Category Archives: Food

A Simple, Inexpensive Trick to Cure a Cold

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Each year Americans catch more than one billion colds, making the cold virus the most common infectious disease in the United States.

It accounts for more school absences and missed work than any other illness, and it’s the number one reason people visit their physicians — even though most physicians have little to offer in the form of treatment.

It’s a widespread misconception that colds are caused by bacteria. Colds are actually triggered by a virus, which means if your physician prescribes you an antibiotic, it will be absolutely useless.

More on this shortly, but before I delve into simple prevention and treatment strategies it’s important you know how colds are contracted in the first place.

How Do You Catch a Cold?

The most common way cold viruses are spread is not from being around coughing or sneezing, or walking barefoot in the rain, but rather from hand-to-hand contact. For instance, someone with a cold blows their nose then shakes your hand or touches surfaces that you also touch.

Cold viruses can live on pens, computer keyboards, coffee mugs and other objects for hours, so it’s easy to come into contact with such viruses during daily life.

However, the key to remember is that just being exposed to a cold virus does not have to mean that you’ll catch a cold. If your immune system is operating at its peak, it should actually be quite easy for you to fend off the virus without ever getting sick.

If your immune system is impaired, on the other hand, it’s akin to having an open-door policy for viruses; they’ll easily take hold in your body. So the simple and short answer is, you catch a cold due to impairment in your immune system. There are many ways this can result, but the more common contributing factors are:

  1. Eating too much sugar and too many grains
  2. Not getting enough rest
  3. Using insufficient strategies to address emotional stressors in your life
  4. Vitamin D deficiency, as discussed below
  5. Any combination of the above

Vitamin D Deficiency: Another Reason You May “Catch” a Cold

It’s estimated that the average U.S. adult typically has two to four colds each year, while children may have up to 12! One reason for the widespread prevalence may be that vitamin D deficiency is incredibly common in the United States, especially during the winter months when cold (and flu) viruses are at their peak.

Research has confirmed that “catching” colds and flu may actually be a symptom of an underlying vitamin D deficiency. Less than optimal vitamin D levels will significantly impair your immune response and make you far more susceptible to contracting colds, influenza, and other respiratory infections.

In the largest and most nationally representative study of its kind to date, involving about 19,000 Americans, people with the lowest vitamin D levels reported having significantly more recent colds or cases of the flu – and the risk was even greater for those with chronic respiratory disorders like asthma.

At least five additional studies also show an inverse association between lower respiratory tract infections and vitamin D levels, and you can read about them in detail here. But the research is very clear, the higher your vitamin D level, the lower your risk of contracting colds, flu, and other respiratory tract infections.

It’s not surprising, then, that the average American gets so many colds each year, as current guidelines for optimal intake and normal vitamin D levels are far too low — and since most people do not get adequate sun exposure on a daily basis (which is what produces vitamin D in your skin) many are deficient. I strongly believe you could avoid colds and influenza entirely by maintaining your vitamin D level in the optimal range.

How Long Do Colds Last … and How Can You Make Your Cold Go Away Faster?

Most uncomplicated colds last between eight and nine days, but about 25 percent last two weeks, and 5-10 percent last three weeks. Even the most stubborn colds will typically resolve in a few weeks’ time; this is actually one of the ways you can distinguish a cold from allergies.

A cold will last, at most, a few weeks, but allergy symptoms can last all season.

How quickly you bounce back is typically defined by you and your collective lifestyle habits — and this does not mean popping over-the-counter cough and cold remedies or fever reducers. In fact, as long as your temperature remains below 102 degrees Fahrenheit (38.9 degrees Celsius) there is no need to lower it.

Cold viruses do not reproduce at higher body temperatures, so a slight fever should help you get rid of the virus quicker and help you to feel better much sooner.

You should avoid taking over-the-counter pain-relief medications as well, as a study showed that people who take aspirin and Tylenol (acetaminophen) suppress their body’s ability to produce antibodies to destroy the cold virus. Aspirin has even been linked to lung complications including pulmonary edema, an abnormal build up of fluid in your lungs, when taken in excess.

You should only use these medications when absolutely necessary, such as if you have a temperature greater than 105 degrees F (40.5 degrees C), severe muscle aches or weakness.

Hydrogen Peroxide: A Simple Trick to Beat a Cold

I don’t advise over-the-counter medications, but one simple treatment you can try that is surprisingly effective against upper respiratory infections is hydrogen peroxide.

Many patients at my Natural Health Center have had remarkable results in curing colds and flu within 12 to 14 hours when administering a few drops of 3 percent hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) into each ear. You will hear some bubbling, which is completely normal, and possibly feel a slight stinging sensation.

Wait until the bubbling and stinging subside (usually 5 to 10 minutes), then drain onto a tissue and repeat with the other ear. A bottle of hydrogen peroxide in 3 percent solution is available at any drug store for a couple of dollars or less. It is simply amazing how many people respond to this simple, inexpensive treatment.

So What Else Can You do to Recover From a Cold, Quicker … and Prevent One in the First Place?

As I said above, the number one way to conquer a cold (or flu) is vitamin D. Vitamin D is an amazingly effective antimicrobial agent, producing 200 to 300 different antimicrobial peptides in your body that kill bacteria, viruses and fungi. So optimizing your levels will not only help send a cold virus packing … it will help ward off cold viruses in the first place.

The best source for vitamin D is direct sun exposure. But for many of us, this just isn’t practical during the winter. The next best option to sunlight is the use of a safe indoor tanning device. If neither natural nor artificial sunlight is an option, then using oral vitamin D3 supplements is your best bet.

Based on the latest research, many experts now agree you need about 35 IU’s of vitamin D per pound of body weight. This recommendation also includes children, the elderly and pregnant women.

However, keep in mind that vitamin D requirements are highly individual, as your vitamin D status is dependent on numerous factors, such as the color of your skin, your location, and how much sunshine you’re exposed to on a regular basis. So, although these recommendations may put you closer to the ballpark of what most people likely need, it is simply impossible to make a blanket recommendation that will cover everyone’s needs.

The only way to determine your optimal dose is to get your blood tested. Ideally, you’ll want to maintain a vitamin D level of 50-65 ng/ml year-round.

For an in-depth explanation of everything you need to know before you get tested, please read my latest updates in Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency.

Dietary Strategies to Kick a Cold

If you feel yourself coming down with a cold or flu, this is NOT the time to be eating ANY sugar, artificial sweeteners or processed foods. Sugar is particularly damaging to your immune system — which needs to be ramped up, not suppressed, in order to combat an emerging infection.

So if you are fighting a cold, you’ll want to avoid all sugar like the plague, and this includes sugar in the form of fruit juice and even grains (which break down as sugar in your body).

Ideally, you must address nutrition, sleep, exercise and stress issues the moment you first feel yourself getting a bug. This is when immune-enhancing strategies will be most effective.

So when you’re coming down with a cold, it’s time to address ALL of the contributing factors immediately, which includes tweaking your diet in favor of foods that will strengthen your immune response. Good choices include:

  • Raw, grass-fed organic milk, and/or high-quality whey protein
  • Fermented foods such as raw kefir, kimchee, miso, pickles, sauerkraut, etc, which are rich in probiotics, or good bacteria. Scientific research shows that 80 percent of your immune system resides inside your digestive tract, so eating probiotic-rich foods, or taking a high-quality probiotic, will help support your immune system health.
  • Raw, organic eggs from free-ranging, preferably local, chickens
  • Grass-fed beef
  • Coconuts and coconut oil
  • Animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil
  • Locally grown fruits and vegetables, appropriate for your nutritional type
  • Mushrooms, especially Reishi, Shiitake, and Maitake, which contain beta glucans (which have immune-enhancing properties)
  • Garlic, a potent antimicrobial that kills bacteria, viruses and fungi. Ideally this should be in fresh form, eaten raw and crushed with a spoon just before eating.
  • Herbs and spices with high ORAC scores: Turmeric, oregano, cinnamon, cloves (for more on ORAC, visit www.oracvalues.com)
  • Make sure you are drinking plenty of fresh, pure water. Water is essential for the optimal function of every system in your body and will help with nose stuffiness and loosening secretions. You should drink enough water so that your urine is a light, pale yellow.

And what about the old wives’ tale of chicken soup for your cold?

Chicken soup can help reduce your symptoms. Chicken contains a natural amino acid called cysteine, which can thin the mucus in your lungs and make it less sticky so you can expel it more easily.

Processed, canned soups won’t work as well as the homemade version, however.

For best results, make up a fresh batch yourself (or ask a friend or family member to do so) and make the soup hot and spicy with plenty of pepper. The spices will trigger a sudden release of watery fluids in your mouth, throat, and lungs, which will help thin down the respiratory mucus so it’s easier to cough up and expel.

Three Cold-Busting Lifestyle Strategies

Vitamin D, check! Hydrogen peroxide, check! Healthy diet, check! We’ve covered several of the primary “weapons” you should have in your cold-fighting arsenal, but there are others, too.

  1. High-Quality Sleep, and Plenty of It Pay attention to how you are sleeping. If you aren’t getting enough sleep, or enough restorative sleep, you’ll be at increased risk for a hostile viral takeover. Your immune system is also the most effective when you’re not sleep-deprived, so the more rested you are the quicker you’ll recover. You can find 33 secrets for a good night’s sleep here.
  2. Regular Exercise Regular exercise is a crucial strategy for increasing your resistance to illness. There is evidence that regular, moderate exercise can reduce your risk for respiratory illness by boosting your immune system. In fact, one study found that people who exercised regularly (five or more days a week) cut their risk of having a cold by close to 50 percent. And, in the event they did catch a cold, their symptoms were much less severe than among those who did not exercise.Exercise likely cuts your risk of colds so significantly because it triggers a rise in immune system cells that can attack any potential invaders. Each time you exercise you can benefit from this boost to your immune system.Ideally, establish a regular fitness program, such as Peak Fitness, now, to help you ward off colds and other illness.However, if you’re already feeling sick don’t overdo it. Over-exercising can actually place more stress on your body, which can suppress your immune system — and you don’t want that either. You might just go for a walk if you are coming down with a cold, or simply tone down your regular workout.Any rise in body temperature will be an unwelcome climate for a viral invader, though, so some exercise is likely to be beneficial.
  3. Address Your Emotional Stress Emotional stressors can also predispose you to an infection while making cold symptoms worse. Finding ways to manage daily stress as well as your reactions to circumstances beyond your control will contribute to a strong and resilient immune system.My favorite tool for this is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), a system that helps balance your body’s subtle energies and repair emotional “short-circuits.” EFT may even help you overcome cold symptoms.

Supplements That Send Pathogens Packin’

Supplements can be beneficial for colds, but they should be used only as an adjunct to the lifestyle measures already discussed.

Some of the more helpful options for cold (and flu) — above and beyond vitamin D — are:

  • Vitamin C: A very potent antioxidant; use a natural form such as acerola, which contains associated micronutrients. You can take several grams every hour till you are better unless you start developing loose stools
  • Oregano Oil: The higher the carvacrol concentration, the more effective it is. Carvacrol is the most active antimicrobial agent in oregano oil.
  • Propolis: A bee resin and one of the most broad-spectrum antimicrobial compounds in the world; propolis is also the richest source of caffeic acid and apigenin, two very important compounds that aid in immune response and even fight cancer.
  • A tea made from a combination of elderflower, yarrow, boneset, linden, peppermint and ginger; drink it hot and often for combating a cold or flu. It causes you to sweat, which is helpful for eradicating a virus from your system.
  • Olive leaf extract: Ancient Egyptians and Mediterranean cultures used it for a variety of health-promoting uses and it is widely known as a natural, non-toxic immune system builder.

Remember This Tip: Wash Your Hands Sensibly

Washing your hands frequently is one of the easiest ways to wipe out germs and viruses and reduce your chances of becoming sickened by them. Thorough hand-washing truly is an important step, as you are at far greater risk of passing on an infection by shaking someone’s hand than even by sharing a kiss.

One report even found that regular hand washing may be more effective than drugs in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses such as influenza.

When you wash up, plain soap and water will do. Do not make the mistake of using antibacterial cleansers, as their widespread use is leading to strains of resistant bacteria, or “superbugs,” which cause the ingredients to lose effectiveness for the times when they really are needed, such as for surgeons prior to surgery.

Further, the active ingredient in most antibacterial products is triclosan, an antibacterial agent that kills bacteria and inhibits bacterial growth. But not only does triclosan kill bacteria, it also has been shown to kill human cells.

Antibacterial soaps are also no more effective than regular soaps. One study found people who used antibacterial soaps and cleansersdeveloped a cough, runny nose, sore throat, fever, vomiting, diarrhea and other symptoms just as often as people who used products that did not contain antibacterial ingredients. So please avoid making the mistake of using antibacterial liquids and soaps.

Too Much Hand-Washing Can Backfire …

There is another important caveat to remember, and that is your skin is actually your primary defense against bacteria — not the soap.

So resist the urge to become obsessive about washing your hands. If you wash them too frequently you can actually extract many of the protective oils in your skin, which can cause your skin to crack and bleed.

It is rare for a germ on your skin to cause a problem — it is typically only an issue when you transfer that to your nose, mouth or an open wound like cracked skin. So obsessive-compulsive washing can actually increase your risk of getting sick by providing an entryway for potentially dangerous pathogens.

So mild to moderate washing is wise, but excessive washing, especially with harsh soaps, will actually be highly counterproductive.

Avoid the Antibiotics!

More than 300 different viruses can cause colds, so each time you have a cold it is caused by a distinct virus (i.e. adenovirus, rhinovirus, parainfluenza virus, coronavirus). A virus is much smaller than a bacteria; it is a tiny cluster of genetic material surrounded by a protein wrapper.

There are currently NO drugs available that can kill these viruses. Antibiotics, including penicillin, do not have any effect on viruses, but unfortunately have been vastly over-prescribed for this very (useless) purpose. That, coupled with the excessive use of antibiotics in agriculture, has contributed to a steep rise in antibiotic-resistant diseases.

Antibiotic-resistant infections now claim more lives each year than the “modern plague” of AIDS, and cost the American health care system some $20 billion a year!

Further, according to one meta-analysis, the health risk from over-use of antibiotics is also a very personal one, as opposed to simply raising the occurrence of antibiotic resistance in the general population over time.

Whenever you use an antibiotic, you’re increasing your susceptibility to developing infections with resistance to that antibiotic — and you can become the carrier of this resistant bug, and spread it to others.

So please, if you have a simple cold remember that an antibiotic will do far more harm than good.

When Should You Call Your Physician?

Sinus, ear and lung infections (bronchitis and pneumonia) are examples of bacterial infections that do respond to antibiotics. If you develop any of the following symptoms, these are signs you may be suffering from a bacterial infection rather than a cold virus, and you should call your physician’s office:

  • Fever over 102 degrees Fahrenheit (38.9 degrees Celsius)
  • Ear pain
  • Pain around your eyes, especially with a green nasal discharge
  • Shortness of breath or a persistent uncontrollable cough
  • Persistently coughing up green and yellow sputum

Generally speaking, however, if you have a cold medical care is not necessary. Rest and attention to the lifestyle factors noted above will help you to recover quickly and, if you stick to them, will significantly reduce your chances of catching another one anytime soon.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

The Toxin So Dangerous It’s Causing Catastrophic Birth Defects

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Roundup Ready soy is now being cultivated on a massive scale across the globe, along with the exponentially increasing use of the herbicide Roundup. Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” soy beans are  genetically modified to survive otherwise lethal doses of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the company’s herbicide Roundup.

It’s a win-win for Monsanto. But it’s a loss for just about everyone else.

One of the countries most affected by genetically engineered soy is Argentina, whose population is being sickened by massive spraying of herbicides across the country’s Pampas (the country’s “fertile plain”).

Argentina’s Pampas used to be dotted with dairy and vegetable farms, but now, large-scale soybean monoculture blankets most of their cultivated land, making them especially susceptible to the damaging effects of genetically engineered soy. The impact can be better appreciated by considering the following statistics:

  • Soy is the main income source for landowners and the state—soybeans are considered a “gold mine” by Argentinians; soy exports generate 16,000 million dollars a year
  • The area cultivated with soy has reached 19 million hectares, representing 56 percent of Argentina’s cultivated land
  • 98 percent of Argentina’s soybean production is genetically modified.
  • 190 million liters of glyphosate (the active agent in Roundup) are sprayed in Argentina annually, which is leading to not only illness among the population but to widespread deforestation, as trees are among the victims these herbicides leave in their wake of destruction.

Soya burgers are a staple of today’s Argentinian diet. Argentinian children were consuming so much genetically engineered soy that they began developing breasts from the estrogenic effects, before authorities stepped in with warnings. Studies also strongly suggest that the glyphosate that these crops are doused with can cause cancer and birth deformities; both of which are occurring at increasing rates in areas where spraying is done. Sterility and miscarriages are also increasing. Experts warn that in 10 to 15 years, rates of cancer, infertility and endocrine dysfunction could reach catastrophic levels in Argentina. But few people are listening.

“It’s Food for Today, Hunger and Cancer for Tomorrow”

The immediate symptoms are always the same for Argentinian bystanders in the spray zone: dizziness, allergic reactions and itching, mouth swelling, and general malaise that’s similar to the feeling of coming down with the flu. People are warned to stay inside when spraying is underway, but they report getting sick in spite of this confinement.

When those affected visit their physicians, they’re told it’s “all in their heads.” Authorities also turn a deaf ear—as does the government when it’s presented with scientific evidence of the dangerous effects of Monsanto’s products for their people and environment. Fortunately, increasing numbers of scientists are now starting to speak out. For example, the engineers’ school in Santiago del Estero announced that chemicals are causing 100 babies to be born with deformities every year. One of the most influential studies was conducted by one of Argentina’s leading scientists, Andres Carrasco, who works in Argentina’s Ministry of Science.

Andrés Carrasco Attacked for Exposing the Truth

Embryonic specialist Andres Carrasco decided to investigate the health effects of glyphosate for himself after hearing so many reports by desperate peasant and indigenous communities who were suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides. According to Dr. Carrasco, his studies show glyphosate exposure can cause defects in the brain, intestines, and hearts of amphibian fetuses, and these results can be applied to humans. Moreover, the amount of Roundup used on genetically engineered soy fields was as much as 1,500 times greater than that which created the defects.

According to an article in Grain, the biotech industry “mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats.” In addition, four men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and were extremely aggressive, attempting to interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his study.

“It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction,” he said. “I hadn’t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached.”

The conclusions to which Carrasco is referring are those from independent researchers who have found strong evidence glyphosatecauses the following:

Carrasco’s and others’ work point to the fact that the public, in Argentina and elsewhere, is being subject to a massive biological experiment involving the effects of genetic manipulation of the food supply. Genetically engineered food products have NEVER been tested for safety—so the long-term effects are largely unknown. The warnings science has provided demand a thorough investigation into just how much glyphosate human beings and animals can safely ingest. At present, no such investigation has taken place, and most regulatory agencies choose instead to rely in industry studies claiming glyphosate is safe.

Roundup has been shown to be lethal to amphibians. Are we next? Where is the tipping point for the human race? How much more can we tolerate in the adulteration of our food supply?

Why We MUST Insist on Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

Labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of genetically engineered foods in the U.S., but simple petitions will likely fail. We strongly support state initiatives, such as California’s ballot initiative to require labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state.

Many don’t fully appreciate the strategy of seeking to have genetically engineered foods labeled in California. The belief is that large food companies would refuse to have dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be very expensive, not to mention a logistical nightmare. To avoid the dual labeling, many would likely opt to not use genetically engineered ingredients in their product, especially if the new label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones. This is why we are so committed to this initiative, as victory here will likely eliminate most genetically engineered foods from the US.

Powerful confirmation of this belief occurred in early 2012 when both Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo Inc. chose to alter one of their soda ingredients as a result of California’s labeling requirements for carcinogens:

“Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. are changing the way they make the caramel coloring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label. The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They’ve already been made for drinks sold in California.”

This is a PERFECT example of the national impact a California labeling law can, and no doubt WILL, have. While California is the only state requiring the label to state that the product contains the offending ingredient, these companies are switching their formula for the entire US market, rather than have two different labels. According to USA Today:

“A representative for Coca-Cola, Diana Garza Ciarlante, said the company directed its caramel suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to reduce the levels of the chemical 4-methylimidazole, which can be formed during the cooking process and as a result may be found in trace amounts in many foods. “While we believe that there is no public health risk that justifies any such change, we did ask our caramel suppliers to take this step so that our products would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning,” Garza-Giarlante said in an email.”

Learn More about Genetically Engineered Foods

Due to lack of labeling, many Americans are still unfamiliar with what genetically engineered foods are. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate and to continue learning more about genetically engineered foods and helping your friends and family do the same.

To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

Your BEST strategy, however, is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit genetically engineered ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) you’re exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you’re not inadvertently consuming something laced with altered ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtuallyguaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.

To learn more about genetically engineered foods, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Courts Slaps FDA and FTC for Unjustified Attacks

Posted on by
1

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Did you know it’s currently illegal for a food or supplement producer to tell you about their products’ scientifically proven health benefits?

As unbelievable as it sounds, a person can be thrown in jail for telling you the walnuts they grow may slow down the growth of prostate tumors, or cherries ease symptoms of arthritis and gout, even though this is truthful, accurate and helpful information for a consumer to know.

This is why a case that was recently heard before U.S. District Court Judge Vanessa L. Bryant could turn out to be a landmark event, as she ruled that the “FDA went too far” in censoring health claims related to green tea and cancer.

FDA Wording Too Strong, “Effectively Negates” Qualified Health Claims

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows food and supplement manufacturers to use a qualified health claim (QHC) when “there is emerging evidence for a relationship between a food, food component, or dietary supplement and reduced risk of a disease or health-related condition.”

However, because the evidence is still emerging, the FDA requires “qualifying language” to be included with the claim “to indicate that the evidence supporting the claim is limited.” In the case of Fleminger, Inc., which sells green tea and filed a health claim petition in 2004 to highlight green tea’s anti-cancer properties, the FDA suggested that this disclaimer be added to the health claim:

“FDA concludes that it is highly unlikely that green tea reduces the risk” of breast cancer or prostate cancer.

Obviously, this essentially contradicts the health claim.

So, in 2010 (after a petition to review the FDA’s disclaimer was denied), the FDA threatened to seize Fleminger’s products if they did not use the exact disclaimer above.

Eventually the FDA sent a revised claim, which still negated the point of the health claim:

“Green tea may reduce the risk of breast or prostate cancer. FDA does not agree that green tea may reduce the risk because there is very little scientific evidence for the claim.”

This is a major win for natural food and supplement producers alike, as the FDA is being required to revise the disclaimer so as not to negate the health claim being made. At this point, Fleminger took the case to court, where Judge Bryant ruled:

“The FDA’s language “effectively negates the substance–disease relationship claim altogether….There are less burdensome ways in which the FDA could indicate in a short, succinct and accurate disclaimer that it has not approved the claim without nullifying the claim altogether.”

Why Can’t Foods Have Truthful Health Claims on Their Labels?

This is perhaps the underlying question: why must manufacturers petition the FDA to make truthful, science-based health claims in the first place and then have them subjected to disclaimers? This is a serious waste of tax dollars – not to mention an assault on your freedom of access to information (and for the manufacturers, on their freedom of speech).

The fact is, QHCs are currently the only way that companies can make truthful health claims about natural foods or supplements. However, they are not easy to come by (the FDA approved only 12 QHCs from 1999 to 2010). Under current FDA law, if a food or natural supplement makes a medical claim without a QHC, it’s automatically classified as a drug. The Alliance for Natural Health explains:

“Outside of QHCs, food and supplements are not allowed to speak of the specific health benefits of their products because the FDA takes the position that any such statement magically turns them into drugs. And, as drugs, they would have to go through exorbitantly expensive drug trials, a cost which the manufacturer could never recoup, since food and supplements are natural products and cannot be patented. Without a patent, anyone can sell them, so paying as much as a billion dollars for a drug trial is essentially money down the drain.”

Believe it or not, the FDA recently sent a warning letter to Diamond Food for making truthful, science-backed health claims about the omega-3 fats in walnuts. But because the research cited health claims that omega-3 fats in walnuts may prevent or protect against disease, the FDA said walnuts would be considered “new drugs” and as such would require a new drug application to become FDA-approved.

The FDA’s current position is that foods such as walnuts, cherries, broccoli, turmeric, green tea and the like should be subjected to the full FDA approval process. But obtaining a new drug application, as the FDA suggests, can cost billions of dollars. And let’s face it – small food and supplement producers cannot come close to affording that!

In related news, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also suffered a loss in its efforts to hold Garden of Life, the marketer of various dietary supplements, in contempt of a previous consent order.  The FTC alleged that Garden of Life violated the order by making false and baseless claims about its vitamin C and omega-3 fat based products, but the court ruled that the FTC had failed to prove that any of the challenged claims violated the consent order. It’s a small win, but it could have major repercussions for other natural supplement makers who are being unjustly attacked by the FTC or another government agency.

Experts Challenge FDA over Approval for New Dose of Alzheimer’s Drug

It’s ironic that the FDA comes down so hard on truthful health claims about green tea or walnuts, but seemingly gives drug companies carte blanche when it comes to bringing new products to market. Case in point, with its patent set to expire in November 2010, Donepezil, a blockbuster Alzheimer’s drug with over $2 billion in annual sales in the United States, submitted a new dosage for FDA approval.

Four months before the patent expired, the FDA approved the new dose, even though 5 mg and 10 mg doses were already on the market (though set to go generic soon).

The approval also went against the advice of the FDA’s own medical and statistical reviewers and was contrary to scientific evidence, which showed the drug offered “no meaningful added benefit, just more harm.” In fact, a 2010 report published in the journal Seizure found that of the 71,471 adverse drug reactions classified as convulsive events reported by the World Health Organization between 1968-2006 donepezil alone accounted for 8.4% of them, indicating that the drug is not only unsafe but that an increased dosage scheme would likely only cause more seizures in exposed populations.

Adding insult to injury, advertisements for the drug made misleading claims that the higher dose led to important clinical benefits on measures of cognition and overall function, a statement professors Lisa Schwartz and Steven Woloshin of the Center for Medicine and the Media at The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice called “stunningly erroneous.” In a BMJ commentary titled “How the FDA Forgot the Evidence …,” the professors detail the more likely reason why the 23 mg dose was approved:

“What is the difference between 20 and 23? If you said three, you are off by millions—of dollars in sales, that is—at least from the perspective of Eisai, the manufacturer of donepezil (marketed as Aricept by Pfizer).

A little context helps make the math clearer. Donepezil, the biggest player in the lucrative market for Alzheimer’s disease treatments, was a blockbuster, with over $2B in annual sales in the United States alone. But the drug, first approved in 1996, had reached the end of the road: the patent expired in November 2010.

Investors call this “going over the cliff,” an anxious reference to plummeting sales as market share is lost to generic competitors. Necessity, however, is the mother of invention. Just four months before the expiry of the patent, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a new dose for moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease: donepezil 23 mg. Is 23 an odd number? Not really, when you consider that you cannot get to 23 mg using the 5 mg and 10 mg doses that were going generic. The “new” 23 mg product would be patent protected for three more years.”

Support HR 1364 for Free Speech About Science

As unbelievable as it sounds, current law makes it illegal for natural supplement and food producers to share accurate, science-based health information with you.

Congressmen Jason Chaffetz (R–UT) and Jared Polis (D–CO) have introduced the Free Speech about Science Act (HR 1364), a landmark legislation that would allow the flow of legitimate scientific and educational information. The new bill provides a limited and carefully targeted change to FDA regulations so that manufacturers and producers may reference legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific studies without converting a natural food or dietary supplement into an “unapproved drug.” According to Rep. Chaffetz’s website, the provisions of HR 1364 do the following:

  • Allow dietary supplements and healthy foods to cite legitimate scientific research
  • Provide a clear definition of the types of research that may be referenced by growers and manufacturers
  • Ensure that referencing such research does not convert a food or dietary supplement into an “unapproved (and therefore illegal) new drug”
  • Retain the authority of FDA and FTC to pursue any fraudulent and misleading statements

According to Rep. Chaffetz:

“It is important for individuals and families to take charge of their personal health by making the right decisions to get and stay healthy. This includes accessing information so that individuals can adjust habits, eat healthfully, and take appropriate dietary supplements to prevent and even treat health conditions.

The Free Speech About Science Act helps insure their access to legitimate scientific research to make the necessary decisions to improve their personal health and the health of their families.”

Rep. Polis adds:

“Today’s science has shown that vitamins and nutritional supplements can offer successful, natural alternatives to drugs. As we begin to reform our nation’s healthcare system, supplements are an innovative way to help reduce costs.

The Free Speech About Science Act is a common sense act that will make it easier for doctors and consumers to learn about the cheaper, healthier alternatives to costly medicines that food and nutritional supplements provide.”

As of April 2012, HR 1364 was assigned to a congressional committee, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee, so we need your help.

Please lend HR 1364 your support by signing on as a co-sponsor TODAY.

Use the Alliance for Natural Health’s HR 1364 page to send a letter to your representative in support of this bill. And forward or post this article to all of your friends and loved ones who care about their health and their right to full information so they can make an intelligent choice in their health care decisions. With your combined influence we can be a powerful force for much-needed change.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Vegan Centenarian at 100+ Years Old

Posted on by
Reply

Source: Centenarian Vegan Longevity & the truth

VEGAN CENTENARIAN at 100+ YEARS OLD Credits her Healthy Vegetarian Diet for her Great Longevity

Centenarian Vegan Alive & Well at 108 credits her Vegan Diet for her long healthy life.

A Vegan woman Loreen Dinwiddie is celebrating her 108th Birthday as the oldest in Multnomah County, and may even be the oldest in her entire state.

A centenarian is a person who has accomplished living to over 100+ years old. A SuperCentenarian is the rarest of all, and is a person whose longevity has reached 110 years of age.

Strong and fit, her skin glows and due to her plant-based vegan diet she has hardly any of the wrinkles that you would expect for a person of her age. She eats no meat. And enjoys the wonderful tastes of fresh fruits, nuts, vegetables, and plant-based seasonings and spices.

As yet another documented Vegan Centenarian, she attributes her youthfulness and good health to her balanced vegan diet and says it has been instrumental at keeping her feeling youthful and wonderful all these years.

And another woman who stays young because of living on only plants foods:

To view the original videos click here & here
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

The Hidden Reason You Get Flabby (Not Calories or Lack of Exercise)

Posted on by
1

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Diet myths abound in the health industry, but one of the biggest myths of all is the idea that a calorie is a calorie, no matter where you get it from, or what the chemical or nutritional makeup of it is.

If you care about your health and are truly working to keep your weight down, then you need to know the truth about calories as well as the substances that distort how calories work in your body.

For example, sugar is one of the major health topics in the news these days, with “sugar is sugar” news updates, ads, and counter-ads.

Now, a new video, the “Skinny on Obesity”, presents a chilling awakening on weight, weight gain, and chronic diseases like dementia, cancer, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Watch it, and you may never look the same way at sugar or calories again. Your body actually treats sugar in the same way it treats alcohol and other toxins. This is in large part how sugars can damage your liver and other organs, and why Dr. Lustig refers to sugar as a toxin. I recently wrote about this at length in the article, Is Sugar Toxic?

Obesity Goes Beyond Aesthetics

While many still shrug at the notion of obesity being anything but an aesthetic issue, this simply isn’t a truthful evaluation of the situation. The obesity epidemic threatens not only the health and longevity of a clear majority of people, it also adds a tremendous burden to our health care system. As Dr. Lustig explains in part 1 above, the eight primary diseases related to metabolic dysfunction account for a staggering 75 percent of the healthcare costs in the US.

 These diseases include:

The four diseases listed on the top row are conventionally associated with metabolic syndrome. However, as stated by Dr. Lustig, several other diseases fall within this scope as well—which are listed in the bottom row. He also explains that while obesity is associated with metabolic syndrome and all of these diseases, obesity is not the CAUSE of them; it is simply a marker. Rather, the underlying cause is metabolic dysfunction, and excessive sugar/fructose consumption is a primary driver of that.

According to Dr. Lustig, 20 percent of obese people have perfectly normal metabolic functioning, and the excess weight will not affect their overall lifespan. Ditto for 60 percent of normal-weight people. However, the MAJORITY of obese people—about 80 percent of them—do not have normal metabolic function, and 40 percent of normal-weight people also suffer from metabolic dysfunction, and are therefore prone to these obesity-related diseases… All in all, metabolic dysfunction affects a clear majority of Americans.

But why?

What’s the Cause of Rampant Metabolic Dysfunction?

One dogma that has contributed to the ever-worsening health of the Western world is the belief that “a calorie is a calorie.” This is one of the first things dieticians learn in school. Unfortunately, this is completely FALSE… Another dogmatic belief that simply isn’t true is the idea that obesity is the end result of eating too much and exercising too little; i.e. consuming more calories than you’re expending. This has led to the view that obese people are simply “lazy.”

But as Dr. Lustig points out, there are societal forces at work that go beyond personal responsibility. An increasing number of infants are now obese, and “laziness” is certainly not a label that can easily be affixed to a developing infant.  These societal forces include:

As mentioned in the featured video above, the societal changes over the past 60 years or so have created what amounts to a perfect storm; a confluence of dramatically altered food environment combined with reduced physical exertion and increased exposure to, and consumption of, a wide array of industrial- and agricultural chemicals that have a detrimental impact on the human biochemistry.

Among the dramatic changes to our food supply is the extensive use of sugar, primarily in the form of high fructose corn syrup, which is added to virtually all processed foods. And this is where the fallacy of “a calorie is a calorie” comes into play, because a calorie from fat does not impact your body in the same way a calorie from fructose does.

One Calorie Can Be Vastly Different from Another…

According to Dr. Robert Lustig, fructose is ‘isocaloric but not isometabolic.” This means you can have the same amount of calories from fructose or glucose, fructose and protein, or fructose and fat, but the metabolic effect will be entirely different despite the identical calorie count. This is largely because different nutrients provoke different hormonal responses, and those hormonal responses determine, among other things, how much fat you accumulate.

The average American consumes 1/3 of a pound of sugar a day. That’s five ounces or 150 grams, half of which is fructose, which is 300 percent more than the amount that will trigger biochemical havoc. And many Americans consume more than twice that amount! Thanks to the excellent work of researchers like Dr. Robert Lustig, as well as Dr. Richard Johnson, we now know that fructose:

  • Is metabolized differently from glucose, with the majority being turned directly into fat
  • Tricks your body into gaining weight by fooling your metabolism, as it turns off your body’s appetite-control system. Fructose does not appropriately stimulate insulin, which in turn does not suppress ghrelin (the “hunger hormone”) and doesn’t stimulate leptin (the “satiety hormone”), which together result in your eating more and developing insulin resistance.
  • Rapidly leads to weight gain and abdominal obesity (“beer belly”), decreased HDL, increased LDL, elevated triglycerides, elevated blood sugar, and high blood pressure—i.e., classic metabolic syndrome.
  • Over time leads to insulin resistance, which is not only an underlying factor of type 2 diabetes and heart disease, but also many cancers.

This is why the idea that you can lose weight by counting calories simply doesn’t work. After fructose, other sugars and grains are likely the most excessively consumed food that promotes weight gain and chronic disease. This also includes food items that are typically viewed as healthy, such as fruit juice or even large amounts of high fructose fruits. What needs to be understood is that when consumed in large amounts, these items will also adversely affect your insulin, which is a crucially potent fat regulator. So yes, drinking large amounts of fruit juice on a daily basis can contribute to weight gain… In short, you do not get fat because you eat too many calories and don’t exercise enough. You get fat because you eat the wrong kind of calories. As long as you keep eating fructose and grains, you’re programming your body to create and store fat.

Replacing Sugars with Healthy Fats is Key for Reversing Metabolic Syndrome

I believe there are two primary dietary recommendations that, if widely implemented, could help reverse our current disease trend in short order:

  1. Severely restricting carbohydrates (sugars, fructose, and grains), and
  2. Increasing healthy fat consumption

While health authorities insist that sugar is fine “in moderation,” and that grains are an essential part of a healthy diet and can actually help you prevent heart disease, they fail to take into consideration that:

  1. Fructose is the NUMBER ONE source of calories in the US. An ingredient that is found in virtually all processed foods cannot be considered “moderate.” Even most infant formulas contain the sugar equivalent of one can of Coca-Cola, which helps explain how six-month old babies can be obese
  2. Refined carbohydrates (breakfast cereals, bagels, waffles etc) quickly breaks down to sugar, increase your insulin levels, and cause insulin resistance, which is the number one underlying factor of nearly every chronic disease known to man, including heart disease

Your Body NEEDS Fats for Optimal Function

Fats in general are considered the dietary villains, especially saturated fat, which many people still claim will increase your risk of heart attacks and cardiovascular disease. However, this is simply untrue. The only really dangerous fat out there is trans fat (margarine, vegetable oils). Saturated fats are actually vital for optimal health as they are:

When cutting down on carbs, you generally need to increase your intake of healthy (ideally organic, unprocessed and minimally heated ) saturated fats. Both carbs and fats are sources of energy, but saturated fat is actually the preferred fuel for your heart. Another metabolic bonus is that fat does not raise your insulin levels, whereas carbs do.  However, it’s important to recognize the difference between grain carbs and vegetable carbs.

If you want to lower your insulin levels and reduce fat accumulation, reduce the amount of grains and sugars you eat; NOT your vegetables. In fact, you actually need to radically increase the amount of vegetables you eat when you cut grains, as by volume grains are far denser than vegetables. As for healthy fats, good sources include:

Keep in mind that olive oil should not be used for cooking. Instead, use coconut oil for cooking, frying and baking, and save the olive oil for salad dressing.  Another healthful fat you want to be mindful of is animal-based omega-3. Deficiency in this essential fat can cause or contribute to very serious health problems, both mental and physical, and may be a significant underlying factor of up to 96,000 premature deaths each year. For more information about omega-3′s and the best sources of this fat, please review my previous article:Are You Getting the Right Type of Omega-3 Fats?

How Much Fructose is Too Much?

As a general recommendation, I suggest keeping your total fructose consumption below 25 grams per day, with a maximum of 15 grams from whole fruit. The table at the bottom of this page can help you calculate your fructose from fruit consumption. However, if you have ANY of the following health issues, then you’ll want to be very careful to limit fructose to just 15 grams per day or less, and this includes fructose from whole fruit. Ideally you’ll want to avoid ALL sources of fructose until your insulin stabilizes, and then proceed with caution.

High uric acid, in particular, is a potent marker for fructose toxicity, so if your levels are above:

  • 4 mg/dl for men
  • 3.5 mg/dl for women

… then you would be wise to avoid all forms of fructose until your levels have normalized—just as you would with high insulin levels. Here’s a quick reference list of some of the most common fruits that you can use to help you count your fructose grams:

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

GMO Alert: Top 10 Genetically Modified Foods to Avoid Eating

Posted on by
Reply

By: Aurora Geib
Source: NaturalNews.com

There is a conspiracy of selling out happening in America. Politics and personal interest it would seem determine government policies over and above health and safety issues. When President Obama appointed Michael Taylor in 2009 as senior adviser for the FDA, a fierce protest ensued from consumer groups and environmentalists. Why? Taylor used to be vice president for Monsanto, a multinational interested in marketing genetically modified (GM) food. It was during his term that GMO’s were approved in the US without undergoing tests to determine if they were safe for human consumption.

The danger of GMO’s

The question of whether or not genetically modified foods (GMO’s) are safe for human consumption is an ongoing debate that does not seem to see any resolution except in the arena of public opinion. Due to lack of labeling, Americans are still left at a loss as to whether or not what is on the table is genetically modified. This lack of information makes the avoiding and tracking of GM foods an exercise in futility. Below are just some of the food products popularly identified to be genetically modified:

1.Corn - Corn has been modified to create its own insecticide. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that tons of genetically modified corn has been introduced for human consumption. Monsanto has revealed that half of the US’s sweet corn farms are planted with genetically modified seed. Mice fed with GM corn were discovered to have smaller offspring and fertility problems.

2.Soy - Soy has also been genetically modified to resist herbicides. Soy products include soy flour, tofu, soy beverages, soybean oil and other products that may include pastries, baked products and edible oil. Hamsters fed with GM soy were unable to have offspring and suffered a high mortality rate.

3.Cotton - Like corn and soy, cotton has been designed to resist pesticides. It is considered food because its oil can be consumed. Its introduction in Chinese agriculture has produced a chemical that kills cotton bollworm, reducing the incidences of pests not only in cotton crops but also in neighboring fields of soybeans and corn. Incidentally, thousands of Indian farmers suffered severe rashes upon exposure to BT cotton.

4.Papaya - The virus-resistant variety of papaya was commercially introduced in Hawaii in 1999. Transgenic papayas comprised three-fourths of the total Hawaiian papaya crop. Monsanto bestowed upon Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in Coimbatore technology for developing papaya resistant to the ringspot virus in India.

5.Rice - This staple food from South East Asia has now been genetically modified to contain a high amount of vitamin A. Allegedly, there are reports of rice varieties containing human genes to be grown in the US. The rice will create human proteins useful for dealing with infant diarrhea in the 3rd world. China Daily, an online journal, reported potential serious public health and environment problems with genetically modified rice considering its tendency to cause allergic reactions with the concurrent possibility of gene transfers.

6.Tomatoes - Tomatoes have now been genetically engineered for longer shelf life, preventing them from easily rotting and degrading. In a test conducted to determine the safety of GM tomatoes, some animal subjects died within a few weeks after consuming GM tomatoes.

7.Rapeseed - In Canada, this crop was renamed canola to differentiate it from non-edible rapeseed. Food stuff produced from rapeseed includes rapeseed oi (canola oil) l used to process cooking oil and margarine. Honey can also be produced from GM rapeseed. German food surveillance authorities discovered as much as a third of the total pollen present in Canadian honey may be from GM pollen. In fact, some honey products from Canada were also discovered to have pollen from GM rapeseed.

8.Dairy products - It has been discovered that 22 percent of cows in the U.S. were injected with recombinant (genetically modified) bovine growth hormone (rbGH). This Monsanto created hormone artificially forces cows to increase their milk production by 15 percent. Milk from cows treated with this milk inducing hormone contains increased levels of IGF-1 (insulin growth factors-1). Humans also have IGF-1 in their system. Scientists have expressed concerns that increased levels of IGF-1 in humans have been associated with colon and breast cancer.

9.Potatoes - Mice fed with potatoes engineered with Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki Cry 1 were found to have toxins in their system. Despite claims to the contrary, this shows that Cry1 toxin was stable in the mouse gut. When the health risks were revealed, it sparked a debate.

10.Peas - Peas that have been genetically modified have been found to cause immune responses in mice and possibly even in humans. A gene from kidney beans was inserted into the peas creating a protein that functions as a pesticide.

The GMO link to strange disease

As early as 2008, NaturalNews.com reported about a condition called Morgellon’s disease. The article went on to report the symptoms of the disease as follows: crawling, stinging, biting and crawling sensations; threads or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; granules, lesions. Some patients report fatigue, short term memory loss, mental confusion, joint pain and changes in vision. Furthermore, there have been reports of substantial morbidity and social dysfunction leading to a dip in work productivity, job loss, total disability, divorce, loss of child custody and home abandonment.

Prior to its reporting, the condition was dismissed as a hoax, but upon further investigation, the evidence pointed out that the disease was real and may be related to genetically modified food.

Despite this link being established, the CDC declared Morgellon’s disease of unknown origin. Worse, the medical community could not offer any information to the public regarding a cause for the symptoms.

When a research study was conducted on fiber samples taken from Morgellons patients, it was discovered that the fiber samples of all the patients looked remarkable similar. And yet, it did not seem to match any common environmental fiber. When the fiber was broken down, and it’s DNA extracted, it was discovered to belong to a fungus. Even more surprising was the finding that the fibers contained Agrobacterium, a genus gram-negative bacteria with the capacity of transforming plant, animal and even human cells.

Morgellon’s disease is not the only condition associated with genetically modified foods. A growing body of evidence has shown that it may cause allergies, immune reactions, liver problems, sterility and even death. Moreover, based on the only human feeding experiment conducted on genetically modified food, it was established that genetic material in genetically modified food product can transfer into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and still continue to thrive.

Heeding the warning

Time and again, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has warned that GMOs pose a serious threat to health, and it is no accident that there can be a correlation between it and adverse health effects. In fact, the AAEM has advised doctors to tell their patients to avoid GMOs as the introduction of GMOs into the current food supply has correlated with an alarming rise in chronic diseases and food allergies.

This should come as no surprise. More than 30 years ago a food supplement called L-trytophan killed 100 people and affected 5,000 to 10,000 more. The cause was narrowed down to the genetic engineering process used in its production. If the symptoms had not had three simultaneous characteristics – namely, they were unique, acute and fast-acting – the disease could never have been identified.

If science could assure us with certainty that serious consequences do not wait for us at the end of the line, it might be to our best interest to let this opportunity pass. Progressive thinking in terms of profit is certainly not wrong. But to brush off precaution on the convenient argument that there is not enough evidence to prove that GM food is indeed harmful is sheer irresponsibility. It certainly is a lame excuse to offer in the event that GM foods are indeed proven to contain health hazards

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

The Oil that May Help Relieve Arthritis, Sciatica and Back Pain

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Folk healers around the world have used castor oil to treat a wide variety of ailments.You are probably aware that castor oil is regarded by some as a remedy for constipation.

But you may not be aware of its reported use as an antiviral, antibacterial, and antifungal, or that it has been used topically to treat a variety of skin conditions, reduce pain, and stimulate your immune system.

Read on, because I’m about to explore the myth and mystery of this unusual oil, and of course, investigate what modern science has to say about it.

However, regardless of what some of the research has suggested, you should be very cautious when experimenting with castor oil since the science is sparse at best, and there are several known reports of unpleasant side effects experienced by some users.

History of the Castor Seed: Ricinus Communis

Castor oil comes from the castor seed, Ricinus communis, which has a very unusual chemical composition.

Castor oil is a triglyceride, comprised of fatty acids, 90 percent of which is ricinoleic acid.

This unique fatty acid is found in lower concentrations in a few other seeds and oils (0.27 percent in cottonseed oil and 0.03 percent in soybean oil) and is thought to be responsible for castor oil’s unique healing properties.

The castor seed plant is native to India.

Centuries ago, the plant was referred to as “Palma Christe” because the leaves were said to resemble the hand of Christ.

This association likely arose out of people’s reverence for the plant’s healing abilities.

It was later adopted for medicinal use in Ancient Egypt, China, Persia, Africa, Greece, Rome, and eventually in 17th Century Europe and the Americas. Castor oil is now widely used in industry. The stem of the plant is used in the textile industry, particularly in Russia, where castor oil is known as “Kastorka.” The oil has a very consistent viscosity and won’t freeze, which makes it ideal for lubricating equipment in severely cold climates.

Modern non-medicinal uses for castor oil include:

  • Food additive and flavoring agent
  • Mold inhibitor
  • Ingredient in skin care products and cosmetics (lipstick, shampoo, soap, and others)
  • Used in the manufacturing of plastics, rubbers, synthetic resins, fibers, paints, varnishes, lubricants, sealants, dyes, and leather treatments; the lubricants company Castrol took its name from castor oil

Castor oil was first used as an aircraft lubricant in World War I. So, castor oil has a number of handy industrial uses. But did you know that the castor seeds from which castor oil is made can be DEADLY?

Part of the Castor Seed Heals—But Another Part Kills!

The potent toxin ricin is made from a protein in the castor seeds that, if ingested (orally, nasally, or injected), gets into the ribosomes of your cells where it prevents protein synthesis, which kills the cells. Ricin is made from the “mash” that is left over after processing castor seeds into oil. Just 1 milligram of ricin is fatal if inhaled or ingested, and much less than that if injected. Eating just 5 to 10 castor seeds would be fatal.

Once poisoned, there’s no antidote, which is why ricin has been used as a chemical warfare agent. Even though such a toxic component is also derived from this seed, castor oil isn’t considered dangerous.

According to the International Journal of Toxicology’s Final Report on Castor Oil, you don’t have to worry about castor oil being contaminated by ricin, because ricin does not “partition” into the castor oil. Castor oil has been added to cosmetic products for many years, without incident. For example, castor oil and hydrogenated castor oil were reportedly used in 769 and 202 cosmetic products, respectively, in 2002.

The U.S. FDA gives castor oil a “thumbs up,” deeming it “generally regarded as safe and effective” for use as a stimulant laxative. The Joint Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/ World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives has established an acceptable daily castor oil intake of up to 0.7 mg/kg body weight. This amounts to, roughly, one tablespoon for adults and one teaspoon for children. Taking castor oil orally usually results in a “purging” of the digestive tract in about four to six hours.

According to the International Castor Oil Association, castor oil studies in which people were dosed with castor oil at dietary concentrations as high as 10 percent for 90 days did not produce any ill effects.

In spite of the fact that U.S. FDA and the International Castor Oil Association have pronounced castor oil to be safe, if you are going to try it, as I’ve mentioned previously, proceed with extreme caution because a number of negative side effects have been reported.

Castor Oil is NOT without Side Effects

Castor oil’s main side effects fall into the categories of skin reactions and gastrointestinal upset, which isn’t terribly surprising given the agent’s actions on your intestinal wall.

Castor oil is broken down by your small intestine into ricinoleic acid, which acts as an irritant to your intestinal lining. This effect is what gives castor oil the ability to reverse constipation—but it’s also the reason that some people report digestive discomfort, diarrhea, and other gastrointestinal side effects. If you suffer from cramps, irritable bowel, ulcers, diverticulitis, hemorrhoids, colitis, prolapses, or have recently undergone surgery, you should probably avoid castor oil due to these possible adverse reactions.

Although castor oil has been traditionally used to help stimulate labor in healthy pregnant women, there are widespread reports of nausea, including one study in 2001 that found nausea to be almost universally experienced by these women.

A Home Remedy that’s Survived for Millennia

Adverse effects notwithstanding, Indians would traditionally boil seed kernels or hulls in milk and water, and then consume the brew to relieve arthritis, lower back pain, and sciatica. According to Williams’ article, castor seed plants are widely used in India for all sorts of medical problems, including the following:

  • Constipation
  • Dysentery
  • Inflammatory bowel disease
  • Bladder and vaginal infections
  • Asthma

Canary Islanders made poultices from the leaves of the castor plant to treat gynecological problems. Nursing mothers applied these poultices to their breasts to increase milk secretion and relieve inflammation of their mammary glands, and applied the poultice to their abdomens to promote normal menstruation. The topical absorption of castor oil is the basis for more modern “castor oil packs,” which I’ll be discussing later in detail.

Modern Medicinal Uses for Castor Oil

In general, the reported medicinal uses of castor oil fall into the following five general categories:

  1. Gastrointestinal remedy
  2. Antimicrobial (antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal)
  3. Labor stimulant
  4. Anti-inflammatory and analgesic
  5. Immune system and lymphatic stimulant

The oil’s benefits can be derived by topical application, and it appears to be useful for a variety of skin conditions like keratosis, dermatosis, wound healing, acne, ringworm, warts and other skin infections, sebaceous cysts, itching, and even hair loss. Castor oil and ricinoleic acid also enhance the absorption of other agents across your skin.

And castor oil shows some promise in the treatment of cancer. According to the American Cancer Society :

“Oncologists now use castor oil as a vehicle for delivering some chemotherapy drugs to cancerous tumors. A special formula of castor oil called Cremophor EL is used as a carrier for paclitaxel, a drug used to treat metastatic breast cancer and other tumors. Unfortunately, the vehicle sometimes causes problems of its own, including allergic reactions. This has prompted a search for substitute carriers.”

They also report that early clinical trials suggest that ricin, when combined with an antibody to confine this poison to malignant cells, shrinks tumors in lymphoma patients. In fact, castor oil has been reportedly used to treat all of the following conditions listed below. While I certainly cannot attest to castor oil’s efficacy for all of these conditions (as there is not enough research to date), I list them here as a way to illustrate the wide array of possibilities.

Studies Support Castor Oil’s Efficacy as an Antimicrobial, Anti-Inflammatory, and Immunostimulant

While castor oil has been thoroughly investigated for its industrial use, only a minimal amount of research has been directed toward its medicinal benefits. That said, the healing properties of castor oil appear to have survived countless generations of scrutiny.

I believe it has enough history behind it to at least warrant greater scientific exploration, and perhaps a little careful at-home experimentation on your own. Oftentimes, modern day scientific studies end up validating thousands of years of “folklore.” Castor oil studies are hard to track down, but I did find a few notable ones, which I have summarized in the table below.

Castor Oil May Promote Healing by Boosting Your Lymphatic System

One of the more compelling health benefits, if true, is castor oil’s support of your immune system. And this healing property does not require you ingest the oil, but only apply it externally.

The benefits of castor oil packs were popularized by the late psychic healer Edgar Cayce, and then later researched by primary care physician William McGarey of Phoenix, Arizona, a follower of Cayce’s work and the author of The Oil That Heals. McGarey reported that, when used properly, castor oil packs improve the function of your thymus gland and other components of your immune system. More specifically, he found in two separate studies that patients using abdominal castor oil packs had significant increases in lymphocyte production compared to placebo packs.

Lymphocytes are your immune system’s disease-fighting cells and are produced and stored mainly in your lymphatic tissue (thymus gland, spleen, and lymph nodes). Hundreds of miles of lymphatic tubules allow waste to be collected from your tissues and transported to your blood for elimination, a process referred to as lymphatic drainage. When your lymphatic system is not working properly, waste and toxins can build up and make you sick.

Lymphatic congestion is a major factor leading to inflammation and disease.

This is where castor oil comes in. When castor oil is absorbed through your skin (according to Cayce and McGarey), your lymphocyte count increases. Increased lymphocytes speed up the removal of toxins from your tissues, which promotes healing.

Castor Oil Packs a Punch, Topically

Castor oil “packs” can be an economical and efficient method of infusing the ricinoleic acid and other healing components of castor oil directly into your tissues. You would be wise to do a “patch test” prior to applying a castor oil pack to make sure you aren’t allergic to the oil.

There are several ways to use castor oil topically. You can simply rub castor oil onto an affected area of your skin. Or, you can affix a Band-Aide soaked in castor oil if only a very small area needs to be treated. For larger or more systemic applications, it can be used as massage oil, which is reported especially effective when applied along your spinal column, massaged along your lymphatic drainage pathways. But the coup de grace of castor oil therapy is the “castor oil pack.”

To make a castor oil pack, you will need the following supplies:

  1. High quality cold-pressed castor oil (see last section of this article)
  2. A hot water bottle or heating pad
  3. Plastic wrap, sheet of plastic, or plastic garbage bag
  4. Two or three one-foot square pieces of wool or cotton flannel, or one piece large enough to cover the entire treatment area when folded in thirds
  5. One large old bath towel

Below are instructions for making and using a castor oil pack (courtesy of Daniel H. Chong, ND):

  • Fold flannel three layers thick so it is still large enough to fit over your entire upper abdomen and liver, or stack the three squares.
  • Soak flannel with the oil so that it is completely saturated. The oil should be at room temperature.
  • Lie on your back with your feet elevated (using a pillow under your knees and feet works well), placing flannel pack directly onto your abdomen; cover oiled flannel with the sheet of plastic, and place the hot water bottle on top of the plastic.
  • Cover everything with the old towel to insulate the heat. Take caution not to get the oil on whatever you are laying on, as it can stain. If necessary, cover that surface with something to protect it.
  • Leave pack on for 45 to 60 minutes.
  • When finished, remove the oil from your skin by washing with a solution of two tablespoons of baking soda to one quart water, or just soap and water. (Be sure to wash the towel by itself, as the castor oil can make other clothes stink if washed together.)
  • You can reuse the pack several times, each time adding more oil as needed to keep the pack saturated. Store the pack in a large zip-lock bag or other plastic container in a convenient location, such as next to your bed. Replace the pack after it begins to change color.
  • For maximum effectiveness, apply at least four consecutive days per week for one month. Patients who use the pack daily report the most benefits.

Be Cautious when Purchasing Castor Oil

As with everything else, you must be careful about your source of castor oil. Much of the oil currently sold in stores is derived from castor seeds that have been heavily sprayed with pesticides, solvent-extracted (hexane is commonly used), deodorized, or otherwise chemically processed, which damages beneficial phytonutrients and may even contaminate the oil with toxic agents.

Again, let me emphasize, many of the health benefits of castor oil are more anecdotal than scientific, and side effects have been reported. As with anything new, proceed carefully so that you can minimize any unexpected reactions. I invite your comments about any experiences—positive or negative—related to your use of castor oil. I am always curious about your impressions and experience with natural remedies, and your feedback is welcome, as always.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Fibroids – What We Can Do About Healing Them

Posted on by
Reply

By Andreas Moritz 

Hi, this is a question with regard to fibroids, what causes fibroids and what we can do about them.

Fibroids basically are deposits or accumulation of dead proteins and I wholeheartedly recommend that we avoid eating cadaver foods that, if they are not properly digested, can lead to accumulation of proteins in various parts of the body.

What happens if you eat a cadaver like a chicken, fish or meat, what happens is that we cannot digest the entire piece of meat, chicken or fish, only a fraction of it and the reason for that is because the amount of hydrochloric acid in our stomach is not concentrated enough to digest the entire piece.

So if you eat a steak, you may digest only 15 to 20 % of that piece of meat, and the rest of it will remain undigested and the heating of the meat, whatever method you use, will denature the proteins, that means rip apart the molecular structure that bonds the amino acids to form those proteins together, and it destroys the three dimensional structure of proteins.

So here you have a huge number of dismembered protein chains that are bits and pieces of protein fragments that somehow make their way into the bloodstream, they are absorbed, and there is some research to show that normally only amino acids can be absorbed, but these denatured proteins they also get absorbed, and that is a major problem for the body, because you cannot really utilize them.

One way to deal with them is to assimilate or accumulate these protein fragments in what is known as the basal membranes of the blood reservoir. And the basal membrane has the capacity to accumulate up to eight times its normal thickness and gather or collect these proteins there, and this stiffens the blood vessels, it makes it dead almost, and it becomes like fibroids tissue.

If that happens in the uterus, for example, you can develop fibroid tissue there, if it happens in the spleen you can develop fibroid tissue, if it happens in the liver then the liver is gathering fibroid tissue. So it doesn’t matter where it is, it could be in the breast, it could be even in the brain.

So wherever these protein fragments make their way through into the system, that when you start collecting dead proteins in the blood vessel wall, and then eventually in other parts as well. Once there is a saturation point reached in the blood vessels, it will also accumulate in the fluid that surrounds the cells and then it can spread almost like wildfire.

So, I suggest avoiding those kinds of foods that can trigger that, and also there is another effect that happens with these kinds of foods, the undigested proteins that are 90 % or 80 % of the meat, chicken, fish that have not been digested will be broken down into waste matter. It’s called putrefaction and the toxins that these bacteria produce will be absorbed by the lymphatic system particularly the part of the lymph system in the belly button area called Cisterna chyli and that will eventually create a blockage, congestion, in that part of the lymph system and that Cisterna chyli vessel has like little roots that go down into the uterus, ovaries, the legs ,and they are responsible for taking up any metabolic waste products and dead cell material that is part of the natural turnover of cells.

You have to understand that the body is turning over thirty billion cells per day and that’s a huge amount of dead proteins that has to be removed on a day-to-day basis. If your lymph vessel is getting congested in the belly button area, in the Cisterna chyli vessel – you will find an illustration in my book “Timeless Secrets Of Health And Rejuvenation” – once that congestion has been there for a considerable amount of time, we are talking about weeks or months or years, then the ability of the uterus, for example, to get rid of the turned over cells will not be there any more and these dead cell materials will accumulate, and so your body will start developing extra tissues in order to accommodate these waste products.

So when these things have occurred, I definitely recommend to change your diet, lifestyle, eating habits, so that your digestive functions are improving.

Liver flushes will of course help to reduce the lymph congestion simply by allowing your body to digest food more effectively and you make less waste products which could once again cause lymph congestion. So by taking care of these basic things, your problems – fibroids – should diminish over time.

The body uses proteolytic enzymes to do that. Once the congestion has subsided then, the body can, once again, digest these dead protein structures fibroids and remove them naturally. If you want to support the body in doing that, sometimes it helps to take a proteolytic enzyme like Seaprose, which is known to be one of the most effective proteolytic enzymes to deal with fibroids and other problems.

But I am always on the caution, I am always in favor of allowing the body to do the job itself, rather than we doing the job for it, because there is a very fine delicate balance called homeostasis and you don’t want to introduce something into the body too long or too much, because then the body will produce less of the same substance, or in this case enzyme, proteolytic enzyme. It’s always best to stimulate the body’s own enzymes rather than just replacing them with supplementation.

So hope this gives you some ideas about fibroid tissues and what you can do about them.

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyperlink back to the web page

Risks and Benefits of a Raw Food Diet

Posted on by
2

By Andreas Moritz 

Hi, this is a question that I am getting a lot. It’s related to raw food diets.

I have previously, in my book “Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation”, spoken out against a raw food diet for everyone. There are some exceptions where a raw food diet, or mostly raw food diet, is actually pretty good and to say basically that a raw food diet should be eaten by everyone, I am very, very careful saying that because some people can absolutely not digest a lot of raw food, otherwise they develop constipation, or they develop dry skin, severe gastrointestinal bloating, gas and irritable bowel syndrome. So one has to be very careful about who we suggest to go on a raw food diet.

The basic idea is that when you eat foods that are raw, you will get a lot of enzymes and vitamins that are not destroyed through the cooking process and therefore you would benefit far more from eating raw foods, than you would eat from eating cooked foods.

But the equation is not quite as clear as it looks like. Eating raw food, more nutrients, it can mean the exact opposite. For example, raw foods are requiring a lot more breaking down of fiber that may be broken down through the cooking process, but if you have too much of undigested fiber coming through the system and ending up in your large intestine, much of it may be fermented by bacteria that reside there and when they are broken down, this can produce a lot of gas, methane gas and other toxic gases that can be absorbed into the blood and enter the brain, and it can cause brain fog and many other undesirable side effects.

The other problem is that bacteria that decompose those fibrous masses can produce a lot of toxins and these toxins can irritate the gastrointestinal lining and create more problems than you can benefit from by eating those kinds of foods.

The other thing is that cellulose, which is the principle fibrous component that is comprising the cell membranes, the cell wall of vegetables and other grain foods that are raw, in raw form when you cook these foods, this fibrous compound, the cellulose, starts softening up and releases some of the nutrients that are in the cellulose that are embedded there. So you may actually have more access to the nutrients in cooked food than you would have in raw food because it is virtually impossible for the human body to crush these very, very sturdy membranes or cell membranes that are composed of cellulose and therefore the nutrients may, in fact, be trapped inside the cells, because the cell walls cannot be broken down. So as a result you may actually develop a nutritional deficiency if you are purely on a raw food diet, particularly if the raw foods include foods that are very hard to sort of break down, that are easily broken down through heat, but cannot be broken down through mastication.

And if you then say “well, let’s juice these foods, they are just… let’s take them through a juicer and drink the juice…” The problem with that approach is that there are certain substances in the fiber that is actually slowing down the digestive process which in this case, is very good, because if the food passes through the gastrointestinal tract too fast because there is no fiber to slow it down, then the nutrients will not be absorbed properly, they will just rush right down into your large intestine, so that’s one setback with eating too much raw food or drinking the juices.

The other thing is that when you juice your food instead of eating it whole, then you are most likely going to drink the juices rather than keeping it in the mouth and swishing it around for about 20 – 30 times in order to combine it with salivary enzymes. Now, we need salivary enzymes to predigest the carbohydrates contained in these foods, these juices, and if that is not combined with the juices, then these foods may not be digested at all. Instead there will be other bacteria that are known to ferment food such as candida bacteria coming in large quantities and try to digest them, so to get rid of also some of the toxic elements that may be included in raw food.

When people say raw foods cannot be toxic, but that is not entirely true, in fact they can be very toxic, for example eat a potato in raw form, you can be poisoned by it, if you eat beans in large quantities, you can also get poisoned, you can actually die from that. So raw food is not necessarily safe in that form, that’s why countries like India and China and many South American countries have traditionally prepared their food to a point that it loses, almost strips the food of almost all the nutrients, and like when Peruvians used to treat potatoes, they would put them out in the sun, they crushed them, they put them in a solution that would draw acids out of the potatoes, then turn it into a fine powder exposing it to the sun again, adding perhaps some substances, minerals, that would help to reduce the toxicity to actually make the potatoes useful for them, but it would have been a potato that will have very little nutrients left, still the Peruvians were known to be extremely healthy.

So it’s not always related to the nutrients, but also to having foods that are less toxic, because when lot of the antibodies in plants remain in the plants when you eat them, then your body’s immune system may react very strongly against them, seeing them as antigens, and once you have an immune response, it can cause inflammation in the intestine or elsewhere in the body, typically know as an allergic reaction.

So the importance here is to understand that plants contain poisons, these are antibodies, everybody has an immune system and immune system has many different ways of defending the plant from being eaten by predators, or insects, from being damaged, and having these repair and protective mechanisms in place allows the plant to survive, and to thrive, and to spread their species. So these are plant antibodies or enzyme inhibitors or other kinds of toxic substances are ingested by us if we eat raw foods, raw vegetables, in larger quantities, if it’s in smaller quantities there is no problem.

If the vegetables are soft, if they are like lettuce, or avocado, cucumber, and things like that have lesser fibrous compounds in them, that are very juicy and soft, these are fine to eat in raw form as a salad, ideally eaten before lunch meal and that will allow these foods to be digested properly before you eat the cooked food, so always eat the salad first, before the cooked food, because that will prepare the digestive system, and allow the enzymes to be produced, for raw food that may be necessary to take advantage of the nutrients in these softer vegetables.

Harder vegetables should be cooked, not overly cooked. There should still be resistance when you put your fork in it, so that the nutrients are preserved. I personally use waterless cookware, which you can find now everywhere. Do a search on Google, ‘waterless cookware’, you will find many cookware brands out there that help you cook your food in a way that the nutrients, the enzymes, the vitamins, are preserved and not destroyed through high heat procedures like cooking, baking, frying and so on.

The advantage for a so-called Pitta body type eating more raw food in their diet is that raw food has a cooling effect, which for this body type who tends to be hot, tends to have a reddish skin, reddish hair or red hair, tends to have blue eyes, very sensitive to heat, so they need to be in a cooler environment, and also have more cooling foods. So their portion of eating raw foods should be higher than a person that Ayurveda calls the Kapha type or the Vata type, which are the cool types, they both have cool surface temperature of the skin and the Pitta type has hot surface temperature of the skin. The Pitta body type also has the most bile available to digest food and that is very useful for digesting raw foods. The Vata body type and Kapha body types have the least amount of bile and therefore they should not overly indulge in raw foods but choose more of the cooked food variety and there is more information about all that in my book “Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation” where you can see a detailed comparison between raw food diets and cooked food diets and I personally eat a mixed diet.

I do eat raw food, perhaps sometimes I eat like… cucumber and avocado, and some olives with some lemon juice and olive oil in the morning, with some rice cakes or some bread and butter on it, and that makes me happy, or oatmeal which is cooked, or at lunch time I always start with a salad, a mixed salad, and then have my cooked vegetables and some grain foods, and perhaps some lentils and beans or nuts and seeds with my lunch, and in the evening I eat vegetable soup with a little piece of bread with it, and that’s cooked obviously as well.

So having said that, I hope this information will shed a little light on why raw food diets are not good for every person, good for some, not for everyone, and that if you do feel great with a raw food diet go for it, if you don’t, be careful, the signs that you are not digesting raw food is typically bloating, gas, discomfort, feeling sluggish, losing energy and having brain fog, getting headaches, and things like that.

So I hope this will clarify the issue.

Thank you.

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyperlink back to the web page

Over 60 Billion Doses a Year and Not ONE Death, But Still Not Safe?

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Vitamins, minerals and herbal supplements have a tremendously safe track record, yet they are often singled out as being potentially dangerous by government agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This – the notion that dietary supplements are unsafe — is the premise behind the FDA’s Draft Guidance on New Dietary Ingredients, which would require the supplement industry to prove the safety of natural ingredients that, in many cases, have been on the market and used safely for decades.

As new research from the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System reveals, there were zero deaths linked to nutritional supplements in 2010, the most current data available.

Zero Deaths Linked to Vitamin Supplements

However, in the FDA’s new Draft Guidance, the FDA is essentially claiming that dietary supplements are unsafe, and implying that in order to “protect consumers” the agency must place a stranglehold on the dietary supplement industry by requesting exorbitant safety testing.

These ludicrous safety thresholds are in excess of those required by pharmaceutical drugs — despite extensive toxicological data showing supplements are far safer than drugs.

The most recent data comes from the U.S. National Poison Data System’s annual report, which tracked data from 57 U.S. poison centers and showed vitamin and mineral supplements caused zero deaths in 2010.

As noted by Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, Americans easily take more than 60 billion doses of nutritional supplements every year, and with zero related deaths this is an outstanding safety record:

“Well over half of the U.S. population takes daily nutritional supplements. Even if each of those people took only one single tablet daily, that makes 165,000,000 individual doses per day, for a total of over 60 billion doses annually. Since many persons take far more than just one single vitamin or mineral tablet, actual consumption is considerably higher, and the safety of nutritional supplements is all the more remarkable.

Over 60 billion doses of vitamin and mineral supplements per year in the USA, and not a single fatality. Not one. If vitamin and mineral supplements are allegedly so “dangerous,” as the FDA and news media so often claim, then where are the bodies?”

In striking contrast, drugs are known to cause well over 125,000 deaths per year when taken correctly as prescribed – yet the FDA allows “fast-track” approvals and countless new additions to the marketplace. So why are dietary supplements on the chopping block?

Why is the FDA Attacking Dietary Supplements That Have Been Used Safely for Decades?

Back in the early 1990s, the FDA threatened the availability of dietary supplements to the point that consumers staged a massive revolt, which resulted in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).

The law specifically protects your access to dietary supplements by classifying them as foods, not food additives or drugs, and it grand-fathered in dietary supplements that were already in use as of 1994. Only novel ingredients introduced after October 15, 1994 are required to seek FDA approval.

The FDA’s new proposed mandates directly contradict what DSHEA sought to prevent, and the FDA is using its authority in direct violation of Congressional intent. As explained in an article by Alliance for Natural Health, the proposed regulations turn what was clearly supposed to be a pre-market notification system into a pre-approval system, just like that of drugs.

As a result, dietary supplements that have been freely available for nearly two decades can now be forced off the market until they receive New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) approval. And the NDI approval process is a lengthy affair that may take months or years to complete, and cost a small fortune. Bringing a drug from the pre-clinical (or discovery phase) all the way to market can easily take more than a decade and cost significantly more than $1 billion! This despite the fact that contrary to drugs, fatalities from vitamins and other supplements are minuscule.

According to the 2001 report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), of the substances implicated in fatal poisonings in 2001, 84.6 percent were pharmaceutical drugs, with analgesics being implicated as the primary cause of death in 32 percent of fatalities or 341 deaths. This compares with 0.8 percent for all dietary supplements combined, even including substances such as dinitrophenol, a dangerous (and illegal) substance banned in 1938, as well as the central nervous system stimulant Ma Huang (Ephedra). Interestingly, the anti-asthma drug theophylline alone was responsible for 15 deaths, 66 percent more than all the available dietary supplements combined.

What might make an “old” ingredient “new,” under the new regulation?

The methods of production and extraction, for example … As bizarre as that sounds, the mere fact that a product is being extracted or produced by improved means compared to methods used in the past, could reclassify any grandfathered nutrient as an NDI that would now have to undergo the same type of safety testing and approval process as a drug.

FDA Seeking Outrageous Safety Studies from Tried and True Supplements

In some cases, the FDA will require manufacturers to conduct outrageously expensive studies using absurdly high doses, in some situations multiplied by a “safety factor” up to 2,000-times the recommended dosage on a per product basis. Further, the FDA proposes that new dietary supplement ingredients should adhere to aggressive safety margins, which are typically reserved for chemical compounds known to be dangerous in all but the most miniscule concentrations.

Since food additives or preservatives such as aspartame, monosodium glutamate, and sodium nitrate are known to cause cancer or other severe health problems, the FDA has implemented safety guidelines that limit allowable concentrations of these food additives to levels that are supposed to be physiologically inert.

The fact that the FDA is trying to impose the same limits upon dietary supplements seems to be arbitrary and completely unfounded. In fact, when someone takes a dietary supplement, their intent is to positively affect the structure or function of their bodies in some way — limiting dosages of dietary supplements to physiologically inert levels defeats the entire purpose of supplementation with health-sustaining nutrients.

And, since supplements are not patented drugs, virtually no supplement manufacturers will be able to afford these “safety” studies, which means that many of the nutrients you now purchase at low prices will convert into high-priced drugs, or simply disappear from the market entirely.

The Drug Industry is the Real Safety Threat

While the U.S. National Poison Data System’s annual report showed zero deaths from nutritional supplements, this was not the case for prescription and over-the-counter drugs. The top categories associated with the largest number of fatalities were ALL medications, including:

  1. Analgesics, sedatives, hypnotics, and antipsychotics
  2. Cardiovascular drugs
  3. Opioids
  4. Acetaminophen combinations
  5. Antidepressants

Slightly lower down on the list were more drugs, including muscle relaxants, anti-inflammatory drugs, hormones, antacids, anticoagulants, antihistamines and more. Out of a total 1,366 reported fatalities, pharmaceuticals were involved in over 1,100 of these deaths (again, compared to zero for supplements). Keep in mind that this is not an estimate of all the deaths attributed to pharmaceuticals in the U.S., only those reported to 57 poison control centers. The total figure is closer to 125,000 deaths from pharmaceuticals per year.

If you extrapolate this number out over 30 years this is well in excess of 3 million people who died from taking appropriately prescribed legal drugs. It is simply incomprehensible that any rational approach would seek to vilify supplements over drugs when the data in no way, shape or form supports it. The most likely motive for this position is financial greed that can put your life in jeopardy.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

The Beverage that is Even WORSE than High Fructose Corn Syrup Soda

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

When a new beverage comes out advertising “60% less sugar—drink it to believe it”—the challenge is on. Same taste; fewer calories to your waist? Sounds good, doesn’t it?

But before you throw that Pepsi Next into your grocery cart, Fooducate.com suggests you complete the challenge by reading the ingredient label.

There you’ll find that, indeed, the sugar content has been reduced.

But it’s still the second ingredient after water—four teaspoons of it,  in fact, in the form of high fructose corn syrup. The secret to keeping this beverage sweet-tasting, however, comes further on down, in the form of aspartame, acesulfame potassium, and sucralose.

So, really, all that’s changed with this new beverage is that 6 teaspoons of sugar have been substituted with three sweeteners that are even worse. Yes, although I strongly recommend avoiding all soda, you would be far better off with the strictly high fructose corn syrup sweetened version.

Artificial Sweeteners have No Place in a Healthful Diet…

Artificial sweeteners are frequently recommended as a practical way of replacing sugar found in the modern diet. But the research on nonnutritive sweeteners such as these three shows they’re far from healthful alternatives to sugar. (A recent article on HealthyFellow.com lists a few of them as a hand reference .First of all, contrary to popular belief, research has shown that artificial sweeteners can:

  • Stimulate your appetite
  • Increase carbohydrate cravings
  • Stimulate fat storage and weight gain. In fact, diet sodas, which are well-known sources of artificial sweeteners, may actually double your risk of obesity!

So much for being a dieter’s best friend… Furthermore, aspartame (rebranded AminoSweet two years ago)—best known under the names of Nutrasweet and Equal—is believed to be carcinogenic and accounts for more reports of adverse reactions than all other foods and food additives combined.

The artificial sweetener acesulfame potassium (Acesulfame-K) has been linked to kidney problems, and sucralose—best known as Splenda—has been found to wreak havoc with the healthful bacteria in your gut… All in all, I believe ALL artificial sweeteners are bad news for your health.

Why Aspartame is FAR Worse than Sugar

While many of the artificial sweeteners have reportedly similar side effects, aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious, including seizures and death. About 90 different adverse effects have been linked to aspartame, including:

Recent research also suggests diet sodas may increase stroke risk, and according to researchers and physicians studying the adverse effects of aspartame, the following chronic illnesses can be triggered or worsened by ingesting of aspartame:

Aspartame—”A Chemical Poison”?

The book “Prescription for Nutritional Healing” by James and Phyllis Balch lists aspartame under the category of “chemical poison.” While many still refuse to believe that toxic or otherwise health-harming ingredients would be allowed to be used in food manufacturing, the evidence against aspartame and other artificial sweeteners is, in my opinion, overwhelming…

Aspartame is made up of three chemicals:

    1. Phenylalanine (50 percent)—Phenylalanine is an amino acid normally found in your brain. Persons with the genetic disorder phenylketonuria (PKU) cannot metabolize phenylalanine and must avoid it at all costs to prevent the accumulation of phenylalanine in their brain, which can be lethal. It has been shown that ingesting aspartame, especially along with carbohydrates, can lead to excess levels of phenylalanine in the brain even in persons who do not have PKU. Excessive levels of phenylalanine in your brain can decrease your serotonin levels, which in turn can provoke emotional disorders such as depression.
    2. Aspartic acid (40 percent)—According to the work of Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, a professor of neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi, there are about 500 scientific references showing that excess free excitatory amino acids such as aspartic acid and glutamic acid (about 99 percent of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is glutamic acid) in our food supply are causing serious chronic neurological disorders and a myriad of other acute symptoms.

Aspartate and glutamate act as neurotransmitters in your brain by facilitating the transmission of information from neuron to neuron. Excess aspartate or glutamate in your brain can kill off neurons by allowing the influx of too much calcium into your cells. This influx triggers excessive amounts of free radicals, which kill the cells. The neural cell damage that can be caused by excessive aspartate and glutamate is why they are referred to as “excitotoxins.” They literally “excite” or stimulate your neural cells to death. It is important not to confuse this with the amino acid glutamic acid, which is a normal part of foods and an important nutrient.

    1. Methanol (10 percent)—Methanol, also known as wood alcohol, is a deadly poison. It is gradually released in your small intestine once the methyl group of aspartame encounters the digestive enzyme chymotrypsin. Inside your body, methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde, the latter of which is another lethal neurotoxin and a known carcinogen, which passes freely through your blood brain barrier to cause brain damage.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), methanol is considered “a cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed. In the body, methanol is oxidized to formaldehyde and formic acid; both of these metabolites are toxic.” The EPA recommends limiting consumption of methanol to 7.8 mg/day. A one-liter (approx. 1 quart) aspartame-sweetened beverage contains about 56 mg of methanol. Heavy users of aspartame-containing products can consume as much as 250 mg of methanol daily, or 32 times the EPA limit. Signs and symptoms of methanol poisoning include:

Do Your Own Research, and Know what Side Effects to Look for…

Those who defend aspartame argue that phenylalanine and aspartic acid are a harmless and natural part of your diet. Indeed, both of these amino acids can be found in most of the protein foods you eat.  However, phenylalanine and aspartic acid can only be considered natural and harmless when they are consumed in combination with other amino acids in the correct ratios—NOT when consumed as isolated amino acids… When they’re consumed as free amino acids not part of food, they enter your central nervous system in abnormally high concentrations that can cause your neurons to fire excessively, and potentially lead to cell death as explained above.

Unfortunately, adverse effects are severely under-reported, which makes it far more difficult to get dangerous ingredients like aspartame off the market. When it comes to side effects from drugs and vaccines, a mere 1 to 4 percent of all adverse events are ever reported, which leads me to believe that adverse reactions from other FDA-regulated products, such as aspartame, is likely even lower…

It’s important to realize that in order to truly alert the FDA to a problem with a product they’ve approved, they must be notified by as many people who experience a problem as possible. I strongly recommend learning everything you can about the potential side effects of artificial sweeteners and keep a watchful eye out for adverse signs and symptoms (if you consume them). And if you experience side effects from aspartame or any other artificial sweetener, report it to the FDA.

The FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page lists the phone number for each state where you can report adverse reactions to any FDA-regulated product.

The following video will familiarize you with some of the side-effects you could encounter if you consume products containing this artificial sweetener. For more in-depth information about the chemical makeup of aspartame and its adverse health effects, please see this previous special report on aspartame. I also highly recommend Cori Brackett’s documentary film Sweet Misery.

How Sucralose Can Decimate Your Health

Sucralose (Splenda) is associated with many of the same adverse effects as aspartame, including:

This site also contains a long list of personal testimonials from readers who have suffered side effects from Splenda. In fact, we have more people on our site that have reported adverse reactions to Splenda than were formally studied in the research submitted for FDA approval! Additionally, and most notably, research published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health in 2008 found that Splenda:

  • reduces the amount of good bacteria in your intestines by 50 percent
  • increases the pH level in your intestines
  • affects a glycoprotein in your body that can have crucial health effects, particularly if you’re on certain medications as it can cause the rejection of drugs such as chemotherapy, AIDS treatments, and treatments for heart conditions
  • is absorbed by fat (contrary to previous claims)

It’s really a toss-up as to which artificial sweetener might be better or worse than the other, but the fact that sucralose can destroy up to HALF of your beneficial gut flora is truly alarming, as these bacteria are a vital part of your immune system and help support your general health—both physical and mental. Many people are already deficient in healthy bacteria due to excessive consumption of highly processed foods (which is why a high quality probiotic is one of the few supplements I recommend for nearly everyone), so just imagine the overall harm that can be inflicted by consuming an artificial sweetener that decimates your gut flora at such a high rate!

Are Your Health Problems Related to Artificial Sweeteners?

Many people belatedly realize they’ve been suffering reactions to one artificial sweetener or another. If you suspect an artificial sweetener might be to blame for a symptom you’re having, a good way to help you weed out the culprit is to do an elimination challenge. It’s easy to do, but you must read the ingredient labels for everything you put in your mouth to make sure you’re avoiding ALL artificial sweeteners.

To determine if you’re having a reaction to artificial sweeteners, take the following steps:

  • Eliminate all artificial sweeteners from your diet for two weeks.
  • After two weeks of being artificial sweetener-free, reintroduce your artificial sweetener of choice in a significant quantity (about three servings daily). Avoid other artificial sweeteners during this period.
  • Do this for one to three days and notice how you feel, especially as compared to when you were consuming no artificial sweeteners.
  • If you don’t notice a difference in how you feel after re-introducing your primary artificial sweetener for a few days, it’s a safe bet you’re able to tolerate it acutely, meaning your body doesn’t have an immediate, adverse response. However, this doesn’t mean your health won’t be damaged in the long run.
  • If you’ve been consuming more than one type of artificial sweetener, you can repeat steps 2 through 4 with the next one on your list.

Let me make it abundantly clear that even though you may not show immediate signs of any noticeable reaction after consuming artificial sweeteners, please don’t make the mistake of telling yourself “they must be OK for me”. I strongly urge you to avoid them at all costs. They are toxic to all humans and will not help you in any way shape or form.  If you would like to sweeten your food or beverages please use a natural artificial sweetener like stevia, Lo Han or xylitol.

Are there ANY Healthy Alternatives to Sugar?

There is enough evidence showing the dangers of consuming artificial sweeteners to fill an entire book — which is exactly why I wrote Sweet Deception. If you or your loved ones drink diet beverages or eat diet foods, this book will explain how you’ve been deceived about the truth behind artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose — for greed, for profits … at the expense of your health.

While excessive sugar consumption (primarily in the form of high fructose corn syrup, which is added to virtually all processed foods these days) is at the root of our skyrocketing obesity and chronic disease rates, swapping sugar/fructose for non-caloric artificial sweeteners is clearly NOT the answer…

So what other alternatives are there? And are any of them safer than sugar/fructose or artificial sweeteners?

One of the best alternatives is stevia; a highly sweet herb derived from the leaf of the South American stevia plant. It is completely safe in its natural form and can be used to sweeten most dishes and drinks. Keep in mind though that if you have insulin issues, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, or if you’re overweight, you’d be best to avoid all sweeteners, including stevia, since any sweetener can decrease your insulin sensitivity. Also avoid stevia-based sweeteners like Truvia and PureVia as they’ve been highly processed and contain only the active ingredient in the stevia plant, which may have unforeseen biochemical ramifications.

Lo han (or luo han guo) is another natural sweetener similar to Stevia. It’s an African sweet herb that can also be used, but it’s a bit more expensive and harder to find.

I do not recommend using agave syrup. This sweetener, which is falsely advertised as “natural,” is typically HIGHLY processed and is usually 80 percent fructose. Likewise, honey is also very high in fructose (about 53 percent fructose), but contrary to agave it is completely natural in its raw form, and has many health benefits when used in moderation.

Another safer alternative to sugar is to use pure glucose. You can buy pure glucose (dextrose) as a sweetener for about $1 a pound. It is only 70 percent as sweet as sucrose, so you’ll end up using a bit more of it for the same amount of sweetness, making it slightly more expensive than sucrose—but still well worth it for your health as it does not contain any fructose whatsoever. Glucose can be used directly by every cell in your body and as such is far safer than the metabolic poison fructose.

Remember, if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would benefit from avoiding ALL sweeteners. But for everyone else, if you are going to sweeten your foods and beverages anyway, I strongly encourage you to consider using regular Stevia, Lo han, or dextrose (pure glucose), and toss out ALL artificial sweeteners and any products that contain them.

If you’re having trouble weaning yourself off soda, try Turbo Tapping. Turbo Tapping is a clever use of the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), specifically designed to resolve many aspects of an addiction in a concentrated period of time.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Spike in US Autism Rates linked to High-Fructose Corn Syrup Consumption

Posted on by
Reply

By: Jonathan Benson
Source: NaturalNews.com

A new study published in the journal Clinical Epigenetics reveals that both the Standard American Diet (SAD) and various toxic environmental factors play a definitive and synergistic role in the development of autism. According to the study, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), mercury in vaccines, and agricultural pesticides are among the many cofactors that contribute to the onset of autism spectrum disorders, all of which deserve more attention from health authorities than they are currently getting.

Renee Dufault from the Food Ingredient and Health Research Institute (FIHRI) and her colleagues examined how various foods and environmental factors affect the neurodevelopment of children, and particularly how these factors inhibit the body’s ability to eliminate disease-causing toxins and heavy metals from the system. Known as “macroepigenetics,” this comprehensive approach to disease research offers unique insight into how the human body responds to multiple inputs from diet, environment, and genetics.

What the team discovered is that HFCS, for instance, which is a highly-processed chemical sweetener used in many processed foods and beverages, depletes the body of the natural mineral zinc. And zinc, of course, is responsible for cleansing the body of heavy metals like mercury, arsenic, and cadmium, as well as aluminum and other toxins that are known to disrupt proper brain development.

“To better address the explosion of autism, it’s critical we consider how unhealthy diets interfere with the body’s ability to eliminate toxic chemicals, and ultimately our risk for developing long-term health problems like autism,” said Dr. David Wallinga, co-author of the study and physician at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy(IATP).

You can view the complete study at the following link:
http://www.clinicalepigeneticsjournal.com

HFCS laden with brain-destroying chemicals, mercury

Back in 2009, it was revealed that HFCS is actually a source of heavy metal poisoning as well. The heavy processing required to produce HFCS involves the use of caustic soda chemicals and mercury, two brain-destroying chemicals that end up in the final product fed to millions of American children.

Ketchup, sodas, juice drinks, breads, crackers, cookies, and many other processed food items are loaded with HFCS, and these items are a staple in many children’s diets, including in the meals fed to them at school. So it is no wonder that children’s bodies are being overwhelmed by mercury and other autism-related toxins, which is only worsened by the onslaught of neurologically damaging vaccines, some of which still contain mercury, most of them received throughout their early childhood developmental years.

Besides affecting zinc levels, HFCS in particular has also been shown to deplete the body of calcium and other important vitamins and minerals as well. Without these and other critical nutrients, the body is unable to effectively protect itself against the myriad of toxic exposures it faces every single day, which include pesticide residues found on conventional produce, for instance, or flame retardant chemicals found in bedding and clothing.

“Rather than being independent sources of risk, factors like nutrition and exposure to toxic chemicals are cumulative and synergistic in their potential to disrupt normal development,” added Dr. Richard Deth, another co-author of the study and Professor of Pharmacology at Northwestern University near Chicago. “These epigenetic effects can also be transmitted across generations. As autism rates continue to climb it is imperative to incorporate this new epigenetic perspective into prevention, diagnosis and treatment strategies.”

Recent research has also pinpointed the artificial sweetener aspartame and other methanol-producing foods and environmental factors as causes of autism. And the ever-increasing childhood vaccination schedule is also directly linked to a significant uptick in autism rates over the years, even when vaccines that do not contain mercury are used.

Parents will want to proactively protect the health of their children by helping them to avoid HFCS and all products that contain it, and teaching them to eat and enjoy organic, pesticide-free produce and other whole foods. Feeding children “superfoods” rich in vitamins and minerals, and supplementing their diets with brain-boosting nutrient foods like omega-3 fatty acids, spirulina, and probiotics will also go a long way in protecting these young ones from the continuous onslaught of dietary and environmental toxins that are constantly at war with their brains.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

The Heart Disease Scam That Generates Billions Every Year… And May Cost You Your Life

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

More than half a million Americans received an angioplasty in 2007 (the most recent year for which data is available).

This invasive procedure involves inflating a thin balloon in a narrowed artery to crush deposits; a stent (a wire mesh tube) is often then left behind to keep the vessel open.

When used during a heart attack, an angioplasty can quickly open a blocked artery to lessen the damage to your heart, and when used in this way can be lifesaving.

However, oftentimes heart disease patients receive angioplasties even though they have not had a heart attack — a decision that goes against the latest medical guidelines and the suggestion of a new study, which found people treated using other less-invasive methods fared just as well as those who also underwent angioplasty with stents.

Angioplasty Offers “No Evidence of Benefit” Compared to Less Invasive Treatment

If you have stable heart disease, research shows that your initial treatment should usually be lifestyle changes. But less than half of heart disease patients are treated using lifestyle changes prior to undergoing angioplasty. According to an analysis of eight clinical trials involving over 7,000 people, angioplasty offers no benefit compared to less invasive treatment of heart disease.

The researchers concluded:

“Initial stent implantation for stable CAD [coronary artery disease] shows no evidence of benefit compared with initial medical therapy for prevention of death, nonfatal MI, unplanned revascularization, or angina.”

As an invasive surgery, angioplasty does come with its fair share of risks, however. Among them:

Because angioplasty does absolutely nothing to address the underlying causes of heart disease, you should know that restenosis, or a re-narrowing of your arteries, is common. This occurs in up to 40 percent of angioplasties without stents, but even with a stent the risk is still around 20 percent (or 10 percent for a drug-eluting stent). And, of course, if your artery becomes re-narrowed the surgery was all for nothing.

Along with saving yourself from the potentially life-threatening risks noted above, avoiding angioplasty will save you a hefty chunk of change. As Consumer Reports noted:

“Angioplasty is also more expensive, the authors report. They said that by following current guidelines, 76 percent of patients with stable heart disease would save approximately $9,450 each in lifetime health-care costs. Other researchers have estimated such a shift would save $6 to $8 billion a year.”

Even Drugs Can Often be Avoided for Heart Disease

The alternative treatment to angioplasty noted in the study was a combination of lifestyle changes and drugs.

” … medical guidelines have for several years said that most people who have symptoms of heart problems, such as angina (chest pain on exertion), but have not had a heart attack, should be treated with lifestyle changes and drugs first. Yet less than half of patients in that situation are treated according to these guidelines before undergoing angioplasty, research suggests,” Consumer Reports states.

This may come as a surprise, but many medications commonly prescribed to heart disease patients can also be avoided. This includes statin drugs, which are taken by millions of Americans. The majority of people who use statin cholesterol-lowering drugs are doing so because they believe lowering their cholesterol will prevent heart attacks and strokes. How many of these people do you think would continue to take them if they knew these very same drugs have been linked to decreased heart muscle function and increased risk of stroke, along with hundreds of other serious side effects?

Not very many, right?

Well, you may want to reconsider your use of statins, as a study in Clinical Cardiology found that heart muscle function was “significantly better” in the control group than in those taking statin drugs! Further, keeping your cholesterol levels higher may actually help you to prevent disease, and is not actually linked to heart disease.

For the vast majority of people, statin drugs are an unnecessary health risk you’re better off avoiding — and you definitely want to avoid the trap of taking them to lower your cholesterol. Other common heart disease medications, like high blood pressure drugs and even aspirin, do absolutely nothing to address the underlying causes of the condition.

It is rare when a drug is appropriate for treatment of a chronic condition like heart disease, but that doesn’t stop pharmaceutical companies from creating more of them. Currently, researchers are working on nearly 300 new medications for heart disease and stroke … but you likely have all the tools you need for prevention and treatment at your disposal right now.

If You Have Stable Heart Disease, Lifestyle Changes Should be Your Go-To Treatment

Most chronic diseases, including cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and obesity, are largely preventable with simple lifestyle changes. Imagine the lowered death toll, not to mention costs to the economy, if more people decided to take control of their health … heart disease and cancer alone accounted for 47 percent of deaths in the United States in 2010, and there are many strategies you can implement to lower your risk of these diseases … and most of the leading causes of death in the United States.

In the case of heart disease, the healthy lifestyle strategies that follow are not only effective as prevention; they’re also useful for treatment. So what does a “healthy lifestyle” entail?

  • Proper Food Choices For a comprehensive guide on which foods to eat and which to avoid, see my nutrition plan. Generally speaking, you should be looking to focus your diet on whole, unprocessed foods (vegetables, meats, raw dairy, nuts, and so forth) that come from healthy, sustainable, local sources, such as a small organic farm not far from your home.For the best nutrition and health benefits, you will want to eat a good portion of your food raw. Personally, I aim to eat about 80-85 percent of my food raw, including raw eggs and humanely raised organic animal products that have not been raised on a CAFO (confined animal feeding operation). Fermented foods are also important, as they are excellent sources of probiotics and vitamin K2, which is important for preventing arterial plaque buildup and heart disease.Nearly as important as knowing which foods to eat more of is knowing which foods to avoid, and topping the list is fructose. Sugar, and especially fructose, act as toxins in and of themselves, and as such drive multiple disease processes in your body.
  • Comprehensive Exercise Program, including High-Intensity Exercise like Peak Fitness Even if you’re eating the healthiest diet in the world, you still need to exercise to reach the highest levels of health, and you need to be exercising effectively, which means including not only core-strengthening exercises, strength training, and stretching but also high-intensity activities into your rotation. High-intensity interval-type training like Peak Fitness boosts human growth hormone (HGH) production naturally, which is essential for optimal health, strength and vigor.
  • Stress Reduction and Positive Thinking You cannot be optimally healthy if you avoid addressing the emotional component of your health and longevity, as your emotional state plays a role in nearly every physical disease — from heart disease and depression, to arthritis and cancer. Effective coping mechanisms are a major longevity-promoting factor in part because stress has a direct impact on inflammation, which in turn underlies many of the chronic diseases that kill people prematurely every day. The Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), meditation, prayer, social support and exercise are all viable options that can help you maintain emotional and mental equilibrium.
  • Proper Sun Exposure to Optimize Vitamin D
    Vitamin D is essential for your heart and cardiovascular system. Even if you’re considered generally “healthy,” if you’re deficient in vitamin D, your arteries are likely stiffer than they should be, and your blood pressure may run higher than recommended due to your blood vessels being unable to relax.
    It’s been repeatedly shown that by increasing your vitamin D levels, you can improve your cardiovascular health and lower your blood pressure. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are severely deficient in vitamin D. In the United States, the late winter average vitamin D level is only about 15-18 ng/ml, which is considered a very serious deficiency state. Overall, it’s estimated that 85 percent of Americans are deficient, and as much as 95 percent of U.S. senior citizens.
    The important factor when it comes to vitamin D is your serum level, which should ideally be between 50-70 ng/ml year-round. Sun exposure or a safe tanning bed is the preferred method for optimizing vitamin D levels, but a vitamin D3 supplement can be used as a last resort. Most adults need about 8,000 IU’s of vitamin D a day to achieve serum levels above 40 ng/ml, which is still just below the minimum recommended serum level of 50 ng/ml.

High Quality Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats

Omega-3 fat like that found in krill oil improves endothelial function, a major factor in promoting the growth of new blood vessels, and has beneficial effects on your heart’s electrical system, preventing potentially life-threatening heart rhythm disorders.

Omega-3 deficiency may actually be a significant underlying factor in up to 96,000 premature deaths each year, including some of those from coronary heart disease and stroke. Even the FDA allows claims for omega-3 for heart disease; it is one of the few food health claims that the FDA allows — and, yes, I view omega-3 fats not as just another supplement, but as an essential foodyou need to include in your diet.

How to Determine Your Heart Disease Risk…

Before deciding on an angioplasty, it’s important to be able to accurately gauge your heart disease risk – and you should know that your total cholesterol level is just about worthless in determining this risk, unless it is close to 340 or higher.

Instead, one of the most important risk factors will be your HDL to cholesterol ratio.

I have seen a number of people with levels over 250 who actually were at low heart disease risk due to their HDL levels. Conversely, I have seen even more who had cholesterol levels under 200 that were at a very high risk of heart disease based on the following additional tests:

  • HDL/Cholesterol ratio
  • Triglyceride/HDL ratios

HDL percentage is a very potent heart disease risk factor. Just divide your HDL level by your cholesterol. That percentage should ideally be above 24 percent. Below 10 percent, it’s a significant indicator of risk for heart disease. You can also do the same thing with your triglycerides and HDL ratio. That percentage should be below 2.

If you have type 2 diabetes, you’re automatically at an increased risk so you can move ahead to my recommendations above. In fact, anyone can use the above recommendations because their only “side effects” are improved health! That’s the beauty of it. Together, these steps can drastically lower your heart disease risk and improve heart health — sometimes quite rapidly. If you’re otherwise healthy and your heart disease is stable, only after exhausting these strategies should more invasive options, like drugs and angioplasty, be considered.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

New Study Shows Obesity Rate Is Actually Far Worse than Previously Recognized

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

In the United States, where two-thirds of all states already have obesity rates exceeding 25 percent, and 12 states now have obesity rates over 30 percent, it is shocking to hear that these rates may actually be underestimated.

But this is precisely what new research has revealed.

Body-mass index (BMI), which gauges weight in relation to height and is widely used as a measure of overweight and obesity, is to blame for the flawed assessments.

Are Nearly 60% of Americans Obese?

Researchers compared BMI measurements to body fat percentage (using a DEXA scan, which is a FAR more accurate method to assess body fat percentage) among 1,400 people.

For women, about half of those who were not classified as obese according to BMI were considered obese according to body fat.

Among men, one-quarter of those not identified as obese by BMI were found to be obese by body-fat measures.

In all, nearly 40 percent of participants whose BMI classified them as overweight were actually obese when their percentage of body fat was taken into account.

According to lead author Dr. Eric Braverman, president of the nonprofit Path Foundation in New York City, “Based on BMI, about one-third of Americans are considered obese, but when other methods of measuring obesity are used, that number may be closer to 60%.”

As such, BMI also neglects to factor in how muscular you might be.

Athletes and completely out-of-shape people can have similar BMI scores, or a very muscular person could be classified as “obese” using BMI, when in reality it is mostly lean muscle accounting for their higher-than-average weight.

Dr. Braverman says of BMI:

“Some people call it the ‘baloney mass index.”

Many studies, such as one published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, have found that a high BMI was associated with a lower risk of death, a phenomenon known as the “obesity paradox.” This finding as an example of how BMI is a flawed measurement tool, as it tells you nothing about where fat is located in the body, and it appears that the location of the fat is more important than the amount of fat when it comes to measuring certain health risks, such as heart disease risks. BMI also uses weight as a measure of risk, when it is actually a high percentage of body fat that makes a person obese.

Could Testing Your Leptin Levels Make Your BMI More Useful?

The researchers found that levels of the hormone leptin were strongly associated with body fat percentage, and suggested that testing your leptin levels could therefore be used in addition to your BMI to help get a more accurate picture of your true risk of obesity and related diseases.

The hormones your fat cells produce impact how much you eat and how much fat you burn. One of these hormones is leptin, and leptin sends signals that reduce hunger, increase fat burning and reduce fat storage. That is, if your cells are communicating properly and can “hear” this message.

If you are eating a diet that is high in sugar, fructose and grains, as the sugar gets metabolized in fat cells, fat releases surges in leptin. Over time, if your body is exposed to too much leptin, it will become resistant to the leptin (just as your body can become resistant to insulin). Leptin resistance causes an increase in the visceral fat your body produces. Likewise, it is through an inflammatory process that it’s thought visceral fat causes its damage, and the same diet that makes you leptin resistant will also increase inflammation and body fat in your body. By tending to one factor — diet — you can reduce your risk of both becoming leptin resistant and producing excess visceral fat.

What’s a Better Way to Gauge Your Weight Health than BMI?

Another simple and inexpensive option is measuring your waist circumference, as a thick waist is a well-known sign of a build-up of visceral fat, a dangerous type of fat around your internal organs that is strongly linked with type 2 diabetes, heart disease and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

It is thought that visceral fat is related to the release of proteins and hormones that can cause inflammation, which in turn can damage arteries and enter your liver, affecting how your body breaks down sugars and fats. When your body routinely stores excess visceral fat, you increase your risk for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, vascular disease, atherosclerosis (hardening of your arteries) and an increased thickness in the walls of your heart.

Your waist size is also a powerful indicator of insulin sensitivity, as studies clearly show that measuring your waist size is one of the most powerful ways to predict your risk for diabetes. Determining your waist size is easy. With a tape measure, figure the distance around the smallest area of your abdomen below your rib cage and above your belly button. If you’re not sure if you have a healthy waist circumference, a general guide is:

  • For men, between 37 and 40 inches is overweight and more than 40 inches is obese
  • For women, 31.5-34.6 inches is overweight and more than 34.6 inches is obese

The other tool, which many experts are now leaning toward as the most accurate measure of obesity, is body fat percentage. As it sounds, this is simply the percentage of fat your body contains, and it can be a powerful indicator of your health. Too much body fat is linked to chronic health problems like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. Too little body fat is also problematic and can cause your body to enter a catabolic state, where muscle protein is used as fuel. A general guideline from the American Council on Exercise is as follows:

How to Measure Your Body Fat

Body fat calipers are one of the most trusted and most accurate ways to measure body fat. A body fat, or skinfold, caliper is a lightweight, hand-held device that quickly and easily measures the thickness of a fold of your skin with its underlying layer of fat. Taken at three very specific locations on your body, these readings can help you estimate the total percent of body fat within your entire body.

You can also use a digital scale that determines body fat, which is what I use personally. I use an Eat Smart Precision GetFit Body Fat Scale that I picked up from Amazon for around $50. Currently my body fat measures at 13.5 percent on this scale, although I think it is actually closer to 11 percent or 12 percent. Although many body fat measurements can be inaccurate, they are nearly all more accurate than BMI, and are particularly useful to determine whether you are gaining or losing fat. Although the absolute value may be off, the direction you are going (whether your body fat is going up or down) will be very accurate, and this is an incredibly useful measure of whether you’re nearing your health goals or not.

As I mentioned earlier, a DEXA scan is probably one of the most accurate ways to measure body fat but it is not at all easy to find a center that uses them to measure body fat percentage. There are many DEXA scans out there but most are used to measure bone density. Additionally, a DEXA scan is an X-ray, which will expose you to radiation, and is far more expensive than all of the other methods discussed. For a fraction of the price of one DEXA scan you can pick up an Eat Smart scale and merely step on it each day to monitor your progress.

Remember that it is FAR better to monitor your body fat percentage than it is your total weight, as the body fat percentage is what dictates metabolic health or dysfunction — not your total weight.

Tried-and-True Tips for Reaching a Healthy Weight

Once you review the research, it’s clear that if you are serious about losing weight, you have got to strictly limit the amount of fructose in your diet, as evidence is mounting that excess sugar, and fructose in particular, is the primary factor in the obesity epidemic. So cutting soda from your diet is essential. However many fail to appreciate the importance of cutting out other sources of fructose, including those found in processed foods, fruit juice, excessive fruit and so-called “healthy” sweeteners like agave.

Ideally you should keep your total fructose consumption below 25 grams per day and this includes fruits. This is especially true if you have insulin resistance and are overweight, have high blood pressure, diabetes or high cholesterol.

For the majority of people, severely restricting carbohydrates such as sugars, fructose, and grains in your diet will be the key to weight loss. Refined carbohydrates like breakfast cereals, bagels, waffles, pretzels, and most other processed foods quickly break down to sugar, increase your insulin levels, and cause insulin resistance, which is the number one underlying factor of nearly every chronic disease and condition known to man, including weight gain.

As you cut these dietary villains from your meals, you need to replace them with healthy substitutes like vegetables and healthy fats (including natural saturated fats!). Your body prefers the carbohydrates in vegetables rather than grains and sugars because it slows the conversion to simple sugars like glucose, and decreases your insulin level. When you cut grains and sugar from your meals, you typically will need to radically increase the amount of vegetables you eat, as well as make sure you are also consuming protein and healthy fats regularly.

I’ve detailed a step-by-step guide to this type of healthy eating program in my comprehensive nutrition plan, and I urge you to consult this guide if you are trying to lose weight.

The foods you choose to eat will be the driving force behind successfully achieving your weight loss goals — even more so than exercise. But exercise is still important for weight loss and optimal health. The key to boosting weight loss and getting the most out of your exercise routine is to make sure to incorporate high-intensity, short-burst-type exercises, such as my Peak Fitness Program, two to three times per week. Several studies have confirmed that exercising in shorter bursts with rest periods in between burns more fat than exercising continuously for an entire session.

If you are struggling with your weight, exercise is clearly one of the key factors that can synergize the effects of healthy food choices and help you reach your short- and long-term weight loss goals.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

The Amazing Healing Powers of Cayenne Pepper (Capsicum)

Posted on by
Reply

By: PF Louis
Source: NaturalNews.com

When the famous master herbalist Dr. John Christopher was bothered by stomach ulcer problems as a student, one of his herbal instructors recommended young John drink a solution of cayenne pepper powder in water daily.

At first, Dr. Christopher thought this was a contradiction. How could something so hot help his ulcers? But he bravely took the advice and to his surprise, it did cure his ulcers. Following that experience, Dr. Christopher become a zealous advocate of cayenne for both heart issues and for boosting the efficacy of some of his other herbal formulas.

Christopher has even documented cases where he helped patients come out of heart attacks using only a teaspoon of cayenne powder in a cup of warm water. He isn’t alone; there are several anecdotes of people recovering from serious heart attacks by downing cayenne teas or tinctures.

One of Dr. Christophers interns, Dr. Richard Schulze, ND, MH, took up the cause proclaiming, “If you only master one herb in your life, master cayenne pepper. It’s more powerful than any other.” Both Schulze and Christopher recommend taking a half to full teaspoon of cayenne powder in water two to three times daily as an overall health tonic.

Using cayenne as an herbal medicine or tonic

If you use cayenne, ensure it’s organic. Even organic cayenne is inexpensive and the potential benefits are invaluable. The powder comes from various dried and ground chili peppers, all containing capsaicin (cap-say-sin). The amount of capsaicin is indicated by the cayenne powder’s heat levels, measured in Scoville heat units (SHU) or heat units (HU).

The lowest therapeutic level of SHU or heat units is 35,000. You will often find cayenne powder listed at 40,000, 60,000, 90,000 or 100,000 SHU or heat units. Unless you have a fondness for really hot spicy foods, you may want to start at the 40,000 level. Ultimately, moving up the heat line is recommended for optimum efficacy.

Dr. Christopher liked to use warm purified or distilled water to mix in the fine cayenne powder. One-half to a full cup of water can be used for to mix a half or full teaspoon of cayenne that can be quickly gulped. Allowing the heat to permeate is part of cayenne’s therapeutic value, which a reason why Dr. Schulze disdains cayenne capsules.

Dr. Schulze endorses using a homemade tincture in addition to the cayenne tea. A tincture is easy to carry around and may provide an on-the-spot remedy for heart attack to avoid an ER trip when away from home.

Cayenne’s health benefits

Cayenne powder serves as both a general tonic and a medicine. In addition to potentially helping cease the fatal throes of a heart attack, ingesting cayenne daily also clears clogged arteries while strengthening the whole cardiovascular system and the heart.

It is also a valuable aid for digestion and elimination which can ultimately help heal hemorrhoids and ulcers. Both Dr. Christopher and Dr. Schulze assert that ingesting cayenne powder will boost the potency of the other herbs and supplements you’re taking.

In cayenne studies, scientists have demonstrated an 80% reduction with prostate cancers in mice and in human prostate cancer cells in cultures.The capsaicin in cayenne actually creates accelerated cancer cell apoptosis, or cellular self destruction.

Cayenne pepper contains many beneficial phytochemicals, extremely bio-available vitamins C & E, and minerals, including the vital heart-health mineral magnesium. It cleans the blood, allowing hormonal signals to make their way unimpeded through your system and enhancing the immune system.

You can choose to avoid Big Pharma’s expensive toxic “solutions” for heart and other health issues using all natural solutions like this. Inexpensive, non-toxic cayenne goes well beyond culinary applications.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Methanol Toxicity from Aspartame may cause Autism, Spina Bifida, Preterm Delivery And More

Posted on by
Reply

By: Jonathan Benson
Source: NaturalNews.com

The issue hardly gets as much attention as it deserves, but the extreme toxicity of the artificial sweetener aspartame is wrecking human health on a massive scale. And in a comprehensive study on methanol, the major alcohol component of aspartame, retired food scientist and Professor Emeritus of Food Science and Nutrition at Arizona State University (ASU) Dr. Woodrow C. Monte explains how methanol toxicity from aspartame and other sources appears responsible for causing autism, spina bifida, preterm delivery, multiple sclerosis, cancer and many other chronic health conditions.

Not tied to the processed food industry or any other corporate player that might taint or bias his findings, Dr. Monte’s interest in the subject of methanol toxicity comes purely from a genuine concern about protecting human health. And his many years of experience studying food ingredients for use in specialized health care food products has afforded him a wealth of knowledge on this important subject that rarely, if ever, gets publicized by the corporately-funded mainstream media.

Methanol, the chemical trojan horse responsible for many modern diseases

In his study entitled Methanol: A chemical Trojan Horse as the root of the Inscrutable U, Dr. Monte evaluates the role that methanol plays in human health. Since methanol is a relatively new addition to the human diet, thanks to processing methods and chemical syntheses that did not exist prior to 1800s, it is vitally important to determine how this chemical substance affects the human body.

What Dr. Monte discovered is that methanol is converted by the body into formaldehyde, a highly toxic substance known to cause cancer in humans. He also uncovered the fact that methanol metabolizes in organs of the body other than just the liver which, based on all available evidence, is directly responsible for causing what Dr. Monte has termed “diseases of civilization” (DOC).

“Methanol is particularly dangerous to humans, more so than any other animal,” says Dr. Woodrow C. Monte on his website WhileScienceSleeps.com. “When humans consume low doses of methanol it is metabolized directly into formaldehyde which is a cancer producing agent of the same level of danger as asbestos and plutonium.”

Where Dr. Monte’s research diverts from the mainstream view of methanol’s toxicity has to do with the way dietary methanol is processed by the body. Rather than dissipate as is widely believed, methanol-induced formaldehyde tends to lodge itself into certain areas of the body that avoid filtering through the liver — and these are the same areas of the body where DOCs tend to appear.

“Once methanol runs the gauntlet of first-pass metabolism, its detoxification is no longer exclusive to the liver,” writes Dr. Monte in his study. “Methanol transports its potential to become formaldehyde past normal biological barriers in the brain and elsewhere that environmental formaldehyde itself cannot usually penetrate … [formaldehyde] can then be produced within the arteries and veins, heart, brain, lungs, breast, bone, and skin.”

Aspartame, a primary source of toxic methanol in the American diet

Where is all this toxic, methanol-induced formaldehyde coming from? It turns out aspartame is one of the primary sources in the American diet today. According to Dr. Monte, every molecule of aspartame, which is also marketed under the names NutraSweet, Equal, Canderel, 951, and AminoSweet, converts into a molecule of methanol when consumed. And in its dry form, aspartame is 11 percent methanol by weight.

This means that people who regularly consume “diet” foods and beverages laced with aspartame are taking in high amounts of a formaldehyde-producing, chemical poison that is drastically increasing their risk of developing chronic illnesses.

“As aspartame eventually became a major source of methanol in the civilized human diet, the incidence of DOC gradually began to rise,” says Dr. Monte’s report. “In addition to aspartame, and canned vegetables, fruits, and their juices, a major source of the methanol entering the modern civilized human body is cigarette smoke, causatively linked to atherosclerosis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Alzheimer’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and other DOC.”

“It is my belief that diet soda has contributed to the rise of breast cancer and multiple sclerosis that has been preceded by the use of Aspartame as a food ingredient in every country that has allowed its use.”

You can view Dr. Monte’s complete study on methanol at:
http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/methanol/

Helpful tips for avoiding methanol

Avoiding all “diet” and “low-fat” food and beverage products that contain aspartame or any other artificial sweetener chemical is an absolute must for keeping toxic methanol out of your diet. Cigarette smoke, canned fruits and vegetables, smoked meats, and overly-ripe fruits and vegetables are also major methanol culprits that you will want to avoid

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Parsley is a blood purifying superfood

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. David Jockers
Source: NaturalNews.com

Parsley is considered the world’s most popular garnish. Parsley was originally cultivated in Europe and the Middle East but has become a staple in American cuisine. This herb has remarkable healing and blood purifying benefits that classify it as a superfood.

Parsley has been revered throughout history and used for both culinary and medicinal purposes. The Greeks made crowns of parsley to bestow upon their sports champions. It was used for the Hebrew celebration of Passover as a sign of rebirth in the spring. The Romans used it to deodorize corpses before funerals.

It contains a unique combination of nutrients that make it a powerful superfood. The volatile oil compounds myristicin, limonene, eugenol, and alpha-thujene have been shown to inhibit tumor cell formation. Additionally, parsley is rich in flavonoids-including apiin, apigenin, crisoeriol, and luteolin that have strong anti-oxidant properties.

Parsley also contains about three times the amount of vitamin C by volume as an orange. Vitamin C is extremely important for healthy immune function and youthful skin & joints. Additionally, it contains carotenoid anti-oxidants lutein and zeaxanthin which enhance eye function and help the body neutralize damage from UV radiation.

Super rich in chlorophyll

Parsley is super rich in chlorophyll, the energy producing substance that gives herbs and plants its characteristic green color. Chlorophyll helps to alkalize the body, purify blood, and form new red blood cells. In addition, the chlorophyll and flavonoids in parsley help to enhance cellular glutathione formation. Higher levels of cellular glutathione allow the body to detoxify and heal more effectively.

Through these properties, parsley is able to improve cellular oxygenation properties. Increased oxygenation = increased cellular energy = increased detoxification & healing mechanisms.

Parsley is a fantastic source of folic acid which is extremely crucial for its ability to reduce homocysteine levels. Homocysteine is an inflammatory mediator that is linked with cardiovascular disease and brain degeneration. Folic acid is also important for pregnant women as it plays a critical role in fetal development. It is also an important nutrient for cancer prevention.

Parsley is also known as a powerful diuretic that reduces blood pressure and enhances kidney function. In particular, parsley increases sodium and water excretion thru urine and increases potassium reabsorption into the kidneys. This is particularly useful for anyone with poor circulation, swelling, cellulite, and other cardiovascular problems.

Juiced parsley is also believed to stimulate uterine contractions during labor. This juice has also been used to enhance skin and hair texture. It is also thought to reduce inflammation and mucous formation throughout the body. This is why many individuals see results using parsley to reduce symptoms of asthma, allergies, bronchitis, & urinary tract infections.

The rich chlorophyll content is also a great body odor and breath freshener. Chlorophyll acts as an anti-mutagen and it reduces odor causing bacteria which are responsible for producing bad breath and body odor. Parsley combines well with garlic and onions and reduces the strong pungent body odor these sulfur rich foods are known to cause.

Parsley dipped in apple cider vinegar is especially useful for reducing body odor and improving digestive function. The natural acids, chlorophyll and enzymes present in this food combination synergize to enhance the intestinal microflora. This is one of the best aids for neutralizing acid reflux, gas and bloating.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Fast Food not only makes you Fat, it also contributes to Depression

Posted on by
Reply

By: J. D. Heyes
Source: NaturalNews.com

You already know that the McLarge burger you’re stuffing in your face isn’t healthy for you. What you may not know, however, is that all that fast food is doing more than just expanding your waistline – it could be giving you a serious case of depression as well.

A study of some 8,964 people found that eating junk and fast food has a negative effect on mental health.

Some of our American favorites – burgers, pizza, hot dogs – are on the list of fast or non-nutritional foods that contribute to a darker mood. In fact, the study found that people who eat those foods often were 51 percent more likely to become depressed, as evidenced by http://www.webmd.com, among other signs and symptoms.

Even small quantities are bad for you

The study also found that those most likely to over-indulge in such unhealthy fare were single, less physically active, smokers and those who worked more than 45 hours per week.

Researchers, whose data have been published in the Journal of Public Health Nutrition, found that of the nearly 9,000 people studied over a six-month period, 493 were diagnosed with clinical depression or otherwise began taking anti-depressants. People with extremely high or low daily caloric intake, or had obesity-related diseases, were excluded from the study.

Dr. Almudena Sanchez-Villegas, lead researcher from the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria in Grenada, said data found that commercially baked foods produce similarly depressive effects.

“Even eating small quantities is linked to a significantly higher chance of developing depression,” she said. “Although more studies are necessary, the intake of this type of food should be controlled because of its implications on both health (obesity, cardiovascular diseases) and mental well-being.”

Sanchez-Villegas noted that her findings were similar to earlier studies that found a correlation between higher intake of fast food and depression.

Her research supports the results of the SUN project in 2011, which were published in the PloS One journal. That six-month study of 12,059 people found 657 new cases of depression; in all, the study recorded a 42 percent increase in the risk of depression associated with fast food.

Vicious cycle

There are lots of problems and issues associated with poor diets, not the least of which are health problems – obesity, diabetes, cardiac disease, high blood pressure and an increased risk of stroke, to name a few.

But there is an added element of risk for those who seek relief from their food-caused depression by taking anti-depressant medications. That’s because other studies have shownthat taking medications for depression can actually increase depression and suicidal tendencies- a finding that is also backed by theFood and Drug Administration.

“Drug labels contain 70 negative side-effects on average. Even very regularly prescribed drugs can have 100 negative side-effects, with some drugs lurking up around 525 negative side-effects. Suicidal thoughts leading to an increased risk of suicide is just one of those side-effects to look out for, following the very last possible side effects – death,” says a report in Natural Society.

Regarding the apparent link between fast food and depression, researchers aren’t sure if one causes the other, or vice versa. Certainly people who are obese can become depressed about their condition, but it’s not clear if unhealthy diets which are causing their obesity are also causing their depression, say scientists.

What is clear, though, is that a poor diet and increased incidents of depression are related, and that should be just one more reason to drive by the drive-through and get yourself a healthy meal somewhere else

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Why is this Organic Food Stuffed With Toxic Solvents?

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Last December, the U.S. National Organic Standards Board, an expert panel that advise the USDA Secretary on organic matters, narrowly approved Martek Biosciences Corporation’s petition to allow the use of their genetically modified soil fungus and algae as nutritional supplements in organic food.

The product is an omega 3/omega-6 oil (DHA/ARA) synthesized from fermented algae and soil fungus.

The oil is extracted from this biomass using hexane, a neurotoxic byproduct of gasoline refinement that is specifically banned in organics.

The Cornucopia Institute investigated Martek’s patent and safety filings at the FDA, and discovered that the product also contains synthetic chemicals, stabilizers, carriers, and some of the ingredients are also genetically modified.

(As it turns out, some of their products were developed by Monsanto before Martek bought the technical rights.)

Martek’s formulated oils are added to “organic” milk, infant formula, and a number of different foods. After a formal legal complaint, the USDA announced in 2010 that it had “inappropriately” allowed Martek oils to be included in organic foods.

But enforcement of their removal was delayed for 18 months in an apparent effort to permit corporate lobbyists to petition for review and legal inclusion in organic food. According to the Conucopia Institute:

“Although Martek told the board that they would discontinue the use of the controversial neurotoxic solvent n-hexane for DHA/ARA processing, they did not disclose what other synthetic solvents would be substituted. Federal organic standards prohibit the use of all synthetic/petrochemical solvents”.

How Did Unapproved Ingredients Make it into Baby Food?

It is distressing to see that chemical additives have skirted USDA approval and made their way into infant formulas—some of which even bear the USDA Organic Seal! This confirms that even organic certification is NOT watertight, and you, the consumer, will need to stay on your toes.

Martek’s DHA and ARA products are synthetic attempts at omega-3 fats that have been in the U.S. marketplace since 2002, and in organic products since 2006. They are chemically extracted from certain types of algae and fungi that have never before been part of the human diet, and have never been approved by the USDA. Yet they have made their way into your baby’s bottle.

In fact, it is unlikely that the production process of these agents has been examined at all—and for good reason. The Cornucopia Institute has uncovered an entire list of questions regarding the source, processing, and other ingredients used in the manufacturing of Martek’s DHA and ARA, any one of which could result in a ban from their use in certified organic products.

GMOs, Lies, and Petrochemicals

For starters, Martek’s synthetic oils are extracted using a toxic petrochemical solvent called hexane—a process that’s just about as NON-organic as you can get. Hexane extraction is widely used in the production of oils, such as fatty acids and vegetable oils, but is banned in organic produce because it’s a non-organic material.

So what’s their loophole?

Martek Biosciences was able to dodge the ban on hexane-extraction by claiming USDA does not consider omega-3 and omega-6 fats to be “agricultural ingredients.” Therefore, they argue, the ban against hexane extraction does not apply. The USDA helped them out by classifying those oils as “necessary vitamins and minerals,” which are exempt from the hexane ban. But hexane-extraction is just the tip of the iceberg. Other questionable manufacturing practices and misleading statements by Martek include:

  • Undisclosed synthetic ingredients, prohibited for use in organics (including the sugar alcohol mannitol, modified starch, glucose syrup solids, and “other” undisclosed ingredients)
  • Microencapsulation of the powder and nanotechnology, which are prohibited under organic laws
  • Use of volatile synthetic solvents, besides hexane (such as isopropyl alcohol)
  • Recombinant DNA techniques and other forms of genetic modification of organisms; mutagenesis; use of GMO corn as a fermentation medium
  • Heavily processed ingredients that are far from “natural”

Your Body Knows These “Nutrients” are Fake

Although DHA and ARA from real foods are indeed important nutrients, the synthetic versions are not even remotely the same. They are foreign to your body, and to your infant’s body, which is why many babies are having terrible adverse reactions. Naturally derivedomega-3 fats have important benefits to your baby’s eyes and brain. Martek has manipulated this fact into a clever marketing ploy that convinces mothers that this artificial concoction is as good for their babies as breast milk.

But there is no scientific evidence to substantiate Martek’s health claims. Martek claims that their formula is “proven in independent clinical studies to enhance mental development.” According to the Cornucopia Institute, this claim is based on one single study involving just 19 infants. Martek neglects to mention the numerous other clinical studies that fail to show any advantage in brain development.

The Perfect Formula for Diarrhea, Vomiting and Gastrointestinal Pain

The Cornucopia Institute has compiled a summary of hundreds of adverse reports submitted to the FDA about possible intolerance to DHA/ARA-supplemented infant formula. Of those reports, 98 are said to be “confidently linked” to intolerance to the DHA/ARA oils. Many hundreds more are highly suspect. The reported gastrointestinal symptoms include:

  • Severe gas
  • Diarrhea and vomiting
  • Gastric reflux
  • Constipation and bowel obstruction
  • Agitation, fussiness, crying, and severe distress

The adverse reaction reports filed with the FDA represent only the tip of the iceberg, as most parents are unaware that Martek’s additives may be the cause of their infants’ problems. Some parents and their babies have endured these symptoms for weeks or months before identifying the cause, believing it was simply colic or unexplained fussiness.

A few companies have made a conscious decision to not use Martek’s additives in their baby food products, in order to protect the organic integrity of their foods. Cornucopia has published a list of “USDA Organic” products containing Martek’s additives. Shockingly, ALL organic infant formulas with the exception of ONE (Baby’s Only Organic) contain Martek’s DHA! Some baby foods also contain it, so it’s a good idea to get in the habit of reading ALL of your labels.

Beware of Other Known Contaminants in Infant Formula

Your child is perhaps never more vulnerable than in the first few months of life, when his or her fragile body is still rapidly developing. Pound for pound, infants experience greater exposure to chemicals than adults, and have immature and porous blood-brain barriers, which allow greater chemical exposures to reach their developing brains.

It is best to avoid infant formulas whenever possible. Breastfeeding is best. Infant formulas have been found to be contaminated with a variety of problematic chemicals, including:

  • Perchlorates (a component of rocket fuel)
  • Melamine
  • Advanced glycoprotein end products (AGEs)

Please avoid feeding your baby soy based formula due to dangerously high concentrations of manganese and estrogenic compounds, among other problems. Most infant formulas also contain far too much sugar. The most recent contaminant found in infant formula (as well as food and commercial juices) is arsenic. This is particularly worrisome for babies because they are especially vulnerable to arsenic’s toxic effects.

Is there Arsenic in Your Baby Formula?

Researchers at Dartmouth College warned that there is an “urgent need” for regulatory limits on arsenic in food products after levels in two infant formulas were found to be up to six times the U.S. federal limit for drinking water. There are currently NO regulations for arsenic levels in foods or juices.

The arsenic in infant formulas is thought to come from the brown rice syrup used to sweeten some formulas. Rice is a plant that is very efficient at taking up arsenic from the soil, regardless of whether or not it’s grown organically.

You Can Avoid All of These Problems by Breastfeeding

Breastfeeding offers a list of life-long health benefits for both mom and baby, making it the best food you can give to your baby by far.

Many are aware that breast milk contains antibodies, or immune molecules, that are transferred to the baby, giving her immunities to illnesses that the mother is immune to. The converse is also true — if your newborn is exposed to a germ, she will transfer it back to the mother while nursing. The mother’s body will then make antibodies to that particular germ and transfer them back to the baby at the next feeding.

So it’s not just a matter of vitamins, minerals, proteins and fats that makes breast milk far superior to formula. In fact, breast milk also contains substances that may significantly enhance your baby’s gut and support the healthy development of her entire nervous system.

If you are unable to breastfeed, you may want to consider the option of purchasing human breast milk, which is becoming a hot commodity online. Nursing women are now earning up to $1,200 a month from selling their extra milk to other families, many of whom are pairing up online via Craigslist and other classified sites. This trend harkens back to ancient times when wet nurses (women who breastfeed babies other than their own) were used for a variety of purposes. For more about this option and some cautions, please refer to this article on the sale of breast milk.

Is the U.S. Becoming a “Dumping Ground” for Substandard Products?

Food in the European Union (EU) seems to be getting saferv, while American food may be becoming more dangerous. The EU has been progressively tightening their standards, while the U.S. has been loosening theirs. Consider herbicides, for example.

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the U.S. and is the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, which is causing incredible damage to our environment. As a result of Monsanto’s lobbying, a U.S. regulation passed in 2011 increased the tolerance for residues of the herbicide glyphosate on corn. The tolerance is even higher than the one allowed by international standards. The Codex Alimentarius Commissionvi has established a maximum residue level for glyphosate on corn at 5 parts per million, but the U.S. regulation now allows 13 parts per million.

The EU herbicide/pesticide legislation is probably the strictest in the world, a testament to their commitment to consumer protection. Besides limiting these chemicals, they ban genetically engineered foods and the hormone rBGH, whereas the U.S. continues to allow them. Many more such examples can be found.

As the European Union and other nations have begun to tighten their environmental standards, manufacturers have begun to use America as a dumping ground for consumer goods that fail to meet other nations’ standards for toxic chemical content. Manufacturers ship wood, toys, electronics, pesticides and cosmetics to the U.S. containing substances that are banned or restricted elsewhere, because they raise the risk of cancer or cause reproductive or neurological damage.

Think about all of the dangerous and poor quality products we’re importing from China that make the news now on a regular basis. Unlike the European Union, which uses a “precautionary principle” that prescribes protective steps whenever there is scientific evidence of risks to public health or the environment, the U.S. EPA relies on voluntary steps from the industries themselves. This model of consumer protection has unfortunately been swallowed up by corporate corruption. If the government is unable to provide the oversight needed to ensure public safety, then it’s up to YOU, the consumer, to protect yourself.

What You Can Do

The Cornucopia Institute has posted an Action Alert in the form of a proxy letter you can sign and mail off today. They will hand-carry your letters to the USDA spring meeting to protect organic products from synthetic additives. You can print out this proxy letter here.

Signed proxy letters should be mailed to:

The Cornucopia Institute
PO Box 126
Cornucopia, Wisconsin 54827

Also consider including a donation check with your letter, to support the invaluable work the Cornucopia Institute performs to protect your and your family’s right to clean, wholesome, truly organic food. As of right now, there does not appear to be any additional benefit to contacting your congressman, but if the need arises, Cornucopia will notify all their members and subscribers with the information.

I can’t encourage you enough to participate in this process. It’s important to recognize that you CAN make a difference! Always remember that collectively, we have the most effective power in the marketplace that can exceed the power of these multibillion dollar, multinational corporations. We can vote with our pocket books. But we also need to make our voices heard; we have to let these agencies know that we are watching, we’re paying attention, and we’re not going to allow this immoral, if not downright illegal, industrial favoritism to continue.

Until American consumers are willing to vote LOUDLY and CLEARLY with their checkbooks by refusing to purchase cheap products created under poor standards of safety, we will continue to be suckers for substandard and even dangerous products that can compromise our health, along with the health of future generations.

So think carefully before you purchase your products! The real cost of “cheap products” comes in the price you pay for your long-term health.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

The “Massive Con” Causing a Suicide Every 30 Minutes

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

It’s been called the “largest wave of recorded suicides in human history.”

Indian farmers have been robbed of their livelihoods, causing them to take their own lives in despair.

Over the past 16 years, it is estimated that more than a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide.

Who is responsible for this tragedy?

The most obvious culprits are global corporations like Monsanto, Cargill and Syngenta and the genetically engineered seed they have forced upon farmers worldwide.

None are hit harder than those in India, where socioeconomic and environmental factors have magnified the impact, making it almost impossible for these farmers to survive.

In fact, genetically engineered seeds are so fundamental to the problem that it’s been termed “GM Genocide.”

The rate of Indian farmer suicides has greatly increased since the introduction of Bt cotton in 2002.

This is not a pleasant subject to read about, but it is a necessary one… one that can help you understand why it’s so important to continue fighting seed monopolies with ever-increased resolve.

I experienced the Indian farmers’ plight firsthand while spending two weeks in India, where I saw for myself the devastating effects of GM seed upon the lives and livelihoods of these rural farmers.

I worked closely with Organic India, a company helping more than 150,000 farmers change back to time-honored methods of producing high quality plants and herbs. If you have any doubts about the dire global implications of GM crops, the plight of these farmers should put those doubts to rest.

A Farmer Commits Suicide by Pesticide Every 30 Minutes in India

The statistics are staggering. According to a publication from the New York University School of Law, in 2009 alone (the most recent year for which official figures are available) 17,638 Indian farmers committed suicide—that’s one farmer every 30 minutes. A great number of those affected are cash crop farmers, and cotton farmers in particular.

Cotton exemplifies India’s general shift toward cash crop cultivation, a shift that has contributed significantly to farmer vulnerability. The cotton industry, like other cash crops in India, has been dominated by foreign mega-corporations that promote genetically modified seeds and exert increasing control over the entire agricultural industry. Most farmer suicides are a direct result of overwhelming indebtedness. And the suicide numbers may be grossly underestimated.

According to the authors of the NYU report:

“While striking on their own, these figures considerably underestimate the actual number of farmer suicides taking place. Women, for example, are often excluded from farmer suicide statistics because most do not have title to land—a common prerequisite for being recognized as a farmer in official statistics and programs.”

The general trend over time is increasing suicides, despite the generally decreasing numbers of Indians performing farming each year, which makes the statistics even starker: It’s estimated that more than 250,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide so far. But this problem is not limited to India, as the suicide rate for farmers is higher worldwide than for the non-farming population.

In the Midwestern U.S., suicide rates among male farmers are twice that of the overall population. In Britain, one farmer commits suicide every week.

For every Indian farmer who takes his own life, a family is hounded by the debt he leaves behind, typically resulting in children dropping out of school to become farmhands, and surviving family members themselves frequently committing suicide out of hopelessness and despair. The Indian government’s response to the crisis—largely in the form of limited debt relief and compensation programs—has failed to address the magnitude and scope of the problem or its underlying causes.

India’s “Suicide Belt”

India is an agrarian country, populated by 1.1 billion people, about 60 percent of whom are directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture. Two-thirds of farmer suicides occur in five Indian states/territories, which has come to be known as India’s “Suicide Belt”: Maharastra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Chattisgarh. The worst area is Maharastra. In 2007, there were 4,238 farmer suicides in this state alone, accounting for one fourth of the total farmer suicides in India that year. These territories represent zones of highly diversified, commercialized agriculture where cash crops dominate—especially Bt cotton, grown from Monsanto’s genetically modified cotton seed. So, what is it about genetically engineered seed that is so damaging for Indian farmers?

Genetically Engineered Seeds Spell Global Disaster

There are four primary factors directly related to the use of genetically engineered seed that contribute heavily to this grim situation:

  1. Compared to traditional seed, genetically engineered seeds are very expensive and have to be repurchased every planting season
  2. Genetically engineered crops require much more water to grow, have much higher requirements for fertilizer and pesticide, in spite of Monsanto’s claims to the contrary and, in spite of their cost to farmers, provide NO increased yield

While companies like Monsanto have plenty of blood on their hands, additional social, economic and environmental factors make matters worse for these small rural farms:

  • The “Green Revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s has funneled money toward the middle class and away from the farming/peasant classes
  • Rising prices for seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and other farm supplies, along with falling prices for farm commodities, are forcing farmers to take out high-interest loans from opportunistic moneylenders
  • A trend from polyculture farming (diverse crops) to monoculture farming (primarily cotton) has depleted the soil and increased crop infestation by opportunistic pests
  • Limited water supplies, periodic drought, decreased monsoonal rainfall, and poor access to irrigation
  • Dishonest, predatory salesmen; lack of government support; and grossly inadequate government relief programs

Green Revolution Not Kind to Small Indian Farmers

The introduction of hybrid seeds marked the beginning of the current issues plaguing Indian farmers today. Prior to the 1960s and 1970s, Indian farmers grew diverse food crops, but that all changed with the Green Revolution as modern machinery, chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and hybrid seeds were introduced from the West. Most farmers in India now plant cash crops for export, rather than rice, legumes, millet, and other foods for local consumption.

And in India, cotton is king.

In 1998, under the World Bank’s new lending policies, India opened its seed sector to international agribusiness, forcing small cotton farms to compete with giant cotton plantations in the West. Companies like Monsanto promoted their new hybrid seed technology. However, it was soon discovered that the new high-tech cotton required more water and more chemicals to grow. This was not good for small Indian farmers, for whom both money and water were, and still are, in short supply.

Seeds of Evil

In 2002, Monsanto “came to the rescue” with the introduction of even higher-tech seeds: genetically engineered Bt cotton. The company claimed that these miracle seeds were a dream come true for farmers everywhere—more pest resistant, higher yields, etc. Bt cotton contains a bacteria gene, an insecticide that repels bollworm, cotton’s most voracious parasite.

But this genetically engineered cotton actually required far MORE water and far MORE pesticides than hybrid or traditional cotton!

These seeds were heavily marketed in India, using film stars and even religious deities to lure farmers in. And they came with a steep price tag—they are four to 10 times more expensive than hybrid seeds. Prior to hybrids, farmers were able to harvest their own seeds from each crop, to be planted next season. However, many genetically engineered seeds contain “terminator technology,” meaning they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops don’t produce viable seeds of their own. Therefore, new seeds must be purchased every year from big seed companies, at the same punitive prices.

Bt Cotton is a Debt Trap

Bt cotton requires more pesticide sprayings than indigenous cotton—MANY times more. Bt cotton has created new resistant pests, and to control these, farmers must use 13 times more pesticides than they were using prior to its introduction. Rates of infestation by aphids, thrips, jassids, and other pests have risen since Bt cotton’s introduction.

Meanwhile, yields for Bt cotton are disappointingly low. Monsanto claims Bt cotton will yield 1500 kg per year, but farmers have gotten only 300 to 400 kg per year, average. High costs and unreliable output make GM cotton a debt trap. According to Voltairenet.org:

“When Monsanto first introduced Bt cotton in 2002, the farmers lost one billion rupees due to crop failure. Instead of 1,500 kilos per acre as promised by the company, the harvest was as low as 200 kilos per acre. Instead of incomes of 10,000 rupees an acre, farmers ran into losses of 6,400 rupees an acre… Poor peasants of the South cannot survive seed monopolies. The crisis of suicides shows how the survival of small farmers is incompatible with the seed monopolies of global corporations.”

This has all been amplified by the dramatic fall in cotton prices as a result of the WTO’s free trade policies, which make cotton farming financially unsustainable. Foreign agricultural subsidies have driven down the price of crops on the global market, and unsubsidized Indian farmers can’t compete.

In 1994, one pound of raw cotton fetched $1.10. In 2006, that same pound brought in a meager 54 cents. A study carried out by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) shows that due to falling farm prices, Indian peasants are losing $26 billion annually.

Add to All of That a Water Shortage

Bt cotton requires irrigation, which only 10 percent of Indian farmers have. The other 90 percent depend on monsoonal rainfall, and in drought years, they risk losing their crops, their financial investment, and even their land.

Droughts are becoming more frequent due to the changing climate. Rains have largely failed for the past several years, and many genetically engineered crops have simply withered and died, leaving the farmers with crippling debts and no means of paying them off.

One study showed that, although most Bt cotton seed packets carry the information that they are “best grown in irrigated conditions” (in fine print), NONE of the homes of suicided farmers had irrigated land. These farmers aren’t educated about what it takes to make these seeds grow and the potential risk for total crop failure. And many farmers are completely illiterate and sign on the dotted lines without the benefit of reading, much less understanding, a contract.

And a Banking Shortage…

Another factor contributing to the problem is that farmers no longer have access to good loans. Thousands of rural bank branches have shut down since 1993, redirecting their lending away from farmers and toward elite city dwellers in Mumbai and Delhi, where high-tech growth and technology is booming. Lacking the financial means to pay for high-tech seeds and chemicals, about 80 percent of Indian farmers can borrow only from private moneylenders, who charge exorbitant interest rates. In order to obtain these loans, they must put up their land as collateral. When their crops fail, they lose everything and become servants to the moneylenders.

Many seed dealers operate like America’s infamous subprime mortgage lenders.

India has an army of salesmen out selling farm products to farmers who can’t afford them. A famer is manipulated into the deal with high-pressure sales tactics, and then borrows from a moneylender to do the deal. When his harvests fail, he has no choice other than to borrow even more. This marks the beginning of a downward spiral of indebtedness and despair. After crops fail and moneylenders hover like buzzards over their decimated fields, many farmers take their lives by ingesting the very pesticides they went into debt to purchase, suffering slow, agonizing deaths.

India’s Farmers are Abandoned and Forgotten by their Government

The Indian government used to have agricultural extensions to help farmers, but those days are gone. Farmers now have no one to turn to for advice, except for predatory seed salesmen who don’t have the farmers’ best interests in mind. The Indian farmers have lost faith in their government, and who could blame them?

The government’s priority is clearly India’s new urban high-tech based economy. Corrupt officials are disinterested in protecting farmers, and little money is spent on infrastructure, in spite of the fact that 70 percent of Indians live in rural areas. Until the government begins to address irrigation, rural credit, and regulation of the business practices of multinational corporations, the farmer suicide crisis will unfortunately continue.

Genetic Engineering Brings Magnitude 10 Dangers

Genetically tinkering with the human food supply… what could possibly go wrong? Plenty, as it turns out. The potential dangers of genetically engineered food run the gamut, including:

  • Contamination of organic crop varieties
  • Development of herbicide-resistant super weeds
  • Organ disruption, cancer, and increased rate of miscarriage and infertility in animals raised on genetically engineered feed
  • Air and rain samples contaminated with glyphosate, and waterways in agricultural areas contaminated with a genetically engineered bug-killing protein
  • A brand new organism related specifically to genetically engineered crops, found to be responsible for disease and sudden death in both plants and mammals

The Importance of Buying Organic Cotton

A few Indian farmers have decided to switch to growing organic cotton. There are numerous advantages, of course, from the standpoint of health—but there are also financial advantages. A minimum price for organic cotton is guaranteed. And the cost of growing organic cotton declines over time as the ecosystem regains its balance.

Organic cotton fields may harbor a few bollworms, but you’ll also find plenty of helpful insects, such as ladybugs, and birds that help keep pests under control. Organic farmers make their own insecticides from a renewable mixture of cow dung, cow urine, and butter, and compost fertilizers as well.

You Can Help the Indian Farmers’ Plight

Monsanto has been ruthless in their drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops, and it gives us a very clear picture of what could be in store for the rest of the world’s small farmers if GM seed conglomerates are allowed to continue. This is why it’s so important to vote with your pocket book, being vigilant about not purchasing GM foods.

I have visited thousands of Indian farmers who’ve escaped the clutches of Monsanto, thanks to the efforts of Organic India that has taught them how to grow crops organically. Organic India has also constructed a number of hospitals and clinics to serve these farmers, which has helped tremendously in restoring their dignity.

Your best strategy, to help both yourself and small organic farmers everywhere, is to buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit genetically engineered ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the genetically engineered crops you’re exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you’re not inadvertently consuming something laced with genetically engineered ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.

You may also find this Non-GMO Shopping Guide helpful, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for “ShopNoGMO” in the applications. To learn more, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:

  • The Future of Food
  • Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals
  • Your Milk on Drugs – Just Say No!
  • Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Disease Outbreaks Tied to Imported Foods Increasing according to the CDC

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

The more steps your food goes through before it reaches your plate, the greater your chances of contamination becomes.

If you are able to get your food locally, directly from the field or after harvest, such as directly from a farmer or farmer’s market, you knock out numerous routes that could expose your food to contamination.

So it is not surprising that new research released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that foodborne disease outbreaks linked to imported foods are on the rise.

As Food Imports Rise, so do Foodborne Disease Outbreaks

Foodborne disease outbreaks linked to imported foods rose in both 2009 and 2010 (data for 2011 is still being analyzed).

In all, 39 outbreaks and 2,348 illnesses were linked to imported foods from 15 countries.

However, nearly half of the outbreaks occurred in 2009 and 2010 …

Most of the outbreaks were due to fish (17 outbreaks) and spices (particularly fresh or dried peppers), which are also among the most commonly imported foods.

For instance, data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Economic Research Service (ERS) reveals that 85 percent of seafood eaten by Americans is imported! As rates of food imports rise (ERS data shows that U.S. food import has nearly doubled from 1998 to 2007), it’s likely that disease outbreaks will become increasingly common. As it is, the numbers are thought to be a serious underestimate, as food-borne disease outbreaks are commonly under-reported.

Nearly Half of the Tainted Foods Came From This Region …

The data shows that more types of food, from more different countries, are being linked to disease outbreaks. However, one region still takes the “prize” for the most tainted food … Nearly 45 percent of the foods linked to outbreaks came from Asia.

This may be because this region is also a major exporter to the United States, so the sheer numbers of imports would increase the chances. China is the largest exporter of seafood to the United States. (They’re also the largest U.S. supplier of canned vegetables, fruit juices, honey, and other processed foods.) Wal-Mart, in particular, is one of China’s largest trading partners. However, there are problems with food quality in the region as well.

According to a 2008 Congressional testimony by Don Kraemer, deputy director of the Office of Food Safety at the FDA:

“In the past, [the] FDA has encountered compliance problems with several Chinese food exports, including lead and cadmium in ceramicware used to store and ship food, and staphylococcal contamination of canned mushrooms. While improvements have been made in these products, the safety of food and other products from China remains a concern for [the] FDA, Congress, and American consumers.”

Since that testimony, a variety of Chinese exports have come under fire for being dangerously contaminated with one poison or another, and in some cases with deadly consequences. This includes:

  • Pet food ingredients laced with toxic melamine
  • Imported livestock quarantined for disease and banned chemical contaminants
  • Catfish filets from Chinese aquatic farms tainted with bacteria and heavy metals
  • Dried apples preserved with a cancer-causing chemical
  • Mushrooms laced with illegal pesticides

Another Asian country, Taiwan, has also made headlines because of the contamination of numerous foods and beverages withplasticizer chemicals like DEHP. More than 1 million sports drinks, fruit jams, instant noodles containing sesame oil packets, cookies and other food products were taken off shelves due to the toxin. It appears that the chemical was added to foods as a substitute for more expensive ingredients like palm oil, and it’s unclear how long this had going on or whether most manufacturers were aware of the contamination.

Our global food system makes it so Asian foods (and those from many other regions) are easily obtainable at your local supermarket … but when food is produced and distributed on such a massive scale, contamination often occurs on a massive scale as well.

Food Infections Common from U.S. Foods Too

An estimated one in six Americans gets infected every year from consuming contaminated food. Sometimes this results in a 24-hour bout of diarrhea and vomiting that clears up on its own, but in other cases foodborne pathogens can lead to organ failure, paralysis, neurological impairment, blindness, stillbirths and even death.

Over 100,000 people are hospitalized from foodborne illnesses each year in the United States, and 3,000 die. This is not only from imported foods, but from those produced right here in the United States.

You see, just because a food is manufactured on U.S. soil does not guarantee its safety. Most of the meat sold in U.S. grocery stores and restaurants come from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which can house tens of thousands of animals (and in the case of chickens, 100,000) under one roof, in nightmarish, unsanitary, disease-ridden conditions. It’s under these conditions that foodborne pathogens flourish, and indeed studies have shown that the larger the farm, the greater the chances of contamination.

In one study, more than 23 percent of CAFOs with caged hens tested positive for Salmonella, while just over 4 percent of organic flocks tested positive. The highest prevalence of Salmonella occurred in the largest flocks (30,000 birds or more), which contained over four times the average level of salmonella found in smaller flocks. Organic flocks are typically much smaller than the massive commercial flocks where bacteria flourish, which is part of the reason why eggs (and other products, like meat) from truly organic, free-range sources are FAR less likely to contain dangerous bacteria such as Salmonella.

If you still buy your meat at your supermarket, even if it’s U.S. raised, you should know that you are directly supporting a food system that typically promotes widespread contamination.

And you can bet that as long as there are people willing to buy cheap, contaminated meat, the industry will continue to produce it. Consumer Reports tests indicated that 83 percent of fresh, whole broiler chickens bought at supermarkets nationwide harbor Campylobacter or Salmonella. This is clearly unacceptable, and if you start to demand more — meat that is raised in a healthy, humane way, free from toxins and disease — producers will have no choice but to listen.

Buying Local is One of the Best Ways to Avoid Food Poisoning

I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area, particularly organic farms that respect the laws of nature and use the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat to create synergistic, self-supporting, non-polluting, GMO-free ecosystems.

If you value food safety, you’ll want to get your meat, chickens and eggs from smaller community farms with free-ranging animals, organically fed and locally marketed. This is the way food has been raised and distributed for centuries …

If you opt for imported foods, or those from U.S. CAFOs, your food will go through upwards of 9 steps before it reaches your dinner plate. Public health agencies like the FDA use the term “field-to-fork continuum” to describe the path any given food takes on the way to your plate, and during any of the following steps, contamination is possible:

  1. Open field production
  2. Harvesting
  3. Field packing
  4. Greenhouse production
  5. Packinghouse or field packing
  6. Repacking and other distribution operations
  7. Fresh-cut/value-added processing
  8. Food service and retail
  9. Consumer

I personally purchase my whole chickens from a health food store that gets them from a local farmer and they are grown organically and humanely. They cost a bit more but they are worth it — and when you consider that most of us only spend around 10% of our income on food, it is a bargain to get high-quality food. In most countries and in previous generations in the US, up to 25% of income was spent on food.

If you are able to get your food directly from the farmer, you knock out five potential operations that could expose your food to contamination. The closer you are to the source of your food, the fewer hands it has to pass through and the less time it will sit in storage — so the better, and likely safer, it will be for you and your family. Plus, when you know the person who grows your food, you can ask questions about its growing conditions — an impossibility when you buy food from CAFOs or other countries. If eating locally is new to you, rest assured that you can find a source near you, regardless of whether you’re in a remote or rural area or a big city.

Here’s a list of helpful resources:

  • For a listing of national farmer’s markets, see this link.
  • Another great web site is www.localharvest.org. There you can find farmers’ markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
  • Subscribe to a community supported agriculture program (CSA). Some are seasonal while others are year round programs. Once you subscribe, many will drop affordable, high quality locally-grown produce right at your door step. To find a CSA near you, go to the USDA’s website where you can search by city, state, or zip code.
  • Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
  • Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
  • FoodRoutes. Their “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA’s, and markets near you.
  • For an even more comprehensive list of CSA’s and a host of other sustainable agriculture programs, check out this link to mySustainable Agriculture page.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

The Dramatic New Rule Change for Genetically Engineered Foods

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Under new U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules, Monsanto and other biotech companies that create genetically modified (GM) crops will get speedier regulatory reviews of their genetically engineered food products.

The new rules will cut the time needed to approve biotech crops in half—from an average of three years, to about 13 months for new versions of already existing crop technologies, and about 16 months for brand new technologies.

The U.S. Congress is also helping out by increasing the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 2012 budget for biotech regulation from $13 million to $18 million.

One way the USDA plans to speed up approvals is by asking for public comments as soon as a petition for the deregulation of a biotech crop is filed, rather than waiting until the end of the review.

However, according to Bloomberg:

“The Center for Food Safety, a Washington-based non-profit group that has successfully challenged approvals of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar-beet and alfalfa crops, said the rule change is aimed at preventing opponents of modified crops from voicing criticism of the agency’s methods.

“They are trying to work the system so they can dismiss public comments more quickly and easily in order to speed things up,” Bill Freese, a policy analyst at the group, said in a telephone interview.

 ”It’s a rubber-stamp system. A real regulatory system will occasionally reject something.”"

Monsanto Will Also Conduct Its Own Environmental Impact Studies…

As if that’s not enough, let’s not forget that the USDA also created a two-year long pilot program last year, which allows biotech companies like Monsanto to conduct their own environmental assessments.

This decision opens the door for massive conflicts of interest, because if history has shown us anything, it’s that industries CANNOT police themselves. The end result is always the same—corporate vested interests win every time. This is exactly why we need independent agencies to do safety reviews.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government and our regulatory agencies are FILLED with former Monsanto employees, which is likely why all federal actions relating to genetically engineered foods are so illogical and downright foolhardy.

Take Michael Taylor for example. He was the vice president of public policy and a chief lobbyist at Monsanto, and he’s now the deputy commissioner for foods at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)! According to Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, Taylor oversaw the creation of GMO policy, which may help explain why genetically engineered foods do not have to be labeled in the U.S.

According to Jeffrey Smith:

“If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto’s attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto’s vice president and chief lobbyist.”

Once you realize just how many of Monsanto’s employees have shifted into positions of power within the federal government, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to understand why they appear to so callously ignore public safety and turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to any and all evidence of harm linked to Monsanto’s products.

Monsanto Accused in Suit Tied to Agent Orange

Granting speedier approvals and allowing biotech companies to do their own safety reviews becomes even more ludicrous when you consider the poor safety record of companies such as Monsanto. Most recently, in the town of Nitro, West Virginia, tens of thousands of people filed a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto, accusing the company of spreading toxic substances, primarily carcinogenic dioxins, all over the city for two decades. The Monsanto chemical plant in Nitro produced the herbicide 2,4,5-T; a component of Agent Orange, the extremely toxic herbicide used to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War. Agent Orange is known to cause cancer, birth defects in children of exposed victims, leukemia, liver disease, heart disease, Parkinson’s Disease, diabetes and chloracne.

The suit claims poisonous residues from the chemical have polluted the area, putting residents’ health and the environment at serious risk. According to the Republic Broadcasting Network:

“Monsanto is alleged to have burned dioxin waste in open pits, spewing dioxin and its ash into the air and polluting land … The EPA recommended that Monsanto be criminally investigated for fraud in covering-up dioxin contamination in its products, including 2,4,5-T herbicide. Monsanto failed to report contamination, substituted false information to show no contamination or sent in ‘doctored’ samples of their products devoid of dioxin to government regulators.”

Monsanto has tentatively agreed to a $93 million settlement with some of the residents. The settlement would include $21 million for medical testing, $63 million for additional screening, and $9 million for the cleanup of 4,500 homes.

Why We MUST Insist on Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods

Mandatory labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of GM foods in the U.S. It is primarily due to lack of labeling that many Americans are still unfamiliar with what GM foods are, and that they’re eating them on a daily basis. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate and to continue learning more about GM foods and helping your friends and family do the same. To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store.

You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

Your BEST strategy, however, is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit GM ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers.

The majority of the GMO’s you’re exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you’re not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues. To learn more about GM foods, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:

  • Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals
  • Your Milk on Drugs – Just Say No!
  • Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Bye Bye Coumadin, so long Plavix – Say Hello to Five Natural Blood Thinners that Protect Against Strokes and Blood Clots

Posted on by
Reply

By: JB Bardot
Source: NaturalNews.com

The November 2011 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine reports that most emergency hospital visits for the elderly are caused by side effects and overdosing from taking blood thinners to prevent strokes and blood clots. Conventional doctors wait until you’re at risk of a stroke or have had your first stroke to prescribe blood thinners in hopes of preventing additional strokes. What they don’t warn you about are the serious possible side effects from these drugs including internal bleeding, stomach ulcers, muscle aches and pains, headaches with dizziness, kidney failure and a boat load of other negatives that can destroy your health. However, there are several natural substances that possess powerful anti-inflammatory properties and also help to thin the blood. These herbs can also produce their own side effects and should not be taken in combination with pharmaceutical drugs. Don’t take any unfamiliar medicinal herb unless supervised by a well-trained herbalist or natural health practitioner.

Turmeric

Used in Ayurvedic and Traditional Chinese Medicine for thousands of years, the richly golden spice turmeric is hailed for it’s ability to reduce pain and inflammation. Recent studies have revealed that its pain-killing properties compare with those of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs; however, turmeric does not cause the internal bleeding and digestive upset or toxicity to the liver that is found in some cases of individuals taking NSAIDs.

Bromelain

Bromelain is an enzyme found in pineapples that also has anti-inflammatory properties and is especially helpful in reducing pain and stiffness associated with arthritis when taken on an empty stomach. Its action is enhanced when taken in combination with turmeric and ginger. Additionally, bromelain is a wonderful digestive enzyme when taken with meals and helps break down proteins, protecting against the formation of uric acid crystals, which are responsible for causing gout and certain types of kidney stones.

Ginger

Ginger is one of the royal ancient spices of India, China and Japan whose action works to reduce inflammation of the joints and muscles as well as strengthening the immune system and reducing digestive upsets and vomiting. Ginger has been used medicinally for thousands of years and is most effective when used raw in a hot tea; however, it is also helpful when taken in powdered supplements.

Garlic

A favorite spice for many people — and a popular healing agent around the world — garlic is not only a potent anti-inflammatory herb, but has proven antimicrobial, antifungal and antiviral properties. Eating garlic raw or lightly cooked, or making garlic tea are several of the most effective methods for its medicinal use. Odorless, freeze-dried supplements are available for those who prefer to avoid the strong scent on their breath.

Water

Simple, plain and life’s staple, water is perhaps one of the best blood thinners available. Allowing yourself to become dehydrated thickens the blood, causing it to clump together and form clots. Drinking enough clear, clean water each day helps keep the blood running smoothly through your circulatory and cardiovascular system, maintaining good health. The ideal daily intake for each individual is 1/2 ounce of water for each pound of body weight; in other words, if you weight 150 pounds, you should ideally drink 75 ounces of water daily.

All of these substances have the power to thin the blood. There are other foods as well, such as vitamins B-6, D and E, omega-3 fatty acids, apple cider vinegar and strawberries that act as blood-thinning agents; and when used judiciously under the supervision of your health practitioner, may keep you healthy longer, prevent strokes and blood clots and help keep you off drugs and out of the hospital.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Curcumin found to Prevent Brain Degenerative Diseases including Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

Posted on by
Reply

By: John Phillip
Source: NaturalNews.com

Curcumin, the bioactive compound found in the Indian curry spice turmeric and commonly referred to as ‘holy powder’, has been used for centuries in folk medicine to treat wounds, infections, and other health problems. Today researchers are using the power of the evolving science of epigenetics to reveal how curcumin is crucial in the fight against many forms of cancer, as it causes metastatic cells to undergo programmed cell death, or apoptosis.

Researchers from Michigan State University, publishing the result of a study in the Journal of Biological Chemistry have found that this amazing natural compound is able to prevent the destructive formation of alpha-synuclein proteins that are the hallmark presentation in many neurodegenerative disease such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. Curcumin is one a very select group of structures that is able to cross the delicate blood-brain barrier to affect biochemical and electrical activities in the brain. The turmeric derivative has demonstrated the unique capability to prevent clumping or aggregation leading to disease development.

Curcumin aids protein folding to prevent brain tangles and degeneration

The team lead researcher, Dr. Basir Ahmad and scientists conducting the study commented “Our research shows that curcumin can rescue proteins from aggregation, the first steps of many debilitating diseases… more specifically, curcumin binds strongly to alpha-synuclein and prevents aggregation at body temperatures.”

The team used precise lasers to study the split-second formation of proteins known as ‘protein folding’. Normally, proteins are folded at lightning fast speed at the direction of genes and DNA sequences. Damage to DNA caused by poor diet and lifestyle factors from epigenetic alterations results in mis-folded proteins and neurodegenerative disease.

Researchers found that when curcumin attaches to alpha-synuclein it not only stops clumping, but it also raises the protein’s folding or reconfiguration rate. By slowing the speed that the proteins form, curcumin effectively inhibits abnormal protein clumping to prevent tangles and damage to the nerve synapses. Chemical and electrical communications are retained that help to help prevent the early manifestation of Parkinson’s disease.

Curcumin can be added to the diet with liberal use of the Indian curry spice in meal preparation. Many people do not enjoy the taste of curry infused foods. For those individuals, nutrition advisors recommend a standardized supplement (std. to 95% total curcuminoids for maximum bioavailability) providing 300 to 500 mg daily to prevent neurodegenerative decline.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Pink Slime Factories Shuttered after Massive Public Backlash

Posted on by
Reply

By: Jonathan Benson
Source: NaturalNews.com

For several decades now, the conventional beef industry has secretly been lacing ground beef products with an industrial, ammonia-laced byproduct known as “pink slime,” a disturbing fact that recently came to the forefront of national attention after Food Network chef Jamie Oliver first drew attention to its existence. And consumer backlash has been so strong ever since that a number of supermarket chains, restaurants, and even schools have decided to stop supplying it, which has caused its primary producer, Beef Products Inc. (BPI), to close three of its four manufacturing plants.

USA Today and others are reporting that Dakota Dunes, South Dakota-based BPI is temporarily closing its Waterloo, Iowa; Garden City, Kansas; and Amarillo, Texas plants for an indefinite period of time as a result of widespread consumer rejection of pink slime products. Workers at these plants will continue to receive pay and benefits for the next 60 days, but it is unclear what will happen after these next two months expire, should the plants continue to remain closed.

Meanwhile, BPI is launching an aggressive public relations campaign to fight back against its critics, which includes claiming that pink slime is “100 percent beef,” and that it is a highly-nutritious and safe product. And many in the media are jumping onboard this propaganda bandwagon by spinning the situation back against consumers, who are technically victims that have been been duped all these years into buying ground beef products that were secretly adulterated with pink slime.

In case you missed the original story, pink slime, which is officially known as “lean finely textured beef,” is basically a low-cost ground beef filler composed of beef scraps that are mashed, processed with a chemical ammonia solution, and turned into an unappetizing pink paste, the pictures of which have circulated the internet in recent months.

This pink slime has been added to roughly 70 percent of all ground beef products since the 1990s, but few were aware of it. Pink slime is obviously not labeled on ground beef packages, and the only way consumers can know for sure that they are not consuming it is to buy local or organic ground beef, or to watch the beef being ground fresh before buying it.

BPI, mainstream media launch attack on consumers for rejecting pink slime

It is abundantly clear that the vast majority of American consumers are not interested in feeding their children a highly-processed additive that has been treated with toxic ammonia, which is why the product is being pulled from grocery store shelves, restaurant menus, and schools all across the country. But BPI is not going down without a fight, as it is launching a campaign that basically insults the intelligence of Americans by claiming that pink slime is no different from real beef.

But according to former U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientist Gerald Zirnstein, pink slime is not actually meat, nor is it as nutritious as meat, a sentiment to which his former colleague Carl Custer also agrees. And Kit Foshee, a former executive at BPI, appears to hold the same view, having told ABC News that pink slime is processed from fat and cuts that would otherwise not ever be used as food.

“Microbiologically safe and nutritionally complete are two different issues,” said Custer to ABC News, referring to BPI’s claim that pink slime contains little fat and is pathogen-free. “It may be pink [but], nutritionally, it is not equivalent to whole-muscle tissue” (http://abcnews.go.com).

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Take Action to Support ‘Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act’

Posted on by
Reply

By: Jonathan Benson
Source: NaturalNews.com

Every year for at least the last decade, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh.) has stood up for health freedom by introducing the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act before the U.S. Congress, only to witness it later die in committee. And once again, Rep. Kucinich has introduced the bill in the current congressional session, this time as H.R. 3553, with 21 co-sponsors thus far — and your help is needed to finally get this legislation acknowledged and passed into law.

More Americans than ever are waking up to the presence of genetically-modified organisms (GMO) in the foods they eat, which means momentum is strong to pass legislation at the national level requiring their proper labeling. After all, more than 90 percent of individuals polled in numerous surveys have indicated that labeling GMOs is essential in a free society.

But as it stands, the federal government is stonewalling all efforts, both public and private, to implement food transparency. It also continues to ignore all independent science on the matter, which shows conclusively that GMOs are not the same as natural foods, and that they are responsible for causing a host of illnesses in humans, and colossal environmental damage.

“Gen-M, ‘Generation Monsanto,’ the first generation of humans force-fed genetically modified foods, hasn’t reached reproductive age yet (they were born in the late 1990s),” says a new Organic Consumers Association (OCA) Action Alert. “But, if a critical mass of animal feeding studies are any indication, the millennial generation, reared on Food Inc.’s unlabeled ‘Frankenfoods’ can look forward to a long-term epidemic of cancer, food allergies, sterility, learning disabilities, and birth defects.”

In California, Washington, and about a dozen other states there are currently efforts underway to pass GMO labeling laws statewide, which is a great start. But the federal government, controlled largely by pharmaceutical and biotechnology interests, refuses to require mandatory labeling, let alone require proper safety testing for GMOs before approving them.

But the issue is not going away anytime soon, and eventually a critical mass of awareness about GMOs and the immense damage they are causing to humans and the environment will spur a political and agricultural revolution. So our elected officials had better listen up now and take action before the people decide to take action for them.

Be sure to ask your representatives to cosponsor H.R. 3553:
http://capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/issues/alert/?alertid=58123521

You can view H.R. 3553 at:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3553/show

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Eating This Fatty Snack Can Protect Your Heart and More

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

If you’re looking for a nutritious, quick snack, nuts (raw, organic and in moderation) are a near perfect option.

With healthy fats, fiber, plant sterols and many vitamins and minerals, nuts pack a powerful nutritional punch, all wrapped up in a tiny bite-sized package.

In fact, a recent epidemiologic study revealed that nuts offer many benefits for your health, even reducing your risk of serious chronic disease.

Nuts Support Heart Health, Lower Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome Risk

There have not been many epidemiologic studies undertaken to assess the effect of nut consumption on health risks, but a recent study involving more than 13,000 people, published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, set out to do just that.

Those who ate nuts gained numerous benefits compared to non-nut eaters, including:

  • Decreased body mass index and waist circumference
  • Lower systolic blood pressure
  • Lower weight
  • Less likelihood of having two risk factors for metabolic syndrome: high blood pressure and low HDL (good) cholesterol (for nut consumers)
  • Less likelihood of having four risk factors for metabolic syndrome: abdominal obesity, high blood pressure, high fasting glucose and a lower prevalence of metabolic syndrome (for tree nut consumers)

Researchers concluded:

“Nut/tree nut consumption was associated with a decreased prevalence of selected risk factors for cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and MetS [metabolic syndrome].”

Other research has further proven that nuts, such as almonds, confer superior heart health benefits to complex carbs like whole-wheat muffins; a study in the journal Circulation found people with abnormally high level of lipids, such as cholesterol, in their blood, were able to significantly reduce their risk factors for coronary heart disease by snacking on whole almonds. Those who snacked on whole-wheat muffins got no such benefit.

It’s likely that nuts impact your heart health in numerous ways. For instance, many (walnuts, hazelnuts, pecans, Brazil nuts, almonds, cashews and peanuts) contain the amino acid l-arginine, which offers multiple vascular benefits to people with heart disease, or those who have increased risk for heart disease due to multiple cardiac risk factors. L-arginine is a key nutrient in promoting efficient blood flow and overall cardiovascular function. L-arginine is considered one of the “semi-essential” amino acids—meaning, often your body can’t produce it in sufficient quantities, so you must obtain adequate quantities from your diet.

Will Eating Nuts Make You Fat?

It’s one of the biggest nutritional myths of all times that eating a food high in healthy fat will make you fat. If you’re watching your weight, a small handful of nuts like almonds is a better snack choice than a snack high in complex carbohydrates, such as a bran muffin. In one study comparing those who ate a low-calorie diet that included either almonds or complex carbs, the almond group had a:

  • 62 percent greater reduction in their weight/BMI
  • 50 percent greater reduction in waist circumference
  • 56 percent greater reduction in body fat

A separate study in the journal Obesity also found that eating nuts two or more times per week was associated with a reduced risk of weight gain.

Which Nuts are Healthiest?

You can’t really go wrong when choosing nuts to eat, as long as you pay attention to quality. By this I mean look for nuts that are organic and raw, not irradiated or pasteurized (see below for more details). One exception is peanuts, which I typically avoid, and which are technically in the legume family. Along with being one of the most pesticide-laden foods you can eat, most peanuts are also contaminated with aflatoxin, a carcinogenic mold. My favorite nuts are pecans, walnuts, almonds and hazelnuts. Generally speaking, each type of nut will offer a slightly different mix of nutrients for your health. For instance:

  • Almonds: One of the healthiest aspects of almonds appears to be their skins, as they are rich in antioxidants including phenols, flavonoids and phenolic acids, which are typically associated with vegetables and fruits. As the Almond Board of California reported, a study in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry even revealed that a one-ounce serving of almonds has a similar amount of total polyphenols as a cup of steamed broccoli or green tea.
  • Walnuts: Walnuts are good sources of plant-based omega-3 fats, natural phytosterols and antioxidants that are so powerful at free-radical scavenging that researchers called them “remarkable.” Plus, walnuts may help reduce not only the risk of prostate cancer, but breast cancer as well.
  • Pecans: Pecans contain more than 19 vitamins and minerals, and research has shown they may help lower LDL cholesterol and promote healthy arteries.
  • Brazil Nuts: Brazil nuts are an excellent source of organic selenium, a powerful antioxidant-boosting mineral that may help prevent cancer.

Most Almonds in North America are Pasteurized — Even if They’re Labeled Raw

Unfortunately, it is difficult to find raw almonds in the United States, because the U.S. Department of Agriculture implemented a mandatory pasteurization program for almonds in 2007. The Almond Board of California states they have conducted independent nutritional lab analyses that show pasteurization does not degrade the nutritional value of almonds, but this is also what is falsely claimed for pasteurized milk — that the pasteurization process does not change its nutritional composition, or allergenicity. We know, however, that raw milk and pasteurized milk are two very different foods from a health standpoint, and it stands to reason that raw and pasteurized almonds are too.

The Almond Board of California again states that the pasteurization processes for almonds are slightly different from the one used for milk and juice in that they only treat the surface of the nut, but the Cornucopia Institute states the USDA mandate “requires sanitation of almonds with a toxic fumigant or treatment with high-temperature heat.” So please be aware that if you purchase almonds in North America, they will have gone through one of the following pasteurization methods:

  • Oil roasting, dry roasting, or blanching
  • Steam processing
  • Propylene Oxide (PPO) treatment (PPO is a highly toxic flammable chemical compound, once used as a racing fuel before it was prohibited for safety reasons)

Pasteurized almonds sold in North America can still be labeled “raw” even though they’ve been subjected to one of the treatment processes listed above. There are generally no truly “raw” almonds sold in North America, so don’t be misled. It is possible to purchase raw almonds in the U.S., but it has to be done very carefully from vendors selling small quantities that have a waiver from the pasteurization requirement. The key is to find a company with the waiver that is NOT pasteurizing them. I personally enjoy raw almonds nearly every day, as it is an outstanding food.

Eating Nuts in Moderation is Best

You need to be cautious with the quantity of nuts you eat, but this is not because they will make you “fat,” as many believe. Instead, the reason for moderation is that almost all nuts are top heavy in omega-6 fats and can upset your omega-6/omega-3 ratio. As explained by Dr. Paul Jaminet, a trained astrophysicist and author of the book, Perfect Health Diet:

“It’s really important to be low in omega-6 fats … When you’re eating low-carb, you’re necessarily eating a high-fat diet, and the quality of your fats becomes very important. It’s very important to keep down the level of omega-6 fats, because the polyunsaturated fats in general become toxic if you get too much. That’s where you really have to avoid all these vegetable oils, because they can be very high in omega-6. Things like corn oil, safflower oil, soy bean oil – even canola oil – just have too much polyunsaturated fat.”

Nuts also contain polyunsaturated fats, and certain nuts, like pistachios and cashews, contain slightly higher amounts of carbohydrates than nuts like almonds and walnuts, which is important to keep in mind if you’re following a low-carb diet, and especially if you have high levels of insulin, high blood pressure, excess weight, high cholesterol or diabetes.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

USDA Green-Lights field trials of Monsanto Drought-Resistant Corn after Admitting it Performs No Better than Natural Corn

Posted on by
Reply

By: Ethan A. Huff
Source: NaturalNews.com

The U.S. Department of Agriculture‘s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) does not even pretend to legitimately evaluate genetically-modified organisms (GMO) before approving them anymore, having recently green-lighted approval for a new variety of “drought-resistant” GM corn produced by Monsanto that admittedly grows no better under drought conditions than natural varieties do.

According to the Washington Post, APHIS fast-tracked the corn, known as MON87460, without ever conducting an appropriate environmental risk analysis on the crop’s efficacy, which includes determining whether or not the crop is even safe for humans or the environment. In fact, in accordance with the Obama Administration’s new hands-off approach to regulating GMOs, APHIS decided to actually approve MON87460 even after a cursory evaluation of the data exposed it as a complete failure.

“The reduced yield [trait] does not exceed the natural variation observed in regionally-adapted varieties of conventional corn,” wrote the USDA in an earlier report on the crop published last fall. “Equally comparable varieties produced through conventional breeding techniques are readily available in irrigated corn production regions”.

MON87460 is the first GMO to be approved with resistance to drought, as opposed to a pesticide or herbicide. And even though many drought-adaptive varieties of natural or hybrid corn already exist, Monsanto is pushing MON87460 on farmers all across the Midwest, and primarily in the Western plains where drought conditions are still severe, with promises that it will translate into increased yields.

Based on its initial findings, however, as well as the fact that GM crops are known to contaminate nearby conventional and organic crops, APHIS should have wholly rejected MON87460 and told Monsanto to hit the road. Instead, thanks to embedded special interests throughout the USDA and the highest levels of the federal government, this former regulatory body has become nothing more than a bureaucratic rubber stamp for the biotechnology industry.

“[Bio]technology has been spectacularly unsuccessful at delivering complex traits such as drought tolerance, which involve multiple genes and complex interaction with the plant’s environment,” wrote Dr. Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch U.K., in a piece last year on so-called drought-tolerant GM crops. “Meanwhile, conventional breeding and new techniques such as marker-assisted selection — which uses knowledge of the plant’s genome to inform breeding, without engineering the plant, have produced a long string of successes.”

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Natural ways to Get Rid of Wrinkles

Posted on by
Reply

By: Kim Evans
Source: NaturalNews.com

Most people think that once you have wrinkles you’re stuck with them, but there’s actually quite a bit you can do about them. Of course, nutrition and being clean internally are key parts of the equation and it’s not uncommon to find that with tons of juicing, eating lots of uncooked foods from nature and doing plenty of coffee enemas that wrinkles just go away. Actually, it’s a combination that tends to keep us young and disease-free on many levels. However, there’s quite a bit that you can do about wrinkles topically too.

Coconut oil, beet and carrot juice

Coconut oil is a wonderful oil that is known to rebuild our skin tissue and it can be used both topically and internally regularly for the elimination of wrinkles. Coconut oil is both hydrating and rebuilds our connective tissues, and damaged connective tissues are often the cause of wrinkles.

Using a little carrot and beet juice on the skin regularly helps remove wrinkles too and is in fact quite powerful. The vitamin A in carrot juice is wonderful for the skin. Beets are also known to repair our DNA, so using beet juice topically on wrinkle sites is a powerful way to rebuild the damaged skin which often causes wrinkles – possibly by repairing the DNA of the damaged tissue.

Using carrot and beet juice topically with coconut oil also increases the benefits of both. Coconut oil has absorptive properties that help pull the juices into the skin in addition to its hydration benefits. You’ll only need a tablespoon or two of these juices each time and you can drink what you don’t use. You’ll want to leave these juices on your skin for about ten minutes before rinsing them off. You can apply and reapply the juices as they dry, rubbing them in each time.

Exfoliation

After you’ve spent some time repairing your skin with coconut oil and these juices, you’ll want to exfoliate your skin to remove the dead skin. You can exfoliate with a washcloth or you can use the juice of a somewhat unripe pineapple. Pineapple contains the enzyme bromelain which naturally eats away our top layer of skin when applied topically and leaves the new fresh skin underneath. Pineapple juice easily rivals expensive spa exfoliation treatments.

To exfoliate with pineapple juice, just apply some of the juice with a little coconut oil or olive oil and rub it in, reapplying it as needed. After a few minutes of rubbing, you may find that dead layers of skin start to come off in your hands. And after doing this, just rinse and apply a layer of coconut or olive oil to hydrate the skin.

While you may not be able to get rid of all of your wrinkles this way, you might be able be get rid of 50 or 60 percent of them. Of course, the more you do the juices and the coconut oil, the more effective they are.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

The Worst of Both Worlds — Genetically Engineered Goats to Produce New Vaccine

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Goats are being genetically engineered to become “pharm animals” that carry vaccines in their milk.

Current experiments being conducted by researchers from Texas A&M are geared toward producing an “edible” malaria vaccine, with the ultimate goal being that children drinking the milk will become vaccinated in the process.

While claiming that bioengineered animals could be “life-savers” for people in third-world countries, the researchers ignore the glaring issue that such biotechnology often produces unknown, and unintended, health consequences that prove tragic for individuals and the environment.

Vaccines in Your Milk?

Transmogrifying farm animals into “pharm” animals to act as living and breathing pharmaceutical factories is not new.

In 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first drug produced by livestock that had been bioengineered to express a human gene.

In that case, the protein was extracted from the milk of genetically engineered (GE) goats.

In the latest instance, researchers introduced DNA coding for the malaria parasite into the goat genome linked to milk production.

The DNA is supposed to “switch on” only in the mammary gland when the goat produces milk.

As we’ve seen in the past with genetically modified plants, genetically engineered vaccine-producing animals might enter the food supply unexpectedly — exposing unintended recipients to the vaccine. Or the animals might escape and breed with others, passing these bioengineered genes on with unpredictable consequences. Even the technology itself is risky at best, because when animals are exposed to foreign DNA, literally anything can happen.

Take, for instance, milk from cows treated with a synthetic, genetically engineered growth hormone called rBGH. rBGH milk differs from natural milk nutritionally, pharmacologically, immunologically, and hormonally, and along with causing health problems in the cows, it is linked to cancer in humans. What does ingesting the DNA from the malaria parasite in your milk cause? No one knows.

Vaccine Makers See Dollar Signs When They See Third-World Countries

Malaria is caused by a parasite of the species Plasmodium, which is spread from person to person by infected mosquitoes. Every year, it results in about 1 million deaths, the majority of which are in third-world countries. We are certainly in need of a solution, and while it sounds good in theory that a child could be protected from malaria just by drinking a glass of milk, remember that vaccines often weaken and confuse children’s immune systems, which ultimately increases their susceptibility to the very infectious diseases vaccines are designed to prevent.

The most vulnerable of the world’s children are those in the poorest countries where death and disease is often a result of malnutrition, and where children are often battling some sort of infection 200 days out of the year. Vaccines can be devastating to these already immunosuppressed children, as well as to adults.

However, emerging vaccine markets like third-world countries will soon outgrow developed markets by hundreds of billions of dollars. Emerging markets are areas of the world that are beginning to show promise as a profitable venture for many products, including vaccines. And emerging markets – primarily in developing countries in Southeast and Central Asia, and Africa – have been on vaccine makers’ radar for quite some time.

Giving Immune-Compromised Children Vaccines May Create Illness, Not Cure It

One reason that vaccine makers are interested in these parts of the world is that that’s where most of the world’s deaths from major infectious diseases occur. The only problem has been that, until recently, making vaccines for undeveloped countries with no money to pay for them, was not exactly a profitable goal for vaccine makers.

Concerned that developed countries would have little or no resources for addressing serious infectious diseases if vaccine makers continued their pull-out, the World Health Organization and the G8 – the top developed countries in the world – responded with a plan for inducing vaccine companies to stay in the business.

That plan was called Advance Market Commitments (AMCs). Under AMCs, developed countries make legal, binding agreements to purchase vaccines that are needed in low-income countries. The purchase guarantees a bottom line for the manufacturers. In return, the manufacturers promise to sell those vaccines at reduced prices in the countries where they are most needed.

Unfortunately, legally binding, advance market commitments to purchase vaccines that are mostly needed in third world countries could backfire on developed countries that don’t need – or want – certain vaccines. Malaria is one of the top neglected diseases that world health leaders want to address with AMCs, so the GM vaccine-producing goat milk might already be on their radar.

The ability to resist diseases like malaria requires a strong immune system, and for that, you require good nutrition, clean drinking water, and sanitation. If we want to help people in other countries to lower their malaria rates, it would be wise to focus on these basics first. In order to eradicate infectious disease from a nation, you have to first address compromised immune systems. If you hit immune suppressed children with a potent, adjuvant-loaded vaccine, you’re far more likely to create new disease, not eradicate it.

It’s similar to the corporations seeking to plant genetically modified golden rice in the developing world to purportedly alleviate vitamin A deficiency. What people in the developing world need to receive ample dietary vitamin A are the basics like access to a diverse range of nutritious foods — including animal products like eggs, cheese and meat and vegetables such as dark leafy greens and sweet potatoes. This is the type of diet that is attained from biodiverse farming — the opposite of what will occur if golden rice is planted on a large scale. So in the end it appears the golden rice will do little to improve vitamin A levels in the poor — and may actually make vitamin A deficiency worse.

Fertility Problems, DNA Damage Among the Serious Health Problems Linked to GM Foods

The vaccine-producing GM goats are a double-edged sword because while no one knows for sure what consuming GM vaccine-containing milk will do to humans, there’s very convincing evidence that genetically modified foods spell nothing but trouble for your health.

In one review of genetically modified organisms (GMO) — an analysis of 19 animal studies – it was revealed that nearly 10 percent of blood, urine, organ and other parameters tested were significantly influenced by GMOs, with the liver and kidneys faring the worst.

In the only human feeding study ever published on genetically modified foods, seven volunteers ate Roundup-ready soybeans. These are soybeans that have herbicide-resistant genes inserted into them in order to survive being sprayed with otherwise deadly doses of Roundup herbicide. In three of the seven volunteers, the gene inserted into the soy transferred into the DNA of their intestinal bacteria, and continued to function long after they stopped eating the GM soy!

So, exposing children in third world countries to these potential risks needs to be carefully considered before a malaria vaccine is distributed in GM milk especially when there are other innovative ways of fighting malaria available. In addition, Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, has documented at least 65 serious health risks from GM products of all kinds. Among them:

  • Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce
  • Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells
  • The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning
  • Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties
  • Investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

The Most Unhappy of Pleasures: This Is Your Brain on Sugar

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

You sprinkle it on your cereal. Add it to your morning cup of coffee. Lovingly bake it into your children’s birthday cakes…

And then, of course, it’s a key part of some of our most favorite “treats” and comfort foods — cookies, candy, soda pop, ice cream, all those “yummy” foods meant to be reserved for a special indulgence — but which many consume on a daily basis.

Then it’s hidden in most processed foods—from bologna to pretzels to Worcestershire sauce to cheese spread.

Even most infant formulas contain it.

I’m talking about sugar, of course, and to put it all into perspective, based on USDA estimates the average American consumes 12 teaspoons of sugar a day, which equates to about TWO TONS of sugar during a lifetime.

Why we eat this much sugar is not difficult to understand — it tastes good, and it gives us pleasure by triggering an innate process in your brain via dopamine and opioid signals.

What it is doing to us on both a physical and emotional level is another story entirely, and when you delve beneath the surface even slightly you’ll begin to see that eating sugar may not only be making you unhealthy but also unhappy.

If You Eat Sugar, There’s a Good Chance You’re Addicted to It

When you eat sugar it triggers production of your brain’s natural opioids — a key ingredient in the addiction process. Your brain essentially becomes addicted to stmulating the release of its own opioids as it would to morphine or heroin.

As written by Dr. Robert Lustig, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, in The Atlantic:

“… the war on drugs has taken a back seat, but not because it has been won. Rather, because a different war has cluttered the headlines — the war on obesity. And a substance even more insidious, I would argue, has supplanted cocaine and heroin. The object of our current affliction is sugar. Who could have imagined that something so innocent, so delicious, so irresistible — just one glucose molecule (not so sweet) plus one fructose molecule (very sweet) — could propel America toward economic deterioration and medical collapse?”

Researchers have speculated that the sweet receptors (two protein receptors located on your tongue), which evolved in ancestral times when the diet was very low in sugar, have not adapted to the seemingly unlimited access to a cheap and omnipresent sugar supply in the modern diet. Therefore, the abnormally high stimulation of these receptors by our sugar-rich diets generates excessive reward signals in your brain, which have the potential to override normal self-control mechanisms, thus leading to addiction.

Dr. Lustig continues:

“The brain’s pleasure center, called the nucleus accumbens, is essential for our survival as a species… Turn off pleasure, and you turn off the will to live… But long-term stimulation of the pleasure center drives the process of addiction… When you consume any substance of abuse, including sugar, the nucleus accumbens receives a dopamine signal, from which you experience pleasure. And so you consume more. The problem is that with prolonged exposure, the signal attenuates, gets weaker. So you have to consume more to get the same effect — tolerance.

And if you pull back on the substance, you go into withdrawal. Tolerance and withdrawal constitute addiction. And make no mistake, sugar is addictive.”

Like many types of addictions, sugar addiction can in fact be deadly. Evidence is mounting that sugar is a primary contributing factor causing not only obesity and diabetes, but other chronic and lethal diseases. There’s really no doubt anymore that sugar is indeed toxic to your body, and it’s only a matter of time before it will be commonly accepted as a causative factor in most cancer, in the same way that now we accept without question that smoking and alcohol abuse are direct causes of lung cancer and cirrhosis of the liver, respectively.

Sugar’s Pleasurable Effect is Only Fleeting…

Sugar may taste good in the moment it is consumed, but its cumulative impact on your health may leave a bad taste in your mouth…

Of all the molecules capable of inflicting damage in your body, sugar molecules are probably the most damaging. Fructose, in particular, is an extremely potent pro-inflammatory agent that creates harmful advanced glycation end products (AGEs) and speeds up the aging process. It also promotes the kind of dangerous growth of fat cells around your vital organs (visceral fat) that are the hallmark of diabetes and heart disease. Sugar/fructose also increases your insulin and leptin levels and decrease the receptor sensitivity for both of these vital hormones, and these hormonal abnormalities are a major factor in premature aging and age-related chronic degenerative diseases such as heart disease.

Keep in mind that while it’s perfectly normal for your blood sugar levels to rise slightly after every meal, it is not natural or healthy when your blood sugar levels become excessively elevated and stay that way — which is exactly what will happen if you’re eating like the typical American, who consumes a staggering 2.5 pounds of sugar a week on average!

And when you add in other low-quality carbohydrate-rich foods such as white bread, sugar, pasta, pastries, cookies, and candy, which also break down to sugar (starch is broken down into glucose) in your body and often contain added sugar as well, it’s not so difficult to see why so many Americans are in such poor health.

This high-sugar (high-carb) diet is what’s driving the obesity epidemic—not diets high in fat, as is commonly assumed. An infographic created by Column Five for Massive Health, based on Why We Get Fat by science writer Gary Taubes, explains why. In short, carbs, like fructose and other sugars, destroy your insulin and leptin sensitivity, which in turn cause your cells to accumulate more fat, and makes it more difficult to get rid of the extra weight as well.

 

Eating Sugar Really is an “Unhappy Pleasure”

Dr. Lustig was spot on when he called sugar “the most unhappy of pleasures.” Because if eating sugar leads to poor health, and poor health ultimately leads to unhappiness, where will those few short-lived moments of artificial pleasure get you? They won’t get you happiness, that’s for sure. But they will perpetuate the addiction cycle, making you crave more and more sugar, and ultimately (and ironically) speed your journey to potential misery.

So what can you do about all of this? Stop eating sugar, for one. Dr. Lustig writes:

“As we have spent the last 30 years pursuing sugar for pleasure, we have become most decidedly unhappy. Our society has lost sight of the difference. Coca-Cola’s most recent marketing tagline is “Open Happiness.” Couldn’t be further from the truth. As our obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, cancer, and dementia rates continue to skyrocket due to our sugar over-consumption, the idea that a bottle of Coke holds the key to happiness is nothing short of pulp propaganda.”

How to Kick Your Sugar Cravings

I realize that, due to its addictive nature, cutting down can be a real challenge for some, especially if you’re consuming very high amounts. If you’re struggling with sugar addiction, I highly recommend trying an energy psychology technique called Turbo Tapping, which has helped many “soda addicts” kick their sweet habit, and it should work for any type of sweet craving you may have. A couple of other tricks to try to kick your sugar cravings:

  • Exercise: Anyone who exercises intensely on a regular basis will know that significant amounts of cardiovascular exercise is one of the best “cures” for food cravings. It always amazes me how my appetite, especially for sweets, dramatically decreases after a good workout. I believe the mechanism is related to the dramatic reduction in insulin levels that occurs after exercise.
  • Organic, black coffee: Coffee is a potent opioid receptor antagonist, and contains compounds such as cafestrol — found plentifully in both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee — which can bind to your opioid receptors, occupy them and essentially block your addiction to other opioid-releasingfoods.1,2 This may profoundly reduce the addictive power of other substances, such as sugar.

Remember that in order to minimize your sugar intake, you need to avoid most processed foods, as most contain added sugar. Even savory foods like salad dressing, soup, and bread often contain sugar. For optimal health, eat natural whole foods primarily, and limit your fructose consumption to below 25 grams per day.

If you still want to use a sweetener occasionally, the sweet herb stevia makes a good sugar substitute. (Avoid ALL artificial sweeteners, which can damage your health even more quickly than sugar.)

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

The Guilty Pleasure that Could Save You From Heart Disease

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

For many decades now, U.S. policy makers have been attempting to get Americans to eat less salt. But the drive to do this has little basis in science.

In fact, a recent meta-analysis by the Cochrane Review involving a total of 6,250 subjects found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death.

Another study published last year found that lower salt consumption actually increased your risk of death from heart disease.

A review of the available research reveals that much of the science behind the supposed link between salt and high blood pressure is dubious at best.

According to Scientific American:

“Intersalt, a large study published in 1988, compared sodium intake with blood pressure in subjects from 52 international research centers and found no relationship between sodium intake and the prevalence of hypertension.

In fact, the population that ate the most salt, about 14 grams a day, had a lower median blood pressure than the population that ate the least, about 7.2 grams a day…

Studies that have explored the direct relationship between salt and heart disease have not fared much better… For every study that suggests that salt is unhealthy, another does not.”

The Tenuous Link Between Salt and Heart Disease

Melinda Moyer, writing for Scientific American, points out that the evidence linking salt to high blood pressure and heart disease has always been on the flimsy side, stating:

“Fears over salt first surfaced more than a century ago. In 1904 French doctors reported that six of their subjects who had high blood pressure—a known risk factor for heart disease—were salt fiends. Worries escalated in the 1970s when Brookhaven National Laboratory’s Lewis Dahl claimed that he had “unequivocal” evidence that salt causes hypertension: he induced high blood pressure in rats by feeding them the human equivalent of 500 grams of sodium a day. (Today the average American consumes 3.4 grams of sodium, or 8.5 grams of salt, a day.)

Dahl also discovered population trends that continue to be cited as strong evidence of a link between salt intake and high blood pressure. People living in countries with a high salt consumption—such as Japan—also tend to have high blood pressure and more strokes.

But as a paper pointed out several years later in the American Journal of Hypertension, scientists had little luck finding such associations when they compared sodium intakes within populations, which suggested that genetics or other cultural factors might be the culprit. Nevertheless, in 1977 the U.S. Senate’s Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs released a report recommending that Americans cut their salt intake by 50 to 85 percent, based largely on Dahl’s work.”

This is certainly not the first time a stubborn dogmatic belief has grown out of a hypothesis that later turned out to be incorrect. The same applies to the saturated-fat-is-bad-for-your-heart myth, which is based on cherry-picked data… Since the days of Lewis Dahl, a long list of studies has failed to prove ANY benefits of a low-salt diet, and in fact many tend to show the opposite. In addition to the ones already mentioned above, the following studies also came up with negative results:

  • A 2004 meta analysis by the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed 11 salt-reduction trials and found that, in otherwise healthy people, over the long-term, low-salt diets decreased systolic blood pressure by 1.1 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure by 0.6 mmHg. That equates to reducing your blood pressure from 120/80 to 119/79. In conclusion, the authors stated that:“Intensive interventions, unsuited to primary care or population prevention programs, provide only minimal reductions in blood pressure during long-term trials.”
  • A 2003 Cochrane review of 57 short-term studies concluded that “there is little evidence for long-term benefit from reducing salt intake.”
  • A 2006 study in the American Journal of Medicine study compared the reported daily sodium intakes of 78 million Americans to their risk of dying from heart disease over the course of 14 years. The study concluded that lower sodium diets led to HIGHER mortality rates among those with cardiovascular disease, which “raised questions regarding the likelihood of a survival advantage accompanying a lower sodium diet.”

For an even more comprehensive list of research, please see this previous article.

Not All Salt is Created Equal

Not only is salt relatively benign, it’s actually a nutritional goldmine, IF you consume the right kind. Modern table salt has very little in common with natural, unrefined salt. The first will damage you health while the latter is profoundly healing. Here’s a quick break-down of their basic ingredients:

  • Natural salt: 84 percent sodium chloride, 16 percent naturally-occurring trace minerals, including silicon, phosphorous and vanadium
  • Processed (table) salt: 97.5 percent sodium chloride, 2.5 percent man-made chemicals, such as moisture absorbents and flow agents. These are dangerous chemicals like ferrocyanide and aluminosilicate. A small amount of iodine may also be added(Some European countries, where water fluoridation is not practiced, also add fluoride to table salt. In France, 35 percent of table salt sold contains either sodium fluoride or potassium fluoride and use of fluoridated salt is widespread in South America)

The processing also radically alters the structure of the salt. Refined table salt is dried above 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit, and this excessive heat alters the natural chemical structure of the salt.

The Healing Benefits of Unrefined Natural Salt

Unrefined natural salt is important to many biological processes, however, for every gram of excess sodium chloride that your body has to neutralize, it uses up 23 grams of cellular water. Hence, eating too much common processed salt will cause fluid to accumulate in your tissues, which may contribute to:

  • Unsightly cellulite
  • Rheumatism, arthritis and gout
  • Kidney and gall bladder stones
  • Hypertension (high blood pressure)

The Importance of Maintaining Optimal Sodium-Potassium Ratio

While natural unprocessed salt has many health benefits and is indeed essential for life, that does not mean you should ingest it with impunity. Another important factor is the potassium to sodium ratio of your diet. Imbalance in this ratio can not only lead to hypertension (high blood pressure) but also contribute to a number of other diseases, including:

The easiest way to achieve this imbalance is by consuming a diet of processed foods, which are notoriously low in potassium while high in sodium… According to a 1985 article in The New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Paleolithic Nutrition,” our ancient ancestors got about 11,000 mg of potassium a day, and about 700 mg of sodium. This equates to a potassium over sodium factor of nearly 16. Compare that to today’s modern diet where daily potassium consumption averages about 2,500 mg (the RDA is 4,700 mg/day), along with 4,000 mg of sodium… If you eat a diet of processed foods, you can be virtually guaranteed that your potassium-sodium ratio is upside-down.

This may also explain why high-sodium diets appear to affect some people but not others. According to a recent federal study into sodium and potassium intake, those at greatest risk of cardiovascular disease were those who got too much sodium along with too little potassium. The research, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in July of last year, was one of the first and largest U.S. studies to evaluate the relationship of salt, potassium and heart disease deaths.

Mike Stobbe reported on the study in an article for the Huffington Post:

“If you have too much sodium and too little potassium, it’s worse than either one on its own,” said Dr. Thomas Farley, New York City’s health commissioner, who has led efforts to get the public to eat less salt… “Potassium may neutralize the heart-damaging effects of salt,” said Dr. Elena Kuklina, one of the study’s authors at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention… The research found people who eat a lot of salt and very little potassium were more than twice as likely to die from a heart attack as those who ate about equal amounts of both nutrients. Such a dietary imbalance posed a greater risk than simply eating too much salt, according to the study.”

So, how do you ensure you get these two important nutrients in more appropriate ratios? Ditch processed foods, which are very high in processed salt and low in potassium and other essential nutrients, and eat a diet of whole, unprocessed foods, ideally organically-grown to ensure optimal nutrient content. This type of diet will naturally provide much larger amounts of potassium in relation to sodium.

About 90 percent of the money Americans spend on food is spent on processed foods and more than 75 percent of the sodium in the U.S. diet comes from processed foods, so it’s easy to see how this kind of diet can lead to lopsided sodium-potassium ratios. Emerging evidence suggests that this ratio is actually crucial for improving health, and the way to optimize potassium intake is by increasing consumption of vegetables, which are the highest sources of potassium.

Why You Need Potassium…

Your body needs potassium to maintain proper pH levels in your body fluids, and it also plays an integral role in helping regulate your blood pressure. It is possible that potassium deficiency may be more responsible for hypertension, rather than excess sodium, as it also affects your:

  • Bone mass
  • Nervous system
  • Muscle function
  • Heart and kidney function
  • Adrenal functions

Potassium deficiency can lead to electrolyte imbalance, and can result in a condition called hypokalemia. Symptoms include:

  • Water retention
  • Raised blood pressure and hypertension
  • Heart irregularities/arrhythmias
  • Muscular weakness and muscle cramps
  • Continual thirst
  • Constipation

Potassium-Rich Foods

I do not advise taking potassium supplements to correct a sodium-potassium imbalance. Instead, it is best to alter your diet and incorporate more potassium-rich whole foods. Some of the richest sources in potassium are:

  1. Baked potato (1081 mg per potato) But limit as has high levels of starchy carbohydrate which can increase your insulin and leptin resistance
  2. Lima beans (955 mg/cup)
  3. Winter squash (896 mg/cup)
  4. Cooked spinach (839 mg/cup)

Other potassium-rich fruits and vegetables include:

  • Fruits: papayas, prunes, cantaloupe, and bananas. (But be careful of bananas as they are high in sugar and have half the potassium that an equivalent of amount of green vegetables. It is an old wives tale that you are getting loads of potassium from bananas, the potassium is twice as high in green vegetables.)
  • Vegetables: broccoli, Brussels sprouts, sweet potatoes, avocados, asparagus, and pumpkin

Fructose—a Far More Likely Culprit in Hypertension and Heart Disease

Avoiding processed foods will also help you avoid another primary risk factor for high blood pressure and heart disease, namely fructose. If you check the labels, you will find that virtually every single food and beverage you contemplate buying contains fructose, either in the form of high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, or some other version. The amounts of salt Americans consume pales in comparison to the amount of fructose eaten on a daily basis, and I’m convinced that it’s the sugar/fructose consumption that is the major driving force behind our skyrocketing hypertension rates, not excess salt.

The connecting link between fructose consumption and hypertension lies in the uric acid produced. Uric acid is a byproduct of fructose metabolism, and increased uric acid levels effectively drive up your blood pressure.

The more you can move toward a diet of whole organic foods in their natural state, the healthier you’ll be. And given that salt is essential to good health, I recommend switching to a pure, unrefined salt. My favorite is an all-natural sea salt from the Himalayas.

Himalayan salt is completely pure, having spent many thousands of years maturing under extreme tectonic pressure, far away from impurities, so it isn’t polluted with the heavy metals and industrial toxins of today. It’s hand-mined, hand-washed, and minimally processed, and contains some 84 different trace minerals. It’s likely to be the most delicious salt you’ll ever find, which is why it’s so popular among gourmet chefs.

Relax, and Salt to Taste…

In the featured article Melinda Moyers writes:

“… unless we have clear data, evangelical anti-salt campaigns are not just based on shaky science; they are ultimately unfair. “A great number of promises are being made to the public with regard to this enormous benefit and lives saved,” Cohen says. But it is “based on wild extrapolations.” “

I agree, and based on the evidence available, I think it’s safe to just relax and salt your food to taste—provided you use a natural unrefined salt.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

While California Persecutes Raw Milk Farmers, France unveils Raw Milk Vending Machines for Happy, Healthy Consumers

Posted on by
Reply

By: Mike Adams
Source: NaturalNews.com

Thanks to the extraordinarily cruel and vindictive actions of the LA County and Ventura County District Attorneys’ offices, California is rapidly losing its reputation as a state that promotes a healthy lifestyle. Instead, the state is becoming increasingly known as “the torture state” where senior citizen farmers and fresh food advocates are imprisoned, tortured, and charged with felony crimes for making fresh milk available to customers.

France, on the other hand, has embraced the health benefits of raw milk. There, innovative dairy farmer Michel Cantaloube has created a raw milk vending machine (see photo below). The vending machine is a tastefully-designed kiosk that blends right into the urban setting, allowing it to be set up on a street corner on a French town or even a major metropolitan area.

Customers can purchase whatever quantity of raw milk they wish, and unlike in the United States, they don’t even have to go through the bizarre paperwork of owning a “cow share.”

California declares war on raw dairy farmers

Back in Los Angeles, raw dairy farmer Sharon Palmer has been slapped with 38 felony counts drummed up by the county, which has a rogue DA office running a campaign of personal revenge against dairy farmers. Driven into near-bankruptcy by the fines and legal fees, Palmer has been unable to repay farm investors as planned, so when her repayments fell behind, the county charged her with financial fraud.

Keep in mind that when MF Global’s Jon Corzine stole billions of dollars from investors, he was never even charged with a crime. When Wall Street giants like Goldman Sachs went broke making bad beds with other people’s money, the United States government gave them a trillion-dollar bailout! But when a small, organic raw milk farmer in California runs into financial trouble caused by the state itself, they get charged with 38 felony counts of fraud.

James Stewart, the 65-year-old “milk man” from California, was arrested nine days ago for the crime of merely “knowing” Sharon Palmer. His bail was set at the astonishing level of $1 million– an amount rarely used even for rapists and murderers. (Sharon’s bail was set at $2 million!) He was then subjected to extreme torture that nearly killed him in an LA County jail. This included food deprivation, sleep deprivation, hypothermia, interrogation, verbal intimidation and even flooding his jail cell with raw human sewage and forcing him to clean out the raw sewage himself.

So in France, raw milk is happily sold in vending machines on street corners, but in California — a state which used to represent a healthy, happy lifestyle — raw milk advocates are targeted by the state as criminals, then subjected to personal vengeance campaigns run by the DA’s office.

France = the “healthy food nation” of raw milk and red wine.

California = the “torture state” of total government brutality and oppression of farmers, along with the torture of raw dairy advocates.

Here’s the picture of the raw milk vending machine in France:

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Bill Gates: One of the World’s Most Destructive Do-Gooders?

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

video platform video management video solutions video player

Above, ABC’s “Nightline,” Bill Weir talks with Microsoft founder Bill Gates about his charitable endeavors.

Gates’ latest plan is to try to end world hunger by growing more genetically modified (GM) crops.

He’s already invested $27 million into Monsanto Company—leading some countries to reject his charity due to the high risks, such as:

  • New disease vectors
  • Mutated pesticide-resistant insects
  • Resistant “superweeds”
  • Contamination of surrounding non-GM crops

We already know how deeply entrenched the U.S. government has become with Monsanto.

For a visual illustration of their ‘revolving-door-relationship’ with the governmental regulatory agencies, see the graph toward the bottom of this article.

It is this type of government infiltration that allowed genetically engineered alfalfa to be approved without any restrictions at all, despite the protests of the organic community and public comments from a quarter of a million concerned citizens.

In Bill Gates, Monsanto also has one of the wealthiest and most influential “philanthropists” supporting their agenda and spreading misleading propaganda about their products.

In recent years, it has become disappointingly clear that Gates may be leading the pack as one of the most destructive “do-gooders” on the planet… His views on what is required to make a difference in poverty- and disease-stricken third world nations are short-sighted and misinformed at best. A recent article in the Seattle Times joins me in arguing that Bill Gates’ support of genetically modified (GM) crops as a solution for world hunger is based on unsound science. A team of 900 scientists funded by the World Bank and United Nations, investigated the matter over the course of three years, and determined that the use of GM crops is simply NOT a meaningful solution to the complex situation of world hunger.

Instead, the scientists suggested that “agro-ecological” methods would provide the most viable means to ensure global food security, including the use of traditional seed varieties and local farming practices already adapted to the local ecology.

“Philanthropy is the Enemy of Justice”

In a recent article with the same headline, “Philanthropy is the Enemy of Justice”, Robert Newman criticizes the choice of Bill Gates as the designated “voice” of the world’s poor at the World Economic Forum, held in January.

“Am I saying that philanthropy has never done good? No, it has achieved many wonderful things… But beware the havoc that power without oversight and democratic control can wreak,” Newman writes.

“The biotech agriculture that Lord Sainsbury was unable to push through democratically he can now implement unilaterally, through his Gatsby Foundation. We are told that Gatsby’s biotech project aims to provide food security for the global south. But if you listen to southern groups such as the Karnataka State Farmers of India, food security is precisely the reason they campaign against GM, because biotech crops are monocrops which are more vulnerable to disease and so need lashings of petrochemical pesticides, insecticides and fungicides – none of them cheap – and whose ruinous costs will rise with the price of oil, bankrupting small family farms first. Crop diseases mutate, meanwhile, and all the chemical inputs in the world can’t stop disease wiping out whole harvests of genetically engineered single strands.

Both the Gatsby and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundations are keen to get deeper into agriculture, especially in Africa. But top-down nostrums for the rural poor don’t end well.”

I agree. Donating patented seeds, which takes away the farmers’ sovereignty, is not the way to save the third-world poor. As reported by Netline last year, Monsanto and other biotech companies have collaborated with the Gates Foundation via the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to promote the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa. The Gates Foundation has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to AGRA, and in 2006 Robert Horsch was hired for the AGRA project. Horsch was a Monsanto executive for 25 years. In a nutshell, the project may be sold under the banner of altruism and ‘sustainability’, but in reality it’s anything but. It’s just a multi-billion dollar enterprise to transform Africa into a GM-crop-friendly continent.

Conflicts of Interest Abound

Gates’ philanthropic methods came under scrutiny back in August 2010, when it was discovered that The Gates Foundation had purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock; dramatically increasing its previous holdings—and hence its financial conflicts of interest—in the biotech firm. AGRA-Watch commented on the ties stating:

“The Foundation’s direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels,” said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering.

“First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation’s heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests.”

It would be naive to think that all these philanthropic collaborations are designed to solve any problem besides how to help Monsanto monopolize the world’s food supply with expensive patented GM seeds, and the herbicides to go with them.

In the interview above, Gates claims the seeds would be donated to the impoverished areas in question. But seriously, how long would the seeds remain free? There’s rarely such a thing as a free lunch anymore, and it appears highly unlikely that Monsanto is poised to “feed Africa” indefinitely… And since you cannot save Monsanto’s seeds from year to year, they will literally own the areas and the people they temporarily donate their seeds to. And once you own the rights to all the food grown around the globe, you literally rule the world.

That appears to be the goal. And only sane, rational, thinking people can stop them. It’s really too bad that Gates has signed up as a lackey for “the Dark Side,” as it were, instead of using his unfathomable wealth to really create positive, sustainable change.

It’s an undisputed fact at this point that the introduction of genetically engineered crops lead to diminished biodiversity, which is the direct opposite of what the world needs. Truly, in order to save the planet and ourselves, small-scale organic and sustainable farming must not only prevail but flourish, and GM crops do not help, but rather threaten their existence. Seeds have always been sold and swapped freely between farmers, preserving biodiversity, and without that basis, you cannot have food sovereignty. And with fewer farmers, “feeding the hungry with GM crops” is nothing but a pipe dream.

Both Genetically Engineered Seeds and Herbicides Pose Risks to Environment and Human Health

Besides the threat to the environment and to agricultural practices, GM crops also bring a whole host of health concerns; not just from the GM seeds, but also from the herbicide used: Monsanto’s Roundup. It’s the world’s best-selling herbicide, which is designed to be partnered with genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” crops.

According to a shocking report, regulators were aware as early as 1980 that glyphosate, the active chemical ingredient of Roundup, caused birth defects in lab animals. However, the information was not made public. Instead, regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety, and with the introduction of Roundup Ready crops, the use of Roundup has skyrocketed.

According to Monsanto. NO:

“Dr. Andres Carrasco, a lead embryologist at the University of Bueno Aires Medical School and the Argentinean national research council, discovered that glyphosate-based herbicides like Monsanto’s Roundup formula caused deformations in chicken embryos that resembled the kind of birth defects which where reported in areas like La Leonesa, where big agribusinesses depend on glyphosate to treat genetically engineered crops.”

Golden Rice: a “Trojan Horse”

The idea that you can end world hunger with genetically engineered crops is simply not very well thought through. Last summer, I reported on The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s donation of $20 million toward the development of so-called “golden rice”—yet another untested GM crop that risks bringing economic and ecological disaster. Golden rice has been genetically engineered to produce beta-carotene, which your body can convert to vitamin A. It’s been promoted as a way to alleviate vitamin A deficiency, which is common in developing countries where people don’t have regular access to beta-carotene-rich foods, like vegetables and fruits.

However, while this sounds all well and good in theory, the reality of a beta-carotene producing rice may not be all it’s cracked up to be. According to Food Freedom:

“Golden rice is a Trojan horse for pushing through GE-friendly biosafety regulations under the guise of humanitarian aid. Once in place, these regulations open the door for the biotech industry to bring in commercial, patented GE crops; USAID and Monsanto accomplished exactly this in Kenya with their sweet potato project.”

It may be easier to see why so many people question this kind of philanthropy once you understand a bit more about the product itself, and why it likely cannot ever live up to its own hype. In this case, your body can only convert beta-carotene to vitamin A under certain conditions. Specifically, beta-carotene is fat-soluble, which means dietary fat is required for your body to convert it into vitamin A. But many people in developing countries eat very low-fat diets, as they simply do not have access to animal foods or other fat on a regular basis. Furthermore, malnourished people might not be able to convert beta carotene to vitamin A efficiently, so taken as a whole, the actual usefulness of golden rice is debatable.

The soundness of the idea becomes even more questionable when you consider the unrealistic amounts of rice you’d have to consume each day to obtain the recommended amount of vitamin A. As stated in a golden rice case study from Iowa State University:

“Even if golden rice is successfully introduced … a woman would need to eat 16 lbs. of cooked rice every day in order to get sufficient Vitamin A, if golden rice were her only source of the nutrient. A child would need 12 lbs.” [Emphasis mine]

What people in the developing world need in order to receive ample dietary vitamin A is access to a diverse range of nutritious foods — including animal products like eggs, cheese and meat and vegetables such as dark leafy greens and sweet potatoes. This is the type of diet that is attained from biodiverse farming — the opposite of what will occur if GM crops like golden rice get planted on a large scale.

Learn More about Genetically Engineered Foods

Many Americans are still unfamiliar with what GE foods are, which is understandable when you consider that these foods do not need to be labeled in the U.S. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate, and to continue learning more about genetically engineered foods and associated risks, and help your friends and family do the same.

To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

An even better strategy is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit GM ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the GMO’s (genetically modified organism) you’re exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you’re not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.

To learn more about GM foods, I highly recommend number of great films and lectures available, including:

  • Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals
  • Your Milk on Drugs – Just Say No!
  • Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods

Does Monsanto “Own” the U.S. Government?

Is sure seems like it at times. Genetically engineered seeds are now banned in Hungary, as they are in several other European countries, such as Germany and Ireland. Peru is also following the precautionary principle, and has even passed a law that bans genetically modified ingredients within the nation for 10 years.

In the U.S., however, the opposite to consumer protection is taking place, with certain states actually passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion! To date, 14 states have passed such legislation and Michigan’s Sen. Bill 777, if passed, would make that 15.

The Michigan bill would prevent anti-GMO laws and would remove “any authority local governments may have to adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds.” Bills like these are obviously music to Monsanto’s ears, which spends millions of dollars lobbying the U.S. government at the federal level for favorable legislation that supports the spread of their toxic products. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government — a drop from the year before, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter.

If we all had several million to spend on lobbying efforts, the world would undoubtedly be a very different place… If you aren’t familiar with the power of lobbying please view the recent 60 minutes expansion on it, which is one of the best 60 Minute episodes I have seen in 40 years.

Not only that, but once you realize just how many of Monsanto’s employees have simply shifted into positions of power within the federal government, it suddenly becomes easy to understand how this biotech giant has managed to so successfully undermine common sense within the U.S. government.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

The “Safe” Garden Product that Can Destroy Your DNA

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Have you ever used Roundup to kill weeds in your lawn or garden?

As the most widely used herbicide in the United States, there’s a good chance you have.

In fact, millions of pounds are used every year on U.S. gardens, lawns and, extensively on farms growing genetically modified (GM) “Roundup Ready” crops.

You may forget about the herbicide soon after you spray it — and may never give it a second thought when consuming corn chips or countless processed foods that contain GM Roundup Ready corn and soy — but it doesn’t just magically disappear.

Instead, new research is showing that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, is contaminating everything from food and air to groundwater and even human beings.

Glyphosate Now Detected in Human Urine

Research in the German journal Ithaca revealed significant concentrations of glyphosate in the urine samples of city dwellers.

The chemical is used not only for food production, but also is often sprayed onto railway lines, urban pavements and roadsides.

The article revealed that study participants had concentrations of glyphosate that were 5 to 20 times the limit for drinking water!

This is an alarming finding because glyphosate is easily one of the world’s most overlooked poisons. Research published in 2010 showed that the chemical, which works by inhibiting an enzyme called EPSP synthase that is necessary for plants to grow, causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at far lower levels than used in agricultural and garden applications.

The malformations primarily affected the:

  • Skull
  • Face
  • Midline and developing brain
  • Spinal cord

Quite shockingly, the amount of glyphosate residue you can be exposed to through food is remarkably high, in terms of being close to the maximum residue limit (MRL) allowed. According to a report in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, the highest MRL for glyphosate in food and feed products in the EU is 20 mg/kg. GM soybeans have been found to contain residue levels as high as 17 mg/kg, and malformations in frog and chicken embryos occurred at 2.03 mg/kg!

That’s 10 times lower than the MRL.

Other independent scientific research has also found that glyphosate has the potential to cause grave health damage, including a 2009 study that tested formulations of Roundup that were highly diluted (up to 100,000 times or more) on human cells, and even then the cells died within 24 hours!

The researchers hailed a warning cry that still has not been heard by regulators around the world, who continue to allow massive amounts of Roundup to be sprayed into the environment:

” … the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from [Roundup] formulation-treated crops.”

Not to mention, when applied to crops glyphosate becomes systemic throughout the plant, so it cannot be washed off. And once you eat this crop, the glyphosate ends up in your gut where it can decimate your beneficial bacteria. This can wreak havoc with your health as 80 percent of your immune system resides in your gut (GALT – Gut Associated Lymph Tissue) and is dependent on a healthy ratio of good and bad bacteria! Separate research has also uncovered the following effects from glyphosate:

What Happened to Monsanto’s Claims That Roundup is “Biodegradable” and “Environmentally Friendly”?

It is apparent the chemical is not only persisting in the environment, it’s persisting at alarmingly high levels, despite Monsanto’s claims to the contrary. (In 2009, a French court upheld two earlier convictions against Monsanto for false advertising.)

The overall quantity of glyphosate in the environment has been difficult to analyze due to its physicochemical properties, such as its relatively low molecular weight and low organic solvent solubility. Furthermore, since the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) stopped updating its pesticide use database in 2008, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to estimate how much glyphosate is actually used in the US, but the following 2006-2007 market usage estimates were reported by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2011:

  • Agricultural market used 180 to 185 million pounds of glyphosate
  • Home and garden market: 5 to 8 million pounds
  • Industry, commerce and government: 13 to 15 million pounds

It’s safe to say that usage has increased steadily since these estimates were made, rising right along with the acreage of GM crops. And now the environment and our bodies are paying the price.

One recent study used a magnetic particle immunoassay to test for the presence of glyphosate in roughly 140 samples of groundwater from Catalonia, Spain. The analysis found that glyphosate was present above the limit of quantification in 41 percent of the samples. Of course, because groundwater is used as a drinking water source, this contamination poses a risk to animals, plants and humans alike.

The chemical was also detected in 60 to 100 percent of all air and rain samples tested during two growing seasons in Mississippi and Iowa, which lends further credence to the fact that Roundup does not readily break down in the environment, but rather is lingering all around us. Along with the potential implications for human and animal health, the chemical is also linked to a number of devastating environmental consequences, including Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease, and the creation of superweeds.

Today there are more than 750 products in the United States that contain glyphosate, and the problems to human health and the environment are only slated to get worse if drastic changes are not made in the massive use of Roundup herbicide across the United States.

You Can Help Curb the Use of Glyphosate by Avoiding GMOs

It’s important to avoid the use of Roundup on your lawn and garden, but on a larger scale the best way to fight back against this chemical is by boycotting the GM crops that were developed for its use. Several organizations, including Mercola.com, the Organic Consumers Association, the Institute for Responsible Technology, and the Environmental Working Group, are working to generate a tipping point of consumer rejection to make GMOs a thing of the past.

Here’s how you can get involved:

  • If you live in California and are willing to attend a short training session and then start collecting petition signatures (you will be part of a team of 2-4 people) for the California Ballot Initiative, sign up here. (For more information see: The California Ballot Initiative: Taking Down Monsanto.) Also remember to share this information with family and friends in California!
  • Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort
  • Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

In the meantime, the simplest way to avoid GM foods is to buy whole, certified organic foods. By definition, foods that are certified organic must never intentionally use GM organisms, must be produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers and come from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed GM corn feed, although now that GM alfalfa is approved, grass-fed will not always mean GMO free.

You can also look for foods that are ”non-GMO verified” by the Non-GMO Project.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Do This – or You Could Soon be Eating an “Agent Orange” for Dinner

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Mark Kastel, founder of the farm policy research group Cornucopia, is deeply dedicated to making sure we have high-quality food and that we’re not being deceived about what we’re eating.

Here, we discuss Agent Orange, and one of its active ingredients, which is now creeping into our food supply.

As described by Kastel, Cornucopia’s mission is:

“To empower farmers, consumers, and wholesale buyers with information, so that they can make good, discerning purchasing decisions in the marketplace.

Among other things, we act as an organic industry watchdog to preserve the integrity and authenticity of the organic label and products to make sure that it remains to be a true marketplace alternative for people who want safer and more nutritious food.”

Agent Orange Ingredient Headed Toward Your Plate?

To most people, “Agent Orange” is synonymous with the Vietnam war.

Many veterans suffered permanent side effects from their exposure to this potent defoliant, and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese children have been born with serious birth defects as a result of its use during the war.

Now, one of the active ingredients in Agent Orange, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), a broadleaf herbicide, may be introduced directly into our food supply, because weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, which is used in massive quantities on all genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops. It’s estimated that more than 130 types of weeds spanning 40 U.S. states are now herbicide-resistant, and they’re showing no signs of stopping. In fact, the situation is getting progressively worse.

“Agent Orange was an herbicide used to defoliate the jungles in Vietnam and South East Asia, which also include a myriad of other incredibly toxic chemicals that we know had profound deleterious effect on the health of the indigenous people who lived in South East Asia and to our veterans who served there,” Kastel says. Now we see one of these ingredients, 2,4-D, introduced [into our food supply] because the Dow Company… is introducing a new genetically engineered corn plant that “will be resistant to 2,4-D.”

Yes, Dow AgroSciences (a subsidiary of Dow Chemicals), which was one of the original manufacturers of Agent Orange, has developed a new generation of genetically modified (GM) crops called “Enlist”, designed to resist not just one, but THREE different herbicides: glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup), glufosinate, and  2,4-D, in the same way that Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready crops are resistant to glyphosate.

After a mere 15 years’ worth of consistent use on Roundup Ready crops, vast areas are now overrun with glyphosate-resistant superweeds that can’t be destroyed. What makes them think triple-resistant crops are going to be any better, or produce different end results?

Why “Agent Orange”-Resistant Crops are a BAD Idea

Interestingly enough, the use of 2,4-D is not new, as it is actually one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. What is new is that once staple crops like soy and corn that are engineered to be resistant to 2,4-D begin to flourish, the herbicide will be applied to U.S. farm land on an unprecedented scale — not unlike its indiscriminate application during Vietnam.

There are also some other unanswered questions relating to this new breed of 2,4-D-resistant crops.

“The curious part about this – we had to do some research to understand, and I don’t know if we fully understand it yet – is that corn is naturally resistant to 2,4-D, and that 2,4-D has been used as a corn herbicide, a post-emergent herbicide for decades,” Kastel says.

“This is legal, perfectly legal; even though we know that there are profound negative impacts to human health, and that this chemical residue ends up in our food system, in our soil and water, and ends up creating serious occupational exposures and risks for the people who produce our food; it’s still licensed by the EPA and approved for use by the USDA on our food crops.

The curious part is, if corn is already resistant to 2,4-D, why are they injecting that genetically engineered cultivar?

The answer seems to be that there might be some incremental level of benefit in that. Right now there are application windows, certain times during crop growth, that it would probably not kill the plant but stunt its growth. [With approval] the restrictions on the spraying will be relieved.

If this takes off—if Dow can convince agronomists, extension services, extension agents, universities (where they spend a lot of money), and farmers that this is a better seed with a potential for higher yields, we’re going to see really large increases in the application of 2,4-D in our countryside.”

Of course, the whole point of engineering resistance to an herbicide within a plant is so that you can “carpet bomb” an entire field, leaving only your GM crop standing. If 2,4-D resistant crops receive approval and eventually replace Monsanto’s failing Roundup-resistant crops as Dow intends, it is likely that billions of pounds of 2,4-D will be needed, on top of the already insane levels of Roundup being used (1.6 billion lbs were used in 2007 in the US alone!).

2,4-D—Do You Really Want to Feed this to Your Kids?

Ironically, while Dow’s new crops would seriously escalate the use of 2,4-D, Monsanto is currently facing a class-action lawsuit involving another Agent Orange ingredient: 2,4,5-T. The suit alleges that homes and schools near one of its 2,4,5-T chemical plants are now contaminated with cancer-causing dioxin, a byproduct of the manufacturing process.

This should be a wake-up call to those considering widespread application of any toxic Agent Orange ingredient.

And let’s be clear. The EPA acknowledges that 2,4-D is far from a benign chemical.

Researchers have linked it to increased cancer risks, especially soft tissue sarcoma and malignant lymphoma. No less than four American studies have found an association between chlorophenoxy herbicide use (such as 2,4-D) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. EPA researchers have also discovered higher rates of birth defects in countries with high rates of 2,4-D application to farm fields. In fact, birth defects were 60 to 90 percent more likely in such countries, and birth defects were also found to peak in babies conceived in the spring, when fields were being sprayed the most. The most common birth defects included defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, and musculoskeletal defects such as clubfoot, fused digits and extra digits.

If that’s not bad enough, consider this EPA summary of 2,4-D:

“Health effects of chronic or acute 2,4-D exposure reported for adults included blood, liver, and kidney toxicity. Specific effects included a reduction in hemoglobin and red blood cell numbers, decreased liver enzyme activity, and increased kidney weight. Acute exposure can result in skin and eye irritation. Acute exposure to very high concentrations of 2,4-D can cause the following clinical symptoms: stupor; coma; coughing; burning sensations in lungs; loss of muscular coordination; nausea; vomiting; or dizziness.

Experimental animal studies of chronic oral exposure have reported adverse effects on the eye, thyroid, kidney, adrenals, adrenals, and ovaries/testes. In addition, some experimental animal studies have reported teratogenic effects (birth defects) at high doses, including increased fetal death, urinary tract malformation, and extra ribs.

When adult female experimental animals were exposed to 2,4-D during their pregnancy and lactation periods, their exposed offspring exhibited neurological effects, including delayed neurobehavioral development and changes in several neurotransmitter levels or binding activities and ganglioside levels in the brain. Delayed neurobehavioral development was manifested as delays in acquisition of certain motor skills such as the righting reflex.”

The EASIEST Way to Protect the Health of Your Family…

So, what can you do to protect your health and the health of your family from the ever growing threats posed by genetically engineered foods and mounting herbicide use? Kastel says it well:

“Don’t panic. Go organic.”

Yes, it’s getting increasingly difficult to keep tabs of what’s being added to the food supply, and trying to keep track of everything to avoid can be a daunting task. It’s much easier to simply switch to organic foods; bypassing all the concerns about processed food ingredients, chemical residues on conventionally-grown fresh produce, and the multi-layered hazards related to genetically engineered foods, whether fresh or processed.

By definition, foods that are certified organic must never intentionally use GM organisms, must be produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers and come from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed GM corn feed, although now that GM alfalfa is approved, grass-fed will not always mean GMO free.

“There aren’t that many things that we can totally take control over in terms of our health and our future health and the health of our offspring, but pure food and pure water is one of those,” Kastel says.

“We know that there has been peer-reviewed research that indicates a demonstratively lower level of any kind of contamination in organic food… Peer-reviewed literature clearly illustrates its nutritional superiority. On a micro basis, we need to protect ourselves and our families. It really contributes to the richness and quality of life, because organic food tastes better. And in terms of an investment, what could be a better investment than the health and well-being of your family?

We should also become politically involved, because what’s so insidious is that these novel genes permeate our environment. They can even contaminate organic food. We need to be activists.”

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

The One and Only Way You Can Tell if a Food is GMO-Free

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

A bill has recently been introduced in the Vermont state legislature that would require food to be labeled as genetically engineered if it is entirely or partially produced with genetically engineered ingredients.

If passed, the bill, H.722, also known as the ‘VT Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act’, will take effect in 2014.

The bill also forbids any such food from using advertising or promotional material that states or implies that the food is:

  • “natural”
  • “naturally made”
  • “naturally grown”
  • “all natural,” or
  • Any words of similar meaning

According to the language of the bill, it would require:

“… in the case of a raw agricultural commodity, on the package offered for retail sale … the clear and conspicuous words, ‘genetically engineered’ on the front of the package … [or] on a label appearing on the retail store shelf or bin in which such commodity is displayed for sale.

… in the case of any processed food, in clear and conspicuous language on the front or back of the package … the words, ‘partially produced with genetic engineering’ or ‘may be partially produced with genetic engineering’”.

More U.S. States Starting to Demand Labeling of GM Foods

Finally we’re starting to see some real opposition against genetically engineered foods in general, and unlabeled GMO’s (genetically modified organisms) in particular, in the U.S.! Aside from this Vermont bill, California, Michigan and Washington are also working on ballot initiatives to get mandatory labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods in their states. Vermont takes it a step further though, as the legislation would effectively also end phony “all natural” claims for products that in actuality contain wholly unnatural, GMOs.

Personally, I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85 percent of the public will refuse to buy foods they know to be genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.

Sheer ignorance on the part of American consumers has allowed Monsanto and other biotech companies to saturate the market with their genetically altered wares. And misuse of the “all natural” label has only made matters worse. According to a 2010 Hartman Group poll, more than 60 percent of consumers erroneously believe that the “natural” label implies or suggests the absence of GM ingredients, but that is sadly NOT the case… In fact, at the current time, the ONLY label that can protect you against GM ingredients is the USDA 100% Organic label.

After reading the Cornucopia Institutes’ 2011 report Cereal Crimes, many, including myself, were shocked to discover some of their favorite natural and even some organic brands were using GM ingredients! For example, natural products that contained 100 percent genetically modified grains included:

Two breakfast cereal products that are currently enrolled in the Non-GMO Project, Barbara’s Bakery’s Puffins and Whole Foods’ 365® Corn Flakes, contained more than 50 percent GM corn. Meanwhile, the control, Nature’s Path® USDA certified organic corn flakes, contained only trace amounts of GM contamination (less than 0.5 percent). Another sign that American consumers are getting fed up with being stonewalled on the GMO labeling issue is the fact that lawsuits are starting to crop up, accusing food manufacturers of deceptive and misleading practices over their “all natural” claims. Here are just a couple of recent examples:

  • Frito-Lay is being sued by a New York consumer over their ‘all natural’ snacks that are actually made using GM ingredients, such as Tostitos and SunChips
  • On August 31, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against Kellogg/Kashi® for allegedly misleading consumers with its “natural” claims. One Kashi® product in particular, GoLean® Shakes, is composed almost entirely of synthetic and unnaturally processed ingredients, according to the plaintiff

Why We MUST Insist on Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods

As I said earlier, mandatory labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of GM foods in the U.S. because while GM seeds are banned in several European countries such as Hungary, Germany and Ireland, in the United States, certain states are passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion! At present, no less than 14 states have passed such legislation. Michigan’s Senate Bill 777, if passed, would make that 15. The Michigan bill would prevent anti-GMO laws, and would remove “any authority local governments may have to adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds.”

While this type of legislation sounds like crazy nonsense to normal people, such bills are essentially bought and paid for through the millions of dollars Monsanto and other biotech companies spend lobbying the U.S. government each year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government — a drop from a year earlier, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter.

Their efforts of persuasion are also made infinitely easier by the fact that an ever growing list of former Monsanto employees are now in positions of power within the federal government.

Learn More about Genetically Modified (GM) Foods

Due to lack of labeling, many Americans are still unfamiliar with what GM foods are. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate and to continue learning more about GM foods and helping your friends and family do the same.

To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

Your BEST strategy, however, is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit GM ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the GMO’s you’re exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you’re not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.

To learn more about GM foods, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:

  • Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals
  • Your Milk on Drugs – Just Say No!
  • Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods

Your Opportunity to Eliminate Genetically Engineered Foods from the U.S.

In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama promised to “immediately” require GM labeling if elected. So far, nothing of the sort has transpired.

Labeling of genetically engineered food is way overdue… Here’s how you can get involved to rectify the situation:

  • Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort
  • Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.
  • Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
  • For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
  • Look for in-depth coverage of the issue at the Institute for Responsible Technology, subscribe to Spilling the Beans, and check out their Facebook or Twitter.

In the meantime, the simplest way to avoid genetically engineered foods is to buy whole, certified organic foods. By definition, foods that are certified organic must never intentionally use genetically engineered organisms, must be produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers and come from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed genetically engineered corn feed, although now that genetically engineered alfalfa is approved, grass-fed will not always mean they animals have not consumed genetically engineered feeds.vi

Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S., so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Almost Everyone Eats it, But it’s a “Breeding Ground” for Disease

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Evidence is mounting that sugar is the primary factor causing not just obesity, but also many chronic and lethal diseases.

Dr. Robert Lustig, one of the leading experts on childhood obesity, and arguably the number one enemy of the sugar lobby, has published a well written article in the prestigious scientific journal Nature arguing that sugar is a poison.

He believes that the negative health effects of sugar consumption can no longer be ignored, any more than the health effects of tobacco and alcohol could.

According to Dr. Lustig, via the website Diet Doctor:

“The problem with sugar isn’t just weight gain … A growing body of scientific evidence is showing that fructose can trigger processes that lead to liver toxicity and a host of other chronic diseases.

A little is not a problem, but a lot kills — slowly.”

For the first time in history, “lifestyle” diseases — diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers — are killing more people than communicable diseases. And treating these entirely preventable illnesses costs more than one-seventh of the U.S. GDP. It stands to reason then that simply preventing these diseases could save the US health care system around one trillion dollars a year.

One of the primary, and likely most effective ways of preventing these diseases would be to curb the outrageous over-consumption of sugar.

Dr. Lustig rightfully argues that sugar used to be available to our ancestors only as fruit or honey—and then only for a few months of the year—compared to today, when sugar (primarily in the form of high fructose corn syrup) is added to virtually all processed foods and drinks; even items you normally would not think of as being high in sugar. Tragically, many infant formulas even contain more than 50 percent sugar! “Nature made sugar hard to get; man made it easy,” Dr. Lustig says.

Fructose is NOT the Same as Glucose

Glucose is the form of energy you were designed to run on. Every cell in your body, every bacterium — and in fact, every living thing on the Earth — uses glucose for energy.

glucose, fructose, sugars

Fructose is not the same molecule. Glucose is a 6-member ring, but fructose is a 5-member ring. Sucrose (table sugar) is 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose, and HFCS is 42-55 percent fructose.

If you received your fructose only from vegetables and fruits (where it originates) as most people did a century ago, you’d consume about 15 grams per day. Today the average is 73 grams per day which is nearly 500 percent higher a dose and our bodies simply can’t tolerate that type of biochemical abuse. Furthermore, in vegetables and fruits, the fructose is mixed in with fiber, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and beneficial phytonutrients, all of which help moderate the negative metabolic effects. So it’s not that fructose itself is “poisonous”—it’s the biologically inappropriate doses you’re exposed to that make it hazardous to your health and well-being.

How High Fructose Corn Syrup has Decimated Human Health

We now know, without a doubt, that it’s the excessive sugar content in the modern diet that is taking such a devastating toll on people’s health. According to GreenMedInfo.com, scientific studies have linked fructose to about 78 different diseases and health problems. Select the hyperlinks provided to review how fructose may:

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) was invented in Japan in 1966 and introduced to the American market in 1975. Food and beverage manufacturers quickly began switching their sweeteners from sucrose (table sugar) to corn syrup when they discovered that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) could save them a lot of money. Sucrose costs about three times as much as HFCS. HFCS is also about 20 percent sweeter than table sugar, so you need less to achieve the same amount of sweetness.

In the mid 1970s, dietary fats were blamed for heart disease, giving rise to the “low-fat craze,” which resulted in an explosion of processed nonfat and low fat convenience foods—most of which tasted like sawdust unless sugar was added. Fructose was then added to make all these fat-free products more palatable. Yet as the low-fat craze spread, rates of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity skyrocketed…

Clearly, there was a major flaw in the plan, and it’s not difficult to see that trading fat for sugar is not a wise move.

The problem is that excessive fructose consumption leads to insulin resistance, and insulin resistance appears to be the root of many if not most of the diseases listed above. Insulin resistance has even been found to be an underlying factor of cancer.

How Fructose Increases Insulin Secretion and Worsens Your Insulin Sensitivity

Interestingly, recent research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that fructose can activate taste cells found on your pancreas, a reaction that can increase your body’s secretion of insulin. And, while this is of particular concern for people prone to diabetes, if statistics are any indication, this could include virtually everyone.

At present, one in four Americans already have either pre-diabetes or some form of diabetes, and type 2 diabetes is directly linked to your diet, so anyone on a high-fructose diet can be at risk.

In this study, the researchers were able to demonstrate that fructose activates the same proteins in your pancreatic cells that your tongue uses to taste sweets. And when these cells are exposed to both glucose and fructose, they secrete more insulin than they do when exposed to glucose alone. According to Science News:

“Most sugars join the [metabolic assembly line] at a point where a supervisory enzyme can control the flow of goods. But fructose comes in farther down, where it can lead to an overproduction of fat. And because fructose … doesn’t stimulate the same insulin response that glucose does, the hormone isn’t doing the other regulatory things it usually does, like moderating appetite.”

Limiting Sugar is Also Vital for Longevity

By increasing your insulin and leptin levels (and subsequently decreasing receptor sensitivity for both of these vital hormones), excessive sugar/fructose consumption not only increases your risk of type 2 diabetes, it also accelerates aging in general. In fact, limiting sugar in your diet is a well-known key to longevity, because of all the molecules capable of inflicting damage in your body, sugar molecules are probably the most damaging.

Two years ago, the journal Nutrients published an excellent report on the impact of fructose on aging. Fructose is a particularly potent pro-inflammatory agent that creates advanced glycation end products, commonly known as “AGEs.”

AGEs are a complex group of damaging compounds that form when sugar reacts with amino acids. Besides oxidation, glycation and the subsequent formation of AGEs is one of the major molecular mechanisms causing ongoing damage in your body, which leads to disease, (premature) aging and, eventually, death. According to the authors:

“[T]he data are supportive that endogenous AGEs are associated with declining organ functioning. It appears that dietary AGEs may also be related… As of today, restriction of dietary intake of AGEs and exercise has been shown to safely reduce circulating AGEs, with further reduction in oxidative stress and inflammatory markers.”

In short, if you want to live a long healthy life, you need to restrict your consumption of sugar, particularly fructose. As a standard recommendation to limit glycation, I strongly advise keeping your TOTAL fructose consumption below 25 grams per day.

Most people would be wise to limit their fructose to 15 grams or less however, especially if you have elevated uric acid levels, which can be used as a predictor for fructose toxicity. This includes keeping track of your fructose intake from whole fruits. To evaluate the fructose content of many common fruits, please see this helpful fructose chart. I recommend this lower level of 15 grams a day simply because if you consume processed foods or sweet beverages at all, you’re virtually guaranteed to consume “hidden” sources of fructose that can have a major impact on your health.

When I have mentioned this in the past many people have strongly disagreed with me as they believe fruit is fine because it is natural. And it may be ok for some people, especially those doing long and intense exercise sessions. However, there is an easy way for you to find out your risk. If your uric acid is above 5.0 would be wise to follow the rule. The higher above 5.0 your uric acid is, the worse your risk for damage. If your uric acid is between 3.5 and 5 you should be fine. I believe I must have a genetic polymorphism for uric acid as mine is always above 5.5 even with intense exercise and less than five grams of fructose a day, so I nearly always avoid fruit.

The authors of that paper offer an in-depth review of the many health hazards of fructose, due to its pro-inflammatory actions:

“Accumulation of AGEs has been found in healthy aging persons, and this accumulation is higher during high glucose concentrations. Microvascular and macrovascular damage, seen in diabetes, is attributed to the accumulation of AGEs in tissues, but it is also associated with atherosclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, end stage renal disease, rheumatoid arthritis, sarcopenia, cataracts, and other degenerative ophthalmic diseases, Parkinson’s disease, vascular dementia and several other chronic diseases. For instance, Bar et al. have demonstrated differential increases of AGEs products in Alzheimer’s dementia and vascular dementia compared to controls. It has also been suggested that AGEs are involved in the loss of bone density and muscular mass associated with aging.”

How to Tame Your Sugar Cravings

If you’re struggling with sugar addiction, I recommend trying an energy psychology technique called Turbo Tapping, which has helped many “soda addicts” kick their sweet habit. If you still want to use a sweetener occasionally, here’s what I recommend in lieu of sugar:

  1. Use the sweet herb stevia.
  2. Use organic cane sugar in moderation.
  3. Use organic raw honey in moderation.

Avoid ALL artificial sweeteners, which can damage your health even more quickly than fructose. Agave syrup has been touted as a healthy alternative by many, but don’t fall for it. It’s a highly processed sap that is almost all fructose, and should therefore be avoided.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Toxic Compounds from Fried Foods cause Cancer and Deteriorate Brain Health

Posted on by
Reply

By: John Phillip
Source: NaturalNews.com

Many health-minded individuals understand that eating fried or overcooked foods is unhealthy due to the chemical transition of normally stable fats to trans fats that have been shown to dramatically increase heart attack risk. Researchers from the University of the Basque in Spain publishing in the journal Food Chemistry are the first to discover compounds released from common cooking oils that significantly increase the risk of neurologic degenerative diseases and a variety of different cancers.

Breakdown chemical structures known as aldehydes are formed in cooked vegetable oils such as sunflower oil when heated to normal frying temperatures,and are also released into the air where they can be inhaled. Alternate food preparation methods such as roasting, steaming and broiling are safe methods of cooking foods to avoid the dangerous release of aldehydes andprovide a shield against cancer-forming particles and neurodegenerative decline.

Prior studies have identified the health degrading nature of aldehydes, where their presence in organisms is linked to different types of cancer and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Researchers also know that these compounds remain in vegetable oils after they have been used to fry foods and wanted to determine how they interact with proteins, hormones and enzymes in the body to impede its correct functioning.

Many common vegetable oils produce dangerous aldehydes when heated

The study team heated three types of oil (olive, sunflower and flaxseeds) in an industrial deep fryer at 190 degrees Celsius for a period of forty hours (twenty hours was used for the flaxseed oil). This length of time was used to approximate oils used commercially at a restaurant where fryers remain heated for extended periods of time. The oils were then analyzed using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry techniques.

Researchers found that the sunflower and flaxseed oils degraded significantly and are the ones that create the most toxic aldehydes in the least amount of frying time. These oils are high in polyunsaturated fats (linoleic and linolenic) and breakdown quickly to form the health-demoting aldehyde compounds that permeate the air and penetrate into the food. Olive oil, known to be high in monounsaturated fat, generates aldehydes to a lesser degree and after cooking much longer.

The research team concluded “The fact that significant concentrations of these toxic compounds were found in some oils … is a cause of concern for human health.” Although the scientists did not use coconut oil in their tests, studies have shown that the medium-chain fatty acid does not rapidly convert to deadly trans fats when heated, and may be less likely to produce aldehydes when compared to other vegetable oils. While fried foods are not part of a healthy eating plan, it is important to avoid cooking with low flash-point oils that produce aldehydes and increase the risk of neurologic disorders and cancer.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Harvard Study: Pasteurized Milk from Industrial Dairies Linked to Cancer

Posted on by
Reply

By: Jonathan Benson
Source: NaturalNews.com

The truth has once again shaken the foundation of the ‘American Tower of Babel’ that is mainstream science, with a new study out of Harvard University showing that pasteurized milk product from factory farms is linked to causing hormone-dependent cancers. It turns out that the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) model of raising cows on factory farms churns out milk with dangerously high levels of estrone sulfate, an estrogen compound linked to testicular, prostate, and breast cancers.

Dr. Ganmaa Davaasambuu, Ph.D., and her colleagues specifically identified “milk from modern dairy farms” as the culprit, referring to large-scale confinement operations where cows are milked 300 days of the year, including while they are pregnant. Compared to raw milk from her native Mongolia, which is extracted only during the first six months after cows have already given birth, pasteurized factory milk was found to contain up to 33 times more estrone sulfate.

Evaluating data from all over the world, Dr. Davaasambuu and her colleagues identified a clear link between consumption of such high-hormone milk, and high rates of hormone-dependent cancers. In other words, contrary to what the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the conventional milk lobby would have you believe, processed milk from factory farms is not a health product, and is directly implicated in causing cancer.

“The milk we drink today is quite unlike the milk our ancestors were drinking” without apparent harm for 2,000 years, Dr. Davaasambuu is quoted as saying in the Harvard University Gazette. “The milk we drink today may not be nature’s perfect food.”

Meanwhile, raw, grass-fed, organic milk from cows milked at the proper times is linked to improving digestion, healing autoimmune disorders, and boosting overall immunity, which can help prevent cancer. Though you will never hear any of this from the mainstream media, all milk is not the same — the way a cow is raised, when it is milked, and how its milk is handled and processed makes all the difference in whether or not the end product promotes health or death.

American government seeks to further perpetuate the lie that all milk is the same with egregious new provisions in 2012 Farm Bill

Of particular concern are new provisions in the 2012 Farm Bill that create even more incentives for farmers to produce the lowest quality, and most health-destroying, type of milk possible. Rather than incentivize grazing cows on pastures, which allows them to feed on grass, a native food that their systems can process, the government would rather incentivize confined factory farming methods that force cows to eat genetically-modified (GM) corn and other feed, which makes them sick.

As it currently stands, the government already provides incentives for farmers to stop pasturing their animals, instead confining them in cages as part of a Total Confinement Dairy Model, aka factory farms. But the 2012 Farm Bill will take this a step further by outlawing “component pricing” for milk, which involves allowing farmers to sell milk with higher protein and butterfat at a higher price.

Allowing farmers to sell higher quality milk at a higher price provides an incentive for them to improve the living conditions on their farms, and milk better cow breeds. But the U.S. government would rather standardize all milk as being the same, and create a system where farmers continue to produce cancer-causing milk from sick cows for the millions of children to drink.

To learn more, visit:
http://www.anh-usa.org/healthy-milk-what-is-it/

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Healing common Colds and Coughs

Posted on by
Reply

By Andreas Moritz 

Hi, this is Andreas Moritz and today I would like to discuss a question from a person who suffers from colds, coughs and runny nose, and the answer to this question is very simple. Let it come out, support it, don’t suppress it, don’t try to stop it, because the experience of having a cold shows that there is a need for purification, for detoxification, that the body is trying to get rid of something through the mucus discharge.

Mucus as you might know, is part of the immune system, it’s the first line of defense that catches toxins, antigens, harmful pathogens, anything that the body doesn’t want to be absorbed into the blood stream or the lymphatic system, and so the mucus discharge or the secretion of extra mucus is a necessary defensive reaction by the body in order to make sure it stays healthy, clean and healthy inside, and therefore there is really only a need to support the body in this effort, rather than stopping the body in its effort to cleanse itself and purify itself and to enhance the immune system, in fact.

Colds have been known to strengthen the immune system once the body has successfully removed toxins, but if you try to stop that, and there are methods to stop it, then the toxins that the body is trying to eliminate will go deeper into the tissues such as the connective tissues of the organs and systems in the body, and this not something I encourage you to do, because the cold is the body’s retrieval system and the relief valve, so to say, to get rid of some things that have been stored for a season or an entire year or many years, and the cold helps you to clear that from your system which is much, much better than keeping it inside.

So I would encourage you to support the body by drinking extra fluids, water that shouldn’t be cold water like from the refrigerator, it should be at least lukewarm or warm water, you can put lemon and honey in there, if there is cough, cough is often helped by adding a teaspoon of honey to warm water and some lemon. The lemon also helps to break down mucus so that it comes out faster. It’s not to stop it, but to come out faster and more easily because if it’s liquefied or thinned, then it can run out through the nose much faster than before.

Also, if there is cough, you may have to realize that a cough is the body’s way to clear toxins from the lung area, from the bronchial system, we should not take cough syrups or something that suppresses that function, but to support it. So hydration, spending time out in the sun to get vitamin D back up, because we only really catch colds when vitamin D levels are low.

So the other thing is avoid foods that cause mucus discharge particularly during the time of the cold such as sugar, any kind of sugar except honey which breaks down mucus as I said before, sugar is increasing mucus secretions. Also dairy products you want to avoid, because they create congestion in the gastrointestinal tract and dairy particles or protein particles in dairy food are always aggravating the mucus lining so that would create more mucus discharge than is necessary, and drink, have some vegetable soups, some herbal teas perhaps, avoiding heavy dinners in the evening, making your main meal at lunch time, so that you can digest it properly and you don’t have to deal with remnants of undigested foods in the gastrointestinal tract, that means you don’t create extra fermentation and bacteria that have to get rid of or break down these undigested foods, so that this is much easier for the body to handle and it allows the body to get rid of the accumulated toxins speedily, as effortlessly as possible, and you feel much better for it after the cold has diminished and is gone. You feel like… exuberant, even euphoric, once you have gone through it successfully without trying to stop it.

Of course, antibiotics don’t help at all because they are not intended for viruses but only work on bacteria and most colds are related to viruses and viruses are particles, protein particles, that are generated only in order to dissolve some chemical toxins, harmful substances in the body. They don’t come into our body just to infect us, have fun spreading throughout the system. They only come when there is a need for it and sometimes they help the inflamed cells that have been damaged beyond repair and the inflammation helps to restore the body, allow new cells to be generated to replace old damaged cells.

So viruses are not something we need to combat, but again, the focus should be on strengthening the immune system, taking care of the digestive functions, take enough rest, so that the body can do all those different things and not have to spend energy on other things as well.

Thank you.

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyperlink back to the web page

Study: Roundup Diluted by 99.8 Percent still Destroys Human DNA

Posted on by
Reply

By: Ethan A. Huff
Source: NaturalNews.com

A new study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology proves once again that there really is no safe level of exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide formula for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). According to the new findings, Roundup, which is applied by the tens of thousands of tons a year all around the world, is still toxic to human DNA even when diluted to a mere 0.02 percent of the dilution amount at which it is currently applied to GM food crops.

Numerous studies have already identified the fact that Roundup causes DNA damage, not to mention endocrine disruption and cancer. But this new study, which originates out of the Medical University of Vienna, is one of the first to illustrate Roundup’s toxicity at such drastically diluted levels, which is a direct contradiction of the agri-giant’s talking points about the supposed safety of Roundup.

“Comparisons with results of earlier studies with lymphocytes and cells from internal organs indicate that epithelial cells are more susceptible to the cytotoxic effects and DNA-damaging properties of the herbicide and its formulation,” wrote the authors in their abstract.

“Since we found genotoxic (DNA damaging) effects after short exposure to concentrations that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture, our findings indicate that inhalation may cause DNA damage in exposed individuals.”

Interestingly, it is not so much just the glyphosate ingredient in Roundup that is extremely poisonous, as much as it is this chemical’s amplified toxicity in the presence of other additives in the formula. Polyoxyethyleneamine, for instance, a surfactant that facilitates glyphosate’s absorption into cells, has been found to significantly increase Roundup’s synergistic toxicity in humans.

Despite Monsanto’s claims to the contrary, Roundup is clearly an exceptionally toxic chemical that has no legitimate place in agriculture. According to data compiled by GreenMedInfo.com, Roundup is linked to causing Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, imbalanced hormones in children, DNA damage, low testosterone, endocrine disruption, liver cancer, meningitis, infertility, skin cancer, kidney damage, and even uranium poisoning.

Environmentally, Roundup is a pervasive threat to air, water, and particularly groundwater and drinking supplies, as studies have shown that it does not effectively biodegrade after being sprayed. Back in the fall, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released data showing that air and water all across America’s “bread belt,” where much of our nation’s food is grown, is highly contaminated with glyphosate.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

This Forbidden Indulgence Could Actually Spare You a Heart Attack

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Salt has long been a treasured staple for humans across the globe.

In ancient times, salt was literally worth its weight in gold, as African and European explorers would trade an ounce of salt for an ounce of gold.

Roman soldiers were also paid in salt, hence the modern word “salary” (sal is the Latin word for salt) and the expression “worth his salt” or “earning his salt.”

Far from being harmful, high-quality salt is actually essential for life, but in the United States and many other developed countries salt has been vilified as a primary cause of high blood pressure and heart disease.

These latter claims have failed to be proven conclusively, as have the purported benefits of a low-salt diet.

Now the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) is trying to set the record straight, and has warned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that further plans for salt restriction pose a serious threat to human health.

FDA’s Salt Restriction Plans Could Harm Your Health

In a recently released document titled “Approaches to Reducing Sodium Consumption,” the FDA and the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) cite recommendations to reduce daily sodium intake to less than 2,300 mg, with a further reduction to 1,500 mg (just over one-half teaspoon) for people who are age 51 and older, African American, or who have hypertension, diabetes or chronic kidney disease (this encompasses about half of the U.S. population).

But as WAPF pointed out, the title of the document implies a determination has already been made that Americans sodium consumption should be reduced, a move that is contrary to scientific evidence.

Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, stated:

“A study from 1991 indicates that people need about one and one-half teaspoons of salt per day. Anything less triggers a cascade of hormones to recuperate sodium from the waste stream, hormones that make people vulnerable to heart disease and kidney problems. This is proven biochemistry. Yet, FDA as well as USDA want to mandate drastically restricted sodium consumption at about one-half teaspoon per day.”

The truth of the matter is that oftentimes sensible advice gets taken to the extreme and ends up being more harmful than helpful. Health officials misguided advice to shun the sun comes to mind, as now we are facing epidemic levels of vitamin D deficiency (the advice should be to avoid sunburn, but regular sun exposure is healthy). Likewise, health agencies’ advice to severely restrict salt may actually cause significant health problems …

Why Your Body Needs Salt

Unrefined natural salt provides two elements – sodium and chloride – that are essential for life. Your body cannot make these elements on its own; you must get them from your diet. Some of the many biological processes for which salt is crucial include:

  • Being a major component of your blood plasma, lymphatic fluid, extracellular fluid, and even amniotic fluid
  • Carrying nutrients into and out of your cells
  • Maintaining and regulating blood pressure
  • Supporting healthy glial cell populations in your brain, which are essential for forming the protective coating known as myelin that surrounds the portion of the neuron that conducts electrical impulses, as well as other vital neurological functions
  • Helping your brain communicate with your muscles, so that you can move on demand via sodium-potassium ion exchange

What else is salt good for? WAPF’s commentary to the FDA further breaks down the importance of both sodium and chloride for body function:

“Sodium plays a critical role in body physiology. It controls the volume of fluid in the body and helps maintain the acid-base level. About 40 percent of the body’s sodium is contained in bone, some is found within other organs and cells, and the remaining 55 percent is in blood plasma and extracellular fluids. Sodium is important in proper nerve conduction, in aiding the passage of various nutrients into cells, and in the maintenance of blood pressure.

Sodium-dependent enzymes are required for carbohydrate digestion, to break down complex carbohydrates and sugars into monosaccharides such as glucose, fructose and galactose; sodium is also involved in transporting these monosaccharides across the intestinal wall. Although salt is the most common dietary source for these essential elements, sodium is also available from various foods that contain sodium naturally.

Chloride ions also help maintain proper blood volume, blood pressure, and pH of body fluids. Chloride is the major extracellular anion and contributes to many body functions including the maintenance of blood pressure, acid-base balance, muscular activity, and the movement of water between fluid compartments. Chloride is the major component of hydrochloric acid, which is needed for protein digestion.

Symptoms of hypochlorhydria (low hydrochloric acid) include bloating, acne, iron deficiency, belching, indigestion, diarrhea and multiple food allergies. Chloride is available in very few foods, and adequate chloride must be obtained from salt.”

Did Salt Get the Blame When Fructose Was Really at Fault?

Many of you have likely heard of the DASH diet, which stands for Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, and which is very low in salt, consisting largely of fresh vegetables and fruits, lean protein, whole grains, and low-fat dairy. This is the diet used in the DASH-sodium study – the ONE study that was conducted to determine whether or not a low-salt diet would control hypertension.

People on DASH diets did show reduced hypertension, but researchers were so eager and personally invested in proving their salt theory that they completely overlooked other factors – like the fact that the DASH diet is also very low in sugar, including fructose.

Hypertension is actually promoted far more by excess fructose than excess salt, and the amount of salt Americans eat pales in comparison to the amount of fructose they consume on a daily basis. I’m convinced that sugar/fructose—rather than salt—is the major driving force behind our skyrocketing hypertension rates. (If you’re struggling with hypertension, you can read my full recommendations for normalizing  your blood pressure).  Blood pressure drops as much in low-sugar studies as it did in the DASH-sodium study, but this fact has been conveniently ignored.

Is Salt Really Linked to Heart Disease?

Last year a meta-analysis of seven studies involving more than 6,000 people found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death. In fact, it was salt restriction that actually increased the risk of death in those with heart failure.

Furthermore, research in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed that the less sodium excreted in the urine (a marker of salt consumption), the greater the risk of dying from heart disease. The study followed 3,681 middle-aged healthy Europeans for eight years. The participants were divided into three groups: low salt, moderate salt, and high salt consumption. Researchers tracked mortality rates for the three groups, with the following results:

  1. Low-salt group: 50 people died
  2. Moderate salt group: 24 people died
  3. High-salt group: 10 people died

The risk for heart disease was 56 percent higher for the low-salt group than for the group who ate the most salt! Some studies have shown a modest benefit to salt restriction among some people with high blood pressure, but the evidence does not extend to the rest of the population.

WAPF notes:

“While excess sodium consumption does increase blood pressure in certain sensitive individuals, increased salt intake does not raise blood pressure in most people. In an average population when salt intakes are reduced, about 30 percent will experience a small drop in blood pressure (between one and four mm Hg), while about 20 percent will experience a similar increase in blood pressure.

The remaining 50 percent of the population will show no effect at all of salt intake reduction. In most people, even a significant increase in salt consumption does not raise blood pressure. … While salt restriction may benefit a small percentage of people with high blood pressure, the science shows no health benefits – and significant health problems – due to salt restriction in the majority of the population.”

Dangers of a Low-Salt Diet

The simple truth is, there are very real risks from eating too little salt, and population-wide recommendations to restrict salt intake to very low levels could in fact increase rates of a wide range of diseases. WAPF explains, as reported by Globe Newswire:

“Recent studies show a correlation of salt restriction with increased heart failure and with insulin resistance leading to diabetes. Studies show that even modest reductions in salt cause an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Higher incidence of inflammatory markers and altered lipoproteins are also found by researchers evaluating those on salt-reduced diets. These factors are precursors to metabolic syndrome, which predicts heart problems and diabetes.”

In one study by Harvard researchers, a low-salt diet lead to an increase in insulin resistance, which is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes — and the change occurred in just seven days! Other research has found salt restriction may play a role in:

  • Increased death rates among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes
  • Increased falls and broken hips, and decreased cognitive abilities, among the elderly
  • Giving birth to babies of low birth weight
  • Poor neurodevelopmental function in infants

There is also a condition in which you have too little sodium. This is known as hyponatremia, where your body’s fluid levels rise and your cells begin to swell. This swelling can cause a number of health problems, from mild to severe. At its worst, hyponatremia can be life threatening, leading to brain swelling, coma and death. But mild to moderate hyponatremia has more subtle effects that you or your health care provider may not even connect with a sodium-deficiency problem, including:

There are other dangers to salt restriction, too, which WAPF outlined in their report — dangers that many are apt to overlook:

  • Chemical salt alternatives: As food manufacturers seek to lower salt levels in their foods, salt substitutes like Senomyx are on the rise. Along with potential dangers from Senomyx itself (which does not require extensive testing and, as WAPF states, “would seem to be nothing more or less than a neurotrophic drug”), it’s possible that eating foods that taste salty but actually do not satisfy our sodium requirements may trigger us to keep eating more and more until these requirements are met … a recipe for obesity in the making.
  • A loss of nutrient-dense foods: Certain nutritious foods, such as raw milk cheese and lacto-fermented vegetables, depend on high levels of salt for production. If salt becomes increasingly restricted, it could harm the production of these nutrient-dense foods.

Some Types of Salt Are More Dangerous

When you add salt to your diet, the type matters greatly. Today’s table salt has practically nothing in common with natural salt. One is health damaging, and the other is healing. Natural salt is 84 percent sodium chloride, and processed salt is 98 percent. So, what comprises the rest?

The remaining 16 percent of natural salt consists of other naturally occurring minerals, including trace minerals like silicon, phosphorous and vanadium. But the remaining two percent of processed salt is comprised of man-made chemicals, such as moisture absorbents, and a little added iodine.

You might be tempted to think “salt is salt,” but even the structure of processed salt has been radically altered in the refining process. Refined salt is dried above 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit, and this excessive heat alone alters the natural chemical structure of the salt. What remains after ordinary table salt is chemically “cleaned” is sodium chloride.

The processed salt is not pure sodium chloride but is only 97.5 percent sodium chloride and anticaking and flow agents are added to compromise about 2.5 percent. These are dangerous chemicals like ferrocyanide and aluminosilicate.

Some European countries, where water fluoridation is not practiced, also add fluoride to table salt. In France, 35 percent of table salt sold contains either sodium fluoride or potassium fluoride and use of fluoridated salt is widespread in South America.

More than 80 percent of the salt most people consume is from processed foods. Indeed, there is far too much sodium in processed foods. But you shouldn’t be eating those foods anyway—sodium is just one of MANY ingredients in packaged foods that will adversely affect your health. The salt added to these convenience foods is bleached out, trace mineral deficient and mostly sodium—as opposed to natural salt, which is much lower in sodium.

The more you can move toward a diet of whole organic foods in their natural state, the healthier you’ll be—whether it’s veggies, meat, dairy products, or salt.

Given that salt is absolutely essential to good health, I recommend limiting processed foods (most of which are high in processed salt) and processed salt and switching to a pure, unrefined salt. My favorite is an ancient, all-natural sea salt from the Himalayas. So, generally speaking, it is perfectly fine to salt your food to taste, provided the salt you’re using is natural and unrefined. If you are exercising heavily, or in the middle of a heat wave, you may require more salt than on a cool day when you’re relaxing.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Sidestep These Veggies – Even if They’re Organic

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Videos like the two featured above have started making the rounds online, raising questions about what exactly that plastic-looking “peel” found on some fresh produce might be.

Let me preface this article by saying that I do not have the answer, but I will present a couple of theories here.

Fruits and vegetables—apparently even organically-grown varieties—may have cow-, pig-, and chicken collagen coatings on them rather than wax, as well as a number of other unsavory ingredients.

Wax was first applied to the skins of fruits and vegetables for longer shelf life hundreds of years ago.

Today, that tradition is being carried on with a new generation of chemicals and compounds I’d rather NOT have on my fresh produce…

Modified Atmospheric Packaging

While I normally do not feature blog posts, this instance is a rare exception, as I thought this Reality Blog report contained quite a bit of worth-while details. In response to one of the videos above, this blogger dug up information about so-called ‘modified atmosphere packaging’ that could offer one potential explanation for the bizarre plastic-like coating found on lettuce:

“… [M]odified atmosphere packaging (MAP) … involves either actively or passively controlling or modifying the atmosphere surrounding the product within a package made of various types and/or combinations of films … Edible films may consist of four basic materials: lipids, resins, polysaccharides and proteins …  The most common plasticizer used to cast edible films is food-grade polyethylene glycol, which is used to reduce film brittleness … Gelatin is … extracted from the boiled crushed bones, connective tissues, organs and some intestines of animals such as domesticated cattle, chicken, and pigs.”

So, could that rubbery peel be a form of sprayed-on MAP, designed to prolong shelf life of fresh produce? As detailed by Reality Blog, this certainly seems like one reasonable conclusion.

Edible “Invisible Packaging” is More Common than You Might Think

According to the FDA, modified atmosphere packaging (MAP), which includes so-called “smart” and “edible” types of packaging, has made great strides over the past decade or so, and has “greatly improved the quality and shelf-stability” of otherwise highly perishable produce. This type of packaging can be either “active” or “passive.”

The FDA explains:

“Active modification occurs by the displacement of gases in the package, which are then replaced by a desired mixture of gases, while passive modification occurs when the product is packaged using a selected film type, and a desired atmosphere develops naturally as a consequence of the products’ respiration and the diffusion of gases through the film. … Reducing the rate of respiration by limiting O2 (dioxygen) prolongs the shelf life of fruits and vegetables by delaying the oxidative breakdown of the complex substrates which make up the product. Also, O2 concentrations below 8% reduce the production of ethylene, a key component of the ripening and maturation process.” [Emphasis mine]

Essentially, by spraying a substance on the fresh produce, which forms a thin film, oxygen levels can be limited, which slows down the ripening process. So what might this “edible” film substance be comprised of? The list of potential ingredients is a long one, and will vary from product to product, but can be generally divided into four basic materials:

  1. Lipids (waxes, oils, stearic acid)
  2. Resins (such as shellac and wood rosin)
  3. Polysaccharides (such as cellulose, pectin, starch, carrageenan, and chitosan)
  4. Proteins (such as casein, soy, and corn-zein)

Common additives to these base materials include:

  • Plasticizers (such as polyethylene glycol, glycerol, and “other cross-linking agents”)
  • Antimicrobials
  • Antioxidants
  • Texturizers (to customize the film for the particular product)

The FDA’s web page on MAP’s offers one fairly detailed example of a concoction used on tomatoes to successfully extend their shelf life: Most of us are used to thinking about pesticide residues when purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables, but few probably consider that ON TOP of that, there’s an additional layer of miscellaneous resins and plasticizers…

“Park and others (1994) reported the successful application of a corn-zein film to extend the shelf life of tomatoes. Color change, loss of firmness, and weight loss during storage were delayed, and shelf life was extended by 6 days in comparison to untreated tomatoes. The corn-zein product used in the above study was a commercial product that was brushed onto the tomatoes, and consisted of 54 grams of corn-zein, 14 grams of glycerine, and 1 gram of citric acid dissolved in 260 grams of ethanol.”

Is it Safe to Eat?

Edible coatings probably won’t kill you, but if you have a choice, why would you opt to eat fruits and vegetables that have been coated in a rubbery film?  And, these types of coatings DO present a very real potential health hazard. The FDA openly admits that edible coatings have been associated with a number of problems:

“For example, modification of the internal gas composition of the product due to high CO2 and low O2 can cause problems such as anaerobic fermentation of apples and bananas, rapid weight loss of tomatoes, elevated levels of core flush for apples, rapid decay in cucumbers, and so on,” the FDA states.

Furthermore:

“… [A]t extremely low O2 levels (that is, <1%), anaerobic respiration can occur, resulting in tissue destruction and the production of substances that contribute to off-flavors and off-odors, as well as the potential for growth of foodborne pathogens such as Clostridium botulinum.”

This may help explain why fresh produce has managed to be the source of several outbreaks of food poisoning in the past several years. To combat the growth of foodborne pathogens, antimicrobial agents are added, such as:

“…metal ions supported in zeolite, isothiocyanate in cyclodextrin with cobalt ion, chitosan, allyl isothiocyanate, silver-based fungicide, quaternary ammonium salt, organic monoglycerides, copper and zinc, benzoic acid, sodium benzoate, sorbic acid and potassium sorbate and propionic acid. Researchers are also currently looking at the use of nisin, a bacteriocin, in coatings to suppress L. monocytogenes, as well as other bacteriocins for the control of C. botulinum. Successful applications of this technology have been demonstrated using sodium caseinate/stearic acid to coat peeled carrots and caseinate/acetylated monoglyceride to coat celery sticks.”

The “Epidermal Peel” Theory

Another theory floating about is that this coating isn’t really a coating at all, but rather an entirely natural occurrence, referred to as “epidermal peel,” caused by cold weather. Lettuces in particular appear to be affected in this way when exposed to frost conditions. Epidermal peel can be likened to “chapped lips,” in that the outer layer of a leaf will get damaged by freezing temperatures, causing a layer to peel away from the leaf. This peeling is typically considered unsightly, and harvesters will typically remove as many of the affected leaves as possible.

But while it sounds like what we’re seeing in the featured videos could be epidermal peeling, is it really?

Unfortunately, I’ve not been able to find any kind of visual example of this naturally-occurring epidermal peeling to compare it with what we’re seeing in the videos. In one 2011 Produce Report, the damage is described as follows, which leads me to think that what these consumers found is NOT epidermal peeling, but rather some form of MAP coating:

“Freezing causes blisters to form on the frost affected areas of Iceberg and Romaine lettuce. These blisters pop and then peel as the plant continues to grow. The epidermal peel discolors and eventually leads to decay. Harvest crews work at a reduced pace to remove all affected leaves before packing. The result is smaller heads, lighter weights and pale color.”

How Can You Avoid Produce Coated in “Edible Plastic”?

Whatever the truth is with regards to the featured videos, one thing is for sure: MAP films are definitely being used on fresh produce, both conventional and organically-grown. Once you understand the reason WHY fresh foods are coated, the answer to how to avoid them becomes rather self-evident… Fresh fruits and vegetables of all kinds are “preserved” in this way in order to remain sellable even after lengthy transportation.

If you buy your produce from a local farm, they naturally will not need to process any of their foods in such a manner. This is yet another great reason to buy locally-farmed foods, even if it’s not certified organic—although that would certainly be ideal.  Still, fresh, non-coated/non-treated vegetables that have been grown conventionally will likely be healthier for you than wilted organic veggies from across the world, coated with plasticizers to keep them looking fresh…

Eight Guidelines for REAL Healthful Food

In your search for healthy food to feed your family, here is what to look for, whether you’re at the grocery store or farmers’ market. Foods that meet these standards will almost always be a wise choice:

  1. Grown without pesticides and chemical fertilizers (organic foods fit this description, but so do some non-organic foods)
  2. Not genetically modified
  3. Contains no added growth hormones, antibiotics, or other drugs
  4. Does not contain artificial anything, nor any preservatives (for fresh produce, you can now add the presence of MAP coatings or ‘edible packaging’)
  5. Fresh (if you have to choose between wilted organic produce or fresh conventional produce, the latter may be the better option)
  6. Did not come from a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO, a.k.a. factory farm)
  7. Grown with the laws of nature in mind (meaning animals are fed their native diets, not a mix of grains and animal byproducts, and have free-range access to the outdoors)
  8. Grown in a sustainable way (using minimal amounts of water, protecting the soil from burnout, and turning animal wastes into natural fertilizers instead of environmental pollutants)

Grow Your Own

Dr. Mercola's own garden

Here is my raised vegetable bed where I have planted two types of kale, collards greens, parsley and a variety of lettuces. Just planted it two weeks ago but should be able to start harvesting very soon. You can see my black composter directly below the second palm on the left. This is where I recycle the pulp from my veggies and other compostable food wastes that would normally go to the landfill.

Starting your own garden is another option. It may sound intimidating, but really all you need is a small plot of land (or several containers), some healthy soil, and the will to do it. Naturally, I encourage you to use only organic gardening methods. Once you get used to it, organic gardening is just as easy as conventional. For instance, you can make a homemade garden spray that will discourage most pests by combining mashed garlic paste with a little cayenne pepper or horseradish. Add a small amount to a gallon jug of water and let it sit for a day or two, shaking it occasionally. Just spray a small amount onto a few leaves first to make sure it’s not so strong that it will burn them.

If you’re not sure where to begin, Better Homes & Gardens has a free All-American Vegetable Garden Plan that can be put into a 6×6 area. It’s a great starting point for beginners. For more tips, the following Web sites offer helpful advice and guidelines for the organic gardener:

  • OrganicGardening.com
  • BeyondPesticides.org

Where to Find Locally-Grown Foods

If eating locally is new to you, rest assured that you can find a source near you, regardless of whether you’re in a remote or rural area or a big city. Here’s a list of helpful resources:

  • For a listing of national farmer’s markets, see this link.
  • Another great web site is www.localharvest.org. There you can find farmers’ markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
  • Subscribe to a community supported agriculture program (CSA). Some are seasonal while others are year round programs. Once you subscribe, many will drop affordable, high quality locally-grown produce right at your door step. To find a CSA near you, go to the USDA’s website where you can search by city, state, or zip code.
  • Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
  • Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
  • FoodRoutes. Their “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA’s, and markets near you.
  • For an even more comprehensive list of CSA’s and a host of other sustainable agriculture programs, check out this link to mySustainable Agriculture page.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Don’t Eat it: Linked to Cancer and Gets into Your Blood

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

In November 2011, about 250 Boulder County residents attended a public meeting to discuss the planting of GM (genetically modified) crops on county-owned land.

Their turnout, together with an anti-GMO (genetically modified organism) recommendation from the county’s Food and Agriculture Policy Council, led county officials to vote for a phase out of genetically engineered crops on open space.

This is a powerful testimony to the influence residents can have on their local regulations when they stand together for a cause; you, too, can work toward enacting such a phase out in your area as well.

Boulder Residents, County Officials Say “No” to GMOs

Boulder’s Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee voted 5-4 in support of the Food and Agriculture Policy Council’s recommendation to phase out the planting of GM crops on the county’s open space.

Currently, about 16,000 acres of county-owned land are planted with genetically engineered corn; the new rule will mean these crops will be transitioned out in favor of traditional GMO-free farming practices.

The area has been a hot-spot for GMO debate since 2009, when local farmers wanted to plant genetically engineered sugar beets in the county.

Following public outcry, County commissioners delayed the farmers’ request. Since then, a local survey showed that 56 percent of Boulder County residents supported a ban on GM crops, and now their voices have been heard. As reported by the Boulder Daily Camera, Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee member John Nibarger said:

“There’s the voters’ side of this, and there’s the farmers’ side of this … I think we heard rather strongly … (that a lot of voters) don’t want to see GM crops.”

Americans Already Eating GM Foods, While Other Countries Have Banned Them

GM corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets have made their way into approximately 80 percent of current U.S. processed grocery store items, now that up to 90 percent of several U.S. grown crops are grown with genetically engineered seed. So if you live in the United States, you have most certainly already been exposed to GM foods — most likely a lot of them.

This is why Boulder’s move to phase out GM crops is such a breath of fresh air, as finally a governing body in the United States is stepping up to protect its residents from this massive, uncontrolled experiment — a move that has already taken place in other parts of the world, and in four counties in California and a city in Maine.

Genetically engineered seeds are banned in Hungary, as they are in several other European countries, such as Germany and Ireland. Peru is also following the precautionary principle, and has even passed a law that bans genetically modified ingredients within the nation for 10 years.

The issue of protecting farmland from invading GMOs is a serious one, so much so that Hungary recently destroyed nearly 1,000 acres of corn crops because they were found to be mistakenly grown with GM seeds. The discovery that the farmland was planted with GM seeds came when the season was already underway, so the harvest was completely lost.

What would prompt the Hungarian government to take such a drastic step?

Perhaps it is the fact that GM crops simply cannot be contained, and inevitably will contaminate the environment with GM DNA. Or it could be that they do not want superweeds, triggered by the overuse of Roundup herbicide on GM Roundup Ready crops, overtaking their farmland the way they are now doing in the United States. Then again, it could be the unknown threats to human health — and the fact that new research shows toxins from GM crops are now appearing in human blood – that made them think twice.

The other, and more serious issue, is the hidden one. Nearly all GM crops are designed with genes to resist a potent herbicide called Round Up or glyphosate.  The newest science is showing that glyphosate is actually FAR more dangerous than people realize. It just is not widely appreciated yet, and the U.S. is spreading massive amounts of it every year. The consequences of this chemical abuse will have profoundly devastating consequences and the longer we wait to remove this toxin the worse it will be.

Either way, they, and a growing number of people around the world, are clearly well educated about the dangers of GM foods … which is a lesson the U.S. government still needs to learn.

Genetically Engineered “Pesticide” Toxin Now Found in Human Blood

Upwards of 65 percent of U.S. corn crops contain a special gene added that allows them to produce an insecticide. This way, when bugs attempt to eat the corn they’re killed right away (specifically their stomach is split open) because the plant contains an invisible, built-in pesticide shield.

The particular gene added to most corn crops is a type of Bt-toxin — produced from Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria. Genetic engineers remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and insert it into the DNA of corn (and cotton) plants. They claim that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in human stomachs — and even if it survived, it won’t cause reactions in humans or mammals …

But studies are now showing that this is not the case, as Bt toxin is readily passing into the human bloodstream and animal studies have already shown that Bt-toxin does cause health effects in animals, including potentially humans. As Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, wrote:

“Mice fed natural Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses and caused them to become sensitive to other formerly harmless compounds. This suggests that Bt-toxin might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances. Farm workers and others have also had reactions to natural Bt-toxin, and authorities acknowledge that “People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt.”

In fact, when natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room.

… The Bt-toxin produced in the GM plants is probably more dangerous than in its natural spray form. In the plants, the toxin is about 3,000-5,000 times more concentrated than the spray, it doesn’t wash off the plants like the spray does, and it is designed to be more toxic than the natural version. In fact, the GM toxin has properties of known allergens and fails all three GM allergy tests recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others.”

It’s reasons such as this why the precautionary principle should absolutely be used in regard to exposing humans and the environment to GM crops. Unfortunately, it appears Cry1Ab, a specific type of Bt toxin from GM corn, is already quite prevalent in humans; upon testing 69 pregnant and non-pregnant women who were eating a typical Canadian diet (which included foods such as GM soy, corn and potatoes), researchers found Bt toxin in:

  • 93 percent of maternal blood samples
  • 80 percent of fetal blood samples
  • 67 percent of non-pregnant women blood samples

Other potential dangers have also been uncovered, including:

Intense Lobbying Efforts Aim to Keep Americans in the Dark about GM Foods

The food and agriculture biotechnology industry has spent more than $572 million in campaign contributions and lobbying expendituresin just over a decade, according to an analysis by Food & Water Watch. Key among the goals of this intense lobbying effort is to prevent GM food labeling and keep Americans in the dark about the contents of their food. The analysis states:

“The food and agriculture biotechnology industry has been flexing its financial political muscle to ease the regulatory oversight of genetically modified foods. Lobbying efforts for some of these firms and groups have included approval of cloned food and genetically engineered food, animals and livestock.

Companies are also fighting to eliminate or prevent labeling on genetically modified foods in the United States and preventing other countries from regulating genetically modified foods. These efforts have dovetailed with lobbying to tighten intellectual property law protections over patented seeds and animals in attempts to further benefit the biotech industry.”

Over 95 percent of Americans polled said they think GM foods should require a label, stating it’s an ethical issue and consumers should be able to make an informed choice.

Like Europeans, Americans are suspicious of GM foods, and a large part of why many continue to buy them is because they are unaware that they’re already in the food. A prominent GM food label would be a death sentence to U.S. GM crops, which are right now enjoying a free for all when it comes to entering the food market.

Industry lobbying is clearly working, as to date biotech companies have evaded mandatory labeling laws (although a new California initiative may change all of that). They also succeeded in getting GM alfalfa approved, which quite literally threatens the entire organic industry.

A large part of the problem, and one of the reasons why the United States has not taken a precautionary stance the way other countries have, is that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are heavily influenced by biotech giant Monsanto. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government– and this was a drop from a year earlier, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter.

The FDA, the USDA, and the U.S. Trade Representative all have a special set of revolving doors leading straight to Monsanto, which has allowed this transnational giant to gain phenomenal authority and influence, as well as get their genetically engineered crops planted on the lion’s share of U.S. farmland.

However, just as changes in Boulder could prove to be a tipping point that begins a trend toward eliminating GM crops from American soil, a 2012 ballot initiative has been launched in California, which will require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods and food ingredients — also an important step toward ultimately eliminating these toxic foods from the market.

You Can Join the Fight Against GMOs

The people of Boulder County have made it clear that they will not tolerate GM crops on their local land; now you, too, can let your opinion be heard. Several organizations, including Mercola.com, the Organic Consumers Association, the Institute for Responsible Technology, and the Environmental Working Group, are working to generate a tipping point of consumer rejection to make GMOs a thing of the past.

Here’s how you can get involved:

  • If you live in California and are willing to attend a short training session and then start collecting petition signatures (you will be part of a team of 2-4 people) for the California Ballot Initiative, sign up here. (For more information see: The California Ballot Initiative: Taking Down Monsanto.) Also remember to share this information with family and friends in California!
  • Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort
  • Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.
  • Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
  • For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter
  • Look for in-depth coverage of the issue at the Institute for Responsible Technology, subscribe to Spilling the Beans, and check out their Facebook or Twitter.
  • You can also join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or Twitter

In the meantime, the simplest way to avoid GM foods is to buy whole, certified organic foods. By definition, foods that are certified organic must never intentionally use GM organisms, must be produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers and come from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed GM corn feed, although now that GM alfalfa is approved, grass-fed will not always mean GMO free.

You can also look for foods that are ”non-GMO verified” by the Non-GMO Project.

Important Action Item: Support California’s Ballot Initiative to Label GMO’s!

In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama promised to “immediately” require GM labeling if elected. So far, nothing of the sort has transpired.

Fortunately, 24 US states have (as part of their state governance) something called the Initiative Process, where residents can bring to ballot any law they want enacted, as long as it has sufficient support. California has been busy organizing just such a ballot initiative to get mandatory labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state. The proposed law will be on the ballot for 2012.

Michigan and Washington are also starting similar campaigns.

Since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, a win for the California Initiative would be a huge step forward, and would affect ingredients and labeling nation-wide. Last month, a coalition of consumer, public health and environmental organizations, food companies, and individuals submitted the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to the State Attorney General. Now, they need 800,000 signatures to get the Act on next year’s ballot.

I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can.

If you live in California, volunteer to gather petition signatures. If you live outside of California, please donate to help support this Initiative and spread the word to everyone you know in California. Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S., so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Processed Meat once again Linked to Huge Increases in Pancreatic Cancer

Posted on by
Reply

By: PF Louis
Source: NaturalNews.com

Daily breakfasts with bacon or sausage are still common for many who haven’t become vegetarians. Just think about the amount of breakfast burritos and McMuffins sold. Indulging in other processed meats such as lunch and dinner sausages, pepperoni pizzas, salami and corned beef sandwiches increases the odds of getting pancreatic cancer.

According to a Swedish epidemiological study conducted by Professor Sussana Larsson at the Karolinska Institute and published in the British Journal of Cancer, just 50 grams a day of processed meat, equivalent to one sausage, increases the risk of pancreatic cancer by 19 percent.

Eating 100 grams of processed meat per day increased the risk to 38 percent, according to the study that included data from 11 trials and 6,643 patients with pancreatic cancer. The importance of this study of pancreatic cancer was emphasized because although it is relatively rare, it has an extremely low survival rate, especially with conventional medicine.

As a result of this study, the UK is officially advising citizens to keep their daily processed meat level at or below 70 grams. Professor Larsson also said that while red meat in general increases the risk of colorectal cancer, there was more of link to pancreatic cancer from processed red meats.

This is not the first such research linking pancreatic cancer to processed meats. Others cite even higher risk percentages. The health ranger explains why processed meats are the worst.

Alternative cancer approaches can handle pancreatic cancer

The high, often rapid mortality rate of pancreatic cancer in conventional medicine motivated Texas small town dentist William Donald Kelley to research and create his own approach for curing his pancreatic cancer.

This was done in three phases: First he realized that a major dietary change was necessary. He avoided red meats, sugar, and processed foods while focusing on fresh whole mostly raw vegetables, grains, and fruits. Then he discovered an early 20th Century Scottish embryologist John Beard’s discovery of curing cancer by injecting pancreatic juices, which contained proteolytic enzymes.

This type of enzyme can burst open cancer cell walls. But they are also used for breaking down tough complete proteins found in meat. So heavy meat eating occupies the type of enzymes needed for any cancer. Kelly found which proteolytic enzymes worked best and added enzyme activators that he observed were lacking.

In order to eliminate dead cancer cell toxins, Kelley added daily liver cleanses with coffee enemas. Then he discovered that a handful of people needed some meat in their diet to complete their cure.

So he created a system of metabolic typing to determine the exact diets cancer patients needed. Eventually his cure rate exceeded 90%, and obviously he had cured himself.

Today, Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez carries on with Kelley’s protocol, albeit slightly modified, in NYC, despite several attempts to shut him down. He and Dr. Linda Isaacs continue their practice with funding from several different sources under the FDA’s Investigational New Drug (IND) and compassionate use guidelines.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Toxic BPA Levels Increase by a Shocking 1,200 Percent after Eating Canned Food

Posted on by
Reply

By: Elizabeth Walling
Source: NaturalNews.com

A Harvard study suggests that avoiding BPA packaging most of the time isn’t enough to avoid its toxic side effects. Even a daily bowl of canned soup is enough to spike your BPA levels by more than 1,200 percent.

Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health studied levels of the chemical BPA (bisphenol A) in 75 volunteers who ate 12 ounces of soup each day for five days. One group ate fresh soup, while the other ate canned. When BPA levels were measured, the results were no less than shocking: eating canned soup on a daily basis raised urinary BPA levels by a whopping 1,221 percent.

“The magnitude of the rise in urinary BPA we observed after just one serving of soup was unexpected and may be of concern among individuals who regularly consume foods from cans or drink several canned beverages daily,” said Karin Michels, senior author of the study.

She adds, “It may be advisable for manufacturers to consider eliminating BPA from can linings.”

Researchers say more studies need to be done to determine how long these elevated BPA levels can last.

BPA has many dangerous side effects

Why is this so concerning? Study after study has linked high BPA levels to serious health risks. Just glancing through a small portion of BPA studies is like walking through a health house of horrors. Believe it or not, the following are just a few of the problems caused by BPA:

- High urinary BPA levels have been strongly linked with heart disease and diabetes risk.

- Prenatal BPA exposure is connected with a higher breast cancer risk later in life.

- New findings say prenatal BPA exposure can cause aggressiveness in toddlers and asthma in babies.

- BPA can also impact fertility by damaging sperm health.

While some organic food suppliers have taken the hint and removed BPA from their packaging, most food manufacturers blatantly ignore BPA risks and package their foods in materials that contain BPA. This is one more important reason to choose fresh foods whenever possible.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Did You Know? Nearly All Corn and Soy Products Purchased at Grocery Stores are Genetically Modified and May Place Your Health at Risk

Posted on by

By: David Gutierrez
Source: NaturalNews.com

More than 90 percent of all soybeans grown in the United States are genetically modified (GM) for herbicide resistance and are consequently sprayed with massive quantities of those toxic chemicals. Fully 85 percent of all corn grown in the country is also genetically engineered, either for herbicide resistance or to produce pesticides within its tissues. Since farmers sell their corn and soy to large distributors who mix the product together for processing, this essentially means that 100 percent of non-organic corn and soy products on the US market are GM.

And since soy and corn derivatives are so ubiquitous in packaged food, the Grocery Manufacturers of America has estimated that as much as 80 percent of processed food on US shelves contains GM ingredients. This includes breakfast cereals and other products labeled “natural” or “all natural.”

GM crops are simply unsafe. They expose people to novel and potentially dangerous allergens and to higher levels of pesticides. Animals grazing on GM crops have died from ruptured internal organs. Yet this is the type of food making up 80 percent of packaged food today, and the only way to avoid it is to buy organic food or grow your own.

Tip: Foods labeled USDA Organic do not contain any substantial level of genetically engineered ingredients, but due to cross-contamination of crops, even organic products almost always contain trace levels of GMOs.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

High Fructose Corn Syrup Linked to Cardiovascular Disease in Children, Teens

Posted on by

By: Tara Green
Source: NaturalNews.com

Adolescents who consume foods and beverages containing high fructose corn syrup already have, present in their blood, evidence of risk factors for cardiovascular disease and diabetes according to a recent study. The results of the new study, to be published in February 2012 in The Journal of Nutrition, provide strong scientific evidence of the negative health consequences of fructose on the human body.

Health consequences of HCFS show up early

An investigation by scientists from the Medical College of Georgia (MCG) at Georgia Health Sciences University (GHSU) followed 559 children ages 14-18. The study subjects’ dietary habits were measured; their blood analyzed and blood pressure, body fat and other health measurements taken. The researchers found a correlation between high-fructose diets and markers for heart and vascular disease such as higher blood pressure, fasting glucose, insulin resistance, levels of C – reactive protein, related to inflammation.

Teens whose diets included more HFCS also had lower levels of HDL cholesterol (the “good” cholesterol) and of the fat burning hormone adiponectin. In addition, study subjects who often consumed the industrial sweetener were more likely to have midsection fat, referred to as visceral adiposity, another known risk factor for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. More generalized fat distribution does not appear to have a link to HFCS or the other health risk factors.

Norman Pollock, assistant professor of pediatrics at GHSU and co-lead author of the study said that “There is not much data in children and adolescents,” although “adolescents consume the most fructose so it’s really important to not only measure the levels of fructose but to look at what it might be doing to their bodies currently and, hopefully, to look at cardiovascular disease outcomes as they grow.”

Re-shaping teen diets

Dr. Vanessa Bundy, a pediatric resident at MCG as well as co-lead author of the study, stated “It is so very important to provide a healthy balance of high-quality food to our children and to really pay close attention to the fructose and sucrose they are consuming at their home or anyone else’s. The nutrition that caregivers provide their children will either contribute to their overall health and development or potentially contribute to cardiovascular disease at an early age,” Bundy also pointed out that parents can help their teens by modeling good health habits, including both nutritious dietary choices and regular exercise.

Bundy also remarked on a truth that alternative health experts have long known but official medical science and health regulatory agencies have been slow to acknowledge: “Fructose itself is metabolized differently than other sugars and has some byproducts that are believed to be bad for us. The overall amount of fructose that is in high fructose corn syrup is not much different than the amount in table sugar but it’s believed there’s something in the syrup processing that plays a role in the bad byproducts of metabolism.”

Previous studies involving animals have had similar results to the Georgia study, but evidence of a direct health link among children between HCFS and health problems may finally spur action to limit adolescent consumption of the sweetener. Pollock noted “Ultimately we want to use this paper and other papers to kind of change politically how food is distributed into the schools, and the types of foods, to cut down on these specific types of foods with high fructose corn syrup in them.”

Pollock also pointed out that the study he and his team conducted was unusual in its focus on the total amount of fructose consumed in the diet. “A unique aspect of our study design is that we took into account the fructose released from sucrose during digestion along with the fructose found in foods and beverages. Because sucrose is broken down into fructose and glucose before it arrives at the liver for metabolism, it is important to consider the additional fructose from sucrose when determining the overall health effect of fructose.”

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines