Phosphoric Acid Causes Kidney Disease, Lowers Bone Density, is in Coca-Cola, Despite Label ‘No Artificial Flavors, No Preservatives’

(NaturalNews – L.J. Devon) Coca-Cola’s global sales have dropped for the third straight year. For the first time in 15 years, Coca-Cola’s global soda sales volumes fell in the first quarter of the year. The excitement of the fizzy drinks is begging to fizzle out. Consumers are growing concerned with their waistlines, their diabetes and their overall health, as they gradually shift away from all the sugar, the calories, the caramel colors, the artificial flavors and the preservatives.

That’s why Coca-Cola is coming out with a new marketing campaign targeting the consumers’ health-diligence. Coke executives plan on boosting global marketing spending by one billion dollars over the next three years. The company has already started adorning their bottles and cans of Coke with labels that claim “no artificial flavors, no preservatives added.” While this sounds like a positive step in the right direction for any company, it doesn’t compensate for the fact that the Coke is full of phosphoric acid, which is essentially an artificial flavor and preservative. On top of that, phosphoric acid lowers bone density and causes kidney disease. So is the new Coca-Cola label claim a downright lie?

Class action suit targets Coca-Cola’s misleading new label claims

In October 2013, a man named Paul Merrit filed a class action suit in California challenging Coke’s all-natural label claims. A federal class action suit filed in March 2014 by a man named Ronald Sowizrol follows along with the same challenge against Coca-Cola.

George Engurasoff and Joshua Ogden are now representing a class action suit against Coca-Cola Refreshments USA Inc., claiming the company is falsely advertising their signature beverage. The complaint wants Coca-Cola to label the phosphoric acid as an artificial flavor and preservative instead of pretending that it doesn’t exist. Coca-Cola executives argued that phosphoric acid is not on the FDA’s list of artificial flavors and therefore does not qualify as one.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White responded to Coca-Cola, saying that “these lists are not exhaustive” and that “the absence of phosphoric acid on these lists does not mean that the FDA has made a finding that phosphoric acid is not an artificial flavor.” In fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says artificial flavors are used specifically to add flavor and are anything not derived from natural sources like fruit and vegetable juice, plant materials or dairy products. The industry must admit that phosphoric acid is a non-natural mass-produced chemical added to give soda its tart and tangy flavor.

Facts about phosphoric acid

Phosphoric acid gives beverages like Coca-Cola a strong acidity which is greater than lemon juice or vinegar. Although colorless, odorless and clear, phosphoric acid is not tasteless. It’s the very acidifying agent that gives the beverage a tangy flavor. That same tangy flavor ingredient can also remove rust on vehicles. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition shows how phosphoric acid chemically robs the bones, lowering human bone density. Furthermore, it’s been linked to kidney stones and kidney disease. Similar phosphate compounds are also found naturally in meat and dairy products, which helps explain why meat, dairy and sodas similarly cause inflammation in the human body. Phosphoric acid is mass-produced in large quantities and is also recognized in the industry as E338, orthophosphoric acid or phosphoric(V) acid.

If Coca-Cola desires to continue selling phosphoric acid poison, then they should at least be honest about it and not pretend that their beverages contain “no artificial flavors [and] no preservatives.”

Sources for this article include:
http://www.courthousenews.com
http://blog.fooducate.com
http://finance.yahoo.com
http://science.naturalnews.com




6 Food Industry Tricks You Don’t Know About

If you shop in a typical US supermarket or big-box store, there may be more to your food purchases than meets the eye. Even the simplest of foods – apples, oranges, and chicken, for example – are commonly altered, treated with chemicals, or even injected with artificial coloring.

If you value pure real food, there’s no getting around the fact that buying your food directly from a farm (or via a farmer’s market), or, alternatively, growing it in your own backyard, are among the last remaining ways to secure such unadulterated food for your family.

6 Food-Industry Tricks That Might Shock You

TIME recently featured six food-industry tricks that should be common knowledge, but instead are mostly swept under the carpet. The food industry would rather you believe that your apple is just an apple, rather than a fruit with an added wax coating, for example – and that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

As TIME reported:1

“…your food goes through a lot to make it to you, from being treated with antibiotics to getting a chlorine bath and a wax coating. Many of these steps are no big deal… but some are bad for your health and others huge money wasters.”

1. Farm-Raised Salmon Is ‘Colored’ Pink

Wild salmon swim around in the wild, eating what nature programmed them to eat. Therefore, their nutritional profile is more balanced and complete, with micronutrients, fats, minerals, vitamins, and antioxidants like astaxanthin, which gives salmon its naturally pink, or in the case of sockeye salmon, red-colored, flesh.

Farmed salmon, on the other hand, are fed an artificial diet consisting of grain products like corn and soy (most of which is genetically modified), along with chicken and feather meal, artificial coloring, and synthetic astaxanthin.

Ironically, synthetic astaxanthin is not approved for human consumption, but is permitted to be used in fish feed that humans ultimately eat. How rational is that?

Astaxanthin is added to turn their flesh pink – the color most people expect their salmon to be. Natural salmon get astaxanthin from green algae. However, farmed salmon, without these synthetic “pigment pellets” added to their diets, would be an unappetizing grey color.

There are other reasons to avoid farm-raised salmon (and farm-raised seafood of all kinds). For instance, levels of critical omega-3 fats may be reduced by about 50 percent in farmed salmon, compared to wild salmon, due to increasing amounts of grain and legume (e.g. soy) feed.

The other issue with farmed salmon is the high levels of contaminants. The Norwegian Department of Health has raised serious concerns about high levels of contaminants in farm-raised salmon. The contaminants in question originate in wild fish, courtesy of environmental pollution.

These toxic contaminants bind to the fat molecules in wild fish, and when these fish are ground up for use in fishmeal together with added high-fat fish oils, ultimately these molecules can enter your body where they bind to your cells.

In 2006, Russia actually banned Norwegian farmed salmon, claiming it contained excessive amounts of lead and cadmium (originating from the feed).

Norway is the world’s top producer of farmed salmon. Last year, reports of farmed salmon toxicity actually spread through Norwegian news, and the Norwegian Health Department went on the record warning against eating too much farmed salmon due to contamination concerns.

2. Your Oranges Might Be Dyed

Why would orange producers go to the trouble of dying an orange orange? Because early in the season, some oranges might not be orange enough to attract consumers, so some Florida oranges are sprayed with Citrus Red No. 2.

This artificial dye is toxic to rodents at modest levels and caused tumors of the bladder and possibly other organs. It is not allowed to be used in California oranges.

Citrus Red No. 2 is not intended for consumption, which is why it’s typically added to juice oranges. If your oranges are dyed, it should state it on the bag’s label; be sure to avoid using the zest or peel of dyed oranges in your cooking.

3. Many Foods Are Dyed

It’s not only oranges that may be dyed with artificial colors. Your wheat bread may contain caramel color, as might your roast beef deli meat. Pickles spears are often dyed yellow to make the look more appealing, as are countless other foods.

In their 58-page report, “Food Dyes: A Rainbow of Risks,” CSPI revealed that nine of the food dyes currently approved for use in the US are linked to health issues ranging from cancer and hyperactivity to allergy-like reactions — and these results were from studies conducted by the chemical industry itself.2

For instance, Red # 40, which is the most widely used dye, may accelerate the appearance of tumors of the immune system in mice, while also triggering hyperactivity in children.

Blue #2, used in candies, beverages, pet foods, and more, has been linked to brain tumors. And Yellow #5, used in baked goods, candies, cereal, and more, may not only be contaminated with several cancer-causing chemicals, but it’s also linked to hyperactivity, hypersensitivity, and other behavioral effects in children.

4. Produce Often Gets a Wax Coating

Some produce is waxed after harvest to withstand the long journey to market unscarred and to protect against the many hands that touch it. While the wax is supposed to be food-grade and safe, there are different types used:3

  • Carnauba wax (from the carnauba palm tree)
  • Beeswax
  • Shellac (from the lac beetle)
  • Petroleum-based waxes

The natural waxes are far preferable to the petroleum-based waxes, which may contain solvent residues or wood rosins. Produce coated with wax is not labeled as such, but organic produce will not contain petroleum-based wax coatings (although it may contain carnauba wax or insect shellac).

The other potential issue is that wax seals in pesticide residues and debris, making them even more difficult to remove with just water. To reach the contaminants buried beneath the surface of your vegetables and fruits, you need a cleanser that also removes the wax, which is what my fruit and vegetable wash does. Produce that is often waxed includes:

Cucumbers Bell peppers Eggplants
Potatoes Apples Lemons
Oranges Limes

 

5. Olive Oil Might Be Mixed with Cheaper Oils

Olive oil is a common target of food fraud, in which it is deliberately adulterated at your expense, according to the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention’s (USP) Food Fraud Database. Even “extra virgin” olive oil is often diluted with other less expensive oils, including hazelnut, soybean, corn, sunflower, palm, sesame, grape seed, and walnut. But these other oils will not be listed on the label, nor will most people be able to discern that their olive oil is not pure. If you live in an area where olive oil is made, buying from a local producer is the ideal solution as it allows you to know exactly what’s in your oil.

If not, try an independent olive oil shop that can tell you about the growers, or at least seek out a brand name that you trust to produce quality oil from your local supermarket. If at all possible, taste the oil before you buy it. While this won’t necessarily be a guarantee of quality (especially if you’re not skilled at picking out all the potentially subtle taste differences), it can help you to pick out the freshest-tasting oil possible (and if you open a bottle at home and find that it tastes rancid or “bad,” return it to the store for a refund).

6. Chicken Is Given a Chlorine Bath

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) permits poultry producers to put all the poultry through an antimicrobial wash, using chlorine and other chemicals to kill pathogens. We already have a problem with antibiotics causing antibiotic-resistant “super germs” when used in the animals’ feed, and this likely makes the problem even worse. Workers in the plants have also reported health problems from the chemical washes, including asthma and other respiratory problems. Not to mention, it’s unclear how much of the chlorine residue remains on the chicken when you eat it. In the European Union (EU), the use of chlorine washes is not only banned, but they won’t even accept US poultry that’s been treated with these antimicrobial sprays.

Germans Alarmed Over US ‘Chlorhuehnchen’ (Chlorine Chicken)

Both the USDA and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claim that giving chickens a chlorine bath is safe, but that’s not enough to convince many Germans, who are now among the most vocal opponents to a free trade agreement between the US and EU. The so-called Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, could generate an estimated $100 billion a year in economic growth for both the US and the EU, but many Germans believe a trade agreement with the US would compromise their food safety and quality. According to Reuters:4

The phrase ‘Chlorhuehnchen,’ or chlorine chicken, has entered the parlance of everyone from taxi drivers to housewives since trade negotiations began a year ago. An Internet search for the term generates thousands of results, bringing up cartoons of animals dumped in vats of chemicals and stabbed with needles. A majority of Germans believe chlorine-washed chicken is a danger to human health despite its successful use in the United States to kill bacteria, according to survey by pollster Forsa.”

The US Food Industry Allows These Dodgy Practices That Are Banned in Europe

If it surprises you that the EU may be more forward thinking when it comes to food safety than the US, it shouldn’t. Thanks to a largely industry-beholden government and regulatory system, Americans are simply not being afforded many of the same protections given to Europeans. For instance, the EU has historically taken a strict, cautious stance regarding genetically modified (GM) crops, much to the chagrin of biotech giant Monsanto and in stark contrast to the US.

While GM crops are banned in several European countries, and all genetically modified foods and ingredients have to be labeled, the US has recently begun passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion, in addition to the fact that GM ingredients do not have to be labeled on a federal level. In another example, chicken litter, a rendered down mix of chicken manure, dead chickens, feathers, and spilled feed, is marketed as a cheap feed product for US cows. The beef industry likes it because it’s even cheaper than corn and soy, so an estimated 2 billion pounds are purchased each year in the US.

However, any cow that eats chicken litter may also be consuming various beef products intended for chickens – raising concerns about Mad Cow Disease. And it’s not only the spilled feed that’s the problem; the infectious agent can also be passed through the chicken manure as well. In the US, the use of poultry litter in cow feed is unrestricted. Europe banned all forms of animal protein, including chicken litter, in cow feed in 2001. Want yet another example? The drug ractopamine is banned in 160 countries, including Europe, Taiwan, and China.

If imported meat is found to contain traces of the drug, it is turned away, while fines and imprisonment result for its use in banned countries. Yet, in the US an estimated 60-80 percent of pigs, 30 percent of ration-fed cattle, and an unknown percentage of turkeys are pumped full of this drug in the days leading up to slaughter because it increases protein synthesis. In other words, it makes animals more muscular… and this increases food growers’ bottom line.

Adding insult to injury, up to 20 percent of ractopamine remains in the meat you buy from the supermarket, and this drug is also known to cause serious disability, including trembling, broken limbs and an inability to walk, in animals. It’s also killed more pigs than any other animal drug on the market. While Europe has remained steadfast on its Ractopamine ban, including refusing imported meat treated with it, the US is actively trying to get other nations to change their minds and accept Ractopamine-treated pork.

What Are the Worst Processed Food Additives?

Processed foods can last a long time on the shelf without going bad, thanks to their chemical cocktails of preservatives and other additives. Unfortunately, their makers put a lot of money and time into strategies to increase shelf life and create attractive packaging, with little attention put on the foods’ nutrient value or how it will actually detract from lasting health. Limiting your intake of processed foods is crucial to optimal health, but, if you choose to eat them, be aware of these worst offenders to avoid if you want to protect your health (many of these are already banned in other countries due to health risks):

Ingredient Found in Health Hazards
Coloring agents: blue #1, blue #2, yellow #5, and yellow #6 Cake, candy, macaroni and cheese, medicines, sport drinks, soda, pet food, and cheese Most artificial colors are made from coal tar, which is a carcinogen
Olestra (aka Olean) Fat-free potato chips Depletion of fat-soluble vitamins and carotenoids. Side effects include oily anal leakage
Brominated vegetable oil (aka BVO) Sports drinks and citrus-flavored sodas Competes with iodine for receptor sites in the body, which can lead to hypothyroidism, autoimmune disease, and cancer. The main ingredient, bromine, is a poisonous, corrosive chemical linked to major organ system damage, birth defects, growth problems, schizophrenia, and hearing loss
Potassium bromate (aka brominated flour) Rolls, wraps, flatbread, bread crumbs, and bagel chips See bromine above. Associated with kidney and nervous system disorders, gastrointestinal discomfort
Azodicarbonamide Breads, frozen dinners, boxed pasta mixes, and packaged baked goods Linked to asthma
BHA and BHT Cereal, nut mixes, gum, butter, meat, dehydrated potatoes, and beer BHA may be a human carcinogen, a cancer-causing agent. BHT can cause organ system toxicity
Synthetic hormones: rBGH and rBST Milk and dairy products Linked to breast, colon, and prostate cancers
Arsenic Poultry EPA classifies inorganic arsenic as a “human carcinogen”

Beat the Food Industry at Their Own Game: Choose Real Food

When it comes to staying healthy, avoiding processed foods and replacing them with fresh, whole foods is the “secret” you’ve been looking for. Additionally, the more steps your food goes through before it reaches your plate, the greater the chance of contamination, alteration, and adulteration becomes. If you are able to get your food locally, you eliminate numerous routes that could expose your food to contamination with disease-causing pathogens and other intentionally added (yet still disease-causing) additives. Quite simply, swapping your processed food diet for one that focuses on fresh whole foods may seem like a radical idea, but it’s a necessity if you value your health.

And when you put the history of food into perspective, it’s actually the processed foods that are “radical” and “new.” People have thrived on vegetables, meats, eggs, fruits and other whole foods for centuries, while processed foods were only recently invented. If you want to eat healthy, I suggest you follow the 1950s (and before) model and spend quality time in the kitchen preparing high-quality meals for yourself and your family.

If you rely on processed inexpensive foods, you exchange convenience for long-term health problems and mounting medical bills. It’s also important to source your food directly from high-quality, local sources so you can determine that your chicken is not doused in chlorine and your apples are not coated in wax, for instance. For a step-by-step guide to make this a reality in your own life, simply follow the advice in my optimized nutrition plan along with these seven steps to wean yourself off processed foods.




Canola Oil: The #1 Hidden Health ‘Danger’ at the Prepared Food Bar

(NaturalNews – S. D. Wells) Step right up to your favorite food bar, whether at Whole Foods, Harris Teeter or Farm Fresh, and “get you some” potato salad, coleslaw, egg salad, pasta salad, chicken salad, tuna salad, baked goods, or just make your own salad with lots of salad “dressing” and you are most likely getting a few heaping tablespoons of rapeseed oil with each serving, better known these days as canola oil. Now, whether or not there really is any such thing as organic canola oil, well, the jury is still out on that one. Regardless, canola oil is not good for you, and it ALL goes through a “deodorizing” processing stage that removes the “stink” of rapeseed, in case you didn’t know.

Canola oil can have detrimental effects on your health, especially the genetically modified (GM) canola that Monsanto so conveniently manufacturers for the masses to consume. It’s all mixed into those fancy, condiment-loaded, creamy salads at the friendly grocer, and it’s FRESH! Step right up to the fresh bar! Add in some tasty conventional spices and keep it hot or cold in those little bins for those “whole” food enthusiasts. Lots of people pack a few of the canola “mixtures” into plastic (BPA) containers and take them home. What exactly are you taking home, though?

There is no such thing as a canola plant

Wait, did you think there was a canola plant, like corn, soy or sunflower? Did you think making canola is just about pressing seeds? How DOES rapeseed oil magically turn into canola oil? It’s “deodorized” with a chemical component. Do you want to put a “hex” on your health? Insert “hexane” and wait for problems to rear their ugly head. Hexane, a vapor component of gasoline, is used to process oils and has been since World War II. And yes, hexane is flammable. Hexane is a chemical made from crude oil, the mainstream solvent extraction method of the entire Western world. So how is this organic? Good question.

The omega-3 fatty acids of processed canola oil are transformed during the deodorizing process into trans fatty acids. The reason why canola is particularly unsuitable for consumption is that it contains a very-long-chain fatty acid called erucic acid, which under some circumstances is associated with fibrotic heart lesions.

Here’s an interesting fact: In 1985, the Federal Register (official journal of the federal government of the United States) stated that the FDA outlawed canola oil in infant formulas because it retarded growth. So, 25 years ago it was not good for babies, but now it’s suddenly okay for everyone else? (http://www.functionalmedicineuniversity.com)

There’s a “not-so-heart-healthy” nation just below Canada

Just when you think that you’re eating healthy, you get fooled again. It’s the “cash crop” canola con! They’ve exploited that “gray area” so well for years. If you’re not sure, it probably “ain’t pure.” Oh, but its Canada’s top export to the USA by the millions of pounds of seed, oil, and meal per year.

But wait, some fast food chains were bragging recently because they are getting rid of their trans fat oils and switching to canola oil, like it’s some big move toward a “heart-healthy” nation, instead of using that pesticide-ridden soybean oil. So they must have been using that “close by choice” sales trick, where the consumer chooses from a lesser of evils but still falls for the gag. Sounds like two-party politics. So what’s your mayonnaise made with? What is the most prominent ingredient of your salad dressing, meaning what are the first few ingredients listed, because you know food manufacturers must list ingredients from the most first to the least last, right?

Oh, but the backlash will come, because people love their canola! Either that or they have no idea how much they are eating each day. They’re not doing the math. Add up those items from the canola food bar, condiments at home and some baked goods and what have you got? A “little bit” of rapeseed oil is moving through your digestive tract and your cleaning organs, and your body is not happy about it. Do you think Whole Foods uses organic canola for the food bar, or should you ask? Should it say? Everything that is prepackaged says so on the label. Too bad you can’t “Fooducate” the food bar items using the phone app (http://fooducate.com). Would it even matter if it was organic? I mean, can you have organic fibrotic heart lesions?

A biochemist would tell you that canola oil has higher levels of trans fatty acids than soybean oil and other toxic GMO “hybrid” oils that the masses use on a regular basis. This would include the hydrogenated vegetable oils cottonseed, safflower and corn.

Avoid the “All-You-Care-to-Eat” Canola Food Bar!

Take a quick look at the short-term and long-term damage you could be doing to your body by consuming canola regularly:

• Canola depletes vitamin E.
• Canola increases the rigidity of membranes, which can trigger degenerative diseases.
• Because of canola’s high sulfur content, it goes rancid easily, which can exacerbate allergies and compound problems for people with bronchial or asthmatic issues.
• Human studies reveal canola causes an increase in lung cancers.
• Canola can shorten lifespan of animals and lower platelet count.
• Daily canola consumption can raise your triglycerides over 40 percent.
• Canola oil molds quickly and also inhibits enzyme function.
• It opens the door for free radicals, undermining natural antioxidants, and can be linked to increased incidence of many diseases.
• Canola leaves no foul taste when it’s spoiled, so it’s hard to tell if you’re eating rancid erucic acid.

The Harvard School of Public Health stated decades ago that there is no safe level of trans fats, yet still, if there are less than 500 mg per half-cup serving, the FDA allows food manufacturers to use the label saying “no trans fats.” So who measures that half-cup at the food bar? Maybe you’re getting A HALF-CUP of CANOLA for lunch and dinner. Do you know the chemistry of your own cell membranes? Maybe you should. (http://www.bostonglobe.com)

Did you know that canola was man-made by a scientist at a university lab in Canada? The genes of the rapeseed plant were actually bred to produce less toxic erucic acid. Great, design a poisonous crop to meet FDA guidelines, then ship it to the USA! After creating this infamous genetically modified “invention,” this same scientist, Dr. Baldur Steffanson, went to work for Calgene, which was later bought by the biotech giant Monsanto! Who do you think also developed the “Roundup-Resistant” variety of GMO Canola? You guessed it – Dr. Steffanson, the “Father of Canola.” Thanks doc – for your contribution of weed killer and rapeseed oil hidden in our food! (http://timemachine.siamandas.com)

Still want to fill up those handy “to-go” containers at the “whole” foods bar? Still think all those creamy salads are the “bomb”? Think again. Don’t be fooled by canola just because the “debate” isn’t settled. Thanks to the “cloud” around the debate, it infiltrates the “whole food” market. Try grape seed oil or coconut oil for your own salads that YOU put together and can trust. Both of those oils can also tolerate high heat. Organic extra-virgin olive oil is good for you, but only if you don’t cook it at high heat. Stay healthy my friends.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.greencradle.net
http://www.youtube.com
http://www.organicconsumers.org
http://timemachine.siamandas.com
http://www.naturalnews.com
http://www.laleva.cc
http://preventdisease.com
http://www.functionalmedicineuniversity.com
http://www.bostonglobe.com




Americans – Why Do You Keep Refrigerating Your Eggs?

(Dr. Mercola) If you’re an American, you probably store eggs in the refrigerator – and wouldn’t think of doing it any other way.

Yet, the US is one of the only countries where chicken eggs are kept refrigerated. In much of Europe, for instance, eggs are often stored right on the counter, at room temperature.

But then, US eggs would be illegal in Europe due to an egg-washing process that may actually make them more susceptible to contamination with bacteria like Salmonella.

In the US, Eggs Are Refrigerated to Help Reduce Salmonella Risks

If an egg is infected with salmonella, the bacteria will multiply more quickly if the egg is stored at room temperature instead of in the refrigerator, particularly if they’re stored for longer than 21 days.1 This is why, in the US, public health agencies advise keeping your eggs in the fridge.

And the truth is, the way most eggs are raised in the US – in industrial concentrated animal feeding operations or CAFOs – the risk of salmonella contamination rises.

In CAFOs, egg-laying hens are often crammed into tiny quarters with less space to stand upon than the computer screen you are looking at. Disease is rampant, and the birds ARE filthy — not because of their nature, but because we have removed them from their natural habitat and compromised their innate resistance to disease.

Eggs from such large flocks (30,000 birds or more… and some actually housemillions of hens) and eggs from caged hens have many times more salmonella bacteria than eggs from smaller flocks, organically fed and free-ranging flocks.

They’re also more likely to be antibiotic-resistant strains, due to the flock’s routine exposure to such drugs. It is because of these disease-promoting practices that the US also employs egg washing – a technique that’s actually banned in Europe.

Why Are American Eggs Washed, When Egg Washing Is Banned in Much of Europe?

When you have eggs from tens of thousands of chickens – or more — all under one roof, there’s a good chance they’re going to get feces and other contaminants on them. The US solution, rather than reducing the size of the flocks and ensuring better sanitation and access to the outdoors, is to wash the eggs. But this isn’t as innocuous as it sounds.

As the eggs are scrubbed, rinsed, dried, and spritzed with a chlorine mist, its protective cuticle may be compromised. This is a natural barrier that comes from the mother hen that lays the egg, and it acts as a shield against bacteria.

It even contains antimicrobial properties. US egg-washing strips this natural protectant from the egg, which may actually make it more likely to become contaminated. According to European Union (EU) guidelines:

“Such damage may favor trans-shell contamination with bacteria and moisture loss and thereby increase the risk to consumers, particularly if subsequent drying and storage conditions are not optimal.”

Industrial egg washing, by the way, is banned in much of Europe, not only because of potential damage to the eggs’ cuticles but also because it might allow for more “sloppy” egg-producing practices. The chief executive of Britain’s Egg Industry Council told Forbes:2

In Europe, the understanding is that [prohibiting the washing and cleaning of eggs] actually encourages good husbandry on farms. It’s in the farmers’ best interests then to produce the cleanest eggs possible, as no one is going to buy their eggs if they’re dirty.”

In the US, of course, you’d have no way of knowing whether your bright-white grocery-store eggs were covered in filth before they arrived in your kitchen. Plus, about 10 percent of US eggs are treated with mineral or vegetable oil, basically as a way to “replace” the protective cuticle that’s just been washed off.

Unfortunately, since an eggshell contains approximately 7,500 pores or openings, once the natural cuticle has been removed what’s put ON your egg goes INTO your egg. Meaning, whatever the eggshell comes into contact with can cross over this semi-permeable membrane and end up in your scrambled eggs, from chlorine to mineral oil to dish soap — to salmonella.

The Other Reason Why the EU Recommends Constant Room Temperature Egg Storage

European egg marketing regulations state that storing eggs in cold storage and then leaving them out at room temperature could lead to condensation, which could promote the growth of bacteria on the shell that could probably get into the egg as well. As io9 reported, the EU therefore advises storing eggs at a constant non-refrigerated temperature:3

EU guidelines therefore stipulate that eggs should be transported and stored at as constant a temperature as possible – a temperature between 66.2 °F and 69.8°F in the winter and between 69.8°F and 73.4°F in the summer.”

So, despite what you may have heard, eggs that are fresh and have an intact cuticle do not need to be refrigerated, as long as you are going to consume them within a relatively short period of time.

In the US, refrigeration of eggs became the cultural norm when mass production caused eggs to travel long distances and sit in storage for weeks to months before arriving at your superstore. The general lack of cleanliness of CAFOs has increased the likelihood that your eggs have come into contact with pathogens, amplifying the need for disinfection and refrigeration.

So, IF your eggs are very fresh, and IF their cuticle is intact, you do not have to refrigerate them. According to Hilary Thesmar, director of the American Egg Board’s Egg Safety Center:4

“The bottom line is shelf life. The shelf life for an unrefrigerated egg is 7 to 10 days and for refrigerated, it’s 30 to 45 days. A good rule of thumb is one day at room temperature is equal to one week under refrigeration.”

Eggs purchased from grocery stores are typically already three weeks old, or older. USDA-certified eggs must have a pack date on the carton, and a sell-by date. Realize that the eggs were often laid many days prior to the pack date.

Most grocery-store eggs in the US should not be left unrefrigerated because they’ve had their cuticles essentially washed off. If your eggs are fresh from the organic farm, with intact cuticles, and will be consumed within a few days, you can simply leave them on the counter or in a cool cupboard.

Are US Organic Eggs Washed?

Organic flocks are typically much smaller than the massive commercial flocks (typically by an order or two of magnitude) where bacteria flourish, which is part of the reason why eggs from truly organic free-range chickens are FAR less likely to contain dangerous bacteria such as salmonella. Their nutrient content is also much higher than commercially raised eggs, which is most likely the result of the differences in diet between organic free ranging, pastured hens and commercially farmed hens.

As far as washing, detergents and other chemicals used for “wet cleaning” organic eggs must either be non-synthetic or among the allowed synthetics on the National List of allowed non-agricultural substances, which can include chlorine, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, vinegar, and others. Some farmers report rinsing eggs very quickly in water, just to dislodge any debris, and believe this is adequate. Others use a dry brushing process — no liquids at all — just a brush, sandpaper, or a loofah sponge.

Since most organic egg producers are typically interested in producing high-quality eggs, many of them—especially small, local farming operations—have implemented gentle washing methods that don’t compromise the cuticle. However, you certainly can’t tell by looking at them what type of washing process they may have gone through. The only way to know if your eggs have been washed or oiled (and using what agents) is to ask the producer — and the only way to do that is to buy from small local farmers you have direct contact with.

Locally Raised Eggs Are Usually Best

The key here is to buy your eggs locally; this is typically even preferable to organic eggs from the grocery store. About the only time I purchase eggs from the store is when I am travelling or for some reason I miss my local egg pickup. Finding high-quality organic eggs locally is getting easier, as virtually every rural area has individuals with chickens. If you live in an urban area, visiting the local health food stores is typically the quickest route to finding the high-quality local egg sources.

Farmers markets and food coops are another great way to meet the people who produce your food. With face-to-face contact, you can get your questions answered and know exactly what you’re buying. Better yet, visit the farm — ask for a tour. If they have nothing to hide, they should be eager to show you their operation.

Eggs ARE a Highly Nutritious Food

The issue of whether or not to refrigerate your eggs becomes a moot point if you’ve been scared into believing that eggs are bad for your health. I want to address this briefly, as there is a major misconception that you must avoid foods like eggs and saturated fat to protect your heart. Eggs are an incredible source of high-quality protein and fat—nutrients that many are deficient in. And I believe eggs are a nearly ideal fuel source for most of us. The evidence clearly shows that eggs are one of the most healthful foods you can eat, and can actually help prevent disease, including heart disease. For example, previous studies have found that:

  • Consumption of more than six eggs per week does not increase the risk of stroke and ischemic stroke5
  • Eating two eggs a day does not adversely affect endothelial function (an aggregate measure of cardiac risk) in healthy adults, supporting the view that dietary cholesterol may be less detrimental to cardiovascular health than previously thought6
  • Proteins in cooked eggs are converted by gastrointestinal enzymes, producing peptides that act as ACE inhibitors (common prescription medications for lowering blood pressure)7
  • A survey of South Carolina adults found no correlation of blood cholesterol levels with “bad” dietary habits, such as use of red meat, animal fats, fried foods, butter, eggs, whole milk, bacon, sausage, and cheese8

As for how to eat your eggs for optimal health, ideally the yolks should be consumed raw, as the heat will damage many of the highly perishable nutrients in the yolk. Additionally, the cholesterol in the yolk can be oxidized with high temperatures, especially when it is in contact with the iron present in the whites and cooked, as in scrambled eggs, and such oxidation contributes to chronic inflammation in your body.

However, if you’re eating raw eggs, they MUST be organic pastured eggs. You do not want to consume conventionally raised eggs raw, as they’re much more likely to be contaminated with pathogens. The next best option to raw is to eat them soft-boiled or gently cooked “sunny side up” with very runny yolks. One final caveat: I would strongly encourage you to avoid all omega-3 eggs, as they typically come from chickens that are fed poor-quality sources of omega-3 fats that are already oxidized. Omega-3 eggs are also more likely to perish faster than non-omega-3 eggs.




Shiitake Mushrooms Can Help Prevent Cervical Cancer, Study Finds

(NaturalNews – Michael Ravensthorpe) For centuries, shiitake mushrooms (Lentinula edodes) have been utilized as a medicine in their native East Asia. Traditional Chinese medicine, for instance, would commonly prescribe shiitake for people suffering from upper respiratory disease, poor blood circulation and fatigue. In Japan, shiitake were beloved for their anti-aging properties. And Europeans, who have rigorously studied shiitake under the microscope since they first arrived on the continent, appreciate their impressive cholesterol lowering and weight loss properties.

However, an American study published in the Cancer Prevention Research journal has also found that a compound present in shiitake mushrooms can suppress the rate of cervical cancer growth, making them a viable alternative for aggressive and unnatural allopathic cancer treatments.

AHCC vs. HPV

According to the study authors, shiitake mushrooms contain an alpha-glucan called active hexose correlated compound (AHCC), which is a mixture of amino acids, polysaccharides and minerals. This compound, which appears to be unique to shiitake, is well known for its anti-tumor benefits. With this information in mind, the researchers sought to determine whether AHCC could also eradicate human papillomavirus (HPV), an extremely common sexually-transmitted infection which, if left untreated, can cause women to develop cervical cancer.

For the study, the researchers treated two cervical cancer cells (SiHa [HPV 16/18 positive] and C-33A [HPV negative]) in vitro with a 0.42 mg/mL dose of AHCC, then incubated them for 72 hours. Two additional trials followed: one in which the same AHCC dose was repeated once every 24 hours for one week, and another in which mice suffering from HPV were fed a 50 mg/kg dose of AHCC daily for the same period.

The results showed that AHCC suppressed HPV in all three trials. In the first trial, the AHCC suppressed HPV expression during the first 24 hours, but the HPV came back with a vengeance during the next 24 hours. Fortunately, continuous in vitro exposure — such as that experienced in the other two trials — resulted in sustained HPV suppression. Specifically, sustained AHCC treatment resulted in an overall 15.9 percent decrease in HPV activity compared to the control groups.

“[T]hese data suggest daily dosing of AHCC will eradicate HPV 16/18 infections and may have a role in the prevention of HPV-related cervical cancer,” concluded Dr. Judith Smith, lead researcher, and scientist at the University of Texas. “Furthermore, there is a potential for the addition of AHCC to primary treatment regimens for cervical cancer, which may potentially improve response rates and prevent recurrence.”

Dr. Smith’s findings were presented at the Society of Gynecological Oncology’s 45th Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer in Tampa, Florida in March 2014.

Sources for this article include:




Triglycerides in Junk Food are the Chemical Equivalent of ‘Hard Drugs’ for the Brain

(NaturalNews – Ethan A. Huff) Millions of Americans who claim to be opposed to drug use are actually heavy drug users themselves, according to a new study out of France. Researchers from the University of Paris’ Functional and Adaptive Biology laboratory recently found that triglycerides, a type of fat often found in junk foods, act on the brain in the same manner as many street drugs, exposing an epidemic of inadvertent drug addiction via the standard American diet.

Serge Luquet and his team, publishing their findings in the April 15, 2014, issue of the journal Molecular Psychiatry, tested the effects of triglycerides on mice. Having previously learned that these lipid compounds stimulate certain areas of the brain associated with pleasure and reward, the team decided to see how mice reacted to having a steady supply of triglycerides infused directly into their brains.

A body conditioned to high fat intake will constantly seek it out like a drug fix

Compared to mice not receiving the triglycerides, the test mice were less motivated than control mice to seek out more food, indicating a dose-response effect from consuming the fats. All the mice were allowed to access special levers that dispensed various food rewards, but those mice given the triglycerides were less likely to have brain activity telling them to eat more.

On the flip side, the mice not given triglycerides were found to be much more compulsive when it came to getting their food. Much in the same way that drug addicts have to constantly seek out their next “fix” in order to function, the control mice, who like all mice naturally desire high-fat, high-sugar foods, tended toward obsessively craving the food rewards.

“[T]riglycerides, fatty substances from food, may act in our brains directly on the reward circuit, the same circuit that is involved in drug addiction,” reads a summary of the report.

Brain responds to fat intake the same way it responds to hard drugs

Using a fluorescence microscope to analyze the mice’s individual brain activity, the research team was able to ascertain a specific enzyme in the brain that decomposes triglycerides, producing feelings of pleasure and satisfaction. When this enzyme is removed or deactivated, as the researchers did with the test mice, the desire for fatty foods becomes insatiable, much in the same way that a drug addict goes through withdrawals when cut off from his preferred substances.

Interestingly, the infused mice tended toward reduced physical activity and decreased likelihood of balancing a diet of both high-fat foods and simpler foods, compared to control mice who were obsessed with trying to gain access to the fats.

Many obese people are ‘drug’ addicts to triglycerides, unhealthy foods

In the end, this constant desire for fatty foods can lead to binge eating and gluttony, which in turn results in obesity for many people. Not surprisingly, obese individuals tend to have excessively high levels of triglycerides in both their blood and brain, and are typically more sedentary than the average person.

“[W]ith obesity, blood (and therefore brain) triglyceride levels are higher than average,” reads a ScienceDaily.com summary of the study’s outcomes. “So obesity is often associated with overconsumption of sugary, fatty foods. … At high triglyceride contents, the brain adapts to obtain its reward, similar to the mechanisms observed when people consume drugs.”

You can read a full press release of the study here:
http://www2.cnrs.fr.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.sciencedaily.com
http://www2.cnrs.fr




Zero-Calorie Sweeteners May Trigger Blood Sugar Risk By Screwing With Gut Bacteria

Artificial sweeteners don’t have calories — so why are these mice getting fat?

(Cornucopia – The Verge – Arielle Duhaime-Ross) When artificial sweeteners are in the news, it’s rarely positive. In the last few years, sweeteners have been linked to everything from Type 2 diabetes to cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, and stroke. Still, products like Splenda and Sweet‘N Low remain a cornerstone of many a weight-loss strategy, mostly because doctors don’t quite understand how sweeteners contribute to disease. That may soon change, however, as results from a study, published today in Nature, point to a possible mechanism behind these adverse health effects.

“Our results suggest that in a subset of individuals, artificial sweeteners may affect the composition and function of the gut microbiome” in a way that would lead to high blood-sugar levels, said Eran Elinav, an immunologist at the Weizmann Institute of Health in Israel and a co-author of the study, during a press conference yesterday. This, the researchers say, is bad for human health because when sugar levels are high in the blood, the body can’t break it down, so it ends up being stored as fat.

To reach these conclusions, Elinav and his team first tested the effect of three common artificial sweeteners — aspartame, sucralose, saccharin — on rodents. They found that each of the sweeteners induced a change in blood sugar levels that surpassed that of the mice who consumed actual sugar. And later tests involving the main sweetening agent in Sweet‘N Low, saccharin, yielded similar results in both lean and obese mice.

But mammals don’t actually digest artificial sweeteners — that’s why they’re “calorie-free” — so the reasons why these mice were experiencing blood-glucose alterations was still mysterious, Elinav said. Still, the researchers had an idea: maybe the bacteria that lived in the guts of the mice were interacting with the sweeteners.

So the researchers performed several experiments to test their idea. In one, they gave antibiotics to mice who had been fed sweeteners regularly. Antibiotics kill gut bacteria, and when these mice had their microbial guests cleaned out, their blood sugar levels went back to normal. In another experiment, the scientists transplanted feces — a rich source of gut microbes — from sweetener-fed mice into rodents that had never consumed artificial sweeteners. The procedure caused the recipient mice to experience oddly high blood glucose, like the mice in the sweetener group. Finally, Elinav and his colleagues used genetic analysis to reveal that alterations in the composition of microbial colonies were also accompanied by changes in bacterial function — changes that could very well explain why the mice were experiencing such high blood sugar.

But findings in mice aren’t nearly as convincing as findings in people, so the researchers set out to investigate human sweetener consumption. In the first experiment, the researchers analyzed the blood-sugar levels and gut bacteria colonies of 381 participants. And, as expected, Elinav and his colleagues found that people who consumed sweeteners in large quantities also showed disturbances in several metabolic parameters — including increased weight — as well as distinct microbial changes in their guts.

The results from the second, much smaller human experiment might actually be the most illuminating.

“We followed for a single week a group of seven human volunteers who do not consume sweeteners as part of their normal diet,” Elinav said. During that period, the researchers gave them a single dose of saccharin, and monitored their vitals. After just four days, half the participants showed microbial alterations and increases in blood sugar levels, he explained, “while the other subset had no meaningful effect immediately following the consumption of sweeteners.”

In other words: some people are more susceptible to the effects of artificial sweetener than others.

A causal link

The handful of studies suggest that consuming non-caloric artificial sweeteners boosts the risk glucose intolerance in both humans and mice, as a result of changes in gut microbe function, the researchers wrote in their report. Yet, because of the preliminary nature of their results and the small number of human participants involved, they stopped short of suggesting that people change their eating habits. “By no means are we prepared to make recommendations as to the use and dosage of artificial sweeteners based on the results of this study,” said Eran Segal, a study co-author also at the Weizmann Institute of Health.

Other researchers, however, were more forthcoming.

“People need to be much more mindful of what they are eating and drinking and make efforts to avoid products that have added sweeteners in any form” said Susan Swithers, a behavioral neuroscientist at Purdue University who wasn’t part of the Nature study, in an email to The Verge. The studies showed not only a causal link between the changes in the gut and artificial sweeteners, but that the observed changes happen quickly, she wrote.

Not everyone agrees with the design the researchers used to address the question about artificial sweeteners and weight gain. Christopher Gardner, a food scientist at Stanford University who didn’t participate in the study, says that the fact that the researchers gave the FDA’s maximal acceptable daily intake of saccharin to the human participants — about 5 mg / kg body weight per day — isn’t ideal. In a real-life setting, that dose would be the equivalent to a 150-pound person consuming 42 12-ounce sodas per day, or 8.5 packets of pink Sweet ‘n Low per day. “That may be ‘acceptable’ according to some set of guidelines,” Gardner wrote in an email, “but it should be noted that realistically this is a very high dose they are using and one that wouldn’t be consumed by a typical consumer.”

Still, the idea that we might finally have an explanation for the adverse health effects seen in certain sweetener studies is worth paying attention to. Should the findings prove reproducible, doctors will be tasked with understanding why some people are susceptible to microbiome alterations, while others aren’t. And sweetener companies will have to address the criticism — in addition to rethinking their marketing strategies. “The work is important,” Swithers said, “because it underscores the role that artificial sweeteners may play in contributing to the very problems they were designed to help.”