Rather Be Healthy

Who better to speak the truth about the risks posed by genetically modified (GM) foods than Thierry Vrain, a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada? It was Vrain’s job to address public groups and reassure them that GM crops and food were safe, a task he did with considerable knowledge and passion.

But Vrain, who once touted GM crops as a technological advancement indicative of sound science and progress, has since started to acknowledge the steady flow of research coming from prestigious labs and published in high-impact journals; research showing that there is significant reason for concern about GM crops – and he has now changed his position.

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Cites GM Food Safety Concerns

Vrain cites the concerning fact that it is studies done by Monsanto and other biotech companies that claim GM crops have no impact on the environment and are safe to eat. But federal departments in charge of food safety in the US and Canada have not conducted tests to affirm this alleged “safety.”

Vrain writes:1

“There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries [US and Canada] to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely.

These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.

… I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.”

“The Whole Paradigm of Genetic Engineering Technology is Based on a Misunderstanding”

This misunderstanding is the “one gene, one protein” hypothesis from 70 years ago, which stated that each gene codes for a single protein. However, the Human Genome project completed in 2002 failed dramatically to identify one gene for every one protein in the human body, forcing researchers to look to epigenetic factors — namely, “factors beyond the control of the gene” – to explain how organisms are formed, and how they work.

According to Vrain:

“Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.

The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.”

In other words, genetic engineering is based on an extremely oversimplified model that suggests that by taking out or adding one or several genes, you can create a particular effect or result. But this premise, which GMO expert Dr. Philip Bereano calls “the Lego model,” is not correct. You cannot simply take out a yellow piece and put in a green piece and call the structure identical because there are complex interactions that are still going to take place and be altered, even if the initial structure still stands.

Serious Problems May Arise From Horizontal Gene Transfer

GE plants and animals are created using horizontal gene transfer (also called horizontal inheritance), as contrasted with vertical gene transfer, which is the mechanism in natural reproduction. Vertical gene transfer, or vertical inheritance, is the transmission of genes from the parent generation to offspring via sexual or asexual reproduction, i.e., breeding a male and female from one species.

By contrast, horizontal gene transfer involves injecting a gene from one species into a completely different species, which yields unexpected and often unpredictable results. Proponents of GM crops assume they can apply the principles of vertical inheritance to horizontal inheritance, but according to Dr. David Suzuki, an award-winning geneticist, this assumption is flawed in just about every possible way and is “just lousy science.”

Genes don’t function in a vacuum — they act in the context of the entire genome. Whole sets of genes are turned on and off in order to arrive at a particular organism, and the entire orchestration is an activated genome. It’s a dangerous mistake to assume a gene’s traits are expressed properly, regardless of where they’re inserted. The safety of GM food is based only on a hypothesis, and this hypothesis is already being proven wrong.

Leading Scientists Disprove GMO Safety

Vrain cites the compelling report “GMO Myths and Truths”2 as just one of many scientific examples disputing the claims of the biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat. The authors took a science-based approach to evaluating the available research, arriving at the conclusion that most of the scientific evidence regarding safety and increased yield potential do not at all support the claims. In fact, the evidence demonstrates the claims for genetically engineered foods are not just wildly overblown – they simply aren’t true.

The authors of this critical report include Michael Antoniou, PhD, who heads the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College at London School of Medicine in the UK. He’s a 28-year veteran of genetic engineering technology who has himself invented a number of gene expression biotechnologies; and John Fagan, PhD, a leading authority on food sustainability, biosafety, and GE testing. If you want to get a comprehensive understanding of genetically engineered foods, I strongly recommend reading this report.

Not only are GM foods less nutritious than non-GM foods, they pose distinct health risks, are inadequately regulated, harm the environment and farmers, and are a poor solution to world hunger. Worse still, these questionable GM crops are now polluting non-GM crops, leading to contamination that cannot ever be “recalled” the way you can take a bad drug off the market … once traditional foods are contaminated with GM genes, there is no going back! Vrain expanded:3

“Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution.”

American Academy of Environmental Medicine Called for Moratorium on GM Foods FOUR Years Ago

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on GM foods, and said that long-term independent studies must be conducted, stating:

“Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. …There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…”

Despite this sound warning, GM foods continue to be added to the US food supply with no warning to the Americans buying and eating this food. Genetic manipulation of crops, and more recently food animals, is a dangerous game that has repeatedly revealed that assumptions about how genetic alterations work and the effects it has on animals and humans who consume such foods, are deeply flawed and incomplete. Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant claims genetically engineered crops are “the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What he doesn’t tell you is that:
1.Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results
2.The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the world’s first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer
3.Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence independent research is extremely difficult to conduct
4.There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GM item in question has been approved, not a single country on earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects

It Might Take More Than One Bite to Kill You …

“One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been sick or died after a meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM food,” Vrain said. “Nobody gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarettes either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer. Except this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it’s the whole food system that is of concern. The corporate interest must be subordinated to the public interest, and the policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it is clearly untrue.”

Remember, Vrain used to give talks about the benefits of GM foods, but he simply couldn’t ignore the research any longer … and why, then, should you? All in all, if GM foods have something wrong with them that potentially could cause widespread illness or environmental devastation, Monsanto would rather NOT have you find out about it. Not through independent research, nor through a simple little label that would allow you to opt out of the experiment, should you choose not to take them on their word. As Vrain continued:

“The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.

… We should all take these studies seriously and demand that government agencies replicate them rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies … Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others.”

At present, the only way to avoid GM foods is to ditch processed foods from your grocery list, and revert back to whole foods grown according to organic standards.

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

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

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

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

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

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.
•No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
•If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
•For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
•Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.
If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Cancer is cured safely, in spite of widespread suppression by the “cancer industry”

Pioneering, dedicated researchers have discovered numerous holistic cancer treatments in this country beginning in 1840. These natural protocols save lives from “incurable” cancer.

Leading cancer experts and authors Dr. Samuel Epstein and Ralph Moss, author of the Cancer Industry, among others, have documented widespread efforts to thwart safe, cancer cures in the United States. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

The FDA will only approve pharmaceutical, synthetic drugs for cancer treatments. However, even Burzynski’s attempts to patent and use lifesaving antineoplastons have met violent opposition. See award winning documentary: (http://burzynskimovie.com/ )

Sadly, most Americans continue using toxic and invasive radiation, chemotherapy and surgery to treat their cancers, with dubious results. A fortunate minority have discovered effective and safe “alternative cures”.

Hoxsey therapy and Essiatic Tea use potent herbs to cure cancer
Native Indians used the herb blood root to cure cancer for centuries. In 1840 John Hoxsey discovered the Hoxsey therapy which contained blood root, along with other herbs with anticancer properties. This treatment was used to successfully treat advanced cancers at 17 Hoxsey Cancer Clinics from 1924 to 1960, before being forced to close and move to Tijuana, Mexico. In 1954, ten physicians evaluated hundreds of case studies and patients, concluding that Hoxsey therapy left patients free from cancer from 6-24 years and in excellent health.

Essiatic tea, comprised of 4 types of herbs, was successfully used by Canadian nurse Rene Caisse, Dr. Brusch and several practitioners in Canada and the U.S. to reverse thousands of cases of advanced cancers. This formula also originated from Native Americans. It was destroyed by the Canadian Ministry when Caisse died in 1978. Dr. Brusch, in the U.S., was able to create a new version of the remedy, known as Flor-Essence and marketed as a detoxifying tea.

Nutritional “Gerson therapy” cures cancer
Brilliant physician Max Gerson developed the Gerson therapy in the 1930’s. This treatment combined organic vegetarian juices and coffee enemas to successfully treat thousands of patients from cancer and other diseases. Gerson published 50 medical papers and 3 books describing his treatment methods in detail. Gerson clinics were eliminated in the U.S., but exist in Mexico and Hungary, through the tireless efforts of Gerson’s daughter Charlotte. Gerson therapy continues to save lives. (www.Gerson.org)

Laetrile, vitamin B17, works like an anticancer smart bomb
Laetrile, a pure form of B17, has been used by physicians around the world with widely documented success to ingeniously treat cancer. The vitamin is found abundantly in certain cultural diets, where no cancer exists. American physician Binzel demonstrated an 87.3 success rates for advanced cancers treated with Laetrile, compared to 0.1 percent for cancers using conventional methods.

Every American physician who used Laetrile was arrested, taken to court, put in jail or had their medical license removed for the “crime” of curing cancer patients. The cancer industry went on to almost entirely eliminate the sale in the U.S .of apricot seeds, a rich source of vitamin B17. Some clinics continue to offer Laetrile treatments including the Reno Integrative Medical Center (www.renointegrative.com) and two clinics in Tijuana, Mexico.

Additional safe cures and resources
Dr. Kelly’s ingenious, highly effective enzyme therapy has survived at Dr. Gonzalez’s clinic in N.Y.C. (www.dr-gonzalez.com). Protocel, which rids the body of anaerobic cells, has cured thousands from cancer, at a cost of $60-85/month. (www.YourVitaminDepot.com), (www.Protocel.com) and (WebNd.com). Other effective treatments include: the Budwig Diet (www.budwigcenter.com), low dose naltrexone (www.lowdosenaltrexone.org), Poly-MVA, IV vitamin C, and the ketogenic diet (www.ketogenicdiet.com).

Excellent resources for natural treatments and prevention include Tanya Pierce’s Outsmart Your Cancer, Suzanne Somer’s Knockout, Cancer Prevention Coalition (http://www.preventcancer.com) and Tony Isaacs’ anti-cancer protocol (http://www.naturalnews.com/022808_cancer_health_supplement.html).

Sources for this article include:

Mazzucco, Massimo. Director, Writer, Producer. June 20, 2010. Cancer the Forbidden Cure. documentary. Italy: (www.luogocomune.net.)

Pierce, Tanya. (2009), Outsmart Your Cancer; Alternative Non-Toxic Treatments that Work. 2nd ed. Stateline, Nevada: Thoughtworks Publishing.

Somers, Suzanne. (2009). Knockout: Interviews with doctors who are curing cancer and how to prevent it in the first place. New York: Crown Publishing Group.

The Gerson Institute. (2011, September 16). “The Gerson Therapy.” Retrieved March 4, 2013 from (http://gerson.org/gerpress/the-gerson-therapy/)

The Gerson Institute. (2011, September 17). “Get Started”. Retrieved March 4, 2013 from (http://gerson.org/gerpress/get-started/)

Mercola, Eric. Writer/ Director/ Producer. 2010 Burzynski the movie: Cancer is serious business. documentary. U.S. Available at (www.Burzynskimovie.com).

http://www.naturalnews.com/022808_cancer_health_supplement.html

Dr-Gonzalez.com. (n.d.) ” Individualized Nutritional Protocols”. Retrieved March 5, 2013 from (http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/index.html)

www.dr-gonzalez.com

http://www.preventcancer.com

www.ketogenicdiet.com

www.budwigcenter.com

www.lowdosenaltrexone.org

http://www.renointegrativemedicalcenter.com/laetrile.html

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

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

Monsanto lies about everything and will commit any atrocity against the people to ensure profits.

Recently, the Cornucopia Institute reported about the French farmer that was poisoned by one of Monsanto’s “safe” pesticides. Read it for your self.

A French farmer who can no longer perform his routine farming duties because of permanent pesticide injuries has had his day in court, literally, and the perpetrator of his injuries found guilty of chemical poisoning. The French court in Lyon ruled that Monsanto’s Lasso weedkiller formula, which contains the active ingredient alachlor, caused Paul Francois to develop lifelong neurological damage that manifests as persistent memory loss, headaches, and stuttering during speech.

Reports indicate that the 47-year-old farmer sued Monsanto back in 2004 after inhaling the Lasso product while cleaning his sprayer tank equipment. Not long after, Francois began experiencing lasting symptoms that prevented him from working, which he says were directly linked to exposure to the chemical. Since Lasso’s packaging did not bear adequate warnings about the dangers of exposure, Francois alleged at the time that Monsanto was essentially negligent in providing adequate protection for its customers.

To the surprise of many, the French court agreed with the claims and evidence presented before it, declaring earlier this year that “Monsanto is responsible for Paul Francois’ suffering after he inhaled the Lasso product . and must entirely compensate him.” The court is said to be seeking expert opinion on how to gauge Francois’ losses in order to determine precisely how much Monsanto will be required to compensate him in the case.

“It is a historic decision in so far as it is the first time that a (pesticide) maker is found guilty of such a poisoning,” said
Francois Lafforgue, Paul Francois’ lawyer, to Reuters earlier in the year.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), exposure to alachlor can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, spleen, and eyes, and may lead to the development of anemia and even cancer. The EPA apparently views alachlor as so dangerous, in fact, that the agency has set the maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) for alachlor to zero in order to “prevent potential health problems.” (http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/alachlor.cfm)

In 2007, France officially banned Lasso from use in the country in accordance with a European Union (EU) directive enacted in 2006 prohibiting the chemical from further use on crops in any member countries. But despite all the evidence proving that alachlor can disrupt hormonal balance, induce reproductive or developmental problems, and cause cancer, the chemical is still being used on conventional crops throughout the U.S. to this very day. (http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_ChemReg.jsp?Rec_Id=PC35160)

“I am alive today, but part of the farming population is going to be sacrificed and is going to die because of (alachlor),” added Francois to Reuters.

Read more at http://www.realfarmacy.com

Then, 745 scientists submitted this incredible letter about Monsanto’s callous regard for life.

We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.

Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals.

GM crops offer no benefits to farmers or consumers. Instead, many problems have been identified, including yield drag, increased herbicide use, erratic performance, and poor economic returns to farmers. GM crops also intensify corporate monopoly on food, which is driving family farmers to destitution, and preventing the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can guarantee food security and health around the world

The hazards of GMOs to biodiversity and human and animal health are now acknowledged by sources within the UK and US Governments. Particularly serious consequences are associated with the potential for horizontal gene transfer. These include the spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes that would render infectious diseases untreatable, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and harmful mutations which may lead to cancer.

In the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol negotiated in Montreal in January 2000, more than 130 governments have pledged to implement the precautionary principle and to ensure that biosafety legislations at the national and international levels take precedence over trade and financial agreements at the World Trade Organization.

Successive studies have documented the productivity and the social and environmental benefits of sustainable, low-input and organic farming in both North and South. They offer the only practical way of restoring agricultural land degraded by conventional agronomic practices, and empower small family farmers to combat poverty and hunger.
We urge the US Congress to reject GM crops as both hazardous and contrary to the interest of family farmers; and to support research and development of sustainable agricultural methods that can truly benefit family farmers all over the world.

We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.

1 Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals(1). Life-forms such as organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes are discoveries and hence not patentable. Current GM techniques which exploit living processes are unreliable, uncontrollable and unpredictable, and do not qualify as inventions. Furthermore, those techniques are inherently unsafe, as are many GM organisms and products.

2. It is becoming increasingly clear that current GM crops are neither needed nor beneficial. They are a dangerous
diversion preventing the essential shift to sustainable agricultural practices that can provide food security and health around the world.

3. Two simple characteristics account for the nearly 40 million hectares of GM crops planted in 1999(2). The majority (71%) are tolerant to broad-spectrum herbicides, with companies engineering plants to be tolerant to their own brand of herbicide, while most of the rest are engineered with bt-toxins to kill insect pests. A university-based survey of 8200 field trials of the most widely grown GM crops, herbicide-tolerant soya beans – revealed that they yield 6.7% less and required two to five times more herbicides than non-GM varieties(3). This has been confirmed by a more recent study in the University of Nebraska(4). Yet other problems have been identified: erratic performance, disease susceptibility(5), fruit abortion(6) and poor economic returns to farmers(7).

4. According to the UN food programme, there is enough food to feed the world one and a half times over. While world population has grown 90% in the past 40 years, the amount of food per capita has increased by 25%, yet one billion are hungry(8). A new FAO report confirms that there will be enough or more than enough food to meet global demands without taking into account any yield improvementsthat might result from GM crops well into 2030 (9). It is on account of increasing corporate monopoly operating under the globalised economy that the poor are getting poorer and hungrier(10). Family farmers around the world have been driven to destitution and suicide, and for the same reasons. Between 1993 and 1997 the number of mid-sized farms in the US dropped by 74,440(11), and farmers are now receiving below the average cost of production for their produce(12). The farming population in France and Germany fell by 50% since 1978(13). In the UK, 20 000 farming jobs were lost in the past year alone, and the Prime Minister has announced a ?200m aid package(14). Four corporations control 85% of the world trade in cereals at the end of 1999(15). Mergers and acquisitions are continuing.

5. The new patents on seeds intensify corporate monopoly by preventing farmers from saving and replanting seeds, which is what most farmers still do in the Third World. In order to protect their patents, corporations are continuing to develop terminator technologies that genetic engineer harvested seeds not to germinate, despite worldwide opposition from farmers and civil society at large(16).

6. Christian Aid, a major charity working with the Third World, concluded that GM crops will cause unemployment, exacerbate Third World debt, threaten sustainable farming systems and damage the environment. It predicts famine for the poorest countries(17). African Governments condemned Monsanto’s claim that GMOs are needed to feed the hungry of the world: “We..strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us… we believe it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and …undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.(18)” A message from the Peasant movement of the Philippines to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of the industrialized countries stated, “The entry of GMOs will certainly intensify landlessness, hunger and injustice.(19)”

7. A coalition of family farming groups in the US have issued a comprehensive list of demands, including ban on ownership of all life-forms; suspension of sales, environmental releases and further approvals of all GM crops and products pending an independent, comprehensive assessment of the social, environmental, health and economic impacts; and for corporations to be made liable for all damages arising from GM crops and products to livestock, human beings and the environment(20). They also demand a moratorium on all corporate mergers and acquisitions, on farm closures, and an end to policies that serve big agribusiness interests at the expense of family farmers, taxpayers and the environment(21). They have mounted a lawsuit against Monsanto and nine other corporations for monopolistic practices and for foisting GM crops on farmers without adequate safety and environmental impact assessments(22).

8. Some of the hazards of GM crops are openly acknowledged by the UK and US Governments. UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) has admitted that the transfer of GM crops and pollen beyond the planted fields is unavoidable(23), and this has already resulted in herbicide-tolerant weeds(24). An interim report on UK Government-sponsored field trials confirmed hybridisation between adjacent plots of different herbicide tolerant GM oilseed rape varieties, which gave rise to hybrids tolerant to multiple herbicides. In addition, GM oilseed rape and their hybrids were found as volunteers in subsequent wheat and barley crops, which had to be controlled by standard herbicides(25). Bt-resistant insect pests have evolved in response to the continuous presence of the toxins in GM plants throughout the growing season, and the US Environment Protection Agency is recommending farmers to plant up to 40% non-GM crops in order to create refugia for non-resistant insect pests(26).

9. The threats to biodiversity from major GM crops already commercialized are becoming increasingly clear. The broad-spectrum herbicides used with herbicide-tolerant GM crops decimate wild plant species indiscriminately, they are also toxic to animals. Glufosinate causes birth defects in mammals(27), and glyphosate is linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma(28). GM crops with bt-toxins kill beneficial insects such as bees(29) and lacewings(30), and pollen from bt-corn is found to be lethal to monarch butterflies(31) as well as swallowtails(32). Bt-toxin is exuded from roots of bt-plants in the rhizosphere, where it rapidly binds to soil particles and become protected from degradation. As the toxin is present in an activated, non-selective form, both target and non-target species in the soil will be affected(33), with knock on effects on species above ground.

10. Products resulting from genetically modified organisms can also be hazardous. For example, a batch of tryptophan produced by GM microorganisms was associated with at least 37 deaths and 1500 serious illnesses(34). Genetically modified Bovine Growth Hormone, injected into cows in order to increase milk yield, not only causes excessive suffering and illnesses for the cows but increases IGF-1 in the milk, which is linked to breast and prostate cancers in humans(35). It is vital for the public to be protected from all GM products, and not only those containing transgenic DNA or protein. That is because the process of genetic modification itself, at least in the form currently practised, is inherently unsafe.

11. Secret memoranda of US Food and Drug Administration revealed that it ignored the warnings of its own scientists that genetic engineering is a new departure and introduces new risks. Furthermore, the first GM crop to be commercialized – the Flavr Savr tomato – did not pass the required toxicological tests(36). Since then, no comprehensive scientific safety testing had been done until Dr. Arpad Pusztai and his collaborators in the UK raised serious concerns over the safety of the GM potatoes they were testing. They conclude that a significant part of the toxic effect may be due to the “[gene] construct or the genetic transformation (or both)” used in making the GM plants(37).

12. The safety of GM foods was openly disputed by Professor Bevan Moseley, molecular geneticist and current Chair of the Working Group on Novel Foods in the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Food(38). He drew attention to unforseen effects inherent to the technology, emphasizing that the next generation of GM foods – the so-called ‘neutraceuticals’ or ‘functional foods’, such as vitamin A ‘enriched’ rice – will pose even greater health risks because of the increased complexity of the gene constructs.

13. Genetic engineering introduces new genes and new combinations of genetic material constructed in the laboratory
into crops, livestock and microorganisms(39). The artificial constructs are derived from the genetic material of pathogenic viruses and other genetic parasites, as well as bacteria and other organisms, and include genes coding for antibiotic resistance. The constructs are designed to break down species barriers and to overcome mechanisms that prevent foreign genetic material from inserting into genomes. Most of them have never existed in nature in the course of billions of years of evolution.

14. These constructs are introduced into cells by invasive methods that lead to random insertion of the foreign genes into the genomes (the totality of all the genetic material of a cell or organism). This gives rise to unpredictable, random effects, including gross abnormalities in animals and unexpected toxins and allergens in food crops.

15. One construct common to practically all GM crops already commercialized or undergoing field trials involves a gene-switch (promoter) from the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) spliced next to the foreign gene (transgene) to make it over-express continuously(40). This CaMV promoter is active in all plants, in yeast, algae and E. coli. We recently discovered that it is even active in amphibian egg(41) and human cell extract(42). It has a modular structure, and is interchangeable, in part, or in whole with promoters of other viruses to give infectious viruses. It also has a ‘recombination hotspot’ where it is prone to break and join up with other genetic material(43).

16. For these and other reasons, transgenic DNA – the totality of artificial constructs transferred into the GMO – may be more unstable and prone to transfer again to unrelated species; potentially to all species interacting with the GMO(44).

17. The instability of transgenic DNA in GM plants is well-known(45). GM genes are often silenced, but loss of part or all of the transgenic DNA also occurs, even during later generations of propagation(46). We are aware of no published evidence for the long term stability of GM inserts in terms of structure or location in the plant genome in any of the GM lines already commercialized or undergoing field trials.

18. The potential hazards of horizontal transfer of GM genes include the spread of antibiotic resistance genes to pathogens, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause disease and mutations due to the random insertion of foreign DNA, some of which may lead to cancer in mammalian cells(47). The ability of the CaMV promoter to function in all species including human beings is particularly relevant to the potential hazards of horizontal gene transfer.

19. The possibility for naked or free DNA to be taken up by mammalian cells is explicitly mentioned in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance to industry on antibiotic resistance marker genes(48). In commenting on the FDA’s document, the UK MAFF pointed out that transgenic DNA may be transferred not just by ingestion, but by contact with plant dust and air-borne pollen during farm work and food processing(49). This warning is all the more significant with the recent report from Jena University in Germany that field experiments indicated GM genes may have transferred via GM pollen to the bacteria and yeasts in the gut of bee larvae(50).
20. Plant DNA is not readily degraded during most commercial food processing(51). Procedures such as grinding and milling left grain DNA largely intact, as did heat-treatment at 90deg.C. Plants placed in silage showed little degradation of DNA, and a special UK MAFF report advises against using GM plants or plant waste in animal feed.

21. The human mouth contains bacteria that have been shown to take up and express naked DNA containing antibiotic resistance genes, and similar transformable bacteria are present in the respiratory tracts(52).

22. Antibiotic resistance marker genes from GM plants have been found to transfer horizontally to soil bacteria and fungi in the laboratory(53). Field monitoring revealed that GM sugar beet DNA persisted in the soil for up to two years after the GM crop was planted. And there is evidence suggesting that parts of the transgenic DNA have transferred horizontally to bacteria in the soil(54).

23. Recent research in gene therapy and nucleic acid (both DNA and RNA) vaccines leaves little doubt that naked/free nucleic acids can be taken up, and in some cases, incorporated into the genome of all mammalian cells including those of human beings. Adverse effects already observed include acute toxic shock, delayed immunological reactions and autoimmune reactions(55).

24. The British Medical Association, in their interim report (published May, 1999), called for an indefinite moratorium on the releases of GMOs pending further research on new allergies, the spread of antibiotic resistance genes and the effects of transgenic DNA.

25. In the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol successfully negotiated in Montreal in January, 2000, more than 130 governments have agreed to implement the precautionary principle, and to ensure that biosafety legislations at the national and international levels take precedence over trade and financial agreements at the WTO. Similarly, delegates to the Codex Alimentarius Commission Conference in Chiba Japan, March 2000, have agreed to prepare stringent regulatory procedures for GM foods that include pre-market evaluation, long-term monitoring for health impacts, tests for genetic stability, toxins, allergens and other unintended effects(56). The Cartegena Biosafety Protocol has now been signed by 68 Governments in Nairobi in May, 2000.

26. We urge all Governments to take proper account of the now substantial scientific evidence of actual and suspected hazards arising from GM technology and many of its products, and to impose an immediate moratorium on further environmental releases, including open field trials, in accordance with the precautionary principle as well as sound science.

27. Successive studies have documented the productivity and sustainability of family farming in the Third World as well as in the North(57). Evidence from both North and South indicates that small farms are more productive, more efficient and contribute more to economic development than large farms. Small farmers also tend to make better stewards of natural resources, conserving biodiversity and safeguarding the sustainability of agricultural production(58). Cuba responded to the economic crisis precipitated by the break up of the Soviet Bloc in 1989 by converting from conventional large scale, high input monoculture to small organic and semi-organic farming, thereby doubling food production with half the previous input(59).

28. Agroecological approaches hold great promise for sustainable agriculture in developing countries, in combining local farming knowledge and techniques adjusted to local conditions with contemporary western scientific knowledge(60). The yields have doubled and tripled and are still increasing. An estimated 12.5 million hectares worldwide are already successfully farmed in this way(61). It is environmentally sound and affordable for small farmers. It recovers farming land marginalized by conventional intensive agriculture. It offers the only practical way of restoring agricultural land degraded by conventional agronomic practices. Most of all, it empowers small family farmers to combat poverty and hunger.

29. We urge all Governments to reject GM crops on grounds that they are both hazardous and contrary to ecologically sustainable use of resources. Instead they should support research and development of sustainable agricultural methods that can truly benefit family farmers the world over.

IF YOU DO NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF AND AVOID EATING THEIR POISON, WHO WILL?
Aloha!

About the author:
I have been doing a weekly radio show in Honolulu since 1981 called “Health Talk”. In 2007 I was “forced” to get a Masters degree in Nutrition because of all the doctors that would call in asking for my credentials. They do not call in anymore. Going to www.healthtalkhawaii.com enables you, among other things, to listen to the shows. I am an activist. In addition to espousing an organic vegan diet for optimum health, I am strongly opposed to GMOs, vaccines, processed foods, MSG, aspartame, fluoridation and everything else that the pimps (Big Pharma, Monsanto and the large food companies) and the hookers (the doctors, the government agencies, the public health officials, and the mainstream media) thrust upon us, the tricks.
After being vaccinated with the DTP vaccine as a child I developed asthma. After taking the organic sulfur crystals (they are harvested from the pine trees in Louisiana) in November of 2008 for 10 days my asthma reversed and has not come back over 4 years later, 18 cases, so far, of autism have been reversed, as has cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, osteoarthritis, joint pain, astigmatism, gum disease, increased sexual activity, heavy metal and radiation elimination, parasite elimination, free radicals elimination, faster athletic recovery time, increased blood circulation, reduced inflammation, resistance to getting the flu, reduction of wrinkles, allergy reduction, reduced PMS and monthly period pain, nausea, migraines and so much more. And it’s only possible because of the oxygen it releases that floods the cells of the body. The sulfur, as proven by the University of Southampton in England, enables the body to produce vitamin B12 and the essential amino acids. You can find out more about this incredible nutrient also on my website – www.healthtalkhawaii.com -.

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

Food is only half the battle for a higher metabolism

I don’t trust my own self-control; there, I said it.

I’m much better off avoiding buying certain foods at
the grocery store than I am attempting to avoid them
in my home. I’ve learned this lesson repeatedly, but
it’s one of the most important focal points for fat loss
anytime I want to lean up. By not ‘tempting’
myself, I stand a much higher chance of success.

And I’m driven — you know this about me — so I can’t
imagine how a person with Diabetes can have sugar
anywhere near them and not be shooting up insulin
all the time, or how someone with gluten intolerance
can have bread on the table during dinner. You’re
strengthening the ‘devil on your shoulder’ while
squashing the ‘angel’ — this is backwards from what
you want to do.

Here are a few examples of other ‘addictive habits’
that will make this recommendation more clear:

Alcoholism — if you want to quit drinking, it’s probably
not a good idea to have alcohol around the house or hang
out with people who are drinking.

Diabetes — if you want to quit eating sugar, don’t tempt
yourself with candy and cakes in the house; keep it away.

Insulin sensitivity — (same as above)

Gluten sensitivity or Celiac Disease — if you have to go
to the grocery store every time you want to eat ‘clean,’
and avoid flour, good luck.

Heart Disease — eating trans fats is obviously bad, so
if you can avoid it, I wouldn’t take a job at a McDonalds,
Burger King, or any place that deep fries its food.

Today’s advice is easy to follow and leads to BIG results.
Similarly, it’s important you surround yourself with ‘good’
foods to avoid the temptation of the ‘bad’ ones, in the first
place.

But food is only half the battle for a higher metabolism — consider
the value of movement in your daily life, and how to make the ‘right’
exercises convenient. If you have simple equipment around, or you
know the proper bodyweight exercises you can do on quick breaks
at work or home, you’re winning.

Ultimately, when it comes to losing fat — if the foods you choose
seem healthy but actually are not — you could be working against
your own fat loss results, no matter how hard you’re trying:

Are you working ‘against’ your own fat loss results? (use this unique plan
to get a noticeably flatter belly in 14 days)
——

Thanks Dr K… I think you nailed an important point here that’s often overlooked, and is a big reason why many people fail with their fitness goals.

Mike Geary
Certified Nutrition Specialist
Certified Personal Trainer

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

Arsenic being intentionally added to conventional chicken

The old saying, “You are what you eat,” poses troubling implications for public health in light of a new study on chicken meat, which found that most of it contains dangerously high levels of toxic arsenic. And the worst part is that industrial chicken producers are directly responsible for causing this, as they intentionally add arsenic-based pharmaceutical drugs to chicken feed in order to bulk them up quickly and improve the color of their meat, which in turn poisons you and your family.

You can thank researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future in Maryland for exposing this little-known fact in a recent paper published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. As it turns out, virtually all commercial chicken, including certified organic and “antibiotic-free” varieties, contain some level of inorganic arsenic. But it is the conventional chicken fed arsenic-based drugs that have the highest levels.

As reported by GRACE Communications Foundation Senior Policy Advisor Chris Hunt, writing for Ecocentric, Johns Hopkins researchers collected a variety of chicken samples from grocery stores in 10 cities across the U.S. Some of the meat samples came from conventional sources, while others were U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified organic or “antibiotic-free.” All the samples were tested side-by-side with each other, including in both raw and cooked form.

Upon analysis, the team discovered that the conventional chicken meat samples had the highest levels of inorganic arsenic overall, containing up to four times as much arsenic as the organic chicken samples. These same conventional chicken meat samples contained up to three times more arsenic than the maximum levels proposed, but later retracted, as a safety standard by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) back in 2011.

“The levels of inorganic arsenic discovered in chicken are cause for concern, especially since many of us are already exposed to the carcinogen through additional dietary and environmental paths,” writes Hunt. “But unlike these other sources of exposure, which typically result from natural arsenic deposits, industry or residual contamination from the days of widespread arsenical pesticide use, as noted in the study, ‘arsenical poultry drugs are deliberately administered to animals intended for human consumption.'”

FDA currently allows Big Pharma to lace chicken feed with arsenic to boost profits
What the study is referring to, of course, is the common practice, at least up until 2011, of industrial chicken producers adding a pharmaceutical drug known as roxarsone to chicken feed. The Pfizer, Inc.-manufactured drug was in heavy use between 2010 and 2011 when the Johns Hopkins study was conducted, and researchers found traces of this chemical in a significant percentage of the conventional chicken meat tested.

According to Hunt’s analysis, arsenical chemicals like roxarsone have been in use since the 1940s, when chicken producers began adding it to chicken feed to speed up growth, prevent disease, and improve meat pigmentation. But as we now know, these chemicals are pervasive, and are known to cause cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, mental impairment, miscarriage, and other serious human health issues.

“[T]his study provides further evidence that continued use of arsenicals in food animal production poses an entirely unnecessary threat to public health,” adds Hunt. “While the practice might boost the profits earned by poultry giants and the manufacturers who supply them with arsenical drugs, it’s imprudent and irresponsible. As such, the FDA has no legitimate justification for its ongoing failure to prohibit arsenicals from food animal production.”

You can read Hunt’s full report here:
http://www.gracelinks.org/blog/2561/the-arsenic-in-your-chicken

You can also read the original study in both abstract and complete form here:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1206245/

Sources for this article include:

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

Home

http://communities.washingtontimes.com

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130513095030.htm

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

Are America’s Nutrition Professionals in the Pocket of Big Food?

Can you rely on the government to provide objective, health-promoting dietary advice via the food guide now known as MyPlate? The short answer to that question is “No.” The reality of how government bows to food-industry interests is shocking, and most certainly plays a role in the obesity epidemic.

How about registered dietitians (RDs)? Surely you can trust their advice? After all, their specialty is nutrition and food science.

Disturbingly, a recent report exposing the deep conflicts of interest between the processed food industry and the trade organization for food- and nutrition professionals in the US shatters any illusion you may have had that RDs are the go-to source for well-researched, science-based nutrition advice that will improve your health…

The report, aptly titled: And Now a Word from Our Sponsors… Are America’s Nutrition Professionals in the Pocket of Big Food?1 is written by Michele Simon, who has practiced public health law as long as I’ve been doing this site — about 17 years.

Many of you may not be aware that public health law even exists as a specialty, but it does. Michele has been a real white-hat advocate for public health, developing strategies to fight corporate tactics that deceive and manipulate you.

Michele’s motivation for entering into public health law began with her own foray into eating a plant-based diet and learning more about the impact of nutrition on health.

“I realized that there weren’t many people at that time making the connection between what we eat and our government policies,” she says. “I look at the politics of food and then apply my legal background to expose the various ways the industry influences our government policies and so forth.”

Her most recent exposé involves the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly known as the American Dietetic Association), and the corporate politics involved in making public dietary recommendations.

It all began with people sending her photos of all the big junk food companies exhibiting their wares at the Academy’s annual meetings, showing her there was a problem going on. Two years ago, Michele decided to investigate the situation, which turned out to be an eye-opening experience:

“You walk into this expo show floor, and you think you’re in the wrong place. You think you can’t possibly be in a nutrition conference. It actually looks like one big junk food expo,” she says.

“After that first year of writing about it (an article on the influence of the various presenters there), I took a much deeper dive over the last six months or so to really uncover exactly how these relationships work between the major junk food companies and this very influential trade group.”

Why are Dietitians and Nutritionists Sponsored by Junk Food Companies?

As Michele discovered, food companies like Coca-Cola, General Mills, Nestlé, Kraft, and all of the major junk food purveyors buy sponsorships to be at the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ annual trade organization meetings. They typically end up having the largest booths on the expo floor. Besides showcasing their food products, they’re also allowed to sponsor or hold educational sessions at the meeting.

According to Michele, Nestlé paid $50,000 for the benefit of doing a special session in which they talked about optimum hydration, for example.

“It’s probably no coincidence that Nestlé is also the largest bottled water company in the world,” she says. “So, it’s basically a pay-to-play operation, where these companies pay big money. In exchange, they also get to teach registered dietitians (RDs) for continuing education units.

So, the RDs who are there to make sure they get their continuing education units can do that by learning about optimum hydration from the nation’s biggest bottled water company. And that’s just one example.”

Coca-Cola also sponsors ongoing educational webinars year-round. So, to get CEU’s, registered dietitians can be “educated” by Coca-cola on the virtues of aspartame, for example, and that sugar in children’s diet is okay “in moderation.” According to Michele, these ongoing integral relationships between major food companies and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (which is the nation’s largest trade group organization of food and nutrition professionals) represent HUGE conflicts of interest.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics represent 74,000 of the nation’s health professionals whose job it is to help Americans to eat right. At each annual meeting, as many as 13,000 registered dietitians are in attendance.

“Some have been in the profession for a while. Some are students – young and impressionable. This is a huge meeting that happens every single year, where these companies get to show off their latest, slightly-better-for-you junk food, and teach these RDs [about nutrition],” she says.

Americans are Clearly Being Given the Wrong Message about Nutrition

Most physicians, as most people reading this know, don’t receive much training in nutrition, if any. So typically, a physician who is really busy in his practice and doesn’t feel it’s worth the time, effort, and energy to counsel his patients on nutrition will refer them to an RD, and then assume that their patient will receive the correct and proper advice, seeing how the RD is trained, licensed, and attend continuing education.

It’s a “a nice loop,” as Michele says, where corporate interests massively undermine and manipulate any real knowledge of what it takes to get healthy, in terms of the foods you eat. Clearly, the dietary advice Americans get is fatally flawed.

A staggering two-thirds of Americans are overweight, and about one-quarter to one third of adults are in the obese category. This in turn drives skyrocketing diabetes rates. According to the latest report from the American Diabetes Association,2 an estimated 22.3 million people were living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in 2012, up from 17.5 million in 2007.

The food industry is quick to point out that the choice is always yours — they’re not making you buy something you don’t want. They also want to blame the obesity problem on people’s unwillingness to exercise. However, when the largest junk food manufacturers on the planet are the ones teaching dietitians about nutrition and what makes for a healthy diet, clearly the food industry carries a much larger burden of responsibility than these companies are willing to openly admit.

As little as 25 years ago the public was still being told smoking cigarettes was perfectly harmless, and many believed the propaganda. Since then society has paid the price for that fraudulent piece of misinformation. What you’re seeing now is the next phase of this sad trend, where food manufacturers, trade groups, lobbyists, and government are in cahoots to deceive you for profit, without regard for your health.

Many are now well aware of the influence of the drug industry on our health care system, but food companies are equally as powerful and pervasive and perhaps even more pernicious in their influence on people’s health, because more often than not it’s your food choices that produce the disease. Besides overly generous helpings of sugar, more than 3,000 food additives — preservatives, flavorings, colors and other ingredients — are added to foods in the United States. Many of these additives are banned in other countries, and many others, including aspartame, have never been properly tested for long-term safety.

Who is Educating Dietitians on What You Should Eat?

Major food companies that have a close and cozy relationship with the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics include:
•Nestle
•Coca-Cola
•Kraft
•PepsiCo (the nation’s largest food company, which beside soda also owns Frito-Lay — the largest snack food company — Gatorade, and other junk food brands)
•ConAgra (one of the biggest processed food companies)
•General Mills (purveyor of “candy cereals” aimed at children) and many others

For the past 12 years the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has been a significant sponsor as well, as has the National Dairy Council. Even fast-food companies like McDonald’s are represented at the annual meetings.

“They want to make sure that they’re being viewed as a good-for-you fast food company. So, at their booth, they would be sampling salads, smoothies, and oatmeal,” Michele explains.

“[Food companies] are basically trying to use these [nutrition] professionals to carry their message to their clients. That’s the name of the game here: To make sure the next time an RD talks to a client, they’ll say, ‘Gee, you should really try this better-for-you, Baked Lays potato chips, because it has a few less grams of salt or fat.’ It’s to make sure that RDs are recommending these still highly processed, nutrient-deficient junk foods to their clients.”

The same goes for hazardous food ingredients like aspartame. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has adopted the position that artificial sweeteners are okay. Based on these conflicts of interest between major food companies and the trade organization for dietitians, it’s no stretch to imagine that this stance is connected to the fact that Coca-Cola Company is the one educating dietitians about aspartame!

“Of course, there are many independent-minded, scientifically trained RDs who are able to ferret out the good information about these types of products. There are many RDs, in fact, that have rejected membership in the academy, mostly because of these relationships,” Michele says. “The problem really lies with the leadership of this organization and the fact that they’re putting their stamp of approval on these types of webinars and companies that obviously are contributing to the very problem that the profession is trying to address.”

Concerned Dietitians Band Together to Fight for Reform

Michele’s report3 was released in January. Not surprisingly, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics was none too happy about it.

“They engaged in what I would call typical industry tactics such as shooting the messenger,” Michele says. “They made me the problem as opposed to my criticism of them. They said that I was biased and I had an agenda. And then they accused me of inaccuracies. This went on for several weeks, where they claimed there were inaccuracies in the report without naming them… Then they finally came out with this supposedly damning list of inaccuracies, and there really weren’t any! They were just arguing with me over opinion-related matters such as whether a field trip to Hershey’s was a legitimate way for RDs to earn continuing education credits.”

The good news is that in the wake of her report, a group of RDs have formed a more formal organization called dietitians for Professional Integrity, aimed at pushing for more transparency and independence from industry.

You can see corporate interests reflected in a number of illogical stances the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has adopted. As a general rule, the Academy shies away from taking any stand that may upset their corporate sponsors, such as not marketing junk food to children or supporting GMO labeling. This is particularly befuddling considering the fact that while corporate sponsorships do bring needed funds to the organization, these sponsorships only account for five to 10 percent of their reported income. The rest comes from membership dues. So it seems they could easily make up that revenue from some other source.

“That really does raise the question: what is going on here?” Michele says. “Is there something deeper to these relationships? Is it just this philosophy? In any case, if your organization can only survive by taking money from the likes of Coke, Pepsi, and McDonald’s, then I think maybe it’s time to really rethink your mission and whether you should be in existence at all.”

Dietitians’ Trade Group Seeks to Censor Nutritional Advice

Then there’s the issue of the Academy’s questionable attacks on people’s right to freely talk about nutrition. Last year, the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition, a state chapter of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), threatened legal action against a blogger for writing about the paleo diet without being a registered dietitian.

An internal document suggested the agency was forging ahead with a “strategy for gaining legal control over the term “nutritionist,” as a path to limit competition for its members, against competing types of nutrition counseling.” In other words, the Academy only wants you to be able to get your nutritional advice from one of their conventionally trained registered dietitians, who have undergone the nutritional brainwashing revealed in Michele’s report.

Other health experts such as your chiropractor, naturopath, personal trainer, or any number of other contacts in your life who may have amassed personal experience in their lifetimes, including yours truly, would not be allowed to share nutritional advice, should the Academy get its way. Considering the very obvious industry connections revealed by Michele’s report, this would be an absolute disaster — it would be nothing less than a monopoly on bad advice. But it sure would protect the processed food industry that is increasingly being scrutinized for its role in demolishing the health of the entire nation…

Teaching Advocates to Effectively Counter Corporate Tactics

Michele now has a couple of other reports in the works, including one on the dairy industry. She’s also hoping to develop stronger ties with various health advocate groups to work together on countering the corporate tactics that are currently misleading the masses.

“I have a whole new talk I’m doing now that looks at how the food industry lies, and how it engages PR professionals — really unpacking the types of messaging that the industry engages in [during] these policy battles,” she says.

“I feel there’s a role for assisting people who advocate – policy makers or whoever is going up against the industry. What I envision from my long-term plan is workshops, trainings (training the trainers), and really thinking about countering corporate tactics as a legitimate field of study, even for academics, and also as a specific skill… really building the skills of advocates and countering corporate tactics, exposing the front groups, exposing the PR, exposing everything the industry is doing, so that you can be better equipped when you start down the road [of advocacy].

… It’s not enough to just expose the problem. It’s not enough to do research reports on yet more marketing-to-children problems. I’m so tired of reports about this problem. We know this is the problem. Let’s get smarter and more strategic about how to counter the industry and how to beat them at their own game. That’s where I feel like there’s just a tremendous opportunity.”

Where Can You Find Truly Unbiased Nutrition Info?

Such changes are certainly desperately needed, because so many people’s lives and the quality of lives are at stake. There’s simply no doubt that health is being sacrificed for corporate profits.

Do you want some nutrition advice that isn’t influenced by corporate agendas? The easiest way to optimize your health is by focusing on WHOLE, unadulterated foods, meaning foods that have not been processed or altered from their original state. Such “real” foods like those you can find at a local farmers market are not the subject of commercial jingles or billboards, but they are the types of foods that will properly nourish your body and support your health.

You can find more examples of real, healthy, non-corporate food in my free nutrition plan. Also, I hope you’ll take the time to learn more about Michele Simon’s work by visiting her web site, EatDrinkPolitics.com.4

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

The practice of eating insects, known as entomophagy, may sound extreme, but it’s actually quite common throughout the world – and has been that way for millennia.

There are more than 1,900 documented edible insect species and some are even “farmed” the way cattle or chickens are in the US.

With growing concerns over the unsustainable practices that constitute modern “farming,” and the very real prospects that food shortages and environmental destruction could be an inevitable part of the future if more environmentally friendly farming alternatives aren’t soon embraced, eating insects may prove to be a very wise, and necessary, decision.

In fact, a new report by the Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations (FAO) highlights the many prospects insects offer for the future of food and feed security.1

Eating Insects is Already Common in Many Parts of the World

Although still considered largely taboo in the Western world, many cultures prize insects as a culinary delicacy. The FAO report notes:

“From ants to beetle larvae – eaten by tribes in Africa and Australia as part of their subsistence diets – to the popular, crispy-fried locusts and beetles enjoyed in Thailand, it is estimated that insect-eating is practiced regularly by at least 2 billion people worldwide.”

The most commonly eaten insect groups include:

Beetles

Caterpillars

Bees

Wasps

Ants

Grasshoppers

Locusts

Crickets

Cicadas

Leaf and planthoppers

Scale insects

True bugs

Termites

Dragonflies

Flies

There are several quite compelling reasons that make a strong case for considering insects as part of a sustainable diet that could end world hunger. For starters, insects are extremely plentiful and are found in nearly all environments.

There are an estimated 6-10 million species of insects, which are thought to represent over 90 percent of the differing animal life forms on Earth, according to FAO. Environmentally, raising insects for food would emit considerably fewer greenhouse gasses than confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) raising livestock. Further:
•Insect rearing does not require clearing land to expand production
•Insects are very efficient at converting feed into protein (crickets, for instance, need 12 times less feed than cattle and half the feed as pigs and chickens to produce the same amount of protein)
•Insect rearing can be low-tech and inexpensive, making it a plausible livelihood in even the poorest sections of the world
•Insects have a low risk of transferring diseases to humans, unlike CAFO beef, pork and poultry

Further, perhaps one of the best reasons to consider eating insects is because they’re quite healthy, making them a nutritious alternative to common protein sources like chicken, beef, pork and fish. Insects are:
•Rich in protein and fiber
•Good sources of healthy fats (some species even have similar levels of omega-3 fats as fish)
•High in nutrients such as calcium, iron, B vitamins, selenium and zinc

Think of Insects as “Shrimp of the Land”

Dutch entomologist Marcel Dicke has stated that the reason many people are reluctant to eat insects is simply a matter of mindset. His solution? To think of insects as “shrimp of the land.”2

In the TED video above, Dicke explains that insects are not only eco-friendly and nutritious, but they compete with meat in flavor, too. If you can get past the initial aversion, eating insects may not be entirely different from eating shrimp or other more unique food sources, such as crabs, oysters and mussels. As written in the FAO report:3

“Common prejudice against eating insects is not justified from a nutritional point of view. Insects are not inferior to other protein sources such as fish, chicken and beef. Feelings of disgust in the West towards entomophagy contributes to the common misconception that entomophagy in the developing world is prompted by starvation and is merely a survival mechanism. This is far from the truth. Although it will require considerable convincing to reverse this mentality, it is not an impossible feat.

Arthropods like lobsters and shrimps, once considered poor-man’s food in the West, are now expensive delicacies there. It is hoped that arguments such as the high nutritional value of insects and their low environmental impact, low-risk nature (from a disease standpoint) and palatability may also contribute to a shift in perception.”

Interestingly, at the Nordic Food Lab, a non-profit organization, they’re focusing on the deliciousness factor of wild foods including edible insects. If people begin to accept insects as a delicious dietary addition, they will naturally begin to view them as edible. And this, they believe, is a key factor to getting insects into mainstream Western diets. FAO notes:4

“By exploring the vast range of flavors, the Nordic Food Lab aims to turn “inedibles” into edible ingredients. Seaweed is one such food source: just a few years ago it was considered in the West as either exotic or niche, but now, in certain places, it is celebrated as a new, versatile ingredient – since it was shown to be delicious. The head of the culinary research and development group says that deliciousness is the first and most important factor in developing new gastronomic building blocks.

Mayonnaise from bee larvae works not because of its novelty but rather because of its earthier and more satisfying taste – its unique deliciousness.”

You’re Probably Already Eating Insects …

Chances are more likely than not that you’ve already sampled your first (and then some) insect, albeit probably unintentionally. Insects are a part of nature, and the inevitably end up on a leaf of lettuce or in your box of cereal. This happens not only in the field but also later, as foods sit in storage facilities prior to processing. It’s for this reason that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows certain amounts of bugs in your food. For instance:
•Canned tomato juice: two whole maggots per 100 grams
•Raisins: FDA won’t take action unless 10 or more whole or equivalent Drosophila flies and 35 of its eggs are found per 8 ounces of raisins
•Macaroni: Anything less than 225 insect fragments per 225 grams in six sub-samples is allowed

It’s certainly unsavory to think about insect parts in your food, but the truth is it probably isn’t going to hurt you. In fact, depending on the species it may actually add some nutrition …

The Future of the World’s Food Supply Depends on Sustainability

Feeding the world in the decades to come is going to depend on broadening our horizons not only of what we think of as food but also of what we accept as “farming.” Insects may very well play a role in this food future. As the FAO report’s foreword reads:

“It is widely accepted that by 2050 the world will host 9 billion people. To accommodate this number, current food production will need to almost double. Land is scarce and expanding the area devoted to farming is rarely a viable or sustainable option. Oceans are overfished and climate change and related water shortages could have profound implications for food production. To meet the food and nutrition challenges of today – there are nearly 1 billion chronically hungry people worldwide – and tomorrow, what we eat and how we produce it needs to be re-evaluated. Inefficiencies need to be rectified and food waste reduced. We need to find new ways of growing food.

Edible insects have always been a part of human diets, but in some societies there is a degree of distaste for their consumption. Although the majority of edible insects are gathered from forest habitats, innovation in mass-rearing systems has begun in many countries. Insects offer a significant opportunity to merge traditional knowledge and modern science in both developed and developing countries.”

The success of using insects as a food source will depend directly on the sustainability with which this new food source is raised. Raising insects on a mass scale may beget many of the same problems already saddling the food system, such as the threat of genetic engineering, unforeseen pollution, disruptions to local ecosystems and risks to native insect, animal and plant species.

Insects must be raised in a sustainable way if they are to become a successful part of the worldwide diet, and this is true of any food source. If agricultural practices such as permaculture, which work with nature instead of against it, are more widely embraced, the food sources you currently enjoy can be sustained and flourish.

For instance, if cattle are rotated across pastures instead of raised in CAFOs, the animals’ grazing will cut the blades of grass, spurring new growth, while their trampling helps work manure into the soil, fertilizing it naturally. This healthy soil then helps keep carbon dioxide underground and out of the atmosphere. See, it’s not the raising of cattle … or poultry or fish… that’s the problem; it’s the way in which they’re being raised that is unsustainable and currently trashing the planet and threatening the food supply.

Environmental devastation can even be healed and functional ecosystems rebuilt using the permaculture concept. So while considering insects as a sustainable food source is intriguing, it should not replace the ultimate goal, which is sustainable farming for every species.

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