Rather Be Healthy

Many foods have been heavily promoted as being healthy when they are nothing more than pernicious junk foods. In the featured article, Clean Plates1 founder Jared Koch shared his list of nine staple foods that are far less “good for you” than you’ve been led to believe.

Here, I expand on the selections that are mentioned in the featured article.

1. Canned Tomatoes

Many leading brands of canned foods contain BPA — a toxic chemical linked to reproductive abnormalities, neurological effects, heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, heart disease and other serious health problems. According to Consumer Reports’ testing, just a couple of servings of canned food can exceed the safety limits for daily BPA exposure for children.

High acidity — a prominent characteristic of tomatoes – causes BPA to leach into your food. To avoid this hazardous chemical, avoid canned foods entirely and stick to fresh fruits and vegetables, or switch over to brands that use glass containers instead—especially for acidic foods like tomatoes.

2. Processed Meats

As Koch warns, processed deli meats like salami, ham, and roast beef are not only typically made with meats from animals raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

This means they’re given growth hormones, antibiotics and other veterinary drugs, and raised in deplorable conditions that promote disease, these meats are also filled with sodium nitrite (a commonly used preservative and antimicrobial agent that also adds color and flavor) and other chemical flavorings and dyes.

Nitrites can be converted into nitrosamines in your body, which are potent cancer-causing chemicals. Research has linked nitrites to higher rates of colorectal, stomach and pancreatic cancer. But that’s not all. Most processed deli meats also contain other cancer-promoting chemicals that are created during cooking. These include:
•Heterocyclic Amines (HCAs) which are hazardous compounds created in meats and other foods that have been cooked at high temperatures. According to research, processed meats are clearly associated with an increased risk of stomach, colon and breast cancers.
•Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): Many processed meats are smoked as part of the curing process, which causes PAHs to form. PAHs can also form when grilling. When fat drips onto the heat source, causing excess smoke, and the smoke surrounds your food, it can transfer cancer-causing PAHs to the meat.
•Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs): When food is cooked at high temperatures—including when it is pasteurized or sterilized—it increases the formation of AGEs in your food. AGEs build up in your body over time leading to oxidative stress, inflammation and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and kidney disease.

The truth is, processed meats are not a healthful choice for anyone and should be avoided entirely, according to a 2011 review of more than 7,000 clinical studies examining the connection between diet and cancer. The report was commissioned by The World Cancer Research Fund2 (WCRF) using money raised from the general public. Therefore the findings were not influenced by any vested interests, which makes it all the more reliable.

It’s the biggest review of the evidence ever undertaken, and it confirms previous findings: Processed meats increase your risk of cancer, especially bowel cancer, and NO amount of processed meat is “safe.” You’re far better off ditching the deli meats and opting instead for fresh organically-raised grass-fed or pastured meats, or wild caught salmon.

3. Margarine

The unfortunate result of the low-fat diet craze has been the shunning of healthful fats such as butter, and public health has declined as a result of this folly. There are a myriad of unhealthy components to margarine and other butter impostors, including:
•Trans fats: These unnatural fats in margarine, shortenings and spreads are formed during the process of hydrogenation, which turns liquid vegetable oils into a solid fat. Trans fats contribute to heart disease, cancer, bone problems, hormonal imbalance and skin disease; infertility, difficulties in pregnancy and problems with lactation; and low birth weight, growth problems and learning disabilities in children. A US government panel of scientists determined that man-made trans fats are unsafe at any level.
•Free radicals: Free radicals and other toxic breakdown products are the result of high temperature industrial processing of vegetable oils. They contribute to numerous health problems, including cancer and heart disease.
•Emulsifiers and preservatives: Numerous additives of questionable safety are added to margarines and spreads. Most vegetable shortening is stabilized with preservatives like BHT.
•Hexane and other solvents: Used in the extraction process, these industrial chemicals can have toxic effects.

Good-old-fashioned butter, when made from grass-fed cows, is rich in a substance called conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). CLA is not only known to help fight cancer and diabetes, it may even help you to lose weight, which cannot be said for its trans-fat substitutes. Much of the reason why butter is vilified is because it contains saturated fat. If you’re still in the mindset that saturated fat is harmful for your health, then please read the Healthy Fats section of my Optimized Nutrition Plan to learn why saturated fat is actually good for you.

4. Vegetable Oils

Of all the destructive foods available to us, those made with heated vegetable oils are some of the worst. Make no mistake about it–vegetable oil is not the health food that you were lead to believe it was. This is largely due to the fact that they are highly processed, and when consumed in massive amounts, as they are by most Americans, they seriously distort the important omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. Ideally, this ratio is 1:1.

Anytime you cook a food, you run the risk of creating heat-induced damage. The oils you choose to cook with must be stable enough to resist chemical changes when heated to high temperatures, or you run the risk of damaging your health. One of the ways vegetable oils can inflict damage is by converting your good cholesterol into bad cholesterol—by oxidizing it. When you cook with polyunsaturated vegetable oils (such as canola, corn, and soy oils), oxidized cholesterol is introduced into your system.

As the oil is heated and mixed with oxygen, it goes rancid. Rancid oil is oxidized oil and should NOT be consumed—it leads directly to vascular disease. Trans-fats are introduced when these oils are hydrogenated, which increases your risk of chronic diseases like breast cancer and heart disease.

So what’s the best oil to cook with?

Of all the available oils, coconut oil is the oil of choice for cooking because it is nearly a completely saturated fat, which means it is much less susceptible to heat damage. And coconut oil is one of the most unique and beneficial fats for your body. For more in-depth information about the many benefits of coconut oil, please see this special report. Olive oil, while certainly a healthful oil, is easily damaged by heat and is best reserved for drizzling cold over salad.

5. Microwave Popcorn

Perfluoroalkyls, which include perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), are chemicals used to keep grease from leaking through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their food and showing up as contaminants in blood. Microwave popcorn bags are lined with PFOA, and when they are heated the compound leaches onto the popcorn.

These chemicals are part of an expanding group of chemicals commonly referred to as “gender-bending” chemicals, because they can disrupt your endocrine system and affect your sex hormones. The EPA has ruled PFCs as “likely carcinogens,” and has stated that PFOA “poses developmental and reproductive risks to humans.” Researchers have also linked various PFCs to a range of other health dangers, such as:
•Infertility — A study published in the journal Human Reproduction3 found that both PFOA and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate), dramatically increased the odds of infertility. PFOA was linked to a 60 to 154 percent increase in the chance of infertility.
•Thyroid disease — A 2010 study4 found that PFOA can damage your thyroid function. Individuals with the highest PFOA concentrations were more than twice as likely to report current thyroid disease, compared to those with the lowest PFOA concentrations. Your thyroid contains thyroglobulin protein, which binds to iodine to form hormones, which in turn influence essentially every organ, tissue and cell in your body. Thyroid hormones are also required for growth and development in children. Thyroid disease, if left untreated, can lead to heart disease, infertility, muscle weakness, and osteoporosis.
•Cancer — PFOA has been associated with tumors in at least four different organs in animal tests (liver, pancreas, testicles and mammary glands in rats), and has been associated with increases in prostate cancer in PFOA plant workers.
•Immune system problems — Several studies by scientists in Sweden indicate that PFCs have an adverse effect on your immune system. As described in a report on PFCs by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), PFOA was found to decrease all immune cell subpopulations studied, in the thymus and spleen, and caused immunosupression.
•Increased LDL cholesterol levels – A 2010 study in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine5 found that children and teens with higher PFOA levels had higher levels of total cholesterol and LDL or “bad” cholesterol, while PFOS was associated with increased total cholesterol, including both LDL cholesterol and HDL or “good” cholesterol.

I strongly recommend avoiding any product you know contain these toxic compounds, particularly non-stick cookware, but also foods sold in grease-proof food packaging, such as fast food and microwave popcorn. Clearly, if you’re eating fast food or junk food, PFCs from the wrapper may be the least of your problems, but I think it’s still important to realize that not only are you not getting proper nutrition from the food itself, the wrappers may also add to your toxic burden.

6. Non-Organic Potatoes and Other Fresh Produce Known for High Pesticide Contamination

Your best bet is to buy only organic fruits and vegetables, as synthetic agricultural chemicals are not permissible under the USDA organic rules. That said, not all conventionally grown fruits and vegetables are subjected to the same amount of pesticide load. While Koch focuses on potatoes, as they tend to take up a lot of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals present in the soil, I would recommend reviewing the “Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce”6 by the Environmental Working Group.

Of the 48 different fruit and vegetable categories tested by the EWG for the 2013 guide, the following 15 fruits and vegetables had the highest pesticide load, making them the most important to buy or grow organically:

Apples

Celery

Cherry tomatoes

Cucumbers

Grapes

Hot peppers

Nectarines (imported)

Peaches

Potatoes

Spinach

Strawberries

Sweet bell peppers

Kale

Collard greens

Summer squash

In contrast, the following foods were found to have the lowest residual pesticide load, making them the safest bet among conventionally grown vegetables. Note that a small amount of sweet corn and most Hawaiian papaya, although low in pesticides, are genetically engineered (GE). If you’re unsure of whether the sweet corn or papaya is GE, I’d recommend opting for organic varieties:

Asparagus

Avocado

Cabbage

Cantaloupe

Sweet corn (non-GMO)

Eggplant

Grapefruit

Kiwi

Mango

Mushrooms

Onions

Papayas (non-GMO. Most Hawaiian papaya is GMO)

Pineapple

Sweet peas (frozen)

Sweet potatoes

7. Table Salt

Salt is essential for life—you cannot live without it. However, regular ‘table salt’ and the salt found in processed foods are NOT identical to the salt your body really needs. In fact, table salt has practically nothing in common with natural salt. One is health damaging, and the other is healing.
•Processed salt is 98 percent sodium chloride, and the remaining two percent comprises man-made chemicals, such as moisture absorbents, and a little added iodine. These are dangerous chemicals like ferrocyanide and aluminosilicate. Some European countries, where water fluoridation is not practiced, also add fluoride to table salt
•Natural salt is about 84 percent sodium chloride. The remaining 16 percent of natural salt consists of other naturally occurring minerals, including trace minerals like silicon, phosphorous and vanadium

Given that salt is absolutely essential to good health, I recommend switching to a pure, unrefined salt. My favorite is an ancient, all-natural sea salt from the Himalayas. Himalayan salt is completely pure, having spent many thousands of years maturing under extreme tectonic pressure, far away from impurities, so it isn’t polluted with the heavy metals and industrial toxins of today. And it’s hand-mined, hand-washed, and minimally processed. Himalayan salt is only 85 percent sodium chloride, the remaining 15 percent contains 84 trace minerals from our prehistoric seas. Unrefined natural salt is important to many biological processes, including:
•Being a major component of your blood plasma, lymphatic fluid, extracellular fluid, and even amniotic fluid
•Carrying nutrients into and out of your cells
•Maintain and regulate blood pressure
•Increasing the glial cells in your brain, which are responsible for creative thinking and long-term planning
•Helping your brain communicate with your muscles, so that you can move on demand via sodium-potassium ion exchange

While natural unprocessed salt has many health benefits, that does not mean you should use it with impunity. Another important factor is the potassium to sodium ratio of your diet. Imbalance in this ratio can not only lead to hypertension (high blood pressure) and other health problems, including heart disease, memory decline, erectile dysfunction and more. The easiest way to avoid this imbalance is by avoiding processed foods, which are notoriously low in potassium while high in sodium. Instead, eat a diet of whole, ideally organically-grown foods to ensure optimal nutrient content. This type of diet will naturally provide much larger amounts of potassium in relation to sodium.

8. Soy Protein Isolate and Other Unfermented Soy Products

Sadly, most of what you have been led to believe by the media about soy is simply untrue. One of the worst problems with soy comes from the fact that 90 to 95 percent of soybeans grown in the US are genetically engineered (GE), and these are used to create soy protein isolate. Genetically engineered soybeans are designed to be “Roundup ready,” which means they’re engineered to withstand otherwise lethal doses of herbicide.

The active ingredient in Roundup herbicide is called glyphosate, which is responsible for the disruption of the delicate hormonal balance of the female reproductive cycle. What’s more, glyphosate is toxic to the placenta, which is responsible for delivering vital nutrients from mother to child, and eliminating waste products. Once the placenta has been damaged or destroyed, the result can be miscarriage. In those children born to mothers who have been exposed to even a small amount of glyphosate, serious birth defects can result.

Glyphosate’s mechanism of harm was only recently identified, and demonstrates how this chemical disrupts cellular function and induce many of our modern diseases, including autism. Soy protein isolate can be found in protein bars, meal replacement shakes, bottled fruit drinks, soups and sauces, meat analogs, baked goods, breakfast cereals and some dietary supplements.

Even if you are not a vegetarian and do not use soymilk or tofu, it is important to be a serious label reader. There are so many different names for soy additives, you could be bringing home a genetically modified soy-based product without even realizing it. Soy expert Dr. Kaayla Daniel offers a free Special Report7, “Where the Soys Are,” on her Web site. It lists the many “aliases” that soy might be hiding under in ingredient lists — words like “bouillon,” “natural flavor” and “textured plant protein.”

Besides soy protein isolate, ALL unfermented soy products are best avoided if you value your health. Thousands of studies have linked unfermented soy to malnutrition, digestive distress, immune-system breakdown, thyroid dysfunction, cognitive decline, reproductive disorders and infertility—even cancer and heart disease.

The only soy with health benefits is organic soy that has been properly fermented, and these are the only soy products I ever recommend consuming. After a long fermentation process, the phytate and “anti-nutrient” levels of soybeans are reduced, and their beneficial properties become available to your digestive system. To learn more, please see this previous article detailing the dangers of unfermented soy.

9. Artificial Sweeteners

Contrary to popular belief, studies have found that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame can stimulate your appetite, increase carbohydrate cravings, and stimulate fat storage and weight gain. In one of the most recent of such studies8, saccharin and aspartame were found to cause greater weight gain than sugar.

Aspartame is perhaps one of the most problematic. It is primarily made up of aspartic acid and phenylalanine. The phenylalanine has been synthetically modified to carry a methyl group, which provides the majority of the sweetness. That phenylalanine methyl bond, called a methyl ester, is very weak, which allows the methyl group on the phenylalanine to easily break off and form methanol.

You may have heard the claim that aspartame is harmless because methanol is also found in fruits and vegetables. However, in fruits and vegetables, the methanol is firmly bonded to pectin, allowing it to be safely passed through your digestive tract. Not so with the methanol created by aspartame; there it’s not bonded to anything that can help eliminate it from your body.

Methanol acts as a Trojan horse; it’s carried into susceptible tissues in your body, like your brain and bone marrow, where the alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) enzyme converts it into formaldehyde, which wreaks havoc with sensitive proteins and DNA. All animals EXCEPT HUMANS have a protective mechanism that allows methanol to be broken down into harmless formic acid. This is why toxicology testing on animals is a flawed model. It doesn’t fully apply to people.

Guidelines for Healthy Food

Whatever food you’re looking to eat, whether organic or locally grown, from either your local supermarket or a farmer’s market, the following are signs of a high-quality, healthy food. Most often, the best place to find these foods is from a sustainable agricultural group in your area. You can also review my free nutrition plan to get started on a healthy eating program today:
•It’s grown without pesticides and chemical fertilizers (organic foods fit this description, but so do some non-organic foods)
•It’s not genetically engineered
•It contains no added growth hormones, antibiotics, or other drugs
•It does not contain artificial anything, nor any preservatives
•It is fresh (if you have to choose between wilted organic produce or fresh conventional produce, the latter may still be the better option as freshness is important for optimal nutrient content)
•It did not grown in a factory farm
•It is grown with the laws of nature in mind (meaning animals are fed their native diets, not a mix of grains and animal byproducts, and have free-range access to the outdoors)
•It is grown in a sustainable way (using minimal amounts of water, protecting the soil from burnout, and turning animal wastes into natural fertilizers instead of environmental pollutants)

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

After more than a half century of counting calories, experts are advising dieters to ditch the numbers game and take a more holistic approach to losing weight.

Tom Vilsack, the U.S. secretary of agriculture, signaled a major change in mind-set last month while unveiling the country’s new dietary guidelines. “Not all calories are created equally,” he said.

A 1,200-calorie Twinkie diet isn’t going to do the body as much good as a 1,200-calorie diet of whole grains, even though both may achieve weight loss.

It sounds obvious.

But the country’s multibillion-dollar diet industry has mostly operated on a calories-in, calories-out philosophy. Now, nutritionists and dietitians, many of whom have always thought calorie counting was a flawed way of losing weight, are preaching a new course of action.

Increase quality of food

Even the grandaddy of diet institutions, Weight Watchers, has changed – restructuring its plan to encourage eating more good-for-you foods such as fruits and vegetables. It’s no longer about reducing quantity as much as it is about increasing quality.

“At the end of the day, we’re seeing that the calorie-in, calorie-out approach was the wrong message,” said Heather Schwartz, a dietitian with Stanford Hospital and Clinics. “Of course, if you significantly reduce calories, you will lose weight. But how long can you sustain that?”

The answer is not for very long, Schwartz said. Studies show that most people gain back weight within six to nine months of losing it, she said.

Since the 1950s, dieters have focused on counting calories, and when the obesity rate started climbing in the 1970s and ’80s, the emphasis became even stronger. In the past 20 years, a rash of fad diets have promoted everything from eliminating carbohydrates and fats to adopting packaged-food plans. But when you get right down to it, Schwartz said, those diets have focused on calories.

“They were quick fixes, not lifestyle changes,” she said. She added that despite the conventional wisdom that reducing calorie intake is the way to a trimmer waistline, a whole school of nutritionists and dietitians opposed that notion.

“We knew that a calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie,” Schwartz said. “But how do you fight a mega industry saying otherwise?”

For years, some experts tried – attempting to convince people that if they substituted nutrient-rich calories (such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains and nuts) for empty calories (like soda, processed foods and refined sugar), they would become healthier and ultimately slimmer.

Program restructured

The idea that eating nutrient-dense foods is more important than counting calories is catching on. Late last year, Weight Watchers changed its program after 14 years.

Once based primarily on calories, the organization has changed its “points” formula to better “factor in the nutrients that make up a calorie,” said Stephanie Rost, director of corporate development.

“We’re looking at how much energy your body uses to process the food,”
she said.
For example: Under the old plan, a croissant with butter would have contained the same amount of points as a poached egg with a 3-ounce slice of ham and a piece of whole wheat toast. Now the latter counts for fewer points because it’s a more balanced and filling option that’s packed with protein and fiber.

Unlike before, Weight Watchers gives fruits a free pass – they used to cost points – in hopes of encouraging participants to get more of them into their diets. “Losing weight isn’t the only ingredient to healthy living,” said Suzanne Rauzon, director of strategy for the Dr. Robert C. and Veronica Atkins Center for Weight and Health at UC Berkeley. “You can lose weight from just eating one bag of Cheetos a day. But that’s not a very balanced way of eating. If you’re just focusing on the energy value of food, you’re missing out on eating a variety of things that are good for you.”

It’s not just the experts who agree. “We are much more informed about food today than we were 10 to 20 years ago,” said Bonnie Riggs, a restaurant industry analyst for market research firm NPD.

Less focus on restrictions

The company recently polled health- and weight-conscious consumers about their eating patterns at restaurants. Those surveyed ranked concerns over high-caloric foods only 8 on a scale of 14. The top preferences were for foods made with high-quality, fresh, nutritious and organic ingredients.

“For those looking for healthy options on the menu, it was not about calories,” Riggs said.

For the first time in a long time, diets are less about restrictions and more about nourishment, Schwartz said. “It’s a really empowering way to eat.”

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

To date, there are actually a lot of healthy nut and fruit bars in the market that contain dried fruit as one of the primary components. A certain Dr. Michael Greger discussed in his article about the dense calories found in dried fruit. A lot of people are getting concerned that maybe eating nutrition bars frequently could make them fat. He wanted to know what dried fruit and nuts nutrition bar is best for those who do not want to gain weight.

It has been found that 5 to 10 percent of Americans who – on average – incorporate dried fruit (approximately at least a tablespoon each) every day are less obese, less overweight, and slimmer than others. They also were less obese in the abdominal area. Though they tend to eat more, they did not gain weight. Those who ate nut butters and nuts in general also had similar results. They had lower BMIs and less excess weight. Dr. Greger summarized the different findings in his four videos.

The study
In Dr. Greger’s study about figs, adding 14 figs to people’s daily diet did not actually lead to weight gain, contrary to what many people think. Figs are known to be satisfying and satiating. They are packed with fiber that helps people to eat less of other foods all throughout the day. There are also newer studies that Dr. Greger discovered as to how dried apples can also help people prevent weight gain, the same goes with prunes. Three quarters of a cup of dried apples added to the diet every day for an entire year is equal to about two hundred calories a day.

Dr. Greger asked what would happen if nutrition bars had nuts and dried fruit together. He also inquired what the effect would be when people added fruit and nut bars along with their regular diets for two months. Consequently, research was conducted to validate the theory. The research was done among 100 people who were having problems managing their weight, and they were separated into two randomized groups. One group stuck with their regular diet, while the other did the same but had an extra 340 calories from two extra fruit and nut bars each day.

Those who had extra fruit and nut bars daily for two months, as expected, did not gain weight. These bars were found to have additional sugar in them, which could have been a reason why the cholesterol levels of the participants did not really become better despite the nuts that they ingested. Nuts are actually known to help lower cholesterol. In the videos of Dr. Greger, he highlighted some brands that had no added sugar. However, he also pointed out that it is a lot cheaper to simply make one’s own trail mix and simply eat dried fruits and nuts on their own, without buying pre-made ones.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.ehow.com/way_5375862_food-bars-make-gain-weight.html

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/do-fruit-nut-bars-cause-weight-gain/

http://www.bicycling.com

About the author:
Sandeep is an avid rock climber, Mountaineer, runner, and fitness coach. He shares his tips for staying in shape and eating healthy on betterhealthblog. betterhealthblog provide tips on Healthy Living, Beauty and Fashion, Home & Gardening, Weight Loss .

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

Monsanto pushes bizarre conspiracy theory to deflect blame for GE wheat contamination of commercial crops

There is a grand conspiracy theory at work to destroy the value of U.S. wheat crops, Monsanto recently told mainstream media reporters in a telephone conference. The contaminated GE wheat recently discovered in Oregon didn’t get there by escaping Monsanto’s open-air GMO experiments, the company claims. Instead, they say it might have been put there by a conspiracy of crop criminals who somehow acquired GE wheat from Monsanto’s field trials way back in 2005, then somehow saved it in a way that kept it genetically viable for eight years, then supposedly drove around Oregon for the sole purpose of releasing the GMOs in some farmer’s field that they just hoped the USDA might be someday be testing for GMO contamination.

That’s the far-fetched conspiracy theory now being pushed by Monsanto to explain how commercial wheat crops in Oregon got contaminated with GMOs. It was put forth by Chief Technology Officer Robb Fraley, a Monsanto executive, in a phone call with reporters.

“It seems likely to be a random, isolated occurrence more consistent with the accidental or purposeful mixing of a small amount of seed during the planting, harvesting or during the fallow cycle in an individual field,” Fraley said on the call, making him the first Monsanto executive to publicly admit he is a conspiracy theorist. He goes on to confirm that the company is investigating the possibility of “sabotage” to explain the wheat field contamination.

Did little green men spread Monsanto’s GMO seeds?
There’s only one problem with this bizarre conspiracy theory: No one knew in advance the USDA would be testing that farmer’s wheat field in Oregon. In fact, testing fields for GMO contamination is such a rare thing that the odds of a band of “conspiracy activists” correctly guessing which field was going to be tested by the USDA are at least 10,000 to 1.

To successful pull off this wild conspiracy theory being pushed by Monsanto, activists would have had to contaminate nearly ALL commercial wheat fields with genetically modified seed, and this would have involved a nationwide logistics effort of such magnitude that it would have been impossible to keep it secret. Is Monsanto really suggesting there exists a secret group of hundreds or thousands of activists driving around the country in unmarked vans, flinging Monsanto’s own wheat seeds into commercial wheat fields right at the beginning of planting season?

Or maybe it was pulled off by little green men from outer space, working in cahoots with Bigfoot, Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster, who all had a planning meeting in a secret underground base on the moon before deciding to focus all their efforts on embarrassing Monsanto by flinging GE wheat seeds everywhere. When they were finished, they then mutilated a few cattle and ran around conducting anal probes on some farmers just to have a little fun.

Yep, little green men did it. Because aliens hate Monsanto.

I mean, I know JFK wasn’t shot by a lone assassin. The Oklahoma City bombing was a federal operation (www.ANobleLie.com) and 9/11 was engineered and allowed to happen so that America could be stripped of its liberties and placed under a police state surveillance grid. But all those so-called “conspiracy theories” pale in comparison to the far-fetched loony bin theory of Monsanto which claims some underground group of activists has somehow been storing thousands of pounds of Monsanto’s GE wheat seeds since 1995 and has now suddenly started covertly dropping them into farm fields all across the nation. Does Monsanto not get it that anti-GMO activists do NOT want GMO seeds to grow? Planting those seeds in fields all across the country would be the very last thing they’d ever try to do, even if they did have the budgets to bank thousands of pounds of Monsanto seeds in large refrigerators for the last eight years.

The far more likely explanation in all this is that Monsanto’s open-field experiments went awry and GE wheat seeds escaped the fields in ways that Monsanto scientists didn’t anticipate (or didn’t want to anticipate).

Perhaps Monsanto would characterize that as a “conspiracy of Mother Nature.” Maybe insects are conspiring against Monsanto to spread the seeds. Maybe the wind, water and other forces of nature are “co-conspirators,” according to Monsanto.

The real conspiracy is that Monsanto is trying to dominate the global food supply
Or maybe, just maybe, it’s actually Monsanto that’s engaged in a massive conspiracy to try to dominate the global food supply by making sure its seeds genetically contaminate all commercial crop fields across America, allowing the company to sue farmers for the “theft” of intellectual property.

They’ve already done that to a multitude of farmers, by the way, so this isn’t some wild theory… it’s something that Monsanto has already been involved in.

Yep, there is a conspiracy afoot in all this, but it’s not the conspiracy Monsanto wants you to think it is. While the company claims “sabotage” in the Oregon GE wheat fields — possibly by little green men from outer space — the greater truth is that Monsanto is itself a corporation of global sabotage that destroys agriculture, contaminates the planet with genetic pollution, threatens farmers with lawsuits for planting common seeds, and then blames activists when its own dangerous experiments go haywire.

Sources:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-05/monsanto-says-rogue-wheat-di…

http://nelsonfarm.net

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

For several years now, scientists have been struggling to determine why bee colonies across the world are disappearing—a phenomenon dubbed colony collapse disorder (CCD).

As reported by Dan Rather, the US has recently experienced the highest loss of honeybee populations so far, with most of the nation’s beekeepers losing anywhere from 50 to 90 percent of their bee population.

Honeybees are perhaps one of the least recognized workers in the agricultural industry. They contribute $15 billion in annual agriculture revenue to the US economy alone, as a full one-third of the American food supply depends on them pollinating crops.

Just about every fruit and vegetable you can imagine is dependent on the pollinating services of bees. Apple orchards, for instance, require one colony of bees per acre in order to be adequately pollinated. So, unless the mysterious disappearance of bees is reversed, major food shortages could result.

California Almond Orchards Threatened by Bee Loss

As discussed in Dan Rather’s report, 80 percent of the world’s almonds come from California’s central valley, an 800,000 acre area of almond orchards that are 100 percent dependent on bees pollinating the trees. Surprisingly, almonds are the number one agricultural product in California.

Once a year, in late winter, 1.5 million bee hives from around the country are delivered to these orchards where the bees’ pollination efforts take place over the course of just a few days. It’s the largest mass-pollination effort in the world.

This year, however, the unthinkable happened. Many of the 6,000 orchard owners simply could not find enough bees to pollinate their almond trees, at any price… One of the beekeepers featured in Rather’s report is John Miller, President of the California state Beekepers Association. His family has tended bees since 1894.

Of the 11,000 hives brought to California by Miller, hundreds of hives turned out to be dead when opened up. According to Miller, “the past 30 years have been tumultuous with 40 percent of the national herd dying or dead.”

Another fourth generation beekeeper named Anderson lost 70 percent of his hives this year. Yet another outfit lost 100 percent of his bees…

Fortunately, unsurpassed efforts that included persuading beekeepers as far away as Florida to ship their bees cross country, delayed bloom, and unseasonably good weather thereafter allowed almond growers to dodge the bullet—this year—despite having fewer and weaker-than-ever hives…

This narrowly-achieved success may lead some to reach the mistaken conclusion that beekeepers’ concerns are overblown.

Don’t be fooled. One beekeeper goes so far as to say he believes the beekeeper industry is doomed and cannot survive for more than another two to three years unless drastic changes are implemented…

What’s Causing Bees to Die?

Proposed culprits of bee colony collapse disorder include:
•Pesticides and insecticides—Nicotinoids such as Imidacloprid and Clothianidin kills insects by attacking their nervous systems. These are known to get into pollen and nectar, and can damage beneficial insects such as bees.
•Malnutrition/Nutritional deficiencies—Many beekeepers place the hives near fields of identical crops, which may result in malnutrition as the bees are only getting one type of nectar. Essentially, this theory is identical to that of human nutrition; we need a wide variety of nutrients from different foods. If you keep eating the same limited range of foods, you can easily end up suffering from nutritional deficiencies. Poor nutrition suppresses immune function, making the bees far more susceptible to toxins from pesticides, viruses, fungi, or a combination of factors that ultimately kill them.
•Viruses and fungi—There’s even the possibility that some new form of “AIDS-like” viral infection is affecting the bees.
•Electromagnetic fields (EMFs)—Researchers have discovered that when a cellular phone is placed near a hive, the radiation generated by it (900-1,800 MHz) is enough to prevent bees from returning to them, according to a study conducted at Landau University several years ago.1

This result was duplicated in 2009 by Sainuddeen Pattazhy, a researcher and dean in the department of zoology at SN College, Punalur, Kerala. His experiments showed that microwaves from mobile phones appear to interfere with worker bees’ navigation skills. When cell phones were placed near beehives, the hives collapsed completely in five to 10 days. The worker bees simply failed to return home.

More recently, a study2 published in 2011 found that the presence of microwaves from cell phones have a dramatic effect on bees, causing them to become quite disturbed.
•Lack of natural foraging areas—Mass conversions of grasslands to corn and soy in the Midwest has dramatically reduced bees’ natural foraging areas

EPA Blamed for Failure to Protect Bees

A general consensus among beekeepers is that the bee die-offs are most definitely related to toxic chemicals. Increasingly, a systemic type of pesticide called neonicotinoids is being blamed for bee die-off’s. Neonicotinoids are now used on most of American crops, especially corn. This newer class of chemicals is applied to seeds before planting, allowing the pesticide to be taken up through the plant’s vascular system as it grows. As a result, the chemical is expressed in the pollen and nectar of the plant.

These insecticides are highly toxic to bees because they are systemic, water-soluble, and pervasive. They get into the soil and groundwater where they can accumulate and remain for many years and present long-term toxicity to the hive.

Neonicotinoids affect insects’ central nervous systems in ways that are cumulative and irreversible. Even minute amounts can have profound effects over time. One of the observed effects of these insecticides is weakening of the bee’s immune system. Forager bees bring pesticide-laden pollen back to the hive, where it’s consumed by all of the bees. Six months later, their immune systems fail, and they fall prey to secondary, seemingly “natural” bee infections, such as parasites, mites, viruses, fungi and bacteria.

The disappearance of bee colonies began accelerating in the United States shortly after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allowed these new insecticides on the market in the mid-2000s. Last month, beekeepers and environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the agency over its failure to protect bees from these toxic pesticides.

Meanwhile, France has banned Imidacloprid for use on corn and sunflowers after reporting large losses of bees after exposure to it. They also rejected Bayer´s application for Clothianidin, and other countries, such as Italy, have banned certain neonicotinoids as well.

The EPA3 acknowledges that “pesticide poisoning” may be one factor leading to colony collapse disorder, yet they have been slow to act to protect bees from this threat. The current lawsuit may help spur them toward more urgent action, which is desperately needed as the food supply hangs in the balance.

In March, according to Dan Rather’s report, the EPA sent Jim Jones, overseer of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, to talk to California almond growers and beekeepers. But although beekeepers said Jones got the message that bees are in serious trouble, they were dismayed by the fact that he seemed more interested in finding new places for bees to forage rather than addressing the issue of toxic pesticides…

As usual, at the core of the problem is big industry, which is blinded by greed and enabled by a corrupt governmental system that permits the profit-driven sacrifice of our environment. Unfortunately, this motivation reflects an extreme shortsightedness about the long-term survival of the human race, as well as of our planet. Clearly, if the goal of pesticides is to increase food yield to more easily feed 7 billion human beings, this goal falls flat on its face if it leads to the collapse of our food chain.

Do You Trust Monsanto to Solve the Bee Colony Collapse Problem?

Another forerunning theory of colony collapse disorder (CCD) is that it’s being caused by genetically engineered crops—either as a result of the crops themselves or the pesticides and herbicides applied on them, such as Roundup. In one German study,4 when bees were released in a genetically engineered rapeseed crop, then fed the pollen to younger bees, scientists discovered the bacteria in the guts of the young ones mirrored the same genetic traits as ones found in the GE crop, indicating that horizontal gene transfer had occurred.

Chemical companies like Monsanto are clearly seeking to take as much control of the food supply as possible by controlling virtually every aspect of crop production, so research implicating their business as the cause of bee die-offs would definitely cause harm to the company’s bottom line. Monsanto has received increasing amounts of bad publicity over their potential role in the devastating demise of bees around the globe.

To better field such lines of inquiry, the company appears to have taken measures to control the direction of the research into their products’ effect on bees by purchasing one of the leading bee research firms – one that, conveniently, lists its primary goal as studying colony collapse disorder. Monsanto bought the company, called Beeologics, in September 2011, just months before Poland announced it would ban growing of Monsanto’s genetically modified MON810 maize, noting, poignantly, that “pollen of this strain could have a harmful effect on bees.”5

Rodale Institute Tackles Bee Problem

I recently visited the Rodale Institute and got a tour of their brand new Honeybee Conservancy and research facility. As reported on their website:6

“The 2013 Conservancy has a new physical arrangement and a whole new set of beds that include nectar plants that bloom throughout the season and incorporate biodynamic principles… We’ll be looking at the impacts of compost, compost extracts and biodynamic preparations on the health and vitality of the plants.”

How You Can Help Protect the Bees

If you would like to learn more about the economic, political and ecological implications of the worldwide disappearance of the honeybee, check out the documentary film Vanishing of the Bees. If you’d like to get involved, here are four actions you can take to help preserve and protect our honeybees:
•Support organic farmers and shop at local farmer’s markets as often as possible. You can “vote with your fork” three times a day. (When you buy organic, you are making a statement by saying “no” to GMOs and toxic pesticides.)
•Cut the use of toxic chemicals in your house and on your lawn, and use only organic, all-natural forms of pest control.
•Better yet, get rid of your lawn altogether and plant a garden or other natural habitat. Lawns offer very little benefit for the environment. Both flower and vegetable gardens provide excellent natural honeybee habitats.
•Become an amateur beekeeper. Having a hive in your garden requires only about an hour of your time per week, benefits your local ecosystem, and you can enjoy your own honey! Worldofbeekeping.com,7 and beekeeping.org8 are but two websites that can help you get started.

If you are interested in more information about bee preservation, the following organizations are a good place to start.
•Pesticide Action Network Bee Campaign9
•The Foundation for the Preservation of Honey Bees10
•American Beekeeping Federation11
•Help the Honey Bees12

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

A couple months ago, I sent you a really tasty new healthy dessert/snack recipe that we called Danette’s healthy balls. You can see the original recipe on that page. Super simple and tasty.

Well, after experimenting with this recipe a few times, I’ve made a few modifications to it that lower the overall carbs while increasing the healthy fats and fiber in order to lower the glycemic response from this recipe.

The existing recipe with the oats is okay for highly active people that workout hard and can utilize the carbs from the oats well. And oats are one of the more “neutral” grains that have less antinutrient problems compared to wheat or corn.

But I still wanted to modify these healthy cookie dough balls for our own batches to be lower in carbs for a lower blood sugar response since I use these mostly in the evenings for dessert each night.

So what I did was replace the oats in the recipe with hazelnut flour, although any nut flour will work well too. Since the basis of the recipe is a jar of almond butter, I chose to use hazelnut flour instead of using almond flour and almond butter. That way, you diversify the fatty acid profile and the vitamin/mineral profile from 2 types of nuts instead of only one type. You can also add chopped pecans and walnuts for more variety.

If you choose to use peanut butter or cashew butter as the base of the recipe, you can use almond flour (which is easier to find than hazelnut flour), and that way, you still get a more diverse nutrient profile from the 2 types of nuts instead of just one.

I also added some other bells and whistles to this modified version to add more healthy fats and fiber. Notably, I added coconut milk instead of water, and also added a 1/3 cup of chia seed for extra fiber and vitamins/minerals.

I also used 1/4 cup real maple syrup instead of the 1/4 cup honey. This was mainly because raw honey is generally solid and doesn’t mix well, so real maple syrup worked better for me in order to mix everything together.

Oh, and I also added some cocoa powder, dark choc chips, and some pure cacao nibs for the extra taste and nutrition benefits of the various forms of cocoa.

Here’s the new version below which I just made 2 days ago and is the BEST batch I’ve made yet. These things are deeee-lish! My dad even made a batch of these recently and said he looks forward to having a few of these little gems with a cup of tea every single day as a mid day snack or dessert.

The ratio of sugar in these is very low since the majority of the recipe consists of healthy fats, protein, and fiber. The only real carb source is the maple syrup and it’s only 1/4 cup in the whole recipe, but the amount of balls this makes will last you at least a week.

The New Modified Healthy Balls Dessert Recipe:

* 1 full jar (12 oz) of almond butter, cashew butter, or peanut butter
* 1/4 cup real maple syrup (grade B has more nutrients than grade A)
* 2 cups hazelnut flour or almond flour
* 1/2 cup organic canned coconut milk (canned is creamier than the watered down cartons)
* 1/3 cup chia seed
* 1 teaspoon vanilla
* 2-3 scoops vanilla or chocolate whey protein (Chocolate Biotrust protein tastes the best in this mixture!)
* 2 Tbsp of organic cocoa powder
* 1/3 cup of cacao nibs
* 1/3 cup of dark choc chips (70% cacao or higher)
* 1 Tbsp of cinnamon
* pinch of salt

Mix all ingredients together in a large bowl and continue to mash together with a large spoon for a few minutes until everything seems well mixed together. Roll into 1 inch balls and lay out on plates or waxed paper to put in the freezer (they need to be separate so they don’t freeze together). Once frozen, you can transfer all the balls to a tupperware container to keep in the freezer until any time you want a healthy sweet treat!

Try these and you’ll be BLOWN AWAY at how good these are!

Remember to make sure that you grab our new healthy anti-aging recipe manual that Catherine Ebeling and I have co-authored below:

82 amazingly delicious fat-burning anti-aging recipes (metabolism-boosting breakfasts, lunch, dinner, snacks, desserts, and more! All designed to help counteract the aging process for a leaner younger looking body)

This manual will give you endless ideas so you NEVER get bored with eating healthy!

PS — if you liked today’s recipe, please fwd this email on to any of your friends, family, or co-workers that would enjoy it.

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.

South Korea joins Japanese ban on U.S. wheat imports after shocking GMO contamination announcement by USDA

News about the GMO contamination of U.S. wheat crops seems to be spreading faster than the GMOs themselves. On Friday, South Korea joined Japan in announcing a halt on imports of U.S. wheat due to the USDA’s recent announcement that commercial wheat grown in the USA is contaminated with Monsanto’s genetically engineered wheat.

Some Americans may still not realize this, but GMOs are outlawed or shunned nearly everywhere around the world. Only in the USA have GMOs managed to avoid being labeled or outlawed — and that’s primarily due to Monsanto’s financial influence over lawmakers.

Monsanto shares plummeted 4 percent on Friday following the announcement by South Korea. This is completely in line with predictions made here at Natural News, where I said earlier in the week, before Japan and South Korea announced their wheat boycotts:

All wheat produced in the United States will now be heavily scrutinized — and possibly even rejected — by other nations that traditionally import U.S. wheat. This obviously has enormous economic implications for U.S. farmers and agriculture.

How much of the U.S. wheat supply is now contaminated with GMOs?
“…the mysterious appearance of the Monsanto wheat has raised questions about how the strain traveled there and whether it is lurking in the commercial wheat crop,” reports the Washington Post.

WashPo goes on to report that Monsanto, “is still testing strains of gene-altered wheat in Hawaii and North Dakota.”

In truth, nobody knows how much of the wheat is contaminated. Every more shockingly, food companies don’t bother testing wheat for GMOs, either!

Until now, that is. All of a sudden, food importers all around the world are wondering whether they are inadvertently buying U.S. wheat that’s contaminated with GMOs. Consumers, too, are asking the question, “Have I been eating GMO wheat without even knowing it?” These Monsanto wheat experiments, after all, have been taking place since 1998.

Is Monsanto lurking in your Wheaties?

U.S. farmers suddenly seeing the economic damage that Monsanto can do
The real issue in all this, however, is an economic issue. Suddenly U.S. farmers are seeing the kind of economic destruction that can be caused by Monsanto’s genetic engineering experiments.

Thanks to Monsanto and the USDA — which approved the open-field experiments — every U.S. farmer who grows wheat is now at high risk of losing enormous sums of money on a food crop that’s increasingly being rejected around the world. This means Monsanto is pushing U.S. farmers toward bankruptcy while harming America’s exports and GDP. Monsanto has become a force of economic destruction in America.

Will Monsanto reimburse all these farmers who suffer an economic loss? Not without being sued, of course. Perhaps it’s time for a nationwide class-action lawsuit against Monsanto, supported by all commercial farmers who hope to be able to protect their crops from market-crushing GMO contamination.

Nobody wants GMOs except Monsanto!
Consumers don’t want GMOs, farmers don’t want GMOs, foreign nations don’t want GMOs and food companies don’t want to deal with the hassle of GMOs either. The only entity that still wants GMO in America is the very company making money off GMO: Monsanto.

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

You may not realize this, but a lot of foods that are BANNED in many countries may be ending up in your grocery cart… foods that contain hidden toxic chemicals that increase your risks of cancer, various diseases, and storing belly fat.

Read the article below for the controversial story about what’s in your foods…

The top 5 BANNED foods still in your kitchen?

By Nick Pineault
Author and food investigator: The Truth About Fat Burning Foods

Every day, Americans eat tons of dangerous banned ingredients, and chances are you’re one of them.

I don’t mean to scare you, but to simply tell you the truth.

I’ve spent the last 7+ years researching how our food is made, and discovered dark secrets I have to tell the world – even if it makes me the most HATED author by the big food companies.

Here are 5 banned ingredients that might be ending up on your plate:

1) Ractopamine (in pork)

It’s banned in the European Union, China, and Taiwan – but Consumer Reports found this dangerous drug in 20% of all pork products.

Oh, and as a side note – recent studies also found that 81% of all supermarket meats in the US are contaminated with antibiotics which damage your gut flora and slow down your weight loss. That’s one reason to choose pasture-raised organic meats if you can find them.

2) rBGH (in milk)

While Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel and all European Union countries banned the use of rBGH, this hormone used to increase cows’ milk production is still used in all 50 states.

The use of rBGH increases the levels of IGF-1 hormone in the milk by at least 6 fold, increasing risks of various cancers.

3) GMOs (in most processed foods)

Over 50 countries require labeling of GMO foods, and many of them banned GMOs altogether.

In the US, GMO foods are NOT labeled – even though 91% of the population feels they should be. And because 85-90% of all soy, corn, canola and sugar (sugar beet) in the US is now GMO, Americans eat their weight in GMO foods each year.

The first-ever lifetime feeding study on the potential health risks of GMOs was published in September 2012. The results of feeding rats GMO corn for two years were very scary:

· Some rats developed massive tumors that represent 25% of their body weight

· Liver damage was up to 5 times higher in the GMO group than in the non-GMO group

· Female rats that ate GMOs had a 3X higher risk of premature death

4) Potassium Bromate (in bread)

Called a cancer threat by the CSPI since 1999, banned from dozens of countries, this ingredient is still used in bread these days. If you’ve been following Mike Geary’s recommendations to reduce or eliminate bread and other grains in your diet, you’re safe from this one.

5) Chloramphenicol (in honey)

This antibiotic used on honey bees has been banned in the US for years, but can still be found in cheap supermarket honey (along with heavy metals) that comes from China.

The concerning thing is that a recent study found that 75% or more of all the honey in the U.S. may be Chinese honey sold as American honey. In addition, some reports have shown that honey from China could be mixed with cheaper sweeteners such as corn syrup.

Choose local honey or raw honey if you can find it to avoid these issues.

These 5 banned foods are just the tip of the iceberg in what food companies are HIDING from you…

Let’s continue the rest of the article on the next page below:

=> 5 LIES about food that’s making you fatter and causing disease

PS — if you liked today’s article, please fwd this email on to any of your friends, family, or co-workers that would enjoy it.

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.

The cause of the debilitating, and fatal, brain disease Alzheimer’s is conventionally said to be a mystery.

While we know that certain diseases, like type 2 diabetes, are definitively connected to the foods you eat, Alzheimer’s is generally thought to strike without warning or reason.

That is, until recently.

Now, a growing body of research suggests there may be a powerful connection between the foods you eat and your risk of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, via similar pathways that cause type 2 diabetes.

Some have even re-named Alzheimer’s as “type 3 diabetes.”

Can You Eat Your Way to Alzheimer’s?

In a recent animal study, researchers from Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island were able to induce many of the characteristic brain changes seen with Alzheimer’s disease (disorientation, confusion, inability to learn and remember) by interfering with insulin signaling in their brains.1

Faulty insulin (and leptin, another hormone) signaling is an underlying cause of insulin resistance, which, of course, typically leads to type 2 diabetes. However, while insulin is usually associated with its role in keeping your blood sugar levels in a healthy range, it also plays a role in brain signaling. When researchers disrupted the proper signaling of insulin in the brain, it resulted in dementia.

What does this have to do with your diet?

Everything, as over-consumption of sugars and grains is what ultimately causes your body to be incapable of “hearing” the proper signals from insulin and leptin, leaving you insulin resistant in both body and brain.

Alzheimer’s disease was tentatively dubbed “type 3 diabetes” in early 2005 when researchers learned that the pancreas is not the only organ that produces insulin. Your brain also produces insulin, and this brain insulin is necessary for the survival of your brain cells.

If You Have Diabetes, Your Risk of Alzheimer’s Increases Dramatically

Diabetes is linked to a 65 percent increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s,2 which may be due, in part, because insulin resistance and/or diabetes appear to accelerate the development of plaque in your brain, which is a hallmark of Alzheimer’s.3 Separate research has found that impaired insulin response was associated with a 30 percent higher risk of Alzheimer’s disease,4 and overall dementia and cognitive risks were associated with high fasting serum insulin, insulin resistance, impaired insulin secretion and glucose intolerance.

A drop in insulin production in your brain may contribute to the degeneration of your brain cells, mainly by depriving them of glucose, and studies have found that people with lower levels of insulin and insulin receptors in their brain often have Alzheimer’s disease (people with type 2 diabetes often wind up with low levels of insulin in their brains as well). As explained in New Scientist, which highlighted this latest research:5

“This new focus [on the Alzheimer’s/diabetes/insulin connection] follows a growing recognition of insulin’s role in the brain. Until recently, the hormone was typecast as a regulator of blood sugar, giving the cue for muscles, liver and fat cells to extract sugar from the blood and either use it for energy or store it as fat. We now know that it is a master multitasker: it helps neurons, particularly in the hippocampus and frontal lobe, take up glucose for energy, and it also regulates neurotransmitters, like acetylcholine, which are crucial for memory and learning.

What’s more, it encourages plasticity – the process through which neurons change shape, make new connections and strengthen others. And it is important for the function and growth of blood vessels, which supply the brain with oxygen and glucose.

As a result, reducing the level of insulin in the brain can immediately impair cognition. Spatial memory, in particular, seems to suffer when you block insulin uptake in the hippocampus… Conversely, a boost of insulin seems to improve its functioning.

…this role in the brain ‘makes evolutionary sense,’ since it would help us to remember the location of a food source. As our ancestors gorged on berries in the savannah, for instance, the spike in glucose and the subsequent rush of insulin would signal ‘remember this, it’s important,’ causing the brain to crystallise the memory.

But as we know from type 2 diabetes, processes that evolved to help us meet the challenges of prehistory can easily backfire in the modern world.

When people frequently gorge on fatty, sugary food, their insulin spikes repeatedly until it sticks at a higher level. Muscle, liver and fat cells then stop responding to the hormone, meaning they don’t mop up glucose and fat in the blood. As a result, the pancreas desperately works overtime to make more insulin to control the glucose – and levels of the two molecules skyrocket.

…The pancreas can’t keep up with the demand indefinitely, however, and as time passes people with type 2 diabetes often end up with abnormally low levels of insulin.”

Alzheimer’s Might be “Brain Diabetes”

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the same pathological process that leads to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes may also hold true for your brain. As you over-indulge on sugar and grains, your brain becomes overwhelmed by the consistently high levels of insulin and eventually shuts down its insulin signaling, leading to impairments in your thinking and memory abilities, and eventually causing permanent brain damage.

You may already know I have become passionate about warning of the dangers of fructose. There is NO question in my mind that regularly consuming more than 25 grams of fructose per day will dramatically increase your risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Consuming too much fructose will inevitably wreak havoc on your body’s ability to regulate proper insulin levels.

Although fructose is relatively “low glycemic” on the front end, it reduces the affinity for insulin for its receptor leading to chronic insulin resistance and elevated blood sugar on the back end. So, while you may not notice a steep increase in blood sugar immediately following fructose consumption, it is likely changing your entire endocrine system’s ability to function properly behind the scenes.

Additionally, fructose has other modes of neurotoxicity, including causing damage to the circulatory system upon which the health of your nervous system depends, as well as profoundly changing your brain’s craving mechanism, often resulting in excessive hunger and subsequent consumption of additional empty carbohydrate-based calories.

In one study from UCLA, researchers found that rats fed a fructose-rich and omega-3 fat deficient diet (similar to what is consumed by many Americans) developed both insulin resistance and impaired brain function in just six weeks.6

Plus, when your liver is busy processing fructose (which your liver turns into fat), it severely hampers its ability to make cholesterol, an essential building block of your brain crucial to its health. This is yet another important facet that explains how and why excessive fructose consumption is so detrimental to your health.

Since the average American is exceeding this recommendation by 300% this is a pervasive and serious issue. I view significantly reducing fructose consumption as the MOST important step you can take to lower your risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

More Tips for Avoiding Alzheimer’s Disease

The beauty of following my newly revised Nutrition Plan is that it helps treat and prevent all chronic degenerative diseases, from the common ones like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity and Alzheimer’s to the ones you have never heard of or can’t even pronounce. So please read the Plan as soon as you can. It is divided into three helpful sections, Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced to help you start at the right level.

The plan is the first step in addressing Alzheimer’s disease, which is currently at epidemic proportions, with 5.4 million Americans – including one in eight people aged 65 and over – living with the disease.7 By 2050, this is expected to jump to 16 million, and in the next 20 years it is projected that Alzheimer’s will affect one in four Americans.

In spite of how common memory loss is among Westerners, it is NOT a “normal” part of aging. While even mild “senior moments” may be caused by the same brain lesions associated with Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia, these cognitive changes are by no means inevitable! People who experience very little decline in their cognitive function up until their deaths have been found (post-mortem) to be free of brain lesions, showing that it’s entirely possible to prevent the damage from occurring in the first place… and one of the best ways to do this is by leading a healthy lifestyle.
•Fructose. As mentioned, most everyone will benefit from keeping their total fructose consumed to below 25 grams per day.
•Improve Magnesium Levels. There is some exciting preliminary research strongly suggesting a decrease in Alzheimer symptoms with increased levels of magnesium in the brain. Unfortunately most magnesium supplements do not pass the blood brain levels, but a new one, magnesium threonate, appears to and holds some promise for the future for treating this condition.
•Optimize your vitamin D levels with safe sun exposure. Strong links between low levels of vitamin D in Alzheimer’s patients and poor outcomes on cognitive tests have been revealed.8 Researchers believe that optimal vitamin D levels may enhance the amount of important chemicals in your brain and protect brain cells by increasing the effectiveness of the glial cells in nursing damaged neurons back to health.

Vitamin D may also exert some of its beneficial effects on Alzheimer’s through its anti-inflammatory and immune-boosting properties. Sufficient vitamin D is imperative for proper functioning of your immune system to combat inflammation that is also associated with Alzheimer’s.
•Keep your fasting insulin levels below 3. This is indirectly related to fructose, as it will clearly lead to insulin resistance. However other sugars (sucrose is 50% fructose by weight), grains and lack of exercise are also important factors.
•Vitamin B12: According to a small Finnish study recently published in the journal Neurology,9 people who consume foods rich in B12 may reduce their risk of Alzheimer’s in their later years. For each unit increase in the marker of vitamin B12 (holotranscobalamin) the risk of developing Alzheimer’s was reduced by 2 percent. Very high doses of B vitamins have also been found to treat Alzheimer’s disease and reduce memory loss.
•Eat a nutritious diet, rich in folate, such as the one described in my nutrition plan. Vegetables, without question, are your best form of folate, and we should all eat plenty of fresh raw veggies every day.
•High-quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. (I recommend avoiding most fish because, although fish is naturally high in omega-3, most fish are now severely contaminated with mercury.) High intake of the omega-3 fats EPA and DHA help by preventing cell damage caused by Alzheimer’s disease, thereby slowing down its progression, and lowering your risk of developing the disorder.
•Avoid and remove mercury from your body. Dental amalgam fillings, which are 50% mercury by weight, are one of the major sources of heavy metal toxicity, however you should be healthy prior to having them removed. Once you have adjusted to following the diet described in my optimized nutrition plan, you can follow the mercury detox protocol and then find a biological dentist to have your amalgams removed.
•Avoid aluminum, such as antiperspirants, non-stick cookware, vaccine adjuvants, etc.
•Exercise regularly. It’s been suggested that exercise can trigger a change in the way the amyloid precursor protein is metabolized,10 thus, slowing down the onset and progression of Alzheimer’s. Exercise also increases levels of the protein PGC-1alpha. Research has also shown that people with Alzheimer’s have less PGC-1alpha in their brains11 and cells that contain more of the protein produce less of the toxic amyloid protein associated with Alzheimer’s. I would strongly recommend reviewing the Peak Fitness Technique for my specific recommendations.
•Avoid flu vaccinations as most contain both mercury and aluminum, well-known neurotoxic and immunotoxic agents.
•Eat plenty of blueberries. Wild blueberries, which have high anthocyanin and antioxidant content, are known to guard against Alzheimer’s and other neurological diseases.
•Challenge your mind daily. Mental stimulation, especially learning something new, such as learning to play an instrument or a new language, is associated with a decreased risk of Alzheimer’s. Researchers suspect that mental challenge helps to build up your brain, making it less susceptible to the lesions associated with Alzheimer’s disease.
•Avoid anticholinergic and statin drugs. Drugs that block acetylcholine, a nervous system neurotransmitter, have been shown to increase your risk of dementia. These drugs include certain nighttime pain relievers, antihistamines, sleep aids, certain antidepressants, medications to control incontinence, and certain narcotic pain relievers.

Statin drugs are particularly problematic because they suppress the synthesis of cholesterol, deplete your brain of coenzyme Q10 and neurotransmitter precursors, and prevent adequate delivery of essential fatty acids and fat-soluble antioxidants to your brain by inhibiting the production of the indispensable carrier biomolecule known as low-density lipoprotein.

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

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.