Are You Sure You Want To Eat That?

Can Pesticides Cause ADHD? Study Says Pesticide May Contribute to ADHD, But More Research Needed

2010-05-18T12:15:00.001-04:00

A study published today in the Journal of Pediatrics says that one type of pesticide commonly used on fruits and vegetables may be contributing to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD.
Exposure to pesticides may be linked to attention deficit disorder.

Researchers took urine from over 1,000 participants ages 8 to 15 and analyzed it for pesticides. 119 of the children had symptoms of ADHD. Those with the highest concentration of pesticides were more likely to have the disorder, according to the study.

"It's consistent with other studies that have looked at organophosphate pesticides and have found that exposure of children to organophosphates in early life can cause brain injury. This study builds on those other studies," said Dr. Philip Landrigan, chairman of the Department of Community and Preventive Medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.
-ABC News

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

2010-05-13T18:23:00.000-04:00

American Cancer Society Trivializes Cancer Risks: Blatant Conflicts of Interest

CPC CHICAGO, IL, May 7, 2010 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- The May 6 report by the President's Cancer Panel is well-documented. It warns of scientific evidence on avoidable causes of cancer from exposure to carcinogens in air, water, consumer products, and the workplace. It also warns of hormonal risks from exposure to Bisphenol-A (BPA) and other toxic plastic contaminants, says Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC).

Concerns on avoidable causes of cancer have been summarized in a January 23, 2009 Cancer Prevention Coalition press release, endorsed by 20 leading scientists and public policy experts, who urged that President Obama's cancer plan should prioritize prevention. These concerns were further detailed in a June 15, 2009 press release. Warnings of the risks of BPA are also detailed in a May 6, 2010 CPC release.

Some of the more startling realities in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) and the "non-profit" American Cancer Society's (ACS) long-standing failure to prevent a very wide range of cancers are illustrated by their soaring increases from 1975 to 2005.

These include:

* Malignant melanoma of the skin in adults has increased by 168 percent due to the use of sunscreens in childhood that fail to block long wave ultraviolet light;

* Thyroid cancer has increased by 124 percent due in large part to ionizing radiation;

* Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has increased 76 percent due mostly to phenoxy herbicides; and phenylenediamine hair dyes;

* Testicular cancer has increased by 49 percent due to pesticides; hormonal ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products; and estrogen residues in meat;

* Childhood leukemia has increased by 55 percent due to ionizing radiation; domestic pesticides; nitrite preservatives in meats, particularly hot dogs; and parental exposures to occupational carcinogens;

* Ovary cancer (mortality) for women over the age of 65 has increased by 47 percent in African American women and 13 percent in Caucasian women due to genital use of talc powder;

* Breast cancer has increased 17 percent due to a wide range of factors. These include: birth control pills; estrogen replacement therapy; toxic hormonal ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products; diagnostic radiation; and routine premenopausal mammography, with a cumulative breast dose exposure of up to about five rads over ten years.

Criticisms by the American Cancer Society that the President's Cancer Panel's report exaggerates avoidable cancer risks, reflect reckless indifference, besides narrow self-interest, warns Dr. Epstein.

In 1993, the nation's leading charity watch dog, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, warned against the transfer of money from the public purse to the private hands of the American Cancer Society. The Chronicle also warned that, "The ACS is more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives."

These warnings are fully supported by the track record of the ACS for well over the last four decades.

* 1971: The ACS refused to testify at Congressional hearings requiring FDA to ban the intramuscular injection of diethylstilbestrol, a synthetic estrogenic hormone, to fatten cattle, prior to their entry into feedlots prior to slaughter, despite unequivocal evidence of its carcinogenicity, and the cancer risks of eating hormonal meat. Not surprisingly, U.S. meat is outlawed by most nations worldwide.

* 1977: The ACS opposed regulating black or dark brown hair dyes, based on paraphenylenediamine, in spite of clear evidence of its risks of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, besides other cancers.

* 1978: Tony Mazzocchi, then senior international union labor representative, protested that "Occupational safety standards have received no support from the ACS." This has resulted in the increasing incidence of a wide range of avoidable cancers.

* 1978: Congressman Paul Rogers censured ACS for its failure to support the Clean Air Act in order to protect interests of the automobile industry.

* 1982: The ACS adopted restrictive cancer policies, rejecting evidence based on standard rodent tests, which are widely accepted by governmental agencies worldwide and also by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

* 1984: The ACS created the industry-funded October National Breast Cancer Awareness Month to falsely assure women that "early (mammography) detection results in a cure nearly 100 percent of the time." Responding to question, ACS admitted: "Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business." Also, the Awareness Month ignores substantial information on avoidable causes of breast cancer.

* 1992: The ACS supported the Chlorine Institute in defending the continued use of carcinogenic chlorinated pesticides, despite their environmental persistence and carcinogenicity.

* 1993: Anticipating the Public Broadcast Service (PBS) Frontline special "In Our Children's Food," the ACS trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancer and charged PBS with "junk science." The ACS went further by questioning, "Can we afford the PBS?"

* 1994: The ACS published a highly flawed study designed to trivialize cancer risks from the use of dark hair dyes.

* 1998: The ACS allocated $330,000, under 1 percent of its then $680 million budget, to claimed research on environmental cancer.

* 1999: The ACS trivialized risks of breast, colon and prostate cancers from consumption of rBGH genetically modified milk. Not surprisingly, U.S. milk is outlawed by most nations worldwide.

* 2002: The ACS announced its active participation in the "Look Good...Feel Better Program," launched in 1989 by the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association, to "help women cancer patients restore their appearance and self-image following chemotherapy and radiation treatment." This program was partnered by a wide range of leading cosmetics industries, which recklessly, if not criminally, failed to disclose information on the carcinogenic, and other toxic ingredients in their products donated to unsuspecting women.

* 2002: The ACS reassured the nation that carcinogenicity exposures from dietary pesticides, "toxic waste in dump sites, "ionizing radiation from "closely controlled" nuclear power plants, and non-ionizing radiation, are all "at such low levels that cancer risks are negligible." ACS indifference to cancer prevention became further embedded in national cancer policy, following the appointment of Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, ACS Past President-Elect, as NCI Director.

* 2005: The ACS indifference to cancer prevention other than smoking, remains unchanged, despite the escalating incidence of cancer, and its $ billion budget.

The ACS's indifference to cancer prevention also reflects major conflicts of interest with regard to public relations, Dr. Epstein emphasizes.

PUBLIC RELATIONS

* 1998-2000: PR for the ACS was handled by Shandwick International, whose major clients included R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings.

* 2000-2002: PR for the ACS was handled by Edelman Public Relations, whose major clients included Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, and the Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris, Kraft, and fast food and soft drink beverage companies. All these companies were promptly dismissed once this information was revealed by the CPC.

INDUSTRY FUNDING

The ACS's indifference to cancer prevention reflects major industry funding. ACS has received contributions in excess of $100,000 from a wide range of "Excalibur Donors," many of whom continue to manufacture carcinogenic products, points out Dr. Epstein.

These include:

* Petrochemical companies (DuPont; BP; and Pennzoil)
* Industrial waste companies (BFI Waste Systems)
* Junk food companies (Wendy's International; McDonalds's; Unilever/Best Foods; and Coca-Cola)
* Big Pharma (AstraZenceca; Bristol Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline; Merck & Company; and Novartis)
* Biotech companies (Amgen; and Genentech)
* Cosmetic companies (Christian Dior; Avon; Revlon; Elizabeth Arden; and Estee Lauder)
* Auto companies (Nissan; General Motors)

Nevertheless, warns Dr. Epstein, in spite of this long-standing track record of flagrant conflicts of interest, as reported in the December 8, 2009 New York Times, the ACS responded that it "holds itself to the highest standards of transparency and public accountability."

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; The 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medalist for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention; and author of over 270 scientific articles and 20 books on the causes and prevention of cancer, including the groundbreaking The Politics of Cancer (1979), Cancer-Gate: How To Win The Losing Cancer War (2005, Baywood Publishing), and Toxic Beauty (2009, BenBella Books).

To read Dr. Epstein's columns in the Huffington Post, go to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-s-epstein

CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Chicago, Illinois
Tel: 312-996-2297
Email: epstein@uic.edu
http://www.preventcancer.com
Please join CPC on Facebook

http://cultofgreen.com/2009/06/14/monsanto-enlists-astroturf-group-vs-food-inc/comment-page-1/

2010-04-20T21:55:00.000-04:00

http://cultofgreen.com/2009/06/14/monsanto-enlists-astroturf-group-vs-food-inc/comment-page-1/

Russia says genetically modified foods are harmful

2010-04-16T11:41:00.000-04:00

Apr 16, 2010 17:26 Moscow Time
Vegetables. © Flickr.com/marcusjroberts/CC-BY-NC

Russia has started the annual Days of Defence against Environmental Hazards from the 15th of April to the 5th of June with the announcement of sensational results of an independent work of research. Scientists have proved that Genetically Modified Organisms are harmful for mammals. The researchers discovered that animals that eat GM foodstuffs lose their ability to reproduce. Campbell hamsters that have a fast reproduction rate were fed for two years with ordinary soya beans, which are widely used in agriculture and those contain different percentages of GM organisms. Another group of hamsters, the control group, was fed with pure soya, which was found with great difficulty in Serbia because 95 percent of soya in the world is transgenic.

Concerning the experiment carried out jointly by the National Association for Gene Security and the Institute of Ecological and Evolutional Problems, Dr. Alexei Surov has this to say. “We selected several groups of hamsters, kept them in pairs in cells and gave them ordinary food as always,” says Alexei Surov. “We did not add anything for one group but the other was fed with soya that contained no GM components, while the third group with some content of Genetically Modified Organisms and the fourth one with increased amount of GMO. We monitored their behavior and how they gain weight and when they give birth to their cubs. Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly. When we got some of their cubs we formed the new pairs of the third generation. We failed to get cubs from these pairs, which were fed with GM foodstuffs. It was proved that these pairs lost their ability to give birth to their cubs,” Dr. Alexei Surov said.

Another surprise was discovered by scientists in hamsters of the third generation. Hair grew in the mouth of the animals that took part in the experiment. It’s unclear why this happened. The researchers cannot understand why a programme of destruction is launched when animals take GMO foodstuffs. They say that this can be neutralized only by stopping to eat these foods. Consequently, scientists suggest imposing a ban on the use of GM foods until they are tested for their bio-security. The results of Russian scientists coincide with those of their colleagues from France and Austria. For one, when scientist proved that GM maize was harmful for mammals, France banned immediately its production and sale. The scientists who carried out the experiment say that it’s too early to make far-reaching conclusions about the health hazards of the GMO. They insist that there is a need to carry out comprehensive research. They suggest implementing the project, “Safety Gene Technology” at the innovation centre, “Skolkovo” which is being set up near Moscow.

Shocking Sugar Content of Common Food Products

2010-04-15T18:57:00.002-04:00

By: Dr.Mercola

This Summer Tomato blog offers many eye-opening facts on the sugar content of common foods.

She writes:

"Refined sugars and high-fructose corn syrup are considered by many experts to be the biggest contributors to obesity and poor health in Western civilization.

In her book What To Eat, Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition at NYU, suggests that any food that contains more than 15 grams of sugar per serving is closer to dessert than anything else."

Here is a partial list of the foods Summer Tomato posted:

1.

Krispy Kreme original glazed doughnut -- 10 grams
2.

Ben & Jerry’s vanilla ice cream -- 16 grams
3.

Starbucks caffè latte grande (16 oz) -- 17 grams
4.

Subway 6″ sweet onion teriyaki chicken sandwich -- 17 grams
5.

Yoplait original yogurt -- 27 grams
6.

Vitamin Water (20 oz bottle) -- 33 g
7.

Oscar Mayer Lunchables crackers, turkey & American cheese -- 36 grams
8.

Coca-Cola Classic 12 oz can -- 39 grams
9.

California Pizza Kitchen Thai chicken salad -- 45 g
10.

Jamba Juice blackberry bliss 16 oz -- 49 g
11.

Odwalla SuperFood 450 ml bottle -- 50 g
12.

Starbucks caffe vanilla frappuccino grande (16 oz) -- 58 g

Sources:
Summer Tomato March 25, 2010

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Modern science has shown that the obesity epidemic isn’t simply about lack of self-control, but rather a phenomenon driven by biochemical changes that have altered the way your body regulates energy.

What has caused these biochemical changes to occur on such a mass scale?

Well, the list above is a big part of the explanation.

It’s hard to imagine, but a vast array of modern processed foods contain more sugar than a glazed doughnut! Sugar in some form is present in nearly every packaged product, from spaghetti sauce, salad dressing, and peanut butter, to mayonnaise and ketchup, just to name a few.

This outrageously excessive sugar consumption has caused people’s appetite regulation system to go awry. Leptin, the hormone responsible for satiety, isn’t working properly anymore in a majority of people.

It has now become clear that limiting sugar – and fructose in particular -- in your diet is a key to longevity for a number of reasons.

For example, according to Dr. Richard Johnson, author of The Sugar Fix, about 25 percent of all Americans consume over ½ a pound of added sugars a day, and this statistic dovetails nicely with the statistics showing that one in four Americans is either pre-diabetic or has type 2 diabetes.

Diabetics have, on average, a reduced lifespan of about 15 years.

How Sugar Can Make or Break Your Health

Your blood glucose levels rise slightly every time you eat. This is natural. However, excessive sugar consumption will typically cause your blood glucose levels to become excessively elevated and then stay that way.

It is a well proven fact that sugar increases your insulin and leptin levels and decreases receptor sensitivity for both of these vital hormones. This can lead to:

* High blood pressure and high cholesterol
* Heart disease
* Diabetes
* Weight gain
* Premature aging

One of the puzzle pieces you need to understand in order to really see the correlation between heart disease and sugar consumption is that dietary sugar raises your small, dense LDL cholesterol levels. This is the type of cholesterol that correlates with heart disease. Dietary fat, on the other hand, raises your large, buoyant LDL, which is harmless.

Turns out the “conventional wisdom” to avoid dietary fat to avoid heart disease has led millions astray by focusing on the entirely wrong food. If you want to reduce your risk of heart disease, you simply must curb your sugar consumption.

And today, this dietary vigilance needs to begin more or less from birth. Even infant formulas and jarred baby food contains excessive amounts of sugar and high fructose corn syrup!

As your child grows, savvy marketing wizards would have you believe that feeding your child cereal each morning is a recipe for good health. But nothing could be further from the truth… On average, just one serving of a typical children’s breakfast cereal equates to more than 90 percent of the daily sugar intake for sedentary girls aged 9 to 13.

Regardless of the “healthy fiber” content of the cereal, consuming that much sugar is not going to promote good long-term health.

For adults struggling with weight- and health problems, the anti-fat craze has created an entire new breed of high-risk diet foods.

Reducing fat content in food tends to make it taste bland, and so sugar was added to low-fat foods to improve palatability -- in the form of either HFCS or sucrose. This is one of the absolute worst combinations for your health…

Please understand, the health dangers of sugar on human physiology are certain, and the evidence that fructose is the WORST of the bunch is growing. (For an in-depth review of the particulars that make fructose even more damaging than regular sugar, please review this recent article.)

Simple sugars have been observed to aggravate asthma, exacerbate mental illness, cause mood swings, provoke personality changes and aggression, nourish nervous disorders, cause diabetes and speed up heart disease, grow gallstones, cause hypertension and arthritis, and that’s just the beginning.

In short, excessive sugar consumption, and fructose in particular, will kill you prematurely, one way or another.

Avoiding sugar, on the other hand, will help you control your insulin and leptin levels, which will help you to feel and look younger, longer.

What Can You Do About Those Sugar Cravings?

Interestingly, and well worth remembering, is that cravings for candy, junk food or fast food, and excessive hunger are likely connected and caused by the near identical mechanisms.

Refined sugar is in and of itself more addictive than cocaine, but that does not fully explain the phenomenon of being hungry or having food cravings even though you’ve just eaten.

This is where the hormone leptin – also known as the “obesity hormone” -- comes into play again.

Leptin appears to reduce cravings for sweet foods by targeting taste receptors on the tongue. Therefore, it is possible that a lack of leptin, or your body's failure to respond to the hormone due to leptin-resistance or defects in your leptin receptors, may contribute to the so-called 'sweet tooth' that affects so many people.

Leptin, which is produced by your fat cells, is an integral part of your weight regulation. When fat cells are “full,” leptin sends signals to your brain to reduce hunger so you can stop eating.

However, once you become leptin-resistant, your brain can no longer hear these signals, and so the sensation of hunger is not shut down. This typically leads to overeating and gaining excessive amounts of weight.

How to Right Your Biochemistry Again

You become leptin resistant in the same way you become insulin resistant, meaning most people do not have insufficient amounts of leptin, but rather too much.

So, how do you reduce your leptin levels and regain your leptin sensitivity?

As discussed above, limiting your sugar intake is a given. But in addition to that, one of the most effective ways to reduce your leptin levels is through physical exercise. It’s true, diet and exercise really do go hand-in-hand if you want to get your body back into homeostasis and optimize your health.

Sugar Guidelines and Acceptable Sugar Alternatives

Ideally, I recommend that you avoid sugar as much as possible. This is especially important if you are overweight or have diabetes, high cholesterol, or high blood pressure.

I realize you don’t live in a perfect world, and following rigid dietary guidelines is not always practical or even possible. However, cutting out sodas, sweetened beverages of all kinds, and limiting your consumption of processed foods will take you a very long way, and is something most people can do.

These are the most common sources of more or less hidden sugar, so by avoiding them, you can significantly reduce your sugar consumption.

As a standard guideline, I strongly recommend you limit your fructose consumption to 25 grams per day, and limit your fructose from fruit to 15 grams per day. This is to account for the inevitable hidden sources of sugar or fructose you will consume during an average day.

For a convenient list of the fructose content of various fruits, please see this previous article that also discusses fruit consumption in more detail.

Lastly, if you want to use an added sweetener occasionally, this is what I recommend:

1. Use the herb stevia, flavored versions are particularly helpful and tend not to have the bitter aftertaste. French vanilla and English toffee are two of my favorites.
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 sugar and HFCS.

I also do not recommend agave syrup since most forms are a highly processed sap that is almost all fructose. Your blood sugar will spike just as it would if you were consuming regular sugar or HFCS. Agave has gained meteoric popularity due to a great marketing campaign, but any health benefits present in the original agave plant are typically processed away.

For more information about agave, please see my previous in-depth report on this topic.

Likewise, honey is very high in fructose. Although its fructose content varies, it typically contains about the same amount as HFCS, or more. So even though honey contains many other beneficial nutrients, you’ll want to use honey very sparingly.

Aside from the herb Stevia, perhaps your safest sugar alternative 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 has ZERO grams of fructose. Remember, glucose can be used directly by every cell in your body and as such is far safer than the metabolic poison fructose.

It should be apparent by now that if you want to be healthy, you simply must get used to reading labels, which I’ve addressed in many previous articles, and become familiar with the sugar and fructose content of everything you eat.

MPs listen to Canadians ahead of industry on GM Crops

2010-04-15T12:40:00.001-04:00

Groups applaud MPs for moving Bill C-474 to Committee for study

Ottawa. Thursday, April 15, 2010 – Last night, Parliament passed Private Members Bill C-474 through second reading, in spite of intense pressure from the biotech industry. The Bill, which would require analysis of potential harm to export markets before the sale of new genetically modified (GM) seeds, will now be studied by the House of Commons Agriculture Committee.

“Finally MPs are taking steps to protect farmers from the economic chaos that GM crops can cause,” said Terry Boehm, President of the National Farmers Union, “GM contamination has already seriously damaged major export markets for Canadian flax farmers and would threaten the markets for our alfalfa and wheat growers."

The NDP and Bloc Quebecois supports the Bill and last night Liberal Party MPs voted to allow the Bill to go to this next stage. The Conservative Party strongly opposes the Bill, though two B.C. Conservative MPs voted in favour. The Bill was introduced by Alex Atamanenko, NDP Agriculture Critic and MP for B.C. Southern Interior.

“Last night, the majority of MPs listened to Canadians instead of the biotech industry,” said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, “MPs will now have the opportunity to study and debate this Bill. We are witnessing the first substantive debate in Parliament over the negative impacts of GM crops.”

The biotech industry lobbied vigorously to stop the upcoming debate at Committee. Yet the strength of public and farmer concern over GM crops was apparent to MPs. Over 9000 thousand letters were sent from constituents in the past month asking MPs to support the Bill. At least 6 MPs were also presented with petitions.

Bill C-474 was supported by the National Farmers Union, which urged Parliamentarians and all Canadians, to support the Bill. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture took a cautious stance in favour of moving the Bill forward, to encourage debate at Committee.

“The current GM flax contamination crisis shows the value of this Bill. And the threat of GM alfalfa has made the Bill an urgent necessity,” said Sharratt. Canadian flax export markets closed in October 2009 when GM contamination was detected.

“We will not stand by and watch farmers struggle alone against the corporate juggernaut of biotechnology,” said Sharratt, “The time when Canadians are expected to accept GM crops without question, is over.”

For more information: Terry Boehm, National Farmers Union, 306 255 2880; Lucy Sharratt, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, 613 241 2267 ext.6. C

ANH-USA Victory! Supplements Are Exempted From Codex Language in Food Safety Bill

2010-04-14T06:46:00.000-04:00

Alliance for Natural Health

The FDA Food Modernization Act (S. 510), also referred to as the “Food Safety” bill, has been modified to exempt dietary supplements from language that otherwise creates a slippery slope toward U.S. harmonization with Codex Alimentarius. ANH-USA worked to protect the natural health community from this dangerous provision that threatened access to high quality, therapeutic supplement doses by working with key senators to modify the language, now for the second time.

The most worrisome provision of the bill initially required the Food and Drug Agency (FDA) to recommend that U.S. foreign Herbal supplementstrading partners harmonize with Codex. This odd language was no doubt very intentional. How could we recommend harmonization to other countries if we rejected it for the U.S.? So in effect we were committing ourselves to a much more restrictive regulatory regime for supplements.

As the Senate moved forward with the Food Safety bill, Senator Harkin (D-IA), committee chair, working closely with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), promised to see what could be done to make absolutely clear this legislation was not intended to impact our access to dietary supplements. At that time, Senator Harkin modified the Codex provision, asking the FDA to consider “whether and how” to recommend U.S. foreign trading partners harmonize. This was a very important change and a tremendous show of support from both Senators, but we were still concerned that the inclusion of Codex language in the bill could be used to support future U.S. harmonization with Codex standards on dietary supplements.

ANH-USA worked with our allies in the Senate over the past several months to include additional language providing stronger protection for supplements. New language has now been added specifically stating, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the regulation of dietary supplements.”

The Codex Alimentarius was initially developed to establish international food safety standards and regulate ingredients of food products. However, there is great concern that if the U.S. harmonizes with Codex standards, which are expected to follow Europe’s increasing ban on supplements, our access to supplements will be lost and even our food standards may be compromised. Although ANH-USA considers the new exemption a huge victory, it only applies to dietary supplements. The U.S. is still at risk of harmonization with other Codex food standards.

ANH-USA is especially grateful to Senators Harkin and Hatch for their leadership, continued dedication to the natural health community, and most recently, their show of support protecting our supplements from Codex harmonization. The Senate is expected to take up the Food Safety bill any day now. As the legislative process moves forward we will keep our members up to date on our efforts and where appropriate, we’ll ask for your help to protect supplements from increased government intrusion. The House version of the Food Safety bill, already passed, is especially worrisome. We will continue to make every effort, with your help, to ensure that the House version does not become law.

If mainstream medicine really works, why are Americans so unhealthy?

2010-04-12T09:00:00.000-04:00

If mainstream medicine really works, why are Americans so unhealthy?

KFC set to unleash bunless Double Down sandwich on America

2010-04-12T08:52:00.000-04:00

Michael Bolen
Yahoo! Canada
First there was the Double Big Mac. Then came the Baconator. Now KFC is triumphantly laying claim to the World's meatiest and - in our opinion - most nutritionally-challenged sandwich. Their recipe? Two strips of bacon, two slices of cheese and a healthy dollop of the Colonel's Sauce all sandwiched between (insert drum roll please) two thick and juicy filets of deep-fried chicken.
ADVERTISEMENT

That's right, this sandwich is so serious it doesn't need a bun. But don't think the lack of carbs means this sandwich will be slimming.

Weighing in at 540 calories the fast-food innovation packs 32g of fat and nearly 1400mg of sodium. Too be fair, that's barely half of the Baconator's 970 calories and 60g of fat, but what the Double Down lacks in calories it makes up for in sheer audacity. To sandwich three types of fat between two slabs of fat required an almost heroic disregard for the current trend toward healthy eating. That said, KFC isn't trying to market this artery-clogger to the health conscious.

The ad for the Double Down features hungry young men complaining about the lack of filling fast-food fare on the market - as if longing for a new chicken champion. The product was originally tested on a select midwestern audience - so the fast food purveyor clearly isn't expecting to find fans amongst the L.A. hot yoga crowd. But for those who do want to try the new creation, but lack the requisite death wish, KFC is offering a grilled version.

If you're wondering how one goes about consuming the double down, have no fear, KFC has thought of everything. Both versions come lovingly wrapped in a paper sheath. Not everybody, however, is concerned with making the sandwich easy to eat. Some adventurous fast foodies have already begun experimenting with the bunless burger. Behold: the Double Double Down.

In an attempt to garner goodwill ahead of the Sandwich's April 12 U.S. release, KFC is donating "unneeded" buns to food banks around the nation. Although this seems dangerously reminiscent of donating muffin stumps, it would probably be even more vindictive to force the actual sandwich upon America's homeless and hungry. Unfortunately, there is still no word on whether the Double Down is coming to Canada, but considering the hype it seems likely we won't have to wait long.

Regardless of the danger the Double Down poses to our arterial well-being, the sandwich is generating unprecedented buzz on both sides of the border. KFC doesn't usually advertise a product ahead of release, but the fast-food giant made an exception because it wanted "fans to have time to arrange their schedules in advance" in order to try the "legendary sandwich." And while the "legendary" moniker may be a bit hasty, it does seem safe to say that this culinary trailblazer will be sparking conversation, and indigestion, for months to come.

To Any of my Devoted Readers

2010-03-26T16:42:00.001-04:00

Thank you for following my blog, I am in the middle of a home renovation/new job so I will not be posting too much for the next few weeks. Please check back at a later date for new posts.

Thanks again everyone!

David Suzuki Speaks out Aganist GMO's

2010-03-19T08:55:00.000-04:00

http://archives.cbc.ca/science_technology/biotechnology/clips/11008/

Bulgaria approves law to ban GMO crops 11:21 Hours ago

2010-03-18T20:12:00.000-04:00

Bulgaria approves law to ban GMO crops 11:21 Hours ago

ACTION ALERT: Support Bill C-474 - Support Canada’s Farmers! You can stop GE Alfalfa and GE Wheat!

2010-03-16T10:12:00.001-04:00

http://www.canadians.org/action/2010/Bill-C-474-Mar-04.html

Fat epidemic linked to chemicals run amok

2010-03-11T07:33:00.002-05:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35315651/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition//

Judge in California Could Halt Planting of Genetically Modified Soybeans - Salem-News.Com

2010-03-05T08:36:00.000-05:00

Judge in California Could Halt Planting of Genetically Modified Soybeans - Salem-News.Com

Enviropig info...yuck!

2010-03-05T08:32:00.000-05:00

http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/

Fury as Brussels authorises GM potatoes

2010-03-05T08:31:00.001-05:00

BRUSSELS (AFP) - The European Commission on Tuesday approved the cultivation of genetically-modified potatoes, prompting an angry response from environmental campaign groups and two EU member governments.
ADVERTISEMENT

Austria said it was planning an immediate ban on the potatoes' cultivation, while Italy's agriculture minister slammed the commission's decision and vowed to defend "traditional agriculture and citizens' health".

The first approval of genetically modified foods in Europe for 12 years was criticised by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth as a threat to human health, though the Amflora potatoes developed by German chemical giant BASF will not be for human consumption.

A spokeswoman for Austria's health ministry told AFP: "(Health) Minister Alois Stoeger is preparing a document banning the cultivation of genetically-modified potatoes."

The minister was going to "immediately issue a national cultivation ban," according to the ministry.

The EU Commission also allowed three GM maize products to be placed on the European market, though not grown in Europe.

Modified vegetables and cereals have long been a matter of fierce debate in Europe and the commission stressed that the Amflora would only be for "industrial use" including animal feed.

Italian Agriculture Minister Luca Zaia said he opposed the Commission's ruling.

"Not only are we against this decision, but we want to underscore that we will not allow the questioning of member states' sovereignty on this matter. On our part, we will continue to defend and safeguard traditional agriculture and citizens' health," he said.

Before the potato, only MON 810, a strain of genetically modified maize made by Monsanto, has been authorised for cultivation in Europe since 1998.

The EU Commission said its latest decision was "based on a considerable volume of sound science" and stressed the GM potatoes would be cultivated at a distance from ordinary crops.

"Responsible innovation will be my guiding principle when dealing with innovative technologies," EU Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner John Dalli said.

"After an extensive and thorough review of the five pending GM files, it became clear to me that there were no new scientific issues that merited further assessment," he added.

The EU's food safety agency has said the Amflora potato, designed to produce industrial starch for use in areas such as paper making, is safe for all uses.

But the potato contains a marker gene which is resistant to antibiotics, fuelling fears over the risks of contamination for conventional varieties.

Greenpeace said Dalli's decision flew in the face of science, public opinion and EU law.

"It is shocking that one of the Commission?s first official acts is to authorise a GM crop that puts the environment and public health at risk," Greenpeace spokesman Marco Contiero said.

Friends of the Earth said there was no guarantee the antibiotic-resistant element would not enter the good chain.

"The new commissioner whose job is to protect consumers has in one of his first decisions ignored public opinion and safety concerns to please the world?s biggest chemical company," said spokeswoman Heike Moldenhauer.

BASF, on its website, said it was "delighted" by the decision "after waiting for more than 13 years," for EU approval.

"We hope, that this decision is a milestone for further innovative products that will promote a competitive and sustainable agriculture in Europe," said board member Stefan Marcinowski.

Doctors Warn About Dangers of Genetically Modified Food

2010-02-25T13:09:00.000-05:00

Doctors Warn About Dangers of Genetically Modified Food

Amaranth Porridge Recipe

2010-02-15T10:33:00.001-05:00

After reading Dirty Secrets of the Food Processing Industry, I stopped buying even organic cereal and started looking for alternative breakfast choices. I bought some Red Mill 7 grain cereal, have been making smoothies and the latest Amaranth Porridge. I bought some amaranth from the bulk store to try it because we will be including it in the garden this summer. The recipe turned out great so here it is:

1 1/2 cups water
1/2 cup amaranth
one organic apple, peeled and chopped
one teaspoon cinnamon

Bring to boil all four ingredients. Reduce heat, cover and simmer for 20 minutes. Serve topped with milk, hemp seed, slivered almonds, or your choice of toppings.

Yields two servings.

Another Victory- GM Wheat Rejected in 26 Countries

2010-02-10T23:05:00.000-05:00

E-mail
GM Wheat rejected by 233 Consumer, Farmer Groups in 26 Countries
CNW Group, 9 February 2010
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2010/09/c8060.html

OTTAWA, MONTREAL, WASHINGTON, TOKYO and SYDNEY - 233 consumer and farmer groups in 26 countries have joined the "Definitive Global Rejection of GM Wheat" statement to stop the commercialization of genetically modified (GM) wheat and remind the biotechnology corporation Monsanto that genetically modifying this major crop is not acceptable to farmers or consumers. (1)

The 233 groups signed the rejection statement first launched by 15 Australian, Canadian and U.S. farmer and consumer groups in June 2009.

"Canadian farmers have just lost their export sales to Europe and other markets because of GM flax contamination from a GM variety deregistered a decade ago and never even sold. Our current experience with GM flax contamination clearly illustrates the crippling losses Canadian farmers will suffer if GM wheat is introduced," said Terry Boehm, a flax and wheat farmer and President of the National Farmers Union in Canada. "Flax is yet another warning that once a GM crop is introduced, contamination is inevitable."

In July 2009, Monsanto announced new research into GM wheat and industry groups kicked their promotion of GM wheat into high gear. "Widespread farmer and consumer resistance defeated GM wheat in 2004 and this global rejection remains strong, as demonstrated by today's statement," said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

"In 2004, a coalition of Japanese consumer and food industry groups delivered a petition to the Governments of Canada and the U.S. urging them not to introduce GM wheat. Today, consumer rejection of GM wheat in Japan is just as strong as ever. 80 organizations in Japan have already signed the rejection statement," said Keisuke Amagasa of the Tokyo-based No! GMO Campaign. "A large majority of consumers here in Japan are voicing their strong opposition to the cultivation of GM wheat. We see strong opposition from all sectors of society."

Japan's flour companies are also rejecting GM wheat, echoing consumer opposition. In a statement released today, the Flour Miller's Association of Japan wrote to the No! GMO Campaign indicating its opposition.

"Under the present circumstances, with all the doubts about safety and the environment that the consumers in Japan have, including the effect on the human body from GM foods, GM wheat is included among the items that are not acceptable for the Japanese market," Kadota Masaaki, senior managing director of the Flour Miller's Association wrote to the No! GMO Campaign.

In the U.S., a recent report from the Western Organization of Resource Councils, a network of seven community farmer, rancher and consumer organizations, shows that U.S. wheat prices could fall by 40 percent or more if industry efforts to develop GM wheat succeed. (2)

"U.S. family farmers will do everything to protect our wheat from Monsanto and we do not accept that any corporation has the right to patents on life, including seeds," said Dena Hoff from the National Family Farm Coalition in the U.S. "GM wheat would contaminate our crops and food supply, and put an end to organic grain production. Farmers in the U.S. have already rejected GM wheat and Monsanto is sorely mistaken if they think farmers will ever accept GM wheat."

"The big push is on from Monsanto to pave the way for GM wheat but the reality is that strong and widespread opposition from farmers and consumers in Australia and across the world is here to stay," said Laura Kelly from Greenpeace Australia Pacific.

Notes

(1) The list of signatories to the "Definitive Global Rejection of Genetically Modified Wheat" statement can be viewed at http://www.cban.ca/globalstopGMwheat

(2) "A Review of the Potential Market Impacts of Commercializing GM Wheat in the U.S." January 2010, Western Organization of Resource Councils, http://www.worc.org/GM-Wheat

For further information:

In Canada:
Terry Boehm, National Farmers Union Canada, (in Paris) 33 144 84 7250; Lucy Sharratt, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, (613) 241-2267 ext. 6, info@cban.caThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ;

In Tokyo:
Michiyo Koketsu, NO! GMO Campaign, 81 3 5155 4756, office@gmo-iranai.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; Ryoko Shimizu, Policy Research Institute for the Civil Sector, 81 90 6001 0495, ryoko-s@prics.netThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ;

In the US:
Kathy Ozer, National Family Farm Coalition, (202) 543-5675;

In Australia:
Laura Kelly, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, (61) 040741 4572

Mastronardi to add non-GMO seal to packaging

2010-02-09T19:53:00.000-05:00

by Ashley Bentley
KINGSVILLE, Ontario — Mastronardi Produce plans to start using a seal on its packaging later this year that identifies its products as non-genetically modified organisms.

Although GMO use in greenhouse vegetable growing is not commonplace, consumers don’t necessarily understand which products come from genetically-modified seeds and “want to know black and white that our products are non-GMO,” said Joseph Darden, vice president of food safety for Mastronardi.

“It wasn’t retail-driven — just a response to the consumer questions from our Web site,” said Chris Veillon, director of marketing. “People don’t know how you can produce the same tomato time and time again.”

The answer comes down to the greenhouse growing method, Paul Mastronardi said.

“It’s a closed environment, no outside elements, that allows us to produce great-looking fruit with reliable production, all with the safest food safety program,” Mastronardi said.

Mastronardi identifies itself as the first in the industry to be certified by the Non-GMO Project, a non-profit group of manufacturers, retailers, processors, distributors, farmers, seed companies and consumers set to make information about GMO products more accessible, according to its site.

Of the eight fruit and vegetable companies in the program, Mastronardi is the only one with fresh produce.

Hurry Up Spring!

2010-02-09T09:32:00.003-05:00

Is it really only February 9th? I am itching to start the garden. Yesterday we started our peppers, cucumbers and tomato plants. I am a few weeks early but I couldn't wait. This year will be a learning experience because we will be growing Quinoa and Amaranth. I have read that Quinoa and Amaranth are easy, hardy plants to grow which is comforting. I am also interested in finding some quality organic blueberry bushes to line the back fence. Anyone have an Ontario source on this, it would be greatly appreciated.

New Nephew Causes Serious Cooking Spree

2010-02-08T16:04:00.002-05:00

I went to my sisters this weekend to help out while the new parents managed a bit of personal time and filled up the fridge with prepared food by cooking all day Saturday. Well, actually I started Friday making brownies for the older kids. Then carrot cake, chickpea kale and potato soup, curried lentils with peas and cauliflower, and two broccoli-cheddar quiches for dinner. Everything turned out awesome! (All ingredients were organic as usual) If anyone wants the best carrot cake recipe ever,or any of the other dishes, just let me know!

Dole, Monsanto, and the GMO – genetically-modified food war

2010-02-04T19:06:00.000-05:00

Monsanto Company through a June 23, 2009 press release announced a “collaboration agreement” with Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc. “to develop new products that will enhance consumer vegetable choices.” Brace for the next round in the GMO War that has been raging for over a decade.

The Monsanto-Dole agreement is for five years of collaboration with a focus on developing new versions of spinach, cauliflower, broccoli, and lettuce. Their goal is to “improve” the taste, texture, flavor, aroma, and even the nutrition of these foods. Monsanto brings expertise in making rapid advances in agricultural development to the table, while Dole excels in marketing the fruit of big agriculture to the public. Pun intended.

Genetically-modified food (GM), also known as genetically-modified organisms (GMO) has become a battleground between “natural” food proponents and the big agriculture “biotech” business. As with all battles of this type, there is bound to be plenty of misinformation and exaggeration on both sides, and with accusations flying it can be difficult to detect the sane and thoughtful voices among them. The issue is complex and worthy of study.

Monsanto is firmly in the biotech camp, with a stated commitment to the development of modern agricultural practices to increase crop production, thereby conserving resources. Dole has taken some steps to straddle the fence with consumers by offering organic prepackaged salad greens, pineapples, and bananas, along with their traditionally grown produce. It will be interesting to see what if any effect this move to produce new versions of vegetables will have on Dole’s organic consumers.

Monsanto is a dominant player in the development and advancement of biotech agricultural methods and is closely watched by opponents to the genetic engineering of food. Perhaps for this reason, Monsanto spokeswoman Riddhi Trivedi-St. Clair was quick to state that this agreement between Monsanto and Dole will involve breeding research and will not involve the genetic engineering that Monsanto employs with its herbicides, soybean, and corn products. According to Ian Sherr of Reuters in his article, Monsanto, Dole to collaborate on veggies, this is one more step in Monsanto's efforts to expand the vegetable segment of their business.

Mary Ann Lien

How to Avoid Genetically Modified Foods

2010-02-03T18:52:00.001-05:00

http://www.westonaprice.org/How-to-Avoid-Genetically-Modified-Foods.html

One Woman's Story

2010-02-03T17:47:00.001-05:00

This is my true story, nothing altered. These are facts as they relate to my experience, my opinions based on what I have read and felt. I am relating them to warn other young health-conscious women who are unwittingly harming themselves and so that what I went through and what I am going through has some purpose. It would make what I have gone through worth something and not in vain.

In 1989 I graduated from high school in a small town in Texas and couldn't wait to hit the big college city so I could begin to live my own life. One of the changes I wanted to make was to eat healthier. My family wasn't big on tofu, yoghurt or fruits. I also didn't want to gain the freshman 15. Once I moved to health-conscious Austin, Texas with its parks, hike and bike trails, and health food stores, I began to fortify my body with the best and healthiest foods I could find. Tofu was the main ingredient in every healthy dish and I bought soy milk almost every day because it was better than milk. I used it for everything from cereal to smoothies or just to drink for a quick snack. I bought soy muffins, miso soup with tofu, soybeans, soybean sprouts, etc. All the literature in all the health and fitness magazines said that soy protected you against everything from heart disease to breast cancer. It was the magical isoflavones, it was the estrogen-like hormones that all worked to help you stay young and healthy

But I wasn't that healthy. I looked great, I was working out all the time, but my menstrual cycle was off. At 20 I started taking birth control pills to regulate my menstrual cycle. One brand would work for a few months but then I would become irregular again. The doctors kept switching the brands and assuring me that I'd find the one that would work. In addition to this I began to suffer from painful periods. I began to get puffy--not fat, I wasn't gaining weight, just getting rounder. It was as though I was losing my muscle tone. I wasn't looking as good as I had before, despite all my exercising. I began to suffer from fits of depression and get hot flashes. I mistook all this for PMS since my periods were irregular. I had no way of knowing when I was going to begin my period.

Now, I had started using soy when I was 19. The onset of these problems quickly began at 20. By the time I was 25 my periods were so bad I couldn't walk. The birth control pills never made them regular or less painful so I decided to stop taking them. I went on like this for another two years until I realized my pain wasn't normal. In 1998, when I was 27 years old, my gynecologist found two cysts in my uterus. Both were the size of tennis balls. I was scared to death! I went through surgery to have them removed and thank God they were benign. The gynecologist told me to go back on birth control pills. I didn't. In 1998 he discovered a lump in my breast. Again I went through surgery and again it was benign.

It was in November, 2000 that my glands swelled up and my gums became inflamed. Thinking I had a tooth infection I went to the dentist who told me that my teeth were not the problem. After a dose of antibiotics the swelling still did not go down. At this point I could feel a tiny nodule on the right side of my neck. No one else could feel it. I told my mother I had thyroid trouble. This was based only on a hunch. She, along with others in my family, said I was being silly. No one in the family suffered from thyroid trouble. What's a thyroid?" was what my friends would say.

Going on a hunch I saw a specialist who diagnosed me with Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma. After a series of tests he told me it was cancer. My fiance and I sat stunned. I was dreading another operation but so far every lump had been benign. We were not prepared and I was so scared. We scheduled surgery right away. The specialist told us that it would only be after the operation that a pathologist would be able to tell us for sure if it was cancer. They found a tumor on my right lobe composed of irregular cells and another smaller tumor growing on the left, so the entire thyroid was removed. No harm was done to my vocal chords, no harm to my parathyroids but I now had an ugly scar and would be dependent on thyroid hormones the rest of my life. They told me that after undergoing radioactive iodine I would be safe and assured me that I could live a long life.

After treatment I began to search for the cause of all these problems. An x-ray I had done at age 8 was under suspicion, as was stress--everything got blamed on stress, genes, maybe that time I tried to smoke a cigarette (I was never a smoker but tried once), maybe that summer when I was 25 and began to drink vodka and try mixed drinks ( I was never one for alcohol but wanted to know what the hype was about). I began to look for esoteric reasons like not being spiritual enough. I never once thought it could be all the soy I had consumed for nearly ten years. After all, soy is healthy. I never drank soft drinks, and even when I was under excruciating pain, never took aspirin or headache medications. Maybe it was birth control pills.

I came upon a web page that linked thyroid problems to soy intake and the conspiracy of soy marketed as a health food when in fact it is only a toxic by-product of the vegetable oil industry. This was insane, I thought. After all, the health and fitness magazines had said nothing about soy being harmful. I visited an herbalist who was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 1985. She informed me that soy was the culprit. She was a health-conscious individual who in her twenties fortified her diet with soy. A few years after that she had to have a hysterectomy due to cysts and other uterine problems. A few months later another acquaintance who had consumed soy came down with thyroid cancer. She was 27. A girl in England I met through the internet in a thyroid cancer forum had just undergone surgery and she was only 19. What was going on???? The research said that thyroid cancer was more common in older women, age 50 or older. It was said to be genetic or the result of nuclear fallout like in Chernobyl.

Today I found out that yet another acquaintance--another health-conscious individual--just found out she has thyroid cancer and she is 29. I got on the internet and found breast cancer linked to the radioactive iodine given during treatment. This didn't seem true. As fearful as I am of anything nuclear, the treatment has been given for over 150 years. Breast cancer is linked to estrogen. What mimics estrogen in the female body? SOY! I am not a scientist nor a doctor but I know my body. I knew that there were changes going on and I did search for clues as to why, but I never suspected soy because until now I never once found a single article that stated soy could be dangerous. Evening primrose oil I heard taken in large amounts, vitamin A, C and E can make tumors grow if taken in large dosages, MSG, even tuna is harmful but never once SOY. Women who took soy prior to thyroid problems will continue to take it after if they are not aware of what soy actually does, what it contains and how it reacts in the female body. I think this is the reason that women with thyroid cancer often develop breast cancer later.

Now it all makes sense. If you trace the problems I have had, they are all related to hormones. Taking birth control pills I believe only added more hormones to my body that I didn't need. I believe it was the fruit, no smoking, no drinking, exercise and veggies that kept my first surgeries benign. I wasn't as lucky the last time.

My co-worker is big into soy and I see her losing hair and gaining weight despite a walking workout during her break and after work, and apples and oranges for lunch. She just had cysts removed from her uterus too. I warn her to stay off the soy. I refer her to websites but until it is on the evening news on all four networks, women will suffer. I say what I can but at the Christmas potluck every dish contained soy in one form or another. It's now the staple of the new American diet--eat right, eat for health, eat to ward off cancer, AND IT'S SOY!

Back in 1994 I did have my thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) checked, again on a hunch. I was suffering from lethargic days, fits of depression, feeling off, and mild digestive problems. My TSH was a 6. A good physician, taking into account my symptoms, would have explored this. We are not always blessed with good physicians. Many don't know what a thyroid gland is, what it does or even where it is, and they miss important signs.

By the way, today I have normal periods even though I am not on birth control pills and even though I have had to change my dosage of thyroid hormone since the thyroidectomy. I do not touch soy, haven't for two years.

Dear readers, please use my story in any way you can. There are so many young girls who are consuming soy because they think they are taking care of themselves, and women taking soy because they want to be healthy. It is so unfair that the information about the dangers of soy isn't more widely circulated. It is sad. Health is wealth and until 1998 no matter how badly things went--car breaking down, bills, bad dates--I felt comforted in that I had my health. There are many out there who feel this way and it is a terrible blow when you realize you are not as healthy as you thought and that the information that you depended on was wrong.

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2002.

Gerber toddler meal given 'Salt Lick' award for high sodium content

2010-02-03T15:16:00.001-05:00

By The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT

TORONTO - Gerber, one of the best-known names in baby food, has been named this year's recipient of the "Salt Lick Award" due to the high sodium content in one of its prepared meals for toddlers.

The Canadian Stroke Network and the Advanced Foods & Materials Network chose Gerber Graduates Lil' Entrees because the product line's Chicken & Pasta Wheel Pickups dinner contains 550 mg of sodium - more than half a toddler's adequate daily intake of 1,000 mg.

The organizations say the amount of sodium in the prepared food is equivalent to that contained in two medium orders of McDonald's french fries. McDonald's Canada website says a medium order of fries contains 270 mg of sodium.

Yet labelling on the Gerber Graduates meal says it is "appropriate for children one year or older" and is "specially made for toddlers." Two other Gerber meals for toddlers also received dishonourable mentions for high salt content.

"There is a concern that eating too much sodium in childhood can lead to a preference for salty foods and, consequently, an increased risk of disease as an adult," Dr. Kevin Willis, who leads efforts by the Canadian Stroke Network to raise awareness of the dangers of excessive sodium intake, said in a release.

A high-sodium diet increases blood pressure. High blood pressure is a major risk factor for stroke, heart and kidney disease, and dementia. Too much dietary salt has also been linked to osteoporosis, asthma, stomach cancer and obesity.

A spokesman for Nestle, which owns Gerber, said reducing sodium "to an acceptable level" in the brand's six toddler meals is a key priority.

"Current packages of Gerber 'Lil Entrees overstate the sodium level as they include the sodium contained in the brine (liquid) surrounding the vegetables, which is not consumed," Dr. Andrea Papamandjaris, head of Nestle's medical and scientific unit, said Tuesday in an emailed statement. "The package includes instructions to drain the brine before serving."

The brine accounts for 19 to 33 per cent of the sodium, depending on the recipe, said Papamandjaris, noting that new packaging showing sodium levels only for the consumed food will be on store shelves in July.

Health Canada's Sodium Working Group, appointed in 2007, is developing a salt-reduction strategy for Canadians, which will include voluntary reductions of sodium in processed foods.

But the Stroke and Advanced Foods networks say some industry officials have responded to calls for less sodium by saying such cuts are difficult because Canadians have a taste for salty foods.

The two networks suggest that craving for salt is likely programmed early in life - in part by the food industry itself.

"One-year-olds do not demand salt in their food," said Dr. Charlene Elliott of the University of Calgary, who is studying the marketing of children's food.

Food companies are "totally playing into adult conceptions of a meal," said Elliott, adding that unfortunately "there is a presumed halo effect around baby and toddler foods because people expect these foods to be held to higher standards."

The two networks, which studied the ingredients in popular baby and toddler foods to determine salt content, found some popular brands have no added sodium.

The list of toddler meals considered to have excessive sodium includes:

-Gerber Graduates for Toddlers Lil' Entrees, Macaroni and cheese with peas and carrots: 520 mg per serving.

-Parent's Choice (Wal-Mart brand) My Little Meals, Shells & Cheese with Frankfurters: 520 mg per serving.

-Gerber Graduates for Toddlers Lil' Entrees, Cheese Ravioli in Tomato Sauce with carrots, peas and corn: 480 mg per serving.

-Heinz Toddler Vegetables, Beef & Pasta Casserole: 470 mg per jar.

-Heinz Toddler Beef Stroganoff: 420 mg per jar.

Rude Awakening

2010-02-01T23:56:00.001-05:00

A wise customer wanted to find out if the corn nuts she was eating were from genetically modified (GM) corn. She emailed the company and got a shocking reply. It began:

"Thank you for your contact. We are not aware of any GMO free corn in the U.S. We feel it is a ridiculous concern based on very poor science."

The email, reproduced at the blog of Kelly the Kitchen Kop, even recommended:

". . . if these concerns are truly important to you, you may be better served at a health food store.

We appreciate your patronage.

The Customer Support Team,

American Importing Co., Inc."

Talk about being opinionated and misinformed.

There's overwhelming evidence showing that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are unsafe. And there are plenty of sources for non-GMO corn.

Did this email get you angry? Are you thinking about flooding the company's email with hostile missives? I had another idea.

I phoned the company owner.

I figured that although the email's author was clearly misled, I also knew all about Monsanto and the other devious corporations that dis-informed him—and how they skillfully depict GMO critics as ridiculous and unscientific.

When I got President Andy on the phone and asked if his products were genetically modified (GM), it didn't take me long to realize that he was almost certainly the author of his company's tactless email. He launched into a diatribe blasting GMOs as the most misconceived issue in the entire food industry.

As I took notes documenting his string of incorrect statements, (no, there is no GMO wheat yet, same with apples; no there was not a massive death of monarch butterflies in Europe), he heard my keyboard tapping and stopped momentarily to ask who I was. I told him that I was a leading spokesperson on the dangers of GMOs, that I wrote the world's bestselling book on the subject, and that I was doing a blog based on an email response sent by his customer service.

That didn't slow him down in the least. Andy continued his rant, which literally went on for 12 minutes. I was impressed.

When he finally ran out of steam, I decided to begin my response by agreeing with him—that we certainly do need to apply real science on this issue. Then I told him the truth.

I told Andy of concerns by FDA scientists that GMOs might create serious, hard-to-detect health hazards, and how Monsanto's man placed at the top of the agency ignored and covered-up the warnings. As a result, the FDA lets GMOs onto the market without any required safety tests.

I told Andy that I worked with more than 30 scientists to document 65 health risks of GMOs for my book Genetic Roulette, which cites peer-reviewed science, industry research, and medical investigations, among its 1100+ endnotes.

I told Andy about the American Academy of Environmental Medicine's condemnation of GMOs, and their prescription of non-GMO diets for all patients. And how this renowned physician's organization linked GMOs to infertility, immune system dysfunction, gastrointestinal problems, organ damage, and disruption of insulin and cholesterol regulation.

And I told Andy how the same corporations that fed him the lie that GMOs are safe, fired and gagged scientists who discovered that they're not.

Now Andy was impressed.

And he realized he had been duped—that the information given to him and others in the food industry had been "filtered" by those earning profits from GMOs. He said that the science that I presented was not getting to the executives in the food industry, to people like him who want to give customers healthy food.

Andy was again on a roll, but with a different agenda. He now urged me to get in front of the decision makers in the food industry, and he even offered to help make it happen.

I told Andy that I was impressed by his passion, which he had unleashed on me like a fire hose at the beginning of the call. And I knew that once armed with the real evidence against GMOs, he could use that same passion and make a big difference.

Andy committed to order and read Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. And while waiting for it to arrive, he and his colleagues will review my keynote speech online, Everything You HAVE TO KNOW About Genetically Modified Foods.

Before we hung up, Andy thanked me over and over for not being reactive to his initial onslaught, and for staying with him and leading him through the science.

I now have a new friend. And I am reminded again about the importance of educating leaders in the food industry as part of our campaign to rid the food supply of GMOs.

If you know a food company executive, please take the time to send him or her a link to the online video presentation, to the article showing that doctors now prescribe non-GMO diets, and to a summary of the GMO health risks. It's time well spent.

And if they run a very large food company, please introduce me. I'm on a roll.

Safe eating.
Jeffrey Smith
Author and Founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology

Healthy Child Healthy World: The Top 10 Toxic Products You Don’t Need

2010-02-01T09:29:00.000-05:00

It's become so common in our culture to assume we need things - a lot of things. Over-consumption is not only a strain on our bank accounts and environment, it can also be harmful to our health. Whether there's a warning label or not (usually not), many of the things we buy have associated health risks.

Here are ten toxic products, in no particular order, that you don't need. And, once you read about them, you probably won't want them either. Be aware that different homes may have different products that are more toxic than these. This is just a basic list of some of the most commonly purchased products that are almost entirely unnecessary, but pose significant risks.

1. Air fresheners: Most air fresheners mask odors with a synthetic fragrance or numb your sense of smell with chemical anesthetics. But, they do nothing to eliminate the source of the odor. Also, aerosol air fresheners spew out tiny droplets of chemicals that are easily inhaled into the lungs. Instead, ventilate well and choose natural deodorizers, such as zeolite or baking soda, which contain minerals that absorb odors. How to Freshen Indoor Air Naturally includes recipes for other homemade remedies. Plants are also helpful for purifying your indoor air.

2. Drain, oven and toilet bowl cleaners: Yes, three products instead of one, but they all fit under the category of cleaners - and these are the three nastiest. Corrosive or caustic cleaners, such as the lye and acids found in drain cleaners, oven cleaners and acid-based toilet bowl cleaners, are the most dangerous cleaning products because they burn skin, eyes and internal tissue easily.

* To clean extra-greasy ovens, mix together 1 cup baking soda and 1/4 cup of washing soda, then add enough water to make a paste; apply the paste to oven surfaces and let soak overnight. The next morning, lift off soda mixture and grime; and rinse surfaces well.
* Prevent clogged drains by using hair and food traps.
* To de-grease and sweeten sink and tub drains, pour 1/2 cup of baking soda down drain followed by 1 cup vinegar; let bubble for 15 minutes; rinse with hot water. You might have to repeat the whole procedure more than once. This same mixture can be used prior to scrubbing your toilet bowl to deodorize and scour away grime.

3. Canned food: It's probably shocking to find a food item on a toxic product list, but it's no mistake. Food cans are lined with an epoxy resin that contains bisphenol-A (BPA). Most experts believe this is our main source of exposure to BPA, which has been linked to hormone disruption, obesity, heart disease, and much more. Eden Foods is currently the only company with BPA-free canned foods (other than the canned tomatoes, which they haven't found an adequate substitute for given the acidity of the tomatoes). Opt for fresh, frozen, dried or jarred foods.

4. Pesticides: This is a huge category of products, but they deserve inclusion in their entirety because of how extremely toxic they are. They're made to be. That's how they kill things. But, solving your pest problem may leave you with another problem - residual poisons that linger on surfaces, contaminate air, and get tracked onto carpet from the bottom of shoes. There are so many non-toxic ways to eliminate pests and weeds - next time you need to get on the offense, check out the recommendations at Beyond Pesticides.

5. Dry-cleaning: Okay, it's a service and not a product per se, but the chemical used to do it, perchloroethylene, has been linked to cancer as well as nervous system, kidney, liver and reproductive disorders. Even bringing dry-cleaned clothes home is risky. EPA studies have found that people who reported visiting a dry-cleaning shop showed twice as much perc in their breath, on average, as other people. EPA also found that levels of perc remained elevated in a home for as long as one week after placing newly dry-cleaned clothes in a closet. A Consumers Union study found that people who wear freshly dry-cleaned clothes, like a jacket and shirt, every week over a 40-year period, could inhale enough perc "to measurably increase their risk of cancer" - by as much as 150 times what is considered "negligible risk." Try wet-cleaning, CO2 technology, or even hand-washing.

6. Bottled water: Most people buy bottled water thinking they're avoiding any contaminants that may be present in their tap water. For the most part, they're wrong. Bottled water can be just as, or even more, contaminated than tap water. In fact, some bottled water IS tap water - just packaged (in plastic that can leach chemicals into the water) and over-priced. Also, from manufacture to disposal, bottled water creates an enormous amount of pollution - making our water even less drinkable. Do yourself and the world a favor and invest in a reusable stainless steel water bottle and a water filter.

7. Rubber duckies: How does such a cute toy end up on a toxic product list? When it's made from PVC - the poison plastic. Banned in over 14 countries and the European Union, PVC, also known as vinyl, is still legally sold by U.S. retailers although it threatens environmental and consumer health at every stage of its product life cycle, according to the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice (CHEJ). When it's in your home, PVC can leach phthalates (linked to hormone disruption) and lead (a potent neurotoxicant) - contaminating air, dust, and eventually you. Go PVC-free by reading packages and avoiding the #3 in the chasing arrows symbol (usually found on the bottom of a product). If a plastic is not labeled, call the manufacturer. Learn more.

8. Couch cushions: No, you needn't get rid of all your cushions and consign yourself to a future of discomfort. Just avoid cushions, pillows, and anything with foam labeled as meeting California TB 117, as it is likely to contain toxic fire retardants. These chemicals migrate from the foam to dust to people. In animal research, these chemicals are associated with cancer, birth defects, thyroid disruption, reproductive and neurological disorders such as hyperactivity and mental retardation. Don't worry about increasing your fire risk, data does not show that this standard has resulted in increased fire safety. Look for foam and cushions made with polyester, down, wool, or cotton as they are unlikely to contain toxic fire retardants.

9. Perfume and cologne: Colognes and perfumes may make us more attractive. But mixed in with the colors and scents are a wide variety of unattractive chemicals. Perfumes and fragrances can consist of hundreds of chemicals. Testing of Calvin Klein's Eternity by an independent lab, commissioned by Environmental Health Network (EHN), revealed that the perfume contained over 800 compounds. Among the chemicals of concern is diethyl phthalate (DEP) that is absorbed through the skin and can accumulate in human fat tissue. Phthalates are suspected carcinogens and hormone disruptors that are increasingly being linked to reproductive disorders.

It's not so simple to avoid phthalates by switching products because they are rarely listed on product ingredient labels. Phthalates are claimed as a part of trade secret formulas, and are exempt from federal labeling requirements. Find out if products you currently use contain phthalates and find safer ones on Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep Searchable Product Guide website.

10. Oil-based paints and finishes: There are 300 toxic chemicals and 150 carcinogens potentially present in oil-based paint, according to a John Hopkins University study. Still interested in coating your walls and furniture with this gunk? I hope not. Look for water-based options - ideally those that are low- or no-VOC. You could also explore natural finishes like milk paint and vegetable or wax based wood finishes.

Food Poison Journal

2010-01-28T09:58:00.001-05:00

http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/tags/recall/

Dirty Secrets of the Food Processing Industry

2010-01-28T09:21:00.000-05:00

Written by Sally Fallon
2005-Dec-26

This presentation was given at the annual conference of Consumer Health of Canada, March, 2002.

Mankind has always processed his food; food processing is an activity that is uniquely human. One type of food processing is cooking.

Traditional food processing had two functions: to make food more digestible and to preserve food during times of scarcity. This type of processing resulted in traditional foods like sausage and the old-fashioned meat puddings and haggis. It includes sourdough bread, fermented grain products, cheese and other fermented milk products, pickles, sauerkraut, and beverages--everything from wine and spirits to lacto-fermented soft drinks.

In the past, processing was carried out by farmers and artisans such as bread makers, cheese makers, distillers, millers and so forth. This type of processing resulted in delicious foods and kept the profits on the farm and in the farming communities where it belonged--food processing should be a local cottage industry.

Most importantly, traditional processing enhances or increases the nutrient value of our foods. Traditional bread making neutralizes anti-nutrients in grains to make the minerals more available; lacto-fermentation of cabbage to make sauerkraut increases the levels of vitamin C and many B vitamins many fold; and the making of yoghurt, kefir and similar products from fresh milk makes the nutrients in the milk more available and more digestible.
Industrial Processing

Unfortunately, in modern times we have abandoned local artisanal processing in favor of factory and industrial processing, which actually destroys the nutrients in food rather than increasing them, and makes our food more difficult to digest rather than more digestible. Furthermore, industrial processing depends upon products that have a negative impact on our health, such as sugar, white flour, processed and hydrogenated oils, additives, synthetic vitamins and an extrusion processing of grains. These are the tools of the food processing industry.

Ready for breakfast? Let's have a look at the typical American breakfast of cereal, skim milk and orange juice.
Packaged Cereals

Dry breakfast cereals are produced by a process called extrusion. Cereal makers first create a slurry of the grains and then put them in a machine called an extruder. The grains are forced out of a little hole at high temperature and pressure. Depending on the shape of the hole, the grains are made into little o's, flakes, animal shapes, or shreds (as in Shredded Wheat or Triscuits), or they are puffed (as in puffed rice). A blade slices off each little flake or shape, which is then carried past a nozzle and sprayed with a coating of oil and sugar to seal off the cereal from the ravages of milk and to give it crunch.

In his book Fighting the Food Giants, Paul Stitt has tells us that the extrusion process used for these cereals destroys most of the nutrients in the grains. It destroys the fatty acids; it even destroys the chemical vitamins that are added at the end. The amino acids are rendered very toxic by this process. The amino acid lysine, a crucial nutrient, is especially denatured by extrusion. This is how all the boxed cereals are made, even the ones sold in the health food stores. They are all made in the same way and mostly in the same factories. All dry cereals that come in boxes are extruded cereals.

The only advances made in the extrusion process are those that will cut cost regardless of how these will alter the nutrient content of the product. Cereals are a multi-billion dollar business, one that has created huge fortunes.

With so many people eating breakfast cereals, you might expect to find some studies on the effect of extruded cereals on animals or humans. Yet, there are no published studies at all in the scientific literature.
The Rat Experiments

Let me tell you about two studies which were not published. The first was described by Paul Stitt who wrote about an experiment conducted by a cereal company in which four sets of rats were given special diets. One group received plain whole wheat, water and synthetic vitamins and minerals. A second group received puffed wheat (an extruded cereal), water and the same nutrient solution. A third set was given only water. A fourth set was given nothing but water and chemical nutrients. The rats that received the whole wheat lived over a year on this diet. The rats that got nothing but water and vitamins lived about two months. The animals on water alone lived about a month. But the company's own laboratory study showed that the rats given the vitamins, water and all the puffed wheat they wanted died within two weeks---they died before the rats that got no food at all. It wasn't a matter of the rats dying of malnutrition. Autopsy revealed dysfunction of the pancreas, liver and kidneys and degeneration of the nerves of the spine, all signs of insulin shock.

Results like these suggested that there was something actually very toxic in the puffed wheat itself! Proteins are very similar to certain toxins in molecular structure, and the pressure of the puffing process may produce chemical changes, which turn a nutritious grain into a poisonous substance.

Another unpublished experiment was carried out in the 1960s. Researchers at University of Michigan were given 18 laboratory rats. They were divided into three groups: one group received corn flakes and water; a second group was given the cardboard box that the corn flakes came in and water; the control group received rat chow and water. The rats in the control group remained in good health throughout the experiment. The rats eating the box became lethargic and eventually died of malnutrition. But the rats receiving the corn flakes and water died before the rats that were eating the box! (The last corn flake rat died the day the first box rat died.) But before death, the corn flake rats developed schizophrenic behavior, threw fits, bit each other and finally went into convulsions. The startling conclusion of this study is that there was more nourishment in the box than there was in the corn flakes.

This experiment was actually designed as a joke, but the results were far from funny. The results were never published and similar studies have not been conducted.

Most of America eats this kind of cereal. In fact, the USDA is gloating over the fact that children today get the vast majority of their important nutrients from the nutrients added to these boxed cereals.

Cereals sold in the health food stores are made by the same method. It may come as a shock to you, but these whole grain extruded cereals are probably more dangerous than those sold in the supermarket, because they are higher in protein and it is the proteins in these cereals that are so denatured by this type of processing.

There are no published studies on the effects of these extruded grains on animals or humans, but I did find one study in a literature search that described the microscopic effects of extrusion on the proteins. "Zeins," which comprise the majority of proteins in corn, are located in spherical organelles called protein bodies. During extrusion, these protein bodies are completely disrupted and deformed. The extrusion process breaks down the organelles, disperses the proteins and the proteins become toxic. When they are disrupted in this way, you have absolute chaos in your food, and it can result in a disruption of the nervous system.
Old-Fashioned Porridge

So what are you going to have for breakfast? We need to go back to the old fashioned porridges, as I explain in Nourishing Traditions. These porridges should be soaked overnight in an acid medium to get rid of the anti-nutrients. Soaking will neutralize the tannins, complex proteins, enzyme inhibitors and phytic acid. You soak the grains in warm water with one tablespoon of something acidic like whey, yoghurt, lemon juice or vinegar. The next morning, the porridge cooks in about a minute. Of course, you eat your porridge with butter or cream like our grandparents did. The nutrients in the fats are needed to absorb the nutrients in the grains. That was one of the great lessons of Weston Price, that without the vitamins present in animal fats (vitamins A and D), you cannot assimilate minerals and other vitamins. You can be taking mineral supplements, drinking green juices or eating organic food until it comes out your ears, but you cannot absorb the minerals in your food without vitamins A and D that are exclusively found in the animal fats.
Milk

The minute you start to process your milk, you destroy Mother Nature's perfect food. You can live exclusively on raw milk, especially milk from nature's sacred animal, the cow. We have no sense of the sacredness of our animals today. Instead, we have an industrial system of agriculture that puts our dairy cows inside on cement all their lives and gives them foods that cows are not designed to eat—grain, soy, citrus peel cake and bakery waste. These modern cows produce huge amounts of watery milk which is very low in fat.

Milk from these industrial cows is then shipped to a milk factory. Emily Green wrote an excellent article in the LA Times, August 2000 about milk processing. Milk processing plants are big, big factories where visitors are not allowed. Lots can go wrong in these factories. The largest milk poisoning in American history occurred in 1985 where more than 197,000 people across three states were sickened after a "pasteurization failure" at an Illinois bottling plant.

Inside the plants all you can see is stainless steel. Inside that machinery, milk shipped from the farm is completely remade. First it is separated in centrifuges into fat, protein and various other solids and liquids. Once segregated, these are reconstituted to set levels for whole, low-fat and no-fat milks; in other words, the milk is reconstituted to be completely uniform. Of the reconstituted milks, whole milk will most closely approximate original cow's milk. The butterfat left over will go into butter, cream, cheese, toppings and ice cream. The dairy industry loves to sell low fat milk and skim milk because they can make a lot more money from the butterfat when consumers buy it as ice cream. When they remove the fat to make reduced fat milks, they replace the fat with powdered milk concentrate, which is formed by high temperature spray drying. All reduced-fat milks have dried skim milk added to give them body, although this ingredient is not usually on the labels. The result is a very high-protein, lowfat product. Because the body uses up many nutrients to assimilate protein—especially the nutrients contained in animal fat—such doctored milk can quickly lead to nutrient deficiencies.

The milk is then pasteurized at 161 degrees F by rushing it past superheated stainless steel plates. If the temperature is 200 degrees the milk is called ultrapasteurized. This will have a distinct cooked milk taste but it is sterile and can be sold on the grocery shelf. In other words, they don't even have to keep it cool. The bugs won't touch it. It does not require refrigeration. As it is cooked, the milk is also homogenized by a pressure treatment that breaks down the fat globules so the milk won't separate. Once processed, the milk will last for weeks, not just days.
Milk Allergies

Many people, particularly our children, cannot tolerate the stuff that we are calling milk that is sold in the grocery shelves. And you can see why. It starts with cows in confinement, cows fed feed that cows are not designed to digest, and then it goes into these factories for dismantlement and reconfiguration.

The protein compounds in milk have many important roles, including protection against pathogens, enhancement of the immune system and carrier systems for nutrients. However, like the proteins in grains, the proteins in milk are complex, three-dimensional molecules that are very fragile. The pasteurization process deforms and denatures these proteins. When we drink pasteurized milk, the body mounts an immune response instead of deriving instant nourishment.

Numerous animal studies in the 1930s and 1940s showed the superiority of raw milk over pasteurized in building strong bone, healthy organs and a strong nervous system.

Fortunately what we call real milk, that is full-fat milk from pasture-fed cows, milk that is not pasteurized, processed or homogenized, is becoming more available. Parents are discovering just how healthy and happy their children can be when they drink raw milk instead of pasteurized. (See realmilk.com for sources.)
Powdered Milk

A note on the production of skim milk powder: liquid milk is forced through a tiny hole at high pressure, and then blown out into the air. This causes a lot of nitrates to form and the cholesterol in the milk is oxidized. Those of you who are familiar with my work know that cholesterol is your best friend; you don't have to worry about natural cholesterol in your food; however, you do not want to eat oxidized cholesterol. Oxidized cholesterol contributes to the buildup of plaque in the arteries, to atherosclerosis. So when you drink reduced-fat milk thinking that it will help you avoid heart disease, you are actually consuming oxidized cholesterol, which initiates the process of heart disease.
Orange Juice

Now let's turn to the orange juice in this supposedly healthy breakfast. It is quite shocking what turns up in a literature search on orange juice processing.

A quote from Processed and Prepared Foods states that "a new orange juice processing plant is completely automated and can process up to 1,800 tons of oranges per day to produce frozen concentrate, single strength juice, oil extracted from the peel, and cattle feed."

In the processing, the whole orange is put into the machine. Enzymes are added to get as much oil as possible out of the skin. Oranges are a very heavily sprayed crop. These sprays are cholinesterase inhibitors, which are real neurotoxins. When they put the oranges in the vats and squeeze them, all those pesticides go into the juice.

What about the orange peel used for cattle feed? The dried left-over citrus peel is processed into cakes which are still loaded with cholinesterase inhibitors and organophosphates. Mark Purdey in England has shown these neurotoxins are correlated with "Mad Cow Disease" (Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis or BSE). The use of organophosphates either as a spray on the cows or in their feed is one of the causes of the degeneration of the brain and nervous system in the cow and if these components are doing this to the nervous system of the cow, there's a possibility they are doing this to you also. In fact, a study carried out in Hawaii found that consumption of fruit and fruit juices was the number one dietary factor for the development of Alzheimer's disease. The researchers speculated that the real culprit was the pesticides used in fruit—and concentrated in the juices due to modern processing techniques.

The FDA has decreed that we can no longer buy raw juice, because it might be a source of pathogens. But it might surprise you to know that they have found fungus that is resistant to pressure and heat in the processed juices. One study found that 17% of Nigerian packages of orange juice and 20% of mango and tomato juices contained heat resistant fungi. They also found E. coli in the orange juice that was pressure resistant and had survived pasteurization. So there is plenty of danger from contamination from pasteurized juices.

In one study, heat-treated and acid-hydrolyzed orange juice was tested for mutagenic activity. The authors hypothesized that the heating process produces intermediate products, which under test conditions, give rise to mutagenicity, and cytotoxicity. In other words you have got cancer-causing compounds in your orange juice. In another study, gel filtration and high performance liquid chromatography were used to obtain mutagenic fractions from heated orange juice.

Another study shows just how toxic and damaging these juices are to teeth. They found that rats had more tooth decay from these commercial juices than they did from soda pop, which is loaded with sugar.

One more thing about processed orange juice. Have you ever wondered why processed orange juice stays cloudy, why the solids do not settle? This is because soy protein combined with soluble pectin is added, and this keeps the juice permanently cloudy. It might be interesting to know, for those of you who are allergic to soy.
Artificial Flavors vs. Nutritious Homemade Broths and Sauces Based on Natural Nourishing Broths

In the past, all traditional cultures made use of bones to make broth. They recognized the fact that broth was very nutritious. Science tells us that bone broths supply minerals and other nutrients, including gelatin, which aids digestion, in addition to imparting wonderful flavors to our food.

Before the advent of processed food, we made bone broth—beef broth, chicken broth and fish broth—and we used these broths to make delicious soups, sauces and gravies. When we made sauce or gravy at home, we used the good drippings from the meat, added some flour, and then added homemade broth.

Processed soup bases and sauces contain artificial meat-like flavors because it is too expensive for the industry to make real broth. Instead, they take short cuts, which means that consumers are shortchanged. When the homemade stocks were pushed out by the cheap substitutes, an important source of minerals disappeared from the American diet. The thickening effects of gelatin could be mimicked with emulsifiers, but of course, the health benefits were lost. And gelatin is a very healthy thing to have in your diet. It helps you digest your food properly and has been shown to be useful in many digestive disorders. According to a South American proverb, "Good broth resurrects the dead."
Artificial Flavorings, Hydrolyzed Protein, and MSG

Research on gelatin and natural broths came to an end in the 1950s when food companies discovered how to induce Maillard reactions and produce meat-like flavors in the laboratory. In a General Foods Company report issued in 1947, chemists predicted that almost all natural flavors would soon be chemically synthesized. Following the Second World War food companies discovered monosodium glutamate (MSG), a food ingredient the Japanese had invented in 1908 to enhance food flavors, including meat-like flavors. Humans actually have receptors on the tongue for glutamate—it is the protein in food that the human body recognizes as meat. Unfortunately, the free glutamic acid in MSG has a very different effect in the body than the natural glutamic acid in food, one that is harmful, especially to the nervous system. Any protein can be hydrolyzed to produce a base containing MSG, but the usual source is soy. When the industry learned how to make the flavor of meat in the laboratory using inexpensive proteins from grains and legumes, the door was opened to a flood of new products including bullion cubes, dehydrated soup mixes, sauce mixes, TV dinners, and condiments with a meat-flavored base.

The fast food industry could not exist without MSG and other artificial meat flavors to make secret sauces and spice mixes that beguile the consumer into eating bland and tasteless food. The sauces in processed foods are basically MSG, water, thickeners and emulsifiers and some caramel coloring. Your tongue is tricked into thinking that it is getting something nutritious when it is getting nothing at all except some very toxic substances. Even the dressings, the Worcestershire sauce, rice mixes, dehydrated soups, all of these and anything that has a meat-like taste has MSG in it. Almost all canned soups and stews contain MSG, and the "hydrolyzed protein" bases often contain MSG in very large amounts

So-called "homemade soup" in most restaurants is usually made by adding water to a powdered soup-base or soup cubes and then adding chopped vegetables, etc. Even things like lobster bisque and sauces in the seafood restaurants are full of these artificial flavors. It's all profit based. The industry even finds it too costly to just use a little onion and garlic for flavoring, so they are using the artificial flavors instead.

Most of the vegetarian foods are loaded with these flavorings. The list of ingredients in vegetarian hamburgers, hot dogs, bacon, baloney, etc. may include hydrolyzed protein and other "natural" flavorings. Soy foods contain large amounts of MSG as it is formed during processing. MSG is also formed during the spray drying of milk, so it is in reduced-fat milk because spray dried milk is added to these products.
MSG Labelling

As I point out in my various workshops, the three most toxic additives in our food supply are MSG, hydrolyzed protein, and aspartame, and the first two are in all of these secret sauces with "natural flavors." Anything that you buy that says "spices" or "natural flavors" contains MSG! The industry avoids putting MSG on the label by putting MSG in spice mixes, and if the mix is less than 50% MSG, manufacturers don't have to put it on the label. You may have noticed that that phrase "No MSG" has actually disappeared. That's because MSG is in all the spice mixes. Even Bragg's "Liquid Aminos" had to take "No MSG" off their label.
Health Problems with MSG

The industry has known about the health problems caused by MSG for a long time. In 1957 scientists found that mice became blind and obese when MSG was administered by feeding tube. In 1969, MSG-induced lesions were found in the hypothalamus region of the brain. Subsequent studies all pointed in the same direction. MSG is a neurotoxic substance that causes a wide range of reactions, from temporary headaches to permanent brain damage. We have a huge increase in Alzheimer's, brain cancer, seizures, multiple sclerosis, and diseases of the nervous system, and one of the chief reasons is these flavorings in our food. MSG is also associated with violent behavior.

Most surprisingly, MSG causes obesity! In laboratory experiments on obese rats, scientists induce obesity by feeding the animals MSG!

Ninety-five percent of processed foods contain MSG, and as you may know, in the late 1950s it was added to baby food. After some congressional hearings on this subject, the industry told us they had taken it out of the baby food, but they didn't really remove it. They just called it by another name--hydrolyzed protein. I recommend that everyone read the book Excitotoxins, by Dr. Russell Blaylock. He describes how the nerve cells either disintegrate or shrivel up in the presence of free glutamic acid, that is, MSG, if it gets past the blood-brain barrier. The glutamates in MSG are absorbed directly from the mouth to the brain. Some investigators believe that the great increase in violence in this country is due, not to sugar, but to the huge increase in the use of MSG in the food which began in the late 1950's, and particularly because it was put in baby food in very large amounts.
A Quintessential Imitation Food

To give an example of how the food industry thinks, consider this description of artificial bacon, taken from a food processing magazine: "Here is an engineered meat product which looks, cooks, and tastes like bacon, but is formed and laminated by a co-extrusion process. It is made from a mixture of pork, beef, sugar, salt, MSG, and smoked flavor and has a number of advantages. It shrinks very little in cooking; holds its shape and color well; contains twice the protein and half the fat of bacon; costs less than bacon and the processed product does not delaminate." Isn't that nice to know? Of course, now they have figured out how to do this without any meat at all by using soy. The real question is, not whether this fake product will delaminate, but whether in fact it will support life.
Fats and Oils

The last fifty years have seen a huge increase in the consumption of processed vegetable oils, and a concurrent decline in the consumption of animal fats. These oils look clean and bright on the grocers shelves, but a description of vegetable oil processing reveals the true nature of these products.

Oil processing begins with the extraction of crude vegetable oils from the seeds, a process that requires high temperatures and pressures, and often involves a hexane solvent. By the way, these oils start out loaded with pesticides. The steps involved in processing include caustic refining, bleaching, deodorizing, filtering, and removing saturates to make the oils more liquid. Most of these steps involve heat and produce toxic breakdown products known as free radicals. Free radicals cause cancer. When we cook with these oils, more free radicals are formed. These vegetable oils which look clean and have no smell are actually completely denatured and carcinogenic.
Margarine

Manufacturers cannot use liquid oils in baked goods or frying, and they are not spreadable. So to harden the liquid vegetable oils to make margarine and shortening, they put the oils through a process called partial hydrogenation. To make margarine or shortening, first the oil is extracted under high temperature and pressure, and the remaining fraction of oil is removed with hexane solvents. Then the oils are steam cleaned, a process that removes all the vitamins and anti-oxidants, but of course, the solvents and the pesticides remain. These oils are then mixed with a nickel catalyst and put into a huge high-pressure, high-temperature reactor. What goes into the reactor is a liquid, but what comes out of that reactor is a semi-solid that looks like grey cottage cheese and smells terrible. Emulsifiers are mixed in to smooth out the lumps. The product is then steam cleaned a second time to get rid of the horrible smell. Then it is bleached to get rid of the grey color. At this point, the product can be used as vegetable shortening.

To make margarine, they add artificial flavors and synthetic vitamins. You may be comforted to know that manufacturers are not allowed to add a synthetic color to margarine. So they add annatto or some other natural coloring. It is then packaged in blocks and tubs. Advertising promotes this garbage as a health food.
Trans Fats in Hydrogenated Oils

Trans fatty acids are the type of fat molecules produced by the process called "partial hydrogenation," which rearranges the hydrogen atoms in an unsaturated fatty acid to produce a fat that is solid at room temperature.

Natural saturated fatty acids are straight molecules that pack together easily so they tend to be solid at room temperature. In a saturated fatty acid, each carbon atom is joined to two hydrogen atoms. The hydrogen atoms are arranged in pairs, thus creating electron clouds. Our cell membranes are composed of billions of fatty acids; chemical reactions occur in the cell membranes at sites where two hydrogen molecules form electron clouds.

Natural unsaturated fatty acids, such as oleic acid, tend to be liquid at room temperature. They have two or more hydrogen atoms missing where the carbons are double bonded together, but the remaining hydrogen atoms at the double bond are paired on the same side—called the cis configuration—forming an electron cloud where reactions can take place in the cell membrane.

During the process of partial hydrogenation, one of the hydrogen atoms in a pair is moved to the other side of the molecule, forming a trans fatty acid, such as elaidic acid—trans means "across." This causes the molecules to straighten out so that they pack together easily and form a solid fat at room temperature. Unfortunately, when these trans fatty acids are incorporated into the cell membrane, they are missing the hydrogen pairs needed for chemical reactions to occur. The result is dysfunction and chaos on the cellular level.

All of the margarines, shortenings, spreads, even low-trans spreads contain trans fats plus many other artificial ingredients. In the groceries stores there is just a little bit of space for the butter because all the high-profit margarine foods have totally invaded the food supply. Virtually all packaged or processed foods contain trans fatty acids. They're in all the chips and crackers, and they now use them for French fries. The industry used to fry the fries in beef tallow, which is a very safe fat, and gave a little extra profit for the cattlemen, but they have lost that market now. Today French fries are fried in partially hydrogenated soybean oil.

It used to be that when you made desserts for your kids, at least they contained butter, eggs, cream and nuts and other healthy ingredients--all good wholesome foods. Now the industry can imitate the butter, eggs and cream, so most desserts end up being mostly sugar, partially hydrogenated oils and a long list of artificial ingredients.
Problems with Hydrogenated Oils

Many, many diseases have been associated with the consumption of trans fatty acids, such as heart disease, cancer, digestive disorders and degeneration of joints and tendons (which is why we have so many hip replacements today). Trans fats are associated with auto-immune disease, skin problems, growth problems in children and learning disabilities. The only reason that we are eating this stuff is because we have been told that the competing fats and oils--butter, lard, tallow and suet, coconut oil and palm oil--are bad for us and cause heart disease. This message is nothing but industry propaganda to get us to buy substitutes.
Processed Food Affects Fertility and Facial Structure

Weston A. Price discovered that as children eat these processed foods, with each generation, the facial structure becomes more and more narrow. Healthy faces should be broad. They should have perfectly straight teeth and no cavities. When you are eating real foods, nutrient-dense foods, you get the complete and perfect expression of the genetic potential. And that genetic potential, that gift from the Creator to all of us, is perfection. We were given a perfect blueprint. Whether or not the body temple is built according to the blueprint depends on our wisdom in food choices. When primitive societies abandoned their traditional diet and began to eat processed foods, the next generation had narrowed facial structure and was much more susceptible to diseases of every sort.

We know from animal studies that if you continue a deficient diet for three generations, reproduction ceases and that's what we're seeing now. About 25% of our couples are infertile, and if we don't go back to a diet that produces good facial structure and good health, the human race will simply die out.
Factory Food Preparation--Is Your Food Made by Caring Hands?

Artificial flavors and preservatives are made by chemical companies in factories; they are not being made by the loving hands of a cook. All the artificial ingredients added to the food help the rich get richer and the general public get sicker. The industry has completely processed the life out of the food and then as a concession to the public, thrown in a handful of artificial nutrients. Can you imagine what kind of feeling, what kind of radiation comes from that factory food?
Spiritual Food Preparation--Made with Love

I'd like to end with a wonderful quote about cooking from an esoteric source: "If a woman could see the sparks of light going forth from her fingertips when she is cooking, and the substance of light that goes into the food she handles, she would be amazed to see how much of herself she charges into the meals that she prepares for her family and friends. It is one of the most important and least understood activities of life, that the radiation and feeling that go into the preparation of food affect everyone who partakes of it. And this activity should be unhurried, peaceful, and happy because the substance of the lifestream performing the service flows into that food and is eaten, and actually becomes part of the energy of the receiver. It would be better that an individual did not eat at all than to eat food that has been prepared under a feeling of anger, apathy, resentment, depression, or any outward pressure." (Maha Chohan, Electrons)

Think of the vibration that in all this food that is made in factories. Nourishing foods starts with the way we farm---the farmer who farms with wisdom and love for the land, the dairyman who farms with love for his animals, the cheese maker who makes cheese with the love of her craft, the baker who bakes with the love of the final product, the beverage maker who makes the type of delicious and nutritious beverage that should be produced in every town and hamlet. Traditional processing puts not only good nutrition, but the vibration of love into our food.

To continue with our quote. "The energy goes into the food and when it is eaten by the receiver actually blesses the receiver. That is why the advanced spiritual teachers of the East never eat food prepared by anyone other than their own chelas (disciples). The person preparing the food may be the only one in the household who is spiritually advanced (this is often the case). An active charge of happiness, purity, and peace will pour forth into the food from him, and this pours forth into the other members of the family and blesses them. There are more ways than one of allowing the Spirit of God to enter the flesh of man."

So I hope that from what I have shown you, you will turn away from godless food. Someone from the family needs to get back in the kitchen. It doesn't mean you have to spend hours in the kitchen, but you need to spend some time in the kitchen preparing food with love, food that has been grown with love and prepared with wisdom and love. If no one in the family has time to go into the kitchen and prepare food, you need to sit down and rethink how you are spending your time because there is simply no other way to get nourishing foods into our children.

The situation is really very critical. If we don't return to good eating practices one mouth at a time, one meal at a time, one farm at a time, preparing our own food and preparing it properly, there is not going to be another generation.

About the Author

Sally Fallon MorellSally Fallon Morell is the author of Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats (with Mary G. Enig, PhD), a well-researched, thought-provoking guide to traditional foods with a startling message: Animal fats and cholesterol are not villains but vital factors in the diet, necessary for normal growth, proper function of the brain and nervous system, protection from disease and optimum energy levels. She joined forces with Enig again to write Eat Fat, Lose Fat, and has authored numerous articles on the subject of diet and health. The President of the Weston A. Price Foundation and founder of A Campaign for Real Milk, Sally is also a journalist, chef, nutrition researcher, homemaker, and community activist. Her four healthy children were raised on whole foods including butter, cream, eggs and meat.

Guess What Food Is in This Picture

2010-01-28T08:48:00.000-05:00

a) Strawberry Ice Cream
b) Chicken
c) Meat Filler
d) none of the above

What you need to know:

Folks, this is mechanically separated chicken, an invention of the late 20th century. Someone figured out in the 1960’s that meat processors can eek out a few more percent of profit from chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows by scraping the bones 100% clean of meat. This is done by machines, not humans, by passing bones leftover after the initial cutting through a high pressure sieve. The paste you see in the picture above is the result.

This paste goes on to become the main ingredient in many a hot dog, bologna, chicken nuggets, pepperoni, salami, jerky etc…

The industry calls this method AMR – Advanced Meat Recovery.

In 2004, as a result of mad cow disease (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy), the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) ruled that beef could no longer be processed this way, because testing showed that parts of the bovine central nervous system ended up in the meat.

As for products using mechanically separated chicken and pork, FSIS ruled that they are safe to eat, but required them to be labeled as such.

Despite them being safe, FSIS states that no more than 20% of the meat in a hot dog come from mechanically separated pork.

What to do at the supermarket:

It’s always a better to choice to see a real cut of meat at the butcher counter in the supermarket and then decide what you want done with it. Buying something prepared in a factory, such as chicken nuggets, or hot dogs, you’ll always get the worst meat, and it will always be combined with additives and other sources of fat.
Source:
http://www.fooducate.com/blog/2009/08/03/guess-whats-in-the-picture-foodlike-substance/

Government gets failing grade on food safety from union, consumers' group

2010-01-27T15:31:00.001-05:00

By The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT

OTTAWA - The government hasn't improved the food-safety system six months after the fatal listeriosis outbreak, food inspectors and a consumers group said Wednesday.

Option Consommateurs, the country's largest consumer organization, and the union representing the inspectors said the government has yet to determine how many people it needs to ensure safe food and to figure out if a new inspection system actually works.

They said the government has yet to act on the key recommendations produced by a special investigation into the tainted-meat crisis.

The outbreak, traced to contaminated cold cuts from a Maple Leaf Foods plant, killed 22 people and sickened many more.

Sheila Weatherill, who was appointed to investigate the tragedy, called for a tough evaluation of the system.

That hasn't happened, the union says.

"Six months after Sheila Weatherill's report, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency efforts to improve have been hamstrung by the absence of political will and commitment to improve on the part of the federal government," said Bob Kingston, president of the Agriculture Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, representing food inspectors.

Anu Bose of Option Consommateurs said the outbreak shook consumer confidence in food safety: "The absence of any visible action six months after the Weatherill report will do nothing to repair this."

The report, among other things, found that the new inspection system needed "critical improvements related to its design, planning and implementation."

It was never properly evaluated, Weatherill found.

The report also said inspectors were overworked.

"Ms. Weatherill found that there are too few inspectors covering too much territory, hobbled by a new inspection system that never worked properly," Kingston said

He said the food-inspection agency hasn't even started work on changes.

"The inspector shortage is as acute as ever and we continue to be hobbled by an inspection system that is deeply flawed."

With Parliament prorogued, there is little that consumers can do to pressure the government, he added.

Ontario farmer found not guilty of charges related to selling raw milk

2010-01-21T16:16:00.001-05:00

By The Canadian Press

NEWMARKET, Ont. - An Ontario farmer raised a glass of milk in celebration outside court today after being found not guilty of 19 charges related to selling unpasteurized milk.

Michael Schmidt, who operates a raw milk co-op, defended himself last year against the charges for dispensing milk straight from the cow.

"I hope that we can move into a dialogue where even more people enjoy raw milk," Schmidt said after the verdict, holding a glass of milk as his supporters cheered.

The Durham, Ont., farmer operates a 150-cow raw milk co-operative venture, which allows members to own a portion of the cow to acquire raw milk.

Schmidt was charged under the Health Protection and Promotion Act and the Milk Act after an armed raid by about two dozen officers and government officials at his farm in 2006.

Justice of the peace Paul Kowarsky, who ruled the cow-share program is exempt from the legislation, said the case was part of a "search for contemporary justice."

While raw milk is legal to drink, it's illegal to sell in Canada, since health officials consider it a health hazard.

Schmidt said he never intended to "circumvent the law but to work with the law to provide people with what they need."

"It was never a war but a Shakespearean drama," he said.

In his ruling, Kowarsky said the cow-share members are "fully informed that the milk is not pasteurized," adding the milk is not marketed or sold for consumption to the general public but only to members.

Kowarsky said his own research showed cow shares exist worldwide.

At trial, Schmidt argued that government officials and food scientists cannot guarantee the safety of any food, and suggested informed consumers should be able to buy raw milk if they so choose.

Food scientists and health experts testified that mandatory pasteurization laws are needed to protect public health.

Six Deadly Chemicals You're Carrying in Your Body

2010-01-21T16:09:00.000-05:00

(NaturalNews) A recent biomonitoring study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, has revealed that out of 212 chemicals tested, all 212 were found to be in the blood and urine of most Americans. Six chemicals in particular, found in virtually every person, were identified by the CDC as probable health hazards.

Every two years the CDC conducts the chemical study which identifies human exposure to toxic chemicals. This year 75 new chemicals were added to the assay that had never before been studied in the U.S. population. Every chemical tested in the study, including the 75 new ones, was found to be present in most or all of the study participants.

The six most widespread chemicals identified, all of which are also highly dangerous, include polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PDEs), bisphenol A (BPA), Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), acrylamide, mercury, and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE).

Flame retardant PDEs are chemicals added to all sorts consumer products that are meant to decrease fire risk. They are known to build up in human fat tissue, causing damage to the nervous system, liver and kidneys. Studies also implicate PDEs in causing sexual dysfunction, thyroid problems and brain disorders.

Bisphenol A, a chemical that has received much attention recently, is another toxin added primarily to plastic products and can linings that contributes to many of the same problems that PDEs do. More than 90 percent of those tested in the CDC study were found to have BPA in their bodies.

Perfluorooctanoic acid, a chemical first developed by 3M and later used by DuPont, is used in non-stick cookware, stain-resistant clothing, certain food packaging and other heat-resistant products. Studies verify that PFOA contributes to infertility and other reproductive problems. Liver and immune system dysfunction are also associated with the use of PFOAs.

Acrylamide is a chemical carcinogen that forms when carbohydrate foods are cooked at high temperatures. French fries, fried chicken, and even coffee are all examples of foods that have high acrylamide content. The chemical is also used in plastics, cosmetics and water treatment products. Perpetual exposure to acrylamides is responsible for causing cancer and neurological dysfunction.

Most people are aware of the dangers of mercury, another common toxin found in most Americans. Mercury can cause permanent brain damage.

Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) is a gasoline additive that is not used today, however it has been detected in water supplies as well as in most Americans' bodies. Second-hand cigarette smoke also releases MTBE which caused neurological and reproductive problems.

The report indicates suggestions to help avoid these chemicals and the products that contain them. Cleansing and detoxification regimens are highly effective at continually ridding the body of toxic build-up.
by: E. Huff

South Korea does what USA refuses to do: Restrict junk food advertising to children

2010-01-21T16:04:00.000-05:00

Source:AFP

Advertising of food high in fat, sugar and salt will be banned from all TV from 5pm to 7pm, the health ministry said, and will also be prohibited during children's programmes shown at any time.

The restrictions will apply to hamburgers, pizzas, instant noodles, chocolate and other candies and ice cream.

"The ban, to be enforced this month or in early February, applies to high-calorie, low-nutrient food, snacks and sweets," a ministry official in charge of food safety said.

Official data showed more than one-third of ads aired during children's TV programmes were for food, mostly for sweets, instant noodles and soft drinks.

Consumer groups have called for stricter measures to protect children from junk food, saying one out of five children in South Korea is overweight.

In March last year, the ministry banned the sale of junk food and drinks in schools and their neighbourhoods in a bid to tackle the growing problem of child obesity.

Omega-3 Fatty Acids Are Linked to Longevity

2010-01-21T16:02:00.001-05:00

By THOMAS M. BURTON
The Wall Street Journal

Omega-3 fatty acids, from fish like salmon and other sources, have for years been shown to help lower levels of heart disease and cardiac death.

New research suggests the fatty acids may possess an even more fundamental benefit: Heart patients with high omega-3 intake had relatively longer "telomeres," which are stretches of DNA whose length correlates with longevity.

Cardiologists from the University of California, San Francisco, and other hospitals measured telomere length over five years in 608 patients who had coronary-artery blockage and previous heart attacks. Researchers found that people with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids in their white blood cells experienced significantly less shortening of telomeres over five years, as compared with patients with lower omega-3 levels.

"What we're demonstrating is a potentially new link between omega-3 fatty acids and the aging process," said Ramin Farzaneh-Far, a clinical cardiologist and assistant medical professor at UCSF and San Francisco General Hospital who is the lead author of the research.

Published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association, the study focused only on "marine" omega-3 found in fish, not the type found in vegetable sources like flaxseed, walnuts, canola oil or soybean oil.

The study didn't distinguish between meals of fatty fish and fish-oil supplements—leaving open the question of whether it's better for people to eat more fish, to eat plants such as flaxseed or just to take omega-3 supplements.

The American Heart Association, in a 2002 scientific statement in the journal Circulation, concluded that consuming omega-3 fatty acids in fish or supplements "significantly reduces subsequent cardiac and all-cause mortality." The fish most often cited are salmon, herring and sardines.

John LaPuma, a Santa Barbara, Calif., physician and nutrition expert, says, "The best data are in fish rather than supplements, but the data for supplements are better than they were five years ago."

There is "very little good evidence for the omega-3s from flax and walnuts," said Dr. LaPuma, author of "ChefMD's Big Book of Culinary Medicine." But these foods have other benefits, he said. For instance, "flax meal, by itself, is an important part of lowering LDL," or bad cholesterol, Dr. LaPuma said.

Researchers in the new study said they observed "baseline levels of marine omega-3 fatty acids were associated with decelerated telomere attrition over 5 years."

Additionally, Dr. Farzaneh-Far said, "in multiple studies, short telomere length [in white blood cells] has been shown to predict death and cardiovascular events and heart failure." He cautioned that "it's an open question as to whether telomere length is causal or just a marker" of cell death. But he referred to telomere shortening as "a key part of cellular aging."

"To definitively address the question of whether omega-3 fatty acids inhibit cellular aging, a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial would be necessary," the authors wrote. Dr. Farzaneh-Far suggested that such research should be done in healthy adults because the evidence already is powerful on behalf of advantages of these fatty acids in heart patients.

Breaking the Chains Buying Guide

2010-01-14T19:31:00.000-05:00

http://www.organicconsumers.org/btc/btcBuyingGuide.pdf

Newsletter 2010 01 08 Supermarket News Forecasts Non-GMO Uprising by Institute for Responsible Technology

2010-01-14T18:41:00.000-05:00

Newsletter 2010 01 08 Supermarket News Forecasts Non-GMO Uprising by Institute for Responsible Technology

Famer's Markets Foods Recipe Book

2010-01-12T11:20:00.000-05:00

http://www.farmersmarketfoods.com/downloads/FMFRecipeBook.pdf

(Check out the Deep Dish Butternut Squash Casserole With Maple-Ginger Crust) wow!

Green Earth Organics

2010-01-07T21:52:00.000-05:00

http://www.greenearthorganics.com/

We just received our first delivery from them and everything looks great. I can't wait to start cooking tomorrow.

If you are in the Toronto, Vancouver or Simcoe/Muskoka area you can get local, organic produce delivered right to your door. The prices are reasonable and because they bring it to you, you save time and money. A great service!

Finding Local Food

2010-01-07T21:47:00.000-05:00

As part of the 100 Mile Challenge,Food Tv has a local vendor search engine on their website. Check it out.

http://100mile.foodtv.ca/find

2010-Solution Four-Support Your Local Organic Farmer

2010-01-07T21:33:00.001-05:00

Tomorrow I am going over to Dingo Farms to pick up some organic clean meat.
http://www.dingofarms.com/
Dingo farms is a family run farm who raises Grass-fed Beef, Lamb, Berkshire Pork, Free-range Chicken and Duck. Their livestock is Naturally Raised: Non GMO, No Antibiotics, and No Hormones. From what I'm told their meat is in high demand at the fancy restaurants in Toronto. I did get some meat from them back in the summer from the Bradford Farmer's Market. Those burgers were good. I can't wait until summer and the grill is fired up again. But for now home cooking in the kitchen with super quality ingredients will do.
Check them out if you are in area or check the listing for a organic farm in your area.
http://www.greenpeople.org/OrganicMeat.html
USA, Canada, UK and others included in listing

2010- Solution Four- Community Gardens

2010-01-07T21:20:00.000-05:00

http://www.communitygarden.ca/Site/about%20the%20gardens%20%20%20.html

I found this community garden from going on google maps and typing in 'community garden'. They are popping up everywhere. Check your local area for one. There even have them in cities.
This one in Lindsay Ontario offers o 8x16 plot for $15 a year or you can volunteer for 5 hours per season in lieu of payment.

Ten Reasons Why You Should Eat Organic Food

2010-01-06T21:28:00.001-05:00

1. Protect Future Generation
Children receive four times the exposure than an adult to at least eight widely used cancer-causing pesticides in food. The food choice you make now will impact your child's health in the future.
2. Prevent Soil Erosion
The Soil Conservation Service Estimates that more than three billion tons of topsoil are eroded from the United States croplands each year. That means soil is eroding seven times faster than it is built up naturally. Soil is the foundation of the food chain in organic farming. But in conventional farming the soil is used more as a medium for holding plants in a vertical position so they can be chemically fertilized. As a result, American and Canadian farms are suffering from the worst soil erosion in history.
3. Protect Water Quality
Water makes up two-thirds of our body mass and covers three-fourths of the planet. Despite its importance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), estimates pesticides (some cancer-causing) contaminate the ground water in 38 states, polluting the primary source of drinking water for more than half the country's population.
4. Save Energy
Farms have changed drastically in the last three generations, from the family based small businesses dependent on human energy to large scale factory farms highly dependent on fossil fuels. Modern farming methods uses more petroleum than any other single industry, consuming 12 percent of the country's total energy supply. More energy is now used to produce synthetic fertilizers than to till, cultivate, and harvest all the crops in the United States. Organic farming is still mainly based on labour-intensive practices such as weeding by hand and using green manures and crop covers rather than synthetic inputs. Organic produce also tends to travel a shorter distance from the farm to your plate.
5. Keep Chemicals off Your Plate
Many pesticides approved for use by the EPA were registered before extensive research linking these chemicals to cancer and other diseases had been established. Now the EPA considers that 60% of all herbicides, 90% of all fungicides and 30% insecticides are carcinogenic. A 1987 National Academy of Sciences report estimate that pesticides might cause an extra 1.4 million cancer cases among Americans over their lifetimes. The bottom line is that pesticides are poisons designed to kill living organisms, and can also be harmful to humans. In addition to cancer, pesticides are implicated in birth defects, nerve damage and genetic mutation.
6. Protect Farm Workers Health
A National Cancer Institute study found that farmers exposed to herbicides had a greater factor of six, than non-farmers of contracting cancer. In California, reported pesticide poisonings among farm workers have risen an average of 14% a year since 1973, and doubled between 1975 and 1985. Field workers suffer the highest rates of occupational illness in the state. Farm workers health also is a serious problem in developing nations, where pesticides can be poorly regulated. An estimated 1 million people are poisoned annually by pesticides. Several of the pesticides banned from use in the United States are still manufactured here for export to other countries.
7. Help Small Farmers
Although more and more large scale farms are making the conversion to organic practices, most organic farms are small independently owned and operated family farms of less than 100 acres. It's estimated that the United States has lost more than 650,000 family farms in the past decade. With the US Department of Agriculture predicting that half of this country's farm production will come from 1% of farms by the year 2000. Organic farming could become one of the few hopes left for family farms.
8. Support a True Economy
Although organic food might seem more expensive than conventional foods, conventional food prices do not reflect hidden cost borne by taxpayers, including nearly $74 billion in federal subsidies in 1988. Other hidden costs include pesticide regulation and testing, hazardous waste disposal and clean up, and environmental damage.
9. Promote Biodiversity
Mono cropping is the practice of planting large plots of land with the same crop year after year. While this approach tripled farm production between 1950 and 1970, the lack of natural diversity of plant life has left the soil lacking in natural minerals and nutrients. To replace the nutrients, chemical fertilizers are used, often in increasing amounts.
10. Taste Better Flavour
There's a good reason many chefs use organic foods in their recipes. They taste better. Organic farming starts with the nutrients of the soil which eventually leads to the nourishment of the plant and ultimately our palates.

Although this is an American study, the situation in Canada isn't very different.

Excerpted from an article by Sylvia Tawse, Organic Times, Spring 1992.
Green Earth Organics

2010 Solution Three-Learn To Home Can

2010-01-03T15:13:00.000-05:00

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art2816.asp

I know it's not the right time of year for canning but I found this article and wanted to keep track of it for when the time comes. I wonder if home canners are on sale this time of year?

http://www.storeitfoods.com/canning
(Canadian store in Winnipeg)

Healthy Child Heathy World: 10 Tips To Detoxify Your Diet

2010-01-03T15:10:00.001-05:00

I will openly admit I love cheese puffs, cheese curls, pretty much any kind of baked cheese snack - the more neon in color, the better. I also really love artisanal cheeses – and, oddly, cheese puffs, cheese curls, and their brightly colored cousins really taste nothing like any type of real cheese. How do we come to crave these fake flavors? (I know I’m not the only one). More importantly, when did food become so un-natural?

And, our food hasn’t simply become more synthetic than ever before, it’s also laced with ingredients and contaminants that pose distressing health risks. They aren’t like salmonella, e-coli, or other pathogenic pollutants that can cause immediate illness or even death. These toxic impurities are more insidious – subtly causing harm over time.

Reduce your exposure to unwanted ingredients by following these 10 tips to detoxify your diet.

1. Ease up on animal fats. Animal products can contain synthetic hormones, antibiotics and organochlorine chemicals, such as dioxin, DDT and other pesticides, which concentrate in animal fat. The same chemicals that accumulate in animal fats are transferred to our own when we eat them. Then they linger there for years quietly causing damage. When you buy meat, poultry or dairy, look for low fat options (get the unsaturated fats your body needs from plant sources like walnuts, flax seeds, and avocadoes). Trim all fats and skins and broil meats and fish so that the fats drain away. Avoid frying, which will lock in the contaminants. You can also do your body a favor by reducing how much meat you eat. Making even one vegetarian meal a week can make a big difference.

2. Select safer seafood. Eating seafood is the primary way we are exposed to methylmercury, a potent neurotoxin. Fish can also be contaminated with PCBs, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the Environmental Protection Agency have declared a probable carcinogen. Use the Environmental Defense Fund’s Safe Seafood Selector to find species that are lowest in chemical and heavy metal contamination and that are fished in ways that are not harmful to our Oceans. Or access the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch, one of the more popular seafood guide’s online, who have now made it possible to get their website information with ease when you’re standing in front of the seafood case by using their free iPhone app.

3. Go organic. According to the Environmental Working Group, you can lower your pesticide exposure by 90 per cent simply by avoiding the most contaminated conventionally grown produce: peaches, apples, sweet bell peppers, celery, nectarines, strawberries, cherries, lettuce, imported grapes, carrots, and pears. If you’re really craving one of these foods, opt for organic. Conventionally grown fruits and vegetables that have the lowest levels of pesticide residue include: onion, avocado, sweet corn, pineapple, mango, asparagus, sweet peas, kiwi, cabbage, eggplant, papaya, watermelon, broccoli, tomato, and sweet potato. You can download the EWG pocket guide that lists these and the dirty dozen from Foodnews.com.

4. Prep your produce. Wash all fruits and vegetables well to remove surface chemicals (and pathogens). It’s easiest and most efficient to wash everything right when you bring it home. You should even wash foods with inedible peels – like melons, bananas, and oranges. If there’s a contaminant on the surface, you can get it on the knife you use to cut it or on your hand, and then spread it to the part you eat.

5. Ban the can. Canned foods and beverages are lined with a resin that contains bisphenol-A, a hormone-disrupting chemical that’s building up in our environment and our bodies. Most manufacturers are beginning to explore safer alternatives, but in the meantime you should choose foods that are fresh, dried or frozen or packaged in glass jars or tetra packs.

6. Bulk up. Bulk foods are often less processed so you reduce your exposure to questionable food additives. Buying it bulk can also save you up to $500 a year! Bulk cook staples like beans and other legumes and store them in your freezer in serving sizes that are appropriate for your family size. You can also buy dried pasta, nuts, seeds, and many other staples in bulk.

7. Cook your cuisine safely. If you enjoy grilling or well-done meat, be advised – you are adding to your cancer risk. Grilling creates smoke laden with carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, which end up on the surface of whatever you’re cooking. When meat, chicken and fish are cooked at high temperatures for a long time (aka “well-done”), it creates carcinogenic heterocyclic amines, or HCAs.

8. Read a food label – for real. Ever stop to read the ingredients label on packaged, processed foods? It's usually a mouthful of words most of us have a hard time pronouncing, so what exactly are you eating? You can learn which food additives are safe and which are not by visiting The Center for Science in the Public Interest's food safety guide, but it's even easier to simply choose whole foods. Whole foods are not processed, so they have all their natural nutritional gifts. Look for foods made from whole grains (think whole wheat bread, oatmeal and brown rice) - and it should say "whole" on the label. Make more foods from scratch (it’s easier than you think). You'll end up saving money, eating healthier and reducing all the waste created from packaging and processing foods.

9. Wet your whistle with water. Americans drink an overwhelming amount of sodas, sports drinks, energy boosters, juices (that often contain little juice), and other bottled beverages. The first problem with this is that most of these drinks are loaded with sweeteners and artificial flavors and colors. The second is that they’re bottled in plastic, which can leach additional chemicals into the drink. Your body is 70-75% water, so hydrate it with water! And, skip the single-use bottled water. Again, it can be contaminated by the plastic bottle. Also, it’s less regulated than tap water. Make an investment in a water filter and reusable stainless steel water bottles. They quickly pay for themselves.

10. Eat-in more often. When you eat at a restaurant or pick something up from a deli you have very little control over what you’re getting. Save money and protect your health by making food at home. When you do go out, make healthier choices.

2010-Solution Two-Go Vegetarian

2010-01-02T10:48:00.000-05:00

This may be a tough one for most people, but for me, after watching Food Inc and The KFC video I think I can handle it. For the carnivores out there who can't give meat up completely, I suggest knowing your source and supporting humane farming practices.

Here is a recipe from my growing vegetarian collection. Enjoy.

Spinach Cheese Manicotti

Ingredients

* 1 (15 ounce) container ricotta cheese
* 1 (10 ounce) package frozen chopped spinach, thawed and squeezed dry
* 1/2 cup minced onion
* 1 egg
* 2 teaspoons minced fresh parsley
* 1/2 teaspoon pepper
* 1/4 teaspoon garlic powder
* 1 1/2 cups shredded mozzarella cheese, divided
* 1/2 cup grated Parmesan cheese, divided
* 2 (26 ounce) jars spaghetti sauce
* 1 1/2 cups water
* 1 (8 ounce) package manicotti shells

Directions

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C).
2. In a large bowl, combine ricotta, spinach, onion and egg. Season with parsley, pepper and garlic powder. Mix in 1 cup mozzarella and 1/4 cup Parmesan. In a separate bowl, stir together spaghetti sauce and water.
3. Spread 1 cup sauce in the bottom of a 9x13 inch baking dish. Stuff uncooked manicotti shells with ricotta mixture, and arrange in a single layer in the dish. Cover with remaining sauce. Sprinkle with remaining mozzarella and Parmesan.
4. Bake in preheated oven for 45 to 55 minutes, or until noodles are soft.

Recipe from Allrecipes.com.
As with all recipes I post, I substitute ingredients for organic or local whenever possible.

PETA's Campaign Against KFC

2010-01-01T20:00:00.001-05:00

Watch more videos at KentuckyFriedCruelty.com.
This video is from 2005 but what happens in this video is still happening in the food industry and people need to be aware of it.

The Year 2010, Solutions- Part One

2010-01-01T17:24:00.000-05:00

This year Rob and I will be working on a documentary presenting solutions to the issues that surround the food industry. I will post a series of solutions on my blog as well to document any of the findings during our research and preparation for the filming. If you are doing things that benefit local, organic and sustainable living, please feel free to post it in the comment section.
Here is solution number One from Foodtv.ca.

Sharing Backyards-The 100 Mile Challenge
http://100mile.foodtv.ca/webisode/sharing-backyards

The Future of Food | Watch Free Documentary Online

2009-12-30T12:16:00.001-05:00

The Future of Food | Watch Free Documentary Online

Posted using ShareThis

Another must watch documentary on genetcally modified food.

Food, Inc. Free Online Documentary

2009-12-30T09:44:00.000-05:00

Avoid These 7 Foods and You're Off To A Healthier New Year

2009-12-29T10:01:00.000-05:00

Posted by: Dr. Mercola
December 29 2009 | 82,641 views

1. Canned Tomatoes

The expert: Fredrick vom Saal, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A

The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Acidity -- a prominent characteristic of tomatoes -- causes BPA to leach into your food.

2. Corn-Fed Beef

The expert: Joel Salatin, co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of books on sustainable farming

Cattle were designed to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. A recent comprehensive study found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium.

3. Microwave Popcorn

The expert: Olga Naidenko, PhD, a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group

Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize -- and migrate into your popcorn.

4. Nonorganic Potatoes

The expert: Jeffrey Moyer, chair of the National Organic Standards Board

Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes they're treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they're dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting.

5. Farmed Salmon

The expert: David Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany

Nature didn't intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT.

6. Milk Produced with Artificial Hormones

The expert: Rick North, project director of the Campaign for Safe Food at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility

Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers.

7. Conventional Apples

The expert: Mark Kastel, codirector of the Cornucopia Institute

If fall fruits held a "most doused in pesticides contest," apples would win. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides with Parkinson's disease.

Genetically Modified Foods Pose Huge Health Risk By Institute for Responsible Technology , Your Consumer Safety Partner - May 20, 2009

2009-12-28T14:52:00.000-05:00

LOS ANGELES -- This week, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.” They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy. The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue. Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm. Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA. Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food designed to produce toxin

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic, has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.
The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[xiii] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”

GMOs provoke immune reactions

AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.” Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn. A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.

GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties, GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen, and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy. Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.” In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks. Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.

Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[xxvii] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.

Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases

AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”

Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”

Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.

This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.

If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.

To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”

Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.

If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.

Non-GMO Project

2009-12-27T11:15:00.000-05:00

http://www.nongmoproject.org/

Health Canada seeks input on adding anti-cancer drug to junk food

2009-12-22T15:25:00.000-05:00

By The Canadian Press
Ottawa wants to know what you think about its unusual proposal to put a cancer-fighting drug into junk food.

Health Canada is inviting public comments until February 21 on its idea to have small amounts of the enzyme asparaginase put into foods like potato chips and french fries. On its website, Health Canada says its scientists have finished a detailed safety assessment on the enzyme and haven't found any health or safety concerns.

At issue is the chemical acrylamide, which is found as a cooking byproduct in the production of foods like french fries and potato chips and has been linked to cancer in animals.

Research suggests asparaginase reduces acrylamide production.

Health Canada notes the enzyme is used in the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, and Denmark, and has been given a favourable evaluation by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives.

Have your say here. Do you agree that drugs should be approved for use in our food supply?
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/consultation/init/_dec2009-asparaginase/index-eng.php
I can't help but wonder, wouldn't it make more sense to encourage healthy eating through better choices and to mandate the manufacturing of junk food to be non-cancer causing?

Statement on Genetically Modified Organisms in the Environment and the Marketplace

2009-12-21T11:13:00.000-05:00

In the mid 1980s, primary care physicians, and subsequently their rheumatology colleagues, began to see a number of chronically ill individuals with severe pain syndromes affecting muscle tissue, accompanied by abnormally high eosinophil counts. In time, it became clear that a new disease entity had arisen, which was eventually called "eosinophilia myalgia syndrome." Some dozens of people died from this illness and several thousands remain permanently disabled.

What took a long time to understand about this condition was its cause. It was eventually discovered that, in the early 1980s, one of the first industrially produced and commercially marketed amino acids, tryptophan, had begun to be manufactured by a novel process, in Japan, utilizing genetically modified bacteria. In an unexpected twist of fate, the genetically modified but poorly controlled bacteria had created an undetected, and highly toxic, dimerization of the tryptophan molecule. This toxic molecule was undetected in pre-market testing, and so the new product was deemed "biologically equivalent" to existing, conventionally produced tryptophan. Unfortunately for the individuals who ingested it, their bodies responded very differently to the altered amino acid, and they suffered severe illness and even death as a result.

Fast forward a few years, and we discover that without any real public input or debate, and with essentially no human trials, our infant soy formula is now created with genetically modified plant material, our corn chips are made from insect resistant, genetically modified corn, and our veggie burgers contain altered soybeans. Current estimates suggest that fully 60% of products in Canada's grocery stores have genetically modified ingredients. Our children and our grandchildren are growing up on them.

Is this a bad thing? No one knows. There have been no significant human trials of any size or length, nor does it appear that any are currently funded. We do know, from studies of soybeans modified to withstand higher doses of glyphosate pesticide, that the content of phytonutrients in those soybeans is altered from concentrations in conventional soybeans. What does this mean for health effects? Again, we do not know.

What we increasingly understand, however, is that the biological systems in all of us are complex, and in children they are particularly vulnerable and sensitive, as well as profoundly dependent on proper nutrition for full and successful development. We believe, therefore, that if there is any question about the safety and bio-equivalence of new foodstuffs being brought to the market, we must not expose humans to these foods until careful trials have been completed and their results made widely available.

What is more, we have real concerns about the relationships among living organisms. We are concerned about what it means to introduce what are essentially newly created species, some of which contain a chimeric blend of genes from entirely different creatures, into our world. We have seen the effects of chemical and nuclear contamination of the environment, and have real fears that biological contamination with newly minted organisms may be even more threatening to the natural order. We urge caution. What is the rush?

We must resist the drive for quick profit, and review the implications of our new-found abilities. We must carefully consider the ethical implications of patent rights being extended to our basic foodstuffs, restricting to a few large seed producers the right to grow and produce these foods. To be fed in a way that is truly sustainable, we must preserve not only a stable, abundant and safe food supply, but also a safe planet to grow it on, and safe children to enjoy it.
Statement

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) recognizes that the use of genetic engineering and genetically engineered organisms under carefully controlled conditions (e.g., in closed laboratory environments, or within individual persons) offers considerable benefit for human health, both now and in the future.

However, CAPE has grave concerns about the environmental release of genetically modified (GM) crops and products; we call for the immediate suspension of all such releases, and for current patents on such life forms and living processes to be suspended or rescinded.

CAPE calls for an immediate and comprehensive public enquiry into the effect of GM organisms on ecosystem stability, food security and human health.

Patents on life-forms and living processes threaten equitable food distribution, encourage biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate fundamental human rights, and impede medical and scientific research. Patented GM crops intensify corporate control over food production, curtail biodiversity, and limit the autonomy of farmers, obstructing the development of sustainable, community-based agriculture that is the cornerstone of a stable food supply around the world.

We believe, in any case, that existing life forms such as organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes are discoveries and therefore cannot and should not be patented. Further, we believe that such living entities are part of the common heritage of humankind; we do not believe that any person or persons should be allowed to genetically modify any organism, seed, or cell line to obstruct their propagation in any way.

Current techniques for genetic modification produce novel organisms, but these techniques are unreliable and unpredictable; many life forms generated by them are inherently dysfunctional and disruptive. Furthermore, the expression of any viable organisms is highly dependent on ecological context; to date, no comprehensive analysis has been carried out examining the influence of context on any GM organism.

Current analyses of GM crops show that they generally yield less than conventional crops.

The real hazards of GM organisms to human and ecosystem health are becoming ever more apparent. For example, the horizontal spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes from GM crops can compromise the treatment of life-threatening infectious diseases. The cauliflower mosaic viral promoter, widely used in GM crops, may enhance horizontal gene transfer and has the potential to generate new pathogenic viruses. GM crops containing natural biocides (e.g., Bt toxin) harm beneficial insects, and leave residues deep in the soil, which can selectively encourage resistance among predator species.

We urge the Canadian government to take into account all scientific evidence related to GM organisms, and to act in accordance with the precautionary principle in regulating their production and use. We urge the Canadian government to negotiate a strong and effective International Biosafety Protocol. We urge the Canadian government to ensure that biosafety considerations, at both the national and international level, take precedence over trade and financial agreements established by the World Trade Organization.

Finally, we urge that research into sustainable, organic agricultural methods and techniques be intensified and extended on a global scale. Many sustainable, community-based agricultural systems already exist around the world, completely adapted to local ecosystems; they generate high and sustained yields, and have neutral or positive ecological impacts. Ongoing research reveals that organic growing methods, using conventional seeds and crop lines, can enhance soil structure, reduce nitrogen pollution, and generate adequate and secure income for farmers while freeing them from dependency on costly external inputs.

We believe that the enhancement, expansion, and promotion of these methods and techniques offers the single best hope to our global culture of engendering a safe, equitably distributed, and secure food supply for present and future generations. It also promises to demonstrate, once and for all, that the creation of GM organisms is entirely unnecessary.

WindsorEats Supports Organic Turkeys in Ontario

2009-12-21T10:39:00.001-05:00

WindsorEats Supports Organic Turkeys in Ontario

Posted using ShareThis

Canada’s Natural Health Industry

2009-12-17T10:24:00.001-05:00

by author Michelle Hancock
Twenty years ago a natural health aficionado typically frequented one-stop shops that sold everything—herbs, cosmetics, bulk foods, and a few trusted vitamin lines. But the past two decades have seen a major shift.

Now organics are sold in major supermarkets, everybody seems to grow their own herbs, and almost 18,000 nutritional supplements have exploded into venues such as grocery stores and drug stores.

“No longer do you expect to see just one multivitamin at a mainstream pharmacy,” says Penny Marrett, president and CEO of the Canadian Health Food Association. “Now the consumer expects to see a whole range of product. They walk in and start asking questions. They’ve done their research and may need more answers.”

Natural health products (NHPs)—including vitamins, minerals, herbal remedies, homeopathic medicines, and traditional Chinese medicines—now represent a $2.5 billion industry in Canada. A more educated public, dissatisfaction with mainstream health care, and increasing acceptance by health care practitioners are three factors giving NHPs their modern thrust.

Industry purists may yearn for the good old days, but Marrett says there are huge opportunities ahead in this still-growing industry.

Purchase power

According to a 2005 Ipsos-Reid study, 71 percent of Canadians use an NHP regularly, and 77 percent of Canadians agree that NHPs can promote good health.

The latest industry statistics, released in July 2009, indicate that profits, exports, and the number of businesses involved in NHPs and functional foods—foods with added health benefits—have all experienced notable growth. NHPs and functional foods generated $3.7 billion in revenue in 2007, $732 million was exported, mostly to the US, and $148 million was spent on research and development (R&D).

Research based

The science generated from R&D excites Marrett, who says this is part of why the industry is gaining credibility. Vitamin D is a good example. As a result of good research, many organizations including the Canadian Cancer Society now recommend it, a message that has been communicated well to the public. In turn, more acceptance and interest mean a greater political strength.

“Our industry is gaining its voice on public policy and we need to strengthen that voice,” she tells alive. A strong voice is important, for example, in governmental matters. Currently, ‰ the ongoing implementation of federal NHP regulations is a challenge that is creating additional cost and adding uncertainty.

“We’re going to make sure that the regulations are implemented fairly, properly, and reasonably. We’re not there yet,” says Marrett. “But we’ll be there before five years are out.”

The media factor

The media is another factor related to the growing public interest in NHPs. “What’s going to sell next? I don’t know. A better person to ask is Dr. Oz,” jokes Lou Liberatore, owner of The Healthy Bug in Halifax. “Look at acai juice. We’ve carried it from day one, and it sold okay. But now that Dr. Oz mentioned it, it’s huge.”

Since news of the swine flu hit the scene, many retailers report increased sales of products geared toward building immunity, although official health agencies point out that no natural products are approved to fight the virus. Immune-boosting vitamins C and D are just two nutrients sold everywhere, from traditional health food stores and whole food markets to corner supermarkets and big box stores.

“Natural health retailers are one of the best places [to buy them] because they’ll have greater variety and choice than pharmacies and mass retailers,” says Marrett. They also have better informed sales staff to help consumers choose the right products for them.

Consumer comparison
For brands offered in both traditional and mass market stores, consumers have the luxury of comparing price. As to what makes one brand different or better than another, the advice to consumers is, ask. And if a particular clerk doesn’t know, find one who does or who is willing to find out for you.

“It confuses people,” says Craig Walker of 1st Choice Health in St. Albert, Alberta, of overlapping brands and products. He notes that manufacturers have raised the question, “How premium can a product be if you can find it at a discount store?”

Economic pinch

“It’s hardest for the senior community,” he adds. “Many of them are unfortunately stuck with what they can afford. They’re buying cheap products and not getting the results. Now we’ve created a person who doesn’t believe in the NHP industry. If there’s any kind of program that manufacturers should look into, it’s assisting seniors.”

At the moment, however, it’s not only seniors who are feeling the economic pinch. Although there are no concrete statistics, Marrett says the industry has been affected in the sense that people are being more selective and cautious about buying.

“I’m hopeful that as consumers feel more confident, they’ll go back to their purchasing practices,” she says. “I see a very strong, growing, vibrant, innovative industry that is responding to Canadians’ needs, Canadians who are seeking the best possible health for themselves and their loved ones.”

Help near and far

Walk into your corner natural health store and, guaranteed, most people have stories to tell about how their lives have been changed by some form of complementary alternative medicine.

Whether the changes are small or large, that’s where this industry’s heart shines. Whether the changes are made one-on-one or brought about through organized charity, it’s all about providing help.

In 2008 the Health First Network, Canada’s largest association of NHP retailers, raised more than $46,000 for Vitamin Angels. This organization fights malnutrition, a condition responsible for one-third of childhood mortality worldwide.

Their support extends to the violence-ravaged reaches of Third World countries where armed guerilla forces steal food from delivery trucks, but whether out of disinterest or divine design, they let vitamin supplies through.

Giving may be nothing new to the NHP industry, but the scope of this giving is an example of how the industry has evolved—and continues to evolve—for the better. H

When Michelle Hancock isn’t writing, she can often be found browsing the shelves of her local health food store in Vancouver, BC.

Source: alive #325, November 2009

Child diabetes blamed on food sweetener

2009-12-16T12:57:00.000-05:00

Source:Times Online
Scientists have proved for the first time that a cheap form of sugar used in thousands of food products and soft drinks can damage human metabolism and is fuelling the obesity crisis.

Fructose, a sweetener derived from corn, can cause dangerous growths of fat cells around vital organs and is able to trigger the early stages of diabetes and heart disease.

It has increasingly been used as a substitute for more expensive types of sugar in yoghurts, cakes, salad dressing and cereals. Even some fruit drinks that sound healthy contain fructose.

Experts believe that the sweetener — which is found naturally in small quantities in fruit — could be a factor in the emergence of diabetes among children. This week, a new report is expected to claim that about one in 10 children in England will be obese by 2015.

Previous studies of the potentially adverse impact of fructose have focused on rats, but the first experiment involving humans has now revealed serious health concerns.

Over 10 weeks, 16 volunteers on a strictly controlled diet, including high levels of fructose, produced new fat cells around their heart, liver and other digestive organs. They also showed signs of food-processing abnormalities linked to diabetes and heart disease. Another group of volunteers on the same diet, but with glucose sugar replacing fructose, did not have these problems.

People in both groups put on a similar amount of weight. However, researchers at the University of California who conducted the trial, said the levels of weight gain among the fructose consumers would be greater over the long term.

Fructose bypasses the digestive process that breaks down other forms of sugar. It arrives intact in the liver where it causes a variety of abnormal reactions, including the disruption of mechanisms that instruct the body whether to burn or store fat.

“This is the first evidence we have that fructose increases diabetes and heart disease independently from causing simple weight gain,” said Kimber Stanhope, a molecular biologist who led the study. “We didn’t see any of these changes in the people eating glucose.”

Natural fructose represents 5%-10% of the weight of any fruit. Its use in processed foods stems from a discovery in 1971 that synthesised a 55% fructose and 45% glucose syrup from maize, creating an ingredient cheaper and six times sweeter than cane sugar.

High-fructose corn syrup, or glucose-fructose syrup, is listed as an ingredient in many food and drink products in Britain, although it is virtually impossible for consumers to know the quantity and ratio of fructose used. Barry Popkin, professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina, and a US government adviser on health policy, said: “Historically, we never consumed much sugar. We’re not built to process it. ”

Rejecting the California research, a spokesman for the Food and Drink Federation, a UK industry trade group, said: “It makes no sense to highlight one single ingredient as a cause of obesity.”

Aspartame is, by far, the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods.

2009-12-14T12:50:00.000-05:00

Mercola | Dec. 13, 2009

Aspartame is the technical name for the brand names NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, and Equal-Measure. It was discovered by accident in 1965 when James Schlatter, a chemist of G.D. Searle Company, was testing an anti-ulcer drug.

Aspartame was approved for dry goods in 1981 and for carbonated beverages in 1983. It was originally approved for dry goods on July 26, 1974, but objections filed by neuroscience researcher Dr John W. Olney and Consumer attorney James Turner in August 1974 as well as investigations of G.D. Searle's research practices caused the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to put approval of aspartame on hold (December 5, 1974). In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle and made Searle Pharmaceuticals and The NutraSweet Company separate subsidiaries.

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.(1) A few of the 90 different documented symptoms listed in the report as being caused by aspartame include: Headaches/migraines, dizziness, seizures, nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain, rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, tachycardia, insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinnitus, vertigo, memory loss, and joint pain.

According to researchers and physicians studying the adverse effects of aspartame, the following chronic illnesses can be triggered or worsened by ingesting of aspartame:(2) Brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, parkinson's disease, alzheimer's, mental retardation, lymphoma, birth defects, fibromyalgia, and diabetes.

Aspartame is made up of three chemicals: aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. The book "Prescription for Nutritional Healing," by James and Phyllis Balch, lists aspartame under the category of "chemical poison." As you shall see, that is exactly what it is.

What Is Aspartame Made Of?

Aspartic Acid (40 percent of Aspartame)

Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, a professor of neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi, recently published a book thoroughly detailing the damage that is caused by the ingestion of excessive aspartic acid from aspartame. Blaylock makes use of almost 500 scientific references to show how 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.(3)

How Aspartate (and Glutamate) Cause Damage

Aspartate and glutamate act as neurotransmitters in the brain by facilitating the transmission of information from neuron to neuron. Too much aspartate or glutamate in the brain kills certain neurons by allowing the influx of too much calcium into the 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 "excite" or stimulate the neural cells to death.

Aspartic acid is an amino acid. Taken in its free form (unbound to proteins) it significantly raises the blood plasma level of aspartate and glutamate. The excess aspartate and glutamate in the blood plasma shortly after ingesting aspartame or products with free glutamic acid (glutamate precursor) leads to a high level of those neurotransmitters in certain areas of the brain.

The blood brain barrier (BBB), which normally protects the brain from excess glutamate and aspartate as well as toxins, 1) is not fully developed during childhood, 2) does not fully protect all areas of the brain, 3) is damaged by numerous chronic and acute conditions, and 4) allows seepage of excess glutamate and aspartate into the brain even when intact.

The excess glutamate and aspartate slowly begin to destroy neurons. The large majority (75 percent or more) of neural cells in a particular area of the brain are killed before any clinical symptoms of a chronic illness are noticed. A few of the many chronic illnesses that have been shown to be contributed to by long-term exposure to excitatory amino acid damage include:

* Multiple sclerosis (MS)
* ALS
* Memory loss
* Hormonal problems
* Hearing loss
* Epilepsy
* Alzheimer's disease

* Parkinson's disease
* Hypoglycemia
* AIDS
* Dementia
* Brain lesions
* Neuroendocrine disorders

The risk to infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly and persons with certain chronic health problems from excitotoxins are great. Even the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), which usually understates problems and mimics the FDA party-line, recently stated in a review that:

"It is prudent to avoid the use of dietary supplements of L-glutamic acid by pregnant women, infants, and children. The existence of evidence of potential endocrine responses, i.e., elevated cortisol and prolactin, and differential responses between males and females, would also suggest a neuroendocrine link and that supplemental L-glutamic acid should be avoided by women of childbearing age and individuals with affective disorders."(4)

Aspartic acid from aspartame has the same deleterious effects on the body as glutamic acid.

The exact mechanism of acute reactions to excess free glutamate and aspartate is currently being debated. As reported to the FDA, those reactions include:(5)

* Headaches/migraines
* Nausea
* Abdominal pains
* Fatigue (blocks sufficient glucose entry into brain)
* Sleep problems
* Vision problems
* Anxiety attacks
* Depression
* Asthma/chest tigShtness.

One common complaint of persons suffering from the effect of aspartame is memory loss. Ironically, in 1987, G.D. Searle, the manufacturer of aspartame, undertook a search for a drug to combat memory loss caused by excitatory amino acid damage. Blaylock is one of many scientists and physicians who are concerned about excitatory amino acid damage caused by ingestion of aspartame and MSG.

A few of the many experts who have spoken out against the damage being caused by aspartate and glutamate include Adrienne Samuels, Ph.D., an experimental psychologist specializing in research design. Another is Olney, a professor in the department of psychiatry, School of Medicine, Washington University, a neuroscientist and researcher, and one of the world's foremost authorities on excitotoxins. (He informed Searle in 1971 that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of mice.)

Phenylalanine (50 percent of aspartame)

Phenylalanine is an amino acid normally found in the brain. Persons with the genetic disorder phenylketonuria (PKU) cannot metabolize phenylalanine. This leads to dangerously high levels of phenylalanine in the brain (sometimes 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.

This is not just a theory, as many people who have eaten large amounts of aspartame over a long period of time and do not have PKU have been shown to have excessive levels of phenylalanine in the blood. Excessive levels of phenylalanine in the brain can cause the levels of seratonin in the brain to decrease, leading to emotional disorders such as depression. It was shown in human testing that phenylalanine levels of the blood were increased significantly in human subjects who chronically used aspartame.(6)

Even a single use of aspartame raised the blood phenylalanine levels. In his testimony before the U.S. Congress, Dr. Louis J. Elsas showed that high blood phenylalanine can be concentrated in parts of the brain and is especially dangerous for infants and fetuses. He also showed that phenylalanine is metabolised much more effeciently by rodents than by humans.(7)

One account of a case of extremely high phenylalanine levels caused by aspartame was recently published the "Wednesday Journal" in an article titled "An Aspartame Nightmare." John Cook began drinking six to eight diet drinks every day. His symptoms started out as memory loss and frequent headaches. He began to crave more aspartame-sweetened drinks. His condition deteriorated so much that he experienced wide mood swings and violent rages. Even though he did not suffer from PKU, a blood test revealed a phenylalanine level of 80 mg/dl. He also showed abnormal brain function and brain damage. After he kicked his aspartame habit, his symptoms improved dramatically.(8)

As Blaylock points out in his book, early studies measuring phenylalanine buildup in the brain were flawed. Investigators who measured specific brain regions and not the average throughout the brain notice significant rises in phenylalanine levels. Specifically the hypothalamus, medulla oblongata, and corpus striatum areas of the brain had the largest increases in phenylalanine. Blaylock goes on to point out that excessive buildup of phenylalanine in the brain can cause schizophrenia or make one more susceptible to seizures.

Therefore, long-term, excessive use of aspartame may provid a boost to sales of seratonin reuptake inhibitors such as Prozac and drugs to control schizophrenia and seizures.

Methanol (aka wood alcohol/poison) (10 percent of aspartame)

Methanol/wood alcohol is a deadly poison. Some people may remember methanol as the poison that has caused some "skid row" alcoholics to end up blind or dead. Methanol is gradually released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame encounter the enzyme chymotrypsin.

The absorption of methanol into the body is sped up considerably when free methanol is ingested. Free methanol is created from aspartame when it is heated to above 86 Fahrenheit (30 Centigrade). This would occur when aspartame-containing product is improperly stored or when it is heated (e.g., as part of a "food" product such as Jello).

Methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin. An EPA assessment of methanol states that 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." They recommend a limit of consumption of 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 consume as much as 250 mg of methanol daily or 32 times the EPA limit.(9)

Symptoms from methanol poisoning include headaches, ear buzzing, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal disturbances, weakness, vertigo, chills, memory lapses, numbness and shooting pains in the extremities, behavioral disturbances, and neuritis. The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision problems including misty vision, progressive contraction of visual fields, blurring of vision, obscuration of vision, retinal damage, and blindness. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen, causes retinal damage, interferes with DNA replication and causes birth defects.(10)

Due to the lack of a couple of key enzymes, humans are many times more sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol than animals. Therefore, tests of aspartame or methanol on animals do not accurately reflect the danger for humans. As pointed out by Dr. Woodrow C. Monte, director of the food science and nutrition laboratory at Arizona State University, "There are no human or mammalian studies to evaluate the possible mutagenic, teratogenic or carcinogenic effects of chronic administration of methyl alcohol."(11)

He was so concerned about the unresolved safety issues that he filed suit with the FDA requesting a hearing to address these issues. He asked the FDA to "slow down on this soft drink issue long enough to answer some of the important questions. It's not fair that you are leaving the full burden of proof on the few of us who are concerned and have such limited resources. You must remember that you are the American public's last defense. Once you allow usage (of aspartame) there is literally nothing I or my colleagues can do to reverse the course. Aspartame will then join saccharin, the sulfiting agents, and God knows how many other questionable compounds enjoined to insult the human constitution with governmental approval."(10) Shortly thereafter, the Commissioner of the FDA, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., approved the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages, he then left for a position with G.D. Searle's public relations firm.(11)

It has been pointed out that some fruit juices and alcoholic beverages contain small amounts of methanol. It is important to remember, however, that methanol never appears alone. In every case, ethanol is present, usually in much higher amounts. Ethanol is an antidote for methanol toxicity in humans.(9) The troops of Desert Storm were "treated" to large amounts of aspartame-sweetened beverages, which had been heated to over 86 degrees F in the Saudi Arabian sun. Many of them returned home with numerous disorders similar to what has been seen in persons who have been chemically poisoned by formaldehyde. The free methanol in the beverages may have been a contributing factor in these illnesses. Other breakdown products of aspartame such as DKP (discussed below) may also have been a factor.

In a 1993 act that can only be described as "unconscionable," the FDA approved aspartame as an ingredient in numerous food items that would always be heated to above 86 degree F (30 degree C).

Diketopiperazine (DKP)

DKP is a byproduct of aspartame metabolism. DKP has been implicated in the occurrence of brain tumors. Olney noticed that DKP, when nitrosated in the gut, produced a compound that was similar to N-nitrosourea, a powerful brain tumor causing chemical. Some authors have said that DKP is produced after aspartame ingestion. I am not sure if that is correct. It is definitely true that DKP is formed in liquid aspartame-containing products during prolonged storage.

G.D. Searle conducted animal experiments on the safety of DKP. The FDA found numerous experimental errors occurred, including "clerical errors, mixed-up animals, animals not getting drugs they were supposed to get, pathological specimens lost because of improper handling," and many other errors.(12) These sloppy laboratory procedures may explain why both the test and control animals had sixteen times more brain tumors than would be expected in experiments of this length.

In an ironic twist, shortly after these experimental errors were discovered, the FDA used guidelines recommended by G.D. Searle to develop the industry-wide FDA standards for good laboratory practices.(11)

DKP has also been implicated as a cause of uterine polyps and changes in blood cholesterol by FDA Toxicologist Dr. Jacqueline Verrett in her testimony before the U.S. Senate.(13)

References

(1) Department of Health and Human Services, Report on All Adverse Reactions in the Adverse Reaction Monitoring System, (February 25 and 28, 1994).
(2) Compiled by researchers, physicians, and artificial sweetner experts for Mission Possible, a group dedicated to warning consumers about aspartame.
(3) Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, by Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.
(4) Safety of Amino Acids, Life Sciences Research Office, FASEB, FDA Contract No. 223-88-2124, Task Order No. 8.
(5) FDA Adverse Reaction Monitoring System.
(6) Wurtman and Walker, "Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function," Proceedings of the First International Meeting on Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function., Washington, D.C., May 8, 1987.
(7) Hearing Before the Committee On Labor and Human Resources United States Senate, First Session on Examing the Health and Safety Concerns of Nutrasweet (Aspartame).
(8) Account of John Cook as published in Informed Consent Magazine. "How Safe Is Your Artificial Sweetner" by Barbara Mullarkey, September/October 1994.
(9) Woodrow C. Monte, Ph.D., R.D., "Aspartame: Methanol and the Public Health," Journal of Applied Nutrition, 36 (1): 42-53.
(10) US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 84-1153 Community Nutrition Institute and Dr Woodrow Monte v. Dr Mark Novitch, Acting Commissioner, US FDA (9/24/85).
(11) Aspartame Time Line by Barbara Mullarkey as published in Informed Consent Magazine, May/June 1994.
(12) FDA Searle Investigation Task Force. "Final Report of Investigation of G.D. Searle Company." (March 24, 1976)
(13) Testimony of Dr Jacqueline Verrett, FDA Toxicologist before the US Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, (November 3, 1987).

Health eHome: How Healthy Is Your Home

2009-12-09T16:15:00.000-05:00

TAKE a virtual stroll through the Health eHome for 30 minutes and visit each room in the house filled with everything you need to know about hidden toxins and their healthy alternatives.
Health eHome
Content is from an educational collaboration between WebMD Editorial and Healthy Child Healthy World

http://healthychild.org/main/

On A Budget-What Are The Most Important Things To Buy Organic

2009-12-09T10:24:00.000-05:00

I was reading an article on healthychild.org about what items to buy if you can't afford to go 100% organic. The suggestions were to avoid the 'Dirty Dozen' which include peaches, apples, sweet bell peppers, celery, nectarines, strawberries, cherries, imported grapes, spinach, pears, lettuce, and potatoes.

The article also mentions buying organic meat and dairy to avoid eating animal products that may have been exposed to hormones or antibiotics.

The one thing this article doesn't mention is the importance of avoiding genetically modified foods. The four major crops that are GMO include corn, cottonseed, soy and now sugar beets. When buying condiments or processed foods, they will almost always have GMO ingredients.

I found a great selection at Zehr's and good prices too for things like peanut butter, jam, mayo, salad dressing, cereals, snacks for the kids lunches such as granola bars and other assorted baked snack goods.

My local butcher sells clean meat, eggs, cheese, local honey and baked goods which is not only good for my health but good for the local economy.

As much as I always try to cook using all natural ingredients and from scratch, there are times where an easy meal is necessary. The major food chains do carry some organic meals, such as Amy's frozen pizza or burritos. Add a salad and you have a quick organic meal.

When on a budget it is possible to eat organic and natural foods. It just takes a bit of research and prioritizing.

Happy shopping!

Million Baby Crawl For Toxic Chemical Policy Reform

2009-12-08T18:34:00.000-05:00

http://www.seventhgeneration.com/million-baby-crawl/
Support Seventh Generations virtual rally to raise awareness about toxic chemicals in household items.

Close friend of agriculture chief now a Monsanto lobbyist

2009-12-08T17:49:00.000-05:00

By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
December 2, 2009

Jerry Crawford, an Iowa lawyer and lobbyist with deep ties to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, recently registered as the Washington representative for Monsanto, a biotechnology and agrichemical giant that embodies the "special interests" President Obama planned to drive from the temple of federal government.

The Des Moines Register calls Crawford a "well-connected, high-profile Des Moines lawyer" and "Democratic power broker."

Examine his record, and you see what the paper means. Crawford was once chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. He was the Iowa chairman for the presidential campaigns of Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry. In 2008, he was Hillary Clinton's Midwest campaign chairman.

Of greater significance today, he is also a "longtime Vilsack friend and adviser," a "Vilsack ally," a "top Vilsack insider," and "a guru for and a big friend of Gov. Tom Vilsack," according to the Register.

In 1998, Crawford got in near the ground floor of Vilsack's rise in politics, putting his reputation and wealth behind the long shot gubernatorial candidate. Crawford hosted at least one fundraiser for Vilsack that year, which netted $23,000.

Questions arose early in Vilsack's tenure about conflicts regarding Crawford's work as a lobbyist and his closeness to Vilsack. A 1999 Register article reported that Vilsack, before firing members of the gambling commission disliked by the casinos, had raised $17,000 from gambling interests. "Most of the $17,000 Vilsack received came from Jerry Crawford, a lawyer for the Iowa Greyhound Association," the article reported.

At play here is not likely a quid pro quo or bribery, but just a close friendship: Crawford donates to his friend's campaign, and Vilsack takes his friend's calls on state issues. But this chumminess is exactly how special interest politics works. And the chumminess runs deep.

In 2001, as Vilsack ran for re-election, Crawford was Vilsack's top individual donor, giving him $31,000. When Vilsack traveled the Midwest stumping for Kerry in 2004, Crawford was one of Gov. Vilsack's two travel mates, according to CNN.

So, Sen. Kerry, Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary Vilsack are all tight with Crawford. And Vilsack and Hillary Clinton, Crawford told me, are "good friends, and have been for a long, long time."

Although Obama was Crawford's third choice in 2008 (after Vilsack and then Clinton), Crawford still ponied up a $10,000 check for the Obama Victory Fund last August. This contribution didn't violate Obama's no-lobbyist-cash pledge because Crawford was lobbying only state government (with Monsanto as a client), not the federal government.

But now Crawford has registered to represent Monsanto in Washington on "Competition/antitrust issues within the agricultural industry; environmental laws, regulations and policies related to the agricultural industry," according to a Nov. 10 filing. Monsanto is a multinational corporation most famous for its genetically modified seeds and for its herbicide Roundup. The company is also a leading member of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which in 2001 named Vilsack governor of the year.

This situation -- the agriculture secretary's top fundraiser, top donor and longtime confidant serving as a Monsanto lobbyist -- would seem to create an awkward situation for the Obama administration given the president's pledges to crush lobbyist influence. Crawford tells me he hasn't met with anyone yet on Monsanto's behalf. I called and e-mailed Vilsack's office Monday asking if he would meet with Crawford in the future if Crawford requested a meeting. By Tuesday evening, Vilsack's office hadn't responded.

Monsanto's lobbying army already has made an incursion into the Obama administration. The top food safety adviser at the Department of Health and Human Services is Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former vice president for government affairs. As I reported in my column on Friday, Obama has nominated Isi Siddiqui to be his agriculture trade representative; Siddiqui is the vice president for regulatory affairs and a former lobbyist at CropLife America, which is a pro-pesticide lobbying coalition of which Monsanto is a prominent member.

Monsanto, lying at the intersection of agriculture and biotechnology, is deeply dependent on government favor. The company stands to benefit from the House's global warming bill, which subsidizes biofuels and gives carbon credits to farmers who control weeds with herbicides rather than tilling the ground. Also, the company constantly fights to ward off new regulations on pesticides and genetically modified food.

Monsanto is a poster boy for special interests and is a favorite target of the environmental Left. With Secretary Vilsack's fundraiser, donor and confidant carrying its flag, Monsanto figures to have even more clout in Washington.

Timothy P. Carney, The Examiner's lobbying editor, can be reached at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. He writes an op-ed column that appears on Friday.

The 6 Weirdest, Scariest Processed Foods

2009-12-07T12:13:00.001-05:00

By Brad Reed | Alternet | Dec. 6, 2009

Once upon a time, some brave scientists had a noble dream of ridding our food of the plague of nutrients.

Today, at the start of the 21st century, the miracle of food processing has brought that dream closer to reality than ever before. From vitamin-free "blueberry bits" to spray-can cheese to avocado-free guacamole, food scientists have worked tirelessly to bring us new and exciting foods that contain as little nutrition as possible. Even apparently "healthy" foods such as soups have been ingeniously overloaded with so much salt you feel as if you’re eating French fries.

In this article, we’ll provide a handy guide to six uniquely unnatural processed foods that will hopefully serve as a blueprint for humanity’s eventual triumph over the tyrannical fist of Mother Nature.

1. Spray-Can 'Easy Cheese'

Dipping a butter knife into a tub of cheese spread and putting it on a cracker takes a lot of time and effort. Thankfully for all of us, the wizards at Kraft have developed a product that ensures we’ll never again run the risk of hurting our wrists trying to spread processed cheese. Kraft’s Easy Cheese cans combine the soulless tastelessness of its cheese products with the convenience and simplicity of whipped cream cans.

The most interesting aspect of Easy Cheese is its remarkable consistency. Normally, cheese comes in a solid state when kept at room temperature and only becomes liquid when melted at high temperatures. Easy Cheese, on the other hand, has a Goldilocks-like "not too solid, not too viscous" quality that makes it easy to spread on food without having it drip on your clothing.

According to an exposé in Wired magazine, Easy Cheese achieves this amazing texture by containing lots of unhealthy crap, such as the stain-removing chemical trisodium phosphate and a healthy dose of canola oil that keeps the cheese from solidifying. Oh, and they also load Easy Cheese with about twice the amount of salt you'd normally find in natural cheddar cheese.

But the best ingredient in Easy Cheese is calcium phosphate, which is used as a calcium supplement. "But wait," you say. "Why does a cheese product need calcium added artificially?" Well, as Wired speculates, the sodium phosphate could actually negate the calcium in the natural cheese. Thus, Kraft had to put in an additive that would make up for the calcium that's taken away through food processing. Genius!

2. Oreo Cookie Death Filling

It’s rare to encounter a food that makes you say, "If only this were as healthy as frosting!" And yet, the filling in Oreo cookies manages to accomplish just that.

You see, typical frosting is made mostly from butter, milk, sugar and vanilla extract. No one will ever accuse it of being good for you, but at least you're eating fairly natural fats. Oreo stuffing, on the other hand, is basically sugar-flavored Crisco. Seriously, that’s what you’re consuming when you eat an Oreo.

Oreos' death filling is so bad it even inspired an ill-fated lawsuit in California a few years back that tried to stop the sale of Oreos to children. While the suit was eventually dropped, it did introduce trans fats to the public consciousness and helped spearhead the campaign to make food companies indicate on their labels whether their products contained any trans fats, so it wasn’t a total waste.

That said, I think the best way to stop people from eating Oreos wouldn’t be to ban them outright but to force Kraft to rebrand them to reflect their actual ingredients. So let’s say you mandate that Kraft label its cookies "Criscoroes" and have the package depict a kid gorging himself in a tub of vegetable shortening. Yum!

3. Condensed Soups

Ah, soup. It’s the food mom used to feed us when we were sick. Every child has fond memories of being nursed back to health by sipping at the warm, nutritious broth of chicken noodle soup. Of course, mom probably didn’t realize at the time that she was setting you up for a future of high blood pressure and kidney failure. Because if she fed you condensed soup from a can, she was loading your young body up with insanely high amounts of sodium.

How insanely high, you ask? Well, consider that a mere half-cup of Campbell’s Vegetable Soup contains a heart-stopping 890 mg of sodium, or roughly 37 percent of your daily recommended sodium intake. But wait, there’s more! The typical Campbell’s soup can contains one-and-a-half cups of soup, meaning that one can of soup contains more than 90 percent of your daily recommended sodium intake.

To be fair to Campbell’s, it does have a "Healthy Request" brand of soup that contains roughly half the salt of Campbell's other soups. Still, one of soup’s supposed key virtues is that it isn’t a cheeseburger. In other words, when you buy a bowl of soup you shouldn’t have to "request" a healthy version of it.

4. Spam

Spam was really a major miracle of food science, as it solved a mystery that humanity had been trying for centuries to figure out: namely, how to make meat-flavored Jell-O. Developed in the 1930s, Spam is derived primarily from pork shoulder meat (seriously) and combined with water, sugar, sodium nitrate (of course) and copious amounts of salt. The result is a meat-like goo that derives 80 percent of its calories from fat and that delivers a whopping 790 mg of sodium per two-ounce serving.

Spam first hit the big-time during World War II when its highly preserved state made it the ideal food to feed to our protein-needy soldiers fighting over in Europe. Now there's a fine tribute to our fighting boys! Thanks for risking your butts against the Nazis, fellas, now here’s a mound of pork slime! When you think about it, it’s remarkable that more of our troops didn’t defect to the German army, which assuredly would have offered them generous helpings of bratwurst, knockwurst and schweineschnitzel in exchange for changing sides. The fact that Americans bravely suffered through Spam prior to fighting the Battle of the Bulge adds yet another heroic chapter to the Greatest Generation’s legacy.

5. Artificially Flavored Blueberry Bits

Frozen waffles are fairly non-nutritious. Indeed, the only real way to get any sort of vitamins in your waffles each morning is to buy blueberry waffles that contain….

But, hang on! It turns out those aren’t blueberries at all! They’re more like…well, just what are they? An apt description would be "purple globs of sugary goo," but they’re actually called "artificially flavored blueberry bits." Their ingredients include sugar, dextrose, soybean oil, soy protein, salt, citric acid, cellulose gum, artificial flavor, malic acid, Red 40 Lake, Blue 2 Lake and…that’s it. Notice anything missing? Oh yeah: blueberries!

For a long time, companies such as Aunt Jemima parent Pinnacle Foods were able to get away with implying that these little unfruity lumps were actual blueberries, as the box for Aunt Jemima’s blueberry waffles had pictures of actual blueberries strewn across it. But the threat of a lawsuit from Center for Science in the Public Interest made Pinnacle decide to tell people that their waffles didn’t contain any actual blueberries.

What makes the development of fake blueberries so exciting is the number of possibilities it opens up for other fake fruits. Picture artificial strawberry strips, made mostly of bacon and high-fructose corn syrup. Or perhaps artificial melon mounds made of solidified vegetable oil and dextrose monohydrate. Or the coup de grace, artificial artificial blueberry bits, made with NutraSweet and artificial soy protein. Not one natural ingredient, baby!

Kraft’s Avocado-Free Guacamole

This right here may be the pinnacle of processed food magic. Kraft has managed to make a food product without an actual main ingredient, akin to tomato-free tomato sauce or potato-free baked potato. Yes, there are no avocados in Kraft’s guacamole. Then what is it made of, you ask? How about some modified food starch, coconut and soybean oils, corn syrup, food coloring…in other words, you’re eating green-colored oil.

As with a lot of phony processed foods, the avocado-free guacamole compelled somebody to sue the product’s manufacturer for false advertising. In this case, California resident Brenda Lifsey got upset because she thought Kraft’s guacamole "didn’t taste avocadoey." She then looked at the ingredients, and lo and behold, "there was almost no avocado in it."

Kraft’s response to Lifsey’s lawsuit was a masterwork of poor corporate spin, as a company spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times, "We think customers understand that it isn't made from avocado." Well actually, no. Customers tend to buy guacamole with the understanding that it will be made from, oh, I don’t know, avocados. This is akin to a Viagra spokesperson saying, "We think customers understand that our pills won’t really give them erections."

For the record, Kraft is no longer selling congealed green oil as "guacamole" but rather as "guacamole-flavored dip." It’s an improvement, I suppose, though I think somebody should file a suit against Kraft that prevents the company from ever again describing its products as "foods."

Pregnant Women¹s Bodies Polluted With Chemicals Found In Consumer Products

2009-12-07T12:03:00.000-05:00

Press Release
* Trillium Organics
Straight to the Source

[Editor's Note: Be sure to check out the study referenced below.]

The "Earliest Exposures" study, a research project conducted by Washington Toxics Coalition in collaboration with the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center and the Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition found pregnant women's bodies were polluted with chemicals found in consumer products. This first-of-its kind study investigated the living environment of nine fetuses through testing the blood and urine of the nine mothers taking part in the biomonitoring study. Tests measured the levels of five chemical groups, including phthalates, mercury, perfluorinated compounds or "Teflon chemicals," bisphenol A (BPA), and the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A.

The women, all in their second trimester, were all found to have BPA, phthalates, mercury, and "Teflon chemicals" in their bodies. Cause for concern is that these toxic chemicals, known to disrupt development and hormonal systems cross the placenta and are absorbed by the fetus. They not only hinder fetal development, but the growing fetus has limited ability to detoxify these foreign substances.

Of the more than 80,000 chemicals found in consumer products today, only approximately 200 have been tested for safety since the inception of The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. Until more strict regulations govern the use of ingredients in consumer products, consumers can take an active role in lowering their toxic exposure. Start by purchasing Phthalate and BPA free products, switching from flame retardant clothing and bedding to organic, and substituting conventional body care for third-party certified organic body care.

Karen Ciesar, Founder and Formulator of Trillium Organics states, "I am sadly not surprised at these findings. The pervasiveness of petrochemicals in the modern world makes avoiding exposures a task which requires research and vigilance. Luckily, there are many non-profit organizations dedicated to informing consumers, some of my favorites are; SafeCosmetics.org (searchable database of cosmetic safety), Healthystuff.org (searchable database of family product safety), HealthychildHealthyworld.org, a comprehensive and informative site about environmental exposures, OrganicConsumers.org (an activist website about all issues surrounding Organic, food, personal care and fibers). It takes some time and effort to find safe products for your family, but every green purchasing choice you make increases your child's chance at a healthy future in a greener world."

Trillium Organics has recently been endorsed by the Organic Consumers' Association as a "brand to trust" in their recent BUYcott campaign. Trillium Organics has been a leader in the movement for clean, safe personal care since 1994.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/

For further information

Heather@trilliumorganics.com

Heather LaVine
Trillium Herbal Company, Inc.
185 E. Walnut Street
Sturgeon Bay , WI 54235
Ph: 920-746-5207

All Natural Homemade Spa Treatments

2009-12-06T21:18:00.000-05:00

"If you wouldn't eat it, don't wear it or use it on your skin."

Just two of the many awesome all natural home beauty recipes by Spa Index. For more recipes see:http://www.spaindex.com/HomeSpa/HomeSpa.htm

GINGER SKIN CREME

Ginger invigorates, and oil soothes. Try this double dose for dry skin.

2-inch piece of fresh ginger
2 teaspoons light sesame oil
2 teaspoons apricot kernel oil
2 teaspoons vitamin E oil
½ cup cocoa butter

Preheat oven on lowest setting. Finely grate the ginger just enough so that you have about an 1/8 teaspoon of ginger "juice." To obtain the juice, squeeze the freshly grated ginger over a small bowl. Place the ingredients (including the ginger) in a glass container and heat just until the cocoa butter is melted and the oils are blended. Pour into a clean, dry container and store in a cool dry place. You can add a few drops of orange or other essential oil for a nice twist.

Strip it Off! Pore Cleaning Strips
This recipe makes a pore cleaning "strip" which works similarly to those sold in popular drugstores.

1 T Knox unflavored gelatin
1-1/2 T milk

Mix two ingredients and microwave for 10 seconds to slightly warm. Using a clean cosmetic brush, apply to nose and chin area. Avoid delicate eye area. Rinse brush immediately. Allow mixture on nose and chin to dry for 10-15 minutes. Mixture will dry quite stiff and form a "stiff film." Peel off the film and stare at all the little porcupine quills that used to be in your nose pores (one of the chief entertainment factors with B'Strips!).

Campbell's Soup BPA levels 'unsafe'

2009-12-02T21:58:00.000-05:00

Some of the soup made by iconic manufacturer Campbell's has been found to contain higher Bisphenol A (BPA) levels than US federal guidelines deem as safe.

The brand, which was given instant kudos when it was immortalised by artist Andy Warhol, is under pressure to look at chemicals used in the soup's production.

A test of canned soups in the December issue of Consumer Reports found levels of the chemical BPA in brands such as Campbell's and Progresso were double the limit set by federal guidelines.

BPA is used in clear plastic bottles and food-can liners.

It has been restricted in Canada and some US states because of potential health effects which has prompted the Food and Drug Administration to look at what it thinks are safe levels of exposure to it.

The highest levels of BPA in the study were found in the canned green beans and canned soup.

Canned Del Monte Fresh Cut Green Beans Blue Lake had the highest BPA levels for a single sample.

http://www.ingredientsnetwork.com/home;jsessionid=312B5B5CC48F4CE391B1E8160596B402

Why organic cotton tampons?

2009-12-02T13:48:00.000-05:00

I've been in a slow but steady switch to organic over the past few years and have been considering feminine hygiene products to be my next switch. I finally looked into it and found the following product online. It lists $8.00 for a box of 16 tampons and $4.95-$5.95 for pads. Cheaper then I expected. And the blurb on Dioxin below makes that extra three or so dollars spent every month worth it.

Natracare tampons were developed as a direct response to health and environmental concerns about dioxin pollution caused by chlorine bleaching, the extensive use of pesticide spraying on conventionally grown cotton, and the use of rayon and other synthetics in tampons.

Many women are unaware that rayon and rayon-cotton blends are widely used in the manufacture of tampons. Rayon is commonly chlorine-bleached, and is a highly absorbent fibre. Dioxin, a toxic carcinogen, is a by-product of all chlorine bleaching methods and is also found throughout the environment in varying levels as a by-product of pesticide spraying and pollution from incinerators. Dioxin has been found to collect in the fatty tissues of animals, including humans and should, therefore, be a real concern for women. Published scientific reports have shown that evidence is growing that even low levels of dioxins may be linked to cancer, endometriosis, low sperm counts and immune system suppression. Considering a woman may use as many as 11,000 tampons in her lifetime, she may be subjecting herself to additional dioxin exposure.

Natracare tampons are made from only certified organic 100% cotton and are the only fully certified organic cotton tampons available in the world today. They are non-chlorine bleached and women can be reassured that they do not contain synthetic materials, such as rayon, or chemical additives such as binders or surfactants. Certified organic cotton removes the risk of direct exposure to residues from chemical pesticides and fertilisers used on traditional cotton.
The site where these products are listed:

http://holisticbeauty.net/
(I will probably visit my local health food store and purchase any items from them. I just included the link for those who are comfortable with online shopping or those who like to see what products are out there.)

Scientist Jeopardizes Career by Publishing Paper Criticizing GMOs

2009-11-30T09:27:00.001-05:00

* By Ken Roseboro, ed.
The Organic and Non-GMO Report, November 2009
Straight to the Source

To Subscribe to the Non-GMO Report call 1-800-854-0586 or visit http://www.non-gmoreport.com/

Agro-ecologist Don Lotter published a paper titled "The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science" in the 2009 edition of the peer-reviewed International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food.

The paper makes a damning case against genetically modified foods, saying the technology is based on obsolete science, that biotechnology companies such as Monsanto have too much influence on government regulators and "public" universities, and that university scientists are ignoring the health and environmental risks of GM crops. Lotter calls the introduction of GM foods the "largest diet experiment in history."

Lotter has a Ph.D. in agro-ecology from the University of California, Davis, and a master of professional studies in international agricultural and rural development from Cornell University. He has taught environmental science, soil science, plant science, entomology, and vegetable crop production for Santa Monica College, Imperial Valley College, and UC-Davis.

Lotter does not have a tenured position and is currently working on an agricultural project in Tanzania. He half-jokingly describes his paper as "career destroying" because he says it will be difficult to find a position at a US university due to the general recognition at most US universities that GM foods are safe and will help "feed the world."

If you thought publishing the paper would jeopardize your prospects for finding a position, why did you write the paper?

DL: I'm proud of the paper. This topic should be taught at universities. There is an enormous gap in public knowledge about this issue.

The science of genetic engineering is based on the one gene-one protein doctrine. Please describe this and why you think it is flawed.

DL: When they discovered the technology there was a simplified view that genes were in charge of the production of proteins. It is the entire basis for going forward with genetic engineering technology.

Then the Human Genome Project showed that humans have fewer genes than simple organisms, but we also have one to two million proteins. This discovery put an end to the one gene-one protein doctrine.

But by then there had been a massive investment in transgenics. The industry moved ahead with all their PR of "feeding the world" without any scientific basis for their technology. The doctrine has crumbled away, yet the industry has gone on.

In your paper you say that the process of genetically engineering foods is also deeply flawed. Can you give some examples of why that is the case?

DL: The promoter gene used in genetically engineered crops, the cauliflower mosaic virus, is a powerful promoter of inter-species gene exchange. Scientists thought it would be denatured in our digestive system, but it's not. It has been shown to promote the transfer of transgenes from GM foods to the bacteria within our digestive system, which are responsible for 80% of our immune system function; they are enormously important. This is a huge flaw, but not even the biggest in crop transgenics.

The process of splicing genes into plant genomes, transgenics, causes serious genetic damage-mutations, multiple copies of the transgenic DNA, gene silencing. The ramifications of this damage, incredibly, have never been elucidated or even explored for that matter.

Do you think the increase in food allergies we are seeing may be due to GM foods?

DL: Yes, there is evidence pointing to it. The industry is powerful enough to stop any labeling legislation. Without labeling they can't track these problems. We know that after the introduction of GM soy in Britain, there was an increase of soy allergies there.

In your paper, you write that the lack of oversight of GM foods has been a major failure of US science leadership. What makes you believe this?

DL: In the early 1980s, the biotech companies were successful in getting to oversee the regulation of GM foods. The scientific community should have stepped in, and said this is a radical technology, but it didn't.

There has also been a restructuring of the relationship between industry and universities. The Bayh-Dole Act (which gives universities intellectual property control of their inventions) made universities more dependent on industry.

Universities saw transgenics as a big money source, and scientists who objected were harassed or pushed out.

Do you think any US university would fund studies on GM food safety?

DL: No, they are not doing that. Anyone who tries to conduct research looking at GM food safety is given trouble.

Universities should have a mandate to find problems with GM foods.

We need federal money to look at non-proprietary solutions, such as organic farming systems, to the world's problems, and we should see whether proprietary approaches (i.e. GM foods) cause problems.

Unfortunately, non-proprietary solutions don't get funding.

We can show that organic farming systems promote drought resistance; the Rodale Institute did this research. But if a GM crop had been found to resist drought, there would have been major news headlines saying that it will save the world.

Is the safety of GM food considered a given at US universities?

DL: Absolutely. The debate is not there. US scientists have abdicated their responsibility on this issue. They know problems exist but they don't want to talk about them. Most scientists say we need GM foods to feed the world.

Some social scientists are saying there are problems (with GM foods).

I think undergraduate groups will bring the debate over GM foods to universities.

What type of agricultural approaches do you think will solve the world's food production challenges?

DL: The IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development) report said that we can produce food using agro-ecological methods and successful green revolution methods. The report didn't include transgenics.

The report was signed by 60 countries, but the US didn't sign it.

Scientists 'grow' meat in laboratory

2009-11-29T23:09:00.000-05:00

The move towards artificially engineered foods has taken a step forward after scientists grew a form of meat in a laboratory for the first time.

Researchers in the Netherlands have created what was described as soggy pork and are now investigating ways to improve the muscle tissue in the hope that people will one day want to eat it.

No one has yet tasted the product, but it is believed the artificial meat could be on sale within five years.

Vegetarian groups welcomed the news, saying there was “no ethical objection” if meat was not a piece of a dead animal.

Mark Post, professor of physiology at Eindhoven University, said: “What we have at the moment is rather like wasted muscle tissue. We need to find ways of improving it by training it and stretching it, but we will get there.

“This product will be good for the environment and will reduce animal suffering. If it feels and tastes like meat, people will buy it.

“You could take the meat from one animal and create the volume of meat previously provided by a million animals.”

The scientists extracted cells from the muscle of a live pig and then put them in a broth of other animal products. The cells then multiplied and created muscle tissue. They believe that it can be turned into something like steak if they can find a way to artificially "exercise" the muscle.

The project is backed by the Dutch government and a sausage maker and comes following the creation of artificial fish fillets from goldfish muscle cells.

Meat produced in a laboratory could reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with real animals.

Meat and dairy consumption is predicted to double by 2050 and methane from livestock is said to currently produce about 18 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases.

It was supported by animal rights campaigners. A spokesman for Peta said: “As far as we’re concerned, if meat is no longer a piece of a dead animal there’s no ethical objection.”

However the Vegetarian Society said: “The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered.

“It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust.”

The advent of meat grown for consumers could reduce the billions of tons of greenhouse gases emitted each year by farm animals and help meet the United Nation’s predictions that meat and dairy consumption will double by 2050.

However, the latest breakthrough is certain to cause concern amongst the anti-GM lobby.

Last week Prince Charles, a fierce opponent of GM food, warned that people were creating problems by “treating food as an easy commodity rather than a precious gift from nature”.

His comments came as the results of a survey commissioned by the Food Standards Agency revealed concerns about long-term health and environmental impacts of genetically modified products.

It showed shoppers want to be told when meat and milk from cows is genetically modified through clear labelling.

GM supporters say they are aware of risks associated with "engineered" food but believe it benefits the Third World.

Nick Britten
The Telegraph

How To Read Food Labels-Including UPC Codes on Produce-Tell The Difference Between Organic and GMO

2009-11-28T12:03:00.000-05:00

The ingredients on food labels are the most important items you will read on a product. Some are so small you can barely read without glasses.

Reading labels are confusing and very misleading. It’s no wonder most people don’t read the small print. Most people don't read food labels, just the large front labels, exactly what manufacturing and food industry wants you to read.

Here are just some examples of what you see on the front labels: fortified with calcium, nutritional, help reduces cholesterol, no fat, low sodium, no artificial coloring and the list goes on.

You need to understand and interpret these ingredients and nutrition information on food labels before going shopping. You need to know if the products have any added ingredients such as Food Additives.If the list of ingredients is long, the product will have no doubt food additives in the product, and you're risking your health by eating it. When you read a label and see “spices”, “no artificial ingredients”, “no preservatives”, “all natural ingredients” and “real fruit flavors” -- BEWARE!!

Statements like this DO NOT mean there are no harmful ingredients in the product. The manufacturer hopes you'll think there are no harmful ingredients, but as you will see from the following example, it's not true.

Soup example: A well-known soup company has these ingredients in their chicken noodle soup. I typed this right off the label:

Chicken Stock, cooked chicken meat, carrots, enriched egg noodles (wheat flour, egg white solids, whole egg solids, niacin, ferrous sulfate, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), celery, water, contains less than 2% of the following ingredients: Modified wheat starch, salt, chicken fat, monosodium glutamate (MSG), modified food starch, sugar, soy protein concentrate, onion powder, flavoring, sodium phosphates, spice extract, dehydrated parsley, chicken flavor (contains chicken stock, chicken powder, chicken fat), dehydrated garlic, spice, beta carotene for color.

Phew!!! 3 mins later.

Here is my chicken noodle soup:

* Organic chicken breast
* Organic Carrots
* Organic Celery
* Onion
* Oregano
* Basil
* Pepper
* Sea Salt
* Whole Wheat Extra Wide Noodles

My ingredients in my soup took only 30 seconds to type and the ingredients of the can soup took over 3 mins.
This soup label has a long list of unwanted food additives, that don’t belong in your soup. Here are few explanations of some of the ingredients in this soup:

* Thiamine mononitrate (synthetic Vit. B1) – false sense of nutritional value
* MSG – flavor enhancer
* Modified food starch – a thickening agent
* Soy protein concentrate – a filler
* Sodium phosphates - buffer

Here is another example of food labels:

In this pizza, the list shows that the two biggest ingredients are wheat flour and water. For the other main ingredients, the company gives a percentage (%). The product is 7% tomato, 6% cheese, 5% ham, 5% Pepperoni, 4% Monterey Jack cheese, 3% spicy beef and 2% bacon.

Percentages can sometimes be quite hard to imagine. So here's what they look like in a picture. The long orange rectangle represents all the ingredients in the pizza (the full 100%). The colored bars on the left show you the proportion of the total pizza made up by each type of meat - ham is 5%, Pepperoni is 4%, beef is 3% and bacon is 2%.

UPC Codes on Produce

Do you know what it all means?
Have you ever notice the food labels on your produce – fruit and vegetables? Produce now carry a sticker called “price look-up codes (PLUs). This tells the clerk the price, but not only that, it can help YOU. These stickers tell you how fruits and vegetables were grown. There are more than 1,300 PLU codes currently assigned to produce. Here is what they mean:

You would have either a 4 or 5 digit codes. Below is a chart that will help you identify how produce is grown.

Organically
5 digits
Starting w/ no. 9

Conventionally
4 digits
Starting w/ no. 3 or 4

Genetically Modified
5 digits
Starting w/ no. 8

i.e. A conventionally grown banana has a PLU of 4011, an organic banana is 94011 and GM banana is 84011.

To see a database of PLU codes, go to www.plucodes.com,

The Healthy Eating Guide

Also, check out our friends at The Healthy Eating Guide for more information on how to read food labels, and also some great easy healthy recipes and other healthy eating guidelines and tips.

As you look for healthier foods, you can easily find the right products just by reading nutrition food labels. Here is a summary of reading a nutrition fact label.

* A serving size is a measured amount of food or drink, such as 2 to 3 ounces of meat or 1 cup of milk.

* Serving sizes are standardized so that nutrient levels in each serving are comparable. Consumers and dietitians may use serving sizes to determine how much of the recommended daily levels of certain substances (vitamins, minerals, fats, calories, cholesterol) a particular food represents.

* Serving sizes may vary depending on how certain foods are prepared (e.g., raw, cooked, canned).

* Serving sizes should not be confused with portion sizes or helpings of food, which are the amounts of food typically served or eaten during a meal or snack.

* Portions can vary from meal to meal or person to person. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, serving sizes are usually much smaller than portion sizes.

* Most foods are sold and consumed in larger portions than is recommended by government standards. For example, the average bagel consists of two serving sizes, pasta is almost five servings and a steak may be two and a quarter servings.

Source and read more:
http://www.live-the-organic-life.com/index.html

Article in the Mail Online says'Healthy' School Lunchs Have as much Sugar as 10 Donuts

2009-11-27T10:12:00.000-05:00

Interested, as I pack school lunches 5 days out of the week, I wanted to know what 'seemingly healthy' choices were duping me into thinking they were good for my kids but in reality laden with sugar. As I read the Mail's article I realized that my definition of healthy and the consumer watchdog surveyor are very different.

The five items in the snapshot include Robinson's Fruit Shoot orange juice. If a 'consumer watchdog' can't differentiate between fruit juice and fruit drink, we are all in trouble nutritionally. Second, the fruit strings, which I will assume as equivalent to our fruit rollups and not considered a fruit source in my books. In my books fruit strings or rollups are considered candy.
The third item I had to google because I didn't have a clue as to what a Munch Bunch Double Up fromage frais was. Again, the food item is not even close to a healthy choice just because the packaging says 'calcium' on it.

The writer of this article calls the Dairylea Lunchables Ham 'n' Cheese Crackers the saviour of the choices. With a chemical ingredients list as long as my arm, I don't see it as a health saviour at all.
And finally the last sample item, Kellogg's Frosties cereal bars. Kellogg's says it's a healthy choice because it's a low fat alternative to chocolate.
I think I'll stick to my definition of 'seemingly healthy.'
My snapshot lunch: 100% pure apple juice (Oasis), One organic yogurt, One container filled with cut up kiwi and strawberries, One whole wheat bagel with organic cream cheese, One container of cut up cucumbers with ranch dressing dip.

Read the article here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1228110/School-lunchboxes-sugar-TEN-doughnuts.html

Center For Micro-Farming Movement

2009-11-25T08:40:00.000-05:00

Earth regenerating and socially just mini-farming. Full or part-time from urban lots to backyards to small acreage across the world.
http://www.microecofarming.com/

Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear

2009-11-25T08:37:00.000-05:00

Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, 2008-05-01 (Thursday), Vanity Fair
Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.

Gary Rinehart clearly remembers the summer day in 2002 when the stranger walked in and issued his threat. Rinehart was behind the counter of the Square Deal, his “old-time country store,” as he calls it, on the fading town square of Eagleville, Missouri, a tiny farm community 100 miles north of Kansas City.

The Square Deal is a fixture in Eagleville, a place where farmers and townspeople can go for lightbulbs, greeting cards, hunting gear, ice cream, aspirin, and dozens of other small items without having to drive to a big-box store in Bethany, the county seat, 15 miles down Interstate 35.

Everyone knows Rinehart, who was born and raised in the area and runs one of Eagleville’s few surviving businesses. The stranger came up to the counter and asked for him by name.

“Well, that’s me,” said Rinehart.

As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto’s genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company’s patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him—or face the consequences.

Rinehart was incredulous, listening to the words as puzzled customers and employees looked on. Like many others in rural America, Rinehart knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn’t a farmer. He wasn’t a seed dealer. He hadn’t planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small—a really small—country store in a town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into the store and embarrass him in front of everyone. “It made me and my business look bad,” he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, “You got the wrong guy.”

When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can’t remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.”

Read More:
http://www.argumentations.com/Argumentations/StoryDetail_8711.aspx

Serious Eats Original Video: Save the Honeybees

2009-11-24T11:26:00.001-05:00

As most serious eaters know, the folks at Häagen-Dazs are putting their money where their spoons are this year with a dedicated marketing effort aimed at increasing awareness of Colony Collapse Disorder, the mysterious condition that has caused a dramatic increase in honeybee colony losses. Häagen-Dazs is even donating a portion of the proceeds from the sale of its new vanilla honeybee flavor ice cream to fund research to find out what exactly causes CCD.

As part of this extremely worthwhile endeavor Häagen-Dazs funded the first-ever Serious Eats-produced documentary about Colony Collapse Disorder, which I hope every serious eater will watch. For our little buzz-ementary we spent the day at Blue Hill at Stone Barns in Westchester County, New York, where bees, farmers, and cooks work together to produce lots of seriously delicious food. So check out our Honeybee doc and start buzzing about Colony Collapse Disorder.
http://www.seriouseats.com/

Gift Giving-Toffee Chocolate Shortbread Crunch

2009-11-24T10:39:00.000-05:00

This picture is the closest I could find on the net of this recipe. The shortbread recipe is from allrecipes and the toffee crunch is from Longo's calender.

I'm calling this post 'gift giving' as a way to try and convince myself that I won't eat half the batch. I have made the shortbread cookies before and was not successful at resisting. But this toffee chocolate thing is something I haven't made before so there is no guarantee I won't lose it. They look so good!

The original recipes calls for store bought shortbread but I like doing everything from scratch so I'm including my recipe for shortbread first.

Shortbread

* 5 cups all-purpose flour
* 1 cup sugar
* 1/2 teaspoon salt
* 2 cups cold butter (no substitutes)

Directions

1. In a large mixing bowl, combine flour, sugar and salt. Cut in butter until mixture resembles fine crumbs. Pat into an ungreased 15-in. x 10-in. x 1-in. baking pan. Prick all over with a fork. Bake at 325 degrees F for 35 minutes or until center is set. Cool for 10-15 minutes. Cut into small squares. Continue to cool to room temperature.

Toffee Chocolate Shortbread Crunch

38 All Butter Shortbread cookies
1 cup salted butter
1 cup packed brown sugar
1 tsp vanilla
6 oz 43% Chocolate, finely chopped
1/2 cup Skor toffee bits

Line 13x9 inch baking pan with foil and place shortbread cookies into single layer, set aside.

In saucepan, bring butter and sugar to a boil, stirring over medium heat. Boil for 2 minutes. Stir in vanilla. Pour mixture evenly over shortbread, spreading as necessary. Bake at 350 for about 15 minutes or until bubbly.

Remove from oven and let stand for 2 minutes or until bubbles subside. Sprinkle with chocolate and let stand for 5 minutes to melt. Using small offset spatula, spread chocolate evenly over top. Sprinkle evenly with toffee bits and let cool to room temperature. Refrigerate for about an hour or until chocolate and caramel are set.

Remove from foil and cut into squares to serve.

Tip: Store in airtight container in fridge for up to 3 weeks, or freezer for up to 2 months.
Makes 40 pieces.

Mom's health-Continued

2009-11-24T10:30:00.000-05:00

I'm still on the fence about how personal I make this blog but to follow up on my mom's diabetic issue, her knee gave out today at work so she will finally be going to the doctor about it tomorrow. I can't help but think it won't be good, I took extensive anatomy class and know a messed up knee is usually bad news. My optimistic side says, maybe she will finally understand that her health is really at risk and that diabetes and being overweight will cause real damage if left unchecked.

Sourdough Chipotle Chicken Panini

2009-11-23T08:12:00.000-05:00

Ingredients

* 2 slices sourdough bread
* 1/4 cup Caesar salad dressing
* 1 cooked chicken breast, diced
* 1/2 cup shredded Cheddar cheese
* 1 tablespoon bacon bits
* 1 teaspoon chipotle chile powder, or to taste
* 2 tablespoons softened butter

Directions

1. Preheat a panini press for medium-high heat.
2. mix chile powder and caesar dressing in a small bowl.
3. Spread one side of each piece of bread with the Caesar dressing. Place the chicken on top of the bottom slice, sprinkle with Cheddar cheese, bacon bits, and chipotle chile powder. Place the top piece of bread onto the sandwich, and butter the outsides with the softened butter.
3. Cook on the preheated grill until the bread is crispy and golden brown, and the inside of the sandwich is hot, about 5 minutes.

This awesome sandwich is so good, but as with all good things, there is bad. Not to be eaten by anyone who is trying to lose weight. It packs 1243 calories and a whopping 83 grams of fat according to the original version on allrecipes.

Corn-Syrup Free Granola Bars Sweetened with Apple Sauce

2009-11-23T08:04:00.000-05:00

2 1/2 cups rolled oats
1/2 cup packed brown sugar
1/4 cup wheat germ
1/4 cup ground flax
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1 cup whole wheat pastry flour
1/2 cup chocolate chips
3/4 teaspoon sea salt
1/2 cup honey
1 egg, beaten
3/4 cup apple sauce
2 teaspoons vanilla extract

1. Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Grease 9 x 13 baking pan.

2. In large bowl, mix together the oats, brown sugar, wheat germ, flax, cinnamon, flour, chocolate chips and salt. Make a well in the centre, pour in the honey, egg, applesauce and vanilla. Mix well. Pat the mixture evenly into the pan.

3. Bake for about 30 minutes, but watch the baking time. If you leave them in too long they’ll be dry. I like mine a bit chewier. Cool for 5 minutes, then cut into bars or squares. Do not allow the bars to cool completely before cutting or they will be too hard to cut.

chocolate chips can be substituted for raisins, dried fruit, nuts or seeds of various kinds.

Punjabi Samosa

2009-11-23T08:01:00.000-05:00

Serves: 4
Cooking time (approx.): 20 minutes + to deep fry
Style: Indian Vegetarian

For the samosa stuffing:
½ cup(s) shelled green peas
2 tablespoon(s) oil
1 teaspoon(s) cumin seeds
2 green chillies chopped fine
1 teaspoon(s) finely chopped ginger
2 large potato(es) peeled and cubed
½ teaspoon(s) red chilli powder
salt to taste
½ teaspoon(s) dry mango powder (amchoor) or lemon juice
½ teaspoon(s) garam masala (hot spice mix)
2 tablespoons chopped coriander leaves

For the samosa pastry shell:
1 cup(s) plain flour (maida)
½ teaspoon(s) baking soda
½ teaspoon(s) baking powder
½ teaspoon(s) carom seeds (optional)
3 tablespoons ghee (clarified butter) / oil
salt to taste
water as required for kneading
oil to deep fry

1. Cook the peas in boiling salted water for about 10 minute(s) or till soft. Refresh in cold water and drain well.
2. Heat the oil in a pan. Toss in the cumin seeds and let them crackle. Add the green chillies and ginger. Fry briefly. Add the potato cubes and mix well. Add the red chilli powder, salt, dry mango powder and garam masala powder. Toss well. Sprinkle some water. Cover and cook on low-medium heat for about 10 minutes or till the potatoes are cooked. Mix in the cooked green peas and put off the heat. Let cool. Mix in the coriander leaves.
3. To make the samosa pastry shell, sieve together the plain flour, baking soda, baking powder and salt. Mix in the carom seeds and ghee / oil. Add water little by little whilst mixing with fingers to make a stiff dough, the consistency of a shortcrust pastry. Keep covered with a damp cloth for about 15 minutes.
4. Divide the dough into 16 equal balls. Apply a little dry flour to each ball when rolling into a circle of 4" diameter. Cut each circle into two and lightly dampen the edges of each semicircle with water. Shape each semicircle onto a cone by pressing the cut edges together. Place a spoonful of the potato-pea filling into the cone and seal the edges well (apply some water on the edges if they do not seal well). Repeat this procedure with the rest of the balls. Deep fry in medium-hot oil in batches on medium flame till crisp and golden brown. Remove onto a paper towel.

TIPS:

* To save on time, potatoes can be pressure cooked and then cubed and tossed in spices.
* Carom seeds are also called as omum, caraway seeds, thyme seeds and ajwain.
* Chillies can be increased or decreased as desired.
* The samosa pastry shell can be made with plain flour without the baking soda and baking powder.
* Self raising flour can be used instead of plain flour, in which case omit the baking soda and baking powder.

Serve hot with: Green Chutney (Hari Chutney) / Tomato ketchup.

The War on Soy: Why the 'Miracle Food' May Be a Health Risk and Environmental Nightmare

2009-11-22T17:38:00.000-05:00

Source: Alternet

These days, you can get soy versions of just about any meat -- from hot dogs to buffalo wings. If you're lactose-intolerant you can still enjoy soy ice-cream and soy milk on your cereal. If you're out for a hike and need a quick boost of energy, you can nibble on soy candy bars.

Soy is a lucrative industry. According to Soyfoods Association of North America, from 1992 to 2008, sales of soy foods have increased from $300 million to $4 billion. From sales numbers to medical endorsements, it would seem that soy has reached a kind of miracle food status.

In 2000 the American Heart Association gave soy the thumbs up and the FDA proclaimed: "Diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol that include 25 grams of soy protein a day may reduce the risk of heart disease." Over the course of the last decade medical professionals have touted its benefits in fighting not just cardiovascular disease, but cancers, osteoporosis and diabetes.

But soy's glory days may be coming to an end. New research is questioning its health benefits and even pointing out some potential risks. Although definitive evidence may be many years down the road, the American Heart Association has quietly withdrawn its support. And some groups are waging an all-out war, warning that soy can lead to certain kinds of cancers, lowered testosterone levels, and early-onset puberty in girls.

Most of the soy eaten today is also genetically modified, which may pose another set of health risks. The environmental implications of soy production, including massive deforestation, increased use of pesticides and threats to water and soil, are providing more fodder for soy's detractors.

All of this has many people wondering if they should even be eating it at all. And you are most likely eating it. Even if you're not a vegetarian or an avid tofu fan, there is a good chance you're still eating soy. Raj Patel, author of Stuffed and Starved, explains that soy is now an ingredient in three-quarters of processed food on the market and just about everything you'd find in a fast food restaurant. It's used as filler in hamburgers, as vegetable oil and an emulsifier. It's in salad dressing, macaroni and cheese, and chicken nuggets.

"Even if you read every label and avoid cardboard boxes, you are likely to find soy in your supplements and vitamins (look out for vitamin E derived from soy oil), in foods such as canned tuna, soups, sauces, breads, meats (injected under poultry skin), and chocolate, and in pet food and body-care products," wrote Mary Vance for Terrain Magazine. "It hides in tofu dogs under aliases such as textured vegetable protein, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and lecithin--which is troubling, since the processing required to hydrolyze soy protein into vegetable protein produces excitotoxins such as glutamate (think MSG) and aspartate (a component of aspartame), which cause brain-cell death."

Health Risks or Rewards?

"I grew up in Houston on po' boys and the Wall Street Journal," said Robyn O'Brien. "I trusted our food system." But all that changed when one of her kids developed a food allergy and O'Brien began doing research to find out what's actually in our food and the companies behind it.

Her work led to the book,The Unhealthy Truth: How Our Food Is Making Us Sick and What We Can Do About It, and she's become an incredible crusader on multiple fronts when it comes to food. She's also been educating consumers about soy's double-edged sword.

To understand why, it helps to know a little history about soy. It's been cultivated, starting in China, for 3,000 years. While Asian diets have generally included soy it has been in small amounts eaten fermented -- primarily via miso, natto and tempeh. "Fermenting soy creates health-promoting probiotics, the good bacteria our bodies need to maintain digestive and overall wellness," wrote Vance. "By contrast, in the United States, processed soy food snacks or shakes can contain over 20 grams of nonfermented soy protein in one serving."

It's not that all soy is bad; in fact, eating it in small doses can be quite healthy, if it's fermented. But when it's not, that's where the problems begin. Soy is a legume, which contains high amounts of phytic acid. Phytic acid binds to minerals (like calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc), interfering with the body's ability to absorb them (which is usually a bad thing). Soy is also known to contain "antinutrients," among them enzyme inhibitors that interfere with protein digestion. The Chinese figured out about 2,000 years ago that antinutrients and phytic acid could be deactivated during fermentation, but in the processed-food laden land of the West, we've chosen cultural ignorance in favor of quick and cheap. Most of the soy we eat is unfermented.

Another issue with soy is its high amounts of isoflavones, which can be good and bad (hence the double-edged sword). Isoflavones are a powerful antioxidant, writes Robyn O'Brien in her book, that can help boost immunity. They also impact estrogen levels and have been shown to have positive effects on easing symptoms of menopause. "But that plus can also be a minus," writes O'Brien, "because isoflavones' very ability to boost estrogen production can also pose hazards to our health. For example, the FDA scientists point out, during pregnancy, isoflavones could boost estrogen levels even higher, 'which could be a risk factor for abnormal brain and reproductive tract development.'" There is also a risk of breast and other reproductive cancers for women and the potential for testicular cancer and infertility in men.

While there was much news about the American Heart Association endorsing soy in 2000, there was little attention given when the AHA changed its mind and quietly withdrew its pro-soy claims in 2006, O'Brien points out. She also learned that they were not the only ones who expressed concerned about soy. A study in the British medical journal Lancet in 1996 warned of the effects of soy in infant formula. The study found babies had levels of isoflavones that were five to 10 times higher than women taking soy supplements for menopause. The effects in girls could be early-onset puberty, obesity, breast and reproductive cancers. Boys could face testicular cancer, undescended testicles and infertility. Additionally, O'Brien says, a 2003 British study conducted by Gideon Lack of St. Mary's Hospital at Imperial College London followed 14,000 children from the womb through age 6 and found that kids who had been given soy formula as infants seemed almost three times as likely to develop a peanut allergy later on.

As if all this weren't disturbing enough, there's also another reason to be alarmed -- most of the soy we eat is genetically modified to withstand increasing doses of weed-killing herbicides, and really, we have no idea what the long-term affects of that might be. So, what's a person to do? Stay away from soy as much as possible, which also means avoiding processed foods. And, even if we choose not to eat those things, some of us may end up getting them anyway. "There are different sales channels that these companies are using to sell soy with little regard for the cost to people down the road," said O'Brien. "Soy that is not used in grocery stores, in restaurants, or consumed by livestock, is disposed of in school lunch programs, hospitals, and prisons."

One organization, the Weston A. Price Foundation, is actually engaged in a lawsuit on behalf of Illinois state prisoners who say they're eating a diet made of largely soy protein. "In their letters, the prisoners have described deliberate indifference to a myriad of serious health problems caused by the large amounts of soy in the diet," the WAP Foundation writes. "Complaints include chronic and painful constipation alternating with debilitating diarrhea, vomiting after eating, sharp pains in the digestive tract after consuming soy, passing out after soy-based meals, heart palpitations, rashes, acne, insomnia, panic attacks, depression and symptoms of hypothyroidism, such as low body temperature (feeling cold all the time), brain fog, fatigue, weight gain, frequent infections and an enlarged thyroid gland."

While the soy industry has profited from the widespread adoption of its products here in the United States, other developed countries have taken a more precautionary approach and not allowed soy to become as pervasive in their food supplies in an effort to protect the health of their citizens, says O'Brien. But it's not just people who are at risk. The deleterious effects of soy can start with the seed.

Goodbye Rainforests, Hello Roundup

Glenn Beck recently chastised Al Gore about his meat eating, telling him that if he really cared about the planet he should put down his burger and pick up some Tofurkey. But unfortunately, it's not that simple. Increasing evidence is showing that soy production is also catastrophic for the environment. Just like a beef burger, a soy-based veggie patty may also be leading to deforestation, water depletion, and pesticide pollution. But it's also important to note that the vast majority of soy produced globally isn't used for tofu and veggie sausage -- it's actually used to fatten livestock and create biofuels (so, yeah, you may still want to put down the burger).

"Soy is a really sexy crop; it's fantastic. It's nitrogen fixing, it's full of protein; it's very rich and flexible," Raj Patel said in an interview with New America Media. "The tragedy is that the way we grow it today has turned a blessing into a curse because the way that soy agriculture works is monocultural, which means it takes over large parts of land. In Brazil, that means the Cerrado and the rainforest in the Amazon, and they are draining the water that is beneath that land. There are even some soy and biofuel plantations in Brazil where the International Labor Organization says there are 40,000 slaves working today. Slaves! In Brazil, producing biofuels and soy."

Brazil is one of the leading soy producers in the world, second only to the U.S. and poised to quickly move to the top spot. And overall, the growth of the world market is huge, with global production doubling over the past 20 years and 210 million tons produced a year.

But it has also led to problems. Countries across Latin America, including Argentina, Paraguay and Bolivia, are experiencing environmental problems similar to Brazil's. Rainforests are cleared, carbon emissions increase, indigenous and small farmers are displaced, aquifers are sucked dry, roads are built through sensitive ecosystems, and heavy pesticide use threatens waterways, soils and the health of locals. And as with all industrial monocultural farming, the rich (Monsanto, Cargill, and Bunge) get richer and the poor get poorer.

"The soy 'gold rush' has attracted fierce competition for land, leading to violence and murder," Marianne Betterly summarized in Mariri Magazine. "Hundreds of acres of rainforest are being cleared everyday, often by slave 'debt' laborers, to make room for more soy plantations."

So, we may get our cheap burgers and a deluge of soy-infused foods, but at great cost.

Adding to all these environmental problems with soy is the fact that much of the world's soy (and 85 percent of the U.S crop) is genetically engineered. Since the early '90s farmers in the United States (and now across the world) have been using Monsanto's Roundup Ready soy that is genetically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, which is liberally sprayed on the crop to kill weeds.

Much of the promise of GE crops was that they'd lead to the use of less pesticides and herbicides, which threaten both human and environmental health. But that hasn't actually panned out. "Because herbicide-tolerant crops are designed to withstand application of weed killers, farmers can apply large amounts of pesticides without fear of harming their crops. The U.S. has seen more than a 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate, or Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, on major crops from 1994 to 2005," Co-Op America reported.

And more damning evidence has just been released. A new study that just came out this week funded by a coalition of non-governmental organizations including the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Food Safety, the Cornerstone Campaign, Californians for GE-Free Agriculture, Greenpeace International and Rural Advancement Fund International USA, found that GE corn, soybean and cotton crops have increased the use of weed-killing herbicides in the U.S. by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008.

The study will surely be accompanied by more alarms bells set off by small farmers, environmentalists and organic supporters. And it will be one more battle in the war against soy that's being fought on both health and environmental fronts. Perhaps it will make people think twice before eating soy products, processed food and even most meat.

Looking for answers to my Mom's diabetic Issues

2009-11-21T20:18:00.000-05:00

I came across this site about anti-inflammation. It makes sense to me and she is interested in trying it. Will definitly follow up here if there is positive results.
As of right now, she is diabetic, high blood pressure, inflammation of the joints which include a very painful knee. Fingers crossed!
http://www.level1diet.com/

The Best and SO EASY broccoli Soup

2009-11-21T16:52:00.000-05:00

Ingredients:
One broccoli bunch
4 teaspoons butter
6 teaspoons flour
24 ounces cream
2 cups chicken broth
grated onion-optional (to taste)
salt to taste-optional (to taste)

Directions:
Boil the broccoli until tender, drain and mash.
over medium heat melt butter, then stir in flour until you have a very thick paste.
Slowly add cream, stirring constantly.
Then stir in chicken broth.
Add broccoli and grated onion and salt.

This is the first time I have written out a recipe I use. My style is cook, don't measure, so I hope this is understandable. Enjoy! I Love Soup!

Hot Beverage Recipes

2009-11-21T16:46:00.000-05:00

Winter is here and there is nothing like a hot drink to warm you back up after freezing your buns off. Enjoy!

http://www.angelfire.com/country/fauziaspakistan/recipe/hot_beverage.html

Greenpeace Shopper's Guide TO GMO Free Food

2009-11-21T12:32:00.001-05:00

Greenpeace shoppers guide to GMO-Free Food

Revealed... the 515 chemicals women put on their bodies every day

2009-11-20T18:12:00.000-05:00

By Maureen Rice

Women and beauty products - it's a love affair that's been going on for centuries. And no wonder. There's nothing like a new lipstick or favourite perfume to make us look and feel good. Or so we thought...

In fact, according to a new report, most of our favourite cosmetics are cocktails of industrially produced and potentially dangerous chemicals that could damage our health and, in some cases, rather than delivering on their potent 'anti-ageing' promise, are causing us to age faster.

Research by Bionsen, a natural deodorant company, found that the average woman's daily grooming and make-up routine means she 'hosts' a staggering 515 different synthetic chemicals on her body every single day.

Many of those are also used in products such as household cleaners, and have been linked to a number of health problems from allergies and skin sensitivity to more serious hormonal disturbances, fertility problems and even cancer.

Parabens, for example, which are designed to preserve the shelf-life of your cosmetics, are one of the most widely used preservatives in the world, and are found in shampoos, hair gels, shaving gels and body lotions. But their use is becoming increasingly controversial - a range of different studies has linked them to serious health problems including breast cancer, as well as fertility issues in men.

Research from the Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine suggests that some parabens we had previously presumed to be safe, such as Methylparaben, may mutate and become toxic when exposed to sunlight, causing premature skin ageing and an increased risk of skin cancer.

Methylparabens are found in more than 16,000 products, including moisturisers and toothpastes. Cosmetic producers have always defended their use of parabens on the grounds that they can't be absorbed into the body.

But many leading researchers disagree, including Dr Barbara Olioso, an independent professional chemist, who says: 'Research shows that between 20 and 60 per cent of parabens may be absorbed into the body.'

There are a number of laws designed to protect us from dangerous chemicals in cosmetics, but researchers worry that they don't go far enough. For example, cosmetic manufacturers are required to list their ingredients, but they don't have to tell us about any impurities found in the raw materials or used in the manufacturing process, so long as they don't end up in the finished product.

The industry insists that our cosmetics are safe. The Cosmetic Toiletries and Perfumery Association said last night: 'Stringent laws require all cosmetics to be safe, and each product undergoes a rigorous safety assessment. The number of ingredients in a product, or whether it is natural or man-made, has no bearing on how safe it is.'

They also say that any chemicals are present in safe doses that can't harm us. While that may be true, there is some disagreement over what constitutes a 'safe' level - for young people and children, or sensitive adults, these levels may not be so safe at all.

And even if the relatively small amounts in individual products don't hurt us, there is growing concern over the number of products women use daily, and the cumulative effect of so many chemicals being used all over our bodies every day, for many years.

As Charlotte Smith, spokesperson for Bionsen, says: 'Women have never been more image-conscious and their beauty regimes have changed over the years, from a simple "wash & go" attitude, to daily fake-tan applications, regular manicures, false lashes and hair extensions.

'Lots of the high-tech, new generation cosmetics and beauty "wonder" treatments naturally contain more chemicals to achieve even better results, which, of course, means women apply more chemicals than ever before.'

If you want to protect yourself from chemical overload, reduce your overall cosmetics usage; switch to natural or organic products, and read the labels on your beauty and grooming products with care.

* The Women's Environmental network has more detailed information and advice about ingredients contained in beauty products: www.wen.org. uk; The Cosmetics Database, a website which gives a 'hazard rating' for products: cosmeticsdatabase.com. Or read Skin Deep: The Essential Guide To What's In The Toiletries And Cosmetics You Use (Rodale), by Pat Thomas.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/beauty/article-1229275/Revealed--515-chemicals-women-bodies-day.html#ixzz0XRbj8oRQ

Not in Harmony

2009-11-19T08:34:00.000-05:00

Next July Ontario and British Columbia will implement a new tax that will apply to natural health products and a vast range of complementary and alternative therapies. Natural health advocates say the harmonized sales tax will punish people who practise and promote preventive well-being.

The harmonized sales tax (HST) will combine the provincial, or retail, sales tax (which is 7 percent in BC and 8 percent in Ontario) with the 5 percent federal goods and services tax (GST). This will result in an overall tax of 12 percent in BC and 13 percent in Ontario, respectively. The HST will apply to natural health-related goods and services previously covered by the GST but not the PST, including vitamins, supplements, and herbs. This means a potential 7 or 8 percent price increase at the retail level. Consumers are sure to feel the pinch.

The increase will also apply to certain complementary treatments such as traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), acupuncture, shiatsu, and homeopathy. Some health services, such as physiotherapy, chiropractic care, and psychological care are already GST exempt which means they will also be HST free.

A short-sighted approach

Peter Wood, president of the Traditional Chinese Medicine Association of British Columbia, says that preventive health care saves the health care system money in the long run.

“Preventive and holistic medicines such as TCM have been proven to save countless tax dollars in medical bills, hospitalizations, and sick days from work, not to mention their positive impact on people’s general sense of well-being,” Wood says.

“This HST would be a great step backward in our medical system’s goal of becoming sustainable. A system reliant solely on pharmaceuticals and surgeries simply does not have financial or medical integrity.”

Ron Rosenes, vice chair of the Canadian Treatment Action Council, which helps people living with HIV/AIDS, describes the move to tax health products as “counterproductive.” “I’m extremely unhappy about this going ahead at a time when we should be focusing on being proactive about our health. The HST only increases the cost of keeping people healthy, when the goal should be to encourage prevention,” says Rosenes.

A double standard

Prescription pharmaceutical drugs are not subject to the GST and will be HST exempt. Proponents of natural health argue that taxing goods and services that foster preventive well-being reflects the way complementary health has yet to be embraced by the medical establishment and the government.

Penny Marrett, president and CEO of the Canadian Health Food Association, says that the CHFA questions why natural health products are taxed at all.

“If natural health products are assisting people to stay as healthy as possible—and we know that’s true—why are we taxing them in the first place?” she asks.

For proof of the benefits of natural products, consider some of Health Canada’s own recommendations. The federal organization recommends that all women who could become pregnant should take folic acid daily to prevent neural tube defects, for instance, while adults over age 50 should take a daily vitamin D supplement to enhance bone health.

“Why are we in a position where these products are taxed?” Marrett says. “You also have to ask, isn’t the goal of the Public Health Agency of Canada to promote the importance of people keeping themselves as healthy as possible?”

Cost savings

HST supporters contend that the tax will save businesses money and increase their efficiency. Ottawa is offering billions of dollars in transition funds for governments that sign on. But while the government sees cost savings and efficiencies in tax collection, for consumers the jury is still out.

Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, and Manitoba are considering switching to the HST but have expressed concerns about its effect on consumers.

Newfoundland/Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick introduced the HST in 1997; however, the combined tax is said to have resulted in a lower overall tax rate.

To stop the HST, Marrett is urging people to contact both their Member of Parliament and their provincial government representative to voice opposition. (See below to find out how.)

“We need to tell [the government] why it needs to turn this around, that these [products and services] should not be taxed at a federal level and therefore not taxed at a provincial level.”

Stop the HST on natural health products

If you want to let the government know how you feel about the proposed HST, email your elected representative.

In Ontario
Contact your member of provincial Parliament (MPP) at: www.ontla.on.ca

In BC
Contact your member of the legislative assembly (MLA) at: leg.bc.ca/Mla/3-1-1.htm

Federally
Contact your member of Parliament (MP) at: webinfo.parl.gc.ca

Gail Johnson is a journalist who specializes in health matters. gailjohnson.com

In The News-Nanoparticles Used In Common Household Items Caused Genetic Damage In Mice

2009-11-19T08:29:00.000-05:00

Source: Medical News Today

Titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles, found in everything from cosmetics to sunscreen to paint to vitamins, caused systemic genetic damage in mice, according to a comprehensive study conducted by researchers at UCLA's Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The TiO2 nanoparticles induced single- and double-strand DNA breaks and also caused chromosomal damage as well as inflammation, all of which increase the risk for cancer. The UCLA study is the first to show that the nanoparticles had such an effect, said Robert Schiestl, a professor of pathology, radiation oncology and environmental health sciences, a Jonsson Cancer Center scientist and the study's senior author.

Once in the system, the TiO2 nanoparticles accumulate in different organs because the body has no way to eliminate them. And because they are so small, they can go everywhere in the body, even through cells, and may interfere with sub-cellular mechanisms.

The study appears this week in the journal Cancer Research.

In the past, these TiO2 nanoparticles have been considered non-toxic in that they do not incite a chemical reaction. Instead, it is surface interactions that the nanoparticles have within their environment- in this case inside a mouse - that is causing the genetic damage, Schiestl said. They wander throughout the body causing oxidative stress, which can lead to cell death.

It is a novel mechanism of toxicity, a physicochemical reaction, these particles cause in comparison to regular chemical toxins, which are the usual subjects of toxicological research, Schiestl said.

"The novel principle is that titanium by itself is chemically inert. However, when the particles become progressively smaller, their surface, in turn, becomes progressively bigger and in the interaction of this surface with the environment oxidative stress is induced," he said. "This is the first comprehensive study of titanium dioxide nanoparticle-induced genotoxicity, possibly caused by a secondary mechanism associated with inflammation and/or oxidative stress. Given the growing use of these nanoparticles, these findings raise concern about potential health hazards associated with exposure."

The manufacture of TiO2 nanoparticles is a huge industry, Schiestl said, with production at about two million tons per year. In addition to paint, cosmetics, sunscreen and vitamins, the nanoparticles can be found in toothpaste, food colorants, nutritional supplements and hundreds of other personal care products.

"It could be that a certain portion of spontaneous cancers are due to this exposure," Schiestl said. "And some people could be more sensitive to nanoparticles exposure than others. "I believe the toxicity of these nanoparticles has not been studied enough."

Schiestl said the nanoparticles cannot go through skin, so he recommends using a lotion sunscreen. Spray-on sunscreens could potentially be inhaled and the nanoparticles can become lodged in the lungs.

The mice were exposed to the TiO2 nanoparticles in their drinking water and began showing genetic damage on the fifth day. The human equivalent is about 1.6 years of exposure to the nanoparticles in a manufacturing environment. However, Schiestl said, it's not clear if regular, everyday exposure in humans increases exponentially as continued contact with the nanoparticles occurs over time.

"These data suggest that we should be concerned about a potential risk of cancer or genetic disorders especially for people occupationally exposed to high concentrations of titanium dioxide nanoparticles, and that it might be prudent to limit their ingestion through non-essential drug additives, food colors, etc.," the study states.

Next, Schiestl and his team will study exposure to the nanoparticles in mice that are deficient in DNA repair, to perhaps help find a way to predict which people might be particularly sensitive to them.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Source: Kim Irwin
University of California - Los Angeles

In The News-Chemical in plastic bottles linked to impotence

2009-11-11T18:16:00.000-05:00

Source: MSNBC

NEW YORK – Male factory workers in China who got very high doses of a chemical that’s been widely used in hard plastic bottles had high rates of sexual problems, researchers reported Wednesday.

Heavy exposure to BPA, or bisphenol A, on the job was linked to impotence and lower sexual desire and satisfaction, according to the study, which adds to concerns about BPA’s effects on most consumers.

The men in the study experienced BPA levels about 50 times higher than those faced by typical American men, said researcher Dr. De-Kun Li. “We don’t know” whether more typical doses have similar effects, he said.

People shouldn’t be alarmed by the finding, said Li, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente’s research division in Oakland, Calif. But he said it would be prudent to limit exposure to BPA while scientists look for any effects from lower doses.

The U.S. government recently announced new funding for research into BPA’s effects.

Li is lead author of the latest study, published online Wednesday by the journal Human Reproduction. The work was financed by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.

BPA is used in a wide variety of consumer products, including some hard plastic bottles and metal food or beverage cans. Several makers of baby bottles recently said they had stopped using the chemical. Some 90 percent of the U.S. population carries detectable levels in the urine.

Scientists are concerned that BPA exposure might harm the reproductive and nervous systems, and possibly promote prostate and breast cancers. Last year, a preliminary study linked BPA to possible risks for heart disease and diabetes.

The Food and Drug Administration concluded last year that trace amounts of BPA that leach out of bottles and food containers are not dangerous. But the FDA is now reviewing that stance after criticism from its scientific advisers.

For the new research, Li and colleagues studied 164 factory workers in China who were exposed to high levels of BPA on the job. They were compared to 386 other men in the same town who either worked at other factories or were married to factory workers.

The scientists measured BPA exposure through air sampling, and interviewed the workers about their sexual functioning.

Compared to the other workers, men with high BPA exposure were about four times as likely to report trouble achieving erections, about seven times as likely to say they had difficulty ejaculating, and about four times as likely to report low sex drive or low satisfaction with their sex lives.

The effects are dramatic and “pretty clearly related to the exposure,” said Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who was not involved in the research.

The finding fits in with animal studies and should be followed up by research in the general population, she said. Her institute said last month it will spend more money on BPA-related research, bringing the total to $30 million over two years.

Steven Hentges, a BPA expert and official with the American Chemistry Council, an industry group, said the work is “probably not very relevant for consumers.”

For one thing, the reported 50-fold difference in exposure seems to be an underestimate because of how it was calculated, he said. In addition, he said, the workers inhaled BPA or got it on their skin. Consumers get it through diet instead, which lets the body detoxify it, Hentges said.

Li said the workers probably were exposed not only through inhalation and skin contamination but also by swallowing BPA powder that contaminated their food. He said he didn’t know which route was most prominent in the Chinese factories.

Quitting Smoking

2009-11-10T12:36:00.000-05:00

I quit smoking two weeks ago thanks to coming down with the flu. It's been easier than I thought, the first five days I was in bed with a fever and headache so smoking didn't even cross my mind. Now I'm busy coughing up years of phlegm buildup which makes me really not want to smoke again. I never had smoker's cough until after I quit.
So I've been cruising different websites looking for suggestions to help clear out the lungs faster and this is what I've found:
Drink a lot of water to help flush out the toxins.
Eat healthy, increase fruits and veggies.
Vitamin A may be linked to healing the lungs after quitting smoking.
Avoid sugar. This one is tough because I am experiencing the blood sugar drops they say is a pretty standard side effect to quitting smoking.
My next Internet search: I think I'll look for some carrot cake recipes. A dose of vitamin A and a bit of sugar sounds good to me.

In The News-Why Boys Are Turning Into Girls

2009-11-08T12:32:00.000-05:00

Source: London Telegraph
Here's something rather rotten from the State of Denmark. Its government yesterday unveiled official research showing that two-year-old children are at risk from a bewildering array of gender-bending chemicals in such everyday items as waterproof clothes, rubber boots, bed linen, food, nappies, sunscreen lotion and moisturising cream.

The 326-page report, published by the environment protection agency, is the latest piece in an increasingly alarming jigsaw. A picture is emerging of ubiquitous chemical contamination driving down sperm counts and feminising male children all over the developed world. And anti-pollution measures and regulations are falling far short of getting to grips with it.

Sperm counts are falling so fast that young men are less fertile than their fathers and produce only a third as much, proportionately, as hamsters. And gender-bending chemicals are increasingly being blamed for the mystery of the "lost boys": babies who should normally be male who have been born as girls instead.

The Danish government set out to find out how much contamination from gender-bending chemicals a two-year-old child was exposed to every day. It concluded that a child could be "at critical risk" from just a few exposures to high levels of the substances, such as from rubber clogs, and imperilled by the amount it absorbed from sources ranging from food to sunscreens.

The results build on earlier studies showing that British children have higher levels of gender-bending chemicals in their blood than their parents or grandparents. Indeed WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund), which commissioned the older research, warned that the chemicals were so widespread that "there is very little, if anything, individuals can do to prevent contamination of themselves and their families." Prominent among them are dioxins, PVC, flame retardants, phthalates (extensively used to soften plastics) and the now largely banned PCBs, one and a half million tons of which were used in countless products from paints to electrical equipment.

Young boys, like those in the Danish study, could end up producing less sperm and developing feminised behaviour. Research at Rotterdam's Erasmus University found that boys whose mothers were exposed to PCBs and dioxins were more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes.

And it is in the womb that babies are most vulnerable; a study of umbilical cords from British mothers found that every one contained hazardous chemicals. Scientists at the University of Rochester in New York discovered that boys born to women exposed to phthalates had smaller penises and other feminisation of the genitals.

The contamination may also offer a clue to a mysterious shift in the sex of babies. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict. But the proportion of females is rising, so much so that some 250,000 babies who statistically should have been boys have ended up as girls in Japan and the United States alone. In Britain, the discrepancy amounts to thousands of babies a year.

A Canadian Indian community living on ancestral lands at the eastern tip of Lake Huron, hemmed in by one of the biggest agglomerations of chemical factories on earth, gives birth to twice as many girls as boys. It's the same around Seveso in Italy, contaminated with dioxins from a notorious accident in the 1970s, and among Russian pesticide workers. And there's more evidence from places as far apart as Israel and Taiwan, Brazil and the Arctic.

Yet gender-benders are largely exempt from new EU regulations controlling hazardous chemicals. Britain, then under Tony Blair's premiership, was largely responsible for this – restricting their inclusion in the first draft of the legislation, and then causing even what was included to be watered down.Confidential documents show that it did so after pressure from George W Bush's administration, which protested that US exports "could be impacted".

Now the Danish government is planning to lobby to have the rules toughened up. It is particularly concerned by other studies which show that gender-bending chemicals acting together have far worse effects than the expected sum of their individual impacts. It wants this to be reflected in the regulations, citing its discovery of the many sources to which the two-year-olds are exposed – modern slings and arrows, as it were, of outrageous fortune.

In The News-Outrage as Doctors' Group Allows Coca-Cola to Sponsor Health Advice

2009-11-08T10:59:00.001-05:00

Associated Press-
Advice about soft drinks and health from one of the nation's largest doctors groups will soon be brought to you by Coke.

The American Academy of Family Physicians has prompted outcry and lost members over its new six-figure alliance with the Coca-Cola Co. The deal will fund educational materials about soft drinks for the academy's consumer health and wellness Web site, www.FamilyDoctor.org.

Academy CEO Dr. Douglas Henley said Wednesday that the deal won't influence the group's public health messages, and that the company will have no control over editorial content. He said the new online information will include research linking soft drinks with obesity and will focus on sugar-free alternatives.

But critics say the Coke deal will water down the advice.

"Coca-Cola, like other sodas, causes enormous suffering and premature death by increasing the risks of obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, gout, and cavities," Harvard University nutrition expert Dr. Walter Willett said in an e-mail.

He said the academy "should be a loud critic of these products and practices, but by signing with Coke their voice has almost surely been muzzled."

Dr. Henry Blackburn, a University of Minnesota public health specialist, said the deal "will inevitably have a chilling effect on the focus of their message in regards to sweet drinks."

Coca-Cola spokeswoman Diana Garza Ciarlante said that kind of criticism "misses the point of the partnership which is to provide education based on sound science."

Dr. William Walker, public health officer for Contra Costa County near San Francisco, likened the alliance with ads decades ago in which physicians said mild cigarettes are safe.

Walker has been a member of the academy for 25 years but quit last week. He said 20 other doctors who work with his local medical practice also quit because of the Coke deal.

In an announcement last month, the academy, based in Kansas, said the new Coca-Cola-funded educational material will be posted online in January.

The idea is "to develop educational materials to help consumers make informed decisions so they can include the products they love in a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle," the academy's president-elect, Dr. Lori Heim, said at the time.

The American Academy of Pediatrics received similar criticism seven years ago when it allowed an infant formula maker's logo to appear on copies of that group's breast-feeding guide.

And the American Medical Association faced harsh reaction more than a decade ago with a plan to endorse Sunbeam appliances without testing them. Criticism forced the AMA to abandon that deal.

The Coke deal is not the only corporate alliance for the family physicians group. In 2005 it received funding from McDonalds for a fitness program. And its consumer Web site includes advertising for a variety of products, including deli meats and air freshener.

Henley said the Coke deal is worth six figures but he and a Coca-Cola spokeswoman declined to elaborate.

In a protest letter to Henley, 22 health specialists and activists questioned the safety of artificial sweeteners and urged the academy to abandon the deal and speak out against sugary drinks "in the strongest language."

Henley said the academy regrets the resignations and hopes other members will not "rush to judgment" before seeing the new content.

Coca-Cola is among several corporate contributors to the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, a separate philanthropic group. These contributors include many drug companies, McDonalds, PepsiCo and a beef industry group. Henley said the academy is in talks with other foundation contributors to fund other materials for the group, but he declined to say which ones.

The Best Chicken Pot Pie Ever!

2009-11-08T10:51:00.000-05:00

Prep Time:
20 Min
Cook Time:
50 Min
Ready In:
1 Hr 10 Min
Ingredients

* 1 pound skinless, boneless chicken breast halves - cubed
* 1 cup sliced carrots
* 1 cup frozen green peas
* 1/2 cup sliced celery
* 1/3 cup butter
* 1/3 cup chopped onion
* 1/3 cup all-purpose flour
* 1/2 teaspoon salt
* 1/4 teaspoon black pepper
* 1/4 teaspoon celery seed
* 1 3/4 cups chicken broth
* 2/3 cup milk
*
* 2 (9 inch) unbaked pie crusts

Directions

1. Preheat oven to 425 degrees F (220 degrees C.)
2. In a saucepan, combine chicken, carrots, peas, and celery. Add water to cover and boil for 15 minutes. Remove from heat, drain and set aside.
3. In the saucepan over medium heat, cook onions in butter until soft and translucent. Stir in flour, salt, pepper, and celery seed. Slowly stir in chicken broth and milk. Simmer over medium-low heat until thick. Remove from heat and set aside.
4. Place the chicken mixture in bottom pie crust. Pour hot liquid mixture over. Cover with top crust, seal edges, and cut away excess dough. Make several small slits in the top to allow steam to escape.
5. Bake in the preheated oven for 30 to 35 minutes, or until pastry is golden brown and filling is bubbly. Cool for 10 minutes before serving.

All Recipes-Robbie Rice

Gaining Ground Farm Donates All of Their Food

2009-11-07T14:32:00.000-05:00

http://www.gainingground.org/aboutus.html
Not far from Walden Pond, where Henry David Thoreau lived and wrote Walden, Gaining Ground is one of the oldest farms in America. It’s been in constant cultivation since the town of Concord was chartered in 1635 and farmed by Native Americans for many years before European settlers arrived.
Throughout the harvest season, organic produce from Gaining Ground goes to shelters, food pantries, meal programs, and other hunger-relief programs throughout Greater Boston and Eastern Massachusetts.

Eat better for less-Natural Health Magazine's definitive guide to buying & preparing the highest quality food on a shoestring

2009-11-07T10:17:00.000-05:00

Like everyone else these days, I’m trying to cut costs where I can. My latest obsession is my food bill: How can I spend less and still enjoy organic produce and free-range meats?

“The secret to eating well on a budget is not to give up the high-quality foods you love, but to buy only what you need, then make sure you use everything you buy,” says Mollie Katzen, author of The Vegetable Dishes I Can’t Live Without (Hyperion, 2007).

With that in mind, here are ten expert tips on eating well for less, plus six recipes that range from 17 cents to $2 a serving. As a bonus, each recipe does double duty: You get a complete main dish, plus a convenient—and delicious—leftover suggestion.

1. Know your budget
EXPERT TIP: “Before you can start spending less, you have to know what your budget is,” says Katzen. Save receipts—grocery, farmers’ market, restaurants, takeout—for a month and determine what you’re really spending.
$$$ SAVED: $200 to $300 a month— if you cut nonessentials like snacks, takeout, and coffee to go.

SPINACH & ONION FRITTATA IS AN AFFORDABLE WAY TO GET YOUR PROTEIN, IRON, AND ANTIOXIDANTS
COST: 50 CENTS PER SERVING

Leftover suggestion: FRIED RICE WITH CHOPPED-UP FRITATTA AND VEGGIES STRETCHES LAST NIGHT’S DINNER INTO TOMORROW’S LUNCH.

2. Plan a menu for the week
EXPERT TIP: “Plan the week’s meals, including lunches and leftovers,” says Natural Health recipe developer Linda Monastra. “I start with two or three dishes, then come up with other recipes that need some of the same ingredients, so nothing gets wasted.”
$$$ SAVED: About $40—the cost of the grocery bill for our seven budget recipes and leftovers (starting on page 90). That’s half of what the average American spends in one week for food.

3. Shop around
EXPERT TIP: Comparison shopping is critical, says Judi Zucker, coauthor, with her sister Shari, of The Double Energy Diet (Book Publishing Company, 2008). But it’s not just comparing one store’s prices to another: You can also trade convenience—like precooked, pre-assembled foods—for bargains.
$$$ SAVED: Up to $2 per item—if you buy loose greens instead of pre-washed, and whole veggies instead of pre-sliced ones.

CARROT GINGER SAUTÉ IS A GREAT SOURCE OF VITAMIN A AND SOOTHING GINGER
COST: 17 CENTS PER SERVING

4. Find coupons online
EXPERT TIP: “There are more organic companies offering coupons today than ever before,” says Zucker. “And you don’t have to clip them out of the newspaper: Just go online and get them with a click.”
$$$ SAVED: $1 or more per package on items like organic yogurts, juices, and crackers—plus fair-trade coffee beans and eco cleaners. Check out mambosprouts.com to download coupons.

5. Go for nutrient density
EXPERT TIP: “To really get your money’s worth, buy foods that are high in nutrients,” says Katzen. To make that easier, many supermarkets, such as Stop & Shop, now let you compare prices and nutritional information online.
$$$ SAVED: Broccoli and celery are priced the same: But every dollar you spend on broccoli buys you much more vitamin C, iron, and fiber.

FENNEL & APPLE SALAD IS LOADED WITH FIBER, VITAMIN C, AND VIBRANT FLAVORS OF LEMON, PECANS, AND FRESH PARSLEY—AND TAKES JUST A FEW MINUTES TO PREPARE
COST: 88 CENTS PER SERVING

6. Cut down on meat
EXPERT TIP: “Build meals around something other than meat,” says Zucker, “and the savings skyrocket.” Even the cheapest cuts of meat—fatty chicken thighs and ground chuck—can cost $2 or $3 per pound.
$$$ SAVED: $2.50—if you replace meat with protein-rich barley and pinto, kidney, and black beans in soups and stews (a pound of beef costs nearly $4; a pound of dried beans is about $1.50).

Make it at home and save even more
Certain packaged foods like nut butters and granola are much cheaper when you make them yourself.

Nut butters. With nuts, a little canola oil, and a blender, you can prepare your own walnut, peanut, and almond butter free of sugar and added salt.

Breadcrumbs. Buy day-old bread (at most bakeries and markets) and leave it out overnight on a baking sheet or cooling rack. Pop it in the food processor for salt- and preservative-free crumbs you can store in the freezer.

Cooking oil. There’s no magic involved in manufactured cooking sprays—they just cost a lot more than homemade. Pour your favorite cooking oil into a BPA-free plastic or glass spray bottle.

Soup. For literally pennies, you can fill a simmering pot with vegetables, beans, and pasta and get a heavenly tasting, nutrient-dense soup in a few hours.

Granola. Rolled oats, honey, ground cinnamon, and condensed milk yields a better-tasting, fresher granola than anything prepackaged (try Natural Health’s recipe).

7. Choose seasonal produce
EXPERT TIP: “Buying what’s in season is the single best economic—and nutritional— decision you can make,” says Jeff Cox, author of The Organic Cook’s Bible (Wiley, 2006). “Organic produce from a farmers’ market has the most flavor and nutrients.”
$$$ SAVED: $4.50—if you buy extra farmers’ market strawberries in spring and summer (for about $2.50 per quart), then freeze or can them for the winter, when the price of imported strawberries climbs to $7 per quart.

CUMIN-LIME SHRIMP CAN BE SERVED OVER NOODLES OR RICE FOR A LOW-FAT TREAT
COST: $1.50 PER SERVING

Leftover suggestion: SHRIMP FAJITAS ARE A QUICK WAY TO ENJOY CUMIN-LIME SHRIMP—
WITH CHEESE AND BELL PEPPERS (RICH IN VITAMIN C) ON A WHOLE-GRAIN TORTILLA

8. Buy in bulk
EXPERT TIP: “Buy dried beans, grains, and spices in bulk—you can measure out and buy exactly what you need,” says Isa Chandra Moskowitz, author of the upcoming Vegan Brunch: Homestyle Recipes Worth Waking Up For (Da Capo, June 2009).
$$$ SAVED: You’ll pay the same for ground Indonesian cinnamon at a spice store as you would for a supermarket brand, but it’ll be freshly ground and more aromatic—and you won’t waste any.

9. Join a warehouse store
EXPERT TIP: “Costco and Sam’s Club now have organic food sections where you can find great bargains,” says Zucker. For a yearly fee, club members find deals by buying several weeks’ worth of groceries.
$$$ SAVED: $4 per pound—on the shrimp for our Cumin-Lime Shrimp recipe (page 91).

ROASTED VEGETABLE STEW WITH COUSCOUS PILAF USES VEGGIES INSTEAD OF MEAT
COST: $2 PER SERVING

Leftover suggestions: CAPONATA CROSTINI TURNS VEGETABLE STEW INTO A DISTINCTIVE APPETIZER ON A TOASTED WHOLE-GRAIN BAGUETTE.

10. Grow your own food
EXPERT TIP: “You don’t need a big backyard— or any yard at all—to grow fresh basil, parsley, heirloom tomatoes, and zucchini at home,” says Katzen. “When the weather turns brisk, pick your herbs and dry them for the winter.”
$$$ SAVED: $1 apiece—if you can heirloom tomatoes and use them in winter instead of buying imported vine-ripened tomatoes.

BLUE CHEESE & RED CABBAGE EMPANADAS ARE PACKED WITH VITAMINS C AND A
COST: $1 PER SERVING

PACKAGED STEALS
The foods we list—available at supermarkets, convenience stores, and in some cases even vending machines—contain vitamins, antioxidants, minerals, and whole grains.
► V8 Low Sodium vegetable juice ($4.50 for 64 oz.). High in vitamins A, C, and E, plus potassium, V8 is actually a better source of nutrients than a multivitamin.
► Uncle Sam cereal ($3 for 10 oz.). This classic is having a resurgence because of its high fiber and flaxseed content and its star ranking on the glycemic index, which measures how quickly carbohydrates are turned into blood sugar.
► Bumble Bee Prime Fillet Solid White Albacore tuna ($2 for 2.5 oz.). Precooked and ready to serve, these fillets are certified heart-healthy by the American Heart Association for their omega-3 content.
► Barilla Whole Grain pasta ($1 for 13 oz.). High in fiber and minerals, Barilla was ranked by America’s Test Kitchen as the best dried pasta available, beating out even Italian imports.
► Cracker Barrel Natural Reduced Fat 2% cheese ($4.50 for 10 oz.). This treat is high in calcium and digestive- aiding enzymes.

Shoppers Guide to Avoiding GE Foods

2009-11-06T08:15:00.000-05:00

The Center for Food Safety has a free downloadable shoppers guide to avoid genetically modified foods.

http://truefoodnow.org/campaigns/genetically-engineered-foods/shoppers-guide/
(be sure to check out the rest of this awesome site!)

Food Additive Of The Day

2009-11-06T08:09:00.000-05:00

Tartrazine
Description:
FD&C Yellow No.5; known to provoke asthma attacks (though the US FDA do not recognise this) and urticaria (nettle rash) in children (the US FDA estimates 1:10 000); also linked to thyroid tumours, chromosomal damage, urticaria (hives) and hyperactivity; tartrazine sensitivity is also linked to aspirin sensitivity; used to color drinks, sweets, jams, cereals, snack foods, canned fish, packaged soups; banned in Norway and Austria

Fruit Producing Bonsai Makes A Great Gift

2009-11-05T16:03:00.001-05:00

This bonsai produces tiny edible grapes.
http://www.sterlingwineonline.com/