Rather Be Healthy

Dental amalgam is a primitive, environmentally polluting product. It is an antiquated remnant from the Civil War era—which is composed of about 50 percent mercury, a well-known neurotoxin.

Aside from the health risks associated with placing mercury into your teeth, there’s also the issue of environmental pollution caused by the dental industry. Once released into the environment, dental mercury converts to methylmercury and contaminates fish, which are the largest dietary source of mercury in the US.

Yet despite the evidence, the American Dental Association (ADA) still remains a staunch advocate of dental amalgams, refusing to acknowledge any inherent problems and risks associated with dental mercury.

The ADA was also among the pro-mercury forces seeking to have dental amalgams exempted from the United Nations Environment Program’s (UNEP) worldwide environmental treaty on mercury.1

Fortunately, earlier this year the scheme failed. On January 19, 2013, more than 140 nations agreed to the treaty, giving birth to “The Minamata Convention on Mercury,”2 which includes worldwide phase-down of dental amalgam to reduce environmental mercury pollution. However, mercury-containing vaccine preservatives were excluded from the treaty.

Thankfully an increasing number of dentists and health professionals have started to take notice and are turning their backs on this archaic practice. According to a survey, 52 percent of American dentists report they are no longer placing amalgams in their patients’ mouths.

Specialists, however, are still far more likely to be using mercury fillings — four out of five still place amalgams. Last year, the New York University College of Dentistry announced that amalgam will no longer be the default restoration material students are taught to use.

Dr. Oz Causes ‘Controversy’ with Amalgam Segment

Dr. Oz recently aired a segment about the dangers of dental amalgams,3 which was quickly denounced and attacked by the ADA and “skeptics” alike. In an ADA rebuttal published by the Sacramento Bee, ADA President Dr. Robert Faiella states:4

“As a physician, Dr. Oz missed an opportunity to educate his viewers, and instead focused on conjecture rather than fact.”

And Steven Salzberg, a computer scientist at Johns Hopkins University5 wrote a scathing critique in Forbes,6 in which he accuses Dr. Oz of demonstrating “poor understanding of science,” and being “ignorant of the truth.”

“Why aren’t people dropping like flies from the fillings in their teeth?” he writes. “With little effort, I determined that, contrary to Dr. Oz’s statements, nothing new has been discovered lately about silver tooth fillings. I found studies going back to the 1970s that showed what we’ve long known for decades – that mercury is released from these fillings. But Oz ignores all these.” [Emphasis mine]

What’s fascinating about Salzberg’s attempt at discrediting Dr. Oz for bringing attention to this issue is that he doesn’t actually refute the science at all. As he states above, studies going back to the 70’s show that mercury vapor IS released from amalgam fillings. He simply bashes Dr. Oz’s “overenthusiastic” mannerisms and delivery of the facts.

In this case, he criticizes Dr. Oz for saying that he’s showing the proof of mercury vapor release “for the first time,” which would be technically inaccurate if viewed over the course of history of modern science perhaps, yet accurate if you limit it to Dr. Oz’s show, or perhaps even television. After all, when was the last time you heard or saw anyone demonstrating how mercury vapors are released from dental amalgams on TV?

Salzburg also disagrees with any claims that this mercury vapor may in fact be harmful to your health, although he offers no proof of its harmlessness, aside from the insinuation that since people aren’t dropping dead, how bad could it be?

If you’re wondering the same thing, remember there’s a big difference between acutely lethal toxicity and insidious, disease-producing toxicity that accumulates over time. Just because it doesn’t instantly kill you, does NOT mean it’s harmless!

To perpetuate such an idea is reprehensibly irresponsible, yet this is what’s happening not just with mercury fillings, but also with water fluoridation, pollution, plastic endocrine-disrupting chemicals and other environmental pollutants that collectively take their toll on your health. “Science-based skeptics” keep hammering out the message that avoiding toxic exposures is “controversial,” as if your health and well-being depended on ignoring such advice. When are we going to stop giving them the time of day? How could such a notion possibly BE controversial when you consider that the human body was not designed to run on toxins and man-made chemicals?

Smoking Teeth—Toxic Gas

Salzberg also questions the credentials of David Wentz who performed the mercury vapor demonstration on Dr. Oz’ show. But a similar visual demonstration of this toxic gas release originates from the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology7 (IAOMT).

The video powerfully demonstrates that if you have amalgam fillings, then every time you eat, chew, visit the dentist or drink hot coffee, mercury vapors are released into your oral cavity, where it can be absorbed into your blood stream. The poisonous vapors are odorless, colorless and tasteless however, so you won’t be able to tell that they’re there. A single dental amalgam filling may release as much as 15 micrograms of mercury per day. The average individual has eight amalgam fillings and could absorb up to 120 micrograms of mercury per day. In contrast, eating mercury-tainted seafood will expose you to about 2.3 micrograms per day — and that alone was enough for scientists to call for a worldwide warning8 back in 2006.

The Truth about Mercury Fillings: Disasters for Your Health and the Environment

The mercury used by dentists to manufacture dental amalgam is shipped as a hazardous material to the dental office. Any amalgam leftover is also treated as hazardous and requires special precautions to dispose of, yet it’s supposed to be “safe” to keep it in your mouth for years to come.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can damage your brain, central nervous system and kidneys. Children and fetuses, whose brains are still developing, are most at risk, but really anyone can be affected. Sadly, many live with toxic reactions for extended periods of time, never connecting the dots between their failing health and the mercury in their teeth.

Once someone dies, their amalgam fillings actually pose a risk to the living as well. Emissions from the combustion of mercury fillings during cremation are a significant contaminator of air, waterways, soil, wildlife and food. Seven to nine metric tons of mercury per year escapes into the atmosphere during cremations, and it is estimated that, left unchecked, crematoria will be the largest single cause of mercury pollution by 2020.

When you factor in environmental costs and clean-up costs, amalgam is actually the MOST EXPENSIVE dental material in the world. It is also the number one cause of mercury exposure for consumers, according to the Canadian government and other sources.

Important Information Regarding Amalgam Removal

For those of you who have mercury fillings, I recommend that you have them removed … but avoid making the mistake I did nearly 20 years ago by having it done by a non-biological dentist. When you have these fillings removed you can be exposed to significant amounts of mercury vapors if the dentist doesn’t know what he or she is doing. It’s also for this reason that I strongly suggest you get healthy BEFORE having your fillings removed, as you want your detoxification mechanisms optimized prior to removal.

My struggles with my own teeth led me to learn about and embrace biological dentistry, also known as holistic or environmental dentistry. In a nutshell, biological dentistry views your teeth and gums as an integrated part of your entire body, and any medical treatments performed takes this fact into account. The primary aim of holistic dentistry is to resolve your dental problems while working in harmony with the rest of your body.

Biological dentists are well aware of the dangers involved with toxic materials such as mercury fillings (aka amalgams). Some things that need to be done to keep you (and your dentist) safe during amalgam removal include:
•Providing you with an alternative air source and instructing you not to breathe through your mouth
•Using a cold-water spray to minimize mercury vapors
•Putting a rubber dam in your mouth so you don’t swallow or inhale any toxins
•Using a high-volume evacuator near the tooth at all times to evacuate the mercury vapor
•Washing your mouth out immediately after the fillings have been removed (the dentist should also change gloves after the removal)
•Immediately cleaning your protective wear and face once the fillings are removed
•Using room air purifiers

How to Find a Qualified Biological Dentist

Knowledgeable biological dentists can be hard to come by, so start your search by asking a friend, relative, neighbor, or inquire at your local health food store. The following links can also help you to find a mercury-free, biological dentist:
•Consumers for Dental Choice
•International Academy of Biological Dentistry & Medicine (IABDM)
•Dental Amalgam Mercury Solutions (DAMS). E-mail them at: [email protected] or call 651-644-4572 for an information packet
•Huggins Applied Healing. You’ll need to fill out a form and they will connect with you to find a suitable dentist in your area
•Holistic Dental Association
•International Association of Mercury Safe Dentists

What Types of Alternative are There?

One of the most popular alternatives to amalgam is resin composite, which is made of a type of plastic reinforced with powdered glass. It is already common throughout the United States and the rest of the developed world, offering notable improvements over amalgam, as it:
•Is environmentally safe: Composite, which contains no mercury, does not pollute the environment. This saves taxpayers from paying the costs of cleaning up dental mercury pollution in our water, air, and land – and the costs of health problems associated with mercury pollution.
•Preserves healthy tooth structure, because, unlike amalgam, it does not require the removal of significant amounts of healthy tooth matter. Over the long term, composite preserves healthy tooth structure and actually strengthens teeth, leading to better oral health and less extensive dental work over the long-term.
•Is long-lasting: While some claim that amalgam fillings last longer than composite fillings, the science reveals this claim to be baseless. The latest studies show that composite not only lasts as long as amalgam, but actually has a higher overall survival rate.

A lesser-known alternative is increasingly making mercury-free dentistry possible even in the rural areas of developing countries. Atraumatic restorative treatment (also called alternative restorative treatment or ART) is a mercury-free restorative technique that has been demonstrated a success in a diverse array of countries around the world, including Tanzania, India, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Turkey, South Africa, Thailand, Canada, Panama, Ecuador, Syria, Hong Kong, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Chile, Nigeria, China, Uruguay, Peru, and the United States. ART relies on adhesive materials for the filling (instead of mercury) and uses only hand instruments to place the filling, making it particularly well-suited for rural areas of developing countries.

Global Consensus Reached on Mercury Pollution

There’s now a global consensus that so-called “silver” fillings contribute to environmental mercury pollution, and the UN treaty calling for worldwide phase-down of amalgam to protect the environment is a good start, seeing how significant of a problem it is. According to EPA estimates from 2010, about 50 percent of the mercury entering municipal wastewater treatment plants (about 3.7 tons each year) can be traced back to dental amalgam waste. An estimated 90 percent is captured by the treatment plants.9 The rest ends up in sewage sludge—some of which ends up in landfills, while other portions are incinerated (thereby polluting the air) or applied as agricultural fertilizer (polluting your food), or seep into waterways (polluting fish and wildlife).

But we also need to recognize the hazard mercury amalgam poses to human health when used in dentistry. Small steps are being taken, but much more still needs to be done. As reported by the Chicago Tribune10:

“Two large, nonprofit Catholic hospital chains are waging proxy battles with the two leading American makers of dental amalgam. The hospital chains’ investment arms are seeking a shareholder vote that would mandate each company detail plans to phase out mercury.”

It’s high time that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the dental schools in charge of educating young dentists start acknowledging the dangers of mercury fillings and at least protect those most vulnerable to damage from mercury fillings — children and pregnant women. There is overwhelming evidence showing mercury is easily released in the form of vapor each time you eat, drink, brush your teeth or otherwise stimulate your teeth. These mercury vapors readily pass through your cell membranes, across your blood-brain barrier, and into your central nervous system, where they can cause psychological, neurological, and immunological problems.

View the Infographic

Embed this infographic on your website:

Discover more about mercury and how you can get this toxic, bioaccumulative substance from your dentist through our infographic “Mercury Dental Fillings: By the Numbers.” Use the embed code to share it on your website.

Discover more about mercury and how you can get this toxic, bioaccumulative substance from your dentist through our infographic "Mercury Dental Fillings: By the Numbers." Use the embed code to share it on your website.

Click on the code area and press CTRL + C (for Windows) / CMD + C (for Macintosh) to copy the code.

Please Help Hold FDA Accountable

On September 22, 2011, Dr. Jeff Shuren, Director of the Center for Devices & Radiological Health (the branch of the FDA responsible for the approval and safety of all medical devices) promised to make an announcement on amalgam by the end of 2011. When questioned by a reporter at a major newspaper, the FDA repeated that it would act in 2011. As 2011 came to a close, the suspense grew as everyone speculated whether FDA would finally act, to protect the health of American children. With just six minutes left in the work year, at 4:54 pm on Friday, December 30, FDA conceded that no announcement was forthcoming – not in 2011, and maybe not at all.

As of today, April 16, 2013, the FDA’s announcement is 472 days overdue, and counting…

The FDA’s door is always open to the drug companies seeking quick approval of its latest and greatest drug, but the agency is now in its second year of violating its own deadline to act on amalgam. In a call to action, The Campaign for Mercury Free Dentistry writes11:

“As confirmed by the mercury treaty talks, dental amalgam is beyond a doubt a hazard in our environment; that is why so many government officials on every continent are dedicated to phasing down – and ultimately phasing out – its use. But FDA failed to consider the environmental health threat posed by this mercury product in its 2009 dental amalgam rule.

Not only that, but FDA failed to address the problem of amalgam use in children – even though its own hand-picked advisory panel on dental amalgam raised this concern again and again during its 2010 meeting. The scientists on that panel told FDA there is “no place for mercury in children”…. recommended that in “children less than 6 years of age, I would restrict it significantly”…. insisted that amalgam did not belong in “pregnant women and definitely not in those below 6 years of age”…. and asked FDA, “why put amalgams in children if we know they’re going to live with that for the rest of their lives? And we don’t know what that’s going to do.”

In fact, not a single scientist on FDA’s advisory panel agreed with FDA’s 2009 rule that promoted unrestricted amalgam use in children and pregnant women. Director Shuren himself has acknowledged the FDA panel’s conclusion: “Now, the panel did …point out that there may be certain populations who are more sensitive to dental amalgam, like young children and pregnant women.”

So why doesn’t FDA protect those young children and pregnant women from this unnecessary source of mercury exposure?”

How You Can Help

Dr. Oz spoke out about mercury fillings—now it’s your turn! It’s high time for the FDA start acting on the science and get on the bandwagon to protect the health of children and pregnant women across the US. Your voice is needed in order to bring about permanent change in the fight for mercury-free dentistry. The FDA reneged on their stated intent to address dental amalgam by the end of 2011. We now need you to urge the FDA to heed the advice of its own scientists, convened in December 2010. To voice your opinion, please contact Dr. Shuren. This time, we think it best if you telephone or fax him, and make your message more direct, rather than emailing.
•EMAIL FDA Director Shuren at [email protected] or
•CALL him at 301-796-5900 or
•FAX him at 301-847-8510 or
•MAIL a letter to Director Jeff Shuren, CDRH, Building WO66, Room 5442, U.S. Food and Drug Admin., 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20993

Phone calls and faxes are especially important because Dr. Shuren cannot ignore them – keep calling and leaving messages until you get answers! Ask Dr. Shuren:
1.The FDA panel on dental amalgam that met in 2010 recommended against using dental amalgam in young children and pregnant women. What are you doing to protect young children and pregnant women from dental amalgam?
2.Other nations like Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark have taken steps to protect children and pregnant women from dental amalgam. Why is the U.S. so far behind other nations?
3.You said FDA would make an announcement on dental amalgam by December 31, 2011. We have waited patiently for more than 450 days, but it is now 2013. When is FDA going to start protecting our children from dental mercury?

472 days of FDA silence is enough. With your help, we can show our government that the public will not rest until FDA is at least protecting our children from dental mercury.

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

Government agency determined back in 2012 that PSA tests are useless for men of all ages

Presumably in response to the continued release of independent studies that warn about the uselessness of prostate cancer screenings, the American College of Physicians (ACP) has issued its own alert about the questionable practice. In a recent statement published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, ACP petitions doctors to be wary about recommending prostate cancer screenings to their patients, warning that they come with limited benefits and a slew of “substantial harms.”

As explained by ACP on its website, the group is strongly opposed to any men younger than 50 or older than 69 receiving prostate cancer screenings, period. And for men between the ages of 50 and 69, ACP strongly encourages a thorough discussion with one’s doctor before agreeing to a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, as misdiagnosis and resultant unnecessary treatments can cause more harm than good in the form of incontinence, impotence, and various other devastating side effects.

“Before PSA testing, doctors and patients should discuss the potential benefits and harms of screening and the patient’s individual risk of prostate cancer, general health, and preferences for testing and evaluation,” says David L. Bronson, M.D, F.A.C.P., and president of ACP. “Only men between the ages of 50 and 69 who express a clear preference for screening should have the PSA test. For most of these men, the harms will outweigh the benefits.”

Government agency determined back in 2012 that PSA tests are useless for men of all ages
Such a statement represents an about-face for ACP, which just so happens to be one of the original architects of the PSA test for prostate cancer. But it is a welcomed change, especially in light of the fact that the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) last year determined that PSA screenings are useless for all men, regardless of age. According to USPSTF researchers, the harms of PSA testing far outweigh any alleged benefits.

Major harms caused by PSA screening include false positives that result in unneeded treatment, including prostate biopsies that can lead to significant bleeding, infection, or worse. False positives can also lead to treatments with surgery or radiation, which can result in loss of sexual function, loss of control of urination, and even death. There is also the risk of falsely targeting benign tumors that are actually harmless, a major flaw of the PSA test.

“Many people have a blind faith in early detection of cancer and subsequent aggressive medical intervention whenever cancer is found,” wrote Dr. Otis W. Brawley, M.D., M.P.H., Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society, in an accompanying commentary published alongside the USPSTF’s updated recommendations. “There is little appreciation of the harms that screening and medical interventions can cause.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.acponline.org/pressroom/prostate_cancer_screening.htm

http://www.acponline.org/pressroom/psa_release.htm

http://www.reuters.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/031950_prostate_cancer_screening.html

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

A bird flu pandemic has been sparked in China, where 60 people have so far been infected and 13 have died from various new strains of bird flu (including H7N9). Across China and Taiwan, people are in a panic over the spread of bird flu, and the media there is reporting widespread concern that this may be the beginning of the next global pandemic.

A Chinese Air Force General has publicly announced the bird flu is a “bio bomb” weapon launched by the USA, but you won’t find that reported in the mainstream media. In fact, the fake media is hardly reporting on this bird flu outbreak at all — and that’s because there is no vaccine to hype yet.

Once a bird flu vaccine is available that claims to target the new strains, all the scare tactics will be unleashed by the CDC, CNN, MSNBC and other usual suspects.

New bird flu strains “evolving to adapt to human cells”
So far, those infected with these bird flu strains have all had contact with birds (poultry). The virus hasn’t yet achieved a mutation that would allow it to be transmitted via human-to-human transmission.

But scientists believe that day is not far off. A study led by Masato Tashiro of the Influenza Virus Research Center, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, and Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Tokyo concludes the new bird flu strain is “evolving to adapt to human cells, raising concern about its potential to spark a new global flu pandemic.”

As Science Daily reports:

“The human isolates, but not the avian and environmental ones, have a protein mutation that allows for efficient growth in human cells and that also allows them to grow at a temperature that corresponds to the upper respiratory tract of humans, which is lower than you find in birds.”

FDA criminalizes medicinal bird flu defenses
Meanwhile, the FDA continues to do everything in its power to maximize the death toll if such a pandemic is unleashed. This is a form of “vaccine terror” that attempts to achieve maximum casualties in order to scare everybody into buying in to the vaccine hoax.

The FDA’s strategy for this began in 2004 with the banning of Ma Huang (ephedra), a powerful Chinese Medicine herb that’s part of a little-known bird flu defense formula called, “Minor Blue Green Dragon.”

On November 23, 2004, the FDA unleashed an assault on all dietary supplements containing Ma Huang (ephedra), calling it “dangerous at any dose.” This was a complete hoax, of course, given that the FDA routinely allows super deadly pharmaceuticals to remain on the market (Vioxx) even when they kill 50,000 or more Americans. Ma Huang has been used in Chinese Medicine for literally thousands of years with no reports of toxicity.

Because of this banning of Ma Huang by the FDA, ephedra is no longer available in any Chinese Medicine formulas sold throughout the United States. While alternatives have been attempted, none have proven nearly as effective because the primary purpose of Ma Huang in these formulations is to open the pores and allow sweating to occur as part of the body’s process for eliminating the bird flu virus.

There are, however, ways to legally acquire Ma Huang through back channels (see below)…

Natural News publishes secret Chinese formula for “Minor Blue Green Dragon”
Here’s the formula for making Minor Blue Green Dragon, a formula with over 2,000 years of epidemiological evidence behind its efficacy and safety. It is this formula that helped save large regions of China from ancient pandemics that threatened the nation.

This formula is offered as-is, without warranty, under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and with the understanding that you will seek the help of a qualified Chinese Medicine practitioner before attempting to acquire, manufacture or consume this remedy. Both English and Chinese names are provided:

Ephedra Stem (Ma Huang) 9g
Cinnamon twig (Gui Zhi) 9g
White peony root (Bai Shao) 9g
Honey Prepared Licorice (Zhi Gan Cao) 9g
Dried Ginger (Gan Jiang) 3-6g
Asarum (Xi Xin) 3g
Pinellia rhizome (Ban Xia) 9g
Schisandra fruit (Wu Wei Zi) 9g

This formula is contraindicated if the patient is already sweating. It is typically used for a patient suffering from high fever, coughing and loss of appetite.

How to acquire Ma Huang despite FDA prohibition attempts
Each of these herbs can still be purchased in bulk by visiting bulk herbal sellers located in your nearest China Town. Be sure to tell them you are purchasing these herbs as a “food” for making “tea.” Do not state you are using them as medicine, or they may not sell them to you.

In addition, you can also purchase Ma Huang and other herbs directly from herbal suppliers in Taiwan. I’m not recommending a list of suppliers because we haven’t yet had the time to sort through them all, but the “Sun-Ten” brand is quite reputable and offers exceptional quality control. (They do not sell direct to consumers. You will need to find a distributor…)

Remember: You may be able to find so-called “Minor Blue Green Dragon” formulas for sale in the USA, but they will lack Ma Huang, the key ingredient. Check the labels to see for yourself. If you want a truly effective combination formula, you’ll have to make it yourself thanks to the FDA’s attempts to make sure people have no defenses against bird flu (other than vaccines).

For the record, Ma Huang (ephedra) is only dangerous if taken by stupid people who eat it by the bottle, in isolation, in a desperate attempt to lose weight. Nowhere in Chinese Medicine is Ma Huang ever given in isolation. The FDA does not understand the idea of “synergy” in herbal medicines and so completely misunderstands Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and how its chemical constituents work in concert to nullify any risk of toxicity.

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

The process of fermentation can transform ordinary vegetables into superfoods, a “secret” that has been embraced by many cultures for thousands of years. The culturing process increases the presence of beneficial microbes that are extremely important for human health as they help balance your intestinal flora, thereby boosting overall immunity. Your gut literally serves as your second brain, and even produces more of the neurotransmitter serotonin — known to have a beneficial influence on your mood — than your brain does, so maintaining a healthy gut will benefit your mind as well as your body.

Throughout history, new discoveries have revolutionized the way societies of the time regarded meal times. First, the discovery of fire changed a predominantly raw ancient diet to one of cooked foods, which some believe gave humans the extra calories they needed for their brains to get bigger, ultimately allowing for the use of tools and the creation of art and religion.

Much later, historically speaking, the relatively new invention of the fork altered the way we eat and chew our food, such that it changed the structure of the human jaw.

In the modern day, you may think there’s not much new to be discovered when it comes to eating and drinking, but science is still uncovering all kinds of wondrous information that can help you to live healthier.

In some cases, the tips that follow may challenge you to step outside your culinary comfort zone; in others, they may take you on a trip to the past to embrace culinary techniques of generations past. In any case, there’s a good chance you might learn something new about food, drinks and how to structure your diet.

8 Tips for Eating and Drinking

1. Eat Fermented Foods

The process of fermentation can transform ordinary vegetables into superfoods, a “secret” that has been embraced by many cultures for thousands of years. The culturing process increases the presence of beneficial microbes that are extremely important for human health as they help balance your intestinal flora, thereby boosting overall immunity.

Your gut literally serves as your second brain, and even produces more of the neurotransmitter serotonin — known to have a beneficial influence on your mood — than your brain does, so maintaining a healthy gut will benefit your mind as well as your body.

Fermented foods are also some of the best chelators and detox agents available, meaning they can help rid your body of a wide variety of pernicious toxins, including heavy metals.

Ideally, you’ll want to include a variety of cultured foods and beverages in your diet, as each food will inoculate your gut with a variety of different microorganisms. Fermented foods you can easily make at home include the following, and you can find detailed instructions for how to ferment vegetables here:
•Cultured vegetables (including pureed baby foods)
•Chutneys
•Condiments, such as salsa and mayonnaise
•Cultured dairy, such as yoghurt, kefir, and sour cream
•Fish, such as mackerel and Swedish gravlax

2. Include Sprouts in Your Diet

Sprouts are another superfood that can contain up to 30 times more vital nutrients than even raw organic vegetables. When seeds are sprouted, the protein and fiber content increases, as does the content of vitamins and essential fatty acids. Minerals such as calcium and magnesium also become more bioavailable. In general, sprouts have the following beneficial attributes:
•Support for cell regeneration
•Powerful sources of antioxidants, minerals, vitamins and enzymes that protect against free radical damage
•Alkalinizing effect on your body, which is thought to protect against disease, including cancer (as many tumors are acidic)
•Abundantly rich in oxygen, which can also help protect against abnormal cell growth, viruses and bacteria that cannot survive in an oxygen-rich environment

Sprouts are incredibly easy and inexpensive to grow at home, making them a nutritional powerhouse that virtually everyone can enjoy. I used to grow sprouts in Ball jars over 10 years ago but now I am strongly convinced that growing them in soil is far easier and produces far more nutritious and abundant food. It is also less time consuming. I am in the process of compiling detailed videos to explain this process for future articles but you can see some of my preliminary sprouting photos now.

3. Rethink Your Breakfast

If you’re still eating a sugar-filled, grain-heavy breakfast (bagels, pancakes, toast, cereal) this is among the worst choices for the morning. A recent study found that eating a breakfast high in protein, such as eggs and meat, makes you less likely to binge on junk foods later that night,1 but even this may not be the best breakfast choice.

However, omitting breakfast entirely, as part of an intermittent fasting schedule (see tip #4 below), can actually have a number of phenomenal health benefits, from improving your insulin sensitivity to shifting your body into burning more fat instead of sugar for fuel. This is because eating first thing in the morning coincides with your circadian cortisol peak, that is, the time of day when your cortisol (a stress hormone) levels rise and reach their peak.

The circadian cortisol peak impacts your insulin secretion, such that when you eat during this time it leads to a rapid and large insulin release and a corresponding rapid drop in blood sugar levels, more so than when you eat at other times of the day.

If you’re healthy, your blood sugar levels won’t drop to a dangerously low level (such as can occur with hypoglycemia) but they can drop low enough to make you feel hungry. So, although skipping breakfast goes against the conventional idea that you should not skip meals, omitting breakfast could actually make it easier for you to control food cravings and hunger throughout the day.

4. Intermittent Fasting May Help You Achieve Optimal Health

Intermittent fasting, also known as “scheduled eating,” does not necessarily mean abstaining from all food for extended periods of time. Rather it refers to limiting your eating to a narrow window of time each day. Simply eat all meals or snacks during a limited window of time.

Ideally, you’ll want to limit your eating to a window of about 6-8 hours each day (say from noon to 6 p.m.), which means you’re fasting daily for 16-18 hours. This is enough to get your body to shift into fat-burning mode, and applies whether you’re restricting the number of calories you consume during this time or not.

Typically you start by not eating anything for three hours prior to going to sleep. This will give you a head start to the fasting process so if you sleep for 8 hours you’ve already fasted for 11 hours when you awake. The next step is to wait as long as you can before you start your first meal or “break” your fast. You can gradually extend the time that you have your first meal by 15 to 30 minutes a day. So after several weeks you will be having your first meal at lunch. Generally, the more your body uses carbs as its primary fuel rather than fat, the longer this will take. Once you shift to fat-burning mode, modern research has confirmed some of the benefits to be:
•Normalizing your insulin sensitivity, which is key for optimal health as insulin resistance is a primary contributing factor to nearly all chronic disease, from diabetes to heart disease and even cancer
•Normalizing ghrelin levels, also known as “the hunger hormone”
•Promoting human growth hormone (HGH) production, which plays an important part in health, fitness and slowing the aging process
•Lowering triglyceride levels
•Reducing inflammation and lessening free radical damage

5. Take Time to Chew Your Food

A good portion of your digestive enzymes is actually produced in your mouth, not in your stomach. Digestion actually begins in your mouth, and chewing your food longer allows the food to be broken down better. As you chew, enzymes from the salivary glands also begin chemically breaking down food molecules into a size your body can absorb.

If you often find your stomach feels like a big knot after you’ve eaten, you’re probably swallowing your food in pieces that are far too large. Chewing your food properly has a number of additional beneficial side effects. For example, chewing your food twice as long as you normally would will instantly help you control your portion sizes, which naturally decreases calorie consumption. You’re also likely to find that you actually enjoy the taste of the food more if you eat slower.

6. Eat Locally Grown and Organic Food as Much as Possible

There are a number of reasons why eating locally grown organic is better for you and the environment. Organic foods expose you to fewer pesticides — about 30 percent on average while organic meats also reduce your risk of antibiotic-resistant bacteria by an average of 33 percent.2 Plus, research has shown that organic fruits and veggies can be more nutritious and better at fighting off diseases like cancer.

For instance, one recent study showed that fruit flies had greater fertility and longevity when fed organic food.3 Another major benefit of organically grown foods is the reduction in your toxic load through reduced exposure to agricultural chemicals, such as synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, which can cause a wide variety of health problems.

From an environmental standpoint, organic farming is far better for the health of the planet and the animals being raised for food. If you’re on a tight budget but want to improve your diet by shopping organic, animal products like meat, raw dairy, poultry and eggs are the place to start. Since animal products tend to accumulate toxins from their pesticide-laced feed, concentrating them to far higher concentrations than are typically present in vegetables, I strongly recommend you buy only organically raised animal foods, ideally from a small farmer or food co-op in your community.

7. Your Diet Can Dictate Your Mood

You may turn to junk food when you’re feeling stressed out, bored or lonely, but doing so is likely to make your bad mood worse.4 Sugar is one of the worst offenders, and is known to suppress activity of a key hormone called brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which is critically low in depressed patients. It also promotes chronic inflammation, which is thought to be a primary cause of depression.

The secret to improving your mood is also in your gut, as unhealthy gut flora can impact your mental health, leading to issues like anxiety and depression. In fact, the greatest concentration of serotonin, which is involved in mood control, depression and aggression, is found in your intestines, not your brain! My free nutrition plan can help you choose the right foods to support a positive mood.

8. Too Much Alcohol Can Make You Fat

Alcohol is high in empty calories, of course, but it can add extra inches to your waistline through another mechanism as well. When you drink alcohol, your body stops burning fat and calories in order to break down the alcohol first. This means that what you ate recently is likely to be stored as fat. Drinking alcohol also impairs your prefrontal cortex, which is related to impulsivity, making you more likely to binge on unhealthy foods.

When it comes to alcohol, I generally define “moderate” alcohol intake (which is allowed in the beginner phase of my nutrition plan) as a 5-ounce glass of wine, a 12-ounce beer or 1 ounce of hard liquor with a meal, per day. As you progress further, I do recommend eliminating all forms of alcohol.

My Best Eating Tips All in One Easy, Step-by-Step Plan

A full 80 percent of the health benefits you reap from a healthy lifestyle can be attributed to your diet, with the remaining 20 percent coming from exercise. The challenge is that dietary advice can be a bit of a moving target. It needs to be regularly revised based on new research and wisdom from personal explorations of applying this research.

In my recently revised nutrition plan, you can take advantage of information that has taken me more than 30 years to compile, newly updated with recommendations such as the addition of fermented vegetables as a source of healthful probiotics and using intermittent fasting and high-intensity exercise to really optimize your health. I encourage you to go through it from the beginning, as this plan is one of the most powerful tools to truly allow you and your family to not only optimize your eating but also take control of your health.

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

By Johnnie Ham, MD, MBA

Many women are completely unaware that the science backing the use of mammograms is sketchy at best. 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, even though some high-profile people agree that mammography has limitations as well as dangers, others prefer to ignore the science and continue to campaign for annual screenings without so much as a hint at the risks involved.

Now, they’ve unrolled “new and improved” 3D TOMOSYNTHESIS mammogram, which still requiring mechanical compression, and delivers 30 percent more radiation!

In order to make better informed decisions, I provide my patients with all of their screening options, their strengths and weaknesses, and I reinforce that they have a right to utilize those options. Some of the options may include; self and clinical breast exams, thermography, ultrasound and/or MRI. My role as a doctor is to diagnose and treat, but I am also an educator. I want my patients’ focus to be on prevention to improve their health and well-being.

The Industry of Cancer

Breast cancer has become big business, starting with the multi-billion dollar goliath, mammography. No other medical screening has been as aggressively promoted. My passion is providing integrative primary care as an MD for hundreds of patients. I also have over 23 combined years of military experience as an OB/GYN, trauma surgeon, experimental test pilot, and master army aviator.

My training prepared me to navigate through challenging, and sometimes life threatening situations. Unfortunately, most women do not have the training I received, yet they could certainly use some of it to help navigate through the fear based methods of the breast cancer industry.

The tide of thought on mammography’s benefits is rapidly changing as evidenced by recently published studies in the Archives of Internal Medicine,1 the Lancet Review,2 the British Medical Journal3 and the Nordic Cochrane Center;4 and the fact that the US Preventative Services Task Force5 and the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care.6

Why are Nearly All Health Care Professionals Not Following Current Mammogram Recommendations?

Nearly every woman age 40 and older continues to be told by their primary care physician, their gynecologist, the media, self-proclaimed advocacy groups, and even their medical insurance carrier, “get your annual mammogram!” despite the fact that nearly every recent authoritative study concludes that women should know all of the facts before agreeing to a mammogram screening. Yet nearly all health care professionals insist on mammograms. If a woman dare refuse, she may be chastised or worse, threatened. These efforts have gone beyond persuasion to guilt and even coercion, “I can’t be your doctor if you don’t get a mammogram.” Women need to stop this runaway train, not only for their sake, but for the sake of their daughters.

In November 2012, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study by Dr Archie Bleyer, MD from The Oregon Health Sciences Center, and his co-author, Dr H. Gilbert Welch, M.D., M.P.H., from Dartmouth, challenging the validity of mammogram screenings and concluded that mammograms have little to no influence in the reduction of the number of women who ultimately die of breast cancer.7

Thirty years of US government data studied found that as many as 1/3 of cancers detected by mammography may not have been life threatening, and that over 1 million women have been over-diagnosed; leading to unnecessary treatments involving disfiguring surgeries; radiation and chemotherapy. They also showed that mammogram screenings have increased from about 30 percent of women 40 and older in 1985, to about 70 percent of women screened, proving how effective we have been at convincing women they need to get a mammogram.

I have witnessed this strategy for decades and I have seen the profound psychological effect it has had on many of my patients. This paradigm has seriously misled women regarding the actual effectiveness, and the benefits vs. potential dangers of mammograms. They also have women confused about the erroneous belief that mammography is their only tool. Some women actually believe mammograms can prevent cancer, or do not realize they have the right to say, no!

Most women comply with the current “gold standard” in fear of the ravages of breast cancer, convinced their annual mammogram will save their life through early detection. It is nearly impossible for them to negate decades of slick marketing, annual reminders from radiology imaging centers and the exploitation of October’s Breast Cancer Awareness month blitz. All of these efforts beautifully packaged, tied up with a pretty pink ribbon.

I take my oath to do no harm very seriously. After many years of research, clinical practice; and due to my wife’s personal experience with mammography, I cannot in good conscience recommend mammograms. I inform my patients that mammograms are considered the current “gold standard”, but I also make certain they know the facts about the screening and that there are other screen tools available.

Facts and Persisting Concerns: Mammograms

More women are refusing mammograms. This is reflected in the dramatic decline of 4.3 percent in 2010. Previously, mammography use had increased annually by 1 percent between 2005 and 2009. Mammograms:
1.Are incorrect 80 percent of the time (providing a false negative or false positive)
2.Require repeated ionized radiation that can cause cancer
3.Use compression, which can damage breast tissue or potentially spread cancer
4.Are not effective for up to 50 percent of women (women with dense breasts or implants)
5.Can lead to over-diagnosis and over-treatment of non-invasive cancers
6.Can lead to the disturbing practice of “preventative” double mastectomies

What is Mammography Industries Solution?

The “new and improved” 3D TOMOSYNTHESIS mammogram, still requiring mechanical compression, and 30 percent more radiation! 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 tomosynthesis mammogram for those with dense breasts or an area of suspicion. When my local Radiology Community approached me in an effort to disprove my concerns, I posed one simple question: Can you show me, one well-designed study that proves screening mammography has improved ultimate survival rates? I am still waiting for their answer.

We cannot prove that screening mammography improves the ultimate survival rate. A quick look at the SEER data would suggest treatment has improved, by a decline in the death rate since 1998 of 1.9 percent.8 For every 1,000 women in this country, today 125 will ultimately be diagnosed with breast cancer. Of those 125, over 40 will be over-diagnosed, and receive treatment they never needed, and suffer the potential psychological consequences of a cancer diagnosis. That leaves about 80, of which 28 will die of breast cancer. The decline since 1998 in the death rate means that for our 28 women who would have otherwise died from breast cancer, 2 more out of 1000 women diagnosed with breast cancer survived due to over a decade of treatment advances.

But, we really don’t know what actually saved those 2 women, of the 125 diagnosed with breast cancer for every 1,000 women in our group. If we attribute anything to lifestyle changes we have emphasized recently (which has been shown repeatedly to work), then either we wipe out any improved survival rate from decades of treatment advances, or worse, we cause death to some of those 40 women who were over-diagnosed!

If You Have Dense Breasts it is Even Worse

Breast density laws have now been passed in California,9 Connecticut, New York, Virginia and Texas making it mandatory for radiologists to inform their patients, who have dense breast tissue (40 to 50 percent of women) that mammograms are basically useless for them. Dense breast tissue and cancer both appear white on an X-ray, making it nearly impossible for a radiologist to detect cancer in these women. It’s like trying to find a snowflake in a blizzard. A law is now being considered at a Federal level as well.

Some radiologists already provide density information to their patients, and encourage them to utilize other options like thermography, ultrasound and/or MRI. I believe it reasonable for a woman to trust that her radiologist is not withholding vital density information. Unfortunately, many have kept this potentially lifesaving data from women for decades, and our government agencies have failed to protect them from this unethical practice.

I know it is extremely difficult to navigate through all of the contradicting information and study findings. It would better serve women if efforts, money and resources were utilized on educating women on cancer prevention, being that 95 percent of disease is lifestyle related. Yet 40,000 women continue to die of breast cancer each year. The only way to reduce this number is through utilizing preventative therapies.

Basic Cancer Prevention Strategies

As mentioned above, 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. Many also do not realize that the “new and improved” 3D tomosynthesis mammogram actually delivers even MORE 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.

A few simple, yet great options to assist in your efforts to avoid breast cancer are: making sure you are getting enough vitamin D, K2 and iodine; that you utilize lymphatic massage; use stress management techniques, exercise often, and balance your hormones naturally. It is also wise to eat a Mediterranean diet consisting of organic foods. Avoid processed and GMO foods; and toxic environments.

In my practice, I recommend breast thermography, even for young women to get a baseline, but also combine the imaging not only with a review of the findings, but more importantly, as a venue to educate women on breast health. It is far more effective to prevent breast cancer, than it is to wait until it is there and then treat it. We are all different so make sure you consult with your doctor and do your own research before utilizing any of these suggestions.

The advice I give all of my patients is to be your own health advocate, do your own research and always ask questions before agreeing to any therapy or treatment, screening and/or procedure.

About the Author:

Dr. Johnnie Ham, MD, former Lieutenant Colonel of the US Army Medical Corps, is the Medical Director of Coastal Prestige Medical Services, Pismo Beach, CA. Coastal Prestige Physicians offer top-notch comprehensive healthcare, with an emphasis on evidence-based primary care and preventive health for all ages

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

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Farmed fish is now so common, if you bought fish in the supermarket recently or ordered one in a restaurant, chances are it was born in a pen. About the only ones that don’t use farmed fish as their primary fish source are specialty fine-dining fish restaurants. But these oceanic feedlots, acres of net-covered pens tethered offshore that were once considered a wonderful solution to over-fishing, may in fact not be such a great idea after all.

The Many Drawbacks of Fish Farming

Fish farming turns out to have many drawbacks, some of which can directly impact your health, and our environment. Other hidden costs of mass-producing these once wild fish are now also coming into focus.

Mr. Cousteau brings up an excellent point in this video, and that is the utter irony of farming carnivore fish, such as salmon, which feed on other fish. According to Cousteau, to get one pound of salmon, you need 2.2 pounds of wild fish to produce its feed!

“It is the least sustainable approach to farming I can think of,” he says.

I agree.

But, in addition to being an unsustainable practice and an economic disaster, farm raised fish can also spell disaster for your health.

All farm-raised fish are fed a concoction of vitamins, antibiotics, and depending on the fish, synthetic pigments, to make up for the lack of natural flesh coloration due to the altered diet. Without it, the flesh of caged salmon, for example, would be an unappetizing, pale gray.

Pesticides are also fed to the fish, and toxic copper sulfate is frequently used to keep nets free of algae. These toxins then build up in sea-floor sediments. In fact, industrial fish farming raises many of the same concerns about chemicals and pollutants that are associated with feedlot cattle and factory chicken farms.

These “floating pig farms” make a terrific mess. Fish waste and uneaten feed smother the sea floor beneath these farms, generating bacteria that consume oxygen vital to shellfish and other bottom-dwelling sea creatures.

Disease and parasites, which would normally exist in relatively low levels in fish scattered around the oceans, can run rampant in densely packed fish farms. As a result, the excessive use of antibiotics has created resistant strains of disease that now infect both wild and domesticated fish.

Sea lice, a type of crustacean that is easily incubated by captive fish on farms, have also become a significant problem. To deal with it, chemicals that have not been tested for safety on other species are now being used in salmon farms.

But, as Mr. Cousteau points out, what will these untested chemicals do to all other crustaceans, such as shrimp, crab and lobster? After all, these pens are in open water.

So far, no one knows.

New Ideas and Potential Solutions are in the Works, But Will They Work?

Mr. Cousteau also mentions that new ideas and solutions are being implemented in some areas, such as locating fish farms on land, in the area where it will be sold. That will eliminate the need for lengthy transports, reducing emissions, and guarantee freshness. It also gives complete control of the farm environment, and would help protect the oceans at least to some degree.

Personally, I still see drawbacks with this solution, as disease and parasites would still likely be a common problem due to crowded pens. And, where would the waste get hauled off to?

What are Your Options?

Studies have consistently found levels of PCBs, dioxins, toxaphene and dieldrin, as well as mercury, to be higher in farm-raised fish than wild fish.

Sadly, contamination of our oceans and waterways is so great that toxic pollutants are found in ever increasing amounts in wild fish as well, and this is why I don’t advise eating any fish, whether farm-raised or wild-caught, unless you can verify its purity.

What options do you have, then, to get the health benefits of the omega-3 fats in fish, without exposing yourself to pollutants and excessive amounts of antibiotics, and contributing to the decline of the fish population and destruction of the environment?

These days I recommend you get your omega-3 fat from an alternative source like krill oil. Not only are krill (small, shrimp-like creatures) a superior source of omega-3, but they are one of the most easily renewable food resources available, making them an excellent nutritional source from an environmental perspective.

Though I know many of you enjoy fish for the flavor and the health benefits, if you can’t confirm that it’s from a clean, sustainable source, I believe the risks from eating it — both to your health and the environment — vastly outweigh the benefits.

I am so convinced of this position that I hardly ever eat fish anymore, let alone eat it in a restaurant.

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

By Dr. Mercola

A slew of media reports encouraging you to eat more fish have surfaced lately, following the publication of a study on omega-3 fats and health. The research, published in The Annals of Internal Medicine,1 suggests that eating oily fish once or twice a week may increase your lifespan.

Naturally, there’s still the issue of environmental pollution and contamination, which was not addressed in this study. Do the benefits of eating fish really outweigh the risks of contamination?

In my view, I believe the benefits CAN outweigh the risks, provided you make really wise choices. There are few uncontaminated fish available these days so you need to know what to look for.

Needless to say, toxins like mercury and PCB will not do your health any favors.

Lately, I’ve shifted my own diet a bit, and am now eating three ounces of Wild Alaskan salmon about every other day. But this is really the ONLY fish I’ll eat on a regular basis, and the only one I feel comfortable recommending as a good source of healthful fats.

Higher Blood Levels of Omega-3 Associated with Longer Life Span

The featured study investigated how eating fatty fish affected health. Nearly 2,700 American seniors in their seventies were included in the study. None of them had prevalent coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, or heart failure at the outset of the study.

Rather than rely on food diaries, the researchers measured blood levels of omega-3’s instead. Since none of the participants took omega-3 supplements, their levels were indicative of their omega-3 consumption primarily from fish.

Phospholipid fatty acid levels and cardiovascular risk factors were measured in 1992, and the relationships with mortality and incidents of fatal or non-fatal CHD and stroke were assessed through 2008 – a total of 16 years. According to the featured NPR article:2

“After controlling for factors like age, sex and lifestyle, the researchers found that, on average, adults with the highest blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids lived 2.2 years longer. In particular, these adults had a 35 percent lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease – which is in line with other studies that have tied omega-3’s to cardiovascular benefits. Higher levels of fatty acids were most strongly associated with decreased risk of coronary heart disease and stroke.”

Compared to those in the lowest percentiles, those with omega-3 blood levels in the highest 20 percent were:
•27 percent less likely to die of any cause
•40 percent less likely to die of coronary heart disease, and
•48 percent less likely to die of an arrhythmia

One drawback is that since it was not a randomized trial, the findings cannot prove causation, meaning there’s no way of telling whether higher omega-3 blood levels were solely responsible for the health effects. That said, there’s ample evidence that omega-3 is critical for optimal health, particularly cardiovascular health, so this research provides additional support for the value of optimizing your omega-3 intake.

In the following video, I interview Randy Hartnell, founder-president of Vital Choice Wild Seafood and Organics, about the differences between wild and farmed salmon. Hartnell spent more than 20 years as a commercial fisherman before forming his company in 2001, which features sustainably harvested wild salmon that are particularly low in heavy metals.

I’m a huge fan of their sockeye salmon, and Vital Choice salmon is about the only type of fish I eat, for reasons I’ll discuss below.

Download Interview Transcript

Beware, as Media Tries to Mislead You About Healthful Fish Choices

According to lead author Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, the reason we need omega-3 is because 95 percent of your cells’ membranes are made of fat. Without fats such as omega-3, your cells cannot function properly. He recommends eating one or two servings of fatty fish per week to optimize your blood levels of omega-3. Interestingly enough, the New York Times3 gets quite specific about the types of fish recommended:

“…3.5 ounces of farmed salmon, 5 ounces of anchovies or herring, or 15 to 18 ounces of cod or catfish.”

Farmed salmon?

I think not… That is one of your WORST options, for a number of reasons that I will detail below. Cod and catfish also primarily come from aquatic fish farms these days. Unfortunately, fish farming has become big business, and a protected one at that. To learn more about this sad state of affairs, please see my recent article on the film Salmon Confidential, which details how salmon farms threaten the entire ecosystem in Canada’s British Columbia, and how the Canadian government is covering it up to protect the farming industry.

Let me put it to you plainly: If you want to maximize health benefits from fish, you want to steer clear of farmed fish, particularly farmed salmon, and even more specifically genetically engineered farmed salmon. On December 21, 2012, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took a giant step closer toward the final approval of the first genetically engineered (GE) food animal – a salmon designed to grow abnormally fast,4 and to an unnaturally large size. It now appears the first GE fish could reach your dinner plate within the next year or two, unless a sufficiently strong opposition is mounted.

How to Identify Wild Salmon from Farm-Raised

Unfortunately, salmon are often mislabeled (and genetically engineered foods don’t require any labeling at all as of yet). Studies have shown that as much as 70 to 80 percent of the fish marked “wild” are actually farmed. This includes restaurants, where 90-95 percent of salmon is farmed, yet may be mis-listed on the menu as “wild.”

So how can you tell whether a salmon is wild or farm-raised? The flesh of wild sockeye salmon is bright red, courtesy of its natural astaxanthin content. It’s also very lean, so the fat marks, those white stripes you see in the meat, are very thin. If the fish is pale pink with wide fat marks, the salmon is farmed. Avoid Atlantic salmon, as typically salmon labeled “Atlantic Salmon” currently comes from fish farms.

The two designations you want to look for are: “Alaskan salmon,” and “sockeye salmon,” as Alaskan sockeye is not allowed to be farmed. So canned salmon labeled “Alaskan Salmon” is a good bet, and if you find sockeye salmon, it’s bound to be wild. Again, you can tell sockeye salmon from other salmon by its color; its flesh is bright red opposed to pink, courtesy of its superior astaxanthin content. Sockeye salmon actually has one of the highest concentrations of astaxanthin of any food.

Why Farmed Salmon is an Inferior Choice

As the first video discusses, there are three major differences between wild-caught and farmed salmon, and once you realize how different the fish are, based on how they were raised, you’ll see why opting for the cheaper alternative isn’t the wisest choice – especially if you’re seeking to improve your omega-3 to omega-6 ratio:
1.Nutritional content– Wild salmon swim around in the wild, eating what nature programmed them to eat. Therefore, their nutritional profile is more complete, with micronutrients, fats, minerals, vitamins, and antioxidants like astaxanthin (which gives salmon its pink, or in the case of sockeye, red-colored, flesh.)

Farmed salmon, on the other hand, are fed an artificial diet consisting of grain products like corn and soy (most of which is genetically modified), along with chicken and feather meal, artificial coloring, and synthetic astaxanthin, which is not approved for human consumption, but is permitted to be used in fish feed.

Mother Nature never intended fish to eat these things, and as a consequence of this radically unnatural diet, the nutritional content of their flesh is also altered, and not for the better. Farmed salmon taste different than wild-caught, and much of it has to do with the altered fat ratio, which is dramatically different. Farmed salmon contain far more omega-6, courtesy of their grain-based diet.

The ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fat of wild salmon is far superior to farmed. Wild salmon typically has 600 to 1,000 percent more omega-3s compared to omega-6s. So whereas farmed salmon has a 1 to 1 ratio of omega-3s and omega-6s – again due to its “junk food” diet – the ratio for wild sockeye salmon is between 6 and 9 to 1. This is important, because if you’re trying to improve your omega-3 to omega-6 balance, you simply will not accomplish it with farmed salmon.
2.Fish Health – Wild salmon return to their native spawning grounds each year, without you having to do anything, while farmed salmon are kept in pens. Naturally, fish swimming in the wild get more exercise, and this alone make wild fish healthier than their incarcerated counterparts. As explained by Tony Farrell5 with the University of British Columbia Zoology department, fish kept in constrained environments become the aquatic version of “couch potatoes,” with similar health consequences as humans face when we don’t exercise enough.

Recent research6 has shown that survival rates of fish that have received sufficient exercise is 13 percent higher than the “couch potato” controls, and the exercise-conditioned fish had better growth, and stronger immune systems, courtesy of certain gene activations.
3.Environment – Nearly 99 percent of farmed salmon are raised in net pens in the open ocean. All the excess food that is dropped in ends up going out in the environment – the genetically engineered ingredients, the pesticides, the antibiotics and chemical additives. Anything the fish do not consume, along with all their now unnatural waste products, end up contaminating the environment. To learn more about the many hazards of fish farming, check out FarmedAndDangerous.org.7

There’s also the vegetarian or vegan ethical aspect. Wild sockeye salmon are the vegetarians of the salmon world. Their diet consists of krill, plankton and algae, and they are caught at the very end of their life cycle. By the time they enter the fishing grounds, they’ve lived 95 percent of their natural life in the wild. At the end of their life, they fight their way up-river to spawn, after which they die a natural death – unless they’re caught by fishermen or get eaten by some other predator.

Lethal Salmon Virus Found in Every Region with Installed Salmon Farms

According to whistleblower Dr. Rick Rutledge, professor and fisheries statistician at Simon Fraser University in Canada, wild river inlet sockeye have been found to be infected with Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus (ISA), also known as salmon influenza. This highly lethal and much-feared virus is directly attributed to farmed salmon, and has proliferated in every region across the globe where Atlantic salmon farms have been installed.

At least 11 species of fish in the British Columbia’s Fraser River have also been found to be infected with ISA, yet the Canadian food inspection agency has aggressively refuted the findings. In fact, everyone who has spoken up about these salmon viruses, which can be traced back to salmon farms, have been shut down in some way or another. By muzzling scientists looking into this problem, the Canadian government is allowing potentially contaminated farm-raised salmon to be sold, exported, and consumed, which is yet another reason to avoid farmed salmon.

In fact, Canadian farmed salmon purchased in various stores and sushi restaurants around British Columbia have tested positive for at least three different salmon viruses, including ISA, salmon alphaviruses, and Piscine reovirus, which gives salmon a heart attack and prevents them from swimming up river. Aside from the unknown effects on human health from eating salmon with lethal fish viruses, these contaminated farmed salmon may also pose a threat to local watersheds far from the site of origination, as viruses are preserved by cold so when you wash the fish the viruses get flushed down your drain…

This is a Flash-based video and may not be viewable on mobile devices.

The Best and Worst Fish to Eat in Terms of Environmental Toxins

Interestingly enough, and fortunately for us, the types of fish that tend to suffer the least amount of toxic contamination also happen to be some of the best sources of fat and antioxidants. So, by choosing wisely, the benefits of a diet high in fish can still outweigh the risks.

Most major waterways in the world are contaminated with mercury, heavy metals, and chemicals like dioxins, PCBs, and other agricultural chemicals that wind up in the environment. However, the risk of authentic wild-caught Alaskan sockeye salmon accumulating high amounts of mercury and other toxins is reduced because of its short life cycle, which is only about three years. Additionally, bioaccumulation of toxins is also reduced by the fact that it doesn’t feed on other, already contaminated, fish.

If you still want to take precautions, you can do what I do: Whenever I eat fish, I eat it with chlorella tablets. The chlorella is a potent mercury binder and if taken with fish will help bind the mercury before your body can absorb it, so it can be safely excreted in your stool.

Other fish with short lifecycles also tend to be better alternatives in terms of fat content, so it’s a win-win situation – lower contamination risk and higher nutritional value. A general guideline is that the closer to the bottom of the food chain the fish is, the less contamination it will have accumulated. This includes:
•Sardines
•Anchovies
•Herring

If you insist on eating typical, store-bought fish and want to know more about the extent of your mercury exposure, I urge you to check out the online mercury calculator8 at GotMercury.org to get an idea of the risks. Additionally, as mentioned above, you may want to consider taking natural mercury chelators with any fish dinner. This includes zeolite (green clay), chlorella, and fermented vegetables. Larger fish, which tend to live longer and have the highest contamination levels and should be avoided include (please note this is not an exhaustive listing):

Tuna (tuna steaks, sushi, and canned)

Sea bass and largemouth bass

Marlin

Halibut

Pike

Walleye

Shark

Sword fish

White croaker

Enjoy Your Fish, But Choose Wisely!

Fish has always been the best source for the animal-based omega-3 fats EPA and DHA, but as levels of pollution have increased, this treasure of a food has become less and less viable as a primary source of healthful fats. However, there are still exceptions, and the key is to understand which types of fish are the least contaminated.

I strongly recommend buying wild fish, and Wild Alaskan salmon is in my opinion one of the absolute best, both in terms of nutrition and potential contamination.

Remember, fish farms are the aquatic version of a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO), and just like land-based cattle and chicken farms, fish farms breed disease due to crowding too many fish together in a small space. They also produce toxic waste, and fish of inferior quality. These fish are further contaminated by drugs and genetically engineered corn and soy meal feed, and in the case of salmon, synthetic astaxanthin, which is made from petrochemicals that are not approved for human consumption.

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

Many environmental experts have warned about the unsustainability of fish farms for a decade now, and we have documented those objections in many previous articles. Unfortunately nothing has yet been done to improve the system.

As usual, government agencies and environmental organizations around the world turned a blind eye to what was predicted to become an absolute disaster, and now the ramifications can be seen across the globe, including in British Columbia, Canada.

Salmon Confidential is a fascinating documentary that draws back the curtain to reveal how the Canadian government is covering up the cause behind British Columbia’s rapidly dwindling wild salmon population. A summary of the film reads:1

“When biologist Alexandra Morton discovers BC’s wild salmon are testing positive for dangerous European salmon viruses associated with salmon farming worldwide, a chain of events is set off by government to suppress the findings.

Tracking viruses, Morton moves from courtrooms, into British Columbia’s most remote rivers, Vancouver grocery stores and sushi restaurants.

The film documents Morton’s journey as she attempts to overcome government and industry roadblocks thrown in her path and works to bring critical information to the public in time to save BC’s wild salmon.”

If you think watching a documentary about wild fish sounds boring, this film may well change your mind. It provides sobering insight into the inner workings of government agencies, and includes rare footage of the bureaucrats tasked with food and environmental safety.

It reveals how the very agency tasked with protecting wild salmon is actually working to protect the commercial aquaculture industry, to devastating effect.

Once you understand just how important wild salmon are to the entire ecosystem, you realize that what’s going on here goes far beyond just protecting a fish species. Without these salmon, the entire ecosystem will eventually fail, and in case you’ve temporarily forgotten, you are part of this system, whether you’re a Canadian or not…

‘Keystone’ Species Missing in Action by the Millions

As explained in the film, a “keystone” species is a species of animal that is essential to the functioning of the eco system. It’s a species that other animals cannot survive without. In British Columbia (BC), pacific salmon are a keystone species. They fill hundreds of streams and rivers, feeding hundreds of species, including humans. Alas, since the early 1990’s, salmon numbers have rapidly dwindled, coinciding with the introduction of aqua farms raising farmed salmon.

Each year, millions of wild salmon go missing, and many are found to have died before spawning. They can be found littering the shores of rivers and streams in BC in large numbers.

Biologist Alex Morton has followed and studied the unusual decline in salmon stocks for nearly 30 years. She noticed that as commercial fish farms moved into the area, they had a detrimental impact on wild fish. The most obvious was a dramatic rise in parasitic sea lice in juvenile salmon, which naturally do not carry the lice. But that was just the beginning.

Fish farms breed pathogens that can spread like wildfire and contaminate any wild fish swimming past. Norway has recognized this problem, and does not permit fish farms to be located in rivers or streams populated by valuable native species. In British Columbia, no such restrictions exist.

On the contrary, not only has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) never taken the spread of disease into account when approving salmon farms in sensitive areas such as the Fraser River, the agency is actually covering up the fact that fish farms are the cause of dwindling salmon stocks.

Wild Salmon Declines Traced Back to Salmon Farms

The film discusses the fate of Dr. Kristy Miller, head of molecular genetics at DFO, who, using DNA profiling, discovered that the fish that die before spawning have a number of DNA switched on that healthy fish do not. In a nutshell, the wild salmon are dying from leukemia, retroviruses, brain tumors, and immune system decay…

Salmon leukemia virus raged through fish farms in the area in the early 1990’s when the farms were first introduced. A retrovirus, salmon leukemia virus attacks the salmon’s immune system, so it dies of something else, much like the process of AIDS. At the time, it was discovered that virtually all the BC Chinook salmon farms were infected. They also discovered that the virus killed 100 percent of the wild sockeye salmon exposed to it. Yet nothing was done…

Instead, as soon as Dr. Miller traced the problem to fish farms, she became ostracized, and effectively put under gag order. When her findings were published in the distinguished journal Science in 2011, the DFO did not allow her to speak to the press, despite the fact that her findings were hailed as some of the most significant salmon research of the decade.

Two years earlier, in 2009, the Fraser River experienced the worst salmon run in recorded history. Some 10 million fish went missing, leaving traditional people living along the river without catch. In response to the public outcry, the Canadian government created the Commission of Inquiry Into the Decline of Salmon in the Fraser River, also known as the Cohen Commission. The inquiry cost $26 million dollars and spanned across 150 days of hearings. Theories presented for the mysterious disappearance of the salmon included overfishing, sharks, water temperature, pollution, even predatory giant squid!

It wasn’t until the very end that attention was finally turned to the most logical source: salmon farms.

Dr. Ian Fleming testified about Norway’s discovery that fish farms are a source of pathogenic disease that can decimate native fish, and therefore does not permit salmon farms in certain areas frequented by wild salmon. British Columbia, in contrast, has approved at least 10 farms in one of the narrowest channels that wild sockeye salmon migrate through, and disease risk was not considered when approving any of them.

Lethal Salmon Virus Found in Every Region with Installed Salmon Farms

Dr. Rick Rutledge, professor and fisheries statistician at Simon Fraser University worried about river inlet sockeye, which were also dwindling in numbers just like Fraser River sockeye. He discovered that the river inlet sockeye were infected with Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus (ISA), also known as salmon influenza. This highly lethal and much-feared virus has proliferated in every region across the globe where Atlantic salmon farms have been installed.

First detected in Norway in 1984, infection spread to other countries via egg imports. In Chile, ISA wiped out 70 percent of the country’s salmon industry, at a cost of $2 billion. But Chile has no native salmon to decimate. British Columbia does… And contrary to Chile, the wild salmon of BC are absolutely critical to the ecosystem and residents of the area. The locals don’t just make money off these fish; it’s a main staple of their diet.

According to Morton, at least 11 species of fish in the Fraser River have been found to be infected with European-strain ISA, yet the Canadian food inspection agency has aggressively refuted the findings, and even attacked the credibility of two of the most preeminent experts on ISA testing, who testified that positive results were found to the Cohen Commission.

In fact, everyone who has spoken up about these salmon viruses, which can be traced back to salmon farms, have been shut down in some way or another. And by muzzling scientists like Dr. Miller, the Canadian government has effectively put the entire BC ecosystem at grave risk, just to protect commercial fish farming and international trade. In so doing, they’re also allowing potentially contaminated farm-raised salmon to be sold, exported, and consumed.

You May Be Buying Salmon Infected with Dangerous Fish Viruses

Morton tested farmed salmon purchased in various stores and sushi restaurants around British Columbia, and samples tested positive for at least three different salmon viruses, including:
1.Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus (ISA)
2.Salmon alphaviruses
3.Piscine reovirus, which gives salmon a heart attack and prevents them from swimming upriver

The problem with this, aside from the unknown effects on human health from eating salmon with lethal fish viruses, is that viruses are preserved by cold, and fish are always kept frozen for freshness. Then, when you wash the fish, the viruses get flushed down the drain and depending on your sewer system, could be introduced into local watersheds. The environmental impact of this viral contamination is hitherto unknown, but it’s unlikely to be completely harmless.

“This is why it must become public,” Morton says. She insists that consumers, stores and trading partners must become aware of this problem, and be the ones to insist on proper testing and remedial action. It’s not just about protecting certain species of fish, it’s about the health of the ecosystem as a whole; it’s about human health and food safety as well.

How can you tell whether a salmon is wild or farm raised? As explained by Morton, the flesh of wild sockeye salmon is bright red, courtesy of its natural astaxanthin content. It’s also very lean, so the fat marks, those white stripes you see in the meat, are very thin. If the fish is pale pink with wide fat marks, the salmon is farmed.

Farmed Fish Pose a Number of Health Hazards to Your Health

Farm raised fish of all species can spell disaster for your health in a number of ways. It’s important to understand that ALL farm-raised fish – not just salmon — are fed a concoction of vitamins, antibiotics, and depending on the fish, synthetic pigments, to make up for the lack of natural flesh coloration due to the altered diet. Without it, the flesh of caged salmon, for example, would be an unappetizing, pale gray. The fish are also fed pesticides, along with compounds such as toxic copper sulfate, which is frequently used to keep nets free of algae.

Not only do you ingest these drugs and chemicals when you eat the fish, but these toxins also build up in sea-floor sediments. In this way, industrial fish farming raises many of the same environmental concerns about chemicals and pollutants that are associated with feedlot cattle and factory chicken farms. In addition, fish waste and uneaten feed further litter the sea floor beneath these farms, generating bacteria that consume oxygen vital to shellfish and other bottom-dwelling sea creatures.

Studies have also consistently found levels of PCBs, dioxins, toxaphene and dieldrin, as well as mercury, to be higher in farm-raised fish than wild fish. This fact alone would be cause to reconsider consuming farmed fish!

Wild caught fish have already reached such toxic levels, it’s risky to recommend eating them with a clear conscience. For example, according to a US Geological Survey study, mercury contamination was detected in EVERY fish sampled in nearly 300 streams across the United States. More than a quarter of these fish contained mercury at levels exceeding the EPA criterion for the protection of human health. So, when you consider the fact that factory farmed fish typically are even MORE toxic than wild-caught fish and also contain an assortment of antibiotics and pesticides, avoiding them becomes a no-brainer – at least if you’re concerned about your health.

To learn more about the differences between farmed salmon and wild salmon, specifically, please see my interview with Randy Hartnell, founder-president of Vital Choice Wild Seafood and Organics. I’m a huge fan of their wild sockeye salmon, and beside a fish dinner at a restaurant here or there, Vital Choice salmon is about the only type of fish I eat.

Download Interview Transcript

Buying Local Increases Food Safety and Food Security

Morton recommends buying local foods and wild fish. I couldn’t agree more. As mentioned in the film, disease in farm animals is one of the biggest sources of epidemics in humans. Therefore, the health of food animals cannot be treated as some sort of idealistic notion relegated to tree-huggers and animal-welfare crusaders.

Fish farms are the aquatic version of a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO), and just like their land-based cattle- and chicken farms, aquatic CAFO’s are a breeding ground for disease and toxic waste, and produce food animals of inferior quality. Due to the dramatically increased disease risk—a natural side effect of crowding—these animals are further contaminated with drugs, and in the case of salmon, synthetic astaxanthin, which is made from petrochemicals that are not approved for human consumption.

Wild salmon are dying from diseases cultivated and spread by salmon farms. Where is the sense in this? And instead of selling wholesome, nutritionally-superior wild salmon, Canada is selling inferior and potentially diseased salmon raised in fish farms. Who benefits, and who loses?

The industry will tell you the world needs inexpensive food, and inevitably, they insist that such foods can only be created using the latest technology and artificial means. The latest example of this craziness is the creation of what amounts to a vegetarian fish diet designed for carnivorous fish.2 Instead of fishmeal, the protein in this feed comes from bacteria, yeast or algae instead. This way, fish farms will not need to use valuable wild fish to feed farmed fish, and this, they claim, will help alleviate world hunger… Nevermind the fact that by altering a fish’s diet in such a drastic way, you’re undoubtedly altering its nutritional content as well.

So at what cost should we clamor for cheap foods? At the expense of our environment and, potentially, the very lives of our descendants? We cannot be so blindly arrogant as to think that we can survive as a species if we allow the ecosystem to fall apart.

The ramifications of our large-scale, mass-producing, chemical-dependent food system are incredibly vast, which is why I urge you to become more curious about your food. Where, and how was it raised, grown, or manufactured? These things do matter; for your health, and the health and future of our planet.

Like Morton, I am also very concerned about our vanishing freedoms and increasing “corpotocracy,” where citizens are ruled by multi-national corporations with just one goal in mind: Maximizing Profit. A glaring example of this loss of freedom was Bill 37—the inappropriately named “Animal Health Act” which, had Canada made it into law, would have made it a crime to report farm animal disease to the public. Under this bill, informants would face a $75,000 fine and two years in prison simply for naming the location of a disease outbreak. Fortunately, the Act was dropped, but could potentially be revived sometime in the future…

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

In a move to gain total control of the farming industry, three resolutions have been proposed in the state of Missouri. Saint Louis, Missouri is the home of biotech giant Monsanto’s headquarters. These laws have been deceitfully written to appear to support modernization and progression in farming, while in reality their passage will severely limit the rights of small farmers to reuse organic seeds and preserve livestock lines. Small farmers provide consumers with their primary source for local, non GMO, organic foods. It is essential to take action to protect small farmers in individual states, particularly in light of the recent signing of the Monsanto Protection Act by President Obama. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

House Joint Resolution 11 has already passed in the Missouri House
House Joint Resolution 11 (HJR 11) is proposing an amendment to the Missouri Constitution to protect “agricultural technology” and “modern and traditional” farming practices in Missouri. Two other similar bills (HJR 7 and SJR 22) have been proposed, as well. HJR 11 has already passed in the House and is now being aggressively pushed through the Missouri Senate. Proposals to change the wording of the amendment to make the resolution more protective of small farmer’s rights have been rejected.

The bill currently proposes to add a new section to Article l of the Missouri Constitution, Section 35. This addition to Section 35 states the following: “That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No state law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology and modern and traditional livestock production and ranching practices, unless enacted by the General Assembly”.
In reality, modern farming and agricultural technology generally refers to genetically modified seeds and animals.

Organizations of the Real Food Movement are calling for action to stop these dangerous proposals
The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund and the Weston A. Price Foundation have both issued action alerts to their members in an effort to defeat this amendment. It is important to call Speaker Tom Dempsey at 573-751-1141 and Floor Leader Ron Richard at 573-751-2173. For Missourians, a list of local state senators can be found at (http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com)

Sources for this article include

Action Alert: Stop Missouri’s Monsanto Protection Act, Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com)

Stop Missouri’s Monsanto’s Protection Act, Weston A. Price Foundation, (http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com)
(http://www.naturalnews.com ?)
( http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HJR11&year=2013&code=R)
NaturalNews)

About the author:
Michelle Goldstein is a licensed clinical social worker working as a mental health therapist. She incorporates holistic approaches into her counseling practice.She is a mother who found a cure in the realm of alternative medicine for her 11 year old daughter diagnosed in 2008 with an “incurable disease”. Her two year search involved tremendous research,experimentation, and consultation with over 12 different holistic practitioners. Ms. Goldstein is now passionate about alternative health care and the politics which impact it. She has finished her first draft of a comprehensive book on holistic health. Her hobbies include short interval running, swimming and walking.

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

Biotech Industry Ups Propaganda Efforts with Undercover Ambassadors?

By Dr. Mercola

For years now I’ve warned of the many potential dangers of genetically engineered (GE) foods, pointing out that such crops might have wholly unforeseen consequences.

In recent years, such suspicions have increasingly proven correct, forcing the biotech industry to up the ante of their propaganda campaign.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Monsanto: Battered, Bruised, and Still Growing”1 sets the stage for the discussion that follows. The dark heart of Monsanto has been exposed in recent years, and they’re in dire need of an image makeover.

I bet they probably have the best and brightest propaganda experts on speed dial these days. In the featured article, the company is lauded for “fending off” California Proposition 37 last November, as labeling foods containing genetically engineered ingredients would be “befuddling” to consumers.

“I’d be up for the dialogue around labeling. Maybe we’ll look back and say [Prop 37] was the start of a more reasonable debate. But it was a confusing proposition,” Monsanto Chief Executive Hugh Grant tells the Wall Street Journal.

Grant goes on to talk about how the company is now going “back to the basics of reconnecting” with their customers, and how consistency in messaging and predictable pricing is helping turn the tide that has threatened to engulf them over the past three years.

Biotech Industry Ups Propaganda Efforts with Undercover Ambassadors

Part of this makeover program appears to be the recruitment of seemingly independent “ambassadors” to covertly lobby the GE agenda. The appearance of being an independent voice is imperative for the role to be effective, SpinWatch2 said in a recent article.

According to an October 2011 article in the Guardian, leaked emails from a PR company working with EuropaBio listed potential candidates for the role3, including Lord Patten, chancellor of Oxford University and BBC Trust chairman; Sir Bob Geldof; former Irish EU commissioner and attorney general David Byrne; former UN secretary general Kofi Annan; and Mark Lynas, an environmentalist and writer who claims to have helped create the anti-GE movement back in the mid-1990’s. According to the Guardian:

“The 10 or more ambassadors will not be paid directly, but the lobbyists have offered to write, research and place articles in their names, arrange interviews and speaking engagements with the Financial Times and other international media, and secure for them what could be lucrative speaking slots at major conferences.

In addition, EuropaBio says it will introduce them to the highest-level European bureaucrats and MEPs in order for them to make the case for GM within EU institutions.”

In 2011, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas responded to the news by saying:

“This brazen attempt by EuropaBio to recruit covert ‘ambassadors’ to ‘change the debate’ on GM is yet further proof that the powerful GM lobby will stop at nothing to push its hugely unpopular and unnecessary products onto European citizens. We need far stronger regulation on corporate lobbyists across the EU to prevent this kind of insidious behind-the-scenes maneuvering from seriously undermining our democratic system.”

The Art of Spin, and the World of ‘War Craft’

When confronted, the above named candidates denied knowledge of EuropaBio4, known as “the voice for the biotech industry at the EU level.” Most, including Mark Lynas, also claimed they’d reject the offer to peddle GMO policy should they be asked.

What a difference a year makes. While Lynas suddenly began writing about his “conversion” in 2010, he recently took to the stage as a veritable born-again proselytizer of genetically engineered crops at the January 3 Oxford Farming Conference5.

What better ambassador for the tattered and bruised Monsanto than a “former foe” having “seen the light of science” and, of his own free will (supposedly), deciding to mend his ways and right the wrongs he’s done against the biotech industry?

“I want to start with some apologies,” Lynas says. “For the record, here and upfront, I apologize for having spent several years ripping up genetically modified (GM) crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonizing an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.

As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.

So I guess you’ll be wondering – what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.”

Gimme a break… If you believe the conversion of Lynas was based on scientific enlightenment, I have a religion of my own you might be interested in. To me, this has all the hallmarks of a carefully crafted propaganda campaign. People have likened Lynas’ opening statements to Martin Luther King apologizing for the civil rights movement, or the Pope renouncing Catholicism. Indeed.

But while many choose to see his new stance as evidence that concerns about genetically engineered foods have been unfounded and overblown, all I see is someone who has sold their soul to the proverbial Devil. You can tell that this is part of a spin campaign for the sheer fact that Lynas goes to great lengths to take as much credit as possible for founding and steering the anti-GM movement. This way, his conversion becomes far more powerful.

Spin and Propaganda Techniques — Are You Still Deaf and Blind to Them?

As SpinWatch points out in its revealing article6, concerns about genetically engineered foods began decades before Lynas entered the scene. Crediting him as “the mastermind of the anti-biotechnology campaign” is PR talk. It’s the jargon of propaganda. And it has one sole purpose — to build up Lynas as a trustworthy independent voice on issues relating to genetically engineered foods.

“… while Lynas says he co-founded the anti-GM movement in 1995, the first wave of resistance to the possible uses of genetic engineering in food and farming began two decades earlier in the mid-1970s,” SpinWatch notes.

“By the early 1980s concerned US scientists and academics had founded the Council for Responsible Genetics, and by the late 1980s a US network called the Biotechnology Working Group was meeting regularly to plan joint strategies and actions regarding the new technology. It was composed of approximately 20 national and local NGOs, and included regular participation by representatives of the European Greens and an Australian NGO, GenEthics. By the early 1990s the Consumers Union and the Union of Concerned Scientists were also on the case.

Concern over GMOs had also begun to appear on the international policy agenda in the years running up to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, which called for the establishment of a Biosafety Protocol. It was also at Rio that the first international workshop on GMOs took place. Among those addressing it was Vandana Shiva. This is worth noting because Lynas implies in his speech that it was the movement that he supposedly co-founded in the UK in 1995 which “exported” GM opposition worldwide. In reality, concerns over GM in food and farming were already well established on the world stage.”

… After hearing how Lynas was portraying himself, Sue Mayer contacted him7 to say, ‘I think I can lay claim to having been one of the leaders of the campaign in the UK thoughout the 1990s and until 2007 when I left GeneWatch. It’s strange that although we did speak on the phone once in the late 90s we never met and I missed the fact that you helped start the anti-GM movement!!’ Mayer added, ‘I think this is a very misleading claim and you should feel ashamed of yourself. I wouldn’t normally worry about people puffing themselves up like this but I am concerned that you are letting this be used to promote yourself and the biotech industry.’

Mayer is not alone. Nobody we have spoken to among the many leading figures of the 1990s counts Lynas as either a founder or a leader. Indeed, if he was even involved in the grassroots actions of 1995-1996, then nobody we spoke to remembers it.

Beware: Front Groups with an Aim to Mislead You

Now that Washington State has been confirmed with enough signatures to allow voters to take a stand on GMO labeling, Monsanto and their henchmen are revving up their propaganda campaign, which also includes friendly-sounding front groups8 paid to spead misleading information and industry propaganda, while pretending to serve you.

“We think labeling is really intended to frighten people away from a technology,” said Healther Hansen of Washington Friends of Farms and Forests. “It’s implying that there is something wrong with the food and we think that’s misleading to the consumer,” Komo News writes9. Who is Heather Hansen? She’s a contract lobbyist from the William Ruckelshaus Center at WSU10. And, William Ruckelshaus11 was a board member for — you guessed it — Monsanto…

Why GE Crops are NOT the ‘Most Tested’ Product in the World

Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant claims genetically engineered crops are “the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What he doesn’t tell you is that:
a.Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results
b.The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the world’s first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer
c.Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence independent research is extremely difficult to conduct
d.There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GE item in question has been approved, not a single country on earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects

All in all, if their genetically altered seeds have something wrong with them that potentially could cause consumer illness, Monsanto would rather NOT have you find out about it. Not through independent research, nor through a simple little label that would allow you to opt out of the experiment, should you choose not to take them on their word.

Why don’t they want labeling? Because you might sue them for putting your health in danger! Doesn’t this remind you of the public health debate that went on for decades over another multi-billion dollar industry — cigarettes?

For decades the companies producing this cancer-causing product denied they caused any harm, denied nicotine was addictive, and even ran advertisements featuring doctors claiming cigarettes were good for your cough. They produced study after study by their own scientists claiming there was no health threat whatsoever from cigarettes. Executives from every major cigarette company even lied to Congress under oath, claiming they had no knowledge cigarettes were addictive, when in fact they did know — they even manipulated the nicotine content12 of cigarettes to keep you hooked! Bet you didn’t know that, did you?

Genetically engineered foods are just another wolf in the same old sheep’s clothing. The propaganda and the fraud have worked so well for so long, why bother changing something that works so well? Don’t fall for the same old scheme! Instead, read what the few independent researchers are really saying about the science behind genetically engineered foods. You can find all previous articles on this topic on my dedicated GMO News page.

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated on LabelitWA.org:

“Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn’t required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn’t have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn’t it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers.”

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.
•No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
•If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
•For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
•Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative

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