Unsafe Arsenic Levels in Rice and Poultry (especially brown rice)

Lately, there has been a lot of publicity about unsafe arsenic levels in rice and poultry due to a report from Consumer Reports. This is very disconcerting to hear, especially if you have only heard of arsenic as a poison. It actually is a metal, frequently found in our food and our water in both inorganic and organic forms. But arsenic, especially inorganic arsenic, is a carcinogen that increases the risk of bladder, lung and skin cancer. It also has been linked to heart disease and type 2 diabetes. In utero exposure may damage the baby’s immune system.

Arsenic is found in dirt and water, but of course mankind has added to the problem through arsenic-based insecticides and factory farming methods. Factory farms have been feeding arsenic-based food additives to poultry through the FDA recently revoked three of these. They warn, however, that the supplies on hand for many of these operations will last a year, giving us another reason to eat organic chicken.

High arsenic levels in rice are attributed to the irrigation water and the dirt in which it is grown. Consumer Reports’ 2012 investigation, combined with the FDA study in 2013, and the latest 2014 investigation by Consumer Reports covers the level of arsenic in 697 rice samples and 114 samples of other grains.

Consumer Reports states, “White basmati rice from California, India, and Pakistan, and sushi rice from the U.S. on average has half of the inorganic-arsenic amount of most other types of rice.”

But other states in the U.S. did not fare as well. “All types of rice (except sushi and quick cooking) with a label indicating that it’s from Arkansas, Louisiana, or Texas or just from the U.S. had the highest levels of inorganic arsenic in our tests.”

Arsenic levels are higher in brown rice (80% on average) because the arsenic accumulates in the outer layers (the bran and the germ), which are removed when rice is milled to make white rice.

Consumer Reports recommends the following: “Brown basmati from California, India, or Pakistan is the best choice; it has about a third less inorganic arsenic than other brown rices.”

Due to these findings, Consumer Reports and the FDA recommend eating a wide variety of grains rather than designing a diet with rice as a main staple. High levels of arsenic were found in processed rice products such as rice cakes, cracker, pasta, and dairy alternative products. They suggest small children should not be fed rice milk. Consumer Reports recommends limiting rice intake using a point system. See the link below for details.

You can reduce the amount of arsenic in your rice by thoroughly rinsing it before cooking it and by cooking it in large amounts of water (6 cups of water to one cup of rice) – the traditional Asian way of cooking rice. This method does, however, decrease the nutritional value as it loses vitamins and other nutrients in the water. These two practices are said to reduce the arsenic content by 30%

While arsenic in food is a concern, it gives us one more reason to focus on the best possible diet, which is 80% raw produce, eaten with naturally chelating foods such as garlic and cilantro. Eating this way helps us remove heavy metals from our bodies on a daily basis through the foods we eat.

Other likely sources of metal toxicity include poultry, beer, wine,  fish, brussels sprouts, and  Mercury Fillings. See Mercury Fillings, Root Canals, Cavitations – What You Need to Know. To remove heavy metals from your body, check out the recommended supplements, and the articles, How To Detoxify From Vaccinations & Heavy Metals & Top 5 foods that detox heavy metals and toxins.

Recommended Supplements (natural chelators):

Further Reading:
Sources:


Congress Passes Bill to Block Feds From Targeting Medical Marijuana and Industiral Hemp Cultivation

The Justice Department will no longer have the funds to raid medical marijuana establishments.

Not long ago, it seemed the movement to legalize marijuana was never going to gain traction. The federal government was eager to override any state law that legalized its use, for any reason. It seemed the only push behind legalization was the positive press for marijuana’s role in treatment of glaucoma and its use to treat nausea caused by chemotherapy. And that was not enough to keep the feds from pushing back as they closed down medical marijuana operations across California.

As the years have gone by, stories continue to emerge about the healing properties of cannabis oil. It is said to heal many conditions (migraines, seizures, persistent pain, nausea, lack of appetite, etc.), but its primary claim to fame is its ability to heal cancer – skin cancer, liver cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, brain cancer. Just take a quick look at the Internet and read the stories.

  • Mike Cutler, 63, cured of liver cancer. (Pain disappeared after 3 day’s use).
  • Michelle Aldrich, stage 3 lung cancer. Shrunk tumor by 50% in 4 months and had the rest surgically removed. No sign of cancer.
  • Andy Ashcraft, dying from pleural mesothelioma, now recovered.
  • Baby with an inoperable brain tumor, terminal. Completely cured.

The bipartisan Rohrabacher-Farr medical marijuana amendment was included in the omnibus spending bill. The purpose of the amendment is to stop the Justice Department from overriding state medical marijuana laws. It states:

“None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used…to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.”

It also… drumroll please…will protect industrial hemp cultivation through the Agricultural Act of 2014.

Medical marijuana laws now exist in 20 states and the fight continues in the states that have not yet passed sane legislation. Relieving the pressure from the federal government should help.

Is it possible we have voted for some rational, logical, reasonable legislators?

Further Reading:
Sources:


Want To Know What Factory Farms Do With Their Waste? (Video)

We’ve known the horrific conditions animals endure when raised in factory farms. One could only hope we have all seen some footage that shows chickens, cows, or pigs crammed into tiny spaces so filled that the animals cannot turn around or lay down. One thing we haven’t seen until now are the cesspools created by factory farming.

Mark Devries, director of the documentary Speciesism, the Movie, explores the cultural belief that “our species is more important than the rest.” His exposure of factory farming as “one of the greatest evils in our history” should give us pause. After all, animal cruelty laws are widely upheld when it comes to the treatment of cats, dogs, and horses. For some reason they don’t apply to factory raised animals.

Factory farms are tucked away and hidden from prying eyes. In his film, Mark crawls through bushes, flies over factory farms, and even uses a drone to videotape the landscape. In a clip (see video below) his drone reveals a cesspool the size of three football fields. The cesspool is simply a giant trench filled to the brim with pig feces and urine. The metal buildings beside the cesspool hold pigs crammed nose to tail. Waste is flushed under each building to the cesspools and then sprayed into the air.

Now here’s the interesting part. The animal waste is not pumped into a treatment facility. It is not pumped into a septic tank. It is not treated in any way. It is sprayed into the air.

From there, where does it go? While giant factory farms make an effort to hide away in rural settings, they still have neighbors. Their practice of spraying waste into the air causes it to drift onto their neighbors’ property. The odor alone is unimaginable. At times, it rain animal feces onto the neighbors’ yards and houses. Asthma rates, especially for children, are high. Runoff from factory farms contaminates waterways and groundwater.

Animals raised under these conditions are highly susceptible to disease. Initial reports regarding the Swine flu epidemic identified patient zero as a child who lived near a factory farm, but these reports were quickly squashed.

Short Clip of the Drone Footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayGJ1YSfDXs

Check out Mark Devries film, Speciesism, the Movie



5 Food Policy Lessons the U.S. Could Learn from Latin America

(Cornucopia – CivilEats – by Andy Bellatti) When it comes to nutrition and public health, the U.S. can learn a lot from Latin America. Over the past year, Mexico, Brazil, and several other countries in South and Central America have passed some very progressive policies, often placing public health interests above those of the food industry. This is particularly impressive given the expensive politicking the food industry has engaged in in Latin America against public health policies. Here are five recent efforts we should all be watching:

1. Bold Dietary Guidelines in Brazil

Earlier this year, Brazil broke new ground by releasing ten draft dietary guidelines which warned against processed foods and even addressed deceptive marketing by the food industry. This week, the nation released its final version.

The guidelines are, of course, written in Portuguese, but New York University professor Dr. Marion Nestle translated them into English.

Some examples of the succinct, yet powerful, messaging? “Limit consumption of ready-to-eat food and drinks,” “avoid fast food chains,” and “be critical of the commercial advertisement of food products.”

Our dietary guidelines are apolitical, vague, and meek, by comparison. They read: “Prevent and/or reduce overweight and obesity through improved eating and physical activity behaviors,” “maintain appropriate calorie balance during each stage of life – childhood, adolescence, adulthood, pregnancy and breastfeeding, and older age,” “increase vegetable and fruit intake.” Let’s hope next year’s update takes some cues from Brazil.

Read more about Brazil’s new guidelines in this story we ran in March, shortly after they were announced.

2. Fruit Vending Machines in Argentina

Earlier this month, Buenos Aires mayor Mauricio Macri announced that fruit vending machines will soon be installed at the 35 wellness centers that have opened throughout the country’s capital since June of 2012. These wellness centers–located in various parks and train stations–have doctors, nurses and nutritionists on staff, and provide people with a chance to have their weight, height, blood pressure, and blood sugar checked at no cost. Free nutrition counseling is also available, and some offer free yoga classes and walking groups. As of January 2014, half a million Buenos Aires residents took advantage of this public service.

And, soon enough, they’ll also be able to buy a piece of fruit on their way out, if they so choose. It sure is nice to see real food offered, as opposed to “healthwashed” processed offerings like baked chips, cookies with a dusting of whole grains, and diet sodas.

3. Front-of-package Warning Labels in Chile

Much to the disappointment of many large food producers, Chile has a new front-of-package labeling system that specifically points out what food and beverage products surpass government-established limits for calories, sugar, sodium, and saturated fat (via this black “excess of…” label on the front of packages).

What’s more, any product that is too high in any of those categories may not be sold in schools, and it is forbidden to target ads for said products to children under the age of 14.

There are some valid criticisms to this approach (mainly that by focusing on very specific nutrients “of concern,” food companies can technically reformulate minimally nutritious, highly-processed products in a way that manage to meet criteria without making them truly healthy). But this is nevertheless an important effort, as it is a front-of-package labeling scheme meant to deter the purchase of certain products.

4. Traffic Light Labeling in Ecuador

This small South American country recently instituted a traffic light labeling system for packaged foods. According to the Ecuadorian newspaper El Comercio:

August 29, 2014, was the deadline for 375 large and medium-sized companies to label the amounts of salt, fat, and sugar on their processed foods’ packaging. Labeling consists of a traffic light: red for products high in these values; yellow for medium values, and green for low values.”

Smaller companies have until November 29, 2014, to meet this new requirement.

Industry has long feared traffic light labeling and battled it globally for years with very expensive lobbying campaigns (no company wants its products to carry multiple red lights), so this is certainly a win for public health. The fact that all fat is lumped together is slightly problematic–imagine baked Cheetos getting a green light, while walnuts get a red light!–but at least this means that healthwashed items like children’s cereals with added corn dust for fiber will be called out for their high sugar content.

This image shows a pack of marshmallows available at an Ecuadorian supermarket, with both the traffic light labeling system (“high in sugar,” “low in fat”) as well as a “contains GMOs” (“contiene transgenicos”) label. Ecuador is one of 64 countries that has mandatory labeling of GMOs.

5. Soda Taxes in Mexico

Although domestically we now have a soda tax in Berkeley, CA (proposition E in San Francisco received 54.5 percent of the vote but not the 66.67 percent required to pass), our neighbor to the South passed a nationwide soda tax at the beginning of this year. It was an especially meaningful victory for public health advocates considering that Mexico is the world’s top consumer of soda (on average each person drinks 43 gallons per year), and that Coca-Cola aggressively forced its classic soft drink onto the native population of Chiapas.

Even better? The soda tax has proven effective. As the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month:

A separate study conducted earlier this year by Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health measured the decline in sugary beverage consumption at 10 percent during the first three months of 2014, compared with the same period last year. That study also reported a 7 percent rise in purchases of beverages that aren’t subject to the new tax, such as plain bottled water and milk.”

When it comes to food policy, the United States should consider looking to “developing nations” for well-developed strategies.



Missing From the Vaccine Debate – What the CDC is Not Telling Us

The CDC Morbidity and Weekly Report dated October 24, 2014, released information about a flu outbreak that occurred 8 months prior to publication. The article titled, Influenza Outbreak in a Vaccinated Population – USS Ardent, February 2014, details the outbreak and the means used to stop the spread of infection.

While moored in San Diego, California, 25 of the 102 crew members of the ship, USS Ardent came down with flu-like symptoms. Of these 25 crew members, 24 had received their annual flu vaccination 3 months or more before the outbreak. One had not been vaccinated.

Rapid influenza A and B tests were performed and 20 of the 25 tested positive for influenza A. Of those twenty, 18 tested positive for an A (H3) virus and 2 tested positive for an A (untyped) virus. (The CDC states that false negative testing for influenza is common).

Seven swabs from the A (H3) positive sailors were cultured to find the H3N2 virus was 99% identical to the H3N2 strain contained in the annual vaccine. The 1% difference was 5 amino acid substitutions that were found, a slight mutation that rendered the vaccine useless against the H3N2 strain caught by the sailors.

The spread of disease was stopped through isolation and disinfection. Sick sailors were sent home, off the ship, and all commonly touched surfaces were regularly disinfected and decks were mopped with an iodine solution. No further cases were reported.

How many die from influenza each year?

The CDC estimates an average of 26,000 people in the United States die from the flu each year (based on CDC estimates over a 31 year period with a low of 3,000 and a high of 49,000 deaths attributed to influenza). They state that 90% of the deaths occur in people 65 years and older.

In discussing the efficacy of the flu vaccine, the CDC states that flu vaccines work best with healthy adults and with healthy, older children. Because their immune systems are weaker, the vaccination is not as effective for people age 65 and older.

5 elderly residents of an assisted care center in Georgia die after flu shots

Health Impact News (healthimpactnews.com) shows a link to this story, which they published, but the link is no longer viable and the story can no longer be found on their website. In addition, 3 days ago Natural News reporter Jennifer Lilley reported that the assisted living facility stated that there have been no flu related deaths at the facility, and yet the original story reported that every senior who received the shot ran a temperature before 5 died.

What is missing from the vaccine debate

There is a glaring omission in the CDC information. The CDC posts all kinds of statistics, but there is not a clear transparency regarding vaccine injuries, vaccine deaths, and vaccine efficacy. If the CDC fulfilled its proper role to the American people, they would be clearly reporting how many of the influenza related deaths were people who had been vaccinated. They would be reporting clear and believable numbers of vaccine injuries that correspond with the number of cases winning in vaccine court and the personal reports of people who have suffered vaccine injuries who know several others in their personal lives who have suffered vaccine injuries as well.

How to protect yourself from the flu if you do not vaccinate

Diet is the cornerstone of health. A truly healthy diet is your best defense against any disease because you are building a healthy immune system. If you want to take it a step further, check out Bullet Proof Your Immune System. If you’ve been vaccinated, read How to Detoxify from Vaccinations & Heavy Metals.

Recommended Supplements:
Further Reading:

Sources:



U.S.D.A. Approves Modified Potato. Next Up: French Fry Fans

(Cornucopia – New York Times – by Andrew Pollack) A potato genetically engineered to reduce the amounts of a potentially harmful ingredient in French fries and potato chips has been approved for commercial planting, the Department of Agriculture announced on Friday.

The potato’s DNA has been altered so that less of a chemical called acrylamide, which is suspected of causing cancer in people, is produced when the potato is fried.

The new potato also resists bruising, a characteristic long sought by potato growers and processors for financial reasons. Potatoes bruised during harvesting, shipping or storage can lose value or become unusable.

The biotech tubers were developed by the J. R. Simplot Company, a privately held company based in Boise, Idaho, which was the initial supplier of frozen French fries to McDonald’s in the 1960s and is still a major supplier. The company’s founder, Mr. Simplot, who died in 2008, became a billionaire.

The potato is one of a new wave of genetically modified crops that aim to provide benefits to consumers, not just to farmers as the widely grown biotech crops like herbicide-tolerant soybeans and corn do. The nonbruising aspect of the potato is similar to that of genetically engineered nonbrowning apples, developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, which are awaiting regulatory approval.

But the approval comes as some consumers are questioning the safety of genetically engineered crops and demanding that the foods made from them be labeled. Ballot initiatives calling for labeling were rejected by voters in Oregon and Colorado this week, after food and seed companies poured millions of dollars into campaigns to defeat the measures.

The question now is whether the potatoes — which come in the Russet Burbank, Ranger Russet and Atlantic varieties — will be adopted by food companies and restaurant chains. At least one group opposed to such crops has already pressed McDonald’s to reject them.

Genetically modified potatoes failed once before. In the late 1990s, Monsanto began selling potatoes genetically engineered to resist the Colorado potato beetle. But the market collapsed after big potato users, fearing consumer resistance, told farmers not to grow them. Simplot itself, after hearing from its fast-food chain customers, instructed its farmers to stop growing the Monsanto potatoes.

This time around could be different, however, because the potato promises at least potential health benefits to consumers. And unlike Monsanto, Simplot is a long-established power in the potato business and presumably has been clearing the way for acceptance of the product from its customers.

Simplot hopes the way the potato was engineered will also help assuage consumer fears. The company calls its product the Innate potato because it does not contain genes from other species like bacteria, as do many biotech crops.

Rather, it contains fragments of potato DNA that act to silence four of the potatoes’ own genes involved in the production of certain enzymes. Future crops — the company has already applied for approval of a potato resistant to late blight, the cause of the Irish potato famine — will also have genes from wild potatoes.

“We are trying to use genes from the potato plant back in the potato plant,” said Haven Baker, who is in charge of the potato development at Simplot. “We believe there’s some more comfort in that.”

That is not likely to persuade groups opposed to such crops, who say altering levels of plant enzymes might have unexpected effects.

Doug Gurian-Sherman, a plant pathologist and senior scientist at the Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group, said that the technique used to silence the genes, called RNA interference, was still not well understood.

“We think this is a really premature approval of a technology that is not being adequately regulated,” he said, adding that his group might try to get a court to reverse the approval of the potato.

He said one of the substances being suppressed in the Innate potatoes appeared to be important for proper use of nitrogen by the plant and also for protection from pests.

The Agriculture Department, in its assessment, said the levels of various nutrients in the potatoes were in the normal range, except for the substances targeted by the genetic engineering. Simplot has submitted the potato for a voluntary food safety review by the Food and Drug Administration.

The company says that when the Innate potatoes are fried, the levels of acrylamide are 50 to 75 percent lower than for comparable nonengineered potatoes. It is unclear how much of a benefit that is.

The chemical causes cancer in rodents and is a suspected human carcinogen, though the National Cancer Institute says that scientists do not know with certainty if the levels of the chemical typically found in food are harmful to human health.

Still, Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology project director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group that deals with nutrition issues, welcomed the approval. “We support clearly trying to reduce consumers’ exposure to acrylamide and if this product helps do that, I think it’s a benefit,” he said.

Last year, the F.D.A. issued draft guidance advising the food industry how to reduce levels of acrylamide, which is also found in some baked goods, coffee and other foods. The agency listed numerous steps that could be taken in the growing, handling and cooking of potatoes. Many food companies no doubt have already taken steps to reduce acrylamide levels and might not need the genetically engineered potatoes.

Whether McDonald’s, which did not respond to requests for comment, adopts the potatoes is somewhat academic for at least another couple of years. Simplot anticipates that only a few thousand out of the nation’s more than one million acres of potatoes will be planted with Innate potatoes next year, far too little to serve fast-food chains.

Instead, the company will focus on sales of fresh potatoes and fresh-cut potatoes to supermarkets and food service companies and to potato chip manufacturers, said Doug Cole, a spokesman for Simplot.

The National Potato Council, which represents potato farmers, welcomed the approval, albeit with reservations.

John Keeling, chief executive of the trade group, said growers wanted new technology. But in comments to the Agriculture Department, the group has expressed concern that exports could be disrupted if genetically engineered varieties inadvertently end up in shipments bound for countries that have not approved the potatoes.

China, for instance, recently turned away shipments of corn containing small amounts of a genetically engineered variety developed by Syngenta that it had not approved for import. Some corn farmers and exporters have sued Syngenta for their losses.

Mr. Cole of Simplot said growers would have to keep the genetically engineered potatoes separate from others and out of exports at least for now. The company plans to apply for approval of the potatoes in the major markets, starting with Canada, Mexico, Japan and then other parts of Asia.



Flu Shot Season

Fall and winter is flu season and many Americans respond to this threat with an annual flu shot. Posters on drug store walls and entryways ask, “Have you had your flu shot yet?” There is a clear expectation in the message, that every person should comply. Last year, 135 million doses of flu vaccine were distributed. Although this represents only 14% of our population, this is indeed a large number. Flu vaccines are big business.

The CDC says 200,000 Americans are hospitalized with the flu each year. But they also say they don’t actually know the number of cases of adults who contract the flu or died from the flu, nor do they publicize the number of people who contract vaccine injuries including the number of vaccinated patients who develop Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

Flu shots are not infallible. First, the viral strain (or strains) used to manufacture the vaccine is based on the best guess of which flu strain will spread during the next flu season. Add to this best guess scenario the fact the viruses mutate. Even if the correct strain was chosen, a mutation may render the vaccine useless.

The CDC reports an estimated average of 23,607 annual flu-related deaths. They explain that these numbers are estimated because mandatory reporting of flu victims is limited to children under the age of 17. They state that they do not know the exact number of flu deaths (or cases of flu) due to the following reasons:

  • States are not required to report flu deaths in adults (18 years and older).
  • Influenza is rarely listed on the death certificate as a cause of death when patients die of flu-related illnesses (such as pneumonia).
  • Many flu-related deaths occur weeks after the initial flu infection due to a secondary infection or complications of an existing chronic condition.
  • Most of the people who die from flu-related complications are never tested for influenza and if they were, the virus would not show up in tests weeks after the infection (tests must be administered within a week of onset). Tests would show that they have antibodies to the flu, but that would not necessarily mean that the antibodies are from the current infection; they may be from a previous infection.
  • False negative test results are common.

The annual estimate of 23,607 deaths due to flu reflects estimated annual averages that have ranged from 3,349 (1986-87 flu season) to 48,614 (2003-04 flu season). These numbers are derived from reported flu-related child deaths and the estimated number of adults that die from “flu-related illness.” Reported child deaths average 113 per year from the 2003-04 flu season through the 2013-14 flu season with a low of 39 in the 2004-05 flu season and a high of 282 in the 2009-10 flu season (the year of the swine flu). This leaves 23,494 average adult deaths that are attributed to the flu but are not officially reported as such.

The CDC derives their annual number based on the number of adults whose death certificates cite the following causes of death: pneumonia and influenza (P&I) and respiratory and circulatory (R&I) causes. They state:

CDC uses underlying R&C deaths (which include P&I deaths) as the primary outcome in its mortality modeling because R&C deaths provide an estimate of deaths that include secondary respiratory or cardiac complications that follow influenza. R&C causes of death are more sensitive than underlying P&I deaths and more specific than deaths from all causes.

Granted, the CDC uses a sophisticated computer software program and all available data to project numbers. But the official count of influenza is further muddied by lumping influenza and pneumonia together when ranking the 15 top causes of death in the U.S. For 2011, influenza and pneumonia together ranked at number 8 with 53,667 deaths. There is no list for influenza alone. And yet, the statistics lead one to believe influenza is the leading contagion causing death in this country.

If the CDC is going to push their agenda of flu shots, at the very least, flu shots should not include toxins like mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde. Learn the facts before you choose a flu vaccine.

Recommended Supplements:
Further Reading:

Sources: