known as rapeseed oil and primarily used as an industrial lubricant before being modified by Canadian scientists in the 1970s to make it edible. Even its name—”canola”—was a marketing creation derived from “Canada” and “oil.” Similarly, the term “vegetable oil,” though it sounds wholesome, often refers to a mix of industrially processed seed oils that bear little resemblance to actual vegetables.
Experts like Dr. Cate Shanahan, a Cornell-trained physician-scientist specializing in dietary fats, argue that these industrial seed oils were not developed with human nutrition in mind. (Read Dr. Shanahan’s best-selling book “Deep Nutrition”). The crude oil extracted from these seeds is inedible in its raw form, and the crops used for these oils were primarily bred for high yield and industrial applications rather than their dietary benefits. The vast majority of soybeans grown in the United States, for instance, are not meant for human consumption at all. According to USDA data, over 70% of U.S. soybeans are processed into animal feed, and another portion is used to produce biodiesel. What remains is refined into soybean oil, a highly processed product that retains little of the original soy plant’s nutritional profile.
Another concern lies in the fact that over 90% of American soy is genetically modified to resist herbicides like glyphosate, allowing farmers to spray entire fields without harming the crops. The combination of large-scale farming methods and heavy industrial processing results in an oil that is significantly altered from its natural state. Unlike traditional oils such as olive or sesame, which retain their antioxidant properties, industrial seed oils must undergo extensive refining to become shelf-stable. Critics argue that this process removes vital nutrients and increases the oil’s susceptibility to oxidation and degradation, which can raise health concerns.
The question of whether seed oils are beneficial or harmful remains contentious. Supporters argue that replacing saturated fats—like those found in butter and red meat—with polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) from seed oils can lower the risk of heart disease. Some studies suggest that swapping saturated fats for PUFAs results in improved cardiovascular health. A large-scale 2021 study involving over 500,000 participants found that those who substituted saturated fats with oils like canola, corn, and olive oil experienced lower rates of heart disease and early mortality. Additional research published in JAMA Internal Medicine in 2025 reinforced these findings, showing that individuals who incorporated more plant-based oils into their diets tended to live longer and had lower rates of heart disease and cancer.
Because of this body of research, organizations such as the American Heart Association continue to promote seed oils as part of a heart-healthy diet. However, not all experts agree. Some critics argue that many of the studies supporting seed oil consumption fail to differentiate between highly refined oils and healthier options like extra virgin olive oil. Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and professor at UCSF, has criticized the methodologies of some of these studies, claiming they rely on imprecise measurements and fail to distinguish between different types of fats.
Beyond concerns over research methods, one of the major criticisms of seed oils is their tendency to oxidize. While refining processes make these oils resistant to spoilage, exposure to heat, air, or light—especially during cooking—causes their chemical structures to degrade. Unlike naturally antioxidant-rich oils like olive or sesame, industrial seed oils lose their protective compounds during processing, making them more susceptible to oxidation. This oxidation process generates harmful byproducts such as aldehydes and free radicals, which have been linked to inflammation, cellular damage, and chronic illnesses like cardiovascular disease and neurodegenerative disorders.
Repeated heating of seed oils, as commonly occurs in restaurant fryers, compounds the problem. Research has shown that when vegetable oils are heated multiple times, they produce oxidative byproducts that contribute to cholesterol imbalances and tissue damage. Some studies have even found degraded omega-6 fats accumulating in human fat tissue and artery plaques, raising concerns about their long-term impact on health.
Even those who advocate for the use of seed oils acknowledge that refining has both advantages and disadvantages. While refining removes impurities, it also strips away beneficial antioxidants. However, one point that is often overlooked is that the high consumption of industrially processed seed oils is a relatively recent phenomenon. Dr. Shanahan estimates that these oils now account for 20-30% of the average American’s daily caloric intake—levels that are unprecedented in human history. Historically, diets relied more on animal fats and minimally processed oils rather than the highly refined PUFAs that now dominate modern food supply chains.
One indisputable fact is that seed oils have become a fundamental component of the modern food industry. Their low cost, high yield, and government subsidies have made them a key ingredient in processed foods. In 2016, the U.S. soybean industry alone received $1.6 billion in subsidies, ensuring that production remained high and costs remained low. As a result, seed oils have become a cornerstone of ultra-processed foods, which now account for nearly 60% of the American diet. Alongside refined grains and added sugars, seed oils help improve texture, extend shelf life, and enhance flavor at a fraction of the cost of healthier alternatives.
For consumers looking to make healthier choices, eliminating seed oils from the diet is no simple task—it requires a conscious shift away from processed foods altogether. Experts recommend focusing on whole, minimally processed foods and choosing more stable fats for cooking. Oils such as avocado, extra virgin olive, butter, ghee, and coconut oil are better choices due to their higher resistance to oxidation. Delicate oils like flaxseed and walnut are best used cold to preserve their beneficial properties.
Ultimately, the conversation surrounding seed oils is not just about whether they are good or bad—it is about the larger role they play in the processed food industry. The real issue is not necessarily the presence of seed oils in diets but the sheer volume in which they are consumed. By prioritizing whole, natural foods and minimizing reliance on processed products, consumers can make more informed choices that support long-term health.
by Dr Gene | Jun 5, 2025 | Health, Oral Health
Water fluoridation has been hailed as one of the top public health achievements of the 20th century. Implemented widely since the 1940s, it has significantly reduced the incidence of dental caries (tooth decay) in many populations. However, despite decades of use and extensive research affirming its safety and effectiveness, water fluoridation continues to spark debate. Critics argue that potential health risks, ethical considerations, and individual autonomy should outweigh its purported benefits.
In this comprehensive article, I aim to explore the scientific foundation of water fluoridation, its benefits to dental health, and the controversies surrounding its safety and ethical implications. This is especially important today when the issue of water fluoridation is at the forefront of discussion and the subject of legislative processes.
Water fluoridation is the process of adjusting the fluoride content in public water supplies to an optimal level to prevent tooth decay. Fluoride, a naturally occurring mineral, helps remineralize tooth enamel and inhibits the growth of harmful oral bacteria. In the United States, the U.S. Public Health Service recommends a fluoride concentration of about 0.7 parts per million (ppm) in drinking water (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015).
Benefits of Water Fluoridation
Research consistently demonstrates that communities with fluoridated water experience lower rates of dental caries. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that fluoridated water reduces tooth decay by approximately 25% in children and adults (CDC, 2020). This widespread reduction in cavities illustrates the effectiveness of fluoridation as a preventive public health strategy.
Beyond its effectiveness, fluoridation is also highly cost-efficient. According to the CDC, every dollar invested in water fluoridation yields about $38 in savings on dental treatments (Griffin et al., 2001). This makes it a prudent investment for public health programs, particularly in communities with limited access to dental care.
Water fluoridation is a uniquely equitable health intervention. It benefits all community members, regardless of socioeconomic status, education level, or access to dental services. Since it is incorporated directly into public water supplies, it does not require individuals to change their behavior or seek treatment, ensuring broad and consistent coverage.
Importantly, the benefits of fluoridated water are lifelong. Even with the widespread use of fluoride-containing toothpaste and professional treatments, drinking water at optimal fluoride levels provides ongoing protection against cavities.
Fluoridation also stands out as a community-level intervention, distinct from most dental treatments that function at the individual level. Its passive nature enhances its reach and impact, contributing to its classification as a significant public health success.
Controversies and Health Concerns
Despite its well-documented benefits, water fluoridation remains controversial. One of the most frequently cited concerns is dental fluorosis, which can occur from excessive fluoride exposure during tooth development. This condition typically appears as white spots or streaks on the teeth. While generally mild and cosmetic, severe fluorosis can cause enamel damage. The CDC has found that about 25% of children aged 6-49 months exhibit some signs of dental fluorosis (Beltrán-Aguilar et al., 2010).
Another concern is skeletal fluorosis, a bone disease that arises from prolonged exposure to high levels of fluoride. This condition is rare in regions with controlled water fluoridation and is more commonly associated with naturally high fluoride levels in groundwater.
In recent years, some studies have explored potential links between fluoride exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes. A notable study by Green et al. (2019), published in JAMA Pediatrics, reported an association between prenatal fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores in children. However, the findings have been met with skepticism due to methodological limitations and inconsistent replication.
Potential impacts on thyroid function have also been investigated. A study conducted in the UK by Peckham et al. (2015) suggested a correlation between higher rates of hypothyroidism and fluoridated water. Nevertheless, the evidence remains inconclusive and warrants further research.
Ethical concerns also play a central role in the debate over fluoridation. Some opponents argue that mass fluoridation amounts to medicating the population without individual consent, raising questions about personal autonomy and informed choice.
Additionally, environmentalists raise concerns about the long-term ecological effects of adding fluoride compounds to water systems. However, research indicates that when used at recommended levels, fluoridation poses minimal risk to aquatic environments.
Global Perspective on Fluoridation
Fluoridation policies vary significantly around the world. Water fluoridation is widespread and officially endorsed in countries such as the United States, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. In contrast, many European nations, including Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, have chosen to forgo water fluoridation, citing legal, ethical, or logistical concerns. Instead, these countries typically employ alternative methods, such as fluoride supplements or fluoridated salt and milk, alongside robust dental care systems.
The World Health Organization acknowledges the effectiveness of water fluoridation in preventing dental caries but emphasizes that its implementation should reflect each country’s specific public health needs and circumstances (WHO, 2016).
Public Perception and Misinformation
A blend of scientific communication and ongoing misinformation has shaped public opinion on fluoridation. Since its introduction, water fluoridation has drawn conspiracy theories and opposition, often stemming from distrust of governmental policies. The rise of social media has further amplified these fears, sometimes overshadowing the scientific consensus.
To counteract misinformation, public health agencies must prioritize transparent, evidence-based communication. Educating communities about the benefits and risks of fluoridation, maintaining open dialogue, and regularly updating policies in response to new findings are essential to sustaining public trust.
Water fluoridation remains a cornerstone of public health for cavity prevention, supported by decades of research that demonstrate its safety, effectiveness, and economic value. While it is crucial to remain vigilant regarding potential risks, current fluoride levels in drinking water are carefully regulated to safeguard public health.
The key to successful fluoridation lies in balancing the collective benefits with respect for individual rights. As scientific understanding evolves, public health policies should also evolve to ensure they reflect the latest evidence while honoring ethical considerations. With proper oversight and community engagement, water fluoridation can remain a vital tool in promoting dental health and reducing health disparities worldwide.
References
- Beltrán-Aguilar, E. D., Barker, L. K., & Dye, B. A. (2010). Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004. NCHS Data Brief, No. 53. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020). Community Water Fluoridation. https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.html
- Griffin, S. O., Jones, K., & Tomar, S. L. (2001). An economic evaluation of community water fluoridation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 61(2), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2001.tb03374.x
- Green, R., Lanphear, B., Hornung, R., et al. (2019). Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(10), 940–948. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1729
- Peckham, S., Lowery, D., & Spencer, S. (2015). Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 69(7), 619–624. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204971
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2015). U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water for the Prevention of Dental Caries. Public Health Reports, 130(4), 318–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335491513000408
- World Health Organization. (2016). Fluoride and Oral Health. WHO Technical Report Series 846. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241545841
by Dr Gene | May 29, 2025 | Health, Superfood
Not long ago, mushrooms were seen as little more than a pizza topping or a peculiar vegetable that people either loved or refused to touch. Yet if you delve deeper into history—beyond the fluorescent grocery aisles and sauté pans—you’ll uncover something extraordinary. Mushrooms have always been much more than mere food. They are ancient healers, powerful allies for human health, and living proof that sometimes the smallest, humblest things hold the greatest power.
For centuries, indigenous cultures around the world revered mushrooms not only as nourishment but also as sacred medicine. In traditional Chinese medicine, mushrooms like reishi and shiitake were viewed as treasures of longevity. In Siberia and parts of Central America, certain fungi were honored in spiritual rituals. Now, after decades of being overlooked by Western science, mushrooms are stepping back into the spotlight—and modern research is confirming what ancient healers already knew.
Mushrooms aren’t just healthy; they have the potential to transform human health on every level—physical, mental, and even emotional.
When I first began studying the therapeutic properties of mushrooms, I was amazed. What other organism could simultaneously support immune function, regulate inflammation, balance mood, and even enhance brain plasticity? The more I learned, the more respect I developed for this quiet kingdom of life that thrives in the shaded, hidden parts of the earth, tirelessly breaking down matter and recycling nutrients to sustain all other living beings.
Mushrooms, it turns out, serve as the missing link for many people seeking true, holistic health.
From the cellular level, mushrooms possess an astonishing capacity to support immunity. Beta-glucans, naturally occurring polysaccharides found in mushrooms like maitake, shiitake, and turkey tail, stimulate the body’s innate immune system. They serve as gentle teachers for our white blood cells, enhancing their ability to recognize and respond to invaders while modulating excessive immune reactions that can lead to chronic inflammation. Unlike pharmaceuticals that often blunt immune responses in a one-size-fits-all manner, mushrooms work in harmony with the body’s intelligence, creating balance where there was once chaos.
I’ve observed patients grappling with frequent infections, autoimmune conditions, and slow recovery from illness discover renewed strength after incorporating medicinal mushrooms into their routine. This is not a placebo. It’s biochemistry—beautiful, ancient biochemistry that humans have co-evolved with for millennia.
Beyond immune health, mushrooms offer a profound gift: anti-inflammatory power. Chronic inflammation is now recognized as the root cause of most modern diseases, including heart disease, diabetes, depression, and dementia. Mushrooms like reishi and chaga contain potent antioxidant compounds that neutralize oxidative stress, protecting cells from damage and slowing the silent fire of inflammation that undermines health over time.
This protective effect is not only physical but also mental. Chronic inflammation doesn’t just damage arteries and organs; it also impacts the brain. Neuroinflammation is a key player in mood disorders, cognitive decline, and even neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Mushrooms, with their anti-inflammatory and antioxidant arsenal, provide a line of defense that modern medicine is only beginning to understand.
But perhaps the most exciting frontier in mushroom science today lies in their effects on mental health and brain function.
Research into psilocybin, the active compound in so-called “magic mushrooms,” is shaking the very foundations of psychiatry. Controlled clinical studies have shown that psilocybin-assisted therapy can catalyze profound healing in people suffering from treatment-resistant depression, PTSD, addiction, and existential distress related to terminal illness. One or two guided sessions with psilocybin, in the appropriate therapeutic setting, can create lasting shifts in mood, perspective, and emotional resilience that decades of conventional treatment have sometimes failed to achieve (Carhart-Harris et al., 2016; Griffiths et al., 2016).
The mechanism behind this transformation is still being unraveled, but early findings suggest that psilocybin increases neuroplasticity—the brain’s ability to form new connections and reorganize itself. It also quiets the Default Mode Network, the part of the brain associated with self-referential thinking, rumination, and anxiety. In simple terms, mushrooms help break the chains of entrenched thought patterns and open a window to healing.
Even non-psychedelic mushrooms like lion’s mane have shown remarkable promise in supporting cognitive function. Studies reveal that lion’s mane stimulates the production of nerve growth factor (NGF), a protein essential for the growth, maintenance, and survival of neurons (Mori et al., 2009). Regular use of lion’s mane has been linked to improved memory, focus, and mental clarity, making it a natural choice for those seeking to preserve or enhance brain health as they age.
Lion’s mane is known to assist individuals experiencing cognitive decline, particularly when paired with a lifestyle that incorporates brain-supportive nutrition, physical activity, stress reduction, and community engagement. When the brain is nurtured from various angles, the outcomes can be remarkable.
And let’s not forget emotional health. Mushrooms like reishi, often called the “mushroom of immortality,” have been used for centuries not only to support longevity but also to promote emotional equilibrium. Reishi appears to regulate the HPA axis, the central stress response system, and calm the mind without sedation. In a world where anxiety and burnout are epidemic, reishi offers a grounded, sustainable path to inner peace.
Of course, not all mushrooms are created equal. The world of fungi is vast and varied; while some species offer powerful healing properties, others can be toxic or hallucinogenic. Respecting proper sourcing, preparation, and dosage is crucial. Wild mushrooms should never be consumed without expert identification. Even supplements must be chosen carefully, as quality can vary widely between brands.
When selecting mushroom products, it’s important to look for full-spectrum extracts that include fruiting bodies (the visible part of the mushroom) rather than just mycelium (the root-like network). Fruiting bodies generally contain higher concentrations of beneficial compounds. When possible, seek organic certification and be cautious of products that do not disclose extraction methods or polysaccharide content.
As powerful as mushrooms are, they are not magic bullets. They function best as part of a holistic lifestyle that respects the fundamental pillars of health: real food, movement, rest, meaningful connection, and time in nature. Think of mushrooms as wise, steady companions on your journey toward wellness, rather than as shortcuts.
It’s also worth noting that while mushrooms are remarkably safe for most people, there can be exceptions. Individuals with certain autoimmune diseases, blood clotting disorders, or allergies should consult a knowledgeable healthcare provider before adding medicinal mushrooms to their regimen.
Despite these caveats, the safety profile of most edible and medicinal mushrooms is exceptional, especially when compared to many synthetic pharmaceuticals. In a time when many are seeking gentler, more sustainable ways to care for themselves, mushrooms provide a bridge between modern science and ancestral wisdom.
Mushrooms represent more than a health supplement. They symbolize an entire philosophy of healing that acknowledges the interconnectedness of all life, the intelligence of the natural world, and the remarkable resilience of the human body when given the right support.
They teach us patience. Mushrooms grow in darkness, in quiet, in humility. They do not shout for attention; yet without them, forests would collapse. They remind us that true health is not about domination or quick fixes but rather about working in harmony with life’s deeper currents.
Incorporating mushrooms into your daily routine doesn’t have to be complicated. It can be as simple as brewing a morning tea with reishi and chaga, blending lion’s mane powder into your smoothie, or taking a high-quality capsule after dinner. It can also mean savoring the rich umami of shiitake in your stir-fry or discovering the earthy complexity of maitake in a hearty soup.
Over time, the relationship deepens. You begin to feel it—not in dramatic fireworks, but through subtle shifts. A steadier mood. A stronger immune response. Sharper focus. Deeper sleep. Greater resilience in the face of life’s inevitable stresses.
This is the true power of mushrooms: not instant transformation, but a gradual, profound rebalancing. It is a restoration of what was always meant to be—strength, vitality, clarity, peace.
In a world that often feels fragmented and overwhelming, mushrooms offer a reminder that healing is not about escaping life, but about rooting more deeply into it. They are nature’s gentle whisper, urging us to slow down, reconnect, and trust the intelligence of our own bodies.
The next time you see a mushroom quietly growing at the base of a tree or popping up after a rainstorm, take a moment to honor it. Within that small, humble form lies a secret as old as the earth itself: the power to heal, regenerate, and thrive.
And perhaps, in embracing mushrooms, we can learn to do the same.
References:
- Carhart-Harris, R. L., et al. (2016). Psilocybin with psychological support for treatment-resistant depression: An open-label feasibility study. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(7), 619-627. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30065-7
- Griffiths, R. R., et al. (2016). Psilocybin produces substantial and sustained decreases in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer: A randomized double-blind trial. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 30(12), 1181-1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881116675513
- Mori, K., et al. (2009). Nerve growth factor-inducing activity of Hericium erinaceus in 1321N1 human astrocytoma cells. Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 32(12), 2102-2106. https://doi.org/10.1248/bpb.32.2102
by Dr Gene | May 22, 2025 | Health
It’s late at night, and you find yourself standing in front of the fridge, searching for something to satisfy that gnawing hunger. You just ate dinner a couple of hours ago—maybe even a large one—but here you are, craving more. You grab a snack, maybe a handful of chips or a few cookies. You tell yourself it’s just a small indulgence. But before you know it, the bag is half empty.
Ever wonder why you can’t stop eating, even when you know you’ve had enough? Why do you crave junk food even when you’re full? The answer isn’t about a lack of willpower or a failure to make healthy choices. The truth is far more insidious.
For decades, food companies—many of which were once owned by tobacco giants—have used advanced chemistry and psychological research to manipulate the way we eat. Their goal wasn’t just to sell food, but to make it impossible to stop eating.
From Cigarettes to Snacks: The Birth of Food Engineering
In the mid-20th century, tobacco companies were among the wealthiest corporations in the world. With billions in revenue and an industry built on addiction, they had perfected the art of keeping customers hooked. But as the tide of public opinion began to turn, lawsuits and regulatory actions threatened their empire. They knew their golden era was coming to an end.
So, they pivoted.
By the 1980s, tobacco companies began diversifying their portfolios by acquiring food companies. RJ Reynolds, one of the biggest tobacco corporations in the world, purchased Nabisco. Meanwhile, Philip Morris—the maker of Marlboro cigarettes—acquired Kraft and General Foods, turning the two tobacco giants into the largest food conglomerates in the United States.
With billions of dollars in cash, they did what they had always done best: They hired thousands of scientists, chemists, and psychologists to figure out how to make their products more addictive.
The Science of Overeating: How They Hacked Our Brains
The human body has natural mechanisms to regulate hunger and fullness. Your stomach expands when full, triggering stretch receptors that send signals to your brain telling you to stop eating. Additionally, the brain keeps track of how many times you chew your food—a process known as “oral metering.” The more you chew, the more satisfied your brain feels.
Tobacco-owned food companies discovered this and realized they could override these natural mechanisms. By adding emulsifiers and softeners to processed foods, they made food artificially smooth, requiring less chewing. The result? Your brain doesn’t register fullness as quickly, and you end up eating more than you actually need.
This isn’t just a theory—it’s been proven in studies. Research shows that foods requiring less chewing lead to higher caloric intake. In one study, participants who ate softer foods consumed significantly more calories than those who ate whole, unprocessed foods, despite reporting the same levels of hunger before the meal.
But that was just the beginning.
The Sugar Trap: A Legal Form of Addiction
In the 1970s, scientists working for the food industry made another discovery that changed the way we eat: Sugar triggers the brain’s reward system in the same way as addictive drugs. Studies have shown that sugar activates the same neural pathways as cocaine, lighting up the brain’s pleasure centers and creating a cycle of dependence.
Knowing this, food companies didn’t just add sugar to sweet treats—they added it to everything. Today, over 74% of packaged foods contain added sugar, including products that don’t even taste sweet, like bread, pasta sauce, salad dressings, and even baby formula.
The results have been devastating.
- Sugar consumption in the U.S. has skyrocketed, with the average American consuming over 17 teaspoons of added sugar per day—far exceeding the recommended daily limit of 6 teaspoons for women and 9 for men.
- Rates of Type 2 diabetes have surged, with 37 million Americans currently diagnosed and another 96 million considered prediabetic.
- Sugar fuels inflammation and feeds cancer cells. Research from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center has found that high sugar intake accelerates tumor growth, particularly in breast and colon cancers.
Food companies didn’t just stop at sugar—they manipulated fat and salt levels as well, creating the perfect “bliss point” that makes processed food hyper-palatable. The more you eat, the more you crave.
The Illusion of Choice: Why It’s Nearly Impossible to Escape
Walk into any grocery store, and you’ll see thousands of food options. But in reality, just a handful of corporations control nearly everything on the shelves. The same tobacco companies that once sold addictive cigarettes now control most of the processed food market.
Philip Morris (now known as Altria) and RJ Reynolds may have spun off their food divisions, but their legacy remains embedded in the industry. The food giants that emerged from their acquisitions—companies like Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, and PepsiCo—continue to use the same addictive food engineering tactics that were perfected in the 1980s and 90s.
Even so-called “healthy” brands are often owned by these conglomerates. Many organic and “natural” food brands are nothing more than subsidiaries of the same corporations that produce ultra-processed junk food. This makes escaping their influence nearly impossible.
The Public Health Consequences: A Crisis We Can’t Ignore
The results of this decades-long manipulation are staggering.
- Obesity rates in the U.S. have more than doubled since the 1980s, with over 42% of adults now classified as obese.
- Childhood obesity has skyrocketed, with 1 in 5 children now considered obese—numbers that were unheard of just a few generations ago.
- Fatty liver disease, once rare in children, is now being diagnosed at alarming rates—with some cases so severe that teenagers require liver transplants.
Meanwhile, healthcare costs associated with diet-related diseases continue to rise. The U.S. spends over $327 billion annually on diabetes treatment alone, and obesity-related conditions are among the leading drivers of skyrocketing medical expenses.
And yet, instead of addressing the root cause of this crisis—highly processed, addictive food—the food and pharmaceutical industries profit from it.
- The same companies that manufacture processed food also sell weight loss products and diabetes medications.
- Government subsidies favor corn and soy production—key ingredients in ultra-processed foods—while fresh fruits and vegetables remain expensive and inaccessible for many Americans.
- The FDA and USDA, heavily influenced by food industry lobbying, have done little to regulate the additives that make food hyper-palatable.
Breaking Free: The Path to Food Freedom
So, what can you do? How do you fight back against an industry designed to keep you addicted?
It starts with awareness. Understanding how food is engineered to override your body’s natural hunger signals is the first step to reclaiming control.
Prioritizing whole, unprocessed foods is key. Cook at home as much as possible, avoid added sugars, and choose foods in their natural state. The more you chew your food and the fewer additives you consume, the better your body will be able to regulate hunger and fullness.
And perhaps most importantly, demand better. Push for clearer food labeling, support policies that promote real nutrition, and hold corporations accountable for the damage they’ve caused.
The fight against tobacco addiction took decades, but public awareness and regulation eventually led to major change. The same can happen with food—if enough people demand it.
The choice isn’t just about personal health. It’s about breaking a system that profits from disease, creating a future where real food—not chemically engineered products—nourishes our bodies.
The food industry may have mastered addiction, but we still have the power to reclaim our health.
References
- Gearhardt, A. N., et al. (2011). “Can food be addictive? Public health and policy implications.” Appetite, 57(3), 755-762.
- Lustig, R. H. (2013). Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease.
- Bray, G. A., et al. (2014). “Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79(4), 537-543.
- Moss, M. (2013). Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us.
by Dr Gene | May 15, 2025 | Health
Every day, millions of Americans turn on their faucets and fill glasses with tap water, trusting that what flows from the spout is clean, safe, and healthful. Water is, after all, fundamental to life. It composes more than half the human body, and no living organism can survive without it. From hydration and nutrient transport to temperature regulation and detoxification, water plays an essential role in virtually every function of the human body. So it is only natural that we would place tremendous trust in the quality and safety of our drinking water. But what if that trust has been misplaced?
Across the United States, tap water often carries with it a hidden cocktail of contaminants. Though these chemicals are often present in concentrations that comply with federal safety standards, recent research suggests that these standards may be dangerously outdated. For decades, regulatory frameworks have addressed contaminants one by one, a process that is both slow and ill-suited to keeping up with the rapidly evolving landscape of chemical exposure. Meanwhile, new contaminants are discovered regularly, and the long-term health impacts of their combinations remain largely unknown.
Organizations like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) have taken up the mantle of uncovering the truths about the quality of America’s drinking water. Through pioneering research and relentless advocacy, they are shedding light on a harsh reality: even when water meets the current federal legal limits, it may still pose significant risks to public health. Their findings are stark, and they demand a reckoning with the assumptions that have shaped water safety regulations for decades.
One of EWG’s most influential contributions to public knowledge is their Tap Water Database. It is a sweeping repository of over 32 million water quality test results from more than 50,000 community water systems across the country. The data paints a troubling picture. Contaminants such as arsenic, radioactive elements like uranium and radium, disinfection byproducts, and nitrate are found in tap water systems serving communities both large and small. While these substances may be individually regulated, their combined effects are often ignored, and science has yet to fully understand the risks posed by these chemical mixtures.
Consider the state of California, where a case study applied EWG’s novel cumulative risk framework to existing water data. Although the water generally met federal safety standards, researchers identified over 20 carcinogens present at levels significant enough to increase the risk of cancer. Their estimates attributed more than 15,000 lifetime cancer cases to drinking water exposure alone. This analysis, published in the journal Environmental Health in 2019, was the first of its kind and challenged the deeply rooted notion that compliance with federal regulations equates to safety.
EWG extended this research to a national scale and found an even more unsettling figure: more than 100,000 additional cancer cases across the United States could be linked to contaminants in tap water. The primary culprits? Arsenic, disinfection byproducts, and radioactive contaminants, especially in communities served by smaller water systems that often rely on untreated or minimally treated groundwater. These smaller systems, due to their limited resources and infrastructure, frequently face higher exposure levels, making them especially vulnerable.
The role of disinfection by products is particularly paradoxical. Chlorine and similar agents are necessary to eliminate bacteria and viruses in water. Without them, communities would be at risk of devastating waterborne diseases. However, when these disinfectants react with organic matter in the water—such as plant debris and sediments—they form toxic byproducts. These compounds, found in the drinking water of most Americans, have been linked to cancer and other health issues, turning a protective measure into a potential hazard.
In 2020, the EWG expanded its testing to include previously unregulated haloacetic acids, a class of disinfection byproducts that had not been thoroughly studied. The results revealed a widespread presence of these chemicals and raised new alarms about the health risks they pose. The data emphasized a critical flaw in how drinking water standards are established: many guidelines are based on outdated science, and they fail to account for real-world exposures to multiple contaminants. To truly safeguard public health, the process must incorporate findings from human studies and reflect the full spectrum of pollutants found in today’s water systems.
Another area of concern is nitrate, a contaminant primarily associated with agricultural runoff. The EPA’s current legal limit for nitrate is aimed at preventing methemoglobinemia, or “blue baby syndrome,” a potentially fatal condition in infants. Yet new research shows that nitrate exposure can also elevate the risk of cancer and harm fetal development. EWG’s 2019 analysis estimated that nitrate pollution in drinking water could be responsible for nearly 12,600 excess cancer cases per year and more than $1.5 billion in health care costs. It may also contribute to thousands of cases of very low birth weight and preterm births annually.
The recommended nitrate limit proposed by EWG is almost 100 times stricter than the EPA’s current standard. This discrepancy underscores the urgent need for updated, health-based guidelines that reflect contemporary scientific understanding. The current federal thresholds, shaped more by political compromise than public health science, are no longer sufficient to protect a nation facing new and mounting environmental challenges.
The broader implication of EWG’s research is that our approach to regulating water safety must evolve. It is no longer enough to assess one chemical at a time, ignoring the synergistic effects that occur when multiple pollutants are present. Instead, we must develop comprehensive frameworks that evaluate the cumulative impact of contaminants. This approach would not only provide a more accurate picture of risk but also better inform decisions about where to invest in water infrastructure and treatment technologies.
Communities served by smaller water systems, particularly those in rural or underserved areas, often face the greatest risks. These systems struggle with limited funding and outdated infrastructure, which hampers their ability to address contamination effectively. Investments aimed at improving water quality must prioritize flexibility and scalability to ensure that even the smallest communities receive the protection they deserve. The stakes are too high to continue leaving these areas behind.
Federal agencies like the EPA are responsible for setting the standards that determine whether drinking water is safe. But as EWG’s findings demonstrate, many of these standards fail to account for the true risks posed by modern-day water contaminants. While a glass of water from the tap may appear clean, its invisible contents could harbor substances that slowly erode health over time. For the average person, the realization that their water may not be as pure as it seems is deeply unsettling. Yet awareness is the first step toward change.
The solution requires a collective effort. Scientists must continue to conduct rigorous research to understand the health impacts of contaminant mixtures. Policymakers must be willing to update outdated regulations and adopt health-protective standards informed by the latest evidence. Communities must be empowered with transparent information about their water supply, and consumers must demand accountability from both industry and government. Change is possible, but it begins with a fundamental shift in how we think about water safety. Drinking water is not just a basic necessity; it is a cornerstone of public health. When the integrity of that foundation is compromised, the consequences ripple through every facet of life. It is time to treat water quality with the seriousness it deserves, to recognize that what we do not see can still harm us, and to work toward a future where every sip from the tap is not only refreshing, but truly safe. That future depends on new frameworks, renewed commitment, and the recognition that the health of our water is inseparable from the health of our people.
