And How to cook with Marijuana

Many studies have shown that THC does kill cancer cells. Therefore, smoking marijuana is a popular treatment for treating cancer.

A new study by Salazar et al. in The Journal of Clinical Investigation demonstrates that THC causes tumor cells to begin to degrade themselves from the inside (a process called autophagy, i.e. “self-eating”). Check out THC Gives Cancer Cells the Munchies Too for more information.

And we at Organic Lifestyle Magazine absolutely believe that marijuana should be legalized.

But there is a problem with smoking marijuana as a cancer treatment. Smoking marijuana introduces carcinogens into the body causing a host of problems, and when the THC is gone, the body is in a state ripe for more cancer.

Smoking anything is bad for you. And while there are certainly benefits to smoking marijuana, there is a better way to get the THC into your body. THC oil is a great option. You can purchase it (illegally in most states), and you can also make THC oil yourself.

How to cook with Marijuana

If you’re making pot brownies, or any other recipe to get you high, or for any other reason to get THC into your body, you need to extract the THC. THC is fat-soluble. It will pass right through the system if you simply throw some weed into your brownie mix.

You need to cook THC in oil. Coconut oil is a good choice: coconut oil can be heated to a certain point and still maintain it’s healthy beneficial properties (extra virgin, unrefined coconut oil is good up to 350°F).

Chop, grind, or otherwise cut the marijuana into fine pieces and put it into a pan with oil. Heat it below 350°F for 10 minutes. Add the oil to your recipe (you may include the leaves or discard them with a strainer).

Of course, we recommend you know where your weed comes from! Organically grown is not just for food. People that grow marijuana often add a nasty cocktail of chemicals to disguise the fact that their marijuana is lacking in quality.

For years our school systems have been feeding our children from boxes and cans. Prepackaged, processed foods and fried foods are the standard. Meals made from scratch with fresh whole fruits and vegetables are too expensive for the most of our schools’ meal budgets. And the schools supplement their budgets with vending machines filled with soda and sugared snacks and chips.

Click here to see Full Sized Infograph Image

The result has been two-fold: our children’s mental/psychological welfare has suffered and so has their health. We’ve conducted studies that have proven a truly nutritious lunch program results in a sharp rise in academic ability and a decrease in conduct problems. And yet, current practices continue.

We know the way we feed our children contributes to poor health, including obesity, and yet we continue. Not only are we “saving money” with our current lunch program, we are supporting big business.

But the status quo will soon change. Why? Because we’ve seen the light? Because we recognize how truly stupid it is to ignore the nutritional needs of growing children? Because we’ve recognized the link between poor nutrition and chronic or terminal illnesses? Or declining test scores?

No. It seems we may change the way we feed our children because we are running out of soldiers.

Mission Readiness, a group of retired military leaders, is lobbying to eliminate junk food from the schools because obesity is the leading medical reason military applicants are rejected; 27% of military age Americans are too obese to serve.

For fifty years, fluoride has been added to municipal water across America. We’ve been told it makes our teeth stronger and prevents decay. In recent years we have learned that fluoride is actually industrial waste, that tests were never done by the FDA to assess its safety, and that its use in drinking water was first suggested by the Nazis as one of many means to dumb down society through ingestion of toxins. None of these revelations has resulted in its removal from our water supply, not when the mainstream belief that fluoride inhibits tooth decay remains firm.

A recent Fox News interview with dentist Gerald Curatola reveals a new threat from fluoride—fluoridosis. He states, “Forty one percent of adolescents age twelve to fifteen have some form of fluoridosis defects on their teeth. And this ironically makes the enamel of the teeth weaker, not stronger.”

Fluroidosis is caused by “over-exposure” to fluoride. Mild symptoms of fluoridosis are white spots on the teeth. Severe fluoridosis erodes the teeth. They become so soft, they crumble.

“…if this is what we can see the effects of fluoride are on the outside,” said Dr. Curatola, “you know, we start to question what the effects of fluoride are inside the body.”

Since some non-fluoridated communities report less tooth decay than fluoridated communities, perhaps new interest by legislators calling for a review of the fluoridation issue will result in safer water.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is calling for a municipal ban on the sale of sugary drinks of greater than 16 ounces

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has banned smoking in New York City as well as Trans-fats in restaurants. He had forced chain restaurants to put calorie counts on menus, and he got sugary soft drinks out of city and school vending machines.

Now, with his continued efforts to curb obesity and lower the cost of health care in New York, Bloomberg is calling for a municipal ban on the sale of sugary drinks of greater than 16 ounces.

The ban applied defines the drinks to be barred that contain more than 25 calories per 8 ounces. This does not include diet sodas.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell responding to the many critics of his extremely controversial big ban, “The idea is you tend to eat all of the food in the container. If it’s bigger, you eat more. If somebody put a smaller glass or plate or bowl in front of you, you would eat less.”

Even progressive liberal comedian-pundit John Stewart is clearly not a fan of the proposal.

The ban would outlaw the sale of sugary drinks 16 oz or more in restaurants and vending machines (including those at gas stations), but you would still be able to purchase large bottles at stores. And of course, the six pack will still be an option is well.

I have mixed emotions about this ban. Soda consumption is one of the most significant contributors of a wide range of disease.

(Image courtesy of The Daily Mail)

But personally, I would rather see our government attempt to educate people as opposed to controlling people. Most people are still unaware of not only of how much sugar is in soda, but also, how bad sugar really is for us. And I would also like to see artificially sweetened foods, including diet soda, banned. Also, as far as laws are concerned, I would much prefer restrictions placed on advertising such as those commercials that try to convince us that Sunny Delight is good for your kids, or that high fructose corn syrup is perfectly healthy “in moderation.”

What do you think of New York’s proposed ban on large sodas?

Why does the CDC ask parents to use low fluoride or non-fluoridated water when mixing water with baby formula? Once again, it seems there is more to the story than we are being told…

Is our water decaying our teeth and damaging our bodies? CBS Atlanta recently interviewed Daniel Stocktin of the Lillie Center, a group whose sole mission is to remove fluoride from the public water supply. Stocktin warns of the known dangers associated with too much fluoride—dental fluorosis—and the unknown effects of the chemical on the soft tissues of the body. He warns that we ingest fluoride through water, food, and toothpaste and that it accumulates in the body.

Dental fluorosis is caused by the ingestion of too much fluoride. The first symptom is spotting on the teeth. More severe cases involve pits and holes in the enamel that resemble cavities. The worst cases involve severe erosion of the teeth.

The American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control continue to endorse water fluoridation, though they do admit excessive doses can be toxic. Both organizations declined to be interviewed by CBS Atlanta, instead referring the reporters to written information which Stoktin said is bad science and outdated.

Why does the CDC ask parents to use low fluoride or non-fluoridated water when mixing water with baby formula? Once again, it seems there is more to the story than we are being told, especially when recent data from the CDC states that two out of every five children have mild fluoridosis (spots on their teeth.

We want to applaud CBS Atlanta for taking on stories such as these. It is time for us to question all of the chemicals we breathe, put on our bodies, or ingest.

As the debate about vaccine safety intensifies, new laws have been passed to protect the pharmaceutical companies from litigation. No new laws have been passed to protect the victims of vaccine injury. Against rising proof that vaccines are unsafe and linked to autism, ADHD, and other serious outcomes, the same mantra is repeated by government sources—that there is no proof of cause and effect between vaccinations and health concerns.

Now let’s get real. The truth is, risks have always been known and accepted. Every parent who signs a vaccination form and bothers to read it, knows that they are risking their child’s life by agreeing to a vaccination. I will never forget the dread I felt signing those forms. Oh the risk was slight, but my child could contract the very disease I was vaccinating against or encephalitis or another complication. And death? Oh yes, that was listed as a possible outcome. And as this fact was sinking in, the nurse was pushing me to sign, telling me it was perfectly safe. I felt like I was sending my child outside to run back and forth across the street in hopes he would not get hit by a car. After all, the odds were on his side for that risk as well.

When my ADHD child was 3 and I told the testing psychologist I was going to try diet management (rather than the Ritalin he wanted to prescribe) he told me the link between diet and ADHD was nonsense and he had a study to prove it. When diet mnagement worked, with amazing and immediate results, he didn’t want to see the proof or witness the change in behavior. We do not as yet have good solid research to prove a link between autism and vaccines, but all you have to do is speak to a parent of a bright, verbal toddler who, after a vaccination, suddenly lost both speech and normal behavior to know the link is real. It is an dramatic cause and effect, witnessed over and over and over again by parents across the country.

I work for non-profit organizations, writing grant proposals. One of my jobs is to search grant databases, including grants.gov, the site for federal grant opportunities. Today I stumbled across two requests for proposals from the Department of Social and Health Services, grant opportunities to research vaccine safety.

One announcement reads, “This R21 research opportunity invites studies that address scientific areas potentially relevant to vaccine safety such as 1) physiological and immunological responses to vaccines and vaccine components, 2) how genetic variations affect immune/physiological responses that may impact vaccine safety, 3) identification of risk factors and biological markers that may be used to assess whether there is a relationship between certain diseases or disorders and licensed vaccines, or 4) the application of genomic/molecular technologies to improve knowledge of vaccine safety.”

Our government may be continuing to deny the link between autism and vaccines, but at least they are funding research.

New analysis highlights organic agriculture as an eco-friendly means of improving livelihoods and preserving natural resources.

Washington, D.C. – Despite the crippling effects of the recent economic slowdown on many industries, the organic agriculture sector not only sustained itself during this period but also showed signs of growth. “In 2009, organic farming was practiced on 37.2 million hectares worldwide, a 5.7 percent increase from 2008 and 150 percent increase since 2000,” writes policy analyst E.L. Beck, in the latest Vital Signs Online release from the Worldwatch Institute.

The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) defines organic agriculture as: “a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment.”

Although organic agriculture is practiced around the world, certified organic agriculture tends to be concentrated in wealthier countries. The Group of 20 (G20), comprising both developing and industrialized countries, is home to 89 percent of the global certified organic agricultural area. But nongovernmental organizations, including Slow Food International and ACDI/VOCA, are working with farmers to promote organic agriculture in developing countries as a means of bettering livelihoods and rejuvenating the land.

In western Tanzania, organic agroforestry practices have helped rehabilitate some 350,000 hectares of desert land over the span of two decades. And in Ethiopia, coffee farmers are learning how to protect wild coffee plants, fertilize them using organic compost, and process them in a manner that retains the quality of the crop, without damaging the environment.

Although the global organic market has shown growth in the past few years, the rate has slowed since 2000, and there are several challenges that impede large-scale expansion of organic practices. The price premium on organic foods, for example, may dissuade many consumers from buying organic products, despite the potential environmental, ethical, and health benefits these products provide.

Two other challenges are the lack of organic standards and the scarcity of equivalency agreements. An equivalency agreement between two countries acknowledges each other’s organic standards and allows for a smooth flow of certified organic goods between the two countries. The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation finances the Global Organic Market Access (GOMA) project, which facilitates the trade of organic products by establishing organic standards and negotiating equivalency agreements, but more progress is needed in this area.

Rising farmland prices are putting a further strain on organic agriculture. Research by the International Food Policy Research Institute shows that foreign investors have spent up to $20-30 billion on land purchases since 2006. These price hikes are threatening global food security and are especially detrimental to small-scale farmers’ ability to enter the organic agriculture field.

Despite all these challenges, organic agriculture holds untapped potential for helping farmers and consumers alike build resilience to food price shocks, climate change, and water scarcity. By turning to organic agroforestry and switching from synthetic to organic fertilizers, farmers are not only raising their incomes by reducing input costs, but also adapting to the effects of climate change and helping to protect the environment.

“In order to keep feeding humanity for generations to come, and to feed people better, farming must reinforce conservation goals by adding diversity to the food chain and by healing ecosystems,” said Danielle Nierenberg, Worldwatch senior researcher and co-director of the Institute’s Nourishing the Planet project.