Tag Archives: Nutrition

Pro-GMO Scientist Retracts Studies

Posted on by

GMO-Science Takes a Blow as Studies Are Retracted

March 11, 2014 | 227,702 views

By Dr. Mercola

GMO Study

Story at-a-glance

  • Leading scientist for pro-GMO lobby, Dr. Pamela Ronald, recently retracted two studies. Her retracted research has in turn been cited by more than 120 other papers, causing a massive snowball effect of potentially invalidated research
  • The two now retracted studies formed the basis of her research program into how rice plants detect certain pathogenic bacteria
  • With the loss of her credibility, and the domino effect these retractions are likely to cause within the scientific field, the entire industry of biotechnology stands to suffer a great blow to its scientific integrity
  • Genetically engineered foods have never been proven safe for consumption, and there are definitive correlations between the results from GMO animal-feeding studies and the patterns of human disease we’re now seeing

The pesticide producers are one of the most powerful industries on the planet, the influence they possess is enormous. You have probably heard that an Elsevier journal has retracted the Seralini study which showed evidence of harm to rats fed a GMO diet, despite admitting they found no fraud or errors in the study.

This journal had also just recently appointed an ex-Monsanto employee as an editor – one could only guess the value of this strategy for the pesticide industry. Expect Seralini to sue as this story develops, as it appears he has a very strong case.

Alas, the scientific ground on which the genetic engineering of plants is built may now be shakier than ever, thanks to GMO promoting scientists like Dr. Pamela Ronald.  A recent article in Independent Science News1 questions whether she’ll be able to salvage her career, as two of her scientific papers (published in 2009 and 2011 respectively) were recently retracted.

With the loss of her credibility, and the domino effect these retractions are likely to cause within the scientific field, the entire chemical technology industry stands to suffer a great blow to its scientific integrity.

“Her media persona… is to take no prisoners,” Jonathan Latham, PhD writes.2 “After New York Times chief food writer Mark Bittman advocated GMO labeling, she called him ‘a scourge on science’ who ‘couches his nutty views in reasonable-sounding verbiage.’ His opinions were “almost fact- and science-free” continued Ronald.

In 2011 she claimed in an interview with the US Ambassador to New Zealand: ‘After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of two billion acres planted, GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment.’“

She may have to turn down her criticism a notch, considering the fact that not one but two of her own studies were found to contain sizeable scientific errors, rendering her findings null and void. Questions have also been raised about a third study published in 2011, according to the featured article.

Public Face of GMOs Loses Scientific Credibility

Ronald’s research group claimed to have identified a molecule used by rice plants to detect pathogenic rice blight, as well as a quorum sensing molecule (meaning a molecule that can coordinate gene expression according to the density of the local population).

These two studies, both of which are now retracted,3, 4 formed the basis of her research program at the University of California in Davis, which is investigating how rice plants detect certain pathogenic bacteria.

Ronald blamed the erroneous work by long gone lab members from Korea and Thailand, referring to the errors as a “mix-up.” She didn’t name her bungling colleagues, however. And while media coverage applauded Ronald for “doing the right thing” by retracting the studies, the featured article5 questions whether she really deserves such accolades:

“[S]cientific doubts had been raised about Ronald-authored publications at least as far back as August 2012… German researchers had been unable to repeat Ronald’s discoveries… and they suggested as a likely reason that her samples were contaminated.

Furthermore, the German paper also asserted that, for a theoretical reason, her group’s claims were inherently unlikely. In conclusion, the German group wrote: ‘While inadvertent contamination is a possible explanation, we cannot finally explain the obvious discrepancies to the results…’

Pamela Ronald, however, did not concede any of the points raised by the German researchers and did not retract the Danna et al 2011 paper. Instead, she published a rebuttal.

The subsequent retractions, beginning in January 2013, however, confirm that in fact very sizable scientific errors were being made in the Ronald laboratory. But more importantly for the ‘Kudos to Pam’ story, it was not Pamela Ronald who initiated public discussion of the credibility of her research.

… Ronald’s footnotes [in the explanation that accompanied the retraction of her second article6 admit two mislabelings, along with failures to establish and use replicable experimental conditions, and also minimally two failed complementation tests. Each mistake appears to have been compounded by a systemic failure to use basic experimental controls.

Thus, leading up to the retractions were an assortment of practical errors, specific departures from standard scientific best practice, and lapses of judgment in failing to adequately question her labs’ unusual (and therefore newsworthy) results.”

The Snowball Effect of Retracted Studies

According to data from Thomson Reuters,7 the numbers of scientific retractions have climbed more than 15-fold since 2001. What many don’t realize is that even a small number of retracted studies can wreak absolute havoc with the science-based paradigm. Other scientists who have based their research on the results from studies that, for whatever reason, end up being retracted, are now perpetuating flawed science as well. In one example, two retracted medical studies led to the retraction of another 17.

In this case, the first of Dr. Ronald’s retracted studies has been cited eight times.8 The second? 113 times.9 That sounds like an awfully large cleanup job in a field that’s already heavily criticized for its preponderance of “lousy science,” to use the words of award-winning geneticist Dr. David Suzuki.

The Problem with GMO Plant Science

It’s important to realize that genetically engineered plants and animals are created using horizontal gene transfer (also called horizontal inheritance). This is in stark contrast to vertical gene transfer, which is the mechanism in natural reproduction. Vertical gene transfer, or vertical inheritance, is the transmission of genes from the parent generation to offspring via sexual or asexual reproduction, i.e., breeding a male and female from one species.

Horizontal gene transfer, on the other hand, involves injecting a gene from one species into a completely different species, which yields unexpected and often unpredictable results. Proponents of genetically engineered crops assume they can apply the principles of vertical inheritance to horizontal inheritance, but according to Dr. David Suzuki, this assumption is flawed in just about every possible way and is “just lousy science.”

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

The kind of horizontal gene transfer that is currently used to create new crop seeds tends to produce highly inflammatory foreign proteins. As one would expect, were there a connection, inflammation-based chronic diseases have indeed increased right alongside with the proliferation of GMO foods in the US. Clearly, Dr. Ronald never bothered to look at such data, and her declaration that “GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment”10 is as lacking in scientific support as her retracted research.

Results from Animal-Feeding Studies Correlate with Human Disease Patterns

According to Jeffrey Smith, who is one of the leaders in educating people about the concerns and dangers of GMOs, there are definitive correlations between the results from animal-feeding studies and the patterns of human disease we’re now seeing. For example, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has done a number of animal-feeding studies on GMOs and specifically enumerated the particular categories of diseases and disorders found in these controlled environments. These include:

Gastrointestinal problems Immune problems Reproductive problems
Organ damage Dysfunction and dysregulation of cholesterol Dysfunction and dysregulation of insulin

 

“You look at the three different corresponding factors: (1) what humans are getting better from, (2) what livestock is getting better from, (3) what afflictions are afflicting the lab animals fed with GMOs, and then you look at what diseases are really taking off in the United States – they’re the same categories,” Smith says.

For example, kidney problems have been demonstrated in 19 different animal-feeding studies, and kidney diseases are on the rise in the US. Could there be a connection? Smith and I both believe this to be the case. According to Smith:

“We heard from two people at a meeting in Arizona, someone whose husband was nearly on dialysis and someone else who had three kidney transplants – both situations reversed when they changed their diet. You see things like the animal-feeding study out of Russia where the babies were a lot smaller after being fed GE soy, and you see the incidence of low-birth-weight babies is going up in the United States… Deaths from senile dementia moved along at a certain pace, and then when GMOs or Roundup were introduced, it shot up… So, you see these correlations between these four things now: (1) the animal-feeding studies, (2) people getting better [when removing GMO], (3) livestock getting better [when removing GMO], and (4) changes in the disease rates.”

GMO Foods Have Never Been Proven Safe for Long-Term Consumption

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on genetically modified foods, and said that long-term independent studies must be conducted, stating: “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. …There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…”

Despite this sound warning, genetically engineered foods continue to be added to the US food supply with no warning to the Americans buying and eating this food. Genetic manipulation of crops, and more recently food animals, is a dangerous game that has repeatedly revealed that assumptions about how genetic alterations work and the effects they have on animals and humans who consume such foods are deeply flawed and incomplete. Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant claims genetically engineered crops are “the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What he doesn’t tell you is that:

  1. Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results.
  2. The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the world’s first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer.
  3. Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence, independent research is extremely difficult to conduct.
  4. There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the genetically engineered item in question has been approved, not a single country on Earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects.

Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day

 

Remember, the food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State—to prevent you from knowing what’s in your food. You can even the score by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference.

I-522 poster

As always, I encourage you to continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and to share what you’ve learned with family and friends. Remember, unless a food is certified organic, you can assume it contains GMO ingredients if it contains sugar from sugar beet, soy, or corn, or any of their derivatives.

 

If you buy processed food, opt for products bearing the USDA 100% Organic label, as organics do not permit GMOs. You can also print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. Alternatively, download their free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications. For more in-depth information, I highly recommend reading the following two books, authored by Jeffrey Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology:

from:   http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/03/11/retracted-gmo-studies.aspx?e_cid=20140311Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20140311Z1&et_cid=DM40701&et_rid=452684942

Changing Views on Healthy Foods, etc.

Posted on by

In health and nutrition, what’s old is suddenly new again

 

(NaturalNews) When it comes to health and nutrition, it seems like everything old is new again. Many foods or health protocols that used to be commonly enjoyed were later attacked and discredited by industry-funded “scientists” trying to sell toxic substitutes like vegetable oil or aspartame.

But as health awareness has radically increased over the last two decades, many “old” things are new again. In this article, I share my list on many of these “old” things which are suddenly back in vogue.

What’s old is suddenly new

• Local food – Before the rise of factory foods, nearly all food was local. As a result, it was also far healthier and more nutritious than today’s centrally-manufactured, distributed foods (think McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets).

Now, thanks to the rise of the local food movement, CSAs and farmers markets, local food is popular again. It also happens to be ecologically sustainable. If humanity is to survive the next century, it must do so by learning how to produce local decentralized food.

• Sunlight – Once praised as a health treatment all by itself, sunlight has been relentlessly attacked by dermatologists and the cancer industry who have encouraged massive vitamin D deficiencies across the population. But now, as the importance of vitamin D is coming back to light, more and more people are turning to sensible sunshine exposure as a powerful, genuine health treatment with remarkable anti-cancer benefits.

• Eggs – The vicious campaign attacking eggs — waged throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s — was based entirely on junk science and deceptive dietary advice. Whole eggs, it turns out, are very healthy when produced by truly free-range chickens that aren’t fed GMOs, pesticides and chemicals. Today, people recognize this again, and more people are not just buying eggs but even raising their own chickens (like I do).

• Butter – Like eggs, butter was also maligned by prostitute-scientists spreading Big Food propaganda to sell partially hydrogenated oils and “buttery spreads” or margarine. Today, however, society has finally come to realize that hydrogenated oils are poison. Real butter, it seems, is actually a whole lot better for you than fake butters. And margarine is now largely seen as cheap food eaten by low-income people who can’t afford real butter.

• Neti pots and nasal rinses – Used throughout human history, nasal rinsing is a practice traced back to the dawn of civilization. But during the rise of the antibiotics era, personal hygiene took a back seat to the more “scientific” protocol of taking antibiotics instead of just rinsing your sinuses. But the age of antibiotics is now coming to an end as physician-assisted abuse of antibiotics spurred the development and spread of deadly superbugs. Suddenly, rinsing your nasal passages with salt water seems a whole lot wiser than popping superbug-inducing chemical pills.

• Sugar – Cane sugar has been relentlessly attacked as the enemy of health. But it turns out that artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose are a lot more worrisome than sugar — especially if the sugar is minimally processed (evaporated cane juice crystals). High-fructose corn syrup is also now widely believed to be far more disease-promoting than cane sugar, and many people actually seek out sodas sweetened with real sugar rather than corn syrup.

• Eyeglasses – Contacts involve the use of cleaning chemicals which have preservatives that lead to eye irritation with long-term use. That’s why some people experience eye irritation and are now returning to using eyeglasses. Even though contacts made glasses “old fashioned” for a while, glasses are coming back into their own as many people find them more natural and comfortable than contact lenses.

• Natural hair color – For many people, the age of poisoning yourself with toxic hair dyes is over. Natural colors are back in style, and in many ways natural gray shows wisdom rather than a desperate, contrived effort to feign youth.

• Face-to-face conversations – During the rise of social media giants like Facebook, people thought it would be cool to connect with each other online. But now the truth has become obvious to nearly everyone: “connecting” online isn’t much of a connection at all. What people really crave is human interaction, not meaningless, electronically-fabricated social circles.

In addition, here’s a short list of a few other foods and health that are suddenly back in style:

• Red wine (and resveratrol)
• Raw milk
• Cloth diapers
• Plant-based diets
• Home schooling
• Full-spectrum healthy salts
• Avocados (which were long attacked as containing too much fat)
• Vitamin C
• Organic coffee

TIme to GO Organic

Posted on by

Yet Another Reason to go Organic – Research Verifies it Really is More Nutritious

Organic24th September 2013

By Carolanne Wright

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

While it’s generally agreed in the natural health arena that organically produced fare is superior in safety compared to crops that utilize GMOs or chemical pesticides, the fact that it’s more nutritious might be overlooked by consumers. Conventional growers insist there isn’t a substantial difference between the two, yet several studies have found otherwise.

The science behind nutrient rich organic edibles

In the battle between conventional versus organic, research has shown the latter to be the victor with higher levels of vitamins and minerals as well as conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and omega-3 fats.

Nutritional profile of organic compared to conventional crops

After reviewing 41 published studies examining the nutritional content of conventional and organically grown crops, certified nutrition specialist Virginia Worthington discovered organic food rated significantly higher. Findings include greater levels of vitamin C (27 percent), iron (21.1 percent), magnesium (29.3 percent) and phosphorus (13.6 percent). She also notes that organic crops had lower nitrates and heavy metal contamination. Worthington’s results can be found in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine

Likewise, a study led by Alyson Mitchell at the University of California-Davis found free radical scavenging flavonoids were notably higher in organic tomatoes. Over the course of ten years, organically produced tomatoes were compared to their conventional counterpart. The organic fruit was shown to contain between 79 and 97 percent more flavonoid, aglycones, quercetin and kaempferol than conventionally grown tomatoes.

Variance in milk fatty acids between organic and conventional farming practices

A study in the Journal of Dairy Research investigated the chemical composition of milk sourced from conventional and organic dairy sheep and goats in Greece. One hundred and sixty two milk samples were taken over three months. Results showed fat content was lower in the organic milk compared to conventional. Additionally, the researchers discovered:

Milk from organic sheep had higher content in MUFA, PUFA, alpha-LNA, cis-9, trans-11 CLA, and omega-3 FA, whereas in milk from organic goats alpha-LNA and omega-3 FA content was higher than that in conventional one. These differences are, mainly, attributed to different feeding practices used by the two production systems.

According to the study, organic milk has a greater nutritional value (due to its fatty acid profile) compared to conventional milk when “produced under the farming conditions practiced in Greece.”

Similar results were found with cow’s milk. A team of researchers at the Institute of Food Science and Nutrition in Piacenza, Italy evaluated the fat composition of organic bulk milk as well as conventional. Once again, organically produced milk had higher levels of CLA. “The animal diet appears to be the factor which has the highest effect on the CLA concentration in milk and milk products and an organic diet based on fresh or dried forage, that is rich in CLA precursory fatty acids, may improve the yield of fatty acids with beneficial effects on health.”

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2013/09/24/yet-another-reason-to-go-organic-research-verifies-it-really-is-more-nutritious/

Food Irradiation Safety

Posted on by
food

Harmful if swallowed – The dangers of food irradiation

Sunday, September 01, 2013 by: Nate Curtis

(NaturalNews) Food irradiation was implemented to eradicate potentially harmful substances that pose health risks to consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has long ago approved irradiation for products including meats, fruits and vegetables. While eliminating dangerous bacteria sounds like a step in the right direction, the research behind food irradiation is highly flawed.

Irradiation wipes out good bacteria as well as the harmful kinds. Good bacteria found in foods curb the growth of dangerous bacteria and produce an odor that indicates spoilage. There is also a chance that the bacteria that survive the irradiation process can mutate and become radiation-resistant, which would make the entire process ineffective and potentially lead to the formation of bacteria that is also resistant to antibiotics.

“Radiation is a carcinogen, mutagen and teratogen,” Dr. Geraldine Dettman, a Brown University safety officer, points out. “At doses of 100,000 rads on fruits and vegetables, the cells of the fruits and vegetables will be killed, and most insect larvae will be destroyed, but fungi, bacteria and viruses growing on the fruit and vegetables will not be killed . . . They will be mutated, possibly leading to more virulent contaminants.”

It alters the content of food

The nutritional content of irradiated foods is seriously compromised. Irradiation can destroy between 5 percent and 80 percent of vitamins and nutrients found in a variety of foods including essential vitamins A, B complex, C, E, and K. For example, irradiated eggs lose 80 percent of vitamin A and orange juice loses 48 percent of beta-carotene.

Irradiation not only reduces the food’s nutritional content, but also changes its flavor, texture and odor. For example, turkey and pork can become bright red while beef can turn from red into a shade of green or brown. Numerous studies show that irradiated foods are inferior in taste, texture, and smell to non-irradiated foods.

It has not been proven to be safe

Scientific studies that were used to legalize irradiation used old scientific methods and were not extensive. In fact, the study of how irradiated foods affect the human body lasted for only 15 weeks before it was discontinued and irradiated foods were deemed safe for human consumption. There is no research available to determine the long-term effects of eating irradiated foods. Furthermore the research used to approve irradiation did not fulfill current scientific protocols required by federal law.

Dr. Gayle Eversole states, “Food irradiation exposes food to the equivalent of 30 million chest X-rays. Irradiation creates new chemicals in foods called radiolytic products. Some of these products are known cancer-causing substances….No one knows the long term impact of eating unknown quantities of these damaged foods. Studies on animals fed irradiated foods have shown increased tumors, reproductive failures and kidney damage. Chromosomal abnormalities occurred in children from India who were fed freshly irradiated wheat.”

Irradiation is ineffective

Irradiation kills the majority of bacteria that cause food borne illnesses but does not eradicate other waste that can contaminate meat and other foods due to unsanitary conditions in slaughterhouses and processing plants. It does not eliminate contaminants such as urine, feces and vomit. It also doesn’t destroy the virus that causes Mad Cow disease.

Being aware of the dangers of food irradiation will help you avoid foods that can be potentially harmful to your body. Irradiated foods are required to be labeled with a symbol resembling an encircled leafy plant. Remember to always double check the food you buy, question its origins and read the labels carefully.

Foods Banned in Other Countires, Not USA

Posted on by

10 American Foods That Are Banned in Other Countries

By Dr. Mercola

Americans are slowly waking up to the sad fact that much of the food sold in the US is far inferior to the same foods sold in other nations. In fact, many of the foods you eat are BANNED in other countries.

Here, I’ll review 10 American foods that are banned elsewhere, which were featured in a recent MSN article.1

Seeing how the overall health of Americans is so much lower than other industrialized countries, you can’t help but wonder whether toxic foods such as these might play a role in our skyrocketing disease rates.

Story at-a-glance

  • Many foods sold in the US are banned in other countries due to harmful additives, growth promoters, genetically engineered ingredients or other dangerous practices
  • This includes farm-raised salmon, Hawaiian (GMO) papaya, artificial food dyes, arsenic-laced chicken, ractopamine-tainted meat, bromate-containing drinks and bread, olestra, carcinogenic preservatives, and rBGH-laced milk
  • To avoid potentially hazardous foods and harmful ingredients permitted in the US food supply, ditching processed foods entirely is your best option
  • Also swap out your regular meat sources to organic, grass-fed/pasture-raised versions of beef and poultry. The same goes for dairy products and animal by-products such as eggs.

to read the whole articles, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/10/banned-foods.aspx?e_cid=20130710_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130710

Know What You Are Eating

Posted on by
Michael F. Jacobson

Executive Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest

Ending Food Ignorance: Education Is Too Important to Leave to Big Food

Would you be surprised to know that there is a highly-sophisticated, multi-billion-dollar campaign underway designed to teach your children about food? There is. In fact, experts agree that this campaign is wildly successful. Unfortunately, the massive instructional campaign to which I refer is the $2 billion effort by the food industry to teach children and teens to want candy, sugar drinks, sugary cereals, and other highly-processed junk foods. Mostly, these lessons are delivered through your television set. Increasingly though, these messages reach kids through mobile devices, so-called “advergames” on the web, and shockingly, even junk-food marketing within the four walls of their classrooms.

When one-third of American kids are overweight or obese, and are on track to have shorter lives than their parents, it’s clear that food education is too important to leave to Big Food. That’s why Jamie Oliver’s Food Foundation and the organizers behind Food Day (Oct. 24) are collaborating on a new national initiative to put food education in every school.

Parents would be outraged if their children in elementary school didn’t learn that two plus two is four, or couldn’t identify the Niña, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria. Yet, as Oliver demonstrated in 2010, some American school kids cannot identify tomatoes, beets, or cauliflower, or might mistake an eggplant for a pear! Yet thanks to Big Food’s marketing muscle, junk food brands like McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and Chuck E. Cheese’s are as firmly implanted in kids’ developing brains as the names of the three ships that sailed the ocean blue in 1492.

The anti-hunger group Feeding America estimates that elementary school students receive just 3.4 hours of nutrition education — actual education and not marketing — each year. Fewer than 25 percent of high school students take any family and consumer science classes, formerly known as home economics, and those classes are often the first to go when school budgets are trimmed. And parents have to shoulder some of the blame, when, in all too many harried households, “cooking” actually means “microwaving” or otherwise heating some well-preserved, factory-extruded, combination of flour, fat, salt, sugar, dyes, and other chemicals.

But just as we expect our schools to do the heavy lifting when it comes to teaching geography, algebra, physical education, and history, we should expect schools to teach children about food — where it comes from and how it affects our bodies and our health. Where it’s been done well, we know it works. First of all, most kids find that cooking is fun. The more children cook and prepare fresh recipes from scratch, the more likely they are to appreciate healthier and varied ingredients and develop a skill that will serve them well throughout their lives. The more children learn about food and nutrition, the more likely they are to eat fruits, vegetables, and other healthful foods. And the real-world experience of Alice Waters’ edible schoolyards show that the more that children plant and harvest fresh fruits and vegetables, they more motivated they’ll be to eat them.

We call on policymakers at all levels of government, starting with local school boards, mayors, and governors and then on up to members of Congress and to the famous nutrition advocates living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, to put food education back in every school. We can’t raise another generation of kids that can’t tell tomatoes from potatoes, or for whom cooking means pressing the “start” button on the microwave. Let’s make sure every kid advances to the next grade with a handful of age-appropriate recipes under their belt, with some healthful sandwiches and salads learned in elementary school, more advanced soups and pastas in middle school, and healthy and wholesome entrees in high school. Let’s envision the financial windfall taxpayers should reap when we begin to make a serious dent in rates of childhood overweight and obesity. And let’s put food education back in schools because we value our children and their prospects for long, healthy, and happy lives.

It will be many years, if ever, before America’s real food educators have the same financial resources as America’s junk-food manufacturers. But we shouldn’t leave the critical task of teaching nutrition to the food industry any more than we’d leave teaching science to the Flat Earth Society.

For more by Michael F. Jacobson, click here.

from:    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/food-education_b_3552273.html

Pesky Nutrition Myths

Posted on by

10 Common Nutrition Myths and Misconceptions

nutrition-myths15th June 2013

By Tracy Kolenchuk

Guest Writer for Wake Up World

The most common misconception about nutrition is that we actually know a lot about nutrition.

Fact: no-one studies healthy nutrition and diet in a serious, scientific fashion. We have lots of theories, lots of errors, lots of contradictions, but little true scientific testing in search of truth.

Virtually all of the scientific research into nutrition is ‘illness based’, not healthiness based. This bias creates a lot of knowledge about specific diseases but little understanding of health. When we research ‘illness’, we search for specific causes and specific cures.

Did you ever wonder why everything seems to be bad for you, and almost everything seems to be good for you as well? This is a result of researching illness and ignoring healthiness. Illnesses are ‘specific’. Healthiness is general. Lessons learned by studying illness are poor teachers when trying to attain healthiness.

As a result, we have many theories about nutrition that are repeated over and over, but are simply, clearly wrong. Others are simply myths.

[I distinguish between myths and wrong ideas in this article – although I suspect I have not done so in previous articles. Although many people use the word myth to describe ‘wrong ideas’, I will use the word Myth for ideas that are widely believed, but not proven, and Error for ideas that have been proven wrong].

Some of these theories include:

1. Error:  ”Calories in = calories out“.

The truth – poo burns. Normally, it contains about 20 percent fats, but we don’t have much research into how eating more, or less fat changes that ratio. Poo contains calories. So does sebum. So does urine if you are diabetic. Both contain more if you have specific illnesses or if you consume specific diets. Calories in = calories out math simply doesn’t work. If we use it to estimate the weight based on averages in calorie consumption increases in the past two decades, the average weight would be about 900 pounds.

This Error is often stated differently: “Cutting calories will cause weight loss”. Experiments have clearly shown that cutting calories, but consuming the wrong foods (eg. high in carbs) will continue to increase obesity. Cutting back on the wrong foods does not make a difference to a poor diet. Unfortunately, figuring out what are ‘the right foods for you’ can be a huge challenge.

2. Myth: “Vegetarianism is a healthy diet”.

Vegetarianism is an ethical diet, marketed as a healthy diet. It has been studied (a bit) to determine what illnesses might result, and what illnesses might benefit, but it has not been studied from a healthiness perspective. It is very easy for someone who is not a vegetarian to switch to vegetarianism and choose a very unhealthy diet without realizing it.

At the same time, there has been little study of an all meat diet, because it is not seen as an ethical diet. There have been some studies which found an all meat diet can also decrease illness and may improve healthiness in specific cases. But the studies are so few and so limited that, as most studies conclude, “more study is required”.

3. Myth: “Breakfast is the most important meal”.

There is no significant evidence to support this, nor any other eating pattern for optimal healthiness. Of course it can always be said that breakfast is the most important meal – when we recognize that every meal ‘breaks the previous fast’, even if our lunch or dinner is actually our ‘breakfast’. For some people, breakfast is essential to get started, for others, breakfast can easily be left aside until lunchtime or later. Nobody has attempted to measure which of those ‘types’ are healthiest, nor if their healthiness is caused by their eating patterns.

We don’t scientifically test eating times and their effects on healthiness. Hospitals provide food ‘when it is convenient’, not on a schedule to improve or maximize healing or healthiness. When we truly know which eating patterns were healthiest, hospitals will want to know, and senior’s homes might need to change their schedules. It may well turn out that simple eating plans are not as healthy as more complex, diverse eating plans.

Glass of water - Copy4. Myth: “Drink eight glasses of water a day for health”.

Where did this myth come from? You might find the answer here “The mysterious origins of the “8 glasses of water a day” rule“, where the author reports:

“The origins of the “8 glasses of water a day” rule was explored by Dr. Heinz Valtin in a 2002 article and Dr. Tsindos  in a 2012 article. After extensive searches of the published literature, they found absolutely no scientific evidence for the idea that most people need to drink at least 8 glasses of water a day.”

How much water should you drink? At the very least, you should listen to your body and let it decide. If you are suffering a headache – the morning after – you are probably suffering from dehydration as your body tried to remove toxins by urinating. Drink some water.

5. Myth: “Vitamins are dangerous”.

More people die from drinking too much water than from taking too many vitamins. Vitamins are called vitamins because they are essential to health. But then it gets complicated – really complicated. All vitamins are studied in isolation – studies of combinations are much more difficult. Scientific studies of vitamins are tested against illness – to determine if they cause, or cure illness. Many nutritional studies were designed to ensure that prisoners don’t get sick.

There are no vitamin studies that test changes in ‘healthiness’. Because of the focus on illness, much vitamin research is ignored. For example, a deficiency of Vitamin C results in scurvy (in theory) – but this research ignores that fact that a diet of meats alone does not result in scurvy, even though the Vitamin C consumed is much less than required to prevent scurvy on a carb diet.

Many so called ‘vitamins’ are actually chemicals created to ‘act like’ natural vitamins – and these are poorly studied with regards to healthiness and illness. It is certainly possible that some of these vitamins are dangerous.

When we are truly interested in learning about healthiness of vitamins and minerals, we will study which vitamin combinations improve healthiness the most – and study their relationships to different dietary regimens.

6. Myth: “Lean meats are good for your heart”.

There is no scientific evidence that lean meats are healthier than fatty meats. The same goes for other low fat foods (milk and cheese). If anything, the science demonstrates the opposite. The ‘avoid fat’ concept is simply a misunderstanding on how fat is created in our bodies – fat is created from sugars.

The lean meat myth was created by the American Heart Association, and is actively maintained by them in full view of much scientific evidence to the contrary. It has become fundamental to their fundraising operations – and it is unlikely they can change without losing a lot of face – and possibly a lot of money.

Most people who restrict themselves to ‘lean meats’ compensate with high glycemic foods like bread, pasta, and sugar. These foods are far worse for your heart and circulatory system than fatty foods.

7. Error: “Fiber is an essential nutrient for health”.

Fiber is not an essential nutrient – in fact, it is not even a nutrient. It is likely that fiber is important for specific dietary regimes, or specific purposes, but is completely useless in other diets. We simply don’t know and there is little scientific research that tests the fiber theories across different diets. Fiber is typically suggested to resolve illnesses that cannot be clearly diagnosed, not to improve healthiness.

8. Error: “You need to consume sugar for your brain to function”.

This is a misconception that is proved wrong by the simple act of fasting. Your blood supply runs out of dietary sugar in less than a day. Your brain has no problem functioning for weeks.

9. Error: “Fasting is unhealthy”.

Short term fasts are prescribed for blood tests etc., but many doctors claim that fasting is unhealthy or simply does not enhance healthiness. The simple truth is that we don’t test overall healthiness, we don’t measure overall healthiness, and we don’t know the facts about fasting either. Sleeping, frankly is fasting. And it’s healthy.

You might wonder how long someone can fast ‘safely’? The answer is simply, ‘it depends’. There are different types of fasts, and different people. If you ask Google, you might think that the longest fast is just over 40 days. But no. Here is a scientific report of a therapeutic fast that lasted 382 days. The patient started at over 400 pounds and emerged a healthy weight of 180 pounds. Fasting can be unhealthy – so can crossing the street.

10. Myth: “Toxins in foods are not at levels dangerous to your health”.

Many foods contain toxins. We know this. Many foods contain ‘natural toxins’ that the plants develop to fight insects. What the toxins do to our bodies, whether they build up or are excreted is poorly studied.

Toxins come in many forms and might be natural, coming from nature, or unnatural, created by man. Many GMO ‘foods‘ contain designer toxins. So do most patented medicines. Every day, more chemicals are created and used on foods and in our environment.

Studies of toxins are extremely weak. We don’t even have scientific agreement on simple questions like ‘Is fluoridated water healthy or unhealthy?’ We have many studies on the toxicity of fluoride and very few studies that suggest it may prevent dental caries. But no studies on healthiness of fluoride. However, in many communities fluoride is routinely added to drinking water.

Conclusions:

a) Simple rules are not so simple, and often not accurate. Take all advice with a grain of salt – I recommend natural salt. But I also recommend that you make your own decisions.

b) Studying illness to create healthiness is a poor choice, resulting in many simple errors.

c) If we want to learn about health, we need to study healthiness.

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2013/06/15/10-common-nutrition-myths-and-misconceptions/

Kale —The New Beef!

Posted on by

7 Reasons Kale Is the New Beef

Written by Jill Ettinger

 

Dinosaur Kale

Like the saying goes, the only constant is change. We may resist it all we want, but Time and its inevitable evolution of everything in its path is unaffected by our attempts to stop it. The resulting trajectory of humanity’s nascent ascent appears to be positioning itself to sweep us into progressive new times, especially where our food choices are concerned, as nearly 7 billion people are now standing on the little scraps of land that we share with some 55 billion rather large animals raised for food each year. (As another famous saying goes: This town ain’t big enough for the both of us.) So, beef (and all factory-farmed meat) may be going from rib-eye to relic as we transition to a greener world… literally—as in leafy, green vegetables.

Environmentalists cite meat production as one of the biggest contributors to global warming, and the USDA’s new food pyramid (MyPlate) suggests the healthiest choice is making vegetables and fruit the biggest part of every meal by reducing consumption of animal proteins. Kale is far more nutritious than other leafy greens, but these seven reasons why it is such an important futurefood may just surprise you.

1. Anti-inflammatory: Inflammation is the number one cause of arthritis, heart disease and a number of autoimmune diseases, and is triggered by the consumption of animal products. Kale is an incredibly effective anti-inflammatory food, potentially preventing and even reversing these illnesses.

2. Iron: Despite the myth that vegetarians are anemic, the number of non-vegetarians with iron-deficiencies is on the rise. Per calorie, kale has more iron than beef.

3. Calcium: Dairyand beef both contain calcium, but the U.S. still has some of the highest rates of bone loss and osteoporosis in the world. Kale contains more calcium per calorie than milk (90 grams per serving) and is also better absorbed by the body than dairy.

4. Fiber: Like protein, fiber is a macronutrient, which means we need it every day. But many Americans don’t eat nearly enough and the deficiency is linked to heart disease, digestive disorders and cancer. Protein-rich foods, like meat, contain little to no fiber. One serving of kale not only contains 5 percent of the recommended daily intake of fiber, but it also provides 2 grams of protein.

5. Omega fatty acids: Essential Omega fats play an important role in our health, unlike the saturated fats in meat. A serving of kale contains 121 mg of omega-3 fatty acids and 92.4 mg of omega-6 fatty acids.

6. Immunity: Superbugs and bacteria are a serious risk to our health. Many of these come as a result of factory farm meat, eggs and dairy products. Kale is an incredibly rich source of immune-boosting carotenoid and flavanoid antioxidants including vitamins A and C.

7. Sustainable: Kale grows to maturity in 55 to 60 days versus a cow raised for beef for an average of 18-24 months. Kale can grow in most climates and is relatively easy and low impact to grow at home or on a farm. To raise one pound of beef requires 16 pounds of grain, 11 times as much fossil fuel and more than 2,400 gallons of water.

from:    http://www.organicauthority.com/health/reasons-kale-is-the-new-beef-nutritious-sustainable.html

Dr. William Davis on Triticum Fever, Celiac Disease, Wheat Consumption

Posted on by

Triticum Fever, by Dr. William Davis, author of Wheat Belly

By at 2:10 pm Wednesday, Oct 26

Quick: Name a common food, consumed every day by most people, that:

• Increases overall calorie consumption by 400 calories per day
• Affects the human brain in much the same way as morphine
• Has a greater impact on blood sugar levels than a candy bar
• Is consumed at the rate of 133 pounds per person per year
• Has been associated with increased Type 1 Diabetes
• Increases both insulin resistance and leptin resistance, conditions that lead to obesity
• Is the only common food with its own mortality rate

If you guessed sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, you’re on the right track, but, no, that’s not the correct answer.

The true culprit: Triticum aestivum, or modern wheat.

Note that I said “modern” wheat, because I would argue that what we are being sold today in the form of whole grain bread, raisin bagels, blueberry muffins, pizza, ciabatta, bruschetta, and so on is not the same grain our grandparents grew up on. It’s not even close.

Modern wheat is the altered offspring of thousands of genetic manipulations, crude and sometimes bizarre techniques that pre-date the age of genetic modification. The result: a high-yield, 2-foot tall “semi-dwarf” plant that no more resembles the wheat consumed by our ancestors than a chimpanzee (which shares 99% of the same genes that we do) resembles a human. I trust that you can tell the difference that 1% makes.

The obvious outward differences are accompanied by biochemical differences. The gluten proteins in modern wheat, for instance, differ from the gluten proteins found in wheat as recently as 1960. This likely explains why the incidence of celiac disease, the devastating intestinal condition caused by gluten, has quadrupled in the past 40 years. Furthermore, a whole range of inflammatory diseases, from rheumatoid arthritis to inflammatory bowel disease, are also on the rise. Humans haven’t changed — but the wheat we consume has changed considerably.

Wheat Bellies

201110261359You’ve heard of “beer bellies,” the protuberant, sagging abdomen of someone who drinks beer to excess. That distinctive look is often attributed to alcohol consumption when in fact it’s just as likely to be caused by the pretzels — not just the beer — you’re downing after work. A wheat belly is a protuberant, sagging abdomen that develops when you overindulge in wheat products like crackers, breads, waffles, pancakes, breakfast cereals and pasta. Dimpled or smooth, hairy or hairless, tense or flaccid, wheat bellies come in as many shapes, colors, and sizes as there are humans. But millions of Americans have a wheat belly, and the underlying metabolic reasons for having one are all the same. Wheat contains a type of sugar called amylopectin A that raises blood sugar in an extravagant fashion. Eating just two slices of whole wheat bread, can raise blood sugar more than two tablespoons of pure sugar. This leads to the accumulation of visceral fat on the body, the deep fat encircling organs that is a hotbed of inflammatory activity. Inflammation, in turn, leads to hypertension, heart disease, cancer, and other conditions.

Wheat-consuming people are fatter than those who don’t eat wheat. Why? Among the changes introduced into this plant is a re-engineered form of the gliadin protein unique to wheat. Gliadin has been increased in quantity and changed in structure, such that it serves as a powerful appetite stimulant. When you eat wheat, you want more wheat and in fact want more of everything else — to the tune of 400 more calories per day. That’s the equivalent of 41.7 pounds per year, an overwhelming potential weight gain that accumulates inexorably despite people’s efforts to exercise longer and curtail other foods — all the while blaming themselves for their lack of discipline and watching the scale climb higher and higher, and their bellies growing bigger and bigger.

All of which leads me to conclude that over-enthusiastic wheat consumption is not only one cause of obesity in this country, it is the leading cause of the obesity and diabetes crisis in the United States. It’s a big part of the reason that reality shows like the Biggest Loser are never at a loss for contestants. It explains why modern athletes, like baseball players and golfers, are fatter than ever. Blame wheat when you are being crushed in your 2 x 2 airline seat by the 280-pound man occupying the seat next to yours.

Sure, sugary soft drinks and sedentary lifestyles add to the problem. But for the great majority of health conscious people who don’t indulge in these obvious poor choices, the principal trigger for weight gain is wheat.

And wheat consumption is about more than just weight. There are also components of modern wheat that lead to diabetes, heart disease, neurologic impairment — including dementia and incontinence — and myriad skin conditions that range from acne to gangrene — all buried in that innocent-looking bagel you had for breakfast.

Despite the potential downside of a diet so laden with wheat products, we continually bombarded with messages to eat more of this grain. The Department of Health and Human Services and the USDA, for instance, through their Dietary Guidelines for Americans, advocate a diet dominated by grains (the widest part of the Food Pyramid, the largest portion of the Food Plate). The American Dietetic Association, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, along with the Grain Foods Foundation, the Whole Grains Council, and assorted other agriculture and food industry trade groups all agree: Everyone should eat more healthy whole grains. This includes our children, who are being told to do such things as replace fast food with grains. These agencies were originally sidetracked by the “cut your fat and cholesterol” movement, which led to a wholesale embrace of all things carbohydrate, but especially “healthy whole grains.” Unwittingly, they were advising increased consumption of this two-foot tall creation of the geneticists, high-yield semi-dwarf wheat.

This message to eat more “healthy whole grains” has, I believe, crippled Americans, triggering a helpless cycle of satiety and hunger, stimulating appetite by 400 calories per day and substantially contributing to the epidemic of obesity and diabetes. And, oh yes, adding to the double-digit-per-year revenue growth of the diabetes drug industry, not to mention increased revenues for drugs for hypertension, cholesterol, and arthritis.

It is therefore my contention that eliminating all wheat from the diet is a good idea not just for people with gluten sensitivity; it’s a smart decision for everybody. I have experience in my heart disease prevention practice, as well as my online program for heart disease prevention and reversal, with several thousand people who have done just that and the results are nothing short of astounding. Weight loss of 30, 50, even 70 pounds or more within the first six months; reversal of diabetes and pre-diabetic conditions; relief from edema, sinus congestion, and asthma; disappearance of acid reflux, irritable bowel syndrome symptoms; increased energy, happier mood, better sleep. People feel better, look better, eat fewer calories, feel less hungry, are able to discontinue use of many medications — just by eliminating one food from their diet — ironically a food that they’ve been told to eat more of.

It is imperative that we break our reliance on wheat. It will require nothing less than an overthrow of conventional nutritional dogma. There will be battles fought to preserve the status quo; the wheat industry and its supporters will scream, yell, and claw to maintain their position, much as the tobacco industry and its lobbyists fought to maintain their hold on consumers.

If the health benefits of a wheat-free diet sound hard to believe, why not conduct your own little experiment and see for yourself: simply eliminate all things made of wheat for four weeks — no bread, bagels, pizza, pretzels, rolls, donuts, breakfast cereals, pancakes, waffles, pasta, noodles, or processed foods containing wheat (and do be careful to read labels, as food manufacturers love to slip a little wheat gliadin into your food every chance they get to stimulate your appetite). That’s a lot to cut out, true, but there’s still plenty of real, nutrient-dense foods like vegetables, fruit, nuts, cheese and dairy products, meat, fish, soy foods, legumes, oils like olive oil, avocados, even dark chocolate that you can eat in their place. If after that 4-week period you discover new mental clarity, better sleep, relief from joint pain, happier intestines, and a looser waistband, you will have your answer.

from:     http://boingboing.net/2011/10/26/triticum-fever-by-dr-william-davis-author-of-wheat-belly.html

On the Dangers of Soy

Posted on by

The Dangers of Soy Are Real–and Much Worse Than You Might Think

21st May 2012

By naturalhealthstrategies.com

Promoting soy foods as health foods while ignoring the dangers of soy and soy derivatives should be considered a crime against humanity. If you think this statement is too extreme, read this article to the end, and then see what you think!

The dangers of soy are thoroughly documented in the scientific literature, which makes it hard to believe that many health and fitness communities and counselors, and most health food stores, still promote soy products as ultra-healthy foods.

Hopefully this harmful misrepresentation of soy foods will begin to change as the dangers of soy become better known.

A Summary of the Dangers of Soy

 

 

– Soybeans and soy products contain high levels of phytic acid, which inhibits assimilation of calcium, magnesium, copper, iron, and zinc.

– Soaking, sprouting, and long, slow cooking do not neutralize phytic acid.

– Diets high in phytic acid have been shown to cause growth problems in children.

– Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and may causepancreatic disorders.

– Test animals showed stunted growth when fed trypsin inhibitors from soy.

– The plant estrogens found in soy, called phytoestrogens, disrupt endocrine function, that is, the proper functioning of the glands that produce hormones, and have the potential to cause infertility as well as to promote breast cancer in adult women.

– Hypothyroidism and thyroid cancer may be caused by soy phytoestrogens.

– Infant soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.

– Soy has been found to increase the body’s need for vitamin B12 and vitamin D.

– Fragile soy proteins are exposed to high temperatures during processing in order to make soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein, making them unsuitable for human digestion.

– This same process results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine andhighly carcinogenic nitrosamines. (Doesn’t sound like anything anyone would want to eat, does it?)

– MSG, (also called free glutamic acid), a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing. Many soy products have extra MSG added as well. (See video on the dangers of Aspartame, MSG’s chemical first cousin.)

– Soy foods contain elevated levels of toxic aluminum, which negatively effects the nervous system the kidneys and has been implicated in the onset of Alzheimer’s.

If this list of the dangers of soy isn’t enough to make you run out the door of your local health food store, keep reading. It gets worse.

Feeding Babies Infant Soy Formula Is Like Giving Them Birth Control Pills

– It’s been found that babies given infant soy formulas have 13,000 to 22,000 times more estrogen than babies fed milk-based formulas.

– Babies fed exclusively on infant soy formula are receiving the estrogenic equivalent (based on body weight) of at least four or five birth control pills per day! You read that right. Four or five birth control pills per day! Here’s the reference so you can check this out for yourself. [Irvine, C. et al., “The Potential Adverse Effects of Soybean Phytoestrogens in Infant Feeding”, New Zealand Medical Journal May 24, 1995, p. 318.] By contrast, dairy-based infant formula contains almost no phytoestrogens, nor does human milk, even when the mother eats soy products. (Sally Fallon & Mary G. Enig, Ph.D.)

– There has been an increase of delayed physical maturation among boys, including lack of development of sexual organs.

– Conversely, many girls today show signs of puberty, such as breast development and pubic hair, before the age of eight, and some even before the age of three.

– Both of these abnormal conditions have been linked to the use of soy formulas as well as to exposure to “environmental estrogens” such as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and DDE (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)a breakdown product of DDT.

Would you want to knowingly expose your tiny infant to the dangers of soy formula?

But Don’t Oriental Cultures Eat Lots of Soy?

It seems that historically, Oriental cultures consumed mostly traditionally fermented soy products such as miso, tempeh, natto, shoyu and tamari. (Tofu is not fermented, and falls into the dangerous soy foods category.) They consumed these soy foods in small amounts, as a condiment.

– Soy foods account for only 1.5 percent of calories in the Chinese diet, researchers found. (1977 Chang KC)

– The actual soybean consumed today is not the same one used by traditional Oriental cultures.

Problems with Soy Protein Isolate

– Furthermore, modern soy foods are very different from those consumed traditionally in Asia. Most are made with soy protein isolate (SPI), which is a protein-rich powder extracted by an industrial process from the waste product of soy oil manufacturing. It is the industry’s way of making a profit on a waste product. The industry spent over 30 years and billions of dollars developing SPI.

– In feeding studies, SPI caused many deficiencies in rats. That soy causes deficiencies in B12 and zinc is widely recognized, but the range of deficiencies was surprising.

– Although SPI is added to many foods, it was never granted GRAS status, meaning “Generally Recognized as Safe”. The FDA only granted GRAS status to SPI for use as a binder in cardboard boxes. During the processing of soy, many additional toxins are formed, including nitrates (which are carcinogens) and a toxin called lysinoalanine. It was concerns about lysinoalanine in SPI that led the FDA to deny GRAS status for SPI as a food additive.

– In spite of all these dangers of soy protein isolate, SPI is the basic ingredient of soy infant formula. The FDA even allows a health claim for foods containing 6.25 grams SPI per serving.

Scientific Studies Showing Adverse Effects of Dietary Soy

The Weston Price Foundation has a list of studies carried out from 1971 to 2003 showing the adverse effects of dietary soy.

To give you an idea of how condemning these studies are, here are just a few summaries. There are over 50 more!

1986
Fort P and others. Breast feeding and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in children. J Am Coll Nutr 1986;5(5):439-441. Twice as many soy-fed children developed diabetes as those in a control group that was breast fed or received milk-based formula. It was based on this study that the American Academy of Pediatrics took a position of opposition to the use of soy infant formula. This objection was later dropped after the AAP received substantial grants from the Infant Formula Council.
1994
Hawkins NM and others. Potential aluminium toxicity in infants fed special infant formula. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1994;19(4):377-81 (1994).Researchers found aluminum concentrations of 534 micrograms/L in soy formula, as compared to 9.2 micrograms/L in breast milk. The authors concluded that infants may be at risk from aluminium toxicity when consuming formula containing more than 300 micrograms/L.
1999
Sheehan DM and Doerge DR, Letter to Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305) February 18, 1999. A strong letter of protest from two government researchers at the National Center for Toxicological Research urging that soy protein carry a warning label rather than a health claim.
1999
White L. Association of High Midlife Tofu Consumption with Accelerated Brain Aging. Plenary Session #8: Cognitive Function, The Third International Soy Symposium, Program, November 1999, page 26. An ongoing study of Japanese Americans living in Hawaii found a significant statistical relationship between two or more servings of tofu per week and “accelerated brain aging.” Those participants who consumed tofu in mid life had lower cognitive function in late life and a greater incidence of Alzheimer’s and dementia.
2001
Strom BL and others. Exposure to soy-based formula in infancy and endocrinological and reproductive outcomes in young adulthood. JAMA 2001 Nov 21;286(19):2402-3. Although reported in the media as a vindication of soy infant formula, the study actually found that soy-fed infants had more reproductive problems and more asthma as adults.

The FDA Had the Scientific Information about the Dangers of Soy but Chose to Ignore It

You might think that people probably just didn’t know about the toxic effects of soybeans, that the food industry and the FDA must have just been misinformed about the supposed benefits, and very real dangers, of soy. Unfortunately for the FDA’s credibility, this was not the case.

If you simply do a search on ‘soybean’ at the Poisonous Plant Database of the United States FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, you can see this information yourself.

Right there in black and white you’ll find 288 studies on soy, many focused on the toxic properties and effects of soybeans. It’s not very easy to understand or get access to the actual studies, but it is cause for great concern that the FDA had this information and knowingly chose to ignore the dangers, just as it has done with so many other additives and pharmaceuticals.

It’s tragic to think of the human suffering that could have been avoided had the FDA just been more cautious and listened to their scientific advisors.

And it’s mind-boggling to think that the very federal agency whose mandate is, among other things, “to promote and protect the public health, to monitor products for continued safety after they are in use, and to help the public get the accurate, science-based information needed to improve health,” could knowingly do the apparent opposite.

This is one more example that highlights the need to educate yourself by finding good sources of information to base your health and diet decisions on, rather than relying on the FDA’s stamp of approval.

More Confirmation on the Dangers of Soy: Medical Conditions Possibly Attributable to Soy Consumption

  • Asthma
  • Chronic Fatigue
  • Depression
  • Diabetes
  • Heart Arrhythmia
  • Heart or Liver Disease
  • Infertility/Reproductive Problems
  • Irritable Bowel Syndrome
  • Learning Disabilities/ADD/ADHD
  • Pancreatic Disorders
  • Premature or Delayed Puberty
  • Rheumatoid Arthritis
  • Thyroid Conditions:
  • Auto-Immune Thyroid Disorders (Graves’ or Hashimoto’s Disease)
  • Goiter
  • Hypothyroidism
  • Hyperthyroidism
  • Thyroid Nodules
  • Thyroid Cancer
  • Other thyroid disorders
  • Uterine Cancer
  • Weight Gain
  • Weston Price Foundation

Symptoms of Disorders Possibly Attributable to Soy

  • Always feeling cold or warm
  • Anemia
  • Behavioral problems
  • Brittle nails
  • Eczema
  • Hair thinning or loss
  • Hyperactivity
  • Learning deficiencies
  • Lethargy or low blood pressure
  • Sore bones and joints
  • Watery or swelling eyes
  • Weston Price Foundation

Do You Still Think We’re Exaggerating the Dangers of Soy?

When there is a pretty good possibility that something is harmful, as is the case with soy, common sense dictates that it’s better to avoid it!

The corporations who make billions from selling soy would like us to believe that until the dangers of soy are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, we shouldn’t worry about them. This reminds me of Russian roulette: if a gun had a hundred chambers, and only one was loaded, I wouldn’t risk putting it to my head and pulling the trigger. Would you?

Or, as Roger Eichman, DDS, succinctly summed up the precautionary principle: “The precautionary principle requires action once the possibility of harm exists. It does not require proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.”

There’s more than enough sound scientific evidence to convince me. I used to think soy was a good dietary choice, but not anymore. I quit eating it a long time ago.

For more information about the dangers of soy, go to the Weston Price Foundation.

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2012/05/21/httpwww-naturalhealthstrategies-comdangers-of-soy-html/