Rather Be Healthy

U.S. dairy industry petitions FDA to approve aspartame as hidden, unlabeled additive in milk, yogurt, eggnog and cream

You probably already know that the FDA has declared war on raw milk and even helped fund and coordinate armed government raids against raw milk farmers and distributors. Yes, it’s insane. This brand of tyranny is unique to the USA and isn’t even conducted in China, North Kora or Cuba. Only in the USA are raw milk farmers treated like terrorists.

But now the situation is getting even more insane than you could have imagined: the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) have filed a petition with the FDA asking the FDA to alter the definition of “milk” to secretly include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose.

Importantly, none of these additives need to be listed on the label. They will simply be swept under the definition of “milk,” so that when a company lists “milk” on the label, it automatically includes aspartame or sucralose. And if you’re trying to avoid aspartame, you’ll have no way of doing so because it won’t be listed on the label.

This isn’t only for milk, either: It’s also for yogurt, cream, sour cream, eggnog, whipping cream and a total of 17 products, all of which are listed in the petition at FDA.gov.

As the petition states:

IDFA and NMPF request their proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity to allow optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk (e.g., chocolate flavoring added to milk) to be sweetened with any safe and suitable sweetener — including non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame.

This is all being done to “save the children,” we’re told, because the use of aspartame in milk products would reduce calories.

Milk industry specifically asks to HIDE aspartame from consumers
Astonishingly, the dairy industry is engaged in extreme doublespeak logic and actually arguing that aspartame should be hidden from consumers by not listing it on the label. Here’s what the petition says:

IDFA and NMPF argue that nutrient content claims such as “reduced calorie” are not attractive to children, and maintain that consumers can more easily identify the overall nutritional value of milk products that are flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners if the labels do not include such claims. Further, the petitioners assert that consumers do not recognize milk — including flavored milk — as necessarily containing sugar. Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can “more easily identify its overall nutritional value.”

In other words, hiding aspartame from consumers by not including it on the label actually helps consumers, according to the IDFA and NMPF!

Yep, consumers are best served by keeping them ignorant. If this logic smacks of the same kind of twisted deception practiced by Monsanto, that’s because it’s identical: the less consumers know, the more they are helped, according to industry. And it’s for the children, too, because children are also best served by keeping them poisoned with aspartame.

Consumers have always been kept in the dark about pink slime, meat glue, rBGH and GMOs in their food. And now, if the IDFA gets its way, you’ll be able to drink hormone-contaminated milk from an antibiotics-inundated cow fed genetically modified crops and producing milk containing hidden aspartame. And you won’t have the right to know about any of this!

The FDA confirms this “secret” status of aspartame, stating, “If the standard of identity for milk is amended as requested by petitioners, milk manufacturers could use non-nutritive sweeteners in flavored milk without a nutrient content claim in its labeling.”

FDA requests comments
The FDA is requesting comments on this petition. You have until May 21st, 2013 to submit your comments. Click here for instructions.

This is a clue to stop drinking processed milk and milk products altogether
There’s a bigger story here than just the industry hoping to get FDA approval to secretly put aspartame in milk products while not listing aspartame on the label.

The bigger question is this: If an industry is pushing to hide aspartame in its products, what else is it already hiding?

How about the pus content of its dairy products? How about its inhumane treatment of animals who are subjected to torture conditions and pumped full of genetically engineered hormones? How about the fact that homogenization and pasteurization turn a whole food into a dietary nightmare that promotes obesity, autoimmune disorders and cardiovascular disease?

There are lots of dirty little secrets in the dairy industry of course, and that doesn’t even get into the secret closed-door conversations to encourage the FDA to destroy the competition of raw milk.

The only rational answer to all this is to stop buying and consuming processed dairy products, period!

I gave up ALL milk products many years ago and have never looked back. I drink almond milk, not pus-filled pasteurized cow’s milk. (Click here for a recipe to make your own almond milk at home.) I don’t eat yogurt. If I want probiotics, I get them from tasty chewable probiotics supplements such as Sunbiotics. I parted ways with processed dairy products many years ago, and as a result, my cardiovascular health, skin health, digestive health and stamina have all remained in outstanding shape.

There’s also a philosophical issue here: Don’t buy products from an industry that habitually LIES about everything. The dairy industry is like a mafia. They actively seek to destroy the competition, keep consumers ignorant and monopolize the market. They run highly deceptive ads with ridiculous claims like, “drinking milk helps you lose weight” and other nonsense.

The U.S. dairy industry is steeped in deception at every level, and now they want you and your children to unknowingly drink aspartame that’s secretly blended into the product.

The dairy industry is to food as Lance Armstrong is to sports. It’s all a big lie, laced with secret chemicals and false claims.

Stop drinking milk. Stop financially supporting the food mafia.

Recommended videos:
Raw Milk Rover (hilarious animation)
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=273C2497DFDE9F61CB9E8867113CA5CA

Got a PUStache? (satire)
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=C463AA940B9AEBA5D294F87FF0716579

Jonathan Emord raw milk freedom speech:
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=F8DF9A42CC5479D8829A2445C56AFEF3

Farmageddon interview with Kristin Canty
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=3340FCCC93B2C17EEFA43C7E6296728D

Sources for this article:
This petition was originally brought to our attention by a reader who says it was covered on Activist Post. I haven’t yet read that article but may update this article with a link to that article once I identify the URL.

FDA petition page:
http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavore…

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039244_milk_aspartame_FDA_petition.html#ixzz2Lzk1P0K2

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Does a Mediterranean Diet Really Beat Low-Fat for Heart Health?

An article just published in the New England Journal of Medicine claims that a Mediterranean diet is much more effective than a “low-fat diet” in preventing cardiovascular disease. A careful reading of the study reveals that this is simply not true.

Here’s why:
•The comparison (control) group did not follow a low-fat diet. As the authors wrote, “We acknowledge that, even though participants in the control group received advice to reduce fat intake, changes in total fat were small.” This is not surprising, since they gave the control group virtually no support at all in following this diet during the first half of the study.

In the “low-fat” group, total fat consumption decreased insignificantly, from 39 percent to 37 percent (Table S7, appendix). This doesn’t even come close to the American Heart Association guidelines of a low-fat diet (<30 percent fat) or ours for reversing heart disease (<10 percent fat). So, they weren't comparing a Mediterranean diet to a low-fat diet, because the control group was not following a low-fat diet. And I'm not talking about a very low-fat diet that we found (with other nutritional and lifestyle changes) could reverse heart disease, but even a moderately low-fat diet. The authors should have concluded that the Mediterranean diet reduced cardiovascular risk when compared to whatever diet they were eating before, not when compared to a low-fat diet, since patients in the control group ("low-fat diet") were not consuming a low-fat diet. The authors might as well have concluded, "The Mediterranean diet reduced cardiovascular risk when compared to a randomized control group of patients who were asked to walk and chew gum at the same time" since they didn't do that, either. •Also, the researchers appear to have done everything they could to bias the outcome in favor of the Mediterranean diet by encouraging the "low-fat" diet to increase consumption of foods that are known to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, including bread, potatoes, pasta, and rice, and not to limit their intake of sodas (which also increase cardiovascular disease risk). See Table 1. •The "low-fat" diet group patients were discouraged from eating fatty fish that are rich in omega‑3 fatty acids that are highly protective from cardiovascular disease. (In my program, we have recommended for decades that patients take 4 grams/day of fish oil or flax oil to provide the omega‑3 fatty acids.) See Table 1. In contrast, both Mediterranean diet groups were consuming fatty fish such as salmon, which have significant omega‑3 fatty acids. Also, they were consuming either more walnuts and/or more olive oil, which have omega‑3 fatty acids. Because of this, the researchers found that omega‑3 fatty acid levels (alpha-linolenic acid) were significantly higher in both Mediterranean diet groups (Figure S5). •There was no significant reduction in heart attacks (myocardial infarction), death from cardiovascular causes, or death from any cause. They only found a significant reduction in death from stroke (Table 3). The authors wrote, "Only the comparison of stroke risk reached statistical significance." They only found a reduction in cardiovascular causes when these were pooled with deaths from stroke, because the reduction in strokes was sufficiently high that it "carried along" the average of the other conditions (Table 3). In summary, the most responsible conclusion should be, "We found a significant reduction in stroke in those consuming a Mediterranean diet high in omega‑3 fatty acids when compared to those who were not making significant changes in their diet." Over the past 36 years, my colleagues and I have published a series of randomized controlled trials showing that this diet can reverse the progression of even severe coronary heart disease and cause 2.5 times fewer cardiac events. Also, it can stop or reverse the progression of early-stage prostate cancer, improve gene expression, and increase telomerase. For this reason, Medicare is covering "Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversing Heart Disease" in sites that we've trained. An optimal diet that I recommend for preventing and reversing heart disease is: •Rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, and soy products in their natural, unrefined forms. •Low in total fat (<10 percent fat), saturated fats, and trans fats. •High in omega‑3 fatty acids (fish oil, flax oil, salmon). •Low in refined carbohydrates such as sugar, white flour (bread, pasta), white rice, and sugar-sweetened beverages. •Low in processed and refined foods. If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

10 Lies and Misconceptions Spread By Mainstream Nutrition

There’s no shortage of health myths out there, but I believe the truth is slowly but surely starting to seep out there and get a larger audience. For example, two recent articles actually hit the nail right on the head in terms of good nutrition advice.

Shape Magazine features a slide show on “9 ingredients nutritionists won’t touch,”1 and authoritynutrition.com listed “11 of the biggest lies of mainstream nutrition.”2

These health topics are all essential to get “right” if you want to protect your health, and the health of your loved ones, which is why I was delighted to see both of these sources disseminating spot-on advice. I highly recommend reading through both of them.

Here, I will review my own top 10 lies and misconceptions of mainstream nutrition—some of which are included in the two featured sources, plus a few additional ones I believe are important.

Lie # 1: ‘Saturated Fat Causes Heart Disease’

As recently as 2002, the “expert” Food & Nutrition Board issued the following misguided statement, which epitomizes this myth:

“Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol have no known beneficial role in preventing chronic disease and are not required at any level in the diet.”

Similarly, the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine recommends adults to get 45–65 percent of their calories from carbohydrates, 20-35 percent from fat, and 10-35 percent from protein. This is an inverse ideal fat to carb ratio that is virtually guaranteed to lead you astray, and result in a heightened risk of chronic disease.

Most people benefit from 50-70 percent healthful fats in their diet for optimal health, whereas you need very few, if any, carbohydrates to maintain good health… Although that may seem like a lot, fat is much denser and consumes a much smaller portion of your meal plate.

This dangerous recommendation, which arose from an unproven hypothesis from the mid-1950s, has been harming your health and that of your loved ones for about 40 years now.

The truth is, saturated fats from animal and vegetable sources provide the building blocks for cell membranes and a variety of hormones and hormone-like substances, without which your body cannot function optimally. They also act as carriers for important fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. Dietary fats are also needed for the conversion of carotene to vitamin A, for mineral absorption, and for a host of other biological processes.

In fact, saturated is the preferred fuel for your heart! For more information about saturated fats and the essential role they play in maintaining your health, please read my previous article The Truth About Saturated Fat.

Lie # 2: ‘Eating Fat Makes You Gain Weight’

The low-fat myth may have done more harm to the health of millions than any other dietary recommendation as the resulting low-fat craze led to increased consumption of trans-fats, which we now know increases your risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease—the very health problems wrongfully attributed to saturated fats…

To end the confusion, it’s very important to realize that eating fat will not make you fat!

The primary cause of excess weight and all the chronic diseases associated with it, is actually the consumption of too much sugar — especially fructose, but also all sorts of grains, which rapidly convert to sugar in your body. If only the low-fat craze had been a low-sugar craze… then we wouldn’t have nearly as much chronic disease as we have today. For an explanation of why and how a low-fat diet can create the very health problems it’s claimed to prevent, please see this previous article.

Lie # 3: ‘Artificial Sweeteners are Safe Sugar-Replacements for Diabetics, and Help Promote Weight Loss’

Most people use artificial sweeteners to lose weight and/or because they’re diabetic and need to avoid sugar. The amazing irony is that nearly all the studies that have carefully analyzed their effectiveness show that those who use artificial sweeteners actually gain more weight than those who consume caloric sweeteners. Studies have also revealed that artificial sweeteners can be worse than sugar for diabetics.

In 2005, data gathered from the 25-year long San Antonio Heart Study showed that drinking dietsoft drinks increased the likelihood of serious weight gain, far more so than regular soda.3 On average, each diet soft drink the participants consumed per day increased their risk of becoming overweight by 65 percent within the next seven to eight years, and made them 41 percent more likely to become obese. There are several potential causes for this, including:
•Sweet taste alone appears to increase hunger, regardless of caloric content.
•Artificial sweeteners appear to simply perpetuate a craving for sweets, and overall sugar consumption is therefore not reduced—leading to further problems controlling your weight.4
•Artificial sweeteners may disrupt your body’s natural ability to “count calories,” as evidenced in studies such as this 2004 study at Purdue University,5 which found that rats fed artificially sweetened liquids ate more high-calorie food than rats fed high-caloric sweetened liquids.

There is also a large number of health dangers associated with artificial sweeteners and aspartame in particular. I’ve compiled an ever-growing list of studies pertaining to health problems associated with aspartame, which you can find here. If you’re still on the fence, I highly recommend reviewing these studies for yourself so that you can make an educated decision. For more information on aspartame, the worst artificial sweetener, please see my aspartame video.

Lie # 4: ‘Your Body Cannot Tell the Difference Between Sugar and Fructose’

Of the many health-harming ingredients listed in the featured article by Shape Magazine—all of which you’re bound to get in excess if you consume processed foods—fructose is perhaps the greatest threat to your health. Mounting evidence testifies to the fact that excess fructose, primarily in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), is a primary factor causing not just obesity, but also chronic and lethal disease. In fact, I am convinced that fructose is one of the leading causes of a great deal of needless suffering from poor health and premature death.

Many conventional health “experts,” contend that sugar and fructose in moderation is perfectly okay and part of a normal “healthy” diet, and the corn industry vehemently denies any evidence showing that fructose is metabolically more harmful than regular sugar (sucrose). This widespread denial and sweeping the evidence under the carpet poses a massive threat to your health, unless you do your own research.

As a standard recommendation, I advise keeping your total fructose consumption below 25 grams per day. For most people it would also be wise to limit your fructose from fruit to 15 grams or less. Unfortunately, while this is theoretically possible, precious few people are actually doing that.

Cutting out a few desserts will not make a big difference if you’re still eating a “standard American diet”—in fact, I’ve previously written about how various foods and beverages contain far more sugar than a glazed doughnut. Because of the prevalence of HFCS in foods and beverages, the average person now consumes 1/3 of a pound of sugar EVERY DAY, which is five ounces or 150 grams, half of which is fructose.

That’s 300 percent more than the amount that will trigger biochemical havoc. Remember that is the AVERAGE; many actually consume more than twice that amount. For more details about the health dangers of fructose and my recommendations, please see my recent article Confirmed—Fructose Can Increase Your Hunger and Lead to Overeating.

Lie # 5: ‘Soy is a Health Food’

The meteoric rise of soy as a “health food” is a perfect example of how a brilliant marketing strategy can fool millions. But make no mistake about it, unfermented soy products are NOT healthful additions to your diet, and can be equally troublesome for men and women of all ages. If you find this recommendation startling then I would encourage you to review some of the many articles listed on my Soy Index Page.

Contrary to popular belief, thousands of studies have actually linked unfermented soy to malnutrition, digestive distress, immune-system breakdown, thyroid dysfunction, cognitive decline, reproductive disorders and infertility—even cancer and heart disease.

Not only that, but more than 90 percent of American soy crops are genetically modified, which carries its own set of health risks.6 I am not opposed to all soy, however. Organic and, most importantly, properly fermented soy does have great health benefits. Examples of such healthful fermented soy products include tempeh, miso and natto. Here is a small sampling of the detrimental health effects linked to unfermented soy consumption:

Breast cancer

Brain damage

Infant abnormalities

Thyroid disorders

Kidney stones

Immune system impairment

Severe, potentially fatal food allergies

Impaired fertility

Danger during pregnancy and breastfeeding

Lie # 6: ‘Eggs are a Source of Unhealthy Cholesterol’

Eggs are probably one of the most demonized foods in the United States, mainly because of the misguided idea implied by the lipid hypothesis that eating egg yolk increases the cholesterol levels in your body. You can forget about such concerns, because contrary to popular belief, eggs are one of the healthiest foods you can eat and they do not have a detrimental impact on cholesterol levels. Numerous nutritional studies have dispelled the myth that you should avoid eating eggs, so this recommendation is really hanging on by a very bare thread…

One such study7, conducted by the Yale Prevention Research Center and published in 2010, showed that egg consumption did not have a negative effect on endothelial function – a measure of cardiac risk – and did not cause a spike on cholesterol levels. The participants of the Yale study ate two eggs per day for a period of six weeks. There are many benefits associated with eggs, including:

One egg contains 6 grams of high quality protein and all 9 essential amino acids

Eggs are good for your eyes because they contain lutein and zeaxanthin, antioxidants found in your lens and retina. These two compounds help protect your eyes from damage caused by free radicals and avoid eye diseases like macular degeneration and cataracts

Eggs are a good source of choline (one egg contains about 300 micrograms), a member of the vitamin B family essential for the normal function of human cells and helps regulate the nervous and cardiovascular systems. Choline is especially beneficial for pregnant mothers as it is influences normal brain development of the unborn child

Eggs are one of the few foods that contain naturally occurring vitamin D (24.5 grams)

Eggs may help promote healthy hair and nails due to their high sulphur content

Eggs also contain biotin, calcium, copper, folate, iodine, iron, manganese, magnesium, niacin, potassium, selenium, sodium, thiamine, vitamin A, vitamin B2, vitamin B12, vitamin E and zinc

Choose free-range organic eggs, and avoid “omega-3 eggs” as this is not the proper way to optimize your omega-3 levels. To produce these omega-3 eggs, the hens are usually fed poor-quality sources of omega-3 fats that are already oxidized. Omega-3 eggs are more perishable than non-omega-3 eggs.

Lie # 7: ‘Whole Grains are Good for Everyone’

The use of whole-grains is an easy subject to get confused on especially for those who have a passion for nutrition, as for the longest time we were told the fiber in whole grains is highly beneficial. Unfortunately ALL grains, including whole-grain and organic varieties, can elevate your insulin levels, which can increase your risk of disease. They also contain gluten, which many are sensitive to, if not outright allergic. It has been my experience that more than 85 percent of Americans have trouble controlling their insulin levels — especially those who have the following conditions:
•Overweight
•Diabetes
•High blood pressure
•High cholesterol
•Protein metabolic types

In addition, sub-clinical gluten intolerance is far more common than you might think, which can also wreak havoc with your health. As a general rule, I strongly recommend eliminating or at least restricting grains as well as sugars/fructose from your diet, especially if you have any of the above conditions that are related to insulin resistance. The higher your insulin levels and the more prominent your signs of insulin overload are, the more ambitious your grain elimination needs to be.

If you are one of the fortunate ones without insulin resistance and of normal body weight, then grains are fine, especially whole grains—as long as you don’t have any issues with gluten and select organic and unrefined forms. It is wise to continue to monitor your grain consumption and your health as life is dynamic and constantly changing. What might be fine when you are 25 or 30 could become a major problem at 40 when your growth hormone and level of exercise is different.

Lie # 8: ‘Milk Does Your Body Good’

Unfortunately, the myth that conventional pasteurized milk has health benefits is a persistent one, even though it’s far from true. Conventional health agencies also refuse to address the real dangers of the growth hormones and antibiotics found in conventional milk. I do not recommend drinking pasteurized milk of any kind, including organic, because once milk has been pasteurized its physical structure is changed in a way that can actually cause allergies and immune problems.

Important enzymes like lactase are destroyed during the pasteurization process, which causes many people to not be able to digest milk. Additionally, vitamins (such as A, C, B6 and B12) are diminished and fragile milk proteins are radically transformed from health nurturing to unnatural amino acid configurations that can actually worsen your health. The eradication of beneficial bacteria through the pasteurization process also ends up promoting pathogens rather than protecting you from them.

The healthy alternative to pasteurized milk is raw milk, which is an outstanding source of nutrients including beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidophilus, vitamins and enzymes, and it is, in my estimation, one of the finest sources of calcium available. For more details please watch the interview I did with Mark McAfee, who is the owner of Organic Pastures, the largest organic dairy in the US.

However, again, if you have insulin issues and are struggling with weight issues, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer or high cholesterol it would be best to restrict your dairy to organic butter as the carbohydrate content, lactose, could be contribute to insulin and leptin resistance. Fermented organic raw dairy would eliminate the lactose issue and would be better tolerated. But if you are sensitive to dairy it might be best to avoid these too.

Lie # 9: ‘Genetically Engineered Foods are Safe and Comparable to Conventional Foods’

Make no mistake about it; genetically engineered (GE) foods may be one of the absolute most dangerous aspects of our food supply today. I strongly recommend avoiding ALL GE foods. Since over 90 percent of all corn grown in the US is GE corn, and over 95 percent all soy is GE soy, this means that virtually every processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the “USDA Organic” label likely contains one or more GE components. To avoid GE foods, first memorize the following list of well-known and oft-used GE crops:

Corn

Canola

Alfalfa (New GM crop as of 2011)

Soy

Cottonseed

Sugar derived from sugar beets

Fresh zucchini, crookneck squash and Hawaiian papaya are also commonly GE. It’s important to realize that unless you’re buying all organic food, or grow your own veggies and raise your own livestock, or at the very least buy all whole foods (even if conventionally grown) and cook everything from scratch, chances are you’re consuming GE foods every single day… What ultimate impact these foods will have on your health is still unknown, but increased disease, infertility and birth defects appear to be on the top of the list of most likely side effects. The first-ever lifetime feeding study also showed a dramatic increase in organ damage, cancer, and reduced lifespan.

Lie # 10: ‘Lunch Meats Make for a Healthy Nutritious Meal’

Lastly, processed meats, which includes everything from hot dogs, deli meats, bacon, and pepperoni are rarely thought of as strict no-no’s, but they really should be, if you’re concerned about your health. Virtually all processed meat products contain dangerous compounds that put them squarely on the list of foods to avoid or eliminate entirely. These compounds include:
•Heterocyclic amines (HCAs): a potent carcinogen, which is created when meat or fish is cooked at high temperatures.
•Sodium nitrite: a commonly used preservative and antimicrobial agent that also adds color and flavor to processed and cured meats.
•Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): Many processed meats are smoked as part of the curing process, which causes PAHs to form.
•Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs): When food is cooked at high temperatures—including when it is pasteurized or sterilized—it increases the formation of AGEs in your food. AGEs build up in your body over time leading to oxidative stress, inflammation and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and kidney disease.

This recommendation is backed up by a report commissioned by The World Cancer Research Fund8 (WCRF). The review, which evaluated the findings of more than 7,000 clinical studies, was funded by money raised from the general public, so the findings were not influenced by vested interests. It’s also the biggest review of the evidence ever undertaken, and it confirms previous findings: Processed meats increase your risk of cancer, especially bowel cancer, and NO amount of processed meat is “safe.” A previous analysis by the WCRF found that eating just one sausage a day raises your risk of developing bowel cancer by 20 percent, and other studies have found that processed meats increase your risk of:
•Colon cancer by 50 percent
•Bladder cancer by 59 percent
•Stomach cancer by 38 percent
•Pancreatic cancer by 67 percent

Processed meats may also increase your risk of diabetes by 50 percent, and lower your lung function and increase your risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). If you absolutely want or need a hot dog or other processed meats once in awhile, you can reduce your risk by:
•Looking for “uncured” varieties that contain NO nitrates
•Choosing varieties that say 100% beef, 100% chicken, etc. This is the only way to know that the meat is from a single species and does not include byproducts (like chicken skin or chicken fat or other parts)
•Avoiding any meat that contains MSG, high-fructose corn syrup, preservatives, artificial flavor or artificial color

Ideally, purchase sausages and other processed meats from a small, local farmer who can tell you exactly what’s in their products. These are just some of the health myths and misconceptions out there. There are certainly many more. The ones listed above are some of the most important ones, in my view, simply because they’re so widely misunderstood. They’re also critical to get “right” if you want to protect your health, and the health of your loved ones. For more great advise, please review the two featured sources.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

How Aborted Fetal Cells are Used to Create Novel Flavor Enhancers

For several years anti-abortion advocates have been warning that a new technology for enhancing flavors such as sweetness and saltiness uses aborted fetal cells in the process.

The biotech company using this novel process, Senomyx, has signed contracts with Pepsi, Ajinomoto Co. (the maker of aspartame and meat glue), Nestlé and other food and beverage companies2 over the past several years.3

The primary goal for many of these processed food companies is to make foods and beverages tasty while reducing sugar and salt content.

While Senomyx refuses to disclose the details of the process, its patent applications indicate that part of the secret indeed involves the use of human kidney cells, known as HEK293, originating from an aborted baby.

That said, it’s worth noting that no kidney cells, or part thereof, are actually IN the finished product.4 Rather they’re part of the process used to discern new flavors, which will be discussed below.

That said, to many, this is still “over the line.” Two years ago, anti-abortion groups launched boycott campaigns against Pepsi Co., urging them to reconsider using flavorings derived from a process involving the use of aborted embryonic kidney cells.

Whatever your personal convictions might be on the issue of using biological material from aborted fetuses, the issue of whether or not biotech-constructed flavor enhancers are safe or not remains…

Biotech Cooks Up New Flavors

Senomyx5 is a high tech research and development business that is “dedicated to finding new flavors to reduce sugars and reduce salt.” These include new flavors such as Savory Flavors and Cooling Flavors, as well as flavor modulators such as Bitter Blockers and enhancers of Sweet and Salt tastes.6

Senomyx is also engaged in a new effort to discover and develop high-potency sweeteners to replace high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, and natural herb sweeteners like Stevia, which some people object to due to its aftertaste.

To accomplish this, Senomyx has developed patented “flavor enhancing” compounds using “proprietary taste receptor-based assay systems.” It’s a taste testing system that provides scientists with biochemical responses and electronic readouts when a flavor ingredient interacts with their patented receptor, letting researchers know whether or not they’ve “hit the mark” in terms of flavor. As described by Senomyx:7

“Flavors are substances that impart tastes or aromas… Individuals experience the sensation of taste when flavors in food and beverage products interact with taste receptors in the mouth. A taste receptor functions either by physically binding to a flavor ingredient in a process analogous to the way a key fits into a lock or by acting as a channel to allow ions to flow directly into a taste cell.

As a result of these interactions, signals are sent to the brain where a specific taste sensation is registered. There are currently five recognized primary senses of taste: umami, which is the savory taste of glutamate, sweet, salt, bitter and sour.

Senomyx has discovered or in-licensed many of the key receptors that mediate taste in humans. We created proprietary taste receptor-based assay systems that provide a biochemical or electronic readout when a flavor ingredient interacts with the receptor.”

According to an article in The New Yorker8 published in May 2011, Pepsi’s New York plant has a robot fitted with human taste buds to reliably “predict” what humans might like. To create this robotic taste tester, PepsiCo scientists injected the genetic sequences of the four known taste receptors into cultured cells, and then hardwired the cells to the robot’s computer. The robot (which has replaced human taste testers for the initial taste trials) can sample some 40,000 flavor assays per day.

What are These Genetically Engineered “Flavor Enhancers,” and are They Safe?

According to a CBS News report from June 2011, 70 out of 77 Senomyx patents9, 10 filed at that time referred to the use of HEK 293.11 These are human embryonic kidney cells originally harvested from a healthy, electively aborted fetus sometime in the 1970’s. The “HEK” identifies the cells as kidney cells, and the “293” denotes that the cells came from the 293rd experiment.

These cells have been cloned for decades, as they offer a reliable way to produce new proteins using genetic engineering. Senomyx has engineered HEK293 cells to function like human taste receptor cells,12 presumably such as those used in Pepsi Co’s taste-testing robot. This was done by isolating taste receptors found in certain cells, and adding them to the HEK cells.

HEK cells are also widely used within pharmaceutical- and cell biology research for the same or similar reasons. It is however the first time HEK cells have been used in the food industry, which carries a certain “ick” factor for many. There’s also the issue of just not knowing how these new flavors are created. As stated in another CBS news report:13

“So what exactly is this magic ingredient that will be appearing in a new version of Pepsi, and how is it made? Unfortunately, those questions are hard to answer. Senomyx… refers to them only as ‘enhancers’ or ‘ingredients’… The products work by triggering receptors on the tongue and tricking your taste buds into sensing sweetness — or saltiness or coolness, in the case of the company’s other programs…

So are Senomyx’s covert ingredients safe? That, too, is anyone’s guess… many of its enhancers have ‘been granted’ GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status, but all that means is that the company did its own assessment and then concluded everything was fine. We don’t know whether Senomyx did any testing since the company isn’t required to submit anything to the FDA.14

There’s no reason to think that Senomyx’s products will cause harm, but until or unless Pepsi decides to share details about how exactly it’s achieving a 60 percent reduction in sugar while keeping the taste the same, customers will be drinking their ‘scientifically advantaged’ sodas completely in the dark.”

The lack of labeling requirements is particularly troublesome and will probably become an issue in the future. Since these compounds (whatever they are) are used in such minute quantities, they don’t have to be listed on the label. They’ll simply fall under the generic category of artificial and/or natural flavors. What this means is that the product will appear to be much “healthier” than it might otherwise be, were a flavor enhancer not used.

According to a 2010 CBS report,15 Senomyx’s flavor enhancers were already being sold outside the US at that time. For example, Nestle was by 2010 using an MSG flavor enhancer in its Maggi brand soups, sauces, condiments and instant noodles, and Ajinomoto was also using a similar ingredient in products for the Chinese market. This means less of the artificial sweetener is needed to create the same sweet taste as before, but while one could argue that this is a good thing, I suspect we will ultimately learn that this flavor enhancement method has multiple unforeseen adverse consequences — metabolically, and biologically.

Consequences of Food Alteration are More the Rule than the Exception…

There are many reasons why you’re better off choosing natural whole foods in lieu of processed alternatives, but one of the primary ones is that junk foods contain additives that increase your toxic load, which in turn may increase your tendency to develop cancer. As of yet, there is NO medical research to back up the assertion that manipulating your taste buds in the way Senomyx’ products do is safe and healthy in the long term. As an example, I would point to the evidence now available showing that one of the reasons why artificial sweeteners do not work as advertised is because the taste of sweet itself is tied into your metabolic functioning in a way that we still do not fully understand… As a result, artificially sweetened products, oftentimes boasting zero calories, actually result in greater weight gain than sweetened products when used “in the real world.”

It’s easy to forget that the processed, pre-packaged foods and fast food restaurants of today are actually a radical change in terms of the history of food production. Much of what we eat today bears very little resemblance of real food. Many products are loaded with non-nutritive fillers — purposely designed to just “take up space” to make you think you’re getting more than you really are — along with any number of additives. Many additives have been shown to have harmful effects on mood, behavior, metabolic functioning and biochemistry.

Now, with the introduction of untested engineered flavor enhancers, you’re left wondering whether processed foods with “cleaner” labels really are safer and healthier or not… Remember, because Senomyx’ flavor enhancers are used in such low concentrations they are not required to undergo theFDA’s usual safety approval process for food additives.

The disease trends we’re now seeing are only going to get worse as much of the processed foods consumed today are not even food-based. Who knows what kind of genetic mutations and malfunctions we’re creating for ourselves and future generations when a MAJORITY of our diet consists of highly processed and artificial foods that contain substances never before consumed by humans in all of history..

How to Enhance Your Food’s Flavor, Naturally

When choosing what to eat, I highly recommend you focus your meals on real food, and remember “food” equals “live nutrients.” Nutrients, in turn, feed your cells, optimize your health and sustain life. To help you along, I’ve created a free optimized nutrition plan, which takes you step-by-step from the beginner’s through the advanced level.

When you eat real foods as opposed to “food products” like the ones being “enhanced” by Senomyx’ technology, you don’t need artificial, lab-created flavors or flavor enhancers, because real foods taste delicious. The fact that processed foods taste good is the culmination of a profitable science of artificial flavors, enhancers and additives, without which most processed food would taste and look like shredded cardboard.

Real food naturally has vibrant colors, rich textures, and is authentically flavorful. For times when you want to add even more oomph to your meals, nature has provided herbs and spices, which are not only incredibly tasty but also will make your real food even healthier.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Do Artificial Sweeteners (splenda, aspartame, etc) Make You Fat? Natural Alternatives Including Stevia

I wanted to talk about artificial sweeteners today because I’ve noticed that there’s a lot of confusion and misconceptions revolving around these non-caloric sweeteners. Artificial sweeteners and the huge list of products sweetened with them are marketed to you relentlessly as “healthy foods” or “healthier” than sugar or corn syrup sweetened products. But are they really?

Just to clarify, some of the most popular artificial sweeteners on the market today are:
•Splenda (sucralose)
•Aspartame
•Saccharine
•Acesulfame Potassium (aka – acesulfame K)

These artificial sweeteners are used in abundance in almost every “diet” drink, “lite” yogurts, puddings, and ice creams, most “low-carb” products, and almost all “reduced-sugar” products. Heck, even most protein powders are loaded with artificial sweeteners too (just look on the ingredients and you’ll usually see one of them).

Splenda is probably one of the worst offenders of claiming to be “healthy” as they say that it’s made from real sugar. Don’t be fooled! It’s still an artificial substance. What they don’t tell you is that Splenda is actually a chemically modified substance where chlorine is added to the chemical structure, making it more similar to a chlorinated pesticide than something we should be eating or drinking.

This is one of the biggest misconceptions that I see all of the time and it saddens me to see so many people poisoning their family with dangerous artificial sweeteners like splenda, while falsely thinking they’re doing something healthy.

The truth is that artificial sweeteners are not even close to being healthy, and as you’ll discover in a minute, can easily be just as bad for you, if not worse, than sugar or corn syrup. Most people think that they are doing something good for themselves by choosing the “diet” drinks or “lite” yogurts compared to the sugar-laden versions, but the problem is that you’re exposing yourself to a whole new set of problems with the artificially sweetened drinks and foods.

I know you’re probably frustrated by all of the contradicting messages you hear each day about which foods are good for you and which are bad. I’m sure just today you probably saw some clever ad or commercial somewhere screaming health benefits for a food product that is loaded with artificial sweeteners. Don’t worry. Just stick with me and I’ll get past the marketing hype for you and decipher the truth. I’ll also give you some ideas for great alternatives to artificial sweeteners as well as alternatives to sugar or corn syrup sweeteners.

The fact is, artificial sweeteners vs. sugar or corn syrup is really just a battle between two evils. Which evil is worse?

I’m sure you already know the problems with sugar or high fructose corn syrup sweetened products. The excess empty calories, blood sugar spike, and resulting insulin surge this creates in your body not only promotes fat gain, but also stimulates your appetite further, making things even worse.

On the other hand, artificial sweeteners save you calories, but there’s growing evidence that they can increase your appetite for sweets and other carbohydrates causing you to eat more later in the day anyway. Therefore, you don’t really save any calories at all. Also, studies have shown that artificial sweeteners can stimulate high insulin levels in your body too, which again can promote fat storage.

All of the 4 artificial sweeteners listed above are nasty chemicals that the human body is simply not meant to ingest. However, most of us are ingesting a whole lot of these chemicals on a daily basis. Aside from the problems I touched on so far, other health issues that have been related to artificial sweeteners in scientific studies as well as observations are:
•some have been linked to potential cancer risks
•negative effects on the liver, kidneys, and other organs
•stimulating cravings
•gastrointestinal problems
•developmental problems in children and fetuses
•headaches
•and too many more issues to list

Now some of the above potential health problems are definitely not proven as fact in studies. However, some of them have been shown in animal studies given high doses. Also, if you do some research, you’ll find hoardes of people that attribute the use of artificial sweeteners over the years with all sorts of illnesses in themselves or in family members.

Regardless of the fact that any real health problems for actual human use are not proven yet, I don’t know about you, but I’d rather protect myself and my family and steer clear of these possibly dangerous artificial chemicals.

Of course, despite all of the health issues potentially associated with artificial sweeteners, the companies that sell the products will continue to claim that they are fully safe. Don’t believe them! The bottom line is that the body was not designed to deal with foreign substances like artificial sweeteners. Take my word on that one.

So what are your options for alternatives?

Well, your best alternatives for sugar or corn syrup are either raw honey, organic maple syrup, or even a little-known high antioxidant syrup called sorghum syrup (common in the southern US). Even though these alternatives still have the same amount of calories as sugar or corn syrup… honey, organic maple syrup, and sorghum syrup actually provide some nutrients and antioxidants, so it’s not just empty calories. Empty calories such as white refined sugar stimulate your appetite more because your body is lacking nutrients.

Now you’re probably thinking that you’d like to still save on calories but avoid the nasty artificial sweeteners. Good news… You can!

You’ve probably seen me reference this natural sweetener in a lot of my recipes. It’s called Stevia. I’ve been using it for years as an alternative sweetener when you still want to save a little on calories and sugar but don’t want to harm your health with artificial sweeteners.

Stevia is not artificial like the other chemical sweeteners I mentioned above. Stevia is a natural non-caloric herb that’s been used for thousands of years in some parts of the world. It is an herb and when dried into a powder, has a sweetness about 200-300 times stronger than sugar.

One problem I’ve noticed with using Stevia is that the pure powder is a very powerful sweetener, so you can easily use too much. However, I’ve found some good Stevia products that use a bulking agent added so that you can measure out the stevia powder in direct comparison to measuring sugar.

I’ve yet to see any negative reports or health concerns regarding stevia and only positive potential health benefits. After all, it’s simply an herb as opposed to an artificial chemical derived in a lab. I definitely give Stevia my seal of approval. Do yourself a favor (and your family), and if you are currently an artificial sweetener junkie, please consider switching to stevia.

More and more stevia products are available now even in many grocery stores. One of the best stevia products I’ve found over the years is made by a company called Steviva. They have an excellent stevia product blended with another natural sweetener called erythritol. I suggest giving it a try! Just look for the “Steviva Blend”. You can use it in your coffee or tea, to sweeten up plain yogurt, added to smoothies for extra sweetness, on cereals or oatmeal, in baking, or where ever else you might need a sweetener but want to reduce the sugar content.

If you want to grab some, here’s the site: Steviva Stevia Blend

Well, that’s it for today. I hope you enjoyed this important discussion. Feel free to copy/paste this link and email it to anybody you know that might be overdoing the artificial sweeteners.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

The Dramatic Benefits of Minimally Invasive Dentistry

Dental health is an important part of your overall health. Unnecessary drilling and filling your teeth with toxic materials can have far-reaching, long-term health ramifications.

Fortunately, there are options, but it can be tricky finding a dentist that is fully familiar with alternative types of dentistry, such as minimally invasive dentistry and biomimetic dentistry – the latter of which means ‘mimicking nature,’ and involves using tooth restorations and techniques that imitate natural teeth, both in appearance and function.

Both of these are covered in Carol Vander Stoep’s book, Mouth Matters. Carol has been a dental hygienist for 25 years.

She chose a career in dental hygiene over dentistry because she valued prevention over repair, and her book can be a valuable resource for lay-persons and dentists alike. It discusses whole body health from a dental perspective, along with advanced forms of dental diagnosis and treatment that we should all be requesting from our dentists.

“When I wrote the first edition of Mouth Matters, it was all about how gum disease affects heart disease, diabetes, stroke risk – all of those degenerative diseases of the body. I wasn’t all that interested in teeth.”

Carol says, “What I started to realize, as the question of root canals and breaking down teeth started to surface, was that if a tooth does break down or catastrophically fail, you’re facing the same issue about introducing germs back into the body.

As a result of having written the first edition, it was wonderful for me to be able to be introduced to some of the top dental researchers, clinicians, people who are really trying to start a revolution in dentistry and trying really hard to do it.

But we all know that revolutions don’t start from the top-down; they have to start from the bottom-up. That’s why I’m here today. Because really, we need to educate people as to what it is that we want in dentistry. We need to know the kind of care that we want.”

Naturally, preceding technological developments in dental tools is the foundation of diet. If you get your diet right, which includes avoiding sugars, processed foods and grains, then you’re creating an environment in your mouth that will be resistant to dental decay.

Fermented foods, such as fermented vegetables, can be tremendously beneficial for your oral health. I’ve had a significant problem with tartar buildup on my teeth, having to get a cleaning once a month. Once I added fermented vegetables to my diet, I’ve been able to extend it to every two months. So diet is really the foundation of healthy teeth and gums.

Modern Dentistry Really Isn’t as Advanced as it Could Be

Modern dentistry is still fairly primitive in many ways. About half of American dentists still use amalgam, half of which is neurotoxic mercury– not silver as the name “silver fillings” would imply.

But that’s not the only problem. The act of drilling into a tooth is in and of itself very destructive to the tooth, especially when using a high speed drill. It can create tiny little cracks that lead to further deterioration of the tooth over time. Low-speed drilling is not as destructive to the tooth but is still far from optimal.

The conventional strategy to “drill and fill,” regardless of the restorative material used, is an impermanent solution. An estimated 70-80 percent of the work done by dentists is re-repairing previous dental work.

“It’s important to really understand – and one thing that I didn’t appreciate was – that teeth are one of the most complex structures in your body,” Carol says. “It takes a full nine years for them to even form. It’s a series of arches.

If you would think about masonry, anytime you cut an opening in masonry in order to handle the compress of strengths, a mason has to build an arch to hold that strength. If you were to take the keystone out of that arch or to cut the leg out off of that arch, the whole arch would collapse; the whole structure would collapse.

What I think is so beautiful about a tooth – an adult molar – is that it is a series of arches. There are at least four to five arches built into the tooth. They’re actually made of different layers.

You have an outer, very tough shell called enamel. That’s only two percent organic, and it doesn’t flex a lot. But the internal part of the tooth, the body of the tooth, is 55 percent organic. It’s made of collagen and water. It’s made to shake, rattle, and roll, as we put all these compressive strengths on it. Chewing is a very, very tough thing. We want these teeth to last a hundred years and stay in function, and they’re designed to do that.”

The concept of minimally invasive dentistry is still in its infancy, although Dr. Tim Rainey has been tirelessly lecturing on the subject, all over the world, for the last 25 years. He has also written about it in dental journals. He still has a dental practice in Refugio, Texas where the majority of his patients are underprivileged children on Medicaid.

“The beauty of this dentistry is that it doesn’t require shots. It doesn’t take a lot of time. It’s not painful. In fact, since he introduced ozone into his practice, he has never had a child come in with an asymptomatic tooth (meaning a tooth in pain) that has ever needed a root canal or an extraction. He’s never even needed to anesthetize them,” Carol says.

The Importance of Early Diagnosis

Early diagnosis is essential if you want to avoid invasive restorations. Unfortunately, conventional dentistry still has a lot to learn in this respect. According to Carol, traditional means of diagnosis, using an explorer, and x-rays only have a 25 percent success rate in terms of accurate diagnosis. False positives and false negatives can occur and do so quite frequently. Carol explains:

“You can have a tooth to be completely stain-free… It cannot stick with an explorer. If we take an X-ray of the tooth, nothing shows up. It looks completely pristine.

However, [decay] can be hiding up under those pits and grooves – some rather significant decay. In fact, when the enamel is forming, a lot of times there are little folds, fractures, and not completely mineralized enamel. There are defects in the enamel that we can’t catch for many, many years. You can’t really diagnose or treat an unopened fissure. That’s really the first most important thing – I think – that people need to know.

…The decay has to get pretty deep into the tooth before we can diagnose it. In fact, X-rays are very late-stage diagnosis. Decay has to be at least two millimeters into the second layer of tooth under the enamel before an X-ray can begin to catch it. Then you have to be much more invasive in treating it. You want to be able to catch diagnosis early.”

Fluoride is commonly thought to be a primary prevention strategy against tooth decay, despite the fact that, like mercury fillings, it is a highly toxic substance, shown to lower IQ in children. According to Carol, fluoride also makes early diagnosis more difficult.

“When that outer shell is heavily infused with fluoride, it changes the way an X-ray goes through a tooth,” she says. “I think it delays diagnosis, because we’re not able to see that decay as easily.”

There are Better Alternatives to Crowns

Eventually, after a tooth has been repaired a number of times, a crown typically becomes necessary. However, biomimetic dentistry offers excellent alternatives to crowns.

“There are principles of adhesive dentistry that dentists should know, but again, most of them don’t know. There are six different ways to put [resin material] in to where it can recreate the tooth structure,” Carol explains.

For example, the dentist can section the resins, layering the material in according to something called C-factor (which has to do with the shrinkage of the material), so that it’s not creating too much pressure on the tooth in any direction. Another alternative is to use more expensive inlays or onlays. A CEREC® machine can cut the material into precise-fitting pieces that are then permanently adhered into the cavity. CEREC® material can also be used to replace an entire tooth, like a crown. However, CEREC® inlays and crowns are far better than other resin fillers and metal or porcelain crowns as they are permanent and will not need to be replaced with time.

The Benefits of Ozone in Dentistry

Now, most people get concerned when they hear ozone, equating it with ozone pollution. When ozone levels rise, we’re likely to get sick. But this is due to the pollutants caught in the ozone – ozone itself is actually nature’s way of cleaning the air. Granted, ozone gas, by itself, should not be breathed as it’s toxic to lung tissue in high concentrations. But when selectively applied, it can provide significant benefits in dentistry. In fact, according to Carol, ozone is the only way to predictably re-mineralize the tooth. The conventional thought is that this is the function of fluoride, but this is not true.

Another component of minimally invasive dentistry is the use of ozone. “I can’t believe I didn’t hear of ozone until about a year and a half ago,”

Carol says. “But it’s wonderful.”Fluoride actually has a powerfully detrimental effect, because while it can strengthen the tooth, that’s not the most important factor in preventing decay. While making the enamel denser, it also makes it more brittle by destroying the surface crystal matrix that helps protect the tooth. It’s a very similar process as osteoporosis drugs that make your bones denser but more brittle…

“We are using it close to the mouth, so there are precautions that you have to know,” Carols says. “You have to take a course in it. You can’t just start using it. But since we deal with microbes in the mouth, I can’t imagine a better place for ozone. I use it all the time in gum disease.

…The beauty is, with ozone, you don’t have to remove all the decayed material. You just remove the worst of it, then you hit it with ozone. If there are any dentists listening, they can take it down just to what we call the leathery layer. There’s still plenty of structure there. The crystalline structure is still there, and it’s still strong. It’s just been infiltrated by bacteria and their end products.

In the old way, you would want to take all of that out. We don’t want to do that. Leave that there. Hit it with ozone for a few minutes and change the chemistry of the tooth. Let it re-harden. If you don’t fill it, it will take about two months to re-harden. If you fill it, it takes four months to re-harden. It’s kind of a lovely concept, isn’t it?

…Ozone is the only way to predictably re-mineralize the tooth – it’s a component of the process. Because what it’s going to do [when applied in gas form], is diffuse into the tooth, through those little white spots into the tooth… First, it’s going to kill all the microbes in the tooth. That’s important… The end products of bacteria are acids. It changes the chemistry of the tooth from acid to neutral, so that now the tooth can re-mineralize the way it’s supposed to.

A lot of people think that re-mineralization happens from the outside in, but most of that re-mineralization is actually going to be coming through the pulp. The pulp, of course, is that hollow internal structure of a tooth that is filled with blood vessels and nerves and is designed to give the tooth nutrients and keep it hydrated. The minerals are going to come in through the pulp, feed out this way, bring the minerals to that area, and harden it.”

Everyday Dental Hygiene Tips

If you’re like most people, you probably use toothpaste. But according to Carol, not only do you not need fluoridated toothpaste, you don’t need any toothpaste at all. This is because plaque is removed through mechanical scrubbing, and the toothpaste might just give you a false sense of “clean.”

“Many of these toothpastes have surfactants and things that keep the tongue from telling you when it’s clean. If it still feels like a sweater’s on your tooth, it is. Also, you can tell better if you’re jiggling it under the gums. That’s an important feedback for you to know,” she says.

“I have people using the toothbrush as long as it takes to where the teeth feel nice and smooth. If they want to add those adjuncts, I have them use baking soda at night because that’s when our saliva slows down, and we really want to raise that pH. It’s going to have a longer effect.”

Another interesting tip is to use ozonated oil. This is simply olive or jojoba oil through which ozone has been bubbled through (note it must be medical grade ozone). You can use it to brush your teeth with, or apply it to your gums with a toothpick. (One caveat is that it doesn’t taste good.)

“My favorite tool might be the butler soft picks… It’s just a little tool that I can dip in the ozonated oil and put in between my teeth. You can put it anywhere there’s a plaque. It pretty much melts the plaque off,” Carol says.

More Information

For more information, please read Carol’s book, Mouth Matters. You may also want to recommend it to your dentist. After all, the only way dentistry will change is by patients asking for better alternatives. You can also find more information on her website, mouthmattersbook.com.

“You can say, ‘this is the kind of dentistry I want,'” Carol says. “Then also, for those who don’t have a dentist, I have developed a database. I thought that was really important to do, so that people can go to see who it is that’s been trained in it, who are using it, who are doing biomimetic dentistry, and who are using ozone in their practices. Ideally, it’s a marriage of all three.”

Alternatives such as CEREC® inlays are taught at the University of Southern California under Pascal Magne and Dave Alleman, and dental applications for ozone therapy are taught by Mollica & Harris (for information see oxygenhealingtherapies.com).

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

LATEST CANCER INFORMATION
from Johns Hopkins

AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY AND ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHNS HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY …

1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.

2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person’s lifetime.

3. When the person’s immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.

4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.

5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.

7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.

9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to STARVE the cancer cells by not feeding it with foods it needs to multiple.

What cancer cells feed on:

a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells. Note: Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in colour. Better alternative is Bragg’s aminos or sea salt.

b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk, cancer cells will starved.

c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.

d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes t o nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells.

To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water–best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines will become putrified and leads to more toxic buildup.

13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body’s killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.

14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body’s own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body’s normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor.

Anger, unforgiving and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.

16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Breast cancer is big business, and mammography is one of its primary profit centers. This is why the industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep it, by downplaying or outright ignoring its significant risks.

In the US, women are still urged to get an annual mammogram starting at the age of 40, completely ignoring the updated guidelines set forth by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2009.

Unfortunately, many women are completely unaware that the science simply does not back up the use of routine mammograms as a means to prevent breast cancer death.

As was revealed in a 2011 meta-analysis by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, mammography breast cancer screening led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, which equates to an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent.

There’s also the risk of getting a false negative, meaning that a life-threatening cancer is missed.

Unfortunately, many choose to ignore the science and continue to campaign for annual screenings without so much as a hint at the risks involved. What’s worse, in a shocking disregard for women’s health, instead of admitting there are marked flaws in mammography, they’ve now unveiled a “new and improved” type of mammogram, called 3D tomosynthesis.

Tomosynthesis is a clever re-branding of the status quo. The multi-millions of dollars spent on creating these invasive machines could have been better utilized on continuing the development of less- or non-invasive technologies such as ultrasound and infrared imaging, inventing new technologies, and on educating women on preventative strategies.

Not only does tomosynthesis still require mechanical compression, it actually exposes you to even HIGHER doses of radiation than a standard mammogram! They also still recommend you continue to receive your traditional 2D mammogram, further multiplying radiation exposure. What kind of insanity is at play here, really? This is not progress in “the war on cancer.”

New 3-D Mammography is Basically a CT Scan for Breasts

To achieve a three-dimensional image, the machine moves in an arc around your breast, taking multiple x-rays along the way, which are then computed together into a 3D image. The technology received FDA approval in 2011, and is now available in 46 states around the US. But should it be?

“The most effective way to decrease women’s risk of becoming a breast cancer patient is to avoid attending screening. Mammography screening is one of the greatest controversies in healthcare, and the extent to which some scientists have sacrificed sound scientific principles in order to arrive at politically acceptable results in their research is extraordinary.

In contrast, neutral observers increasingly find that the benefit has been much oversold and that the harms are much greater than previously believed.” writes Peter C. Gotzche, MD of The Nordic Cochrane Centre and author of Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controvesy

As reported by USA Today1 last year:

‘The procedures give women twice as much radiation as a standard mammogram, notes surgeon Susan Love, author of Dr. Susan Love’s Breast Book. That’s because women who get 3-D imaging still undergo traditional 2-D mammography, as well.

Radiation is a known cause of breast cancer. Researchers in recent years have become concerned about radiation exposure from medical imaging, particularly CT scans. A 2009 analysis estimated that CT scans cause about 29,000 cancers and 14,500 deaths a year.

Soltani says the total radiation dose from 3-D mammography is still relatively low, in spite of this increase — from 0.5 millisieverts to 1.0 millisieverts. In comparison, a CT scan of the head has a radiation dose of about 2.0 millisieverts.

Love says she’s skeptical about the technology, which she compares to ‘a new toy,’ noting that the most essential questions about its benefits are likely to remain unanswered. The most important question about a new type of screening, Love says, is not simply how well it finds cancer, but whether it saves lives.

There is no data to prove that tomosynthesis finds more cancer or saves lives, says Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. ‘3-D is a new technology that should not be used outside of a clinical trial,’ Visco says.” [Emphasis mine]

3D Mammography — A Disaster in the Making?

I find the rollout of 3D mammograms quite disturbing considering the fact that the primary hazard of conventional 2D imaging is ionizing radiation. According to one 2010 study,2 annual screening using digital or screen-film mammography on women aged 40–80 years is associated with an induced cancer incidence and fatal breast cancer rate of 20–25 cases per 100, 000. Meaning, annual mammograms CAUSE 20-25 cases of fatal cancer for every 100,000 women getting the test. The study also states that:
•Two-view screening with digital mammography delivers a slightly lower dose than does the older screen-film mammography
•Mean glandular dose of radiation from a breast CT scan is comparable to that from one screen-film mammogram
•A single digital breast tomosynthesis view involves a mean glandular dose comparable to that of a digital mammogram. The total radiation dose delivered at digital breast tomosynthesis will depend on the image acquisition strategy: whether single-view digital breast tomosynthesis, two-view digital breast tomosynthesis, or a combination of digital breast tomosynthesis and planar digital mammogram views are acquired.

Since the 3D mammogram requires multiple views in order to achieve three-dimensionality, it stands to reason your total radiation dose from 3D mammography can be considerably higher than a standard 2D mammogram. We know all levels of ionizing radiation can cause cancer but, astonishingly, radiologists still want you to have your traditional mammogram screening first, followed by a 3D tomosynthesis mammogram for those with dense breasts or an area of suspicion!

Again, this is not progress — it’s a huge step backward, making cancer screening even more dangerous than before.

Granted, a study3 published this year (which included more than 12,600 women), showed a 40 percent increase in the detection or identification of invasive cancers, and a 15 percent decrease in false positives when adding 3D mammography to traditional 2D screening. But while this sounds good, this must be weighed against the now significantly increased risk of the test itself CAUSING fatal cancer.

Confirmed: The More Mammograms You Get the More Harm They Do

Sayer Ji, founder of Greenmedinfo.com recently posted an article on mammograms, stating:4

“Mammograms are in the news again, and it doesn’t look good for those who continue to advocate using them to ‘detect cancer early’ in asymptomatic populations. The science increasingly runs directly counter to the screening guidelines produced by both governmental and nongovernmental health organizations claiming to be advocates for women’s health.

Remember that only last November, the New England Journal of Medicine5 published a shocking analysis of the past 30 years of breast screening in the US, finding that 1.3 million women were overdiagnosed and overtreated for breast cancer – euphemisms for misdiagnosed and mistreated. This finding, released cunningly from scientific embargo to the media on the eve of Thanksgiving, was so devastating in its implications that many either did not understand its meaning, or could not bear to accept the truth…

The only calculable dimension of this world-historical failure is the billions of dollars that were made in the process of converting healthy, asymptomatic women into ‘patients,’ and if fortunate enough to make it through treatment, ‘survivors.’”

As reported by The Los Angeles Times,6 another study is now raising eyebrows as it claims women who follow the American Cancer Society’s guidelines and get annual mammograms starting at age 40 not only receive NO additional protection against aggressive breast cancer, but actually experience greater harm through increased false positives and unnecessary treatments, when compared to women who get bi-annual mammograms between the ages of 50 and 74 only (which is what the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends).

“Even after researchers adjusted for confounding factors such as age, place of residence and race, they found no benefit to more frequent screenings,” the LA Times reports. “More concerning, the researchers found that the more times women were screened the greater their odds of getting ‘false positives’ on mammograms.”

The article goes on to estimate that if all American women between 66-89 received annual mammograms instead of biannual testing, this results in a staggering 3.86 million more false-positives and 1.15 million more biopsies.

Women Need to Become Better Informed

In order to make better informed decisions, women need to be provided with all of their screening options, including their strengths and weaknesses; benefits and risks. Today, women are still rarely informed about the fact that ionizing radiation is a major contributor to cancer, i.e. that routine testing itself can increase their risk of lethal breast cancer.

However, despite the introduction of 3D mammograms, the tide of thought on mammography’s benefits if rapidly changing, as evidenced by several recently published studies, including:
1.Archives of Internal Medicine7 published a meta-analysis of 117 randomized, controlled mammogram trials. Among its findings: Rates of false-positive results are high (20% to 56% after 10 mammograms), and “although few women 50 years of age or older have risks from mammography that outweigh the benefits, the evidence suggests that more women 40 to 49 years of age have such risks”
2.A study published in the British Medical Journal8 in December 2011, confirmed that breast cancer screening may cause women harm, especially during the early years after they start screening. This harm is largely due to surgeries, such as lumpectomies and mastectomies, and other (often unnecessary) interventions. The study highlights losses in quality of life from false positive results and unnecessary treatment
3.In September 2010, the New England Journal of Medicine published the first study9 in years to examine the effectiveness of mammograms. Their findings are a far cry from what most public health officials would have you believe. The bottom line is that mammograms seem to have reduced cancer death rates by only 0.4 deaths per 1,000 women — an amount so small it might as well be zero. Put another way, 2,500 women would have to be screened over 10 years for a single breast cancer death to be avoided.
4.A 2011 meta-analysis by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews10 found that mammography breast cancer screening led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, which equates to an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent. The researchers noted:

“[F]or every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.” [Emphasis mine]

Breast Cancer Prevention Strategies

Cancer screening is NOT to be misconstrued as a form of cancer prevention. Preventing breast cancer is far more important and powerful than simply trying to detect it after it has already formed, which is why I want to share my top tips on how to help prevent this disease in the first place.

In the largest review of research into lifestyle and breast cancer, the American Institute of Cancer Research estimated that about 40 percent of U.S. breast cancer cases could be prevented if people made wiser lifestyle choices.11, 12 I believe these estimates are far too low, and it is more likely that 75 percent to 90 percent of breast cancers could be avoided by strictly applying the recommendations below.
•Avoid sugar, especially fructose. All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.
•Optimize your vitamin D. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature’s most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death). If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I’m aware of, with no adverse effects. I suggest you try watching my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to learn more.

Remember that if you take high doses of oral vitamin D3 supplements, you also need to increase your vitamin K2 intake, as vitamin D increases the need for K2 to function properly. See my previous article What You Need to Know About Vitamin K2, D and Calcium for more information.

Please consider joining one of GrassrootsHealth’s D*Action’s vitamin D studies to stay on top of your vitamin D performance. For more information, see my previous article How Vitamin D Performance Testing Can Help You Optimize Your Health.
•Get plenty of natural vitamin A. There is evidence that vitamin A also plays a role in helping prevent breast cancer.13 It’s best to obtain it from vitamin A-rich foods, rather than a supplement. Your best sources are organic egg yolks,14 raw butter, raw whole milk, and beef or chicken liver.
•Lymphatic breast massage can help enhance your body’s natural ability to eliminate cancerous toxins. This can be applied by a licensed therapists, or you can implement self-lymphatic massage. It is also promotes self-nurturance.
•Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide — a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried — has been found to increase breast cancer risk as well.
•Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.
•Improve your insulin receptor sensitivity. The best way to do this is by avoiding sugar and grains and making sure you are exercising, especially with Peak Fitness.
•Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It’s important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.
•Drink a quart of organic green vegetable juice daily. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information.
•Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
•Curcumin. This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of breast cancer. It shows immense therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.15 It’s important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed that well, so I’ve provided several absorption tips here.
•Avoid drinking alcohol, or at least limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.
•Breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows breastfeeding can reduce your breast cancer risk.
•Avoid wearing underwire bras. There is a good deal of data that metal underwire bras can heighten your breast cancer risk.
•Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Even electric blankets can increase your cancer risk.
•Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy. Breast cancer is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy. (There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.)

If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.
•Avoid BPA, phthalates and other xenoestrogens. These are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk
•Make sure you’re not iodine deficient, as there’s compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with breast cancer. Dr. David Brownstein,16 author of the book Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can’t Live Without It, is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer. It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells.

For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein’s book. I have been researching iodine for some time ever since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein as I do believe that the bulk of what he states is spot on. However, I am not at all convinced that his dosage recommendations are correct. I believe they are too high.

Arm Yourself with Information So You Can Take Control of Your Health

Many women are completely unaware that the science backing the use of mammograms is sorely lacking, and that more women are being harmed by regular mammograms than are saved by them. Peter C. Gotzche, MD of the Nordic Cochrane Centre’ recently published a groundbreaking book Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy. It offers a comprehensive take on the evidence, and a critical look at the scientific disputes and the information provided to women by governments and cancer charities. It also explains why mammography screening is unlikely to be effective today.

Many also do not realize that the “new and improved” 3D tomosynthesis mammogram actually ends up exposing you to MORE cancer-causing ionizing radiation than the older version. This is not a step forward… Please understand that there are other screening options, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and you have a right to utilize those options. Also remember that in order to truly avoid breast cancer, you need to focus your attention on prevention.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

ER Doctor Tells You How to Avoid the Most Common Ways You Could Die Prematurely

Dr. Doug McGuff, M.D., is an emergency room physician and, as such, is uniquely positioned to speak about the common ways people end up dying prematurely. He has a unique perspective as he has worked for over twenty years in the ER and viewed firsthand the most common mistakes that people make that wind up seriously harming them or prematurely ending their life.

I’ve interviewed him previously on the topic of high-intensity interval training using weights, but here he speaks about his experiences working in the ER – and, more importantly, what you can do to stay out of it.

Black Swan Avoidance – The Dirty Dozen Ways to Die That You Can Avoid

Dr. McGuff calls the risks that follow “black swans.” By steering clear of them and instead using the tips that follow, you can protect your health from not only tragic accidents but also more insidious threats.

1. Buy a Big Car

Accidents, including motor vehicle accidents, are the fifth leading cause of death in the United States. You probably can’t stop driving … but you can protect yourself better by buying a bigger car. In a collision, generally the bigger the car you’re in, the safer you’ll be. Also important is choosing a car that is loaded with airbags.

2. No 4-Wheel ATVs

All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are a popular hobby for many, but they’re also responsible for hundreds of deaths, and over 100,000 emergency room visits, every year.1 Dr. McGuff has seen too many people who have died or become paralyzed (including children) after using these vehicles, so his advice is to just stay off.

3. Roads are for Cars

If you love jogging or cycling, do it indoors or on a designated walking/biking path. If you do so on the road, you’re risking your life to distracted drivers who often don’t see or slow down for pedestrians and cyclists. In 2010, for instance, 618 cyclists were killed and an additional 52,000 were injured in motor vehicle traffic crashes.2

4. Only Pilot if You’re a Professional

If you’ve devoted your life to becoming a professional pilot, good for you. If not, stay out of the sky. Part-time amateur pilots simply have not put in the extensive time needed to hone their piloting skills, and as a result are at a much higher risk of crashing and getting killed.

5. Heel Dust

If you see a group of men walking toward you on the street, and they appear intoxicated, angry or aggressive, cross to the other side. Any time you are faced with a confrontation with an aggressive person, your best bet is to show them “heel dust” – in other words, run away, don’t fight.

6. Gas Grill

I’ve written on some of the dangers of eating grilled food, but Dr. McGuff speaks about the dangers from lighting one. If your gas grill won’t start, he says, walk away. Otherwise, the gas build-up can lead to major flames when it finally does ignite, and this can translate to third-degree burns, or worse, for you. Not to mention, gas grills are involved in nearly 7,000 home fires a year.3

7. Feet First

Thinking of diving into a pool, lake, ocean or any other body of water? Don’t. At least, not until you’ve jumped in feet first, first, so you can determine how deep the water is. Diving in head first into a too-shallow body of water can break your neck, paralyze you, or kill you, so just don’t do it.

An estimated 800 spinal cord injuries occur each year from people diving into a body of water, and 90 percent of these happen in water depths less than six feet.4 Generally, a minimum water depth of at least nine feet is recommended for head-first dives.

8. Ladders

Your intentions are good – you want to hang holiday lights or fix a shingle on your roof. But climbing onto a ladder to do so can quickly turn deadly. If you can, hire a professional to do any painting or other repairs that require you to climb a ladder, so you can avoid becoming one of the more than 164,000 people who end up in emergency rooms each year due to ladder-related injuries.5

9. Retirement “Dream” Homes

Thinking of building your dream home to live out your retirement years in bliss? Find one that already exists and just move in instead. According to Dr. McGuff, he sees an inordinate number of people suffering from heart attacks caused by the stress from – you guessed it – dealing with contractors and other issues while building their retirement home.

10. “Hell No!”

If anyone tells you to get into a car at the point of a weapon, your response should be, “Hell no!” Once you get into a car against your will, you will most certainly die, likely after suffering immensely. Do whatever you need to do to NOT get in the car – run, yell, scream, fight back, anything to keep from getting into that car.

11. Bad Relationships

About 15 percent of the population has psychotic, anti-social personality disorders. When you are in a relationship with one of these people, you will feel emotionally fatigued and upset, recurrently. If you notice these signs, ditch the relationship, and that may include a family member, friend, employer, etc.

Relationship problems, like most emotional struggles, represent a major drain on your health and well-being, so be ruthless in cutting any unhealthy relationships from your life.

12. Lottery

Don’t play it! Unearned wealth will destroy you. “If you get money you did not earn, it will take you down!” Dr. McGuff says. If you don’t believe this, do an Internet search for stories of lottery winners, and you’ll see the wrath that often follows …

13. Bonus: Be Kind

Being kind is the most important strategy for your health and for society, according to Dr. McGuff. This makes sense, as people tend to attract the energy that they give off, so if you are kind you’re likely to be surrounded by kindness in return.

You Can Prevent Most Leading Causes of Death

Dr. McGuff’s speech is an exercise in empowerment, as these are examples of potentially deadly activities that you can and should avoid. The fact is, while you can’t avoid dying, you can often avoid dying prematurely. Most chronic diseases, including cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and obesity, are largely preventable with simple lifestyle changes. Even infectious diseases like the flu can often be warded off by a healthy way of life, which is best implemented by the comprehensive Nutrition Plan that I have developed and is available free to you.

Imagine the lowered death toll, not to mention costs to the economy, if more people decided to take control of their health … heart disease and cancer alone accounted for 47 percent of deaths in the United States in 2010, and there are many strategies you can implement to lower your risk of these diseases … and most of the leading causes of death in the United States. The added bonus to this is that the healthier you are, the less you will need to rely on conventional medical care, which is another leading cause of death. So what does a “healthy lifestyle” entail?

Proper Food Choices

For a comprehensive guide on which foods to eat and which to avoid, see my nutrition plan. Generally speaking, you should be looking to focus your diet on whole, unprocessed foods (vegetables, meats, raw dairy, nuts, and so forth) that come from healthy, sustainable, local sources, such as a small organic farm not far from your home. For the best nutrition and health benefits, you will want to eat a good portion of your food raw. Personally, I aim to eat about 80-85 percent of my food raw, including raw eggs.

Nearly as important as knowing which foods to eat more plentifully is knowing which foods to avoid, and topping the list is fructose. Sugar, and fructose in particular, acts as a toxin in and of itself, and as such drive multiple disease processes in your body, not the least of which is insulin resistance, a major cause of accelerated aging.

Comprehensive Exercise Program, including High-Intensity Exercise like Peak Fitness

Even if you’re eating the healthiest diet in the world, you still need to exercise to reach the highest levels of health, and you need to be exercising effectively, which means including not only core-strengthening exercises, strength training, and stretching but also high-intensity activities into your rotation.

High-intensity interval-type training gives a natural boost to human growth hormone (HGH) production, which is essential for optimal health, strength and vigor. I’ve discussed the importance of Peak Fitness for your health on numerous occasions, so for more information, please review this previous article.

Stress Reduction and Positive Thinking

You cannot be optimally healthy if you avoid addressing the emotional component of your health and longevity, as your emotional state plays a role in nearly every physical disease — from heart disease and depression, to arthritis and cancer. Effective coping mechanisms are a major longevity-promoting factor in part because stress increases inflammation in the body, which in turn underlies many of the chronic diseases that kill people prematurely every day. Meditation, prayer, social support and exercise, as well as my personal favorite the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), are all viable options that can help you maintain emotional and mental equilibrium.

Proper Sun Exposure to Optimize Vitamin D

We have long known that it is best to get your vitamin D from sun exposure, and if at all possible, I strongly urge you to make sure you’re getting out in the sun on a daily basis. Vitamin D plays an important role in preventing numerous illnesses ranging from cancer to the flu.

The important factor when it comes to vitamin D is your serum level, which should ideally be between 50-70 ng/ml year-round. Sun exposure or a safe tanning bed is the preferred method for optimizing vitamin D levels, but a vitamin D3 supplement can be used as a last resort. Most adults need about 8,000 IU’s of vitamin D a day to achieve serum levels above 40 ng/ml, which is still just below the minimum recommended serum level of 50 ng/ml.

High Quality Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats

Animal-based omega-3 fat sources like krill oil are a strong factor in helping people live longer, and many experts believe that it is likely the predominant reason why the Japanese are the longest lived race on the planet.

Avoid as Many Chemicals, Toxins, and Pollutants as Possible

This includes tossing out your toxic household cleaners, soaps, personal hygiene products, air fresheners, bug sprays, lawn pesticides, and insecticides, just to name a few, and replacing them with non-toxic alternatives.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

At your last meal, did you pay any attention to where the food on your plate came from? It’s a detail that many of us overlook, or think about only in passing, but it’s one that is quite rapidly shaping the future of our planet – and not in a good way.

Seven percent of farms now sell 75 percent of our food, using a conventional farming system that depends on pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, monoculture and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

In the documentary film Sustainable Table: What’s On Your Plate, you can get a closer look at the war modern-day agriculture is waging against the planet… and learn what you can do to help stop it.

Conventional Farming Aims to Conquer Nature

You are actually an integral part of nature. But in conventional farming, nature is often considered the enemy – one that must be dealt with using a controlled system of chemicals, irrigation systems, GMOs, fertilizers and other additions to the soil.

When natural processes interfere with the objectives of conventional farming, it responds by using various concoctions of herbicides, pesticides and insecticides to kill weeds, insects and other pests.

This does not come without consequence, however. As the film explains, conventional agriculture’s overexploitation, pollution and other environmental insults made largely over the last half century have resulted in massive ecological degradation; ironically, 60 percent of the planet’s ecosystems, which have been devastated by the activities of man, are now no longer capable of sustaining themselves without human intervention!

The film cites the following statistics:
•Conventional agriculture results in the loss of 24 billion tons of topsoil every year; it takes 500 years for the earth to form 1 inch of topsoil
•Agricultural runoff is the #1 pollutant of U.S. rivers, poisoning groundwater and killing entire ecosystems
•According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), cutting the use of agrichemicals could save $15 billion in water treatment costs

Monocropping: An Unfortunate ‘Side Effect’ of Modern Farming

Monocropping (or monoculture) is defined as the high-yield agricultural practice of growing a single crop year after year on the same land, in the absence of rotation through other crops. Corn, soybeans, wheat, and to some degree rice, are the most common crops grown with monocropping techniques.

It’s an efficient system that modern agriculture depends on, but massive monoculture has led to the extinction of 75 percent of the world’s crop varieties over the last century. It is detrimental to the environment for a number of reasons, including the following:
•It damages soil ecology by depleting and reducing the diversity of soil nutrients
•It creates an unbuffered niche for parasitic species to take over, making crops more vulnerable to opportunistic pathogens that can quickly wipe out an entire crop
•It increases dependency on chemical pesticides and fertilizers
•It increases reliance on expensive specialized farm equipment and machinery that require heavy use of fossil fuels
•It destroys biodiversity

By contrast, polyculture (the traditional rotation of crops and livestock used historically by small family farms) better serves both land and people. Polyculture evolved to meet the complete nutritional needs of a local community, and when done mindfully, automatically replenishes what is taken out, making it sustainable with minimal effort.

CAFOs Have Become a Cruel New ‘Norm’

Modern agriculture views animals as commodities rather than living beings, and the end result is a very sad and cruel system where livestock are subject to profound mental and physical anguish, not to mention subject to incredibly unhealthy practices, like the administration of low-dose antibiotics and living in their own waste.

People living near CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) are exposed to odorous emissions linked to decreased lung function, cardiovascular ailments, neurological problems, asthma, and premature death; drinking water is also often contaminated by animal waste runoff. Corporate-owned CAFOs have been highly promoted as the best way to produce food for the masses, but the only reason CAFOs are able to remain so “efficient” is because they substitute government-subsidized crops for pasture grazing, completely altering the animals’ natural diets, with further disastrous consequences for both animal and human health.

Conventional Farming Promotes Consumption of Unhealthy Foods

Although I don’t agree with the film’s portrayal of saturated fats as unhealthy, or of a vegan diet as particularly healthy, there is no denying the fact that modern agricultural practices promote the consumption of an unhealthy diet. Today’s sky-high rates of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease can be tied directly to changes in how our food has been grown and produced over the past 40 years.

This includes an overconsumption of low-quality sources of protein. For optimal health, I recommend reducing your protein levels to one gram per kilogram of lean body weight. It would be unusual for most adults to need more than 100 grams of protein and most likely close to half that … yet access to cheap sources of meat (such as fast-food burgers) make it easy to surpass this.

Also problematic is the fact that farm subsidies bring you high-fructose corn syrup, fast food, animal factories, monoculture, and a host of other contributors to our unhealthful contemporary diet. A report comparing federal subsidies of fresh produce and junk food, prepared by U.S. PIRG, a non-profit organization that takes on special interests on behalf of the public, revealed where your tax dollars are really going, and it’s quite shocking.

If you were to receive an annual federal subsidy directly, you would receive $7.36 to spend on junk food and just 11 cents to buy apples. In other words, every year your tax dollars pay for enough corn syrup and other junk food additives to buy 19 Twinkies, but only enough fresh fruit to buy less than a quarter of one red delicious apple.

Sustainable Food Systems Are Out There… And They Need Your Support

The film wraps up by showing several examples of truly sustainable agriculture – an organic farm where workers handpick weeds and pests off of plants in lieu of using chemicals, a farmer’s market where you can talk with your local farmers about how your food is being grown … by making changes in what food you choose to purchase and eat, you can actively support the natural agricultural systems that the future of the planet, and of the human race, depend on.

You may be surprised to find out that by going directly to the source you can get amazingly healthy, locally grown, organic food for less than you can find at your supermarket. This gives you the best of both worlds: food that is grown near to you and sold with minimal packaging, cutting down on its carbon footprint and giving you optimal freshness, as well as grown without chemicals, genetically modified seeds, and other potential threats to your health.

Just as restaurants are able to keep their costs down by getting food directly from a supplier, you, too, can take advantage of a direct farm-to-consumer relationship, either on an individual basis or by joining a food coop in your area. Many farmers markets are now accepting food stamps, so this is an opportunity most everyone can join in on.

You vote three times a day when you choose the foods for your meals. Will you vote for the system that is systematically destroying your health, animal welfare and the planet… or will you support those who are changing the world for the better, one meal at a time?

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.