Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Aldulteration of Food’ Category

 

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Did you know that some varieties of beef on the market today come from cattle that has been deliberately modified to grow abnormally large muscles for beef production? A recent segment aired by the National Geographic Channel offers a glimpse into the eerie production of so-called “super cows,” which intentionally bear a defective gene that allows them to grow atypically large with a “double muscle” build.

This somewhat “mutant” cattle breed is officially known as the Belgian Blue, and its origins date back to the early 1800s when Belgian scientists and farmers decided to breed native cattle with Shorthorn and possibly Charolais cattle varieties to create a stronger and more beefy crossbreed. Over time, cattle breeders would select the strongest and largest animals of each variety and breed them together to create allegedly superior offspring.

“Selective breeding … is used by farmers to enhance desirable characteristics in their animals,” explains the National Geographic Channel about the process. “[It's] all about managing sex. To create these Belgian Blues over 100 years, farmers have only allowed the cows and bulls with the greatest muscle mass to mate. And the result is a bull that weighs over a ton.”

The tradition of breeding Belgian Blues in this manner lives on. But today’s Belgian Blues are even more selectively bred, as technological advances have given breeders new insight into genetic modifications. As it turns out, the most successful Belgian Blues possess an inherent genetic defect that causes their muscles to continue growing, which is what gives them their enormous size.

Though technically variant from the type of genetic modifications found in Monsanto’s soybeans, for instance, the Belgian Blue is purposely bred with this defective gene, known as myostatin, which alters its normal growing patterns. The myostatin gene is responsible for telling the body when to stop producing muscle, and in Belgian Blues, its failure allows exceptional growth above and beyond the norm.

“There is a gene that regulates the growth of muscles in cattle,” adds the National Geographic Channel about the process. “These cows have been selectively bred from animals that contain a copy of this gene which doesn’t work. As a result, their muscles grow far larger than normal. To ensure the defective gene is passed on, sex for the Belgian Blues has been replaced by technology in the form of artificial insemination.”

What is the purpose of all this? To create more beef, of course, which in turn generates more profits for the factory meat industry. And Belgian Blues are reportedly becoming more popular in the U.S., where greed and profits are king.

Sources for this article include:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com

http://schatzie-speaks.hubpages.com/hub/Belgian-Blue-Cattle-Ethics

Read Full Post »

Oceana investigation uncovers massive consumer fraud in mislabeled fish

by Tony Isaacs

(NaturalNews) Just when you thought eating fish was iffy enough due to Fukushima radiation, the gulf oil spill, mercury and other toxins found in fish, one of the largest seafood fraud investigations in the world to date has found that 59 percent of the tuna Americans consume is not really tuna. Worse still, most of the fake tuna was found to actually be a fish known for causing gastrointestinal problems.

The non-profit ocean protection group Oceana collected more than 1,200 samples from 674 retail outlets in 21 states from 2010 to 2012 to determine if they were honestly labeled. DNA testing found that one-third of the 1,215 seafood samples were mislabeled, according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines.

The fish Oceana found to be most often mislabeled was red snapper, where 87 percent of the samples collected were actually one of several other varieties of fish – such as perch and tilapia. Perhaps the most disturbing finding was that 84 percent of the fake fish substituted for second place tuna was escolar – a fish which can cause explosive, oily, and orange diarrhea.

Escolar, often mistakenly labeled in raw form as a variety of tuna called “butterfish,” is a type of snake mackerel that is unable to metabolize the wax esters called gemplyotoxin which are naturally found in its diet. The esters are called gempylotoxin, and are very similar to castor oil or mineral oil and the esters are what gives escolar an oily texture similar to tuna. As a result of the esters, eating full portions of escolar can cause severe gastrointestinal problems.

The fraudulently labeled seafood was found at sushi bars, restaurants and grocery stores with sushi bars being found to be far more likely to have the mislabeled fish. Oceana did not find a single sushi bar which had no dishonestly labeled fish.

Though the Oceana investigation did not determine where the fraud occurred in the chain from ocean to consumer, the reasons for the labeling fraud are obvious: greed and availability.

In practically every instance of mislabeling, a cheaper variety of fish was substituted for a more expensive one. Often, price differences are due to availability. Red snapper supplies, for example, are very limited as the levels of the popular fish have been severely depleted far beyond demand. Likewise, popular varieties of tuna, including albacore, yellowfin and bigeye, have been significantly depleted from over-fishing. Even the most common type of tuna, skipjack, may soon be in danger due to increased fishing pressure.

Other highlights of the Oceana investigation:

• Mislabeling was found in 27 of the 46 fish types tested (59 percent)
• Salmon, snapper, cod, tuna, sole, halibut and grouper were the top collected fish types
• Only seven of the 120 red snapper samples were honestly labeled
• Between one-fifth to more than one-third of the halibut, grouper, cod and Chilean sea bass samples were mislabeled
• 44 percent of all the grocery stores, restaurants and sushi venues visited sold mislabeled seafood

Today, more than 90 percent of the seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported, and fewer than one percent is inspected specifically for fraud by the government.

Seafood is a popular, and theoretically healthy, food choice for many Americans. Both the American Heart Association and new dietary guidelines from the FDA recommend eating eight ounces of seafood, or two seafood meals, a week. Seafood is a global commodity and is one of the most commonly traded food items in the world.

As the Oceana investigation has revealed, it is also one of the most common food items likely to be used to defraud consumers.

Sources:

http://www.theatlantic.com
http://oceana.org
http://wwf.panda.org
http://oceana.org
http://www.tbyil.com/Mercury_Heavy_Metals_in_Fish.htm
http://www.thekitchn.com/use-caution-when-eating-escola-66602

About the author:
See all articles by Tony Isaacs

Tony Isaacs, is a natural health author, advocate and researcher who hosts The Best Years in Life website for those who wish to avoid prescription drugs and mainstream managed illness and live longer, healthier and happier lives naturally. Mr. Isaacs is the author of books and articles about natural health, longevity and beating cancer including “Cancer’s Natural Enemy” and is working on a major book project due to be published later this year. He is also a contributing author for the worldwide advocacy group “SANEVax Inc” which endeavors to uncover the truth about HPV and other vaccine dangers.

Mr. Isaacs also hosts the Yahoo Oleandersoup group of over 2600 members and the Utopia Silver Supplement Company and he and his partner Luella May recently began hosting The Best Years in Life Radio Show” on Wolf Spirit Radio.

Read Full Post »

Lupus alternative treatment with natural supplements – Treating systemic lupus erythematosus with herbs and vitamins by Ray Sahelian, M.D. 

Lupus is a chronic disorder that for unknown reasons causes the body’s immune system to attack its own tissues. Systemic lupus erythematosus predominantly affects women and is more common in blacks. Although survival rates have improved, over one half of patients have permanent damage in one or more organ systems. While lupus can affect women and men of any age, it’s much more likely to affect blacks, Hispanics, Asians or Native. It occurs 10 to 15 times more frequently among adult females than adult males, and most often affects people aged 15 to 44. The most common symptoms of the disease include achy joints, fever, arthritis, extreme fatigue, skin rashes, and anemia. Sometimes symptoms disappear for a prolonged period, a term doctors call “remission.” Women with lupus who become pregnant face a much higher risk of serious complications and even death. Heart disease risk is much higher in those with lupus.

Natural alternatives that may be helpful
Little is known regarding the influence of herbs, supplements, and diet in lupus. Here I mention some of the research that has been done thus far and I hope to continue updating this page as more information becomes available. If you have lupus please discuss with your doctor before making any drastic chances or additions to your treatment plan.

Fish oils and omega-3 fatty acids – fish oil supplements improve symptoms of systemic lupus erythematosus. Also consider eating more fish such as salmon, halibut and sardines (packed in mustard or tomato sauce).
Vitamin D could be of benefit, particularly in those who do not have much sun exposure.
Green tea with EGCG - drink a glass a day in the morning.
Cordyceps mushroom extract, see codyceps study below.
Lipoic acid is an antioxidant, limit usage to 50 mg two or three times a week.
Turmeric root, which contains curcumin, may have some potential benefit for lupus nephritis. 

DHEA – this hormone may help but has side effects. At this point I don’t recommend the long term use of DHEA due to adverse reactions.

Supplements that may not be helpful for lupus patients
There is very little research regarding supplements or herbs that may have a detrimental effect on lupus symptoms. However, echinacea andspirulina should be used with caution until more research is available.

Would it be possible to list supplements on your lupus web page that are contraindicated for those with lupus? I noticed that spirulina is elsewhere on your website, but not on the lupus page itself. I have also heard that alfalfa, golden seal, and echinacea should not be taken if you have lupus. Listing these and any others would be a great help to those with lupus.
I am reluctant to point out any herbs or supplements that may make lupus symptoms worse. There is a potential for spirulina and echinacea to influence this condition, but until full human trials are conducted I do not want to prematurely warn against using goldenseal, alfalfa, or other herbs in patients with lupus. 

Lupus diet, foods
Substances that may aggravate lupus include excess calories, excess protein, high fat (especially saturated and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids), and iron. Some people with lupus placed on a food allergy elimination diet report improvement in their lupus symptoms; however, this may be related to a decrease of other substances in the diet. Eat more fish and vegetables while reducing sugar and sweets.

Subscribe to a FREE Supplement Research Update newsletter. Twice a month you will receive an email of several new studies on various supplements and natural medicine topics and their practical interpretation  We will discuss natural lupus treatment when more research is published.

Omega 3 fatty acids and systemic lupus erythematosus – Lupus and Fish Oils
Stephen Wright, MD, Specialist Registrar in Rheumatology, Department of Therapeutics and Musculoskeletal Education and Research Unit, Queen’s University Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom has evaluated the role of dietary supplementation with low-dose omega-3 fish oils in lupus. Results show omega-3 fatty acids improves lupus symptoms and show evidence of a protective cardiovascular effect. .

Stephen Wright, MD, Specialist Registrar in Rheumatology, Department of Therapeutics and Musculoskeletal Education and Research Unit, Queen’s University Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom has found supplementation with low-dose omega-3 fish oils improves lupus symptoms and shows evidence of a protective cardiovascular effect. Sixty patients participated in the trial. They received 3 grams of omega-3 fish oils daily, for 24 weeks. The investigators measured disease activity using the revised Systemic Lupus Activity Measure (SLAM-R) and the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index of disease activity for SLE. In the fish oil group, there were statistically significant improvements at 24 weeks in lupus disease activity with changes in SLAM-R and BILAG. Stephen Wright, MD concludes, “Low-dose dietary supplementation with omega-3 fish oils in SLE not only has a therapeutic effect on disease activity but also improves endothelial function and reduces oxidative stress and may, therefore, confer cardiovascular benefits.” A Randomised Placebo-Controlled Interventional Trial of Omega-3-Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids on Disease Activity and Endothelial Function in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, presented at the 71st annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology on November 9, 2007.

The clinical effect of dietary supplementation with omega-3 fish oils and/or copper in systemic lupus erythematosus.
J Rheumatol. 2004. Northern Ireland Center for Food and Health (NICHE), School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Ulster, Ulster, Northern Ireland, UK.
To determine the effect of dietary supplementation with omega-3 fish oils with or without copper on disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. Fish oil supplementation has a beneficial effect on murine models of SLE, while exogenous copper can decrease the formation of lupus erythematosus cells in rats with a hydralazine-induced collagen disease. A double blind, double placebo controlled factorial trial was performed on 52 patients with lupus. Patients were randomly assigned to 4 treatment groups. Physiological doses of omega-3 fish oils and copper readily obtainable by dietary means were used. One group received 3 g MaxEPA and 3 mg copper, another 3 g MaxEPA and placebo copper, another 3 mg copper and placebo fish oil, and the fourth group received both placebo capsules. Serial measurements of disease activity using the revised Systemic Lupus Activity Measure (SLAM-R) and peripheral blood samples for routine hematological, biochemical, and immunological indices were taken at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 weeks. There was a significant decline in SLAM-R score from 6.12 to 4.69 in those subjects taking fish oil compared to placebo. No significant effect on SLAM-R was observed in subjects taking copper. Laboratory variables were unaffected by either intervention. In the management of lupus, dietary supplementation with fish oil may be beneficial in modifying symptomatic disease activity.

Vitamin D should be considered
Serum concentrations of 25-OH vitamin D in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are inversely related to disease activity: is it time to routinely supplement patients with SLE with vitamin D?
Ann Rheum Dis. 2010 . Amital H, Szekanecz Z, Szücs G, Nagy E, Csépány T, Kiss E, Rovensky J, Tuchynova A, Kozakova D, Doria A, Corocher N, Agmon-Levin N, Barak V, Orbach H. Department of Medicine ‘B’ and Centre for Autoimmune Diseases, Sheba Medical Centre, (Affiliated to Tel-Aviv University) Tel-Hashomer, Israel.
In a cohort of patients with SLE originating from Israel and Europe vitamin D serum concentrations were found to be inversely related to disease activity.

Cordyceps mushroom
Study on effect of Cordyceps sinensis and artemisinin in preventing recurrence of lupus nephritis]

Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi. 2002.
To observe the effect of cordyceps sinensis and artemisinin in preventing recurrence of lupus nephritis. Sixty-one LN patients, who had no activities by corticosterone and cyclophosphamide (CTX) impacting therapy were randomly divided into two groups. The 31 cases in the treated group were given Cordyceps powder 2-4 g/d before meal and artemisinin 0.6 g/d after meal in three portions orally taken for 3 years. The 30 patients in the control group were treated with tripterygiitotorum and/or Baoshenkang tablet. The consecutive observation lasted for 5 years to monitor the clinical manifestations of lupus and laboratory indexes including blood creatinine, creatinine clearance rate (CCr) and antinuclear antibodies (ANA). Cordyceps and artemisinin could prevent the recurrence of lupus nephritis and protect kidney function.

Turmeric has curcumin
Oral Supplementation of Turmeric Decreases Proteinuria, Hematuria, and Systolic Blood Pressure in Patients Suffering from Relapsing or Refractory Lupus Nephritis: A Randomized and Placebo-controlled Study. 
J Ren Nutrition. 2011.
In this study we investigated effects of oral curcumin supplementation on patients suffering from relapsing or refractory lupus nephritis. The present study was conducted in Lupus clinic of Hafez Hospital, Out-Patient Department of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. With each meal, each patient in the trial group received 1 capsule for 3 months, which contained 500 mg turmeric, of which 22 mg was the active ingredient curcumin (3 capsules daily). The control group received 3 capsules (1 with each meal) for the same period, which contained starch and were identical in color and size to capsules given to patients in the trial group. A significant decrease in proteinuria was found. Also, systolic blood pressure and hematuria were found to decrease significantly. Short-term turmeric supplementation can decrease proteinuria, hematuria, and systolic blood pressure in patients suffering from relapsing or refractory lupus nephritis and can be used as an adjuvant safe therapy for such patients.

DHEA hormone supplementation
Effects of dehydroepiandrosterone supplement on health-related quality of life in glucocorticoid treated female patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.
Autoimmunity. 2005.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of low dose dehydroepiandrosterone on health-related quality of life in glucocorticoid treated female patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Forty one women ( >or= 5 mg prednisolone/day) were included in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study for 6 months where DHEA was given at 30 mg/20 mg ( <or= 45/ >or= 46 years) daily, or placebo, followed by 6 months open DHEA treatment to all patients. Quality of life was assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months, using four validated questionnaires and the patients’ partners completed a questionnaire assessing mood and behaviour at 6 months. DHEA treatment increased serum levels of sulphated DHEA from subnormal to normal. The DHEA group improved in SF-36 “role emotional” and HSCL-56 total score. During open DHEA treatment, the former placebo group improved in SF-36 “mental health” with a tendency for improvement in HSCL-56 total score. Both groups improved in McCoy’s Sex Scale during active treatment. DHEA replacement decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and increased insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and haematocrit. There were no effects on bone density or disease activity and no serious adverse events. Side effects were mild. We conclude that low dose DHEA treatment improves quality of life with regard to mental well-being and sexualityand can be offered to women with systemic lupus erythematosus where mental distress and/or impaired sexuality constitutes a problem.

I read that you were concerned that people are overdosing themselves on DHEA. You recommend 1 to 5 mg. However I have lupus and I heard 200 milligrams of DHEA can possibly help. I also have hair loss which I am trying to improve. What do you suggest?
I can’t make a specific recommendation since that is the role of your health care provider, but DHEA is known to increase hair loss. I don’t think this hormone is safe to use for prolonged periods in high dosages.

Pycnogenol and lupus
Pycnogenol efficacy in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus patients.
Phytother Res. 2001.
A pilot study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of Pycnogenol treatment in systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus) patients. Eleven lupus patients were treated with first line medication according to disease activity and in addition, six of them received Pycnogenol and five a placebo. The lupus disease activity index (SLEDAI), serum anti-dsDNA antibodies, fibrinogen, C-reactive protein levels, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) by neutrophils, spontaneous apoptosis and p56(lck) specific activity in peripheral blood lymphocytes were evaluated. Pycnogenol treatment determined a significant reduction of ROS production, apoptosis, p56(lck) specific activity and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. In addition, the decrease of SLEDAI was significant in the Pycnogenol treated group compared with the placebo group. The results obtained suggest that Pycnogenol could be useful for second line therapy to reduce the inflammatory feature of lupus.

Birth control pills may trigger lupus
Certain women may be prone to develop lupus when they start taking combined oral contraceptives. Dr. Samy Suissa found out that the increased risk of developing lupus in connection with starting on the pill appears to be greatest in the first 3 months of use, and with first- and second-generation contraceptives containing higher doses of estrogen. This suggests “an acute effect in susceptible women and possibly a dose-response effect of estrogen on SLE onset,” she and her colleagues report in the April 15, 2009 issue of Arthritis and Rheumatism scientific magazine.

Lupus Symptom
Each person with lupus has different symptoms that can range from mild to severe. Lupus symptoms are not consistent, but may come and go over time depending on a number of factors including stress, sleep patterns, diet, et.. However, some of the most common symptoms of lupus include painful or swollen joints, fatigue, and unexplained fever A characteristic lupus skin sign is a red skin rash. This is the so-called butterfly or malar rash. This lupus skin sign may appear across the nose and cheeks. Lupus rashes may also occur on the face and ears, upper arms, shoulders, chest, and hands. Because many people with lupus are sensitive to sunlight (called photosensitivity), skin rashes often first develop or worsen after sun exposure. Another lupus symptom may be cold hands similar to Raynaud’s phenomenon. However, the most common lupus symptom is fatigue.

Arthritis and skin manifestations are most common lupus signs, but kidney, hematologic and neurologic manifestations contribute largely to illness and mortality. Lupus often gets worse during pregnancy and with oral contraceptives.

Before a patient can be classified with systemic lupus erythematosus, at least four of the following 11 disorders must be present: Malar rash, discoid rash, photosensitivity, oral ulcers, arthritis, serositis, renal disorder, neurologic disorder, hematologic disorder, immunologic disorder, antinuclear antibodies.

At some point, over 90 percent of patients have polyarthralgias or polyarthritis because of the disease. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) remain the mainstay of treatment in these patients, especially those who have mild polyarthralgias or polyarthritis. NSAIDs may adversely affect renal function, a special concern because 50 percent of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus develop associated nephritis.

The most common initial lupus symptom is fatigue. Other lupus symptoms include fever, and muscle and joint pain. This is called a “flulike syndrome.” Fatigue is the most common and bothersome complaint. It is also often the only symptom that remains after treatment of acute flares. A flare in lupus is an acute increase in symptoms. Fever during lupus flares is usually low-grade, rarely exceeding 102°F. A temperature greater than this should stimulate a search for an infection as the source of the fever. However, any fever in lupus should be considered an infection until proven otherwise. Muscle pain (myalgia) and joint pain (arthralgia) without or with joint swelling (arthritis) are very common with the new onset of lupus and with subsequent flares.

Lupus nephritis, one of the most serious manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus, usually arises within 5 years of diagnosis.

Discoid lupus — (Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus
Discoid lupus is a  chronic and recurrent disorder primarily affecting the skin and characterized by sharply circumscribed macules and plaques displaying erythema, follicular plugging, scales, telangiectasia, and atrophy. The cause of discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) is unknown. The disorder is more common in females, most often in those in their 30s, but the age range is far wider than that of SLE.

Lupus rash
The skin is involved in more than 90% of people with lupus. Skin symptoms are more common in whites than in African Americans. While the classic lupus rash is a redness on the cheeks (malar blush) often brought on by sun exposure, many different types of rashes can be seen in SLE. Discoid lupus with the red skin patches on the skin and scaliness is a special characteristic rash that can lead to scarring. It usually occurs on the face and scalp and can lead to loss of scalp hair (alopecia). Hair loss can occur with flares of SLE even without skin rashes in the scalp. In this situation, the hair regrows after the flare is treated. Hair loss can also occur with immunosuppressive medications. 

Medical Lupus treatment
Plaquenil – hydroxychloroquine sulfate 200 mg tabs. Side effects include irreversible retinopathy, blurred vision, hair bleaching, alopecia (loss of hair), pruritus, rash, nausea.
Immune-suppressing drugs used in the treatment of lupus patients may increase the risk of blood cancer, but not lung, cancer. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, January 2008.

Lupus risk factors – research
Risk factors for developing systemic lupus erythematosus: a case-control study in southern Sweden.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2002.
Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital of Lund, Sweden.
To explore the risk factors that have been suggested to be associated with the development of 
systemic lupus erythematosus. A case-control study was performed and a questionnaire was developed to obtain the data. Consecutive female incident cases diagnosed between 1981 and 1999 in a defined geographical area in southern Sweden were included. Controls, matched for calendar year of birth, were selected randomly from the same area. In total, 85 cases and 205 controls agreed to participate. The questionnaire included questions about formal education, body weight and height, medical history, family history of autoimmune diseases, exposure to ultraviolet radiation, animals, hair-colouring dyes, alfalfa (lucerne) sprouts, smoking and alcohol habits, history of physical traumata, blood transfusion, silicone breast implants, exogenous oestrogens, other medication, and significant negative life events. Using a multivariate model, a history of hypertension, drug allergy, a type I/II sun-reactive skin type and a family history of SLE were all significantly associated with an increased risk of developing SLE, whereas consumption of alcohol was inversely associated with the risk of SLE. A suggested association with increased systemic lupus erythematosusrisk was seen for smoking and blood transfusions. Neither exposure to exogenous oestrogen nor exposure to hair-colouring dyes was associated with SLE. Risk factors of both exogenous and endogenous origin were identified in this population-based series of systemic lupus erythematosus patients.

Lupus and exercise
A pilot study on the effects of exercise in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.
Arthritis Care Res. 2000.
A pilot study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of different exercise therapies on patient-reported fatigue and functional status. Ten patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus) were randomly placed in either an aerobic exercise group or a range of motion/muscle strengthening (ROM/MS) exercise group. Outcome measures assessed at baseline and the end of the study were fatigue, functional status, disease activity, cardiovascular fitness, isometric strength, bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine and femoral neck, and parathyroid hormone and osteocalcin as representative bone biochemical markers for bone resorption and bone formation, respectively. Both aerobic and ROM/MS types of exercise were safe and did not worsen lupus disease activity. Patients in both exercise groups showed some improvement in fatigue, functional status, cardiovascular fitness, and muscle strength. Both groups showed increased bone turnover, but BMD was unchanged. Eighty percent of the patients met the compliance standard for the study. This pilot study shows the feasibility of exercise for lupus patients. The potential value of this approach shows promise in the routine management of these patients.
 Lupus symptom.

Questions and answers by Ray Sahelian, M.D.
Q. Can you tell me if mangosteen or the spice curcumin are helpful in lupus?
A. I have not seen such studies.

Q. Is the use of krill oil contraindicated in those with lupus?
A. I have not seen any studies that would make me think that krill oil would have harmful effects in those with lupus. Perhaps it may even help?

My 21 yr. old daughter has systemic lupus erythematosus. Her exhaustion is extreme. If she takes Plaquenil or Chloroquine, she then has ‘Lupus Psychosis’. Do you know anything about Kalawalla, from Organic Hope (organichope.com).
We have not heard of kalawalla. We looked on the internet and found Kalawalla to be listed as Polypodium Leucontomos on one website. There’s a company selling kalawalla 300 mg 50.1 Standardised extract. We searched Medline and found no listing for kalawalla. Another search on Medline revealed no listing for Polypodium Leucontomos, but there were listings for Polypodium Leucotomos. Kalawalla and Rapuani are apparently brand names for Polypodium Leucotomos.

I have been diagnosed with lupus for several years. My condition was getting worse. My cousin introduced me to Dr. Sahelian and I had the fortune of having lunch with him one day. He asked me about my diet. I was drinking several glasses of milk a day. He said I should reduce the milk and add salmon and cold water fish to my diet. Within several weeks my lupus symptoms were reduced and my fatigue was much better. I think in my case diet had something to do with the severity of my lupus condition.

I just wanted to say thank you for your webpage on lupus that is supported by research papers. I truly appreciate research-based discussions.

I have SLE for almost 20 years. My latest blood test for the DNA or anti nuclear came back at 58. My question is How can I get this number to be normal. My doctor said that less than 5 is the normal range, when I asked him what can I do, he said I would die. Is this true? What can you tell me about getting better? I have fibromyalgia and taking tramadole and flexiril and trazadone and plaquinil lyrica lortab I take other medication for high blood pressure also Inspra and Diovan. And for pre-diabetes I take metformin.
I can’t provide specific advice but you may benefit from reading about the different medical conditions on this web site and natural ways to treat them and review the options with your doctors.

My wife has diagnosed lupus before a year and still today we are struggling a lot with disease. Is there any way to treat a patient with the drugs without any side effects. Now she is on steroid and immunosuppressive medicines but still struggling with the many flares. If you have any clinic in Ahmedabad, India please send me the contact detail so that I can take an appointment.

My resent blood test showed ANA 1:1000. That result, along with my chronic fatigue symptoms, butterfly face rash and sun induced skin flareups, and kidney inflamation is starting to point me to a Systemic Lupus diagnosise direction – further test will no doubt tell me more. Have you any thoughts or experience on using CMOT (cerasomal-cis-9-cetylmyristoleate) as an autoimmune modulator ? I have read about this relating to Dr Len Sands of the San Diego Immunological Center, information of which seems to relate to Arthritis, but wondered if it has been found successful for Lupus?
A Medline search in 2010 did not reveal any such studies.

Read Full Post »

Airplanes found to be full of filth; passengers flying in ‘tube of human feces’

by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The interiors of airplanes are awash in bacteria, including fecal bacteria, according to random tests conducted by Dallas-Fort Worth’s local CBS affiliate.

CBS 11 contracted a team to randomly swab 10 surfaces on two separate planes.

“We found roughly 3000 bacteria on this plate,” said Karen Deiss, a microbiologist from Armstrong Forensic Laboratory in Arlington, Va. “The door was kind of filthy.”

Researchers found the bacterial variety Klebsiella on a tray table and transferred it to a petri dish to culture it. After being allowed to proliferate in the dish, it came to resemble a wet, white blob vaguely reminiscent of mold.

“It’s really gross looking on the plate,” Deiss said.

The CBS researchers declared that the most disgusting culture; however, was produced from a swab taken from inside a seat pocket.

“All of the bacteria we generated from this plate were associated with the human gut,” Deiss said. “A lot of these bacteria that live in our gut ended up pretty concentrated on the backseat of the chair.”

Traveling? Wash your hands!

According to the University of Arizona’s Charles Gerba, a microbiology professor known as “Dr. Germ,” the study just proves what he has been saying for years: Airplanes are not cleaned regularly enough.

“It’s an indicator of how clean the planes are,” says Dr. Gerba. “There is no policy for cleaning or disinfecting. There are no recommendations by the health department.”

In his own studies, similar to those conducted by CBS 11, Gerba has found infectious agents responsible for everything from influenza to diarrhea, and even samples of the superbug methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). As a result, Gerba advises travelers to avoid airplane lavatories and to use hand sanitizer.

But infectious disease specialist Cedric Spak, of Baylor University Medical Center of Dallas, had a different take.

“Some of the bacteria that I’ve looked at here are consistent with what we found in urine or stool in normal people,” he acknowledged, but said that is not necessarily cause for alarm.

“It is all the same type of bacteria that lives down under the belly button,” he said. “I don’t want someone to think I’ve got feces all over my front side, but that bacteria is there and that bacteria is found in some of these reports, which means someone was scratching their belly button and then scratching their tray table.”

Most of the bacteria found in the CBS 11 study are normal, Spak said, and do not pose any threat to healthy people. And viruses cannot survive long on dry surfaces.

“We are in a dirty world,” he explained. “We are supposed to be.”

It’s not the first time concerns have been raised about bacterial infestation on airplanes. Just days before the CBS 11 story, Caroline Morse wrote on the Huffington Post about 10 germy places to avoid while traveling. In her top 10 are airplane lavatories, tray tables, seat pockets, and pillows and blankets.

She notes that airplane lavatories are so small that bacteria from the flushing toilet spray onto nearly every surface in the room, including the sink – where moisture left by messy passengers allows them to flourish. As for seat pockets, Morse writes, “We’ve seen passengers shove dirty tissues, dirty diapers, banana peels, sunflower-seed shells and general trash into the seat pockets on a plane.”

“It’s like storing your stuff inside a public trashcan for the duration of your flight.”

Morse also warns against hotel remotes, hotel bedspreads, hotel light switches, water fountains, touch-screen ticket kiosks and cruise ship handrails.

Sources for this article include:
http://dfw.cbslocal.com
http://au.totaltravel.yahoo.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com

Read Full Post »

August 3, 2006

The Food Crisis in the World and the Current Sell-Out of Halal Selling and Labeling

IMAGINE SITTING AT an abundant table spread of delicious food, the host describing the way it was acquired. Some of it was stolen from the neighbors. Some bought with money fraudulently taken from a poor single mother, her whole lifesavings, in fact. Other foods were procured violently, so that people were killed. Some of it is even laced with toxins. But today, you can eat of it freely, as much as you like. The price will be your children’s inheritance.

Would you eat that food? Or would you depart and find other provisions, even if it meant discomfort in the meantime?

I believe most people would choose to leave that table. I also believe that Islam dictates to us beyond any doubt that we must.

I have both bad news for you and good. The abundant and cheap food available to most of us today is not much unlike the scenario above. Yet the time is ripe for a rejuvenation of Islam’s divine laws regarding food and its production and consumption, and the reintroduction of its strongly humane and conservationist ethics. It is as simple as joining forces with your nearby farmers and the “sustainable food” movement to develop local food infrastructures. If it sounds archaic, you’ll see just how profound its beneficial effects can be, if you read on.

I. A Quick Primer on Agriculture in History

AGRICULTURE IS THE most basic of all human productive activities. Food is vital to life. So agriculture in its widest sense is vital to societies. Food is earth’s largest commodity. Everyone eats every day. Globally, 1.3 billion people work directly in agriculture and another 2.5 billion depend upon the food sector for their livelihood.

If you compare society to a house, the foundation you build on is agriculture. If it is to be strong and healthy, it must be founded upon a local economy that is built around a robust and wholesome food infrastructure. In this way, a society can be self-sustaining and independent. But if the local farming network is decimated, there can be no homegrown economy, and there is bound to be dependence and oppression.

“Today, rural North America is being ‘colonized’,” says John Ikerd, professor emeritus, University of Missouri, Columbia. “Multinational corporations are extending their economic sovereignty over the affairs of people in rural places everywhere, including rural America.”

The root of the world’s growing nutrition problem is that we live with so many unexamined myths relating to agriculture and food. The unspoken assumption is that we are either on the boat with modernism to progress, or sailing back to the Stone Age. Sure, what I propose as a solution means paradigm and lifestyle changes, but it does not mean regression.

On the contrary, it means going back to the Laws and ethics of the Quran and the way of its Messenger, salla Allah ‘alayhee wa sallam, not theoretically but in tried and true ways demonstrated by the best of those who went before us in this faith.

“The rapid spread of Islam into three continents in the seventh and eighth centuries was followed by the diffusion of an equally remarkable but less well documented agricultural revolution,” says historian Andrew Watson, whose important article on this very topic appeared in the Journal of Economic History in 1974. “By the eleventh century [the new agriculture] had been transmitted across the length and breadth of the Islamic world and had altered, often radically, the economies of many regions.”

Animal and plant husbandry within the ethical agricultural framework that Islam built was nothing short of magnificent—earthly manifestations of the Quran’s descriptions of the Heavenly gardens and egalitarian capital practices. Reports historian Lucie Bolens:

The great Islamic cities of the Near East, North Africa and Spain…were supported by an elaborate agricultural system that included extensive [conservationist] irrigation and an expert knowledge of the most advanced agricultural methods in the world. The Muslims reared the finest horses and sheep and cultivated the best orchards and vegetable gardens. They knew how to fight insect pests, how to use fertilizers, and they were experts at grafting trees and crossing plants to produce new varieties….Fields that had been yielding one crop yearly at most prior to the Muslims were now capable of yielding three or more crops, in rotation….Agricultural production responded to the demands of an increasingly sophisticated and cosmopolitan urban population by providing the [nearby] towns with a variety of products unknown in Northern Europe…The agricultural system of the Spanish Muslims, in particular, was “the most complex, the most scientific, the most perfect, ever devised by the ingenuity of man”….With a deep love for nature, and a relaxed way of life, classical Islamic society achieved ecological balance, a successful average economy of operation, based not on theory but on the acquired knowledge of many civilized traditions.

In other words, despite all that we are currently hearing of the inevitability of global warming and environmental holocaust, it does not have to be this way. Yet humanity must grasp that the solutions cannot proceed from capitalism’s pyramid profit schemes better known as multinational corporations. Rather, they can only come from belief in One God, the internalization of the spirit of His revelation, and a look at the successful pre-modern ecological practices of agrarian peoples.

II. What Is Wrong With Our Present Farming Industry?

IN A WORD, everything. Once, upright Muslims looked far deeper into food consumption than the simplistic no-pork, no-alcohol, letter-of-the-law attitude prevalent among us today. The great Imam Nawawi, for instance, refused even the food of the Muslim government of his day (calling it the “food of the tyrant”) out of fear for its ethical impurity.

Our thick ignorance of our own tradition with regard to food has placed us at the mercy of an increasingly elusive and consolidated industry, which has no ethical values beyond slogan-morals. The widespread assumption that all is well on the farm is deeply false. We see an abundance of affordable food before our eyes and blindly trust that some hidden federal agency is ensuring a safe food supply. We take it on faith that science and technology have finally delivered Adam’s offspring to an agricultural Eden.

The reason the dreadful food industry has escaped our notice is because our connection to food production is truncated at the grocery store, and our adherence to Islamic dietary Law has been severed at the most superficial standard. To us, food has become a mere commodity, instead of a basic spiritual right of all people. Our role in it has been reduced to complacent consumers instead of champions of the Middle Way bearing the message of the prophets.

I originally wrote a 7,000-word “summary” to explain the catastrophe of the contemporary global food industry. It would take a hefty volume to give you the gory details. But keep this in mind as I apprise you of just the grim outline. The world is not separated into comparmentalized countries that live in vacuums. “A successful and durable [multinational corporation],” says commentator Ruth Rama, “operates with resolute constancy as if the entire world or major regions of it were a single entity, selling the same things in the same way everywhere.”

Divisive nationalistic, patriotic, or tribalistic thought is irrelevant. Events everywhere are related and consequences eventually affect everyone. Poverty in the vast poor countries facilitates lavish consumption in select rich ones. The fact is a great amount of our food is grown in modern-day plantation countries and war is a primary trade tool.

When Muslims implemented the agricultural ethics of the Quran and Sunnah, their systems were far more sophisticated than the fairly primitive food structures of today. But they worked in and with nature not against it. Moreover, they understood that the key to such complexity was to disseminate their earth knowledge freely and widely.

The basic problem of the food industry is that such knowledge cannot be taken from the learned farmer and made generic so food can be mass-produced. That capital goal required companies and governments to usurp control of agriculture in order to create factory systems needing no knowledge so that people from anywhere—such as slaves, or migrant workers—could be mindlessly slotted in to plant and pick, raise and butcher.

Behold the dark magic of monocropping, just the kind of assembly line solution globalization needed.

The death of diversity

The myopic concern of agribusiness with efficient control of production and, hence, profit, has reduced dynamic farming to linear and quantifiable systems that require farmers to drop seeds for days and spray chemicals for miles in a technique called monocropping. One crop is harvested season after season.

In the 1960s, Northern “donor” agencies sold us this bill of goods as the “green revolution,” a benevolent plan to eliminate hunger in poor countries. With it, they wiped out community after community’s farming diversity, introducing a few uniform crop varieties that could not yield the promised bounty without torrential chemical and water inputs.

“It is a prime example of how an effort to ‘modernize’ can put the very basis of sustainable development at risk, simply by bypassing and undermining local resources, knowledge and experience generated over millennia” (read more at www.grain.org, which I am quoting here). “Rather than eliminating hunger, the ‘green revolution’ moved control over agriculture and rural livelihoods from local communities to international development agencies and private corporations.”

Loss of agricultural knowledge means the loss of farming communities, which leads to a society without a rural sector and the loss of culture.

Monocropping reaps large amounts of crops, but at many costs, like completely depleting topsoil, turning fertile land into barren desert. Topsoil is precious. Without it, crops can’t grow. Plains become infertile. No machine can readily create it. It takes from 200 to 1,000 years for 2.5 cm of topsoil to build up. Quite literally, we are eating off lands that the peoples of antiquity were wise and selfless enough to conserve.

Since 1945, an estimated 108 million acres of productive land has been lost to agriculture each year. That’s 4.85 billion acres, or around 35 percent, of the earth’s fertile land, according to the United Nations’ Environmental Programme. Put another way, of the world’s estimated 5,200 million hectares of agriculturally used dryland, 69 percent is degraded or subjected to desertification. In Africa, that ratio is 73 percent. In Asia, 70 percent (see Lawrence Geoffrey’s Capitalism and Countryside: The Rural Crisis in Australia).

The problem of monocropping gets worse. Modern agriculture is depleting the world’s available fresh water—less than one-half of 1 percent of all the water on earth. At the current rate of doubling every 20 years, water usage will seriously deplete all fresh water in the world in 25 years. In the midst of this unmitigated catastrophe, the spooky World Bank is busy trying to privatize water for industry while at the same time reducing subsidies to poor people for obtaining fresh water (look up the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment).

What is the impact on energy? “The U.S. food system uses over 10 quadrillion BTU (10,551 quadrillion Joules) of energy each year, as much as France’s total annual energy consumption,” says Danielle Murray of the Earth Policy Institute. “Growing food accounts for only one-fifth of this. The other four-fifths is used to move, process, package, sell, and store food after it leaves the farm.”

It is true that food has significantly cheapened so that once luxury items like meat and sugar are now available to every one. But the price we pay at the store does not reflect the cost of water, land, labor, health, and pollution.

Illegal seed and killer genes

The business corollary to monocropping and its decimation of farming communities is biopiracy: The patenting of indigenous plants, seed varieties, and genetically selected livestock. You are forgiven if this takes you a moment to sink in. Companies now own seeds, plants, and livestock breeds—not the stuff themselves but their very existence as genetic life forms!

About six multinational corporations like Monsanto and DuPont have “been investing into biotechnology in such a way that patents have been taken out on indigenous plants which have been used for generations by the local people, without their knowledge or consent,” says Ronaldo Seroa da Motta, author of “The Economics Of Biodiversity In Brazil: The Case of Forest Conversion.” “The people then find that the only way to use their age-old knowledge is to buy [the plants] back from the big corporations.” The farmers of bio-rich Brazil have already lost half their plant species to business interests.

Typically, the food multinationals go around testing farmers’ crops to ensure they are not keeping any seed from last year’s crops, which is now illegal. If they want to plant again, they must, by law, buy again from corporations. But the Cargill/Monsanto cluster has found a solution to the troublesome testing. They are devising a way to insert a “terminator gene” into plants to render their seeds sterile.

“Seed, the source of life, has become a source of death in the hands of global seed and biotechnology corporations,” says A. Navdanya of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology. “Thousands of farmers have committed suicide in India and other countries since MNCs entered the seed sector through globalization. Farmers who have had to sell their kidneys or whose family members committed suicide gave testimonies of how seed/chemical monopolies are squeezing profits by extracting the very life of poor peasants.”

And you thought war was the Iraqi people’s biggest problem. Note the folks at grain.org:

Most recently, new legislation in Iraq has been carefully put in place by the United States that effectively hands over the seed market to transnational corporations. This is a disastrous turn of events for Iraqi farmers, biodiversity and the country’s food security. While political sovereignty remains an illusion, food sovereignty for the Iraqi people has been made near impossible by these new regulations. When the new law—on plant variety protection (PVP)—is put into effect, seed saving will be illegal and the market will only offer proprietary “PVP-protected” planting material “invented” by transnational agribusiness corpor–ations. The new law totally ignores all the contributions Iraqi farmers have [for millennia] made to development of important crops like wheat, barley, date and pulses. Its consequences are the loss of farmers’ freedoms and a grave threat to food sovereignty in Iraq, as it has been in India and other countries.”

Got Pus?

In addition to desertification, expunging plant diversity, and cultural obliteration intensive monocropping made the industrial factory model possible for animal husbandry. The swath of ecological and health destruction cut by the meat and poultry industries alone is absolutely staggering, the merciless abuse of animals in the process beyond comprehension.

In their publication Blood, Sweat, and Fear Human Rights Watch correctly discerns the profit formula of the United States’ meat and poultry industry as dependent upon “achieving expanded operations with economies of scale, low costs, and accelerated production speeds.”

That profit “scale”, investment “cost,” and cash-in “speed” needed three ingredients: A pervasive monocrop, cheap oil, and slave-like labor. With miles of Midwestern corn and soy, war in the Middle East, and the virtual agri-colonizing of an ill-defined but aptly named Third World, all the pieces were in place to take the animals off the land and create low-budget meat houses in concentrated feeding operations better known as factory farms. There’s your low cost meat.

Right now, hundreds of thousands of cows live crammed in the most efficient space with no room to move. Wallowing in their own filth, they are branded, dehorned, and castrated, all without anesthetics. Naturalists once classified these animals as ruminants because they eat grass then chew the cud regurgitated from their specially designed multiple-chambered stomachs. Only, these bovines have no grass to eat, just monocropped corn. It’s called grain-feeding and dooms them to slow, agonizing death by poisoning.

Grain feeding cows is practiced to make them obese, because industry sells them mostly by the pound not according to health quality. The meat of the obese cow is also unhealthy for humans. Indeed, red meat got its bad-health reputation from grain-fed cows because the grain makes it high in cholesterol and fat.

Cows that eat the grass Allah made them to eat, while getting exercise on the pasture, are leaner and their meat is lower in cholesterol, higher in protein, and their fat is full of healthful Omega 3 essential fatty acids, vitamins A and E, and more.

Grain for ruminants is like candy, a good treat in small amounts. But a cow that goes from grass to only grain will die. And so it is that every university agricultural extension has instructions on how to introduce cows slowly to a grain diet without immediately killing them. Yet they will be sick cows, and so with the grains must go medication to keep them alive!

Enter the number one consumer of drugs in the world: The livestock industry—and if you’re getting the logic of the factory farm, you should have guessed by now that it is the leading incubation center for drug-resistant bugs in the world. “Specifically there is a growing cognizance of the relationship between increased antibiotic use and the development of ‘super-germs’,” says biotechnologist Kevin Jones in the Canadian Journal of Sociology.

The Union of Concerned Scientists says that American agriculture uses a minimum of 25 million pounds of antibiotics every year, making antibiotics the cornerstone of the industry.

The reason for this is simple. These farms are not much unlike the unsanitary disease-infested cities of the Dark Ages where plagues wiped out people. Factory farm cities have no sewage system for the 1.5 billion tons of manure annually collecting in underground water lagoons, some bigger than football fields, wreaking havoc on local ecologies and surrounding communities that have to live with the stench in the best scenario, leaking and spilling in the worst.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that manure has already polluted 35,000 miles of United States rivers. For example, in June of 1995, 25 million gallons of manure spilled from an 8-acre lagoon in North Carolina, killing 10 million fish in the New River and closing 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands to shell fishing—and this is just one of many cases.

Dairy and egg are the cruelest industries. Cows supposed to live 15 years, now go down in three (and hence are called “downers”), at which time they are literally dragged off to slaughter for further profit. Before that their udder-diseased milk becomes filled with somatic cells—otherwise known as pus.

If it’s a calf fated at birth for gourmet use, it’s hauled off, chained down, crated, and fed a milk substitute that includes cow blood. Anemic and often suffering from diarrhea, pneumonia, and lameness, it is killed young and fed to you as delightful veal.

Maximizing profit, of course, means animals that get fat fast or produce quick and often. Laying hens are jammed tight into crate-like cages with no room to stretch to even open a wing. Their beaks and toes are cut off to stop cannibalistic and aggressive behavior between stressed out chickens. Unhappy chickens (surprise!) are not productive, so they are subjected to forced-molting by two weeks of complete starvation, a practice that shocks their systems into laying eggs. This breed of chicken is not used for meat, so the male chicks are culled and mostly thrown live into dumpsters by the thousands. (It is the cheapest way to kill them).

If you’re really thinking ahead you will have already guessed that increasing antibiotic-resistant bacteria, incurable diseases like mad cow, and contagious epidemics like avian flu all are now seriously thought by researchers to have had their origins in the factory farm. But where others sense adversity the food corporations have smelled opportunity and the chance to blame and, so, nearly wipe out the back yard and small farm producer the world over, leaving us even more completely in the thralldom of the multinationals.

Few of us can imagine this land of milk and honey running dry, but the harsh reality is there is a reason why three-fourths of the world is destitute. We are consuming not only more than our share of the planet’s wealth, but irresponsibly using up our own children’s inheritance and almost guaranteeing their poverty.

These unimaginably cruel practices do not need a scholar of Islam to state the obvious. The place and treatment of animals in Islam is copiously addressed throughout this religion’s teachings. If the Prophet, salla Allahu ‘alayhee wa sallam, informed us of Hellfire for the woman who imprisoned and starved a cat to death, and Paradise for one who climbed down a well to water from a shoe a thirsting dog, what then is our responsibility before Allah for the treatment of the animals He gave us to eat, to say nothing of our own health?

In addition, one need not be an economist to understand that if it takes, along with a whole trough of antibiotics, an estimated 4.8 pounds of grain, 390 gallons of water, and .25 gallons of gasoline to produce a pound of beef, according to the Millennium Project, small sustainable farmers, who use their families, land, rain and sun to farm, will become extinct because they will be undersold by the rich industrial food giants—until, that is, the latter become our only choice. Then prices will continue to rise until the masses of people will not be able to afford even bread.

III. Pass the Carcinogens, Please

EVER-INCREASINGLY WE are bombarded with a growing list of health ailments, all food related—correction, all industrial-food related. It is no longer farfetched to say that we are consuming more toxic substances in our food than nutrients. Our food is grown swimming in chemicals, then processed with chemicals, then preserved with still more chemicals, and finally packaged in chemical plastics and transported. No wonder the hallmark of modern-day food is (worthless) artificial enrichment.

Hormones and Pathogens

Muslim leadership in the halal food industry currently deems as acceptable (by way of loopholes) the practice of administering artificial hormones to cows, whether to increase growth or milk production. Yet there is a growing body of evidence showing the deleterious effects of hormones in milk (and in the water supply by way of manure)!

The EU has banned the use of such hormones, whose effects include altering of the human hormone balance, developmental abnormality, infertility, cancer, and early onset of puberty in girls, which puts them at greater risk of developing breast cancer and other female-prevalent cancers.

Moreover, the sheer problem of automated, high-speed slaughterhouses makes it impossible for workers to clean off the manure caked all over the animals. Meat is inevitably contaminated, which has led to the new practice of irradiating it before it leaves the slaughterhouse. This kills all bacteria, good and bad, and destroys cells that research shows further degrades the nutritional value of the meat.

The excessive antibiotic use in factory animals has made one out of every six cases of campylobacter, a common food poisoning bacteria, resistant to the fluoroquinolones normally used to treat it. Nearly all staph infections are now resistant to penicillin and newer drugs. Salmonella, enterococcus, and shigella (dysentery) are all showing widespread antibiotic resistance for the same reason.

As more and more classes of antibiotics become useless, more and more sicknesses are becoming prevalent. In 2000, the USDA estimated the cost from just these five bacterial foodborne pathogens as $6.9 billion, causing 76 million human illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,200 deaths. In the same year, however, clinics reported cases of 250 foodborne pathogens.

Pesticides in our bodies

Pesticides are one of the most common toxic substances found in food. They impair the immune system and cause a whole slew of diseases. Time was, the primary public health concern for pesticides was acute severe poisoning by accidental exposure or ingestion, and the long-term potential for cancer.

Today, we know that pesticides in our food affect the nervous, endocrine (glands and hormones), immune, and reproductive systems. They also pose increased threats to infants, young children, the unborn, and other individuals especially susceptible to health problems caused by toxic pollutants. Pesticides have been linked to Parkinson’s disease, learning disabilities, hyperactivity, emotional disorders, weakened immune systems, birth defects, and low sperm counts.

The vast majority of crops grown in the United States feed farm animals, not humans and contain far higher levels of pesticides than those meant for human consumption.

But pesticide residues accumulate in the fat and tissue of animals. More than 90 percent of the pesticides Americans consume are found in the fat and tissue of meat and dairy products, which in turn accumulate in our fat over our lifetime.

Furthermore, long after their use, pesticides remain in the soil and water. Despite being banned in 1972, DDT has been found in the breast milk of over 99 percent of all mothers in America. As the food supply becomes more consolidated and global, so does the risk of exposure to toxic pesticides that were banned in the United States, but which chemical companies still sell legally abroad to mostly poor countries which send it right back to us in the foods agribusiness grows on their lands.

According to the EPA, over 1 billion tons of pesticides are used every year in America. Centers for Disease Control studies show that more than 90 percent of the thousands of people tested carried a mixture of pesticides, many linked to serious health problems.

IV. The Deception of Halal Certification

A MUSLIM MOTHER walks into a store grateful to find the shelves filled with products stamped with a little ‘H’ inside a triangle. This symbol of halal assures her the food she is buying is good for both the bodies and souls of her Muslim family.

Little does she know these ‘halal’ foods are potentially harmful to the health of her children, that her money is going to support an industry that is oppressing her relatives back home in South Asia, the Middle East, North and West Africa, or South America; and that by eating what is lawfully questionable and certainly non-tayyib she is possibly not following the dictates of the Quran and Sunnah and positively not their spirit.

Certifying foods as halal and tayyib could be a great service to Muslims. The organizational leaders of a number of halal certification programs (HCP’s) have rightfully expressed much anxiety about fraudulent halal business activity in the Muslim community and tout certification as an essential protection for the Muslim consumer.

But these programs, as they stand, are a disservice to the Muslim community because they will mislead it, contribute to the degeneration of its health, and perpetuate the egregious injustices of the multinational food system on people in the name of Islam.

These are objections I have repeatedly raised in detail to the relevant halal food committees with no qualitative change beyond rhetoric and stonewalling. Such halal labeling programs have three major faults in their current forms that will render them stillborn and non-viable as far as a genuine Islamic response to the corporate corruption of the food industry: (1) There are non-tayyib and questionably halal foods that will be unavoidably certified; (2) Muslim buying power will be used in a way that is not in our best interests, rather in ways that damage Muslims and others; and (3) the issue of halal is far more comprehensive than no pork or alcohol and cutting the correct veins!

Modern food industry practices (the very little that is known of it in the Muslim community) may be acceptable to Muslim leadership partly due to a misapprehension that, practically speaking, there are no other choices for us and that any other way of getting food would be an excessive hardship for Muslims. This fallacy exists because there is a virtual vacuum in the community about food knowledge. In fact, not only are there solutions, but there are ways to implement them. Numerous studies have been and continue to be done on the ramifications of the food industry and the solutions to the health and welfare devastation it is wreaking. Many are the alternative groups at work on feasible food strategies.

There is no doubt that the challenge of seeking to educate the Muslim community about the grave problem of food today—and to do this in order to inspire them to participate in, and innovate, a local, sustainable food movement in conjunction with other urban Americans and local farmers—is palpably daunting.

Yet there is another reality about setting the direction of Muslims and food in America that is easily as influential over Muslim organizational leadership positions as the intimidating task of leading Muslims to activate local food system alternatives to the current food pharaohs; namely, the incredible attractiveness of being in a position to “get a piece of the pie,” as one speaker put it in an apt metaphor at a recent Halal Food Conference.

That is, the little halal stamp gives Muslim organizational agencies a whopping opportunity to share in the multinational food corporations’ billions of dollars of profits. Accepted or authorized halal food certifying entities will undoubtedly reap millions for affixing their seals of approval on food products.

This is not to mention the staggering profits awaiting halal food producers and resellers—all of which hinges on enacting halal standards that state and, perhaps, federal government agencies will enact into law and enforce thereafter, becoming, in the process, the unlikely secular arbiter of Muslim Sacred Law.

The Halal Standard Debates

The halal certification program argument goes something like this: It is understood that there are egregious health, economic, and animal treatment injustices in the current multinational food oligopoly throughout the world, and that this may even impinge on the halal nature of some food items. But Muslims must start somewhere, and the best way is to lead Muslim Americans to make concerted efforts to educate the industry and encourage it to cater to their requirements. We can then build up our halal standards little by little.

This 12-step type of 1990s response would be a logical one if we lived in another century or on another planet. But, the fact is this position is either incredibly disingenuous or amazingly naïve. There is no way to build up the halal standards little by little until we reach “full” halal and tayyib, that is lawful and wholesome, food compliance, food which is produced under just and ethical principles—not within a system that is virtually tyrannized by MNC’s powerful enough to bring down nations! Rather, the proposed “little” path requires baby steps that will go on and on supporting and perpetuating the mess of an industry so that we may one day have absolutely no remaining choices.

First, “our” requirements should consist of more than just partaking of the American consumer lifestyle minus the alcohol and pork! “Our” needs should include concepts of health and justice: Healthy choices for us and our families, and justice so that other people can choose healthy lifestyles for their families.

Second, the food industry is ultra complex to understand partly because it has undergone drastic changes in the last half century, and partly because of the unprecedented use of propaganda to mystify the masses with whatever image they portray of themselves and their products. Muslims need to x-ray the industry and understand it so as not to ignorantly fall under its control.

Third, “our” choice to give our spending power to the food giants is suicide. Muslims are a lucrative market, and so is certification. Either we will be paid off with a share of the certification business while directing our money, and therefore support, to the food giants by choosing them to provide us with food. Or, we can choose to control our own food by working with small scale and local food producers and consequently build up our own local communities’ economies, Muslims and others, in a far more beneficial and long lasting way than a handful of organizations just lapping up a few proceeds.

It is telltale that at one recent conference the main speakers were mostly businessmen, some of whom are key players in the formulation of the standards, a disturbing conflict of interest. Many tried point-blank to get the audience riled up about the million dollar businesses that will come about, the tidbits Muslims will be scraping up from the food industry. Inconceivably, no one spoke about the halal standards themselves. Indeed, I was sternly told not to speak about the food industry or the standards while on one of the panels.

Rather, “we,” the community, in whose behalf all of this is taking place, were promised that our increasing single mother families will have halal baby food, and the two-parent working homes will have halal fast food, and that the quality will surely be superior to what we are now exposed. The fact that the quality is now literally shameful, that the trend of the industry shows that not only is food becoming less nutritious, and more pathogenic, but also that we will have less and less choices, was never even touched on.

They promised us not only that we will get a “piece of the pie,” but that the pie is going to get bigger with us! All this in a world that is increasingly engaged in wars, with an agricultural industry that is destroying the planet we live on! So, was that a promise or a threat?

Muslims want to jump onto the unsustainable bandwagon for a “piece of the pie” as if we can magically create larger water tables, or arable topsoil, or oil! We think we can become competitive with the MNC’s, businesses so large they challenge the GDP of nations, corporations that have long ago left the sphere of competitiveness behind in their dust. (Over half of the world’s top 100 richest entities are corporations. The rest are countries).

It is bad enough that hydrogenated oils and high fructose corn syrup, even the sweetener that kills rats called aspartame, among many other artificially lab-created food ingredients that are proven health hazards and none of which have nutritional benefits, are currently considered ‘halal’!

Basically, anything that clears the no-alcohol or pork threshold is halal, even genetically modified foods that most of the rest of the world is fighting against. In an age where foods are created in labs and genetically modified and patented, we are encountering a new scale of issues that demands re-examination of our beliefs in light of the Shari’ah and not FDA regulations (one strong belief now apparently being that if the FDA (which many now call the Faster Death Administration, instead of “Food and Drug”) allows things to be put in our foods it must be good for us).

Eight Halal Standard That Aren’t

Recently, I was able to see a current halal standards for meat proposal, which focuses mainly on two aspects, slaughter and feed, neither of which is addressed properly. On the surface, the standards look impressive: Humane slaughter, kindness and mercy to disease-free animals, vegetarian feed, no antibiotics and hormones. But reality is a lot more difficult to address than words. Look beyond the word makeup of the following eight proposed halal standards.

  1. Humaneness is simply not defined. Using words like “humane” or “natural” unspecified by law can mean anything. Is shackling, hanging a live, conscious one-ton cow by a back leg humane or not? Is restraining the cow by clamping metal tongs in its nostrils and pulling its head forward? It is according to these halal standards because these are common practices. In fact, aside from the few and far between humane slaughterhouses in the country, these are the only ways to slaughter that I have encountered, along with stunning, a practice which is made bizarrely permissible on chickens for the halal stamp.
  2. “Disease-free” is an oxy-moron in factory-farmed animals. All the animals coming out of industrial farming are unhealthy. But diseased? That depends on how you define it. So either none of the animals qualify or we are not agreeing on what disease means. Indeed, USDA law allows animals with tumors to be sold for food, though the liver cannot be sold because it is damaged by acidosis from the grain-feeding; and the spinal cord and head cannot be sold for fear of mad cow. Moreover, all the animals are drugged up on antibiotics. The point is disease is considered a normal part of modern agriculture. Thus farms and slaughterhouses have rules to deal with it.
  3. The references to hormones and antibiotics still allow their use because they address slaughterhouses and not the consequences of their usage on farms. In addition (a) hormone usage is by law subject to a quarantine period before slaughter. So animals may be technically free at the time of slaughter, but the damage is done. Moreover, the hormones have already been released into the soil and water via manure eventually getting to humans; (b) chickens are not given hormones by law so adding that to the halal disclosure form means nothing; and (c) if you look carefully at the standards it refers only to subtherapeutic antibiotics, which means that animals can and do still get massive antibiotics regularly in their water for medication purposes.
  4. Reference to vegetarian feed does not stipulate this must be the practice for the duration of the animal’s life. The standards allow a loophole to become the norm by quarantining animals for 60 days on vegetarian feed to make them halal. Does this protect us from mad cow disease and other cause-and-effect consequences of feeding ruminants meat, which is exactly what most gain-feed contains? No, it merely perpetuates the problem.
    Moreover, vegetarian feed is not specific enough. It means not cow-healthy grass but cow-sickening grain-feed—all that genetically modified corn and soy that are replacing the Amazon and making the cows ill.
  5. That animals can be purchased from auctions, which many are, means that there is no way to verify how the animals were raised or fed.
  6. The issues not addressed in the halal standards are as significant as those inadequately dealt with—including pesticides, genetic modification, labor exploitation, ecological destruction, and animal cruelty.
  7. There are inconsistencies between the halal standards and the disclosure form that the halal act requires to be filled out and posted by anyone in the halal business. For example, there are no questions on the disclosure form addressing humane slaughter issues—issues that are, in any case, moot, unenforceable, and unrealistic in the current industry.
  8. Finally, the disclosure form allows for fraudulent misrepresentation of products, one of the major reasons for enacting the halal act. It lists numerous questions that allow for multiple standards, some higher than others. But halal businesses only have to truthfully answer questions that pertain to the standards of “their” certifying agency. Any questions beyond the scope of these narrow critieria can be falsely answered without any liability. In addition, how many businesses are going to seek out the higher standards when the economic environment we are choosing to operate in would make it difficult and unprofitable?

The Questionable Knowledge of the Knowledgeable

This brings me to the next point. The Islamic scholars, business people, nutritionists, and others who approved the standards know, on the whole, little about the whole food industry. Some know how the animals are raised, some about the thousands of food ingredients, and some the USDA policies on slaughter. Then there are our religious scholars with their invaluable Islamic knowledge, but most of whom know little about the food industry, which, frankly, makes their religious rulings suspect.

Totally missing are the food industry experts, the farmers, the local food specialists, the policy professional, the economic and ecology scholars. When I raised this blatant oversight to some halal standards representatives, their response was that such research and awareness can come at a later date. The current and only goal is enactment of these standards into law in states like Illinois and New Jersey as models.

This is like asking for approval for car safety standards from people who know nothing about car safety issues! I find it odd that someone like myself has to remind Islamic institutions that ultimately we are not talking about our own opinions, but the commandments of Allah, Most High.

The pervasive scope of the food dilemma granted, still we cannot derive rules of Islam applicable to our society without first thoroughly understanding our present day issues. Had the mad cow scare never been made public the Muslim community might well still be unaware that animals are fed animals, therefore making them haram (according to some schools) to eat. Isn’t it likely that there are other practices that would call the halalness of other foods into question?

A final word is in order about the notion of tayyib, or wholesomeness of food, which I have mentioned. Allah’s injunction to His prophets—O messengers! Eat of all that is wholesome, and do righteous deeds. Indeed, I am all knowing of all that you do (Sûrat Al-Mu’minûn, 23:51)—strongly indicates an ethical dimension to halal. In a widely distributed letter on this topic, one writer commented on this verse:

With these words, God enjoins His prophets with an essential permission that is also a comprehensive instruction: They may eat all that is wholly beneficial—from its substance, to its production, to its acquisition, to its consumption. If it was grown in purity, gotten lawfully, and eaten appropriately it was made permissible to them. In other words, the food of the men of God was necessarily to be naturally, morally, and spiritually good, with no adulteration in any dimension of this closed sequence of goodness. This is implicit in the Quran’s injunction and the operative Arabic word ‘al-tayyibât’ at its heart. In addition, many are the statements of the Prophet, God’s blessings and peace be ever upon him, in which he disclosed to the community his conscientious practice of not eating food the origin or transactional intent of which was not explicitly known to him.

Not upholding the critical aspects of our religion, which mandates that food be tayyib, not only halal, means that we have ridiculed our divine tradition in the name of ease, acquiescing in the mortal standards of others. Surely, Islam calls on us to show more concern about the issues affecting our food, especially that which would be receiving the official label halal.

V. A Homemade Solution

THERE IS MUCH to be said about how seemingly helpless individuals like us and as fragile a community as are Muslims in America can begin to make a difference in the food life of the nation and the world. As in all things, it begins with our own immediate and daily actions, the proverbial first pebble that starts the avalanche.

The odd fact is that both the Muslim and Jewish communities could be key players in any breakthrough solution because of the separation of state and religion ethos and because we both have such defined dietary laws. For now, religious food standards are untouchable by the government.

For this reason, it is essential that Muslims, first and foremost, vigorously take up the challenge of closely defining the Shari’ah of tayyib and halal food pertinent to the time and place we live in. This point cannot be overstated. For this charge alone will inevitably shift Muslims into badly needed new food paradigms. I say new, but, truly, they are old. They are Islam’s food paradigms.

With Quran and Sunnah definitions of what is halal and tayyib, any standards we form could very realistically and quickly become the backbone of the sustainable food movement, which needs a community like ours—with the policy-setting latitude we have, whether we know it or not—to blaze the new American food trail. Ours would form the umbrella under which policies could blossom in favor of local farmers and local food infrastructures because such regulations could not be touched by the state and therefore the MNC’s.

This is truly an arena where the Muslim community—by insisting to free itself of the complete hardship that each of us as individuals experience in finding wholesome and undoubtedly halal food—can be among the leaders in an issue that is threatening the well being of so much life on our planet.

In terms of economics, such a move would be far more profitable than what is currently proposed. It will put money not only in the businesses carrying out certification, but with Muslim food sellers and the many workers in our community who would find a tremendous number of new jobs created.

In addition, solidarity will be formed with other Americans—farmers and urbanites—because grassroots relationships will develop, based on mutual justice and righteousness.

We are very fortunate, indeed, that there are many experts in food policy, sustainability, local economies, and related areas. Truth be told, without them we are currently in no position to take on such a mission. It is also fortuitous that these people, the “local food” community, as I have come to call them, will welcome us with open and sincere arms, unlike many of the powerful of America, who we always seem so eager to pursue, but who continue to plague us with hurtful accusations and propaganda.

Here are two short lists to help you help yourself and your community:

What should the community do?

  • Prepare comprehensive portfolios of the food industry and issues for Islamic scholars and work with them to establish proper definitions of halal and tayyib within the context of the real food industry
  • Scholars, imams, speakers, and teachers should preach these standards in the masajid and schools, propagate the meaning of “true” halal and tayyib food, and encourage people to get involved in implementing the standards
  • Conversation should begin between communities and local farmers and food activists (you may contact me at shireen@faithinplace.org to find out how and with whom to make those connections)
  • Local businesses should connect with local farmers and local food processors and work out specific agreements according to our standards
  • Local distribution networks should be developed—which means jobs—work that ought to go to the people and neighborhoods that need them so coalitions can be formed between our own communities and networks

What should you be doing?

  • Familiarize yourself with the food and agriculture-oriented verses of the Quran and the statements of the Prophet, salla Allahu ‘alayhee wa sallam.
  • Re-budget, so that you can pay more for organic and local food (food costs are a difficult and complicated topic, but basically, as both supply and demand increase, as long as there are efficient distribution networks, the prices should decrease again)
  • Start slowly changing eating habits: Cut out the fast food and junk food. None of these things should have the halal label on them because they are not really ‘food’ and because they are completely unethically produced
  • Demand that community leadership make this issue a priority

The prophets of the Quran all focused on the unifying message of One God, while at the same time enjoining right ethical behavior as a demonstration of this belief. This too is our challenge as Muslims in America, and nowhere is it more needed than in our own and the world’s food reform.

For more information, contact Shireen Pishdadi

Read Full Post »

Why McDonald’s Fries
Taste So Good
By Eric Schlosser
Excerpt From Eric Schlosser’s new book
‘Fast Food Nation’ (Houghton-Mifflin, 2001)
From The Atlantic Monthly

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/01/schlosser.htm

1-17-01

THE french fry was “almost sacrosanct for me,” Ray Kroc, one of the founders of McDonald’s, wrote in his autobiography, “its preparation a ritual to be followed religiously.” During the chain’s early years french fries were made from scratch every day. Russet Burbank potatoes were peeled, cut into shoestrings, and fried in McDonald’s kitchens. As the chain expanded nationwide, in the mid-1960s, it sought to cut labor costs, reduce the number of suppliers, and ensure that its fries tasted the same at every restaurant. McDonald’s began switching to frozen french fries in 1966 — and few customers noticed the difference. Nevertheless, the change had a profound effect on the nation’s agriculture and diet. A familiar food had been transformed into a highly processed industrial commodity. McDonald’s fries now come from huge manufacturing plants that can peel, slice, cook, and freeze two million pounds of potatoes a day. The rapid expansion of McDonald’s and the popularity of its low-cost, mass-produced fries changed the way Americans eat. In 1960 Americans consumed an average of about eighty-one pounds of fresh potatoes and four pounds of frozen french fries. In 2000 they consumed an average of about fifty pounds of fresh potatoes and thirty pounds of frozen fries. Today McDonald’s is the largest buyer of potatoes in the United States.

The taste of McDonald’s french fries played a crucial role in the chain’s success — fries are much more profitable than hamburgers — and was long praised by customers, competitors, and even food critics. James Beard loved McDonald’s fries. Their distinctive taste does not stem from the kind of potatoes that McDonald’s buys, the technology that processes them, or the restaurant equipment that fries them: other chains use Russet Burbanks, buy their french fries from the same large processing companies, and have similar fryers in their restaurant kitchens. The taste of a french fry is largely determined by the cooking oil. For decades McDonald’s cooked its french fries in a mixture of about seven percent cottonseed oil and 93 percent beef tallow. The mixture gave the fries their unique flavor — and more saturated beef fat per ounce than a McDonald’s hamburger.

In 1990, amid a barrage of criticism over the amount of cholesterol in its fries, McDonald’s switched to pure vegetable oil. This presented the company with a challenge: how to make fries that subtly taste like beef without cooking them in beef tallow. A look at the ingredients in McDonald’s french fries suggests how the problem was solved. Toward the end of the list is a seemingly innocuous yet oddly mysterious phrase: “natural flavor.” That ingredient helps to explain not only why the fries taste so good but also why most fast food — indeed, most of the food Americans eat today — tastes the way it does.

Open your refrigerator, your freezer, your kitchen cupboards, and look at the labels on your food. You’ll find “natural flavor” or “artificial flavor” in just about every list of ingredients. The similarities between these two broad categories are far more significant than the differences. Both are man-made additives that give most processed food most of its taste. People usually buy a food item the first time because of its packaging or appearance. Taste usually determines whether they buy it again. About 90 percent of the money that Americans now spend on food goes to buy processed food. The canning, freezing, and dehydrating techniques used in processing destroy most of food’s flavor — and so a vast industry has arisen in the United States to make processed food palatable. Without this flavor industry today’s fast food would not exist. The names of the leading American fast-food chains and their best-selling menu items have become embedded in our popular culture and famous worldwide. But few people can name the companies that manufacture fast food’s taste.

The flavor industry is highly secretive. Its leading companies will not divulge the precise formulas of flavor compounds or the identities of clients. The secrecy is deemed essential for protecting the reputations of beloved brands. The fast-food chains, understandably, would like the public to believe that the flavors of the food they sell somehow originate in their restaurant kitchens, not in distant factories run by other firms. A McDonald’s french fry is one of countless foods whose flavor is just a component in a complex manufacturing process. The look and the taste of what we eat now are frequently deceiving — by design.

The Flavor Corridor

HE New Jersey Turnpike runs through the heart of the flavor industry, an industrial corridor dotted with refineries and chemical plants. International Flavors & Fragrances (IFF), the world’s largest flavor company, has a manufacturing facility off Exit 8A in Dayton, New Jersey; Givaudan, the world’s second-largest flavor company, has a plant in East Hanover. Haarmann & Reimer, the largest German flavor company, has a plant in Teterboro, as does Takasago, the largest Japanese flavor company. Flavor Dynamics has a plant in South Plainfield; Frutarom is in North Bergen; Elan Chemical is in Newark. Dozens of companies manufacture flavors in the corridor between Teaneck and South Brunswick. Altogether the area produces about two thirds of the flavor additives sold in the United States.

The IFF plant in Dayton is a huge pale-blue building with a modern office complex attached to the front. It sits in an industrial park, not far from a BASF plastics factory, a Jolly French Toast factory, and a plant that manufactures Liz Claiborne cosmetics. Dozens of tractor-trailers were parked at the IFF loading dock the afternoon I visited, and a thin cloud of steam floated from a roof vent. Before entering the plant, I signed a nondisclosure form, promising not to reveal the brand names of foods that contain IFF flavors. The place reminded me of Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory. Wonderful smells drifted through the hallways, men and women in neat white lab coats cheerfully went about their work, and hundreds of little glass bottles sat on laboratory tables and shelves. The bottles contained powerful but fragile flavor chemicals, shielded from light by brown glass and round white caps shut tight. The long chemical names on the little white labels were as mystifying to me as medieval Latin. These odd-sounding things would be mixed and poured and turned into new substances, like magic potions.

I was not invited into the manufacturing areas of the IFF plant, where, it was thought, I might discover trade secrets. Instead I toured various laboratories and pilot kitchens, where the flavors of well-established brands are tested or adjusted, and where whole new flavors are created. IFF’s snack-and-savory lab is responsible for the flavors of potato chips, corn chips, breads, crackers, breakfast cereals, and pet food. The confectionery lab devises flavors for ice cream, cookies, candies, toothpastes, mouthwashes, and antacids. Everywhere I looked, I saw famous, widely advertised products sitting on laboratory desks and tables. The beverage lab was full of brightly colored liquids in clear bottles. It comes up with flavors for popular soft drinks, sports drinks, bottled teas, and wine coolers, for all-natural juice drinks, organic soy drinks, beers, and malt liquors. In one pilot kitchen I saw a dapper food technologist, a middle-aged man with an elegant tie beneath his crisp lab coat, carefully preparing a batch of cookies with white frosting and pink-and-white sprinkles. In another pilot kitchen I saw a pizza oven, a grill, a milk-shake machine, and a french fryer identical to those I’d seen at innumerable fast-food restaurants.

In addition to being the world’s largest flavor company, IFF manufactures the smells of six of the ten best-selling fine perfumes in the United States, including Estée Lauder’s Beautiful, Clinique’s Happy, Lancôme’s Trésor, and Calvin Klein’s Eternity. It also makes the smells of household products such as deodorant, dishwashing detergent, bath soap, shampoo, furniture polish, and floor wax. All these aromas are made through essentially the same process: the manipulation of volatile chemicals. The basic science behind the scent of your shaving cream is the same as that governing the flavor of your TV dinner.

“Natural” and “Artificial”

CIENTISTS now believe that human beings acquired the sense of taste as a way to avoid being poisoned. Edible plants generally taste sweet, harmful ones bitter. The taste buds on our tongues can detect the presence of half a dozen or so basic tastes, including sweet, sour, bitter, salty, astringent, and umami, a taste discovered by Japanese researchers — a rich and full sense of deliciousness triggered by amino acids in foods such as meat, shellfish, mushrooms, potatoes, and seaweed. Taste buds offer a limited means of detection, however, compared with the human olfactory system, which can perceive thousands of different chemical aromas. Indeed, “flavor” is primarily the smell of gases being released by the chemicals you’ve just put in your mouth. The aroma of a food can be responsible for as much as 90 percent of its taste.

The act of drinking, sucking, or chewing a substance releases its volatile gases. They flow out of your mouth and up your nostrils, or up the passageway in the back of your mouth, to a thin layer of nerve cells called the olfactory epithelium, located at the base of your nose, right between your eyes. Your brain combines the complex smell signals from your olfactory epithelium with the simple taste signals from your tongue, assigns a flavor to what’s in your mouth, and decides if it’s something you want to eat.

A person’s food preferences, like his or her personality, are formed during the first few years of life, through a process of socialization. Babies innately prefer sweet tastes and reject bitter ones; toddlers can learn to enjoy hot and spicy food, bland health food, or fast food, depending on what the people around them eat. The human sense of smell is still not fully understood. It is greatly affected by psychological factors and expectations. The mind focuses intently on some of the aromas that surround us and filters out the overwhelming majority. People can grow accustomed to bad smells or good smells; they stop noticing what once seemed overpowering. Aroma and memory are somehow inextricably linked. A smell can suddenly evoke a long-forgotten moment. The flavors of childhood foods seem to leave an indelible mark, and adults often return to them, without always knowing why. These “comfort foods” become a source of pleasure and reassurance — a fact that fast-food chains use to their advantage. Childhood memories of Happy Meals, which come with french fries, can translate into frequent adult visits to McDonald’s. On average, Americans now eat about four servings of french fries every week.

HE human craving for flavor has been a largely unacknowledged and unexamined force in history. For millennia royal empires have been built, unexplored lands traversed, and great religions and philosophies forever changed by the spice trade. In 1492 Christopher Columbus set sail to find seasoning. Today the influence of flavor in the world marketplace is no less decisive. The rise and fall of corporate empires — of soft-drink companies, snack-food companies, and fast-food chains — is often determined by how their products taste.

The flavor industry emerged in the mid-nineteenth century, as processed foods began to be manufactured on a large scale. Recognizing the need for flavor additives, early food processors turned to perfume companies that had long experience working with essential oils and volatile aromas. The great perfume houses of England, France, and the Netherlands produced many of the first flavor compounds. In the early part of the twentieth century Germany took the technological lead in flavor production, owing to its powerful chemical industry. Legend has it that a German scientist discovered methyl anthranilate, one of the first artificial flavors, by accident while mixing chemicals in his laboratory. Suddenly the lab was filled with the sweet smell of grapes. Methyl anthranilate later became the chief flavor compound in grape Kool-Aid. After World War II much of the perfume industry shifted from Europe to the United States, settling in New York City near the garment district and the fashion houses. The flavor industry came with it, later moving to New Jersey for greater plant capacity. Man-made flavor additives were used mostly in baked goods, candies, and sodas until the 1950s, when sales of processed food began to soar. The invention of gas chromatographs and mass spectrometers — machines capable of detecting volatile gases at low levels — vastly increased the number of flavors that could be synthesized. By the mid-1960s flavor companies were churning out compounds to supply the taste of Pop Tarts, Bac-Os, Tab, Tang, Filet-O-Fish sandwiches, and literally thousands of other new foods.

The American flavor industry now has annual revenues of about $1.4 billion. Approximately 10,000 new processed-food products are introduced every year in the United States. Almost all of them require flavor additives. And about nine out of ten of these products fail. The latest flavor innovations and corporate realignments are heralded in publications such as Chemical Market Reporter, Food Chemical News, Food Engineering, and Food Product Design. The progress of IFF has mirrored that of the flavor industry as a whole. IFF was formed in 1958, through the merger of two small companies. Its annual revenues have grown almost fifteenfold since the early 1970s, and it currently has manufacturing facilities in twenty countries.

Today’s sophisticated spectrometers, gas chromatographs, and headspace-vapor analyzers provide a detailed map of a food’s flavor components, detecting chemical aromas present in amounts as low as one part per billion. The human nose, however, is even more sensitive. A nose can detect aromas present in quantities of a few parts per trillion — an amount equivalent to about 0.000000000003 percent. Complex aromas, such as those of coffee and roasted meat, are composed of volatile gases from nearly a thousand different chemicals. The smell of a strawberry arises from the interaction of about 350 chemicals that are present in minute amounts. The quality that people seek most of all in a food — flavor — is usually present in a quantity too infinitesimal to be measured in traditional culinary terms such as ounces or teaspoons. The chemical that provides the dominant flavor of bell pepper can be tasted in amounts as low as 0.02 parts per billion; one drop is sufficient to add flavor to five average-size swimming pools. The flavor additive usually comes next to last in a processed food’s list of ingredients and often costs less than its packaging. Soft drinks contain a larger proportion of flavor additives than most products. The flavor in a twelve-ounce can of Coke costs about half a cent.

The color additives in processed foods are usually present in even smaller amounts than the flavor compounds. Many of New Jersey’s flavor companies also manufacture these color additives, which are used to make processed foods look fresh and appealing. Food coloring serves many of the same decorative purposes as lipstick, eye shadow, mascara — and is often made from the same pigments. Titanium dioxide, for example, has proved to be an especially versatile mineral. It gives many processed candies, frostings, and icings their bright white color; it is a common ingredient in women’s cosmetics; and it is the pigment used in many white oil paints and house paints. At Burger King, Wendy’s, and McDonald’s coloring agents have been added to many of the soft drinks, salad dressings, cookies, condiments, chicken dishes, and sandwich buns.

Studies have found that the color of a food can greatly affect how its taste is perceived. Brightly colored foods frequently seem to taste better than bland-looking foods, even when the flavor compounds are identical. Foods that somehow look off-color often seem to have off tastes. For thousands of years human beings have relied on visual cues to help determine what is edible. The color of fruit suggests whether it is ripe, the color of meat whether it is rancid. Flavor researchers sometimes use colored lights to modify the influence of visual cues during taste tests. During one experiment in the early 1970s people were served an oddly tinted meal of steak and french fries that appeared normal beneath colored lights. Everyone thought the meal tasted fine until the lighting was changed. Once it became apparent that the steak was actually blue and the fries were green, some people became ill.

The federal Food and Drug Administration does not require companies to disclose the ingredients of their color or flavor additives so long as all the chemicals in them are considered by the agency to be GRAS (“generally recognized as safe”). This enables companies to maintain the secrecy of their formulas. It also hides the fact that flavor compounds often contain more ingredients than the foods to which they give taste. The phrase “artificial strawberry flavor” gives little hint of the chemical wizardry and manufacturing skill that can make a highly processed food taste like strawberries.

A typical artificial strawberry flavor, like the kind found in a Burger King strawberry milk shake, contains the following ingredients: amyl acetate, amyl butyrate, amyl valerate, anethol, anisyl formate, benzyl acetate, benzyl isobutyrate, butyric acid, cinnamyl isobutyrate, cinnamyl valerate, cognac essential oil, diacetyl, dipropyl ketone, ethyl acetate, ethyl amyl ketone, ethyl butyrate, ethyl cinnamate, ethyl heptanoate, ethyl heptylate, ethyl lactate, ethyl methylphenylglycidate, ethyl nitrate, ethyl propionate, ethyl valerate, heliotropin, hydroxyphenyl-2-butanone (10 percent solution in alcohol), a-ionone, isobutyl anthranilate, isobutyl butyrate, lemon essential oil, maltol, 4-methylacetophenone, methyl anthranilate, methyl benzoate, methyl cinnamate, methyl heptine carbonate, methyl naphthyl ketone, methyl salicylate, mint essential oil, neroli essential oil, nerolin, neryl isobutyrate, orris butter, phenethyl alcohol, rose, rum ether, g-undecalactone, vanillin, and solvent.

Although flavors usually arise from a mixture of many different volatile chemicals, often a single compound supplies the dominant aroma. Smelled alone, that chemical provides an unmistakable sense of the food. Ethyl-2-methyl butyrate, for example, smells just like an apple. Many of today’s highly processed foods offer a blank palette: whatever chemicals are added to them will give them specific tastes. Adding methyl-2-pyridyl ketone makes something taste like popcorn. Adding ethyl-3-hydroxy butanoate makes it taste like marshmallow. The possibilities are now almost limitless. Without affecting appearance or nutritional value, processed foods could be made with aroma chemicals such as hexanal (the smell of freshly cut grass) or 3-methyl butanoic acid (the smell of body odor).

The 1960s were the heyday of artificial flavors in the United States. The synthetic versions of flavor compounds were not subtle, but they did not have to be, given the nature of most processed food. For the past twenty years food processors have tried hard to use only “natural flavors” in their products. According to the FDA, these must be derived entirely from natural sources — from herbs, spices, fruits, vegetables, beef, chicken, yeast, bark, roots, and so forth. Consumers prefer to see natural flavors on a label, out of a belief that they are more healthful. Distinctions between artificial and natural flavors can be arbitrary and somewhat absurd, based more on how the flavor has been made than on what it actually contains.

“A natural flavor,” says Terry Acree, a professor of food science at Cornell University, “is a flavor that’s been derived with an out-of-date technology.” Natural flavors and artificial flavors sometimes contain exactly the same chemicals, produced through different methods. Amyl acetate, for example, provides the dominant note of banana flavor. When it is distilled from bananas with a solvent, amyl acetate is a natural flavor. When it is produced by mixing vinegar with amyl alcohol and adding sulfuric acid as a catalyst, amyl acetate is an artificial flavor. Either way it smells and tastes the same. “Natural flavor” is now listed among the ingredients of everything from Health Valley Blueberry Granola Bars to Taco Bell Hot Taco Sauce.

A natural flavor is not necessarily more healthful or purer than an artificial one. When almond flavor — benzaldehyde — is derived from natural sources, such as peach and apricot pits, it contains traces of hydrogen cyanide, a deadly poison. Benzaldehyde derived by mixing oil of clove and amyl acetate does not contain any cyanide. Nevertheless, it is legally considered an artificial flavor and sells at a much lower price. Natural and artificial flavors are now manufactured at the same chemical plants, places that few people would associate with Mother Nature.

A Trained Nose and a Poetic Sensibility

HE small and elite group of scientists who create most of the flavor in most of the food now consumed in the United States are called “flavorists.” They draw on a number of disciplines in their work: biology, psychology, physiology, and organic chemistry. A flavorist is a chemist with a trained nose and a poetic sensibility. Flavors are created by blending scores of different chemicals in tiny amounts — a process governed by scientific principles but demanding a fair amount of art. In an age when delicate aromas and microwave ovens do not easily co-exist, the job of the flavorist is to conjure illusions about processed food and, in the words of one flavor company’s literature, to ensure “consumer likeability.” The flavorists with whom I spoke were discreet, in keeping with the dictates of their trade. They were also charming, cosmopolitan, and ironic. They not only enjoyed fine wine but could identify the chemicals that give each grape its unique aroma. One flavorist compared his work to composing music. A well-made flavor compound will have a “top note” that is often followed by a “dry-down” and a “leveling-off,” with different chemicals responsible for each stage. The taste of a food can be radically altered by minute changes in the flavoring combination. “A little odor goes a long way,” one flavorist told me. From the archives:

“The Million-Dollar Nose,” by William Langewiesche (December 2000) Robert Parker Jr. is a plainspoken American with an astonishing gift for judging wine. He is indefatigable and incorruptible, and his numerical rating system is relied on by millions. His taste is changing the way wine is made and sold. Naturally, the French hate him. Naturally, they honor him. In order to give a processed food a taste that consumers will find appealing, a flavorist must always consider the food’s “mouthfeel” — the unique combination of textures and chemical interactions that affect how the flavor is perceived. Mouthfeel can be adjusted through the use of various fats, gums, starches, emulsifiers, and stabilizers. The aroma chemicals in a food can be precisely analyzed, but the elements that make up mouthfeel are much harder to measure. How does one quantify a pretzel’s hardness, a french fry’s crispness? Food technologists are now conducting basic research in rheology, the branch of physics that examines the flow and deformation of materials. A number of companies sell sophisticated devices that attempt to measure mouthfeel. The TA.XT2i Texture Analyzer, produced by the Texture Technologies Corporation, of Scarsdale, New York, performs calculations based on data derived from as many as 250 separate probes. It is essentially a mechanical mouth. It gauges the most-important rheological properties of a food — bounce, creep, breaking point, density, crunchiness, chewiness, gumminess, lumpiness, rubberiness, springiness, slipperiness, smoothness, softness, wetness, juiciness, spreadability, springback, and tackiness.

Some of the most important advances in flavor manufacturing are now occurring in the field of biotechnology. Complex flavors are being made using enzyme reactions, fermentation, and fungal and tissue cultures. All the flavors created by these methods — including the ones being synthesized by fungi — are considered natural flavors by the FDA. The new enzyme-based processes are responsible for extremely true-to-life dairy flavors. One company now offers not just butter flavor but also fresh creamy butter, cheesy butter, milky butter, savory melted butter, and super-concentrated butter flavor, in liquid or powder form. The development of new fermentation techniques, along with new techniques for heating mixtures of sugar and amino acids, have led to the creation of much more realistic meat flavors.

The McDonald’s Corporation most likely drew on these advances when it eliminated beef tallow from its french fries. The company will not reveal the exact origin of the natural flavor added to its fries. In response to inquiries from Vegetarian Journal, however, McDonald’s did acknowledge that its fries derive some of their characteristic flavor from “an animal source.” Beef is the probable source, although other meats cannot be ruled out. In France, for example, fries are sometimes cooked in duck fat or horse tallow.

Other popular fast foods derive their flavor from unexpected ingredients. McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets contain beef extracts, as does Wendy’s Grilled Chicken Sandwich. Burger King’s BK Broiler Chicken Breast Patty contains “natural smoke flavor.” A firm called Red Arrow Products specializes in smoke flavor, which is added to barbecue sauces, snack foods, and processed meats. Red Arrow manufactures natural smoke flavor by charring sawdust and capturing the aroma chemicals released into the air. The smoke is captured in water and then bottled, so that other companies can sell food that seems to have been cooked over a fire.

The Vegetarian Legal Action Network recently petitioned the FDA to issue new labeling requirements for foods that contain natural flavors. The group wants food processors to list the basic origins of their flavors on their labels. At the moment vegetarians often have no way of knowing whether a flavor additive contains beef, pork, poultry, or shellfish. One of the most widely used color additives — whose presence is often hidden by the phrase “color added” — violates a number of religious dietary restrictions, may cause allergic reactions in susceptible people, and comes from an unusual source. Cochineal extract (also known as carmine or carminic acid) is made from the desiccated bodies of female Dactylopius coccus Costa, a small insect harvested mainly in Peru and the Canary Islands. The bug feeds on red cactus berries, and color from the berries accumulates in the females and their unhatched larvae. The insects are collected, dried, and ground into a pigment. It takes about 70,000 of them to produce a pound of carmine, which is used to make processed foods look pink, red, or purple. Dannon strawberry yogurt gets its color from carmine, and so do many frozen fruit bars, candies, and fruit fillings, and Ocean Spray pink-grapefruit juice drink.

N a meeting room at IFF, Brian Grainger let me sample some of the company’s flavors. It was an unusual taste test — there was no food to taste. Grainger is a senior flavorist at IFF, a soft-spoken chemist with graying hair, an English accent, and a fondness for understatement. He could easily be mistaken for a British diplomat or the owner of a West End brasserie with two Michelin stars. Like many in the flavor industry, he has an Old World, old-fashioned sensibility. When I suggested that IFF’s policy of secrecy and discretion was out of step with our mass-marketing, brand-conscious, self-promoting age, and that the company should put its own logo on the countless products that bear its flavors, instead of allowing other companies to enjoy the consumer loyalty and affection inspired by those flavors, Grainger politely disagreed, assuring me that such a thing would never be done. In the absence of public credit or acclaim, the small and secretive fraternity of flavor chemists praise one another’s work. By analyzing the flavor formula of a product, Grainger can often tell which of his counterparts at a rival firm devised it. Whenever he walks down a supermarket aisle, he takes a quiet pleasure in seeing the well-known foods that contain his flavors.

Grainger had brought a dozen small glass bottles from the lab. After he opened each bottle, I dipped a fragrance-testing filter into it — a long white strip of paper designed to absorb aroma chemicals without producing off notes. Before placing each strip of paper in front of my nose, I closed my eyes. Then I inhaled deeply, and one food after another was conjured from the glass bottles. I smelled fresh cherries, black olives, sautéed onions, and shrimp. Grainger’s most remarkable creation took me by surprise. After closing my eyes, I suddenly smelled a grilled hamburger. The aroma was uncanny, almost miraculous — as if someone in the room were flipping burgers on a hot grill. But when I opened my eyes, I saw just a narrow strip of white paper and a flavorist with a grin.

Eric Schlosser is a correspondent for The Atlantic. His article in this issue is adapted from his first book, Fast Food Nation, to be published this month by Houghton Mifflin.

Illustrations by Francis Livingston.

Copyright © 2001 by The Atlantic Monthly Company. All rights reserved. The Atlantic Monthly; January 2001; Why McDonald’s Fries Taste So Good – 01.01 (Part Two); Volume 287, No. 1; page 50-56

Read Full Post »

Home remedies help restore your health after eating GMO foods
by JB Bardot

(NaturalNews) There have been various reports on NaturalNews and in the mainstream media concerning the side effects of consuming food that has been genetically modified. Symptoms ranging from digestive and reproductive disorders to liver failure, internal bleeding and immune system dysfunction are being reported. A combination of home remedies, nutrition and homeopathic medicines may help restore your health. This list is by no means exhaustive. Individuals who are seriously ill from ingesting GMOs should consult an alternative healthcare practitioner rather than self-treat.

Homeopathic remedies
Not all side effects from GMOs are physical. Homeopathic medicines address physical, mental or emotional symptoms related to the subject.

· Nux vomica supports the liver, for cleansing and rejuvenation. The person needing Nux vomica is generally angry, bossy, eats and drinks to excess and has many digestive upsets.

· Arsenicum album relieves acute cases of vomiting and diarrhea. It is useful after ingesting genetically modified organisms that may trigger a sensitive stomach producing symptoms similar to food poisoning.

· Rhus tox may help an individual who believes he has been poisoned by GMO foods he’s eaten. The person may be paranoid, suspicious and restless. He may complain of joint pain, stiffness or display an itchy rash.

· Staphysagria may provide relief for someone experiencing a feeling of outrage over being subjected to the entire GMO takeover of the food system. It is a remedy often used for those who’ve been raped or attacked and feel violated.

· Gelsemium is indicated for someone who becomes anxious and fearful just thinking about what might happen as a result of eating genetically modified foods. There may be flu-like aches and pains, weakness and a headache in the back of the head and neck.

· Phosphorus should help in cases where there is internal bleeding or blood disorder related to side effects of GMO foods, especially those that produce Bt toxins, such as genetically modified corn.

Nutritional support
· After being deprived of healthy nutrients from genetically modified foods, it’s important to replace them with organic foods that provide nourishment, vitamins, minerals and necessary enzymes. Reestablishing balance by restoring a healthy pH and reducing acidosis goes a long way toward protecting and restoring the system that’s at the effect of GMOs.

· Start eating organic fruits and vegetables and if you can, juice them several times a day.

· Add green coconut water to cleanse the liver and blood and help destroy parasites, fungi and bacteria that are transmitted through genetically modified organisms.

Boost immune system
· Eat foods that boost your immune system and supply vital nutrients such as vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids.

· Take garlic, echinacea, milk thistle, pau d’arco tea, colloidal silver, or other immune-building herbs to help your body fight toxins from GMO foods.

Alkalize your system
· Create an alkaline environment to destroy invasive organisms and protect the advancement of noxious parasites and disease states.

· Support an alkaline pH with ancient, tiny grains such as quinoa, amaranth and millet. These foods are much more alkaline than other grains and are gluten-free.

· Add organic apple cider vinegar (ACV) to your diet. Mix 2 Tbs with 8 oz. water and drink to establish alkalinity in your gut.

· Mix 2 Tbs lemon juice with 1/2 tsp baking soda for an instant alkaline cocktail. Allow bubbling to settle and add 8 oz. water. Drink at once. You can substitute ACV for lemon juice.

· In cases of extreme emergency when you need to get alkaline fast, mix 1/2 tsp cream of tartar in 8 oz. water and drink immediately.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.naturalnews.com/028245_GM_food_side_effects.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/035734_GMOs_foods_dangers.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html

http://www.psrast.org/

About the author:
JB Bardot is trained in herbal medicine and homeopathy, and has a post graduate degree in holistic nutrition. Bardot cares for both people and animals, using alternative approaches to health care and lifestyle. She writes about wellness, green living, alternative medicine, holistic nutrition, homeopathy, herbs and naturopathic medicine. READ HER OTHER ARTICLES ON NATURAL NEWS HERE: http://www.naturalnews.com/Author1686.html You can find her on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001364941208&ref=tn_tnmn or on Twitter at jbbardot23 https://twitter.com/#!/jbbardot23

Read Full Post »

3 So-Called “Healthy” Foods that You Should STOP Eating (if you want a lean healthy body)

by Mike Geary, Certified Personal Trainer, Certified Nutrition Specialist
Author of the best-seller: The Truth About Six Pack Abs

I was reading a statistic in a nutrition book recently, and this is going to shock you…

Now before I tell you the statistic, let’s keep an important fact in mind… according to well renowned nutrition author Michael Pollan, and his amazing book called In Defense of Food, humankind has historically consumed approximately 80,000 different species of edible plants, animals, and fungi, and approximately 3,000 of those have been widespread foods of the human diet.

Now get ready for a shocking and appalling statistic…

Currently, the average adult eating a typical modern western diet in countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, etc consumes approximately 67% of their total caloric intake from only 3 foods — CORN, SOY, AND WHEAT (and their derivatives).

What would be considered a reasonably healthy amount of corn, soy, and wheat in the human diet? Based on hundreds of thousands of years of human history, and what the natural diet of our ancestors was (indicating what our digestive systems are still programmed to digest most effectively), this would probably be in the range of about 1% to 4% MAX of our total calories from corn, soy, and wheat.

Considering that modern humans are eating 67% of their total calories from corn, soy, wheat… you can see why we have massive problems in our health, and our weight!

It’s not a surprise that we have so many intolerances and allergies, specifically to soy and wheat (and gluten intolerance)… the human digestive system was simply never meant to consume these substances in such MASSIVE quantities.

Keep in mind that these massively high levels of corn, soy, and wheat in our modern human diet is a relatively new phenomenon that originated from the economics of the multi-billion dollar corn, soy, and wheat industries. It really HAS been all about the money… NOT about our health!

By “derivatives” of corn, soy, and wheat, this means the food additives such as:

high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)
corn oil
soybean oil (hydrogenated or plain refined)
soy protein
refined wheat flour
hundreds of other food additives such as maltodextrin, corn or wheat starch, soy lecithin, mono and diglycerides, etc, etc
This doesn’t surprise me… consider how much soda or other sweetened drinks (with loads of HFCS) that the average person drinks daily… this is a LOT of calories from just 1 sole corn derivative. Even marinades, salad dressings, ketchup, breads, and 100′s of other foods contain loads of belly-fattening HFCS!

Also think about how many processed foods we have that are either fried in soybean or corn oil… and even if the foods are not fried in these oils, these oils are additives to almost every processed food… chips, candies, cakes, salad dressings, tomato sauces, burrito wraps, corn chips, breaded chicken, etc, etc. This is a LOT of calories from these 2 other corn and soy derivatives… both of them EXTREMELY UNHEALTHY!

On top of that, think about how much breads, cereals, pastas, muffins, and other highly processed wheat products that most people consume each day. Again, this is LOADS of unhealthy, blood-sugar spiking, nutrient-poor calories, that more than half of the population has some degree of intolerance to anyway.

It gets even worse!

Not only are we eating 67% of our total calories from corn, soy, and wheat… but because of the economics involved (specifically with cheap corn and soy) we are also feeding most of our farm animals corn and soy now too… again amplifying the amount of corn and soy that passes through the food chain and (from a biochemical standpoint) ends up in our bodies.

Probably the 2 worst examples of this blatant mismanagement of our food supply is how our factory farmed chickens and cows are fed.

Cows are fed mostly corn in factory feedlot farms, even though their digestive systems are only meant to eat grass and other forage. This makes the cows sick (hmm… E-coli anyone?), alters the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of the fats to unhealthy levels, and also diminishes the healthy CLA fats that would occur naturally in grass-fed beef. All of these problems go away if our cows are fed what they were made to eat naturally – grass and other green forage!

Our chickens are also fed a diet of mostly corn and soy and crowded in tight pens in horrendous conditions… when the fact is that a chicken was meant to roam around the outdoors eating a mixture of greens, insects, worms, seeds, etc. When chickens are kept inside in tight quarters and fed only grains, it leads to an unhealthy meat for you to eat, and less healthy eggs compared to free-roaming chickens allowed to eat an outdoors diet.

Our food supply has gotten so screwed up that we’re even feeding our salmon and other farmed fish corn and soy…again because of the economics involved. How ludicrous is this, considering that fish are meant to eat a diverse diet of smaller fish, worms, bugs, etc. Again this makes farm raised fish unhealthy in terms of nutrition compared to their wild counterparts. If you want to see something even scarier about farm-raised fish, watch this quick video about the toxic fish you might be buying.

So even when you’re eating chicken, beef, and fish, you’re still essentially getting even MORE corn and soy into your body (from a biochemical standpoint) …considering that the cows, chickens, and farmed fish ate mostly soy and corn.

So it’s actually WORSE than just 67% isn’t it!

Why is it so unhealthy to consume 2/3rds of our calories from corn, soy, and wheat?

Well, this section could encompass an entire book, so to keep this short, I’ll just throw out a few random reasons…

Skews the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats in our diet to as high as 30:1, when a natural ratio of 1:1 to 2:1 in our ancestral human diet is considered healthy.
Problems with gluten intolerance (related to heavy wheat consumption that is rampant)
Problems with weight gain, blood-sugar swings, and reduced insulin sensitivity (and progression of diabetes) due to excessive refined corn and wheat flours, as well as HFCS in our diet
Soy and corn are the most genetically modified crops (which also allows more pesticides and herbicides to be used, which are usually “xenoestrogens”)
Many of the pesticide and herbicide residues in these crops are xenoestrogens, which can increase “stubborn” belly fat
Soy products and derivatives contain a double-whammy of xenoestrogens as well as phytoestrogens… again creating an environment in your body for fat storage, carcinogenic effects, and even “man boobs” for some men in very severe cases
The feeding of corn and soy to animals reduces the health and nutritional benefits (and micronutrient levels) of those animal products
and the list could go on and on and on…
So how do you avoid all of this overwhelming amount of corn, soy, and wheat in our food supply, and finally take control of your weight and your health?

1. Don’t purchase processed foods! It all starts with your grocery cart discipline… choose only 1-ingredient foods such as fruits, veggies, beans, eggs (free roaming), nuts, seeds, and meats from grass-fed or free roaming animals that are raised correctly. Organic is preferred. Only resort to junk foods or processed foods on a 1-day per week “cheat day” but ONLY when dining out… that way, the processed foods aren’t in your house to tempt you.

2. Get most of your carbs from fruits and veggies instead of grains.

3. Avoid store bought salad dressings as they almost always contain soybean oil and HFCS (instead, try myhomemade healthy salad dressing)

4. Make sure that your tomato sauces don’t have HFCS and soybean oils… look for sauces made with olive oil instead. Remember to avoid unhealthy canola oils too!

5. If you like guacamole (one of the healthiest snacks on the planet!), try veggie sticks with guacamole instead of genetically-modified, oil-soaked corn chips

6. If you like hummus, try veggies sticks with hummus instead of pita chips or other bread.

7. Reduce your cereal, bread, and pasta intake by having these foods only on “cheat days” and stick to more of the 1-ingredient foods I mentioned in #1 above. Try some of these healthy snacks as good alternatives (yes, I know that one of the 13 snacks on there has sprouted grain, which is fine on occasion).

I could go on with more examples, but I think that’s good for now.

So with all of this said… Is my diet perfect? Well, no of course not! Nobody is perfect, and I can give in to temptation on occasion just like anybody else.

However, I’d estimate that my corn/soy/wheat consumption is only about 2-4% of my total caloric intake compared to 67% for the average person. The way that I achieve this is to simply not bring any corn, soy, or wheat products into my house, so I’m never tempted by it. Therefore, at least 6 days/week, I eat virtually no corn/soy/wheat, except for the occasional piece of sprouted grain toast a couple times a week (which is a better option than typical “whole grain” bread).

I do, however, give in and sometimes eat breads, pasta, and even corn chips, etc. when I’m dining out. I see these as my cheat meals and try to do this no more than once per week. I still completely eliminate sodas and deep fried foods though…they are just TOO evil!

Please share this article with your friends and family on email, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, forums, etc… this is one of the MAJOR reasons that we are so unhealthy and overweight as a society… 67% of our calories from just 3 foods (and their derivatives) is an appalling statistic! Don’t give in to the marketing machine that is the corn, soy, and wheat industries! Take control of your OWN health instead of letting big corporations take control of your health.

Read Full Post »

Rocket Fuel Found In Most Powdered Infant Formula

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have found that 15 brands of powdered infant formula are contaminated with perchlorate, a rocket fuel component detected in drinking water in 28 states and territories.

The two most contaminated brands, made from cow’s milk, accounted for 87 percent of the U.S. powdered formula market in 2000, the scientists said. The CDC scientists did not identify the formula brands they tested.

The CDC findings, published in the March 2009 edition of the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, raise new concerns about perchlorate pollution, a legacy of Cold War rocket and missile tests. Studies have established that the chemical is a potent thyroid toxin that may interfere with fetal and infant brain development.

The new CDC study provides some of the strongest evidence yet that a legally enforceable safe drinking water level for perchlorate should be a priority for the Obama administration.

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

This is yet another nail in the coffin for infant formulas, if you ask me. Infant formula is a poor nutritional substitute for breast milk in general, but when you factor in toxic contaminations such as perchlorate, it really makes me question their use entirely.

Most people are exposed to perchlorate through their diet, in the form of contaminated water and/or foods. But infant exposure may be far greater than that of adults, especially if they are fed infant formula, as the toxin may be present in both the formula and/or the milk or water used to prepare it.

What is Perchlorate?

Perchlorates are salts derived from perchloric acid, which are used in the defense- and pyrotechnics industries. The military has used perchlorate since the early 1900’s, and it’s a component of solid rocket fuel, among other things.

Unfortunately, most perchlorate salts are water soluble, and we’re now experiencing widespread land and water contamination in many areas of the world.

Traces of perchlorate have been found in cow’s milk, water supplies, lettuce and other vegetables grown in certain high-contamination areas (such as the fields around the Colorado River), and now infant formulas have been exposed as another common source of this toxic exposure.

Which Formulas are the Worst?

Although the study does not identify the brands tested by name, the milk-based brands were found to be far more contaminated than the others, although ALL commercially available formulas were contaminated to some degree.

The test results for the types of formulas tested were as follows:

Cow’s milk-based (with lactose) = 1.72 mug/l perchlorate

Lactose-free formula = 0.27 mug/l

Soy-based formula = 0.21 mug/l

Elemental (typically consisting of synthetic amino acids) = 0.18 mug/l

The EWG states:

“The CDC study said that reconstituting cow’s milk/lactose formula with water contaminated with perchlorate at just 4 parts per billion (ppb) would cause 54 percent of the infants consuming the mix to exceed the so-called “safe” dose set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Many scientists contend that the EPA “safe” level is too high to protect public health.”

The Dangers of Perchlorate

This is a serious concern because perchlorate is known to disrupt thyroid function and hormone production by inhibiting your thyroid gland’s iodine uptake. This has actually been known since the 1950’s, when it was used to treat overactive thyroids.

In addition, at high doses perchlorates may affect fetal development, so the mother’s toxic load can also place the child at risk.

According to the CDC, perchlorate affects your health in the following ways:

Blocks your thyroid gland from taking up iodine. (Your thyroid gland needs iodine to make the thyroid hormones that regulate how your body uses energy.)

Iodine deficiency or conditions that prevent its use in making thyroid hormone lead to decreased amounts of thyroid hormone circulating in your blood, which can manifest as symptoms of hypothyroidism.

The researchers did note that supplemental iodine can counteract some of the toxic effects of perchlorate, and that the FDA requires infant formula to be supplemented with iodine.

However, the required concentration ranges from as little as 5 to as much as 75 mcg per 100 kcal of energy. Brands that contain only the minimum requirements leave infants iodine deficient and therefore more susceptible to thyroid damage.

That said, the researchers still stressed that even the formulas containing adequate amounts of iodine were not guaranteed to prevent “perchlorate-induced thyroid dysfunction.”

Avoid Infant Formula for Healthier Baby

Unfortunately, infant formulas are still a popular choice here in the United States, including soy formula, which may be one of the absolute worst things you can feed your baby. I strongly advise parents to avoid soy formulas at all cost as it can potentially kill your baby.

Let me make it PERFECTLY clear. There is overwhelming evidence that soy formula will seriously harm your baby. I rarely talk about absolutes but this is one where I will say: NEVER give your child soy formula.

I guess the only exception would be if there was a catastrophe and that was the only food source that would keep your baby alive. It is virtually 100 percent guaranteed to harm your child.

The evidence is beyond staggering. One of my next major upcoming projects will be to have a massive campaign around this These companies are destroying the health of future generations with their products. I am putting major energy into offering a healthy alternative.

The Dangers of Soy Formula

The high concentrations of manganese found in soybean-based baby formula can lead to brain damage in infants and altered behaviors in adolescents.

Researchers have found that soybean plant lifts up manganese in the soil and concentrates it, so that its use in soy-based infant formula can result in as many as 200 times the level found in natural breast milk. Experts believe that such high concentrations could pose a threat to the immature metabolic systems of babies up to 6 months of age.

The other significant issue the estrogens in soy. A soy-fed baby receives the equivalent of five birth control pills’ worth of estrogen every day! These babies’ isoflavone levels were found to be from 13,000 to 22,000 times higher than in non-soy fed infants.

What Else You Need to Know About Infant Formulas

Most all infant formulas have as much or more high fructose corn syrup than a can of soda. Metabolically this is very similar to alcohol on a chronic basis, so there appears to be very little difference between giving your infant a can of soda, beer, or a bottle of most all conventional infant formulas.

Of course I advocate breastfeeding if at all possible as it is by far the healthiest option. That breast milk is the best source of nutrition for newborns is one of the most clear-cut, non-debatable topics in health care. The benefits to the baby and the new mom are just enormous.

If for some reason you’re unable to breastfeed, please read the Healthy Alternative to Conventional Infant Formula for advice on how to make homemade baby formula.

Gerber, which in many people’s minds still go hand in hand with the image of “healthy baby”, never was, and never will be, a real contender against breast milk or homemade baby food.

Why Breastfeeding is Best

While any amount of breastfeeding is better than none at all, it is clearly to your advantage, and best for your baby’s health, to breastfeed exclusively — meaning no other food or water is supplemented — for the first 6 months. Then, at the age of 6 months, you can begin to supplement with solid foods (while still continuing to breastfeed as well).

What exactly does your baby stand to gain by being breastfed?

Here are just some of the benefits that it provides to your child:

Lower risk of respiratory tract and middle ear infections

Lower risk of eczema

Lower risk of obesity

Added protection against heart disease, diabetes, asthma, and allergies

Improved brain function and immune system function

Of course, there are benefits to mom too. The main ones are a reduced risk of chronic diseases like cancer, a faster return to your pre-pregnancy weight, and increased bonding between you and your baby.

Breastfeeding Myths Debunked

There are certain medical conditions that can prevent a woman from breastfeeding, however the majority of women are able to breastfeed successfully. Often, those who choose not to are doing so because of misinformation, so I want to clear up some of the myths right now.

MYTH 1: “I don’t have enough milk” — ALL women have enough milk to breastfeed. The more the baby nurses, the more milk you will produce.

MYTH 2: Infant formula is more nutritious — This is absolutely not true, and contamination issues are just the top if the iceberg.Statistics show a clear correlation between feeding infants artificial formula and increased infant mortality within the first year. It’s important to realize that there are at least 400 nutrients in breast milk that are NOT found in formula. Of course, the healthier that a new mom eats, the healthier her breast milk will be.

MYTH 3: Breastfeeding is painful — Breastfeeding can be painful for some women, but this is almost always the result of incorrect positioning. Trouble with positioning can be resolved by getting help from a lactation consultant.

Additional Help and Resources if You Can’t Breastfeed

If you cannot breastfeed, you can make a healthy homemade infant formula for your child using this recipe. (Remember to avoid soy infant formula.)

Le Leche League is another terrific resource. I was fortunate to be in a rotation group for my last two years of medical school with Tim Cahill, whose mother is Mary, and is one of the founders of Le Leche League. Tim was a super terrific guy, and a great testimony to what breast feeding can do.

Sources:
Environmental Working Group
Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology March 18, 2009

Read Full Post »

Chocolate Toddler Formula Pulled After Sugar Uproar
June 29 2010
Parents and nutritionists are protesting a line of designer toddler drinks containing mostly milk and sugar. They are aimed at children as young as 1 year old.

Mead Johnson’s Enfagrow Premium contains more than 25 additives supposedly intended to boost growth, brain development and immunity for the kids — but some say the massive amounts of added sugar for flavoring may contribute to the childhood obesity epidemic.

ABC News reports:

“The company responded to the firestorm of criticism by dropping its new chocolate-flavored product, which critics have considered the worst offender with 19 grams of sugar … In a prepared statement … Mead Johnson said there had been ‘some misunderstanding and mischaracterization regarding the intended consumer’ of the product.”

Mead Johnson markets Enfagrow for children ages 1 to 3 who have been weaned off breast milk or infant formula.

Mead Johnson’s Enfagrow, a nutritional supplement for toddlers, is little more than fortified milk with added sugar. The first three ingredients on the label are just that: whole milk, nonfat milk and sugar.

Enfagrow also contains a smattering of vitamins, omega-3, prebiotics and antioxidants, which is what Mead Johnson keys in on in their marketing messages, calling Enfagrow a “delicious nutritious addition to his daily diet — one that’s specifically tailored for a toddler.”

But parents were not happy when the company rolled out their new chocolate flavor earlier this year, which packed a walloping 19 grams of sugar per serving. Nothing like hooking your 1-year-old on sweet, chocolate-flavored sugary drinks right from the get-go to set him up for a lifetime of weight problems and health issues!

Since When is Sugar and Corn Syrup Good for Toddlers?

The list of ingredients in Enfagrow is, strangely, not available online, so it took going to the grocery store to read the package in person to find out what it actually contains.

While the vanilla flavor is sweetened with sugar, the unflavored variety contains corn syrup solids, i.e. fructose — precisely the ingredient that is contributing to the obesity epidemic facing both adults and children in the United States. You might as well be giving your baby a bottle of Coke or Pepsi!

I’ve written numerous articles about the dangers of consuming fructose, including its ability to disturb your metabolism, elevate blood pressure and triglycerides, cause weight gain, heart disease and liver damage, and even deplete your body of vitamins and minerals.

There is no way that an infant should be consuming any corn syrup whatsoever, and the fact that Enfagrow is being marketed as anutritional supplement for kids, when it’s loaded with sugar and/or corn syrup, is incredibly deceptive.

Fortunately, due to the public outcry the chocolate flavored Enfagrow was discontinued after just four months, but the vanilla flavor, which contains 16-17 grams of sugar, is still on the market, along with unflavored varieties that contain up to 11 grams of sugar, including corn syrup solids.

When Enough Parents Speak Up, Manufacturers Listen

This is a wonderful example of how powerful your voice can be in prompting change in the consumer marketplace. Mead Johnson is out to make a profit, and they know very well that if enough parents are upset about an issue, word will spread, fast, at the expense of their bottom line.

And parents were indeed outraged that a chocolate-flavored, sugar-filled beverage was being promoted as a nutritional supplement for near babies, many whom had just transitioned from breast milk or formula and had only been eating regular food for a very short time.

In a statement about the product’s discontinuation, the company wrote there had been:

“… some misunderstanding and mischaracterization regarding the intended consumer” … and “the resulting debate has distracted attention from the overall benefits of the brand.”

In other words, they were getting enough bad press that they decided to pull Enfagrow Chocolate, lest it tarnish the image of Mead Johnson’s other products.

In the future, remember the power that you, your friends, and your family have in the marketplace, and be quick to voice your opinions about products you think are unhealthful or dangerous.

Tips for Feeding Your Picky Toddler

Toddlers are known for being picky eaters, but you must keep trying to introduce a variety of healthy foods nonetheless. It can take 10-15 times before a child will accept a new food, so if you’ve tried offering peas or chicken and your toddler would have no part of it, try, try and try again.

What you want to avoid is giving in to your child with a sweetened fortified beverage like Enfagrow, as this will establish a pattern that your toddler will likely want to continue. A much better alternative if you’ve been breastfeeding would be to continue supplementing your toddler’s diet with breast milk until you can transition over fully to solid foods.

You will also want to avoid the common mistake of feeding your infant cereal. Cereal is often one of the first solid foods to be introduced into the infant diet and most pediatricians encourage their patients to start these foods at about 4 to 6 months of age.

This is truly unfortunate, as grains are not a healthy choice for most people, including infants, and infants fed cereal also have anincreased risk of type 1 diabetes.

Instead, according to the Weston A. Price Foundation, egg yolk should be your baby’s first solid food, starting at 4 months, whether your baby is breastfed or formula-fed. Egg yolks from free-range hens will contain the special long-chain fatty acids so critical for the optimal development of your child’s brain and nervous system.

However, the egg whites may cause an allergic reaction so they’re best avoided until your child is at least 1 year old.

Infants will also do just fine starting out on a vegetable source of carbs, and simply cooking a squash or sweet potato, mashing it up and putting it into an ice cube tray is an easy way to have ready-made multiple servings available for the rest of the week. By alternating a wide variety of veggies with quality sources of protein like organic chicken and grass-fed beef, you’ll be giving your toddler a foundation of nutrition to grow on.

Resist Falling Into the Junk-Food Trap

Most parents do try to feed their kids relatively healthy, but a lot of factors tend to get in the way. First of all, there’s so much misinformation out there about what’s healthy and what’s not, that adults are often confused about what to eat themselves, let alone what to feed their kids.

There’s also so much junk-food advertising aimed at children that nowadays kids think anything worth eating must be bright blue, sugary, salty or sour, and turn their tongue orange when they eat it. It helps if the “food” is also shaped like some sort of cartoon character or action figure.

But consider this: a survey from the America On The Move Foundation found that 71 percent of children get information about how to be healthy from their mothers, and 43 percent get such information from their fathers.

Further, the New York Times pointed out that preschoolers will like or reject the same fruits and vegetables that their parents like or dislike. And girls are more likely to be picky eaters if their mothers don’t like vegetables. So the more you embrace a healthy diet and share that enthusiasm with your children, even at a very young age, the more likely they are to follow suit.

Finally, it’s important that you avoid giving your toddler too much fruit juice, milk or supplemental drinks like Enfagrow because these beverages will make your child full. Most toddlers will not eat if they’re not hungry, so you want to be sure you’re filling your child’s tummy with real, nutritious food instead of various beverages.

Sources:
ABC News June 10, 2010

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 92 other followers