Twinkie vs. carrots

Insane Agriculture Politics

Food policy influences dietary choices

Why is it cheaper to buy a Twinkie than to buy a carrot? How do food subsidies and agricultural policies affect the foods we eat? How is that tied to food-related diseases? Why is it that a bunch of roots you can pull from the ground cost more than a package of Twinkies -- which have 40 ingredients? The reason is that the government is helping the Twinkie makers and not the carrot growers. Most of our food tax dollars are subsidizing the growers of specialty crops and whole foods. Journalist Michael Pollan explains. - See more at: http://www.therealfoodchannel.com/videos/the-food-industry/twinkie-vs-carrots.html#sthash.JFgm8GW7.dpuf

Organic and 'natural' brands owned by big corporations funnel millions of dollars into anti-GMO-labeling campaign

(NaturalNews) California's Proposition 37, an initiative proposed in 2012 that would've required the mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), set the precedent for other states attempting to pass similar legislation.

Prop 37 failed because of illegal, unethical and snake-like tactics carried out by the biotech industry, not because people didn't want it. Even though it failed, the people still won, because it drew massive awareness and support to the issue of the Right To Know what's in our food.

Since then, more than 60 bills in 20 states have introduced GMO-labeling laws! Two more states will be added to that list this year, with Colorado and Oregon considering measures to require GMO labeling. Voters in both states will get the chance to vote "yes" or "no" on this November's ballot, according to a report by PBS.

Colorado and Oregon are the next states to try passing mandatory GMO-labeling laws

In Colorado, 19 voters sat on a citizen review panel tasked with hearing both sides on the matter. After three days of debate, the panel voted 11 to nine in favor of labeling GMOs.

Oregon didn't have such luck. Citizens on a similar panel voted the opposite way, 11 to nine opposing labeling, with some commenting that such a measure is unnecessary if GMOs pose no risk to the public. Unfortunately, the Oregonians must have not done their research.

For those of us who have, we know that GMOs have not been proven safe. In fact, multiple studies support the theory that consuming genetically engineered food causes adverse health effects in humans.

While eating organic is essential for a healthy lifestyle, purchasing organic food from brands that support the Right To Know what's in your food is equally as important.

Unfortunately for the consumer, keeping up with the brands that support GMO labeling isn't easy, especially when some of our favorite organic brands, such as Annie's, have been bought out by corporations that want nothing but to harm us with their toxic food products (Annie's was recently bought out by General Mills).

Opposition to GMO-labeling is spearheaded by Monsanto, a company that relies on misleading you about the presence of GMOs in their products. DuPont, Dow and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a national business lobbying association, accompany them in their plight to hide the presence of GMOs from their customers.

Learn which brands to buy and which ones to divorce

"Many consumers will likely be surprised to learn that owners and management of some of their favorite organic and natural brands are fighting against the right of consumers to know what is in their food," said Mark Kastel, co-director of The Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy research group.

"We want to spotlight this issue so that consumers can vote in the marketplace for manufacturers and brands that reflect their personal values."

Nature's Path, America's largest organic breakfast foods provider, is an excellent brand to purchase, as they actively promote and fund the Right To Know campaign.

"Nature's Path USA has supported citizens' fundamental right to know if their food contains GMOs, with a simple label declaration. Then they can choose whether or not they want to buy it," said Arran Stephens, the company's CEO and cofounder.

Another great brand to support is Bob's Red Mill, a company that's donated $715,000 to states' Right To Know campaigns. Other pro-GMO labeling brands include Amy's, Applegate, Organically Grown Co., Nutiva, Clif Bar, So Delicious, Lundberg Family Farms and Back to Nature, among many others.

Some companies you may have thought were moral but are secretly funding anti-GMO-labeling laws include Horizon Organic, Silk, Ocean Spray, Sweet Leaf Tea, Naked, Santa Cruz Organic and Kashi.

Here is a complete list of companies for and against GMO labeling. Print a couple out, perhaps keeping one on your fridge and one in your wallet to serve as a reminder for who to support the next time you vote with your dollars.

Sources:

http://www.cornucopia.org

http://www.cornucopia.org

http://www.righttoknowcolorado.org

http://www.pbs.org

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org

http://www.carighttoknow.org

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

http://www.nongmoproject.org

http://science.naturalnews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047451_GMO_labeling_organic_brands_corporations.html#ixzz3He0d8i7s

Is pharmaceutical contamination to blame for amphibian population declining 75% in 40 years?

(NaturalNews) It seems that the world is finally waking up to the consequences of pharmaceutical pollution, a phenomenon that's single-handedly shaping our planet into an unnatural environment with grotesque repercussions.

Low-level yet active concentrations of pharmaceuticals are saturating the earth, causing ecological transformations that are poorly understood by scientists. Very little research has been performed on the effects of pharmaceutical contamination in the soil, lakes, rivers and oceans, or the wildlife that depends on those habitats.

However, current research on the impact of drug contamination has produced some pretty grim results, including significant destruction to birds and aquatic life. Just recently, Natural News reported on the 2014 Living Planet Report that documented a 52 percent decline in animal populations since 1970.

Freshwater fish struggling the most to survive

Of the 3,000 species surveyed, freshwater habitats took the biggest hit, with fish and amphibians declining by an alarming 75 percent. While the exact cause is not definitive, researchers believe that pharmaceutical pollution is a likely contributor.

Biologically active concentrations of man-made drugs are entering our environment through human excretion, animal waste, drug manufacturers, hospitals and pharmaceutical-contaminated sludge used for fertilizer.

Published in a special issue of the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, the study's recent findings disclose what may be happening to our ecosystems following exposure to pharmaceutical drugs.

One concept that's important to understand is that, although many experts have denied the impacts of pharmaceutical pollution based on the fact that they're introduced in such low concentrations, these drugs are designed to have "biological actions" at low concentrations, meaning their potency in the environment is still relevant and concerning.

"With thousands of pharmaceuticals in use globally, they have the potential to have potent effects on wildlife and ecosystems," said the report's editor, Kathryn Arnold of the University of York.

"Given that populations of many species living in human-altered landscapes are declining for reasons that cannot be fully explained, we believe that it is time to explore emerging challenges," she noted, referring to pharmaceutical contamination.

Some studies have been able to definitively conclude that drug pollution is directly to blame for some species' deaths and strange, unnatural behavioral transformations in others.

For example, The Guardian that three species of vultures native to India nearly became extinct after feasting on the carcass of livestock that had been treated with the anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac, which is used to treat arthritis and migraines in people. The drug's side effects include stomach and intestinal bleeding, which can be fatal, according to Drugs.com.

Pharmaceuticals have also been proven to change physical behavior as well as the biological makeup of some fish species, leading to extinction in some cases

One study showed that synthetic oestrogen used in birth control pills eliminated fathead minnows in lakes used for experiments in Ontario. The loss of the minnow contributed to other ecological disruptions including up to a 42 percnet decrease in the lake's top predator, trout, which feeds on the tiny fish. Without minnows, the insect population multiplied as their primary predator disappeared.

Because fish mate in the water, further research suggests that estrogen-containing drugs have feminized male fish and altered female-to-male ratios, as well as created intersex fish, creatures with both male and female characteristics.

Another example of man-made drugs inflicting changes in wildlife include a shift in starlings' feeding behavior, leading the birds to forage less during peak times, such as at sunrise and sunset, following exposure to low levels of the antidepressant fluoxetine.

In addition to changes in innate species behavior, the emergence of drug-resistant microorganisms is an increasingly imminent concern that could have "global consequences," said professor Joakim Larsson, of the University of Gothenburg.

While Big Pharma continues to get richer, Earth's wildlife struggle to maintain their natural processes, striving to stay alive in the wake of industrial pollution. Only through research, understanding and regulatory enforcements can we begin to reverse this critical problem before it's too late.

Sources:

http://www.theguardian.com

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org

http://www.theguardian.com

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org

http://www.drugs.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.health.harvard.edu

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047450_pharmaceutical_contamination_wildlife_population_decline.html#ixzz3HdzKWrri

Nobel Prize winner: Ebola can be spread by people who show no symptoms

(NaturalNews) Nearly 15 years ago, European and African scientists knew that the Ebola virus could infect a person without them knowing about it, meaning they can walk around with the virus in their system and never show any symptoms.

In 2000, The New York Times (archived here), cited the findings of a study published in a prestigious medical journal, reporting:

The possibility of asymptomatic infection was only suggested in earlier studies, they said in last week's issue of The Lancet, a medical journal published in London. Now they said they had documented such infections for the first time. They found that the Ebola virus could persist in the blood of asymptomatic infected individuals for two weeks after they were first exposed to an infected individual. How much longer the virus can persist is unknown.

The Times went on to report that the virus "usually spreads" from someone who is infected via contamination "in clinics or hospitals," generally through contact with materials contaminated with infected bodily fluids. At that time, however, based on the "new finding" at the time, "some" Ebola "cases may result from healthy carriers," though "[h]ow often is unknown."

The 13 percent

Fast-forward to the present. In the largest study of the current outbreak, scientists have further discovered that more than 1-in-10, 13 percent, of Ebola patients don't exhibit a fever or other symptoms. As reported by the Los Angeles Times:

The study, sponsored by the World Health Organization and published online late last month by the New England Journal of Medicine, analyzed data on 3,343 confirmed and 667 probable cases of Ebola.

The finding that 87.1% of those infected exhibited fever - but 12.9% did not - illustrates the challenges confronting health authorities as they struggle to contain the epidemic.

That finding has been echoed by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist, as he voiced support for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's recent (now vacated) order to quarantine anyone returning from West Africa for 21 days. As reported by NJ.com:

Dr. [Bruce] Beutler, an American medical doctor and researcher, won the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology in 2011 for his work researching the cellular subsystem of the body's overall immune system - the part of it that defends the body from infection by other organisms, like Ebola.

In voicing support for Christie's quarantine, Dr. Beutler -- current director of the Center for the Genetics of Host Defense at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas -- told the website, "I favor it," adding, "I favor it, because it's not entirely clear that they can't transmit the disease." He was referring to currently asymptomatic healthcare worker Kaci Hickox, a Doctors Without Borders nurse who recently returned to New Jersey after treating patients in Sierra Leone and was quarantined in the state for 65 hours. She was eventually taken to her home state of Maine.

'There's a lot of variation with viruses'

"It may not be absolutely true that those without symptoms can't transmit the disease, because we don't have the numbers to back that up," Dr. Beutler continued in his NJ.com interview. "It could be people develop significant viremia [where viruses enter the bloodstream and gain access to the rest of the body], and become able to transmit the disease before they have a fever, even.

"People may have said that without symptoms you can't transmit Ebola. I'm not sure about that being 100 percent true. There's a lot of variation with viruses," he added.

Despite the massive WHO study, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continues to insist that the virus is not communicable in people without symptoms.

"There's some imperative to prevent panic among the public," Dr. Beutler said. "But to be honest, people have not examined that with transmissibility in mind. I don't completely trust people who'd say that as dogma."

Since Ebola came to the U.S., the CDC's chief, Dr. Thomas Frieden, has put out so much conflicting information that any reasonable person would conclude that's all it is: dogma.

Learn all these details and more at the FREE online Pandemic Preparedness course at www.BioDefense.com

Sources:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com

http://www.nytimes.com

http://www.latimes.com

http://www.nj.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047455_Ebola_transmission_asymptomatic_carriers_no_symptoms.html#ixzz3Hdye6Mqv

No more heart attacks

Reversing heart disease

Heart attack, stroke, instant death or long term disability...

For hundreds of millions of people, this is their destiny.

It doesn't have to be and you can turn it around - right now.

Dr. Esselstyn isn't the only medical doctor who believes the eating animal products is the leading cause of heart disease. Nor is he the only one who believes heart disease can be reversed by changing to a plant-based diet.

Dr. Dean Ornish and Dr. John McDougall have both researched and written about this approach. - See more at: http://www.therealfoodchannel.com/videos/heart-disease/no-more-heart-attacks.html#sthash.SNvfPbdF.dpuf

Garlic - A health superstar

How many health benefits can you 

pack into a little clove

Several studies have shown garlic to have natural anti-cancer properties. Garlic is also known to be antibacterial and antimicrobial. Some even call it "Russian penicillin" because it is so effective in treating wounds and skin disorders. And if that weren't enough, studies show that garlic may lower blood pressure. But wait, there's more: garlic has been linked to lower overall blood cholesterol levels and higher rates of HDL "good" cholesterol

Please pass the salt

Healthy salt vs processed table salt

In antiquity, Homer called salt a divine substance. Plato described it as being especially dear to the gods.

Salt was once so precious it was literally a currency. In fact, that's where we get the word salary from.

Salt is considered a villain by mainstream medicine... being blamed for everything from high blood pressure to type II diabetes to obesity. However, there is no real evidence to support the claims that salt is evil.

The key is to consume the right kind of salt.

Conventional table salt, the one found in processed foods and contributing to health problems, is a nasty substance. Mined from the earth and then scorched at high heat striping all of the trace minerals, table salt is essentially sodium chloride. It is then blended with a cocktail of chemicals including anti-caking agents, some made with aluminum, added iodine, sugar and sometimes even bleach.

What are some healthy options?

Celtic Sea Salt
It's hand-harvested from seawater and then dried by the sun and wind, retaining the ocean's moisture and vast array of trace minerals. It's a coarse, moist salt that has a light grey hue from clay banks it's harvested from. This salt has an earthy, hearty flavor that's delicious in just about everything.

Himalayan Sea Salt
This salt has spent millions of years buried under extreme pressure where toxins and pollutants can't invade. Since there is no such thing as "organic" salt, this is the next best thing. Himalayan sea salts contain up to 84 minerals and has a sweet, salty taste with a cleaner finish than conventional salt.

Beware of salts claiming to be sea salt when they are dried and processed similar to conventional salt and simply dyed to look more natural. Also, know that Kosher Salt does not equate to sea salt.

But what if you can't tolerate even sea salt? Don't despair. There is a wonderful salt substitute called kelp. This seaweed is truly a super food. High in iron, calcium, potassium and iodine, kelp is low in sodium and yet has a salty flavor. It's a delicious replacement to salt in recipes. Note, it does get a bit gelatinous when mixed with liquids so be cautious with amount used.

References available at http://mamanatural.com/healthy-salt-substitutes/ - See more at: http://www.therealfoodchannel.com/videos/healthy-foods/please-pass-the-salt.html#sthash.c9TYvrLN.dpuf