Sugar Additive Linked to C. Difficile Superbugs

Scientists from Baylor University in Texas have found compelling evidence linking the recent rise of virulent Clostridium difficile infections to a widely used sugar additive, trehalose. Antibiotic-resistant C. diff infections are one of the biggest challenges facing the healthcare industry, with the Centers for Disease Control reporting that in a year, the bacteria kill 15,000 people within thirty days of infection. Baylor researchers noticed that the C. diff epidemic exploded within two years of trehalose’s FDA approval and determined that two particular bacteria strains, RT027 and RT078, were capable of using trehalose as their sole carbon source.

Recommended: Sugar Leads to Depression – World’s First Trial Proves Gut and Brain are Linked (Protocol Included)

Why Trehalose?

Trehalose is a disaccharide sugar found naturally in mushrooms, shrimp, and many insects. Prior to 2000, trehalose as an alternative food additive was too expensive to be widely used. However, a Japanese company introduced a way to extract the sugar, and it is now added to a wide range of food products, like ice cream, fruit, frozen foods, baked goods, and various beverages.

Researchers were not able to identify trehalose as the reason for the C. diff epidemic. After all, only two strains of C.diff thrived on trehalose. Those strains, RT027 and RT078, didn’t experience an increase in the number of bacteria. However, the RT027’s enhanced ability to metabolize trehalose resulted in more C. diff toxins, making the bacteria more virulent.

Related: Healthy Sugar Alternatives & More

We Know What Doesn’t Work

Not all C. diff develops into a serious or life-threatening infection.  But the link between trehalose and the virulence of C. diff bacteria makes the case that these infections are of our own making. When we eat sugar or processed food (trehalose is almost always both), we feed potentially harmful bacteria and overwhelm beneficial bacteria. Previous research has also linked serious cases of C. diff with antibiotic use, a treatment methodology that wipes out the beneficial bacteria necessary for gut balance.

Related: Sugar Industry Has Had Evidence Linking Sugar to Heart Disease for Nearly Half a Century

This new study appears to confirm the information we already have – the standard Western diet of processed, sugary foods has serious consequences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpRUfv-ioNU

Sources:


Honey Bees Attracted to Chemicals That Are Killing Them

Honey bees seem to be attracted to the chemicals that are killing them. based on experiments showing the bees preferred sugar water laced with chemicals known to cause problems for bees over sugar water alone. These findings published in the journal Scientific Reports suggest that herbicides and fungicides pose a greater risk to pollinators than previously assumed.

Scientists found that forager bees were drawn to the fungicide chlorothalonil and the herbicide ingredient glyphosate, found in Monsanto’s Roundup, at certain concentrations.” – Honey bees Love Chemicles That Are Killing Them

The nectar that a bee brings back to the hive will effect on the health of the entire colony. Insecticides have been shown to shorten the lifespans of exposed bees and disrupt organization of the hive. Past research shows that chlorothalonil can inhibit a fungal parasite called Nosema bombi that affects bumblebees. Glyphosate has been shown to potentially affect the ability of bees to navigate.

Recommended: Fungal Infections – How to Eliminate Yeast, Candida, and Mold Infections For Good

The bees are not only not avoiding this fungicide [chlorothalonil], they’re consuming more of it at certain concentrations. People assume that fungicides affect only fungi, but fungi are much more closely related to animals than they are to plants. And toxins that disrupt physiological processes in fungi can also potentially affect them in animals, including insects.” – May Berenbau

The bees in the study were given the choice between a plain sugar syrup and a sweet mixture blended with several fungicides and herbicides at different concentrations. There were also feeders with the sugar water mixed with naturally occurring chemicals.

Recommended: Detox Cheap and Easy Without Fasting – Recipes Included

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQkIeN56dt0



Nuts Can Reduce the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease

Small servings of nuts throughout your week can lower your risk of cardiovascular disease. Marta Guasch, a research fellow at the Harvard Department of Nutrition, reports findings that people who ate a handful of nuts equivalent to 28 grams five or more times a week were 14% percent less likely to develop cardiovascular disease and had a 20% lower risk of coronary disease. Properly sprouted nuts are a fantastic addition to a healthy diet and provide protein, fiber, b vitamins, and micronutrients like calcium, zinc, potassium, and magnesium in addition to their positive effect on the cardiovascular system.

The research from Harvard had three large studies with over 32 years of follow up to examine. The type of nut didn’t really matter, as almost every type examined positively influenced the cardiovascular system with one exemption: peanut butter. As Guasch says,

We have observed benefits for total nuts, peanuts, tree nuts, and walnuts. They were all associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease. And the intake of peanuts and walnuts was additionally associated with lower risk of stroke. However, what we observed was that peanut butter was not significantly associated with cardiovascular disease.”

But There’s a Catch

All of those fantastic nutrients are not readily available in your average store-bought nut. Nuts have enzyme inhibitors, of which phytic acid is the most well-known. Phytic acid binds to essential nutrients. All of the lovely calcium, iron, zinc, and other nutrients in the beans are not available for the body to use. Phytic acid also inhibits enzymes like pepsin, amylase, and trypsin, causing the body to experience difficulties when digesting nuts.

The Steps

This does not mean you can’t eat nuts and experience all that heart-healthy goodness. All you need is a little prep and a 12-24 hour waiting period.

  1. First, purchase raw nuts whenever possible. The high protein content in nuts requires digestive enzymes, and roasted or processed nuts have had their enzymes destroyed by heat.
  2. Take your raw nuts and soak them in warm, filtered water and a pinch of salt. The soaking time depends on the type of nuts, but it’s a good idea to change the water halfway through the soaking process.
  3. If you would like, you can soak the nuts for a longer period, then leave them out to sprout while they’re still damp. Not all nuts sprout, so check to see the best amount of time to watch your particular nut. At this point, you have neutralized as many enzyme inhibitors as you likely will.
  4. You are now free to dehydrate your nuts. The best way is with a dehydrator. Opinion is mixed as to the temperature you should choose for truly raw nuts, and most experts say 118 degrees Fahrenheit is the hottest possible setting.  Wet foods are more susceptible to heat destruction though, so low and slow is your friend here. If you do not have a dehydrator, I suggest sun-drying (not much sun at the moment, but your mileage may vary). You can also use an oven on its lowest setting, though that will likely lead to loss of enzymes.

Check outStop Eating Like That and Start Eating Like This – Your Guide to Homeostasis Through Diet for evereything you need to know about soaking and sprouting.

Embrace the Cliche

Now more than ever is the time to get your nut game tight. New year’s resolutions (and society in general) are attempting to mold you into the kind of person who eats a handful of almonds for a snack. The kind of person who feels vindicated and righteous consuming their tiny, heart-healthy, protein-packed treat. And you can be that person who gets all of those nutrients without the crappy digestive issues. All you need is a little planning and a pitcher of salted water. Enjoy!

Sources:

 



Trump’s USDA Ends Animal Welfare Laws for Organic Eggs

The Trump administration announced in late December plans to reject humane-treatment regulations of cage-free chickens that were proposed during the previous administration. This reversal doesn’t come as a huge surprise since the USDA repeatedly delayed the enforcement of those regulations.

In April 2016, the National Organic Program, under Obama’s administration, proposed a new rule called the “Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices” (OLPP) rule. The rule would require basic animal welfare for a food producer to receive the organic label. The OLPP rules state that animals need to have the ability to sit, walk, stretch out, and stand up without having to be in contact with another animal or the walls of the enclosure. The animals require year-round access to the outdoors, which has to include space with nature like plants and soil.

For more on what this means for organic eggs, check out “Why the hell am I paying more for this?” Major egg operation houses “USDA Organic” hens at three per square foot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZRKBtRy4p8

The agribusiness industry is generally opposed to OLPP because the proposed rules would have forced chicken factories to make expensive changes. Not surprisingly, animal welfare groups are furious,

The Obama administration’s rules for animal welfare under the National Organic Program set basic, common sense standards that not only alleviated the most egregious suffering of animals, but also aligned the actual standards in the $30 billion organics industry with consumer expectations of how cows, pigs, and chickens are treated.” – Vandhana Bala, general counsel for Mercy for Animals

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


EPA Is Allowing Use of Unapproved Pesticides – New Study

A report released by the Center for Biological Diversity reveals that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows the use of unapproved pesticides in the case of an emergency. The term emergency is defined in the dictionary as an unforeseen combination of circumstances. Looking at the instances of emergency approval from the EPA though, it’s clear the agency does not see it the same way. This loophole allows farmers to use deliberately unapproved or untested pesticides often without a public review or comment process, deliberating bypassing environmental and safety concerns.

It’s disgusting to see the EPA’s broken pesticide program bending over backward to appease the pesticide industry. These exemptions put people and wildlife at tremendous risk because they allow poisons to be applied in ways that would otherwise be illegal.” – Stephanie Parent, a senior attorney in the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program

The report particularly highlights sulfoxaflor, a pesticide that was banned for killing bees while still being approved for 78 emergency approvals over the past six years and affecting more than 17.5 million acres of farmland. This pesticide had actually been approved for spraying on cotton, but that approval was canceled by a judge in 2015. That reversal didn’t stop sulfoxaflor from being sprayed on cotton and bee-favorite sorghum through the emergency approval program. The EPA has yet to examine the effect this program has had on pollinators, though that isn’t anything we didn’t know.

One of the conditions for the approval of an emergency pesticide petition is “loss of pesticide,” wither through insects developing resistance or regulatory agencies canceling the pesticide. This is also known as the EPA doing its job. Yet the agency is more than willing to undermine its previous decisions and credibility. When will we be left with the bill for these shortcuts…or has it already arrived.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Are You Ready To Pay A Tax For Meat?

Governments are brainstorming for ways to combat the devastating environmental effects of factory farming, and several countries in Europe are calling for a tax on meat. No other industry involves the most pressing environmental and health issues of today, like GMOs, increased greenhouse gases, the destruction of natural habitats, herbicides, pesticides, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, quite like factory farming. Even worse, the meat and the corn and soy that feed them are on the receiving end of a massive amount government subsidies. Our government pays nearly 38 billion dollars a year to hasten the death of our eco-system and ourselves.

Yet meat is still powerfully entrenched in cultures worldwide, and the likelihood of a completely vegan or even vegetarian world is not high. 84% of vegetarians and 70% of vegans return to eating meat at some point in their lives. Our current carnivorous habits are not sustainable. Is a meat tax the way to fix it?

Recommended: Detox Cheap and Easy Without Fasting – Recipes Included

Progressive Europe

Denmark

The Danish Ethics Council started with a call for a tax on beef. That measure was passed by the council and is now scheduled for government consideration. While beef causes 10 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions, more than chicken and pork, the council has plans to extend the proposed tax to other red meats.

The United Kingdom

Several studies in the United Kingdom have resulted in a national conversation likely to result in meat taxes within the next 10 years. Analysis from Glasglow University and Chatham House, an international thinktank, indicate that public would see government intervention in this issue as a positive. According to Laura Wellesley from Chatham House, lead author of the research,

Governments are ignoring what should be a hugely appealing, win-win policy…The idea that interventions like this are too politically sensitive and too difficult to implement is unjustified. Our focus groups show people expect governments to lead action on issues that are for the global good. Our research indicates any backlash to unpopular policies would likely be short-lived as long as the rationale for action was strong.”

The survey analysis also found that many were surprised to learn of government subsidies for meat production, particularly in the large amounts given by the U.S. government.

Recommended: Start Eating Like That and Start Eating Like This – Your Guide to Homeostasis Through Diet

Germany

Germany already has a tax of 7 percent on animal products. The German federal environment agency has expressed a desire to raise that number to 19 percent, in order to keep with the Paris climate accords. Consumers would be the ones to pay this fine, although the agency has suggested that the estimated 5.2 billion euro tax revenue would lower consumption taxes on other food items.

My Opinion: We Pay to Produce It, Now We Pay to Eat It…?

America is much more attached to its meat products than Europe. The average American eats 200 pounds of meat a year, and for that American to be eating healthy (as it pertains to cancer and heart disease) levels of meat, those 200 pounds need to be reduced by two-thirds. But would Americans be so gung-ho about meat if they knew they’re actually paying an extra 8 dollars in hidden costs (healthcare, subsidies, and environmental degradation) for each Big Mac?

Here’s an idea…rather than tax consumers and charge them twice, slowly pull subsidies away from corporations running businesses contributing to climate change. This likely won’t happen, as the U.S. government cares about businesses, not people. Maybe if businesses weren’t so short-sighted, they would realize that people with more money buy more products.

In our current iteration, a meat tax in the United States is more likely to leave poor people without the funds or the knowledge for proper nutrition. Replacing everything meat with a version of tofurky isn’t sustainable or healthy either. In our school systems, we need real health and real food education that includes gardening.

On the other hand, if the tax happens, and it does promote awareness and reduced meat consumption, we’re not going to be too angry.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


EPA Relies on Industry Studies to Give Glyphosate New Green Light

Glyphosate is tthe most widely used pesticide in the world, and is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup. On the 18th of December the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a controversial analysis that relies heavily on industry studies to conclude that glyphosate poses no real risks to humans. The EPA  ignored the agency’s own guidelines for assessing cancer risks. The report also contradicts the 2015 World Health Organization analysis showing glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.

Related: Glyphosate Drenched Crops

The only way the EPA could conclude that glyphosate poses no significant risks to human health was to analyze industry studies and ignore its own guidelines when estimating cancer risk. The EPA’s biased assessment falls short of the most basic standards of independent research and fails to give Americans an accurate picture of the risks posed by glyphosate use.” – Nathan Donley, senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Related: Monsanto’s Glyphosate, Fatty Liver Disease Link Proven – Published, Peer-reviewed, Scrutinized Study

A federal advisory panel of independent scientists unanimously found earlier this year that in assessing glyphosate the pesticides office at the EPA failed to follow its own guidelines for determining whether a chemical can cause cancer. In the final draft released today, the EPA stated that the guidelines “… are intended as a guidance only …” and do not necessarily have to be followed.

Related: Dicamba – The Herbicide Monsanto is Promoting to Replace Roundup’s Glyphosate

Source: