(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

(NaturalNews – John Phillip) Just in case you needed yet another reason to stay away from added dietary sugar sources, nutritional scientists now confirm that our obsession with consuming sweets is killing us by dramatically increasing risk of death from cardiovascular disease and heart attack. A host of known risk factors including elevated blood pressure and triglycerides, along with cholesterol abnormalities such as oxidized LDL cholesterol and poor HDL/LDL cholesterol ratios are all attributable to a diet filled with empty calories fueled by sugar consumption. Interestingly, researchers have determined that the increase in cardiovascular risk factors is not attributable to weight gain commonly associated with excess sugar intake; sugar directly raises heart disease risk independent of weight gain.

A research study team from New Zealand’s University of Otago, publishing in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, has conducted a review and meta-analysis of a large cohort of dietary studies comparing the effects of higher and lower added sugar consumption on blood pressure and lipids, both of which are important cardiovascular risk determinants. Lead study author, Dr. Lisa Te Morenga and her students have uncovered solid and documented evidence that eating sugar has a direct effect on risk factors for heart disease, and is likely to negatively impact blood pressure and blood lipids. Dr. Te Morenga noted, “Our analysis confirmed that sugars contribute to cardiovascular risk, independent of the effect of sugars on body weight.”

Sugar and refined carbohydrates increase risk of hypertension and cholesterol abnormalities

The scientists analyzed a total of 49 nutritional intervention trials conducted between 1965 and 2013. Comparing diets where the only intended differences were the amount of sugars and non-sugar carbohydrates consumed by the participants allowed for the measurement of the effects of these diets on lipids and blood pressure. 37 trials reported the effects of dietary sugars on lipid metabolism while another 12 yielded results on blood pressure. The team then pooled the available data to determine the impact on measurable risk factors that affect human health.

The team noted that some of the data provided by the studies was skewed as the research was funded by the food/sugar industries. When they factored out those biased results, they found a startling pool of data conclusively demonstrating the negative impact of high-sugar diets on cardio-metabolic risk factors. Small increases in blood pressure, as little as 20 mm Hg systolic and diastolic, can double the risk of a heart attack, while changes to cholesterol metabolism can alter the delicate endothelial lining of the arteries affecting plaque formation and blood clotting.

While the food industry and media outlets continue to promote a wide spectrum of processed, sugar packed foods as a means to boost their bottom line profit margins, millions of uninformed people continue to consume 156 pounds of added sugar each year. Recently, sugar has been making news as it has been associated with increased risk of many forms of cancer, as well as stroke and Alzheimer’s dementia. The evidence should be clear to any health-minded individual — eliminate all sources of empty sugar and refined food products in favor of foods in their natural form to dramatically lower the risk of heart disease and most chronic illnesses.

Sources for this article include:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2014/05/07/ajcn.113.081521
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-05/uoo-sii051414.php
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140515095633.htm

(NaturalNews – Zach C. Miller) Ever wondered why citric acid is listed in almost every food or drink ingredient label? This little product is found in everything from iced tea to hummus and organic salsa. Let’s take a look at what citric acid is and what it’s used for so universally in the food industries.

Citric acid defined

When I first scanned an ingredient label and saw citric acid, I pictured lemon or lime juice extract or something benign and citrus. But actually, modern-day citric acid is made by fermenting glucose. Citric acid appears as a white, powdery substance which tastes similar to lemon juice. It is made by fermenting Aspergillus niger mold, which produces citric acid as a byproduct of metabolism. This peculiar and cheap method of acquiring inexpensive citric acid (as opposed to squeezing actual lemons and limes which is too expensive) was discovered in 1917 by American food chemist James Currie.

Why is it used in so many foods?

Citric acid is used as both a flavor enhancer and a preservative ingredient. It provides a tart, citrus taste to foods to give a more potent flavor, while at the same time balancing the pH of foods and increasing acidity levels to preserve it for longer. In short, it increases the acidity of a microbe’s environment, making it harder for mold or bacteria to survive and reproduce. So it makes sense that citric acid is found in so many modern products when you consider the positive attributes it provides. But these positives don’t come without a price, as you’ll see below.

The problems with citric acid

The problem with citric acid is that it can potentially be produced with GMOs. Citric acid is made with the use of sugar beets or corn, which, if you follow the GMO issue, you know that these two are some of the biggest offenders of GMO foods in the US. There are also some GM versions of A. niger which are used to produce citric acid.

There are also other health implications that can arise from consuming citric acid separate from the GMO issue. Citric acid has been known to irritate the digestive system (ascorbic acid has similar attributes), causing heartburn and damage to the mucous membrane of the stomach. The eyes, skin and respiratory organs can also suffer scratchy, itchy sensations from overconsumption of citric acid. There have also been European studies which suggest that citric acid could be responsible for promoting tooth decay as well.

And so far you will not find cautionary statements of any kind on any products warning you about citric acid. If you choose to try and avoid citric acid, good luck; you’ll find it in almost every food product imaginable, organic or not.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.sciencedaily.com
http://www.alive.com
http://girlmeetsnourishment.com
http://science.naturalnews.com

(NaturalNews – S. D. Wells) Most milk does a body BAD, not good, but it’s the biggest lies that are more likely to be believed, and there are myths that refuse to die. So, in the name of good health, let’s try to rid ourselves of them now.

Food that is cooked dead is useless

Did you know that pasteurized milk is dead milk? The nutrients are lost, burned up at high heat, between 145°F and 160°F for about 30 seconds. Yep, that milk’s dead. Did you know that calcium alone does not build bones or bone density? Let’s start this off with those infamous words, pasteurized and homogenized. Homogenized and pasteurized are bad, bad words. Were you taught differently growing up? Did the school books brainwash you? Did the commercials say just the opposite, that milk helps build strong bones? Is your “dead” milk polluted with inflammatory carcinogens, medications, hormones, antibiotics, pus, pathogens, bacteria, viruses and artery-clogging animal fat?

Milk, cigarettes, diet soda and margarine for America!

The United States is in the midst of a public health epidemic due to poor diet. While much of the focus has been on obvious culprits such as sugary soft drinks and fast food, dairy foods often get a pass. The dairy industry, propped up by government, has convinced us of the health benefits of milk and other dairy products. But the context of how people consume dairy matters. …

[P]atterns of consumption [have shifted] away from plain milk toward dairy products laden with sugar, fat, and salt. …

Nearly half of the milk supply goes to make about 9 billion pounds of cheese and 1.5 billion gallons of frozen desserts–two-thirds of which is ice cream;

11 percent of all sugar goes into the production of dairy products.
(http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com)

A few years ago, David Wolfe, nutritionist, best-selling author and world traveler, speaking via Natural News, said it best:

Okay, well the nations that consume the most calcium, the United States, Canada and the Scandinavian countries, have the worst osteoporosis and that’s because our theory of mineralization or our theory of nutrition is incorrect. The general theory is that a hundred years ago they started looking at people’s bones. They found out that, “oh my god; these bones are made out of calcium”. When people don’t have enough bone density the thought is, “oh they just have to eat more calcium because that’s what builds bones”. Calcium does not build bones and that is one of the biggest misconceptions ever and it actually goes to the real core of our problems with science. …

What increases bone density? Well, it turns out it’s two other minerals and that is silicon and magnesium.
(http://www.naturalnews.com)

Pasteurized milk – this is NOT good

The goal with pasteurization is to kill potentially bad bacteria, but at what cost? It kills all the beneficial bacteria and damages the minerals and vitamins. Plus, pasteurization denatures the proteins. This milk gets heated over 160°F for half a minute to “sterilize” what you’ll probably have trouble digesting. Even “low-temp” pasteurization stops at around 145°F, still killing most of the beneficial enzymes.

Homogenized milk – this is NOT good

Around the turn of the 20th century, homogenization became the “industry standard,” because people liked not having to shake up all the fat globules for consistency. This process rearranges the fat and protein molecules, which ALTERS how they act in the human body. Then you have “fortified” milk with vitamins A and D added back in so that the general population feels better about drinking milk past infancy.

The calcium myth – why millions of Americans are “doing it” wrong

The US is the most dairy-consuming nation in the world, yet we have the highest rate of osteoporosis. No animal on Earth drinks milk past infancy or from another animal, except humans.

Don’t get “white-washed” by the Dairy Industry! Get your calcium from organic leafy greens and raw nuts and seeds. Find organic silicon and magnesium and stay informed. (http://drbenkim.com)

Sources for this article include:
http://drbenkim.com
http://www.naturalnews.com
http://labs.naturalnews.com
http://ajcn.nutrition.org [PDF]
http://draxe.com
http://www.nomeatathlete.com
http://science.naturalnews.com

(DrFrankLipman – Frank Lipman) While it may seem like a modern invention, “aquaculture,” has been around for ages – man has been “farming” fish in net enclosures, ponds, vats, urns and even woven baskets for thousands of years. More recently though, say within the last few decades, worldwide demand has exploded and farming fish has grown just as rapidly, evolving into a multi-billion dollar industry. Its mission: to produce more fish quicker, faster, larger and cheaper to meet the insatiable demand for what once seemed a limitless and inexpensive source of protein and good fat.

Not surprisingly, the extraordinary growth of the fish farm business has brought with it a number of industrial farming problems that concern me enough to advise all my patients to avoid factory-farmed fish. While there are some fish farmers producing eco-friendly and healthy fish, they are the exception, not the rule, so unless you’re able to purchase fish from those types of purveyors (usually smaller-scale, artisanal or boutique-style fish farms), just say No Tanks…that is, no to farmed fish – and here are five simple reasons why:

1) There’s no such thing as a free-range, farmed fish

In fact, it’s quite the opposite, with fish farm enclosures packing the creatures in, well, like sardines, leaving little room for the fish to swim freely or to engage in their normal behavioral patterns. The result? Stressed fish, who like us, tend to get sick more easily when their defenses are down. With their immune systems compromised, the fish become more prone to illness, parasitic infections and diseases, which then can spread quickly through their over-populated aquatic quarters.

2) Farmed fish are like really into drugs, dude

Next, the sickened fish have to be made well again, with you guessed it, drugs.  To do this, farmed fish are fed antibiotics, antifungals and/or pesticides – which means so are you, with every fork-full. Hardly an appetizing thought. As if that weren’t enough, farmed fish are often injected with booster shots of sex hormones. Turns out, captive fish populations tend to produce fewer offspring, so fish farms often enhance Mother Nature with fertility treatments (i.e., hormone shots, special feed, etc.) to stimulate offspring production and pump up the yield. With this in mind the question becomes, what are those fish hormones doing to our bodies? And is it worth the risk? I don’t think so.

3) Their diet is simply revolting

As is the case with industrially farmed, land-based livestock, top quality, 5-star feed isn’t on the menu, so what does the average farmed fish eat? Mostly fishmeal. Sound innocuous enough, that is till you discover that fishmeal is made up mostly of smaller fish mixed with (presumably genetically-modified) soybeans, grains and corn. Possible GMO issues aside, the larger issue is that in order to make all that fishmeal, a tremendous amount of smaller fish are fished out of the sea – anywhere from 3-to-6 pounds of small fish are needed to produce just one pound of farmed fish. In addition to being an enormously wasteful process, it also leaves less food available for wild fish to feed on, which contributes to their population declines. Oh, and what else do farmed fish snack on? The carcasses of deceased neighbors floating in or lying at the bottom of their tanks. It’s not a pretty picture.

4) If you’re looking for nutrition, farmed fish falls short

Even if you could overlook the drugs, hormone shots and less-than-optimal diet, farmed fish still comes up short in terms of nutrition, one of the reasons so many of us turned to fish in the first place. Compared to wild fish, farmed versions can have as much as 20% less protein, twice as much inflammation-boosting omega 6 fatty acid, less usable omega 3’s and fewer nutrients overall. In short, wild is better.

5) Industrial fish farms pollute their surroundings

Numerous studies report that water quality suffers in areas where fish farms operate, creating something akin to the aquatic version of agricultural run-off. Decaying fishmeal, diseased and dying fish and their waste products combine to create conditions that enable bacteria to flourish, polluting not only the fish farm waters but seeping into and damaging neighboring wild fish habitats, marshes and wetlands either by accident, carelessness or poor fish farming methods. Isn’t all this damage and pollution is too high an ecological price to pay for farmed fish-on-demand? I believe it is.

So, with all this in mind, what’s the alternative to farmed fish? The answer is wild fish though the wild stuff is not without its own set of issues, including over-fishing, dwindling populations and mercury concerns. To help you make the best possible choices, when buying fish at the market or dining out, ask questions and find out where your fish is sourced, and if it’s fished sustainably. Before you buy, check your choices with the Blue Ocean Institute’s helpful Guide to Ocean Friendly Seafood or download printable lists of eco-friendly seafood recommendations from Seafoodwatch.org 

For more on how to make informed seafood choices, check out School Yourself the Smart Way to Eat Fish.

(NaturalNews – PF Louis) It’s almost intuitively obvious to most that too much TV viewing is conducive to physical deterioration and not conducive to mental development. But what types of viewing at what ages affects children’s ability to pay attention over amounts of time and assimilate actual learning from experience or studying has been a topic of several studies.

One of those studies even considered background TV as a major distraction. That is leaving the TV on most of the time even when not watching it for a specific purpose while a child is doing homework, or if parents watch a specific TV show while the kids are around doing whatever.

This study has determined that a TV show’s momentary distractions from whatever a child is doing helps promote a poor attention span or a tendency to be easily bored. It’s a sort of “there’s something more important or interesting on the tube” tendency.

The study’s paper was titled “Background television in the homes of American children.”

Background TV is like secondhand cigarette smoke; it pollutes others

The University of Iowa (UI) publication Iowa Now interviewed one of the lead authors of that study, Deborah Linebarger, associate professor in the UI College Education’s Department of Teaching and Learning. Locally, she worked with two UI graduate students in her department and networked with others in different universities.

The other university study contributors were Mathew Lapierre at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication and Jessica Piotrowski of the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands.

Linebarger and her UI grad student associates conducted lengthy telephone surveys, often close to an hour long, among 1,454 households with children just under one year old to eight years old. Here are some of her comments from the Iowa Now interview:

“We discovered that the average American child was exposed to 232.2 minutes of background television on a given day. Using multiple regression analyses, we determined that younger children, children living in single-parent homes, and African-American children were exposed to significantly more background television than their older, multi-parent, and non-African-American peers.”

Linebarger added, “What was really distressing was the fact that the youngest kids, the ones under 2, were exposed to 5.5 hours of background TV per day.”

By calculating expected active TV watching and adding to the background TV, the researchers found that children two years and younger are exposed to six or seven hours of TV media daily.

And if we examine content of what’s going on with TVs that are simply kept on most of the time, there’s a lot of advertising of bad foods and bad medicine or a lot of bad or silly news, all in short visual clips and in sound bites.

This is how kids and are being programmed, and perhaps you were, or are, too. Moderate active viewing can be interesting, exciting or even occasionally uplifting or informative. Even then, too much is simply debilitating at any age. The younger the child, the more impressionable. This includes video gaming as well, which are often violent and addictive into later years.

It disrupts physical playing and social intercourse even within families. The tube has too much influence, which is why researchers recommend less active TV time and no background TV. It’s an enticing consciousness pollutant, and it can be the model of behavior to greater or lesser extent among children.

Regarding parents’ attitudes about background TV, Linebarger, who has four children of her own, explained: “[P]arents tend to leave the TV on all day even when no one is actively watching it. When I come into my house and no one is there, I like to turn on the TV to keep me company. And it’s easy to forget to turn it off… you get up and leave the room with it still there and on in the background.”

Sources for this article include:
http://now.uiowa.edu
http://now.uiowa.edu
http://psychcentral.com