Posts Tagged Foods
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
By: Craig Stellpflug
[NaturalNews] More and more over the past 25 years, brominated flame retardants have been used in home furnishings and electronics to slow down fires. These chemicals are now routinely found in household dust, food, air and in the umbilical cords of newborns.
In a recent study, scientists are reporting that environmental toxins and genetics can work together to create autism symptoms in mice prenatally exposed to a flame retardant. Genetically predisposed female mice were less social and had impaired memories and learning skills after their mothers were exposed to a brominated compound known as a PBDE. PBDEs have been accumulating in the environment in lock-step with the accelerating rise in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
This study linked genetic and behavioral changes to a flame retardant chemical and a specific gene mutation found in Rett’s syndrome – a condition on the autism spectrum that primarily affects females with significant deficits in social behaviors and communication. An individual with genetic risks for other health-related problems or diseases may also be more sensitive to these environmental chemicals than the overall general population.
PDBEs attack on the thyroid
Halogens consist of bromine, chlorine, fluorine and iodine which are all similar in atomic structure. PBDEs are made from bromine and have a similar chemical structure to iodine in thyroid hormones. Thyroid hormones act in every cell in the body to perform a wide-ranging role in metabolism, growth and overall development. PBDEs interrupt thyroid function, causing changes in brain development. Mouse studies show early life exposure to PDBEs increases hyperactivity, impairs learning and alters motor development.
The brain cells in autism are sensitive to thyroid hormone regulation and can be adversely affected by PBDEs.
Recently, the Schafer Report and the CDC announced a staggering new figure of 1 in 91 children now being affected by autism. Symptoms of ASD include deficiencies in social behaviors, cognition and communication, repetitive behaviors, regression of language skills, severe brain disorganization and a drop in processing skills. For most of the children with autism, sensory perception becomes disoriented, inappropriate and often overwhelming.
Splenda soon to unleash ‘Nectresse’ – Here’s what you need to know about this new ‘natural’ sweetener
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
By: Jonathan Benson
[NaturalNews] McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, maker of the artificial sweetener Splenda, is gearing up to introduce a new “natural” sweetener known as Nectresse that will cater specifically to those looking for a healthy alternative to artificial sweeteners and sugar. But is Nectresse really as natural as McNeil claims it is, or is the product just another example of tricky marketing hype aimed at health-conscious consumers?
According to the Nectresse website, the product is “100 percent natural,” and is made from the heat-stable extract of an Asian melon known as monk fruit, or Lo Han. McNeil claims that Nectresse contains zero calories per serving, and that monk fruit is 150 times sweeter than sugar, which means that consumers do not need to use very much of it to effectively sweeten foods and beverages.
Nectresse contains other additives besides monk fruit
But monk fruit is not the only ingredient in Nectresse, nor is it even the primary ingredient. The first and most abundant ingredient in Nectresse is actually erythritol, a sugar alcohol commonly derived from corn, the vast majority of which has been genetically modified (GM) in the U.S. And the second ingredient in Nectresse is sugar, which is refined and more than likely comes from GM sugar beets.
The third ingredient in Nectresse is monk fruit, which McNeil explains is extracted using a natural process involving both water and heat rather than chemicals — this is good. But the fourth and final ingredient in Nectresse is molasses, which once again is a sugar that more than likely was derived from GM sugar beets — producers that use sugar from sugar cane, after all, typically indicate this on their ingredient labels.
Nectresse, not so natural after all
So three out of the four ingredients used in Nectresse appear to be derived from bioengineered crops, and two of these ingredients are refined sugars. And since erythritol is a sugar alcohol, as well as the most abundant ingredient in Nectresse, McNeil can legally claim under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines that Nectresse contains zero calories per serving.
But the fact that Nectresse more than likely contains ingredients derived from GM sources means that it is hardly the “natural” product that McNeil is hyping it up to be. Sure, Nectresse contains a little bit of monk fruit which, like the stevia plant, contains compounds that are naturally very sweet, but that do not provide the body with calories in the same way as sugar. But the other ingredients found in Nectresse can hardly be considered natural.
According to MonkFruit.org, (http://www.monkfruit.org/monk-fruit/68/food-beverage-manufacturers) monk fruit can actually be up to 200 times sweeter than sugar because it contains natural antioxidants known as mogrosides that have a strong, sweet taste, but that are not actually considered to be sugar. These mogrosides are unique to monk fruit, and they also contain zero calories.
By itself, in other words, monk fruit appears to be viable as a healthy, alternative sweetener that, because of its heat stability, can work better than stevia in certain food applications that require baking, sauteing, or other forms of heat cooking. Nectresse, on the other hand, appears to be an adulterated version of the monk fruit that represents the corporate food industry’s latest attempt at trying to cash in on the health-conscious.
Sources for this article include:
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
By: Willow Tohi
[NaturalNews] A few months ago, a simple breakdown in communication between doctors led to the death of a 12-year-old boy in New York. Approximately 100,000 people die each year as a result of errors in hospitals, according to a decade-old national panel. In addition to breakdowns in communication, patients continue to be harmed or killed by medical shortcuts and inadequate training. Germs and errors combined make going to the hospital the fourth leading cause of death in this country.
Other large industries, such as the airline industry, have come to rely on a series of safety checklists that act as a safety net. The Infallible Doctor complex has prevented the medical community from following suit. There are hundreds of cases that have been publicized of a similar nature: unfathomable mistakes (such as operating on the wrong body part) at medical facilities, resulting in ridiculously obvious solutions (identify the correct body part before starting the procedure), that are then ignored or found to be ineffective.
The New York boy was sent from the hospital with a raging infection, and neither his personal doctor nor his family were notified of his lab results. Last week, four months after his death, the medical center involved has decided to adopt new procedures in response, such as doctors should be notified immediately of abnormal lab results, and the hospital should call the patient and his doctor if he has already been sent home. Really? This is what they came up with after four months? Has the medical establishment gotten so large, so bureaucratic, that they need to form Common Sense committees and procedurize basic, common communication and human courtesies?
It’s not stupidity or maliciousness that leads to the shocking problems in the medical industry. It comes from the culture of an institution. Who owns the responsibility to make sure common sense is observed, that communication happens between collaborating doctors and facilities? Are we ready to demand that doctors realize that they too are human, and need some checks and balances to protect patients, as well as themselves?
Conflict of interest
Cancer is a billion dollar industry. Almost every proposition regarding cancer put on any ballot, passes. With so much money, Big Pharma and their lobbyists in Washington have far too much control and influence on the medical system in America. And their profits depend on America’s ill health. The medical industry went from merely dysfunctional to actually harmful when the Supreme Court ruled on the Citizen’s Untied case, giving personhood status to corporations. Now it reflects the corporate culture of caste system privilege, enslavement to corporate product and profit, along with indifference to the lower classes. Medical mishaps are merely opportunities for more treatment.
The Hippocratic Oath, historically taken by physicians, physician assistants, and other healthcare professionals upon completion of their credentials, swears to practice medicine ethically and honestly. It says, in part, that the practitioner swears to “never do harm to anyone.” It goes on to swear against “deadly medicine” and not “cutting for stone” – a.k.a. invasive surgery. How could anyone possibly keep this oath in the current system? What prescription does no harm? What invasive procedure is completely harmless?
In a world with a rich history of safe, effective, inexpensive medical alternatives, the establishment seems to think medicine isn’t viable unless it is a synthetic, toxic pill made by unscrupulous pharmaceutical giants. And even with the overwhelming evidence that the medical culture has devolved to be more about money and power than curing illness, we are now required to be a part of the broken, ineffective, dysfunctional mess.
The awareness that you and you alone benefit from your own health should motivate you to self-education and exercising your right of personal choice. Medical “science” tries to convince us that there is only one treatment for any given health challenge, but that is simply untrue. But you have to be willing to stand against the authoritarian dissent of the establishment and its followers; go against the flow, and accept the personal responsibility of your own health. It’s either that or get in the chute with the other sheep.
Sources for this article include:
by: Vic Shayne Ph.D.
August 6, 2012
Peering into the politics of the food industry is like getting a peek behind the curtain where the Wizard of Oz is working the controls. It seems quite obvious that food giants like Kellogg work hard to become reputable and good not by the products they produce, but by the friends they make. You really have to look at the whole picture to see what’s going on in the PR arena to understand why, in the end, the consumer gets it in more ways than one.
Buying a reputation by supporting a cause
Besides assessing whether huge food processors are good or bad or just doing their job, we should consider the ethics of associations like the American Heart Association, the Dietitian’s Association and others who readily take the money of corporate sponsors. Does this prevent them from fully disclosing the truth about the unhealthy ingredients in many processed foods? You be the judge.
It’s blunt but to the point
This quote from Common Dreams is so succinct that it bears publishing: “The American Heart Association (AHA) has sullied its reputation by getting in bed with whatever corporation comes around with its checkbook open.”
Way back in 2004, reporter Robert Weissman wrote, “Subway has given $4 million to the American Heart Association (AHA) since 2002, and will gave an additional $6 million through 2007. That’s a total of $10 million. In exchange, Subway gets to put the AHA ‘fighting heart disease and stroke’ logo on its materials throughout its chain of stores, according to an AHA spokesperson.”
Kellogg raises kids on sugar then tells them they should eat right
Here is a direct quote from Kellogg: “Kellogg Company in 2005 kicked off a partnership with the Girls on the Run®, a nonprofit organization that encourages girls ages 8-13 to be more active, eat right and live a balanced and healthy lifestyle. Kellogg is sponsoring Girls on the Run over three years as part of its Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes® Earn Your Stripes™ initiative.”
In 3/4 cup of Kellogg’s Frosted Flake there are 110 calories, zero fat, 140mg of sodium and 11 grams of sugar. Is this Kellogg’s idea of part of a “healthy lifestyle”?
Kellogg also states, ” To demonstrate its commitment and help call attention to this critical health issue, [Kellogg’s] Smart Start Healthy Heart has launched a major heart health initiative. In addition to providing national support for the American Heart Association’s Go Red For Women movement, this initiative includes free health screenings, community events, and on-pack promotions.”
It’s ironic that the maker of so many deleterious sugar-drenched dead food provides health screenings and claims to care about heart disease.
The list of sponsorships by Kellogg goes on. They talk about cancer, obesity and heart disease as being terrible and they say they work for at-risk elementary children.
An optimist might say this is confusing, given Kellogg’s line of processed foods. A more realistic view is to say that they’re riding both sides of the fence. And worse, groups like the AHA allow them to do so by censoring the truth in return for some huge donations.
Why pick on just one company?
Kellogg is but one in a list of corporations that put money in the hands of nonprofits while touting good health programs and serving millions of suffering people junk food. General Mills, the makers of Chocolate Cheerios, claims on their website that this product is a “good source of calcium.” Really? I don’t think so. A good source of calcium is broccoli, organic milk or kale. In a long list of good sources of calcium, Chocolate Cheerios wouldn’t be anywhere near the top.
Then there’s Post, purveyors of Fruity Pebbles children’s cereal. Like the others, they also get the seal of the American Heart Association. No comment necessary.
Kraft is proud to help children make healthy lifestyle choices. How again?
Kraft Foods says it “is proud to collaborate with the Alliance for a Healthier Generation,” an association “founded by the American Heart Association and the William J. Clinton Foundation in 2005…to reduce the prevalence of childhood obesity by 2015 and to empower kids nationwide to make healthy lifestyle choices.”
So, Kraft, maker of something that’s not cheese but is called cheese food, is concerned about our children’s health? Kraft’s Singles contains zero fat. Zero. How can anything made of cheese not contain fat? By the way, good fat is essential to everyone’s health. It feeds the nerves, fuels the hormonal system, is needed for bone and brain development and healthy skin. There’s also no calcium in Singles. How can a milk product not contain calcium? But Kraft gives some big bucks to nonprofits, so that make everything hunky dory.
Who’s sponsoring the American Dietetic Association?
Dietitians get mad at me for writing these kinds of things, but let’s be honest — the American Dietetic Association (ADA) is sponsored by some companies who produce substances that are bad for the health. Go to their website and see what I mean. You will find Coca Cola, Hershey, Mars, Kellogg, General Mills and Pepsico, among others.
by: Mike Adams
August 6, 2012
[NaturalNews] It is time for the truth to be told about Susan G. Komen for the Cure. The organization is, flatly stated, engaged in fraud. Funded by drug companies and mammogram manufacturers, the organization preys upon women in order to grow its own financial power while feeding female victims into the conventional cancer industry grinder.
All across America, men and women participate in “run for the cure” events, raising tens of millions of dollars each year that go into the hands of Komen for the Cure. What these people don’t know is that much of that money is spent on “free” mammograms. Those mammograms, in turn, actually cause breast cancer because they subject women to high doses of ionizing radiation.
The Susan G. Komen scam, in essence, is to raise money that’s used to give women cancer and create a financial windfall for the very same companies that financially support Komen in the first place. “The Komen Foundation owns stock in General Electric, one of the largest makers of mammogram machines in the world. It also owns stock in several pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca,” reports Tony Isaacs at NaturalNews (http://www.naturalnews.com/027307_cancer_breast_ACS.html).
“DuPont, another huge chemical company and major polluter, supplies much of the film used in mammography machines. Both DuPont and GE aggressively promote mammography screening of women in their 40s, despite the risk of its contributing to breast cancer in that age group. And while biotech giant Monsanto sponsors Breast Cancer Awareness Month’s high profile event, the Race for the Cure, it continues to profit from the production of many known carcinogens.” (http://www.tbyil.com/breast-cancer-deception.htm)
Komen’s corporate partners include General Mills, Zumba Fitness, Walgreens, The Republic of Tea, REMAX, New Balance, American Airlines, Bank of America, Ford Motor Company, Dell and many more (http://ww5.komen.org/corporatepartners.aspx).
The bottom line? Komen deceives women while powerful corporations rake in the profits. This isn’t merely my own opinion. Two prominent doctors, in an article published in the British Medical Journal, have sharply condemned Komen for the Cure for lying about the “benefits” of mammograms.
Komen ads are false, say scientists
“The world’s largest breast cancer charity used misleading statistics and deceptive statements about mammography to promote breast cancer awareness and screening,” stated scientists. (http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BreastCancer/34030)
Their names? Steven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz, directors of the Center for Medicine and the Media at Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, New Hampshire.
They join a growing number of other doctors and medical professionals who now see Komen for the Cure as a fundraising fraud and are going public with detailed accusations against Komen’s deceptions.
In the recently published BMJ article, Woloshin and Schwartz accused Komen of lying in its promotional propaganda for the 2011 Breast Cancer Awareness Month. In advertising, Komen falsely claimed the 5-year survival rate when breast cancer is caught early is 98%, while only 23% when not “caught early.” This is how Komen tricks women into getting more mammograms which cause more cancer — by claiming “early detection saves lives.” But it’s not science; it’s pure propaganda. (See below.)
According to study authors Woloshin and Schwartz, Komen willfully ignored “a growing and increasingly accepted body of evidence [showing] that although screening may reduce a woman’s chance of dying from breast cancer by a small amount, it also causes major harms.”
Here’s an image published by the British Medical Journal, detailing how Komen for the Cure is lying about mammography:
Here’s what the data actually say
Komen for the Cure is in the business of fear mongering. They want everyone to be scared out of their minds that breast cancer is going to strike down all the women in their life. And in order to deal with the fear, all you have to do is give more money to Komen.
It’s sort of like an old-school evangelical group that asks for donations and says you’ll be healed if you just “believe,” but instead of claiming to heal people with the power of faith, the Komen cult claims to heal women with the power of ionizing radiation.
In reality, the actual 10-year risk of a 50-year-old woman dying of breast cancer is about half a percent: 0.53% (http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BreastCancer/34030).
With mammograms used to detect breast cancer tumors, that 10-year risk of dying from breast cancer moves ever so slightly downward to 0.46%.
In other words, the real risk reduction of dying from breast cancer by receiving mammograms is only 0.07% — seven women out of 10,000.
How mammograms kill women
Seven out of 10,000 is a far cry from the fear-mongering levels that Komen propagandizes. It’s not quite the cancer apocalypse that Komen makes it out to be, huh? And in the mean time, Woloshin and Schwartz explain that anywhere from 20% to 50% of women who receive mammograms for a decade of their lives will have at least one “false alarm.”
These false alarms often lead to women being treated with deadly chemotherapy cocktails. These expensive drugs enrich the very same drug companies that donate money to Komen for the Cure. This is all part of the cycle of fraud that exploits women’s bodies for profit, all while conducting this sick fraud with the message of “finding a cure,” emblazoned with pink ribbons. The magnitude of the deception in all this is pathological… even criminal.
“The Komen advertisement is deceptive in another way: it ignores the harms of screening,” say Woloshin and Schwartz. “Between 20% and 50% of women screened annually for a decade experience at least one false alarm requiring a biopsy. Most importantly, screening results in overdiagnosis. For every life saved by mammography, around two to 10 women are overdiagnosed. Women who are overdiagnosed cannot benefit from unnecessary chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. All they do experience is harm,” they write.
That harm often comes in the form of unnecessary chemotherapy that poisons women but financially benefits the drug companies. Here’s another article on NaturalNews which also supports this conclusion:
Also read my previous article, “10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You’re Not Supposed to Know”
“Women need much more than marketing slogans about screening,” wrote Woloshin and Schwartz. “They need — and deserve — the facts. The Komen advertisement campaign failed to provide the facts. Worse, it undermined decision making by misusing statistics to generate false hope about the benefit of mammography screening. That kind of behavior is not very charitable.”
The article goes on to emphasize that mammograms are a wash, offering no net benefit to women’s health:
The benefits and harms [of mammography] are so evenly balanced that the National Breast Cancer Coalition, a major US network of patient and professional organizations, “believes there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against universal mammography in any age group of women.”(http://www.knowbreastcancer.org/controversies/mammography-screening/)
Bill Gates, Monsanto, & Eugenics: How One Of The World’s Wealthiest Men Is Actively Promoting A Corporate Takeover Of Global Agriculture
by: Ethan A. Huff
August 6, 2012
After it was exposed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the philanthropic brainchild of Microsoftfounder Bill Gates, purchased 500,000 shares in Monsanto back in 2010 valued at more than $23 million, it became abundantly clear that this so-called benevolent charity is up to something other than eradicating disease and feeding the world’s poor (http://www.guardian.co.uk).
It turns out that the Gates family legacy has long been one of trying to dominate and control the world’s systems, including in the areas of technology, medicine, and now agriculture.
The Gates Foundation, aka the tax-exempt Gates Family Trust, is currently in the process of spending billions of dollars in the name of humanitarianism to establish a global food monopoly dominated by genetically-modified (GM) crops and seeds. And based on the Gates family’s history of involvement in world affairs, it appears that one of its main goals besides simply establishing corporate control of the world’s food supply is to reduce the world’s population by a significant amount in the process.
William H. Gates Sr., former head of eugenics group Planned Parenthood
Bill Gates’ father, William H. Gates Sr., has long been involved with the eugenics group Planned Parenthood, a rebranded organization birthed out of the American Eugenics Society. In a 2003 interview with PBS‘ Bill Moyers, Bill Gates admitted that his father used to be the head of Planned Parenthood, which was founded on the concept that most human beings are just “reckless breeders” and “human weeds” in need of culling .
Gates also admitted during the interview that his family’s involvement in reproductive issues throughout the years has been extensive, referencing his own prior adherence to the beliefs of eugenicist Thomas Robert Malthus, who believed that populations of the world need to be controlled through reproductive restrictions. Though Gates claims he now holds a different view, it appears as though his foundation’s initiatives are just a modified Malthusian approach that much more discreetly reduces populations through vaccines and GMOs.
Gates Foundation has invested heavily in converting Asian, African agricultural systems to GMOs
William Gates Sr.’s association with Planned Parenthood and continued influence in the realm of “population and reproductive health” is significant because Gates Sr. is co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/leadership/Pages/william-gates-sr.aspx). This long-time eugenicist “guides the vision and strategic direction” of the Gates Foundation, which is currently heavily focused on forcing GMOs on Africa via its financing of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).
Monday, August 06, 2012
by: Tony Isaacs
[NaturalNews] Proper nutrition is vital for maintaining good health and warding off illness. Nutrition can also play a pivotal role in healing illness of all kinds, including heart disease, diabetes and cancer – the three leading illnesses which cause deaths. It is thus shocking that our doctors – whom most people turn to for advice on diet and nutrition – receive little to no training on the subjects in medical schools.
Doctors’ woeful lack of training about nutrition
If you “just asked your doctor” how many hours of training they received in medical school on diet and nutrition and they replied honestly, many of them would tell you “none at all.” Most of the rest would say they received no more than a couple of hours training.
In the mid 1980s, a landmark report by the National Academy of Sciences highlighted the lack of adequate nutrition education in medical schools and the writers recommended a minimum of 25 hours of nutrition instruction. Two and a half decades later, a 2010 study by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found that the vast majority of medical schools still fail to meet the minimum recommended 25 hours of instruction.
The North Carolina researchers found only about a quarter of 100 schools surveyed offered the recommended 25 hours of instruction. In addition, four schools offered nutrition optionally, and one school offered nothing at all. Only a quarter of the schools had even a single course dedicated to nutrition.
“Nutrition is really a core component of modern medical practice,” said Kelly M. Adams, the lead author and a registered dietitian who is a research associate in the department of nutrition at the university.
by: Agence France-Presse
August 6, 2012
Cancer-busting chemotherapy can cause damage to healthy cells, which triggers them to secrete a protein that sustains tumor growth and resistance to further treatment, a study said Sunday.
Researchers in the United States made the “completely unexpected” finding while seeking to explain why cancer cells are so resilient inside the human body when they are easy to kill in the lab.
They tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found “evidence of DNA damage” in healthy cells after treatment, the scientists wrote in Nature Medicine. Chemotherapy works by inhibiting reproduction of fast-dividing cells such as those found in tumors.
The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.
“The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected,” study co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle told AFP.
The protein was taken up by tumor cells neighboring the damaged cells.
“WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy,” said Nelson.
In cancer treatment, tumors often respond well initially, followed by rapid regrowth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.
Rates of tumor cell reproduction have been shown to accelerate between treatments.