Healthy Foods

GMOs: We all know stories of tobacco, asbestos, and DDT. Originally declared safe, they caused widespread death and disease. Although their impact was vast, most of the population was spared. The same cannot be said for sweeping changes in the food supply. Everyone eats; everyone is affected. The increase in several diseases in North America may be due to the profound changes in our diet. The most radical change occurred a little over a decade ago when genetically modified (GM) crops were introduced. Their influence on health has been largely ignored, but recent studies show serious problems. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been linked to thousands of toxic or allergic-type reactions, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals.1 Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study shows adverse or unexplained effects.

 

GM foods were made possible by a technology developed in the 1970s whereby genes from one species are forced into the DNA of other species. Genes produce proteins, which in turn can generate characteristics or traits. The promised traits associated with GMOs have been sky high—vegetables growing in the desert, vitamin fortified grains, and highly productive crops feeding the starving millions. None of these are available. In fact, the only two traits that are found in nearly all commericialized GM plants are herbicide tolerance and/or pesticide production.

 

Herbicide tolerant soy, corn, cotton, and canola plants are engineered with bacterial genes that allow them to survive otherwise deadly doses of herbicides. This gives farmers more flexibility in weeding and gives the GM seed company lots more profit. When farmers buy GM seeds, they sign a contract to buy only that seed producer’s brand of herbicide. Herbicide tolerant crops comprise about 80% of all GM plants. The other 20% are corn and cotton varieties that produce a pesticide in every cell. This is accomplished due to a gene from a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt, which produces a natural insect-killing poison called Bt- toxin. In addition to these two traits, there are also disease resistant GM Hawaiian papaya, zucchini and crook neck squash, which comprise well under 1% of GMO acreage.

GMOs: The FDA's "Non-Regulation" Of GM Foods

Rhetoric from the United States government since the early 1990s proclaims that GM foods are no different from their natural counterparts that have existed for centuries. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has labeled them “Generally Recognized as Safe,” or GRAS. This status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing. According to US law, to be considered GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe. GM foods had neither. Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move in 1992 that some experts contend was illegal, the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labeling of GMOs. A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency.

 

Such a lenient approach was largely the result of the influence of large agricultural corporations According to Henry Miller, who had a leading role in biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994, “In this area, the US government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do.”2 The Ag biotech company with the greatest influence was clearly Monsanto. According to the New York Times, “What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto and, by extension, the biotechnology industry got. . . . When the company abruptly decided that it needed to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the White House quickly ushered through an unusually generous policy of self-policing.”3

 

This policy was heralded by Vice President Dan Quayle on May 26, 1992. He chaired the Council on Competitiveness, which had identified GM crops as an industry that could boost US exports. To take advantage, Quayle announced “reforms” to “speed up and simplify the process of bringing” GM products to market without “being hampered by unnecessary regulation.”4 Three days later, the FDA policy on non-regulation was unveiled.

 

The person who oversaw its development was the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Michael Taylor, whose position had been created especially for him in 1991. Prior to that, Taylor was an outside attorney for both Monsanto and the Food Biotechnology Council. After working at the FDA, he became Monsanto’s vice president. The Obama administration has put Talyor back into the FDA as the US Food Safety Czar.

The FDA Covers Up Health Risks

Taylor’s GMO policy needed to create the impression that unintended effects from GM crops were not an issue. Otherwise their GRAS status would be undermined and they would need the extensive testing and labels that are normally required for food additives. But internal memos made public from a lawsuit showed that the overwhelming consensus among the agency scientists was that GM crops can have unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. Various departments and experts spelled these out in detail, listing allergies, toxins, nutritional effects, and new diseases as potential dangers. They urged superiors to require long-term safety studies.5 In spite of the warnings, according to public interest attorney Steven Druker who studied the FDA’s internal files, “References to the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists).”6

 

FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, PhD, wrote about the policy, “What has happened to the scientific elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general, ‘What do I have to do to avoid trouble’-type document. . . . It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects.”7

 

The scientists’ concerns were not only ignored, their very existence was denied. The official FDA policy stated, “The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.”8 In sharp contrast, an internal FDA report stated, “The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.”9 The FDA’s deceptive notion of no difference was coined “substantial equivalence” and formed the basis of the US government position on GMOs.

 

Many scientists and organizations have criticized the US position. The National Academy of Sciences and even the pro-GM Royal Society of London10 describe the US system as inadequate and flawed. The editor of the prestigious journal Lancet said, “It is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992. . . . The policy is that genetically modified crops will receive the same consideration for potential health risks as any other new crop plant. This stance is taken despite good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist. . . . Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”11 The Royal Society of Canada described substantial equivalence as “scientifically unjustifiable and inconsistent with precautionary regulation of the technology.” 12

GMOs Are Inherently Unsafe

There are several reasons why GM plants present unique dangers. The first is that the process of genetic engineering itself creates unpredicted alterations, irrespective of which gene is transferred. The gene insertion process, for example, is accomplished by either shooting genes from a “gene gun” into a plate of cells, or using bacteria to infect the cell with foreign DNA. Both create mutations in and around the insertion site and elsewhere.13 The “transformed” cell is then cloned into a plant through a process called tissue culture, which results in additional hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the plants’ genome. In the end, the GM plant’s DNA can be a staggering 2-4% different from its natural parent.14 Native genes can be mutated, deleted, or permanently turned on or off. In addition, the insertion process causes holistic and not-well-understood changes among large numbers of native genes. One study revealed that up to 5% of the natural genes altered their levels of protein expression as a result of a single insertion.

 

The Royal Society of Canada acknowledged that “the default prediction” for GM crops would include “a range of collateral changes in expression of other genes, changes in the pattern of proteins produced and/or changes in metabolic activities.”15 Although the FDA scientists evaluating GMOs in 1992 were unaware of the extent to which GM DNA is damaged or changed, they too described the potential consequences. They reported, “The possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically engineered plants” might produce “unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants.”16 GM crops, they said, might have “increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins,” and the “appearance of new, not previously identified” toxins.17 The same mechanism can also produce allergens, carcinogens, or substances that inhibit assimilation of nutrients.

 

Most of these problems would pass unnoticed through safety assessments on GM foods, which are largely designed on the false premise that genes are like Legos that cleanly snap into place. But even if we disregard unexpected changes in the DNA for the moment, a proper functioning inserted gene still carries significant risk. Its newly created GM protein, such as the Bt-toxin, may be dangerous for human health (see below). Moreover, even if that protein is safe in its natural organism, once it is transferred into a new species it may be processed differently. A harmless protein may be transformed into a dangerous or deadly version. This happened with at least one GM food crop under development, GM peas, which were destroyed before being commercialized.

 

FDA scientists were also quite concerned about the possibility of inserted genes spontaneously transferring into the DNA of bacteria inside our digestive tract. They were particularly alarmed at the possibility of antibiotic resistant marker (ARM) genes transferring. ARM genes are employed during gene insertion to help scientists identify which cells successfully integrated the foreign gene. These ARM genes, however, remain in the cell and are cloned into the DNA of all the GM plants produced from that cell. One FDA report wrote in all capital letters that ARM genes would be “A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD,” due to the possibility of that they might transfer to bacteria and create super diseases, untreatable with antibiotics.

 

Although the biotech industry confidently asserted that gene transfer from GM foods was not possible, the only human feeding study on GM foods later proved that it does take place. The genetic material in soybeans that make them herbicide tolerant transferred into the DNA of human gut bacteria and continued to function18. That means that long after we stop eating a GM crop, its foreign GM proteins may be produced inside our intestines. It is also possible that the foreign genes might end up inside our own DNA, within the cells of our own organs and tissues.

 

Another worry expressed by FDA scientists was that GM plants might gather “toxic substances from the environment” such as “pesticides or heavy metals,”19 or that toxic substances in GM animal feed might bioaccumulate into milk and meat products. While no studies have looked at the bioaccumulation issue, herbicide tolerant crops certainly have higher levels of herbicide residues. In fact, many countries had to increase their legally allowable levels—by up to 50 times—in order to accommodate the introduction of GM crops.

 

The overuse of the herbicides due to GM crops has resulted in the development of herbicide resistant weeds. USDA statistics show that herbicide use is rapidly accelerating. Its use was up by 527 million pounds in the first 16 years of GM crops (1996-2011). Glyphosate use per acre on Roundup Ready soybeans was up by 227% while use on non-GMO soy acreage decreased by 20% over the same time period. The rate of application is accelerating due in large part to the emergence of herbicide tolerant weeds, now found on millions of acres. According to a study by Charles Benbrook, the incremental increase per year was 1.5 million pounds in 1999, 18 million in 2003, 79 million in 2009, and about 90 million in 2011. And as Roundup becomes less effective, farmers are now using more toxic herbicides, such as 2-4D.

 

The pesticide-producing Bt crops do reduce the amount of sprayed on insecticides, but the total amount produced by the crops is far greater than the amount of displaced spray. For example, Bt corn that kills the corn rootworm produces one to two pounds of Bt toxin per acre, but reduces sprayed insecticides by only about 0.19 pounds. SmartStax corn with eight genes produces 3.7 pounds of Bt toxin per acre, but displaces only 0.3 pounds of sprayed insecticides. 20

 

All of the above risks associated with GM foods are magnified for high-risk groups, such as pregnant women, children, the sick, and the elderly. The following section highlights some of the problems that have been identified.

GM Diet Shows Toxic Reactions In The Digestive Tract

The very first crop submitted to the FDA’s voluntary consultation process, the FlavrSavr tomato, showed evidence of toxins. Out of 20 female rats fed the GM tomato, 7 developed stomach lesions.21 The director of FDA’s Office of Special Research Skills wrote that the tomatoes did not demonstrate a “reasonable certainty of no harm,”22 which is their normal standard of safety. The Additives Evaluation Branch agreed that “unresolved questions still remain.”23 The political appointees, however, did not require that the tomato be withdrawn.1

 

According to Arpad Pusztai, PhD, one of the world’s leading experts in GM food safety assessments, the type of stomach lesions linked to the tomatoes “could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent [blood clots].”24 Dr. Pusztai believes that the digestive tract, which is the first and largest point of contact with foods, can reveal various reactions to toxins and should be the first target of GM food risk assessment. He was alarmed, however, to discover that studies on the FlavrSavr never looked passed the stomach to the intestines. Other studies that did look found problems.

 

Mice fed potatoes engineered to produce the Bt-toxin developed abnormal and damaged cells, as well as proliferative cell growth in the lower part of their small intestines (ileum).25 Rats fed potatoes engineered to produce a different type of insecticide (GNA lectin from the snowdrop plant) also showed proliferative cell growth in both the stomach and intestinal walls (see photos).26 Although the guts of rats fed GM peas were not examined for cell growth, the intestines were mysteriously heavier; possibly as a result of such growth.27 Cell proliferation can be a precursor to cancer and is of special concern.

GM Diets Cause Liver Damage

The state of the liver—a main detoxifier for the body—is another indicator of toxins.

Rats fed the GNA lectin potatoes described above had smaller and partially atrophied livers.28 Rats fed Monsanto’s Mon 863 corn, engineered to produce Bt-toxin, had liver lesions and other indications of toxicity.29 Rabbits fed GM soy showed altered enzyme production in their livers as well as higher metabolic activity.30 The livers of rats fed Roundup Ready canola were 12%–16% heavier, possibly due to liver disease or inflammation.31 Microscopic analysis of the livers of mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans revealed altered gene expression and structural and functional changes (see photos).32 Many of these changes reversed after the mice diet was switched to non-GM soy, indicating that GM soy was the culprit. The findings, according to molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, PhD, “are not random and must reflect some ‘insult’ on the liver by the GM soy.” Antoniou, who does human gene therapy research in King’s College London, said that although the long-term consequences of the GM soy diet are not known, it “could lead to liver damage and consequently general toxemia.”33 Rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans also showed structural changes in their livers. 34 GM Fed Animals Had Higher Death Rates & Organ Damage

In the FlavrSavr tomato study, a note in the appendix indicated that 7 of 40 rats died within two weeks and were replaced.35 In another study, chickens fed the herbicide tolerant “Liberty Link” corn died at twice the rate of those fed natural corn.36 But in these two industry-funded studies, the deaths were dismissed without adequate explanation or follow-up.

 

In addition, the cells in the pancreas of mice fed Roundup Ready soy had profound changes and produced significantly less digestive enzymes;37 in rats fed a GM potato, the pancreas was enlarged.38 In various analyses of kidneys, GM-fed animals showed lesions, toxicity, altered enzyme production or inflammation.39,40 Enzyme production in the hearts of rabbits was altered by GM soy.41 And GM potatoes caused slower growth in the brain of rats.42 A team of independent scientists re-analyzed the raw data in three Monsanto 90-day rat feeding studies and saw signs of toxicity in the liver and kidneys, as well as effects in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen, and blood.43 In one of the only long-term feeding studies, rats fed Roundup Ready corn for three years for 24 months (or even just low concentrations of Roundup in their drinking water) suffered significant damage to their kidneys, livers, and pituitary glands. They also died prematurely and had many massive tumors—as large as 25% of their body weight.44

Reproductive Failures & Infant Mortality

The testicles of both mice and rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans showed dramatic changes. In rats, the organs were dark blue instead of pink (see photos on next page).45 In mice, young sperm cells were altered.46 Embryos of GM soy-fed mice also showed temporary changes in their DNA function, compared to those whose parents were fed non-GM soy.47 Female rats fed GM soy showed changes in their uterus, ovaries, and hormonal balance.48 By the third generation, most hamsters fed GM soy were unable to have babies. The infant mortality was 4-5 times greater than controls, and many of the GMO-fed third generation had hair growing in their mouths.49

 

An Austrian government study showed that mice fed GM corn (Bt and Roundup Ready) had fewer babies and smaller babies.50 More dramatic results were discovered by a leading scientist at the Russian National Academy of sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, starting two weeks before they were mated.

 

Over a series of three experiments, 51.6 percent of the offspring from the GM-fed group died within the first three weeks, compared to 10 percent from the non-GM soy group, and 8.1 percent for non-soy controls. “High pup mortality was characteristic of every litter from mothers fed the GM soy flour.”51 The average size and weight of the GM-fed offspring was quite a bit smaller (see photo on next page).52 In a preliminary study, the GM-fed offspring were unable to conceive.53After the three feeding trials, the supplier of rat food used at the Russian laboratory began using GM soy in their formulation. Since all the rats housed at the facility were now eating GM soy, no non-GM fed controls were available for subsequent GM feeding trials; follow-up studies were canceled. After two months on the GM soy diet, however, the infant mortality rate of rats throughout the facility had skyrocketed to 55.3 percent (99 of 179).54 Farmers Report Livestock Sterility & Deaths

About two dozen farmers reported that their pigs had reproductive problems when fed certain varieties of Bt corn. Pigs were sterile, had false pregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became sterile. Bt corn was also implicated by farmers in the deaths of cows, horses, water buffaloes, and chickens.55

 

When Indian shepherds let their sheep graze continuously on Bt cotton plants, within 5-7 days, one out of four sheep died. There was an estimated 10,000 sheep deaths in the region in 2006, with more reported in 2007. Post mortems on the sheep showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”56 In a small feeding study, 100% of sheep fed Bt cotton died within 30 days. Those fed natural plants had no symptoms.

 

Buffalo that grazed on natural cotton plants for years without incident react to the Bt variety. In one village in Andhra Pradesh, for example, 13 buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for a single day. All died within 3 days.57 Investigators in the state of Haryana, India, report that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had reproductive complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many young calves and adult buffaloes died.

GM Crops Trigger Immune Reactions & May Cause Allergies

Allergic reactions occur when the immune system interprets something as foreign, different, and offensive, and reacts accordingly. All GM foods, by definition, have something foreign and different. And several studies show that they provoke reactions. Rats fed Monsanto’s GM corn, for example, had a significant increase in blood cells related to the immune system.58 GM potatoes caused the immune system of rats to respond more slowly.59 And GM peas provoked an inflammatory response in mice, suggesting that it might cause deadly allergic reactions in people.60

 

It might be difficult to identify whether GM foods were triggering allergic responses in the population, since very few countries conduct regular studies or keep careful records. One country that does have an annual evaluation is the UK. Soon after GM soy was introduced into the British diet, researchers at the York Laboratory reported that allergies to soy had skyrocketed by 50% in a single year.61 Although no follow-up studies were conducted to see if GM soy was the cause, there is evidence showing several ways in which it might have contributed to the rising incidence of allergies:

 

The only significant variety of GM soy is Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” variety, planted in 89% of US soy acres. A foreign gene from bacteria (with parts of virus and petunia DNA) is inserted, which allows the plant to withstand Roundup herbicide. The protein produced by the bacterial gene has never been part of the human food supply. Because people aren’t usually allergic to a food until they have eaten it several times, it would be difficult to know in advance if the protein was an allergen. Without a surefire method to identify allergenic GM crops, the World Health Organization (WHO) and others recommend examining the properties of the protein to see if they share characteristics with known allergens. One method is to compare the amino acid sequence of the novel protein with a database of allergens. If there is a match, according to the WHO, the GM crop should either not be commercialized or additional testing should be done. Sections of the protein produced in GM soy are identical to shrimp and dust mite allergens,62 but the soybean was introduced before WHO criteria were established and the recommended additional tests were not conducted. If the protein does trigger reactions, the danger is compounded by the finding that the Roundup Ready gene transfers into the DNA of human gut bacteria and may continuously produce the protein from within our intestines.63 In addition to the herbicide tolerant protein, GM soybeans contain a unique, unexpected protein, which likely came about from the changes incurred during the genetic engineering process. Scientists found that this new protein was able to bind with IgE antibodies, suggesting that it may provoke dangerous allergic reactions. The same study revealed that one human subject showed a skin prick immune response only to GM soy, but not to natural soy.64 These results must be considered preliminary, as the non-GM soy was a wild type and not necessarily comparable to the GM variety. Another study showed that the levels of one known soy allergen, called trypsin inhibitor, were as much as seven times higher in cooked GM soy compared to a non-GM control.65 This was Monsanto’s own study, and did use comparable controls. GM soy also produces an unpredicted side effect in the pancreas of mice—the amount of digestive enzymes produced is dramatically reduced.66 If a shortage of enzymes caused food proteins to breakdown more slowly, then they have more time to trigger allergic reactions. Thus, digestive problems from GM soy might promote allergies to a wide range of proteins, not just soy. The higher amount of Roundup herbicide residues on GM soy might create reactions in consumers. In fact, many of the symptoms identified in the UK soy allergy study are among those related to glyphosate exposure. [The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints, including acne and eczema, all related to soy consumption. Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin. It is also possible that glyphosate’s breakdown product aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), which accumulates in GM soybeans after each spray, might contribute to allergies.]

 

It is interesting to note that in the five years immediately after GM soy was introduced, US peanut allergies doubled. It is known that a protein in natural soybeans cross-reacts with peanut allergies, i.e. soy may trigger reactions in some people who are allergic to peanuts.67 Given the startling increase in peanut allergies, scientists should investigate whether this cross-reactivity has been amplified in GM soy.

 

Roundup, tumors, etc.

BT-Toxin, Produced In GM Corn & Cotton, May Cause Allergies

For years, organic farmers and others have sprayed crops with solutions containing natural Bt bacteria as a method of insect control. The toxin creates holes in their stomach and kills them. Genetic engineers take the gene that produces the toxin in bacteria and insert it into the DNA of crops so that the plant does the work, not the farmer. The fact that we consume that toxic pesticide in every bite of Bt corn is hardly appetizing.

 

Biotech companies claim that Bt-toxin has a history of safe use, is quickly destroyed in our stomach, and wouldn’t react with humans or mammals in any event. Studies verify, however, that natural Bt-toxin is not fully destroyed during digestion and does react with mammals. Mice fed Bt-toxin, for example, showed an immune response as potent as cholera toxin, 68, became immune sensitive to formerly harmless compounds,69 and had damaged and altered cells in their small intestines.70 A 2008 Italian government study found that Bt corn provoked immune responses in mice.71 Moreover, when natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms.72,73 Farm workers and others also report serious reactions7475767778 and authorities have long acknowledged that “people with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt.”79

 

The Bt-toxin produced in GM crops is “vastly different from the bacterial [Bt-toxins] used in organic and traditional farming and forestry.”80 The plant produced version is designed to be more toxic than natural varieties,81 and is about 3,000-5,000 times more concentrated than the spray form. And just like the GM soy protein, the Bt protein in GM corn varieties has a section of its amino acid sequence identical to a known allergen (egg yolk). The Bt protein also fails other allergen criteria recommended by the WHO, i.e. the protein is too resistant to break down during digestion and heat.

 

A 2011 study published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology showed that when Bt-toxin derived from Monsanto’s corn was exposed to human cells, the toxin disrupts the membrane in just 24 hours, causing certain fluid to leak through the cell walls. The authors specifically note, “This may be due to pore formation like in insect cells.” In other words, the toxin may be creating small holes in human cells in the same manner that it kills insects. The researchers “documented that modified Bt toxins [from GM plants] are not inert on human cells, but can exert toxicity.”82 A 2011 Canadian study conducted at Sherbrooke Hospital discovered that 93% of the pregnant women they tested had Bt-toxin from Monsanto’s corn in their blood. And so did 80% of their unborn fetuses. 83

 

If Bt-toxin causes allergies, then gene transfer carries serious ramifications. If Bt genes relocate to human gut bacteria, our intestinal flora may be converted into living pesticide factories, possibly producing Bt-toxin inside of us year after year. The UK Joint Food Safety and Standards Group also described gene transfer from a different route. They warned that genes from inhaled pollen might transfer into the DNA of bacteria in the respiratory system.84 Although no study has looked into that possibility, pollen from a Bt cornfield appears to have been responsible for allergic-type reactions.

 

In 2003, during the time when an adjacent Bt cornfield was pollinating, virtually an entire Filipino village of about 100 people was stricken by mysterious skin, respiratory, and intestinal reactions.85 The symptoms started with those living closest to the field and spread to those further away. Blood samples from 39 individuals showed antibodies in response to Bt-toxin, supporting—but not proving—a link. When the same corn was planted in four other villages the following year, however, the symptoms returned in all four areas—only during the time of pollination.86

 

Bt-toxin might also trigger reactions by skin contact. In 2005, a medical team reported that hundreds of agricultural workers in India are developing allergic symptoms when exposed to Bt cotton, but not when exposed to natural varieties.87 They say reactions come from picking the cotton, cleaning it in factories, loading it onto trucks, or even leaning against it. Their symptoms are virtually identical to those described by the 500 people in Vancouver and Washington who were sprayed with Bt.

Government Evaluations Miss Most Health Problems

Although the number of safety studies on GM foods is quite small, it has validated the concerns expressed by FDA scientists and others. Unfortunately, government safety assessments worldwide are not competent to even identify most of the potential health problems described above, let alone protect its citizens from the effects.88

 

A 2000 review of approved GM crops in Canada by professor E. Ann Clark, PhD, for example, reveals that 70% (28 of 40) “of the currently available GM crops . . . have not been subjected to any actual lab or animal toxicity testing, either as refined oils for direct human consumption or indirectly as feedstuffs for livestock. The same finding pertains to all three GM tomato decisions, the only GM flax, and to five GM corn crops.” In the remaining 30% (12) of the other crops tested, animals were not fed the whole GM feed. They were given just the isolated GM protein that the plant was engineered to produce. But even this protein was not extracted from the actual GM plant. Rather, it was manufactured in genetically engineered bacteria. This method of testing would never identify problems associated with collateral damage to GM plant DNA, unpredicted changes in the GM protein, transfer of genes to bacteria or human cells, excessive herbicide residues, or accumulation of toxins in the food chain, among others. Clark asks, “Where are the trials showing lack of harm to fed livestock, or that meat and milk from livestock fed on GM feedstuffs are safe?”89

 

Epidemiologist and GM safety expert Judy Carman, PhD, MPH, shows that assessments by Food Safety Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) also overlook serious potential problems, including cancer, birth defects, or long-term effects of nutritional deficiencies. 90

 

“A review of twelve reports covering twenty-eight GM crops - four soy, three corn, ten potatoes, eight canola, one sugar beet and two cotton—revealed no feeding trials on people. In addition, one of the GM corn varieties had gone untested on animals. Some seventeen foods involved testing with only a single oral gavage (a type of forced-feeding), with observation for seven to fourteen days, and only of the substance that had been genetically engineered to appear [the GM protein], not the whole food. Such testing assumes that the only new substance that will appear in the food is the one genetically engineered to appear, that the GM plant- produced substance will act in the same manner as the tested substance that was obtained from another source [GM bacteria], and that the substance will create disease within a few days. All are untested hypotheses and make a mockery of GM proponents’ claims that the risk assessment of GM foods is based on sound science. Furthermore, where the whole food was given to animals to eat, sample sizes were often very low—for example, five to six cows per group for Roundup Ready soy—and they were fed for only four weeks.”91

 

Dr. Carman points out that GM “experiments used some very unusual animal models for human health, such as chickens, cows, and trout. Some of the measurements taken from these animals are also unusual measures of human health, such as abdominal fat pad weight, total de-boned breast meat yield, and milk production.” In her examination of the full range of submittals to authorities in Australia and New Zealand, she says that there was no proper evaluation of “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, and gut, liver, and kidney function.”92 Writing on behalf of the Public Health Association of Australia, Dr. Carman says, “The effects of feeding people high concentrations of the new protein over tens of years cannot be determined by feeding 20 mice a single oral gavage of a given high concentration of the protein and taking very basic data for 13-14 days.”93

The FDA's Fake Safety Assessments

Submissions to the US Food and Drug Administraion (FDA) may be worse than in other countries, since the agency doesn’t actually require any data. Their policy says that biotech companies can determine if their own foods are safe. Anything submitted is voluntary and, according to former Environmental Protection Agency scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, PhD, “often lack[s] sufficient detail, such as necessary statistical analyses needed for an adequate safety evaluation.” Using Freedom of Information Requests, Dr. Gurian-Sherman analyzed more than a fourth of the data summaries (14 of 53) of GM crops reviewed by the FDA. He says, “The FDA consultation process does not allow the agency to require submission of data, misses obvious errors in company- submitted data summaries, provides insufficient testing guidance, and does not require sufficiently detailed data to enable the FDA to assure that GE crops are safe to eat.”94 Similarly, a Friends of the Earth review of company and FDA documents concluded:

 

“If industry chooses to submit faulty, unpublishable studies, it does so without consequence. If it should respond to an agency request with deficient data, it does so without reprimand or follow-up. . . . If a company finds it disadvantageous to characterize its product, then its properties remain uncertain or unknown. If a corporation chooses to ignore scientifically sound testing standards . . . then faulty tests are conducted instead, and the results are considered legitimate. In the area of genetically engineered food regulation, the ‘competent’ agencies rarely if ever (know how to) conduct independent research to verify or supplement industry findings.” 95

 

At the end of the consultation, the FDA doesn’t actually approve the crops. Rather, they issue a letter that includes a statement such as the following:

 

“Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA. . . . As you are aware, it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe, wholesome and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.”96

Company Research Is Secret, Inadequate & Flawed

The unpublished industry studies submitted to regulators are typically kept secret based on the claim that it is “confidential business information.” The Royal Society of Canada is one of many organizations that condemn this practice. They wrote:

 

“In the judgment of the Expert Panel, the more regulatory agencies limit free access to the data upon which their decisions are based, the more compromised becomes the claim that the regulatory process is ‘science based.’ This is due to a simple but well- understood requirement of the scientific method itself—that it be an open, completely transparent enterprise in which any and all aspects of scientific research are open to full review by scientific peers. Peer review and independent corroboration of research findings are axioms of the scientific method, and part of the very meaning of the objectivity and neutrality of science.”97

 

Whenever private submissions are made public through lawsuits or Freedom of Information Act Requests, it becomes clear why companies benefit from secrecy. The quality of their research is often miserable, incompetent, and unacceptable for peer-review. In 2000, for example, after the potentially allergenic StarLink corn was found to have contaminated the food supply, the corn’s producer, Aventis CropScience, presented wholly inadequate safety data to the EPA’s scientific advisory panel. One frustrated panel member, Dean Metcalfe, MD,—the government’s top allergist—said during a hearing, “Most of us review for a lot of journals. And if this were presented for publication in the journals that I review for, it would be sent back to the authors with all of these questions. It would be rejected.”98

Unscientific Assumptions Are The Basis Of Approvals

Professor Clark, who analyzed submissions to Canadian regulators, concluded, “Most or all of the conclusions of food safety for individual GM crops are based on inferences and assumptions, rather than on actual testing.” For example, rather than actually testing to see if the amino acid sequence produced by their inserted gene is correct, “the standard practice,” according to research analyst William Freese, “is to sequence just 5 to 25 amino acids,”99 even if the protein has more than 600 in total. If the short sample matches what is expected, they assume that the rest are also fine. If they are wrong, however, a rearranged protein could be quite dangerous.

 

Monsanto’s submission to Australian regulators on their high lysine GM corn provides an excellent example of overly optimistic assumptions used in place of science. The gene inserted into the corn produces a protein that is naturally found in soil. Monsanto claimed that since people consume small residues of soil on fruits and vegetables, the protein has a history of safe consumption. Based on the amount of GM corn protein an average US citizen would consume (if all their corn were Monsanto’s variety), they would eat up to 4 trillion times the amount normally consumed through soil. In other words, “for equivalent exposure” of the protein from soil “people would have to eat . . . nearly as much as 10,000kg [22,000 pounds, every] second 24 hours a day seven days a week.”100

Studies Are Rigged To Avoid Finding Problems

In addition, to relying on untested assumptions, industry-funded research is often designed specifically to force a conclusion of safety. In the high lysine corn described above, for example, the levels of certain nutritional components (i.e. protein content, total dietary fiber, acid detergent fiber, and neutral detergent fiber) were far outside the normal range for corn. Instead of comparing their corn to normal controls, which would reveal this disparity, Monsanto compared it to obscure corn varieties that were also substantially outside the normal range on precisely these values. Thus, their study found no statistical differences by design.

 

When Monsanto learned that independent researchers were to publish a study in July 1999 showing that GM soy contains 12%-14% less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens, the company responded with its own study, concluding that soy’s phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis. Researchers failed to disclose, however, that they had instructed the laboratory to use an obsolete method of detection—one that had been prone to highly variable results.101

 

When Aventis prepared samples to see if the potential allergen in StarLink corn remained intact after cooking, instead of using the standard 30-minute treatment, they heated corn for two hours.102

 

To show that pasteurization destroyed bovine growth hormone in milk from cows treated with rbGH, scientists pasteurized the milk 120 times longer than normal. Unable to destroy more than 19%, they then spiked the milk with a huge amount of the hormone and repeated the long pasteurization, destroying 90%.103 (The FDA reported that pasteurization destroys 90% of the hormone.104) To demonstrate that injections of rbGH did not interfere with cow’s fertility, Monsanto apparently added cows to the study that were pregnant prior to injection.105

 

And in order to prove that the protein from their GM crops breaks down quickly during simulated digestion, biotech companies used thousands of times the amount of digestive enzymes and a much stronger acid compared to that recommended by the World Health Organization.106

 

Other methods used to hide problems are varied and plentiful. For example, researchers:

 

Use highly variable animal starting weights to hinder detection of food-related changes Keep feeding studies short to miss long-term impacts Test effects of Roundup Ready soybeans that have not been sprayed with Roundup Avoid feeding animals the actual GM crop, but give them instead a single dose of the GM protein that was produced inside GM bacteria Use too few subjects to derive statistically significant results Use poor statistical methods or simply leave out essential methods, data, or statistics Use irrelevant control groups, and employ insensitive evaluation techniques Roundup Ready Soybeans: Case Study Of Flawed Research

Monsanto’s 1996 Journal of Nutrition studies on Roundup Ready soybeans107,108 provide plenty of examples of scientific transgressions. Although the study has been used often by the industry as validation for safety claims, experts working in the field were not impressed. For example, Dr. Arpad Pusztai was commissioned at the time by the UK government to lead a 20 member consortium in three institutions to develop rigorous testing protocols on GM foods—protocols that were never implemented. Dr. Pusztai, who had published several studies in that same nutrition journal, said the Monsanto paper was not “up to the normal journal standards.” He said, “It was obvious that the study had been designed to avoid finding any problems. Everybody in our consortium knew this.” Some of the flaws include:

 

Researchers tested GM soy on mature animals, not young ones. Young animals use protein to build their muscles, tissues, and organs. Problems with GM food could therefore show up in organ and body weight. But adult animals use the protein for tissue renewal and energy. “With a nutritional study on mature animals,” says Dr. Pusztai, “you would never see any difference in organ weights even if the food turned out to be anti-nutritional. The animals would have to be emaciated or poisoned to show anything.” If there were an organ development problem, the study wouldn’t have picked it up since the researchers didn’t even weigh the organs. In one of the trials, researchers substituted only one tenth of the natural protein with GM soy protein. In two others, they diluted their GM soy six- and twelve-fold. 109 Scientists Ian Pryme, PhD, of Norway and Rolf Lembcke, PhD, of Denmark wrote, the “level of the GM soy was too low, and would probably ensure that any possible undesirable GM effects did not occur.” Pryme and Lembcke, who published a paper in Nutrition and Health that analyzed all published peer-reviewed feeding studies on GM foods (10 as of 2003), also pointed out that the percentage of protein in the feed used in the Roundup Ready study was “artificially too high.” This “would almost certainly mask, or at least effectively reduce, any possible effect of the [GM soy].” They said it was “highly likely that all GM effects would have been diluted out.” 110 Proper compositional studies filter out effects of weather or geography by comparing plants grown at the same time in the same location. Monsanto, however, pooled data from several locations, which makes it difficult for differences to be statistically significant. Nonetheless, the data revealed significant differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content. Roundup Ready soy meal also contained 27% more trypsin inhibitor, a potential allergen. Also, cows fed GM soy produced milk with a higher fat content, demonstrating another disparity between the two types of soy. One field trial, however, did grow GM and non-GM plants next to each other, but this data was not included in the paper. Years after the study appeared, medical writer Barbara Keeler recovered the data that had been omitted. It showed that Monsanto’s GM soy had significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. Also, toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin—a substance that may interfere with the body’s ability to assimilate other nutrients. And the amount of trypsin inhibitor in cooked GM soy was as much as seven times higher than in a cooked non-GM control. The study also omitted many details normally required for a published paper. According to Pryme and Lembcke, “No data were given for most of the parameters.” And when researchers tested the effects of Roundup Ready protein on animals, they didn’t extract the protein from the soybeans. Instead, they derived it from GM bacteria, claiming the two forms of protein were equivalent. There are numerous ways, however, in which the protein in the soy may be different. In fact, nine years after this study was published, another study showed that the gene inserted into the soybeans produced unintended aberrant RNA strands, meaning that the protein may be quite different than what was intended.111

 

In Pryme and Lembcke’s analysis, it came as no surprise that this Monsanto study, along with the other four peer-reviewed animal feeding studies that were “performed more or less in collaboration with private companies,” reported no negative effects of the GM diet. “On the other hand,” they wrote, “adverse effects were reported (but not explained) in [the five] independent studies.” They added, “It is remarkable that these effects have all been observed after feeding for only 10–14 days.”112

Toxic GM Foods Could Have Been Approved

Two GM foods whose commercialization was stopped because of negative test results give a chilling example of what may be getting through. Rats fed GM potatoes had potentially precancerous cell growth in the stomach and intestines, less developed brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, and damaged immune systems.113 GM peas provoked an inflammatory response in mice, suggesting that the peas might trigger a deadly anaphylactic shock in allergic humans.114 Both of these dangerous crops, however, could easily have been approved. The problems were only discovered because the researchers used advanced tests that were never applied to GM crops already on the market. Both would have passed the normal tests that companies typically use to get their products approved.

 

Ironically, when Monsanto was asked to comment on the pea study, their spokesperson said it demonstrated that the regulatory system works. He failed to disclose that none of his company’s GM crops had been put through such rigorous tests.

Rampant, Unrelenting Industry Bias

Industry-funded research that favors the funders is not new. Bias has been identified across several industries. In pharmaceuticals, for example, positive results are four times more likely if the drug’s manufacturer funds the study.115 When companies pay for the economic analyses of their own cancer drugs, the results are eight times more likely to be favorable.116 Compared to drug research, the potential for industry manipulation in GM crop studies is considerably higher. Unlike pharmaceutical testing, GM research has no standardized procedures dictated by regulators. GM studies are not usually published in peer-reviewed journals and are typically kept secret by companies and governments. There is little money available for rigorous independent research, so company evidence usually goes unchallenged and unverified. Most importantly, whereas drugs can show serious side-effects and still be approved, GM food cannot. There is no tolerance for adverse reactions; feeding trials must show no problems.

 

Thus, when industry studies show problems (in spite of their efforts to avoid them), serious adverse reactions and even deaths among GM-fed animals are ignored or dismissed as “not biologically significant” or due to “natural variations.” In the critical arena of food safety research, the biotech industry is without accountability, standards, or peer-review. They’ve got bad science down to a science.

Promoting & Regulating Don't Mix

While such self-serving behavior may be expected from corporations, how come government bodies let such blatant scientific contortions pass without comment? One reason is that several regulatory agencies are also charged with promoting the interests of biotechnology. This is the official position of the FDA and other US government bodies, for example. Suzanne Wuerthele, PhD, a US EPA toxicologist, says, “This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.”117

 

Canadian regulators are similarly conflicted. The Royal Society of Canada reported that, “In meetings with senior managers from the various Canadian regulatory departments . . . their responses uniformly stressed the importance of maintaining a favorable climate for the biotechnology industry to develop new products and submit them for approval on the Canadian market. . . . The conflict of interest involved in both promoting and regulating an industry or technology . . . is also a factor in the issue of maintaining the transparency, and therefore the scientific integrity, of the regulatory process. In effect, the public interest in a regulatory system that is ‘science based’. . . is significantly compromised when that openness is negotiated away by regulators in exchange for cordial and supportive relationships with the industries being regulated.”118

 

Many scientists on the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GMO Panel are personally aligned with biotech interests. According to Friends of the Earth (FOE), “One member has direct financial links with the biotech industry and others have indirect links, such as close involvement with major conferences organized by the biotech industry. Two members have even appeared in promotional videos produced by the biotech industry. . . . Several members of the Panel, including the chair Professor Kuiper, have been involved with the EU-funded ENTRANSFOOD project. The aim of this project was to agree [to] safety assessment, risk management, and risk communication procedures that would ‘facilitate market introduction of GMOs in Europe, and therefore bring the European industry in a competitive position.’ Professor Kuiper, who coordinated the ENTRANSFOOD project, sat on a working group that also included staff from Monsanto, Bayer CropScience, and Syngenta.” In a statement reminiscent of the deceptive policy statement by the FDA, the FOE report concludes that EFSA is “being used to create a false impression of scientific agreement when the real situation is one of intense and continuing debate and uncertainty.”119

 

The pro-GM European Commission repeats the same ruse. According to leaked documents obtained by FOE, while they privately appreciate “the uncertainties and gaps in knowledge that exist in relation to the safety of GM crops, . . . the Commission normally keeps this uncertainty concealed from the public whilst presenting its decisions about the safety of GM crops and foods as being certain and scientifically based.” For example, the Commission privately condemned the submission information for one crop as “mixed, scarce, delivered consecutively all over years, and not convincing.” They said there is “No sufficient experimental evidence to assess the safety.”120

 

With an agenda to promote GM foods, regulators regularly violate their own laws. In Europe, the law requires that when EFSA and member states have different opinions, they “are obliged to co-operate with a view to either resolving the divergence or preparing a joint document clarifying the contentious scientific issues and identifying the relevant uncertainties in the data.”121 According to FOE, in the case of all GM crop reviews, none of these legal obligations were followed.122 The declaration of GRAS status by the FDA also deviated from the Food and Cosmetic Act and years of legal precedent. Some violations are more blatant. In India, one official tampered with the report on Bt cotton to increase the yield figures to favor Monsanto.123 In Mexico, a senior government official allegedly threatened a University of California professor, implying “We know where your children go to school,” trying to get him not to publish incriminating evidence that would delay GM approvals.124 In Indonesia, Monsanto gave bribes and questionable payments to at least 140 officials, attempting to get their genetically modified (GM) cotton approved.125

Manipulation Of Public Opinion

When governments fail in their duty to keep corporations in check, the “protector” role should shift to the media, which acts as a watchdog to expose public dangers and governmental shortcomings. But mainstream media around the world has largely overlooked the serious problems associated with GM crops and their regulation. The reason for this oversight is varied and includes contributions from an aggressive public relations and disinformation campaign by the biotech industry, legal threats by biotech companies, and in some cases, the fear of losing advertising accounts. This last reason is particularly prevalent among the farm press, which receives much of its income from the biotech industry.

 

Threatening letters from Monsanto’s attorneys have resulted in the cancellation of a five-part news series on their genetically engineered bovine growth hormone scheduled for a Fox TV station in Florida, as well as the cancellation of a book critical of Monsanto’s GMO products. A printer also shredded 14,000 copies of the Ecologist magazine issue entitled “The Monsanto Files,” due to fear of a Monsanto lawsuit. (See the chapter “Muscling the Media” in Seeds of Deception126 for more examples.)

 

The methods that biotech advocates use to manipulate public opinion research has become an art form. Consumer surveys by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), for example,whose supporters include the major biotech seed companies, offers conclusions such as “A growing majority of Americans support the benefits of food biotechnology as well as the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) labeling policy.” But communications professor James Beniger, who was past president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, described the surveys as “so biased with leading questions favoring positive responses that any results are meaningless.”127 The 2003 survey, for example, included gems such as:

 

“All things being equal, how likely would you be to buy a variety of produce, like tomatoes or potatoes, if it had been modified by biotechnology to taste better or fresher?” and

 

“Biotechnology has also been used to enhance plants that yield foods like cooking oils. If cooking oil with reduced saturated fat made from these new plants was available, what

Ever find yourself going about your day, not even thinking about food, when all of a sudden your appetite kicks in, and you’re at the drive-thru or rummaging through your pantry, looking for whatever it is you crave?

That’s because feeling hungry often has little to do with whether your system really needs food and a lot more to do with some sneaky cues and behaviors you encounter without realizing it. These 6 are among the biggest offenders tricking you into thinking you’re hungry when you really aren’t.

Healthy foodies may agree on many nutrition topics, but here’s one that’s still up for debate: What’s better, smoothies or juices? In my opinion there are pros and cons to each drink, so it really comes down to your personal needs and goals. To figure out which one is right for you (regardless of what your friends, coworkers, or favorite celebs are sipping), here’s the lowdown on each beverage.

Here’s a reason to really enjoy your morning cup of joe: it practically qualifies as a health food these days. Coffee can improve your mood, jumpstart your metabolism, boost your workout, and help you focus, among other amazing benefits suggested by recent research.

Yet you won’t score these health rewards unless you steer clear of certain bad habits when it comes to preparing and sipping your favorite brew. Some coffee-prep practices strip the beans of their high levels of micronutrients like polyphenols, a type of antioxidant thought to help prevent heart disease and other conditions. And ordering beverages loaded with dairy and sugar can turn this naturally low-calorie beverage into a delivery system for fat and calories.

The first rule of diet success is to make changes you can stick with for the long term. And that means scheduling -- not skipping -- meals and snacks. This keeps you feeling satisfied and helps you say no to tempting high-fat foods.

 

You might do best on a plan with many small meals throughout the day. Or maybe a schedule of three meals, two small snacks and a low-calorie dessert would work better for you. People often find that mid-morning and mid-afternoon snacks help them stick to a diet.

 

For a small-meal schedule, you might plan out five 200- to 250-calorie meals for 7 a.m., 10 a.m., 1 p.m., 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. For a three-meal/two-snack schedule, you could schedule breakfast, a mid-morning snack, lunch, a mid-afternoon snack and then dinner with dessert. Schedule snacks for about two hours after breakfast and lunch.

 

Once you decide on a schedule, plan out your meals and snacks. Using a diet diary can help keep you on track. Pick and choose from lean protein, low- or no-fat dairy, whole grains, fruits, vegetables and some heart-healthy fats.

Your best bet for healthy eating is having plenty of home-cooked meals, a new study states.

 

Researchers asked more than 400 Seattle-area adults about what they cooked and ate for a week. They were graded using the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Healthy Eating Index (HEI). HEI scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the diet. A score over 81 indicates a good diet; 51 to 80 means improvement is needed; and 50 or less is poor.

 

Households that had home-cooked meals three times a week had an average score of about 67, while cooking at home six times a week bumped up the average to about 74.

 

The results suggest that regular home-cooked meals — which tend to be lower in calories, sugar and fat — give you a better diet at a lower cost.

Post-workout nutrition has three specific purposes: replenish glycogen, decrease protein breakdown and increase protein synthesis. If done correctly, a good post-workout nutrition protocol can help improve recovery, lead to less muscle soreness, increase the body’s ability to build muscle and improve immune function.

If you’ve been around the fitness industry for any length to time, you’re bound to have heard people talking about the “window of opportunity.” What they are referring to is a “window” of time, when your muscles are primed and ready to accept nutrients that stimulate muscle repair, muscle growth, and muscle strength. Sounds serious, right? Well, it really does matter, especially if you want to recover and be ready for your next bout of exercise.

 

According to Cynthia Sass, RD, CSSD, sports nutritionist and author of Slim Down Now: Shed Pounds and Inches With Pulses-The New Superfood, “Exercise puts stress on your muscles, joints, and bones, and your body uses up nutrients during workouts; so post-workout foods help to put back what you’ve lost, and provide the raw materials needed for repair and healing,” she says. “In fact, it’s the recovery from exercise that really allows you to see results in terms of building strength, endurance, and lean muscle tissue,” adds Sass.

Unhealthy diets may have contributed to as many as 400,000 premature deaths from heart disease and strokes in 2015, a new study estimates.

 

And, it’s not just the things you should be avoiding — such as salt and trans fats — that are contributing to these deaths. The excess deaths may also be caused by what’s missing in your diet — namely, nuts and seeds, vegetables and whole grains, the researchers said.

 

“Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death in the United States, killing more people in 2015 than any other cause,” said lead researcher Dr. Ashkan Afshin of the University of Washington in Seattle. He’s an acting assistant professor of global health at the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. “Poor diet is the top risk factor for cardiovascular disease death and, therefore, deserves attention from decision-makers in the U.S. when setting health agendas,” Afshin said.

Eating lots of fruits and vegetables is good for everyone — and may even help current and former smokers avoid chronic lung disease, a new investigation reveals.

Apples, pears, green leafy vegetables and peppers appear to offer protection against COPD, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,, stated researchers led by Joanna Kaluza, of the Warsaw University of Life Sciences in Poland. And the more servings of fruits and vegetables consumed regularly, the greater the protection, Kaluza and her colleagues found.

The study can’t actually prove that diet prevents the debilitating lung disease. However, “we would argue that clinicians should consider the potential benefits of a healthy diet in promoting lung health, and advocate optimizing intake of fruits and vegetables, especially in smokers who are unable to stop smoking,” said the authors of an editorial accompanying the study. Smoking is the main risk factor for COPD. This term applies to a group of breathing conditions, including emphysema, caused by the narrowing of airway passages.

If you’re eager to save money while eating right, stick close to your own kitchen, researchers say.

“Frequent eating out was associated with lower diet quality, more ’empty calories’ and higher diet costs” compared to home cooking, said study author Adam Drewnowski.

The troublemakers for regular restaurant-goers are solid fats, calories, alcohol and added sugar, added Drewnowski, who directs the University of Washington’s Center for Public Health Nutrition. The findings come from surveys of more than 400 Seattle-area residents.

The healthier-at-home results shouldn’t come as a surprise, said Lona Sandon, a Dallas nutritionist who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Preparing your food at home gives you control over what goes on your plate,” said Sandon, an assistant professor of clinical nutrition at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.

El Paso, TX. Chiropractor Dr. Alex Jimenez investigates if garlic works for back pain.

Test It Out yourself! Spaghetti, Oil & Garlic.

In my never-ending quest to learn everything I can about the best way to reduce back pain, I conduct research online frequently. Everything from tried and true remedies—like yoga, the latest scientific studies about nutrition as well as foods that promise to possess anti-inflammatory properties — are all on my radar. My intention is always to leave no stone unturned in the event the advice I uncover can reduce someone’s suffering.

So, the other day, when several pages of results turned up, I Googled “natural remedies for back pain” and wasn’t surprised. Granted, not everything you read on the Internet is accurate—in fact, finding information that is credible needs some sophistication. Briefly, it makes sense appraise the purpose of the source, to find out the source and look at the domain name when making a judgement call about it.

All of us know that pain can be alone triggered by inflammation, so minimizing or controlling it may be effective. If it’s accurate that in addition to truly being a vampire repellant, garlic is also an antiinflammatory power food (as some are promising), I’m game to start adding more to my diet.

On my way down the research rabbit hole, I came across some amazing facts from the Journal of Immunology (1), Journal of Immunology Research (2) and the University of Maryland Medical Center (3).

 

• Plants of the genus Allium are known for his or her creation. Among these, garlic (Allium sativum) is one of the very broadly used.
• Isolated and when expressed, these compounds display a broad spectrum of effects that are beneficial against microbial diseases and therefore are employed to safeguard against cardiovascular disease.
• Garlic is now being analyzed because of its ability to boost the immune system and potentially fight with cancer.
• Garlic contains allicin, a strong, sulfur-based compound that is in charge of the distinctive smell, but may also be the basis for ’s antibacterial properties that are garlic.

Don’t Rush The Rose

Garlic, frequently known as the “stinking rose does seem to have a full bouquet of health benefits. But preparation questions. Research supports that heating garlic soon interferes with the health-boosting benefits of allicin.

Cooks Take Note:

Be sure to let minced, chopped or crushed garlic to sit down for 5 to 10 minutes before warming. If you throw it into boiling water or that hot olive oil too soon and are inpatient, you’ll deactivate the valuable enzyme. Patience is definitely a virtue as it pertains to preparing this gold nugget!

Another Advantage Of Garlic, It’s Affordable!

At my last trip to the grocery store, a great-size bulb of garlic was priced at 99 cents. Paradise for under a dollar! All this adds up to what looks just like a total no-brainer to me. Add garlic to my diet. Obtain numerous health benefits. It couldn’t be more or considerably simpler cost-effective than that.

Over summer time, I made a decision to create a concerted effort to consume more garlic, and you also know what? I’ve found I have significantly more energy and feel better. Now it might be pure coincidence, but I’m going to continue my regime of taking one clove in the morning (I just chop the garlic, wait for allicin to activate, then consume the little sections with water). I’ve also been incorporating it to the main meal of the day. All things considered, except for ice cream, what doesn’t taste better using a tiny garlic?

Therefore I encourage you to give it a try and, as the famous, Greek philosopher Hippocrates once said: “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.”

I’d love to hear your experiences with garlic are going. Please fill me in on how it helped you, or if it didn’t. Share your comments on our Facebook page. Recipes additionally welcomed!

Meanwhile, enjoy this healthful and simple meal that is deliciously. And contemplate giving garlic a standing invitation to your own dinner table!

Spaghetti, Oil and Garlic. Buon Apetito!

• Cook spaghetti according to directions
• Save 1 cup of starchy pasta water when you drain it.
• Chop 4 gloves of garlic—allow to breathe 5 to 10 minutes and then brown in olive oil
• Add pasta water to help produce a sauce that may stick to the pasta.
• Transfer pasta noodles to garlic and oil
• Mix and top using a sprinkling of parsley and lemon zest
• Add freshly -grated Parmesan cheese to taste. Enjoy!

Wondering exactly how much protein you should be consuming each day? The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), which is the minimum amount you need to be healthy, is 0.8 grams per kilogram (0.36 grams per pound) of body weight per day—46 grams for an average woman. That equals as little as 10% of daily calories. If you’re not super active, that’s likely adequate, and you’ll hit the target effortlessly if you follow a typical Western diet.

To get your personal protein “RDA,” multiple the number 0.36 by your weight in pounds. (For a sedentary 150-pound woman, that would be 54 grams.) Double it if you’re very active or aiming for “optimal protein,” which can help you maintain muscle as you age and support weight loss.

American women already eat about 68 grams a day, according to the latest data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. “There’s no reason to go out of your way to get protein,” says Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, dean of the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science & Policy. “Just eat a variety of fish, nuts, beans, seeds, and dairy, including yogurt.” However, increasing your protein well above the RDA may make sense if…

RELATED: 17 High-Protein Snacks You Can Eat on the Go

YOU’RE VERY ACTIVE

That means getting at least 35 to 40 minutes of moderate exercise four or five days a week, including resistance training two or more times a week. Consider eating 1.2 to 2 grams of dietary protein per kilogram (or about 0.5 to 0.9 grams per pound) of body weight each day, says Nancy Rodriguez, PhD, professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Connecticut. That amount is best for rebuilding muscle tissue, especially if you do a lot of high-intensity workouts, research suggests.

RELATED: The Best Vegan and Vegetarian Protein Sources

YOU’RE TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT

Protein takes longer to digest than carbs, helping you feel full, and also pushes your body to secrete the gut hormone peptide YY, which reduces hunger. “When you bring protein to about 30% of your daily calories, you’ll naturally eat less,” says Lauren Slayton, RD, founder of Foodtrainers, a nutrition practice in New York City, and author of The Little Book of Thin. “Protein decreases appetite and also, in my experience, helps you manage cravings.”

While studies are mixed about whether consuming more protein leads to weight loss, research is pretty clear that protein can help you retain more of your lean muscle as you lose fat. One 2011 study suggests amping up protein to as much as 1.8 to 2 grams per kilogram (roughly 0.8 to 0.9 grams per pound) of body weight per day to stave off muscle loss when restricting calories. Cut back on refined carbs to balance out the extra calories from adding protein.

RELATED: 3 Delicious Protein Pancake Recipes

YOU’RE IN MIDDLE AGE

Eating more protein as you get older may help you maintain muscle and ward off osteoporosis, “so you can stay stronger and more functional,” says Rodriguez. In a 2015 study, adults over the age of 50 who roughly doubled the RDA (eating 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram, or 0.68 grams per pound, of body weight) were better able to rebuild and retain muscle after only four days, compared with control groups eating the RDA.

Doubling the RDA gives you “optimal protein,” a concept that Rodriguez and more than 40 nutrition scientists advanced at a recent Protein Summit, the findings from which were published in 2015 in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Optimal protein works out to be about 15% to 25% of your daily calories, still below the level recommended by many popular high-protein diets. Over a day, that could look like 20-30 grams per meal and 12 to 15 grams per snack, for a total of 90 to 105 grams daily.

Governments could boost the consumption of healthy food by making it cheaper, as well as requiring that unhealthier food be more expensive, a new review suggests.

The findings are based on an analysis of 30 studies. Eleven studies looked at what happened when unhealthier foods were taxed. Nineteen studies explored what people choose to eat when subsidies lowered the price of healthier food. The collection of studies found that food prices really do matter.

“Our results show how 10 percent to 50 percent changes in price of foods and beverages at checkout could influence consumers’ purchasing behaviors over a relatively short period of time,” said study co-first author Ashkan Afshin, a former postdoctoral fellow at Tufts University in Boston. He is now at the University of Washington.

Wellness Chiropractor, Dr. Alexander Jimenez takes a look at discussing nutrition with patients in a clinical setting.

How Clinicians Can Do Better

Despite overwhelming evidence that relatively small dietary changes can significantly improve health, clinicians seldom discuss nutrition with their patients. Poor nutritional intake and nutrition-related health conditions, such as cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and many cancers, are highly prevalent in the United States,1 yet only 12% of office visits include counseling about diet.2 Even among high- risk patients with CVD, diabetes, or hyperlipidemia, only 1 in 5 receive nutrition counseling.2 It is likely that many patients receive most of their nutrition information from other, and often unreliable, sources.

 

These data may reflect the minimal training, time, and reimbursement allocated to nutrition counseling (and preventive services in general) in clinical practice.3 Most physicians and other health care professionals receive limited education on nutrition in medical school (or other professional schools) or in postgraduate training. Just 25% of medical schools offer a dedicated nutrition course, a decline since the status of nutrition education in US medical schools was first assessed in 1985, and few medical schools achieve the 30 hours of nutrition education recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.4 As a result, physicians report inadequate nutrition knowledge and low self-efficacy for counseling patients about diet.3 In addition, time pressures, especially in primary care, limit opportunities to counsel on nutrition or address preventive issues beyond patients’ acute complaints. Lack of time is frequently cited as the greatest barrier to counseling on nutrition and obesity.3

 

Moreover, nutrition and behavioral counseling have traditionally been non-reimbursed services. Few state Medicaid programs cover nutrition or obesity counseling, and before 2012, Medicare explicitly excluded coverage for obesity counseling; although now a reimbursed service for Medicare beneficiaries, just 1% of eligible Medicare beneficiaries receive this counseling.5 Dietitian counseling is also excluded by Medicare, unless patients have diabetes or renal disease. Although the Affordable Care Act mandates coverage for services graded A or B by the US Preventive Services Task Force, including nutrition counseling for patients with CVD risk factors and obesity counseling for patients with a body mass index of 30 or greater, existing private health insurance benefits are in- consistent, and the covered services are often unclear to both clinicians and patients, thereby limiting use.

 

Furthermore, health behavior change counseling is often frustrating given the current food environment, in which less nutritious foods tend to be less expensive, larger portioned, more easily accessible, and more heavily marketed than healthier options, making patient adherence 6 to nutrition advice challenging. Conflicting and confusing nutrition messages from popular books, blogs, and other media further complicate patient decision making.

 

Despite these unfavorable trends, there has been progress in this area. The evidence base supporting the benefits of nutrition intervention and behavioral counseling is expanding. Renewed focus on nutrition education in health care professional training is being driven by both student demand and the health care system. Although time pressures and reimbursement remain impediments, incentives and reimbursement options for nutrition and behavioral counseling are growing, and value-based care and health care team approaches hold promise to better align time demands and incentives for long-term care management. Initiatives to integrate clinical care and community resources offer opportunities to leverage resources that alleviate the clinician’s time commitment. There is evidence of some success; for instance, the amount of sugar-sweetened beverages consumed by individuals in the United States has declined substantially over the past 10 years.7

Clinicians can take the following reasonable steps to include nutrition counseling into the flow of daily practice:

1. Start the conversation. Several short, validated screen- ing questionnaires are available to quickly assess need for nutrition counseling, such as the Starting the Conversation tool8 (Table). This approach can be efficiently used prior to seeing the patient at an appointment, either delivered by medical assistants as part of vital sign assessment or as prescreening paperwork for patients to complete online or in the waiting room.

 

2. Structure the encounter. Using methods such as the “5 A’s” (assess, advise, agree, assist, arrange), which has been adapted from tobacco counseling. Motivational interviewing, which has documented efficacy in numerous behavior change settings, is particularly helpful to engage patients who are not yet committed or are hesitant to consider behavioral change.

 

3. Focus on small steps. Changing lifelong nutrition behaviors can seem overwhelming, but even exceedingly small shifts can have an effect (Table). For example, in- creasing fruit intake by just 1 serving per day has the estimated potential to reduce cardiovascular mortality risk by 8%, the equivalent of 60 000 fewer deaths annually in the United States and 1.6 million deaths globally.9 Other examples include reducing intake of sugar-sweetened beverages, fast food meals, processed meats, and sweets, while increasing vegetables, legumes, nuts, and whole grains. Emphasize to patients that every food choice is an opportunity to accrue benefits, and even small ones add up. Small substitutions still allow for “treats,” such as replacing potato chips and cheese dip with tortilla chips and salsa, the latter lowering trans fats and saturated fat and increasing whole grain and vegetable intake (Table).

 

4. Use available resources. Numerous extracurricular resources are readily available for clinicians. The Nutrition in Medicine program offers online, evidence-based nutrition education and tutorials for clinicians and an online, core nutrition curriculum for medical students. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans offers evidence- based and freely available nutrition guidance, tutorials, and tools for clinicians and patients alike. A companion website, Choose My Plate, offers nutrition and counseling advice for clinicians and handy resources for patients, including recently added videos with useful examples of small substitutions that patients will appreciate.

 

5. Do not do it all at once. Expecting to create long-term behavioral change during a single episode of care is a recipe for frustration and failure, for both the patient and clinician. Empowering and sup- porting patients is an ongoing process, not a 1-time curative event. Use a few minutes at the close of a patient visit to identify opportunities for future counseling, offer to serve as a resource, and be- gin a discussion and support that can be reinforced over time. Take solace in knowing that small initial steps can quickly improve health; for example, reducing trans fats at a single meal (eg, replacing baked goods with fruit or nuts or fried foods with non-fried alternatives) promptly improves endothelial function.10

 

6. Do not do it all alone. The primary care physician need not be the sole clinician who provides nutrition counseling. Proactive use of physician extenders (eg, physician assistants, nurses, medical assistants, and health coaches) and referrals can alleviate much of the burden for the busy clinician. Receptionists can distribute assessment and screening questionnaires for patients to complete in the waiting room; medical assistants can document behavioral change progress while assessing vital signs; administrative staff can identify and con- tact patients who are overdue for interaction. Large practices may benefit from including nutrition or health coaches on staff. Referring to clinical specialists and community-based support programs can significantly extend the clinician’s reach.7 In addition to registered dietitians, numerous clinical and community resources are available and often covered by insurance plans. Board-certified obesity medicine specialists, certified diabetes educators, and physician nutrition specialists are available as referrals in many areas. Diabetes Prevention Program group counseling sessions are now covered by Medicare and available throughout communities, such as in many YMCA sites, and electronically.

Summary 

Although there is no conclusive evidence that these steps will improve diet and health outcomes for patients, there is virtually no harm in counseling and the potential gains, especially at the population level, are substantial. Nutrition and health behavior change must become a core competency for virtually all physicians and any other health professionals working with patients who have or are at risk for nutrition-related chronic disease.

A Healthier You

 

Scott Kahan, MD, MPH Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland; and George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC.

 

JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; and Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

 

ARTICLE INFORMATION
Published Online: September 7, 2017. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.10434 Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.

 

REFERENCES

 

1. Ward BW, Schiller JS, Goodman RA. Multiple chronic conditions among US adults: a 2012 update. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:E62.
2. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy People 2020. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/data-search/Search-the-Data#srch=nutrition. Accessed January 23, 2017.
3. Kolasa KM, Rickett K. Barriers to providing nutrition counseling cited by physicians. Nutr Clin Pract. 2010;25(5):502-509.
4. Adams KM, Kohlmeier M, Zeisel SH. Nutrition education in U.S. medical schools: latest update of a national survey. Acad Med. 2010;85(9):1537-1542.
5. Batsis JA, Bynum JPW. Uptake of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid obesity benefit: 2012-2013. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2016;24(9):1983-1988.
6. Kahan S, Cheskin LJ. Obesity and eating behaviors and behavior change. In: Kahan S, Gielen AC, Fagan PJ, Green LW, eds. Health Behavior Change in Populations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2014:chap 13.
7. Rehm CD, Peñalvo JL, Afshin A, Mozaffarian D. Dietary intake among US adults, 1999-2012.JAMA. 2016;315(23):2542-2553.
8. Paxton AE, Strycker LA, Toobert DJ, Ammerman AS, Glasgow RE. Starting the conversation performance of a brief dietary assessment and intervention tool for health professionals. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(1):67-71.
9. Mozaffarian D, Capewell S. United Nations’ dietary policies to prevent cardiovascular disease. BMJ. 2011;343:d5747.
10. Williams MJA, Sutherland WHF, McCormick MP, de Jong SA, Walker RJ, Wilkins GT. Impaired endothelial function following a meal rich in used cooking fat.J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33(4):1050-1055

It is very well known that spices and herbs have a great many positive healthy qualities. But often we get confused as to how many, how much and which of the ingredients we must use as a supplement to boost our body.

We have zeroed in on three basic but power house spices from your kitchen that can help you stay healthy. It goes without saying that in today’s times of excessive pesticide use, using organic varieties of these spices is the best and only way to go.

It’s makeover time for the chocolate bars you’ve loved since you were a kid. On Thursday, some big-brand candy companies made a joint announcement that they’ll be shrinking the package size of their products, which in turn will lower the total calorie count. The label on the front of the bar will also list the exact number of calories inside.

The changes, to be completed by 2022, are all part of an effort to tackle the high rates of obesity in the U.S. The companies made the announcement at a meeting organized by the Partnership for a Healthier America; participating brands include Mars Chocolate, Wrigley, Nestle USA, Ferrero, Lindt, Ghirardelli, Russell Stover, and Ferrara Candy Company.

To the age-old question “Is coffee bad for you?”, researchers are in more agreement than ever that the answer is a resounding “no.”

A new study published in the journal Nature Medicine found that older people with low levels of inflammation — which drives many, if not most, major diseases — had something surprising in common: they were all caffeine drinkers.

“The more caffeine people consumed, the more protected they were against a chronic state of inflammation,” says study author David Furman, consulting associate professor at the Institute for Immunity, Transplantation and Infection at Stanford University. “There was no boundary, apparently.”

No doubt that work, school and outside activities can make it hard to schedule regular family dinners. But research has shown that eating together on a regular basis helps to bond families and build good communication.

For children, the benefits range from better grades to getting along well with others. Kids and adults alike are also more likely to eat healthy meals and less likely to be overweight.

When busy schedules make it hard for everyone to sit down to dinner, use other meals to build togetherness. For instance, get everyone up 15 minutes early for a breakfast sit-down, or plan a regular weekend brunch where everyone pitches in. When dinner has to be fast food, eat at the restaurant instead of doing a pickup so you still have the chance to sit and talk, even if only for a few minutes.

Doctor of Chiropractic, Dr. Alexander Jimenez takes a closer look at turmeric and its benefits.

Is the herb turmeric actually the new wonder drug? Or can it be just that recent scientific studies have demonstrated North Americans that there really may be something to the claims. This relative of ginger has been touted as a cure for everything from osteoarthritis to ringworm to depression. A study has linked it to delayed onset of type 2 diabetes and, other information suggests it may help patients with cancer.

How Turmeric Relieved My Back Pain

My first introduction for this wonder spice was in the whispering of a fellow customer at physical therapy—a lovely dancer recovering from knee surgery. While she was hobbling around on crutches, she never stopped grinning. Make that laughing and smiling. I wondered what her secret was. I mean come on—I have chronic back pain resulting from degenerative disc disease, and the favorable mind-set tactic had attempted, but that wasn’t always easy.

One morning during our daily exercises we began to speak. She told me turmeric was her go to drugs for inflammation. At the time, I discounted it and distinctly remember thinking—“Yeah, right How could something as easy as a spice that may be easily added to any diet be powerful enough to remove pain and stiffness?

Months passed. Physical therapy became a distant memory. The stiffness in my own back diminished but still lingered. I was too young to feel this damn old! The exact instant of action is uncertain to me now but somewhere along the way I woke up stiff yet again, along with thinking of turmeric came dashing over me. A light bulb have been turned on that wasn’t burning out. “Why not?” I presumed. What do I have to reduce?

Turning To Turmeric

I started with nutritional supplements and added one 450 mg capsule (about a teaspoon full) from Nature’s Bounty to my day-to-day yogurt. I dumped it in and just broke it open. I liked it so much I began adding the spice to my food—sprinkling it liberally on my salads, yogurt, mashed potatoes, soup…you name it. And sure enough, my back was even less stiff than before.

Please note, it may possibly not be helpful or safe to others while turmeric has worked wonders for me. Much like the ramifications of over the counter and prescription anti inflammatory medications, turmeric may thin the blood. In the event you take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication such as ibuprofen, adding turmeric to your own diet may not be advisable.

I began looking more deeply into my remedy as I used myself as a guinea pig for testing. I had been utterly fascinated by the wide-ranging research behind this wonder drug. Turmeric has been used in India and over years for over 2,500 4,000 years in Ayurvedic medicine!

One of my favorite recipes is Butter Chicken and Rice (Recipe below). Not only does the recipe call for turmeric in the butter as well as on the chicken, however you can sprinkle it on your own rice, also. I’ve even discovered that substituting turmeric for salt provided new chances to add the spice to my food with a lot less sodium!

Turmeric’s Active Ingredient

Curcumin is the active substance that provides turmeric its distinctive golden color. Combined with the vibrant, shining color it provides, in my experience, the medicinal properties are equally as lovely. Turmeric’s anti-inflammatory potentially Alzheimer’s Disease, Crohn’s disease, and effects imply it can benefit patients with arthritis.

Head, my health and my body rejoice and have already been glad to the superpower spice ever since. Approach and my energy level are among the most noticeable changes. When you’re able to move and exercise more, a confident approach is much more easy to adopt. When you get the key to alleviating it, your life changes, as anyone who has endured quietly with chronic pain can tell you. Without pain, you become alive. I discuss this story hoping turmeric will help to release other long-time sufferers from their prisons. Stay tuned for turmeric upgrades in my personal blog.

Fragrant Indian Butter Chicken Recipe

As a miracle spice, turmeric is touted since early time. The crucial compound, curcumin, gives turmeric it’s vibrant, golden colour and well-being boosting super powers and is being used to take care of many anti-inflammatory ailments. Try this recipe that uses turmeric for a delicious, wholesome dinner!

2 Tbsp butter
1-1/2 cups chopped onion
2 teaspoon minced garlic
1 Tablespoon grated gingerroot
1-1/2 teaspoon chili powder
3/4 teaspoon turmeric, ground cinnamon, ground coriander cumin and
1 can diced tomatoes, drained
1-1/2 cups reduced sodium chicken broth
1 Tbsp brown sugar
1/4 teaspoon salt and freshly ground pepper
1 whole cooked rotisserie chicken, skin removed and meat cut up
1/3 cup light sour cream
1 Tbsp minced cilantro
Hot cooked basmati (optional)

Melt butter in a deep 10-inch skillet over medium heat. Add garlic and onions. Cook slowly, stirring often, until onions are soft. About 5 minutes. Add turmeric, coriander, ginger root, chili powder, cinnamon, and cumin. Cook 1 more minute.
Add brown sugar, chicken broth, tomatoes, salt and pepper.

 

Reduce heat to low. Cover and simmer for 10 minutes, stirring occasionally.

Add cut up chicken and sour cream. Simmer, uncovered, for 5 minutes. Remove from heat and stir in cilantro. Serve over hot basmati rice, if desired. Sprinkle a little turmeric directly on the rice also for much more health benefits.

Lots of people report feeling improvement in their condition and/or general well being taking dietary, vitamin, mineral, as well as /or herbal nutritional supplements. In most cases, an appropriate diet and also a “multiple vitamin” will provide the necessary health supplements for many people.

 

Just before taking additional dietary, vitamin, mineral, and/or herbal supplements it is strongly recommended that patients consult with their private doctor to discuss their specific supplement requirements.

Food products that claim to have no-fat, no-sugar, low-fat or reduced-salt aren’t necessarily healthier, researchers say.

The study authors looked at more than 80 million food and beverage purchases from 2008 to 2012. The purchases were made by more than 400,000 U.S. households. The researchers found that 13 percent of food and 35 percent of beverage products were marketed as having no, reduced or low levels of sugar, fat or salt.

Juicing may be a popular health fad, but evidence suggests it could actually be detrimental to a good diet. The same goes for coconut oil, which is loaded with saturated fat but has emerged as another dietary craze in the United States. And a gluten-free diet likely has little positive health benefit for people who do not have gluten sensitivity or celiac disease.

These conclusions are part of a new review of the latest scientific evidence on food and nutrition that was conducted to shed some light on the latest diet fads.

“There is widespread confusion in terms of nutrition. Every day someone says something is good, and then the next day they say it’s bad,” said review lead author Dr. Andrew Freeman, co-chair of the American College of Cardiology’s Lifestyle and Nutrition Work Group. “Our purpose was to do our best to give clinicians the tools they need to help their patients,” said Freeman, who is also director of cardiovascular prevention and wellness at National Jewish Health in Denver.

He and his colleagues reviewed medical evidence related to overall healthy eating patterns and specific dietary fads that are currently popular in the United States.

El Paso, TX. Chiropractor Dr. Alex Jimenez discusses clean eating.

When it comes to eating clean, it’s often much easier than you think. Plus, you rarely have to alter the essence of your favorite dishes to achieve a cleaner plate. The key to turning them into  a “clean” dish is to start from the root—the ingredients.
To build a cleaner plate, it first starts in the market where you choose your produce, whole grains, dairy, proteins, and other items. Look for ingredient lists that are short and contain no preservatives, artificial colorings, added sugars, and other processed ingredients.
Make sure you balance your plate by filling at least half with fruits and veggies, choosing whole grains for a fourth of your plate, and lean, clean meat for the remaining fourth.

To Convert A Recipe To Clean Recipe Look At The Ingredients & Substitute

Here are your basic substitutions:

 

• Sugar > organic maple syrup / organic honey
• Baked goods > white whole-wheat flour / whole-wheat flour / almond flour / coconut flour
• Grains > unprocessed, dry quinoa / farro / brown rice / oats / homemade whole-wheat bread (or whole-wheat bread from a local baker /  7 Sprouted Grains Bread)
• Dairy > organic, unprocessed cheeses, milk, Greek yogurt
• Protein > Choose leaner meat, and limit meat portions such as pork and red meat to 3 ounces and chicken to 4.5 ounces per day. Seafood and plant-based proteins are encouraged. Look for meat that is grass-fed and raised without antibiotics or hormones.
• Condiments, dressings and salsas > Make your own, and nix the added sugars and excess salt.

Video: Targeting Obesity 

Get Creative With Fruits & Veggies:

Here’s an example of a recipe we’ve converted to clean, Chicken Kebabs and Nectarine Salsa.
While this recipe is almost completely clean, the marinade calls for brown sugar. For a cleaner sugar, replace 1½ teaspoons of maple syrup for the 1 tablespoon of brown sugar.
 
More from Cooking Light:

Clean Eating Weeknight Meal Planner
A Month of Clean Eating
What Is a “Processed” Food?

How to Eat Clean in 6 Simple Steps

If you want to add years to your life, 10 daily servings of fruits and vegetables may be the best recipe you can follow, a new analysis suggests.

The benefits appear to come through lower rates of heart attack, stroke, cancer and early death. And if everyone found a way to get 10 daily servings of produce, 7.8 million premature deaths would be avoided each year worldwide, the British researchers estimated.

Exactly how much in the way of fruits and vegetables is that? Anywhere from 10 small bananas or apples to 30 tablespoons of cooked spinach, peas, broccoli or cauliflower — or roughly 800 grams of produce, the researchers said.

At least five servings (400 grams) of fruits and vegetables each day is what is currently recommended by many health agencies.

El Paso, TX. Chiropractor Dr. Alex Jimenez takes a look at the Mediterranean diet.

I eat a wide variety of delicious foods every day including pasta dishes, curries, cheese and chocolate. I also drink red wine most days. Yet I’m in the best shape of my life and I’ve never felt healthier.

What’s my secret? Actually it’s not a secret at all. You’ve no doubt heard many good things about the Mediterranean diet. You probably also know that Asian diets, such as the Japanese diet, are also extremely healthy. All I did was combine the best parts of these traditional and highly appetising diets into one ‘MediterrAsian’ diet — so I literally get the best of both worlds.

I didn’t come up with this concept alone. In fact it was an extraordinary set of circumstances that led me to follow a MediterrAsian way of eating in the first place.

My parents are both medical doctors, so I’ve always had a natural interest in health and healthy living. But it wasn’t until I was introduced to authentic Asian cuisine by my Chinese-Malaysian sister-in-law in my late teens that I discovered that healthy food and delicious food could be one in the same. This was a revelation to me, and I’ve been hooked on Asian food ever since.

Then, in my early twenties, I met and fell in love with Ric. Like me, Ric was very interested in health and healthy living. That was mainly because he’d lost his own health following a near-fatal motorcycle accident six years earlier. After lots of struggle and pain, he only fully regained his health by adopting a Mediterranean diet. When we met, I introduced Ric to Asian cooking and he introduced me to Mediterranean cooking. We ended up bonding over pad Thai and paella!
 
We also discovered there were so many benefits to eating a combined diet of Mediterranean and Asian foods. One of the biggest benefits was for our taste buds! So many of the world’s most mouth-watering foods originate from Mediterranean and Asian regions, including pasta, pizza, risotto, sushi, curries, and stir-fries. So we never felt deprived. And the health benefits were also extraordinary. From getting us in the best shape of our lives to improving our cholesterol and blood pressure, and giving us bucket loads of energy.

 

What Exactly Makes MediterrAsian Eating So Health Giving?
 
Actually, we’ve discovered there are a number of important reasons. Unlike modern Western diets that are full of highly processed foods, traditional Mediterranean and Asian diets are based on a foundation of minimally processed plant foods. These vegetables, fruits, grains and beans are bulky and filling but are generally low to moderate in calories. Fish and shellfish, which are also traditional Mediterranean and Asian staples, are also quite low in calories and are a good source of hunger-suppressing protein. So, these foods fill us up long before they fill us out. They also more than counter-balance the higher calorie foods we do eat, such as olive oil, nuts and cheese. This means we end up feeling comfortably full after a meal, without consuming more calories than our bodies need.

Traditional Mediterranean and Asian foods are also overflowing with health-promoting compounds including dietary fibre (which also happens to be one of nature’s best appetite suppressants), omega-3 fatty acids, phytochemicals and antioxidants.

But there’s another big reason why combining Mediterranean and Asian eating practices make so much sense. And it comes down to how the foods in these traditional diets affect our genes.

Scientific research in recent years has found that many foods common in Mediterranean and Asian diets (such as olive oil, red wine, turmeric, green tea, dark chocolate and soyfoods) are rich in natural plant compounds that activate a type of gene in the body called sirtuins. Studies have found that sirtuins play a fundamental role in extending cellular life and the repair of DNA. They also inhibit fat storage and increase fat metabolism.

That’s why a diet rich in sirtuin-activating foods, or “sirtfoods,” is being recommended by a growing number of health experts. In fact, Adele credits much of her dramatic weight loss with following a diet rich in sirtfoods.

So if you want to get healthy and in shape, reduce your risk of chronic disease and live longer — all while enjoying a wide range of delicious foods — we highly recommend you give a MediterrAsian way of eating a go.
 

— Trudy Thelander is co-author of the acclaimed cookbook, The MediterrAsian Way, and co-creator of the newly-released mobile cooking app, The MediterrAsian Table.

Nearly half of all deaths from heart disease, stroke and diabetes in the United States are associated with diets that skimp on certain foods and nutrients, such as vegetables, and exceed optimal levels of others, like salt, a new study finds.

Using available studies and clinical trials, researchers identified 10 dietary factors with the strongest evidence of a protective or harmful association with death due to “cardiometabolic” disease.

“It wasn’t just too much ‘bad’ in the American diet; it’s also not enough ‘good,'” said lead author Renata Micha. “Americans are not eating enough fruits, vegetables, nuts/seeds, whole grains, vegetable oils or fish,” she said.

 

Micha is an assistant research professor at the Tufts University School of Nutrition Science and Policy in Boston.