Antibiotics and Rectal Cancer – There’s a Connection You Should Know About

Colorectal cancer rates are more than doubling in a particularly disturbing way. A new study from the American Cancer Society (ACS) analyzing cancer occurrences discovered that diagnoses of colorectal cancer have increased every generation since 1950. Scientists are unsure of the cause. But luckily for them, another new study has discovered that prolonged use of antibiotics can be linked to the increased the likelihood of bowel polyps, a precursor to rectal and colon cancers. Together, both studies make a compelling argument for the long-term consequences of our current antibiotic use and food system.

They Get Younger Every Year

Cancer is now a fact of life. The likelihood that you or someone you know well has been diagnosed with cancer is already high, and the number of cases diagnosed is predicted to rise to more than 21 million people in 2030. Colon and Rectal cancers are some of the most common cancers, 90% of colon and rectal cancer cases occur in people over the age of 50. According to Rebecca Siegel, the lead author of a new study from the American Cancer Society, “People born in 1990…have double the risk of colon cancer and quadruple the risk of rectal cancer” compared to the risk someone born in 1950 faced at a comparable age.

The American Cancer Society expects to see 13,500 new cases of colon and rectal cancer in people under 50 in 2017. At this point, someone under 50 is more likely to be diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer than the likelihood of anyone of any age is to receive a diagnosis for a less common cancer like Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. The conventional Western diet induces and intensifies inflammation in colonic mucosa within two weeks of being on a conventional Western diet, and that inflammation is one of the precursors of cancer. While the study from the ACS does address diet briefly, it also gives the impression that cancer is something that is just going to happen. But this is where that other study comes in.

Polyp, Polyp, Polyp

For every disease or condition that develops in the body, there are warning signs as it develops. For rectal cancer, one of those signs is small growths on the lining of the bowel known as polyps. Not all bowel polyps are cancerous, but they can develop into cancer later if the issue isn’t addressed.  But how do the polyps get there? A study looking at data from a long-term nurses’ health study found that nurses from ages 20 to 39 who had taken antibiotics for at least two months were later in life more likely to be diagnosed with adenomas (a specific type of bowel polyp) than nurses who had not taken antibiotics for a sustained period of time.

Polyps are not the same thing as rectal or colon cancer. It’s likely that if you have polyps that you will never notice their presence. But imagine you took antibiotics for a prolonged period from the ages of one to twenty. Then you took antibiotics for a prolonged period of time from ages twenty to thirty. You also have to contend with the possibility that you are ingesting a steady stream of antibiotics if you consume conventional meat regularly. Each time you come into contact with antibiotics for an extended period of time, the likelihood of developing adenomas increases.

The Steps Are There

These two studies make a compelling argument for the management of cancer risk through lifestyle. Choose to limit antibiotics in the food you eat and medicinal purposes, either through vegetarianism, veganism, natural remedies, or informed consumption. Replace typical health pitfalls like a sedentary lifestyle and a conventional western diet with regular movement and load up on fresh, raw organic produce. With each positive choice, the likelihood of rectal cancer (or any cancer at all) decreases. There is no cancer treatment available that can replicate the benefits of taking care of yourself first.

Sources:


USDA Drops Glyphosate Testing Plans, Makes Monsanto’s Life Easier

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is no longer planning to test samples of corn syrup for glyphosate residue. Plans to test for the herbicide were coordinated between the USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency and scheduled to begin in April of this year.

The cancellation of this program is good news for Monsanto. The company is currently embroiled in litigation, with plaintiffs in the case alleging that Roundup caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The extent of the EPA’s involvement in the lawsuit is not known, although the federal judge presiding over the case has indicated he is likely to subpoena the chair of the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee. Regardless of the lawsuit, the decision by the USDA to drop scheduled glyphosate testing is disheartening and further erodes their food integrity credibility.

Agencies in Disarray

The USDA’s failure to properly test for glyphosate residue is baffling. The agency’s reasons for not testing for the world’s most used pesticide center around that process being too expensive and inefficient. If that argument sounds familiar, that’s because it echoes Monsanto’s own thoughts on glyphosate tests. The Food and Drug Administration doesn’t necessarily agree. Last year they set in motion a testing program that found glyphosate in every sample of honey tested. Launched in February, it was indefinitely suspended by November.

When Demand Isn’t Enough

Europe and Canada have glyphosate testing programs in place, with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency planning to release their findings in the near future. This is the most used herbicide in the world, with over 250 million pounds of it used in the U.S. every year. Any layperson looking for it has only to walk into the nearest supermarket, restaurant, or convenience store. But we don’t know for sure, although we definitely want to.

The entire motivation behind the FDA’s short-lived was public demand. The American public and the U.S Government Accountability Office both have issues with the current ill-advised and unsustainable system. For a brief, shining period the USDA got it. The taxpayer need and demand for testing didn’t change. So what did?

Related Reading:
Sources:


B Vitamins Can Offset Damage From Air Pollutions

Billions of people are exposed to dangerous fine particulate matter, known as PM2.5, from diesel fumes, wood burning stoves, and chemical reactions between other polluting gasses. PM2.5 particles are incredibly tiny, with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers. They can lodge deep in the lungs and cause heart and lung problems, and they are thought to alter genes associated with the immune system. How do you protect yourself against something with that has the ability to change your DNA? You take B vitamins.

Researchers in the U.S. discovered that four weeks of B vitamin supplementation limited the PM2.5 effects by 28-76% at ten gene locations. Though limited by their small sample size and the high doses of B vitamins in the study, scientists nevertheless saw a connection. The B vitamins made a difference both in epigenetic changes and on a mitochondrial level.

Looking for B Vitamins

B vitamins give us our energy. They provide essential support for neurotransmitters and nerve tissue. The specific B vitamins used in this study were B6, folic acid (or B9), and B12. The inclusion of folic acid and B12 is especially interesting as they are some of the building blocks involved in repairing DNA, and they are involved in the metabolism of every cell in the body. Despite common fear that if you have the gene for something you automatically get it, the body can be influenced. Genes change.

Gun Seeks Magic Bullet

So the question becomes how do we get enough B vitamins to offset that pollution, to support all of those essential processes in the body, and to keep our genes intact or improve them? While we can produce B vitamins in the gut, it doesn’t happen without the right foods or the right gut environment. Fresh, organic vegetables and fruits replenish B vitamins, but the amount of nutrition to be found in our food is declining overall. There’s also the issue of assimilation. A digestive system that isn’t working properly won’t be able to use those vitamins to their best effect. The good news there? Maintaining the same produce rich way of eating that provides and creates B vitamins is the best way to have a healthy digestive system.

Related Products:
Related Reading:
Sources:


Monsanto Might Be in Big Trouble

Monsanto is currently embroiled in a lawsuit from farmers claiming that glyphosate caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, contradicting the EPA’s finding that the chemical is “…not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” On Tuesday, documents from the case were unsealed, including an internal email exchange at Monsanto that implies they wrote portions of EPA studies on the herbicide. According to one email, “…we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak…” Another email specifically mentions portions of studies that would be ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, as opposed to regulatory agencies.

Suspect Everyone

Federal judge Vince Chhabria, who is based in Northern California and is overseeing the litigation against the company, has indicated that, “My reaction is when you consider the relevance of the EPA’s reports, and you consider their relevance to this litigation, it seems appropriate to take Jess Rowland’s deposition…” Previous documents released in the case included a letter from a long-time EPA employee, alleging that Rowland and other colleagues played “political, conniving games with the science to favor the registrants.” Other emails directly from Rowland indicated that he would quash another assessment of glyphosate from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, among other things. Rowland’s testimony will be key for the plaintiff, as his time as the chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee coincides with the release of the EPA memo that disputes the World Health Organization’s classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic. A subpoena will likely be necessary to interview Rowland, as he has declined a previous, voluntary request.

The EPA is also concerned about their standing in this lawsuit. Raven M. Norris, the attorney representing them this case,  stated, “The agency has legitimate concerns about being pulled into private litigation…They want to be able to maintain their impartiality.” If the already released documents are any indication, impartiality is already off the table. They are left fighting for plausible deniability.

Monsanto has maintained its defense of glyphosate, and Bill Heydens, one of the alleged ghostwriters, has given sworn testimony about his original emails, claiming, “It was things like editing relatively minor things, editing for formatting, just for clarity, really just for overall readability to make it easier for people to read in a more organized fashion…”. Rowland will hopefully provide the other side of that conversation, but it is likely his testimony will protect the company.

A Vulnerable Position for the Agricultural Giant

Complaints and studies against Monsanto and glyphosate have been piling up for quite some time now. While the WHO has reclassified the chemical after extensive research, the U.S. regulators have lagged behind with a different script. The EPA may be able to claim that they were unaware of this manipulation, though plaintiff attorneys have suggested that the EPA “may be unaware of Monsanto’s deceptive authorship practices.” But there really isn’t a good position here. If Rowland implicates Monsanto and saves the EPA, Monsanto’s $66 million dollar merger with Bayer might be in jeopardy. If Rowland follows the money (history indicates probably) or martyrs himself, the EPA looks incompetent. For the rest of us, we’ll get a better picture of who is pulling the strings when this case is decided.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Monsanto Wants the Omega-3 Fatty Acids Market

What’s the next phase in omega-3 fatty acid supplementation? If biotechnology and agricultural trading giants like Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and Cargill have anything to say about it, the future is soy and canola.

There is no way to meet the demand we currently have for fish oil.Peru, the world’s leader in fish oil and fish meal production, had a banner year in 2016, getting the highest recorded average price per metric ton. But those record numbers come at a time when production levels have declined 61% from the previous year. The production levels aren’t likely to improve either, as the United Nations reports 90% of the world’s fish are fully or partially overfished. Farm-raised fish are unlikely to be a good source of Omega-3s as they themselves are frequently fed other fish oils to boost their health. We are approaching the point where a big source for Omega-3s, wild-caught fish, will no longer be available, and farm raised fish currently require supplementation instead of providing it.

The Big Business Solution

The demand for fish oil products has created a 2.4 million dollar market, and many big companies have settled on grains as the solution to the problem left by dwindling fish oil supplies. One of the companies with ambitious plans in this area is Cargill, an agricultural trading company based in Minnesota. In a bid to create a fifth of current fish oil supplies, 159,000 metric tons, they’ve earmarked up to half a million acres of Montana farmland to grow their new strain of canola. Projected to be ready in 2020, the canola will contain long-chain omega-3 fatty acids from algae. Dow Chemicals has also jumped on the canola train, although they plan to grow their canola in Canada.

Monsanto, on the other hand, is sticking with what they know – soy. Soybeans are already a  source of ALA (alpha-linolenic acids), and the company’s plan is to develop a soybean specifically meant to be processed into a soy oil for baked goods and soup. Other companies are launching omega-3 products with algae. Archer Daniels Midland in Chicago, a commodities trading and food processing company, created an algae-based product for fish supplementation. TerraVia Holdings Ltd is another company focused on algae, using it to convert sugar into omega-3s.

A Little People Solution

Omega 3 fatty acids are essential to any healthy diet, but other options are out there? Quality fish and fish oil are hard to find and hard to justify from an environmental perspective. Many of the proposed big businesses solutions focus on GMO crops. Both of these options are problematic.

Getting omega-3s in your diet doesn’t have to be all about fish oil. Algae is a great source of omega-3s, and it’s important to get different colors. Green algae like spirulina and chlorella, are a source of EPA. Brown algae like wakame and hijiki are sources of DHA, a key nutrient in supporting a healthy brain. Other vegetable based sources of omega-3s include flax, chia, and nuts, especially walnuts. The acids are also in a number of vegetables like spinach, winter squash, and brussels sprouts, though the amount is much less than what is found in seaweeds, nuts, and seeds.

The World is Not Enough

This is not the only important part of the food chain disappearing. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, close to 75% of plant diversity has been lost. Six different livestock breeds are lost every month. Our gut bacteria has been slowly losing its variety, leaving us more open to disease. From a health viewpoint and an environmental viewpoint, now is the time to look for different, diverse foods. How long will it be before whole nutrients groups disappear from our world like so many plant varieties or members of our gut flora?

Related Reading:
Sources:


So Now It’s 10 Vegetables and Fruits Every Day? REALLY?!?

How many vegetables and fruits do you eat each day? Are you getting the maximum benefit from your food choices?

In the early 2000s, The World Health Organization (WHO) began a campaign to raise awareness of the connection between health and adequate fruit and vegetable consumption. The quality of health wasn’t the only issue. Mortality itself was measured in units of fruit and vegetable consumption.

WHO estimated 2.7 million lives could be saved each year if fruit and vegetable consumption was raised to a sufficient level. They stated that low consumption of fruits and vegetables was one of the top ten risk factors for global mortality. The recommendation equaled a minimum intake of 400g (14 ounces) of fruits and vegetables excluding potatoes and other starchy tubers. This is about 5 servings a day. This level of consumption reduced the risk of heart disease, cancer, and stroke.

The latest research says we should do better. Now the recommendation is 10 servings (800 grams or 28 ounces) of fruits and vegetables per day.

https://youtu.be/nT8d60XSaZc

The study conducted by scientists from the Imperial College London, analyzed 95 studies on fruit and vegetable intake. It included “up to 2 million people,” assessing “up to 43,000 cases of heart disease, 47,000 cases of stroke, 81,000 cases of cardiovascular disease, 112,000 cancer cases, and 94,000 deaths.” Their conclusion was an estimated reduction of 7.8 million annual premature deaths if everyone followed this dietary advice.

When compared to not eating any fruits and vegetables, ten servings a day was associated with:

  • 24 % reduced risk of heart disease
  • 33 % reduced risk of stroke
  • 28 % reduced risk of cardiovascular disease
  • 13 % reduced risk of total cancer
  • 31 % reduction in premature death

While we at OLM and many others promoting a plant-based diet agree with this conclusion, we believe there is more to healthy eating than the volume of vegetables. The study did say not all fruits and vegetable were equal, but it did not stress the need for a large variety of vegetables and fruits or to choose organic and mostly raw.

We’d also like to see five servings a day versus ten, and what about 15? When do the benefits wear off? Raw or cooked? Another question this raises for us is, are we needing to double our intake of produce because of nutrient depletion in our soil?

What we do know is that gut health provides the basis of our health. Gut health determines the strength and efficiency of our immune system, the intake of nutrients to fuel our entire body, the creation of many of our neurotransmitters, and the ability to detox. An unbalanced microbiome allows an overgrowth of one bacteria over others or an overgrowth of Candida or parasites. A leaky gut is like a sewer leaking filth and disease into the bloodstream.

We have always recommended a diet consisting of 80% raw, organic produce– a wide variety of vegetables and fruit, mostly vegetables. In addition, we recommend the elimination of all artificial colors, flavorings, and preservatives; refined sugar; trans fats; MSG; and GMOs. The perfect diet is all real food, with no packaged, processed concoctions added in. Real food doesn’t have an ingredient list. There are no added chemicals.

It is important that your vegetable and fruit consumption includes a wide variety. Every fruit or vegetable contains its own combination of nutrients. We need a variety to consume as many nutrients as possible. In addition, we don’t want to overfeed just one or a few of our friendly or not so friendly bacteria or yeast by favoring one food over others. We want to maintain balance in all ways. For instance, if all of our fruit choices are high sugar, Candida thrives. We need a diverse microbiome to fend off a wide array of pathogens and to achieve this, we need a wide variety of nutrients to feed a wide variety of helpful microbiome bacteria.

If you are ill or you don’t feel well, changing your diet will change your life. We’ve seen it over and over again. If we eat a perfect diet until all traces of disease are gone, we heal very quickly. No supplement can achieve the change of health we accomplish by eating one large, organic salad filled with 15 or more vegetables each day.

If you are ready to change your life, change your diet. Go for 10+ a day. And remember, variety is key! Check out the salad recipe in the first article below.

Further Reading:
Sources:


Vaccine Schedule – Why the FDA Ignored Mercury Issues For So Long

Regulatory agencies like the FDA and CDC agree with the classification on mercury as a neurotoxin. But it took until 1997 for the Food and Drug Administration, at the prompting of Congress, to finally tally up the total amount of mercury a six-month-old would be exposed to if the 1997 vaccine schedule was followed. The results of that calculation found that the average six-month-old had the potential to be injected with a total of 187.5 micrograms of mercury. In contrast, the FDA’s daily acceptable intake of mercury for an adult is 0.4 micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight. The FDA has known about the cumulative levels of mercury in childhood vaccines for over 20 years, and yet they still acknowledge that many childhood vaccines contain trace amounts (less than 1 microgram) of thimerosal, and certain inactivated influenza vaccines can contain up to 50 micrograms of thimerosal.

What You Do When You Realize Something Wrong

By any calculation, the level of mercury in childhood vaccines is too high. So why hasn’t it been removed from vaccines? New documents from FDA officials have discovered that the justification for the continued presence of thimerosal has less to do with safety and more to do with image. In an email from Dr. Peter Patriarca, Director, Division of Viral Products, Food and Drug to an official at the CDC, he discussed the impact of removing thimerosal from vaccines in a timely fashion, saying it would:

…raise questions about FDA being ‘asleep at the switch’ for decades by allowing a potentially hazardous compound to remain in many childhood vaccines, and not forcing manufacturers to exclude it from new products.

It will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use. We must keep in mind that the dose of ethylmercury was not generated by “rocket science.” Conversion of the percentage of thimerosal to actual micrograms of mercury involves ninth grade algebra. What took the FDA so long to do the calculations? Why didn’t the CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood immunization schedule?”

Equally as distressing as the FDA’s decision to hide culpability is what they’re sacrificing in pursuit of that decision. A press release in 1999 maintained that there wasn’t evidence that vaccines containing thimerosal caused any harm. It also maintained there was no reason to measure mercury exposure in children who received those vaccines, effectively ensuring that that evidence would not materialize anytime soon. In additional justification, public documents released by the FDA measured mercury exposure as if children were only exposed to a small amount of mercury each day through vaccines.

This is in stark contrast to the reality of the situation, where mercury exposure spikes at four specific times: at birth and at well baby (oh the irony!) check-ups at 2, 4, and 6 months. Since that release in 1999, the FDA has made an effort to lower the levels of thimerosal in childhood vaccines. Many still contain trace amounts, though, and the flu vaccine, recommended annually starting at 6 months, seems to be exempt from these reduction efforts thus far.

When Safeguards Are Not Safe

Vaccines are often sold as the best thing you can do for your baby. Yet the people who regulate these vaccines are not inclined to look at them critically. It took Congress requiring a list of intentionally introduced mercury compounds before the organization that regulates them took stock of exactly how much mercury children receive through childhood vaccines. The FDA then presented the data on a six-month average, instead of the four one-time spikes that actually occur and specifically said that testing mercury exposure is not necessary. Why are the vaccines considered necessary when safety checks and studies are not?

Recommended Reading:
Sources: