Natural Communities Magazine A magazine devoted to the local natural wellness culture.

Pepsi is very clever and decided to create a symbol that makes it appear that they are actually healthy, as they have an official looking, government-type seal of approval on their products. They color it a healthy green and you think you are drinking something healthier than spring water.

But this is nothing more than blatant deception.

Many people will fall for it, but not you, because you are smart enough to read this post.

Pepsi’s “Smart Spot” Web site touts that they are “committed to helping Americans lead healthier lives,” by supplying you with the means of quickly and efficiently being able to identify “smarter choices,” which include over a hundred products like tooth-eroding Gatorade, aspartame-laden Diet Pepsi drinks and heavily processed snacks.

Aspartame is one of the most dangerous substances added to foods, with side effects like migraines, seizures, nausea, weight gain, depression and insomnia, just to mention a handful out of about 90 recorded health problems. Aspartame is also one of the culprits in triggering chronic illnesses like brain tumors, Parkinson’s disease and diabetes.

Leading you to believe you’re doing something beneficial to your health by chugging down Diet Pepsi is downright inexcusable. Water — either spring water or filtered water — is the best thing to quench your thirst, and if you want to spice it up a bit, just add some lemon juice, which will also help normalize your body’s pH level.

Baked! Lay’s also carry the “Smart” symbol, as it meets the “healthy” criteria of being cholesterol and trans fat free, with 1.5 grams of fat, completely ignoring dangerous levels of the cancer-causing chemical acrylamide in these chips.

Their “Smart Spot” symbol — a green circle with a white check mark, surrounded by the slogan “Smart Choices Made Easy” — is reminiscent of the Heart Association’s check mark symbol, surely bound, and intended, to confuse many. But don’t be fooled. There’s nothing smart about the Smart Spot brand of health food. Products displaying the Smart Spot symbol meet nutrition criteria based on FDA standards and recommendations that have already proven to be ruled by the almighty dollar, rather than concern for the welfare of consumers.

Dr. Mercola

Source: www.mercola.com

Sales of organic foods increased from $13.8 billion in 2005 to $16.9 billion in 2006, a jump of more than 22 percent.

Retailers across the country are experiencing double-digit growth rates in sales of such products.

One such retailer is the Dominick’s chain and their parent Safeway Inc. Last year, they introduced an organic line of products called O Organics in response to consumer demand. They are selling approximately 200 O Organics products in about 1,800 stores.

Sales of O Organics products totaled $162 million in 2006. While this is an impressive launch for a product line, it still represents only 0.4 percent of Safeway’s total 2006 sales.

Chicago Tribune May 5, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:

One of the unanticipated side effects of promoting natural healthy lifestyles is that it would not escape the attention of conventional retailers who have rapidly learned to exploit this movement and substitute inferior-quality brands while charging premium prices.

The meaning of the “organic” label has declined sharply over the past few years, so much so that it’s hard to trust grocery stores these days. The take-home message here: Seek out more affordable and healthier foods and vegetables grown by local farmers near you.

The entrance of major grocery chain stores like Safeway into the organic market means that choosing the best organic foods for your health may be getting tougher and more expensive.

Although organic food sales account for only 3 percent of the total amount of food sold in America, the increase in demand has been so rapid that farmers have been unable to keep up, forcing grocers to look internationally for them. This often results in a decline in quality and standards.

Multi-national corporations are interested in the profits from organic food, not the health value. For example, Wal-Mart’s “organic” milk comes from large factory farms (not to mention the fact that it’s pasteurized).

Meanwhile, the O organics label has been judged so successful that the line is expanding into food offerings for babies and toddlers, not a good move at all for the health of your young child.

Source: www.mercola.com

According to the results of a national survey, virtually all doctors asked reported some sort of financial relationship with medically related industries such as pharmaceutical companies.

The financial connections ranged from free lunches to payments for consulting and lecturing.

The survey was sent to more than 3,000 practicing anesthesiologists, cardiologists, family practitioners, general surgeons, internists and pediatricians, and just over half responded. Some 94 percent of the respondents acknowledged some kind of relationship with the drug industry, although 80 percent of them primarily accepted free food or drug samples.

However, research has shown that even inexpensive gifts can influence behavior.

In addition, more than one-third of the respondents were paid by the drug industry to travel to professional meetings or attend medical education classes. Family practitioners said they met an average of 16 times a month with industry reps, the most of any specialty surveyed. However, cardiologists were more than twice as likely as family practitioners to receive direct payments from industry.

Doctors were more likely to receive payments from industry if they were male, had any role in training doctors or developing medical guidelines, or had few uninsured patients or patients on Medicaid.
New England Journal of Medicine, (Free Full-Text Study)
USA Today April 26, 2007
Washington Post April 29, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:

Many may not realize that I too was a paid consultant for a drug company. I was hired by them to promote the benefits of estrogen replacement therapy, and they flew me around the country to lecture to physician groups and paid me a healthy stipend.

But that was over 20 years ago, well before I found my path onto natural medicine. But the trend certainly continues today with nearly all conventionally trained physicians who are as equally clueless as I was when I first graduated medical school.

Despite some reports to the contrary, this landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine confirmed what all of us already knew: Drugmakers and medical device manufacturers have bought and paid for your doctors, with incentives ranging from the tiny perks to enormous fees. (Incidentally, one very absurd factoid, among many: Health professionals were sent checks for $20 just for being sent this survey.)

This is a VERY common practice, and I can recall receiving many dozens of these checks or actual currency in the mail. However, I haven’t received any in this century that I can recall.

Although some physicians interviewed for various articles about these insane study results disputed any differences in their prescribing patterns, I wouldn’t take them at their word based on a study I posted recently about the influence drug reps have on convincing your doctor to prescribe Neurontin for off-label uses. One researcher on that study was amazed at “how effective a very brief visit by a drug representative — most often less than five minutes — can be in influencing physicians’ choices to use a drug for an unapproved indication.”

Drug companies shell out $4 billion each year in the United States to advertise directly to consumers on the television and print media. But that is small potatoes when it comes to what they spend on marketing to physicians. They spend $16 billion each year to directly influence doctors. That is $10,000 for every single physician in the United States.

Meanwhile, the sad fact of the matter is, most of the drugs being prescribed by these compromised doctors are useless at best and outright dangerous at worst, which is why the drug companies have to spend so much money to convince doctors to prescribe them and patients to use them.

Source: www.mercola.com

You may recall an article I posted earlier this month regarding the concerns surrounding the relaxed labeling of irradiated foods, like almonds, by the FDA.

Earlier this month, I received a letter from Richard Waycott, the president and CEO of the Almond Board of California (ABC), to tell me that his organization will not use any heating or radiation to “pasteurize” their almonds. He explained that they will instead be using propylene oxide to “pasteurize” the almonds.

Mr. Waycott provides the following reassurance: “Pasteurized raw almonds do not differ in any significant way — taste, quality or nutritional value — from untreated almonds. Pasteurization simply reduces the presence of harmful bacteria on those almonds to safe levels while maintaining taste, quality and nutritional value.”

I then called his office to see if there was anything he wanted to add to his letter, and he said that the EPA had tested propylene oxide and found it to be safe.

So now we can relax? Hardly.

Apparently, Mr. Waycott expects me to accept his propaganda without one single scientific reference to support his safety assertion. Even a simple search for propylene oxide in Wikipedia provides the following information:

“Propylene oxide is a highly toxic flammable chemical compound. It was once used as a racing fuel, but that usage is now prohibited under the U.S. National Hot Rod Association rules for safety reasons. It is also used in thermobaric weapons. It is an epoxide.”

The Almond Board is not using a GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) substance, safe for human ingestion, unless they are arguing it’s flashed off in evaporation or heating, which also mean the almonds are NOT natural and raw. You can see the EPA site for more details.

The bottom line is that if any process kills bacteria, it has the potential to cause problems in humans or significantly change the quality of the food.

By Dr. Mercola,
 www.mercola.com

W8741 Cty Rd. B
New Lisbon, WI, 53950
www.theaquariangarden.org
 608-562-5433

in Organic Factory Farms at Annual Shareholders Meeting

Source: The Cornucopia Institute
DALLAS: Socially concerned investors, who filed a shareholder proposal with Dean Foods, today again questioned the company’s management at its Annual Meeting of Stockholders in Dallas as its marquee organic brand faces increasing competitive pressures and a consumer backlash over its reliance on factory-farm milk production. Investors believe the large-scale dairy operations are damaging the image of Dean’s Horizon Organic brand and watering down shareholder value.

This controversy is coming to a head at the same time Dean has warned shareholders and analysts that profits will be significantly impacted by marketplace challenges, in part with organics, through the end of the year. Dean Foods’ stock is been in a freefall, losing significant value, since the company released their first quarter financial report on May 3.

“We warned the company’s management that their corporate-owned factory-scale organic dairies are harming public perception of their Horizon Organic brand,” said Steven Heim, Director of Social Research of Boston Common Asset Management and a representative of institutional shareholders in Dean stock. “Organic consumers feel violated when they discover that the premium prices they are paying is for milk that is coming not from family farms but from huge confinement operations with little to no pasture for their dairy herds,” Heim added.

Sales growth of the Horizon brand has suffered significantly while the sales of organic dairy competitors have grown two to three times faster over the past year.

Adding to Dean Foods’ organic dairy woes is a forecasted surge of 40 to 60% in the organic milk supply this year—causing a surplus in the sector for the first time and placing Dean’s Horizon Organic brand under intense competitive pressure. Dean’s share price has slumped by more than 12% since the company indicated during a May 3 conference call with financial analysts that its earnings would be squeezed by the oversupply. Several analysts have now downgraded the company’s stock.

“Dean’s management has to shoulder the blame for helping create the supply imbalance,” said Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for The Cornucopia Institute, which is also a shareholder in Dean Foods. “They have turned a deaf ear to repeated calls to shed their two factory-farms—a move that would have won them consumer praise and support. Instead, they have helped legitimize organic factory dairies (some milking as many as 10,000 cows), and now other competitors are using this same approach and flooding the market with private-label organic milk, cheaper than what Dean can sell,” Kastel said.

Last June both Kastel and Heim, at Dean’s invitation, toured Dean’s Idaho farm with 8,000 head of cattle. “I told them consumers would still perceive it as a factory farm, despite Dean’s plans to expand its nearly nonexistent pasture,” Heim added.

(A photo gallery containing images from the Dean Foods organic factory farms can be found on The Cornucopia Institute web site at http://cornucopia.org/index.php/horizon-factory-farm-photo-gallery/)

An active boycott of Dean’s Horizon Organic brand by the 700,000-member Organic Consumers Association, due to the company’s reliance on factory farms, has resulted in scores of natural foods retailers around the country dropping all or part of the Horizon product line and eroding sales growth.

Earlier this year, institutional investors led by Boston Common Asset Management sought to bring a shareholder resolution to a vote at Dean Foods’ 2007 annual shareholders meeting. Their shareholder proposal requested that an independent committee of Dean’s board review its policies and procedures for sourcing raw milk for its organic dairy products, and asked whether their current business practices are protecting the reputation of Dean’s organic brand with organic food consumers. The investors also wanted to know how the company intends to respond to increasing consumer and media criticism.

But Dean’s management successfully blocked publishing the proposal in the proxy statement and from receiving a shareholders vote by challenging it with a legal action at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, arguing that these issues were solely the purview of management.

“We are concerned that Dean Foods’ lack of transparency to its shareholders betrays a similar attitude toward its core consumers,” said Daniel Stranahan of the Needmor Fund, another investor-sponsor of the resolution. “Factory farms are antithetical to the concept of organic farming, which supports family-scale production with sound environmental policies.”

The debate over factory farms in organic dairying has been raging in the organic sector for seven years. It is the contention of a growing number of public interest, environmental, and farming groups that these farms, some milking as many as 2,000 to 10,000 cows each, are violating current USDA regulations by labeling their products as organic.

In 2005 and 2006, The Cornucopia Institute filed formal legal complaints with the USDA requesting an investigation into livestock management practices on six mega-farms for allegedly confining their cattle to feedlots and sheds rather than pasturing their herds as the federal organic regulations require. Two of the farms, currently under active investigation by the USDA, include the industrial-scale dairies owned by Dean Foods in Idaho and Maryland.

Leslie Lowe, Director of the Energy and Environment program at the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility in New York, said, “Dean Foods has an excellent opportunity to return value to its shareholders through its investments in the organic industry. But they must respect the ethical beliefs of their organic customers, a very loyal and sophisticated market segment. Otherwise these investments may damage their brand, as we are seeing, and cost investors dearly.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: A representative of the shareholders’ groups will be in Dallas for the Dean Foods Annual Meeting of Stockholders being held Friday May 18th at the Dallas Museum of Art, located at 1717 North Harwood. Steven Heim is available for interviews before and after the meeting and can be reached at 617-720-5557 or 802-223-4627. Mark Kastel, who will be attending Friday’s shareholders’ meeting, can be contacted at 608-625-2042.

Dean Foods’ core business has been somewhat stagnant in recent years and has been touting its investments in its organic milk labels and the country’s leading soy milk brand, Silk, as vehicles to make its stock more attractive on Wall Street. Dean CEO Gregg Engles told investors during a May 3 conference call that retail competition will turn “aggressive” in the short term, as companies engage in marketing and expanded distribution to sell off the excess milk, which he estimated at 25 million gallons. He suggested that profits would be significantly impacted as a result.

Contacts:
Steven Heim, Boston Common Asset Management, 617-720-5557 or 802-223-4627
Daniel Stranahan, The Needmor Fund, 206-794-3656
Mark Kastel, The Cornucopia Institute, 608-625-2042

by Ward Johnson

In my ongoing adventures as proprietor of the world’s smallest pet food company, Sojourner Farms, this is one question that I find myself asking people time and time again. Obviously the answer is ‘no,’ but that certainly doesn’t seem to make it an easy concept for most folks to understand. After all, it seems that most pets in this country eat cooked food — and it’s my belief that this isn’t the way it was supposed to be.

My belief isn’t just based on common sense. I’ve done plenty of highly scientific studies over the years to prove my theories. Many times I have placed various cats and dogs in front of my stove, and without fail, they don’t know how to work it. In fact, out of 15 dogs and cats tested since my study started, not one of them knew how to turn on the stove! Not only that, but none of my “test animals” knew how to use a microwave either (although I did know a dog once who could fetch me a beer). I would have to guess that these were probably astonishing results to most of this country’s pet food manufacturers. After all, these companies make processed, cooked, pelletized, and preserved pet foods in the form of tiny pellets and canned mishmash that we’re told are perfectly “natural” for pets to eat. When I hear this, I picture undomesticated dogs, killing their prey, and then turning them into kibbled pellets before sitting down for a meal. Or how about your cat building a little bonfire in the backyard to make his newly-killed mouse safe for consumption. Sounds pretty silly, eh?

When I was a young boy, I can remember my dog, Chuggers (named after a cozy little bar in Chattanooga) being diagnosed by a local vet as having a “bad thyroid.” Her coat began to fall out, and she grew sores all over her body. Her temperament became horrible, and soon she had to be put to sleep. No amount of “prescription diets” or powerful medications could save her. Sometimes I wonder how things would’ve changed had I known then what I know now. When I graduated from college and began work as the manager of a holistic veterinary clinic in Minneapolis, I saw cases like Chuggers every day. Hundreds of dogs and cats came in, time after time, displaying variations on the same mysterious illness. Sometimes it manifested itself in other ways. Some animals had cancer, some had hip displaysia, some F.U.S., leukemia, kidney failure, liver disease, and so on, and so on, and so on. I couldn’t figure out what in the world was going on. Why were our critters suffering from so many chronic and seemingly incurable illnesses? Soon it became clear that a major contributor to these problems was in fact diet. We had been feeding these dogs and cats pelletized, processed pet foods (made of horribly suspect ingredients in many cases) for around 50 years (which was around the time that corporate America figured out that they could profit from the thrown-away waste and by-products by turning it into “pet food”) and it was finally catching up to us. These pets were meant to eat as they would in the wild. They needed fresh, raw foods, that still contained vital enzymes, nutrients, and trace minerals. They needed their owners to take the time to make up fresh food, rather than relying on simply tearing open a bag and pouring its contents into a bowl.

When I think of traditional dog food, I think of what it would be like for me if I had to eat pelletized people food. What if I took all of the things that I normally eat (in the form of by-products and feed deemed “not suitable for human consumption”) and then fused them into a tiny pellet that I could eat everyday and get 100% of the daily nutrition that I need? I’d say life wouldn’t be all that fun. I think of how good-old Chuggers must have felt, when no one could figure out what to do, even though the answer was so obvious. One thing is for sure, and that is that I will never make that same mistake again — and I will always continue to tell people my story, to stop them from making that same mistake. Whenever I’m feeling down; whenever I start to think that reeducating this country is too daunting a task; whenever I get the feeling that I’m fighting a losing battle — I just remind myself that every time I talk to someone about this story, I’ve hopefully changed a critter’s life. Perhaps I’ve prevented another case like that of Chuggers. Hopefully that person told someone else their story too, and they told someone, and they told someone — and I daydream that pretty soon, everyone will realize at once, that they’ve never seen an oven in the wild.

Source: www.thenaturalpetvet.net

There are few feline issues that are as controversial as declawing. Declawing is not a simple or routine surgery. It is the amputation of the ends of at least ten toes—severing nerves and blood vessels and bone. It should never be done as a “preventative,” especially in kittens. Despite their reputation for independence, cats can readily be trained to leave the sofa, curtains, or carpet untouched.

What is declawing?

Declawing is the amputation of each front toe at the first joint. The procedure is so excruciatingly painful that it was once used as a technique of torture. Physical recovery takes a few weeks, but even after the surgical wounds have healed, there are other long-term physical and psychological effects.

Why do people declaw their cats?

• To protect furniture or other property
• They don’t want to try to train the cat
• Their friend’s or family’s cat is declawed
• Their veterinarian recommends it
• Because they just do not know any better

Many people have discovered—too late—that declawing frequently leads to far worse problems than it solves. There is no way to know ahead of time into which category your cat might fall! There are better ways to solve behavior problems than radical and irreversible surgery.

Claws are important to a cat’s well-being!

Claws perform a number of vital functions for the cat. By scratching various surfaces, cats create a visual and scent identification mark for their territory. Claws provide psychological comfort through kneading, help the cat climb to safety or a secure vantage point, and help the cat fully stretch his back and legs. A declawed cat never again experiences the head-to-toe satisfaction of a full body stretch!

There are many possible complications of declawing

Post-surgical complications - Abscesses and claw regrowth can occur a few weeks to many years after surgery. Chronic or intermittent lameness may develop. In one study that followed cats for only 5 months after surgery, nearly 1/3 of cats developed complications from both declaw and tendonectomy (another destructive surgery sometimes offered as an “alternative” to declawing) surgeries.

Pain - Cats can’t tell us how it feels to have the ends of their toes amputated. However, we can compare similar procedures in people. Nearly all human amputees report “phantom” sensations from the amputated part, ranging from merely strange to extremely painful (about 40% of such sensations are categorized as painful). Because declawing involves at least ten separate amputations, it is virtually certain that all declawed cats experience phantom pain. In humans, these sensations continue for life. There is no physiological reason that this would not be true for cats.

Cats are stoic creatures, and typically conceal pain or illness until it becomes overwhelming. Cats may learn to live with chronic pain, and their behavior may appear “normal,” but this does not mean that they are pain-free.

Arthritis - In the immediate post-operative period, newly declawed cats shift their body weight backward onto the large central pads of the feet, and off the sore toes. If this altered gait persists over time, it causes stress on the leg joints and spine, and could lead to damage and arthritic changes in multiple joints. A recent study showed that arthritis of the elbow is very common in older cats. The researchers did not ask or record whether the cats were declawed. We’d like to know.

Litterbox Problems - Declawed cats have more litterbox problems than clawed cats. In one survey, 95% of calls about declawed cats related to litterbox problems, while only 46% of clawed cats had such problems. Some households with declawed cats have spent thousands of dollars replacing drywall, carpets, and subfloors to repair urine damage.

Biting - Some experts believe that cats who are declawed are likely to become biters. Many declawed cats do seem to “notice” that their claws are missing, and turn to biting as a primary means of defense.

Change in Personality - “My cat has never been the same.” A friendly, delightful kitten may become a morose, fearful, or reclusive cat, never to recover its natural joy, grace, and love of exploration.

Veterinary behaviorists agree that declawing should be a last resort.

Many veterinarians in the U.S. have become accustomed to performing the declawing procedure without thinking about—or even recognizing—the common complications. Some even recommend declawing kittens at the same time they are spayed or neutered, whether or not they have developed destructive scratching habits. However, this goes against the express written policy of the American Veterinary Medical Association. All the top veterinary behaviorists agree that declawing should not even be considered until all other options, such as training or deterrents, have been sincerely tried and failed.

Stop unwanted scratching behavior without declawing!

Provide an appropriate place to scratch:

Cats of any age can be trained not to scratch furniture or other objects—including people - although it is easier if the cat is trained as a kitten. Because scratching is a deeply ingrained instinct in cats, if there is no appropriate spot, they will substitute furniture or other objects. Watch where your kitten or cat likes to scratch. Does she go for a long belly-stretch on the carpet, or does she prefer vertical surfaces like the arm of the sofa or the back of a chair? Try to imitate her favorite spots with acceptable scratching options.

A vertical scratching post should be at least 28-36” high to allow the cat to stretch to his full height. Many cats prefer natural soft wood, such as a section of bark-covered log or a cedar or redwood plank, or posts covered with sisal rope (more popular than the carpeted surfaces of many posts). The post must be very sturdy and stable; if it wobbles, your cat is unlikely to use it.

You can protect your furniture with clear sticky strips, and other deterrents, and smaller cat-attractive scratching posts, mats, and distractions that will protect your possessions. Some cats like to scratch on a horizontal surface; inexpensive cardboard scratchers are popular with these cats. Replace these periodically so they provide adequate resistance to the claws.

With scratching posts, as in real estate, think “location, location, location.” Start with the post near kitty’s favorite scratching object and gradually (by inches) move it to its final destination.

Last but not least…
Most people truly love their feline companions and want to do what’s best for all concerned. Please think carefully about the beautiful little animal who trusts you and relies on you for her very existence. Make the humane choice—and don’t declaw.

© Steve Brown and Beth Taylor
See Spot Live Longer
www.seespotlivelonger.com
We are not veterinarians. The content of this article is for information only. We strongly suggest that you find a veterinarian who is well-informed about whole food diets to help you with your animals.

A Column by Dr. Gregory Peterson

“When the well’s dry, we know the worth of water.”
-Benjamin Franklin

Every function of the body is dependent in some way upon water. Hormones, nutrients, brain and neurotransmitters all need water for the manufacture, transportation and utilization of nutrients in every cell, organ and system. Without food, most of us would perish in approximately 50 days if we have adequate water. Without water, we might make it 10 days or so; that’s about it. Only our need for air outranks water.

Our bodies need a continuous supply of pure water to maintain the delicate balance which sustains life. By weight our body is about 72% water, another 8% is a combination of chemical compounds and the remaining 20% is bone and solid tissue. Our blood is approximately 90% water along with our brain which consists of 85% water. Water is vitally important to our well-being. Since our bodies are primarily water, it only makes sense that the quality of the water we consume will have a very dramatic impact on our overall state of health. Every healing and life giving process that happens in our body happens through water!

What Roles Does Water Play In Body Functions?

1. Solvent - In chemistry water is known as the universal solvent; in the body it serves the same role. It provides the basis for all the body’s chemical processes.

2. Transport - Water circulates throughout the body as blood, lymph, cerebral spinal fluid, etc. In these fluids nutrients like oxygen, vitamins, and minerals flow to the cells while waste products like metabolites, CO2 are carried away in water-based fluids.

3. Regulates temperature and pH - When body temperature rises due to exercise or other exertion, water is lost; as sweat this serves as a coolant to the body. Water also helps the body maintain delicate pH balances. The blood absolutely needs to be maintained at a pH between 7.3 and 7.4.

4. Provides volume and mass - Water helps to give cells shape by providing the fluid for extracellular fluids (the fluid between cells) and intracellular fluids (fluid within the cell). The intracellular fluid accounts for approximately 40% of the total body weight.

5. Body lubricant - Water acts as a lubricant in a number of different ways. For example in a joint it forms synovial fluid; in the lungs it helps with breathing by forming surfactant.

Water And The Human Body.

In 1994, a medical doctor named Dr. Batmanghelidj wrote a very thought-provoking book, Your Body’s Many Cries for Water. In it he makes the claim that most of modern present-day diseases are the end result of dehydration, or inadequate water intake. He goes on to provide dozens of case studies to support his contention quite convincingly. If you have not read the book I encourage you to do so. It will change the way you look at your water consumption.

Many of today’s ailments and illnesses can be prevented and possibly even cured with an increased intake of healthy water. According to Dr. Batmanghelidj arthritis, asthma, back pain, fatigue, headaches, hypertension, morning sickness, and ulcers will all benefit and in many cases be prevented by regulating the body’s natural fluid levels. Recently there has been a dramatic swing in medical theory and a long overdue realization about “healing”. The best way to prevent, treat and in many cases cure illness is to give our body the right tools and let it go to work. With the proper intake of healthy water and the right minerals and nutrients, our body can overcome almost anything.

How much water do I need?

How much water one should drink is open to a vast difference of opinion. There really is no iron-clad formula. For example a 5 foot 2 inch female working indoors is certainly going to have a different requirement than a 6 foot 3 inch male doing construction. A basic rule of thumb: Drink pure water whenever thirsty!

The Institute of Medicine released an erroneous report a couple of years ago that stated as long as the substance contained water, it counted as water intake. However, once the chemical structure is altered such as in coffee, tea, juice or pop, the water loses its ability to be used in its vital roles. Thus coffee, tea, juice, and certainly soda pop do not count as a beneficial intake to maintain fluid balances. Is it any wonder so many of your friends or family might be suffering from very preventable illnesses?

As a general guideline, drink two eight-ounce glasses of water before breakfast, and a glass of water about a half an hour before lunch and supper. Drink an additional couple of glasses between meals and a glass before bed. It is advisable to increase the amounts drank during periods of exertion, stress, or when air temperatures are warmer and drier. Pay attention to your body signals and you will become more aware of your need.

A Harris Interactive poll published in October 2005 found that Americans rank water pollution as the number one environmental concern facing the country, topping global warming, ozone depletion, and air pollution. And yet we find a deep chasm between what people care about and what those in position to improve the situation are willing to act upon.

In the next issue, I will take a look at the nature and extent of water pollution in general and our drinking water in particular. I will provide information on municipal tap water as well as private well drinking water. I think you will be shocked and concerned with what you learn.

Once we have an understanding and then daily actions begin to work in harmony with your body’s natural instincts, you will begin to create an optimum internal environment.

Dr. Gregory Peterson, DC, DABCI, FIAMA, FIACA, CCST
Founded the Center for Natural Medicine in Winona, MN.

The emerging Green Building movement is a natural outgrowth of the organic foods movement, stemming from a realization that just as we don�t wish to construct our bodies using unhealthy materials, so, too, we might not want to construct our homes from such things. Too often however, in articles on green building, energy savings is given center stage. Now energy consumption is certainly an important aspect of green building, just as exercise is an important aspect of bodily health. But underlying this�at its foundation, if you will�lies even more essential decisions regarding the quality of materials we choose to �consume� in creating or remodeling our homes and workplaces.Perhaps you�ve heard the term sick building syndrome? There are literally thousands of building and household products which �off-gas� or release out embedded toxic fumes and/or harmful particulates into the air over time. This results in a literal �chemical cocktail� of gases building-up in the indoor environment�and most especially in tightly-sealed, energy-efficient buildings. Some of the chief culprits are:

� Paints, stains & wood finishes
� Flooring materials (vinyl, carpeting, PVC-tiling, adhesives & finishes)
� Sub-floor materials (plywood & OSB)
� Fiberglass insulation
� Furniture & cabinetry materials (plywood, particle-board)
� Cleaning & maintenance products
� Synthetic bedding & fabrics (draperies, upholsteries)
� Vinyl home products (that new shower curtain/liner smell)

Obviously, we could add a host of other household products to this list, as well as gases like carbon monoxide and radon. And we�d still not even be touching on the larger-scale environmental contamination which results from toxic materials being dumped into our air, soil and water by the industries and plants that create these things. And then, of course, there�s the dumping which occurs when they�re no longer needed or desired.

It�s important to understand that astoundingly little is really known about even the top 20 most commonly used chemicals, and there are in excess of 60,000 such substances that have come to be accepted into general use�with hundreds more being created each year�for which no substantial human toxicity data is available.

Fortunately, however, we�re seldom exposed to sufficiently large enough doses of chemicals to suffer acute effects. Yet, we still experience them. Whether we�re aware of it or not, our bodies are engaged in an almost continual state of low-level stress trying to filter out and dispose of these invaders. This can trigger a wide array of more subtle and �indefinite� symptoms such as headaches, rashes, chronic congestion, breathing difficulties, acquired allergies, fatigue, depression, etc. Such symptoms, while less dramatic, can also be debilitating. And while many of the precise relationships are still unknown, undeniable links
have been recognized between a wide variety of health problems�ranging from mild allergies to terminal cancer�and life in the industrialized world, with its increased exposure to toxic substances.

It should also be noted that, historically speaking, �safe� exposure levels for individual chemicals have repeatedly proven not to be safe at all. For most of the more widely recognized offenders, acceptable levels have continually been revised downward over time as new data came to light. And certainly no testing is done to determine how any of these substances affect us in combination. But the E.P.A.(which oversees environmental issues, not human health issues) acknowledges that indoor air pollution likely kills thousands of people each year.

Still, we can�t expect society to dispense entirely with manufactured materials and start building solely with all-natural ones like straw-bale or rammed-earth or cob. The green building revolution will pursue a practical course, which starts by re-examining the existing materials in our homes and workplaces and asking ourselves whether they might actually be harming us. Then, over time, we should replace these things when feasible, and explore ways to seal their toxins in when it�s not.

As a good rule of thumb though, just as with the organic foods movement, we should probably maintain a healthy distrust for any solutions we�ll be offered by the very corporations and industries that put us into this mess in the first place. Take fiberglass insulation for example. The industry fought for years to stymie research and to stifle legislation seeking to recognize formaldehyde as a carcinogen. When it was finally accepted as such by Congress, they stripped the chemical from some of the product and launched advertising campaigns lauding themselves for �putting your family�s interest at heart� by working to remove it. You�ll even find so-called green experts parroting this siren song of �ecologically sound� formaldehyde-free fiberglass insulation.

Yet, research by the National Cancer Institute and others suggests the real boogey-man isn�t so much the formaldehyde as the fiberglass itself. According to Rachel�s Environment and Health Weekly, �studies have continued to appear, showing that fibers of this size not only cause cancer in laboratory animals, but also cause changes in the activity and chemical composition of cells, leading to changes in the genetic structure in the cellular immune system.� Critics are already calling it �the next asbestos�.
But whether fiberglass is the health hazard they deem it to be or not, the �greener� alternative�all-natural, recycled cotton insulation�still makes for a superior product to fiberglass in every way. Cotton insulation (treated with natural borate) meets the highest ASTM testing standards for fire and smoke ratings, mold, mildew, & fungi resistance, pest inhibitance, and corrosion-resistance. It provides slightly better insulative properties than fiberglass, and cotton doesn�t lose its R-value at lower temperatures the way fiberglass does. It has incredible sound-absorption qualities�in fact, it�s the product of choice for professional acoustical engineers. And since cotton doesn�t itch or irritate, it�s also easier and quicker to install, requiring no specialized clothing, respiratory equipment or safety-training. And, if that�s not enough, it contains far less embodied energy, and at the end of it�s life-span is biodegradable and 100% recyclable to boot!

The point here is simply to illustrate that�again, like organic food�healthy materials usually provide higher quality, better feeling, and more responsible solutions for our needs. They�re often grassroots products as well, created from the ground up by independent tradespeople and start-up companies. Because in reality it�s often not enough to just �greenwash� your ills by stripping a few high-profile toxins from an existing product and calling it �green�. Creating truly green materials requires starting over from the beginning.

Do green building materials cost more? Honestly…yes, they do. Sometimes not so much, but sometimes quite a bit. Most articles downplay the costs, but you should expect them to be higher than more popular materials. But bear in mind that you can�t compare, say, natural linoleum to vinyl flooring, anymore than you might compare aged cheddar to Velveeta. It just isn�t apples to apples. And remember, too, that you generally get what you pay for…cheaper materials are cheaper for one reason: they were specifically made to be cheaper! In reality, natural materials are simply the baseline against which �cheaper� gets measured. And as you�re probably already aware, the true difference in cost has only been laid-off on us in other, more hidden, ways.

Just as with organic foods, green building is a process of self-discovery since it forces me to question what it is I really value�especially if that �I� is a business or corporation. It�s a road taken by those who wish to accept responsibility for their place in the world. Perhaps, too, it�s a reaction against �business as usual� in our modern society: because somehow in the great rush to feed the insatiable consumer, the American Dream got turned back upon itself in the forms of corporatism, militarism, globalism, and free-market exploitation. We certainly owe it to the world to cut back on our consumption. But also, when we do consume, we owe it to ourselves not to be mindless consumers. All beings take from the planet, there�s no way around that. Mature beings try to do so responsibly.

But still…that doesn�t mean that your home can�t look absolutely fabulous.

Steven Laurdan is the owner of Home Green Home
(www.homegreenhome.biz), a green homebuilding supplies business located in Viroqua, WI.

---

Saving the environment isn’t as hard as it seems. Throughout United States history, Americans have shown a surprising amount of support for adopting environmentally-conscious habits. You can even get kids in on it with childrens activities that teach them the importance of saving our planet.