Rather Be Healthy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Keystone’ Species Missing in Action by the Millions

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

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

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

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

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

Wild Salmon Declines Traced Back to Salmon Farms

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lethal Salmon Virus Found in Every Region with Installed Salmon Farms

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

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

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

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

You May Be Buying Salmon Infected with Dangerous Fish Viruses

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

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

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

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

Farmed Fish Pose a Number of Health Hazards to Your Health

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

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

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

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

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

Download Interview Transcript

Buying Local Increases Food Safety and Food Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Ronnie Cummins

A growing number of organic consumers, natural health advocates and climate hawks are taking a more comprehensive look at the fundamental causes of global warming.

It has led them to this sobering conclusion: Our modern energy-, chemical- and GMO-intensive industrial food and farming systems are the major cause of man-made global warming.

How did they reach this conclusion? First, by taking a more inclusive look at the scientific data on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – not just carbon dioxide (CO2), but also methane and nitrous oxide.

Next, by doing a full accounting of the fossil fuel consumption and emissions of the entire industrial food and farming cycle, including inputs, equipment, production, processing, distribution, heating, cooling and waste. And finally, by factoring in the indirect impacts of contemporary agriculture, which include deforestation and wetlands destruction.

When you add it all up, the picture is clear: Contemporary agriculture is burning up our planet, and factory farms or, in industry lingo, Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), play a key role in this impending disaster.

The Global Impact of Factory Farming

The science behind global warming is complex. Without question, coal plants, tar sands and natural gas fracking have contributed heavily to greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution, the major cause of global warming. We must unite to shut down these industries.

Similarly, consumer overconsumption of fossil fuels represents another big piece of the climate-crisis equation. We absolutely must rethink, retrofit and/or redesign our gas-guzzling cars and our energy-inefficient buildings, if we want to reduce fossil fuel use by 90 percent over the next few decades.

But we also must address the environmental impact of factory farming.

Today, nearly 65 billion animals worldwide, including cows, chickens and pigs, are crammed into CAFOs. These animals are literally imprisoned and tortured in unhealthy, unsanitary and unconscionably cruel conditions.

Sickness is the norm for animals who are confined rather than pastured, and who eat genetically engineered (GE) corn and soybeans, rather than grass and forage as nature intended.

To prevent the inevitable spread of disease from stress, overcrowding and lack of vitamin D, animals are fed a steady diet of antibiotics. Those antibiotics pose a direct threat to the environment when they run off into our lakes, rivers, aquifers and drinking water.

How Factory Farms Affect Global Climate

CAFOs contribute directly to global warming by releasing vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere – more than the entire global transportation industry. The air at some factory farm test sites in the US is dirtier than in America’s most polluted cities.

According to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, including 37 percent of methane emissions and 65 percent of nitrous oxide emissions.

The methane releases from billions of imprisoned animals on factory farms are 70 times more damaging per ton to the earth’s atmosphere than CO2.

Indirectly, factory farms contribute to climate disruption by their impact on deforestation and draining of wetlands, and because of the nitrous oxide emissions from huge amounts of nitrate fertilizers used to grow the genetically engineered corn and soy fed to animals raised in CAFOs.

Nitrous oxide pollution is even worse than methane – 200 times more damaging per ton than CO2. And just as animal waste leaches antibiotics and hormones into ground and water, pesticides and fertilizers also eventually find their way into our waterways, further damaging the environment.

CAFOs — A Major Contributor to Poor Health

Factory farms aren’t just a disaster for the environment. They’re also ruining our health. A growing chorus of scientists and public health advocates warn that the intensive and reckless use of antibiotics and growth hormones leads to factory-farmed food1 that contains antibiotic-resistant pathogens, drug residues such as hormones and growth promoters, and “bad fats.”

Yet despite these health and environmental hazards, the vast majority of consumers don’t realize that nearly 95 percent of the meat, dairy and eggs sold in the U.S. come from CAFOs. Nor do most people realize that CAFOs represent a corporate-controlled system characterized by large-scale, centralized, low profit-margin production, processing and distribution systems.

There’s an alternative: A socially responsible, small-scale system created by independent producers and processors focused on local and regional markets. This alternative produces high-quality food, and supports farmers who produce healthy, meat, eggs and dairy products using humane methods. And it’s far easier on the environment.

Why We Need to Label Factory-Farmed Food

Consumers can boycott food products from factory farms and choose the more environmentally-friendly alternatives. But first, we have to regain the right to know what’s in our food. And that means mandatory labeling, not only of genetically engineered foods, but of the 95 percent of non-organic, non-grass-fed meat, dairy and eggs that are produced on the hellish factory farms that today dominate US food production.

In 2013, a new alliance of organic and natural health consumers, animal welfare advocates, anti-GMO and climate-change activists will tackle the next big food labeling battle: meat, eggs and dairy products from animals raised on factory farms, or CAFOs.

This campaign will start with a massive program to educate consumers about the negative impacts of factory farming on the environment, on human health and on animal welfare, and then move forward to organize and mobilize millions of consumers to demand labels on beef, pork, poultry and dairy products derived from these unhealthy and unsustainable so-called “farming” practices.

Opponents and skeptics will ask, “What about feeding the world?” Contrary to popular arguments, factory farming is not a cheap, efficient solution to world hunger. Feeding huge numbers of confined animals actually uses more food, in the form of grains that could feed humans, than it produces. For every 100 food calories of edible crops fed to livestock, we get back just 30 calories in the form of meat and dairy. That’s a 70-percent loss.

With the earth’s population predicted to reach nine billion by mid-century, the planet can no longer afford this reckless, unhealthy and environmentally disastrous farming system. We believe that once people know the whole truth about CAFOs they will want to make healthier, more sustainable food choices. And to do that, we’ll have to fight for the consumer’s right to know not only what is in our food, but where our food comes from.

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.

About the Author

Ronnie Cummins is the founder and Director of the Organic Consumers Association. He has been a writer and activist since the 1960s, with massive expertise in human rights, anti-war, anti-nuclear, consumer, labor, environmental, and sustainable agricultural areas. He is the author of several published articles, a children’s book series called Children of the World, and Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers.

About the Organic Consumers Association

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots 501(c)3 public interest organization promoting health, justice, and sustainability. It prides itself as the only organization in the United States focused on promoting the views and interests of the country’s estimated 76 million organic and socially responsible consumers.

The OCA participates in the important issues of food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children’s health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability, and other key topics. The Organic Consumers Fund, a 501(c)4, is the OCA’s grassroots action and lobbying arm.

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

The Truth About Saturated Fat

The first scientific indictment of saturated fat was made in 1953. Dr. Ancel Keys published an influential paper comparing fat intake and heart disease mortality in six countries: the United States, Canada, Australia, England, Italy, and Japan. The Americans ate the most fat and had the highest death rate from heart disease; the Japanese ate the least fat and had the fewest heart disease deaths.

But while data from those six countries seemed to support the diet-heart hypothesis, statistics were actually available for 22 countries. When all 22 were analyzed, the apparent link disappeared. The death rate from heart disease in Finland was 24 times that of Mexico, although fat-consumption rates in the two nations were almost the same.

This fascinating MSNBC article examines in depth why saturated fat has been unfairly demonized, and the truth about fats and heart health.

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

I don’t know if you fell for it, but I certainly did — the low fat myth. I bought it hook line and sinker in the 70s and early 80s, and it was all based on flawed science. Low fat is actually quite good for the 1/3 of people who are carb nutritional types. Unfortunately it wasn’t very good for me at all and caused some health challenges.

Fortunately though, I continued to study and learn and eventually realized that fat was not the evil it was being made out to be.

A subset of the low fat myth that persists to this day is the belief that saturated fat will increase your risk of heart attacks. In 2002 the “expert” Food & Nutrition Board gave the following misguided statement: “Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol have no known beneficial role in preventing chronic disease and are not required at any level in the diet.”

Folks, this is simply another myth that has been harming your health and your loved ones for the last 30 or 40 years, ever since Dr. Keys managed to convince the establishment that his unproven hypothesis was fact.

Confusing the Facts is Part of the Problem

Part of the scientific confusion relates to the fact that your body is capable of synthesizing saturated fats that it needs from carbohydrates, and these saturated fats are principally the same ones present in dietary fats of animal origin. However, and this is the key, not all saturated fatty acids are the same. There are subtle differences that have profound health implications, and if you avoid eating all saturated fats you will suffer serious health consequences.

There are in fact more than a dozen different types of saturated fat, but you predominantly consume only three: stearic acid, palmitic acid and lauric acid.

It’s already been well established that stearic acid (found in cocoa and animal fat) has zero effect on your cholesterol levels, and actually gets converted in your liver into the monounsaturated fat called oleic acid.

The other two, palmitic and lauric acid, do raise total cholesterol. However, since they raise “good” cholesterol as much or more than “bad” cholesterol, you’re still actually lowering your risk of heart disease.

Why do You Need Saturated Fat?

Foods containing saturated fats include:
•Meat
•Dairy products
•Some oils
•Tropical plants such as coconut and palm trees

These (saturated) fats from animal and vegetable sources provide a concentrated source of energy in your diet, and they provide the building blocks for cell membranes and a variety of hormones and hormone like substances.

When you eat fats as part of your meal, they slow down absorption so that you can go longer without feeling hungry. In addition, they act as carriers for important fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. Dietary fats are also needed for the conversion of carotene to vitamin A, for mineral absorption, and for a host of other biological processes.

Humans have eaten animal products for most of their existence on earth and therefore, they have consumed saturated fats for most of that time. If saturated fats were of no value or were harmful to you, why would breast milk produce saturated fats like butyric, caproic, caprylic, capric, lauric, myristic, palmitic and stearic acids, which provide a naturally perfected source of nourishment to ensure the growth, development and survival of your infants?

Saturated fats are also:
•The preferred fuel for your heart, and also used as a source of fuel during energy expenditure
•Useful antiviral agents (caprylic acid)
•Effective as an anticaries, antiplaque and anti fungal agents (lauric acid)
•Useful to actually lower cholesterol levels (palmitic and stearic acids)
•Modulators of genetic regulation and prevent cancer (butyric acid)

However, There IS Still a Link Between Fat and Heart Disease!

Now, it is clear that there is some association between fat and heart disease. The problem lies in the fact that most studies make no effort to differentiate between saturated fat and trans fat. I believe this is the missing link.

If researchers were to more carefully evaluate the risks of heart disease by measuring the levels of trans and saturated fat, I believe they would find a completely different story.

Trans fat is known to increase your LDL levels, or “bad” cholesterol, while lowering your levels of HDL, known as “good” cholesterol, which, of course is the complete opposite of what you need in order to maintain good heart health. It can also cause major clogging of arteries, type 2 diabetes and other serious health problems.

Unfortunately, many food companies use trans fat instead of oil because it reduces cost, extends storage life of products and can improve flavor and texture.

Your body needs some amount of saturated fat to stay healthy. It is virtually impossible to achieve a nutritionally adequate diet that has no saturated fat. What you don’t need, however, are trans fats.

One point you should be aware of is the loophole used by many food companies to get around the labeling requirements for trans fats. See, they can still claim their product is trans fat-free if it has less than 500 mg trans fat per serving. So many have decreased their serving size to the point that the ratio of trans fat falls below 500 mg.

Therefore, if a serving size seems ridiculously low, it’s probably hiding trans fat content.

Contradictory Results SUPPORT Nutritional Typing

Studies also clearly show that despite great compliance to low saturated fat diets, there is a wide difference in biological responses. What could this mean? Is it just poor science or flawed studies?

Not necessarily, because for one, it absolutely supports nutritional typing, which predicts that one-third of people will do very well on low saturated fat diets (which supports the studies showing that they work), but another one-third of people need high saturated fat diets to stay healthy. I happen to be one of those who need a high saturated fat diet to stay healthy and warm.

I would agree with the final conclusion of this MSNBC article, that bad habits, such as lack of exercise and not eating the right foods for your biochemical needs cause more heart disease than any specific “bad food.” As Dr. Volek stated, “If you consistently consume more calories than you burn and you gain weight, your risk of heart disease will increase – whether you favor eating saturated fats, carbs, or both.”

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

How to Get Off Your Fat and Get the Fat Off!,

By Paul Chek, HHP, NMT
Founder, C.H.E.K Institute

Looking and feeling the way you”ve always wanted to is not nearly as tough as you may think it is. I regularly remind my patients and students that it doesn”t take any more effort to live a life of health and vitality, than it does to earn a life of disease, dysfunction, depression and fatigue. In this three-part series, I will tackle conventional wisdom with regard to how best to lose fat.

So that you can anticipate the following two parts of the article and schedule the necessary time to invest in this important education, I have provided an outline of the learning objectives that will be discussed in the series:

Part 1:
• Review the two common hurdles that must be jumped to get fat off for the long run.
• Critically review the misleading concept of counting calories. As Einstein once stated, “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”
• To realize that many of you are actually dieting, without even realizing it and that instead of asking your doctor, what you should take, you should be asking, what should you take away?

Part 2:
• Understand how exercise, even in regular high doses, can make you fat.
• Recognize what displacement foods are and how they can antagonize the effects of an otherwise good exercise program.

Part 3:
• Recognize the limitations of aerobic exercise for reducing body fat and elevating metabolism.
• Appreciate the metabolic benefits of functional free weight training.
• Learn how to develop a fat burner resistance training circuit.

Part One

The Art of Balancing Calorie Consumption and Calorie Expenditure

There are many fads and fallacies regarding fat loss. The bottom line is this: You will not lose fat if you dramatically cut calories. The only way you will lose body fat (and keep it off) is by burning calories through a combination of these two actions:
1.Eating high-quality, whole foods in the correct proportions to your nutritional type
2.Regular exercise

With the exception of those on serotonin reuptake inhibitor drugs (most antidepressants) and others that disrupt metabolism, it really is that simple.

Figure 1

Figure 2

The part that everyone finds so challenging (including the experts) is determining the balance of calorie consumption and calorie expenditure. For example, people don”t know how many calories they should eat after a 2 -mile walk, after rowing for 20 minutes, or after using a step machine for 30 minutes. To do this, you will have two hurdles to jump:
1. Deprogram your mind of all the garbage information and hype from the media. This means being much more selective about believing what you hear from so-called health and nutrition experts on TV commercials, radio, magazine ads, books and even peer review journal articles.
Most of what you are being told by common media streams, industry scientists and many university professors consists of twisted or partial truths presented as scientific research, which is funded by food manufacturers, drug companies, product manufacturers and other big industry interests. If you take a closer look, you”ll notice most of the “experts” are overweight, obese, out of shape, pre-diabetic or diabetic and rarely ever practice what they preach.

2. Doing the work: Yes, you will have to look in the mirror and make a commitment to change. That may entail either doing more exercise than you”ve been doing, performing different exercises than you”ve been doing, or possibly even doing less if you”ve been over-doing it.
The bottom line is that I”ll coach you as to how to get the fat off. And no, this coach isn”t overweight. He has 8 percent body fat and is fit. (See Figure 1)

Counting Calories is a Dangerous Game

Today, you can see people running the streets, pounding away at their stepper or rowing away with little calorie-counting devices stuck to their arms and ankles, or nicely tucked away inside their exercise machines. Some make progress and then plateau, while others don”t make any progress at all and stay frustratingly fat, in spite of displaying the discipline of a Marine core drill instructor.

Sadly, most people don”t realize that eating an apple and two boiled eggs for breakfast (because their little gadget says they deserve 250 calories for the workout they just completed) is a sure-fire way to keep the diet industry booming. Refer to Figure 2, as we shed some much-needed light on this issue of counting calories.

Resting Metabolic Rate

First of all, what is generally overlooked by most people, yet highly important if you really want to change your body shape and be healthy in the process, is that just being alive costs you as much as 70 percent of your daily caloric expenditure. That”s right, just living accounts for as much as 70 percent of the calories you burn every day.

The Cost of Digestion and Elimination

The next commonly overlooked caloric reality is that it costs between 5-15 percent of your daily caloric expenditure to simply digest and eliminate what you eat. Many people naively assume that as soon as they eat or drink something, it just jumps inside their cells and starts cleaning, organizing, energizing and eliminating similar to a well-trained handyman. This is simply not the case, as the process of digestion can use as many as 15 percent of your daily caloric expenditure.

Daily Activities

Up to this point, we”ve already accounted for 55-85 percent of our daily caloric expenditure (resting metabolic rate + cost of digestion and elimination), and we haven”t even considered our caloric cost of our daily activities.

How then, can we expect those handy little calorie-counting gadgets to be even remotely accurate?

On the whole, the calories used from daily activities are not likely to be even close to the largest caloric expenditure of the day for most people. As you can see from the third tier down in (Figure 2), the range is from 100 calories used to perform what we would call activities of daily living (ADL), to the 1,000 calories a high-level athlete would expend by adding a hard day”s training to the typical ADL.

The “X” Factor

At the very top, we have what performance nutrition expert John Berrardi calls the “X Factor”(1). As you can see in Figure 2 , the X factor of calculating daily caloric expenditure is produced by your individual metabolic efficiency, stress environment and your unique spontaneous activity. For example, someone who has a jumpy leg while they eat is expending X factor calories.

Many people are actually counting the calories they expend, and then develop their meal plan to contain slightly less calories in hopes of slimming down. Other people are being pushed into calorie reduction by their medical doctors. I have had patients with back pain referred to me by doctors after having put the patient on a medically supervised diet.

These medically supervised diets are often mostly liquid and I”ve never seen one over 1,000 calories a day. I can say with confidence after years of clinical experience of treating back pain patients, who had become overweight from inactivity secondary to pain, that diets don”t work. All of the patients or athletes I”ve worked with in my career who have put themselves on diets or have been put on them by military nutritionists or medical doctors, gained back all the weight they lost and more within about three months following termination of the diet.

Put all of this together, with the realization that the United States Department of Agriculture standards, and you will find that 2,500 calories is the minimum amount of calories an adolescent or adult woman needs to get the minimum amounts of life-sustaining nutrients. (vitamins, enzymes, minerals and trace minerals, secondary factors, etc.)

Men need at least 2,800 calories a day due to their higher testosterone levels, higher metabolism and greater muscle mass (2). If you are sitting there saying, “Oh my God, if I ate all those calories I”d be fat for sure,” you may be interested to know that the World Health Organization (WHO) has established that starvation begins under 2,100 calories per day (2) — a figure determined from experience dealing with worldwide starvation.

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

Only about one-quarter of American adults eat three or more servings of vegetables a day. If you are in the majority who does not, you are missing out on major benefits, as consuming fresh vegetables is one of the key cornerstones to optimal health.

Although I am convinced virtually everyone would benefit from some animal protein in their diet, I firmly believe we all need to eat large amounts of fresh, high-quality vegetables every day to achieve high-level health. Some of us need far more than others.

Most vegetables are not very calorie dense and as a result they probably should constitute the bulk of your diet by volume. Even though my diet is 70 percent fat by calories, if you were to spread out all the food I eat in a day, the largest volume of food would be vegetables.

There is little that compares to the nutritional value of organic, raw vegetables, and according to new research, eating your greens may be even more important than previously imagined.

The Importance of Eating Your Greens

Researchers at Walter and Eliza Hall Institute’s Molecular Immunology division have discovered1 that a gene, called T-bet, which is essential for producing critical immune cells in your gut, responds to the food you eat—specifically leafy green vegetables. According to the press release:2

“The immune cells, named innate lymphoid cells (ILCs), are found in the lining of the digestive system and protect the body from ‘bad’ bacteria in the intestine.

They are also believed to play an important role in controlling food allergies, inflammatory diseases and obesity, and may even prevent the development of bowel cancers.

… [T]he research team revealed T-bet was essential for generating a subset of ILCs which is a newly discovered cell type that protects the body against infections entering through the digestive system.

‘In this study, we discovered that T-bet is the key gene that instructs precursor cells to develop into ILCs, which it does in response to signals in the food we eat and to bacteria in the gut,’ Dr Belz said. ‘ILCs are essential for immune surveillance of the digestive system and this is the first time that we have identified a gene responsible for the production of ILCs.’”

ILCs are thought to be essential for:
•Maintaining balance between tolerance, immunity and inflammation in your body
•Producing interleukin-22 (IL-22), a hormone that can protect your body from pathogenic bacteria
•Maintaining healthy intestinal balance by promoting growth of beneficial bacteria and healing small wounds and abrasions in the gut
•Helping resolve cancerous lesions

More Reasons to Eat Your Veggies

Vegetables contain an array of antioxidants and other disease-fighting compounds that are very difficult to get anywhere else. Plant chemicals called phytochemicals can reduce inflammation and eliminate carcinogens, while others regulate the rate at which your cells reproduce, get rid of old cells and maintain DNA. Studies have repeatedly shown that people with higher vegetable intake have:

Lower risks of stroke, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease

Lower risks of certain types of cancer, eye diseases and digestive problems

Reduced risk of kidney stones and bone loss

Higher scores on cognitive tests

Higher antioxidant levels

Lower biomarkers for oxidative stress

Further, if you eat your veggies raw, you’ll also be receiving biophotons, the smallest physical units of light, which are stored in, and used by all biological organisms — including your body. Vital sun energy finds its way into your cells via the food you eat, in the form of these biophotons. They contain important bio-information, which controls complex vital processes in your body. The biophotons have the power to order and regulate, and, in doing so, to elevate the organism — in this case, your physical body — to a higher oscillation or order. Generally, the more sunlight a food is able to store, the more nutritious it is.

Naturally-grown fresh vegetables, raw sprouts, and sun-ripened fruits are rich in light energy. Ideally, look for fresh, non-GMO produce that is organically grown on a local farm in your area. Choose the vegetables that appear freshest first, and consume them raw shortly after purchase for optimal benefits.

If you can’t obtain organic, conventionally-grown vegetables are better than none! Just take extra care with non-organic vegetables by washing them thoroughly and removing peels and cores when possible to minimize your exposure to pesticides. Certain fruits and vegetables also tend to be far more contaminated than others simply because they’re more susceptible to various infestations and therefore sprayed more heavily. Some foods are also more “absorbent,” with thin, tender skins. Such foods would be high on your list for buying organic.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) produces an annual shopper’s guide to pesticides in produce3 that you can download. It lists the produce with the highest and lowest levels of pesticide residue, which can help save you money if you can’t afford to buy everything organic.

Reasons to Eat Sprouts, a Living Food with Amazing Health Benefits

Sprouts are a “super” food that many overlook. In addition to their nutritional profile, sprouts are also easy to grow on your own. I started sprouting seeds in ball jars 10 to 15 years ago. A Care2 article published last year4 listed 10 reasons for eating sprouts, including the following. For the rest, please see the original article:
•Sprouts can contain up to 100 times more enzymes than raw fruits and vegetables, allowing your body to extract more vitamins, minerals, amino acids and essential fats from the foods you eat
•Both the quality of the protein and the fiber content of beans, nuts, seeds and grains improves when sprouted
•The content of vitamins and essential fatty acids also increase dramatically during the sprouting process. For example, depending on the sprout, the nutrient content can increase as much as 30 times the original value within just a few days of sprouting. Sunflower seed and pea sprouts tend to top the list of all the seeds that you can sprout and are typically each about 30 times more nutritious than organic vegetables you can even harvest in your backyard garden
•During sprouting, minerals, such as calcium and magnesium, bind to protein, making them more bioavailable
•Sprouts are the ultimate locally-grown food, and can easily be grown in your own kitchen, so you know exactly what you’re eating. And since they’re very inexpensive, cost is no excuse for avoiding them

Planting and Harvesting Sprouts at Home

I used to grow sprouts in Ball jars over ten years ago but stopped doing that. I am strongly convinced that actually growing them in soil is far easier and produces far more nutritious and abundant food. It is also less time consuming. With Ball jars you need to rinse them several times a day to prevent mold growth. Also takes up less space. I am now consuming one whole tray you see below every 2-3 days and to produce that much food with Ball jars I would need dozens of jars. I simply don’t have the time or patience for that. I am in the process of compiling more specific detailed videos for future articles but I thought I would whet your appetite and give you a preview with the photos below.

About to plant Wheat grass and Sunflower seeds – 2 days after soaking

Wheat grass and Sunflower seeds – 3 ½ days post germination.

Sunflower seeds and Pea sprouts – 3 days until ready for harvest.

Sunflower seed sprouts and Wheat Grass – ready to harvest.

Sprouts as Medicine

Sprouts-as-medicine.com5 is a good source for things relating to sprouts: their health benefits, recipes, and how to grow your own. The British verticalveg.org6 is another. The latter gives helpful growing tips for each month of the year. One of the benefits of sprouts is that you can grow them year-round, even when it’s cold and dark. The article 6 Easy Steps to Sprout Heaven7 teaches you how to grow your own sprouts, from start to finish. While you can sprout a variety of different beans, nuts, seeds and grains, sprouts in general have the following beneficial attributes:
•Support for cell regeneration
•Powerful sources of antioxidants, minerals, vitamins and enzymes that protect against free radical damage
•Alkalinizing effect on your body, which is thought to protect against disease, including cancer (as many tumors are acidic)
•Abundantly rich in oxygen, which can also help protect against abnormal cell growth, viruses and bacteria that cannot survive in an oxygen-rich environment

Common Sprouts and Their Superior Nutritional Profiles

Some of the most commonly sprouted beans, nuts, seeds and grains include:

Broccoli: known to have anti-cancer properties, courtesy of the enzyme “sulforaphane”

Alfalfa: a significant dietary source of phytoestrogens. Also a good source of vitamins A, B, C, D, E, F, and K

Wheat grass: high in vitamins B, C, E and many minerals

Mung bean: good source of protein, fiber, vitamin C and A

Clover : significant source of isoflavones

Lentil sprouts: contain 26 percent protein, and can be eaten without cooking

Sunflower: contains, minerals, healthy fats, essential fatty acids, fiber, and phytosterols. It’s also one of the highest in protein

Pea shoots: good source of vitamins A, C and folic acid and one of the highest in protein

My two favorites are pea and sunflower sprouts. They provide some of the highest quality protein you can eat. They have radically improved the nutrition of my primary meal, which is a salad at lunch. They are a perfect complement to fermented vegetables. It is hard to imagine a healthier combination that provides the essentials of nutrition very inexpensively.

I plan on producing some videos on how to grow them later this year but for now you can get instructions on how to grow them by viewing a step-by-step guide at rawfoods-livingfoods.com.8

Vegetarians in Paradise9 offers an in-depth write-up on the history and health benefits associated with sunflower seeds. Of the seeds, sunflower seeds are among the best in terms of nutritional value, and sprouting them will augment their nutrient content by as much as 300 to 1,200 percent! Similarly, sprouting peas will improve the bioavailability of zinc and magnesium. Sprouted sunflower seeds also contain plenty of iron and chlorophyll, the latter of which will help detoxify your blood and liver. The phytosterols in sprouted sunflower seeds can help enhance your immune system. According to Vegetarians in Paradise:

“One of the richest sources of protein, 3 1/2 ounces (100 grams) of sprouted sunflower seeds contains 22.78 grams. The mineral content soars in the sprouted state. That 3 1/2 ounces (100 grams) offers a notable 116 mg of calcium, 5.06 mg of zinc, 689 mg of potassium, 1.75 mg copper, and 354 mg of magnesium.

Vitamins increase during sprouting when the seeds are producing a new life. Vitamin A increases to 50,000 IU, and Vitamin E offers 52.18 mg, while vitamin D provides 92.0 IU for 3 1/2 ounces (100 grams). The vitamin B family offers niacin at 4.50 mg, riboflavin at 0.25 mg, and thiamin at 2.29 mg. Sprouted sunflower seeds are also a rich source of iron, providing 6.77 mg for 31/2 ounces (100 grams) that can be a benefit to people with anemia.”

Simple Ways to Increase Your Veggies

Two of the easiest and most efficient ways to optimize your vegetable intake is to juice your vegetables and add sprouted seeds. Not only will juicing help your body absorb all the nutrients from the vegetables by making them easily digestible, but you’re also avoiding the risk of damaging any of their sensitive micronutrients through cooking. Cooking and processing food destroys many micronutrients by altering their shape and chemical composition. And the sprouting process tends to increase nutrient content and bioavailability of nutrients. Sprouts also contain valuable enzymes that allow your body to absorb and use the nutrients of all other foods you eat.

Another benefit of juicing is that it allows you to add a wider variety of vegetables to your diet that you might not normally enjoy eating whole. This way, you’re working with the principle of regular food rotation, which will lessen your chances of developing food allergies. For more in-depth guidelines and information about juicing, I recommend you review the juicing section of my nutrition plan.

But whatever method you choose, juiced, whole, sprouted or cooked, please make it a point to eat your veggies. This is one food group that is incredibly diverse, so there’s a wide variety to choose from and plenty to suit virtually everyone’s tastes. And mounting evidence shows that eating vegetables every day is a cornerstone of good health, and a habit that can go a very long way toward preventing disease of all kinds, including cancer.

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

Written by Zoë on February 28, 2013 – 4 Comments
Categories: Conflict, Ingredients, Media comments, Obesity, Other Diets

The last week in February (2013) saw headlines all over the world: “Mediterranean diet shown to ward off heart attack and stroke.” The Guardian ran with “Mediterranean diet ‘cuts strokes and heart attacks in at-risk groups‘.” The Sydney Morning Herald announced “Mediterranean diet cuts risk of first heart attack by 30%”.

The world headlines were all based on this article in the highly respected New England Medical Journal. The researchers’ own headline was “Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet”.

Someone I follow on twitter – Rob Lyons (@robspiked) captured it beautifully when I was having my usual rant about people not knowing what the real Mediterranean diet is. Rob replied: “@zoeharcombe no, that’s the diet Mediterraneans eat. This is the ‘Mediterranean Diet’, a mythological diet invented by US researchers.” How true!

The study

Let’s get the facts on the table first. The study involved 7,447 people. 57% were women. The women were aged 60 to 80 and the men were aged 55 to 80. The Guardian was right that they were at-risk groups, as only people with type 2 diabetes or at least three other “major risk factors” (smoking, obesity, family history of heart disease etc) were included in the study. The Sydney Morning Herald was also right about the first heart attack, as only people with no cardiovascular disease at enrollment were admitted to the study.

The diet

This is where we need Rob in our minds. The real Mediterranean diet is high in meat (if it moves, it is eaten – rabbit, pork, beef, chicken, turkey, game, snails etc); fish; cheese; eggs; cream; vegetables & salads; fruits in season and white grains (white bread, white rice, white pasta). Those who eat more of the real food are slim. Those who eat more of the pasta become “Italian mammas”.

The first reference in the study is thus wrong. It claims “The traditional Mediterranean diet is characterized by a high intake of olive oil, fruit, nuts, vegetables, and cereals; a moderate intake of fish and poultry; a low intake of dairy products, red meat, processed meats, and sweets; and wine in moderation, consumed with meals.”

This is what Americans, who have never been to the Med, fantasise that the Mediterranean diet is. However, the truth is that the French/Italians/Greek etc are eating their body weight in red meat and cheese and “wine in moderation” would have an Italian rolling in the aisles. Here are the top wine drinking countries in the world. The prime Mediterranean countries, France and Italy, are in the top five. But for the staggering consumption of the Vatican City, they would be higher! 😉

Anyway – allowing for the fact that American researchers don’t know what the real Mediterranean diet is, let’s see what the study diet actually was. The 7,447 people were divided into three groups. The study says that they were randomly assigned so, by luck, they appear to have been fairly equally distributed between groups so that there are no obvious confounding differences where, for example, one group has ended up with more than its share of smokers, older people, obese people etc. For once, we can look at the diet as the primary difference to observe.

Two groups were put on this Fictitious Mediterranean Diet (FMD from now on) and the control group were put on a low-fat diet. The two groups on the FMD were also told to avoid soda drinks, bakery goods, spreads, red and processed meat (apart from the red meat, this is excellent advice). The low-fat diet group was told to have at least three servings a day of bread, pasta, potatoes, rice etc – those nicely fattening products that raise triglyceride levels and damage arteries. The FMD group were told to have oily fish. The low-fat group were told to avoid it.

Group 1 doing the FMD was given additional olive oil and group 2 was given 30g of mixed nuts per person per day. The article details that one litre of extra-virgin olive oil was given to group 1 each week and that they were encouraged to consume 50g or more per day. The nut group were given 15g walnuts, 7.5g hazelnuts and 7.5g almonds daily. That’s at least 440 extra calories with virtually no nutrients for the olive oil group (some vitamin E and K but nothing else). The nut group would get approximately 200 extra calories with far more nutrients. Nuts have virtually every vitamin and mineral – many in good amounts. They have protein (olive oil doesn’t – it’s a pure fat).

The fat content in both oil (100%) and nuts (c. 65%) is huge – way higher than the 7% fat content of sirloin steak or the 4% fat content of pork chops. This was a daft study. Why tell groups to avoid natural fat in real food (meat, dairy, eggs) and to replace it with very high fat interventions? (We’ll see why when we see the funders of the study!)

The results

The objective of the study was to measure “primary end points” defined as a major cardiovascular event – a heart attack, stroke or death.

There were 288 such incidents – 96 in the olive oil group, 83 in the nut group and 109 in the low-fat (current government dietary advice) group.

When the incidents in each group were presented as a percentage of person years (i.e. number of people in each group times the average years of follow-up), the incident rate was 0.81% for the olive oil group; 0.80% for the nut group and 1.12% for the low-fat group. As ever, the headlines are big, the real numbers are small. Barely 1 person in 100, in the highest risk groups for cardiovascular disease, at the worst possible age to have cardiovascular disease, actually had an incident during the 5 year study. For the nut and oil groups it was slightly less than 1 person in 100, for the low-fat group it was slightly more than 1 person in 100.

When the incident rate numbers are weighted so that the control group is 1.00, the oil group is 0.73 and the nut group is 0.72. This is relative risk, not absolute. It’s the oldest trick in the book to play to make numbers seem far more dramatic than they are. This is where the headline nonsense of “30% lower risk” comes from. Plus, we always need to remember that this is association, not causation.

The trial was intended to last 6 years. The researchers stopped at 4.8 years – this is usually positioned as “the differences were just so great that we could not morally continue to disadvantage the control group any longer”. A couple of points on this:

1) look at the graph on p8 of the New England Medical Journal paper. The gap between the intervention and control groups is starting to close at the point the experiment is stopped. I’ve seen this convenient ending of trials before.

2) the disadvantage for the control group is that they are following a low-fat diet – not that they are missing out on nuts and/or olive oil. That’s why the headline of the article should have been: “Low-fat diets are associated with cardiovascular disease” Which the media would have likely reported as: “Low-fat diets cause heart disease”. (Except they wouldn’t because the media just loves a good old eulogy about the Fictitious Mediterranean Diet.)

The bottom line

This could have been a very useful study. It could have been an original study to prove that our current low-fat, high-carb, starchy food, diet advice is doing more harm than good. It was essentially comparing a low-fat diet with a real food diet, but with an unnecessary messing around of natural fat delivery mechanisms (being told to avoid natural fat in meat and dairy and to replace it with unnatural levels of olive oil/nuts). Given the nutrition in nuts vs. olive oil, I was surprised that there was no difference between these two groups. This also reinforces the fact that the difference observed was about the low-fat diet being bad and not olive oil or nuts being good.

So why not just do a straight study comparing real food with its natural fat intact and our fake food/low-fat government dietary advice? Who would fund such a study? The funders of this study included: Hojiblanca and Patrimonio Comunal Olivarero (extra-virgin olive oil); the California Walnut Commission; Borges (almonds) and La Morella Nuts (hazelnuts). In the really, really, small print at the end of the article, we also discover that the author conflicts note: “Dr. Ros serves on the board of ‘his institution’ – the California Walnut Commission”; “Dr. Salas-Salvadó is on the board of and receives grant funding from ‘his institution’ – the International Nut and Dried Fruit Council”; Dr. Lamuela-Raventos receives funding from PepsiCo – their snack division does nuts; and Dr. Serra-Majem reports serving on the boards of the Mediterranean Diet Foundation (I never knew there was such a thing!)

As ever – follow the money and all shall be explained!

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

Written by Zoë on February 27, 2013 – 13 Comments
Categories: Dieting, Gov. Policy, Media comments, Obesity, Research

New Australian Dietary Guidelines were published on February 18th 2013. Hundreds of pages of information are available here. The main “Eat for health: Australian Dietary Guidelines” document alone is 226 pages.

The latest guidelines acknowledge the extent of the problem: “If current trends continue in Australia, it is estimated that by 2025, 83% of men and 75% of women aged 20 years or more will be overweight or obese.” (p12) This is also a tacit admission that the 2003 guidelines haven’t helped. So are the 2013 guidelines any better?

I am very familiar with the 2003 Australian Dietary Guidelines, as I analysed them in some detail in my 2010 book The Obesity Epidemic: What caused it? How can we stop it? Let’s look at the revised (2013) guidelines in comparison to the 2003 ones, to see if Australian advisors have come up with anything to change this predicted trajectory of obesity.

The three key guidelines

The dietary guidelines for Australians are set by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Like the USA guidelines, the Australian guidelines have the stated aim of promoting the potential benefits of healthy eating to reduce the risk of diet-related disease and also to improve the community’s health and wellbeing. The Australian government has been providing nutrition advice for more than 75 years. The 2003 document was the third edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Australian Adults. The second edition was published in 1992. The NHMRC has also published Dietary Guidelines for Children and Adolescents and the Dietary Guidelines for Older Australians was published in 1999.

The three main pieces of advice in the 2003 dietary guidelines were:

1) Enjoy a wide variety of nutritious foods:

– Eat plenty of vegetables, legumes and fruits;

– Eat plenty of cereals (including breads, rice, pasta and noodles), preferably whole grain;

– Include lean meat, fish, poultry and/or alternatives;

– Include milks, yoghurts, cheeses and/or alternatives. Reduced-fat varieties should be chosen, where possible;

– Drink plenty of water.

2) Take care to:

– Limit saturated fat and moderate total fat intake;

– Choose foods low in salt;

– Limit your alcohol intake if you choose to drink;

– Consume only moderate amounts of sugars and foods containing added sugars.

3) Prevent weight gain: be physically active and eat according to your energy needs.

The three main pieces of advice in the 2013 dietary guidelines are:

Guideline 1: To achieve and maintain a healthy weight, be physically active and choose amounts of nutritious food and drinks to meet your energy needs.

Guideline 2: Enjoy a wide variety of nutritious foods from these five groups every day:

– Plenty of vegetables, including different types and colours, and legumes/beans;

– Fruit;

– Grain (cereal) foods, mostly wholegrain and/or high cereal fibre varieties, such as breads, cereals, rice, pasta, noodles, polenta, couscous, oats, quinoa and barley;

– Lean meats and poultry, fish, eggs, tofu, nuts and seeds, and legumes/beans;

– Milk, yoghurt, cheese and/or their alternatives, mostly reduced fat (reduced fat milks are not suitable for children under the age of 2 years).

And drink plenty of water.

Guideline 3: Limit intake of foods containing saturated fat, added salt, added sugars and alcohol.

a) Limit intake of foods high in saturated fat such as many biscuits, cakes, pastries, pies, processed meats, commercial burgers, pizza, fried foods, potato chips, crisps and other savoury snacks.

b) Limit intake of foods and drinks containing added salt.

c) Limit intake of foods and drinks containing added sugars such as confectionary, sugar-sweetened soft drinks and cordials, fruit drinks, vitamin waters, energy and sports drinks.

d) If you choose to drink alcohol, limit intake. For women who are pregnant, planning a pregnancy or breastfeeding, not drinking alcohol is the safest option.

The order has changed, and the 2013 guidelines are more verbose (I left some detail out), but that’s it. Nothing here will make a difference therefore.

The fundamental error

The 2013 guidelines spell out the fundamental error nicely for us with this extract (p16):

“The estimated Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDR) related to reduced risk of chronic disease are:

– 20–35% of total energy intake from fat;

– 45–65% from carbohydrate;

– 15–25% from protein.”

This basic lack of understanding about macronutrients (what we know as carbs, fat and protein) and what humans need in their food, is at the heart of the problem. Both sides of the nutritional debate would agree that protein intake of approximately 15-25% is healthy. The real food side would not worry if it went higher, but only as part of a natural intake of real food. Both sides would agree that unnaturally high levels of protein can be dangerous (they can deplete vitamin A and cause liver damage through excessive demands placed with protein metabolism).

Given that everything must add to 100%, if we agree on protein, the only debate we can have is over fat vs carbohydrate. Real foodies say “eat fat, fear carbs.” Dietary advisors say “eat carbs, fear fat.” Real food tends to be naturally high in fat (meat, fish, eggs, dairy, nuts, seeds, avocados, olives, oils etc). Fake food tends to be naturally high in carb (pasta, bread, cereals, and all wheat derivatives).

When fat was first demonised in the UK in the 1984 nutritional guidelines, it was fascinating to see the rationale positioned as – we don’t know that carbs are good, but we think that fat is bad and people need to eat something, so it needs to be carbs. The exact same rationale was given to me by the Food Standard Agency in 2009 when I wrote to them and asked why they recommended carbs over fat.

A basic understanding of human nutrition needs would confirm that the main part of our calorie need is to service what we call our Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) – the things that the body needs to do each day, even if we’re lying in bed all day and don’t move (i.e. when we don’t need energy to move).

An average woman, doing exercise 1-3 times a week, needs approximately 2,000 calories a day. Approximately 1,500 of these are for BMR needs – cell repair, fighting infection, building bone density, running the body etc. The macronutrients needed to do these jobs are fat and protein. Carbs, as dietary advisors love to tell us, are for energy. And that’s all they are for. Our average woman needs approximately 500 calories for energy. These can come in the form of fat or carbohydrate (the body will use protein if it has to, but as a last resort). So eating 100% of our intake in the form of fat and protein would meet 100% of our needs. Eating 100% of our intake in the form of carbohydrate would meet 25% of our needs. The remaining 75% of carbohydrate would be surplus to requirements. The body would not be able to use this for BMR and would store the carbohydrate as fat. That’s how we get fat and sick.

The Australian government is telling its citizens to eat 45-65% of their calorie intake in the form of carbohydrate. Ian Thorpe (if he still swims) may be able to use up this kind of energy intake. Your average Australian will not. The Australian government is making its citizens fat and sick with this one piece of advice alone.

Servings of carbohydrate

The amount of carbohydrate specifically recommended in the 2003 guidelines was quite spectacular. Pregnant women, breastfeeding women, women over the age of 60, men over the age of 60 all had individual and specific recommendations. The standard advice for women aged 19-60 (not pregnant or breastfeeding) and men aged 19-60 was as follows:

Women 19-60

Men 19-60

Cereals/grains

4-9 servings

6-12

Vegetables

5

5

Fruit

2

2

Dairy

2

2

Lean meat/fish/pulses

1

1

“Extra foods” (Junk basically)

0-2

0-3

Sample serves are:

– Cereals/grains – 1 serving would be 2 slices (60 grams) bread, 1 cup cooked rice, pasta or noodles;

– Vegetables – 1 serving would be 75 grams cooked vegetables, 1 cup salad vegetables, 1 small potato;

– Fruit – 1 serving would be 1 medium piece (150 grams) of fruit, 1 cup diced pieces or canned fruit, 1 cup fruit juice;

– Dairy – 1 serving would be 1 cup (250 millilitres) fresh milk, 2 slices (40 grams) cheese, 1 small carton (200 grams) yoghurt;

– Lean meat/fish/pulses – 1 serving would be 65-100 grams cooked meat or chicken, 80-120 grams cooked fish fillet, 2 small eggs, 1 cup cooked pulses.

An Australian woman, following this 2003 optimally healthy eating advice, could eat 12 slices of bread, three cups of pasta, five small potatoes, two cups of fruit juice, a cup of cooked beans and two servings of junk food every day. This is a staggering amount and proportion of carbohydrate. If I ate a fraction of that, I would be fat in no time.

P39 of the 2003 NHMRC report actually spelled out how to ensure that Australian citizens consume this evolutionary unprecedented level of carbohydrate:

– “Consume breads with each meal;

– Regularly use rice, couscous, pasta or noodles to accompany hot dishes;

– Eat breakfast cereals daily;

– Include whole grain cereals as extenders to soups and casseroles;

– Use oats in crumble toppings on desserts;

– Choose grain-based snacks such as low-fat cereal bars, muffins and popcorn.”

Strewth! And Aussies wonder why they got fat!

The 2013 guidelines are little changed from these 2003 carbohydrate feast tips. The food groups have changed a little (beans and pulses mainly). The main adult category has been changed from 19-60 year olds to 19-50 year olds. Advice for the over 50s is for slightly fewer servings than the servings recommended for the 19-50 year olds.

– Cereal and grain servings have been revised to be a minimum of 6 for both men and women aged 19-50, as opposed to the previous ranges of 6-12 for men and 4-9 for women.

– Vegetable servings are now a minimum of 6 portions for men and 5 for women. Beans and pulses are now part of this vegetable group, however, so someone could have 5-6 portions of baked beans a day and tick the box.

– Dairy has increased to a minimum of 2.5 servings a day – up from 2 servings a day. Dairy Australia is a partner of the Dieticians Association of Australia. Enough said!

– Australian advisors have gone nuts for beans and pulses – they appear in both the vegetables category and in the lean meat/fish/pulses category. The servings in this latter group have gone up since the 2003 guidelines from 1 serving for men and women to a minimum of 3 servings for men and 2 for women.

Those minimums are inexplicable. While admitting that the country is heading towards 83% of men and 75% of women being overweight or obese within the next 10-15 years, minimum food intakes are being emphasised.

The Plate

Let’s finally look at the Australian summary diagram for ‘healthy’ eating. The 2003 plate can be seen here.

The 2013 plate is barely different.

The Australian plate was already better than the UK eatbadly plate for the following reasons: a) it had no implied brands – no cornflakes implying Kelloggs, no cola implying Coca-cola, no baked beans implying Heinz etc b) it had no junk segment – the junk is off the plate with the message “Only sometimes and in small amounts” and c) it separates fruit from vegetables, noting the significant difference between the two.

The 2013 Australian plate is clearer (not least just for being pictured head on and not at a 3D angle) and the grains segment seems to have been slightly reduced in favour of the vegetables/pulses segment, but the differences are tiny.

The bottom line is that Australians are still being told to base their meals on starchy foods – the exact substances that we used to know to be fattening. They still are fattening – we were not wrong about carbs. But our unfounded fear of fat has led to advice to eat carbs instead. It is our fear of fat that has made us fat and not fat itself.

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

Recent studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the makeup of your intestinal flora can have an impact on your weight, and your propensity to gain or lose weight.

Most recently, research1 also suggests that as much as 20 percent of the substantial weight loss achieved from gastric bypass, a popular weight loss surgery, is actually due to shifts in the balance of bacteria in your digestive tract. According to co-author Dr. Lee M. Kaplan:2

“The findings mean that eventually, treatments that adjust the microbe levels, or ‘microbiota,’ in the gut may be developed to help people lose weight without surgery.”

Gut Microbes May Be Behind Weight Loss After Gastric Bypass

To investigate the potential link between gastric bypass surgery and alterations in gut flora, fattened-up mice were divided into two groups. The test group underwent gastric bypass surgery while the control group received sham surgery. After the sham surgery, the controls were further divided into two groups: One received a fatty diet; the other a weight-loss diet.

In the test group, the microbial populations quickly changed following surgery, and the mice lost weight. In the control group, the gut flora didn’t change much, regardless of their diet. After the bypass surgery, the test group was found to have more of certain types of microbes,3 including:
•Gammaproteobacteria, particularly Escherichia species, which can help prevent inflammation and maintain intestinal health, although some species of Escherichia are pathogenic
•Akkermansia bacteria, which can feed on mucus found in your intestines

According to the featured article:4

“Next, the researchers transferred intestinal contents from each of the groups into other mice, which lacked their own intestinal bacteria. The animals that received material from the bypass mice rapidly lost weight; stool from mice that had the sham operations had no effect.”

More Research Shows Your Gut Bacteria Impacts Your Weight

Previous research has also shown that lean people tend to have higher amounts of various healthy bacteria compared to obese people. For example, one 2011 study5 found that daily intake of a specific form of lactic acid bacteria could help prevent obesity and reduce low-level inflammation.

In this study, rats given the bacterium while in utero through adulthood put on significantly less weight than the control group, even though both groups of rats ate a similar high-calorie diet. They also had lower levels of minor inflammation, which has been associated with obesity.

Similarly, gut bacteria have also been shown to impact weight in human babies. One study6 found babies with high numbers of bifidobacteria and low numbers of Staphylococcus aureus — which may cause low-grade inflammation in your body, contributing to obesity — appeared to be protected from excess weight gain.

This may be one reason why breast-fed babies have a lower risk of obesity, as bifidobacteria flourish in the gut of breast-fed babies. Probiotics also appear beneficial in helping women lose weight after childbirth when taken from the first trimester through breastfeeding.

Two other studies found that obese individuals had about 20 percent more of a family of bacteria known as firmicutes, and almost 90 percent less of a bacteria called bacteroidetes than lean people. Firmicutes help your body to extract calories from complex sugars and deposit those calories in fat. When these microbes were transplanted into normal-weight mice, those mice started to gain twice as much fat. This is one explanation for how the microflora in your gut may affect your weight.

Yet another study from 20107 showed that obese people were able to reduce their abdominal fat by nearly five percent, and their subcutaneous fat by over three percent, just by drinking a probiotic-rich fermented milk beverage for 12 weeks. Given that the control group experienced no significant fat reductions at all during the study period, this is one more gold star for probiotics.

Probiotics have also been found to benefit metabolic syndrome, which often goes hand-in-hand with obesity. This makes sense since both are caused by a diet high in sugars, which leads to insulin resistance, fuels the growth of unhealthy bacteria, and packs on excess weight.

Diet and Environmental Factors Affect Your Gut Flora

I have long stated that it’s generally a wise choice to “reseed” your body with good bacteria from time to time by taking a high-quality probiotic supplement or eating non-pasteurized, traditionally fermented foods such as:
•Fermented vegetables
•Lassi (an Indian yoghurt drink, traditionally enjoyed before dinner)
•Fermented milk, such as kefir
•Natto (fermented soy)

One of the reasons why fermented foods are so beneficial is because they contain lactic acid bacteria, which of course has health benefits over and beyond any weight-loss benefits, as well as a wide variety of other beneficial bacteria. Ideally, you want to eat a variety of fermented foods to maximize the variety of bacteria. But eating fermented foods may not be enough if the rest of your diet is really poor. Your gut bacteria are an active and integrated part of your body, and as such are vulnerable to your lifestyle. If you eat a lot of processed foods, for instance, your gut bacteria are going to be compromised because processed foods in general will destroy healthy microflora and feed bad bacteria and yeast. Your gut bacteria are also very sensitive to:
•Antibiotics
•Chlorinated water
•Antibacterial soap
•Agricultural chemicals
•Pollution

The Hidden Health Hazards of Antibiotics in Meat

A related news story highlights one hidden source of antibiotics that can have a significant and long-term impact on your gut flora and overall health. Writing for the New York Times,8 David A. Kessler, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1990 to 1997, warns that antibiotic-resistant pathogens in livestock are on the rise as a result of the fact that, in the US, antibiotics are routinely fed to livestock not only to fight infection, but to promote unhealthy (though profitable) weight gain.

“While the F.D.A. can see what kinds of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are coming out of livestock facilities, the agency doesn’t know enough about the antibiotics that are being fed to these animals,” he writes. “This is a major public health problem, because giving healthy livestock these drugs breeds superbugs that can infect people. We need to know more about the use of antibiotics in the production of our meat and poultry. The results could be a matter of life and death. … It may sound counterintuitive, but feeding antibiotics to livestock at low levels may do the most harm.

When he accepted the Nobel Prize in 1945 for his discovery of penicillin, Alexander Fleming warned that ‘there is the danger that the ignorant man may easily underdose himself and by exposing his microbes to nonlethal quantities of the drug make them resistant.’ He probably could not have imagined that, one day, we would be doing this to billions of animals in factory-like facilities.”

The link between antibiotic use in livestock and antibiotic-resistant disease is so clear that the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed has been banned in Europe since 2006.9 In sharp contrast, according to the first-ever report by the FDA10 on the topic, confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) used a whopping 29 million pounds of antibiotics in 2009, and according to Kessler, that number had further risen to nearly 30 million pounds in 2011, which represents about 80 percent of all reported antibiotic sales that year.

What’s more, on December 22, 2011, the FDA quietly posted a notice in the Federal Register11 that it was effectively reneging on its plan to reduce the use of antibiotics in agricultural animal feed – a plan it has been touting since 1977.

Instead, the agency decided it will continue to allow livestock producers to use the drugs in feed unabated. Only one class of antibiotics, cephalosporin, has been restricted from use in livestock.12 This class of antibiotics, which are regularly prescribed to humans, are implicated in the development and spread of drug-resistant bacteria among humans that work with, and/or eat, the animals. As of April 5, 2012, the antibiotics are no longer be allowed for use in preventing diseases in livestock, although they are still allowed for treatment of illness in livestock.

The Food and Drug Industries Don’t Want You to Know the Facts

As stated by Kessler, we have more than enough evidence that using antibiotics as growth promoters is threatening human health. Yet the drug and food industries are doing everything they can to block proposed legislation that would limit this practice, and both the FDA and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions aid and abet them. For example, the Committee took no action on a proposal from Senators Kirsten E. Gillibrand (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), which would require the FDA to report data on agricultural antibiotics that it already collects but does not disclose. According to Kessler:

“’In the House, Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Louise M. Slaughter of New York, also Democrats, have introduced a more comprehensive measure. It would not only authorize the FDA to collect more detailed data from drug companies, but would also require food producers to disclose how often they fed antibiotics to animals at low levels to make them grow faster and to offset poor conditions.

This information would be particularly valuable to the F.D.A., which asked drugmakers last April to voluntarily stop selling antibiotics for these purposes. The agency has said it would mandate such action if those practices persisted, but it has no data to determine whether the voluntary policy is working. The House bill would remedy this situation, though there are no Republican sponsors.’ …Lawmakers must let the public know how the drugs they need to stay well are being used to produce cheaper meat.”

How to Avoid Hidden Antibiotics in Your Food

This is one of the many reasons why I always recommend buying your meat, whether beef or poultry, from a local organic farmer rather than your local supermarket. The only way to avoid this hidden source of antibiotics is to make sure you’re only buying organic, grass-fed, free-range meats and organic pasture-raised chickens, as non-medical use of antibiotics is not permitted in organic farming.

If you live in an urban area, there are increasing numbers of community-supported agriculture programs available that offer access to healthy, locally grown foods even if you live in the heart of the city. Being able to find high-quality meat is such an important issue for me personally that I’ve made connections with sources I know provide high-quality organic grass-fed beef and bison, free-range chicken and ostrich, all of which you can find in my online store. The farms our supplier uses have three USDA inspectors on hand that regularly inspect the packaging facility. Additionally, all of the cattle are grass-fed on open pastures, and E. coli 0157 testing is performed daily. You can eliminate the shipping charges though if you find a trusted farmer right in your area.

The Weston Price Foundation has chapters all over the world and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase these types of foods locally. Another resource you can try is Local Harvest, which you can use to find farmers’ markets, family farms, and other sources of safe, sustainably grown food in your area.

For Optimal Health, Tend to Your Gut

The micro-organisms living in your digestive tract form a very important “inner ecosystem” that influences countless aspects of health, including your weight. More specifically, the type and quantity of organisms in your gut interact with your body in ways that can either prevent or encourage the development of many diseases, including heart disease and diabetes, and may help dictate the ease with which you’re able to shed unwanted pounds.

Since virtually all of us are exposed to factors that destroy beneficial bacteria in the gut, such as antibiotics (whether you take them for an illness or get them from contaminated animal products), chlorinated water, antibacterial soap, agricultural chemicals and pollution, ensuring your gut bacteria remain balanced should be considered an ongoing process.

Cultured foods like raw milk yogurt and kefir, some cheeses, and fermented vegetables are good sources of natural, healthy bacteria. So my strong recommendation would be to make cultured or fermented foods a regular part of your diet; this can be your primary strategy to optimize your body’s good bacteria. If you do not eat fermented foods frequently, taking a high-quality probiotic supplement is definitely a wise move. In fact, this is one of the few supplements recommended for everyone. A probiotic supplement can be incredibly useful to help maintain a well-functioning digestive system when you stray from your healthy diet and consume excess grains or sugar, or if you have to take antibiotics.

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

Argentina—A Poster Child for the Health Hazards of GMO Crops

Roundup Ready soy is now being cultivated on a massive scale across the globe, along with the exponentially increasing use of the herbicide Roundup. Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” soy beans are genetically modified to survive otherwise lethal doses of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the company’s herbicide Roundup.

It’s a win-win for Monsanto. But it’s a loss for just about everyone else. Not to mention a health hazard for the environment, and the animals and humans that eat these crops.

Argentina’s Bad Seeds

One of the countries most affected by genetically engineered soy is Argentina, whose population is being sickened by massive spraying of herbicides. Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is blamed for the dramatic increase in devastating birth defects as well as cancer.

In the film People and Power — Argentina: The Bad Seeds, film maker Glenn Ellis investigates the destructive and health-harming trends associated with the burgeoning use of genetically engineered soy.

In Cordoba, he speaks to Alternative Nobel Laureate Professor Raul Montenegro about the problems associated with excessive pesticide use.

“Montenegro, a world-renowned biologist, looked the part of a pioneer, in a khaki shirt and jungle boots. ‘I have pesticide in me,’ he said, almost as soon as he opened the door. Here we all have pesticide in our bodies because the land is saturated with it. And it is a huge problem. In Argentina biodiversity is diminishing. Even in national parks, because pesticides don’t recognize the limit of the park,” Ellis writes.1

More than 18 million hectares in Argentina are covered by genetically engineered soy, on which more than 300 million liters of pesticides are sprayed. Studies strongly suggest that the glyphosate these crops are doused with can cause cancer and birth deformities; both of which are occurring at increasing rates in areas where spraying is done.

Sterility and miscarriages are also increasing. Experts warn that in 10 to 15 years, rates of cancer, infertility and endocrine dysfunction could reach catastrophic levels in Argentina.

Birth Malformation Skyrocketing in Agricultural Centers of Argentina

Ellis also met with Dr. Medardo Vasquez, the neonatal specialist who heads up the Children’s Hospital in Cordoba. Dr. Vasquez tells him:

“I see new-born infants, many of whom are malformed. I have to tell parents that their children are dying because of these agricultural methods. In some areas in Argentina the primary cause of death for children less than one year old is malformations.”

Ellis is also shown a chart of two steeply climbing graphs, rising in tandem with each other — one representing the increase in soya plantations over the last 15 years; the other the rise in birth defects across the province during that same time. In the village of Malvinas Argentinas, which is surrounded by soy plantations, the rate of miscarriage is 100 times the national average, courtesy of glyphosate.

Aside from chemical spraying, silos containing genetically engineered crops is another contributing factor. The chemically treated crop produces contaminated dust, which is then ventilated outdoors without filtration, where it is carried with the winds and breathed by the local residents.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Monsanto still maintains its innocence. In a written statement to Ellis, the company said:

“Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides have a long history of safe use when used according to label directions in more than 100 countries around the world. Comprehensive toxicological studies have demonstrated that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® branded agricultural herbicides, does not cause birth defects or reproductive problems.”

Stunning Report Illustrates Nutritional Deficiencies and Hazards of GMO Corn

In related news, a report given to MomsAcrossAmerica2 by an employee of De Dell Seed Company (Canada’s only non-GMO corn seed company) offers a stunning picture of the nutritional differences between GMO and non-GMO corn. Clearly, the former is NOT equivalent to the latter, which is the very premise by which genetically engineered crops were approved in the first place. Here are a small sampling of the nutritional differences found in this 2012 nutritional analysis:
•Calcium: GMO corn = 14 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 6,130 ppm (437 times more)
•Magnesium: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 113 ppm (56 times more)
•Manganese: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 14 ppm (7 times more)

GMO corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GMO corn. The EPA standard for glyphosate in American water supplies is 0.7 ppm. In Europe, the maximum allowable level in water is 0.2 ppm. Organ damage in animals has occurred at levels as low as 0.1 ppm… GMO corn was also found to contain extremely high levels of formaldehyde. According to Dr. Huber, at least one study found that 0.97 ppm of ingested formaldehyde was toxic to animals. GMO corn contains a staggering 200 times that amount! Perhaps it’s no wonder that animals, when given a choice, avoid genetically engineered feed like the plague.

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

It’s important to realize that genetically engineered (GE) foods have never been proven safe for human consumption over a lifetime, let alone over generations. Monsanto and its advocates claim genetically engineered crops are “the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What they don’t tell you is that:
•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
•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
•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 or nearly impossible to conduct. If these scientists get seeds from a farmer, they sue them into oblivion as one of their favorite tactics is to use the legal system to their advantage. Additionally, virtually all academic agricultural research is controlled by Monsanto as they are the primary supporters of these departments and none will risk losing their funding from them
•There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GE item in question has been approved, not a single country on earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects

Why Did President Obama Sign Monsanto Protection into Law?

In a move that has stunned and angered many Americans, President Barack Obama recently signed into law a spending bill that included a devastating provision that puts Monsanto above the law. As reported by Salon Magazine:3

“That bill, the HR 933 continuing resolution,4 was mainly aimed at averting a government shutdown and ensuring that the federal government would continue to be able to pay its bills for the next six months. But food and public safety advocates and independent farmers are furious that Obama signed it despite its inclusion of language that they consider to be a gift to Monsanto Company and other firms that produce genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds and crops.

The protests come on the heels of a massive petition campaign organized by the advocacy group Food Democracy Now, which gathered the signatures of more than 200,000 people who wanted Obama to veto HR 933 in order to stop Section 735 — the so-called ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ — from being codified into law. But Obama ignored it, instead choosing to sign a bill that effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future.”

The provision, innocently called the “Farmer Assurance Provision,” which opponents have dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act,” limits the ability of judges to stop Monsanto and/or farmers growing their genetically engineered seeds from growing or harvesting those crops, even if courts find evidence of potential health risks. In essence, it strips judges of their constitutional mandate to protect you and the environment, and permits biotech companies unrivaled freedom to plant untested GE crops regardless of the risks, and leaves victims — be it farmers or consumers — without legal recourse.

“…those who are angry at Obama for signing the bill are also incensed with Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who is accused of failing to give the amendment that inserted the language a proper hearing,” Salon writes.

“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”

Not surprisingly, Monsanto’s fingerprints are all over this. One of the rider’s biggest supporters, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) allegedly worked with Monsanto to craft the language in the bill. Blunt recently told Politico:5

“What it says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant it, you get to harvest it. But it is only a one-year protection in that bill.”

While that may lull some back into apathy, you should be aware that a “mere” one-year protection can equate to millions of dollars worth of profit for Monsanto and other biotech companies. And that’s not even addressing the more disturbing aspect of it, which is the suspension of constitutional principles in favor of corporate benefit. It’s completely outrageous, and there is no excuse good enough. It also sets a dangerous precedent that will undoubtedly be misused and abused to the fullest down the line.

In the video above, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show addresses, in his usual fashion, the reported “fact” that most Congressmen were completely unaware of the provision included in the bill they passed–this despite the fact that Senator Jon Tester brought it up on the Senate floor, calling the provisions “giveaways” that have no place in this bill…

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.

Deadly levels of radiation found in food 225 miles from Fukushima: Media blackout on nuclear fallout continues

New data released by Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) shows once again that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is far from over. Despite a complete media blackout on the current situation, levels of Cesium-137 (Cs-137) and Cesium-134 (Cs-134) found in produce and rice crackers located roughly 225 miles away from Fukushima are high enough to cause residents to exceed the annual radiation exposure limit in just a few months, or even weeks.

According to Fukushima-Diary.com, which posts up-to-date information about the Fukushima disaster, rice crackers and tangerines produced in the Shizuoka prefecture are testing high for both Cs-137 and Cs-134. Rice crackers, according to the data sheet, tested at 3.7 Becquerels per kilogram (Bq/Kg) of Cs-137, while tangerines tested at 1.46 Bq/Kg of Cs-134 and 3.14 Bq/Kg of Cs-137.

The Shizuoka prefecture is located about 80 miles southwest of Tokyo, which is highly concerning as it is actually farther away from Fukushima than Tokyo. This suggest that potentially deadly levels of radiation are still affecting large population centers across Japan, including those that are not even in close proximity to the Fukushima plant.

It is generally regarded that adult radiation workers should be exposed to no more than 50 millisieverts (mSv) of radiation per year in order to avoid serious health consequences. For children, this number is far lower, probably somewhere around 10 mSv, with this being on the high end. But the average adult and child eating these tainted foods at their current radiation levels will not only reach but exceed the safe maximum in just a few weeks.

Radiation levels continue to increase in lakes, rivers north of Tokyo
But food, of course, is not the only major source of radiation exposure in Japan. Other data also released by Fukushima-Diary.com shows that radiation levels in rivers, lakes and shorelines around Kashiwa City in Chiba, located about 20 miles northeast of Tokyo, are dangerously high and getting even higher.

Since radiation levels were last tested in the Otsu River back in September, detected levels have nearly tripled, jumping from 5,700 Bq/Kg to 14,200 Bq/Kg of radiation. Similar jumps were observed in lakes and shore soils, the former increasing from 7,600 Bq/Kg to 8,200 Bq/Kg of radiation, and the latter increasing from 440 Bq/Kg to 780 Bq/Kg of radiation.

Any increase in disease or death resulting from these continued radiation spikes, however, will more than likely be blamed on other causes besides radiation, so as to cover up the severity of the situation. The radiation component of radiation-induced heart disease, organ failure, and cancer, for instance, will simply be ignored, and any uptick in deaths, particularly among the elderly, declared normal.

Meanwhile, a recent Rasmussen Report found that more than one-third of all Americans believe radiation from Fukushima caused “significant harm” in the U.S. This is likely due to the fact that high levels of radiation were observed in soil, water, and even food all across America in the wake of the disaster.

Sources for this article include:

Private: Homepage

Private: Homepage

http://www.rasmussenreports.com

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