I would like to be able to eat the animals and plants I harvest without concern about heavy metal, biological, or chemical poisoning.

Where in the United States can you count on harvesting clean wild food?

Thanks.

What do people hunt in your area, I would guess this is the answer.


Here people fish lake Erie a lot and never seem to have a problem. Whitetail deer are also heavily hunted as are rabbits, waterfowl and to some extent squirrel.

Probably the exception to this is pest shooting & varmint hunters rarely eat their kills, they do it because it’s fun to shoot. I know a lot of woodchuck hunters in this area (I’m one of them) but not one of them eat woodchuck. I don’t think there is anything wrong with eating them, but is just doesn’t seem to happen.

Go to a gun shop that caters to hunters and ask questions. Almost all parts of the country have animals that are hunted and eaten.

Yup, I just love foie gras of pigeon. With a side of squirrel hash, you have a classic big city meal.

Lots of pigeons in downtown Toledo, you almost step on them in some areas when walking around. I would imagine with an air rifle a person could harvest a lot of them if you were so inclined. Heck they are so tame a hammer would work.

And then there are the rats. And cats. And..., well, the list could go on and on...

Rats? I'll pass on that.

Rats aren't bad, just be careful how you clean them.

Just as every place has it's STOBAR, Every place has it's ecological system in place. Most of that system is edible. It may be like Iguana, tastes like crap but it will fill your belly!

In most of California there is both naturally occuring asbestos and manmade that has spread by wind currents. Almost every river carries a load of heavy metals and biochemicals from mining, urban or agricultural runoff, or both. Everything downwind of a significant city receives daily "rain" of toxic soup that goes into the soil and groundwater.

Fish & Game warns the young, the old, and pregnant woment not to eat more than a few ounces a month of many wild caught fish. All the courses I have attended on wild edible plant use warn us not to consume any significant quantities of plants that are downwind of a city or roadway, or near a known-polluted watersource.

People still harvest and eat plants and animals, but that provides little guidance on whether such practices are safe long-term.

I'm not sure you can eat anything that isn't contaminated in some way these days.
Go humanity!

Uptake of environmental pollution through consuming contaminated food is concentrated in longer-lived organisms higher in the food chain. For example, killer whales and polar bears are considered some of the most contmainated animals on the planet.

Fewer studies seem to be done on purely terrestrial mammals but it is hard to believe the same principles do not apply. And, yes, there is plenty of evidence that human-cultivated foods can be as polluted as wild foods.

So, the challenge is to find a relatively pollution free place to live and relatively contaminant-free food sources.

How are things in your neck of the woods?

My well was shut down by the EPA and is on the super fund list.
How 'bout you?

That would be....ummmm....nowhere.

The question I have is if wild foods are contaminated, why wouldn't cultivated foods, which exist in the same environment, not suffer the same way?

Fish is a great example. Here in PA we have many warnings NOT to eat too much (more than a serving a month) of any fish caught in any body of water. So Trout, which is farm raised and released into the wild, isn't a meal choice for regular eating. Wild Greens? Too toxic (they say) but why is this the case when the farm next to the place where I pick wild greens sells their food as "safe" .

Not all 'toxic' wildlife is our fault. Mercury content of fish can be naturally occuring.

Generally top food chain critters end up collecting the toxins that are in all the stuff they eat which is why shark fin soup has so much mercury in it and polar bears are considered so toxic.

A note on that though 'toxic' doesn't always mean 'poison'. One of the most toxic things to eat in a polar bear is it's liver. Most automatically assume that it's because that's where all the blood toxins are collected from the toxic critters it's been eating...but that's not the case. A polar bears liver will kill you because it has more Vitamin A than your body can handle due to it's diet of seals and such which also have a very high Vitamin A content (eating Seal liver is also not recommended from what I know).

Can we blame humanity on that? Some will try but I think we need to be a little smarter before we start pointing fingers.

[quote=martinfocazio
The question I have is if wild foods are contaminated, why wouldn't cultivated foods, which exist in the same environment, not suffer the same way?
[/quote]

That is exactly right: they are. So the the question: where is a cleaner environment?

Here in California cultivated crops generally are washed with relatively clean water to remove surface contaminants, are usually irrigated with as-yet unpolluted groundwater, and historically come from more rural areas where there is supposed to be less general exposure to things like air-borne and traffic-generated pollutants. But all those "protections" are breaking down as population grows, aquifers are exhausted or polluted, etc..

As a gross over-generalization, in much of California wild plants and critters live in drainage areas adjacent to cultivated land where pollution concentrates. Upland game and plants living in up-wind environments are therefore likely to have a somewhat lesser pollution "load."

It is also true that plants generally have low levels of contaminants so if your diet is plant-based your exposure is considered low even in the long term. Going organic further reduces plant exposure to stuff we don't want. But even if exposure is inevitable, what can you do to have the least exposure?

The stuff in and on plants that we don't want (PCBs, cadmium, mecury, and a witches brew of other stuff) does accumulate as plant eaters eat more plants (survive), especially in fatty tissue and some organs. When plant eaters are predated and those parts of the body are eaten, that "load" is taken on by the tissues of the predator. Over time, and as you go up the food chain, that stuff gets concentrated in apex predators in the same body areas.

It appears that if an apex predator loses fat/weight it absorbs the chemical load into the rest of its body. This large dose is what has effectively "poisoned" orcas, polar bears, and others - including humans - the base of whose food chain is based largely on wild plant eaters who live in a contaminated / polluted environment.

And of course you add to your personal "load" by eating processed foods that contain an alphabet soup of chemical additives. FDA-approved or not, no one really knows the long-term effects of any of this stuff, or the combination of all this stuff. However, few think it can be good.

So, eating unprocessed foods from low on the food chain from a clean environment would be good. Eating young critters from a clean environment that have had less time to accumulate bad stuff is good. Eating only lean meat from such critters, broiled to lessen fat, makes sense.

Assuming all that to be at least likely, then where are the cleaner environments in the United States?

I'd guess the cleaner environments are generally the places farthest from large populations of people and industry. I've heard that the 200 miles surrounding Dayton, Ohio is the most densely populated area of it's size in the US. Each of the ocean coasts are densely populated also. I suspect those areas also have higher than average contamination of soil and water.

Here in the midwest, we have high levels of mercury in the water from all of the coal we burn for electricity. Lots of agricultural run-off around here, too. Still, you can eat alot of bluegills before you need to worry about health effects from eating the fish. Even the little bit of pollution you ingest from eating small fish and game is probably offset by avoiding many of the additives/herbicides/growth hormones, etc. found in commercially processed foods. I don't like eating chemicals any more than you do, but I'm not going to worry a whole lot about it either. Hopefully something else will kill me before environmental pollution makes me sick.

I doubt there's anywhere that pollution hasn't effected to some degree. But the farther you get from the factories and cities I suspect you'll find the pollutants to be less concentrated.

Finding uncontaminated places to use as they stand would be difficult. Upcountry: mine tailings chemical residue, left over from a hundred years or more: arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc. In farming country: chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides. From down-country water sources, every chemical and combination known.

About the only kinds of places I can think might be less contaminated are old, worn-out farms that haven't been in use for a long time, lightly-grazed and minimally medicated herbivore pastures, and natural rock cisterns that collect rainwater. And the places that fit even those criteria won't be easy to find.

I'm living on one acre of high ground that doesn't flood with contaminated water, has never been used for mining and isn't below one, and was only used as cattle pasture for many years. Unfortunately, one of the three previous owners tended to use at least part of it as a dump. If I had a well, a complete test of the water would probably be very interesting, as I'm mostly surrounded by farming country.

And the further east one goes, the longer the population has been there, contaminating the area one way or another. Something as 'simple' as the previous half-century site of a livery stable will still be contaminating the water supply with nitrates for maybe another century or two.

It was a nice country for a while.

Sue

White Man came to the country and found:

Braves spent all of their time hunting and fishing,
Squaws spent all of their time with the work,
There were NO taxes,

And white man thought he could improve on a system like that!!

wildman--read "1490" for the true scoop..good--bad--ugly..

I'm having a problem figuring out what is wrong with this????????

Nothing. Then we got politicians...

Good Luck Brother!! The best advice I can provide is to ignore the internal organs. Just about everything everywhere has been contaminated by something in someway.

When you are hungry, that will be one of the last things that you will worry about.

When you are sufficiently hungry, rats look delicious and even cockroaches start looking good.

So we got Trouble, right here in the river city, etc....

I bring the original question back to the floor: where in the United States can you count on harvesting clean wild food?

Is "nowhere" the offcial, consensus answer?

Is there someone who knows better who is willing to share the good news?

Thanks.

Maybe in Alaska and Canada???

Back to my original answer, go talk to hunters. They are the ones in any given area that can answer this for you.

Who cares what food can be harvested in Florida, Ohio or any place else if you are in California? Learn what you can harvest & eat where you are, not where you are not.


Hunters & fishermen will have the answer to this, talk to them, find them at local gun shops and outdoor shops like Cabalas and Bass Pro Shop.

BobS - I do talk to hunters and fishermen. Even the quiet and successful ones do not know if what they bring home is safe to eat long term. No one is sending samples out to be tested.

They just firgure that it didn't seem to hurt their daddy, has not seemed to hurt them yet, etc.

I do know of a few cases of discussed on a kayak fishing board by those who claim to be victims of mercury poisoning, and there are stories in the worldwide news of some such cases as well.

Most states will list, in their hunting and fishing regulation books, what the weekly ingestion recommendation limits are for various rivers, bayous, lakes, etc.

I've not seen anything in the regs about land types of game, though.

I think you said you live in SF if so and you have a sail boat I would think it would be easy to get out into the ocean far enough to get fish that you could feel comfortable about eating.

But nothing in life is guaranteed. I don’t see a problem eating animals you shoot (I don’t like fish) I don’t see a lot of news stories (like none) of hunters falling over dead from eating wild animals they shot.

You seem to want someone to give you a piece of paper saying it’s safe to eat animals or fish from X-location. Never going to happen!

It seems you are asking an Un answerable question as you want a black & white answer to a gray question.

It's not the dropping dead from eating; it's the developing who-knows-what over time and then dropping dead.

I have read there are studies of small mammals and of roe deer in Europe that have found elevated levels of mercury, and in the U.S. the mammals that eat from marine-based foodchains (killer whales and polar bears, for example) have also been found with elevated mercury that is suspected as a cause of reproductive problems and death. Wasn't there a ban on lead shot in part because of environmental contamination that was finding its way into waterfowl?

My question is just, does anybody know where this stuff is likely to be less of a problem?

Guarantees I do not expect but, yes, I would love it if some responsible expert published a study saying the animals in this part of the US were tested and found to have a low incidence of various pollutants in their systems. Wouldn't you?

"...a study saying the animals in this part of the US were tested and found to have a low incidence of various pollutants in their systems..."


If that were to happen, I suspect that those critters would be wiped out in short order, laws and regs notwithstanding. You would not be the only person to want to go there. Either they get killed off, or the population, and therefore the polution, would increase, causing the same old problem...

I think the closest you could come would be to raise it yourself.
Otherwise, I don't think you could ever count on it and even then I'm not sure you would be able to maintain the integrity of your operation without going to extreme means that would brand you as crazy to most of your neighbors. It surly would not make any economic sense.

Answer: Nowhere.

Wind and water currents carry pollutants everywhere across the globe.

There are areas where the pollution is going to be more concentrated, and just because you're out in the woods doesn't mean you're safely far enough downstream from a pig farm, or someone's hunting camp dumping raw sewage in the creek, etc...

Life is a exercise of risk management (not risk elimination). Know your surroundings, judge the risk, and act accordingly with the caveat of nothing is 100% safe.

Being well prepared and informed isn't a guarantee of safety, it just stacks the deck in your favor and gives your some options.

Samhain said it.

The best you could probably do is find a reasonably clean piece of land (pasture - check the history of use), have the water thoroughly tested (around $200, I think), start improving the soil by growing mixed cover crops and applying needed minerals (after a good soil test), and then start growing your own food.

No one is going to point out a great, safe piece of land to you. Why should they? No one is going to test various places to see what is wrong with it for you. Why would they? No independent company would do it, and why should the taxpayers pay for it?

This kind of research is strictly up to you.

Sue

Dweste, There are 2 books that I can think of that might fit what you are looking for. They both have maps and look at different catagories like environmental, crime, natural and manmade diasters, etc. I am worried though that by posting them, I am getting into an area that they might not want on this board.

One of the books kind of talks about this subject, but not in the detail I think you are looking for. He has a section where he discusses different chemicals and then shows maps (but not very good maps - in fact pretty lousy maps! ) of places that have higher concentrations of the ones he cites. You could probably find better maps online. The book is called "Strategic Relocation: North American Guide to Safe Places" by Joel M. Skousen He doesn't go into the detail I think you are looking for. But if you are still looking for a place to move to, this book might help some . The book is expensive. He does have a website. Joels book deals with relocation to safe areas that have low crime, low pollution, low radiation. Stuff like that. I was disappointed in the quality of the maps and the over all presentation of the book. His other book gets better reviews, it deals with creating a secure home or retreat for diasters of all kinds. It is called "The Secure Home." Joel does have a website.

I can email you the name of the second book. It is a controversial book and some of their stuff I don't believe in, but I think for the information you are looking for, it might be able to help you. I have not seen or read this book, so I am only going by what is on their website. Let me know if you are interested in it and I will email you the website.

You can find maps similar to and probably a lot better then the ones in Joels book. If the purpose of your question is to narrow down the areas you are interested in moving to, then I suggest that you pick a few areas and study the different environmental maps of that area. Schools often study the evironmental impact on rivers. So there might be websites with that kind of information. I saw some on rivers for fishing, but I haven't searched for land, plants and animals. When I did a search I also added the word 'map' and that helps a little.

I did my search for your area mostly. But like I said, pick an area and study it online. From everything I have ever read, Northern California, most of Oregon and the upper part of Wyoming are places to study, because they show up on a lot of different maps as clear of the problem that map is talking about. When you study maps of say radiation down wind or radiation spread, those 3 areas are often clear. If you look at the map below of arsenic you will see that most of Oregon is clear. So make notes of areas around the country that you are interested in and then check them on the various maps and you can weed out the most polluted areas. That is the best I can suggest.

Below are some websites that I found last night while doing a small search for you. I did my search mostly for rivers in your area. They might not be just what you are looking for, but maybe you will spend more time looking then I did.

So far this webpage is the closest thing I can find for what you want, but the reports are over 10 years old!
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/nawqasum/index.html

I found this report on your area from the above website:
http://www.ehib.org/papers/NeedsAssessmentDF.pdf

This page has some maps that show arsenic around the country, but the maps are small and you can't really see them good.
http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/nov01/feature_Asmap.html

I found this for seafood. I don't know if there is something similar for fresh water fish in rivers and lakes:
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp

The UC Davis Biosentinel Mercury Program Fact Sheet
http://www.sfei.org/cmr/fishmercury/552_UCDFactSheet_FinalWebApril18_HiRes2.pdf

For plants I would think the further away from civilization the better. So you would want to pick an area with lots of forests and no big cities nearby or upstream for a long distance. Joel Skousen says to avoid cities that are surrounded by mountains that create a bowl-like area where "air pollutants get trapped during winter time when there is a temperature inversion present (warm air over cold air)." End quote Two of the cities he mentions that have this bowl -like area are Los Angeles and Salt Lake City.

And Joel also suggests nutritional supplements to help flush out the pollutants before they do damage - but he doesn't go into much detail. For more detail I suggest a couple books by Dr. Blaylock. Dr. Blaylock is a retired Neurosurgeon. Both books deal with chemicals that we get from the foods we eat and how they affect us and what he recommends we take to prevent some of the damage they do, etc. Be sure to read the reviews towards the bottom of the page. You can click on the book cover of the first book to get to the contents page if you want to read what is in it.

Health and Nutrition Secrets:
"Learn how the chemicals and compounds you encounter every day can lead to unexpected health complications and life-threatening disorders. Health and Nutrition Secrets presents the latest information about strokes and heart attacks, diabetes, protecting the digestive system, and the best ways to keep the immune system young and powerful. New revised edition has chapter on The Role of Fats in Health."
http://www.amazon.com/Health-Nutrition-S...2153&sr=1-1

Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills
http://www.amazon.com/Excitotoxins-Taste...2153&sr=1-3

And for anyone who is interested, his other book is on cancer.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you are interested in the other book? I have Joel's book, and although I am glad I have it, I think you will like the maps in the second books better.

Joy

You might also want to take a look at: Prudent Places by Holly Deyo. You can find it at: http://www.standeyo.com

No, I don't have any affiliation with Stan or Holly Deyo, except that I like their website and I really liked Holly's other book: Dare To Prepare by Holly Deyo.

Cool! Thank you Wildman, that is the other book I was talking about. I just didn't know if DR would want me posting either of them. Since you posted it, here is a link to the page that tells what is in the book I was talking about. It is the same one Wildman mentioned, it is called "Prudent Places USA" and this book and Joel's book are the closest I can think of to help you narrow your search down. Then I suggest you study local online maps and stuff for those areas.

I hope this link goes directly to the page. If not seach for the book "Prudent Places USA"
http://standeyo.com/index1.html

Dweste, is this the kind of information that you are looking for?

Joy

Yes, thanks Joy and wildman800.

Great, except your wrong.

The native Americans had a complex social and economic culture that included payments in labor and material goods, in essence taxes, given by individuals and families to the tribe. And gifts and/or offerings to disadvantaged persons within the tribe, essentially welfare. These were couched in terms of donations and charity but within the context of a tightly interdependent tribe failure to meet these obligations often met with stiff social sanctions.

The potlatch is a well known form of redistribution of wealth but most tribes had some form of wealth redistribution, welfare, socialization of risk, large collective projects (including huge building projects and war) and effective taxation in one form or another. Usually enforced by sanctions on those who do not comply.

The idea that the native Americans had some 'Freeman' paradise is simply a myth. A myth that goes along with the idea that somehow nature is inherently less toxic and more 'clean'. Nature isn't inherently clean in any modern sense. Nature is alive with pathogens, parasites and toxins. Some of these make most man made toxins and pollutants pale in comparison. Eat the wrong mushroom, the wrong portion of a polar bear or the wrong berry and your would have been better off spicing up your meal with a can of Raid.

Modern man also operates at something of a deficit. We have developed a complex infrastructure that keeps us away from most natural pathogens and toxins. Into the 1890s most rural people were exposed to giardia and after a protracted disease cycle, and some number of deaths, they developed some level of immunity. In many rural locations it was common for young kids to get sick and to transition to some level of immunity to the local mix of endemic and naturally occurring pathogens, toxins and parasites.

Now most Americans can go through their entire life without being exposed to giardia. This only becomes a problem when non-immune individuals step outside of the protective infrastructure and fail to take proper precautions.

In this sense there are no safe locations simply because, as the joke goes 'Bears [defecate] in the woods'. Outside a very few spots, like certain springs not too far from my location, deep wells and the ice in certain remote locations there is no safe standing waters in the US. And this only considers the naturally occurring pathogens. The same is true of the plants and animal foods gathered in remote locations. They usually have to be processed, washed at a minimum and/or cooked, to be safely eaten.

Nature itself is not inherently more safe from toxins and pathogens than a urban environment. Humans create safe zones and sources but, as a consequence, end up creating highly toxic zones. The wilderness is less toxic than the worse of the toxic zones made by man but very few places ever become as safe as the human created safe zones.