Rather Be Healthy

Say NO to Aspartame – tell the FDA you don’t want unlabeled Aspartame in your Milk!

In the world of food, agriculture and feeding our children under the influence of giant corporations and special interests, there are bad ideas and then there are really bad ideas.

Right now, in the midst of a major childhood obesity epidemic, the giant dairy lobby is trying to force the federal government to redefine “milk” to include artificial sweeteners such as aspartame in children’s school lunches without proper labels.[1] So instead of chocolate or strawberry milk with sugar and high fructose corn syrup, which is currently labeled, Big Dairy now wants to replace that with aspartame in our children’s milk and pretend it’s a healthy choice for you and America’s children then do this by keeping it all a secret by not requiring proper labels!

Tell the FDA to not cave in to Big Dairy! Keep unlabeled Aspartame out of our milk! Keep reading and learn how Monsanto helped genetically engineer aspartame in U.S. facilities. The public comment period ends Tuesday May 21st! Every voice counts.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/863?t=9&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

Aspartame has a long clouded history, with fraudulent science submitted during the original FDA approval process and not surprising, the company that created aspartame, G.D. Searle, was bought by Monsanto in 1985. In 1999, Monsanto admitted to genetically engineering bacteria to create aspartame, which is now used widely as an artificial sweetener in diet soft drinks, chewing gum and other diet foods as a sugar substitute.

Alarmingly, numerous studies have linked aspartame to mood alterations including anxiety, agitation, depression, headaches, insomnia, seizures and memory and learning problems and brain tumors. [2][3] Even worse, not long after aspartame won approval in 1981 the company, G.D. Searle, that manufactured aspartame was bought by Monsanto – hard to believe – and much of today’s aspartame sold on the market is genetically engineered. [4] Despite Monsanto’s early connection with aspartame, they sold the company in 2000 and no longer produce it.

That’s right, the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) believe that the way to boost sagging milk sales is to pump milk full of cheap synthetic GMO sweetener and then dump them unlabeled on America’s unsuspecting school children just to make a fast buck. [5] This is outrageous!

Tell the FDA to not cave in to Big Dairy – Keep unlabeled Aspartame out of our milk! Every voice counts.

It’s not surprising, if you know anything about the U.S. national school lunch program, that big agribusiness special interests use their corporate power to pump the least healthy commodity products into our children’s lunches, but this is one step too far!

In the past several years, agribusiness giants have been caught feeding our children lunch meat that didn’t meet basic safety standards met by fast food restaurants and then last year they were caught dumping pink slime in America’s school lunches as well. [6][7]

Unsafe meat, pink slime and now a load of artificial sweeteners like Aspartame – seriously?

Earlier this year, the FDA announced that they were taking public comments on a petition that the dairy lobby had filed “requesting that the [FDA] Agency amend the standard of identity for milk and 17 other dairy products to provide for the use of any safe and suitable sweetener as an optional ingredient.” [8] And now that public comment period is about to close on Tuesday May 21st and we need your help.

Under current FDA guidelines, dairy companies are already allowed to put artificial sweeteners in milk, but now Big Dairy wants to be able to do it unlabeled, without currently required labels such as “reduced calorie” or listing aspartame as an ingredient, which according to America’s two leading dairy lobbies “are not attractive to children”.

It’s hard to believe that these corporate dairy front groups are actually that bold, but it’s true.

Think somebody fell into the Orwellian milk tank?

If you think that’s rich, the IDFA and NMPF believe that adding aspartame and other artificial sweeteners to children’s milk “would promote more healthful eating practices and reduce childhood obesity”.

After decades of declining sales of milk, thanks to the fact that the dairy industry once widely pushed Monsanto’s genetically engineered rBGH into America’s milk, the dairy industry now believes it can save the day by pumping another synthetic compound like aspartame on an unsuspecting public without notifying us. [9]

This is outrageous and it must be stopped. Tell the FDA to keep unlabeled aspartame and other artificial sweeteners out of our milk!

Big Milk and Monsanto – Corrupting Milk and Truthful Labels

For those unfamiliar with the story, in the 1990s, a former Monsanto attorney found himself appointed to a position at the FDA just in time to write the federal guidelines that not only kept GMOs unlabeled, but also allowed Monsanto’s genetically engineered synthetic growth hormone rBGH onto the market – also without appropriate labels.

The attorney went so far in doing his job for his former employer that he actually drafted a new rule that forbade dairy farmers or milk companies to put a label on their milk that said – “Does not contain rBGH.”

That man’s name is Michael Taylor, who magically is back at the FDA once again, now under the Obama administration as the Second in Command. Taylor’s title is now Deputy Commission of Food and Veterinary Medicine.

You may start to have that sinking feeling, that something is not quite right with the agency governing our food and pharmaceuticals in the U.S., but don’t worry it gets worse.

Aspartame’s History of Flawed Science and Link to Health Problems – Brain Cancer and more

Today, aspartame is the most widely used artificial sweetener on the market, but it’s shrouded in controversy.

Every day millions of Americans guzzle gallons of diet sodas like diet Pepsi and diet Coke, not knowing that their zero calorie drinks contain a genetically engineered artificial sweetener that has a long and dubious history linking the chemical to serious health problems, fraudulent science and your friends at Monsanto.

While the FDA finally approved aspartame in 1981, it was over the large outcry of scientists and public health safety advocates who were concerned over the products’ safety and the fraudulent scientific studies that were originally submitted to the FDA.

Despite industry claims that aspartame is “the most tested food additive ever”, (that sure sounds familiar coming from Monsanto), the approval of aspartame was one of the most contested and controversial approvals in the history of the FDA.

While aspartame was initially approved by the FDA in 1974, the discovery that S.G. Searle company scientists submitted flawed data to the FDA from improperly conducted scientific studies, which found brain tumors in animals and a lack of studies for long-term health effects on humans forced the FDA to retract its approval.

By 1980, Searle had spent millions of dollars to win approval, but the FDA had serious concerns and “recommended against approving aspartame at that time, citing unanswered questions about cancer in laboratory rats.” [10]

Then in 1981, aspartame finally won approval after resubmitting scientific data under the Reagan administration and in 1985 Searle was taken over by your friends at Monsanto.

Aspartame and Monsanto’s new GMO synthetic sweetener in our food!

The story could end here, but by the 1990s, Monsanto switched from being one of the world’s largest chemical company to a biotech company and one of the products Monsanto genetically engineered early on was aspartame, something they were reluctant to inform the world and their millions of consumers about.

But Monsanto’s secret GMO aspartame didn’t stay secret for long. In 1999, a top political correspondent for the UK Independent revealed that Monsanto had been manufacturing aspartame through genetically engineering bacteria to create the sweetener at its US production facilities. [11]

This news came out during the 1999 “G8 summit of rich country leaders” who had decided “to launch an inquiry into the safety of genetically modified (GM) food”. According to the article:

“A Monsanto spokeswoman confirmed that aspartame for the US market is made using genetic engineering. But sweetener supplied to British food producers is not. However, consumer groups say it is likely that some low-calorie products containing genetically engineered aspartame have been imported into Britain.

“Increasingly, chemical companies are using genetically engineered bacteria in their manufacturing process without telling the public,” said Dr Erik Millstone, of Sussex University and the National Food Alliance.

Sure, the FDA now says that aspartame is perfectly safe and that it’s one of the “most tested” food additives ever. But if that’s the case, why is the dairy industry trying to sneak it into our milk unlabeled?

At Food Democracy Now! we believe that dairy companies shouldn’t be dumping aspartame or other artificial sweeteners in our children’s milk unlabeled.

Tell the FDA to block the approval of unlabeled aspartame in milk today!

Thanks for participating in food democracy,

Dave, Lisa and the Food Democracy Now! team

Sources:

1. Russian moo-lette? Milk may soon contain undeclared aspartame”, Examiner, March 3, 2013

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/854?t=14&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

2. “Sweetened Drinks Associated with Increased Depression Risk”, Mercola.com, January 21, 2013.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/855?t=16&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

3. “Aspartame: By Far the Most Dangerous Substance Added to Most Foods Today”, Mercola.com November 6, 2011.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/856?t=18&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

4. “World’s top sweetener is made with GM bacteria”, The UK Independent, June, 20, 2013.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/857?t=20&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

5. “Flavored Milk; Petition to Amend the Standard of Identity for Milk and 17 Additional Dairy Products”, Federal Register, February, 20, 2013

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/858?t=22&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

6. “School Lunches Linked to Kids’ Obesity, WebMD”, March 15, 2010

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/859?t=24&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

7. “USDA Allows Meat In Schools that Doesn’t Meet Fast Food Chains’ Standards”, Huffington Post, December 18, 2009

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/860?t=26&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

8. “Tell Vilsack No Pink Slime in School Lunches”, Food Democracy Now!, April 10, 2012

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/861?t=28&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

9. “Flavored Milk; Petition to Amend the Standard of Identity for Milk and 17 Additional Dairy Products”, Federal Register, February, 20, 2013

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/858?t=30&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

10. “Aspartame”, Wikipedia, http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/862?t=32&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

11. “World’s top sweetener is made with GM bacteria”, The UK Independent, June, 20, 1999.

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

‘Consider the Fork’ Chronicles Evolution of Eating

First came the discovery of fire, which eventually lead to a shift to the cooked-food diet. This, so the theory goes, gave humans the extra calories they needed to allow their brains to get bigger.

In other words, human brains “smartened up” – allowing for the use of tools and the creation of art and religion – due to the extra calories that became available when cooked food became widespread.1

From there another culinary change took place that revolutionized not only the way in which we eat, but also may have altered the structure of the human jaw itself, taking us one step further from our ancient primate ancestors and one step closer to what we regard today as “modern man.”

How the Fork Changed Modern Man

In the NPR audio clip above, British food writer Bee Wilson, author of Consider the Fork: A History of How We Cook and Eat, explains that 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. Wilson explained:

“…the fork is, in historic times, extremely recent, and now, arguably, it’s the most universal utensil …And yet, it encountered huge resistance when it was first introduced. And for a long time in Europe, it was only the Italians who used forks.

The reason being pasta, as we all know, forks are the perfect implement for twizzling long strands of noodles or spaghetti.

But in the rest of Europe, particularly Britain, they thought that forks were just these weird, effeminate, unnecessary objects, which we could do fine without. And this whole question of cutlery,

It seems rather irrelevant compared to what we eat, and yet, if anthropologist called C. Loring Brace is correct, the adoption of the knife and fork at table, which happened roughly 250 years ago in society at large in Europe and then in the States — if he is right, then the adoption of the knife and fork actually had these profound implications on the structure of the human jaw.”

According to Brace, humans used to have an edge-to-edge bite, like apes and chimpanzees. But in the last 200 years or so, it changed into an overbite, with the top layer of teeth fitting over the bottom layer. His research suggests that the only change that happened during this time period that might account for the new jaw structure was the switch to cutting our food into smaller pieces, and eating them with a fork.2

“…it was through the process of cutting food into small morsels from childhood onwards that we actually change the way that our jaws work. And the real clincher was that he found this change 900 years earlier in China, the reason being chopsticks,” Wilson said.

Our Cooking and Eating Habits Are Constantly Evolving

While the fork, the knife and the spoon have proven to have staying power in the kitchen, along with other essentials that have been around for thousands of years — like the pot, the frying pan and the colander — other everyday culinary items have only recently become mainstays.

Microwave ovens, for instance, were first introduced to consumers just 40 or so years ago, and although Wilson describes it as an “astonishing invention,” it’s an example of a culinary tool that might be exchanging convenience for health. Microwaves heat food by causing water molecules in it to resonate at very high frequencies and eventually turn to steam, which heats your food. While this can rapidly heat your food, what most people fail to realize is that it also causes a change in your food’s chemical structure.

Other even more recent cooking trends include the use of non-stick cookware, which again puts convenience, in this case ease of cleanup, ahead of your health. The majority of non-stick cookware in the United States contains PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and other perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), which have been linked to health problems like hypothyroidism, infertility and cancer. Still other inventions, like the food processor, reduce our need to chew our food as thoroughly, atrophying and/or changing the biomechanics of our jaw, in addition to having digestive and metabolic consequences.

Interestingly, one of the most common kitchen tools found in the vast majority of kitchens remains one of the oldest and, arguably, the safest: the wooden spoon. In Consider the Fork, Wilson writes:3

“The wooden spoon does not look particularly sophisticated — traditionally, it was given as a booby prize to the loser of a competition — but it has science on its side. Wood is nonabrasive and therefore gentle on pans — you can scrape away without fear of scarring the metal surface. It is nonreactive: you need not worry that it will leave a metallic taste or that its surface will degrade on contact with acidic citrus or tomatoes. It is also a poor conductor of heat, which is why you can stir hot soup with a wooden spoon without burning your hand.

Above and beyond its functionality, however, we cook with wooden spoons because we always have. They are part of our civilization. Tools are first adopted because they meet a certain need or solve a particular problem, but over time the utensils we feel happy using are mainly determined by culture.”

Tapping Into the Culinary Wisdom of Generations Past

You may have certain recipes and other culinary traditions that you learned from your mother and grandmother, which you plan to pass on to your children, too. This is important, as often these traditions rely on traditional cooking methods and real, whole foods – not the processed convenience foods that are so common today.

If you are seeking to use food to optimize your health it is helpful to pay attention not only to the food quality but also how you prepare it, being careful to use methods that do not seriously impair its quality. Seek to get back to the basics of cooking — using the bones from a roast chicken to make stock for a pot of soup, extending a Sunday roast to use for weekday dinners, learning how to make hearty stews from inexpensive cuts of meat, using up leftovers and so on.

Learning how to ferment your own vegetables – a common practice since ancient times – is another age-old culinary skill worth learning, not only for the tasty vegetables but also because they’re phenomenal for your health. At the very least, the next time you walk into your kitchen and get out a fork to use with dinner, it’s interesting to think about how this simple tool may have changed the very face of humankind … and how other culinary tools and techniques may be changing the face of the future. As Wilson said:

“Although many tools have disappeared from the modern kitchen, they have left us with traditions, tastes, and even physical characteristics that we would never have possessed otherwise.”

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

Americans Spend More Time Watching Cooking Shows Than Actually Cooking

Michael Pollan, the New York Times author who wrote the book “Omnivore’s Dilemma,” has made a leap from agriculture to cooking in his newest book, “Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation.”

It’s a necessary leap, after all, as his work promoting the virtues of local, sustainably grown food will be in vain if people aren’t willing to cook it. Even the freshest produce and the best cuts of grass-fed beef that farm stands have to offer will spoil among a community of non-cooks …

His book reminds me of one of my favorite sayings with respect to your meals, and that is if you fail to plan then you are planning to fail.

Americans Spend More Time Watching Cooking Shows Than Actually Cooking

In the US, we’re largely a nation of “heater-uppers” — not cooks. As Pollan wrote in a 2009 newspaper column,1 Americans now cook less than ever, yet, ironically, love watching people cook on television:

“How is it that we are so eager to watch other people browning beef cubes on screen but so much less eager to brown them ourselves? For the rise of Julia Child as a figure of cultural consequence — along with Alice Waters and Mario Batali and Martha Stewart and Emeril Lagasse…

Whoever is crowned the next Food Network star — has, paradoxically, coincided with the rise of fast food, home-meal replacements and the decline and fall of everyday home cooking.

That decline has several causes: women working outside the home; food companies persuading Americans to let them do the cooking; and advances in technology that made it easier for them to do so. Cooking is no longer obligatory, and for many people, women especially, that has been a blessing.

But perhaps a mixed blessing, to judge by the culture’s continuing, if not deepening, fascination with the subject. It has been easier for us to give up cooking than it has been to give up talking about it — and watching it.

Today the average American spends a mere 27 minutes a day on food preparation (another four minutes cleaning up); that’s less than half the time that we spent cooking and cleaning up when Julia arrived on our television screens.

It’s also less than half the time it takes to watch a single episode of “Top Chef” or “Chopped” or “The Next Food Network Star.” What this suggests is that a great many Americans are spending considerably more time watching images of cooking on television than they are cooking themselves — an increasingly archaic activity they will tell you they no longer have the time for. What is wrong with this picture?”

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

Getting Back to the Basics: Four Traditional Cooking Processes

For all of the time Americans don’t spend in the kitchen, it’s clear that many of us still have some form of inherent desire to cook, which draws us to watch the act on TV, even if it’s been months since we’ve chopped up a green pepper or sautéed an onion ourselves. And why wouldn’t we?

Food gathering, preparation, cooking and eating have been central to humankind since the beginning of time. Researchers believe that it was the shift to a cooked-food diet that gave ancient humans the extra calories they needed to allow their brains to get bigger. And today, food still has a way of bringing people together – and so too can embracing some of the more traditional methods of food preparation described in Pollan’s new book.

The four processes reviewed — barbeque, pot cooking, bread baking and fermentation – correspond, respectively, with the four elements fire, water, air and earth. Among the interesting tidbits offered include a discussion of why whole wheat often lacks flavor (the germ is taken out), and how using a sourdough starter can make your whole wheat bread turn out better. There’s also a lengthy discussion of one of my own favorite “cooking” methods, fermentation. Pollan insightfully compares the art of fermenting foods with gardening:2

“The fact that — it’s a lot like gardening in that you’re in this — you have this engagement with these other species and you can’t totally control them. And if you try to totally control everything that goes on in your garden, you’re going to make a mess of it. You need to surf a little bit. You guide these other species. And in fermentation, that’s what you do too, but these other species are invisible. But you sense them, you smell them, they bubble.

… Most of these ferments offer our bodies a lot that we don’t get any other way. All that probiotic bacteria dwarfs the amount of bacteria in a supplement, and all that fiber, and all the lactic acid, which is also good for you. I found that process endlessly satisfying.

… Fermentation appears to be a cultural universal. And many cultures have a strongly flavored fermented food that is defining– an acquired taste beloved by a people and regarded as disgusted by other people … People don’t make the connection. They really don’t. We don’t realize that a third of our food is fermented.”

A Prescription for a Home-Cooked Meal

The idea for Pollan’s book came from a transplant cardiologist who, in the follow-up visit for his heart transplant patients, would hand over a prescription not for medication but for a home-cooked roast chicken. Pollan described the cardiologist as saying:3

“ … they really expect me to give them a prescription for a drug, for Lipitor or whatever. And, he said, “But I don’t give them that. On my prescription pad, I give them a recipe for roast chicken. On the other side, I tell them what to do on day two, what to do with the leftovers, and how to make a soup on day three. And I give that to them.”

Therein lies the “secret” that many are missing, which is that the food you eat, more than virtually anything else, can heal your health and give you a long life. Personally, whenever I’m not traveling I purchase at least one four-pound hen a week, which I boil for several hours and make an awesome chicken soup. But it’s obviously not about chicken, per se, it’s about embracing the notion that food really can be your “medicine,” or prevent you from ever needing it, provided you’re willing to invest some time in the kitchen.

Getting Reacquainted With Your Kitchen …

I have long stated that one of the keys to optimal health is having someone in your family (or someone you hire) invest some time in your kitchen, preparing meals from scratch. This doesn’t necessarily mean cooking — personally I try to eat about 85 percent of my food raw — but some form of food preparation that might include fermenting vegetables or milk, juicing veggies, sprouting seeds, soaking nuts, preparing raw meals as well as some traditional cooking.

As for the latter, you may have certain recipes and other culinary traditions that you learned from your mother and grandmother, which you plan to pass on to your children, too. This is important, as often these passed-down recipes rely on traditional cooking methods and real, whole foods – not the processed convenience foods that are so common today.

If you are seeking to use food to optimize your health it is helpful to pay attention not only to the food quality but also to how you prepare it, being careful to use methods that do not seriously impair its quality. Seek to get back to the basics of cooking, such as:
•Bone broth: Simmering leftover bones over low heat for an entire day will create one of the most nutritious and healing foods there is. You can use this broth for soups, stews, or drink it straight.
•Extending a slow-cooked Sunday roast to use for weekday dinners
•Learning how to make hearty stews from inexpensive cuts of meat
•Cooking with real ingredients like coconut oil and butter in lieu of polyunsaturated vegetable oils or margarine
•Planning your meals around the seasonal produce available in your area

Quite simply, we’ve strayed too far from the foods we are designed to eat, exchanging the convenience of processed foods and fast foods for our very health. Going back to basics and refocusing your diet on fresh, whole, unprocessed, “real” food prepared in your own kitchen can improve just about anyone’s health, and at the same time help you fulfill your own family’s need for coming together over a good meal, rather than just watching one being prepared on TV.

Pollan summed it up well:4

“ …it’s hard to imagine ever reforming the American way of eating or, for that matter, the American food system unless millions of Americans — women and men — are willing to make cooking a part of daily life. The path to a diet of fresher, unprocessed food, not to mention to a revitalized local-food economy, passes straight through the home kitchen.”

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

Many people think food allergies cause a bit of stomach upset or a skin rash, not realizing that for a growing number of the population, food allergies can be deadly.

I’m Not Nuts: Living With Food Allergies is a documentary that sheds some light on this rising issue through interviews with families that are directly affected.

While it’s widely accepted that a bee sting can cause anaphylaxis, a type of severe allergic reaction that can be deadly, stings cause about 40 US deaths a year compared to 100 deaths from food. In fact, food is the most common trigger for anaphylaxis.1

When Food Turns Deadly

As Dr. Ben Song of the Allergy & Immunology Associates of Ann Arbor explained in the film, there may be a generational gap that’s causing the seriousness of food allergies to often be downplayed as, quite simply, deadly food allergies were a rarity just 40 or 50 years ago.

Yet today an estimated one out of every 13 children has a food allergy,2 and the incidence is increasing. From 1997 to 2007, food allergies increased 18 percent among children under 18 years,3 and according to UK data, hospitalizations for food allergy increased by 500 percent from 1990 to 2006.4 In the US, about 90,000 people visit the emergency room due to food allergies every year.5

Often, the allergy is to a very commonly eaten food. In the US, the following eight foods account for 90 percent of all food-allergic reactions, though, as Dr. Song explained, other foods, such as sesame seeds and legumes, are becoming more frequent allergens as well.

Peanuts

Tree nuts

Fish

Shellfish

Soy

Wheat

Milk

Eggs

Identifying Symptoms is Difficult, Especially in Young Children

Sometimes a food allergy occurs the first time a new food is eaten. Other times you can develop an allergy literally overnight to a food you’ve eaten your entire life. In the featured film, one woman described the swelling and tightness in her throat that suddenly appeared after she ate a tuna sandwich – a food she’d long enjoyed.

Another parent watched her 1-year-old daughter scratch her hands almost to the point of bleeding after giving her a piece of birthday cake, only to later find out she had an egg allergy.

Many parents will understandably confuse frequent crying due to allergies with signs of hunger in their babies, leading them to feed more of the allergenic food, such as milk. This causes a vicious cycle of more symptoms and more crying until the real culprit is uncovered.

When you’re allergic to a substance, your immune system mistakenly believes it is dangerous and produces immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies in an attempt to neutralize it. Chemicals such as histamine released into your bloodstream during this process can lead to a battery of symptoms any time you eat the food (although symptoms may not appear until hours later). These include:

Tingling or itching in your mouth

Hives

Itching

Eczema

Swelling anywhere in your body, especially your lips, face, tongue and throat

Wheezing and trouble breathing

Abdominal pain

Diarrhea

Nausea and vomiting

Fainting and dizziness

Anaphylaxis (tightening of airways, swelling in your throat, difficulty breathing)

Nasal congestion

Making matters even more difficult, food allergies can actually result in all sorts of reactions, from headache, to sneezing, to rashes, to swollen joints. Or they may result in psoriasis, or cause eczema to flare up.

What’s Causing So Many Food Allergies?

There is no complete answer for why certain people have allergies, although both genetic and environmental factors likely play a role. Though not discussed in the film, low levels of vitamin D have been associated with an increased risk of food allergies,6 while some theorize that food additives, genetic modification, hormones and herbicides added to foods may be triggering some cases. Genetic engineering, for instance, can increase existing allergens, or produce new, unknown allergens. Both appear to have happened in genetically modified (GM) soy, which is found in the majority of processed foods. Leading GMO expert Jeffrey Smith explained:

“Levels of one known soy allergen, trypsin inhibitor, were up to seven times higher in cooked GM soy compared to cooked non-GM soy. Another study discovered a unique, unexpected protein in GM soy, likely to trigger allergies. In addition, of eight human subjects who had a skin-prick (allergy-type) reaction to GM soy, one did not also react to non-GM soy, suggesting that GM soy is uniquely dangerous.

…Documents made public from a lawsuit revealed that FDA scientists were uniformly concerned that GM foods might create hard-to-detect allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. Their urgent requests for required long-term feeding studies fell on deaf ears. The FDA doesn’t require a single safety test.”

So we’ve got various foreign substances being added to our food supply, any number of which have the potential to trigger allergic reactions. At the same time, more children are being born and raised with severely damaged gut flora, which is largely the product of poor diet and antibiotics overuse, leading to Gut and Psychology Syndrome (GAPS).

Gut Flora May Play a Major Role in Food Allergies

Abnormalities in your immune system—such as allergies and autoimmune diseases—are a common outcome of GAPS, as about 85 percent of your immune system is located in your gut. When your gut flora is abnormal, your gut lining begins to deteriorate, since it is actively maintained by your gut flora. The beneficial bacteria in your gut make sure the cells that line your entire digestive tract are healthy, well-fed, and protected from chemical or microbial attacks. But as your gut lining deteriorates, the junctions between the cells open up, causing your gut to become porous, or “leaky.” According to Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, who discovered GAPS:

“It becomes like a sieve, and foods don’t get the chance to be digested properly before they are absorbed. They’re absorbed in this maldigested or partially broken down form. When the immune system and the bloodstream finds them and looks at them, it doesn’t recognize them as food. It says, ‘You’re not food. I don’t recognize you,’ and it reacts to them. It creates immune complexes, which attack these partially digested proteins. As a result, we’ll get all sorts of symptoms in your body.”

The answer to resolving food allergies, as well as virtually all autoimmune disorders, is to heal and seal your intestines, which the GAPS nutritional program is designed to do. If you have severe food allergies, the GAPS Introduction Diet, which uses fermented foods and other natural strategies to restore balance to your gut flora, may help heal your food allergy completely.

Provocation Neutralization Treatment for Allergies

I highly recommend the GAPS “heal and seal” approach outlined here for resolving food allergies, but another option to consider is Provocation neutralization (PN) allergy testing and treatment, which offers many allergy sufferers permanent relief without adverse side effects. The success rate for this approach is about 80 to 90 percent, and you can receive the treatment at home. I offered this effective treatment for many years in my office.

The provocation refers to “provoking a change” and neutralization refers to “neutralizing the reaction caused by provocation.” During provocation-neutralization, a small amount of allergen is injected under your skin to produce a small bump called a “wheal” on the top layers of your skin, and then it is monitored for a reaction. If you have a positive reaction, such as fatigue, headache, or a growth in the size of the wheal, then the allergen is neutralized with diluted injections or with drops that go in your mouth of the same allergen.

If you want to see some actual videos of provocation neutralization being done, see Dr. Doris Rapp’s website, www.DorisRappMD.com. It is important to remember that the PN program is in addition to, not a replacement for, a comprehensive allergy recovery program, which should include optimizing your diet, intestinal health and vitamin D levels while avoiding potential triggers.

Avoidance is Key if You’re Living With a Food Allergy

Avoidance of the allergic foods will be key to preventing potentially deadly reactions. As explained in the documentary, simple hand washing can be crucial to this, especially among children who can easily get food allergens on their hands through direct contact with other kids. Label reading is another necessary precaution that anyone with a food allergy must take.

The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act, which took effect in January 2006, requires that food manufacturers list any of the top eight food allergens used in their products on the label. However, general terms like “natural flavors” and “spices” can contain hidden allergens, like sesame, forcing those with severe food allergies to devote countless hours calling food manufacturers to find out what’s really in their products.

Eating in restaurants can also be nearly impossible, unless you go to the restaurant ahead of time and ask the manager if an allergen-free meal can be safely created. The solution is to drastically reduce your family’s reliance on processed food and restaurants, instead choosing whole foods in as close to their natural state as possible, which you prepare at home. This will dramatically reduce the risk of exposure to hidden allergens, while providing superior nutrition at the same time.

Support Groups for Those Living With Food Allergies

If you or your child has a food allergy, sharing your experiences and advice with others in the same situation can be invaluable. The Food Allergy Research & Education Web site has a tool to help you find a support group in your area.7 Other support groups mentioned in the film include Circle of Food Allergic Families (COFAF),8 a parent-run support group to support families as they face the daily challenges of managing food allergies.

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

The trial of Vernon Hershberger, another raw milk farmer facing prison time for producing real food

Just a few days remain before Amish raw milk farmer Vernon Hershberger of Wisconsin faces a corrupt legal system with an ingrown vendetta against the production and distribution of real food. Beginning on May 20, 2013, at 8 a.m., Vernon, who has been falsely accused of committing numerous food distribution violations in his home state, will stand before both jurors and judge at the Sauk County Courthouse in Baraboo, Wisc. And right across the street at the Al Ringling Theatre, a cohort of food freedom patriots will gather to support him and educate the public about this important issue with an even known as Grow Your Food Freedom.

In case you missed it, Vernon is one of many family-scale farmers that in recent years has been illegally targeted by both the state and federal government for producing clean food and sharing it with his friends and neighbors. Vernon has been operating a private food club that distributes raw, unpasteurized milk and other goods from his farm to local shareholders, a setup that does not require, and actually prohibits, the uninvited involvement and interference of state and local governments.

But Wisconsin’s oppressive, food industry-influenced agriculture department, which is vehemently opposed to the consumption and distribution of raw milk, along with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided back in 2010 to go after Vernon, raiding his property and threatening him with persecution for the non-crime of sharing farm-raised food with consenting private club members. And what has taken place since that time against this innocent man and his family can only be described as malicious food terrorism by rogue government forces on a mission to destroy food freedom.

You can read a full account of Vernon’s battle with the authoritarian police state here:
http://www.vernonhershberger.com/history.html

Help support Vernon by attending ‘Grow Your Food Freedom,’ spreading the word about the persecution of American farmers by government tyrants
Though he has committed no crime whatsoever, Vernon has been forced into a trial where he will have to defend himself against four criminal misdemeanor charges, none of which are valid. If ultimately convicted of these charges, Vernon faces up to 30 months, or two-and-a-half years, in jail, as well as fines amounting to over $10,000.

“The outcome of his trial will set precedent for all food clubs around the country!” states an announcement on Vernon’s support page. “If Vernon is found guilty, not only could he go to prison for more than a year, we will see criminal charges, or the threat of criminal charges, used to shut down buying clubs around the country and limit the food choices of peaceful Americans!”

Area residents and those willing to travel to Baraboo can watch the trial live at the Al Ringling Theatre beginning at 8 a.m. on Monday, May 20 and continuing through Friday, May 24. At this time, WISC-TV Channel3000.com is the only news agency being allowed inside the courtroom, and the station has indicated that a live stream of the entire week-long trial will probably not be streamed on its website. However, others will be allowed to film the trial from the overflow room.

If you do choose to support Vernon by attending Grow Your Food Freedom, you will also have the unique opportunity to hear from prominent speakers and food freedom advocates such as Mark McAfee of California’s Organic Pastures Dairy, The Complete Patient writer and journalist David Gumpert, Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute, and biodynamic farming expert Joel Salatin, among many others. There will also be several film screenings at the event.

You can view the entire speaker lineup and event details by visiting:
http://www.vernonhershberger.com/trial-updates.html
http://www.farmersontrial.com/2013/05/14/grow-your-food-freedom/

Also, be sure to check out the official Farmers on Trial page to learn more about the persecution of American farmers and how you can help stop this dastardly trend:
http://www.farmersontrial.com/

Sources for this article include:

http://www.vernonhershberger.com/trial-updates.html

http://www.farmersontrial.com/

http://www.naturalnews.com

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

EXPOSED: Angelina Jolie part of a clever corporate scheme to protect billions in BRCA gene patents, influence Supreme Court decision (opinion)

Angelina Jolie’s announcement of undergoing a double mastectomy (surgically removing both breasts) even though she had no breast cancer is not the innocent, spontaneous, “heroic choice” that has been portrayed in the mainstream media. Natural News has learned it all coincides with a well-timed for-profit corporate P.R. campaign that has been planned for months and just happens to coincide with the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision on the viability of the BRCA1 patent.

This is the investigation the mainstream media refuses to touch. Here, I explain the corporate financial ties, investors, mergers, human gene patents, lawsuits, medical fear mongering and the trillions of dollars that are at stake here. If you pull back the curtain on this one, you find far more than an innocent looking woman exercising a “choice.” This is about protecting trillions in profits through the deployment of carefully-crafted public relations campaigns designed to manipulate the public opinion of women.

The signs were all there from the beginning of the scheme: Angelina Jolie’s highly polished and obviously corporate-written op-ed piece at the New York Times, the carefully-crafted talking points invoking “choice” as a politically-charged keyword, and the obvious coaching of even her husband Brad Pitt who carefully describes the entire experience using words like “stronger” and “pride” and “family.”

But the smoking gun is the fact that Angelina Jolie’s seemingly spontaneous announcement magically appeared on the cover of People Magazine this week — a magazine that is usually finalized for publication three weeks before it appears on newsstands. That cover, not surprisingly, uses the same language found in the NYT op-ed piece: “HER BRAVE CHOICE” and “This was the right thing to do.” The flowery, pro-choice language is not a coincidence.

What this proves is that Angelina’s Jolie’s announcement was a well-planned corporate P.R. campaign with carefully-crafted messages designed to influence public opinion. But what could Jolie be seeking to influence?

…how about trillions of dollars in corporate profits?

Upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule on patent viability for BRCA1 gene
Angelina Jolie’s announcement and all its carefully-crafted language had four notable immediate impacts:

1) It caused women everywhere to be terrified of breast cancer through the publishing of false statistics that drove fear into the hearts of anyone with breasts. (See below for explanation.)

2) It caused women to rush out and seek BRCA1 gene testing procedures. These tests just happen to be patented by a for-profit corporation called “Myriad Genetics.” Because of this patent, BRCA1 tests can cost $3,000 – $4,000 each. The testing alone is a multi-billion-dollar market, but only if the patent is upheld in an upcoming Supreme Court decision (see below).

3) It caused the stock price of Myriad Genetics (MYGN) to skyrocket to a 52-week high. “Myriad’s stock closed up 3% Tuesday, following the publication of the New York Times op-ed,” wrote Marketwatch.com.

4) It drove public opinion to influence the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule in favor of corporate ownership of human genes (see more below).

Women all over the world are being duped into supporting Angeline Jolie, having no idea that what she’s really doing is selling out women to the for-profit cancer industry. But to fully understand what’s happening, you have to dig deeper…

Myriad Genetics sees stock price skyrocket thanks to Jolie, and Obamacare will funnel billions their way
“Salt Lake City-based Myriad Genetics (MYGN) holds the patent on the test that determined the actress had an 87% chance of developing breast cancer, as well as the genes themselves,” wrote MarketWatch.com.

And that’s only the beginning. If the U.S. Supreme Court can be influenced to uphold Myriad’s patent, it could mean a trillion-dollar industry over just the next few years. Even more, Myriad Genetics is reportedly “ripe for mergers” according to the financial press, because it’s part of the super-hot human genome industry.

“The world’s largest maker of DNA testing and analysis tools, Life Technologies Corp. said that it is set to be acquired by Thermo Fisher Scientific for a record $13.6 billion,” writes MarketWatch.com. “A race that kicked into high gear more than 26 years ago is heating up, with foreign governments and corporations joining the U.S. in funding the quest to map all the human genomes. And even as the recent flurry of mergers and acquisitions in the genomics space has spurred returns, investors still have opportunities to profit from this multibillion-dollar industry.”

The higher Myriad’s stock price goes, the more profitable a merger becomes for its current owners. So Jolie’s P.R. stunt just happened to generate unknown millions of dollars in value for the very people who claim a patent monopoly over the breast cancer genes residing in the bodies of women. Coincidence? Hardly.

Obamacare mandates taxpayers pay for BRCA gene testing: yet another government handout to wealthy corporations
But here’s what’s even more crooked about all this: You know how Obama likes to talk “free market” but actually engages in so-called “crony capitalism” by handing out money to all his corporate buddies, Wall Street insiders and deep-pocketed campaign donors? Part of Obamacare — the “Affordable Care Act” — mandates that taxpayers pay for BRCA1 genetic testing!

Myriad Genetics, in other words, stands to receive a full-scale windfall of profits mandated by government and pushed into mainstream consciousness through a campaign of “medical terror” fronted by Angelina Jolie and the New York Times. Are you starting to see how this all fits together yet?

This is all one big coordinated corporate sellout of women, and it’s all being hidden by playing the “women’s power” card and using “choice” language to more easily manipulate women. Angelina Jolie, remember, is a key spokesperson for the United Nations, an organization already caught engaged in child sex slavery and drug running. Although Jolie obviously isn’t engage in that sort of behavior, her job is to covertly influence American women into supporting a carefully-planned, plotted and executed corporate profit campaign that turns women’s bodies into profits.

Here’s why the Supreme Court decision puts trillions of dollars at stake…

Details on the upcoming Supreme Court decision
The ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation filed a lawsuit in 2009, challenging the corporate ownership of human genes. Anyone who believes in women’s rights, human rights, civil rights or even the right to eat non-GMO foods should immediately agree that corporations should NOT be able to patent human genes and then use those patents to rake in billions of dollars in profits while stifling scientific research into those genes.

A question to all women reading this: Do you believe a corporation in Utah owns your body? If not, you should be opposed to corporate ownership of human genes. It also means you should oppose Angelina Jolie’s P.R. campaign because although she’s running a brilliant public relations campaign, behind the scenes her actions are feeding potentially trillions of dollars of profits directly into the for-profit human gene patenting industry that denies human beings ownership over their own genetic code.

The ACLU explains the basics of its lawsuit against Myriad Genetics as follows:

On May 12, 2009, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed a lawsuit charging that patents on two human genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2, are unconstitutional and invalid. On November 30, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear argument on the patentability of human genes. The ACLU argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 15, 2013. We expect a decision this summer.

On behalf of researchers, genetic counselors, women patients, cancer survivors, breast cancer and women’s health groups, and scientific associations representing 150,000 geneticists, pathologists, and laboratory professionals, we have argued that human genes cannot be patented because they are classic products of nature. The suit charges that the gene patents violate the First Amendment and stifle diagnostic testing and research that could lead to cures and that they limit women’s options regarding their medical care.

Got that? If the Supreme Court rules against Myriad Genetics, it will cause a multi-billion-dollar breast cancer genetic testing industry to collapse virtually overnight. This means a huge loss for not just Myriad, but also many other human gene corporations that wish to exploit the human body — including the bodies of women — for monopolistic profits. (All patents are government-granted monopolies.) Ultimately, trillions of dollars in corporate gene patents are at stake here.

Patenting human genes is huge business
Today, about 20 percent of your genes are already patented by corporations and universities. As the ACLU explains, “A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents.”

This means that when corporations own patents on human genes, it stifles scientific research while granting that corporation a monopoly over the “intellectual property” encoded in your own DNA! (How criminal is that? You decide…)

What this means is that if the Supreme Court rules against Myriad, it would set a precedent that would dismantle the entire human gene patenting industry, affecting trillions of dollars in future profits.

This, I believe, is the real reason behind Angelina Jolie’s announcement. It seems designed to invoke women’s emotional reactions and create a groundswell of support for corporate-owned genes, thereby handing these corporations a Supreme Court precedent that will ensure trillions in future profits. It’s a for-profit PR stunt that tries to trick women into supporting a corporate system of patents and monopolies that claims, right now, to own portions of the bodies of every woman living today.

While most media outlets have no clue about the patent issues at stake here, the Detroit Free Press took notice, saying:

“The Hollywood star’s decision to get tested for a breast cancer gene mutation, undergo a double mastectomy and then write about it calls attention to a case now pending before the court. The justices have just weeks to decide if Myriad Genetics’ patent on the two genes that can identify an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer is legal. Critics complain that the company’s monopoly leaves them as the sole source of the $4,000 tests needed to determine each woman’s risk.”

Lying with statistics: Jolie’s 87% risk exaggeration
There’s more to this story than just the patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Angelina Jolie is also using blatantly misleading statistics to terrify women into thinking their breasts might kill them.

In the NYT op-ed piece, Jolie claims her doctor told her she has an “87% risk” of developing breast cancer. But what she didn’t tell you is that this number doesn’t apply to the entire population: it’s actually old data derived almost exclusively from families that were previously documented to have very high risks of breast cancer to begin with.

A study published on the National Human Genome Research Institute website and conducted by scientists from the National Institutes of Health reveals that breast cancer risks associated with BRCA1 genes are significantly lower than what’s being hyped up by Jolie and the mainstream media.

In fact, in a large room of 600 women, only ONE will likely have a BRCA mutation in her genetic code. The actual incidence is 0.125 to 0.25 out of 100 women, or 1 in 400 to 1 in 800. I used 600 as the average of 400 and 800.

And out of that 1 in 600 women who has the mutation, her risk of breast cancer is only 56 percent, not 78 percent as claimed by Jolie. But 13 percent of women without the BRCA mutation get breast cancer anyway, according to this scientific research, so the increased risk is just 43 out of 100 women.

So what we’re really talking about here is 1 in 600 women having a BRCA gene mutation, then less than half of those getting cancer because of it. In other words, only about 1 in 1200 women will be affected by this.

Yet thanks to people like Jolie and the fear-mongering mainstream media, women all across the nation have been terrified into believing their breasts might kill them and the best way to handle the problem is to cut them off!

This, my friends, is the essence of doomsday fear mongering. This issue affects less than one-tenth of one percent of women but is being riled up into a nationwide fear campaign that just happens to feed profits into the for-profit cancer diagnosis and treatment industry, not to mention the monopolistic human gene patenting cartels.

That’s the real story of what’s happening here. Don’t expect to read this in the New York Times.

Corporate media refuses to mention real prevention and treatment options
As part of the breast cancer fear mongering and treatment scam now being run across the mainstream media, nearly all media sources are prohibiting any mention of holistic or natural options for treatment or prevention.

Sure, the media talks about “options,” but all those options just happen to lead back to the for-profit cancer industry. As an example, read this story by ABC News, part of the lying mainstream media that misinforms women and pushes a corporate agenda:

If you do test positive for BRCA, you have options, and you don’t necessarily have to go the Jolie route. Some women choose not to have surgery. Instead, they increase cancer surveillance with imaging tests. These include regular mammograms to test for breast cancer, and regular pelvic sonograms and blood-tests to watch for ovarian cancer.

Nowhere in this article does ABC News mention ways to suppress the BRCA1 gene by, for example, eating raw cruciferous vegetables containing Indole-3-Carbinol (I3C), a potent anti-cancer nutrient that halts breast cancer in its tracks. Nowhere does ABC News mention vitamin D which prevents nearly 4 out of 5 cancers of all types, including breast cancer.

Nope, the “options” being pushed by mainstream media are nothing more than mammograms, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy — all owned and run by the for-profit cancer industry that feeds on women and exploits their bodies for profit.

Nor is their any discussion of the total scam of the “pink ribbons” cancer cure industry which is primarily focused on giving women cancer through “free mammograms.” As any scientist or physicist already knows, mammograms cause cancer because they emit ionizing radiation directly into the breast and heart tissues. Get enough mammograms done and sooner or later they will detect breast cancer because they caused it! To date, 1.3 million women have been harmed by mammography.

Thanks, Angelina, for keeping the wool pulled over the eyes of women everywhere while selling out to for-profit, monopolistic, corporate interests that incessantly seek to exploit women for profit

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

Natural News challenges Angelina Jolie to denounce corporate patents on human genes

The issue of corporate patents on human genes really is black and white: You’re either for humanity, or you’re a corporate whore

Following recent revelations of how Angelina Jolie’s double mastectomy P.R. stunt feeds into the profits of the trillion dollar industry which claims to own human genes, Natural News is now calling on Jolie to publicly denounce patents on human genes, including the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes she has now made famous.

Does Angelina Jolie really stand up for women and human rights? Or is she a corporate sellout who corrals women into the for-profit cancer industry that claims ownership over the genetic code of all women?

FACTS:

• The BRCA1 gene for breast cancer is patented by a corporation called Myriad Genetics. All patents are government-enforced monopolies over intellectual property, and they thus prevent anyone else from conducting research or testing on the BRCA1 gene without paying huge royalties to Myriad. This is why the BRCA detection tests cost $3,000 – $4,000 each.

• Angelina Jolie’s announcement of a double mastectomy even though she had no breast cancer caused the stock price of Myriad to skyrocket to a 52-week high. Whether she intended it or not, her advocacy of double mastectomies is causing market values to sharply rise in the human genomics industry, where corporations own patents on human genes.

• Obamacare mandates that, over the next few years, taxpayers start paying for BRCA1 gene testing. This will be a direct transfer of money from taxpayers to the corporations that “own” the human genes being tested.

• An imminent Supreme Court decision could make or break the human gene testing industry. Trillions of dollars are at stake. If the Supreme Court rules against corporate patents on human genes, BRCA1 testing will become amazingly affordable (in the $100 range), thereby denying billions of dollars in profits to gene patent holders.

With all this in mind, we now ask Angelina Jolie: Will you now denounce corporate ownership over human genes?

Anyone who supports corporate ownership of genes must also love Monsanto
Monsanto is widely regarded as the “most evil corporation” on the planet. And why? Because it claims intellectual property ownership over the genetic code of seeds it sells to farmers. If Monsanto gets its ultimate wish, anyone who wants to grow food anywhere in the world will have to pay a royalty to Monsanto.

Companies that “own” patents on human genes have a similar aim. They want every living human being to pay them royalties any time they run a test on a specific gene. In the same way that a farmer doesn’t have the right to grow food without paying royalties to the corporations, anyone who wants to test their genetic code for possible risk factors for disease will be required to pay exorbitant, monopoly-priced royalties to the gene corporations.

By nearly all standards of human rights, these practices are considered “evil.” Patenting seeds and genes is a violation of nature, most people agree. The very idea of patenting a human gene is ludicrous from the outset. How can a corporation claim to have invented something that has already existed in the human genome for hundreds of thousands of years? The BRCA gene existed long before Myriad Genetics even came into existence. So how can Myriad “own” the BRCA genes?

Hence the lunacy of the BRCA gene patents as well as Angelina Jolie’s support of them. By terrifying women all across the country, Jolie is leading them straight into the hands of the for-profit cancer industry which already claims to own part of the genetic code of all women.

This is a violation of nature. It is a violation of human rights, women’s rights and reproductive rights. If Angelina Jolie really wants to prove she supports women, she must denounce corporate ownership of human genes. Failure to do that is nothing short of an open admission that she is working for corporate monopolists who seek to dominate women with intellectual property patents on human genes.

The issue of corporate patents on human genes really is black and white: You’re either for humanity, or you’re a corporate whore
There’s no middle ground on this issue of corporations being granted patents over human genes. If you’re against Monsanto, you’re against corporations owning your genes, too.

If you believe in human rights and women’s reproductive rights, then you have to believe that your genetic code belongs to you and your children, not to a bunch of financial investors and corporate monopolists.

Having children means replicating your genetic code, and the way today’s patent laws are written, anyone who has a child with the BRCA gene mutation is technically in violation of U.S. patent laws and must pay a royalty to Myriad Genetics for each child born with the mutation. But you can’t even find out if your child has the mutation unless you pay Myriad a huge fee just for the “right” to examine your own genes. That’s a form of “genetic enslavement,” and Angelina Jolie seems to be wholly supporting it.

Remember: The patenting of human genes is a violation of nature and universal justice. No person is truly free if powerful, billion-dollar corporations can claim ownership over their genetic code. Yet Jolie has never spoken out against this exploitation of women. Will she now?

I ask the question again: Is Angelina Jolie a corporate sellout, or a true humanitarian? Will she denounce the corporate ownership of human genes, or will she remain silent and continue to mislead women into unwittingly being victimized and exploited by for-profit corporations?

Join us in demanding Angelina Jolie denounce corporate patents on human genes
Go to these Facebook pages and post the following question: Will you denounce corporate patents on human genes?

The Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie FB page:
http://www.facebook.com/BradPittAngelinaJolie

The official Angelina Jolie fan page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Angelina-Jolie-Official-Fan-Page/197814…

The Angelina Jolie page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Angelina-Jolie/127098593969621

Demand a straight answer from her on this issue: Is she a corporate sellout? Does she actually believe in women’s reproductive rights, or is she really just an actor playing the role of someone who creates the illusion of caring about women’s human rights?

Is Angelina Jolie a corporate monopolistic sellout?
For the record, my own position on this has always been clear and consistent:

• I am OPPOSED to corporations patenting food seeds and engineering GMOs.

• I am OPPOSED to corporations patenting human genes.

• I am OPPOSED to corporations patenting pharmacological medicines based on stealing molecules from nature (biopiracy).

Is Angelina Jolie opposed to any of these? I think not. From what I can tell so far, she is a pro-GMO, pro-Monsanto, pro-monopoly, pro-patent, pro-Big Pharma, pro-corporation sellout. And this means she is anti-humanitarian, anti-women, anti-freedom, anti-open source, anti-family and anti-reproductive rights.

If I’m wrong about any of this, let Angelina say so herself. Let her come out and admit in her own words what she really believes instead of hiding behind corporate P.R. spin and media propaganda campaigns that are obviously crafted and timed to manipulate public opinion.

If Jolie actually comes out and denounces corporate ownership over human genes, and does so publicly and unambiguously in a large media outlet like the NYT, I will retract these articles and publicly applaud her for actually doing something courageous and meaningful. But don’t hold your breath… there’s virtually no chance Jolie actually believes in women’s freedom, reproductive freedom and the sanctity of nature’s seeds.

Because Angelina Jolie is a fake. She’s an actor performing a script, and the script is written entirely by business interests who seek to imprison and dominate all humans by exercising total control over their genetic code. Jolie is just their pretty-faced puppet, and the corporations are the ones pulling all the strings.

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

Progressive Resistance Training is Particularly Beneficial for Aging Adults

Exercise is a critical part of a healthy lifestyle, and it can be a part of your life no matter what your age. In fact, staying active becomes increasingly important as you get older, both for your physical and mental health.

Even frail seniors of advanced age can improve strength, agility, and even cognitive ability with exercise.

Loss of bone mass is one of the common signs of aging, because as you age your existing bone is absorbed by your body while new bone is created to replace it.

In the case of osteoporosis, the formation of new bone falls behind the rate of bone absorption, leading to weakened, thinner and more brittle bones.

A thinning hipbone is a major concern if you are elderly, because any fall increases the risk of a broken hip, which always carries a great risk of complications and usually requires prolonged specialized care for recovery. It’s estimated that 25 percent of elderly people suffering a hip fracture die as a direct result.1

Weight-bearing exercise, like resistance or strength training, can go a long way to prevent brittle bone formation, and can help reverse the damage already done.

Interestingly enough, strength training also has brain-boosting side effects, which can help you avoid age-related dementia.

The above video created by the University of British Columbia Department of Physical Therapy, demonstrates resistance training for older adults and discusses the many benefits of exercise, which include:
•Improved sleep
•Reducing your risk for medical conditions, such as heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, depression, dementia, cancer, and premature death from any cause
•Preventing falls and fractures
•Improving your overall mood and outlook

Majority of Americans Don’t Get Enough Exercise

According to recent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),2 the majority—79 percent—of American adults aged 18 and over are not meeting federal recommendations for physical activity for either aerobic- and muscle-strengthening exercise. Federal recommendations include getting:
•At least 2½ hours a week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity or one hour and 15 minutes a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity
•Muscle-strengthening activities that involve all major muscle groups, twice or more per week

Of the 450,000 respondents participating in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an annual CDC phone survey of adults, 52 percent said they meet the aerobic activity guideline, and only 29 percent reported meeting the muscle-strengthening activity recommendation. Disturbingly, as reported in the featured article by USA Today,3 other studies suggest Americans are even more sedentary than what these statistics show:

“Scientists with the National Cancer Institute, using actual motion sensors, found that fewer than five percent of adults in the USA get at least 30 minutes a day of moderate-intensity physical activity in bouts of at least 10 minutes.”

The evidence is overwhelming when it comes to proving that staying active will benefit your health and longevity. As for what type of exercise to choose, the options are limited only by your own imagination and fitness level. Here are a few suggestions from the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans,4 which would help you meet the minimum exercise recommendations listed above:
•Take a brisk walk for 30 minutes on five days (moderate intensity); exercise with resistance bands two days (muscle strengthening).
•Take a brisk walk for 30 minutes two days (moderate); go dancing for an hour one evening (moderate); mow the law for 30 minutes (moderate); do heavy gardening two days (muscle strengthening).
•Do 30 minutes of an aerobic dance class (vigorous); do 30 minutes of running one day (vigorous); take a brisk walk for 30 minutes one day (moderate); do calisthenics (sit-ups, push-ups) on three days.
•Bike to and from work for 30 minutes on three days (moderate); play softball for 60 minutes one day (moderate); use weight machines two days.
•Play doubles tennis for 45 minutes two days (moderate); lift weights one day; hike vigorously for 30 minutes and go rock climbing one day (muscle strengthening).

Progressive Resistance Training is Particularly Beneficial for Aging Adults

As discussed in the video above, progressive resistance training is particularly beneficial for aging adults. “Progressive resistance” is when you build up strength in your muscles by gradually increasing the amount of weight you use. You can use either gym equipment or free weights. The former may be safer if you’re a novice, as free weights will require better form and control. Whichever one you choose, I recommend having a trainer take you through each exercise to make sure you have the proper form performing the exercise, to avoid injury.

While resistance training will improve muscle and bone strength, which can help prevent falls and fractures, mounting research also shows that strength training can have a profoundly beneficial impact on your brain as well. Brawn and brains are not mutually exclusive, it turns out… In one study, seniors doing progressive resistance training twice a week for one year experienced a marked improvement in their cognitive ability, scoring up to 13 percent higher in tests relating to decision making.

Strength training increases your body’s production of growth factors, which are responsible for cellular growth, proliferation, and differentiation. Some of these growth factors also promote the growth, differentiation, and survival of neurons, which helps explain why working your muscles also benefits your brain. I highly recommend watching the video above in its entirety. It demonstrates simple warm-up techniques and some basic resistance exercises for the target areas you’ll want to work, which include your:
•Core muscles
•Upper back
•Lower body
•Shoulders
•Arms

High Intensity Interval Training as an Anti-Aging Tool

Make no mistake — virtually ALL forms of exercise are beneficial, but aside from strength training, high-intensity interval-type training may also be of particular benefit for aging adults. Once you hit the age of 30, you enter what’s called “somatopause,” at which point your levels of HGH (human growth hormone) begin to drop off quite dramatically. This decline of HGH is part of what drives your aging process, so maintaining your HGH levels gets increasingly important with age.

Peak Fitness exercises boost your body’s natural production of human growth hormone (HGH), which will help address the muscle loss and atrophy that typically occurs with aging. In fact, your production of vital human growth hormone increases by as much as 771 percent during a Peak Fitness workout. And the higher your levels of HGH, the healthier, stronger, and more “youthful” you will be. I’ve discussed and demonstrated high intensity interval training exercises on a number of occasions in previous articles, so for detailed instructions and demonstrations, please see this link.

Yoga After 50

While I believe you need to incorporate more intense forms of exercise for optimal health, such as anaerobic exercise (high intensity interval training) and strength training, there’s no doubt that milder, low-impact forms of exercise such as yoga can be an important part of a comprehensive exercise program. Yoga is particularly useful for promoting flexibility and core muscles, and has been proven beneficial if you suffer with back pain. A recent study has also shown that regular yoga classes can help improve atrial fibrillation5 (irregular heartbeat).

A recent New York Times article addresses the benefits of yoga after 50, pointing out that “yoga can be practiced fully and deeply at any age.” Naturally, as your body changes, your practice will need to be modified as well. This applies to any form of exercise; always listen to your body. In the article, Dr. Loren Fishman, a back-pain specialist in Manhattan who uses yoga in his rehabilitation practice, gives the following advice:6

“…[A]ging brings impairments of range, motion, strength and balance that can require modifications, even among veteran yogis, like using the support of a chair or the wall for many poses. In addition, students may begin to feel the effects of arthritis, injuries and other ailments that may require students skip certain poses altogether. Someone with osteoporosis, for example, may want to avoid headstands and poses requiring extreme spinal flexion or extension, while someone with glaucoma may want to avoid taking the head below the heart in poses like headstand, handstand, shoulder stand and standing forward bends.”

Yoga is an excellent choice for helping you improve and maintain your balance, so make sure to include one-legged standing poses. Carrie Owerko, a New York-based teacher of Iyengar yoga who was also interviewed, mentions Tree Pose and Eagle Pose as examples. If you need to use a chair or wall for support, that’s okay.

Yoga for Weight Loss and Health Maintenance

The following video, featuring Arthur Boorman, a disabled veteran of the Gulf War, is perhaps one of the most inspiring yoga success stories I’ve ever seen. His injuries had put him on a downward spiral for 15 years, and his doctors had told him he’d never be able to walk unassisted again. Due to his injuries, he couldn’t perform high impact exercises, but one day, he came across an article about yoga, and the rest, as they say, is history… If you’ve ever doubted the transformative power of a low impact exercise such as yoga, I urge you to take a look at this video. It’s a truly remarkable story. Not only did he rapidly start losing weight, he also gained tremendous strength, balance and flexibility—to the point he proved his doctors’ prognosis wrong by walking unaided in less than a year!

Interestingly, research7 published just last year discovered that yoga has a beneficial impact on leptin, a hormone that plays a key role in regulating energy intake and energy expenditure. According to the authors, expert yoga practitioners had 36 percent higher leptin levels compared to novices, leading them to theorize that regular yoga practice may benefit your health by altering leptin and adiponectin production:

“We compared adiponectin and leptin data from novice and expert yoga practitioners. Leptin plays a proinflammatory role, adiponectin has anti-inflammatory properties. Leptin was 36 percent higher among novices compared to experts. Experts’ average adiponectin to leptin ratio was nearly twice that of novices.”

Both insulin and leptin resistance are associated with obesity, and impairment of their ability to transfer the information to receptors is the true foundational core of most all chronic degenerative diseases. Leptin tells your brain whether you should be hungry, eat and make more fat, whether you should reproduce, or (partly by controlling insulin) whether to engage in maintenance and repair. In short, leptin is the way that your fat stores speak to your brain to let your brain know how much energy is available and, very importantly, what to do with it.

Therefore, leptin may be on top of the food chain in metabolic importance and relevance to disease. If your leptin signaling is working properly.

When your fat stores are “full,” this extra fat will cause a surge in your leptin level, which signals your brain to stop feeling hungry, to stop eating, to stop storing fat and to start burning some extra fat off. Controlling hunger is a major (though not the only) way that leptin controls energy storage. Hunger is a very powerful, ancient, and deep-seated drive that, if stimulated long enough, will make you eat and store more energy. The only way to eat less in the long-term is to not be hungry, and the only way to do this is to control the hormones that regulate hunger, the primary one being leptin.

Rounding Out Your Exercise Program

To truly optimize your health, it’s wise to incorporate a wide variety of exercises. As discussed above, each form of exercise has its range of benefits. Also, without variety, your body will tend to adapt and the benefits will begin to plateau. As a general rule, as soon as an exercise becomes easy to complete, you need to increase the intensity and/or try another exercise to keep challenging your body. I recommend incorporating the following types of exercise into your program. (The first three have all been addressed above):
•Interval (Anaerobic) Training
•Strength Training
•Core Exercises
•Stretching: My favorite type of stretching is active isolated stretches developed by Aaron Mattes. With Active Isolated Stretching, you hold each stretch for only two seconds, which works with your body’s natural physiological makeup to improve circulation and increase the elasticity of muscle joints. This technique also allows your body to repair itself and prepare for daily activity. You can also use devices like the Power Plate to help you stretch.

It’s Never Too Late to Take Control of Your Health

Following the advice in this article can go a long way toward maintaining healthy bones and muscle mass as you age. Granted, the earlier you start, the better, but remember, you are never too old to start exercising. Research shows that, no matter your age, you stand to gain significant improvements in strength, range of motion, balance, bone density and mental clarity through exercise. My mom didn’t start working out until she was 74 and now, at the age of 78, she has gained significant improvement in strength, range of motion, balance, bone density and mental clarity.

You can view her demonstrating her strength training program in this previous article. If you’re presently incapable of engaging in aerobic exercise, using Whole Body Vibration training may be just the thing to help you get more active.8 I recently discussed this in the article: How Whole Body Vibration Exercises Can Help Improve Fitness in the Elderly. There’s really no time like the present when it comes to taking control of your health, and exercise is a crucial component of optimal health. I guarantee it will make a major difference in your energy level, and probably your entire outlook on life. It is really THAT powerful, whether you’re 18 years old or 80!

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

Have you been lied to about the health benefits of canola oil?

by Mike Geary, Certified Personal Trainer, Certified Nutrition Specialist
Author of best-sellers: The Truth About Six Pack Abs & The Top 101 Foods that FIGHT Aging

If you’ve been following my fitness newsletters for some time, you may have noticed that I NEVER include canola oil in any of my recipes or any of my lists of healthy foods.

Many people have asked me why, because all they hear in the mainstream media is that canola oil is “heart healthy” and a good source of monounsaturated fats similar to olive oil.

Well, first of all, you need to realize that much of what you hear in the mainstream media has been influenced by heavy handed marketing tactics by big food companies. Canola oil is cheap for them to produce so they want to fool you into thinking it’s a “health oil” so that people, restaurants, etc will buy it up as their main oil of choice.

The dirty truth about canola oil

Yes, it’s true that canola oil is high in monounsaturates, but let me explain why canola oil is anything but “healthy”.

Canola oil is made from something called rapeseed. Rapeseed actually had to be bred over the years to reduce the percentage of a problematic component of rapeseed, which is erucic acid.

Important note on canola oil “urban legends”: There is a problem with most websites that DEFEND canola oil, saying that internet “urban legends” on the dangers of canola oil are unfounded. The problem is that these websites that defend canola oil ONLY talk about the issue of erucic acid. The issue of erucic acid IS an urban legend, because erucic acid has been bred out to very low levels over the years, so it is a non-issue.

However, these websites that defend canola oil are barking up the wrong tree because they don’t address the issue of the processing of canola oil and oxidation of the polyunsaturated component of canola oil, which is what makes it unhealthy for human consumption. THAT’S the real issue that they either don’t understand (because they are not nutrition experts) or are simply ignoring.

Let’s look at the REAL issues with canola oil:

Canola oil typically ranges between 55-65% monounsaturated fat and between 28-35% polyunsaturated fat, with just a small amount of saturated fat.

While we’ve been led to believe that high monounsaturated fat oils are good for us (which they are in the case of virgin olive oil or from unprocessed nuts or seeds), the fact is that canola oil has more detriments than it does benefits.

As you may have heard me talk about in other newsletters or in my Truth about Six Pack Abs program… one of the biggest problems with highly processed and refined vegetable oils such as corn oil, soybean oil, and yes, even canola oil, is that the polyunsaturated component of the oil is highly unstable under heat, light, and pressure, and this heavily oxidizes the polyunsaturates which increases free radicals in your body.

The end result of all of this refining and processing are oils that are highly inflammatory in your body when you ingest them, potentially contributing to heart disease, weight gain, and other degenerative diseases.

The reason that extra virgin olive oil is good for you is that it is cold pressed without the use of heat and solvents to aid extraction. EVOO also contains important antioxidants that help protect the stability of the oil.

Canola oil, on the other hand, is typically extracted and refined using high heat, pressure, and petroleum solvents such as hexane. Most canola oil undergoes a process of caustic refining, degumming, bleaching, and deoderization, all using high heat and questionable chemicals.

Does canola even have trans fats?

Even worse, all of this high heat, high pressure processing with solvents actually forces some of the omega-3 content of canola oil to be transformed into trans fats.

According to Dr. Mary Enig, PhD, and Nutritional Biochemist, “Although the Canadian government lists the trans fat content of canola at a minimal 0.2 percent, research at the University of Florida at Gainesville, found trans fat levels as high as 4.6 percent in commercial liquid canola oil”.

And this is the crap that they are marketing to you as a “healthy oil”!

As you can see from the details above on how canola oil is processed, it is barely any healthier for you than other junk oils like soybean oil or corn oil. The bottom line is that it is an inflammatory oil in your body and should be avoided as much as possible.

The only canola oil that might be reasonable is if you see that it is “cold pressed” and organic. Most canola oil is NOT cold pressed or organic, so you might as well choose oils that you know are healthier.

Your best bets are these truly healthy oils:
•extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) – for lower temperature cooking or used as a healthy salad dressing oil
•Udo’s Choice Oil Blend – NEVER use this for cooking as it has a higher polyunsaturated fat content (therefore heat destroys the benefits of this oil, and increases it’s inflammatory properties), but it is a cold processed blend of healthy oils that mixes well with olive oil for salad dressings.
•Virgin coconut oil – great for all temperatures of cooking due to its super high stability under heat. A great source of healthy saturated fats in the form of medium chain triglycerides (MCTs), one of which is Lauric Acid, which helps support the immune system and is lacking in most western diets.
•Organic grass-fed butter – I like to use a mix of grass-fed butter, coconut oil, and a small bit of olive oil for most of my cooking. Grass-fed butter is a great source of the healthy fat, CLA, which has even been shown in studies to have muscle building and fat burning properties. Grass-fed butter also has a much healthier omega-6 to omega-3 ratio than standard butter at your grocery store. Kerrygold Irish butter is my favorite grass-fed butter.

So don’t be fooled by food labels claiming that they contain “healthy canola oil”… as you can see, this couldn’t be further from the truth! Choose some of the healthier options above and your body will thank you!

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

Coconut Oil–The Secret Ingredient That Helps You Lose Weight

If you are committed to preventing illness and reaching your ideal weight: then you will be served well by following the advice in this important book. In a clear and engaging style that’s an actual pleasure to read, Cherie Calbom shows why coconut oil is an incredible health food, and she also does an exceptional job of explaining other key dietary tactics that are proven to improve health and weight.

Unlike so many other dietary guides I’ve read, she lays out a common sense plan that people can really stick to.

By Cherie Calbom

It’s that time of year when many of us want to lose weight, shape up and get healthier. In fact, you may have made a resolution to do just that. The question is: How are you going to do it? The Coconut Diet: The Secret Ingredient That Helps You Lose Weight While You Eat Your Favorite Foods (Warner, 2005) shows you how with an exciting 21-day weight loss plan, simple meal plans and 70 delicious, satisfying recipes, and it’s all based on extensive scientific research.

It also offers Phase II, a unique detoxification program to help you jump-start your weight loss program with colon, liver, gall bladder and kidney cleanses that help you flush fat and toxins from your body.

You’ve read about the amazing health benefits of coconut oil on this Web site. This is the oil that has promoted such phenomenal weight loss success for many people. Virgin coconut oil works wonders because it is made up predominantly of medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) that burn up quickly in the body – a lot like kindling in a fire rather than a big log.(1)

In chapter 1, you’ll discover why MCTs are so effective in helping people lose weight and gain energy. The Coconut Diet encourages the consumption of 2 to 3 tablespoons of virgin coconut oil per day in exchange for other vegetable oils, which helps improve metabolism.

You can experience the benefits of coconut oil by using it in recipes like Crispy Coconut Chicken Salad (p. 162) or Thai Coconut Salmon (p. 259). You can add it to smoothies such as the Low-Carb Coconut Smoothie (p. 153) or make delicious salad dressings such as Coconut Ranch Dressing (p. 252).

And, you can prepare an infusion by adding a tablespoon of coconut oil to your favorite herbal tea or other hot drink. You can even enjoy a Coconut Treat (p. 211-12) and lose weight. It’s easy, simple, and delicious with the user-friendly recipes in The Coconut Diet.

Avoiding LCTs

You’ll want to eliminate other oils (except extra virgin olive oil) because the composition of the fatty acid chains in polyunsaturated oils such as corn, soybean and safflower is dominated by long chain triglycerides (LCTs). LCTs are transported from the intestines as fairly large fat droplets (chylomicrons) and are dumped into the bloodstream near the heart.(2) Then, they are transported through the entire body before reaching the liver. The body is slow to metabolize them and tends to store them as fat, rather than burn them.

The scientific community has known for a long time that LCTs have a tendency to produce fat in the body. Farm animals fed vegetable oils usually put on more weight and produce more meat, while animals fed coconut oil tend to be lean and more active.(4) You can learn more about the slimming and heart-healthy effects of coconut oil and other healthy fats and the effects of unhealthy fats in chapter 3 (The Big Fat Misconception).

Vegetable oils, and especially soy oil, tend to be damaging to the thyroid gland because they oxidize quickly and become rancid easily. Eating rancid oils can contribute to impaired thyroid function along with a host of other physical problems.(4) A sluggish thyroid is one reason people say they can’t lose weight, no matter what they do.

However, when people exchange vegetable oils for virgin coconut oil in their food preparation and begin consuming 2 to 3 tablespoons of virgin coconut oil a day, they often report better thyroid function, an increase in energy and a drop in weight, provided they also avoid foods high in carbohydrates, such as sugars, starches and most grains, until they reach their weight loss goals.

Chapter 3 (Thyroid Health: A Weight Loss Advantage) explains how the liver is the main organ where damage occurs from oxidized fats that cause cell membrane damage, as well as where much of the conversion of T4 to T3 (thyroid hormones) takes place. Replacing oils dominated by LCTs with virgin coconut oil that is dominated by MCTs can, in time, help rebuild cell membranes and increase enzyme production, which promote the conversion of T4 to T3.

If you suspect that you may have sluggish thyroid function, take the Thyroid Health Quiz (p. 78-80). And if you’re having problems losing weight or have reached a weight loss plateau, you may benefit by following the Liver Cleanse (p. 222-28) along with the other cleansing plans.

If you’ve tried many diets that haven’t worked, chapter 5 (Special Help When Diets Don’t Work) may offer answers for which you’ve been searching. No matter what the diet or how effective it’s reported to be, however, it may not work if you have certain health challenges. The late Dr. Robert C. Atkins said about 20 percent of the people on the Atkins diet don’t lose weight because of a yeast overgrowth known as Candida albicans. Take the Candida Quiz (p. 101-06) to determine the likelihood and follow the suggestions for candadiasis (p. 82-88).

There are also sections in chapter 5 on digestive disorders (p. 89-91), fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome (p. 92-94) with a Fibromyalgia Quiz (p. 107-109) and emotional and binge eating (written by psychotherapist John Calbom, p. 94-100).

Your Coconut Diet Action Plan

With a simple, delicious and easy-to-follow weight loss plan, The Coconut Diet shows you, step-by-step, how to create a healthful, nutritious weight loss program that works. The cleansing programs in Phase II (p. 215-234) are especially helpful for ridding your body of toxins that can prevent you from losing weight, especially that dimpled pudge known as cellulite (p. 215-216).

The detoxification phase shows you how to flush fat and toxins from your body with an easy-to-use menu plan and cleansing recipes. With four effective phases and 70 easy-to-prepare recipes, you can start the New Year with better health and a slimmer you.

Cherie Calbom, M.S. is a nutrition researcher with a master of science degree in nutrition from Bastyr University, where she now sits on the Board of Regents. She is the author of 14 books including the best-selling Juicing for Life, The Juice Lady’s Guide to Juicing for Health, The Ultimate Smoothie Book, The Wrinkle Cleanse and The Coconut Diet. She appears regularly on QVC with the George Foreman grills. For more information on The Coconut Diet, see www.gococonuts.com.

References
1.
Y. Y. Yeh and P. Zee “Relation of ketosis in metabolic changes induced by acute medium-chain triglyceride feeding in rats. J Nutr. 1976;106:58-67. J. H. Wiley and G. A Leveille “Metabolic consequences of dietary medium-chain triglycerides in the rat.” J Nutr 1973;103:829-835. A. Geliebter, N. Torbay, E.F. Bracco, et al. “Overfeeding with medium-chain triglyceride diet results in diminished deposition of fat.” Am J Clin Nutr 1983;37:1-4. S. A Hashim “Dietary fats and adipose tissue fatty acid composition.”. Prev Med 1983;12:854-867.

2.
B I Bloom, LL Chaikoff, W. O. Reinhardt “Intestinal lymph as pathway for transport of absorbed fatty acids of different lengths.” Am J Physiology 1951;166:451-455. J R Senior, ed Medium Chain Triglycerides (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968), p. 3-6. A C Bach, U K Babyan, “Medium chain triglycerides: an update.” Am J Clin Nutr 1982;36:950-962.

3.
Baba N, Bracco EF, Hashim SA. “Enhanced thermogenesis and diminished deposition of fat in response to overfeeding with diet containing medium chain triglyceride.” Am J Clin Nutr. 1982 Apr;35(4):678-82.

4.
Raymond Peat Newsletter – Unsaturated Vegetable Oils Toxic, 1996 edition, p.2-4. Daneil R. Doerge, Hebron C Chang “Inactivation of thyroid peroxidase by soy isoflavones in vitro and in vivo.” Journal of Chromotography B September 2002; 777(1,2);25:269-79.

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