White Moon News and Notes

White Moon Blog Moves To Facebook

2011-04-13T17:05:00.000-07:00

Hello White Moon Blog Followers,

From now on I will be posting articles exclusively on our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/whitemoonhealingcenter

See you there.

Nourishing Practices: Soaking Grains

2010-11-20T09:52:00.000-08:00

http://www.thenourishinggourmet.com/2008/03/nourishing-practices-soaking-grains-2.html

75 Safe and Effective Herbal Remedies

2010-11-20T09:51:00.000-08:00

http://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/herbal-remedies-z10m0vau.aspx

A peek into the rarely-seen world of mechanically separated meat.

2010-10-07T07:44:00.000-07:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/mechanically-separated-meat-chicken-mcnugget-photo_n_749893.html

Schoolkids deserve more than junk food

2010-10-07T07:43:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/05/oliver.school.lunches/index.html

Diets of Affluence

2010-09-23T15:47:00.000-07:00

http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=32285

Unhealthy Links Between Doctors and Drug Industry

2010-09-23T15:46:00.000-07:00

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/42990/

Dirty Electricity: Worse for Kids

2010-09-23T15:43:00.000-07:00

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/42890/

Pairing Herbs with Gourmet Cooking Salts

2010-09-23T15:41:00.002-07:00

http://www.herbcompanion.com/cooking/pairing-herbs-gourmet-cooking-salts.aspx

Heal with the Zing of Ginger

2010-09-23T15:41:00.001-07:00

http://www.herbcompanion.com/gardening/herb-to-know-ginger-zingiber-officinale.aspx

MRSA In Meat: Why No Recall?

2010-09-15T11:06:00.001-07:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/mrsa-in-meat-why-no-recal_b_715516.html

the FDA censorship of nutritional science threatens health of all Americans

2010-09-11T09:18:00.000-07:00

http://www.naturalnews.com/029698_censorship_FDA.html

Study: Vitamin D3 Prevents Flu Better than Vaccines/Anti-virals

2010-08-25T11:21:00.001-07:00

http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/study-vitamin-d3-prevents-flu-better-than-vaccinesanti-virals/

Building Better Bones

2010-08-25T11:19:00.000-07:00

http://www.botanical.com/site/column_susun/susun_better_bones.html

The Whole Truth About Whole Foods

2010-08-14T05:40:00.001-07:00

http://www.alignlife.com/articles/food/Whole_Truth_Whole_Foods.html

Talking Farm Says Something About Local Food

2010-08-07T14:15:00.002-07:00

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/40408/

Drug Watch: Keeping an Eye on Pharmaceuticals

2010-08-07T14:15:00.001-07:00

http://www.drugwatch.com/

90 percent of scientists backing Avandia diabetes drug had financial ties to drug companies

2010-07-26T12:18:00.000-07:00

http://www.naturalnews.com/029268_financial_ties_Avandia.html

Your Hormones and Weight Loss: How to Find Balance Read more at Wholeliving.com: Your Hormones and Weight Loss: How to Find Balance

2010-07-21T09:34:00.000-07:00

http://www.wholeliving.com/article/balanced-weight-loss

Choosing the Right Pillow for You

2010-07-21T09:31:00.000-07:00

http://www.wholeliving.com/article/natural-sleeping-beauties

Landmark JUPITER Study On Statin Drugs May Have Serious Flaws, Researchers Say

2010-07-21T09:29:00.002-07:00

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HeartHealth/cholesterol-busting-statins-study-raises-concerns/story?id=11037926

Is Your Water Safe?

2010-07-21T09:29:00.001-07:00

http://www.wholeliving.com/article/is-your-water-safe-gulp

Children Are Being Exploited to Extend Pharmaceutical Patents

2010-07-16T18:50:00.001-07:00

http://www.anh-usa.org/children-are-being-exploited-to-extend-pharmaceutical-patents/

U.S. Probing Cancer Risk of Blood Pressure Drugs

2010-07-16T08:53:00.001-07:00

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66E51V20100715

Food Companies and Trans Fats

2010-07-14T08:51:00.002-07:00

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/38485/

The Greening of Medicine

2010-07-14T08:51:00.001-07:00

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/37956/

US opposes honest labeling of GMO foods

2010-07-10T08:48:00.001-07:00

http://www.naturalnews.com/029168_GMO_foods_labeling.html

The Toxic Effects of Perfume

2010-07-10T08:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/toxic-effects-of-perfume.html

The American Cancer Society Admits That Cancers Go Away Naturally

2010-07-03T09:57:00.001-07:00

http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/431-the-american-cancer-society-admits-that-cancers-go-away-naturally.html

Prescription Drugs Killing More Than Illicit Drugs in Florida

2010-07-01T05:45:00.000-07:00

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/florida/news-article.aspx?storyid=158084#comments

Detoxifying the Body: Integrating Naturopathic Remedies Into the TCM Practice

2010-06-30T14:57:00.000-07:00

http://whitemoonhealingcenter.com/detoxarticle.cfm

Are Americans Overexposed to Radiation From Imaging Tests?

2010-06-27T13:50:00.001-07:00

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/17/Are-Americans-Overexposed-to-Radiation-From-Imaging-Tests.aspx

Natural Flea and Tick Repellents

2010-06-08T08:59:00.001-07:00

http://www.herbcompanion.com/pets/Pet-corner-Controlling-fleas-and-ticks-28.aspx

Preniva: "Your weakness is our strength"

2010-05-27T12:53:00.000-07:00

http://www.hulu.com/watch/149647/saturday-night-live-preniva

Food, Inc.

2010-05-27T12:51:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqQVll-MP3I&feature=related

Spring Time Health Tips from the Yellow Emperor

2010-05-27T12:50:00.001-07:00

http://health.yahoo.com/experts/drmao/25754/spring-awakening-detox/

Something fishy at Trader Joe’s?

2010-05-22T10:03:00.000-07:00

"It’s very much a black box, opaque company. It doesn’t participate in industry groups and it’s very hard to get to because it’s impossible to get them to talk on the record"--Greenpeace campaigner Casson Trenor. “
http://www.sustainableindustries.com/foodandfarms/92668139.html?viewAll=y

In Perpetual Spring

2010-05-05T15:26:00.001-07:00

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=176957

Osteoporosis Drug Implicated in Leg Fractures

2010-04-17T08:55:00.000-07:00

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/17/osteoporosis-drug-implicated-in-thighbone-fractures.aspx

Is Your Home Toxic?

2010-04-14T17:33:00.000-07:00

http://www.naturalsolutionsmag.com/article-display/15613/subTopicID/173/Is-Your-Home-Toxic

Abbreviated Courses In Acupuncture For Physicians Pose A Serious Problem

2010-04-08T16:24:00.000-07:00

http://www.medicalacupuncturefacts.com/2010/03/24/abbreviated-courses-in-acupuncture-for-physicians-pose-a-serious-problem/

Soaking and Fermenting Grains

2010-04-08T16:21:00.001-07:00

http://www.westonaprice.org/Be-Kind-to-Your-Grains...And-Your-Grains-Will-Be-Kind-To-You.html

Slow Death by Rubber Duck

2010-03-19T09:30:00.001-07:00

http://slowdeathbyrubberduck.com/USA/

Nanofoods?

2010-03-18T05:21:00.001-07:00

http://digital.mindfulmetropolis.com/publication/?i=32760&page=1&p=35

Microwave Ovens Reconsidered

2010-02-24T10:05:00.001-08:00

http://www.distance-healer.com/87.html#16

Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck

2010-02-18T15:26:00.000-08:00

http://www.naturalnews.com/028194_Scott_Reuben_research_fraud.html

Susun Weed on Seaweed

2010-02-01T13:33:00.000-08:00

http://www.susunweed.com/Article_Seaweed.htm

Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health

2010-01-31T05:53:00.001-08:00

"The public should know if they are taking a risk with cell phones. What we're doing is a grand world experiment without informed consent."

http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?currentPage=1

The Truth About Food--Michael Pollan

2010-01-28T10:48:00.001-08:00

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/The-Truth-About-Food-with-Michael-Pollan/print/1

This Common Food Ingredient Can Really Mess Up Your Metabolism

2010-01-27T19:00:00.000-08:00

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/26/Sugar-May-Be-Bad-But-This-Sweetener-Is-Far-More-Deadly-Part-2.aspx

Shocking U.S. Senate Hearing Confirms Dangers of Cell Phones

2010-01-22T14:35:00.000-08:00

Maine is currently considering legislation requiring warning labels on cell phones and the Mayor of San Francisco wants to pass a law requiring that cell phones disclose the amount of radiation they emit. It's a controversial topic because of so many conflicting studies, but I think it's best to err on the side of caution. http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/archive/2010/01/21/US-Senate-Committee-Confirms-Dangers-of-Cell-Phones.aspx

Pressure rises to stop antibiotics in agriculture

2010-01-16T10:20:00.000-08:00

http://www.physorg.com/news181238071.html

The "science" behind the ginkgo study.

2010-01-15T16:01:00.001-08:00

Despite what you may have read, ginkgo still works; just as it has for thousands of years.
http://abc.herbalgram.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=9801.0

Monsanto GMOs Linked To Organ Failure

2010-01-14T18:59:00.001-08:00

http://www.uk.current.com/items/91855779_monsanto-gmos-linked-to-organ-failure.htm

What You Don't Know About Aspartame Can Hurt You

2010-01-07T15:13:00.000-08:00

http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/dangers.htm

Combat Your Food Cravings

2010-01-07T15:12:00.000-08:00

https://www.naturalsolutionsmag.com/article-display/15328/subTopicID/163/Combat-Your-Food-Cravings

Keep Ultrasound to a Minimum

2009-12-22T05:56:00.000-08:00

http://www.cidpusa.org/ultrasound.htm

US Kids Represent Psychiatric Drug Goldmine

2009-12-22T05:55:00.000-08:00

http://www.truthout.org/1213091

How A Bone Disease Grew To Fit The Prescription

2009-12-22T05:54:00.000-08:00

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121609815

What's My Alternative? Insomnia

2009-12-02T11:22:00.001-08:00

http://www.naturalsolutionsmag.com/article-display/15475/subTopicID/92/Whats-My-Alternative-Insomnia

Win the Cold War

2009-12-02T11:19:00.000-08:00

http://www.naturalsolutionsmag.com/article-display/15470/subTopicID/176/Win-the-Cold-War

The Motley Crucifers

2009-12-02T11:16:00.000-08:00

http://www.naturalsolutionsmag.com/article-display/15469/subTopicID/172/The-Motley-Crucifers

The Adrenal Fatigue Fix

2009-12-02T11:02:00.002-08:00

http://www.naturalsolutionsmag.com/article-display/15468/subTopicID/118/The-Adrenal-Fatigue-Fix

Faux Naturale?

2009-12-02T11:02:00.001-08:00

http://www.naturalsolutionsmag.com/article-display/15445/subTopicID/158/Faux-Naturale

The Drugs I Need

2009-11-30T07:40:00.001-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYodDH4qZQo

Does The Vaccine Matter?

2009-11-30T07:38:00.001-08:00

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200911/brownlee-h1n1

Soy is Not a Health Food

2009-11-20T19:57:00.001-08:00

http://www.smallfootprintfamily.com/2009/11/19/soy-is-not-a-health-food/

7 Foods That Should Never Cross Your Lips

2009-11-20T14:12:00.000-08:00

Food scientists are shedding light on items loaded with toxins and chemicals—and simple swaps for a cleaner diet and supersized health.

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100246775

The Great Con-Ola

2009-10-23T14:14:00.001-07:00

http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/conola.html

Drugs in Pregnancy: SafeFetus.com

2009-10-16T08:23:00.000-07:00

Drugs in Pregnancy : SafeFetus.com

Source: www.safefetus.com

SafeFetus.com – a site for Drugs in Pregnancy - is a complete online database of worldwide medications (generic drugs & trade names) that provides brief information on the drugs’ indication, fetal risk, breast feeding risk as well as its risk category according to the FDA

2012: The End of a New Dawn?

2009-09-12T06:55:00.000-07:00

http://cafemagazine.com/index.php/component/content/article/59-0909-features/244-2012-the-end-or-a-new-dawn-

Industry-Backed Label Calls Sugary Cereal a ‘Smart Choice’

2009-09-06T11:20:00.000-07:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/business/05smart.html?_r=1

Bromide and Thyroid Function

2009-09-06T11:19:00.001-07:00

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/09/05/Another-Poison-Hiding-in-Your-Environment.aspx

Acupuncture and Fibrolyalgia

2009-08-13T09:13:00.000-07:00

http://www.acufinder.com/Acupuncture+Information/Detail/Acupuncture+Helps+with+Fibromyalgia+Symptoms

Ultrasound: More Harm Than Good

2009-08-06T15:02:00.001-07:00

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasoundwagner.asp

Acupuncture Facelift

2009-07-16T14:44:00.000-07:00

http://www.naturalsolutionsmag.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/articleSearch.article/articleID/14958

Un-Cramp Your Style Put an end to menstrual pain without meds.

2009-07-16T14:39:00.000-07:00

http://www.naturalsolutionsmag.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/articleSearch.article/articleID/14946

Homeopathy To Go

2009-07-01T13:09:00.000-07:00

An easy to pack kit for on-the-road emergencies.

http://www.naturalsolutionsmag.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/articleSearch.article/articleID/15314/keyword/homeopathy/HomeopathyToGo

Bad Bargain: the dangers of generic drugs

2009-06-03T15:34:00.000-07:00

http://www.self.com/health/2009/06/dangers-of-generic-drugs

The Lost Cause of Sugar Replacements

2009-05-27T15:48:00.000-07:00

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/16759/

Breast Thermography Now Available on Chicago’s North Shore

2009-05-27T13:40:00.000-07:00

Early Detection Saves Lives Empower Woman May/June 2009
Breast Thermography Now Available on Chicago’s North Shore
By Dr. Michael J. Fox, Managing Partner Upright Imaging Center
Home of Upright MRI of Deerfield

My partners and I are thrilled to announce that new patient services are now being offered at the Upright Imaging Center. In addition to being home to Upright MRI of Deerfield (which features the most advanced, open MRI system in the world), we now offer diagnostic ultrasound and breast cancer screenings using state-of-the-art Thermography (Thermal Imaging). While we are very excited with all of our expanded services, Breast Thermography is generating a great deal of attention because it is truly saving people’s lives.

What is Thermal Imaging?
Using no radiation whatsoever, Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging (known as DITI or Thermography) detects changes that occur in skin surface temperatures, creating images that illustrate heat patterns in the body. These thermal (heat) images are then analyzed for abnormalities that may be signs of disease including cancer, arthritis, digestive orders, and heart disease, among many others.

Although Thermal Imaging can be done on all parts of the body to detect and monitor a number of diseases and physical injuries, our practice is focusing a great deal of attention on the benefits of Breast Thermography.

The Advantages of Breast Thermography
Breast cancer is a major health concern for women of all ages. Thankfully, nearly all breast cancers can be treated successfully if they are found early enough. Breast Thermography offers women the earliest possible detection of cancer by spotting irregular heat patterns and/or vascular changes in the breasts…conditions that often occur before a noticeable lump has even been formed. Unfortunately, by the time a mass is spotted through x-ray Mammography, the tumor is already years into its growth cycle. Through Breast Thermography, which observes blood flow patterns, breast cancer can be found before it reaches this stage of development.

Why It Works
For cancer cells to grow faster than the surrounding tissue, they need additional blood flow. To get the additional blood flow, these cancer cells tell the body to build new blood vessels. They also tell the body to supply the greatest possible volume of blood from the existing blood vessels. Breast Thermography detects the increased blood flow that is needed by cancer cells in their early development by measuring the additional heat that is radiating from the skin. Sadly, one in eight women will get breast cancer at some point in their lives.

Breast Thermography is EASY
This FDA-approved, non-invasive test is a valuable procedure for alerting your doctor to changes that can indicate early stage breast disease. There is no pain, no compression and no radiation! Patients are positioned in front of the Thermal Imaging Camera while a technician takes some digital pictures. Within 5-15 minutes, the test is complete. The pictures are then read by a certified doctor to analyze the amount of heat and the symmetry of the heat patterns (which may indicate infection, inflammation or a variance from the body’s norm). A report of findings is typically provided within 24- 48 hours.

Two Scans Recommended
It is strongly advised that patients have two breast scans done within a 3-4 month period. Active cancers double in size and heat approximately 100 days apart. If there are any increased heat patterns and/or vascular changes from the first breast scan to the second, additional tests will be requested by the doctor who interpreted the results. If there are no changes from the first to the second scan, an annual Breast Thermogram is recommended. All women can benefit from Breast Thermography. It’s a simple, non-invasive test that saves lives. And, now it’s available on Chicago’sNorth Shore!

Breast Thermography is saving lives. Without any radiation, compressions, or pain, this FDA approved screening method provides the earliest opportunity for detecting abnormalities in the breasts. Please call today to learn more 847-291-9321

Fowl Play

2009-04-01T11:35:00.000-07:00

Fowl Play

Your favorite lean meat serves up more than protein: There's a good chance the chicken on your plate contains pathogens and poison. What is Uncle Sam doing about it? Diddly squawk. SELF investigates.

By Tula Karras

From SELF magazine, January 2009 Issue

Jenelle Dorner, 32, of Bloomington, Indiana, doesn't eat chicken. In fact, she hardly eats anything. "Each night while I sleep, I'm fed nutrients and fluids by IV," says the married mother of one. Eight years ago, Dorner developed gastroparesis, a condition that delays or prevents food from reaching the intestines, where nutrients are absorbed. The possible cause? A hearty helping of bacteria-ridden chicken she ate at a restaurant 14 years ago.

Her story is an extreme one, but poultry can make you sick as easily today as it did to Dorner when she bit into her destructive dinner. In fact, there is a 50 percent chance that the bird you bring home from the grocery store will contain Campylobacter (known as campy for short), the bacteria that was lurking in Dorner's undercooked entrée. The pathogen, found in a chicken's intestinal tract, causes no harm to the animals, but it can make humans very ill, sometimes fatally, if high cooking temperatures don't kill it. Seeing as how the average American puts away more than 42 pounds of poultry per year (equal to 222 chicken breasts), your chances of getting sick are considerable. An estimated 76 million cases of foodborne illness occur each year in the United States, and during the past decade, poultry has caused more cases than any other individual food group, including vegetables, fruit, seafood and beef, according to data from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a food and health watchdog group in Washington, D.C. "Infections of campy are so common that many of us have probably already had it at least once," says Robert Tauxe, M.D., deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Foodborne, Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases in Atlanta.
Dorner's ordeal began in 1995, when she was a sophomore at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her father took her to a restaurant to celebrate her 19th birthday, and she ordered chicken. "I remember thinking it was slightly pink, but other than that, it seemed fine," she says. Three days later, Dorner began vomiting and experiencing stomach pains and diarrhea. Doctors at the student health center suspected a virus and sent her home with instructions to stay hydrated. But her condition worsened. "I was running a fever, couldn't keep anything down and had bloody diarrhea," Dorner recalls. She returned to the health center, where they took a stool sample and admitted her to the hospital. Dorner's lab work revealed that she had contracted campy. After taking the antibiotic Cipro, she felt better, but her digestive system was never the same. In 2001, Dorner began having severe abdominal pain and couldn't eat a meal without vomiting, the first signs of her gastroparesis. During the next five years, her condition progressed to full-blown digestive failure. "My doctors won't ever be certain, but they believe that my campylobacter infection 14 years ago could have weakened my digestive system and set the stage for the gastroparesis," Dorner says. "I was completely healthy until I had that meal."

Campy isn't the only bug infecting chickens and the women who eat them. Between 2000 and 2005, rates of salmonella, another dangerous chicken-borne pathogen, spiked 80 percent in broiler birds. Although rates have declined slightly since then, the percentage of food poisonings from salmonella has remained steady over the past decade. And in addition to gut-ravaging bacteria, there could be another harmful hitchhiker on your roaster: Conventionally raised birds may also contain arsenic, a known carcinogen. "About 70 percent of broiler chickens in the United States are fed arsenic at some point," says David Wallinga, M.D., director of the Food and Health Program at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), a nonprofit think tank focusing on farming and food policy, in Minneapolis. Farmers add arsenic to chicken feed in order to fatten their flocks—birds go from hatchling to slaughter in only six weeks—and to give the birds their pinkish hue. And the practice is actually legal.

The average person ingests an estimated 8.1 micrograms of arsenic a day from chicken, according to a study from the USDA. And when you add that to the small amounts of arsenic you can be exposed to from other sources, such as drinking water, dust and arsenic-treated wood, a steady diet of chicken could quickly become risky. "Chronic exposure [10 to 40 micrograms a day, research suggests] is associated with an increased risk for skin, bladder and respiratory cancer," says Caroline Smith DeWaal, food-safety director at the CSPI. Richard Lobb, a spokesman for the National Chicken Council in Washington, D.C., told SELF that the arsenic found in some chickens could also come from environmental sources—insisting that there is no evidence that arsenic fed to chickens harms humans.

Along with arsenic, farmers are also allowed to lace their birds' feed with antibiotics to control bacteria in crowded quarters. It sounds great in theory, but if you catch a strain of bacteria that was exposed to antibiotics in the chicken's gut, and that strain "learned" to outsmart the antibiotics, then it will be harder for you to recover. "Antibiotic-resistant strains can last longer in your body and are more likely to lead to hospitalization," Dr. Tauxe says. What's more, these superbugs are on the rise, so even though the hens might be healthy, they may be making you sicker. (Lobb reinforced that "food safety is a top concern of the poultry industry" and that it has worked to adopt judicious use of antibiotics in its farming practices.)

Who's guarding the henhouse?

It may as well be the fox himself, considering how little regulatory agencies are doing. The failures start on the farm. Farm is a quaint term that does nothing to conjure up the thousands of chickens crammed together in cramped quarters, making it easier for them to swap bacteria through direct contact and their water supply (see "Follow the Chicken," above). When the birds arrive at the slaughterhouse, they are usually rinsed with hot water and chlorine—a step that can help reduce bacteria levels but isn't required by the USDA. (The chlorine used for rinsing presents no safety issue for humans.) Unfortunately, dirty birds still go under the knife. It is here, when birds are gutted and defeathered, that bacteria travels from the intestines to the surface of muscle meat and the porous poultry skin. A USDA officer is on site in every plant, responsible for giving visual once-overs to about 35 birds a minute. "Inspectors look for things like whether entrails or feces have contaminated the outside of the bird and whether there are bruises or other signs of disease," says Kenneth Petersen, D.V.M., assistant administrator in the Office of Field Operations at the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service. But a hen may look fine and still be loaded with microscopic salmonella or campylobacter.

The gold standard for detecting bacteria in chicken is microbial testing. The USDA requires that plants submit to a test for salmonella about once a year. (There is currently no regulatory test for campy.) And in recent months, the USDA has begun reallocating resources to test poorly performing plants more often and plants with better records less often. These cleaner plants undergo testing at least once every two years. During the testing period, the USDA pulls one sample from the plant per day for 51 days. "If more than 12 of those 51 samples test positive for salmonella, it's deemed a performance-standard failure," Dr. Petersen says. Put it another way: A plant can pass even if just under 20 percent of its poultry is riddled with potentially harmful pathogens. And that plant's birds can end up in your grocery store.

In the event that a plant fails to meet even this low standard, the USDA doesn't immediately suspend it. Instead, the agency performs a follow-up test "as soon as possible" and sends an officer to scrutinize the plant's procedures. Once the officer determines the problem, he asks the plant to address it. If the plant refuses to comply, the USDA sends it a letter giving it three days to clean up its act. If that doesn't work, the plant is suspended while it makes corrections. "Of the 135 letters we sent out in 2007, about 30 plants were suspended," Dr. Petersen says. Public health experts are critical. "There are roughly 6,000 processing plants in the United States, and they've suspended only 30? Not impressive," says Carol Tucker-Foreman, distinguished fellow of the Food Policy Institute for the Consumer Federation of America in Washington, D.C., and former assistant secretary of agriculture under the Carter administration. "The USDA works feverishly to prevent a plant from shutting down; they go in and hold hands and grant extensions," Tucker-Foreman says. A USDA spokesperson counters that safeguarding poultry, eggs and meat is the agency's top priority, which it accomplishes "through a dedicated workforce, evolving technology and science and good business practices."

To reduce your odds of purchasing meat from plants that have failed USDA inspection, you have to jump through numerous hoops. The USDA has begun posting the names and identifying digits, or P numbers, of offending plants on its website—a step that has reduced contamination rates, Tucker-Foreman says. To avoid buying a bird from a poorly performing plant, you can check the site monthly to print out the list, then compare it with the packages in your store or toss any chicken you already bought with matching numbers. But not all packages carry P numbers, and because plants can pump out bacteria-ridden chicken and still pass inspection, there is still no guarantee that your bird is bacteria-free.

The USDA claims it has broad authority to enforce regulations and take action against rogue plants if necessary; but, in truth, it is limited in its ability to permanently shut down repeat offenders. In 1999, the USDA tried to close a Supreme Beef meat plant in Texas because its meat failed the USDA's salmonella tests three times in 11 months. Supreme Beef sued the USDA, claiming that the meat could have arrived at the plant already tainted by salmonella, and the law applied only to sanitary conditions within the plant. A 2001 court decision agreed with Supreme Beef, in effect curtailing the USDA's power to make good on its threats. Critics blame the Bush administration for not appealing the decision to the Supreme Court and a Republican-dominated Congress for caving to the meat lobby and refusing to support proposals to bolster the USDA's authority. "The message the Bush administration sent to meat plants was, 'You don't have to worry you'll be shut down because your salmonella levels are too high,'" Tucker-Foreman says. Bottom line: Plants can churn out a virtual petri dish of product. And consumers, who are flocking to chicken in greater numbers each year (it is, after all, one of the leanest sources of meat protein), are paying the price.

Debugging the birds

What should be happening to chicken before it lands in your #4 deli special? Ridding roasters of illness-causing bacteria must begin on the farm. "The industry knows how to produce safer poultry; they're just not doing it as carefully as they should," says Marion Nestle, Ph.D., professor of nutrition at New York University in New York City and author of What to Eat (North Point Press). Less crowding in chicken coops and supplying chlorinated drinking water for the birds are a start. But to help completely eradicate pathogens, the industry should work to rid chicken feed of bacteria by keeping bug-carrying rodents out of chicken houses, and it should test birds for bacteria before slaughter, Dr. Tauxe suggests.

The unlikely McRole model for safer chicken-processing standards: fast food chains. "Com¬panies like McDonald's and Burger King don't count on USDA regulations to keep their product safe," Tucker-Foreman says. Because of the bad rap the fast food industry acquired during the Jack in the Box fatal E. coli outbreak in 1993, major fast food companies now go to extraordinary lengths to safeguard their products.

"We do microbiological testing hourly, every day," says Edward Sabatini, vice president of quality assurance, food safety and regulatory compliance at Burger King Corporation in Miami. The company holds all meat (it's frozen) until results come back, so tainted patties can be weeded out. It also monitors its flocks' feed and water and keeps wild birds, which can easily transfer salmonella to chickens, out of its breeder flocks. Plus, unlike other eateries, fast food chains standardize their cooking process (and cook meat well), so high cooking temperatures kill any wayward pathogen that has eluded Burger King's tightly knit regulatory system.

In addition to putting controls in place on the farm, it's also up to the government to develop stricter standards for plant performance. "When the 20 percent salmonella performance standard was set in 1996, the idea was we would gradually ratchet it down to around 5 percent or so," says Michael Taylor, research professor at George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services in Washington, D.C., and a former USDA administrator who helped write the original rule. "But the strategy of bringing the standard down was not pursued by subsequent departments, and there has been little follow-up," he says.

Some progress has been made on the antibiotic-resistant front. The FDA removed one group of commonly used antibiotics called fluoroquinolones from use in poultry in 2005. "But tetracycline and sulfa drugs are still added to feed," IATP's Dr. Wallinga says. The issue is of such urgency that more than 350 groups, including the American Medical Association, have endorsed a bill—the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act—that would phase out the routine use of medically important antibiotics in animals. Log on to KeepAntibioticsWorking.org and click the Act Now button to send an automatic form letter in support of the bill to your congressional representatives.

If the state of chicken has ruffled your feathers and made you despair of a diet of tofu and lentils, take heart: There are things you can do to enjoy chicken without worry. Cook your chicken thoroughly (to kill off bacteria) and follow the steps outlined in "Have a Safer Dinner Tonight". You can also get on your squawk box and ask your congressperson to support the Food Safety Authority Modernization Act, which would enact measures to improve testing and inspection. Because, in the end, your tax dollars—which fund the USDA—should make the food you eat safer. "Why should we tolerate spending money on a program that defrauds the public with an archaic system and a seal that says our government has inspected this meat and it's OK?" Tucker-Foreman asks. When it comes to tonight's dinner, you'll have to take your health into your own hands. The greatest weapon against food poisoning is your own roasting pan.

Additional reporting by Lee Cabot Walker

The Benzo Trap

2009-01-28T12:53:00.000-08:00

The Benzo Trap
Anti-anxiety drugs ensnare millions of Americans in a web of addiction and pain. Before you fill that prescription, read on.

By Matt Samet from Natural Solutions July/August 2009

Teryn Taylor, of Marion, Indiana, has “benzo” voice: flat, devoid of emotion, almost robotic—the result of her unwitting dependence on anti-anxiety drugs (aka benzodiazepine tranquilizers). Taylor hardly looks the part. A former long-distance runner, straight-A student, and the mother of a 7-year-old daughter, this pretty Midwestern woman reached out for help after her mom died in 1996. Although no one ever diagnosed Taylor as clinically depressed, she received that help in the form of a prescription for Paxil.

After two years, Taylor decided she wanted off the antidepressant, so she quit cold turkey under her doctor’s orders. Bad idea. Almost immediately she experienced high levels of anxiety, a racing heartbeat, and a loss of equilibrium. She was, as she remembers, “a drooling, shaking, heart-palpitating, muscle-constricted mess.” So her doctor prescribed Klonopin, a potent, anti-anxiety benzo. Unfortunately, as her body grew accustomed to that drug, she needed more of it just to keep her anxiety at bay. Any attempt to quit, she says, sent her into a painful and protracted withdrawal—making her even more anxious.

Taylor stayed on benzos for seven years, and her withdrawals came with horrific side effects. “I spent most of my days on the couch,” she says, so weak she could barely function. Plagued by electric jolts called “brain zaps,” difficulty breathing, and a pervasive sense of terror, Taylor likened her experience “to being a prisoner of war.”

While not to undermine the severity of Taylor’s withdrawal symptoms, perhaps the true horror of her story lies in its broad-picture similarity to those of thousands of other benzo “slaves.” An estimated 5 million people in the US take regular “therapeutic doses” of these drugs, and worldwide, at least 3 percent to 15 percent of adults fill benzo prescriptions, according to leading benzo expert Heather Ashton, MD, of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, in England. Potentially, all of these people face some sort of withdrawal ordeal.

The too-easy solution
So how did these drugs become so pervasive? At first, they seem to offer a cure-all for any type of anxiety. But masking feelings isn’t always the smart thing to do. Fear and anxiety, for example, actually perform a valuable function: They keep us out of harm’s way. In the face of a real or perceived threat, fear triggers the “fight-or-flight” adrenal response—a normal physiological mechanism designed to keep us alive and safe.

Sometimes, however, imagined threats trigger the fear response over and over again, leading to anxiety disorders. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV lists 12 types of anxiety under such categories as phobias, generalized anxiety, panic disorders, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

All of these conditions can cause extreme psychic and physical discomfort. Those in the midst of a panic attack, perhaps the most acute manifestation of anxiety, experience a slamming heart, intense sweats, and hyperventilation—even the fear of imminent death as the sympathetic (arousing) nervous system overwhelms the parasympathetic (calming) response and floods the body with adrenaline and related noradrenaline hormones.

For this type of acute psychological distress, short-term use of benzos—no more than two weeks—can sometimes help, says Ashton. The problem? Many psychiatrists and general practitioners prescribe benzos (most commonly Ativan, Klonopin, and Xanax) as a first-line treatment for everything from muscle pain and insomnia to grief and anxiety—in other words, for the vicissitudes of life.

An in-depth report by Health Canada (the country’s department of health) titled “The Effects of Tranquilization: benzodiazepine Use in Canada” summarized the situation best: “A major factor responsible for the acceptance of these drugs has been the pervasive mythology that there are instant solutions to problems of living and that the most effective and rapid solutions are chemical in nature. Society has come to expect quick responses to any problem, whether it be the common cold, anxiety, or grief.” By accepting this philosophy, continues the report, “many people have come to view benzodiazepines as essentially a social and recreational drug, not unlike alcohol.”

And yet, an established and growing body of research links long-term use of these drugs with such serious neurological and psychological risks as brain atrophy, emotional anesthesia (a numbing of the emotions), memory impairment, and suicidal tendencies.

Let me give you something
Alas, the overprescribing of psychiatric drugs is nothing new. In 1960, Librium, the first benzo, hit the market with the slogan: “Whatever the diagnosis—Librium.” This pushed the idea that common, physiological complaints—asthmas, ulcers, hypertension—were mere manifestations of anxiety. Soon the proto-benzo Valium, later satirized by the Rolling Stones as “mother’s little helper,” burst on the scene as a safe, nonaddictive solution to stress and an antidote to a woman’s inability to cope.

By the 1970s, Valium became the most heavily prescribed drug in America, according to psychiatrist Peter Breggin in his seminal book Toxic Psychiatry (St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994). In fact, in the drug’s 1978 heyday, Americans popped more than 2 billion tabs of Valium. Xanax, stronger yet, replaced Valium in 1986, even though the problems with long-term benzo use (including addiction) had, by that point, been well-documented.

Commonly prescribed benzos today include the aforementioned Ativan, Klonopin, and Xanax, as well as the sleeping pill Restoril. The “non-narcotic” sleeping medicines Ambien, Lunesta, and Sonata, while not technically benzos, act similarly on the brain and can cause the same problems.

benzos have been overprescribed “partly because they were safer than barbiturates [earlier-generation tranquilizers],” says Ashton, “and partly because of very strong drug company pressure, ignorance, and the gullibility of doctors trying to be kind to their patients.”

Doctors, says Ashton, tend to ignore the literature, which warned about the problem at least since the Valium overprescription debacle of the 1970s and 1980s, and they routinely ignore prescribing guidelines (including those of the FDA) that cap daily usage at two weeks.

How they work
benzos don’t get you high or give you a rush. They relax and calm you. They do this by enhancing the action of a neurotransmitter called gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), a “built-in calmer or an internal benzo if you like,” says Ashton. Your brain cells have receptor sites for GABA, and benzos increase those receptors’ affinity for the calming neurotransmitter.

But when all your GABA is “enhanced” by benzos, “the brain thinks, I don’t need all this GABA around, so the receptors for it go away—they internalize, or invert, into the inside of the nerve,” says Ashton. As you lose GABA receptors, you begin to feel anxious again, even though you’re still on the benzo drug. Clinicians call this “tolerance withdrawal.”

Now, says Ashton, you have to increase the benzo dosage to get the same calming effect—a vicious cycle that seems to explain the millions of Americans taking regular doses of these drugs.

Other problems also beset those who take benzos daily. The Health Canada report found that long-term use impairs learning ability, motor skills, and sex drive as well as the ability to empathize with others and to cope with stressful situations. “We regularly see individuals with such issues as confusion, generalized fatigue, sleep disorders, slurred speech, and even motor problems like uncoordination and unsteady gait,” says David Perlmutter, MD, a neurologist at the Perlmutter Health Center in Naples, Florida, and author of The Better Brain Book (Riverhead, 2004).

The withdrawal syndrome
The situation worsens when people want to stop taking anti-anxiety meds. Most doctors give their patients the impression that the drugs are nonaddictive and perfectly safe, says Ashton, misinformation that trickles down from the pharmaceutical companies. In reality, during benzo withdrawal, “you go into hyperdrive and acute anxiety,” she says, because your body has become dependent on the tranquilizers. You might also face profound insomnia, panic attacks, muscle tremors, muscle stiffness, sweating, palpitations, gastrointestinal distress, hallucinations, and nightmares.

The hospitals, detox centers, and doctors who follow a typical addiction-treatment protocol frequently insist that patients, like Taylor, wean themselves from benzos, even at high doses, in a matter of weeks or even days. But when stopped abruptly—and in an unlucky few, even when tapered slowly—benzos can foster a withdrawal syndrome much more severe than almost any other drug. Such rapid cessation can lead to complications like protracted (18-plus-month) withdrawal periods, and even psychosis, seizures, and death. “In this respect, getting people off benzos may be just as challenging as cocaine and other ‘street drugs,’” says Perlmutter.

And to make matters worse, he continues, these drugs enjoy legal sanction, so there’s often “less compassion offered to individuals addicted to benzos, compared to those addicted to more glamorous drugs.”

Escape the trap
The best way to avoid the dangers of anti-anxiety drugs, of course, is not to take them in the first place—or to take them only in acute, emergency situations and even then for no longer than two weeks. In times of stress, anxiety, or panic, look to exercise, diet, mind-body practices, and other techniques to bolster your body’s ability to calm itself.

If you’re already dependent on benzos, keep in mind you must wean yourself from them slowly. “The inverted GABA receptors—big protein molecular structures that take a lot of brain and body energy to resynthesize—have to come back again,” says Ashton. “This takes time and a lot of metabolic energy, but it does happen.” Depending on your starting dose and how you taper, the GABA receptors can sometimes take years to fully regrow, so that the neurotransmitter can do its job and relax you.

Anyone looking for guidance in slowly tapering off anti-anxiety drugs should turn to the Ashton manual (benzodiazepines: How They Work and How to Withdraw; benzo.org.uk/manual" target="_blank">www.benzo.org.uk/manual.) The so-called “Ashton Method” draws from Ashton’s research and years of experience running an outpatient benzo withdrawal clinic, during which time she saw hundreds of people safely wean themselves from the meds.

First off, Ashton encourages patients to switch to Valium, which has the longest half-life of any benzo. (The half-life is the time it takes for half a given dose to leave your body, which is 200 hours for Valium.) Because Valium clears a little bit at a time, the drug is almost self-tapering, with a gradual comedown that creates less anxiety than faster-acting benzos like Xanax and Klonopin. The more slowly you taper, the greater chance your GABA receptors have to regenerate with each dose reduction.

You can further ease the withdrawal by adding anxiety-reducing techniques such as yoga, breathing exercises, and streamlined nutrition (see “Survival Tips” below).

Alison Kellagher, who has a master’s degree in counseling, works with those who want to quit or who are currently in withdrawal mode. A benzo survivor herself, Kellagher under- went five abrupt withdrawals, the final one off 7 mg a day of Klonopin in 2002. Kellagher took three years to heal before returning to the Nordic skiing and competitive cycling she’d been forced to set aside while benzo sick.

Because she knows just how bad withdrawal can be, Kellagher coaches her patients in acceptance, using simple breathing and relaxation techniques and calming (nonstrenuous) yoga poses to combat the fear state of withdrawal. “The central thing is to help people recognize the syndrome,” she says. “They need to understand that this is an existing and understood withdrawal syndrome, and recognize where they are in the process.”

Kellagher also counsels patience; simple living (eating well, avoiding stress, and sleeping when you can); and caution when adding outside agents (vitamins or supplements) to try to mend the nervous system. Concentrated amounts of individual nutrients may further upset the delicate neurochemical balance in benzo patients, she says, so it’s better to get your nutrients from foods.

Calm waters ahead
Despite these formidable challenges, people do escape the benzo trap. For those who taper slowly, Ashton pegs relapse rates at only 10 percent. After the withdrawal period, people rarely get cravings. The body heals itself, and life goes on. Many even say their lives are much better than before.

Now tapering her final psychiatric medicine at a slow, cautious rate, Teryn Taylor moves closer to her goal of wellness with each cut in dosage. She says she’ll consider herself completely healed when her symptoms subside 100 percent, and that she’ll be the “happiest person on the planet to have made it through this.” Taylor won’t return to her old job as a speech therapist—instead she wants to focus on helping other people addicted to benzos.

“It’s still hard for me to believe that this is my story,” she says. “It’s just so barbaric.”

Matt Samet, a Boulder, Colorado-based freelance writer, just celebrated two-and-a-half years’ freedom from benzodiazepines after 13 years on them.

>> For more ways to treat anxiety disorders naturally… Visit our Condition Centers at www.naturalsolutionsmag.com.

Survival Tips
When tapering off benzos, the following tips will help see you through the withdrawal:

Pace yourself.
Do not push too hard—physically, socially, or emotionally—even when you feel good. Overextending can lead to heightened withdrawal and demoralizing setbacks, says benzo survivor Alison Kellagher. Your system, she says, wants you to “sit down and heal.”

Avoid caffeine and sugar. Patients in benzo withdrawal, says neurologist David Perlmutter, MD, can become hypersensitive to the stimulating effects of sugars. Instead, he recommends whole, organic foods and an intake of “adequate dietary protein” several times daily, as well as complex carbohydrates (like whole grains), to smooth out blood-sugar levels.

Learn acceptance, patience, and wisdom. Many have chased dead ends with doctor’s visits and needless therapy, only to recover fully from their anxiety issues once the withdrawal ended. In withdrawal, “we have to learn to use our minds to calm ourselves—not just our bodies,” says Kellagher. “Looking to the wisdom traditions—yoga, meditation, prayer—is probably the best place to go.”

Walk. According to Perlmutter, exercise—even mild exercise—releases the brain-calming chemical serotonin. So while jumping on a treadmill or stationary bike may seem overwhelming, a short walk is doable even on the worst days. You should walk with “conscious awareness that it’s not just to get from one place to another, but is a meaningful activity serving an integral role in your recovery,” advises Perlmutter.

Distract yourself. Any pleasant diversion, such as a crossword puzzle, phone conversation, or nonviolent movie, will fill time and declaw certain withdrawal symptoms. “I took a job in a bakery five months after stopping benzos,” says Kellagher. “The structured time was really, really helpful.”

Breathe. Diaphragmatic breathing—drawing breath in through the nose and out through the mouth, with a two-second pause after exhalation—calms the nervous system. For breathing exercises that ease anxiety, go to www.naturalsolutionsmag.com and search for pranayama.

Yoga. Very light yoga, in a therapeutic yoga class, with a partner, or using a DVD, will help you feel at peace. Kellagher does yoga with her clients, running through a routine based on grounding movements and those that bring a sense of safety and security. “It helps people to do the yoga with someone else, too, to feel connected,” she says.

The Needle Solution
According to Boulder, Colorado-based oriental medicine practitioner David Scrimgeour, LAc, acupuncture works as an integral part of a withdrawal plan by:

• Stimulating the release of feel-good neurotransmitters such as endorphins, inducing an overall calming and balancing effect on the body’s central nervous system.

• Decreasing anxiety during the withdrawal phase by prompting the release of chemicals in the body that occupy the receptor sites once targeted by the benzo. It also lowers ACTH (adrenocorticotropic hormone) levels—like excess adrenalin or elevated cortisol—further balancing the nervous system.

• Activating ear points, which (as scientists discovered in the 1970s) have a very strong sedating and regulating effect on both the sympathetic and autonomic nervous systems.

The Scary Truth About Statins

2009-01-17T09:53:00.000-08:00

The Scary Truth About Statins
What you need to know before you fill that prescription

BY ERIN QUINN from Natural Solutions Magazine January 2009

The notion that high cholesterol causes heart disease has allowed doctors to write millions of prescriptions for cholesterol-lowering drugs called statins that can reduce the risk of it. That seemingly indisputable notion has long suffered from an inconvenient fact: Half the people who have a heart attack don’t have high cholesterol. So, increasingly, doctors have flagged inflammation within the cardiovascular system as the culprit in these cases—an idea that has gained added currency from a study published late last year— and have discovered a drug that can help lower the risk of heart attacks for these folks: Lo and behold, it’s a statin.

The new research, called the JUPITER study, focused on C-reactive protein (CRP) because it is a marker of inflammation in the body. CRP levels in the blood go up whenever the body revs up the immune system. The study found that giving the statin rosuvastatin to men and women with normal levels of LDL cholesterol (the “bad” kind) but high levels of CRP (i.e., inflammation) reduced the incidence of heart attacks, stroke, and cardiovascular-related deaths by 44 percent. While this result does indeed seem “remarkable,” as the researchers say, it and the study itself raise some interesting questions.

First off, what does this new link between high CRPI inflammation and heart disease say about the millions of people currently taking statins, cholesterol drugs that include billion-dollar brands such as Crestor, Lipitor, and Zocor? Will they avoid heart disease even if their CRP levels are normal? Should everyone take statins to ward off heart disease, just in case? “I think this is the biggest myth in medicine right now,” says cardiologist Stephen Sinatra, MD, of the New England Heart & Longevity Center in Manchester, Connecticut “Would I prescribe statins to a 60-year-old man who has high CRP levels and hardened arteries? Absolutely,” says Sinatra, “but I’m not convinced statins are worth it as a preventative measure.

3 Ways to Get Your Number Down
Break A Sweat: Endurance exercise, such as jogging or biking, is one of the best ways to lower inflammation. Heart-pumping activities also increase beneficial HDL cholesterol levels. Aim for 30 to 45 minutes of aerobic exercise five times a week.
Lose Your Belly: Women with waists that measure more than 35 inches (more than 40 for men) likely have high inflammation in the body, which creates higher cholesterol levels. Reduce your inflammation risk by whittling a few inches off through diet and exercise.
Quite Smoking: Smoking hardens and inflames the arteries. If you’ve never smoked, don’t, and if you do—stop now. You’ll reduce inflammatory chemicals immediately. Especially for women—the risks and side effects are just too great.

Side Effects May Vary
If you believe the small-print warnings on ads for statins, the major side effect, muscle weakness and pain, occurs only rarely. The actual incidence is much higher, however, and muscle pain is a major reason why people stop taking the drugs. “Patients describe it as a general aching in their joints and muscles,” says Mark A. Moyad, MD, MPH, the Jenkins/Pokempner director of preventive and alternative medicine at the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor. “The pain can start as soon as someone begins taking a statin—or not for several years. There’s no timeline.”

James Wright, MD, PhD, at the University of British Columbia, worries about more serious problems, including peripheral neuropathy, interstitial pneumonitis, and various cognitive and psychiatric effects. “I think we don’t really have a good handle on what’s happening there,” he says about these Alzheimer’s-like symptoms, “and some of the patients appear to have permanent effects.” For women, an elevated risk of breast cancer should be a major concern. “Along with blocking cholesterol, statins also block squalene, an antioxidant and immune system booster that is vital to preventing breast cancer:’ says Sinatra, who notes that all side effects are more common in women, particularly postmenopausal women.

How Low Is Too Low?
Beyond its potential to undermine the original rationale for taking statins—that too much LDL cholesterol in the blood leads to cardiovascular disease—the JUPITER study also raises questions about the impact of lowering cholesterol
levels too much. After all, every cell in the body needs LDL cholesterol to grow and repair itself, and the body uses it to produce hormones—including those governing sexual function.

In the study, the stat coup’s median LDL level dropped from 108 to 55 after a year. Researchers have already linked low LDL cholesterol to Parkinson’s disease and possibly to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (known as AL.S or Lou Gehrig’s Disease), but they don’t really know the ramifications of keeping LDL levels as low as those achieved in the JUPITER study—especially for the years and even decades someone might stay on statins.

They do know that statins inhibit the synthesis of cholesterol in the brain, specifically by blocking what’s called the mevalonate pathway in the glial cells. This severely curtails the growth of new synapses and thus impedes communication between neurons—which may account for the amnesia, confusion, forgetfulness- disorientation, and dementia reported by some statin takers. Furthermore, in blocking this pathway, statins also inhibit the synthesis of other vital biochemicals, notably heart-friendly Co-QlO.

Who Should You Believe?
Mainstream medical doctors hailed the JUPITER study as a major scientific advance and Business Week predicted a new boom in the sale of statins. But critics soon identified some serious problems. Perhaps the study’s full name made them skeptical: JUPITER stands for Justification for Use in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin. Or maybe it was the fact that the study was sponsored by AstraZenica, the company that makes Crestor (rosuvastatin). Among a number of specific issues, the critics pointed out that the much-touted 44 percent reduction in overall mortality actually represents a very small set of numbers: The placebo group did not experience significantly more deaths overall than the statin group. And, in fact, the difference between the two groups was narrowing when the study was suddenly stopped. Furthermore, the combination of low LDL cholesterol and high CRP that characterized the study subjects is very unusual—typically both are high— which means the study results aren’t readily applicable to most Americans.

Get Healthy On Your Own
Many forward-thinking cardiologists recommend getting a CRP test (cost: $50 to $80) as part of a complete heart checkup. It and other tests will provide a more accurate assessment of your heart health than cholesterol levels alone. But don’t get complacent about your high cholesterol—most cardiologists still recommend getting your LDL level under 110 and your HDL above 50 (40 for men). Just make sure you do that with natural means before opting for a statin. A number of supplements produce the same effects as statins, but the first step should be making changes to your diet and exercise program. Give yourself three to six months to lose weight, eat better, and stress less—all things that can eliminate your need for statins completely. “This is an ongoing problem in medicine,” says Moyad, “a quick trigger to solve a problem that you could have solved with lifestyle changes. But people have to remember that statins aren’t a quick fix. They’re powerful drugs that come with unpleasant side effects and other huge risks.”

Already Taking Statins?
If you’re one of millions of people on a statin drug, here are a few supplements to ease side effects and boost the drug’s benefits.
Coenzyme Q10. Commonly referred to as Co-Q10, this vitamin-like biochemical acts as an antioxidant to protect your body from damage. It provides specific benefits to the heart and muscles (and lessens the muscle pain that comes with taking statins). Since these drugs reduce the body’s ability to synthesize Co-Qt0 naturally, Stephen Sinatra, MD, recommends taking 100 to 180 mg a day.
Squalene. This antioxidant and immune system booster is found in olive oil. “Researchers suspect that Spanish and Greek women who eat a Mediterranean diet get less cancer than American women because of the squalene effect,” says Sinatra. Add one to two tablespoons of olive oil to your diet each day.
Lycopene. A powerful antioxidant found in tomatoes, watermelon, pink grapefruit, and papaya, lycopene lowers inflammation levels throughout the body. Take 100 to 250 mg daily.
Turmeric. A frequent component of Indian cuisine, this potent anti-inflammatory herb also comes in supplement form. “I use it on a day-to-day basis,” says Sinatra. “I’ve been using it not only as an anti-inflammatory but also in the treatment of left ventricular hypertrophy and congestive heart failure.” Another option is the supplement Zyflamend, which is a mix of 10 different herbs, including turmeric.

Cholesterol Without Drugs
Red Yeast Rice Extract. This fermented food has been shown to lower cholesterol as much as a statin. Work closely with your doctor to find the right dosage.
Niacin. This form of vitamin B3 boosts HDL (“good”) cholesterol by 15 to 35 per cent, it also lowers both LDL (“bad’) cholesterol and triglycerides (another heart disease—related fat in the blood).
Fish Oil. With its high levels of omega-3 fatty acids, fish oil has been shown to reduce the uptake of triglycerides in the body. In fact, the American heart Association recommends that people with high triglycerides take 2 to 4 grams of fish oil supplements daily.
Glucomanann. These vegetable fibers (from the Asian plant konjac) lower cholesterol by absorbing the bile acids in your intestines. After digestion your body pulls cholesterol from your bloodstream to replenish its store of bile acids. Take 5 to 10 grams daily.
Syrintol. Research published in the journal Alternative Therapies found that taking this supplement daily reduced total cholesterol levels by 20 to 30 percent.
Fucothin. This metabolism booster has been found to help people lose weight, especially in the belly area. “It doesn’t lower cholesterol,” says Moyad. “But in the majority of cases, losing belly fat is naturally going to lower inflammation and blood pressure.”

ERIN QUINN is a freelance writer in
Austin, Texas.

Fowl Play

2009-01-02T11:22:00.000-08:00

FOWL PLAY By Tula Karras
From Self Magazine January 2009 Issue

Your favorite lean meat serves up more than protein: There's a good chance the chicken on your plate contains pathogens and poison. What is Uncle Sam doing about it? Diddly squawk. SELF investigates.

Jenelle Dorner, 32, of Bloomington, Indiana, doesn't eat chicken. In fact, she hardly eats anything. "Each night while I sleep, I'm fed nutrients and fluids by IV," says the married mother of one. Eight years ago, Dorner developed gastroparesis, a condition that delays or prevents food from reaching the intestines, where nutrients are absorbed. The possible cause? A hearty helping of bacteria-ridden chicken she ate at a restaurant 14 years ago.

Her story is an extreme one, but poultry can make you sick as easily today as it did to Dorner when she bit into her destructive dinner. In fact, there is a 50 percent chance that the bird you bring home from the grocery store will contain Campylobacter (known as campy for short), the bacteria that was lurking in Dorner's undercooked entrée. The pathogen, found in a chicken's intestinal tract, causes no harm to the animals, but it can make humans very ill, sometimes fatally, if high cooking temperatures don't kill it. Seeing as how the average American puts away more than 42 pounds of poultry per year (equal to 222 chicken breasts), your chances of getting sick are considerable. An estimated 76 million cases of foodborne illness occur each year in the United States, and during the past decade, poultry has caused more cases than any other individual food group, including vegetables, fruit, seafood and beef, according to data from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a food and health watchdog group in Washington, D.C. "Infections of campy are so common that many of us have probably already had it at least once," says Robert Tauxe, M.D., deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Foodborne, Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases in Atlanta.

Dorner's ordeal began in 1995, when she was a sophomore at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her father took her to a restaurant to celebrate her 19th birthday, and she ordered chicken. "I remember thinking it was slightly pink, but other than that, it seemed fine," she says. Three days later, Dorner began vomiting and experiencing stomach pains and diarrhea. Doctors at the student health center suspected a virus and sent her home with instructions to stay hydrated. But her condition worsened. "I was running a fever, couldn't keep anything down and had bloody diarrhea," Dorner recalls. She returned to the health center, where they took a stool sample and admitted her to the hospital. Dorner's lab work revealed that she had contracted campy. After taking the antibiotic Cipro, she felt better, but her digestive system was never the same. In 2001, Dorner began having severe abdominal pain and couldn't eat a meal without vomiting, the first signs of her gastroparesis. During the next five years, her condition progressed to full-blown digestive failure. "My doctors won't ever be certain, but they believe that my campylobacter infection 14 years ago could have weakened my digestive system and set the stage for the gastroparesis," Dorner says. "I was completely healthy until I had that meal."

Campy isn't the only bug infecting chickens and the women who eat them. Between 2000 and 2005, rates of salmonella, another dangerous chicken-borne pathogen, spiked 80 percent in broiler birds. Although rates have declined slightly since then, the percentage of food poisonings from salmonella has remained steady over the past decade. And in addition to gut-ravaging bacteria, there could be another harmful hitchhiker on your roaster: Conventionally raised birds may also contain arsenic, a known carcinogen. "About 70 percent of broiler chickens in the United States are fed arsenic at some point," says David Wallinga, M.D., director of the Food and Health Program at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), a nonprofit think tank focusing on farming and food policy, in Minneapolis. Farmers add arsenic to chicken feed in order to fatten their flocks—birds go from hatchling to slaughter in only six weeks—and to give the birds their pinkish hue. And the practice is actually legal.

The average person ingests an estimated 8.1 micrograms of arsenic a day from chicken, according to a study from the USDA. And when you add that to the small amounts of arsenic you can be exposed to from other sources, such as drinking water, dust and arsenic-treated wood, a steady diet of chicken could quickly become risky. "Chronic exposure [10 to 40 micrograms a day, research suggests] is associated with an increased risk for skin, bladder and respiratory cancer," says Caroline Smith DeWaal, food-safety director at the CSPI. Richard Lobb, a spokesman for the National Chicken Council in Washington, D.C., told SELF that the arsenic found in some chickens could also come from environmental sources—insisting that there is no evidence that arsenic fed to chickens harms humans.

Along with arsenic, farmers are also allowed to lace their birds' feed with antibiotics to control bacteria in crowded quarters. It sounds great in theory, but if you catch a strain of bacteria that was exposed to antibiotics in the chicken's gut, and that strain "learned" to outsmart the antibiotics, then it will be harder for you to recover. "Antibiotic-resistant strains can last longer in your body and are more likely to lead to hospitalization," Dr. Tauxe says. What's more, these superbugs are on the rise, so even though the hens might be healthy, they may be making you sicker. (Lobb reinforced that "food safety is a top concern of the poultry industry" and that it has worked to adopt judicious use of antibiotics in its farming practices.)

Who's guarding the henhouse?

It may as well be the fox himself, considering how little regulatory agencies are doing. The failures start on the farm. Farm is a quaint term that does nothing to conjure up the thousands of chickens crammed together in cramped quarters, making it easier for them to swap bacteria through direct contact and their water supply (see "Follow the Chicken," above). When the birds arrive at the slaughterhouse, they are usually rinsed with hot water and chlorine—a step that can help reduce bacteria levels but isn't required by the USDA. (The chlorine used for rinsing presents no safety issue for humans.) Unfortunately, dirty birds still go under the knife. It is here, when birds are gutted and defeathered, that bacteria travels from the intestines to the surface of muscle meat and the porous poultry skin. A USDA officer is on site in every plant, responsible for giving visual once-overs to about 35 birds a minute. "Inspectors look for things like whether entrails or feces have contaminated the outside of the bird and whether there are bruises or other signs of disease," says Kenneth Petersen, D.V.M., assistant administrator in the Office of Field Operations at the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service. But a hen may look fine and still be loaded with microscopic salmonella or campylobacter.

The gold standard for detecting bacteria in chicken is microbial testing. The USDA requires that plants submit to a test for salmonella about once a year. (There is currently no regulatory test for campy.) And in recent months, the USDA has begun reallocating resources to test poorly performing plants more often and plants with better records less often. These cleaner plants undergo testing at least once every two years. During the testing period, the USDA pulls one sample from the plant per day for 51 days. "If more than 12 of those 51 samples test positive for salmonella, it's deemed a performance-standard failure," Dr. Petersen says. Put it another way: A plant can pass even if just under 20 percent of its poultry is riddled with potentially harmful pathogens. And that plant's birds can end up in your grocery store.

In the event that a plant fails to meet even this low standard, the USDA doesn't immediately suspend it. Instead, the agency performs a follow-up test "as soon as possible" and sends an officer to scrutinize the plant's procedures. Once the officer determines the problem, he asks the plant to address it. If the plant refuses to comply, the USDA sends it a letter giving it three days to clean up its act. If that doesn't work, the plant is suspended while it makes corrections. "Of the 135 letters we sent out in 2007, about 30 plants were suspended," Dr. Petersen says. Public health experts are critical. "There are roughly 6,000 processing plants in the United States, and they've suspended only 30? Not impressive," says Carol Tucker-Foreman, distinguished fellow of the Food Policy Institute for the Consumer Federation of America in Washington, D.C., and former assistant secretary of agriculture under the Carter administration. "The USDA works feverishly to prevent a plant from shutting down; they go in and hold hands and grant extensions," Tucker-Foreman says. A USDA spokesperson counters that safeguarding poultry, eggs and meat is the agency's top priority, which it accomplishes "through a dedicated workforce, evolving technology and science and good business practices."

To reduce your odds of purchasing meat from plants that have failed USDA inspection, you have to jump through numerous hoops. The USDA has begun posting the names and identifying digits, or P numbers, of offending plants on its website—a step that has reduced contamination rates, Tucker-Foreman says. To avoid buying a bird from a poorly performing plant, you can check the site monthly to print out the list, then compare it with the packages in your store or toss any chicken you already bought with matching numbers. But not all packages carry P numbers, and because plants can pump out bacteria-ridden chicken and still pass inspection, there is still no guarantee that your bird is bacteria-free.

The USDA claims it has broad authority to enforce regulations and take action against rogue plants if necessary; but, in truth, it is limited in its ability to permanently shut down repeat offenders. In 1999, the USDA tried to close a Supreme Beef meat plant in Texas because its meat failed the USDA's salmonella tests three times in 11 months. Supreme Beef sued the USDA, claiming that the meat could have arrived at the plant already tainted by salmonella, and the law applied only to sanitary conditions within the plant. A 2001 court decision agreed with Supreme Beef, in effect curtailing the USDA's power to make good on its threats. Critics blame the Bush administration for not appealing the decision to the Supreme Court and a Republican-dominated Congress for caving to the meat lobby and refusing to support proposals to bolster the USDA's authority. "The message the Bush administration sent to meat plants was, 'You don't have to worry you'll be shut down because your salmonella levels are too high,'" Tucker-Foreman says. Bottom line: Plants can churn out a virtual petri dish of product. And consumers, who are flocking to chicken in greater numbers each year (it is, after all, one of the leanest sources of meat protein), are paying the price.

Debugging the birds

What should be happening to chicken before it lands in your #4 deli special? Ridding roasters of illness-causing bacteria must begin on the farm. "The industry knows how to produce safer poultry; they're just not doing it as carefully as they should," says Marion Nestle, Ph.D., professor of nutrition at New York University in New York City and author of What to Eat (North Point Press). Less crowding in chicken coops and supplying chlorinated drinking water for the birds are a start. But to help completely eradicate pathogens, the industry should work to rid chicken feed of bacteria by keeping bug-carrying rodents out of chicken houses, and it should test birds for bacteria before slaughter, Dr. Tauxe suggests.

The unlikely McRole model for safer chicken-processing standards: fast food chains. "Companies like McDonald's and Burger King don't count on USDA regulations to keep their product safe," Tucker-Foreman says. Because of the bad rap the fast food industry acquired during the Jack in the Box fatal E. coli outbreak in 1993, major fast food companies now go to extraordinary lengths to safeguard their products.

"We do microbiological testing hourly, every day," says Edward Sabatini, vice president of quality assurance, food safety and regulatory compliance at Burger King Corporation in Miami. The company holds all meat (it's frozen) until results come back, so tainted patties can be weeded out. It also monitors its flocks' feed and water and keeps wild birds, which can easily transfer salmonella to chickens, out of its breeder flocks. Plus, unlike other eateries, fast food chains standardize their cooking process (and cook meat well), so high cooking temperatures kill any wayward pathogen that has eluded Burger King's tightly knit regulatory system.

In addition to putting controls in place on the farm, it's also up to the government to develop stricter standards for plant performance. "When the 20 percent salmonella performance standard was set in 1996, the idea was we would gradually ratchet it down to around 5 percent or so," says Michael Taylor, research professor at George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services in Washington, D.C., and a former USDA administrator who helped write the original rule. "But the strategy of bringing the standard down was not pursued by subsequent departments, and there has been little follow-up," he says.

Some progress has been made on the antibiotic-resistant front. The FDA removed one group of commonly used antibiotics called fluoroquinolones from use in poultry in 2005. "But tetracycline and sulfa drugs are still added to feed," IATP's Dr. Wallinga says. The issue is of such urgency that more than 350 groups, including the American Medical Association, have endorsed a bill—the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act—that would phase out the routine use of medically important antibiotics in animals. Log on to KeepAntibioticsWorking.org and click the Act Now button to send an automatic form letter in support of the bill to your congressional representatives.

If the state of chicken has ruffled your feathers and made you despair of a diet of tofu and lentils, take heart: There are things you can do to enjoy chicken without worry. Cook your chicken thoroughly (to kill off bacteria) and follow the steps outlined in "Have a Safer Dinner Tonight". You can also get on your squawk box and ask your congressperson to support the Food Safety Authority Modernization Act, which would enact measures to improve testing and inspection. Because, in the end, your tax dollars—which fund the USDA—should make the food you eat safer. "Why should we tolerate spending money on a program that defrauds the public with an archaic system and a seal that says our government has inspected this meat and it's OK?" Tucker-Foreman asks. When it comes to tonight's dinner, you'll have to take your health into your own hands. The greatest weapon against food poisoning is your own roasting pan.

Additional reporting by Lee Cabot Walker

Pill Free, Pain Free

2008-12-11T14:33:00.000-08:00

Pill Free, Pain Free
Swap your meds for these natural and effective alternatives.

BY KRISTIN BJORNSEN from Natural Solutions Jan 2009

Athletes often joke about relying on “vitamin I,’ aka ibuprofen, to get through the aches and pains of training. But they’re not the only ones who depend on nonsteroidal anti- inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for pain relief. Every day, more than 30 million Americans take NSAIDs like ibuprofen, aspirin, and naproxen for everything from headaches, muscle cramps, and sport injuries to chronic conditions like arthritis, neuropathy, and back pain.

Much of the pain we feel comes from inflammation—a defensive response that causes tissues to swell and amplifies the signal from pain nerves—so reaching for an anti-inflammatory makes perfect sense. NSAIDs do block inflammation-causing enzymes and lower pain. But unfortunately, they come with some pretty serious side effects. With regular use, NSAIDs raise the risk of ulcers, bleeding in the stomach, strokes, heart attack, and kidney damage—in part, by interfering with important, hormone- like compounds called prostaglandins. “I wouldn’t take them on a regular basis for more than a few months, if at all,” says Jonathan Wright, MD, medical director of the Tahoma Clinic in Washington. “Some individuals might even see adverse effects after just a few days.”

No need to grin and bear it though. Nature has provided an array of effective, yet gentle, remedies that decrease inflammation and soothe pain—letting you say bye-bye to vitamin I.

Boswellia Also known as frankincense, this herb eases both chronic and minor pains. The active ingredients, boswellic
acids, decrease the production of inflammatory compounds implicated in many chronic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. Look for a formula standardized to 60 percent boswellic acids, and take 750 mg per day in three divided doses. A 90-percent formulation just came out this year, adds Wright; follow the dosage on the label of this new formula.

Arnica This centuries-old remedy comes from the bright yellow arnica flower, which grows in the alpine meadows of Europe. Compounds in arnica called sesquiterpene lactones decrease inflammation and boost the immune system.

In a 2007 Swiss study involving more than 200 people with osteoarthritis, a topical arnica gel soothed pain and restored joint function just as well as ibuprofen. Also ideal for acute injuries, such as sprains, strains, bruises, and postoperative healing, arnica cream or gel should be applied three to four times a day. For a one-two punch, take arnica homeopathically at the same time, using remedies of 6c, l2c, or 30c potency—three pellets under the tongue, three times a day.

Curcumin Often called the “spice of life,” turmeric contains the compound curcumin, which not only blocks inflammatory proteins, but also enhances the body’s ability to quell inflammation. Studies have found curcumin alleviates the chronic pain of rheumatoid arthritis, and numerous animal studies suggest it helps ward off Alzheimer’s, heart disease, and diabetes. Take 400 to 600 mg of curcumin three times daily. To increase absorption, take it with equal amounts of bromelain—an anti-inflammatory enzyme found in pineapples—20 minutes before meals.

Omega 3 Fatty Acids “These are critical for long-term pain reduction,” says Wright, “because your body breaks omega-3 fatty acids down into anti-inflammatory compounds.” Also, if you don’t get enough omega-3s in your diet, you’ll experience more pain and greater inflammation when you do get injured or ill.

Found in flaxseed, hempseed, and cold-water fish such as salmon, sardines, and mackerel, omega-3s also come in supplement form. For basic maintenance, shoot for 1,000 to 2,000 mg a day. For chronic pain, take 2,000 to 4,000 mg a day.

Make sure to take 400 IU of vitamin E (in “mixed tocopherols” form) each day as well, which will prevent the omega-3 fatty acids from oxidizing in your body and attacking healthy cells.

Ginger This flavorful root contains enzymes that inhibit the production of inflammatory compounds. But
“the amount of ginger in a spice, tea, or candy isn’t going to provide much pain relief, no matter how good it tastes,” says Paul Anderson, ND, at Bastyr University in Seattle. For acute pain, 2 grams of ground dehydrated ginger daily, in three divided doses, should do the trick. For chronic conditions, cut to 1 gram daily, in three divided doses.

Devil’s Claw Native to South Africa, the prickly devil’s claw is a hard fruit covered with sharp little hooks that snag onto fur and flesh, causing pain. As an herbal remedy, however, it takes pain away, with research showing it significantly alleviates back pain and arthritis.

One four-month study examined more than 120 people with knee and hip osteoarthritis and found that devil’s claw decreased pain a increased function just as well as a common osteoarthritis medication, and with fewer side effects. Other studies have shown similar results for low back pain.

The active ingredients appear to be compounds called iridoid glycosides, in particular, one called harpagoside, which have potent pain-relieving and inflammation-fighting properties, says Wright. Take 50 to 100mg of harpagoside daily or 400 mg of dried devil’s claw. People with stomach ulcers should consult their doctor first since devil’s claw stimulates the production of gastric acid.

White Willow Bark and Feverfew Nothing sends you racing for a bottle of aspirin quite like a screaming headache. Yet one natural remedy that may work equally well is white willow bark. It contains salicin, a compound very similar to aspirin. It decreases inflammation, just like aspirin does, but is gentler (Note: Do not give willow bark to children because of the risk of Reye’s syndrome). An extract with 120 to 240 mg standardized salicin every three to four hours should work wonders.

For long-term relief, feverfew helps stop headaches before they occur. A member of the sunflower family, feverfew relaxes blood vessels in your brain and prevents them from constricting, a primary cause of migraines. In one recent study on migraine sufferers, researchers found that after 16 weeks of treatment with feverfew extract, attacks had decreased from almost five per month to just under three a month. Feverfew works best to stave off migraines rather than treat ones that have already developed, but keep in mind that it takes one to two months to see benefits. Take 100
to 200mg daily, standardized to contain at least 0.2 percent of the active ingredient parthenolide.

Guess Who Funds High Fructose Corn Syrup Studies?

2008-10-21T05:20:00.000-07:00

From Dr. Mercola

Guess Who Funds High Fructose Corn Syrup Studies?

corn syrup, root beer, soda ads hyping high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) have been hitting the airwaves as part of a major marketing campaign from the Corn Refiners Association.

Critics say HFCS contributes to weight gain and tricks your body into wanting to eat more. But the industry says it’s just fine, and argues that HFCS is the same as sugar.

To get that message out, the campaign relies on nutritional research. But funding for many of the major studies in question came from companies with a financial stake in the outcome.

Out of the six studies on the Corn Refiners Association’s Web site that “Confirm High Fructose Corn Syrup [is] No Different From Sugar,” three were sponsored by groups that stand to profit from research that promotes HFCS. Two were never published, so their funding sources are unclear. And one was sponsored by a Dutch foundation that represents the interests of the sugar industry.

Pepsi funded one study. So did a D.C. based lobbying group that gets their money from food, chemical and drug companies. And the American Beverage Association gave a grant for another.

It’s a widely known fact that when a study is sponsored by a company with financial interests in the outcome, the results rarely do anything but support the industry that funded the study..

In fact, CBS mentions a study by Children’s Hospital Boston that found when studies were sponsored exclusively by food or drinks companies, the results were four to eight times more likely to be favorable to the sponsoring company.

So when the Corn Refiners Association claims that their deceptive $20-30 million ad campaign promoting corn syrup is “based on nutritional research,” now you know just what type of biased research they are using.

Is Corn Syrup “the Same as Sugar”?

The Corn Refiners Association has launched TV commercials and a Web site that claim corn syrup is no worse for you than sugar. In one ad, a mother pours some type of bright red corn-syrup-rich juice from a plastic jug. In another, a woman feeds her boyfriend a popsicle.

In both ads, characters question the health risks of corn syrup, but neither is able to explain exactly why corn syrup is unhealthy, implying that corn syrup is actually not so bad after all.

To imply that artificial products containing corn syrup are in any way OK for your health is beyond a stretch. So let’s set the record straight. If anyone asks YOU why corn syrup is unhealthy, you can tell them:

• HFCS is metabolized to fat in your body far more rapidly than any other sugar, and, because most fructose is consumed in liquid form (soda), its negative metabolic effects are significantly magnified.

• Recent research, reported at the 2007 national meeting of the American Chemical Society, found new evidence that soft drinks sweetened with HFCS may contribute to the development of diabetes because it contains high levels of reactive compounds that have been shown to trigger cell and tissue damage that cause diabetes.

• HFCS is almost always made from genetically modified corn, which is fraught with its own well documented side effects and health concerns, such as increasing your risk of developing a food allergy to corn.

You can also let anyone who believes corn syrup is safe to eat know that there are over 35 years of hard empirical evidence that refined man-made fructose like HFCS metabolizes to triglycerides and adipose tissue, not blood glucose. The downside of this is that fructose does not stimulate your insulin secretion, nor enhance leptin production. (Leptin is a hormone thought to be involved in appetite regulation.)

Because insulin and leptin act as key signals in regulating how much food you eat, as well as your body weight, this suggests that dietary fructose may contribute to increased food intake and weight gain.

Additionally, fructose is also known to significantly raise your triglycerides and LDL (bad cholesterol). Triglycerides, the chemical form of fat found in foods and in your body, are not something you want in excess amounts.

Intense research over the past 40 years has confirmed that elevated blood levels of triglycerides, known as hypertriglyceridemia, puts you at an increased risk of heart disease.

How to Cut HFCS Out of Your Diet

If you are eating a healthy diet, a little bit of corn syrup here or there isn’t going to cause any catastrophes. However, most people are not eating corn syrup in moderation. In 2007, Americans consumed an average of 56 pounds of HFCS each, according to CBS! A large part of this was undoubtedly from soda, which is the number one source of calories in the United States.

So the first step for many people is to stop drinking soda, and this turbo tapping technique can help you to break free from a soda addiction.

I am HIGHLY confident that giving up soda would result in health improvements FAR more profound than if everyone stopped smoking. This is because drinking soda leads to elevated insulin levels, the foundation of nearly every chronic disease known to man -- cancer, heart disease, diabetes, aging, arthritis, osteoporosis, you name it, and you will find elevated insulin levels as a primary factor.

Aside from soda, corn syrup is also in many processed foods and fruit juices, so to avoid it completely you need to focus your diet on whole foods. And if you do purchase any processed foods, make sure you read the label … and put it back on the shelf if it lists high fructose corn syrup as an ingredient.

Food Irradiation--- What is the FDA hiding?

2008-10-10T14:49:00.000-07:00

From centerforfoodsafety.org

Food Irradiation

What if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a rule that would intentionally hide information you rely on to make decisions about what to feed yourself and your family? Or if FDA proposed changing food labeling information to something the agency knows would be misleading to consumers?

Well, FDA has announced just such a rule to weaken labeling of irradiated foods.

Currently, irradiated food must be labeled as "Treated with irradiation" or "Treated by radiation" and must display the irradiated "radura" symbol. But now, in yet another attempt to appease industry at the expense of the public, the FDA has proposed a new rule that would allow irradiated food to be marketed in some cases without any labeling at all. In other cases, the rule would allow the terms "electronically pasteurized" or "cold pasteurized" to replace the use of "irradiated" on labels. These terms are not used by scientists, but rather are designed to fool consumers about what's been done to their food.

What is Food Irradiation?

Food irradiation uses high-energy Gamma rays, electron beams, or X-rays (all of which are millions of times more powerful than standard medical X-rays) to break apart the bacteria and insects that can hide in meat, grains, and other foods. Radiation can do strange things to food, by creating substances called "unique radiolytic products." These irradiation byproducts include a variety of mutagens - substances that can cause gene mutations, polyploidy (an abnormal condition in which cells contain more than two sets of chromosomes), chromosome aberrations (often associated with cancerous cells), and dominant lethal mutations (a change in a cell that prevents it from reproducing) in human cells. Making matters worse, many mutagens are also carcinogens.

Research also shows that irradiation forms volatile toxic chemicals such as benzene and toluene, chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer and birth defects. Irradiation also causes stunted growth in lab animals fed irradiated foods. An important 2001 study linked colon tumor promotion in lab rats to 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACB's), a new chemical compound found only in irradiated foods. The FDA has never tested the safety of these byproducts. Irradiation has also been shown to cause the low-level production of furans (similar to cancer-causing dioxins) in fruit juice.

Food Safety Concerns

In addition to the proposed weakening of the labeling requirements for irradiated food, FDA's rule would also severely limit them by requiring companies to label irradiated food only when the radiation treatment causes a 'material change' to the product. Examples include changes to the taste, texture, smell or shelf life of a food. Published research on irradiated foods reveals that irradiation does change, and can actually ruin, the flavor, odor, appearance, and texture of food. Such research repeatedly finds that irradiated foods smell rotten, metallic, bloody, burnt, grassy, and generally off. The taste has been described as like sulfur, singed hair, burnt feathers, burnt oil, and rancid fat. Beyond the obvious yuck factor, serious questions remain as to whether irradiated foods are safe to eat.

Irradiation Destroys the Vitamin Content of Foods

Irradiated foods can lose from 2-95% of their vitamins. For example, irradiation can destroy up to 80% of the vitamin A in eggs, up to 95% of the vitamin A and lutein in green beans, up to 50% of the vitamin A and lutein in broccoli, and 40% of the beta-carotene in orange juice. Irradiation also doubles the amount of trans fats in beef.

Despite 50 years of research, food scientists still do not fully understand how these changes take place. Much of the ongoing research, in fact, is focused on devising new ways to hide these changes, rather than addressing the cause of the changes themselves.

Irradiation is Not the Solution to Food-Borne Illness

Using recent food-contamination scandals as a springboard, irradiation has been touted as the solution to food-borne illness in everything from spinach to deli meats. But a good, hard look at the systemic food and agricultural problems that cause these tragic outbreaks in the first place has yet to be undertaken by government agencies.

Masks the Unsanitary Condition of Factory Farms

Irradiation is an after the fact "solution" that does nothing to address the unsanitary conditions of factory farms, and actually creates a disincentive for producers and handlers to take preventative steps in production in handling. The longer shelf life created by irradiation (affording longer shipping distances) also provides greater opportunity for post-treatment contamination via shipping, handling, etc. Additionally, irradiation does not work to stop toxins produced by some bacteria (like botulism); viruses, like foot and mouth disease or hepatitis, are resistant to the irradiation doses used in food; and prions (thought to be the cause of BSE, or Mad Cow disease) are resistant as well.

Contributes to Consolidation of the Agriculture Industry and the Globalization of Food

American food processing companies see the use of irradiation as a potential means of boosting profits. In fact, the motivation for expanding irradiation to additional categories of food may be less about getting rid of disease-causing organisms, and more about increasing market share in international trade. Irradiation can dramatically increase the shelf life of food. This gives corporations more flexibility in marketing and transportation, making it easier for large companies to move some operations to countries with lower labor costs and lower sanitary and safety standards. As in many other "outsourced" industries, American workers, farmers and ranchers, could lose their jobs. In other words, food irradiation supports globalization at its worst, where concerns over long-term health risks carry less weight than the lure of expanded markets. Additionally, since irradiation has become a tool for the globalization of U.S. food production, food irradiation procedures are modeled for large, centralized operations. This furthers the consolidation of "Big Ag" companies and contributes to the destruction of small U.S. family farms - further degrading the security and diversity of our food supply.

Your Right to Know: FDA, Consumers, and the Labeling Lie

Labeling irradiated foods as "pasteurized" is simply untruthful and misleading. Pasteurization involves heating liquids for the purpose of destroying harmful bacteria and other pathogens, and has been used safely for decades. Using high-energy gamma rays, electron beams, or X-rays on foods - is a completely different process than pasteurization.

In fact, FDA's own research found that the proposed change would confuse consumers, stating "Research indicates that many consumers regard substitute terms for irradiation to be misleading." Consumer data has repeatedly shown that consumers recognize and prefer the current labeling requirements of irradiated food. In 2001, FDA conducted focus groups of consumers on this issue. Consumers participating unanimously rejected replacing the term irradiation with pasteurization and reacted with phrases such as, "sneaky," "deceptive," "misleading," and "trying to fool us." Allowing the marketing of irradiated food without any labeling is equally misleading.

What's Wrong With the Flu Shot

2008-10-02T16:54:00.000-07:00

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE FLU SHOT?

EVERYTHING IS WRONG WITH THE FLU SHOT

By Dr. Richard Schulze

First, Experts say it doesn't work!

"There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway." Dr. J. Anthony Morris (former Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the FDA.)

Let's look at the facts...

The flu shot has never been proven to be effective. Many experts worldwide now agree that it has never worked and that the rise and fall of all disease, especially influenza, is based on our immune system's antibody response and self-education process and not because of medical meddling.

The main reason many experts believe influenza vaccines don't work is because of a natural scientific phenomenon called Antigenic Shift and Drift. Darwin may not have been right with his Theory of Evolution and my great, great-grandmother may not have been a chimp but his theory proves very valid when it comes to viruses. Viruses do evolve, they change from one form to another. So every year, actually every few weeks, the old virus has become a very new virus.

Even the federal government's Center for Disease Control states that "Influenza (flu) seasons are unpredictable. Although epidemics of flu happen in most years, the beginning, severity, and length of the'Epidemic can vary widely from year to year. Before a season begins, it is not possible to accurately predict the features of any season.'

The simple reason it's impossible to predict the coming influenza seasons virus is because it is impossible to predict the future, Even if one got lucky and guessed right, the next influenza virus is never just one virus. All influenza viruses are a blend of many different strains and many different types of virus. So the odds of you finding one particular grain of sand in all the beaches in California are far better than any medical doctor guessing next year's viral cocktail. Next years, even next week's, virus will be a totally new, different mutated blend of multiple influenza viruses. And remember, even that new blend of virus is constantly in a state of flux. Here it is again, Antigenic Shift and Drift

So every year pharmaceutical companies make the flu vaccine based on . . . LAST YEAR'S INFLUENZA. Even though throughout history no influenza epidemic virus blend has ever repeated itself ever, or has ever been the same. In fact if you made one today to protect you from the exact virus that is spreading right now, by the time it was produced and used the virus would have already shifted and drifted many times and mutated into a completely different virus. Even the pharmaceutical manufacturers admit that this is a serious problem, but also "places serious doubts on the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine."

The only validity for manufacturing and using the Influenza Vaccines is financial, as trillions of dollars are being made on vaccine manufacture and usage.

Secondly, the statistics prove it doesn't work!

So regardless which experts are right no matter what they say, the statistics speak for themselves. A few decades ago less than 100,000 people were hospitalized with the flu. Last year it doubled to over 200,000. A few decades ago less than 20,000 people a year died from the flu. Last year it was over 40,000, doubled again. In the last 20 years the American population has only increased about 25%, but hospitalizations and deaths from influenza have increased 100%. You tell me, is the flu shot working?

What we absolutely do know about the flu vaccine is that it has killed, maimed and made a lot of people sick, I still remember the federal government's swine flu vaccination program when, for the first time ever, the government tried to give every American the swine flu influenza vaccine. When the fear, panic, bureaucracy, medical folly and pharmaceutical scandal cleared, 25 times more people died from the swine flu influenza vaccine than actually died from the swine flu, and thousands were seriously injured with numerous neurological and immune diseases. Worse yet, many medical experts today now believe that the influenza vaccine actually attacks and weakens your immune system and makes you even MORE susceptible to getting infected with influenza.

Now, in case you are still not sure, let's look at a few of the flu shot's ingredients.

Third, the flu shot ingredients are toxic chemical poisons!

Ethyl Glycol Automobile Anti-Freeze

Carbolic Acid A toxic caustic poison

Formaldehyde Embalming Fluid, causes cancer Causes Alzheimer's Disease, seizures and cancer

Mercury Extremely toxic heavy metal, kills brain and immune cells

If you had five consecutive flu shots in any decade your chance of getting Alzheimer's Disease is TEN TIMES HIGHER. This is partially due to the mercury and aluminum that is in every flu shot (and most childhood shots) that builds up in the brain and causes cognitive dysfunction and disease. This is partially why the rate of Alzheimer's Disease is skyrocketing.

And I haven't even touched on the blend of numerous deadly viruses and infected animal tissue that is in the vaccine.

The mercury alone is a great reason why not to get one. Mercury is a heavy metal and even minimal exposure to it kills brain and nerve cells. It is deadly poisonous. Knowingly infecting any amount of mercury into the human body is insane. I would gladly inject heroin into myself long before I would inject any flu vaccine. At least heroin is made from an herb, the poppy.

There has been much research done over the last decade linking the mercury in childhood vaccinations to childhood brain and nerve diseases, First off we know that there has never been one single case of autism in children before mercury laden childhood vaccinations were used. This fact alone points a very suspicious finger at mercury poisoning from vaccines. In fact the first known epidemic of cerebral palsy was in 1950 in Minimata Bay, Japan and it was discovered to be caused by a vinyl plastics company that dumped mercury into the bay.

But fearing multi-billion dollar, maybe even trillion dollar class action lawsuits, medical and pharmaceutical groups have declared that the preservative Thimerosal in vaccines is very safe, even though Thimerosal is 49% Mercury! The pharmaceutical vaccine manufacturers have stated that there is "no credible evidence" showing any link between the mercury in the vaccines and autism. But in case there is, they have further stated that "the well defined risk of influenza outweighs the theoretical risk of mercury."

So the medical and drug cartels have declared injecting mercury safe, but at the exact same time every one of them is currently scurrying to remove mercury from all childhood vaccines. Why? What do they know that they are not telling us. If it's safe, why remove it? Regardless, no attempt is being made to remove it from the influenza vaccine.

One thing we know for sure is that mercury kills the brain and nerves, so I don't think this is a good idea for children, or adults. As I age, I need all the brain and nerve cells that I've got)

And even if the mercury, anti-freeze and animal pus doesn't scare you, you probably won't even be able to buy a flu shot on the black market anyway, because this year half of the influenza vaccine, some 50 million doses, has been banned from being used, because... they are contaminated, because they are toxic.

FINALLY...

Look, everyone, including me, agrees that the influenza epidemic that rages across America every year is dangerous, even deadly. But the key to protecting yourself is not by injecting virus strains grown on infected pus-laden animal tissue mixed with powerful toxic chemicals into your body, That's a great way to make yourself sick.

Friends, God doesn't want you to be sick that is why we have an immune system. So the simple and natural key to preventing the flu is to build a strong and powerful immune system.

stachy officinalis

2008-08-13T09:48:00.000-07:00

by Jim McDonald

stachy officinalis (betonica officinalis)

Wood Betony was once one of the most revered of herbal medicines... there was indeed a common saying that one had "as many virtues as Betony" and Colonial herbalist John Sauer wrote that "there is no illness brought on by cold in which Betony cannot be administered effectively." Today, however, it is generally an obscurity, used by few and seldom available to the general public by way of health food stores. This is a great tragedy, for I have found it to be one of the most useful herbs available in addressing a number of common but pernicious maladies. Its material properties of astringency and mild bitterness have long made it a valued wound and digestive remedy, but paramount among its virtues is its unique efficacy in treating tension, pain and disorganization centered in the head and mind (which is to say both the physical and energetic).

I first used Betony for a friend who suffered a closed head injury in a car accident. Four months after the initial trauma she still experienced frequent dizziness, headaches and disorientation, and on a few occasions had up and keeled over. She was unable to work or drive, which, as one might expect, made being a mother a rather difficult endeavor. Although by nature not one to lean towards the use of herbs or natural therapies, desperation resultant from the lingering effects of the injury led her to accept my offer of herbal help. I gave her three pellets of Homeopathic Arnica to address the impact related origin of the injury, and had her take a dropperful of Betony extract as needed when her head hurt, going on a traditional use of Betony to treat concussion. I didn't hear back from her, but saw her a couple weeks later, and to my dismay, her pained expression told that she was still suffering from the terrible headaches. I offered her two droppersful of Betony tincture in a glass of water, thinking that perhaps a stronger dose was in order (strange, nowadays I'd tell her to take a smaller dose…). In about 10 minutes she asked "What was that? My head doesn't hurt anymore..." When I told her it was the Betony I'd sent to her a couple weeks ago she replied, "Wow! I'm going to have to start using that." Doing so, she recovered completely.

I have since found that Betony is excellent for headaches of all sorts (tension and migraine alike), and beyond that have seen it to act in a decidedly restorative manner. I have noted several instances when, in addition to its more immediate effects, regular daily use of Wood Betony as a simple has decreased the frequency and intensity of chronic headaches until their occurrence was drastically reduced or even eliminated altogether. I talked recently with my friend Heidi Knab (herbal-patron saint of strays both feline and human), and she told me that since she started mooning till about age 23, she always got a terrible hormonal migraine on the last day of her cycle. A friend offered her some Wood Betony tea and each sip notably reduced the pain till by the end of the cup the headache was gone entirely. She continued to use Wood Betony for about 6 months, and has not (a good ten years later) had a migraine with menses since. That's really quite notable, no? She says "It changed the way my head worked", and proceeded to elaborate thoughts on its mode of action that mirrored mine more or less identically, in some cases even word for word. These restorative benefits are the gradual result of continued use, and I would guess are unlikely occur if used sporadically or without intent.

To address the acute (the "ow" is happening now) pain and discomfort of headaches, I am more likely to use Wood Betony in combination with other herbs. One such blend I've used consists of equal parts tinctures of Wood Betony, Black Cohosh and Jamaican Dogwood. I have seen this formula work remarkably to stave off an oncoming migraine, if taken in small frequent intervals as soon as the first indications of its coming are felt. It will often work if taken after the migraine has taken hold, but is a bit less effective, and at times ineffective altogether. Of course, the other herbs with which Betony is combined are best varied as indications apply. If chronic stress and incessant overexertion are involved, if could be of great merit blended with Milky Oats; if intense worry and breathless palpitations, Motherwort. If, if if... like all things herbal, the potential to customize is infinite.

In regards to "how Betony works", there are likely myriad factors at play. Like most mint family plants, it possesses both stimulating and relaxant properties. This may seem contradictory, but only if we make the false assumption that stimulation and relaxation exist at opposing ends of a spectrum. In truth, the stimulation is of the circulation of the body's vital energy, and the relaxation is of the resistance to that circulation. So we see that these principles are not at odds, but rather work towards the same end and enhance each other's ability to reach it. Betony clearly relaxes tension in the head: the tension of muscles, of blood vessels, of thoughts and of emotions. It doesn't simply act physically, but seems to change the way we process energy in the both head and mind in a manner that resolves the conditions of tension and congestion that prevent the free and relaxed flow of the vital force.

Going further into this "head" association, I like to use Betony when a person's stress is stuck in their head; they can't stop thinking and relax, they over-analyze, they aren't grounded and are generally suffering from mental overexertion and subsequent exhaustion. They channel all the energy they can into their head and it gets stuck there because they don't release it; they won't let their thoughts go. This often happens when we try to come to terms with a stressful situation by coming to an intellectual understanding of it. Unfortunately, there are many situations that cannot be understood or resolved intellectually, and trying to do so will only lead to mental exhaustion (which headaches will often accompany). One might find themselves trapped wondering "Why did they die?" and have no intellectual answer to resolve their query. Trying to use your intellect in such a situation is like trying to eat soup with a light bulb; it just doesn't work. When caught in such a situation, Betony helps to both relax the mind and free the energy trapped there, and in doing so lets our other faculties offer us resolution where our intellect cannot.

Betony also acts as a tonic for the digestive tract, and is believed to strengthen the solar plexus, a topic covered very nicely by Matthew Wood in his Book of Herbal Wisdom. The solar plexus is believed to house a person's instincts and intuitive faculties; this is why we have expressions like "gut feelings" and "trust your gut". By freeing energy trapped in the head and strengthening the solar plexus, Wood Betony will be of aid to people who ignore their gut feelings and try to intellectualize and rationalize all that goes on around them. We might imagine the person who meets someone and intuitively gets a "bad feeling" from them, but then chides themselves for being "judgmental" and then ends of in some baleful relationship replete with all the qualities foreboded by their initial impression. Wood Betony, I deem, is useful in such situations.

And if, indeed, the use of the word "baleful" is true to the definition (deadly or pernicious in influence; foreboding or threatening evil) and not an exaggeration of a person's ill character, we might access another of Wood Betony's virtues, which is it's ability to dispel evil and ward of spirits of ill intent. The manifestations of that need not be supernatural (though I think it good protection from bad magic and those who deal in that and Matthew Wood has used it on several occasions for those suffering PTSD from alien abductions, sometimes we may know or be related to such people. To access these more esoteric virtues, one might carry the herb with them in a medicine bag, or rub doses of the tincture into their wrists or temples. Sure, this may make you question how very weird your belief system is becoming, but when you see situations change around you in a way that reinforces this usage a few times, you can just flow with it. It's quite likely, after all, that your friends and family already think you a bit "eccentric".

On a strictly physiologically level (if perhaps I'm losing you with my penchant for energetic uses, magic and superstition), Betony is warming, astringent and slightly bitter, and has been used to improve digestion by strengthening and restoring tone to digestive tissues. It has likewise been used to strengthen the tissues of the urinary tract, and this astringency also explains its long history of use as a "woundwort", being used to staunch bleeding both internal and external. It has been historically poulticed over injuries of all sorts, and deemed specific to concussion, stroke and facial neuralgia (there are, as well, formulas specifically for head injuries that have left the brain exposed). It is a nervine tonic, nourishing and building the vital energy with regular use. It is a warming and drying expectorant, good for damp coughs brought on my cold. Though I have not seen it often attributed as a diaphoretic, as a mint this action would not be surprising. Really, the plant has traditionally been recognized as a panacea - improving any condition to which it is administered. In my experience, I have little reason to disagree with this. It is effective fresh or dried, taken as tea or tincture, ground in honey, infused in vinegar or wine, smoked (Grieve writes that the leaves were smoked with Coltsfoot and Eyebright for headaches), snuffed or brewed as a beer (betony beer is a peculiar thing... I have yet to adequately describe its flavor or effect to anyone).

Because a different family of plants, Pedicularis (Lousewort), also goes by the name of Betony or Wood Betony, be sure that you are using the right one. The Latin name of the European Wood Betony I'm discussing may be Stachys officinalis, Stachys betonica or Betonica officinalis. Though both Stachys and Pedicularis are considered nervines they are not really interchangeable (Pedicularis species not having such a strong affinity for the head), and in any case you should be aware of what plant you are using.

Also, I have seen one idiosyncratic reaction worth mentioning: A woman who felt a migraine coming on ("it was just getting bad") took a few 3 drop doses over a few hours and found that while the migraine initially receded, it dramatically worsened after discontinuing, to the point of throwing up and suffering an extended "hangover" from it the next couple days. Don't know that this can be entirely attributed to the betony (as neither did she), as other factors were involved, but there it is. David Hoffmann expressed to me that when he used Wood Betony a lot while practicing in Wales, he had never seen any aggravations.

Wood Betony is not widely naturalized here, but is easily grown from seed and thrives on neglect. Opting once again to snatch an old saying quoted by Grieve in her Modern Herbal, I would advise you to, as the Italians once said, "Sell your coat and buy betony."

Nano-Foods-- The next consumer scare?

2008-08-13T09:47:00.000-07:00

ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - Those consumers already worried about genetically engineered or cloned food reaching their tables may soon find something else in their grocery carts to furrow their brows over -- nano-foods.

Consumer advocates taking part in a food safety conference in Orlando, Florida, this week said food produced by using nanotechnology is quietly coming onto the market, and they want U.S. authorities to force manufacturers to identify them.

Nanotechnology involves the design and manipulation of materials on molecular scales, smaller than the width of a human hair and invisible to the naked eye. Companies using nanotechnology say it can enhance the flavor or nutritional effectiveness of food.

U.S. health officials generally prefer not to place warning labels on products unless there are clear reasons for caution or concern. But consumer advocates say uncertainty over health consequences alone is sufficient cause to justify identifying nano-foods.

"I think nanotechnology is the new genetic engineering. People just don't know what's going on, and it's moving so fast," Jane Kolodinsky, a consumer economist at the University of Vermont, said at the conference.

American consumers are generally more complacent about genetically modified or cloned foods than their counterparts in Europe.

But Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with the Consumers Union, said polls show that 69 percent of Americans are concerned about eating cloned meat.

He said that in focus groups run by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, no parents were willing to feed their children meat from cloned animals or their offspring.

In a recent CBS/New York Times poll, 53 percent of Americans said they wouldn't buy genetically modified foods.

SCANT AWARENESS

Hansen said there is scant public awareness, however, about foods produced through nanotechnology.

New consumer products created through nanotechnology are coming on the market at the rate of 3 to 4 per week, according to an advocacy group, The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN), based on an inventory it has drawn up of 609 known or claimed nano-products.

Nano-products in common use today include lightweight tennis rackets and bicycles, and sunscreens containing clear, nonwhite versions of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

They also include lipsticks, and many items labeled as anti-microbial that contain silver ions such as socks, washing machines, salad spinners and food containers.

On PEN's list are three foods -- a brand of canola cooking oil called Canola Active Oil, a tea called Nanotea and a chocolate diet shake called Nanoceuticals Slim Shake Chocolate.

According to company information posted on PEN's Web site, the canola oil, by Shemen Industries of Israel, contains an additive called "nanodrops" designed to carry vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals through the digestive system.

The shake, according to U.S. manufacturer RBC Life Sciences Inc., uses cocoa infused "NanoClusters" to enhance the taste and health benefits of cocoa without the need for extra sugar.

The tea, says manufacturer Shenzhen Become Industry & Trade Co., Ltd. of China, is prepared with nanotechnology to "release effectively all of the excellent essences of the tea" and increase by a factor of 10 "the selenium supplement function."

Hansen, whose organization publishes the nonprofit product-testing magazine Consumer Reports, said there is no requirement that nano-products be identified as such.

He called for stronger federal regulations to require safety testing and labeling.

"Just because something is safe at the macro level, doesn't mean it's safe at the nano size," Hansen said. "All scientists agree that size matters."

Hansen said recent studies have shown that nano-sized particles in some cases can invade cells and breach the blood-brain barrier, and that some forms of nano-sized carbon could be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled in quantity.

"This represents science at the cutting edge. These technologies raise basic scientific issues," Hansen said.

Damning Evidence on Gardisil

2008-07-11T14:41:00.000-07:00

Watch Uncovers New FDA Records Detailing 10 New Deaths & 140 "Serious" Adverse Events Related to Gardasil
Market Wire
30 June 2008
Watchdog Publishes New Special Report Examining 8,864 Adverse Event Reports Detailing Safety Concerns
WASHINGTON, DC -- (MARKET WIRE) -- Jun 30, 2008 -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released a report based on new documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, detailing reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil. The adverse reactions include 10 deaths since September, 2007. (The total number of death reports is at least 18 and as many as 20.) The FDA also produced 140 "serious" reports (27 of which were categorized as "life threatening"), 10 spontaneous abortions and six cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome -- all since January 2008. Adverse reports excerpts include:
-- Information has been received... concerning a 20 year old female with
no medical history reported, who on 01-APR-2008 was vaccinated with a dose
of Gardasil... The patient died four days after... patient sought
unspecified medical attention. An autopsy was performed which ruled out
suicide and anything suspicious. The cause of death is currently unknown.
VAERS ID: 310262-1 (D)

-- Information has been received... concerning a 23-year-old female...
who on 31-JAN-2008 was vaccinated with her 1st dose of Gardasil... the
patient experienced anaphylactic shock 2 minutes after vaccination
characterized by a brief loss of consciousness... respiratory arrest, eyes
rolled upwards, blurred vision and greyish skin tone... Anaphylactic shock
was considered to be immediately life-threatening. VAERS ID: 304739-1 (S)

-- Cold sweat, Fall, Foaming at mouth, Grand mal convulsion, Immediate
post-injection reaction... Pt [patient, 14-year-old female] received
vaccine, took 6 steps, fell to the ground unconscious and had a 60 sec
grand mal seizure then regained consciousness. [Blood pressure] after
seizure 60/40 pale clammy skin. [Patient] had bit her tongue and had foam
around her mouth. VAERS ID: 305259-1 (S)

-- Information has been received from a physician concerning a female
patient who on an unknown date was vaccinated with a dose of Gardasil.
Subsequently, the patient experienced a coma and is now paralyzed. At the
time of this report, the patient's outcome was unknown. VAERS ID: 303188-1

"Given all the questions about Gardasil, the best public health policy would be to reevaluate its safety and to prohibit its distribution to minors. In the least, governments should rethink any efforts to mandate or promote this vaccine for children," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Judicial Watch had previously obtained 3,461 reports relating to Gardasil. On June 10, 2008, Judicial Watch received a compact disk from the FDA with a new total of 8,864 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) records. These documents and the new Judicial Watch report, titled "Examining the FDA's HPV Vaccine Records: Detailing the Approval Process, Side-Effects, Safety Concerns & Marketing Practices of a Large Scale Health Experiment," are available at www.judicialwatch.org .

Cooking for Pets

2008-07-10T09:43:00.000-07:00

Furry Friend Fare: Rethink the way you feed four-legged family members
By Kelli Rosen, Alternative Medicine, November 2007

Anyone who loves an animal was shaken to the core last spring when news broke of an unprecedented case of pet-food contamination. Turns out, batches of wheat gluten from China that had been used to make kibble and stews for dogs and cats contained melamine, a substance most commonly used as an industrial binding agent or flame retardant. Animals who ate enough of the tainted food suffered kidney failure. The FDA received more than 10,000 complaints of illness, and although the official death toll stands at just 16, other news agencies estimate the actual number is much higher.

Following the recall, many pet owners became leery of processed foods and decided to take matters—or rather, meals—into their own hands. “The number of my clients now cooking for their animals has doubled since the recall,” says Grant Nixon, DVM, a Summerland, British Columbia-based veterinarian and co-author of Better Food for Dogs (Robert Rose, 2002).

But according to Korinn E. Saker, DVM, a clinical veterinary nutritionist at North Carolina State University, interest in homemade pet food has actually been on the rise for about the last five years. “Pets are now considered part of the family, like children, and their guardians want to cook for them as a bonding experience, as a way to improve their quality of life,” she says. Taking the leap to homemade doesn’t have to be a difficult one, as long as you do your homework and get organized.

Cooking for Fido

Make the meal. When you’re whipping up dinner for your pup, you must first figure out which ingredients to combine. “Dogs are omnivores,” says Saker, “so about two-thirds of their calories should come from carbohydrates and the other one-third should be protein.” To calculate daily caloric requirements, seek the advice of your vet because the amount varies according to size, breed, age, and level of activity. To make the task of home cooking a little less intimidating—and less time consuming—David Bastin, another co-author of Better Food for Dogs, suggests cooking for dogs what you would eat yourself and leave out any table scraps such as fats, gravies, and poultry skins because they can cause major stomach irritation. “A good general rule to keep in mind is if you wouldn’t eat it, then you shouldn’t give it to your dog,” he says.

Add the supplements. Dogs are active beings, so in addition to human-grade ingredients, they usually require supplements. Shawn Messonnier, DVM, a veterinarian in Plano, Texas, and author of Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats (Prima Publishing, 2001), suggests working with a holistic veterinarian to determine supplemental requirements for your particular breed of dog, as well as proper dosages, which should be based on the weight and special needs of the animal. “You can create nutritional deficiencies if you don’t give them enough of what they need,” he says, “and if you give them too much, it could be toxic.”

Messonnier recommends Pet-Together’s Vim & Vigor for a basic vitamin and mineral boost. The supplement also contains colostrum for a healthy immune system; coenzyme Q10, an antioxidant that also supports the immune system as well as healthy teeth and gums; enzymes for improved digestion and absorption; glucosamine for healthy joint function; and Siberian ginseng to help your pet adapt to stressors. In his practice, Messonnier prescribes this basic supplement to most pets and then adds other therapies depending on individual needs.

Know what to avoid.When preparing food for your dog, remember that certain foods you consider healthy for your family can be deadly for your animals. Most folks know to avoid chocolate, but Messonnier says to stay away from onions, large amounts of garlic, grapes, and raisins as well. He also suggests watching for any other ingredients that may upset your dog’s digestive system and then avoiding those in future recipes. “That’s just a matter of trial and error,” he says.

Cooking for Fluffy
Make the meal. When it comes to cats, calculate the number of calories they require in a day. According to Messonnier, adult felines need roughly 70 to 80 kcal/kg (1 kg equals 2.2 pounds) of body weight each day. So for example, a 10-pound adult indoor cat requires approximately 300 kcal of energy a day, and an equal-size outdoor cat needs about 360 kcal. A 5-pound kitten on the other hand, requires about the same amount of energy a day as an indoor adult cat. To calculate the specific needs for your feline, consult your vet.

The homemade recipes you choose should contain many different ingredients, especially if you’re feeding a kitten. “Cats aren’t naturally finicky, they’re made that way,” says Messonnier. “Taste preferences are generally set by six months of age, so I strongly recommend offering kittens a variety of ingredients and flavors in their diets.”But whatever you decide to dish up for kitty, be sure to include the proper portion of meat or fish. “Cats are strict carnivores,” says Messonnier, “and a totally vegetarian diet will result in nutritional deficiencies.” Saker recommends getting roughly two-thirds of your cat’s daily calories from animal protein sources and one-third from carbohydrates.

Add the supplements. Although not the most active of animals, felines still need balanced meals. Messonnier recommends a natural source of bonemeal or calcium and phosphorous purchased from reputable supplements manufacturers, along with a vitamin and mineral boost such as Vim & Vigor. Other beneficial supplements for your cat, he says, include omega-3 fatty acids and plant enzymes. Dosage specifics vary depending on size and needs of the animal, so consult a holistic veterinarian for guidance.

Know what to avoid.Like dogs, cats should also steer clear of onions, large amounts of garlic, grapes, and raisins, as well as anything else that causes tummy upset.

Tail-wagging rewards
There’s no denying that cooking for your animal means more work for you. “People are very busy,” says Nixon, “and it’s tough to fit this in.” He suggests setting up a plan to make food in advance—and, like Bastin, he says not to feed your cat anything you wouldn’t eat. He also recommends freezing portions, so you’ll have something to use in a pinch or when the rest of the family decides to dine out.

If cooking every meal for your animal just isn’t possible, Messonnier suggests combining homemade food with processed food from a reputable holistic manufacturer (see “Trustworthy Pet Foods” below).“Whatever is easy for the owner and if the pet likes it, I’m all for it,” he says, adding that few companies—Nature’s Variety, for example—offer complete frozen homemade diets. “They’ve done all the work for you and the food’s already balanced,” he says.

Making the switch from dry kibble to homemade meals will add yet another chore to your already chock-full to-do list, but the rewards can make the effort worthwhile. In addition to peace of mind for you—because now you know where your pet’s food comes from—feeding your animals fresher, well-balanced food offers very real health benefits. “They will have more energy, their coats will be nicer, and there may also be subtle changes in allergic skin issues and ear problems,” says Nixon. “Think about how much better you feel when you eat healthy, and it really is relatively easy once you get into the routine. It’s kind of like having another child to feed.”

Trustworthy Pet Foods
Blue Buffalo
Canidae and Felidae
Castor & Pollux Organix
Country Pet Natural
Evanger’s
Healthy Pet Foods
Halo, Purely for Pets
Natura (Innova, California Natural, and Healthwise)
Nature’s Recipe
Natural Life Pet Products
Newman's Own Organics
Pet Guard
Pet Promise
Steve’s Real Food
Wellness / Old Mother Hubbard
Wysong

8 Drugs Doctors Won't Take

2008-07-10T05:21:00.000-07:00

From MSN Health...

Doctors know which prescription and over-the-counter drugs are the most dangerous. The writers of this article asked them the question, "Which medications would you skip?" Here were their answers:

Advair

It's asthma medicine that can make your asthma deadly. Advair contains the long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) salmeterol. A 2006 analysis found that regular use of LABAs can increase the severity of an asthma attack. Researchers estimate that salmeterol may contribute to as many as 5,000 asthma-related deaths in the United States each year.

Avandia

Diabetes is destructive enough on its own, but if you try to control it with rosiglitazone, better known as Avandia, it could cause a heart attack. A study found that people who took rosiglitazone for at least a year increased their risk of heart failure or a heart attack by 109 percent and 42 percent, respectively.

Celebrex

This painkiller has been linked to increased risks of stomach bleeding, kidney trouble, and liver damage. And according to a 2005 study, people taking 200 mg of Celebrex twice a day more than doubled their risk of dying of cardiovascular disease. Those on 400 mg twice a day more than tripled their risk.

Ketek

This antibiotic, which has traditionally been prescribed for respiratory-tract infections, carries a high risk of severe liver side effects. In February 2007, the FDA limited the usage of Ketek to the treatment of pneumonia.

Prilosec and Nexium

The FDA has investigated a suspected link between cardiac trouble and these acid-reflux remedies, although they did not find a "likely" connection. But whether this is true or not, they can raise your risk of pneumonia, and result in an elevated risk of bone loss. The risk of a bone fracture has been estimated to be over 40 percent higher in patients who use these drugs long-term.

Visine Original

These eye drops “get the red out” by shrinking blood vessels. Overuse of the active ingredient tetrahydrozoline can perpetuate the vessel dilating-and-constricting cycle and may cause even more redness.

Pseudoephedrine

This decongestant, found in many drugs, can raise blood pressure and heart rate, setting the stage for vascular catastrophe. Over the years, pseudoephedrine has been linked to heart attacks and strokes, as well as worsening the symptoms of prostate disease and glaucoma.

BACH FLOWER ESSENCES

2008-07-07T11:03:00.000-07:00

By ALICIA SIRKIN, Alternative Medicine, September, 1999

Bach Flower Essence (BFE) is a type of non-invasive therapy that uses natural homeopathically-prepared liquids to gently shift negative emotions, attitudes, and personality traits into positive ones. They come in the form of liquids, dispensed from small 10 ml “stock concentrate” dropper bottles. They are taken internally by mouth, or externally on pulse points. They are non-toxic, non-addictive, have no side effects, and can be used without professional guidance.
There are 38 different single flower essences that can help not only people who not only feel overwhelmed, but also those who are depressed, angry, resentful, fearful, tired, lonely, or insecure. By combining up to seven essences at once, you can positively affect 211,000,000 states of mind! I have seen people feeling fearful utilize specific flower essences to enhance courage to face difficulties without fear; people who feel hopeless turn around and look optimistically into the future; and insecure people lose self-doubt and bolster their self- confidence. I worked with BFE for thirteen years, and their consistently effective results inspired me to become a practitioner.

The Origin of BFE

Dr. Edward Bach was a British physician, immunologist, bacteriologist, and searcher. A pioneer in the field of body/ mind medicine, he became dedicated to the discovery of a natural, safe, and gentle system of self-healing that dealt with the underlying causes of disease. His quest continued into the early 1930s, when he discovered the healing power of flowers.
Leaving his lucrative conventional medical practice on Harley Street in London, Dr. Bach spent years searching the countryside instill the plant’s healing attributes within the dewdrops. He would sit for hours studying a single plant learning all he could about its habits, form, and personality
Intuitively, he sensed that dewdrops from certain plants might contain specific healing properties of that plant. He hypothesized that the sun’s heat could activate and instill the plant’s healing attributes within the dewdrops.
He started by experimenting on himself. His senses were so highly developed that by simply holding the petal of a flower in his hand or placing it on his tongue, his body would feel the effects of the flower’s qualities. This formed the basis for his testing on others.

How does it work?

Although licensed health professionals have proven Bach
Flower Essences effective for nearly 70 years, no one knows how they actually work. Dr J. Herbert Fill, M.D., a psychiatrist and former New York City Commissioner of
Mental Health, has used flower essences almost exclusively over tranquilizers and psychotropic drugs. He suggests the essences may act upon neurotransmitters in the brain. Elisabeth Wiley, a psychotherapist and nationally- known BEE practitioner and educator, thinks that flower essence bio-energetic frequencies repair imbalances in the human energy field, No matter how the essences work, the results are undeniable.
Are the essences merely a “placebo”? Probably no more than other healing treatments, because animals and infants benefit as much as children and adults. In fact, animals and children are often particularly sensitive to the benefits of flower essences and commonly experience faster results.
Bach Flower Essences complement all other healing therapies. They even seem to make other modalities work better. The reason for this is that they work on the mental and emotional side of the problem while other modalities are working with the physical. Today, Bach Flower Essences are sold in 66 countries and have been accepted for sale by the FDA in the U.S.

Taking Bach Flower Essences Yourself

Life is continual change, but some periods are more abrupt and traumatic. If you are going through a difficult transition, you can easily use flower essences yourself to ease the process. Simply follow the standard “stock” bottle dosage and preparation instructions below. The international authority on the essences is the Bach Centre in England, where they originate. They recommend that the essences be used consistently a minimum of four times a day to achieve the desired results.
Since each of us is unique and may heal at different rates of speed, there is no definitive answer to the question “how long does it take to work.” Generally a person feels results within a number of days to several months. Older or longstanding emotional or mental issues may take even longer to resolve. As you are feeling better, you may increasingly forget to take them. This is your cue that they have done their work and you no longer need them.

Choose Each Flower Essences for states of mind, not to relieve physical symptoms or problems. Physical symptoms can often be eased when the emotional distress encircling physical problems is relieved—the body/mind connection at work!

Combining Essences

When there is a combination of feelings or states of mind, you can simply combine the appropriate flowers and take the resulting combination formula. It is possible to combine drops from as many as seven different essences into a new one-ounce dropper bottle, called a personal formula.
Since many of us lead complex lives, individualized combination personal formulas can be of great benefit. For example, if you were feeling sad, confused, guilty, resentful, overwhelmed, impatient, and hypercritical at the same time, you would combine the essences indicated for these emotional states within one bottle in order to get relief on many levels at once.
My clients often report that flower essences have become their “best friends” whenever distress occurs—a helping hand to restore tranquility I would have to agree.

Suggested reading:
The Back Flower Remedies: Step by Step
Judy Howard
Pocket Guide to Back Flower Essences
Rachelle Hasnas
The Bach Flower Remedies for Women
Judy Howard
Bach Flower Remedies for Men
Stefan Ball
Mastering Bach Flower Remedies
Dr. Edward Bach and Dr. F.J. Wheeler
The Twelve Healers and Other Remedies
Dr. Edward Bach
The Bach Flower Remedies: Illustrations and Preparations. Nora Weeks and Victor Bullen
Medical Discoveries of Edward Bach, Physician
Nora Weeks
Growing Up with the Bach Flower Remedies
Judy Howard
Heal Thyself
Dr. Edward Bach
Questions and Answers Explaining the Basic Principles and Standards of The Bach Flower Remedies
John Ramsell
Bach Flower Remedies to the Rescue
Gregory Vlamis
Introduction to the Benefits of the Bach Flower Remedies
Jane Evans
Illustrated Handbook of the Bach Flower Remedies
Philip Chancellor
Dictionary of The Bach Flower Remedies
T.W. Hyne Jones
Original Writings of Edward Bach
Judy Howard and John Ramsell

The Marketing of Osteoporosis

2008-07-07T10:55:00.000-07:00

By Bonnie C. Minsky, Conscious Choice

Most Americans are unaware that standard medical practice is often based on politics and medical industry pressures. Sadly, drug makers and companies that manufacture equipment to measure bone density have reached a full crescendo of politicking and putting financial interests first in the marketing of osteoporosis.

The true definition of osteoporosis is a "condition of fragile bones following a low impact fracture." Osteoporosis is indeed a health problem for many elderly women and even men. However, the majority of us should never need drugs to prevent or cure it. The new definition of "low bone density" came about in 1994 when the Dual Energy XRay Absorptiometry (DEXA) scan became commercially available to measure mineral content of bone. According to Gill Sanson, the author of The Osteoporosis Epidemic: Well Women and the Marketing of Fear, "The World Health Organization unit that was formed to redefine osteoporosis was funded by three drug companies that stood to make more money with the new definition."

The osteoporosis literature being poured into the media today is often misleading, inaccurate, and drug advertising in disguise. Despite contradictory evidence published in prestigious medical journals, the osteoporosis industry has convinced doctors and patients that osteoporosis has reached epidemic proportions and that immediate intervention with yearly diagnostic screenings and prescription drugs are necessary Dr. Mark Helfand, a member of the National Institutes of Health osteoporosis panel that met in March 2000 stated in a Washington Post article, "I think even people who agree that osteoporosis is a serious health problem can still say it is being hyped. It is hyped. Most of what you could do to prevent osteoporosis later in life has nothing to do with getting a test or taking a drug."

Following are some preventions and cures showing questionable results:

●In the 1970s, synthetic estrogen and progesterone (Premarin, Proven, and Prempro) were marketed for female vitality heart health, and osteoporosis prevention. By 2002, critical reports from other countries and our own Women's Health Initiative concluded that taking synthetic hormones after menopause was no longer recommended because the risks far outweigh the benefits.

.

● In the mid 198os, Wyeth Ayerst, the world's biggest producer of hormone replacement therapy (Bar), launched a promotional campaign to make osteoporosis a major women's health issue. The scare tactics worked. Women became fearful and willing to take HRT and anything else necessary to prevent the dreaded disease.

● In the early l980s, fluoride treatments were thought to restore bone loss. Bone density was somewhat increased with fluoride, but the bone produced was fragile and actually fractured more easily

●In the 1990S, the DEXA scan became the gold standard for measurement of bone loss and gain. However, the scan doesn't accurately predict bone fracture risk, bone strength, or rate of bone turnover. It relates only to quantity, not quality of bone. Urine testing for bone resorption should also be standard.

●Beginning in the late 1990s, bisphosphonate drugs (Fosomax) and selective estrogen receptive modulators (Evista) were advertised as non-hormonal methods for preventing and curing bone loss. These drugs may in- crease bone density but the new bone is more fragile. Minimal data for long- term safety unimpressive ability to reduce fracture rates, and up to a o percent increase in menopausal hot flashes make the bandwagon use of these drugs questionable.

●In 2000, the U.S. government published a one-size-fits-all recommendation of 1200-1500 milligrams of calcium and at least 400 international units of vitamin D to all post-menopausal women. To reach these levels, heavy promotion of milk by the dairy industry began. There is, however, no evidence to support bone health claims for cow's milk intake, according to a review of 57 studies published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. In fact, large worldwide population studies show that countries consuming the most milk have some of the highest rates of osteoporosis. Poor choices of calcium supplements and excess calcium intake have also led to increased health problems including constipation, kidney stones, bone spurs, and calcification in artery walls.
Low bone density does not equal osteoporosis. It is rare for healthy women to fracture fragile buries. According to Christiane Northrup, M.D., a women's health expert, "When it comes to osteoporosis prevention in healthy women, we should heed the old adage, if it ain't broken, why fix it—especially when there are risks associated with the so-called repair process" A healthy, active body will be naturally resistant to fractures.

12 Food Additives to Avoid

2008-06-24T13:16:00.000-07:00

from MSN Health... I would have also added Splenda

1. Sodium Nitrate (also called Sodium Nitrite)

This is a preservative, coloring, and flavoring commonly added to bacon, ham, hot dogs, luncheon meats, smoked fish, and corned beef. Studies have linked eating it to various types of cancer.

2. BHA and BHT

Butylated hydroxyanisole and butylated hydrozyttoluene are used to preserve common household foods. They are found in cereals, chewing gum, potato chips, and vegetable oils. They are oxidants, which form potentially cancer-causing reactive compounds in your body.

3. Propyl Gallate

Another preservative, often used in conjunction with BHA and BHT. It is sometimes found in meat products, chicken soup base, and chewing gum. Animals studies have suggested that it could be linked to cancer.

4. Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)

MSG is an amino acid used as a flavor enhancer in soups, salad dressings, chips, frozen entrees, and restaurant food. It can cause headaches and nausea, and animal studies link it to damaged nerve cells in the brains of infant mice.

5. Trans Fats

Trans fats are proven to cause heart disease. Restaurant food, especially fast food chains, often serve foods laden with trans fats.

6. Aspartame

Aspartame, also known by the brand names Nutrasweet and Equal, is a sweetener found in so-called diet foods such as low-calorie desserts, gelatins, drink mixes, and soft drinks. It may cause cancer or neurological problems, such as dizziness or hallucinations.

7. Acesulfame-K

This is a relatively new artificial sweetener found in baked goods, chewing gum, and gelatin desserts. There is a general concern that testing on this product has been scant, and some studies show the additive may cause cancer in rats.

8. Food Colorings: Blue 1, 2; Red 3; Green 3; Yellow 6

Five food colorings still on the market are linked with cancer in animal testing. Blue 1 and 2, found in beverages, candy, baked goods and pet food, have been linked to cancer in mice. Red 3, used to dye cherries, fruit cocktail, candy, and baked goods, has been shown to cause thyroid tumors in rats. Green 3, added to candy and beverages, has been linked to bladder cancer. The widely used yellow 6, added to beverages, sausage, gelatin, baked goods, and candy, has been linked to tumors of the adrenal gland and kidney.

9. Olestra

Olestra, a synthetic fat found in some potato chip brands, can cause severe diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and gas. Olestra also inhibits healthy vitamin absorption from fat-soluble carotenoids that are found in fruits and vegetables.

10. Potassium Bromate

Potassium bromate is used as an additive to increase volume in some white flour, breads, and rolls. It is known to cause cancer in animals, and even small amounts in bread can create a risk for humans.

11. White Sugar

Watch out for foods with added sugars, such as baked goods, cereals, crackers, sauces and many other processed foods. It is unsafe for your health, and promotes bad nutrition.

12. Sodium Chloride

A dash of sodium chloride, more commonly known as salt, can bring flavor to your meal. But too much salt can be dangerous for your health, leading to high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke, and kidney failure.

Breast Check: Do mandatory mammograms do more harm than good?

2008-05-03T16:02:00.000-07:00

Breast Check: Do mandatory mammograms do more harm than good? By Vonalda M. Utterback, CN

“Time to make breast pancakes,” says one friend of mine, referring to her scheduled mammography screening. And although she may crack jokes about the experience, she’s never once questioned the need for her annual pilgrimage, nor has her physician discussed the risks versus the benefits it entails. After all, if you are a woman aged 40 or beyond, yearly mammograms are simply de rigueur.

When your doctor refers you for a screening, he or she is likely following the guidelines of the two leading national cancer research and information organizations primarily responsible for setting public health policy on cancer screening: The private American Cancer Society (ACS) and the government’s National Cancer Institute (NCI). Both, along with other well-funded, high-profile organizations, such as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, recommend regular mammogram screening of symptom-free women beginning at age 40.

All this official blessing shouldn’t make regular screening mammography sacrosanct, however. In fact, it’s way past time for women to start asking hard questions about the exam’s efficacy and its potential harm, say many women’s health experts, advocates, and researchers. “Screening mammography is clearly a double-edged sword,” explains Lisa Schwartz, MD, co-director of the Veteran’s Administration Outcomes Group in White River Junction, Vermont, and associate professor of medicine at Dartmouth Medical School.

False truths
According to the National Academy of Sciences 2005 publication, Saving Women’s Lives: Strategies for Improving Breast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis, the risk of a false-positive result in a mammogram is about 1 in 10. About three-quarters of the resulting biopsies turn out to be benign, it’s true, but to learn that a woman has to endure the fear that she has breast cancer and bear the cost, discomfort, and risk of additional medical procedures.

“Regular screening will save some lives, but it will cause even more women to be harmed through the unnecessary diagnosis and treatment of cancer that would never have affected their health, were it not for screening,” says Schwartz. She’s referring to false-positives associated with “ductal carcinoma in situ” (DCIS), a result that many experts consider one of the most harmful risks associated with screening mammography.

DCIS is a noninvasive condition in which abnormal cells are found in the lining of a breast duct. It is not cancer, but it may, in some cases, become invasive cancer and spread to other tissues. Because they can’t predict which lesions will become invasive cancer and which will remain contained in the breast duct, doctors usually treat DCIS like cancer. “Most women with DCIS will be advised to undergo invasive treatment of unknown benefit, such as lumpectomy combined with radiation,” reports Schwartz.
Harm from over-diagnosis of invasive cancer also may occur because many malignant cancers grow quite slowly, says Peter C. Gotzsche, MD, researcher and director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, Sweden. If cancer had not been found during screening, he explains, it would not have become apparent before the woman died from other causes. “This is a basic and critical factor, often ignored,” says Gotzsche, “that many cancers are histologically malignant, but biologically benign.

The search for balance
Many women don’t know about the negative side of mammography, and, it seems, they tend to overestimate its benefits. In a survey of more than 4,000 women designed to assess perception of the benefits of mammography, a full 68 percent believed screening prevents or reduces the risk of contracting breast cancer (screening has nothing to do with prevention); 62 percent believed screening reduces breast cancer mortality by half (although studies results vary, the 2006 Cochrane Review confirmed screening mammograms reduce the absolute risk of dying from breast cancer by a very modest 0.05 percent); and 75 percent believed 10 years of regular screening will prevent 10 or more breast cancer deaths per 1,000 women—approximately 10 times the most optimistic estimates.

One of the lone voices offering a balanced view on screening mammography (according to a 2004 study published in the British Medical Journal rating 27 cancer education websites) is the San Francisco-based breast cancer awareness and advocacy group, Breast Cancer Action (BCA). “The United States’ public campaign to eradicate breast cancer has not focused on prevention, but largely on efforts that promote mammography screening,” says BCA’s executive director, Barbara Brenner, herself a two-time survivor of breast cancer. (See “Prevention Is Key” for ways to stop cancer before it starts.) Since its inception in 1991, BCA has raised concerns about mammography’s effectiveness, and the dangers of misleading the public about the benefits of breast cancer “early detection” through screening mammography.

According to Brenner, mammography has several potentially harmful outcomes, especially for younger women, among them radiation risks (the earlier you begin screening mammography, the more radiation exposure you will experience) and a high incidence of false-negative (and false-positive) readings because younger women typically have denser breast tissue, which makes accurate mammogram readings more difficult. In sum, routine mammography screening, particularly for younger or pre-menopausal women, may cause more harm than good. (For more information on radiation risk, see “Why Fear Radiation?”)

The evidence is in
A group of researchers led by Gotzsche, whose nonprofit organization is part of the highly-regarded Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization providing health-care analyses worldwide, reviewed all seven randomized mammography trials conducted prior to June 2005, involving half a million women. Most of the trials enrolled women ages 45 to 64, although one, the Canadian National Breast Screening Study included women ages 40 to 49.

In Gotzsche’s review (updated several times, the latest in 2006), the four trials judged by the Cochrane researchers to have the poorest scientific quality yielded the greatest apparent benefit for screening mammography—a 29 percent reduction in the risk of breast cancer mortality after seven years and a 25 percent reduction after 13 years. In contrast, the two trials considered to have the highest scientific rigor, with adequate randomization, showed no significant reduction in breast cancer mortality.

One of the two highest quality mammography trials in Gotzsche’s review, a Canadian study led by Cornelia J. Baines, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, followed more than 50,000 women. The results after seven years in 1992 showed 36 percent more deaths from breast cancer among screened women than among unscreened women. Called the “breast cancer mortality paradox” at the ten-year follow-up, this percent then fell to 14 percent.

Although the numbers aren’t statistically significant, Baines reports that similarly alarming trends were observed in other screening trials in women aged 40 to 49 years, including the Swedish Two-County Trial from 1985, as well as three other trials included in the Cochrane review. “Even if the results are not officially statistically significant, when the same results are observed multiple times, in multiple studies, the trend deserves attention,” says Baines.

And as mentioned, Gotzsche’s overall findings based on all trials, including those of poor quality, show an absolute risk reduction in breast cancer mortality of just 0.05 percent (for all women attending annual or semi-annual mammography screening). Screening also led to over-diagnosis and over-treatment, resulting in an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent. “This means for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged,” explains Gotzsche. “In addition, 10 healthy women will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated as such, unnecessarily.”

What to do?
Simply put, the decision of whether to screen or not to screen is a tough one. Women have been sold on the idea that mammograms will save their lives. And yet the best studies don’t seem to support this claim. Additionally, the blanket recommendation for screening mammography comes without solid information on the risk involved and the potential harm the procedure can cause.

Even mammography’s most outspoken advocates acknowledge, however, that women should first focus on prevention and decide for themselves if the potential benefit of screening mammography outweighs the risks. Certainly, the controversy over screening should not deter a woman from getting a diagnostic mammogram if she has any troublesome symptoms or signs of breast cancer, such as a newly discovered lump, pain, or nipple discharge. (See “Assess Your Risk”.)

And it’s not as though you have many proven alternatives. Of the few options are available, none is a hands-down winner. (Look to “What Are the Alternatives?” for more information.) In the future, better, noninvasive tests may carry less risk than mammography. For now, says Lisa Schwartz, women face a difficult choice. “Our approach to breast cancer screening has fostered a climate where women are seen as irresponsible if they do not undergo screening. But screening has important trade-offs. We need to make sure that women understand this is a real decision that carries real consequences in both directions.”

Vonalda Utterback is a frequent contributor to Alternative Medicine magazine.

Prevention Is Key
“It’s counterproductive to get stuck in the debate on screening mammograms,” says Christine Horner, MD, surgeon, author, and a tireless crusader for women’s breast health. “It’s far more important for women to focus on prevention. Simply through good nutrition, supplements, and herbs, along with the right lifestyle choices, a woman can reduce her risk of breast cancer by more than 75 percent.”

In Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner’s Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer (Basic Health, 2005), Horner recommends eating the following nutrient-rich foods every day:
Fresh, organic fruits and vegetables. Concentrate on anti-cancer cruciferous veggies like broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbage, and high-antioxidant berries.
Organic whole grains. Grains are rich in cancer-fighting antioxidants, vitamins, trace minerals, fiber, and lignans.
Immune-enhancing maitake mushrooms.
Health promotingfats, such as omega-3 fatty acids from 2 to 3 tablespoons of ground flaxseeds daily. Avoid health-destroying saturated and trans fats.
Green tea, as a drink or a supplement. Women who drink six to 10 cups of green tea per day lower their risk of breast cancer.
Tumeric. The number one anti-cancer spice and a potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory. Add one-quarter of a tablespoon at the end of cooking to almost any food.
Seaweed, such as wakame. Seaweed is high in iodine, which may be more effective at killing breast cancer cells than many common chemotherapeutic drugs, according to Horner.
Vitamins and minerals. Vitamin B12, folate, vitamin D, vitamin E, and selenium—help to crush cancer growth. Horner says as little as 200 micrograms (mcg) a day of selenium lowers your risk of breast cancer—and most other types of cancer—by 50 percent.
Coenzyme Q10. Consider this supplement if you are over the age of 35. Essential for the production of energy in cells, it may help contain or inhibit tumor growth.
Horner also urges women to nix these health busters:
Red meat. Woman who eat the most red meat have a higher risk of breast cancer.
Inactivity. Fat cells manufacture estrogen, notably after menopause. That’s why obesity is thought to be responsible for 20 to 30 percent of all post-menopausal breast cancers. Just thirty minutes of aerobic activity three to five times a week can lower your risk of breast cancer by 30 to 50 percent, Horner says.
Cigarettes. Research shows that women who smoke or inhale passive smoke; have as much as a 60 percent increased risk of breast cancer.
Birth control pills or hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Long-term use may contribute to breast cancer.
Toxins. Avoid toxic overload and keep your home and body as toxin-free as possible; use only natural, nontoxic cleaning, bath, and beauty products.
All things that deplete melatonin, the sleep hormone. Melatonin arrests and deters breast cancer in many ways. Staying up past 10 p.m., alcohol, and electromagnetic fields from all electric appliances cause melatonin levels to drop.

Why Fear Radiation?
Mammograms employ low-dose X-rays to examine the breast. All X-rays use ionizing radiation, a known carcinogen with a cumulative effect on the body—in other words, the more you expose yourself, the more damage your body endures. In addition to annual radiation exposure from a screening mammogram, every false-positive mammogram reading often leads to a diagnostic mammogram and even more radiation exposure. Because radiation-induced mutations can actually cause breast cancer, radiation exposure over a lifetime increases cancer risk.

According to the US Department of Energy, a woman’s radiation dose from a typical mammogram is 2.5 mSv (millisievert or effective dose). By comparison, the effective dose from a chest X-ray is considerably less at 0.1 mSv.

Assess Your Risk
You can estimate your risk for invasive breast cancer quantitatively with the website calculator provided by the National Institutes of Health (http://bcra.nci.nih.gov/brc/q1.htm). The calculator takes into account many of the known risk factors for breast cancer. Be sure to discuss your results with your healthcare practitioner. Although the model accurately predicts the risk for breast cancer for groups of women, its ability to discriminate between higher and lower risk for an individual woman is limited.

What Are the Alternatives?
Although a number of additional screening or diagnostic methods exist, most health professionals still consider the various options adjuncts to mammography, not replacements for it. This applies to breast self-exams (BSE) and clinical breast exam (CBE) —two very important screening tools that are, of course, non-harmful and non-invasive. (For more information on CBE and step-by-step instructions on how to effectively perform a BSE, go to www.cancer.org.) Here’s a brief report on the top noninvasive methods used as adjuncts for early detection of breast cancer:

Thermography, or Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging (DITI)The promise. DITI is a painless, noninvasive procedure that uses a state-of-the-art, ultra-sensitive infrared camera and sophisticated computers to detect, analyze, and produce high-resolution diagnostic images of temperature variations within the breast (or any other part of your body). One of the main benefits of DITI is its sensitivity in detecting abnormalities, or changes in tissue, long before mammography or other screening methods could, which is why DITI advocates see it as a first-line screening method for breast cancer. While mammography relies primarily on finding the physical tumor, DITI detects the new blood vessels and chemical changes associated with a tumor’s genesis and growth.

The pitfall. DITI can’t pinpoint the exact location of damaged or cancerous cells, so you still need additional procedures, such as mammography, to determine if an actual tumor is forming or has already formed, or to pinpoint the precise location of an existing abnormality. Another drawback to DITI: a lack of uniform regulation in DITI equipment and training for diagnostic technicians—and insurance plans rarely cover its use.

Ultrasound

The promise. Ultrasound is a noninvasive, harmless, and painless imaging technique in which high-frequency sound waves bounce off breast tissue and convert them into an image of the breast’s interior, called a sonogram. The procedure is helpful in distinguishing between solid masses and harmless cysts and may prevent the need for an invasive breast biopsy.

The pitfall. Although ultrasound is a helpful diagnostic tool in separating benign lumps from cancerous tumors in dense breast tissue (i.e., younger women), it is most often used to evaluate lumps that already have been detected by CBE or mammogram. It’s still considered complementary to mammograms and not a replacement for mammograms, even in dense breast tissue, because ultrasound cannot detect microcalcifications, small calcium deposits found within the breast tissue that may or may not indicate an underlying tumor.

Elasticity Imaging

The promise. An emerging, yet exciting new offshoot of ultrasound, elasticity imaging holds promise for even greater specificity in distinguishing benign from cancerous breast lesions. A 2006 study by Northeastern Ohio University’s College of Medicine published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that a real-time hand-held elasticity imaging device used in correlation with a routine ultrasound exam was 99 to 100 percent effective at identifying malignant versus benign lesions. Study investigators plan to expand their research in an international, multicenter trial this year.

The pitfall. Similar to ultrasound, above. While elasticity imaging holds great promise to predict, with stunning accuracy, malignant versus benign lesions, and help reduce a major harm of screening mammography (over-diagnosis, resulting in unnecessary biopsies) no one is ready to say it's a replacement for mammography.

Find Out More
According to a survey published in the British Medical Journal of 27 websites containing information on mammography screening, the following websites garnered a top rating for balanced, unbiased information:
National Breast Cancer Coalition: www.stopbreastcancer.org
Breast Cancer Action: www.bcation.org
Center For Medical Consumers: www.medicalconsumers.org

Selecting Supplements

2008-04-23T16:59:00.000-07:00

Because vitamins and supplements can be pricey, it's easy to get excited when you compare the cost a natural, food-sourced product with an easy-to-take, all-in-one and much cheaper synthetic, but you really aren't saving any money. In fact, several respected studies indicate that if you opt for the synthetic product, you may even be causing yourself harm.

While some physicians actually argue in favor of synthetic vitamins by stating that it's technically a chemically purer product, they fail to add that they are also nutritionally inferior, in addition to being toxic (Consider that heroin, cocaine and sugar are also examples of chemically pure substances.)

There is a classic experiment where scientists take two groups of rats. They feed one group a diet of "synthetic" vitamin-fortified cereal, and the other rats are fed the cardboard box the cereal came in. The box eating rats live far longer.

The following excerpt from the book, "The Vitamin Myth," illustrates this issue.

Generally speaking, evaluating the proper milligrams of a synthetic vitamin supplement, as related to the potency of a vitamin, is a confusing and misleading proposition. This is because synthetic vitamins are refined, high potency chemicals, and therefore can be accurately measured in milligrams, just like drugs. Measuring synthetic vitamin compounds in milligrams has nothing to do with real vitamin activity or nutrition. The vitamin activity and real potency of the vitamin is dependent upon its authenticity as a whole, naturally-occurring vitamin, not its synthetic chemical fractionated potency or weight.

For example, it is often suggested to digest, or take intravenously, 1000’s of milligrams of vitamin C, E or A. This action is not only alarming to your immune system, but sends your body into a state of confusion.

A noxious bio-chemical chain reaction may begin with the body working to eliminate these toxins with none of the false nutrients entering the system as a natural food. When someone experiences dangerous side effects from synthetic vitamin consumption it is usually because synthetics cannot be utilized or metabolized, so they build up in the body as toxins and are eliminated as best as possible.

On the contrary, complete, food sources of vitamin C, E or A have normally lower milligram levels than those offered in “high potency” synthetic vitamin ingredients, yet the body can easily absorb and use them as real, whole complexed vitamins from food. When someone is concerned about the safety of vitamins, they are generally concerned about the dangers of overdosing on synthetic vitamins. Many people have experienced the dangers of toxic “vitaminosis” when indulging in mega doses of synthetic vitamins.

Some synthetic vitamins are made from coal tar. This base material, typically a crystalline yellow coal tar derived from fossil fuel sources, is not only used as a base to make some synthetic vitamins, but also as a host for other synthetic compounds including colorings, paints and many other chemical materials used as ingredients such as toxic preservatives or harmful food excipients. Coal tar is widely used in both the food and cosmetic industries and is a known carcinogen.

Taking synthetic vitamins in milligram quantities is related to the RDA’s (Recommended Daily Allowance) or the more modern RDI’s (Recommended Daily Intake), but this still does not actually relate to potency because potency of a vitamin has to do with its effectiveness and assimilation not its weight. Weight and potency, in this case, are two different things. Naturally occurring whole complexed vitamins from foods created by nature are more “potent” per milligram than synthetic fractions of those vitamins because it is the whole, real vitamin that the body requires not a synthetic chemical substitute of a fraction of a vitamin that has been chemically synthesized a laboratory.

So, the quantity of vitamin milligrams is not as important as the quality of the vitamin milligrams. Many vitamins supplement brands play the “milligram game” which is often confusing to the consumer. The idea of “more is better” works fine for some things, but not for toxic synthetics. We have to be aware of what is really going on here. The important first question should be whether or not the vitamin is natural (NOS) and not how many milligrams are available. If the vitamin product is synthetic then, I believe, it does not matter how many milligrams are offered since every synthetic vitamin milligram offered should be avoided. You get more nutrition from a lower number of milligrams when the vitamin is a whole naturally occurring complex from real food.

Let’s try to avoid the milligram game and play the naturally occurring game instead. We can’t win the synthetic milligram game, but we can definitely win and benefit our health while playing the NOS game.

So if your supplement does say "all natural" or "organically synthesized," what does it really mean? Consider this next article from Dr. Schulze:

In my many years as a Nutritional Consultant I have seen many philosophies and products come and go. I have seen the fads, the cure-alls, and the laziness in all of us that wants a pill to replace a sound nutritional program. Nutritional fads can even be dangerous by consuming large amounts of trace elements that we only need in microscopic amounts, or maybe none at all such as the latest toxic fads of silver and chrome.

I used to prescribe only the best vitamins and minerals to my patients. I knew that these products were in a base of natural ingredients and herbs, but wondered what the actual vitamins and minerals were made out of, I had assumed food.

All vitamin and mineral supplements currently made are NOT blended foods. In fact most are made from very undesirable, even horrifying substances. If you look on your current bottle of nutrients, it will state it contains many vitamins, minerals, and a long list of no's like starch, wheat, cellulose, soy, lactose etc. It will even be in a base of herbs but you will notice that it doesn't state what the actual vitamins and minerals are made from. I can tell you right now no one is grinding up fresh raw vegetables and organic grains to make these pills.

Commercial grade vitamin and mineral concentrates are synthesized by the big pharmaceutical and chemical industries from the same starting material that drugs are made from, (coal tar, petroleum products, animal by-products / waste and fecal matter, ground rocks, stones, shells and metal. They are then wholesaled out to the various nutrient manufacturers. The manufacturers are just mixing middlemen. Most of them don't even know how these various vitamins and minerals are made, or from what, nobody asks. Everybody just assumes a vitamin is a vitamin.

After all The United States Pharmacopoeia (U.S.P.) states that if a product looks similar under a microscope, or in analysis, that it is the same regardless of what it is made out of. For instance salicylic acid u.s.p. is considered identical whether it comes from wintergreen leaves or by boiling coal in carbolic and sulfuric acids. It also considers glycerin u.s.p. identical whether it is made from fresh vegetables, toxic minerals or boiled down animal carcasses, cartilage and feet. Does it make a difference to you?

The Vitamins: Many so-called natural vitamins are made from horrible substances.

All the vitamin B-12, cyanocobalamin, on the market is made from either ground up toxic cow livers or activated sewage sludge. These cow livers are overloaded with steroids and antibiotics, and the pesticides the cow assimilates while eating. The sewage sludge is just that, fecal matter. In today's environment of depressed immune diseases I can think of hundreds of reasons that these materials would be a health risk, not benefit. Just because a so-called natural substance, (fecal matter is natural), is high in a particular vitamin, does that also mean it is a good food?

Vitamin A from fish liver juices loaded with toxic PCB's and mercury, B vitamins from coal tar and petro-chemicals known central nervous system depressants, respiratory irritants and carcinogens, Vitamin C from acid blends irritating to the lining of the digestive tract, Vitamin D from radiated oil, Vitamin E from Eastman Kodak, need I say anymore?

The Minerals: All minerals used in nutrient manufacture are basically dirt. The iron, calcium, zinc etc. are just mined ore, pulverized and powdered to a fine dust. This doesn't make it any easier to assimilate. Some calcium is made from ground up oyster shells. This reminds me of when I was a kid watching the Three Stooges fix dinner, they would throw the oysters away and try and chew the shells. We all laughed at them and now we are doing the same thing. Modern research shows us that minerals of this type are 99% inassimilable. The manufacturers response to this is to add pig digestive enzymes, which supposedly pre-digests it or chelates it, in their attempts to force our body to accept this toxic material. Is this practice of chelating minerals really to our benefit or a dangerous act of ignorance?

We are currently entering a new era of nutrition. It is no longer a matter of how many milligrams you take of a particular nutrient but how much of what you are taking is actually getting into your bloodstream, and the organs that need it. And even more important, what are these vitamins and minerals made from and do they have toxic side effects.

When evaluating a supplement, look at the ingredients. If they aren't clearly listed on the label, call the company. If they are not forthcoming with real answers that involve actual botanical components, put it back on the shelf. It pays to spend a little extra on a supplement that is actually good for you.

The Ploy of Soy

2008-04-23T14:08:00.000-07:00

This is a (slightly) edited article from the Weston A. Price Foundation....
Check out their site for more on soy and other nutritional info.

The Ploy of Soy

Commercial milk products have been linked to a number of disease conditions including allergies, asthma, arthritis, diabetes, auto immune diseases, childhood anemia, heart disease and cancer. Many have turned to soy products as substitutes for dairy products. A popular booklet describes soy foods as " . . . uniformly high in protein but low in calories, carbohydrates and fats, entirely devoid of cholesterol, high in vitamins, easy to digest, tasty and wonderfully versatile in the kitchen, [which] positions them as irresistible new food staples for the evolving American diet. . . . with each mouth watering soy food dish," says the author, "comes a balanced, adequate and sustainable nutritional package."

Leaving aside the question of whether products like tofu and soy milk are really "mouthwatering" and "irresistible," those charged with providing nutritious meals for their families should carefully examine claims that newly introduced soybean products provide an easily digested and complete nutritional package, one that adequately replaces dairy products like milk, butter and cheese, which have, after all, provided nourishment for generations of Americans.

History of the Bean

Soybeans come to us from the Orient. During the Chou Dynasty (1134 - 246 BC) the soybean was designated one of the five sacred grains, along with barley, wheat, millet and rice. However, the pictograph for the soybean, which dates from earlier times, indicates that it was not first used as a food; for whereas the pictographs for the other four grains show the seed and stem structure of the plant, the pictograph for the soybean emphasizes the root structure. Agricultural literature of the period speaks frequently of the soybean and its use in crop rotation. Apparently the soy plant was initially used as a method of fixing nitrogen. soybean did not serve as a food until the discovery of fermentation techniques, sometime during the Chou Dynasty. Thus the first soy foods were fermented products like tempeh, natto, miso and shoyu (soy or tamari sauce). At a later date, possibly in the 2nd century B.C., Chinese scientists discovered that a puree of cooked soybeans could be precipitated with calcium sulfate or magnesium sulfate (plaster of Paris or Epsom salts) to make a smooth pale curd - tofu or bean curd. The use of fermented and precipitated soy products soon spread to other parts of the Orient, notably Japan and Indonesia. Although the highly flavored fermented products have elicited greater interest among scientists and epicures, it is the bland precipitated products that are most frequently used, accounting for approximately 90% of the processed soybeans consumed in Asia today. The increased reliance on bean curd as a source of protein, which occurred between 700 A.D. and the present time, has not necessarily been a beneficial change for the populations of the Orient and Southeast Asia.

Fit for Human Consumption?

The Chinese did not eat the soybean as they did other pulses (legumes) such as the lentil because the soybean contains large quantities of a number of harmful substances. First among them are potent enzyme inhibitors which block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion. These "antinutrients" are not completely deactivated during ordinary cooking and can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors cause enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer. The soybean also contains hemaglutinin, a clot promoting substance that causes red blood cells to clump together. Trypsin inhibitors and hemaglutinin have been rightly labeled "growth depressant substances." They are deactivated during the process of fermentation. In precipitated products, enzyme inhibitors concentrate in the soaking liquid rather than in the curd. Thus in tofu and bean curd, these enzyme inhibitors are reduced in quantity, but not completely eliminated.

Soybeans are also high in phytic acid or phytates. This is an organic acid, present in the bran or hulls of all seeds, which blocks the uptake of essential minerals-calcium, magnesium, iron and especially zinc-in the intestinal tract. Although not a household word, phytates have been extensively studied. Scientists are in general agreement that grain and legume based diets high in phytates contribute to widespread mineral deficiencies in third world countries. Analysis shows that calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc are present in the plant foods eaten in these areas, but the high phytate content of soy and rice based diets prevents their absorption. The soybean has a higher phytate content than any other grain or legume that has been studied. Furthermore, it seems to be highly resistant to many phytate reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking. Only a long period of fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content of soybeans. Thus fermented products such as tempeh and miso provide nourishment that is easily assimilated, but the nutritional value of tofu and bean curd, both high in phytates, is questionable.

When precipitated soy products are consumed with meat, the mineral blocking effects of the phytates are reduced. The Japanese traditionally eat tofu as part of a mineral-rich fish broth. Vegetarians who consume tofu and bean curd as a substitute for meat and dairy products risk severe mineral deficiencies. The results of calcium, magnesium and iron deficiency are well known, those of zinc are less so. Zinc is called the intelligence mineral because it is needed for optimal development and functioning of the brain and nervous system. It plays a role in protein synthesis and collagen formation; it is involved in the blood sugar control mechanism and thus protects against diabetes; it is needed for a healthy reproductive system. Zinc is a key component in numerous vital enzymes and plays a role in the immune system. Phytates found in soy products interfere with zinc absorption more completely than with other minerals. Literature extolling soy products tends to minimize the role of zinc in human physiology, and to gloss over the deleterious effect of diets high in phytic acid.

Milk drinking is given as the reason second generation Japanese in America grow taller than their native ancestors. Some investigators postulate that the reduced phytate content of the American diet—whatever may be its other deficiencies-is the true explanation, pointing out that Asian and Oriental children who do not get enough meat and fish products to counteract the effects of a high phytate diet, frequently suffer rickets, stunting and other growth problems. The current climate of medical opinion in America has cast a cloud of disapproval on tallness. Parents would do well to ask their six-year-old boys whether they would prefer to be six-foot-one or five-foot-seven when they grow up, before substituting tofu for eggs, meat and dairy products.

Marketing the Soybean

The truth is, however, that most Americans are unlikely to adopt traditional soy products as their principal food. Tofu, bean curd and tempeh have a disagreeable texture and are too bland for the Western palate; pungent and musty miso and natto lose out in taste tests; only soy sauce enjoys widespread popularity as a condiment. The soy industry has therefore looked for other ways to market the superabundance of soybeans now grown in the United States.

Large scale cultivation of the soybean in the United States began only after the Second World War, and quickly rose to 140 billion pounds per year. Most of the crop is made into animal feed and soy oil for hydrogenated fats- margarine and shortening. During the past 20 years, the industry has concentrated on finding markets for the byproducts of soy oil manufacture, including soy "lecithin", made from the oil sludge, and soy protein products, made from defatted soy flakes, a challenge that has involved overcoming consumer resistance to soy products, generally considered tasteless "poverty foods". "The quickest way to gain product acceptability in the less affluent society," said a soy industry spokesman, " ... is to have the product consumed on its own merit in a more affluent society." Hence the proliferation of soy products resembling traditional American foods-soy milk for cows milk, soy baby formula, soy yogurt, soy ice cream, soy cheese, soy flour for baking and textured soy protein as meat substitutes, usually promoted as high protein, low-fat, no cholesterol "healthfoods" to the upscale consumer increasingly concerned about his health. The growth of vegetarianism among the more affluent classes has greatly accelerated the acceptability and use of these ersatz products. Unfortunately they pose numerous dangers.

Processing Denatures and Dangers Remain

he production of soy milk is relatively simple. In order to remove as much of the trypsin inhibitor content as possible, the beans are first soaked in an alkaline solution. The pureed solution is then heated to about 115 degrees C in a pressure cooker. This method destroys most (but not all) of the anti-nutrients but has the unhappy side effect of so denaturing the proteins that they become very difficult to digest and much reduced in effectiveness. The phytate content remains in soy milk to block the uptake of essential minerals. In addition, the alkaline soaking solution produces a carcinogen, lysinealine, and reduces the cystine content, which is already low in the soybean. Lacking cystine, the entire protein complex of the soybean becomes useless unless the diet is fortified with cystine-rich meat, eggs, or dairy products, an unlikely occurrence as the typical soy milk consumer drinks the awful stuff because he wants to avoid meat, eggs and dairy products.

Most soy products that imitate traditional American food items, including baby formulas and some brands of soy milk, are made with soy protein isolate, that is the soy protein isolated from the carbohydrate and fatty acid components that naturally occur in the bean. Soy beans are first ground and subjected to high-temperature and solvent extraction processes to remove the oils. The resultant defatted meal is then mixed with an alkaline solution and sugars in a separation process to remove fiber. Then it is precipitated and separated using an acid wash. Finally the resultant curds are neutralized in an alkaline solution and spray dried at high temperatures to produce high protein powder. This is a highly refined product in which both vitamin and protein quality are compromised-but some trypsin inhibitors remain, even after such extreme refining! Trypsin inhibitor content of soy protein isolate can vary as much as 5-fold. In rats, even low level trypsin inhibitor soy protein isolate feeding results in reduced weight gain compared to controls. Soy product producers are not required to state trypsin inhibitor content on labels, nor even to meet minimum standards, and the public, trained to avoid dietary cholesterol, a substance vital for normal growth and metabolism, has never heard of the potent anti-nutrients found in cholesterol-free soy products.

Soy Formula Is Not the Answer

Soy protein isolate is the main ingredient of soy-based infant formulas. Along with trypsin inhibitors, these formulas have a high phytate content. Use of soy formula has caused zinc deficiency in infants. Aluminum content of soy formula is 10 times greater than milk based formula, and 100 times greater than unprocessed milk. Aluminum has a toxic effect on the kidneys of infants, and has been implicated as causing Alzheimer's in adults. Soy milk formulas are often given to babies with milk allergy; but allergies to soy are almost as common as those to milk. Use of soy formula to treat infant diarrhea has had mixed results, some studies showing improvement with soy formula while others show none at all. Soy formulas lack cholesterol which is absolutely essential for the development of the brain and nervous system; they also lack lactose and galactose, which play an equally important role in the development of the nervous system. A number of other substances, which are unnecessary and of questionable safety, are added to soy formulas including carrageenan, guar gum, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), potassium citrate monohydrate, tricalcium phosphate, dibasic magnesium phosphate trihydrate, BHA and BHT. Nitrosamines, which are potent carcinogens, are often found in soy protein foods, and are greatly increased during the high temperature drying process. Not surprisingly, animal feeding studies show a lower weight gain for rats on soy formula than those on whole milk, high-lactose formula. Similar results have been observed in children on macrobiotic diets which include the use of soy milk and large amounts of whole grains. Children brought up on high-phytate diets tend to be thin and scrawny.

Fabricated Soy Foods

A final indignity to the original soy bean is high-temperature, high-pressure extrusion processing of soy protein isolate to produce textured vegetable protein. Numerous artificial flavorings, particularly MSG, are added to TVP products to mask their strong "beany" taste, and impart the flavor of meat. Soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein are used extensively in school lunch programs, commercial baked goods, diet beverages and fast food products. They are heavily promoted in third world countries and form the basis of many food give-away programs. These soy products greatly inhibit zinc and iron absorption; in test animals they cause enlarged organs, particularly the pancreas and thyroid gland, and increased deposition of fatty acids in the liver. Human feeding tests to determine the cholesterol lowering properties of soy protein isolate have not shown them to be effective. Nevertheless, they are often promoted as having beneficial effects on cholesterol levels.

Cancer Preventing or Cancer Causing?

The food industry also touts soy products for their cancer preventing properties. Isoflavone aglycones are anticarcinogenic substances found in traditionally fermented soybean products. However, in non-fermented soy products such as tofu and soy milk, these isoflavones are present in an altered form, as beta-glycoside conjugates, which have no anti-carcinogenic effect. Some researchers believe the rapid increase in liver and pancreatic cancer in Africa is due to the introduction of soy products there.

The fatty acid profile of the soybean includes large amounts of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids compared to other pulses (legumes); but these omega-3 fatty acids are particularly susceptible to rancidity when subjected to high pressures and temperatures. This is exactly what is required to remove oil from the bean, as soybean oil is particularly difficult to extract. Hexane or other solvents are always used to extract oil from soybeans, and traces remain in the commercial product.

Soy Protein Is Not Complete

While fermented soy products contain protein, vitamins, anti-carcinogenic substances and important fatty acids, they can under no circumstances be called nutritionally complete. Like all pulses, the soybean lacks vital sulfur-containing amino acids cystine and methionine. These are usually supplied by rice and other grains in areas where the soybean is traditionally consumed. Soy should never be considered as a substitute for animal products like meat or milk. Claims that fermented soy products like tempeh can be relied on as a source of vitamin B12, necessary for healthy blood and nervous system, have not been supported by scientific research. Finally, soybeans do not supply all-important fat soluble vitamins D and preformed A (retinol) which act as catalysts for the proper absorption and utilization of all minerals and water soluble vitamins in the diet. These "fat soluble activators" are found only in certain animal foods such as organ meats, butter, eggs, fish and shellfish. Carotenes from plant foods and exposure to sunlight are not sufficient to supply the body's requirements for vitamins A and D. Soy products often replace animal products in third world countries where intake of B12and fat soluble A and D are already low. Soy products actually increase requirements for vitamins B12 and D.

Are soy products easy to digest, as claimed? Fermented soy products probably are; but unfermented products with their cargo of phytates, enzyme inhibitors, rancid fatty acids and altered proteins most certainly are not. Pet food manufacturers promote soy free dog and cat food as "highly digestible".

Only Fermented Soy Products Are Safe

To summarize, traditional fermented soy products such as miso, natto and tempeh-which are usually made with organically grown soybeans-have a long history of use that is generally beneficial when combined with other elements of the Oriental diet including rice, sea foods, fish broth, organ meats and fermented vegetables. The value of precipitated soybean products is problematical, especially when they form the major source of protein in the diet. Modern soy products including soy milks and ersatz meat and dairy products made from soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein are new to the diet and pose a number of serious problems.

Consumer Beware!

To summarize, there may be some beneficial factors in soy foods prepared according to traditional fermentation methods. In the Orient these are eaten in small amounts as condiments, and not as a replacement for animal foods. Highly processed soy protein isolates and textured vegetable protein have little in common with traditional soy products. They might be compared to plastic processed cheese slices, which have nothing in common with traditionally processed whole milk natural cheeses.

Promotion of modern, industrially processed soy products should be viewed with skepticism. This is a huge and powerful industry. Archer Daniel Midlands, the world's major soy processor, spends heavily on advertising, especially for news programs on major networks. The company spent $4.7 million for advertising on "Meet the Press" and $4.3 million on "Face the Nation" during the course of a year.

ADM also has holdings in major newspapers. Naturally, the press presents soy in a favorable light. ADM lobbies heavily in Washington, and supports university research programs. ADM president Dwayne Andreas is a fanatic about spreading soy-based food around the world. There's a lot in it for him-but not much in it for us. Consumer beware. There is no joy in soy--it's a ploy.