Spring 2009: Food for Everyone

A city in Brazil recruited local farmers to help do something U.S. cities have yet to do: end hunger.

“To search for solutions to hunger means to act within the principle that the status of a citizen surpasses that of a mere consumer.”
CITY OF BELO HORIZONTE, BRAZIL

	More than 10 years ago, Brazil’s fourth-largest city, Belo Horizonte, declared that food was a right of citizenship and started working to make good food available to all. One of its programs puts local farm produce into school meals. This and other projects cost the city less than 2 percent of its budget. Above, fresh passion fruit juice and salad as part of a school lunch. Photo by Leah Rimkus

In writing Diet for a Small Planet, I learned one simple truth: Hunger is not caused by a scarcity of food but a scarcity of democracy. But that realization was only the beginning, for then I had to ask: What does a democracy look like that enables citizens to have a real voice in securing life’s essentials? Does it exist anywhere? Is it possible or a pipe dream? With hunger on the rise here in the United States—one in 10 of us is now turning to food stamps—these questions take on new urgency.

To begin to conceive of the possibility of a culture of empowered citizens making democracy work for them, real-life stories help—not models to adopt wholesale, but examples that capture key lessons. For me, the story of Brazil’s fourth largest city, Belo Horizonte, is a rich trove of such lessons. Belo, a city of 2.5 million people, once had 11 percent of its population living in absolute poverty, and almost 20 percent of its children going hungry. Then in 1993, a newly elected administration declared food a right of citizenship. The officials said, in effect: If you are too poor to buy food in the market—you are no less a citizen. I am still accountable to you.

The new mayor, Patrus Ananias—now leader of the federal anti-hunger effort—began by creating a city agency, which included assembling a 20-member council of citizen, labor, business, and church representatives to advise in the design and implementation of a new food system. The city already involved regular citizens directly in allocating municipal resources—the “participatory budgeting” that started in the 1970s and has since spread across Brazil. During the first six years of Belo’s food-as-a-right policy, perhaps in response to the new emphasis on food security, the number of citizens engaging in the city’s participatory budgeting process doubled to more than 31,000.

The city of Belo Horizonte puts “Direct From the Country” farmer produce stands throughout busy downtown areas. Photo by Leah Rimkus

The city agency developed dozens of innovations to assure everyone the right to food, especially by weaving together the interests of farmers and consumers. It offered local family farmers dozens of choice spots of public space on which to sell to urban consumers, essentially redistributing retailer mark-ups on produce—which often reached 100 percent—to consumers and the farmers. Farmers’ profits grew, since there was no wholesaler taking a cut. And poor people got access to fresh, healthy food.

When my daughter Anna and I visited Belo Horizonte to write Hope’s Edge we approached one of these stands. A farmer in a cheerful green smock, emblazoned with “Direct from the Countryside,” grinned as she told us, “I am able to support three children from my five acres now. Since I got this contract with the city, I’ve even been able to buy a truck.”

The improved prospects of these Belo farmers were remarkable considering that, as these programs were getting underway, farmers in the country as a whole saw their incomes drop by almost half.

In addition to the farmer-run stands, the city makes good food available by offering entrepreneurs the opportunity to bid on the right to use well-trafficked plots of city land for “ABC” markets, from the Portuguese acronym for “food at low prices.” Today there are 34 such markets where the city determines a set price—about two-thirds of the market price—of about twenty healthy items, mostly from in-state farmers and chosen by store-owners. Everything else they can sell at the market price.

	ABC bulk produce markets stock the items that the city determines will be sold at a fixed price, about 13 cents per pound. Photo by Leah Rimkus

“For ABC sellers with the best spots, there’s another obligation attached to being able to use the city land,” a former manager within this city agency, Adriana Aranha, explained. “Every weekend they have to drive produce-laden trucks to the poor neighborhoods outside of the city center, so everyone can get good produce.”

Another product of food-as-a-right thinking is three large, airy “People’s Restaurants” (Restaurante Popular), plus a few smaller venues, that daily serve 12,000 or more people using mostly locally grown food for the equivalent of less than 50 cents a meal. When Anna and I ate in one, we saw hundreds of diners—grandparents and newborns, young couples, clusters of men, mothers with toddlers. Some were in well-worn street clothes, others in uniform, still others in business suits.

“I’ve been coming here every day for five years and have gained six kilos,” beamed one elderly, energetic man in faded khakis.

“It’s silly to pay more somewhere else for lower quality food,” an athletic-looking young man in a military police uniform told us. “I’ve been eating here every day for two years. It’s a good way to save money to buy a house so I can get married,” he said with a smile.

The line for one of three “People’s Restaurants” a half hour before opening time. Meals cost about 50 cents; diners come from all socio-economic groups. Photo by Leah Rimkus

No one has to prove they’re poor to eat in a People’s Restaurant, although about 85 percent of the diners are. The mixed clientele erases stigma and allows “food with dignity,” say those involved.

Belo’s food security initiatives also include extensive community and school gardens as well as nutrition classes. Plus, money the federal government contributes toward school lunches, once spent on processed, corporate food, now buys whole food mostly from local growers.

“We’re fighting the concept that the state is a terrible, incompetent administrator,” Adriana explained. “We’re showing that the state doesn’t have to provide everything, it can facilitate. It can create channels for people to find solutions themselves.”

For instance, the city, in partnership with a local university, is working to “keep the market honest in part simply by providing information,” Adriana told us. They survey the price of 45 basic foods and household items at dozens of supermarkets, then post the results at bus stops, online, on television and radio, and in newspapers so people know where the cheapest prices are.

The shift in frame to food as a right also led the Belo hunger-fighters to look for novel solutions. In one successful experiment, egg shells, manioc leaves, and other material normally thrown away were ground and mixed into flour for school kids’ daily bread. This enriched food also goes to nursery school children, who receive three meals a day courtesy of the city.

“I knew we had so much hunger in the world. But what is so upsetting, what I didn’t know when I started this, is it’s so easy. It’s so easy to end it.”

The result of these and other related innovations?

In just a decade Belo Horizonte cut its infant death rate—widely used as evidence of hunger—by more than half, and today these initiatives benefit almost 40 percent of the city’s 2.5 million population. One six-month period in 1999 saw infant malnutrition in a sample group reduced by 50 percent. And between 1993 and 2002 Belo Horizonte was the only locality in which consumption of fruits and vegetables went up.

The cost of these efforts?

Around $10 million annually, or less than 2 percent of the city budget. That’s about a penny a day per Belo resident.

Behind this dramatic, life-saving change is what Adriana calls a “new social mentality”—the realization that “everyone in our city benefits if all of us have access to good food, so—like health care or education—quality food for all is a public good.”

The Belo experience shows that a right to food does not necessarily mean more public handouts (although in emergencies, of course, it does.) It can mean redefining the “free” in “free market” as the freedom of all to participate. It can mean, as in Belo, building citizen-government partnerships driven by values of inclusion and mutual respect.

And when imagining food as a right of citizenship, please note: No change in human nature is required! Through most of human evolution—except for the last few thousand of roughly 200,000 years—Homo sapiens lived in societies where pervasive sharing of food was the norm. As food sharers, “especially among unrelated individuals,” humans are unique, writes Michael Gurven, an authority on hunter-gatherer food transfers. Except in times of extreme privation, when some eat, all eat.

Before leaving Belo, Anna and I had time to reflect a bit with Adriana. We wondered whether she realized that her city may be one of the few in the world taking this approach—food as a right of membership in the human family. So I asked, “When you began, did you realize how important what you are doing was? How much difference it might make? How rare it is in the entire world?”

Listening to her long response in Portuguese without understanding, I tried to be patient. But when her eyes moistened, I nudged our interpreter. I wanted to know what had touched her emotions.

“I knew we had so much hunger in the world,” Adriana said. “But what is so upsetting, what I didn’t know when I started this, is it’s so easy. It’s so easy to end it.”

Adriana’s words have stayed with me. They will forever. They hold perhaps Belo’s greatest lesson: that it is easy to end hunger if we are willing to break free of limiting frames and to see with new eyes—if we trust our hard-wired fellow feeling and act, no longer as mere voters or protesters, for or against government, but as problem-solving partners with government accountable to us.

Big Pharma and the FDA: Suppress the Science and Ban the Natural

In 2005, the pharmaceutical company Biostratum, Inc. made a mistake -- they invested millions of dollars into developing a drug, only to discover that the active ingredient, pyridoxamine, was a common, naturally occurring substance that has been sold for decades at low cost.

Biostratum responded by asking the U.S. FDA to declare supplements containing pyridoxamine “adulterated,” and effectively ban anyone but Biostratum from selling pyridoxamine. Earlier this year the FDA agreed to ban companies from selling pyridoxamine as a dietary supplement.

The FDA’s comment on the decision specifically says, “To allow such an article to be marketed as a dietary supplement would not be fair to the pharmaceutical company that brought, or intends to bring, the drug to market.”

Apparently, they were not as concerned about fairness to consumers.

This is hardly the first time the FDA has attacked naturally occurring substances. The FDA has banned information about scientifically proven health benefits of cherries from appearing on Web sites. And for years, the FDA barred health claims about the benefits of omega-3 fats for heart, cancer, depression, body pain, and various other conditions until a drug company paid a great deal of money to go through the approval process.

In the case of pyridoxamine, the FDA did not act out of concern for public safety. This is about a profit-seeking corporation taking advantage of corruption in what is supposed to be a public health organization.

Pyridoxamine is one form of the vitamin B6. It is an important nutrient for helping your body process carbohydrates, support your nervous system activity and prevent homocysteine, which has been linked to increased risk of heart disease, from building up in your blood.

This substance has long been sold over-the-counter as a dietary supplement, but the FDA abruptly put a stop to that in January 2009. Their reasoning has nothing to do with safety, but rather is firmly based on protecting a drug company’s investment.

As stated above, the FDA actually said:

“To allow such an article to be marketed as a dietary supplement would not be fair to the pharmaceutical company that brought, or intends to bring, the drug to market.”

What is happening here is a blatant example of the FDA protecting the hand that feeds it. It is now essentially banning vitamin B6 in the form of pyridoxamine, and reserving it to be exclusively distributed by the drugmaker Biostratum, Inc.

If the FDA really wants to speak about being fair, why are they not worried about being fair to the supplement makers who already distribute this product … or the people who will have their inexpensive supply of this vitamin taken away?

Why?

Because the FDA and U.S. government are loaded with people trying to eliminate all competition for the drug companies, who financially support the FDA in the form of user fees for drug approval.

This Type of Injustice Has Happened Many Times Before

To get a feeling of who the FDA is really looking out for, you need look no further than the recent estriol debacle.

Estriol is a bioidentical hormone that is sometimes used in hormone replacement therapy drugs, available through compounding pharmacies. However, estriol is not an FDA-approved drug, and according to the FDA estriol “has not been shown to be safe and effective for the uses for which it is being prescribed.”

Therefore, the FDA has proposed to allow estriol-containing prescriptions to be filled only if accompanied by an Investigational New Drug (IND) application, stating that the use of INDs is “routine,” and therefore shouldn’t cause any major inconvenience or limitation on estriol’s use, if and when a physician believes it’s in his patient’s best interest.

However, the IND places a significant financial burden on physicians, most notably by requiring them to submit applications to an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Submitting necessary documentation and contracting for a private IRB can easily cost between $10,000 and $25,000 and can take months.

So the process will effectively ban most physicians from prescribing estriol, which is a much safer, natural alternative to synthetic hormones.

This news is frustrating in and of itself, and certainly highlights the need for less government involvement in health care. But what happened next is nothing short of infuriating.

Pipex Therapeutics is now seeking approval for Trimesta, a knock-off of natural estriol, and the FDA is in the process of considering the approval!

Clearly, the FDA was never concerned with estriol being used in an unsafe manner -- they were concerned that their drug-company buddies were not getting their fair share of the profits.

Is The FDA Your Protector -- or a Threat to Your Health Freedom?

Examples like this one and the latest pyridoxamine scandal are red flags that the U.S. FDA is not there to protect you, or your health freedom.

You may not be aware, but in June 2007 the FDA announced new standards for dietary supplements that were intended to improve consumer safety.

In reality, the 800-page rule surrounds the dietary supplement industry with regulations and requirements in excess of those imposed on the drug industry, and up to 50 percent of small companies will simply not be able to afford to comply.

Even before this ruling, supplement makers were (and still are) limited from making health claims (this is reserved only for drugs).

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

But consider that it’s still illegal even in cases where the claims have been clearly proven -- so cherry growers cannot legally say that tart cherries may do more good than aspirin or other anti-inflammatory drugs when it comes to pain relief, even though studies back them up.

This is why the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF) states that the FDA “ignores first amendment protections and censors the communication of valid scientific information.” They continue:

“The agency seems to have lost sight of its mandate to protect the public and has instead come to see itself as the guardian of corporate interests.”

The FDA is clearly censoring your right to know about, and purchase, foods and supplements that can help you stay healthy and prevent disease. At the same time, they are allowing dangerous drugs and consumer products to remain on the market and be sold and aggressively advertised as safe.

Even the FDA has admitted to its shortcomings and in a report said:

• “The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its scientific base... is weak...."
• "The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its scientific workforce does not have sufficient capacity and capability."
• "FDA does not have the capacity to ensure the safety of food for the nation."
• “The development of medical products based on 'new science' cannot adequately be regulated by the FDA.”

You Can Sign a Petition to Help

The AAHF is leading a campaign to reform the FDA, and your help is urgently needed, as a large number of signatures are required to compel Congressional Action.

So if you believe reforming the FDA is a worthy cause, please sign the petition now, and encourage your friends and family to do so also.

Congress already knows the FDA represents a serious problem. This petition will help move them to take the urgent action required to invoke much-needed positive change.

Spices Kill Cancer Cells

Scientists have discovered the key to the ability of spicy foods to kill cancer cells.

They found capsaicin, an ingredient of jalapeno peppers, triggers cancer cell death by attacking mitochondria - the cells' energy-generating boiler rooms.

The research raises the possibility that other cancer drugs could be developed to target mitochondria.

The Nottingham University study features in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications.

The study showed that the family of molecules to which capsaicin belongs, the vanilloids, bind to proteins in the cancer cell mitochondria to trigger apoptosis, or cell death, without harming surrounding healthy cells.

We believe that we have in effect discovered a fundamental 'Achilles heel' for all cancers Dr Timothy Bates

Capsaicin was tested on cultures of human lung cancer cells and on pancreatic cancers.

Lead researcher Dr Timothy Bates said: "As these compounds attack the very heart of the tumour cells, we believe that we have in effect discovered a fundamental 'Achilles heel' for all cancers.

"The biochemistry of the mitochondria in cancer cells is very different from that in normal cells.

"This is an innate selective vulnerability of cancer cells."

He said a dose of capsaicin that could cause a cancer cell to enter apoptosis, would not have the same effect on a normal cell.

Cancer Research UK recommends reducing your risk of cancer by eating a healthy, balanced diet, with plenty of vegetables and fruit Josephine Querido

Potential Drugs

The fact that capsaicin and other vanilloids are already commonly found in the diet proves they are safe to eat.

This could make development of a drug containing them a much quicker and cheaper process.

Dr Bates said: "Capsaicin, for example, is already found in treatments for muscle strain and psoriasis - which raises the question of whether an adapted topical treatment could be used to treat certain types of skin cancer.

"It's also possible that cancer patients or those at risk of developing cancer could be advised to eat a diet which is richer in spicy foods to help treat or prevent the disease."

However, Josephine Querido, cancer information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "This research does not suggest that eating vast quantities of chilli pepper will help prevent or treat cancer.

"The experiments showed that pepper extracts killed cancer cells grown in the laboratory, but these have not yet been tested to see if they are safe and effective in humans."

Cancer Research UK recommends reducing the risk of cancer by eating a healthy, balanced diet, with plenty of vegetables and fruit.

Dr Bates added that the mitochondria in cancer cells could also be targeted by other compounds.

He said the investigation and development of anti-mitochondrial drugs for cancer chemotherapy was likely to be "extremely significant" in the fight against cancer.

Aspartame and Multiple Sclerosis - Neurosurgeon's Warning

Aspartame is a low calorie sweetener. Called a potent neurotoxin by several researchers, it is being sold as a sugar substitute for those on low calorie diets and for diabetics. If you like Coke or Pepsi "light", you certainly are at risk, but both industry and health officials deny that there is any truth to this story. Manufacturers have recently been sued in California.

Trade names for Aspartame are NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Canderel, Benevia, Misura, but in Europe we often cannot recognize that Aspartame is part of what we're about to swallow unless we know that it also hides behind the seemingly innocuous "E 951" label. We might also watch out for warnings on food and drink labels that say: "contains a source of phenylalanine" or "phenylchetonurics should not consume this product".

In truth, no one should be consuming Aspartame and those responsible for putting it on the market - Donald Rumsfeld had a part in politically forcing its approval - should be held responsible for unleashing an agent of chemical warfare on an unsuspecting public.

Dr. Russell Blaylock, a recently retired neurosurgeon, has been warning for years and has even authored a book "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills". Blaylock says that Aspartame and Multiple Sclerosis are closely related. Unfortunately the Multiple Sclerosis society denies there is any connection between MS and Aspartame. The Society has chosen, according to Betty Martini, to hang on to industry funding rather than to warn its members. Blaylock explains the biological mechanism by which Aspartame circumvents the blood-brain-barrier and gets at the vital nervous tissues - the grey matter in our heads:

The Connection Between MS And Aspartame

By Russell L. Blaylock, MD
Neurosurgeon
6-7-4

(originally published on Rense.com)

Recently, much controversy has surrounded a claim that aspartame may produce an MS-like syndrome. A current review of recent peer-reviewed scientific studies has disclosed a pathophysiological mechanism to explain this connection. As far back as 1996 it was shown that the lesions produced in the myelin sheath of axons in cases of multiple sclerosis were related to excitatory receptors on the primary cells involved called oligodendroglia. Recent studies have now confirmed what was suspected back then. The loss of myelin sheath on the nerve fibers characteristic of the disease is due to the death of these oligodendroglial cells at the site of the lesions (called plaques). Further, these studies have shown that the death of these important cells is as a result of excessive exposure to excitotoxins at the site of the lesions.

Normally, most of these excitotoxins are secreted from microglial immune cells in the central nervous system. This not only destroys these myelin-producing cells it also breaks down the blood-brain barrier (BBB), allowing excitotoxins in the blood stream to enter the site of damage. Aspartame contains the excitotoxin aspartate as 40% of its molecular structure. Numerous studies have shown that consuming aspartame can significantly elevate the excitotoxin level in the blood. There is a common situation during which the excitotoxin exposure is even greater. When aspartate (as aspartame) is combined in the diet with monosodium glutamate (MSG) blood levels are several fold higher than normal. With the BBB damaged, as in MS, these excitotoxins can freely enter the site of injury, greatly magnifying the damage. So, we see that dietary excitotoxins, such as aspartame and MSG, can greatly magnify the damage produced in multiple sclerosis. Likewise, excitotoxins have been shown to break down the BBB as well.

Of equal concern is observation that we know that about 10% of the population (based on autopsy studies of elderly) have MS lesions without ever developing the full blown disease, a condition called benign MS. A diet high in excitotoxins, such as aspartame, can convert this benign, subclinical condition into full-blown clinical MS. The amount of excitotoxins consumed in the average American diet is considerable, as shown by several studies. In addition, the toxin methanol is also in the aspartame molecule. Methanol is a axon poison. Combined toxicity of the aspartate and the methanol adds up to considerable brain toxicity and can convert benign, subclinical MS into full-blown MS. Once the MS becomes full-blown, further consumption of excitotoxins magnifies the toxicity, increasing disability and death.

Recent studies have also shown that even single exposures to these food-based excitotoxins can produce prolonged worsening of neurological lesions. In addition, it has been demonstrated that autoimmune reactions (as occur with MS) greatly magnify the toxicity of aspartate and glutamate (the excitotoxins). We also know liquid forms of excitotoxins are significantly more toxic because of rapid absorption and higher blood levels. In the face of this connection between excitotoxicity and the pathophysiology of MS, it would be ludicrous to allow further use of this excitotoxin containing sweetener.

References:

1. Sannchez-Gomez MV, Malute C. AMPA and kainate receptors each mediate excitotoxicity in oligodendroglial cultures. Neurobiology of Disease 6:475-485, 1999

2. Yoshika A, et al. Pathophysiology of oligodendroglial excitotoxicity, J Neuroscience Research 46: 427-437, 1996.

3. Singh P, et al. Prolonged glutamate excitotoxicity: effects on mitochondrial antioxidants and antioxidant enzymes. Molecular Cell Biochemistry 243: 139-145, 2003.

4. Leuchtmann EA, et al. AMPA receptors are the major mediators of excitotoxin death in mature oligodendrocytes. Neurobiology of Disease 14:336-348, 2003.

5. Takahashi JL, et al. Interleukin1 beta promotes oligodendrocyte death through glutamate excitotoxicity. Annal Neurology 53: 588-595, 2003.

6. Pitt D, et al Glutamate uptake by oligodendrocytes: implications for excitotoxicity in multiple sclerosis. neurology 61: 1113-1120, 2003.

7. Soto A, et al. Excitotoxic insults to the optic nerve alter visual evoked potentials. Neuroscience 123: 441-449, 2004.

8. Blaylock RL. Interactions of cytokines, excitotoxins and reactive nitrogen and oxygen species in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of American Nutraceutical Association 6: 21-35, 2003.

9. Blaylock RL. Chronic microglial activation and excitotoxicity secondary to excessive immune stimulation: possible factors in Gulf War Syndrome and autism. Journal American Physicians and Surgeons, Summer, 2004.

TREATMENT FOR MS:

It is now known the cause for the destruction of the myelin in the lesions is overactivation of the microglia in the region of the myelin. An enzyme that converts glutamine to glutamate called glutaminase increases tremendously, thereby greatly increasing excitotoxicity. Mercury also activates microglia, even in subtoxic doses.

Any dietary excitotoxin can activate the microglia, thereby greatly aggravating the injury. This includes the aspartate in aspartame. The methanol adds to this toxicity as well. Now, the secret to treatment appears to be shutting down, or at least calming down, the microglia. It has been found that the antibiotic minocycline powerfully shuts down the microglia. I tried this treatment on a friend of mine who just came down with fulminant MS. He was confined to a wheelchair. I had him placed on minocycline and now, just a few weeks later, he is walking.

The good news is that other things also calm the microglia - the most potent are: silymarin, curcumin and ibuprophen. Phosphatidylcholine helps re-myelinate the nerve sheaths that are damaged, as does B12, B6, B1, vitamin D, folate, vitamin C, natural vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) and L-carnitine. DHA plays a major role in repairing the myelin sheath. Vitamin D may even prevent MS, but it acts as an immune modulator, preventing further damage - the dose is 2000 IU a day. Magnesium, as magnesium malate, is needed in a dose of 500 mg 2 x a day. They must avoid all excitotoxins, even natural ones in foods - such as soy, red meats, nuts, mushrooms and tomatoes. Avoid all fluoride and especially all vaccinations since these either inhibit antioxidant enzymes or triggers harmful immune reactions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Blaylock is a recently retired board-certified neurosurgeon with more than twenty six years experience. He is a recently retired Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi. Author of thirty scientific papers on various medical subjects, chapters in three medical textbooks and a booklet on multiple sclerosis, he recently completed a booklet on bioterrorism and is the author of "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills", "Health & Nutrition Secrets to Save Your Life", and "Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients". (www.russellblaylockmd.com) He serves on the editorial staff of The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association, and acts as a medical advisor to the American Nutraceutical Association. His excellent newsletter can be gotten at his website. He lives in Ridgeland, Mississippi.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note from Dr. Betty Martini :

Cori Brackett, co-owner of Sound and Fury Productions, an MS victim diagnosed at the Mayo Clinic, had a huge lesion in the brain. Cori was a user of the neurotoxic drug Aspartame, marketed as NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, E951, Canderel, Benevia, etc. Off the poison, she too walked out of her wheelchair; the lesion disappeared. Because of what she had endured from aspartame disease she felt a moral obligation to warn others, especially with 70% of the population and 40% of our children using this deadly toxin. Cori Brackett traveled 7000 miles and with 25 hours of footage produced the movie, "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World." She says it reveals one of the most pervasive, insidious forms of corporate negligence in the history of the industrial revolution. On this date it is being released to the world. You will get to see the famed Dr. Blaylock and other aspartame experts, as well as hear the horror story of the victims. See Diane Fleming who is wilting in a Virginia prison because her athlete husband died of aspartame. She was sentenced to 50 years for the crime committed by the manufacturer who had the malice to market a poison. Don't miss this film. Contact Cori Brackett at Cori@soundandfuryproductions.com or (telephone) 520-624-9710. http://www.soundandfuryproductions.com

For years physicians have written the MS Society to alert them about aspartame. You can read my letter on www.dorway.com, never answered, of course. Faced with the choice of warning the public or continuing to receive funding from industry, the MS Society has chosen to sacrifice the victims. And when those responsible to solve the problem ARE the problem it is a sad commentary on greed and lack of concern for humanity. How can anyone set aside professional ethics to allow an MS holocaust, when simply alerting those with MS to avoid aspartame and other excitotoxins could save the lives of thousands. At one MS Society walk-a-thon, they were giving out free Diet Coke while trying to prevent our activists from giving walkers info that could save the lives of MS victims. I simply turned to the crowd and said: "The MS Society does not want you to have this life-saving information on a product triggering this disease." The entire crowd took copies. Later I received several calls of those who had heeded the advice and gotten well. But I shudder to think how many have perished because the MS Society hasn't had the integrity to warn victims.

Contact Information:

Dr. Betty Martini, Founder
Mission Possible Intl.
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
770-242-2599
Bettym19@mindspring.com

WORLD NATURAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION
www.wnho.net
and
www.dorway.com

http://www.russellblaylockmd.com

See more aspartame lawsuits filed against companies knowingly
poisoning the public on www.wnho.net

Aspartame Toxicity Center: www.holisticmed.com/aspartame

From the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, October 4, 2006 - some more references to treatment options for MS. As always, don't take my word for it - if you have MS and want to do something about it, consult a medical doctor who is up-to-date on nutritional treatments.

VITAMINS FIGHT MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

(OMNS) New research confirms that niacinamide, also known as vitamin B-3, is a key to the successful treatment of multiple sclerosis and other nerve diseases. [1] Niacinamide, say researchers at Harvard Medical School, "profoundly prevents the degeneration of demyelinated axons and improves the behavioral deficits."

This is very good news, but it is not at all new news. Over 60 years ago, Canadian physician H.T. Mount began treating multiple sclerosis patients with intravenous B-1 (thiamine) plus intramuscular liver extract, which provides other B-vitamins. He followed the progress of these patients for up to 27 years. The results were excellent and were described in a paper published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 1973. [2]

Mount was not alone. Forty years ago, Frederick Robert Klenner, M.D., of North Carolina, was using vitamins B-3 and B-1, along with the rest of the B-complex vitamins, vitamins C and E, and other nutrients including magnesium, calcium and zinc to arrest and reverse multiple sclerosis. [3,4] Klenner's complete treatment program was originally published as "Treating Multiple Sclerosis Nutritionally," Cancer Control Journal 2:3, p 16-20. His detailed megavitamin protocol is now posted for all interested persons to read at http://www.tldp.com/issue/11_00/klenner.htm

Drs. Mount and Klenner were persuaded by their clinical observations that multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, and many other neurological disorders were primarily due to nerve cells being starved of nutrients. Each physician tested this theory by giving his patients large, orthomolecular quantities of nutrients. Mount's and Klenner's successful cures over decades of medical practice proved their theory was correct. B-complex vitamins, including thiamine as well as niacinamide, are absolutely vital for nerve cell health. Where pathology already exists, unusually large quantities of vitamins are needed to repair damaged nerve cells.

Nutritional therapy is inexpensive, effective and, most important, safe. There is not even one death per year from vitamins. [5]

Vitamin supplementation is not the problem. It is under-nutrition that is the problem. Vitamins are the solution.

Restoring health must be done nutritionally, not pharmacologically. All cells in all persons are made exclusively from what we drink and eat. Not one cell is made out of drugs.

References:

[1] Kaneko S, Wang J, Kaneko M, Yiu G, Hurrell JM, Chitnis T, Khoury SJ, He Z. Protecting axonal degeneration by increasing nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide levels in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis models. J Neurosci. 2006 Sep 20;26(38):9794-804.

[2] Mount HT. Multiple sclerosis and other demyelinating diseases. Can Med Assoc J. 1973 Jun 2;108(11):1356-1358.

[3] Frederick R. Klenner. "Response of Peripheral and Central Nerve Pathology to Mega-Doses of the Vitamin B-Complex and Other Metabolites", Journal of Applied Nutrition, 1973,

[4] Dr. Klenner's "Clinical Guide to the Use of Vitamin C" (which discusses orthomolecular therapy with all vitamins, not just vitamin C) is now posted in its entirety. It includes a multiple sclerosis protocol, which takes up about five pages. See also: http://www.doctoryourself.com/klennerpaper.html

[5] Watson WA et al. 2003 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System. Am J Emerg Med. 2004 Sep;22(5):335-404.

See also:

Does aspartame multiply female MS?
At the American Academy of Neurology’s annual meeting, Dr. Gary Cutter, professor of Biostatistics at the University of Alabama, said women are now four times as likely as men to get multiple sclerosis: “It started at two-to-one and is now four-to-one.”

Aspartame, Anti-Depressants And Bush
By Jerry Mazza - Online Journal

Aspartame Gate: When Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of Searle

Aspartame Consumer Safety Network and Pilot Hotline

Aspartame Warning (Video on YouTube)

Toxic Aspartame and Grave's Disease: Disease diagnosis doesn't deter diver

Aspartame May Be the Cause of Your Health Problems

Aspartame patent expired. We are now supposed to buy NEOTAME...

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004
Subject: [Health_and_Healing] Neotame---the 'exciting new sweetener'

The patent on Aspartame has run out---so our favorite health benefatctor--Monsanto has come up with a bigger better version...

Learn about this 'exciting new sweetener': http://www.neotame.com/

Learn MORE about this 'exciting new sweetener' http://www.holisticmed.com/neotame/

http://www.truthinlabeling.com/forB.html

The Connection between Aspartame (Artificial Sweetener) and Panic Attacks, Depression, Bipolar Disorder, Memory Problems, and Other Mental Symptoms

Cola, Soda And Other Empty Calories

While consuming an excess of almost anything is more than likely harmful, we believe that even small amounts of flavored sodas are harmful over a lifetime and that diet cola's are even more harmful.

Excessive cola consumption can lead to anything from mild weakness to profound muscle paralysis, doctors are warning.

This is because the drink can cause blood potassium to drop dangerously low, they report in the International Journal of Clinical Practice.

They tell of the curious case of an Australian ostrich farmer who needed emergency care for lung paralysis after drinking 4-10 litres of cola a day.

He made a full recovery and was advised to curtail his cola drinking.

Another example included a pregnant woman who regularly consumed up to three litres a day for the last six years and complained of tiredness, appetite loss and persistent vomiting.

A heart trace revealed she had an irregular heartbeat, probably caused by her low blood potassium levels.

Once she stopped drinking so much cola, she made a full and uneventful recovery.

The investigators believe these cases are not atypical and that many people risk problems due to their intake.

Manufacturers insist the products are safe when consumed in moderation.

In a commentary, Dr Clifford Packer from the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Centre in Ohio said: "We have every reason to think that it is not rare.

"With aggressive mass marketing, super-sizing of soft drinks, and the effects of caffeine tolerance and dependence, there is very little doubt that tens of millions of people in industrialised countries drink at least 2-3 l of cola per day.

"It follows that the serum potassium levels of these heavy cola drinkers are dropping, in some cases, to dangerous low levels."

Moderation

The author of the research paper, Dr Moses Elisaf from the University of Ioannina in Greece, said it appeared that hypokalaemia can be caused by excessive consumption of three of the most common ingredients in cola drinks - glucose, fructose and caffeine.

"The individual role of each of these ingredients in the pathophysiology of cola-induced hypokalaemia has not been determined and may vary in different patients.

"However in most of the cases we looked at for our review, caffeine intoxication was thought to play the most important role.

"This has been borne out by case studies that focus on other products that contain high levels of caffeine but no glucose or fructose."

Despite this, he warned that caffeine free cola products could also cause hypokalaemia because the fructose they contain can cause diarrhoea.

"We believe that further studies are needed to establish how much is too much when it comes to the daily consumption of cola drinks."

Excessive consumption has already been linked with obesity, diabetes and tooth and bone problems.

A spokeswoman from the British Soft Drinks Association said: "The examples used in this paper by the IJCP are all very extreme cases - moderate consumption of cola drinks is completely safe and people can continue to enjoy such drinks as part of a balanced diet and active lifestyle.

"The soft drinks industry is committed to encouraging responsible consumption of all its products. Nutrition labelling is included on packaging so people can make an informed choice about the products they are drinking."

In our opinion an informed choice would dictate that only pure, additive free fruit and vegetable juices are safe for human consumption along with adequately filtered water.

Pthalates

Phthalates make plastics soft but have many other uses in the chemical world we live in.

A top manufacturer of household cleaners announced plans on March 12th, 2009 to eliminate a controversial plastics additive from its brand and voluntarily disclose all product ingredients.

S.C. Johnson – maker of Windex, Shout and Glade – said that it has begun working with its suppliers to end the use of phthalates, which soften plastics.

The move comes as lawmakers are debating regulations for many industrial chemicals as research suggests potentially serious health impacts. Phthalates, for example, interfere with hormones and have been linked to genetic abnormalities in baby boys.

Congress passed a bill last year banning certain phthalates in toys as part of a broad consumer-protection bill, and some states are considering bans on the chemical in children's products. The American Chemistry Council opposes such bans, saying they are unsupported by science.

The council and other industry groups point to studies by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that failed to find a link between the plastics additive and human reproductive problems because of the low levels to which the vast majority of people are exposed.

S.C. Johnson Chairman and CEO Fisk Johnson said in a statement that the company believes the chemical is safe but is moving to remove them in response to consumer concerns.

"Even though the chemistry was sound, we decided that making sure consumers know they can trust S.C. Johnson products was well worth the time and cost to change them," Johnson said.

Environmentalists and public-health advocates say that even if the science is not conclusive, there is enough uncertainty to warrant action.

S.C. Johnson also pledged to list all ingredients, including dyes, preservatives and fragrance ingredients – a first in the industry.

The industry has come under fire lately for a lack of transparency in product ingredients. Advocacy groups say such disclosures are critical to understanding the effects of cleaners and other household products on human health and the environment.

In response, Johnson said the company is committed to providing accessible information to consumers, including setting up a Web site dedicated to product ingredients. The goal is to get all ingredients listed by 2012.

Lawsuit seeks disclosure

Last month, a coalition of advocacy groups sued four manufacturers of household cleaners for failing to disclose the ingredients under New York state law. Earthjustice attorney Keri Powell, who filed the lawsuit, said she sees S.C. Johnson's announcement as a positive step.

"We're glad to see S.C. Johnson taking the lead today, setting an example for transparency that the rest of the industry would do well to follow," Powell said.

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote in a blog post that disclosing ingredients does not guarantee a product's safety but is a critical step in assessing safety. In addition, she wrote, it empowers consumers.

"This move could signal a broader response to the public opposition to lack of information and unsafe chemicals in household products," Beinecke said. "Public concern is starting to move not only individual companies like S.C. Johnson, but the marketplace as a whole, as well as public policy."

There are signs that the market is paying attention, as major manufacturers begin to change product formulations based on consumer concern. Last week, the country's six largest manufacturers of baby bottles agreed to stop using another controversial plastics additive, bisphenol A, or BPA, as states consider banning the chemical.

BPA is a high-protein chemical that has been used for decades to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy linings for food cans. Concerns about it are growing because studies show it mimics estrogen and has been linked to developmental problems and precancerous growths in animals.

Beinecke called the companies' decisions a "testament to the power of consumers to make a difference."

Water 8 x 8?

Virtually every health-conscious person can quote the recommendation: Drink at least eight eight-ounce glasses of water per day. Other beverages—coffee, tea, soda, beer, even orange juice—don't count. Watermelon? Not a chance.

There's no denying that water is good for you, but does everyone really need to drink 64 ounces or more every day? According to Heinz Valtin, a retired professor of physiology from Dartmouth Medical School who specialized in kidney research and spent 45 years studying the biological system that keeps the water in our bodies in balance, the answer is no.

Valtin says that for people who have specific health concerns, such as kidney stones or a tendency to develop urinary tract infections, drinking lots of water can be beneficial. But after an extensive search in 2002 for the origins of what is commonly referred to as the "8 x 8" guideline and a review of associated health claims, he reports finding no scientific evidence supporting the notion that healthy individuals need to consume large quantities of water. In 2008 Dan Negoianu and Stanley Goldfarb reviewed the evidence for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. They came to a similar conclusion: "There is no clear evidence of benefit from drinking increased amounts of water."

In fact, Valtin found that the 8 x 8 guideline may have originated from a misunderstanding. In 1945 the Food and Nutrition Board, now part of the National Academy of Sciences's Institute of Medicine, suggested that a person consume one milliliter of water (about one fifth of a teaspoon) for each calorie of food. The math is pretty simple: A daily diet of around 1,900 calories would dictate the consumption of 1,900 milliliters of water, an amount remarkably close to 64 ounces. But many dieticians and other people failed to notice a critical point: namely, that much of the daily need for water could be met by the water content found in food.

The Board revisited the question of water consumption in 2004. Its panel on "dietary preference intakes for electrolytes and water" noted that women who appear adequately hydrated consume about 91 ounces (2.7 liters) of water a day and men about 125 ounces (3.7 liters). These seemingly large quantities come from a variety of sources—including coffee, tea, milk, soda, juice, fruits, vegetables and other foods. Instead of recommending how much extra water a person should drink to maintain health, the panel simply concluded that "the vast majority of healthy people adequately meet their daily hydration needs by letting thirst be their guide."

Advocates of the 8 x 8 guideline sometimes claim that thirst is a poor hydration indicator. They assert that many people are so chronically dehydrated they no longer recognize their bodies' signals for water. Barbara Rolls, professor of nutrition sciences at the Pennsylvania State University, disagrees. Her studies, she says, "found no evidence that people are chronically dehydrated." Although some drugs can cause problems with thirst regulation and the elderly may not experience thirst as intensely as younger people, Rolls maintains that most healthy people are adequately hydrated.

Weight loss is another benefit often touted by proponents of the 8 x 8 guideline. They claim people mistake thirst for hunger, which causes them to eat when they are really just thirsty. They also allege that drinking water suppresses appetite. Given the obesity crisis, every little bit (or drop) helps.

But Rolls disagrees, arguing that "drinking water and waiting for pounds to melt away does not work. We all wish it were that simple." She explains that "hunger and thirst are controlled by separate systems in the body. People are unlikely to mistake thirst for hunger." Furthermore, she reports that her studies "never found that drinking water with or before a meal affected appetite." Nevertheless, there are some elements of truth in the misperception. Rolls did find that water-rich foods—as opposed to stand-alone water—tended to help people consume fewer calories. And, she says, "there is a way that water can help with weight loss—if you use water as a substitute for a caloric beverage."

Neither Rolls nor Valtin opposes the idea of including water in a healthy diet. They both note that the body needs water to function properly and that dehydration hurts the body. They do object, however, to the notion that a universally true guideline governs ideal water consumption. "Water requirements depend so much on outside temperature, activity levels and other factors that there isn't one rule that fits everybody," Rolls says. And Valtin cautions that in some situations drinking too much water can actually be dangerous, even fatal.

So how much water should you drink? Here's their advice: If you have specific medical concerns, talk to your doctor. But if you are healthy, Rolls recommends that you "have a beverage with meals and drink when you are thirsty." In other words, heed your thirst signals, enjoy that watermelon, and stop feeling guilty for not guzzling those extra glasses.

Exposing Fish To Disease, Death and Intersex Traits And We Eat Them!

Exposure to estrogen puts fish at greater risk of disease and premature death, according to a new federal study.

The U.S. Geological Survey study showed that estrogen exposure reduces a fish's ability to produce proteins that help it ward off disease and pointed to a possible link between the occurrence of intersex fish and recent fish kills in the Potomac and Shenandoah rivers.

The report, published in the current issue of Fish & Shellfish Immunology, adds to a growing body of research pointing to problems with estrogen in the nation's waterways.

Other research has found evidence of estrogen exposure in freshwater and some marine fish populations. In a previous report, USGS scientists found widespread occurrences of fish in the Potomac and Shenandoah rivers with "intersex" characteristics -- male fish carrying immature female egg cells in their testes. Other scientists observed similar problems in fish in Southern California and in labs in Canada and the United States.

Scientists have not targeted the source of estrogen, but many suspect it stems from certain pollutants and drugs in waterways.

For the new research, USGS scientists injected largemouth bass with estrogen in laboratory tests. They discovered that the fish produced lower levels of hepcidins, proteins that regulate iron and may be a first line of defense against disease-causing bacteria, fungi and viruses.

Largemouth bass usually produce two kinds of these sickness-shielding proteins. After being exposed to estrogen, they reduced production of one type of the protein, and exposure to estrogen and bacteria completely blocked the production of the other. The researchers say this could explain why the Potomac and Shenandoah rivers seem to have the co-occurence of intersex fish, fish lesions and fish kills.

"The fact that estrogen blocked production of hepcidins in fish exposed to bacteria gives more weight to the theory that estrogen or estrogen-mimicking chemicals could be making fish more susceptible to diseases," said Laura Robertson, who led the research.

Male fish with the capability to develop immature eggs inside their sex organs were first found in a West Virginia stream in 2003, raising fears that there were endocrine disruptors in the water that scientists were not finding in repeated water tests.

In a 2006 study, the USGS scientists found widespread endocrine disruption among smallmouth and largemouth bass in the Potomac River and its tributaries across Maryland and Virginia. Tests on smallmouth bass in the Shenandoah River in Virginia and in the Monocacy River in Maryland -- both of which feed the Potomac -- concluded that more than 80 percent of all the male bass were growing eggs. Environmental groups have asked U.S. EPA to ban chemicals used in many household detergents that are linked to endocrine disruption and gender changes in fish. One chemical, nonylphenol, imitates estrogen. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups want EPA to use a provision of the Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate individual substances.

Toxic World - Toxic Food

The Non-Toxic Times Newsletter reports that some people in the scientific community think that the startling, inexplicable rise in food allergies in recent years can be traced to genetically modified foods.

Thirty years ago, food allergies were rare, but now they affect more than 11 million Americans. Rates of peanut allergies in the U.S. doubled between 1997 and 2002.

Genetically modified (GM) foods entered the U.S. market in 1994 without any special labeling. Now, experts estimate that 60-70% of processed foods contain genetically modified ingredients. The most common GM foods are soybeans, corn, and cotton. (Cottonseed oil is a common ingredient in many processed foods!)

GM foods contain foreign genes from different species. These foreign genes are inserted to create desirable traits for farmers and increase profits. Many GM foods, for instance, have been modified to resist a particular disease or pest.

Here are just a few pieces of evidence that GM foods may be fueling the increase in food allergies:

• In 1999, an annual study of food allergens in the U.K. found that soy allergies had increased 50% over the previous year. This trend coincided with the first imports of GM soy from the U.S., which led scientists to strongly suspect a connection.



• A Monsanto company study on GM Bt corn (which the company was forced to reveal through legal action) showed that rats who ate it experienced a significant increase in three types of immune system blood cells.



• Mice fed a diet rich in GM soy had significantly lower levels of pancreatic enzymes, which are needed to break down proteins in the digestive tract. When proteins last longer in the body, they're more likely to provoke an allergic response.



• A type of GM potato has been found to damage the immune systems of rats.

If you'd like to learn more about GM foods, I suggest that you watch the documentary The Future of Food, which you can watch in its entirety on Google Video.

They've Genetically Modified YOU

You may be surprised to learn that you have a 75 percent chance of picking a food with genetically modified (GM) ingredients when you’re at the supermarket. This is because at least seven out of every 10 items have been genetically modified.

In fact, the United States leads the world in GM crop acreage with 123 million acres in all (that’s close to one-third of the agricultural land in the United States planted with gene-altered crops).

And the blight of genetically engineered crops across the globe continues to grow. Worldwide, there are at least 222 million acres planted with GM crops, and the number keeps rising.

Although the major food giants are carrying on with their claim that GM foods are no different from conventionally grown varieties, the research begs to differ.

Here is just a sampling of the unsavory findings associated with GM foods:

• GM peas caused lung damage in mice
• GM potatoes may cause cancer in rats
• Bacteria in your gut can take up DNA from GM food
• They may be spurring the creation of weed-killer-resistant superweeds

Aside from the potential risks to your health, genetic modification known as “terminator technology” is now being used to create, you guessed it, seeds that “self-destruct.” In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year (as opposed to using the seeds from their harvest to replant the following year, which is the traditional way).

This, of course, means bigger profits for the food companies that are patenting GM seeds, and more money shelled out from farmers. Worse still, this practice could actually threaten the entire food supply because the sterile seeds may spread to nearby fields.

There is an incredibly important documentary on this topic that I urge you to watch yourself and then pass on to ALL of your friends and family. This should be required viewing for everyone that is living in the 21st century. It will open your eyes to the dangers of GM foods and do it in a way that is very easy to learn. It is one of the most important videos I have ever viewed.

Again, you simply MUST watch this video!!

It’s called The Future of Food. This documentary will help you understand the very real threat that ALL future generations face as a result of genetic engineering.

You may also be interested to know that I am actually working strategically with Jeffery Smith, the leader of the anti-GM movement in the United States, to facilitate the end of GM foods in the U.S. within the next two years.

This shopping guide is an excellent start, as you can print it out and take it with you to the store so you can avoid GM foods like the plague.

Along with using The True Food Shopping Guide, you can also follow these tips to avoid GM ingredients:

• Examine produce stickers on the fruits and vegetables you buy. The PLU code for conventionally grown fruit consists of four numbers, organically grown fruit has five numbers prefaced by the number nine, and GM fruit has five numbers prefaced by the number eight.
• Buy organic produce as often as you can. By definition, food that is certified organic must be free from all GM organisms.
• Stay away from processed foods. Most of these contain corn and soy products, and most corn and soy are genetically modified.
  

Related Links:

The Future of Food -- You NEED to Watch This Video!!!

Move to Put GMO Foods Back in Europe

Starving Africans Refuse GMO Corn

Monsanto: Seeds Of Starvation

An ad that recently ran during the American Public Media show Marketplace, sponsored by Monsanto, the world’s largest corporate agribusiness chemical firm, touted how Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) seeds are going to save the world from environmental catastrophe and human hunger.

The Monsanto ads are, quite simply, false. The premise of the ad is that Monsanto’s GM seeds are going to save the world from environmental catastrophe and human hunger, but the reality of Monsanto’s seeds and the company’s ethics and commitment to fighting world hunger have little to do with either.

Eighty-five percent of all GM seeds are engineered for herbicide tolerance, most of these being Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” cotton, corn, soy, and canola seeds. This allows plants to withstand significant amounts of pesticides being sprayed on it, in effect promoting pesticide use. As a result, there has been an increase in pesticide use in the United States since the introduction of GM seeds. Since the introduction of GM crops in the United States, more than 120 million pounds of additional pesticides were used.

At the same time, not a single GM crop has been commercially introduced that is intended to increase yield. Agronomists and plant scientists made far greater advances in yields through conventional breeding methods than they ever have with GM crops. In fact, there have been several studies which show that there are actually yield losses associated with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans. GM crops are not feeding the world, and they are not enabling us to produce more.

Monsanto wants you to believe their crops are feeding hungry children in Africa, and that they are allowing farmers to use fewer chemicals. But do their actions demonstrate that their concern lies solely in their profits?

Anyone who believes Monsanto’s proclamations of saving the world from environmental catastrophe and hunger is clearly not paying attention to some very blatant signs that this is not true.

It’s unfortunate that the U.S. has yet to follow the decision of several other countries that have already banned genetically modified crops. Germany, for example, recently became the sixth country in the European Union to take a stand against GM corn. Meanwhile, tens of millions of acres of GM corn are being planted in the U.S.

According to the French Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, a molecular endocrinologist and a member of two French government commissions evaluating GM food, the corn variety in question, called MON 810, has shown statistically significant problems in animal studies.

They found the effects of the GM crops were similar to that of pesticides, causing inflammation disorders, and problems with livers and kidneys, two major organs involved with detoxification.

Another scientist, biology professor Bela Darvas of Hungary‘s Debrecen University, discovered that Monsanto’s Mon 810 is lethal to two Hungarian protected species.

So how does Monsanto respond to Darvas’ disturbing findings?

They simply refuse to give him any more Mon 810 corn to use in his tests. They’ve also refused his request for Mon 863, another GM variety. Is that really the enlightened action of an environmentally sensitive company that is looking out for not only your health, but the wellbeing of the planet?

Common GMO Myths

As The GM-Free Ireland Network points out, there are numerous GM biotechnology propaganda myths in circulation, and none of them are true. If you’ve been paying attention to the news about genetically modified plants, you’ve probably heard some of them already. (For the full list, please see this pdf.)

Myth #1: Genetic engineering is a continuation of traditional breeding methods

In fact, most GM crops are modified with the introduction of DNA from other species entirely. This never occurs in nature, or with traditional breeding methods.

Myth #2: Opponents of GM food are anti-science

Leading opponents of GM foods include the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Independent Science Panel, the U.S. Center for Food Safety, and numerous agronomic, environmental, and health scientists.

Myth #3: GM crops have higher yields

GM crop seeds currently on the market do not increase yields, and are not designed to. In fact, GM crops typically render lower yields.

For example, GM soya has decreased yields by up to 20 percent compared with non-GM soya. And up to 100 percent failures of Bt cotton have been recorded in India. This in turn has spurred a staggering number of suicides among India’s farmers. According to the National Crime Records Bureau of India, more than 182,900 Indian farmers took their own lives between 1997 and 2007, potentially due to GM crop failures. An estimated 46 Indian farmers commit suicide every day.

Additionally, recent studies by scientists from the USDA and the University of Georgia found that growing GM cotton in the U.S. can result in a drop in income by up to 40 percent.

Myth #4: Americans have been eating GM foods for 15 years without any health problems

This one is perhaps most deceptive as GM foods are not labeled in the U.S., which makes traceability and accountability impossible. There may or may not be obvious health problems, but it is carefully designed so that no one can find out for sure.

However, according to Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, what we do know is that between 1994 and 2001 – at the same time as GMO’s flooded the market – food related illnesses DOUBLED.

His findings show that GMO foods can be:

• Allergenic
• Toxic
• Carcinogenic
• Anti-nutritional

Although the major food giants are carrying on with their claim that GM foods are no different from conventionally grown varieties, the research says otherwise.

For example, GM peas were found to cause lung damage in mice; GM potatoes have been linked to cancer in rats; and bacteria in the human gut has been shown to take up DNA from genetically modified food under certain circumstances.

When viewed as a whole, GM foods are a disaster for the environment, an unviable solution to world hunger, and undoubtedly worse for your health.

GM Crops Fail to Live Up to Advertised Promises Again and Again

The fact remains that GM crops have failed to deliver on virtually every single promise and expectation. After 30 years of GMO experimentation, we have the data to show:No reduction in pesticides use; on the contrary, USDA data shows that GM crops has increased pesticide use by 50 million pounds from 1996 to 2003 in the U.S., and the use of glyphosate went up more than 15-fold between 1994 and 2005, along with increases in other herbicides to cope with rising glyphosate resistant superweeds.

GM crops do harm wildlife, as revealed by UK and U.S. studies.

Bt resistant pests and Roundup tolerant superweeds render the two major GM crop traits useless. The evolution of Bt resistant bollworms worldwide have now been confirmed and documented.

Unpredictable transgene contamination is completely unavoidable, as science has recently revealed that the genome (whether plant, animal or human) is NOT constant and static, which is the scientific base for genetic engineering of plants and animals.

Instead, geneticists have discovered that the genome is remarkably dynamic and changeable, and constantly ‘conversing’ and adapting to the environment. This interaction determines which genes are turned on, when, where, by what and how much, and for how long. They’ve also found that the genetic material itself has the ability to be changed according to experience, passing it on to subsequent generations.

How to Avoid GM Foods

Avoiding GM products in your diet means avoiding an ever-growing number of ingredients, or choosing organic versions of them. This is not an easy task, especially if you eat processed food. However, the four most prevalent GM ingredients to look out for are:

• Soy
• Corn
• Cottonseed
• Canola

You’ll also want to avoid the offspring of these products, which includes items like maltodextrin, soy lecithin, and high fructose corn syrup.

You CAN Demand Better Food

It’s easy to sit back and think you can’t do a thing to change the current state of affairs, but the fact is, you CAN make a difference. You can demand something better -- food that is still food, grown the way nature intended.

First and foremost, you can vote with your pocketbook by avoiding everything that contains GM ingredients, and ask your local supermarket to stock their shelves with more natural organic foods. Some supermarkets will even allow you to special order food items.

And don’t forget about your elected officials. Let them know how you feel about it, and what kind of policies you’re willing to support.

• People in certain professions can play a significant role to advance this cause as well:
• Chefs, restaurants and food companies can switch to non-GM sources
• Retailers can remove or label GM products or offer in-store Non-GMO Shopping Guides
• Religious leaders can help to educate their congregation
• Health practitioners can provide patient education materials
• Those in the education world can help make school cafeterias GM-free
• Reporters can expose the health risks
• 
  

To get an idea of just how widespread GM ingredients are, I recommend taking a look at The GMO Food Guide. It lists 20 different food categories that include everything from baby food to chocolate.

And the incredible series Seeds of Doubt, written by staffers at the Sacramento Bee, can offer further guidance to fully understand the many problems associated with GM foods.

Last but not least, I urge everyone to watch the video The Future of Food, and forward the link to this video to your friends, family and acquaintances. This in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind genetically modified foods is one of the best documentaries made to date. It will help you understand how and why the genetic engineering we allow to be unleashed today is a very real threat to ALL future generations.

Related Links:

Germany Bans Genetically Modified Corn

The GMO Food Guide

Could Monsanto Be Responsible for One Indian Farmer's Death Every Thirty Minutes?

Common Chemicals Threaten Male Fertility

In recent years, more and more evidence has emerged, showing that certain chemicals are causing damage to the endocrine system of both wildlife and humans. Male infertility, in particular, is on the rise, and about 250,000 fewer boys have been born in the last 30 years in the U.S. and Japan.

Scientists are linking these phenomena to an accumulation of “gender-bending” toxins called endocrine disruptors.

Based on the initial evidence, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996, which required the EPA to initiate the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) to screen pesticide chemicals and environmental contaminants for their potential to affect the endocrine systems of both animals and humans.

However, despite the fact that more than a decade has passed since the beginning of the program, the market is literally flooded with chemicals that have the potential to wreak havoc with your health. Especially when you’re exposed to them in a myriad of untested combinations.

Says CHEM Trust director, Elizabeth Salter Green:

“Chemicals that have been shown to act together to affect male reproductive health should have their risks assessed together. Currently that is not the case, and unfortunately chemicals are looked at on an individual basis.

Therefore, government assurances that exposures are too low to have any effect just do not hold water because regulators do not take into account the additive actions of hormone disrupting chemicals.”

Why You Need to Protect Your Endocrine System

Your endocrine system is a complex network of glands, hormones and receptors, which works in tandem with your nervous system to control all your bodily functions and processes.

The glands of your endocrine system and the hormones they release influence almost every cell, organ, and function of your body. It is instrumental in regulating mood, growth and development, tissue function, metabolism, as well as sexual function and reproductive processes.

Endocrine disrupters are substances or mixtures that alter the functions of your endocrine system and consequently cause adverse health effects, either in your body or in your offspring.

These types of chemicals can exert their effects by:

• Mimicking the biological activity of your hormones by binding to a cellular receptor. This can initiate your cell's normal response to the naturally occurring hormone at the wrong time or to an excessive extent (agonistic effect).
• Binding to the receptor but not activating it. Instead the presence of the chemical on the receptor prevents binding of the natural hormone (antagonistic effect).
• Binding to transport proteins in your blood, thus altering the amounts of natural hormones that are present in your blood circulation.
• Interfering with the metabolic processes in your body, affecting the synthesis or breakdown rates of your natural hormones.

So far, the main areas of scientific study have focused on disruption to the hormones that play a major part in development and reproduction, mainly estrogens and androgens.

These hormones also influence your immune system and general metabolism.

The strongest evidence showing that exposure to environmental chemicals can lead to disruption of endocrine function comes from the bizarre changes seen in a number of wildlife species, such as male fish transforming into females; frogs developing a variety of defects like multiple testes or ovaries; and hermaphrodite bears, just to name a few.

The Dirty Dozen -- Potential Endocrine Disrupters to Avoid

Endocrine disrupting chemicals are everywhere these days. You are exposed to them from a variety of sources, including countless common household products, toys, personal care products, and cosmetics.

Here’s a list of twelve common agents with hormonal activity, i.e. potential endocrine disrupters:

1. Phthalates -- Exposure to phthalates can lead to incomplete testicular descent in fetuses. Phthalates are found in vinyl flooring, detergents, automotive plastics, soap, shampoo, deodorants, fragrances, hair spray, nail polish, plastic bags, food packaging, garden hoses, inflatable toys, blood-storage bags, and intravenous medical tubing.
2. Bisphenol A -- a common ingredient in many plastics, including those in reusable water bottles and resins lining some food cans and dental sealants, can change the course of fetal development in a way that increases your risk of breast cancer.
3. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) -- found in grease- and water-resistant coatings like Teflon and Gore-Tex, is a likely carcinogen.
4. Methoxychlor and Vinclozin-- An insecticide and a fungicide respectively, have been found to cause changes to male mice born for as many as four subsequent generations after the initial exposure.
5. Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) -- Known to be potent endocrine disrupters, these chemicals affect gene expression by turning on or off certain genes, and interfere with the way your glandular system works. They mimic the female hormone estrogen, and have been implicated as one reason behind some marine species switching from male to female.
6. Bovine growth hormones, commonly added to commercial dairy have been implicated as a contributor to premature adolescence.
7. Soy products, which are loaded with hormone-like substances.
8. MSG -- A food additive that’s been linked to reduced fertility.
9. Fluoride -- This chemical in the U.S. water supply has been linked to lower fertility rates, hormone disruption and low sperm counts.
10. Synthetically produced pharmaceuticals that are intended to be highly hormonally active, such as contraceptive pills and treatments for hormone-responsive cancers. Your body is not designed to be exposed to these synthetic hormones, and long-term use will invariably increase your risk of developing serious chronic illness.
11. Other natural chemicals, including toxins produced by components of plants (the so-called phytoestrogens, such as genistein or coumestrol) and certain fungi.
12. Other man-made chemicals and by-products released into the environment. These include some pesticides (such as pyrethroids, linuron, vinclozolin, fenitrothion, DDT and other chlorinated compounds), and a number of industrial chemicals like polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs) and dioxins.

How Do These Chemicals Affect Your Health?

Certain health patterns over recent decades suggest that endocrine disrupting chemicals are quietly at work. These include:

• declining sperm counts
• increased incidences of male children born with genital malformations
• increased incidences of certain hormone-sensitive types of cancer
• impaired neural development, causing memory problems and lower IQ
• impaired sexual behavior
• precocious puberty
• retarded sexual development

One of the Most Infamous Examples of the Dangers of Endocrine Disrupters

The clearest example of the disastrous, long-term health effects of an endocrine disrupter is diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen prescribed in the 1950s and 1960s to five million pregnant women for the prevention of spontaneous abortion.

Many of these children ended with physical deformities and developmental abnormalities, and some of the girls developed an unusual form of vaginal cancer when they reached puberty.

Consequently, DES was banned in the 1970s. But the damage still lingers, and in some cases keeps showing up even in second generation babies. And, although DES is no longer on the market, other similar chemicals are, such as Bisphenol-A (BPA), which I’ve written about on numerous occasions.

How to Protect You and Your Children’s Health

If you have children, or are planning a pregnancy, this is clearly an issue you’ll want to pay attention to. Yet, so many more products contain endocrine disruptors of varying types; trying to avoid them all can seem like an impossible task.

It is difficult, yes, but there are still a number of practical strategies you can implement to limit your exposure to endocrine disruptors, and other common toxins.

Here’s a baker’s dozen of practical measures you can take to protect you and your children from common toxic substances that may wreak havoc with your delicate endocrine system:

1. Store your food in glass containers whenever possible, as it is the most inert container you can use.
2. Only use natural cleaning products in your home. Most health food stores will have these available or you can search online for them.
3. Buy and eat organic produce and free-range, organic foods to reduce your exposure to pesticides and fertilizers. This also applies to milk, which is frequently contaminated with bovine growth hormone.
4. Avoid conventional or farm-raised fish, which are often heavily contaminated with PCBs and mercury. Instead, supplement with a high-quality krill oil, or eat fish that is wild-caught and lab tested for purity.
5. Avoid processed foods, and artificial food additives of all kinds, including artificial sweeteners and MSG.
6. Throw out your Teflon pots and pans.
7. Have your tap water tested and, if contaminants are found, install an appropriate water filter on all your faucets (even those in your shower or bath).
8. Only use natural cleaning products in your home.
9. Avoid using artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners or other synthetic fragrances.
10. Switch to natural brands of toiletries, including shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants and cosmetics.
11. When redoing your home, look for “green,” toxin-free alternatives in lieu of regular paint and vinyl floor coverings.
12. Replace your vinyl shower curtain with one made of fabric.
13. Review Our Stolen Future, which is an excellent resource on this topic.