Happy Holidays

12 Days of Agri-Christmas.......






Cheap Meat:
An Accident Waiting to Happen

By Jo Robinson

The latest fiasco in the U.S. livestock industry is that thousands of hogs and chickens have been raised on feed contaminated with melamine, the same chemical that has sickened thousands of cats and dogs. According to the U.S.D.A., some meat from those hogs and chickens has already entered our food supply.

How did this happen? The story begins in China. Melamine is an inexpensive by-product of the coal industry. In a deceptive practice, some Chinese producers have been adding melamine to rice, wheat, and soy meal to make the products appear to contain more protein. (Melamine is not a protein and has no food value, but it is rich in nitrogen and mimics protein on standardized laboratory tests.) Melamine costs less than true sources of protein, so the manufacturer makes more money.

The story continues in the United States. In order to lower the cost of pet food production, U.S. companies have been importing cheap protein meal from China. The pet food manufacturers had no way of knowing that some of these products were spiked with melamine. The exact number of dead and sickened pets is unknown.

But how did melamine get fed to our pigs and chickens? A common cost-cutting practice in the livestock industry is to supplement animal feed with floor sweepings and other leftovers from pet food manufacturing plants. In recent months, however, some of the sweepings happened to be laced with melamine. In this serpentine fashion, a cost-cutting adulterant that was added to protein meal in China found its way into U.S. pet food, then U.S. livestock feed, and then the food on our dinner tables.

The F.D.A. and the U.S.D.A. do not foresee any health consequences from eating melamine-spiced pork and poultry. This may prove to be true. The family pets that died ate the melamine itself; we are eating chickens and pigs that ate the melamine, diluting its concentration.

We may have dodged the bullet this time, but as long as we continue to raise our livestock on a least-cost basis, our health is at risk. For example, many cost-cutting practices lower the nutritional value of our meat. Research shows that the nearly universal practice of fattening cattle on straw and grain instead of fresh pasture gives us beef that is higher in total fat and lower in antioxidants and omega-3 fatty acids. The practice causes no immediate harm, but our health may suffer over the long term.

Some cost-cutting strategies are deadly. In the 1980s and 90s, feedlot managers tried to save money by feeding cattle scraps back to cattle. The tragic result was mad cow disease. Eating meat contaminated with trace amounts of melamine may cause little or no harm. Eating just one serving of beef from a mad cow can kill you.

Adding more governmental oversight is a stop-gap solution. We need a sea change in the way we raise our livestock. We need to raise the animals on their native diets or on quality ingredients that match their original diets as closely as possible. When we feed wholesome feed to our animals, we can serve wholesome food to our families. We are what our animals eat.

**************


Jo Robinson is the originator and primary researcher of www.eatwild.com, a science-based website that details the benefits of raising animals on pasture. She is also the author of Pasture Perfect, the Far-Reaching Benefits of Choosing Meat, Eggs, and Dairy Products from Grass-fed Animals.

Confused About Fat?
Choose Grassfed!

by Jo Robinson

In my Grandma's day, there was no such thing as a bad fat. All fat was "good" simply because it tasted good. My Grandma fried her eggs in bacon grease, added bacon grease to her cakes and pancakes, made her pie crusts from lard, and served butter with her homemade bread. My grandmother was able to thrive on all that saturated fat—but not my grandfather. He suffered from angina and died from heart failure at a relatively young age.

My grandfather wasn't alone. Population studies from the first half of the 20th century showed that Americans in general had a much higher risk of cardiovascular disease than people from other countries, especially Japan, Italy and Greece. Was all that saturated fat to blame? The Japanese were eating very little fat of any kind, while the people of the Mediterranean were swimming in olive oil, an oil that is very low in saturated fat but high in monounsaturated oils.

So, in the 1960s, word came from on high that we should cut back on the butter, cream, eggs and red meat. But, interestingly, the experts did not advise us to switch to an ultra-low fat diet like the Japanese, nor to use monounsaturated oils like the Greeks or Italians. Instead, we were advised to replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated oils—primarily corn oil and safflower. Never mind the fact that no people in the history of this planet had ever eaten large amounts of this type of oil. It was deemed "the right thing to do." Why? First of all, the United States had far more corn fields than olive groves, so it seemed reasonable to use the type of oil that we had in abundance. But just as important, according to the best medical data at the time, corn oil and safflower oil seemed to lower cholesterol levels better than monounsaturated oils.

Today, we know that's not true. In the 1960s, researchers did not differentiate between "good" HDL cholesterol and "bad" LDL cholesterol. Instead, they lumped both types together and focused on lowering the sum of the two. Polyunsaturated oils seemed to do this better than monounsaturated oils. We now know they achieve this feat by lowering both our bad and our good cholesterol, in effect throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Monounsaturated oils leave our HDL intact.

In hindsight, it's not surprising, then, that our death rate from cardiovascular disease remained high in the 1970s and 80s even though we were eating far less butter, eggs, bacon grease, and red meat: We had been told to replace saturated fat with the wrong kind of oil.

During this same era, our national health statistics were highlighting another problem, this one even more ominous: an increasing number of people were dying from cancer. Why were cancer deaths going up? Was it the fact that our environment was more polluted? That our food had more additives, herbicides and pesticides? That our lives were more stressful? That we were not eating enough fruits and vegetables? Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.

But there was another reason we were losing the war against cancer: the supposedly "heart-healthy" corn oil and safflower oil that the doctors had advised us to pour on our salads and spread on our bread contained high amounts of a type of fat called "omega-6 fatty acids." There is now strong evidence that omega-6s can make cancer cells grow faster and more invasive. For example, if you were to inject a colony of rats with human cancer cells and then put some of the rats on a corn oil diet, some on a butterfat diet, and some on a beef fat diet, the ones given the omega-6 rich corn oil would be afflicted with larger and more aggressive tumors.

Meanwhile, unbeknownst to us, we were getting a second helping of omega-6s from our animal products. Starting in the 1950s, the meat industry had begun taking our animals off pasture and fattening them on grains high in omega-6s, adding to our intake of these potentially cancer-promoting fats.

In the early 1990s, we learned that our modern diet was harboring yet another unhealthy fat: trans-fatty acids. Trans-fatty acids are formed during the hydrogenation process that converts vegetable oil into margarine and shortening. Carefully designed studies were showing that these manmade fats are worse for our cardiovascular system than the animal fats they replaced. Like some saturated fats, they raise our bad cholesterol. But unlike the fats found in nature, they also lower our good cholesterol—delivering a double whammy to our coronary arteries. "Maybe butter is better after all," conceded the health experts.

Given all this conflicting advice about fat, consumers were ready to lob their tubs of margarine at their doctors. For decades they had been skimping on butter, even though margarine tasted little better than salty Vaseline. Now they were being told that margarine might increase their risk of a heart attack!

Some people revolted by trying to abandon fat altogether. For breakfast, they made do with dry toast and fat-free cottage cheese. For lunch, they ate salad greens sprinkled with pepper and vinegar. Dinner was a skinless chicken breast poached in broth. Or better yet, a soy burger topped with lettuce. Dessert? Well, after all that self-denial, what else but a big bowl of fat-free ice cream and a box of Snackwell cookies. Thank goodness calories no longer counted! Only fat made you fat!

Or, so the diet gurus had told us. Paradoxically, while we were doing our best to ferret out all the fat grams, we were getting fatter and fatter. We were also becoming more prone to diabetes. Replacing fat with sugar and refined carbohydrates was proving to be no more beneficial than replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated oils.

At long last, in the mid-1990s, the first truly good news about fat began to emerge from the medical labs. The first fats to be given the green light were the monounsaturated oils, the ones that had helped protect the health of the Mediterraneans for so many generations. These oils are great for the heart, the scientists discovered, and they do not promote cancer. They are also a deterrent against diabetes. The news came fifty years too late, but it was welcome nonetheless. Please pass the olive oil!

Stearic acid, the most abundant fat in beef and chocolate, was also found to be beneficial. Unlike some other saturated fats, stearic acid does not raise your bad cholesterol and it may even give your good cholesterol a little boost. Hooray!

Then, at the tail end of the 20th century, two more "good" fats were added to the roster—omega-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA, the fat found in the meat and dairy products of ruminants. Both of these fats show signs of being potent weapons against cancer. However, the omega-3s may be the best of all the good fats because they are also linked with a lower risk of virtually all the so-called "diseases of civilization," including cardiovascular disease, depression, ADHD, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, obesity, asthma, and autoimmune diseases.

So, some of you may be wondering, what does this brief history of fat have to do with grassfarming? Few people realize that all omega-3s originate in the green leaves of plants and algae. Fish have large amounts of this good fat because they eat small fish that eat smaller fish that dine on omega-3 rich algae and phytoplankton. Grazing animals have more omega-3s because they get the omega-3s directly from the grass. In both cases, the omega-3s are ultimately passed on to humans, the top of the food chain.

Products from grassfed animals offer us more than omega-3s. They contain significant amounts of two "good" fats, monounsaturated oils and stearic acid, but no manmade trans-fatty acids. They are also the richest known natural source of CLA and contain extra amounts of vitamin E and beta-carotene. Finally, grassfed meat is lower than feedlot meat in total fat and calories, making it ideally suited for our sedentary lifestyles.

I don't believe it's a matter of luck or chance that grassfed products have so many of the good fats but so few of the bad. In fact, I'll wager that the more that is discovered about fat in the coming years, the more grassfed meat will shine. The reason for my confidence is simple: our bodies are superbly adapted to this type of food. In the distant past, grassfed meat was the only meat around. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors either brought home a grazing ruminant such as elk, deer, or bison, or a predator that preyed on those animals. Either way, the nutrients found in grass made their way into the animals' flesh, and ultimately, into our own.

Over the eons, our bodies began to "expect" the kinds and amounts of fat found in grassfed meat. Our hearts counted on the omega-3s to stabilize their rhythm and keep blood clots from forming. Our brain cells relied on omega-3 to build flexible, receptor-rich membranes. Our immune systems used the omega-3s and CLA to help fend off cancer. And because wild game is relatively lean, our bodies weren't burdened with unnecessary amounts of fat or calories.

When we switch from grainfed to grassfed meat, then, we are simply returning to our original diet, the diet that is most in harmony with our physiology. Every cell and system of our bodies function better when we eat products from animals raised on grass.

Super Healthy Milk

Super Healthy Milk

By Jo Robinson

Most cartons of milk in the supermarket show a picture of cows contentedly grazing on grass. Unfortunately, 85 to 95 percent of the cows in the United States are now being raised in confinement, not on pasture. The only grass they eat comes in the form of hay, and the ground that they stand on is a blend of dirt and manure.

The reason for confining our cows in feedlots and feeding them grain rather than grass is that they produce more milk—especially when injected with bi-weekly hormones. Today's grainfed cows produce three times as much milk as the old family cow of days gone by.

With the current emphasis on quantity, the quality of our milk has suffered. One of the biggest losses has been in its CLA content. CLA or "conjugated linoleic acid" is a type of fat that may prove to be one of our most potent cancer fighters. Milk from a pastured cow can have five times as much CLA as a grainfed animal. To date, most of the proof of the health benefits of CLA has come from test tube or animal studies. But a few recent human studies have produced encouraging results. For example, French researchers compared CLA levels in the breast tissues of 360 women. The women with the most CLA in their tissue (and thus the most CLA in their diets) had a 74 percent lower risk of breast cancer than the women with the least CLA.(Bougnoux et al, Inform, 10:S43, 1999.) If an American woman were to switch from grainfed to grassfed dairy products, she would have levels of CLA similar to those with the lowest risk of cancer. Got CLA milk?

Milk from pastured cows also contains an ideal ratio of essential fatty acids or EFAs. There are two families of EFAs—omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. Studies suggest that if your diet contains roughly equal amounts of these two fats, you will have a lower risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, allergies, obesity, diabetes, dementia, and various other mental disorders.[1]

Take a few moments to study the chart below showing EFA levels in milk from cows fed varying amounts of grass and grain.[2] The green bars represent omega-3 fatty acids in the milk, and the yellow bars represent omega-6 fatty acids. As you can see, when a cow is raised on pasture (represented by the two bars on the far left), her milk has an ideal ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids. Take away one third of the grass and replace it with grain or other supplements (represented by the two bars in the middle) and the omega-3 fatty acid content of the milk goes down while the omega-6 fatty acid content goes up, upsetting an essential balance. Replace two-thirds of the pasture with a grain-based diet (illustrated by the two bars on the far right) and the milk will have a very top-heavy ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids, a ratio that has been linked with an increased risk of a wide vatiety of conditions, including obesity, diabetes, depression, and cancer. Much of the milk you buy in the supermarket has an even more lopsided ratio than the final set of measuerments because they get no pasture whatsoever.

100% pasture creates ideal EFA balance

Milk from pastured cows offers additional health benefits. (I'm beginning to sound like a TV infomercial: "But wait! There's more!") Besides giving you five times more CLA and an ideal balance of EFAs, grassfed milk is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E. This vitamin bonus comes, in part, from the fact that fresh pasture has more of these nutrients than grain or hay. (When grass is dried and turned into hay, it loses a significant amount of its vitamin content.) These extra helpings of vitamins are then transferred to the cow's milk.

There's another factor involved as well. A grazing cow produces less milk than a cow fed a grain-based diet. This turns out to be a bane for the farmer but a blessing for the consumer. The less milk a cow produces, the more vitamins in her milk.[3] This is because a cow has a set amount of vitamins to transfer to her milk, and if she's bred, fed, and injected to be a Super Producer, her milk has fewer vitamins per glass. It's a watered down version of the real thing.

Oh, I almost forgot the best part of all. Dairy products from grassfed cows taste delicious, and they have a bright yellow color that is visible proof of their bonus supply of carotenes. Serve cheese or butter from a grass-based dairy, and everyone will notice the difference. Also, your cookies and cakes will have that rich buttery color that hasn't been seen since Grandma's day. (You do bake, don't you?)

So where can you find milk from pastured cows? All of the dairies listed on www.eatwild.com keep their cows outdoors on grass whenever possible. Some farmers supplement the cows with small amounts of grain. If so, their listing will detail the type and amount. To find a local producer, go to our list of grass-fed suppliers (link) and click on your state. We also have a special section devoted to farmers who feed their cows 100 percent forage-based diets.

Can you find grass-fed milk in the supermarkets? Unfortunately, an organic label is no guarantee that the cows are raised outdoors on grass. If the label does not mention pasture-feeding, you can assume that the cows were raised in confinement and fed a high-grain diet supplemented with hay. Two large organic brands make a point of contracting with grass-based dairy farmers—Organic Valley, a national brand, and Natural by Nature, which is sold in select stores around. (Go to their website to find a local distributor. http://www.natural-by-nature.com)

Beyond Organic

By Jo Robinson

Organic meat, poultry, and dairy products are now available at your supermarket, which is a change for the better. When you see the organic label, you know the food is going to be free of pesticide residues, synthetic hormones, genetically modified organisms, and a long list of questionable additives. You also have the satisfaction of knowing that raising animals organically causes less harm to the environment. But when it comes to animal production, organic is not enough. We need to be raising animals on their species-appropriate diets.

Few consumers realize that many producers of "organic" or "naturally raised" animal products, raise their animals in confinement and feed them grain---just like the operators of conventional feedlots. Feeding large amounts of grain to a grazing animal decreases the nutritional value of its products whether the grain is organic or conventionally raised. The reason is simple. Compared with grass, grain has far fewer omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin E.(1) Therefore, grainfed animals have fewer of these important nutrients in their meat and dairy products. Grainfeeding also interferes with the creation of a cancer-fighting fight called conjugated linoleic acid or CLA.(2) I A test by an independent lab determined that milk from one of the largest organic grain-fed dairies had no more omega-3 fatty acids or CLA than milk from ordinary dairies. Similarly, meat from organic grain-fed beef has the same nutritional profile as meat from the largest Kansas feedlot.

The same story holds true for organic but confinement-raised poultry. Their meat and eggs have no more omega-3s or vitamin E than the products you find in the supermarket.(3) (Unless the birds are given special supplements along with the grain.)

For many consumers, food safety is an even bigger concern than nutrition. Once again, grass feeding offers an important advantage. It has been known for decades that grain feeding makes a cow's digestive tract more acid. Now we know that this acidic environment speeds the growth of potentially dangerous E. coli bacteria and, even worse, makes the bugs more acid-resistant. Alarmingly, these acid-resistant bacteria are much more likely to survive the cleansing acidity of our own digestive juices and make us ill. (4)

Depriving our livestock of fresh greens and vastly increasing their consumption of grain has jeopardized our health in ways people never imagined. Although feeding organically raised grain reduces our reliance on pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, it does not provide the food that nature intended us to eat.

Jo Robinson is a New York Times bestselling writer. She is the author or coauthor of 11 nationally published books including Pasture Perfect, which is a comprehensive overview of the benefits of choosing products from pasture-raised animals, and The Omega Diet (with Dr. Artemis Simopoulos) that describes an omega-3 enriched Mediterranean diet that may be the healthiest eating program of all. To order her books or learn more about grassfed products, visit http://eatwild.com.

Grassfed meat has a similar fat profile to wild game

When cattle are free to forage on their natural diet of grass, their meat is almost as lean as wild game. The graph below shows that grassfed beef has an overall fat content similar to antelope, deer, and elk.

Grassfedbeef is similar to wild game in total fat

This second graph shows that grain-fed beef has a much higher ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids than wild game or grass-fed beef. A high ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids has been linked with an increased risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, allergies, depression, obesity, and auto-immune disorders. (Simopoulos and Robinson, The Omega Diet, published by HarperCollins in 1999.) A ratio of four or lower is considered ideal. The ratio in grain-fed beef is more than 14 to 1. In grassfed beef, it is approximately two to one.

essential fat comparison

(Data for both graphs comes from G.J. Miller, "Lipids in Wild Ruminant Animals and Steers." J. of Food Quality, 9:331-343, 1986.)

Free Range Eggs Nutritionally Superior

As it turns out, all those choices of eggs at your supermarket aren't providing you much of a choice at all.

Recent tests conducted by Mother Earth News magazine have shown once again that eggs from chickens that range freely on pasture provide clear nutritional benefits over eggs from confinement operations.

Mother Earth News collected samples from 14 pastured flocks across the country and had them tested at an accredited laboratory. The results were compared to official US Department of Agriculture data for commercial eggs. Results showed the pastured eggs contained an amazing:

* 1/3 less cholesterol than commercial eggs
* 1/4 less saturated fat
* 2/3 more vitamin A
* 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids
* 7 times more beta carotene

Full results of the tests are available in the October/November 2007 issue of Mother Earth News, or on their website at
http://www.MotherEarthNews.com/eggs. Check Eatwild's Pastured Products Directory to find free-range eggs near you.

Important Health Benefits of Grassfed Meats, Eggs and Dairy

Lower in Fat and Calories. There are a number of nutritional differences between the meat of pasture-raised and feedlot-raised animals. To begin with, meat from grass-fed cattle, sheep, and bison is lower in total fat. If the meat is very lean, it can have one third as much fat as a similar cut from a grain-fed animal. In fact, as you can see by the graph below, grass-fed beef can have the same amount of fat as skinless chicken breast, wild deer, or elk.[1] Research shows that lean beef actually lowers your "bad" LDL cholesterol levels.[2]

total fat grams per 3 ounce serving

Data from J. Animal Sci 80(5):1202-11.

Because meat from grass-fed animals is lower in fat than meat from grain-fed animals, it is also lower in calories. (Fat has 9 calories per gram, compared with only 4 calories for protein and carbohydrates. The greater the fat content, the greater the number of calories.) As an example, a 6-ounce steak from a grass-finished steer can have 100 fewer calories than a 6-ounce steak from a grain-fed steer. If you eat a typical amount of beef (66.5 pounds a year), switching to lean grassfed beef will save you 17,733 calories a year—without requiring any willpower or change in your eating habits. If everything else in your diet remains constant, you'll lose about six pounds a year. If all Americans switched to grassfed meat, our national epidemic of obesity might diminish.

In the past few years, producers of grass-fed beef have been looking for ways to increase the amount of marbling in the meat so that consumers will have a more familiar product. But even these fatter cuts of grass-fed beef are lower in fat and calories than beef from grain-fed cattle.

Extra Omega-3s. Meat from grass-fed animals has two to four times more omega-3 fatty acids than meat from grain- fed animals. Omega-3s are called "good fats" because they play a vital role in every cell and system in your body. For example, of all the fats, they are the most heart-friendly. People who have ample amounts of omega-3s in their diet are less likely to have high blood pressure or an irregular heartbeat. Remarkably, they are 50 percent less likely to suffer a heart attack.[3] Omega-3s are essential for your brain as well. People with a diet rich in omega-3s are less likely to suffer from depression, schizophrenia, attention deficit disorder (hyperactivity), or Alzheimer's disease.[4]

Another benefit of omega-3s is that they may reduce your risk of cancer. In animal studies, these essential fats have slowed the growth of a wide array of cancers and also kept them from spreading.[5] Although the human research is in its infancy, researchers have shown that omega-3s can slow or even reverse the extreme weight loss that accompanies advanced cancer and also hasten recovery from surgery.[6,7]

Omega-3s are most abundant in seafood and certain nuts and seeds such as flaxseeds and walnuts, but they are also found in animals raised on pasture. The reason is simple. Omega-3s are formed in the chloroplasts of green leaves and algae. Sixty percent of the fatty acids in grass are omega-3s. When cattle are taken off omega-3 rich grass and shipped to a feedlot to be fattened on omega-3 poor grain, they begin losing their store of this beneficial fat. Each day that an animal spends in the feedlot, its supply of omega-3s is diminished.[8] The graph below illustrates this steady decline.

Omega 3s vanish in the feedlot

Data from: J Animal Sci (1993) 71(8):2079-88.

When chickens are housed indoors and deprived of greens, their meat and eggs also become artificially low in omega-3s. Eggs from pastured hens can contain as much as 10 times more omega-3s than eggs from factory hens.[9]

It has been estimated that only 40 percent of Americans consume an adequate supply of omega-3 fatty acids. Twenty percent have blood levels so low that they cannot be detected.[10] Switching to the meat, milk, and dairy products of grass-fed animals is one way to restore this vital nutrient to your diet.

The CLA Bonus. Meat and dairy products from grass-fed ruminants are the richest known source of another type of good fat called "conjugated linoleic acid" or CLA. When ruminants are raised on fresh pasture alone, their products contain from three to five times more CLA than products from animals fed conventional diets.[11] (A steak from the most marbled grass-fed animals will have the most CLA ,as much of the CLA is stored in fat cells.)

CLA may be one of our most potent defenses against cancer. In laboratory animals, a very small percentage of CLA—a mere 0.1 percent of total calories—greatly reduced tumor growth. [12] There is new evidence that CLA may also reduce cancer risk in humans. In a Finnish study, women who had the highest levels of CLA in their diet, had a 60 percent lower risk of breast cancer than those with the lowest levels. Switching from grain-fed to grassfed meat and dairy products places women in this lowest risk category.13 Researcher Tilak Dhiman from Utah State University estimates that you may be able to lower your risk of cancer simply by eating the following grassfed products each day: one glass of whole milk, one ounce of cheese, and one serving of meat. You would have to eat five times that amount of grain-fed meat and dairy products to get the same level of protection.

Vitamin E. In addition to being higher in omega-3s and CLA, meat from grassfed animals is also higher in vitamin E. The graph below shows vitamin E levels in meat from: 1) feedlot cattle, 2) feedlot cattle given high doses of synthetic vitamin E (1,000 IU per day), and 3) cattle raised on fresh pasture with no added supplements. The meat from the pastured cattle is four times higher in vitamin E than the meat from the feedlot cattle and, interestingly, almost twice as high as the meat from the feedlot cattle given vitamin E supplements. [14#] In humans, vitamin E is linked with a lower risk of heart disease and cancer. This potent antioxidant may also have anti-aging properties. Most Americans are deficient in vitamin E.

Grassfed beef four times higher in vitamin E

Data from: Smith, G.C. "Dietary supplementation of vitamin E to cattle to improve shelf life and case life of beef for domestic and international markets." Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1171

Definition of Organics
This definition of "organic" was passed by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) at its April 1995 meeting in Orlando, FL.

"Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony."

Organic Certification
For a grower or processor to become certified, they must adhere to strict uniform standards which are verified by either a private or public certifying agency. These standards include

* The land on which the organic food is grown must be free of prohibited substances for three years prior to certification.
* Farmers and processors must keep detailed records of the farming methods and their materials used in production.
* All of these methods and materials are inspected annually by a third party certifying agent.
* All farmers and handlers are required to maintain written plans detailing their organic management practices.

The Cost of Organic Food
Organically grown foods typically do cost more than conventionally produced foods because organic production must meet stricter regulations for the growing, harvesting, transporting and storing of food. This forces the process to be more labor- and management-intensive driving up the cost of production. In addition, government programs do not subsidize organic farming. With the indirect costs of conventional farming, including cleanup of polluted waters, replacement of eroded soils, costs of health care for farmers and their workers, the evidence is strong that the cost of organic food production may actually be equal to or even less than conventional food production. For further reading on this issue you can download the PDF file entitled "The True Cost of Organic Produce".

Nutritional Value of Organic Foods
There is no conclusive evidence that organic foods are more nutritious than conventionally grown foods. However, by not using potentially harmful pesticides, fungicides, insecticides, and fertilizers on the food, you are spared the health risks that have been associated with the use of these chemicals.

Organic Acreage
Organic Farming is practiced in approximately 100 countries throughout the world, with nearly 57 million acres now under organic management. North America has more than 3.7 million acres. - The World of Organic Agriculture 2003-Statistics and Future Prospects, February 2003. http://www.ifoam.org/ or http://www.soel.de/inahlte/publikationen/s/s_74.pdf.

How Many Organic Farms?
According to chairman Anthony Rodale in a talk at the Organic Trade Association's 2003 All Things Organic( Conference and Trade Show in Austin, TX, in May 2003), certified organic U.S. farmers now number approximately 12,200.
-The Rodale Institute, http://www.newfarm.org/news/050103/0528/100,000.shtml.

Consumer Demand and Availability
"Consumer demand rose throughout the 1990s - 20% or more annually - and that pace has continued. Organic products are now available in nearly 20,000 natural foods stores and 73% of conventional grocery stores, and account for approximately 1-2% of total food sales in the United States.

Quenching the Fires of Inflammation

The simplest and most biochemically sound way of turning down the body's proinflammatory prostaglandins and cytokines is by restoring a balance between pro- and antiinflammatory foods. From a dietary standpoint, this means switching from vegetable oils to extra-virgin olive oil (high in antiinflammatory omega-9 fatty acids). It also means avoiding most processed (boxed, canned, or frozen) foods, because their makers frequently add omega-6 fatty acids. By eating simple unprocessed foods-such as baked chicken, a salad, and steamed vegetables-it becomes easier to consume a more balanced ratio of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids.

However, if you're like most people, you've been eating a diet high in omega-6 fatty acids and low in antioxidants for years. Simply restoring a balance is not enough to quickly offset accumulated damage, because the fatty acid composition of the body's cells reflects their dietary ratios. It's imperative to increase consumption of antiinflammatory fatty acids and antioxidants.

These are the supplements to emphasize:

· Omega-3 essential fatty acids. Found in fish oils, EPA and DHA are essential building blocks for the body's antiinflammatory prostaglandins (e.g., prostaglandin E1) and for turning off Cox-2 and the body's proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1, IL-6, and TNFa). In addition, omega-3 fatty acids block the activity of an enzyme that breaks down joint cartilage. Daily dosage: 3 or more grams.

· Gamma-linolenic acid. Although GLA is an omega-6 fatty acid, it has antiinflammatory properties. Relatively little GLA is converted to arachidonic acid and prostaglandin E2. Instead, GLA increases production of the antiinflammatory prostaglandin E1. Robert B. Zurier, M.D., of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, gave GLA supplements or placebos to 41 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Two-thirds of those receiving GLA had a 25 percent reduction in their arthritic symptoms. Daily dosage: 2-3 grams.

· Vitamin E. Although Cox-2 and prostaglandin E2 levels rise with age, animal studies have shown that vitamin E supplements reverse the increase in Cox-2 and prostaglandin E2. Vitamin E also turns off nuclear factor-kB (NF-kB) and activator protein-1 (AP-1), compounds that turn on inflammatory genes. One recent study found that arthritics taking supplements of natural vitamin E (600 mg twice daily) for 12 weeks had their pain reduced by about half. Daily dosage: 400-800 IU.

· Vitamin C. Long recognized for its antiinflammatory properties, the effects of vitamin C are enhanced by other nutrients. In a study of people exposed to simulated sunlight, researchers found that vitamin C and E worked synergistically to reduce skin inflammation. In a cell study, Italian researchers noted that quercetin and vitamin C worked together to protect cells from inflammation-induced damage. Daily dosage: 1,000-2,000 mg.

· Polyphenols and Flavonoids. Researchers at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, recently reported that the antioxidant polyphenols in green tea had antiinflammatory properties by inhibiting Cox-2 and TNFa. Genistein inhibits prostaglandin E2 and Cox-2, and quercetin inhibits the activity of inflammation-promoting "adhesion" molecules. It's likely that Pycnogenol, grape seed extract, and other flavonoids work through similar mechanisms. Daily dosage: 25-500 mg.

· St. John's wort. Better known for its antidepressant effect, this herb also has antiinflammatory properties. In a laboratory experiment, researchers from the University of Frieburg, Germany found that hypericin, one of the constituents of St. John's wort, inhibited NF-kB, which activates proinflammatory genes. Daily dosage: Because product forms vary, follow label directions.

· Silymarin. A cell-culture study found that silymarin, the antioxidant extract of milk thistle, inhibited Cox-2 formation. This role of silymarin may partly explain why earlier cell-culture studies found it to inhibit the growth of prostate, breast, and skin cancers. Daily dosage: 100-200 mg.

· Ginger. With a long history as a folk medicine, ginger inhibits Cox-2 and another proinflammatory compound, 5-lipoxygenase. This simple herb and condiment contains almost 500 different compounds, many of which are antiinflammatory, according to Thomas M. Newmark and Paul Shulick, authors of Beyond Aspirin: Nature's Answer to Arthritis, Cancer & Alzheimer's Disease (Holm Press, Prescott, Arizona, 2000). Daily dosage: 100 mg.

· Rosemary. This common kitchen herb is rich in ursolic acid and many of its derivatives. In laboratory experiments, Swedish researchers found that the ursolic acid extract of rosemary was a potent inhibitor of Cox-2 activity. Daily dosage: 100 mg.

· Curcumin. A natural pigment that accounts for the yellow color of the spice turmeric, curcumin is also a powerful antioxidant. A recent cell study by researchers at Cornell University, New York, found that curcumin blocked the activity of Cox-2. The researchers suggested that this property might explain some of the herb's anticancer effects. Daily dosage: 2.8 mg.

· Cat's Claw. Known as una de gato and Uncaria tomentosa, this Peruvian herb has a long history as a remedy for inflammatory arthritis. Recent cell-culture and animal experiments at the Albany Medical College, New York, found that cat's claw inhibited inflammation by blocking the activity of NF-kB. Daily dosage: Because products vary, follow label directions.

The take home message in all this is relatively simple: pharmaceutical drugs, while providing rapid relief of symptoms, do not correct the underlying cause of chronic inflammation. The cause is frequently a diet that's either unbalanced or lacking in key nutrients. No drug can correct a nutritional deficiency or imbalance. Only nutrients can do that.



The information provided by Jack Challem and The Nutrition Reporter™ newsletter is strictly educational and not intended as medical advice. For diagnosis and treatment, consult your physician.


Caution: Some soft drinks may seriously harm your health

Expert links additive to cell damage

By Martin Hickman

A new health scare erupted over soft drinks last night amid evidence they may cause serious cell damage. Research from a British university suggests a common preservative found in drinks such as Fanta and Pepsi Max has the ability to switch off vital parts of DNA.

The problem - more usually associated with ageing and alcohol abuse - can eventually lead to cirrhosis of the liver and degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's.

The findings could have serious consequences for the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who consume fizzy drinks. They will also intensify the controversy about food additives, which have been linked to hyperactivity in children.

Concerns centre on the safety of E211, known as sodium benzoate, a preservative used for decades by the £74bn global carbonated drinks industry. Sodium benzoate derives from benzoic acid. It occurs naturally in berries, but is used in large quantities to prevent mould in soft drinks such as Sprite, Oasis and Dr Pepper. It is also added to pickles and sauces.

Sodium benzoate has already been the subject of concern about cancer because when mixed with the additive vitamin C in soft drinks, it causes benzene, a carcinogenic substance. A Food Standards Agency survey of benzene in drinks last year found high levels in four brands which were removed from sale.

Now, an expert in ageing at Sheffield University, who has been working on sodium benzoate since publishing a research paper in 1999, has decided to speak out about another danger. Professor Peter Piper, a professor of molecular biology and biotechnology, tested the impact of sodium benzoate on living yeast cells in his laboratory. What he found alarmed him: the benzoate was damaging an important area of DNA in the "power station" of cells known as the mitochondria.

He told The Independent on Sunday: "These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it: they knock it out altogether.

"The mitochondria consumes the oxygen to give you energy and if you damage it - as happens in a number if diseased states - then the cell starts to malfunction very seriously. And there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to damage to this DNA - Parkinson's and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative diseases, but above all the whole process of ageing."

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) backs the use of sodium benzoate in the UK and it has been approved by the European Union but last night, MPs called for it to investigate urgently.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat chair of Parliament's all-party environment group said: "Many additives are relatively new and their long-term impact cannot be certain. This preservative clearly needs to be investigated further by the FSA."

A review of sodium benzoate by the World Health Organisation in 2000 concluded that it was safe, but it noted that the available science supporting its safety was "limited".

Professor Piper, whose work has been funded by a government research council, said tests conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration were out of date.

"The food industry will say these compounds have been tested and they are complete safe," he said. "By the criteria of modern safety testing, the safety tests were inadequate. Like all things, safety testing moves forward and you can conduct a much more rigorous safety test than you could 50 years ago."

He advised parents to think carefully about buying drinks with preservatives until the quantities in products were proved safe by new tests. "My concern is for children who are drinking large amounts," he said.

Coca-Cola and Britvic's Pepsi Max and Diet Pepsi all contain sodium benzoate. Their makers and the British Soft Drinks Association said they entrusted the safety of additives to the Government.



CONCLUSION ON STUDY ON THE MUTAGENICITY OF SODIUM BENZOATE AND POTASSIUM SORBATE

COM/08/S2 - May 2008

1. Sodium benzoate (E211) and potassium sorbate (E202) are two examples of organic acid food preservatives based on benzoic and sorbic acids. Benzoic acid and its sodium, potassium and calcium salts and sorbic acid and its potassium and calcium salts are permitted for use in a wide range of foods in the EU. These preservatives have been subject to a risk assessment by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA).1,2

2. In 1999, a study was published in Free Radical Biology and Medicine by Professor Peter Piper, then from University College London, which raised the possibility that these preservatives may be mutagenic to the yeast mitochondrial genome. 3

3. This study used genetically modified yeast cells in an in vitro system to demonstrate the effects of potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate on the respiratory capabilities of the cells. Yeast superoxide dismutase (SOD) mutant S. cerevisiae cells were incubated with the two preservatives and the effects observed using a halo assay. The author concluded that the test substances produced an increased number of respiratory-deficient yeast cells under aerobic conditions which indicates that damage was occurring to the mitochondrial DNA in the yeast cells.

4. Using a postal consultation, COM members were asked by the Food Standards Agency to comment on the paper by Professor Piper whilst taking into account the large package of other toxicological data available on these preservatives.

5. Members were interested in the hypothesis presented by Professor Piper but were of the opinion that direct extrapolation of these results from SOD mutant yeast cells to mammalian cells in vivo was not possible. Members considered that mammalian mitochondria in vivo have sufficient anti-oxidant and DNA repair mechanisms to deal with any oxidative stress that may be attributed to the action of these preservatives in addition to that normally seen through the normal respiratory activities of the cell. The SOD mutant cells used in the study by Professor Piper have a significantly attenuated anti-oxidant and DNA repair response and therefore had a greater susceptibility to oxidative DNA damage.

6. In conclusion, COM members noted the evaluation of sorbates and benzoates by JECFA and were aware of the large package of toxicology data, including rodent carcinogenicity studies. COM members concluded that the study by Professor Piper did not suggest a need for a full re-evaluation of the mutagenicity data on benzoates and sorbates. On the basis of this conclusion, no further in vivo mutagenicity testing of these two preservatives was considered necessary at this time.


May 2008
COM/08/S2



Are You Cooking with Motor Oil?

Al Sears, MD

There is a food in your home right now whose name translates to Canadian Oil and millions of people use it every day to prepare their family’s meal. Are you?

What’s worse is that the food product is promoted as a healthy alternative to other cooking oils.
Here are a few of the risks my research turned up on one of the commercial food industry’s favorite ingredients:

  • Heart attack
  • Stroke
  • Heart lesions
  • High blood pressure
  • Vitamin deficiencies
  • Hemorrhaging
  • Free radical damage
  • Retarded growth

I’m talking about canola oil.

This is something that’s been marketed for years as a “good” alternative to butter, lard, and other edible fats...but a group of chemists practically made it up from scratch. It isn’t found anywhere in Nature. Chances are you’ve eaten a lot of it without knowing it. You’ll find it in restaurants and kitchens all over the country...and it’s a potential killer.

Today, I’ll tell you what you need to know about canola oil, and give you a safe, natural alternative that’s actually good for you.

Meet the Canola Plant

Think about it: olive oil comes from olives. Peanut oil comes from peanuts. So where does “canola oil” come from?

Here’s a hint: the kind of “plant” it comes from doesn’t need sunlight, soil, or rain to thrive.

The word “canola” is an industry invention. And once you know where it really comes from, you’ll understand why the industry had to come up with a new name for it.

Canola is an artificial, processed oil made from rapeseed, a flowering plant of the brassica family, which includes cabbage, rutabagas, broccoli and turnips. “Rapeseed” comes from the Latin word for turnip, “rapum.” Not an especially appealing name.

It also turns out that for most of human history people didn’t think of it as an especially appealing food, either.

Asians used rapeseed oil to light their lamps for centuries. Then during the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, machinists found that it worked well as an engine lubricant. It even played a crucial role in combat operations for the US Naval fleet during World War II.

Today it’s used in all kinds of industries. It happens to be a great insect repellent. You’ll also find it in synthetic rubbers, ink, even soap...

Your Salad Dressing Could Be Toxic

You may be wondering how rapeseed oil turned into “canola” oil—and how it came to be considered a food in the first place.

It all started with the mainstream medical establishment and food industry’s obsession with so-called “bad” fats. Back in the late 70s, they were looking for something to replace corn and soybean oil.

They’d promoted these oils for years as more healthy than traditional fats like butter, lard, or palm oil. But new science was emerging indicating that the oils they were peddling to the public were actually unhealthy.

There were other healthy options available, like olive oil. But olive oil was too expensive to use because it wasn’t a major crop. And it doesn’t blend well into most mass-produced, processed foods. So the industry went looking for something inexpensive, “healthy,” plentiful that would be easy to store, transport, and include in commercial food production.

That’s how rapeseed oil made it onto the industry’s radar screen. It had been widely used in Asian countries. It was cheap, easy to grow, and there was a readily available source nearby, in Canada, where it was farmed in abundance.

Scientists found that it was rich in what they considered healthy vegetable fats, including omega-3. But there was a big problem: two thirds of the fat in rapeseed oil is “erucic acid.” This is a dangerous toxin that can cause deadly heart lesions.

Then in 1978 a few Canadian agricultural specialists figured out how to breed a strain of rapeseed that was low in erucic acid.1 Suddenly, the industry had its new “healthy” alternative. And that’s how it eventually got its name: “canola” stands for “Canadian oil, low acid.”

The problem is that canola doesn’t really resemble the rapeseed oil found in Asia. In places like India and China, they traditionally pre-cooked the seeds before they extracted the oil, and they used stone presses to make it. They sold it soon after they made it, so it was fresh and pure. The process was entirely natural.

Compare that with the industrial processes used to make canola here: high temperature pressing in metal vats; blasting with chemical solvents to remove the oil; bleaching; soaking in acid; and “deodorizing,” since some of the omega-3 in the oil goes rancid and creates a foul odor.

Traces of these chemicals remain in the oil, particularly hexane. Hexane’s a component of gasoline. It’s used to make shoes, leather products—even roofing! Its toxic effects on the body are well known. It causes nerve damage,2 and the gas emissions from industrial hexane can cause cancer. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency issued regulations on commercial hexane use in 2001 because of the serious cancer risks.3

They Can’t Back Up Their Claims

One of the problems with all the industry’s health claims about canola is that there are virtually no studies of canola’s effects on humans. But the research done in animal studies paints a grim picture.

Canola has been shown to retard growth and cause heart lesions in rats.4 Newborn piglets fed a formula with canola oil developed a vitamin E deficiency in one study. Vitamin E’s a key ally in overall heart health, protects eyesight, and acts as a powerful antioxidant. They also suffered from sustained bleeding, because a diet high in canola lowered their platelet count (platelets are what help your blood to clot and stop hemorrhaging).5

Another recent study found that canola worsens high blood pressure, and stroke in rats genetically prone to these health conditions.6

Yet we’re still hearing about how good canola is for you. Millions of Americans are pouring this stuff on their salads or eating foods fried in it, thinking it’s great for their health. They may as well be eating their shoes.

Try This Truly Healthy Oil From Nature, Not Industry

For some reason, the word still hasn’t gotten out on this, but there’s a natural plant-based alternative to canola that’s plentiful, and safe for all kinds of cooking. It’s easily digested, free of toxins... and actually comes with a host of major health benefits.

It’s coconut oil.

I still scratch my head over why this isn’t the best-selling edible oil in the world. The fact is that conclusive clinical evidence of its health-promoting power has been around for over 30 years.

Coconut oil has the power to

  • Power overall heart health
  • Boost your metabolism
  • Raise your antioxidant levels
  • Promote weight loss
  • Strengthen your immune system
  • Stimulate healthy thyroid function
  • Maintain healthy cholesterol balance

You can even use it as a skin care product. It helps to moisturize and keeps your skin elastic, radiant, and youthful.

Unlike canola, coconut oil actually protects the heart by keeping fat and cholesterol in your bloodstream in proper balance. One study looked at native island tribes in the South Pacific whose diets were heavy in coconut oil.7

They had perfect serum lipid and cholesterol profiles at the start of the study. But once they migrated to New Zealand and stopped using coconut oil, their total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol increased, and their HDL cholesterol (the good kind) decreased.

It’s also been shown to ramp up your body’s ability to convert fat into energy, increasing your metabolism and actually helping you to lose weight.

The most recent research also suggests that the natural health-promoting compounds in coconut oil can actually prevent free radical damage.8

Finally, coconut oil contains lauric acid, one of the key building blocks of your immune system and a powerful anti-viral/anti-microbial.

In other words, you should make coconut oil one of the staples in your kitchen. Unlike olive oil, coconut oil’s stable at very high temperatures, so you can put it on salad or fry with it. It won’t start to smoke and burn your food like olive oil

I recommend finding an organic, extra virgin brand at your local health food store or on line. These give you all the health benefits and are free of any industrial contaminants.

____________________

1 RK Downey. “Genetic Control of Fatty Acid Biosynthesis in Rapeseed.” Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society. 1964. 41:475-478.
2 Hathaway GJ, Proctor NH, Hughes JP, and Fischman M. Proctor and Hughes' chemical hazards of the workplace. 3rd ed. 1991. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
3 Anuradee Witthayapanyanon and Linh Do. “Nanostructured Microemulsions as Alternative Solvents to VOCs in Cleaning Technologies and Vegetable Oil Extraction.” 2005. National Center For Environmental Research.
4 Trenholm et al. “An Evaluation of the Relationship of Deitary Fatty Acids to Incidence of Myocardial Lesions in Male Rats.” Canadian Institute of Food Science Technology Journal. 1979. 12(4):189-193
5 Kramer et al. “Hematological and lipid changes in newborn piglets fed milk-replacer diets containing erucic acid.” Lipids. 1998. 33(1):1-10.
6 Ratnayake et al. “Influence of Sources of Dietary Oils on the Life Span of Stroke-Prone Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats.” Lipids. 2000. 35(4):409-420.
7 Prior et al. “Cholesterol, coconuts, and diet on Polynesian atolls: a natural experiment: the Pukapuka and Tokelau Island studies.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1981. 34:1552-1561.
8 Nevin and Rajamohan. “Virgin coconut oil supplemented diet increases the antioxidant status in rats.” Food Chemistry. 2006. 99(2): 260-266.


Stop the Mothers Act: Save Expectant Mothers from Mandatory Drugging with Antidepressants

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) Big Pharma is pushing hard for passage of The Mothers Act, a bill that would require all pregnant women to be "screened" for depression and then drugged with patented antidepressant drugs. The bill is being reintroduced by Sen. Harry Reid, who is reportedly attempting to include it in a legislative package called the "Coburn Omnibus Bill."

Antidepressants are linked to violent thoughts and suicidal behavior in expectant mothers and new moms. Rather than treating the root cause of maternal depression -- nutritional deficiencies -- the medical industry wants to put expectant mothers on dangerous psychotropic drugs that may impact the health of their newborns.

NaturalNews interviewed one mother who, after being forcefully put on antidepressant drugs, began to hallucinate murdering her newborn. When she sought help at the local hospital, they doubled her dose of SSRIs and had her arrested and held against her will. Later, once she realized the drugs were causing her violent thoughts, she stopped taking the drugs and her violent hallucinations vanished within days.

This woman, Amy Philo, founded UNITE (www.UniteForLife.org) and is organizing grassroots opposition to The Mothers Act in order to protect women (and their children) from mandatory medications with psych drugs.

NaturalNews urges readers to contact their Senators in Washington (see below) and voice their opposition to The Mothers Act.

To learn more about this issue, watch this YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUiszFyIby4

Also, visit Amy Philo's website at www.UniteForLife.org

Also consider printing and signing the following letter, then faxing it (or mailing it) to your Senator:

Letter of opposition to the Mothers Act

DON'T LET THE 110th CONGRESS BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INCREASING ANTIDEPRESSANT-RELATED BIRTH DEFECTS AND INFANT DEATHS.

DO NOT PASS THE MOTHERS ACT AS PART OF AN OMNIBUS PACKAGE.

The MOTHERS Act is a highly controversial bill, considering the growing public awareness that antidepressants have serious and even deadly side effects. This bill, if passed, will assuredly increase the number of pregnant women and new mothers being put on antidepressant drugs. There are already too many pregnant women being put on antidepressants evidenced by the FDA's adverse reaction reports (MedWatch) listed below. This bill will assuredly increase the number of pregnant women and new mothers being prescribed antidepressants documented by the U.S. FDA to cause suicidal ideation, mania, worsening depression and birth defects. FDA's MedWatch System (Adverse Drug Reactions) Already Has Overwhelming Evidence of Spontaneous Abortions, Premature Babies and Birth Defects from SSRI Antidepressants:

Doctors, other health care providers, pharmacists, lawyers and consumers filed the following adverse drug reaction reports with the FDA's MedWatch system during 2004-2007 concerning pregnant women taking antidepressants (the most common and recommended treatment for women diagnosed with postpartum depression). In all the reports below, antidepressants were cited as the primary suspected drug to have caused the adverse reaction in pregnant women:

145 spontaneous abortions
150 premature babies
208 babies born with heart disease
218 babies born with defects

The FDA states that only 1-10% of side effects are even reported to their MedWatch database. Using a median range of 5% being reported, the actual number of pregnant women experiencing adverse reactions to antidepressant drugs is estimated as follows:

2,900 spontaneous abortions
3,000 premature births
4,160 babies born with heart disease
4,360 babies born with birth defects

The "Melanie Blocker-Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act," also known as "The MOTHERS Act" was named after Melanie Stokes, a new mother who was subjected to a cocktail of psychiatric drugs and electroshock after being diagnosed with post-partum depression. It was only after she had been administered drugs documented by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to cause suicidal ideation that she committed suicide. There is too much controversy over antidepressants to pass any legislation that could increase the administration of these drugs to pregnant women and new mothers. Do not allow the pharmaceutical interests to put new mothers and their unborn children at risk. Do not pass the MOTHERS Act.

Signed

___________________________

Printed Name:

___________________________

Address & Phone Number

___________________________

Cigarettes, Lies, and Pet Food Advertising

by Susan Thixton



(NaturalNews) It's difficult to imagine that cigarettes and lies have any connection with pet food -- but when you look closely at the advertising tactics of some pet foods, look closely at the ingredients in those pet foods -- you'll find cigarettes, lies, and pet food fits perfectly together.

To give you an example of the connection, we're looking closely at an extremely popular cat food, sold in every grocery across the country. The pet food manufacturer is one of the most popular and largest producers of pet food, selling cat and dog foods all over the world. I can't give you the pet food name, so I've made up a name and I've change some of the wording from the information provided on the pet food bag. But, and this is a really big but(t), the ingredients provided below are the actual ingredients of the real cat food. And dog owners -- the same tricks apply to dog food.

I'm using the pretend pet food name of 'Yummy Good - Super Seafood Dry Cat Food' instead of the actual cat food name. Just like many pet foods, on the front of the Yummy Good Super Seafood Cat Food bag is a photo of the most beautiful cat you've ever seen -- his coat almost glows in the picture. Bright big eyes, mischievous face -- this cat looks like the picture of health. Your eyes are instinctively drawn to the picture. Right above it you notice the pet food name, Yummy Good, with a big red heart next to it. The 'yummy' and the heart leads you to believe this cat food not only tastes good, but somehow you are providing love by feeding it. Under the beautiful cat picture you notice 'Super Seafood with Ocean Fish, Albacore Tuna, Salmon, and Crab Flavors'. And you think 'wow, look at all the fish in this cat food... it's so healthy!' To seal the deal, you read "100% Complete Nutrition" and "with Healthy Omega's".

'This has got to be a great food for my cat... all those different kinds of fish, complete nutrition, omega's, and it's named Yummy!' You pull the bag of Yummy Good Super Seafood from the shelf, and being a good pet parent, you read a little more about it on the back of the bag. You read that this food offers 'Healthy Skin and Coat promoted by Omega Essential Oils', 'Clear Healthy Vision supported by vitamins and minerals', 'Healthy Immune System supported by Complete Nutrition' and 'Strong, Lean Muscles supported by High Quality Protein'. Sold! 'Wow my cat is gonna love me for this!'

While you might think you discovered this cat food by a natural shopping process, it's actually an expertly scripted sale. It's exactly how most pet owners decide on a brand of cat or dog food, unknowing participants in the consumer/pet food sales process. Pet owners are precisely led down an expertly scripted path –- inadvertently purchasing and feeding their pets popular brands of cat or dog foods assuming the best of nutrition is being provided to their pet.

So now let's look at the actual ingredients of one of the most popular cat foods in the U.S. -- the pet food I re-named Yummy Good Super Seafood. First, you should know that ingredients listed on pet food labels are listed by pre-cooking weight -- heaviest to lightest. So by pre-cooking weight, the first five or so ingredients are the heaviest and make up the majority of the food. Knowing that, here are the first five ingredients of a real cat food sold in grocery stores all over the U.S. that I've changed the name to Yummy Good Super Seafood Cat Food: "Ground yellow corn, corn gluten meal, poultry by-product meal, meat and bone meal, animal fat preserved with mixed-tocopherols (form of Vitamin E)".

* 'Ground yellow corn' is the first ingredient -- no seafood there and corn has little to no nutritional value to cats or dogs.

* 'Corn gluten meal' is the second ingredient -- gluten is often used as a binder or thickener for pet foods. No seafood again and no nutritional value to the pet.

* 'Poultry by-product meal' is the third ingredient... hmmm, still no seafood. By-products are animal pieces that are considered unsuitable for human consumption, sort of the garbage of the meat processing industry. Poultry by-products consist of animal pieces like chicken feet and turkey heads, providing little to no nutritional value to the pet.

* 'Meat and bone meal' is the fourth ingredient. What? Still no seafood? Meat and bone meal, if you can imagine it, is an even worse pet food ingredient than by-products. This ingredient is the garbage from anything and everything animal -- things like euthanized sick animals, diseased animal tissue, or even expired grocery store meat. As you can guess, it provides little to no nutritional value to the pet (cat or dog).

* And our fifth ingredient is 'animal fat preserved with mixed tocopherols'. When chicken feet, turkey heads, cow intestines and expired grocery store meat are cooked (in the pet food industry it's called rendered), the fat that rises to the top becomes the pet food ingredient animal fat. The pet owner (and even the pet food manufacturer) has no idea what types of animals the fat comes from and worse yet, this common pet food ingredient has been determined by the FDA to be most likely to contain pentobarbital (the drug used to euthanize animals). In other words, you can pretty much assume that the pet food ingredient animal fat contains euthanized animals and the drug used to end their life. Again, no seafood and little to no nutritional value to the pet.

This is perplexing -- the majority of an actual cat food (the first five ingredients) that I renamed Yummy Good Super Seafood -- contains no seafood. Surely the next five ingredients will be the 'good stuff'. Well, let's see... here are the next five actual ingredients of a popular cat food with Seafood in the name: "soybean meal, animal liver flavor, phosphoric acid, calcium carbonate, salt". Still no seafood. Actually, still no quality nutrition provided to cats in ten ingredients! The first ten ingredients make up a huge majority of a pet food, a guesstimate with this cat food would be around 85%. So the largest majority of an extremely popular cat food I've re-named Yummy Good Super Seafood Cat Food contains no seafood and provides little to no nutrition to a cat. It isn't until the twelfth ingredient on the list that we find what the name implies -- seafood -- and that's right before the artificial coloring of the cat food.

Think about that just for a moment. Think about the weight of the food coloring you use when you color Easter eggs. The couple of drops of coloring you put into the water -- think about how much those couple of drops of food coloring weigh. Now imagine a piece of salmon or Albacore Tuna that weighs just slightly more than a couple of drops of food coloring. That's how much seafood is in this bag of cat food.

Amazing huh? And remember, these are the actual ingredients of a cat food that is sold in every grocery store across the country, a pet food that I assure you would be recognized by every U.S. pet owner. A cat food that touts Seafood in the name, containing probably far less than one small piece of Albacore Tuna or Salmon in a ton or more of cat food. A pet food that claims 'Healthy Immune System supported by Complete Nutrition' and 'Strong, Lean Muscles supported by High Quality Protein', when actually there is only a sliver of high quality protein/nutrition in the food.

As surprising as it might be, this is all perfectly legal and common practice in the pet food and pet treat industry. It's simply advertising. The existing rules of the pet food industry allow "unqualified claims, either directly or indirectly" on pet food labels. Misleading yes, but it's nothing new to advertising.

Twenty or so years ago, the tobacco industry sold pretty much the same story to consumers. Similar to this pet food claiming 'Ocean Fish, Albacore Tuna, Salmon, and Crab Flavors', Camel Cigarettes for example had slogans such as 'Slow down - Pleasure up', 'More Doctors Smoke Camels than any other cigarette', and 'For Digestion's Sake – Smoke Camels'.

The tobacco industry got caught at their game, but the pet food industry continues on, following some of the exact steps that worked so perfectly for cigarettes. Former effective tobacco marketing techniques such as continuity programs rewarding tobacco loyal consumers with 'Camel Cash' and 'Marlboro Miles' to exchange for coupons or brand wear t-shirts and hats is commonplace today with pet product consumers. To build a stronger bond with smokers, tobacco companies sponsored sporting and entertainment events. Pet Food Industries have taken that one step further. Not only is every major pet event attached to a pet food name (marketing by association to the best dogs or cats in the country to a particular brand of pet food), but almost every veterinarian graduating in the last twenty or so years has been affected by pet food corporate marketing. Veterinary students up to present day at almost every veterinary college in the U.S. are commonly taught dog and cat nutrition by pet food manufacturers -- nutrition classes based on what each manufacturer wants them to know, not pet nutrition based on unbiased science and research. Twenty years ago this would be similar to R.J. Reynolds employees teaching third year medical students respiratory function classes.

Pet food has even joined the TV game show world. Auditions have already begun for the 'Meow Mix Game Show' set to air on Game Show Network in November 2008. It's known as "branded entertainment"; an advertising tactic that has been commonly utilized for many years.

Twenty plus years ago tobacco advertising monies also controlled the media. Numerous behind-closed-door meetings have been reported between major television, radio, and print media with tobacco representatives pointing out that bad 'press' would be frowned upon and tobacco would consider removing the millions of advertising dollars provided to the media companies should bad press stories be published. For years, these tactics prevented consumers from knowing the truth about tobacco risks. Today, we can only assume the media's blind eye to rendered euthanized animals and dangerous chemical preservatives being common to many pet foods is due to the same strong arm tactics. The pet food Industry's million dollar plus advertising budgets provided by pet food high profits (a 'seafood' cat food made with corn and by-products provides a great deal more profit than a 'seafood' cat food made with real seafood) continue to keep pet owners in the dark.

How much of an impact does pet food advertising have? In 1989 a Surgeon General's report regarding the impact of cigarette advertising stated "familiarity of tobacco advertising and promotion may contribute to an environment in which tobacco use is perceived by users to be socially acceptable, or at least less socially objectionable and less hazardous than it is in fact." Study after study has proven Cigarette advertisements capitalize on the consumers' misperception of risk factors associated with smoking. In fact, the many studies of tobacco advertising effects on consumers resulted in the eventual end of tobacco advertising.

No one knows the true impact pet food advertising has on the health of pets. No study has ever been done. But using the example provided above -- with one of the most popular cat foods in the country, a cat food that touts 'Seafood' in the name and blazons 'Ocean Fish, Albacore Tuna, Salmon, and Crab Flavors' across the label (and knowing that this cat food has an unimaginable tiny amount of seafood actually in it) -- you can guess the effects on a cat's health. It was proven with cigarettes the power of advertising and it's basically proven with pet food when such an inferior cat food is a leader in national cat food sales. Familiarity of pet food advertising and promotion surely seems to contribute to an environment that these pet foods are perceived as healthy and premium.

Cigarette smokers today at the very least are informed; they make their smoking or non-smoking decisions based on science, not manipulating advertising. Pet owners are not provided the same privilege. Pet owners continue to unknowingly purchase cat and dog foods whose ingredients cannot match the advertising claims. Remember that even if the pet food label says Yummy or Seafood or even Super, the ingredient list might tell a completely different story. The front of a bag or can of pet food is just marketing, it in no way gives a "petsumer" enough information and/or sound information to judge the actual quality of nutrition that is provided to the pet in the food.

Until misleading pet food advertising is outlawed just as cigarette advertising was, pet owners must read the ingredient list, understand a few common pet food ingredient definitions, and ask a few questions of the pet food manufacturer. Briefly, look for cat and dog foods that contain no 'by-products', no 'meat and bone meal', no 'animal fat', and very little mention of grains (corn, wheat, or soy). Call the manufacturer and ask if any ingredients originate outside the U.S. (avoid pet foods that utilize Chinese imports) and get an assurance that the meat quality is a human grade. There are many quality pet foods out there, pet owners have to look a little further, but the reward to your pet's health far outweighs the minimal effort to find them.


About the author

Susan Thixton has an international pet people following providing dog and cat lovers a trusted source for pet food and pet food ingredient information. She's been called courageous, perseverant, even "the Caped Crusader for Pets" for her 16 year study of pet food. Susan Thixton is the author of hundreds of pet industry articles and the 2006 released book Truth About Pet Food (currently being updated for a second edition). She developed and publishes the pet product consumer magazine Petsumer Report and is a frequent speaker and radio guest all over the U.S. and Canada with more than 70 appearances in the last 2 years.
If you are looking for straight forward pet food information that can have an almost immediate impact on your pet's health - subscribe to the free newsletter, and subscribe to Petsumer Report to see reviews of close to 700 dog and cat foods and treats (adding 40+ each month). Susan Thixton's 'truth' will help you find a safer, healthier dog or cat food that could add years to your pet's life. http://www.TruthAboutPetFood.com



Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Explains Why Some Children Fail

by Barbara L. Minton


(NaturalNews) Dr. Abraham Maslow synthesized a large body of research resulting in his master creation, the Hierarchy of Needs. This hierarchy, beautiful in its simplicity, describes the stages of human development through which each of us passes on the way to becoming fully functioning, responsible adults ultimately moving toward the pinnacle of achievement attained by humans.

There are seven stages in the hierarchy, which Maslow conceptualized as a pyramid. He saw everyone beginning life at the bottom level, with only a few reaching the top. Each step up the scale represents a major triumph over the challenges of development, and advancement to the next step is entirely dependent on mastery of the step before it. Here are the steps on Maslow's scale:

* Transcendence

* Self-Actualization

* Aesthetic Needs

* Need to Know and Understand

* Esteem Needs

* Love and Belonging Needs

* Safety Needs

* Physiological Needs

At the physiological level is the need for air, water, nourishment, good health, activity, rest, and avoidance of pain. The developing child requires a belly of nourishing food and a clean diaper before he is in any condition to move on to a higher stage of development such as playing patty-cake with his parents. Some of these needs may be specific to the child. For example, a child deficient in a particular nutrient will develop a specific hunger for foods containing that nutrient.

At the safety and security level the physiological needs have largely been taken care of and the child is confident that they still continue to be taken care of. He becomes increasingly interested in finding safe circumstances, stability and protection. As an example, he may run to his parent when he sees a dog he doesn't know. It is at this level where he develops a need for structure, order, and limits. It is also here that he develops fears and anxiety. He may worry about someone breaking into his home, a monster in his closet, or a drive by shooting in his neighborhood.

At the love and belonging level the child needs others to love and to provide him with a sense of belonging. At this level, some sort of family stability is needed in order for the child to invest love in someone else. If his care giving parent dies or is incarcerated and he is placed in a series of foster homes, he may not attain the feeling of stability required for emotional investment. If it appears that no one wants to make a lasting commitment to him, he may be unable to love himself. This sense of belonging is threatened when parents divorce. And at this level, loneliness and social anxiety may become manifest.

At the esteem level the child searches for feelings of self-worth. Maslow noted two versions of the esteem need, one he saw as of a lower order and the other as of a higher order. The lower need is for the respect of others. This involves the need for status, fame, recognition, attention, reputation, appreciation, respect and dominance. The higher form involves the need to respect one's self. This includes feelings of confidence, competence, achievement, mastery, independence and freedom. Clearly Maslow saw the achievement of self-respect as being more important than achieving the respect of others. It is at this level that low self-esteem and feelings of inferiority may manifest. Maslow, like many other psychologists, believed that low self-esteem was at the root of most psychological problems.

These four levels were considered by Maslow to be deficiency or instinctual needs. If the child is deficient at any of the four levels, he becomes highly compelled to fulfill that need. But if he has all his needs fulfilled at each level, he feels nothing and is not at all compelled by them.

The remaining four needs are growth needs able to be acted upon only if the deficiency needs are fully met. Once the growth needs are engaged, they continue to be felt and may become stronger as they are fed.

At the need to know and understand level the child develops his cognitive potential. This is the level on which schools would like to operate, and it is actually the level on which many schools in comfortable neighborhoods function because the deficiency needs of their students have been met. Here the child is able listen, speak and explore in his quest to understand and make meaning from the world around him.

At the aesthetic level the child approaches and appreciates symmetry, order and beauty. He becomes able to invest emotion into his learning.

At the self actualization level the child is a child no longer and has become a self-fulfilled, fully functioning individual able to accept responsibility for his own life. At this level, the individual has come near to achieving his full potential, to be the person he was born to be. This is the stated goal of the educational system. Only a small percentage of the world's population is truly, predominantly, self-actualizing.

At the transcendence level the individual Maslow describes achieves a motivation that surpasses ego driven behavior. The few who achieve this level see life as a journey in which the means are often more important than the ends. They are comfortable around all people but enjoy solitude. People at this level are capable of deep personal relationships yet enjoy autonomy. They resist enculturation and are not susceptible to social pressure. They are acceptant of themselves and others, and enjoy spontaneity and simplicity. They are appreciative, creative and ethical.

We who live in abundance and relative safety may not fully realize that these are not the conditions under which many children in our country live. We have been told by our politicians and media that the reason children fail is because their teachers are not held accountable, or their schools are not up to standard. It is this sort of thinking that has allowed for the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

Implicit in this act is the assumption that if instruction is standardized and confined to a few core subjects, students will learn the curriculum and achieve at prescribed levels. Standardized instruction with results measured by standardized tests is the prescription for schools with failing children.

The concept that schools in which a number of children fail are failures themselves has made it into legislatures. Recent state takeovers of school districts in Little Rock, Philadelphia, Boston and St. Louis have shown how easy it is to assign blame without any attempt to grasp the real reasons for failure of their children.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs offers a simple, clear and resonant explanation for why children fail. His four deficiency needs must be fully met before the child is in any condition to benefit from his school experience. He must have nourishing food, a consistent home with heat in the winter, and the feeling of being safe before his mind is free to learn at school. Can you imagine what it is like to be awakened during the night by gunshots in your neighborhood, get up in an apartment where the heat has been cut off, or walk to school through a neighborhood of abandoned buildings where someone might pull you in? How can you achieve the self-esteem needed for learning when you know that your family is on the bottom of the economic pile, or your parent has just been arrested?

Many of the children who have been unable to fulfill the needs necessary for school achievement live in the inner cities that are so well represented on lists of failing school districts. Sadly, there is no acknowledgement of the conditions under which they live, and the impact of these conditions on their lack of school achievement. When underperforming schools lose funding it is the social workers, counselors and psychologists whose jobs are the first to be cut. Yet these are the people who act as the front line for helping children who are unable to meet their deficiency needs.

Perhaps we can excuse our legislative bodies for NCLB and for state takeovers. Many legislative members have no idea of the realities facing many of America's school children. And for those who are too busy dealing with other important issues, it becomes too tempting to assume a direct cause / effect relationship and assume that if a child is failing at school, it must be the teacher's fault.

Sources:

W. Huitt Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Educational Psychology Interactive Valdosta, Ga.

Dr. C. George Boreree "Abraham Maslow, Personality Theories

15 Questions to Discover Your Life Purpose

The following are a list of questions that can assist you in discovering your purpose. They are meant as a guide to help you get into a frame of mind that will be conducive to defining your personal mission.

Simple Instructions:

* Take out a few sheets of loose paper and a pen.
* Find a place where you will not be interrupted. Turn off your cell phone.
* Write the answers to each question down. Write the first thing that pops into your head. Write without editing. Use point form. It’s important to write out your answers rather than just thinking about them.
* Write quickly. Give yourself less than 60 seconds a question. Preferably less than 30 seconds.
* Be honest. Nobody will read it. It’s important to write without editing.
* Enjoy the moment and smile as you write.

15 Questions:

1. What makes you smile? (Activities, people, events, hobbies, projects, etc.)

2. What are your favorite things to do in the past? What about now?

3. What activities make you lose track of time?

4. What makes you feel great about yourself?

5. Who inspires you most? (Anyone you know or do not know. Family, friends, authors, artists, leaders, etc.) Which qualities inspire you, in each person?

6. What are you naturally good at? (Skills, abilities, gifts etc.)

7. What do people typically ask you for help in?

8. If you had to teach something, what would you teach?

9. What would you regret not fully doing, being or having in your life?

10. You are now 90 years old, sitting on a rocking chair outside your porch; you can feel the spring breeze gently brushing against your face. You are blissful and happy, and are pleased with the wonderful life you’ve been blessed with. Looking back at your life and all that you’ve achieved and acquired, all the relationships you’ve developed; what matters to you most? List them out.

11. What are your deepest values?
Select 3 to 6 (See list of words to help you | list in pdf) and prioritize the words in order of importance to you.

12. What were some challenges, difficulties and hardships you’ve overcome or are in the process of overcoming? How did you do it?

13. What causes do you strongly believe in? Connect with?

14. If you could get a message across to a large group of people. Who would those people be? What would your message be?

15. Given your talents, passions and values. How could you use these resources to serve, to help, to contribute? ( to people, beings, causes, organization, environment, planet, etc.)


Putting it all together: Creating Your Personal Mission Statement


“Writing or reviewing a mission statement changes you because it forces you to think through your priorities deeply, carefully, and to align your behaviour with your beliefs”

– Stephen Covey, ‘7 Habits of Highly Effective People’

A personal mission consists of 3 parts:

* What do I want to do?
* Who do I want to help?
* What is the result? What value will I create?

Steps to Creating Your Personal Mission Statement:

1. Do the exercise with the 15 questions above as quickly as you can.

2. List out actions words you connect with.

a. Example: educate, accomplish, empower, encourage, improve, help, give, guide, inspire, integrate, master, motivate, nurture, organize, produce, promote, travel, spread, share, satisfy, understand, teach, write, etc.

3. Based on your answers to the 15 questions. List everything and everyone that you believe you can help.

a. Example: People, creatures, organizations, causes, groups, environment, etc.

4. Identify your end goal. How will the ‘who’ from your above answer benefit from what you ‘do’?

5. Combine steps 2-4 into a sentence, or 2-3 sentences.

This information is found at: http://thinksimplenow.com/happiness/life-on-purpose-15-questions-to-discover-your-personal-mission/

Newer Posts Older Posts Home