Rather Be Healthy

Over the weekend while out with a buddy we stopped in a local convenience store in an attempt to find a healthy snack (tall order, I know). While I made my way over to where the pistachios and other nuts were, he reached inside the frozen food case and pulled out a Skinny Cow vanilla ice cream sandwich made by Nestle®.

“Hey this is healthy”, he said. “It’s only got 140 calories, 1.5 grams of fat and 3 grams of fiber. It says it right here on the label.”

However, upon further review of the back of the label (there was a convenient fold covering up all of the unflattering nutrition information) this small ice cream sandwich is STUFFED with chemicals I call obesity additives.

Here are the whopping 33 ingredients and my comments after some of them: 1.Skim milk
2.Bleached wheat flour (acts like sugar in the body)
3.Sugar (the main cause of belly fat)
4.Caramel color (the same junk they color soft drinks with)
5.Dextrose (sugar)
6.Palm oil
7.Corn flour (most likely from genentically modified [GMO] corn)
8.High fructose corn syrup (causes extreme cravings; most likely GMO)
9.Corn syrup (ditto)
10.Baking soda
11.Modified corn starch (most likely GMO)
12.Mono and diglycerides
13.Soy lecithin
14.Cocoa
15.Sugar (again)
16.Corn syrup (again)
17.Polydextrose (sugar)
18.Whey protein
19.Cream
20.Calcium carbonate
21.Inulin
22.Natural flavor (this is a joke considering all the unnatural flavors)
23.Propylene glycol monostearate (ugh… more on this below)
24.Microcrystalline cellulose
25.Sodium carboxymethylcellulose (that’s a mouthful)
26.Guar gum
27.Monoglycerides
28.Sorbitol (a sugar alcohol)
29.Carob bean gum
30.Citric acid
31.Vitamin A palmitate
32.Carrageenan (a seaweed extract)
33.Salt

So as you can see, this may be a low fat ice cream sandwich, but don’t think for a second that this “Skinny Cow” is a healthy food choice that’s going to help you or your family lose flab. This is a nutrient dead “Frankenfood.” By this I mean that it’s not even a real food, it’s just a chemically-altered food-like substance.

They should call it “dead meat” instead of “skinny cow”. Really, really, bad.

And it gets worse: Propylene Glycol Monostearate (ingredient #23) is found…
•As a working fluid in hydraulic presses
•As a coolant in liquid cooling systems
•To regulate humidity in a cigar humidor
•As the killing and preserving agent in pitfall traps, usually used to capture ground beetles
•As an additive to pipe tobacco to prevent dehydration
•To treat livestock ketosis
•As the main ingredient in deodorant sticks
•As a solvent used in mixing photographic chemicals, such as film developers
•As an ingredient in the production of paintballs

The College of Health and Human Sciences at Oregon State says this about propylene glycol monostearate: “Slightly more toxic than propylene glycol in animals, and in large doses produces central nervous system depression and kidney injury.”

Yumbo!

So while my friend wolfed down this artificial piece of toxic waste, I stuck with all natural pistachios.

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

Coca-Cola Rolling Out New Misinformation Campaign to “Combat Obesity”

Visit the Mercola Video Library

By Dr. Mercola

A new Coca-Cola ad campaign that encourages people to come together to fight obesity is drawing fire from consumer advocates and obesity experts.1, 2

Coke says it’s trying to make consumers more aware of the healthy choice beverages Coke makes; critics say Coke is simply doing damage control.

There can be no doubt that soda is one of the primary beverages responsible for skyrocketing obesity rates. As Dr. Sanjay Gupta told CNN:3

“…the scientific community has …reached a consensus that soft drinks are the one food or beverage that’s been demonstrated to cause weight gain and obesity. And if we’re going to deal with this obesity epidemic, that’s the place to start.”

Granted, no one is forcing anyone to drink them, but there simply has not been enough public education about the dangers of excessive fructose consumption. In fact, the industry has fought tooth and nail to minimize or flat out deny these health dangers, very similar to the tobacco industry denying the risk of lung cancer..

A perfect example of this ongoing denial is Coca-Cola’s reply to the video below, The Real Bears, produced by CSPI. The company called the short-film “irresponsible” and “grandstanding” that will not help anyone “understand energy balance.”

I cannot think of any instance where you might need a soda in order to maintain correct “energy balance.” You can achieve optimal health without any added sugar or artificial sweeteners. In fact, if you want to understand energy balance, read up on how to become fat-adapted rather than being a sugar burner. This requires cutting out virtually all added sugars.

Still, their vehement refusal to accept responsibility for leading you astray does not surprise me. Just take a look at the history of Coca-Cola’s advertising, and you’ll quickly realize that this leopard is not about to change its spots anytime soon. Two sites offering this history lesson include Arandilla’s “Coca-Cola Advertising Through the Years” blog4, and NPR’s blog page5, “Vigor, Brain Power and Other Health Claims From Coke’s Advertising Past.”

Now, Coca-Cola, the leading beverage brand in the world, realizes it’s losing the information war and is trying to shift your attention to its 180 different no- and low-calorie beverages. Well, this certainly is NOT going to address the obesity problem. On the contrary, artificial sweeteners have been shown to produce even MORE weight gain than regular sugar and even high fructose corn syrup.

Coke Advocating Flawed, Outdated Calorie-Counting Advice

Evidence of just how behind-the-times Coca-Cola is, their brand new multi-million dollar campaign focuses on the sentiment that:

“…beating obesity will take action by all of us, based on one simple, common-sense fact: All calories count, no matter where they come from. …And if you eat and drink more calories than you burn off, you’ll gain weight.”4

This “conventional wisdom” has been firmly debunked by science. Not all calories count equally. And the “calories in, calories out” hypothesis for maintaining weight has equally been shown to be incorrect. It is in fact FAR more important to look at the source of the calories than counting them.

In short, you do not get fat because you eat too many calories and don’t exercise enough. You get fat because you eat the wrong kind of calories. At the end of the day, your consumption of carbohydrates, whether in the form of grains and sugars (especially fructose), will determine whether or not you’re able to manage your weight and maintain optimal health. This is because these types of carbs (fructose and grains) affect the hormone insulin, which is a very potent fat regulator. Fats and proteins affect insulin to a far lesser degree. Kudos to The Atlantic5 for calling Coca-Cola on its misleading tactics in its recent article titled, Coke’s Unconscionable New Ad:

“Coca-Cola’s latest attempt to position itself against the rising tide of concern about the role of sodas in the obesity epidemic is unconscionable, because of this statement: ‘All calories count. No matter where they come from including Coca-Cola and everything else with calories.’

For Coca-Cola to suggest that all calories are equal flies in the face of reality as best as we can determine it… Coca-Cola wants us to ignore the considerable research confirming that sugary soda is a major contributor to obesity, and that it has no nutritional value… Coca-Cola could use its considerable advertising muscle to promote healthy exercise, yes, but when it does so as a ploy to confuse the public about the dangers of its products, that’s not a public service, that’s unethical.”

The video above is from Youtube and is available to the public for information and entertainment purposes only.
Mercola.com does not own and did not produce this video.

Why Calorie Counting Doesn’t Work

Dr. Robert Lustig, an expert on the metabolic fate of sugar, explains that fructose is ‘isocaloric but not isometabolic.’ This means you can have the same amount of calories from fructose or glucose, fructose and protein, or fructose and fat, but the metabolic effect will be entirely different despite the identical calorie count. This is a crucial point that must be understood.

Fructose is in fact far worse than other carbs because the vast majority of it converts directly to FAT, both in your fatty tissues, and in your liver. And this is why counting calories does not work… As long as you keep eating fructose and grains, you’re programming your body to create and store fat.

Furthermore, research by Dr. Richard Johnson, chief of the Division of Renal Diseases and Hypertension at the University of Colorado and author of The Sugar Fix and The Fat Switch, demonstrates that large portions of food and too little exercise are NOT solely responsible for why you are gaining weight. Rather it’s fructose-containing sugars that cause obesity – not by calories, but by turning on your “fat switch,” a powerful biological adaptation that causes cells to accumulate fat in anticipation of scarcity (or hibernation). According to Dr. Johnson, based on his decades of research:

“Those of us who are obese eat more because of a faulty ‘switch’ and exercise less because of a low energy state. If you can learn how to control the specific ‘switch’ located in the powerhouse of each of your cells – the mitochondria – you hold the key to fighting obesity.”

According to Beverage Digest, soda consumption in the US has been on a steady decline since 1998.6 A recent article in The Atlantic7 shows consumption of soda “in freefall,” with US consumption having declined by 40 percent since 2003. Unfortunately, many are simply switching to no- or low-cal beverages, which Coca-Cola is now trying to boost, and quite frankly, if I had to choose between these two evils, I’d choose regular soda, as artificial sweeteners are even worse for your long-term health, and have been linked to increased weight gain when compared to calorie-containing sweeteners.

No- or Low-Cal Beverages CONTRIBUTE to Obesity Problem

While soda consumption has gone down, consumption of artificially sweetened “diet” beverages has risen in that same time, according to an October 11, 2012 report by USA Today.8 The industry has effectively convinced people that diet drinks are a healthier choice because they lack any calories. However, if you’re concerned about your weight and health, switching to artificial sweeteners is NOT a wise move.

Mounting research shows that diet soda is not a “guilt-free” treat at all. For example, two studies published in 2011 linked diet soda to poor health outcomes. In one study, people who drank two or more diet sodas a day experienced waist size increases that were six times greater than those of people who didn’t drink diet soda. A second study that found that aspartame (NutraSweet) raised blood sugar levels in diabetes-prone mice.

As you may know, your waist size is not only a matter of aesthetics, but also a powerful indicator of a build-up of visceral fat, a dangerous type of fat around your internal organs that is strongly linked with type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Your waist size is a far more accurate predictor of your heart risks than your body mass index (BMI). Nearly eight years ago, research by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH9 (who was also involved in the newer studies noted above) found that your risk of obesity increases by 41 percent for each can of diet soda you drink in a day. Furthermore, for diet soft-drink drinkers, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was:
•36.5 percent for up to 1/2 can per day
•57.1 percent for more than 2 cans per day

For regular soft-drink drinkers, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was:
•26 percent for up to 1/2 can per day
•32.8 percent for 1 to 2 cans per day
•47.2 percent for more than 2 cans per day

How Decreasing Sugar Intake Can Impact Body Weight

In related news, recently published research10 shows that decreasing sugar consumption can help you lose weight. The researchers examined outcomes from 71 studies on sugar consumption and body fat. The duration of included studies ranged from two weeks to one year. According to the authors:

“In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake), reduced intake of dietary sugars was associated with a decrease in body weight (0.80 kg/1.8 lb); increased sugars intake was associated with a comparable weight increase (0.75 kg/1.7 lb).

Isoenergetic exchange of dietary sugars with other carbohydrates showed no change in body weight . Trials in children… in relation to intakes of sugar sweetened beverages after one year follow-up in prospective studies, the odds ratio for being overweight or obese increased was 1.55 (1.32 to 1.82) among groups with the highest intake compared with those with the lowest intake. Despite significant heterogeneity in one meta-analysis and potential bias in some trials, sensitivity analyses showed that the trends were consistent and associations remained after these studies were excluded.”

Skyrocketing Obesity is Related to Misleading You on Health Issues

Obesity is the result of inappropriate lifestyle choices, and unfortunately, our government has done an abysmal job at disseminating accurate information about diet and health. It’s one thing for corporations to put out misleading ads – honesty is not in the self-interest of the processed food and beverage industry. It’s another when the government falls in line with for-profit deception and becomes a propagator of corporate propaganda. And this is exactly what has happened… For example, conventional advice that is driving public health in the wrong direction includes:
•Cutting calories: Not all calories are created equal, and counting calories will not help you lose weight if you’re consuming the wrong kind of calories
•Choosing diet foods will help you lose weight: Substances like Splenda and aspartame may have zero calories, but your body isn’t fooled. When it gets a “sweet” taste, it expects calories to follow, and when this doesn’t occur it leads to distortions in your biochemistry that may actually lead to weight gain
•Avoiding saturated fat: The myth that saturated fat causes heart disease has undoubtedly harmed an incalculable number of lives over the past several decades, even though it all began as little more than a scientifically unsupported marketing strategy for Crisco cooking oil. Most people actually need at least 50 percent of their diet to include healthful saturated fats such as organic, pastured eggs, avocados, coconut oil, real butter and grass-fed beef in order to optimize their health
•Reducing your cholesterol to extremely low levels: Cholesterol is actually NOT the major culprit in heart disease or any disease, and the guidelines that dictate what number your cholesterol levels should be to keep you “healthy” are fraught with conflict of interest — and have never been proven to be good for your health

This is just a tiny sampling of the misleading information on weight and obesity disseminated by our government agencies. A more complete list of conventional health myths could easily fill an entire series of books. The reason behind this sad state of affairs is the fact that the very industries that profit from these lies are the ones funding most of the research; infiltrating our regulatory agencies; and bribing our political officials to support their financially-driven agenda through any number of legal, and at times not so legal, means.

Could Warning Labels Be Part of the Answer?

According to Dr. Harold Goldstein, executive director of the non-profit group The California Center for Public Health Advocacy (CCPHA), “43 percent of the increase in daily calories Americans consumed over the last 30 years came from sugary drinks.” The CCPHA has published a list of seven things soda makers could do to create “meaningful change,” such as11:
1.Cease all advertising of sugary drinks to children under 16
2.Add warning labels to containers stating the link between soda consumption and obesity, diabetes and tooth decay, just like cigarettes must declare its connection to lung cancer
3.Declare number of teaspoons of sugar the container contains, in large print
4.Quit marketing sports drinks as healthy beverages

You Can Avoid Becoming a Statistic

Perhaps one of the most powerful scientific discoveries to emerge in the past several years is that the old adage “a calorie is a calorie” is patently false. Furthermore, the idea that in order to lose weight all you have to do is expend more calories than you consume is also false… The research clearly demonstrates that even if you control the number of calories you eat, if those calories come from fructose, you are at increased risk of developing metabolic syndrome, or prediabetes, which includes insulin resistance, fatty liver, high blood pressure and high triglycerides.

Conventional thinking tells us that metabolic syndrome is the outcome of obesity, which is simply the result of eating too many calories and not exercising enough. However, Dr. Johnson’s research, discussed above, shows that a high fructose diet is the key to developing metabolic syndrome, and that as soon as you throw fructose into the mix, “calories in versus calories out” is no longer a functional equation.

In short, avoiding fructose in all its forms, along with other sugars, is imperative in order to avoid “flipping the fat switch” that can trigger your body to accumulate excess fat. So please, do yourself and your family a favor, and don’t get swept up in Coca-Cola’s multi-million dollar ad extravaganza. The entire campaign is based on flawed, inaccurate, misleading, and patently false conventions of thinking.

Let’s not forget: Coca-Cola spent $1.2 million to defeat California Proposition 37 last November, which would have required genetically engineered (GE) foods to be labeled as such (which could have included soda containing GE high fructose corn syrup). That, in and of itself, is proof positive that Coca-Cola has no concern for health conscious consumers.

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

Systemic insecticides known as neonicotinoids have become the fastest growing insecticides in the world. Two prominent examples, imidacloprid and clothianidin, are used as seed treatments in hundreds of crops. Virtually all of today’s genetically engineered Bt corn, for instance, is treated with neonicotinoid insecticides.

Bee colonies began disappearing in the United States shortly after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allowed these new insecticides on the market, and a debate has since been raging over whether or not these chemicals are indeed contributing to the serious honeybee die-offs that have been occurring around the world.

Now the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has released a report that may put the debate to rest, as they’ve ruled neonicotinoid insecticides are essentially “unacceptable” for many crops.

Is This the “Death Knell” for Neonicotinoids?

The European Commission asked EFSA to assess the risks associated with the use of three common neonicotinoids – clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam – with particular focus on:
•Their acute and chronic effects on bee colony survival and development
•Their effects on bee larvae and bee behavior
•The risks posed by sub-lethal doses of the three chemicals

One of the glaring issues that EFSA came across was a widespread lack of information, with scientists noting that in some cases gaps in data made it impossible to conduct an accurate risk assessment. Still, what they did find was “a number of risks posed to bees” by the three neonicotinoid insecticides.

The Authority found that when it comes to neonicotinoid exposure from residues in nectar and pollen in the flowers of treated plants:1

“…only uses on crops not attractive to honeybees were considered acceptable.”

As for exposure from dust produced during the sowing of treated seeds, the Authority ruled “a risk to honeybees was indicated or could not be excluded…” According to certain environmental groups, the ruling could be the “death knell” for neonicotinoid pesticides.2

Pesticides Also Linked to Honeybee Colony Failures

Exposure to pesticides has been associated with changes in bee behavior and reductions in colony queen production, both of which could have detrimental impacts on the life of the colony. Last year, the impact of pesticides on individual bee behavior, and its subsequent impact on the colony as a whole, was also revealed. Bees given access to two commonly used agricultural pesticides (neonicotinoid and pyrethroid) were adversely affected in numerous ways, including:3
•Fewer adult worker bees emerged from larvae
•A higher proportion of foragers failed to return to the nest
•A higher death rate among worker bees
•An increased likelihood of colony failure

The researchers said:

“Here we show that chronic exposure of bumble bees to two pesticides (neonicotinoid and pyrethroid) at concentrations that could approximate field-level exposure impairs natural foraging behavior and increases worker mortality leading to significant reductions in brood development and colony success.

We found that worker foraging performance, particularly pollen collecting efficiency, was significantly reduced with observed knock-on effects for forager recruitment, worker losses and overall worker productivity. Moreover, we provide evidence that combinatorial exposure to pesticides increases the propensity of colonies to fail.”

What Makes Neonicotinoid Pesticides so Toxic?

Neonicotinoid insecticides are known as systemic chemicals because they disrupt the central nervous system of insects, leading to paralysis and death. It’s been suggested that even sub-lethal doses of the insecticides may be negatively impacting bees.

Because neonicotinoids are water soluble and very pervasive, they get into the soil and groundwater where they can accumulate and remain for many years and generate long-term toxicity to the hive. They enter the vascular system of the plant and are carried to all parts of it, as well as to the pollen and nectar. Neonicotinoids affect insects’ central nervous systems in ways that are cumulative and irreversible. Even minute amounts can have profound effects over time.

One of the observed effects of these insecticides is weakening of the bee’s immune system. Forager bees bring pesticide-laden pollen back to the hive, where it’s consumed by all of the bees. Six months later, their immune systems fail, and they fall prey to secondary, seemingly “natural” bee infections, such as parasites, mites, viruses, fungi and bacteria. Pathogens such as Varroa mites, Nosema, fungal and bacterial infections, and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) are found in large amounts in honeybee hives on the verge of collapse.

In addition to immune dysfunction and opportunistic diseases, the honeybees also appear to suffer from neurological problems, disorientation, and impaired navigation. These effects have great consequence, as a bee can’t survive for more than 24 hours if she becomes disoriented and unable to find her way back to the hive.

Bayer Downplays EFSA’s “Death Knell” Report

Bayer, a leading manufacturer of the neonicotinoid pesticides at the heart of the debate, has gone on record stating EFSA’s report “did not alter existing risk assessments and warned against ‘over-interpretation of the precautionary principle.'”4 In other words, it sounds as though they’d rather farmers continue using their pesticides without question, even if there are major concerns that they’re decimating bee populations worldwide. Bayer also noted that they are ready to work with the European Commission to address any “perceived data gaps.”

In fact, Bayer plans to open the North American Bee Care Center by July 2013. The Center is intended to be a research hub as well as promote “the active promotion of bee-responsible use of Bayer products along with communication activities worldwide.”5

Of course, it’s highly unlikely that any forthcoming research from Bayer’s North American Bee Care Center will find pesticides at fault… already, a report funded by the chemical industry has come out stating that banning neonicotinoid pesticides would cost farmers more than $980 million in lost food production.6 Yet, if these chemicals truly are killing off bee colonies, we stand to lose much, much more than that…

Bees Pollinate 70 Percent of the World’s Food

There are about 100 crop species that provide 90 percent of food, globally. Of these, 71 are pollinated by bees.7 In the United States, a full one-third of the food supply depends on pollination from bees. Apple orchards, for instance, require one colony of bees per acre to be adequately pollinated. So if bee colonies continue to be devastated major food shortages could result. There is also concern that the pesticides could be impacting other pollinators as well, including bumblebees, hoverflies, butterflies, moths and others, which could further impact the environment.

If honeybees disappear, so, too, will all of these other innovations and any new developments that may be honeybee-inspired in the future, such as these contributions to human health, including:
•Playing an important role in human medicine; raw honey, which has potent anti-inflammatory and anti-infective properties, is being used for wound healing and treating coughs, while “stun” chemicals from bee stings are being looked at as an effective anesthetic for humans.
•Propolis, the “caulk” honey bees use to patch holes in their hives, may slow the growth of prostate cancer and has powerful immune-modulating effects, along with potent antioxidant and anti-microbial action, and healing, analgesic, anesthetic, and anti-inflammatory properties.
•Bee pollen, which is often referred to as a superfood because it contains a broad range of nutrients required by your body. About half of its protein is in the form of free amino acids that are ready to be used directly by your body and can therefore contribute significantly to your protein needs.
•Honeybees have helped make scientific discoveries in many fields, including the aeronautics industry, which used the design of the six-sided honeycomb to help design aircraft wings; honeybee communication systems have even been adopted by computer programmers to help run Internet servers more efficiently.8

Do You Want to Get Involved to Help Protect Honeybees?

The documentary film Vanishing of the Bees recommends four actions you can take to help preserve our honeybees:
•Support organic farmers and shop at local farmer’s markets as often as possible. You can “vote with your fork” three times a day. (When you buy organic, you are making a statement by saying “no” to GMOs and toxic pesticides!)
•Cut the use of toxic chemicals in your house and on your lawn, and use only organic, all-natural forms of pest control.
•Better yet, get rid of your lawn altogether and plant a garden. Lawns offer very little benefit for the environment. Both flower and vegetable gardens provide excellent natural honeybee habitats.
•Become an amateur beekeeper. Having a hive in your garden requires only about an hour of your time per week, benefits your local ecosystem, and you can enjoy your own honey!

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

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

According to a new health analysis bearing the revealing title: US Health in International Perspective: Shorter Lives, Poorer Health1, Americans come in dead last in a comparison of 17 affluent nations.

The research was unable to uncover any single cause or “rallying point for action.” Instead, it calls for more research to “ferret out the effects of our current policies.”

C’mon! You’ve got to be kidding me.

Considering the fact that human health tends to be primarily affected by a) nutrition, b) exercise, and c) toxic exposures, do they seriously believe that we can improve public health while ignoring these three basic areas?

What Does the Human Body Require to Be Healthy?

A staggering two-thirds of American adults are overweight, and more than one-quarter of adults fall into the obese category. One in four Americans is pre-diabetic or diabetic. It should be obvious that diet and exercise are critical factors here. The National Institutes of Health even states that four of the six leading causes of death in the United States are linked to unhealthy diets.

The question is why are so many people unable to regulate their weight and insulin sensitivity? The following points are well worthy of careful consideration when pondering this issue:
•The top two crops grown in the U.S. are corn and soy. High fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated soybean oil are two of the most popular ingredients made from these crops.2 High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has repeatedly been shown to be a driving factor behind being overweight and having poor health outcomes. HFCS is pervasive and in many processed food items some individuals would never expect, including so called diet foods and ‘enhanced’ water products. Even most infant formulas contain the sugar equivalent of one can of Coca-Cola.

Furthermore, soybean oil is another common unhealthy ingredient in many processed foods and soybeans can be severely and systemically contaminated with high amounts of the potent herbicide glyphosate. Additionally, over 85 percent of all corn grown in the US is genetically engineered (GE)3, which further increases the risk of high glyphosate contamination.The safety of either of these items has never been proven. According to a recent report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG)4, Americans are eating their weight and more in GE foods each and every year.
•Thirty-three percent of American adults are also completely sedentary, and more than half of adults over the age of 18 never engage in any vigorous leisure-time physical activity lasting 10 minutes or more per week.
•According to a study by the EWG5, blood samples from newborns contained an average of 287 toxins, including mercury, fire retardants, pesticides, and chemicals from non stick products. Of the 287 chemicals EWG detected in umbilical cord blood, it’s known that 180 cause cancer in humans or animals; 217 are toxic to your brain and nervous system; and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests. Clearly, when babies are born loaded with toxic chemicals, it’s a sign that toxic exposure is too high.
•While there are many types and routes of toxic exposure, one would be remiss to overlook Americans use of pharmaceutical drugs, as drugs have, on average, 70 different potential side effects, and are responsible for the premature death of at least 106,000 Americans per year, when taken as prescribed. Americans pop the most pills of any other nation, and that includes children. Americans also receive the most amount of vaccinations.

So…. let’s think… What could possibly be the root of Americans’ failure to thrive? The Atlantic6, reporting on the findings writes:

“In presenting their findings… the authors seemed to be urging the U.S. to do some soul searching. Our culture ‘cherishes independence’ and ‘wants to limit the intrusion of government in our personal lives,’ said Steven Woolf, director of the Center for Human Needs at Virginia Commonwealth University, the panel chairman.

While those values serve us in some ways, he said, our resistance to regulation ‘may work against our ability to achieve optimal health outcomes.'”

Aha! So it’s Americans’ striving for independence and freedom of choice that is to blame for such poor dietary choices and health outcomes?! They mean to tell us that we’re all so inept at making healthy choices, we need to abandon our independent spirits and embrace more nanny state regulations that might finally whip us into shape. Honestly, I feel like I’m reading something out of The Onion… It’s all so backwards.

Why Do Americans Consume Such a Bad Diet?

For the sake of brevity, I will limit my comments to the issue of diet here. But first, let’s consider a few of the questions we need to ask:
•Do Americans purposefully consume excessive amounts of fat-promoting, health-harming HFCS because they love it and refuse to eat foods that don’t contain it, or are there other reasons why Americans can’t seem to control their waistlines?

And do they really intentionally consume far too many carbohydrates, sugar and processed foods in place of healthy fats like avocados, olives, coconut oil, butter, nuts, eggs and olive oil, which cause them to be adapted to burning carbs as their primary fuel rather than fat, or is this type of diet a more or less inevitable side effect of NOT thinking independently and seeking out real nutritional facts, but rather mindlessly buying what’s available in the store and advertised as healthy on TV?
•Do Americans really want to consume more genetically engineered foods than any other country?
•Do freedom-loving Americans who “cherish independence” seek to buy more or less whole, unadulterated, unprocessed foods that might help improve their health and, at the very least, reduce toxic exposure?

I propose considering the following facts before blaming America’s failing health on the average shopper’s pesky determination to make independent, foolhardy choices:
•The US government subsidizes the very crops identified as being the most harmful to human health and the environment; the top three being corn, wheat, and soybeans. And nearly all of the corn and soybeans grown are genetically engineered varieties.

By subsidizing these, the US government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these grains in their processed form, namely high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), hydrogenated soybean oil, and meats loaded with antibiotics – all of which are now well-known contributors to obesity and chronic disease. These junk-food subsidies make it much cheaper to buy a burger, fries and soda from a fast-food restaurant than it is to buy grass-fed beef and veggies. It’s not that these foods necessarily cost more to grow or produce; rather the prices for the junk foods are being artificially reduced by the government.
•The US further promotes use of HFCS in food manufacturing by imposing import tariffs on foreign sugar, raising the price of sucrose above those in other countries.
•When the dangers of HFCS finally began to seep into the American consciousness, consumer demand forced many companies to reformulate their processed foods using other types of sweeteners, or ditching sweetening agents altogether. Today, you can find a number of food products marked “No HFCS” and government intervention had nothing to do with this beneficial change.
•The US government has repeatedly refused to take any action to label genetically engineered foods, despite overwhelming public support and demand for labeling.
•The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has repeatedly harassed, raided, and shut down small farms producing healthful organic and raw foods, such as raw dairy and cheese, along with private co-ops procuring and delivering such foods to health-conscious customers.

Americans Die Earlier and Live in Poorer Health

These are examples of Big Government making health decisions for you. How have they been working out so far? The proof is in the pudding, and the featured report7 tells us that what we’ve been doing so far is NOT working.

According to the report, Americans die earlier and live in poorer health than people in other developed nations, which included Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the U.K.

Of these 17 affluent countries, the US ranks last overall, and near the bottom in nine key areas of health, including low birth weight; injuries and homicides; teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections; HIV and AIDS; drug-related deaths; obesity and diabetes; heart disease; chronic lung disease; and general disability. At 75.6 years, American men have the lowest life expectancy among the countries reviewed, and American women ranked second-to-last at 80.7 years. The infant mortality rate in the US is equally abysmal, with 32.7 deaths per 100,000, while most others range between 15 and 25 deaths per 100,000.

Interestingly, the US lags behind all these nations even though smoking rates in the US are far lower than many of the other nations, indicating that, apparently, there’s more to good health than quitting smoking. Or, alternatively, that even smokers can enjoy a modicum of health IF they’re able to compensate with other healthy lifestyle strategies. So, again, how are more nanny state regulations going to improve the situation when they clearly are not willing to accept the sources of the problem in the first place?

The truth is, in order to regulate away this problem, the US government would have to cut all ties with industry and eliminate its conflicts of interest and massive revolving doors with the very industry it is mandated to regulate.

The likelihood of that happening appears slim to none, considering that Big Ag and Big Pharma are two of the biggest and strongest lobbying groups of all business sectors vying for favors from our legislators8. And they’re getting them—which is how we got into this abhorrent mess in the first place, where what is good is portrayed as bad, and that which is bad is ignored. The answer is to promote more independence of choice, and limiting the intrusion of government in our food choices—the very things these reviewers claim are part of the problem… The report also found that Americans:
•Have a long-standing pattern of poorer health that is strikingly consistent and pervasive over the course of their lifetimes. Overall, Americans die and suffer from illness and injury at rates that are unnecessary
•Even affluent Americans with higher education and insurance who engage in healthy behaviors (such as not smoking and maintaining a healthy weight) are in worse health than similar people in other nations
•Consume the most calories among peer countries
•Have more alcohol-related accidents
•Spend more than $8,600 per person per year on health care, which is more than twice the amount spent by the UK, France, and Sweden

How Can the Wealthiest Industrialized Nation be the Sickest?

Since the mid-1990s, the number of Americans suffering from at least three chronic illnesses nearly doubled. Life expectancy has decreased and infant mortality has increased. Illnesses once rare are now common, with some approaching epidemic levels. For example:
•Autism now affects one in 88 children (CDC), compared to one in 25,000 in the mid-1970s
•Type 2 diabetes rates in the U.S. increased by 176 percent between 1980 and 2010
•Celiac disease is four times more common now than 60 years ago
•Alzheimer’s disease is rising at alarming rates. It’s estimated that 5.4 million Americans (one in eight older Americans) now has Alzheimer’s disease, and nearly half of those age 85 and older have it; AD rates have doubled since 1980
•New infectious diseases are increasing in number, according to a 2008 study

In his documentary, Jeffrey Smith makes a convincing argument that one of the primary forces driving these illnesses is America’s changing food supply. And one of the most profound changes is genetically engineered food. Proving GE food is causing Americans to be sick is a tall order, but the evidence presented in this film is very compelling and should not be ignored.

GMO Report Disproves FDA’s Safety Claims

There is a significant compilation of scientific evidence that casts serious doubt on the claims made by industry and government officials about the safety of GE foods. Consider this report by The Atlantic9 The authors of the report “GMO Myths and Truths”10 took a science-based approach to evaluating the available research, arriving at the conclusion that most of the scientific evidence regarding safety and increased yield potential do not at all support the claims.

In fact, the evidence demonstrates the claims for genetically engineered foods are not just wildly overblown – they simply aren’t true. Not only are GE foods less nutritious than non-GE foods, they pose distinct health risks, are inadequately regulated, harm the environment and farmers, and are a poor solution to world hunger.

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

11 Basic Guidelines for General Health and Longevity

Leading a common sense, healthy lifestyle is your best bet to produce a healthy body and mind, and increase your longevity. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry, and even government itself sure won’t make it easy for you to avoid the garbage that ruins your health. The following guidelines form the basic tenets of optimal health and healthy weight—foundational strategies that will not change, regardless of what marvels modern science comes up with next. For more comprehensive guidance, please see my fully updated nutritional plan, which takes you from beginner’s stage to advanced:
1.Eat a healthy diet, paying very careful attention to keeping your insulin levels down (my free nutritional plan will help guide you through your dietary changes with minimal effort)
2.Replace sweetened drinks (whether they’re sweetened with sugar, HFCS, or artificial sweeteners) with plenty of pure, clean water
3.Avoid all genetically engineered foods. There are nine primary GE food crops, but their derivatives are in over 70 percent of supermarket foods, particularly processed foods. GE ingredients can hide. For example, every can of soda containing high fructose corn syrup most likely contains GE corn. Make sure none of the following are on your grocery list, unless they are USDA certified organic:

Soy

Cottonseed

Corn

Canola Oil

Hawaiian papaya

Alfalfa

Sugar from sugar beets

Some varieties of zucchini

Crookneck squash

Avoid any product containing aspartame, which is derived from a GE organism. And avoid any milk products that may have rBGH. I recommend consuming only raw, organic milk products you’ve obtained from a trustworthy local dairy farmer. The Institute for Responsible Technology has put together a helpful Non-GMO Shopping Guide you can download and print. They even have an iPhone app.
4.Optimize your gut flora with fermented foods, such as fermented vegetables, which you can easily and inexpensively make at home
5.Consume healthy fats, like butter, eggs, avocados, coconut oil, olive oil, and nuts, especially macadamia nuts which are higher in fat and lower in protein
6.Eat plenty of raw food
7.Exercise regularly. Make sure to incorporate high intensity interval training at least once or twice a week
8.Get an appropriate amount of sunlight to optimize your vitamin D levels
9.Limit toxin exposure
10.Get plenty of sleep
11.Manage your stress

Let’s face it, government health recommendations and regulations relating to diet and health have failed miserably, and the featured report delivers the somber statistics of where we’re at on the global scene. While spending twice as much on health care per capita, we’re not getting results. I believe we’ll keep seeing more of the same until or unless we change our stance on what a healthy diet is, and what constitutes a healthy lifestyle. We need to move away from the idea that being on a dozen medications means you’re doing something right for your health… This is NOT health care. This is disease management, and it comes at a very steep price, namely your longevity.

Until or unless the US government takes industry to task, our regulators and legislators cannot be trusted to usher Americans toward better health. In the meantime, it is up to YOU to take control of your health, and do what is right for you, to live a healthier, longer, drug- and disease-free life. Proper nutrition, exercise, and avoidance of toxins are three critical factors to address in this process, and this website contains literally tens of thousands of freely available articles to help you do just that.

By buying organic, you will dramatically reduce your exposure to pesticides, hormones and antibiotics, as those are used on nearly all GE crops. When shopping locally, know your local farmers. Many are too small to afford official certification, but many still adhere to organic, sustainable practices. The only way to determine how your food is raised is to check them out, meeting the farmer face to face if possible. Yes, it does take time but is worth it if you are really concerned about your family’s health.

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

Reduce Your Heart Attack Risk by Eating Berries

When it comes to fruit, berries are among the healthiest variety to choose, as they are densely packed with a variety of potent phytochemicals and fiber while at the same time being relatively low in sugar.

Blueberries and strawberries, in particular, have recently been highlighted by Harvard researchers as ‘superfoods’ for heart health.

Reduce Your Heart Attack Risk by Eating Berries

Women who eat more than three servings per week of blueberries and strawberries had a 32 percent lower risk of having a heart attack, according to new research.1 The benefit was due to flavonoids in the berries known as anthocyanins, which are antioxidants that give these fruits their characteristic red and purple hues.

Anthocyanins are known to benefit the endothelial lining of the circulatory system, possibly preventing plaque buildup in arteries as well as promoting healthy blood pressure. Other research has shown these antioxidants to protect against heart disease by reducing oxidative stress and inflammation, while enhancing capillary strength and inhibiting platelet formation.2 Researchers have further noted:3

“Epidemiological studies suggest that increased consumption of anthocyanins lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the most common cause of mortality among men and women.

Anthocyanins frequently interact with other phytochemicals, exhibiting synergistic biological effects but making contributions from individual components difficult to decipher. Over the past 2 decades, many peer-reviewed publications have demonstrated that in addition to their noted in vitro antioxidant activity, anthocyanins may regulate different signaling pathways involved in the development of CVD.”

Processed Foods Containing Anthocyanin-Rich Fruits May Not Have the Same Benefit

If you want to get the health benefits of antioxidant flavonoids like anthocyanins, it appears fresh berries may be among the best source. Many processed food manufacturers – baby foods in particular – have attempted to cash in on their growing popularity among the health conscious by adding blueberries and other anthocyanin-rich fruits to their products.

Aside from berries, other anthocyanin-rich foods include eggplant, red cabbage, red leaf lettuce, red radish, and plums. But be very careful when purchasing processed foods with these beneficial fruits as one study found that in processed foods in which anthocyanins were added as raw materials, such as canned foods, breads, cereals and baby foods, the anthocyanins could no longer be detected. This was likely due to their poor stability and possible destruction during processing. Researchers said:4

“ACNs were barely detected in baby foods prepared from fruits high in anthocyanins such as blueberries. In some foods that may contain a mixture of berries and fruits, such as baby foods, the amount of ACN-containing berry added may be so low that the ACNs were unable to be detected.”

Please be Careful With Your Fruit Consumption…

Fruit can be immensely beneficial to your health, as it’s a natural source of fiber, vitamins and antioxidants. But it also contains fructose, the metabolism of which causes most of the same toxic effects as ethanol, such as visceral adiposity (belly fat), insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome. When consumed excessively, fructose may actually be more damaging to your health than alcohol, having over 70 documented adverse effects.

The main offenders in this category are not whole, natural organic fruits, but added sugars that Americans are consuming in an “alarming number” on a daily basis. Soda, fruit juice, and high-fructose corn syrup in processed foods is likely to contribute far more to your daily fructose load than an apple or a handful of berries…

An appropriate amount of fructose is no more than 25 grams per day, but if you’re overweight or at risk of (or have) heart disease, cancer, or type 2 diabetes, then you’re probably better off cutting that down to 10-15 grams per day, including the fructose that comes from fruit. Another way to determine just how strict you need to be in regard to fruit consumption is to check your uric acid levels.

Some people may be able to process fructose more efficiently than others, and the key to assess this susceptibility to fructose-induced adverse health effects lies in evaluating your uric acid levels. The higher your uric acid, the more sensitive you are to the effects of fructose. The safest range of uric acid appears to be between 3 and 5.5 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl), and there appears to be a steady relationship between uric acid levels and blood pressure and cardiovascular risk, even down to the range of 3 to 4 mg/dl.
If your levels are outside the healthy ranges listed above, then I strongly suggest you listen to your body’s biochemical feedback and reduce your fructose consumption, including that from fruit, until your uric acid levels normalize. I’ve also included a chart below of fructose levels in fruit to give you an idea of what 25 grams of fructose a day looks like.

What are 10 of the Healthiest Fruits You Can Eat?

If your fruit consumption only consists of apples, oranges and bananas, you’re missing out on some of the healthiest fruits out there!

1. Berries

Blueberries, strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, cranberries… unless you overeat them, it is hard to go wrong with berries, as they contain powerful phytochemicals such as ellagic acid that provide antioxidant protection, as well as directly inhibit the DNA binding of certain carcinogens. Berries are also excellent sources of vitamin C, carotenes, zinc, potassium, iron, calcium and magnesium; they’re high in fiber and low in sugar.

2. Coconuts

Coconuts are among the most nutritionally dense foods on the planet and have been a dietary staple for millennia. Coconut, especially its oil, is a powerful destroyer of all kinds of microbes, from viruses to bacteria, from fungi to protozoa, many of which can harm your health. Over 50% of its fat is contains an immune-boosting fat called lauric acid that has been shown to stimulate weight loss, support heart health and healthy thyroid function, and more.

Coconut water, on the other hand, is a better sports hydration drink than ANY of the commercially available sugary sports drinks, and is both sterile and an isotonic beverage, meaning it has the same electrolyte consistency of human blood, which enabled medics in the Pacific Theater in World War II to use it as an emergency substitute for blood plasma.

3. Avocados

Avocados are a very low fructose fruit and only have two grams of carbohydrates per avocado. They are rich in heart-healthy monounsaturated fat, which is easily burned for energy, and contain more than twice as much potassium as a banana. Avocados are also good sources of folate, dietary fiber, vitamin C, vitamin E, riboflavin and vitamin B6. I eat a whole avocado nearly every day.

4. Watermelon

Like berries, watermelon is loaded with phytochemicals, including lycopene, beta-carotene, and citrulline. When citrulline is consumed, it is converted to arginine. Arginine is an amino acid that has beneficial effects on your heart and circulatory system, as well as your immune system. Arginine boosts nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, leading to another beneficial side benefit of watermelon… a Viagra-like effect without the hazards of a toxic drug! Arginine also helps the urea cycle by removing ammonia and other toxic compounds from your body.

5. Pomegranate

The primary source of this fruit’s benefits is its antioxidant content, particularly ellagitannin compounds like punicalagins and punicalins, which account for about half of the pomegranate’s antioxidant ability. The juice and pulp of pomegranates have previously been studied for their potential heart- and joint-health benefits.

6. Mangoes

One mango will give you about half of your recommended daily allowance of both vitamins A and C, as well as some B vitamins, polyphenols and beta-carotene. Mangoes contain calcium, iron and potassium, are a good source of phosphorus, selenium, folate and zinc, and even contain 17 of the 20 amino acids that make up the human body.

7. Papaya

Rich in antioxidants like carotenes, vitamin C and flavonoids, papaya is also useful for digestion, as it contains papain, an enzyme that helps with digestion by breaking down proteins. Papaya also has plant compounds that support your immune system, provide anti-inflammatory effects and may provide protection against cancer. It’s also a rich source of minerals, potassium and magnesium.

8. Pineapple

Pineapple contains an enzyme, bromelain, which aids digestion, reduces inflammation and swelling and may have anti-cancer effects. Rich in antioxidants like vitamin C, pineapple also provides immune support and is an excellent source of manganese, thiamin and riboflavin, which are important for energy production.

9. Kiwi

Rich in phytonutrients that appear to protect human DNA from free-radical damage, kiwi is also an excellent source of antioxidant vitamins C and E, and beta-carotene. Kiwi is also a good source of fiber, potassium, magnesium, copper and phosphorous.

10. Cherries

Cherries contain powerful compounds like anthocyanins and bioflavonoids, which are known to fight inflammation and may help lower your uric acid levels and risk of gout. Bioflavonoids in cherries may reduce the activity of the enzymes Cyclooxyygenase-1 and – 2, which helps to reduce inflammatory processes associated with arthritis and gout in the body. Queritrin – a flavonoid – is also rich in cherries, and has been found to be a potent anticancer agent. Cherries also contain ellagic acid, a naturally occurring plant phenolic known as an anti-carcinogenic/anti-mutagenic compound.

Important Shopper’s Guide: Fruits You Should Buy Organic…

If possible, it’s best to buy all of your produce organic in order to reduce your exposure to pesticides. If you need to pick and choose, however, the Environmental Working Group has compiled a shopper’s guide to help.5 The following fruits have been found to contain the most and least toxic pesticide residues:

Most Contaminated Fruits (Buy These Fruits Organic)

Apples

Peaches

Strawberries

Nectarines (imported)

Grapes

Blueberries (domestic)

Least Contaminated Fruits (OK to Buy Conventional)

Pineapples

Avocado

Mangoes

Kiwi

Cantaloupe (domestic)

Grapefruit

Watermelon

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

It has come to our attention that the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), a national non-governmental organization that claims to represent the interests of American farmers, is right now attempting to covertly eliminate the freedom of South Carolina farmers to sell raw milk at the retail level. One of only a few states that currently recognizes the freedom of individuals to buy and sell raw milk legally, South Carolina is basically being accosted by this Big Ag front group, which will attempt to eliminate raw milk freedom in the Palmetto State at a special meeting to be held on Friday, January 25, 2013, at 12:00 pm.

According to an insider alert we just received, the South Carolina Dairy Advisory Committee (SCDAC) will consider a proposal made by AFBF, which is strongly and vocally opposed to individuals having the freedom to buy and sell raw milk, to eliminate an existing state statute that recognizes the freedom of South Carolina farmers who are properly permitted to sell raw milk at the retail level. In its place, AFBF wants SCDAC to implement policies that reflect its own biased views towards raw milk, which for all intensive purposes would ban the sale of raw milk for human consumption throughout the state.

“Delegates approved a new policy that states only pasteurized milk and milk products should be sold for human consumption,” states the heinous proposal that AFBF is pushing SCDAC to adopt. “Delegates approved the measure in light of the potential risks to public health and food safety posed by consumption of raw milk.”

Science reveals raw milk is safe
Based on AFBF’s track record of lobbying, it is hardly surprising that the organization would side with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in clinging to a completely unscientific and outdated view of raw milk safety. After all, AFBF is the same organization that back in 2012 aggressively opposed reasonable restrictions that would have limited the use of antibiotics in factory-farmed animals, erroneously claiming that doing so would somehow negatively affect public health (when quite the opposite is true).

Now, AFBF is making similar inaccurate claims with its surreptitious attack on raw milk in South Carolina. Based on data published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), raw milk is linked, at most, to causing only 42 sicknesses nationwide every year. And most of these cases cannot definitively be linked to raw milk — they are merely assumed to be the cause of illness, as the government has a unabashed and completely irrational bias against raw milk.

But even if all 42 of these annual cases could be conclusively linked to raw milk, the overall risk associated with raw milk consumption would still be ridiculously low, as roughly 10 million Americans consume raw milk on a regular basis. The federal government’s own data proves that Americans are 35 thousand times more likely to get sick from many other foods legally sold at grocery stores than they are from raw milk (http://www.westonaprice.org/press/government-data-proves-raw-milk-safe).

Take Action
Since the meeting takes place in less than 24 hours, it is crucial that the health freedom community band together as one to immediately oppose this assault on raw milk. NaturalNews readers are urged to contact both David Winkles, Jr., President and CEO of the South Carolina Farm Bureau, and Bob Stallman, President of AFBF, and urge them not to infringe on the freedom of South Carolinians to buy and sell raw milk. In your calls and emails, be sure to explain to these gentlemen that:

1) Raw milk is a safe food, rich in living enzymes and beneficial probiotic bacteria, that can actually improve health. People have been safely consuming raw milk for millennia, and many countries today allow raw milk sales without issue, including in Europe where raw milk vending machines can be spotted on street corners.

2) Scientific data supports the safety of raw milk that is properly regulated.

3) A movement away from regulated raw milk will adversely affect the citizens of South Carolina who rely on it for health.

4) If raw milk is made illegal, other potentially unsafe avenues like underground sales will quickly emerge, similar to what occurred during alcohol prohibition.

You can contact David Winkles, Jr. at:
[email protected]
(803) 936-4211

You can contact Bob Stallman at:
[email protected]

Remember to be polite, but assertive, in your correspondence. Without enough push-back, we can stop this blatant attack on raw milk from succeeding. But we must act now to show these bullies that we are paying attention, and that we will not succumb to their attempts to steal even more food freedom from Americans.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com

http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/raw_milk_map.htm

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038828_raw_milk_South_Carolina_farm_bureau.html#ixzz2JEU1T5tQ

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

Dr. Mercola

Processed food is perhaps the most damaging aspect of most people’s diet, contributing to poor health and chronic disease. One of the primary culprits is high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), the dangers of which I touch on in virtually every article on diet I write.

The second culprit is partially hydrogenated soybean oil.

These two ingredients, either alone or in combination, can be found in virtually all processed foods and one can make a compelling argument that the reliance on these two foods is a primary contributing factor for most of the degenerative diseases attacking Americans today.

Part of the problem with partially hydrogenated soybean oil is the trans fat it contains. The other part relates to the health hazards of soy itself. And an added hazard factor is the fact that the majority of both corn and soybeans are genetically engineered.

As the negative health effects from trans fats have been identified and recognized, the agricultural- and food industry have scrambled to come up with new alternatives.

Partially hydrogenated soybean oil has been identified as the main culprit, and for good reason. Unfortunately, saturated fats are still mistakenly considered unhealthy by many health “experts,” so rather than embracing truly healthful tropical fats like coconut oil, which is mostly grown outside the US. The food industry has instead turned to domestic US alternatives offered by companies like Monsanto, which has developed modified soybeans that don’t require hydrogenation.

Why Hydrogenate?

Americans consume more than 28 billion pounds of edible oils annually, and soybean oil accounts for about 65 percent of it. About half of it is hydrogenated, as soybean oil is too unstable otherwise to be used in food manufacturing. One of the primary reasons for hydrogenating oil is to prolong its shelf life. Raw butter, for example, is likely to go rancid far quicker than margarine.

The process also makes the oil more stable and raises its melting point, which allows it to be used in various types of food processing that uses high temperatures.

Hydrogenated oil1 is made by forcing hydrogen gas into the oil at high pressure. Virtually any oil can be hydrogenated. Margarine is a good example, in which nearly half of the fat content is trans fat. The process that creates partially hydrogenated oil alters the chemical composition of essential fatty acids, such as reducing or removing linolenic acid, a highly reactive triunsaturated fatty acid, transforming it into the far less reactive linoleic acid, thereby greatly preventing oxidative rancidity when used in cooking.

In the late 1990’s, researchers began realizing this chemical alteration might actually have adverse health effects. Since then, scientists have verified this to the point of no dispute.

Beware that there’s a difference between “fully hydrogenated” and “partially hydrogenated” oils. Whereas partially hydrogenated oil contains trans fat, fully hydrogenated oil does not, as taking the hydrogenation process “all the way” continues the molecular transformation of the fatty acids from trans fat into saturated fatty acids. Fully hydrogenated soybean oil is still not a healthy choice however, for reasons I’ll explain below. The following slide presentation explains the technical aspects relating to the hydrogenation process.

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

The Health Hazards of Trans Fats Found in Partially Hydrogenated Oil

The completely unnatural man-made fats created through the partial hydrogenation process cause dysfunction and chaos in your body on a cellular level, and studies have linked trans-fats to:

Cancer, by interfering with enzymes your body uses to fight cancer

Chronic health problems such as obesity, asthma, auto-immune disease, cancer, and bone degeneration

Diabetes, by interfering with the insulin receptors in your cell membranes

Heart disease, by clogging your arteries (Among women with underlying coronary heart disease, eating trans-fats increased the risk of sudden cardiac arrest three-fold!)

Decreased immune function, by reducing your immune response

Increase blood levels of low density lipoprotein (LDL), or “bad” cholesterol, while lowering levels of high density lipoprotein (HDL), or “good” cholesterol

Reproductive problems by interfering with enzymes needed to produce sex hormones

Interfering with your body’s use of beneficial omega-3 fats

As usual, it took many years before conventional health recommendations caught up and began warning about the use of trans fats. Not surprisingly, as soon as the FDA required food manufacturers to list trans fat content on the label — which took effect on January 1, 2006 — the industry began searching for viable alternatives to appeal to consumers who increasingly began looking for the “No Trans Fat” designation. It didn’t take long before Monsanto had tinkered forth a genetically engineered soybean that is low in linolenic acid, which we’ll get to in a moment.

Beware that some food manufacturers have opted to simply fool buyers — a tactic allowed by the FDA as any product containing up to half a gram of trans fat per serving can still legally claim to have zero trans fat2. The trick is to reduce the serving size to bring it below this threshold. At times, this will result in unreasonably tiny serving sizes, so any time you check a label and a serving is something like 10 chips or one cookie, it probably contains trans fats.

The Health Hazards of Soybeans

Besides the health hazards related to the trans fats created by the partial hydrogenation process, soybean oil is, in and of itself, NOT a healthy oil. Add to that the fact that the majority of soy grown in the US is genetically engineered, which may have additional health consequences. When taken together, partially hydrogenated GE soybean oil becomes one of the absolute worst types of oils you can consume.

Years ago, tropical oils, such as palm and coconut oil, were commonly used in American food production. However, these are obviously not grown in the US. With the exception of Hawaii, our climate isn’t tropical enough. Spurred on by financial incentives, the industry devised a plan to shift the market from tropical oils to something more “home grown.” As a result, a movement was created to demonize and vilify tropical oils in order to replace them with domestically grown oils such as corn and soy.

The fat in soybean oil is primarily omega-6 fat. And while we do need some, it is rare for anyone to be deficient as it is pervasive in our diet. Americans in general consume FAR too much omega-6 in relation to omega-3 fat, primarily due to the excessive amount of omega-6 found in processed foods. Omega-6 fats are in nearly every animal food and many plants, so deficiencies are very rare. This omega-6 fat is also highly processed and therefore damaged, which compounds the problem of getting so much of it in your diet. The omega-6 found in soybean oil promotes chronic inflammation in your body, which is an underlying issue for virtually all chronic diseases.

What About Organic Soybean Oil?

Even if you were fortunate enough to find organic soybean oil, there are still several significant concerns that make it far from attractive from a health standpoint. Soy in and of itself, organically grown or not, contains a number of problematic components that can wreak havoc with your health, such as:
•Goitrogens – Goitrogens, found in all unfermented soy whether it’s organic or not, are substances that block the synthesis of thyroid hormones and interfere with iodine metabolism, thereby interfering with your thyroid function.
•Isoflavones: genistein and daidzein – Isoflavones are a type of phytoestrogen, which is a plant compound resembling human estrogen, which is why some recommend using soy therapeutically to treat symptoms of menopause. I believe the evidence is highly controversial and doubt it works. Typically, most of us are exposed to too much estrogen compounds and have a lower testosterone level than ideal, so it really is important to limit exposure to feminizing phytoestrogens. Even more importantly, there’s evidence it may disturb endocrine function, cause infertility, and promote breast cancer, which is definitely a significant concern.
•Phytic acid — Phytates (phytic acid) bind to metal ions, preventing the absorption of certain minerals, including calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc — all of which are co-factors for optimal biochemistry in your body. This is particularly problematic for vegetarians, because eating meat reduces the mineral-blocking effects of these phytates.

Sometimes it can be beneficial, especially in postmenopausal women and in most adult men because we tend to have levels of iron that are too high which can be a very potent oxidant and cause biological stress. However, phytic acid does not necessarily selectively inhibit just iron absorption; it inhibits all minerals. This is very important to remember, as many already suffer from mineral deficiencies from inadequate diets.

The soybean has one of the highest phytate levels of any grain or legume, and the phytates in soy are highly resistant to normal phytate-reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking. Only a long period of fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content of soybeans.
•Natural toxins known as “anti-nutrients” — Soy also contains other anti-nutritional factors such as saponins, soyatoxin, protease inhibitors, and oxalates. Some of these factors interfere with the enzymes you need to digest protein. While a small amount of anti-nutrients would not likely cause a problem, the amount of soy that many Americans are now eating is extremely high.
•Hemagglutinin — Hemagglutinin is a clot-promoting substance that causes your red blood cells to clump together. These clumped cells are unable to properly absorb and distribute oxygen to your tissues.

Worst of All — Genetically Engineered Soybean Oil

The genetically engineered (GE) variety planted on over 90 percent of US soy acres is Roundup Ready — engineered to survive being doused with otherwise lethal amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The logic behind Roundup Ready crops such as soy is that you can decrease the cost of production by killing off everything except the actual soy plant.

However, animal studies reveal there may be significant adverse health effects from these GE soybeans, including progressively increased rates of infertility with each passing generation. By the third generation, virtually all the hamsters in one feeding study were found to be infertile. Second-generation hamsters raised on GE soy also had a five-fold higher infant mortality rate.

Are Low-Linolenic Soybeans the Answer?

We now also have other Monsanto-made soy crops to contend with. Responding to the growing demand for healthier diets, Monsanto launched Vistive low-linolenic soybeans in 2005. Most soybeans contain roughly seven percent linolenic acid. The new varieties contain one to three percent. As explained by Monsanto3:

“The oil from these beans can reduce or virtually eliminate trans fat in processed soybean oil… Vistive low-linolenic soybeans have lower levels of linolenic acid. Because of these lower levels, which were achieved through traditional breeding practices4, the oil produced by Vistive low-linolenic seeds does not require hydrogenation, the process that is used to increase shelf life and flavor stability in fried foods, baked goods, snack products and other processed foods.”

Yet another soybean variety created by Monsanto is the high stearate soybean, which also has the properties of margarine and shortening without hydrogenation. But are these soybeans any better or safer than either conventional soybeans or Roundup Ready soybeans, even though they don’t have to go through partial hydrogenation, and therefore do not contain trans fat? No one knows.

Another Hazard of GE Soybeans: Glyphosate

I keep stacking health risks upon health risks, and here’s another one: Research has shown that soybean oil from Roundup Ready soy is loaded with glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup — the broad-spectrum herbicide created by Monsanto.

According to a report in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, the highest MRL for glyphosate in food and feed products in the EU is 20 mg/kg. GE soybeans have been found to contain residue levels as high as 17 mg/kg, and malformations in frog and chicken embryos occurred at 2.03 mg/kg.5 That’s 10 times lower than the MRL.

This is an alarming finding because glyphosate is easily one of the world’s most overlooked poisons. Research published in 2010 showed that the chemical, which works by inhibiting an enzyme called EPSP synthase that is necessary for plants to grow, causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at far lower levels than used in agricultural and garden applications.6 The malformations primarily affected the:
•Skull
•Face
•Midline and developing brain
•Spinal cord

When applied to crops, glyphosate becomes systemic throughout the plant, so it cannot be washed off. And once you eat this crop, the glyphosate ends up in your gut where it can decimate your beneficial bacteria. This can wreak havoc with your health as 80 percent of your immune system resides in your gut (GALT – Gut Associated Lymph Tissue) and is dependent on a healthy ratio of good and bad bacteria. Separate research has also uncovered the following effects from glyphosate:

Endocrine disruption

DNA damage

Developmental toxicity

Neurotoxicity

Reproductive toxicity

Cancer

To Avoid Harmful Fats of All Kinds, Ditch Processed Foods

If you want to avoid dangerous fats of all kinds, your best bet is to eliminate processed foods from your diet. From there, use these tips to make sure you’re eating the right fats for your health:
•Use organic butter (preferably made from raw milk) instead of margarines and vegetable oil spreads. Butter is a healthy whole food that has received an unwarranted bad rap.
•Use coconut oil for cooking. It is far superior to any other cooking oil and is loaded with health benefits.
•Be sure to eat raw fats, such as those from avocados, raw dairy products, olive oil, olives, organic pastured eggs, and raw nuts, especially macadamia nuts which are relatively low in protein. Also take a high-quality source of animal-based omega-3 fat, such as krill oil.

Following my comprehensive nutrition plan will automatically reduce your trans-fat intake, as it will give you a guide to focus on healthy whole foods instead of processed junk food. Remember, virtually all processed foods will contain either HFCS (probably made from genetically engineered corn) and/or soybean oil — either in the form of partially hydrogenated soybean oil, which is likely made from GE soybeans, loaded with glyphosate, or from one of the newer soybean varieties that were created such that they do not need to be hydrogenated. They’re ALL bad news, if you value your health.

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

Diet soda or blues in a bottle?

It may sound like a country and western song, but emerging research is showing that it may be time to give soda (or “pop” to you Midwesterners) a new moniker — blues in a bottle.

If you’ve been suffering from depression — or are just not feeling like yourself lately — take a look at that carbonated beverage you’re guzzling daily before you run out to get a prescription for the latest, dangerous antidepressant.

A new study scheduled to be released at the American Academy of Neurology’s conference this spring found that people who consumed four or more cans of soda daily were a whopping 30% more likely to suffer from depression.

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health looked at the beverage consumption habits of more than 250,000 people between 1995 -1996, and followed up with these same people a decade later. The heavy diet soda drinkers were all much more likely to be diagnosed with depression. The study advises drinking unsweetened coffee instead. It turns out coffee drinkers were 10% less likely to suffer from depression than non-coffee drinkers (we’ve been telling you about the health benefits of coffee for years!).

So what’s the deal with soda? Must be all that sugar, right? As Dr. Wright has explained in the past, the link between excessive sugar intake and depression, diabetes, and a host of other illnesses is rock solid.

But get this — the research participants who drank diet soda were actually more likely to suffer from depression than those who drank regular soda.

Now, don’t get me wrong — sugar-laden regular soda will cause a variety of health problems (or make them worse) when you drink too much of it. But the nation’s soda bottlers would have you believe that once they take the sugar out of their product, they’ve somehow turned it into a vitamin-rich salad. Really, it’s more like putting a filter on a cigarette — they may have cut back on the calories, but there’s still plenty to worry about.

If you have been reading this e-letter for a while, you know this isn’t the first time we’ve warned you that diet soda is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. A previous study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that adults who drank diet soda daily where a stunning 44% more likely to suffer a heart attack.

Some of those research subjects had other risk factors such as obesity, but let’s be clear — diet soda, at the very least, wasn’t doing a darned thing to help.

The real takeaway here is that no matter what the Cokes and Pepsis of the world may try to convince you, there’s absolutely no health benefit to diet soda — and research is showing it may be downright harmful.

Our bodies, particularly as we age, need adequate hydration to keep our muscles, skin and other vital organs healthy, to flush away toxins, and to fight illness. And diet soda is no substitute for healthy beverages like water, herbal tea, or unsweetened coffee. Replace that daily Diet Coke with one of these healthier choices, and within a few weeks I’m guessing you will be stunned by how much better you feel.

Sources:
Diet Soda Linked to Depression in NIH Study: usnews.com

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

Five Strategies for a Healthier Gut in 2013

By Jeff Leach

In the summer of 2008, a 26-year-old man from Shanxi Province walked into a lab at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and 23 weeks later walked out 113 pounds lighter.

He had not participated in a clinical trial of some new secret weight loss pill, or signed up for a punishing Biggest Loser-style exercise program, nor had he been fussed over by behavioral scientists who made his plates and drinking cups smaller with each passing week.

The researchers, who were microbiologists, had simply put the man’s gut microbes on a diet.

One of the huge mysteries in studies of diet and exercise is the difference between people who get the same treatment but have remarkably different outcomes. Inevitably, some people in a study show little improvement despite weeks or even months of following what might seem like draconian changes in their normal diet and lifestyle.

Other people apparently drop weight just by getting out of bed in the morning, and also improve their circulating triglycerides, total cholesterol, and biomarkers of inflammation with apparent ease. We all know someone like this in our daily life.

But why are there such extreme differences between people?

Is your DNA to blame?

Our human genes may be involved in some cases but we generally share more than 99 percent genetic similarity with other people; more interestingly, the huge differences in peoples weight gain/loss may be driven more by the different bacteria in our intestines, which can be more than 90 percent different between one person and the next.

In addition to the familiar human genome that we inherit from our moms and dads, each of us also has hundreds of trillions of microbial symbionts, each with their own genomes. Research programs such as the Human Microbiome Project1 have revolutionized our understanding of our microbial bodies, which outnumber our human cells 10 to one, and account for more than two pounds of your body weight. We know microbes in your gut can change profoundly throughout life, and that you can change them through diet, medications, and hygiene, for example.

We also know that how you enter this world – C-section versus vaginal birth – can impact your initial “seeding” of microbes,2 which further change during breast- or formula-feeding, and what you eat later in life also affects your gut microbes and even how healthy you are as a senior citizen.3 We know that people in more traditional societies have different microbes than those in more Westernized populations,4 and that diet can play a role in these differences. You can also change the health prospects of a mouse overnight by changing its diet and thus its microbes.

The American Gut Project Seeks Valuable Answers

Advances in bioinformatics (fancy word for data analysis) and refinements of DNA techniques – not to mention a significant increase in computing power – is changing everything. The evidence that life events and diet can shape our gut microbes is increasing, but which direction should we nudge them? What is a healthy or optimal mix of gut microbes?

The honest answer is nobody knows (yet), but projects are underway – that you can participate in – to help us to better understand the role bacteria play in our health and lifestyle. The American Gut Project5 is one of the most ambitious of these projects, and I encourage you to join, to learn more about your own gut, and how it’s affecting your health. The deadline is February 2. To learn more, and for instructions on how to participate, please see Dr. Mercola’s article: “American Gut” – One of the Most Important Health Projects of the 21st Century.

The project is crowdfunded, meaning it’s funded by volunteer donations. In return, you get certain “Perks,” which include:
•A list of the dominant microbes in your gut
•Visualizations showing how you compare to the general population
•Charts showing the dominant kinds of microbes along with descriptions of what they are most associated with
•If your donation covers multiple sample kits, you may be able to see how your microbes change over time (if all the samples are from you), or how your microbes compare to those in your family members, for example

Here’s a summary of how many sampling kits you receive with your donation (The entire cost below goes directly to the Project). Kits will be mailed out starting in February, 2013:
•$99 — One kit, which can be used for either a stool, skin or oral sample
•$180 — Receive two kits, which can be used by yourself, either by sending in two different types of samples (stool and oral sample, for example), or by sending them in at different times to see how your microbes change over time. Or the kits can be used to send in one type of sample from two different people
•$260 — Receive three kits
•$320 — Receive four kits
•For donations of $500 and over, please see the American Gut Project IndieGoGo website

The kits contain pre-labeled test tubes and instructions for how to properly collect your samples. Each sample must be mailed to the University of Colorado within 48 hours of collection. (You will be responsible for the postage: $1.95 per sample.)

Five Strategies to Improve Your Gut Health

In the meantime, as you contemplate your New Year’s resolution to join the gym (again), lose weight, improve your diet, or to purchase the latest gizmo to track your every move, you might want to consider whether your microbes will support your decision. After all, they’re in control. Below are five suggestions on how you might improve the health of your gut microbes (and some other microbes in your life) in 2013.
•Avoid antibiotics. It’s a familiar story by now: overzealous use of antibiotics are driving antibiotic resistance among microbes at an alarming rate. But it gets worse: the average child in the developed world will likely receive 10-20 courses of antibiotics before his or her 18th birthday. This, coupled with the low therapeutic doses in animal feed – and ipso facto food, may be shifting our gut microbes into an unhealthy state and possibly contributing to the metabolic disease of obesity.6

It’s also well documented that following a course of broad-spectrum antibiotics, it could take weeks, months or even years for your gut microbial community to bounce back – if at all. During this period of imbalance, opportunistic pathogens can set up shop. Or worse. While antibiotics are clearly needed in some scenarios, ask more questions in 2013 before downing them without a care.
•Open a window. For 99.99 percent of human history the outside was always part of the inside, and at no moment during our day were we ever really separated from nature. Today, a National Activity Survey7 found that between enclosed buildings and vehicles, modern humans spend a whopping 90 percent of their lives indoors.

Though keeping the outside out does have its advantages – protection from the elements and decreasing your chances of being eaten by a zombie – it has also changed the microbiome of your home. Studies8 show that opening a window and increasing natural airflow can improve the diversity and health of the microbes in your home, which in turn benefit the inhabitants. In the not-so-distant future, building codes will likely reflect the biological benefits of rewilding our living and workspaces. Never hurts to get a head start.
•Adopt an ecological perspective. In 2013, familiarize yourself with the writings of Aldo Leopold, John Muir, and other important and interesting – past and present – naturalists and ecologists. The human-microbial superorganism is a vast ecological system, subject to the same rules of resistance, resilience, and balance as any ecosystem on the planet. The sooner you learn to tend your microbial garden, the sooner you will understand how human ecology and your health is nothing more than understanding our history and place in the larger biosphere.9
•Eat more plants. This is not a hard one. I don’t mean to give up meat, but I mean to eat a greater diversity and quantity of whole plants. This is the single most important (in my opinion) dietary strategy for improving the diversity and health of your gut microbiome. In short, your gut microbes thrive on a diversity of fermentable substrates (aka dietary fiber). But not all fiber is the same (physically or chemically), so consuming a diversity of whole plants will assure as steady flow of substrates for your resident microbes.

And make 2013 the year you eat more of the whole plant, not just the soft and tasty parts. Consume the entire asparagus, not just the tip; consume the trunk of the broccoli, not just the crown; consume all of the greens at the top of the leek, not just the bulb. By doing so, you will guarantee that the harder-to-digest portions of the plant will extend the metabolic activity of your microbiome deep into your bowels. Also track how many species of plants you eat in a week – shoot for 30-40, or more.
•Get your hands dirty. More to the point: start a garden. Getting your hands dirty and covering more of your body (and food) with mother nature’s blanket will help you not only connect with the natural world we have tried so hard to remove ourselves, but will reacquaint your immune system with the trillions of microorganisms on the plants and in the soil. The loss of this interface with the terra firma of our evolutionary past – body to soil, body to nature – is where the wheels came off the wagon.

As people of the world move from poverty to middle class, they also move from the gritty reality of our ancestral life to the promise of modern development and its triple-washed produce and squeaky-clean surroundings. Reconnecting with ecosystems, through gardening or some other ‘outside’ means, will allow you to understand and manage your inner-ecosystem. There is no better way.

About the Author

Jeff Leach is the Founder of the Human Food Project and the author of Honor Thy Symbionts. His opinions on health and nutrition have appeared as Op-ed articles in the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Sydney Morning Herald and his peer-reviewed research has been published in the British Journal of Nutrition, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, BioScience and Microflora, Journal of Archaeological Science, Public Health Nutrition and many others. He splits time between New Orleans and Africa.

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

FTC Proceeds with Raw Power Grab on Health Claims—In Effect Thumbing Its Nose at Congress

Posted By ANH-USA On January 22, 2013 @ 4:00 pm In Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Food company POM Wonderful’s battle with the FTC [1] ends (for now) with the agency making up its own law and quashing free speech. Action Alert! [2]

Last year, an administrative law judge (ALJ)* [3] for the Federal Trade Commission upheld the pomegranate juice manufacturer’s right to make what the FDA would call structure/function claims [4] in ads. Structure/function claims include statements such as “calcium helps build bones.” They don’t directly talk about curing a disease. At the same time, the ALJ found that some of the company’s claims went too far (specifically where they claimed the juice could help heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction).

Because the ALJ’s decision was a partial victory for both POM Wonderful and the FTC, both sides appealed, which necessitated a ruling from the FTC as a whole. Last Wednesday, the Commission took a much more unreasonable line [5]. It found that thirty-four of POM’s forty-three claims were implied disease claims—fifteen more than the ALJ had found. The full Commission further ruled that a double-blind random-controlled trial (RCT) is required for any “efficacy” claim and two double blind RCTs for any claim that might seem to be related to a disease. The $35 million on peer-reviewed scientific research [6] previously spent by POM was brushed aside because the studies were not RCTs, which are commonly used for drug testing.

This is a major one–two punch. The FTC is being draconian about what it considers an implied disease claim. One commissioner noted in remarks accompanying the decision [7]: “It is difficult to imagine any structure/function claims that POM could associate with its products in the marketplace without such claims being interpreted, under the FTC precedent set in this case, as disease-related claims.”

In making these judgments, the agency has relied on what is legally called its own “net impression,” i.e., totally subjective judgment, and has ignored the ALJ’s request for a higher standard of “extrinsic evidence,” the sort of evidence that would come for example by testing how consumers actually interpret a label.

The agency is also requiring the hugely expensive pharmaceutical standard of the double-blind RCTs. As we have often noted, companies do not usually attempt RCTs because of their expense, unless they hold a patent on the substance being tested. And it is not possible to patent natural substances such as food. The FTC understands this. In effect, they are saying that food manufacturers will not be allowed to talk about health benefits, period. It is a complete gag order.

The ruling also blurs the line between the FTC and the FDA. The double-blind RCT for disease claims is an FDA labeling standard for drugs. The FTC is supposed to regulate advertising, not decide what is a drug. Its mandate is to ensure that advertisements are not deceptive or misleading—something that certainly does not require the pharmaceutical RTC standard! Now the FTC is unnecessarily and arbitrarily deciding to use an FDA drug standard for disease claims in advertising. Some industry observers even wonder whether the FDA has asked the FTC to do this because the FDA would not be able to go this far on its own.

There is absolutely no statute justifying this. It is making up law without congressional approval. Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) in particular has already tried and failed to give the agency the power to do this—in a sneaky and underhanded way. You may recall that in 2010, Waxman tried to slip an amendment into a totally unrelated bill [8]. That amendment, which was intentionally written in obscure language that nobody but an expert could understand, would have given the FTC expanded powers and rulemaking authority, giving them the power to create new kinds of regulations without going back to Congress. (It lost that authority in the 1980s because Congress thought the FTC was abusing it. How ironic.) With your help, the amendment failed [9]. Having in effect been told no by Congress, the agency is just going ahead anyway, seemingly on a case-by-case basis, creating regulations with no legal basis.

Who benefits from such a change in policy? Just follow the money. If the FTC prevails in requiring double-blind RCTs, only pharmaceutical companies will be able to make health claims on their patented and FDA-approved products.

The Commission’s decision directly affects only POM Wonderful (along with all its affiliated companies despite the fact that POM was the only company at issue here!). But it sets a powerful precedent and makes it clear that the FTC will try to enforce this as widely as possible.

Food, drug, and constitutional law attorney Jonathan Emord called the decision “arbitrary and capricious” [10] and said, “The breadth of [the FTC’s new two-RCT] requirement is truly astonishing….After today’s decision, the health marketplace will be dumbed down considerably to the detriment of health conscious consumers….In the end, that will mean a loss in public health as there will now be a multi-million dollar entry fee imposed on any who would wish to convey a health benefit to consumers in the market.”

This is just one more reason we need to pass the Free Speech about Science Act [11], which would allow natural product companies to cite peer-reviewed science in their advertising.

For now, we need to let Congress know that the FTC is trying to make an end run around the legislative process. Having been turned down by Congress, the FTC is proceeding as though empowered anyway. Action Alert! Let’s be sure that Congress understands that voters are watching, and voters care about this example of agency lawlessness. Please take action now.

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