Eating Away Inflammation

Posted on February 1, 2014 by marcia

Inflammation: Tame This Silent Killer With Simple Food-Based Solutions

31st January 2014

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

The bane of health, chronic inflammation, is at the root of most disease. Cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, obesity, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, cardiovascular troubles and periodontal issues are all influenced by an overactive inflammatory response.

Fortunately, we have a powerful ally against inflammation residing in our kitchen. Through select foods and dietary adjustments, we can subdue this unruly beast and create a solid foundation for a healthy future.

The Primary Culprit: Poor Food Choices

Inflammation is the body’s natural response to injury, helping to heal damage throughout the system. And yet, this mechanism can lead to serious illness when left unchecked.

Dietary choices are the number one trigger for an exaggerated inflammatory reaction – especially sugary, high-glycemic and processed carbohydrates. Poor-quality fats like those found in meat and dairy, as well as trans fats in refined vegetable oils, are also problematic.

In the scholarly paper “Control of Systemic Inflammation and Chronic Diseases – The Use of Turmeric and Curcuminoids”, researcher Stig Bengmark observes:

“The world suffers an epidemic of both critical illness (CI) and chronic diseases (ChDs), and both groups of diseases increase from year to year, and have done so for several decades. It is strongly associated to the modern, so-called Western, lifestyle: stress, lack of exercise, abuse of tobacco and alcohol, and the transition from natural unprocessed foods to processed, calorie-condensed, and heat-treated foods.

“There is a strong association between reduced intake of plant fibers and plant antioxidants and increased consumption of industrially produced and processed products especially dairy, refined sugars, and starch products and ChDs. Heating up foods such as milk (pasteurization) and production and storage of milk powder produce large amounts of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) and advanced lipid oxidation end products (ALEs), known as potent inducers of inflammation.”

Be that as it may, just as the diet can exacerbate inflammation, specific foods can also heal it.

Edible solutions

A number of foods offer exceptional protection against inflammatory reactions. For instance, sulfur compounds found in garlic, and polyphenol antioxidants in green tea, both successfully discourage excessive inflammation. [1][2]

Golden-hued turmeric is another example. In laboratory tests, the anti-inflammatory characteristics of turmeric are effective in mitigating skin, lung and neurodegenerative disorders, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, cataracts and intestinal diseases. [3]

Healthy fats are also important. As an outstanding source of omega-3 fatty acids, sardines, fish oil supplements and wild-caught salmon, or vegetarian options like hemp seed, flaxseed and walnuts, provide the building blocks for healthy inflammation levels. [4][5][6] Moreover, oleic acid in olive oil supplies a good measure of anti-inflammatory omega-9 fatty acids. [7]

Don’t forget to add a bit of spice to your life. Over 25 years of research on ginger has established the herb as one of the foremost anti-inflammatory foods around. A study in the Journal of Medicinal Food discovered that two ginger extracts, Zingiber officinale and Alpina galanga, inhibit several genes responsible for inflammatory reactions. [8]

And Karen Lamphere, MS, CN, recommends a dash of heat. “Some of the most potent anti-inflammatory vegetables are peppers and the spices derived from them, such as cayenne pepper. All chili peppers include capsaicin (the hotter the pepper, the more capsaicin it has), which is a potent inhibitor of substance P, a neuropeptide associated with inflammatory processes.”

Over and above dietary choices, lifestyle options such as reducing stress, detoxifying and exercising regularly contribute to lower inflammation levels too. In the end, sidestepping the risks of this silent killer is a straightforward daily task when armed with whole foods and healthy habits.

from: http://wakeup-world.com/2014/01/31/inflammation-tame-this-silent-killer-with-simple-food-based-solutions/

Foods Banned Elsewhere Sold in US

Posted on January 30, 2014 by marcia

10 Foods Sold in the U.S. That Are Banned Elsewhere

by OracleTalk Curator on January 3, 2014

This Article First Appeared At Care2.com:

Americans are slowly realizing that food sold in the US doesn’t just taste different than foods sold in other countries, it’s created differently. Sadly, many U.S. foods are BANNED in Europe — and for good reason. Take a look at the plummeting health of Americans; what role might toxic foods play in our skyrocketing disease rates?

Below are 10 American foods that are banned elsewhere.

#1: Farm-Raised Salmon

Farm-raised fish is usually fed an unnatural diet of genetically engineered (GE) grains, antibiotics and chemicals unsafe for humans. To mask the resulting grayish flesh, they’re given toxic and potentially eyesight-damaging synthetic astaxanthin.

To determine wild from farm-raised salmon (sold in most restaurants), wild sockeye gets its red color from natural astaxanthin and carotenoids. The white “fat strips” are thin, meaning it’s lean. Pale pink fish and wide fat marks are a sign of farmed salmon.

Avoid “Atlantic Salmon.” Look for “Alaskan” or “sockeye,” which is illegal to farm and has very high astaxanthin concentrations.

Where it’s banned: Australia and New Zealand

#2: Genetically Engineered Papaya

Most Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered to be ringspot virus-resistant. But research shows animals fed GE foods like corn and soy suffer intestinal damage, multiple-organ damage, massive tumors, birth defects, premature death and/or nearly complete sterility by the third generation. Dangers to humans are unknown.

Where it’s banned: The European Union

#3: Ractopamine-Tainted Meat

About 45 percent of US pigs, 30 percent of cattle and an unknown percentage of turkeys are plumped with the asthma drug ractopamine before slaughter. Up to 20 percent of ractopamine is still there when you buy it.

Since 1998, more than 1,700 US pork lovers have been “poisoned” this way. For this very health threat, ractopamine-laced meats are banned in 160 different countries! Russia issued a ban on US meat imports, effective February 11, 2013, until it’s certified ractopamine-free. In animals, it’s linked to reducedreproductive function, increased mastitis and increased death. It damages the human cardiovascular system and may cause hyperactivity, chromosomal abnormalities and behavioral changes. Currently, US meats aren’t even tested for it.

Where it’s banned: 160 countries across Europe, Russia, mainland China and Republic of China (Taiwan).

#4: Flame Retardant Drinks

Mountain Dew and other drinks in the US contain the synthetic chemical brominated vegetable oil (BVO), originally patented as a flame retardant.

BVO bioaccumulates in human tissue and breast milk; animal studies report reproductive and behavioral problems. Bromine alters the central nervous and endocrine systems and promotes iodine deficiency, causing skin rashes, acne, loss of appetite, fatigue and cardiac arrhythmias. The featured article explains:

“The FDA has flip-flopped on BVO’s safety, originally classifying it as ‘generally recognized as safe,’ but reversing that call, now defining it as an ‘interim food additive,’ a category reserved for possibly questionable substances used in food.”

Where it’s banned: Europe and Japan

#5: Processed Foods and Artificial Food Dyes

More than 3,000 preservatives, flavorings and colors are added to US foods, many of which are banned in other countries. The featured article noted:

“Boxed Mac & Cheese, cheddar flavored crackers, Jell-O and many kids’ cereals contain red 40, yellow 5, yellow 6 and/or blue 2 … (which) can cause behavioral problems as well as cancer, birth defects and other health problems in laboratory animals. Red 40 and yellow 6 are also suspected of causing an allergy-like hypersensitivity reaction in children. The Center for Science in the Public Interest reports that some dyes are also “contaminated with known carcinogens.”

In countries where these food dyes are banned, companies like Kraft employ natural colorants like paprika extract and beetroot.

Where it’s banned: Norway and Austria. Britain advised companies against using food dyes by the end of 2009. The European Union requires a warning notice on most foods containing dyes.

#6: Arsenic-Laced Chicken

Arsenic-based drugs are approved in US-produced animal feed because they cause animals to grow quicker and meats products to look pinker and “fresher.” The FDA says arsenic-based drugs are safe safe because they contain organic arsenic … But organic arsenic can turn into inorganic arsenic, run through contaminated manure and leach into drinking water.

The European Union has never approved using arsenic in animal feed; US environmental groups have sued the FDA to remove them.

Where it’s banned: The European Union

#7: Bread with Potassium Bromate

Bread, hamburger and hotdog buns are “enriched” with potassium bromate, or bromide, linked to kidney and nervous system damage, thyroid problems, gastrointestinal discomfort and cancer.

While commercial baking companies claim it renders dough more tolerable to bread hooks, Pepperidge Farm and others use only unbromated flour without experiencing “structural problems.”

Where it’s banned: Canada, China and the EU

#8: Olestra/Olean

Olestra, or Olean, created by Procter & Gamble, is a calorie- and cholesterol-free fat substitute in fat-free snacks like chips and french fries. Three years ago, Time Magazine named it one of the worst 50 inventions ever. MSN noted:

“Not only did a 2011 study from Purdue University conclude rats fed potato chips made with Olean gained weight … several reports of adverse intestinal reactions to the fake fat include diarrhea, cramps and leaky bowels. And because it interferes with the absorption of fat soluble vitamins such as A, D, E and K, the FDA requires these vitamins be added to any product made with Olean or olestra.”

Where it’s banned: The UK and Canada

#9: Preservatives BHA and BHT

BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole) and BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene) are common preservatives in foods like cereal, nut mixes, chewing gum, butter spread, meat and beer. The National Toxicology Program’s 2011 Report on Carcinogens says BHA may trigger allergic reactions and hyperactivity and “is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”

Where it’s banned: Both are banned in parts of the European Union and Japan; the UK doesn’t allow BHA in infant foods.

#10: Milk and Dairy Products Made with rBGH

Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a synthetic version of natural bovine hormone is injected into cows to increase milk production. Monsanto developed it from genetically engineered E. coli bacteria, marketed as “Posilac.”

But it’s banned in at least 30 other nations. Why? It converts normal tissue cells into cancerous ones, increasing colorectal, prostate and breast cancer risks. Among other diseases, injected cows suffer exorbitant rates of mastitis, contaminating milk with pus and antibiotics.

In 1997, two Fox-affiliate investigative journalists, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson attempted to expose thedangers of rBGH, but lawyers for Monsanto – a major advertiser with the Florida network – sent letters promising “dire consequences” if the story aired.

In 1999, the United Nations Safety Agency ruled unanimously not to endorse rBGH milk, resulting in an international ban on US milk.

The Cancer Prevention Coalition, trying for years to affect a dairy industry ban of rBGH, resubmitting apetition to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg in January 2010, but the FDA sticks to its false position that rBGH-treated milk is no different than milk from untreated cows.

Action: Look for products labeled “rBGH-free” or “No rBGH.”

Where it’s banned: Australia, New Zealand, Israel, EU and Canada

Take Control of Your Health with REAL Food

If you value your health, avoid foods containing harmful ingredients and ditch processed foods entirely – even if they are permitted in the US. Opt for fresh whole foods, organic, grass-fed/pasture-raised beef and poultry, dairy products and eggs.

from: http://oracletalk.com/10-foods-sold-u-s-banned-elsewhere/

Who is Behind the Codex Alimentarius?

Posted on October 24, 2013 by marcia

Front Groups Exposed—50 Industry Groups Form a New Alliance to Manipulate Public Opinion About Junk Food, GMOs, and Harmful Additives

May 29, 2013

By Dr. Mercola

The United Nations established the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 1962. Usually referred to as “Codex,” it consists of approximately 170 member countries that set food guidelines and standards for the world.
Over the years, Codex has been embroiled in controversy for a number of reasons, but now our investigations show that Monsanto―one of the world’s largest producers of genetically-modified seeds―is behind a significant number of front groups that control Codex policy.
Most recently, more than 50 industry trade groups formed a new alliance called Alliance to Feed the Future. These groups represent multi-national food, biotech, and chemical companies that generate hundreds of billions of dollars-worth of revenue each year
Alliance to Feed the Future claims its purpose is to “balance the public dialogue” on modern agriculture and large-scale food production and technology. Or, in other words, they aim to become the go-to source for “real” information about the junk being sold as “food”
The Kellen Company is instrumental in creating and managing front groups for the processed food and chemical industries. These front groups are specifically created to mislead you about the product in question, protect industry profits, and influence regulatory agencies

If you think it’s tough sorting truth from industry propaganda and lies, get ready for even tougher times ahead. More than 50 front groups, working on behalf of food and biotechnology trade groups―Monsanto being the most prominent―have formed a new coalition called Alliance to Feed the Future.

The alliance, which is being coordinated by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), was created to “balance the public dialogue” on modern agriculture and large-scale food production and technology, i.e. this group will aim to become the go-to source for “real” information about the junk being sold as “food.”

The groups comprising this new alliance represent multi-national food companies, biotech industry, and chemical companies that generate hundreds of billions of dollars worth of revenue from food related sales every year.

On the upside, this alliance and many other industry-sponsored front groups masquerading as non-profits and consumer protection organizations are becoming increasingly exposed for what they really are, and I will point out several of them in this article.

Michele Simon, JD, MPH, policy consultant with Center for Food Safety recently published a report titled: Best Public Relations Money Can Buy: A Guide to Food Industry Front Groups¹ also reveals how the food and agricultural industry hide behind friendly-sounding organizations aimed at fooling the public, policymakers and media alike.

Many Industry Front Groups Are Created to Dominate Codex Discussions

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, conceived by the United Nations in 1962, was birthed through a series of relationships between the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Trade Organization (WTO) as well as the American FDA and USDA.

The Codex Alimentarius itself is a compilation of food standards, codes of practice and guidelines that specify all requirements related to foods, whether processed, semi-processed, genetically engineered, or raw.

Its purported purpose is to “protect consumers’ health, ensure fair business practices within the food trade, and eliminate international food trade barriers by standardizing food quality.”

There are a number of different working groups that meet regularly to establish food standards of every imaginable kind. For example, the Physical Working Group on Food Additives recently held meetings in Beijing, China. The 45th session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) ended on March 22.

On the agenda were discussions about aluminum-containing food additives. Are they safe or should they be eliminated from the worldwide Codex standards? The National Health Federation (NHF), the only health-freedom group allowed to speak at the meeting, dished out harsh criticism on the additives, calling for their removal. In a Facebook update, the NHF wrote:²

“The usual Codex suspects (the delegations of Australia, the United States and Canada) plus the trade organizations of the International Food Additives Council (IFAC) and the International Council of Grocery Manufacturers Associations (ICGMA) were the industry apologists for keeping aluminum in food additives.

In dishing out scorching criticism of aluminum’s proponents, NHF came under return fire from Australia, IFAC, and the Chairman.

IFAC – which does not seem to disclose any of its members… along with its sidekick ICGMA, cried out constantly that the ‘Industry’ just could not make it without aluminum food additives. Their members spraying equipment ‘might overheat and catch fire,’ IFAC lamented.

When NHF suggested that this was a not a genuine issue; that the industry could easily innovate its way out of this ‘problem’ and create non-overheating equipment, NHF was criticized by the Chairman for suggesting that IFAC might not be telling the truth.

By the end of the day, the success of the EU and NHF could be tallied by numerous uses of aluminum food additives that the Working Group will suggest be discontinued to the full Committee meeting… although there were also many food-additive uses that stayed in place (albeit usually at reduced levels), no thanks to the interventions of Australia, the U.S., Canada, IFAC, and ICGMA.”

Who’s Behind the International Food Additives Council (IFAC)?

to read more, go to: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/29/codex-front-groups.aspx?e_cid=20130529_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130529

Rethinking SELL BY/BEST BY Date

Posted on September 30, 2013 by marcia

Is Your Food Expired? Don’t Be So Quick to Toss It

September 30, 2013 |

Story at-a-glance

‘Use by’ and ‘best by’ dates on food are only an indicator of peak freshness, not a measure of food safety
In many cases, foods are still safe to eat even after these dates have expired
Forty percent of the US food supply is thrown away uneaten every year because of expired food dates, even though the food is often still safe
‘Sell by’ dates aren’t meant for consumer use at all; they’re intended to help retailers ensure proper product turnover
The greatest factor impacting whether your perishable food has spoiled isn’t total storage time but rather how much time it spends in the temperature ‘danger zone’ (between 40-120 degrees F)

By Dr. Mercola

Forty percent of the US food supply is thrown away uneaten every year because of expired food dates, but a new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Harvard suggests that most of that food is still safe to eat.¹

Labels like ‘use by’ and ‘sell by’ on foods aren’t actually an indicator of food safety, as many believe them to be, and, the report found, more than 90 percent of Americans are throwing out food prematurely because of misunderstandings of what food dates actually mean. In short, many foods are still safe to eat even after they’re expired.

There is Only ONE National Regulation on Food Dating

While both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have the authority to regulate food dating, neither does, with the exception of infant formula (the only food product with a federally regulated date label, as the nutrients in the formula decline over time).

The rest of the food market has no such federal dating regulations, and the end result is a veritable free for all, with some states requiring food dates and establishing selling restrictions based on them and others not.

For instance, 20 states restrict stores from selling products after the use by dates while 30 do not. As the report highlights, are the people in the 20 more restrictive states better off? Most likely not …

Adding to the confusion, even when products are regulated, the rules vary by state and even then definitions are vague and provide little usefulness, if any. According to the report:

In Florida, all milk and milk products “shall be legibly labeled with their shelf-life date,” but shelf life date is never defined.

In California, milk is required to have a date that the processor decides is the date “to ensure quality, such product is normally removed from the shelf” but sale after that date is not restricted.

In Montana, milk must have a “sell by” date within 12 days of pasteurization, while Pennsylvania requires it within 17 days.

In New Hampshire, a “sell by date” is required for cream but not milk.

New York, Texas, and Wisconsin, among many other states, have no requirements for date labels on milk or dairy.

There is No Way for You to Know How a ‘Use By’ Date is Calculated

It’s not only what happens to products after a ‘use by’ or ‘best by’ date has been applied that’s confusing. Even the creation of the date itself is subject to incredible variance and, ultimately, is up to individual product manufacturers to determine.

Again, while most assume such dates are used as a means for food safety, most manufacturers view them as a tool to protect their product’s reputation. They want you to consume their product at its peak freshness and flavor, which means many set food dates conservatively.

Yet, the food is many times still safe to eat after the date expires, often with minimal, if any, changes in taste or texture. Even the methods used by manufacturers to set food dates vary. The report explained:

“Some use lab tests, others use literature values, and yet others use product turnover rates or consumer taste testing … In consumer testing, some manufacturers will allow for a level of change in quality over time before setting a date limit, whereas others set them more conservatively

… Thus, while open dating appears on the surface to be an objective exercise, consumer preferences and brand protection impact the way most of these dates are determined. In most cases, consumers have no way of knowing how a “sell by” or “use by” date has been defined or calculated, and the method of calculation may vary widely by product type, manufacturer and geography.”

So a package of cheese or a box of crackers may have different ‘use by’ dates simply depending on which brand you choose, or where they’re purchased.

Food Dates Do Little to Protect You

The researchers concluded that food dates generally lead to good food getting thrown away, and may at the same time prompt you to eat a food that’s actually spoiled because of ‘undue faith in date labels.’

to read more, go to: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/09/30/food-expiration.aspx?e_cid=20130930Z1_DNL_art_2&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20130930Z1

Food Irradiation Safety

Posted on September 1, 2013 by marcia

Harmful if swallowed – The dangers of food irradiation

Sunday, September 01, 2013 by: Nate Curtis

(NaturalNews) Food irradiation was implemented to eradicate potentially harmful substances that pose health risks to consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has long ago approved irradiation for products including meats, fruits and vegetables. While eliminating dangerous bacteria sounds like a step in the right direction, the research behind food irradiation is highly flawed.

Irradiation wipes out good bacteria as well as the harmful kinds. Good bacteria found in foods curb the growth of dangerous bacteria and produce an odor that indicates spoilage. There is also a chance that the bacteria that survive the irradiation process can mutate and become radiation-resistant, which would make the entire process ineffective and potentially lead to the formation of bacteria that is also resistant to antibiotics.

“Radiation is a carcinogen, mutagen and teratogen,” Dr. Geraldine Dettman, a Brown University safety officer, points out. “At doses of 100,000 rads on fruits and vegetables, the cells of the fruits and vegetables will be killed, and most insect larvae will be destroyed, but fungi, bacteria and viruses growing on the fruit and vegetables will not be killed . . . They will be mutated, possibly leading to more virulent contaminants.”

It alters the content of food

The nutritional content of irradiated foods is seriously compromised. Irradiation can destroy between 5 percent and 80 percent of vitamins and nutrients found in a variety of foods including essential vitamins A, B complex, C, E, and K. For example, irradiated eggs lose 80 percent of vitamin A and orange juice loses 48 percent of beta-carotene.

Irradiation not only reduces the food’s nutritional content, but also changes its flavor, texture and odor. For example, turkey and pork can become bright red while beef can turn from red into a shade of green or brown. Numerous studies show that irradiated foods are inferior in taste, texture, and smell to non-irradiated foods.

It has not been proven to be safe

Scientific studies that were used to legalize irradiation used old scientific methods and were not extensive. In fact, the study of how irradiated foods affect the human body lasted for only 15 weeks before it was discontinued and irradiated foods were deemed safe for human consumption. There is no research available to determine the long-term effects of eating irradiated foods. Furthermore the research used to approve irradiation did not fulfill current scientific protocols required by federal law.

Dr. Gayle Eversole states, “Food irradiation exposes food to the equivalent of 30 million chest X-rays. Irradiation creates new chemicals in foods called radiolytic products. Some of these products are known cancer-causing substances….No one knows the long term impact of eating unknown quantities of these damaged foods. Studies on animals fed irradiated foods have shown increased tumors, reproductive failures and kidney damage. Chromosomal abnormalities occurred in children from India who were fed freshly irradiated wheat.”

Irradiation is ineffective

Irradiation kills the majority of bacteria that cause food borne illnesses but does not eradicate other waste that can contaminate meat and other foods due to unsanitary conditions in slaughterhouses and processing plants. It does not eliminate contaminants such as urine, feces and vomit. It also doesn’t destroy the virus that causes Mad Cow disease.

Being aware of the dangers of food irradiation will help you avoid foods that can be potentially harmful to your body. Irradiated foods are required to be labeled with a symbol resembling an encircled leafy plant. Remember to always double check the food you buy, question its origins and read the labels carefully.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041878_food_irradiation_harmful_nutrition.html#ixzz2dfG1C17b

Know What You Are Eating

Posted on July 24, 2013 by marcia

Michael F. Jacobson

Executive Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest

Ending Food Ignorance: Education Is Too Important to Leave to Big Food

Would you be surprised to know that there is a highly-sophisticated, multi-billion-dollar campaign underway designed to teach your children about food? There is. In fact, experts agree that this campaign is wildly successful. Unfortunately, the massive instructional campaign to which I refer is the $2 billion effort by the food industry to teach children and teens to want candy, sugar drinks, sugary cereals, and other highly-processed junk foods. Mostly, these lessons are delivered through your television set. Increasingly though, these messages reach kids through mobile devices, so-called “advergames” on the web, and shockingly, even junk-food marketing within the four walls of their classrooms.

When one-third of American kids are overweight or obese, and are on track to have shorter lives than their parents, it’s clear that food education is too important to leave to Big Food. That’s why Jamie Oliver’s Food Foundation and the organizers behind Food Day (Oct. 24) are collaborating on a new national initiative to put food education in every school.

Parents would be outraged if their children in elementary school didn’t learn that two plus two is four, or couldn’t identify the Niña, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria. Yet, as Oliver demonstrated in 2010, some American school kids cannot identify tomatoes, beets, or cauliflower, or might mistake an eggplant for a pear! Yet thanks to Big Food’s marketing muscle, junk food brands like McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and Chuck E. Cheese’s are as firmly implanted in kids’ developing brains as the names of the three ships that sailed the ocean blue in 1492.

The anti-hunger group Feeding America estimates that elementary school students receive just 3.4 hours of nutrition education — actual education and not marketing — each year. Fewer than 25 percent of high school students take any family and consumer science classes, formerly known as home economics, and those classes are often the first to go when school budgets are trimmed. And parents have to shoulder some of the blame, when, in all too many harried households, “cooking” actually means “microwaving” or otherwise heating some well-preserved, factory-extruded, combination of flour, fat, salt, sugar, dyes, and other chemicals.

But just as we expect our schools to do the heavy lifting when it comes to teaching geography, algebra, physical education, and history, we should expect schools to teach children about food — where it comes from and how it affects our bodies and our health. Where it’s been done well, we know it works. First of all, most kids find that cooking is fun. The more children cook and prepare fresh recipes from scratch, the more likely they are to appreciate healthier and varied ingredients and develop a skill that will serve them well throughout their lives. The more children learn about food and nutrition, the more likely they are to eat fruits, vegetables, and other healthful foods. And the real-world experience of Alice Waters’ edible schoolyards show that the more that children plant and harvest fresh fruits and vegetables, they more motivated they’ll be to eat them.

We call on policymakers at all levels of government, starting with local school boards, mayors, and governors and then on up to members of Congress and to the famous nutrition advocates living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, to put food education back in every school. We can’t raise another generation of kids that can’t tell tomatoes from potatoes, or for whom cooking means pressing the “start” button on the microwave. Let’s make sure every kid advances to the next grade with a handful of age-appropriate recipes under their belt, with some healthful sandwiches and salads learned in elementary school, more advanced soups and pastas in middle school, and healthy and wholesome entrees in high school. Let’s envision the financial windfall taxpayers should reap when we begin to make a serious dent in rates of childhood overweight and obesity. And let’s put food education back in schools because we value our children and their prospects for long, healthy, and happy lives.

It will be many years, if ever, before America’s real food educators have the same financial resources as America’s junk-food manufacturers. But we shouldn’t leave the critical task of teaching nutrition to the food industry any more than we’d leave teaching science to the Flat Earth Society.

For more by Michael F. Jacobson, click here.

from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/food-education_b_3552273.html

Arsenic in Your Chicken?

Posted on May 30, 2013 by marcia

The Arsenic in Your Chicken

By Chris Hunt | 05.11.2013 |

While industrial livestock production involves a remarkably wide array of bad practices, a few manage to extend beyond mere imprudence into the realm of Total Insanity. For instance, the reckless abuse of antibiotics for growth promotion. Or the construction of uncovered multimillion-gallon cesspools for storing livestock manure in residential areas. Or, of course, feeding arsenic to animals raised for food.

Today, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future published a study in the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives that provided further evidence of the risks associated with the use of arsenicals in animal agriculture. Just in case anyone still needed convincing (Ahem! FDA, Pfizer and industrial chicken magnates). The study, which involved analysis of chicken breast samples purchased at grocery stores in 10 cities across the US, revealed that chickens likely raised with arsenic-based drugs yield meat that has higher levels of inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen that has also been associated with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cognitive deficits and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Why would anyone feed arsenic to chickens?

While you and I might associate arsenic only with the plotlines of old who-done-it novels in which affluent elderly gentlemen are slowly poisoned by long-suffering caretakers or disgruntled relatives, its use by industrial chicken producers is anything but fiction. Back in the 1940s, producers started using arsenicals to promote growth, treat disease and improve meat pigmentation. The practice eventually became standard; according to industry estimates, by 2010, 88% of all chickens raised for human consumption in the US were given the arsenic-based drug roxarsone. (And – fun fact – we raise about 9 billion chickens for meat every year.)

Although pharmaceutical giant Pfizer voluntarily pulled roxarsone from the US market in 2011, it can still sell the drug abroad – and other than the sort of basic commitment to social responsibility that big players in the industrial livestock sector love to advertise yet incessantly avoid, there’s nothing stopping Pfizer from reintroducing roxarsone to the US market (i.e., the FDA hasn’t actually banned its use). Moreover, Pfizer still sells nitarsone, another arsenical drug similar to roxarsone.

What happens to the arsenic fed to chickens?

Turns out that when you feed arsenical drugs to livestock, the arsenic doesn’t just magically disappear. Instead, trace amounts of arsenic fed to chicken are excreted in their manure – and when hundreds of thousands of chickens are raised on a factory farm year after year, the arsenic can accumulate pretty quickly, eventually contaminating soil, groundwater and surface waters.

But not all the arsenic is excreted in manure; some portion also ends up in the poultry meat that US consumers eat every day. The newly published CLF study is the first to quantify concentrations of specific forms of arsenic (most notably inorganic arsenic) within chicken meat, and the first to directly compare arsenic concentrations in meat samples from birds likely raised with arsenical drugs to samples from chickens raised without these drugs.

The results

The researchers tested samples of three types of chicken breast: organic (which means the meat came from birds that were required to be raised without arsenical drugs), antibiotic-free (which means the birds were raised without antibiotics, but not necessarily without arsenicals) and conventional (which, given the high rate of arsenical use when the study was conducted between December 2010 and June 2011, means the birds likely received arsenical drugs). The researchers also contacted the various poultry producers to determine whether they had established policies to prohibit arsenical use, and divided the samples accordingly.

A few highlights from the analysis:

Conventional samples had higher inorganic arsenic levels than antibiotic-free and organic samples.
In meat samples containing roxarsone, levels of inorganic arsenic were four times higher than levels in organic chicken, and two to three times greater than the safety standard for inorganic arsenic in foods proposed in a 2011 FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine study. (Note that the FDA retracted this recommendation shortly afterward.)
70 percent of samples from conventional producers without policies prohibiting arsenical use had inorganic arsenic levels that exceeded the aforementioned FDA safety standard.
The researchers had the foresight to preemptively reject any ridiculous “if-you-cook-chicken-to-the -recommended-temperature-arsenic-will-disappear” argument from industrial poultry apologists by cutting each sample of chicken in half, cooking one half and testing both the cooked and raw samples. Unsurprisingly, cooking didn’t eliminate the arsenic. But somewhat alarmingly for poultry consumers who prefer not to eat raw meat, cooked chicken samples had higher levels of inorganic arsenic than their uncooked counterparts.
Using a model for cancer risk developed by the EPA, the researchers estimated that based on the levels of inorganic arsenic discovered in the study, industry-wide use of arsenical drugs could cause an average of 124 cancers per year.

Good science to shift bad policy?

The levels of inorganic arsenic discovered in chicken are cause for concern, especially since many of us are already exposed to the carcinogen through additional dietery and environmental paths (for instance, see Consumer Reports’ 2012 report about arsenic in rice). But unlike these other sources of exposure, which typically result from natural arsenic deposits, industry or residual contamination from the days of widespread arsenical pesticide use, as noted in the study, “arsenical poultry drugs are deliberately administered to animals intended for human consumption. Consequently, exposures resulting from use of these drugs are far more controllable than exposures from environmental sources.”

The authors of the study concluded their analysis in the reserved, impartial tone characteristic of practiced scientists, stating, “Our findings suggest that eliminating the use of arsenic-based drugs in food animal production could reduce the burden of arsenic-related disease in the US population.” Since I’m not writing for a peer-reviewed science journal, I’ll allow myself to be a little less diplomatic in my own summary: this study provides further evidence that continued use of arsenicals in food animal production poses an entirely unnecessary threat to public health. While the practice might boost the profits earned by poultry giants and the manufacturers who supply them with arsenical drugs, it’s imprudent and irresponsible. As such, the FDA has no legitimate justification for its ongoing failure to prohibit arsenicals from food animal production.

from: http://www.gracelinks.org/blog/2561/the-arsenic-in-your-chicken

Regrowing Foods From Kitchen Scraps

Posted on October 15, 2012 by marcia

6 Foods That’ll Re-Grow from Kitchen Scraps

15th October 2012

By Andy Whiteley

Co- Founder of Wake Up World

Looking for a healthy way to get more from your garden? Like to know your food is free of the pesticides and other nasties that are often sprayed on commercial crops? Re-growing food from your kitchen scraps is a good way to do it!

There’s nothing like eating your own home- grown vegies, and there are heaps of different foods that will re- grow from the scrap pieces that you’d normally throw out or put into your compost bin.

It’s fun. And very simple … if you know how to do it.

Just remember … the quality of the “parent” vegetable scrap will help to determine the quality of the re-growth. So, wherever possible, I recommend buying local organic produce, so you know your re-grown plants are fresh, healthy and free of chemical and genetic meddling.

Leeks, Scallions, Spring Onions and Fennel

You can either use the white root end of a vegetable that you have already cut, or buy a handful of new vegetables to use specifically for growing.

Simply place the white root end in a glass jar with a little water, and leave it in a sunny position. I keep mine in the kitchen window. The green leafy part of the plant will continue to shoot. When it’s time to cook, just snip off what you need from the green growth and leave the white root end in water to keep growing. Freshen up the water each week or so, and you’ll never have to buy them again.

Lemongrass

Lemongrass grows just like any other grass. To propagate it, place the root end (after you’ve cut the rest off) in a glass jar with a little water, and leave it in a sunny position.

Within a week or so, new growth will start to appear. Transplant your lemongrass into a pot and leave it in a sunny outdoor position. You can harvest your lemongrass when the stalks reach around a foot tall – just cut off what you need and leave the plant to keep growing.

Celery, Bok Choi, Romaine Lettuce & Cabbage

Similar to leeks, these vegetables will re-grow from the white root end. Cut the stalks off as you normally would, and place the root end in a shallow bowl of water – enough to cover the roots but not the top of your cutting. Place it in a sunny window position, occasionally spraying your cutting with water to keep the top moist.

After a few days, you should start to see roots and new leaves appear. After a week or so, transplant it into soil with just the leaves showing above the level of the soil. The plant will continue to grow, and within a few weeks it will sprout a whole new head.

Alternatively you can plant your cutting directly into soil (without starting the process in water) but you will need to keep the soil very moist for the first week until the new shoots start to appear.

Ginger

Ginger is very easy to re-grow. Simply plant a spare piece of ginger rhizome (the thick knobbly bit you cook with) in potting soil with the newest (ie. smallest) buds facing upward. Ginger enjoys filtered, not direct, sunlight in a warm moist environment.

Before long it will start to grow new shoots and roots. Once the plant is established and you’re ready to harvest, pull up the whole plant, roots and all. Remove a piece of the rhizome, and re-plant it to repeat the process.

Ginger also makes a very attractive house-plant, so if you don’t use a lot of ginger in your cooking you can still enjoy the lovely plant between harvests.

Potatoes

Re-growing potatoes is a great way to avoid waste, as you can re-grow potatoes from any old potato that has ‘eyes’ growing on it. Pick a potato that has robust eyes, and cut it into pieces around 2 inches square, ensuring each piece has at least one or two eyes. Leave the cut pieces to sit at room temperature for a day or two, which allows the cut areas to dry and callous over. This prevents the potato piece from rotting after you plant it, ensuring that the new shoots get the maximum nutrition from each potato piece.

Potato plants enjoy a high-nutrient environment, so it is best to turn compost through your soil before you plant them. Plant your potato pieces around 8 inches deep with the eye facing upward, and cover it with around 4 inches of soil, leaving the other 4 inches empty. As your plant begins to grow and more roots appear, add more soil. If your plant really takes off, mound more soil around the base of the plant to help support its growth.

Garlic

You can re-grow a plant from just a single clove – just plant it, root-end down, in a warm position with plenty of direct sunlight. The garlic will root itself and produce new shoots. Once established, cut back the shoots and the plant will put all its energy into producing a tasty big garlic bulb. And like ginger, you can repeat the process with your new bulb.

Onions

Onions are one of the easiest vegetables to propagate. Just cut off the root end of your onion, leaving a ½ inch of onion on the roots. Place it in a sunny position in your garden and cover the top with soil. Ensure the soil is kept moist. Onions prefer a warm sunny environment, so if you live in a colder climate, keep them in pots and move them indoors during frostier months.

As you use your home-grown onions, keep re-planting the root ends you cut off, and you’ll never need to buy onions again.

Sweet Potatoes

When planted, sweet potato will produce eye-shoots much like a potato. Bury all or part of a sweet potato under a thin layer of soil in a moist sunny location. New shoots will start to appear through the soil in a week or so. Once the shoots reach around four inches in height, remove them and re-plant them, allowing about 12 inches space between each plant. It will take around 4 months for your sweet potatoes to be ready. In the meantime, keep an eye out for slugs… they love sweet potatoes.

To propagate sweet potatoes, it is essential to use an organic source since most commercial growers spray their sweet potatoes to prevent them from shooting.

Mushroom

Mushrooms can be propagated from cuttings, but they’re one of the more difficult vegies to re-grow. They enjoy warm humidity and nutrient-rich soil, but have to compete with other fungus for survival in that environment. Although it is not their preferred climate, cooler environments give mushrooms a better chance of winning the race against other fungi.

Prepare a mix of soil and compost in a pot (not in the ground) so your re-growth is portable and you can control the temperature of your mushroom. I have found most success with a warm filtered light during the day and a cool temperature at night. Just remove the head of the mushroom and plant the stalk in the soil, leaving just the top exposed. In the right conditions, the base will grow a whole new head. (In my experience, you’ll know fairly quickly if your mushroom has taken to the soil as it will either start to grow or start to rot in the first few days).

Pineapple

To re-grow pineapples, you need to remove the green leafy piece at the top and ensure that no fruit remains attached. Either hold the crown firmly by the leaves and twist the stalk out, or you can cut the top off the pineapple and remove the remaining fruit flesh with a knife (otherwise it will rot after planting and may kill your plant). Carefully slice small, horizontal sections from the bottom of the crown until you see root buds (the small circles on the flat base of the stalk). Remove the bottom few layers of leaves leaving about an inch base at the bottom of the stalk.

Plant your pineapple crown in a warm and well drained environment. Water your plant regularly at first, reducing to weekly watering once the plant is established. You will see growth in the first few months but it will take around 2-3 years before you are eating your own home-grown pineapples.

And one for the kids….. ‘Pet’ Carrot Tops!!

I call this a ‘pet’ because the plant that re-grows from planting a carrot top will NOT produce edible carrots, only a new carrot plant. The vegetable itself is a taproot which can’t re-grow once it has been removed from the plant. But it makes an attractive flowering plant for the kitchen, and they’re easy and lots of fun to grow…. for kids of all ages!

Cut the top off your carrot, leaving about an inch of vegetable at the root. Stick toothpicks into the sides of the carrot stump and balance it in a glass or jar. Fill the glass with water so that the level reaches the bottom of the cutting. Leave the glass in filtered, not direct, sunlight and ensure water is topped up to keep the bottom of your cutting wet. You’ll see roots sprout in a few days, and you can transplant your ‘pet’ carrot into soil after a week or so.

Your success re-growing lovely fresh vegies from scrap may vary, depending on your climate, the season, soil quality and sunlight available in your home or garden. And some vegies just propagate easier than others do. In my experience, a bit of trial and error is required, so don’t be afraid to do some experimenting. Get your hands dirty. It’s lots of fun! And there’s nothing like eating your own home-grown vegies.

from: http://wakeup-world.com/2012/10/15/16-foods-thatll-re-grow-from-kitchen-scraps/

Four Foods That Benefit Your Health & Sunlight

Posted on July 1, 2012 by marcia

Five Food-Medicines That Could Quite Possibly Save Your Life

2nd June 2012

By Sayer Ji

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

Though Mother Nature’s formulas are proprietary, she does not grant patents.

Some of the most powerful medicines on the planet are masquerading around as foods and spices. While they do not lend themselves to being patented, nor will multi-billion dollar human clinical trials ever be funded to prove them efficacious, they have been used since time immemorial to both nourish our bodies, and to prevent and treat disease. So valued were these in ancient times that they were worth their weight in gold, and entire civilizations either rose to great power or collapsed as a result of their relationship to them.

What is even more amazing is that many of these “plant allies” are found growing in our backyards, and often sitting there in our refrigerators and spice racks, neglected and under appreciated. In fact, many of us use these daily unaware that this is why we don’t get sick as often as those who do not incorporate them into their diet. Let’s look at a few examples….

1) Garlic – with the increasing prevalence of multi-drug resistant bacteria and the failure of the conventional, drug-based model to develop effective solutions against them (nor accepting responsibility for creating them), spices have regained their once universal reign as broad spectrum infection-fighters with sometimes life-saving power. Garlic, in fact, has several hundred therapeutic properties, confirmed by a growing body of scientific research, which you can view directly on GreenMedInfo.com.[i] One quick example of garlic’s power, is in killing multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), which the mainstream media has termed the “white plague,” roiling the masses with a fear of drug-resistant (but not plant-extract resistant) they are made to believe they are defenseless against. Last year an article was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal showing that garlic was capable of inhibiting a wide range of multiple drug resistant tuberculosis strains.[ii] The authors concluded “The use of garlic against MDR-TB may be of great importance regarding public health.” Garlic’s anti-infective properties do not end with MDR-TB, as it has been demonstrated to inhibit the following pathogens as well

Amoeba Entamoeba histolytica (parasite)
Cholera
Clostridium
Cytomegalovirus
Dermatophytoses (a type of topical fungal infection)
Haemophilus Influenzae
Helicobacter Pylori
Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1
Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2
Klebsiella
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus A. (MRSA)
Parainfluenza Virus
Peridontal Infection
Pneumococcal Infections
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Streptococcus Mutans
Streptococcus Infections: Group A
Streptococcus Infections: Group B
Streptococcus pyrogenes
Thrush (oral fungal infection)

This amazing list underscores how important it is to keep a supply of garlic close by!

2.) Honey – bees produce a wide range of therapeutic substances beyond honey, e.g. propolis, bee venom, royal jelly, beeswax, bee pollen, etc., but this sweet, sticky stuff that we all love to dip our paw into occasionally, is the most well-known and most copiously consumed of them all – and for good reason, it tastes great! But did you know that this sweet treat is one of nature’s most powerful healing agents, as well? Here is just a smattering of some of honey’s more scientifically researched health benefits and/or applications:

Aspirin-Induced Gastrointestinal Toxicity (honey coats the delicate linings of the stomach, preventing aspirin-induced lesions and bleeding)
Bacterial Infections
Burns
Candida infection (despite the fact that honey contains sugar, it demonstrates anti-fungal properties)
Conjunctivitis
Dental plaque (a recent study showed that Manuka honey was a viable alternative to chemical mouthwash in dissolving dental plaque)[iii]
Dermatitis
Diabetic Ulcer
Herpes-related ulcers
MRSA (especially for Manuka honey)

There are many more uses for honey than covered here. Needless to say, replacing synthetic sweeteners or highly processed sugars or high fructose corn syrup with a moderate amount of honey may be a great preventative health step to take.

3) Apples – an apple a day does in fact keep the doctor away, especially cancer specialists it would seem. For instance, one of the most well-established health benefits of consuming apples is to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. The more apples you consume, the less likely you are to develop this potentially fatal disease. To view the 5 studies that reference this relationship, go to the GreenmedInfo.com apple research page where you will also find 50 other health benefits of apple or apple byproducts (e.g. apple vinegar) consumption which include:

Aging, Reduce Rate
Allergies
Allopecia (Hair Loss)
Diarrhea
Insulin Resistance
Liver Cancer
Radiation Induced Illness
Staphylococcol Infection

4) Sunlight – this one may throw some of you off, but sunlight possesses both energy and information with real, metabolic value and is therefore a source of usable energy for the body – and so, in a very real sense it can be considered a form of food that we consume through our skin by way of its built in, melanin-based “solar panels.” Not only does adequate sunlight exposure result in the production of vitamin D, a hormone-like substance that regulates over 2,000 genes in the human body — and as a result prevents or ameliorates hundreds of vitamin D deficiency associated health conditions – but sunlight exposure itself has a unique set of health benefits not reducible to simply vitamin D production alone. One of the more interesting studies performed on sunlight exposure, based on data gathered from over 100 countries and published earlier this year in the journal Anticancer Research, showed that there was “a strong inverse correlations with solar UVB for 15 types of cancer,” with weaker, though still significant evidence for the protective role of sunlight in 9 other cancers. Here are some additional benefits of sunlight exposure:

Alzheimer’s Disease
Depression
Dopamine Deficiency
Dermatitis
Influenza
Multiple Sclerosis
Psoriasis

5) Turmeric – quite possibly the world’s most important herb. Named “Kanchani,” or literally “Golden Goddess,” in the ancient Indian healing tradition, its healing properties have been deeply appreciated, if not revered for countless centuries. Turmeric has been scientifically documented to have over 500 applications in disease prevention and treatment. It also has been shown to modulate over 150 distinct biological and genetic/epigenetic pathways of value in health, demonstrating a complexity as well as gentleness that no drug on the planet has ever been shown to possess.

As there are too many health conditions that turmeric may benefit to list, we are listing the top 10 as determined by the GreenMedInfo algorithm which calculates both the evidence quantity (number of articles) and evidence quality (human study valued higher than animal, and so on). Also, the number in parentheses denotes the number of studies on the database demonstrating the beneficial relationship.

Oxidative Stress (160)
Inflammation (51)
DNA Damage (48)
Lipid Peroxidation (34)
Colorectal Cancer (24)
Breast Cancer (60)
Colon Cancer (52)
Chemically-Induced Liver Damage (34)
Alzheimer’s Disease (34)
Tumors (23)

from: http://wakeup-world.com/2012/07/02/five-food-medicines-that-could-quite-possibly-save-your-life/

Food, Drought, Famine, & Climate Change

Posted on October 18, 2011 by marcia

Kelly Rigg

Executive Director, GCCA

Climate Change and Food Security: Out of the Mouths of Babes

Posted: 10/16/11 05:36 PM ET

Climate change skeptics would have you believe that global warming is an abstract theory, a dispute between scientists with differing interpretations of computer models, temperature data and ice measurements. So when the conversation turns to real people facing real hardship on the frontlines of climate change, it’s no surprise that they redirect the conversation back to the abstract.

Take a look at the 171 arguments of climate skeptics compiled by Skeptical Science. You can count on the number of fingers it takes to make a peace sign the arguments about the immediate directly observable impacts of climate change (and one of these is about polar bears).

Today is World Food Day, a perfect moment to reflect on what the very real impacts of climate change mean for those who suffer from hunger and malnutrition. It comes at a time when millions of people are struggling to survive in East Africa where the worst drought in 60 years is devastating millions of lives and livelihoods.

Those on the frontlines are convinced that climate change is responsible.

As UN Humanitarian Relief Coordinator, Valerie Amos, says, “We have to take the impact of climate change more seriously… Everything I’ve heard has said that we used to have drought every 10 years, then it became every five years and now it’s every two years.”

A 2009 report by the World Food Programme, which describes itself as the world’s largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger, explains:

By 2050, the number of people at risk of hunger as a result of climate change is expected to increase by 10 to 20 percent more than would be expected without climate change; and the number of malnourished children is expected to increase by 24 million – 21 percent more than without climate change. Sub-Saharan Africa is likely to be the worst affected region.

Think about it. 24 million additional kids — that’s roughly equivalent to a third of US children.

But it’s not just a question of changing climate and weather patterns; it’s also about the resilience of communities to withstand such changes. As Rajiv Shah, the administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) explained to the Huffington Post in July, “There’s no question that hotter and drier growing conditions in sub-Saharan Africa have reduced the resiliency of these communities. Absolutely the change in climate has contributed to this problem, without question.”

On that front, it’s not all bad news. Investments in community resilience projects show a promising way forward. See for example the success of the Morulem irrigation project in Kenya originally funded by World Vision more than 10 years ago.

If you’ve ever looked at the labels identifying the origin of the food on the shelves of your local supermarket (grapes from Chile, apple juice from China, rice from Thailand) you’ll know that the global food supply system is complex. In a warming world there will be winners and losers across a range of factors. Higher temperatures and more CO2 in the atmosphere may lead to higher crop yields in some parts of the world, and lower in others. But in an increasingly interconnected world other factors will be equally important and the net result doesn’t bode well.

Creative Commons: International Foundation of Red Cross

Consider these three for example: