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

The Toronto board of health has urged the Canadian government to place a total ban on the advertising of junk foods to children.

Currently, advertising to children is regulated by self-imposed rules under which 16 food companies have agreed either not to market to children under the age of 12, or to market only their healthier products. But according to Toronto Chief Medical Officer of Health David McKeown, this method of regulation is not effective.

“Most of the food and beverages advertised heavily to children are poor in nutrients and high in calories,” McKeown said. “The rules don’t mean that the food being advertised is, in fact … the basis for a healthy diet for a child. It just means that it is somewhat less harmful than their less healthy choices.”

According to a report published by the health committee of the Canadian parliament, 26 percent of Canadian children between the ages of 2 and 17 are obese or overweight.

In a report prepared for the board of health, McKeown said that both healthy and unhealthy eating habits are developed early in life. While this makes it important to expose children to healthy foods while they are young, children see 27 times as many television commercials advertising sugary cereals as they see public health announcements.

The board of health urged federal and provincial governments to follow the lead of the United Kingdom in placing a complete ban on junk food ads to children.

In the United States, Representative Edward Markey, chair of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, has suggested that the Federal Communications Commission might need to impose such a ban. In response, more than 12 companies have adopted voluntary rules to limit their advertising to children under the age of 12. But the failure of some major companies to sign on, such as Nestle and Dannon, has led to speculation that such a ban might still be introduced.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/024018.html

Factory food manufacturers have figured out that slapping an “all natural” claim onto their processed, chemically-altered food products results in increased sales. Consumers, it seems, are trying to shop for healthier foods, and they’re easily fooled by “all natural” claims, even though the vast majority of food products sporting such claims are anything but natural.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate claims of “all natural.” They might claim to, but in reality, they don’t. Food companies can get away with using all sorts of non-natural processes and chemical ingredients in a food product that they claim is all natural. For example, foods fried at high temperatures, resulting in the formation of cancer-causing acrylamides, are routinely labeled “all natural” in the snack section of the grocery store. And yet frying starches at high temperatures isn’t natural at all — it’s a human-invented process for making boring foods like potatoes taste interesting by loading them up with fat and salt.

The salt used in such foods isn’t natural either. It’s almost entirely processed salt, and even the products that claim to be made from “sea salt” are actually using a white, processed sea salt (not a full-spectrum brown or pink salt like you might find with Celtic Sea Salt, which is truly natural).

Grocery product makers are also adding various chemical additives to their “all natural” products, hiding them under innocent-sounding ingredients that don’t raise red flags with consumers. Monosodium glutamate (MSG), for example, is a neurotoxic substance classified as an excitotoxin. Consuming it causes migraine headaches, endocrine system damage, loss of appetite regulation (leading to obesity), neurological damage in fetuses (when consumed by expectant mothers) and many other problems. This is well known throughout the industry. Baby food manufacturers, for example, voluntarily removed MSG from their products decades ago following a public outcry about the dangers of MSG to babies and infants.

And yet today, numerous “all natural” food companies continue to use hidden forms of MSG in their foods, hiding them under innocent-sounding ingredients like yeast extract, autolyzed or hydrolyzed proteins (all of which contain MSG). Even the companies you’ve grown to trust in the “natural” food business are engaged in the blatant hiding of MSG in their products. Pay special attention to vegetarian food products such as veggie burgers. Read the ingredients on everything you buy and you’ll find that the largest “natural” food manufacturers still use hidden MSG.

(The newest ingredient to hide MSG under is called torula yeast. Watch for it on labels.)

What’s the definition of all-natural, anyway?

The truth is that food manufacturers can use just about any ingredients or processes they want while still claiming their foods are all-natural. They can take whole wheat berries from nature, mill them down and strip out 98% of the nutrients, bleach the flour with chemicals, “enrich” the flour with synthetic chemical vitamins, and then claim their wheat is “all natural.”

And why is it natural? Because it comes from the earth, they would say. It was grown by nature.

Sure it was, but then it was physically and chemically modified, adulterated, contaminated and altered in ways that destroy its natural properties. The final product has no resemblance to anything truly natural.

In the food industry today, there’s no official definition of “all natural.” It means whatever the food companies want it to mean. It can mean, for example, that all the chemicals found in the product simply aren’t listed on the label. (There’s no requirement for food companies to list chemical contaminants found in their foods.) A food labeled “all natural” can contain pesticides, herbicides, toxic heavy metals, trace amounts of PCBs, toxic fluoride, hidden MSG, high-temperature cooking byproducts, synthetic chemical vitamins and dozens of other non-natural substances. This is all perfectly allowed and tolerated by the FDA as well as all virtually every media outlet in the world. Cable news stations, magazines, newspapers and other media giants are all too happy to take money from junk food manufacturers and run their advertisements claiming their foods are “all natural.” There is absolutely no effort to determine whether such claims are really true or even partially credible. Media companies simply take the money and run the promotions, regardless of whether such promotions tell the truth.

There is little truth left in the food industry

Consumers are a gullible bunch, and food manufacturers have mastered the art of selling people crap while getting them to believe it’s actually good for them. There’s really no effort taken by the mainstream food industry to make foods healthy; there’s only an effort to make them appear to be healthy. It’s all about marketing. The same junk food crap that wasn’t labeled with any health claims two years ago is now labeled “all natural” and positioned in the healthy food section of the grocery store. Same ingredients, new spin. It’s all about positioning.

All this doesn’t mean there aren’t some genuinely natural products available in the marketplace today. There are, but they aren’t manufactured by the big brand-name food companies. A few smaller, niche-market companies are offering real food these days, but you have to search them out. Companies like Ewehorn make honest cereals with no garbage ingredients, and there are lots of raw foods companies that produce truly outstanding food products (such as www.RawBakery.com). FoodsAlive (www.FoodsAlive.com) also makes real food, as do dozens of other companies I could mention.

But the real secret to being a smart, skeptical consumer is to read the ingredients labels yourself. Analyze the ingredients and ignore the health claims on the front of the package. Health claims are meaningless. Visit our informative article: How to read ingredients labels to learn more.

Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/021936.html

An Organic Bytes reader sent us the following question: “It’s harvest time, and corn is everywhere, including my local farm stand. I asked the farmer’s wife if their corn was non-GMO, and she didn’t seem to know. Could you shed some light on this in the next newsletter–whether most sweet corn for human consumption is GMO or not? “

OCA’s Response: More than 70% of the corn grown in the U.S. is now genetically modified, but the overwhelming majority of this corn is grown for animal feed and ethanol. Among the marketing problems for the biotech companies is the fact that GMO “sweet corn” doesn’t taste very good. The bottom line is that there is very little genetically engineered sweet corn being grown in the U.S. at the present time, so it is highly unlikely you will be running into this “Frankencorn” at your local farmer’s market or natural food store.

Most farmers who grow GMO crops that re-seed, like corn, are aware that they are growing genetically engineered varieties, because Monsanto and the other GMO seed giants require a legal contract to be signed which prohibits the farmer from saving their seeds. And of course we can all be thankful (and vigilant) that genetic engineering is prohibited under national organic standards. In short, support your local and organic farmers and enjoy this year’s sweet corn harvest!

Source: www.organicconsumers.org

In a move that surprised no one, the FDA has aligned itself with the chemical industry and declared that Bisphenol-A, a plastics chemical previously linked to neural defects, is safe enough for babies to drink! Echoing the profit-minded desires of the chemical companies that manufacture plastic products, the FDA said in a draft report that the chemical poses no harm to adults or infants when consumed at typical exposure levels.

This is no surprise to anyone who has watched the FDA for very long: The agency’s decisions are almost unanimously in favor of private industry and almost never seek to protect the public from exposure to dangerous chemicals, pharmaceuticals or food ingredients. The FDA, it could be reasonably stated, has flatly abandoned the public and sold out to the very industries it is supposed to regulate.

Several months ago, The National Toxicology Program (part of the National Institutes of Health) issued a report that warned Bisphenol-A could cause neural problems and behavioral problems in infants and children. That report contributed to a wave of concern that resulted in the following:

• Toys ‘R Us removed plastic baby bottles from store shelves, resorting to BPA-free bottles.
• The BornFree company (www.NewBornFree.com) experienced a surge in sales of its BPA-free baby bottles.
• The Nalgene company completely abandoned the use of Bisphenol-A in its plastics, rolling out a BPA-free product line.
• Wal-Mart announced it would stop carrying many products containing Bisphenol-A.
• The State of California proposed legislation that would have banned food and beverage products containing Bisphenol-A. Under pressure from the chemical industry, however, that legislation failed to pass.

Nobody knows if Bisphenol-A is safe for children

Even the FDA had to admit, in its draft report, that “complete certainty of absolute harmlessness is scientifically impossible to establish.” In other words, they don’t know if it’s harmless to children. Yet interestingly, they’ve decided to give it their stamp of approval anyway, potentially exposing tens of millions of children to a chemical that may cause neural development problems.

This does not seem to concern the FDA. Or at least it does not seem to outweigh the influence and pressure from the plastics industry, which is of course claiming the chemical is absolutely harmless. Is this yet another example of the FDA selling out to industry? On the surface, it certainly seems so.

Even the Environmental Working Group (www.EWG.org) strongly criticized the FDA’s report, saying “We have long since lost faith in FDA’s ability to be an impartial authority on FDA’s safety. Time and again, FDA has sided with special interests instead of the public interest on this chemical.”

Protecting industry, not consumers

The FDA, you see, has a long and well-documented history of erring on the side of disaster. Rather than taking the default position that a possibly harmful chemical with unknown exposure levels should be restricted from the food supply until further research is done, the FDA does the opposite: It declares the chemical to be safe until evidence proves it to be dangerous.

This is a reckless strategy that will only lead to disaster for the health of the population. It is my belief that all synthetic chemicals should be assumed dangerous unless proven safe, and they should only be allowed in the food supply (via food packaging, beverage bottles, etc.) if they are proven safe with overwhelming scientific evidence.

FDA decisions are based on fiction, not fact

So how much scientific evidence does the FDA have right now, demonstrating Bisphenol-A to be safe on human babies? None. All they have is a LACK of evidence showing the chemical to be dangerous. And that’s not sufficient scientific support upon which decisions about toxic chemical exposure should be made.

The Environmental Working Group issued a statement strongly criticizing the FDA’s assessment of Bisphenol-A safety. The original statement is found at http://www.ewg.org/node/27024 and says:

1. The FDA limited its assessment to studies that conformed to rigid, 50-year old study designs that feed animals high amounts of BPA and analyze the animals for overt signs of poisoning and toxicity. FDA admits in their assessment that the studies they use to set the safety level do not adequately address the impacts of early life exposure to the developing brain, behavior and the reproductive system. Notably, the only studies that conformed to these 50-year old study designs, were those funded by industry.

2. By adhering to what it euphemistically calls studies that follow “good laboratory practices,” the FDA ignores more than 100 studies, including many funded by the National Toxicology Program, showing toxic effects of BPA at very low doses.

3. FDA’s so called 2,000-fold margin of safety evaporates if current exposures are compared to any of the low dose studies, particularly the 12 studies the National Toxicology Program highlights in their April 14, 2008 BPA assessment as raising concerns for the safety of infant exposure to BPA.

4. FDA’s exposure calculations underestimate infant ingestion. They calculate formula intake for the average infant instead of focusing on babies who eat the most, thus underestimating risks for half of all infants. They also assume that liquid formula has 2.5 parts per billion (ppb) BPA, even though their own testing of just 14 liquid formulas found up to 5 times more than this (13 ppb). These errors contradict the accepted risk assessment practice of focusing on risks to the most highly exposed population. FDA claims that its analysis was comprehensive, but in reality it underestimates risks to the most vulnerable infants by a wide margin.

So once again, we have the FDA putting the public in harm’s way, betraying the public trust and siding with the chemical industry on a decision that deserves a whole lot more scrutiny. Are plastics really dangerous for your health? I suspect they are, but regardless of what I think, the FDA needs to err on the side of caution, not on the side of industry.

Eating hamburgers is a thousand times worse for your health

Regardless of the question on plastics, I do have to say, for the record, that people tend to focus their fears and concerns on the wrong things when it comes to health. I’ve seen people drinking water out of glass bottles and thinking it’s really good for their health, but they’re eating hamburgers and french fries at the same time! I can assure you that eating hamburgers is a whole lot more dangerous for your health than drinking a microscopic amount of BPA from a plastic bottle.

I even drink out of plastic when I’m traveling, and I’m not the least bit concerned about it. For a healthy person, a little exposure to plastic isn’t going to kill you. (For infants and babies, of course, it’s a different story.) Taking FDA-approved pharmaceuticals, on the other hand, may indeed kill you. And eating fast food, junk food and processed food will kill you in the long run, too. But drinking a few molecules of BPA from your plastic bottle is, in my opinion, of relatively little concern compared to all the other ways consumers are drowning themselves in poison.

Most people need to stop worrying about plastic and start focusing on the toxic foods they’re eating and the toxic personal care products they’re putting on their skin! One barbequed steak contains a million times the cancer-causing residue of a plastic bottle (estimated). Regular use of conventional skin creams, in my opinion, is also a million times more toxic than drinking from plastic water bottles. Plastic residue isn’t killing even close to the number of people as processed food, dangerous medications and toxic personal care products.

People drink soda out of aluminum cans and don’t think twice about it. They microwave their foods and destroy their nutrients without a hint of awareness. They eat processed meats laced with cancer-causing nitrites and haven’t a clue. They swallow extremely dangerous medications that double, triple or quadruple their risks of heart attacks, strokes and liver damage.

So why do people get so riled up over plastic bottles? Because it’s in the mainstream consciousness! But in my opinion, it’s nowhere near as important as talking about food additives, food irradiation, artificial sweeteners, hydrogenated oils, MSG, aspartame, the milling of grains and dozens of other far more dangerous things in the food supply. And that’s not to even mention what’s in the cosmetics and personal care products, which is some of the most toxic stuff you’ll ever find.

I can tell you this: If you drink nothing but superfoods out of plastic bottles, you will still experience outstanding health.

But if you drink junk beverages and liquid sugars out of GLASS bottles, you will destroy your health.

The bottle itself is not nearly as important as what’s IN the bottle. Remember that the next time you get excited over BPA. Concerns over health need to be properly prioritized, and drinking water out of plastic bottle is, in my view, very low on the list of health concerns we should be paying attention to.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/024020.html

In a major shot fired across the bow of the statin marketing machine, the levels of LDL cholesterol that are the artificial targets of “health” promoted by the American Heart Association (AHA) are now found to be associated with a significant increased risk of cancer and death.

The AHA recommends an LDL level of 100 for prevention and 70 for high risk patients. In the new study an LDL level of 107 was associated with a 33% increased risk of cancer and death, an LDL level of 87 was associated with a 50% increased risk. As the LDL goes lower the risk keeps getting worse. These arbitrary AHA levels for LDL cholesterol were established by “experts” with direct financial ties to the statin industry, who knew full well that reaching their artificially low target levels for LDL would require double and triple doses of statin drugs, thus dramatically increasing sales (which has indeed happened).

The Vytorin fraud has pointed out quite clearly that lowering LDL cholesterol to very low levels does not reduce cardiovascular disease. Another Vytorin study also shows doing so increases cancer risk by 64%. The new study paints the clear picture that lowering LDL too low actually increases the rate of death from any cause. This new study also points out the statistical shenanigans that the statin industry uses to hide the actual risks of these drugs in the studies that have been published.

The data was so alarming that the researchers called for a statistical reanalysis of the data from all existing cholesterol studies, using better statistical models that actually reflect true risk. The results of this new research led the authors to conclude “A low LDL cholesterol level is not necessarily associated with optimal clinical outcomes but is a predictor of cancer and death.”

We have known for many years that individuals who maintain an LDL cholesterol level of 130 as they enter their 40s and 50s have much less heart disease as they grow older. This is because they are healthy and have maintained fitness in their cholesterol function and metabolism. There is no credible data to show that lowering LDL numbers with statins actually produces a similar level of health, especially to artificially low numbers. There is a huge difference between having good cholesterol numbers because you are healthy and drugging your body’s synthesis of cholesterol with statins.

In the current study the ideal LDL cholesterol level was 126. The researchers were able to identify a bell shaped curve, in terms of a departure in either direction from this ideal number. LDL over 146 or less than 107 was associated with 33% increased risk of cancer. LDL over 164 of less than 87 was associated with a 50% increased risk. The risk keeps getting worse the higher or lower the number progresses away from the ideal of 126. LDL in the range of 108 – 145 had no statistically significant cancer risk, although being in the center of this range is clearly best.

There have been a number of studies in the past that link low cholesterol and cancer risk. However, these studies could not prove that the cancer was not already there prior to the start of the study – which has been the main argument used (besides statistical manipulation) by the statin industry to deny the association. In the new study this issue was taken into account by eliminating participants with less than 2.5 years follow up after the start of the study, thus demonstrating that the results were not due to pre-existing cancer.

Needless to say, this study was not part of the marketing machine propaganda that is rampant in universities and “scientific” journals that have been used to promote the statin scam around the world, while actively blackmailing and blacklisting any authors, institutions, or journals that dare to step on Big Pharma’s statin toes. This study was published on August 26, 2008 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It was carried out in Hong Kong with Chinese patients who had type II diabetes – the exact patient who is forced onto aggressive cholesterol lowering with statin drugs in America.

It is quite clear that scientific knowledge and advanced statistical analysis are no longer under the control of Big Pharma and its legions of scientists, universities, and medical journals that are on the take, misrepresenting data, and actively suppressing negative findings. The truth is coming out because Big Pharma is targeting the citizens of the world as a new market for statin sales. And they are also targeting our children, wanting infants seven months of age to have LDL levels of 50 and keep them at that level their whole life (with drugs, since such levels are totally abnormal).

The insanity must stop. Americans have been conned. Big Pharma and the American Heart Association should be held responsible for past crimes and future intended crimes against the health of our citizens under the false pretense of improved cardiovascular health.

Sources:
Link to full Canadian Medical Association Journal article: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/179…

Link to fully referenced version of this article:
http://www.wellnessresources.com/health…

About the author: Byron J. Richards, Board-Certified Clinical Nutritionist, nationally-renowned nutrition expert, and founder of Wellness Resources is a leader in advocating the value of dietary supplements as a vital tool to maintain health. He is an outspoken critic of government and Big Pharma efforts to deny access to natural health products and has written extensively on the life-shortening and health-damaging failures of the sickness industry. www.wellnessresources.com askbyron@wellnessresources.com

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/024001.html

HealthBookSummaries.com Releases Downloadable Summary of Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health

HealthBookSummaries.com, the downloadable health book summary service created by Mike Adams and Kevin Gianni, has just released its summary of the book Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines our Health and How to Fight Back by Michele Simon. The downloadable summary is available now at www.HealthBookSummaries.com

Appetite for Profit is an eye-opening book that reveals how the food and soft drink industries manipulate consumers into buying ridiculous quantities of unhealthful processed foods that promote obesity and disease. It’s a must-read book for parents, schoolteachers, lawmakers, community leaders and anyone interested in protecting their health from profit-minded food giants.

The downloadable summary from www.HealthBookSummaries.com (a free service) reveals:

• How food companies work with schools and organizations to keep sugary sodas and junk foods in their vending machines. (Page 3)
• The 6 ways corporations influence consumer advocates. (Page 7)
• Four “Consumer” advocate groups you need to watch out for that are actually just fronts for food business agendas. (Page 8)
• How food companies skirt the issue of their foods causing obesity and how you may already be influenced by their deceptive techniques. (Page 10)
• The truth about how junk food companies attempt to justify marketing junk foods to children. (Page 13)

… and much more! In Appetite for Profit, you’ll learn why the food and beverage industries, if not contained, will drive our nation into disease and bankruptcy. This is a free download. There are no membership fees or download fees. Visit www.HealthBookSummaries.com to get the download now.

Get the most important facts you need to know in mere minutes
The original Appetite for Profit book is over 200 pages. In the summary, we’ve condensed the most important facts to about twelve pages. In just a few minutes of reading, you can be informed and empowered with the most important information from the original book.

While the summary is not a replacement for the full detail of the original book, it’s a great way to stay up-to-date on this important issue with a minimal time investment. It also helps you determine if you’d like to buy the full book, which provides far more detail when you’d like to know more.

Our summary of Appetite for Profit is offered with the full cooperation and permission of the publisher. You may freely share the downloadable PDF summary with family, friends or coworkers, in accordance with the terms and conditions described on the HealthBookSummaries.com website.
Source:  http://www.naturalnews.com/023986.html

As you read this work and put its principles into practice, there are two basic axioms you never want to forget. They are the rock upon which all your actions are based.

1. Nobody, anywhere or any time and under any circumstances has the right or power in this country to immunize you or your children against your will and conviction. If they attempt to do so, you can legally charge them with “assault with a deadly weapon” and have the full resources of our laws behind you.
2. At all times in attempting to avoid unwanted immunization, you have the Law of the Land behind you. Those who would try to vaccinate you against your will are on very shaky ground. Into every compulsory immunization law in America are written legal exceptions and waivers which are there specifically to protect you from the attempted tyranny of officialdom. It is not only your right, but your obligation to use them, if this is what your conscience tells you.

Article I

In all your contacts with any member of the school, public health, or legal establishment, always remain calm, courteous, and humbly reverent toward their position. You are only asking of them that which the law duty binds them to give you. There is no reason, or advantage, to be gained by antagonizing them.

Most of these officials believe they are discharging their trust as outlined by law. If they are overstepping the law, then you must very diplomatically bring the true facts to their attention, but without attempting to belittle them.

The more you can preserve their ego, the more easily and quickly you are likely to get what you desire - a waiver of immunization.

Rule No. 1: Do not harass, belittle, or antagonize officials unnecessarily.

Article 2

All compulsory laws concerning vaccination (including the military) contain exceptions and waivers. It is these protections placed in the laws that you may legally use to exclude yourself and your children. Surprisingly, these exceptions were placed there, not for your sake (although you may take advantage of them), but for the protection of the establishment.

How is this? Let us assume that these exceptions were not there and everyone was actually forced to be immunized. Should a child die or become mentally or physically disabled, the parent would have the perfect case to sue the doctor, the school, the health department, and even the state legislature for enormous damages.

Since they allowed no exceptions, they must accept full responsibility for all the adverse consequences of the law.

However, if exception waivers are placed in the law, the responsibility is then transferred back to the parent. If a child should be injured by immunization, the officials can say, “Well, the parent should have exempted him if they thought there was any danger.”

Therefore, there is in truth no such thing as a compulsory vaccination law in this country. They are ALL, in essence, voluntary. The problem is that practically no one in authority will let you know this fact.

Rule No. 2: There are no compulsory vaccination laws. All are voluntary, and you are held responsible for the adverse results upon you or your children.

Article 3

While all immunization laws have exceptions you can use, the wording in each state differs, and you must know the exact wording for your state to make the proper request of waiver. This information can be obtained in one of two ways.

1. Go to the reference section of your local library- look in the State Statute Revised Law Book under Public Health Law or Communicable Disease sections. The list of immunization requirements will appear first and then the exemptions will be given. Usually one or two provisions will be listed: either on religious or medical grounds or both.
2. You may call or write your state representative and ask for a copy of the immunization laws in your state. Making this available is part of his job, and it will be sent promptly.

Rule No. 3: Know your own state law so that you can conform to its exact requirements for exemption.

Article 4

There are two basic reasons for exception - medical or religious. Which one you choose will often depend upon the wording of the law in your state and your personal convictions.

We shall discuss medical exemption first. While laws do vary, nearly all states require that a note or certificate of waiver be submitted by a physician licensed in the state of residence. In some areas where states are small and people continually travel from one to another for business, a statement from a physician in a contiguous state will be accepted.

In this letter it is usually necessary to state the reason for the requested waiver and the length of time it should extend. Many laws limit all such letters to a school year and they must be renewed each fall.

The two most valid reasons for medical waiver are “the fear of allergic reaction in a sensitive child” and “to prevent possible damage to a weakened immune system.” Both of these can occur in a child who has been immunized, and since no one but the physician and the parent will be held responsible for their consequences, it is up to them to protect the child.

It is possible that some states may require the letter from an M.D. or D.O., but many will allow an exemption letter from a chiropractor if it is courteously and properly written, as outlined above.

Rule No. 4: Medical waivers are always valid but must be written to fit each state law and often need to be renewed annually.

Article 5

The foregoing may work for school exemptions, but are there any such waivers in the Armed Forces? Yes. All branches of the Service provide “immunization waivers.”

Again, if they did not you could sue them for millions of dollars if a reaction occurred from their immunizations. Because of these waiver provisions, you become responsible if you react.

When you first sign up or enlist, you must state your objection to the vaccinations and tell whether it is “religious conscience” or medical reasons, such as allergies or a low tolerance to medication of any kind. If you do not show objection at this time, you have given the military the right to do what they will with you.

If there is any difficulty, the same rules apply here as in the school program. Never forget, even though you may be in the Service, no one has the right to immunize you against your will. You do not give up your constitutional rights when you join the Armed Forces.

Rule No. 5: The rules that govern school vaccination exemption also apply to the military. Never let anyone tell you otherwise. They do not know, or are hiding, the facts of the law.

Article 6

What about international travel? May I go around the world without vaccination?

The World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva grants American visitors the right to REFUSE shots when traveling internationally. However, if an area you wish to enter is infected, you may be detained until the public health servant gives you the “go” (at his discretion).

Thousands travel world-wide each year without shots - so you may if that is your choice. Many of our co-workers have traveled over much of the world and have never taken any immunizations, nor were they ever detained.

It would be wise to request a copy of Foreign Rules and Regulations, Part 71, Title 42, on immunization when you receive your passport. Never forget the basic rule, “No one will vaccinate you against your will because by doing so they assume full responsibility for the consequences both legal and medical.”

Rule No. 6: You may travel wherever you wish in the world without vaccination. The worst that can happen is that in very rare circumstances you may be detained temporarily.

Some Important Details

The above seven articles constitute all the basic rules. However, there are many important little “tricks of the trade” to having your legal requests honored. These will now be discussed.

While waivers and exemptions are written into all laws on immunization, most public health officials, doctors, and especially school officials are loathe to discuss their existence when questioned, and rarely, to our knowledge, volunteer such information.

A top Philadelphia school official was on the radio with the unequivocal statement, “NO SHOTS, NO SCHOOL.”

This statement is of course completely counter to state law, with which presumably he is familiar. Such unwarranted dogmatism is common in the people you will encounter. Once the end of their legitimate authority has been reached, they will use their next most powerful weapon - INTIMIDATION.

They will threaten to keep your child out of school, take him from you, or send you to jail. These are all idle threats because they can do none of these thing, if you follow our simple instructions.

The basic rules have been given to you, but there are a few important details to be considered if the officials start on this course of unlawful intimidation.

1. You must send a letter to the school to inform the education officials of your stand. A phone call is not legal. It can be a note from your doctor, minister, or a notarized letter from you stating your sincere objections to the immunization. If you do not do this and fail to have your child immunized, it could be construed as negligence on your part and in some states there is a possibility of legal action against you.
2. If the school should refuse to honor your letter, request that they give you a statement in writing outlining their reasons for refusal. If they won’t, their refusal is legally invalid, and your letter stands; they must enroll your child. If they do (they rarely will) they take the risk of incriminating themselves, especially if they are acting contrary (as is common) to what is specified in the law concerning your rights for exemption. Remember they are on tenuous ground, not you. They are your servants, you are not their servant. If worst comes to worst and you have a very knowledgeable official who writes you a refusal and states accurately the lawful reasons for refusal, he will also in a negative way tell you what the accepted exemptions are, and then you can go about meeting them, by one of the routes suggested in this handout.
3. Child neglect is the one legal point you want to avoid at all costs. No legal parent or guardian can be charged with neglect unless he shows complete lack of concern or action to be more informed. Stripped of legal jargon, this simply means that if you can show that you have investigated the situation, have come to a specific decision concerning immunizations, and have informed the authorities of the same, no neglect charge can be brought. Neglect can be brought only when it can be shown that you have failed to have your children immunized, not out of respect for their medical or spiritual integrity, but only because you were too concerned with other matters.
4. At times there may be a question of whether you have given or withdrawn legal consent. Legal consent is dependent upon being properly informed on both the advantages and the risks in any choice or decision you make. In other words, if a physician were to tell you that vaccination is perfectly safe and effective to obtain your consent, such consent would not be legal because he lied and you have not been properly informed. Conversely, it could be argued that non-consent is not legal if you are not fully informed about the risks and advantages of immunizations.
5. What do I do if everyone refuses to give me a waiver?…

• This would be an extremely rare circumstance. But should it happen, you are not left without resources. Here is where we pull out one of our big guns. Send notarized letters by certified mail to the vaccine laboratory which makes the shot (ask your doctor for the address), to the doctor who is to administer the shot, to your school principal,to the school board, and to your local health department.
• In these letters make it clear that since they have refused to give you a duly requested waiver, you can no longer be held responsible for what may happen to your child if they force these shots upon him. You then state that you will allow immunization if each will present you with a written signed guarantee of safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and that they will consent to assume full responsibility for any and all adverse reactions that your child may develop from the required shots. Of course none will give you such a guarantee. They cannot do so because all vaccines are considered potentially highly toxic. We have yet to hear of an instance of further harassment of parents after such letters have been sent.

That’s about all that is needed to obtain the necessary exemptions for your children. All that has been said in this last section (1 to 5) is also applicable to the military and international travel, if required.

Potpourri of Ammunition

“As long as each individual who opposes vaccines has sincere objections, states them in writing, and signs his name - it is considered legal and proper action and must therefore be honored.”

“Since many medical controversies exist surrounding immunization, drugs, and various other medications, it mandates that each individual have the right to control his own decisions and freedom of choice; anything less would be contrary to the constitutional laws that protect the citizens’ rights. ”

“When you deal with school officials and lawyers, you are playing with legal terminology - move the wrong words around and you get hung.” The terminology used in this booklet has worked before and should work again.

“It is important to state your objections in such a way that it complies with your state’s exemption provisions. They must then accept your request; if they do not, they are breaking their own law.” That is why it is absolutely essential that you know your own state law word for word before submitting your objection.

“According to CDC (the federal Communicable Disease Center in Atlanta, Georgia), physicians are required to first inform their patients of the risks involved before they consent to vaccines.” If they do not do so, it is prima facie evidence of deceit or negligence on the part of the physician.

This regulation by the federal government would also seem to assume that the patient has the right to refuse if he feels that the risks are too great. If this is so, is not the federal government on record as supporting voluntary immunization and, by obvious implication, against state-enforced compulsory immunization?

Should you ever have to go to court, or what is more likely, to appear before a “kangaroo” court of school and health department officials, here is some class A evidence you might find useful to mention.

• No vaccine carries any guarantee of protection from the laboratory that produced it or the doctor who administered it.
• The U.S. military allows no-nonsense “immunizations waivers.”
• There is NO FEDERAL LAW on immunizations. They don’t dare. Their lawyers know the consequences.
• Your rights have been infringed upon by officials attempting to use force against your will.

Most state officials like a nice, stress-free job. When you send in your objections and refuse to fit their ordered world by not having your children immunized, you make waves.

This rocks their quiet existence, and there are only two ways their life can become orderly again: either by forcing you to their will or acquiescing to yours. What you must do to obtain an early waiver is to make the latter the easiest path for them.

At first, however, an attempt will usually be made to bend you to their will by some form of intimidation. Many uninformed parents give in to this tack, and so it is tried again and again.

If you are adequately informed, as a reader of this publication should be, you will let the officials know in no uncertain terms that you understand your rights under the law and will not stand for any such shilly-shallying. Invariably, once they discover you are adamant and acquainted with the state law, your waiver will be rapidly forthcoming.

An Acknowledgment

The greatest part of the material on the first four pages is taken from the work of Mrs. Grace Girdwain, of Burbank, Illinois. Our staff has rearranged and edited the information, but we wish the full credit for its existence to go to this courageous woman who has for twelve years worked arduously, without compensation, to help her fellow Americans obtain their legal rights.

The following is an example of the state of Illionois law (where I live) relating to immunizations. Illinois, like most states has no philosophical objection, but does have a religious one.

Illinois Administrative Code Title 77: Public Health
Chapter I: Department of Public Health
Subchapter i: Maternal and Child Health
Part 665 Child Health Examination Code
Subpart E: Exceptions

Section 665.510 Objection of Parent or Legal Guardian

Parent or legal guardian of a student may object to health examinations, immunizations, vision, and hearing screening tests, and dental health examinations for their children on religious grounds. If a religious objection is made, a written and signed statement from the parent or legal guardian detailing such objections must be presented to the local school authority.

General philosophical or moral reluctance to allow physical examinations, immunizations, vision and hearing screening, and dental examinations will not provide a sufficient basis for an exception to statutory requirements.

The parent or legal guardian must be informed by the local school authority of measles outbreak control exclusion procedures per IDPH rules. The Control of Communicable Diseases (77 Ill. Adm. Code 690) at the time such objection is presented.

Section 665.520 Medical Objections

a) Any medical objections to an immunization must be:

1. Made by a physician licensed to practice medicine in all its branches indicating what the medical condition is.
2. Endorsed and signed by the physician on the certificate of child health examination and placed on file in the child’s permanent record.

b) Should the condition of the child later permit immunization, this requirement will then have to be met. Parents or legal guardians must be informed of measles outbreak control exclusion procedures when such objection is presented per Section 665.510.

Source: www.mercola.com

NaturalNews has learned that the FDA is intentionally plotting to deceive consumers over the labeling of irradiated foods, attempting to eliminate any requirement for informative labeling or replace the word “irradiated” with “pasteurized.”

In a feature story published by NaturalNews yesterday, we stated that the FDA does not require foods to be labeled as irradiated. We received a lot of questions from readers about that point, with some stating the FDA does, in fact, require foods to be labeled when irradiated. This is not always correct: Most foods are not required to be labeled as irradiated. This story explains the FDA’s food irradiation labeling policy in more detail and reveals the FDA’s plot to deceive consumers by misleading them into thinking irradiated foods are NOT irradiated.

Foods that are exempt from irradiation labeling

According to current FDA regulations, any food used as an ingredient in another food does NOT have to be labeled as irradiated. For example, if you buy coleslaw, and the cabbage in the coleslaw has been irradiated, there is no requirement that the coleslaw carry any labeling indicating it has been irradiated.

However, if raw cabbage is irradiated, then current FDA regulations do require it to carry an irradiation label. This label, however, is a symbol, not text, and many consumers have no idea what the symbol really means — it actually looks like a “fresh” symbol of some sort. In no way does it clearly indicate the food has been irradiated. This is the FDA’s way to “hide” the fact that these foods have been irradiated. (The symbol looks a lot more like leaves under the sun than food being irradiated…)

That same head of cabbage, by the way, if served in a restaurant, requires absolutely no irradiation labeling. All restaurant foods are excused from any irradiation labeling requirement. As stated at the FDA’s own website (1):

Irradiation labeling requirements apply only to foods sold in stores. For example, irradiated spices or fresh strawberries should be labeled. When used as ingredients in other foods, however, the label of the other food does not need to describe these ingredients as irradiated. Irradiation labeling also does not apply to restaurant foods.

How the FDA plans to deceive consumers and further hide the fact that foods are being irradiated

As stated above, the FDA does not want consumers to realize their foods are being irradiated. Consumer awareness is considered undesirable by the FDA; an agency that also works hard to censor truthful statements about nutritional supplements and functional foods. Accordingly, the FDA pursues a policy of enforced ignorance of consumers regarding irradiated foods, nutritional supplements, medicinal herbs and all sorts of natural substances. It is currently illegal in the United States to state that cherries help ease arthritis inflammation if you are selling cherries. (http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html)

On the food irradiation issue, the FDA is now proposing two things that are nothing short of astonishing in their degree of deceit:

FDA proposal #1: Irradiated foods shouldn’t be labeled as irradiated unless consumers can visibly tell they’re irradiated.

This ridiculous proposal by the FDA suggests that foods shouldn’t be labeled as irradiated unless there is some obvious material damage to the foods (like their leaves are wilting). Thus, foods that don’t appear to be irradiated should not have to be labeled as irradiated.

Imagine if this same ridiculous logic were used to regulate heavy metals content in foods: If consumers can’t SEE the heavy metals, then they should be declared free of heavy metals!

FDA proposal #2: Irradiated foods should be labeled as “pasteurized,” not “irradiated.”

This FDA proposal is so bizarre that it makes you wonder whether the people working at the FDA are smoking crystal meth. They literally want irradiated foods to be labeled as “pasteurized.”

And why? Because the word “pasteurized” sounds a lot more palatable to consumers, of course. Never mind the fact that it’s a lie. Irradiated foods are not pasteurized, and pasteurized foods are not irradiated. These two words mean two different things, which is precisely why they each have their own entries in the dictionary. When you look up “irradiated,” it does not say, “See pasteurized.”

But the FDA is now playing the game of thought police by manipulating the public with screwy word replacement games that bear a strange resemblance to the kind of language used in the novel 1984 by George Orwell. And it is, indeed, an Orwellian kind of mind game that the FDA wants to play with the food supply: After unleashing Weapons of Mass Destruction (radiation) onto the foods, the FDA wants to label them all as simply being “pasteurized,” keeping consumers ignorant and uninformed.

How do I know the FDA wants to do this? The agency said so itself in an April 4, 2007 document filed in the Federal Register (Volume 72, Number 64). As published in the document (2):

FDA is also proposing to allow a firm to petition FDA for use of an alternate term to “irradiation” (other than “pasteurized”). In addition, FDA is proposing to permit a firm to use the term “pasteurized” in lieu of “irradiated,” provided it notifies the agency that the irradiation process being used meets the criteria specified for use of the term “pasteurized” in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and the agency does not object to the notification.

Did you follow all that mind-warping logic? The FDA is essentially begging a company to petition it to use the term “pasteurized” instead of “irradiated” as long as they both result in the food being killed. Once it receives such a petition, it will approve it, claiming it is meeting “the needs of industry.”

The FDA already allows lots of word substitutions in the areas of health and medicine. The phrase “Toxic Poison” has been replaced with “Chemotherapy,” for example. “Over-medicated with dangerous psychiatric drugs” has been replaced with the term, “Treatment.” And the phrase, “Regulated with life-threatening synthetic chemicals” has been replaced with the word “managed,” as in “her diabetes has been managed.”

So why not introduce all sorts of other word substitutions that might continue the Orwellian “Ministry of Language” propaganda put forth by the FDA?

I say we substitute the word “medicated” with “treated” and “treated” with “rewarded.” That way, when a patient describes what drugs she’s on, she can say, “I’ve been rewarded with ten different prescriptions!”

Better yet, let’s replace the word “surgery” with “enhancement.” So anybody who undergoes heart bypass surgery, for example, can say they’ve really just had “Heart bypass enhancement!”

It sounds a lot easier to swallow, doesn’t it? And that’s what it’s all about, folks, when it comes to irradiating the food supply: Making it all sounds a lot less treacherous than it really is. Control the words and you control people’s ideas, and if there’s one thing the tyrannical FDA is really, really good at, it’s controlling words!

What the FDA really wants to accomplish

Let’s get down to some blunt truth about the FDA’s real genocidal agenda. What the FDA wants here is two things:

1) The destruction of the food supply (genocide)
2) The complete ignorance of the consuming public (nutritional illiteracy)

Genocide and illiteracy. Ignorance and fear. Tyranny, radiation and chemicals… These are the things the FDA truly stands for.

That pretty much sums up the FDA’s intent on this whole food irradiation issue. Destroy the food and mislead the People. And then wait for the windfall of profits at Big Pharma as the People degenerate into a mass of diseased, disoriented and desperate health patients. It’s business as usual at the FDA.

That’s why Dr. James Duke, creator of the world’s largest phytochemical database (http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke), had this to say about the FDA’s food irradiation policy:

“Perhaps the FDA should call up a billion dollar team to consider irradiating another health hazard - the FDA itself, which is almost as dangerous to our health as the pharmaceutical industry.”

Why I call this the unleashing of “Weapons of Mass Destruction”

In my previous article on this issue, I’ve called this food irradiation agenda a “Weapon of Mass Destruction” against the food supply. A couple of readers questioned me about that. Why, they asked, do I consider food irradiation to be a WMD?

WMDs include weapons that indiscriminately cause damage to people and infrastructure that serves the People. Dumping a radioactive substance into the water supply that serves a major city, for example, would be considered using a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Interestingly, the use of Depleted Uranium by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan is also an example of Weapons of Mass Destruction, making the U.S. guilty of yet more crimes against humanity. (A previous example is the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan’s civilian population in World War II.)

Irradiating the food supply is also an application of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and here’s a thought experiment that will clearly demonstrate it:

Suppose you wanted to irradiate your own garden vegetables. The minute you start trying to buy a machine that produces radiation, you would be quickly considered a terrorist and investigated by the FBI. They would visit your home and ask, “Why do you need a radiation machine?” And if you said you needed to irradiate your garden vegetables, they would look at you like you were completely nuts and probably haul you into the local FBI field office for yet more questioning, all while considering you a possible terrorist and likely adding your name to the no-fly list so you could never travel on commercial airlines.

If you don’t believe me, try to acquire a high-powered radiation emitting device and see what happens…

So why is it considered bizarre and possibly criminal when an individual buys a radiation machine to irradiate their own foods, but when the FDA pushes the same agenda on a larger scale, they call it “safety?”

Irradiated food isn’t altered, claims the FDA

Of course, the FDA says the irradiated food isn’t altered by the radiation. This statement is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with a pulse. Why? Because if the radiation doesn’t alter anything, then how can it kill e.coli and salmonella?

The whole point of the radiation is to kill living organisms. And it works by causing fatal damage to the tissues and DNA of those microorganisms. So guess what it does to the plants? Since radiation isn’t selective, it also irradiates the plant fibers and tissues, causing DNA damage and the destruction of enzymes and phytochemicals.

Amazingly, the FDA claims this does not count as “altering” the food because these changes aren’t visible.

If it weren’t such a nutritional atrocity, it would be downright hilarious. DNA changes are not visible to the human eye, but they can result in serious health consequences. Just ask anyone born with two Y chromosomes.

Eat up, guinea pigs!

Of course, the radiation pushers will claim that nobody really knows whether irradiating the food kills just 1% of the phytochemicals or 99% (or something in between). And they don’t know what the long-term effect is on human health, either. This is exactly my point: The irradiation of fresh produce is a dangerous experiment, and we’ve all been involuntarily recruited as guinea pigs.

I will be curious to see a serious scientific inquiry into the nutritional damage caused to fresh produce by irradiation. I also find it simply astonishing that this decision by the FDA has been made in the absence of such scientific studies. Much like it does with the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA prefers to poison the people first, and then figure out later just how much damage might have been caused.

I say when you’re dealing with the food supply, you should err on the side of caution. We are talking about the health of the nation here. This is not a small matter. It should be treated with extreme caution, skepticism and scientific scrutiny. Instead, it is being addressed with a gung-ho attitude framed in mind games and enforced ignorance.

In other words, rather than figuring out whether food irradiation is actually safe, the FDA would rather simply pretend it is.

Welcome to Make Believe Land, where all your food is now safe and nutritious, courtesy of the FDA!

About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health researcher and author with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He has authored more than 1,500 articles and dozens of reports, guides and interviews on natural health topics, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/023956.html

HOW MUCH For That Bag of Groceries?

By Dr. Mercola

You can’t tune into the news today without hearing about the rising cost of living, be it gas for your car, heat for your home, or food for your family. Many baby boomers are giving up — or at least stretching out — food luxury items such as those coveted fancy coffees, because their pocketbooks are thinning, along with their hairlines.

In this report, I will give you some ideas for selecting delicious, nutritious items that won’t empty out your bank account.

In 2007, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all food rose by 4.0 percent, the highest annual increase since 1990. The CPI for food is forecast to increase another 4.5 to 5.5 percent in 2008 as retailers continue to pass down higher commodity and energy costs to consumers in the form of higher retail prices.[i]

Most of you are aware of how the skyrocketing cost of oil is driving food prices rapidly skyward, but you might not be aware of the huge role biofuels have played in this increase. According to a confidential World Bank report, biofuels alone have forced global food prices up by 75 percent.[ii] According to an Iowa State University study published in May 2008, food prices have climbed an average of $47 per person since last July due to the ethanol surge alone.[iii]

Of course, you don’t need me to tell you that your food bill has gone through the roof. Is there anything you can do to stretch your food dollar, without having to sacrifice nutrition?

Fortunately, you can still find many affordable, nutritious foods at your farmers market or local nutrition store, or even at the corner grocery. With a little creative use of your dollar, you can enjoy the best foods while getting the most “bang for your buck”.

Below are ten excellent, nutrient-packed food choices that you can still find for around $1 per serving.

1. Two Cage Free Organic Eggs: $0.84

Eggs can be one of the most healthful foods in the world. However, not all eggs are equal. There is mounting evidence of a monumental nutritional difference between true free-ranging chicken eggs and commercially farmed eggs. This is a result of the diets eaten by the two groups of chickens.[iv]

Commercially farmed hens subsist mostly on corn, soy and cottonseed whereas hens that forage in a pasture for seeds, green plants, insects and worms receive a smorgasbord of other nutrients. Remember: garbage in, garbage out. It applies equally to hens, cattle, and people.

Don’t be fooled by the egg industry’s double-speak definitions of what free-range really means. The UDSA defines “free-range” as chickens that have “access to the outside”. This does not specify whether the “outside” is a field for foraging or a cement courtyard and does not define their diets.

It is always best to obtain your eggs from a local farmer whose methods are known. To find free-range pasture farmers, ask your local health food store or refer to www.eatwild.com or www.localharvest.com. Many people are finding it rewarding to raise their own eggs.

If you must get your eggs from the grocery store, your best bet is to look for free-range organic.

Avoid all omega-3 eggs since they are actually less healthful for you. Typically, these hens are fed poor quality omega-3 fat sources that are already oxidized.

It is best to eat your eggs raw. Yes, you read that correctly. Raw.

Eggs are often one of the most allergenic foods, but this is because of the changes that take place in the cooking process. Eating eggs raw also helps preserve many of the highly perishable nutrients such as lutein and zeaxanthin, which are powerful agents in preventing macular degeneration. Raw eggs are not a likely cause of salmonella poisoning. For more about this, read my 2002 article.

2. Raw Organic Milk, 8 oz: $0.62

Despite the bad press that raw milk has received, it is one of the best foods out there for nutrient value. The downside is that it remains a bit difficult to come by, depending on where you live. Not only does raw milk taste better than pasteurized milk, it contains more nutrients that are beneficial because they haven’t been destroyed by heat.[v]

Why has the FDA selected raw milk as its whipping boy? The reason is likely far more political than nutritional. Just like the drug industry, the dairy industry has strong lobbying powers. And when I say “dairy industry”, I’m not referring to the small farmer who provides your raw milk.

If raw milk really caught on, big commercial dairy farmers would have to clean up their acts — raise healthier cows, provide pastures, etc. This would cost them a lot of money. So they use their substantial weight to shine raw milk in a negative light, making it appear as unappealing or dangerous as possible.

Raw milk is neither unappealing nor dangerous and is far better for you than pasteurized milk. Its popularity is growing all the time.[vi] To find a site near you, go to the Real Milk website. Not only does it give you links to raw milk farmers but also provides excellent information on the nutritional benefits of raw milk.

3. Raw Nuts and Seeds:

Sunflower seeds, raw, 1 oz. = $0.82

Mixed raw nuts, 1/2 oz. = $1.00

Nuts are a good substitute protein for meat, for those of you preferring a vegetarian diet, as long as they aren’t eaten in excess. The reason for moderation is that, except for walnuts, almost all nuts are top heavy in omega-6 fats and can upset the omega 6/omega 3 ratio. The average American has an omega 6:3 ratio of 15:1. It should be 1:1. Therefore, any amount of omega-6 fat is not a good thing for most Americans.

You need to be cautious with the quantity of nuts you eat, especially if you have high levels of insulin. Nuts are not your best choice if you suffer from high blood pressure, excess weight, high cholesterol, or diabetes.

My favorite nuts are pecans, walnuts, almonds and hazelnuts. I normally avoid peanuts because they are one of the most pesticide-laden foods you can eat. Most peanuts are also contaminated with aflatoxin, a carcinogenic mold.

Seeds are similar to nuts in that they are relatively high in omega-6 fats. They have fewer carbohydrates than nuts, so they are a little less problematic. Two exceptions are flax seeds and chia seeds, which are higher in the desirable omega-3 fats.

The best way to obtain flax is not from the oil but to grind fresh flax seeds. A coffee grinder will do this very nicely. This way, you will also get the benefits from the lignin fiber in the seeds and obtain the freshest (i.e., least oxidized and damaged) fats.

To summarize then, raw nuts and seeds can be an economical, healthful addition to your diet if eaten in moderation, particularly walnuts, flax and chia seeds.

4. Berries: 1 cup fresh organic blueberries = $0.95

Berries are among the best fruits on the planet. Not only do they taste great, they are densely packed with a variety of potent phytochemicals that can do wonders to normalize and improve your health. They are high in fiber and low in sugar, so they won’t cause drastic insulin swings if eaten in moderation.

The best way to eat berries is in their raw, natural state, since heating and freezing can damage some of the antioxidants. The different varieties of berries contain different types and levels of antioxidants, so berries have a range of health benefits.

Blueberries are one of the most powerful antioxidant-rich foods on the planet. Researchers at the USDA Human Nutrition Center (HNRCA) have ranked blueberries #1 in antioxidant activity when compared to 40 other fresh fruits and vegetables.[vii] One of the beneficial phytochemicals is anthocyanin, which is what gives blueberries their deep blue color. They also contain vitamins A and C, zinc, potassium, iron, calcium and magnesium.

Blueberries offer many health benefits, including protection against urinary tract infections, cancer, age-related health conditions and brain damage from strokes. The European blueberry, or bilberry, is known to prevent and even reverse macular degeneration.

Cranberries are also loaded with antioxidants and are famous for treating and preventing urinary tract infections. In addition, they offer protection against cancer, stroke and heart disease. Cranberries are rich in polyphenols, which might inhibit the growth of human breast cancer cells and reduce the risk of gum disease and stomach ulcers.

The best way to eat cranberries is to eat them raw and whole. Commercially prepared cranberry juice is loaded with sugar, which undoes any health benefits of the fruit. Whole, fresh cranberries are especially good when added to vegetable juice.

Strawberries came in second to blueberries in the USDA’s analysis of antioxidant capacity of 40 common fruits and vegetables. They are rich in fiber, manganese, folic acid, potassium, and contain more vitamin C than any other berry. Among strawberries’ antioxidants are anthocyanins and ellagic acid, a phytochemical that has been shown to fight carcinogens.

Raspberries are another one of nature’s little health-packages. They are rich in anthocyanins and cancer-fighting phytochemicals such as ellagic, coumaric and ferulic acid. They contain calcium, vitamins A, C, E, fiber and folic acid. Raspberries are thought to offer protection against esophageal and other cancers.

As with all fruits, berries should be eaten in moderation and should be washed well before eating. Keep in mind that too many at one time can spike your insulin level.

5. Watermelon: One-pound slice = $0.59

On a hot, summer day, who can resist a big, juicy slice of watermelon at the family picnic? As it turns out, this universally loved melon has health benefits as well, and it won’t break the bank.

Like berries, watermelon is loaded with phytochemicals, including lycopene, beta-carotene, and citrulline. When citrulline is consumed, it is converted to arginine. Arginine is an amino acid that has beneficial effects on the heart and circulatory system, as well as the immune system. Arginine boosts nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, leading to another beneficial side benefit of watermelon … a Viagra-like effect without the hazards of a toxic drug!

Watermelon — an aphrodisiac? Who knew?

Arginine also helps the urea cycle by removing ammonia and other toxic compounds from your body.[viii]

6. Coconut Milk: 7 ounces = $0.98

Coconut is quite nutritious (unless your primary source is macaroons). The oil in coconut is one of the best oils for your body because of its medium chain fatty acids, or triglycerides (MCT’s). MCT’s have many health benefits, including raising your body’s metabolism and fighting off pathogens such as viruses, bacteria and fungi.

Coconut milk is quite versatile — ask anyone who has been doing vegetarian cooking for a while. It can be used as a milk substitute and is delicious in sauces and dressings, as well as baked goods. Coconut milk has been a staple in the Thai diet for centuries.

Coconut is nature’s richest source of MCT outside of human breast milk. Coconut oil is very stable and does not oxidize and break down quickly like other oils, and it has a shelf life of more than two years. It is absolutely the best oil for cooking.

Your body needs fat but it needs the right kinds of fat to function optimally. Coconut fat is one of those fats. People have actually lost weight by incorporating coconut into their diets. This is because the MCTs promote thermogenesis, increasing your body’s metabolism, producing energy. Coconut has also been found to be helpful to thyroid function, as well as digestion.[ix]

Fresh coconut is delicious although a little difficult to find sometimes, but there are now some good canned coconut varieties available. More and more research is emerging all the time about the health benefits of coconut.

7. Spinach: 5 oz. fresh organic spinach = $0.95

Popeye was correct. Spinach is extremely good for you! Regardless of your nutritional type, eating more vegetables is recommended for everyone. Spinach is high in antioxidants and has a very high ORAC score. ORAC is Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity, which is a measurement of a food’s ability to destroy the free radicals that cause your body damage.

The higher the ORAC score, the better a food is for you. Your own body’s ORAC can also be measured as an indication of how many antioxidants you have working for you.

Spinach’s ORAC score is surpassed only by prunes, raisins, blueberries, blackberries, strawberries and kale. Of course, you should not overdo fruits due to the high carbohydrate content, but there is no such risk of eating too many leafy greens. Some research has shown that it might be the “brain food” needed to help avoid memory loss and Alzheimer’s disease.

In one study, women given 10 ounces of fresh, raw spinach saw their ORAC score go up more than when they took 1,250 mg of vitamin C daily. In a study involving rats, a daily serving of spinach prevented the memory loss and slowdown in learning capacity usually seen as the animals age. Rats given spinach or vitamin E from the age of six months were less likely to forget where things were as they got older than rats given nothing extra, or rats that got strawberries.

Spinach is also rich in folic acid, which can help lower blood pressure. In addition, it is rich in lutein and zeaxanthin, which can lower the risk for age-related macular degeneration.

8. Garlic: 2 cloves = $0.05

Whether you are dodging vampires, hypertension or cancer, garlic should be on your menu daily. Garlic boosts your body’s natural abilities to protect you from hypertension and osteoporosis, and research is mounting that it decreases your risk for various forms of cancer. It is a potent antimicrobial as well, working as a natural antibiotic, antifungal, antiviral, antiparasitic agent.[x]

Garlic’s main active ingredient is allicin, but this agent vanishes about an hour after you cut into it. This is why you must eat garlic fresh! You can’t swallow cloves whole — they must be crushed first. Taking a garlic pill is a waste of time.

You can add 1-2 cloves to your vegetable juice to cut down on the pungent taste. The chlorophyll in the juice also tends to cut down on the potentially offensive garlic odor.

9. Wild Rice: One serving = $0.99

Contrary to its name, wild rice is not a rice at all but a grass. Wild rice is really the annual aquatic seed Zizania aquatica, mostly found in the upper freshwater lakes of Canada, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

Wild rice towers over other grains when it comes to nutritional content. It is higher in protein, fiber, minerals, B vitamins, folic acid, and complex carbohydrates. It is particularly rich in niacin, zinc, phosphorus, magnesium and potassium. If you are going to choose a grain, you just can’t do better than this.

This versatile grain can be used to make a pilaf, a breakfast “cereal,” stuffed into a bell pepper or a tomato, or tossed with fruit and nuts and made into a salad.

10. Krill Oil: Two capsules = $0.84

There was a time when I would have placed fish on this list as one of the top ten foods, but unfortunately, today, the dangers of eating fish outweigh the benefits due to the toxic mercury levels they now contain, with very few exceptions. Fortunately, I have discovered a cost effective way for you to receive all of the benefits of fish without the danger of heavy metal contamination.

There is a pure marine oil from Neptune krill that is loaded with powerful antioxidants and essential omega-3 oils, with NO heavy metal contamination. Krill are small shrimp or prawn-like creatures that feed the world’s most mammoth animals—the great whales. Toothless great whales gulp down huge quantities of krill to provide the energy they need to fuel their massive bulk. A blue whale eats up to 8,000 pounds of krill each day!

There are many ways krill oil can help you. These are just a few:

• A healthy heart
• Healthy joints
• Fighting aging
• Supporting your brain and nervous system
• Stabilizing your cholesterol levels
• Optimizing your mood
• Keeping your skin healthy

This unusual oil boasts a very comprehensive set of necessary antioxidants not seen in fish or cod liver oil, and it is stable and well absorbed with a good deal of research to back it up. Generally, I am not a huge fan of supplements, but this is one important exception.

I hope that you have found these suggestions helpful in making the most of your food dollar in these economically challenging times. I am sure you will come up with many other excellent ideas as you become familiar with your local farmers market and nutrition stores. It might take a little more effort, but I am confident you will discover ways to eat within your budget, without having to sacrifice your health.

Source: www.mercola.com

In the last edition of Organic Bytes we celebrated our common victory over Monsanto: the Biotech Behemoth’s announcement that it was “divesting” or selling off its controversial genetically engineered animal drug, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). With Monsanto’s stock price and reputation wobbling, now is the time to advance, to move forward and aggressively block Monsanto’s assault on consumers, the environment and democracy.

• Did you know that Monsanto contributes hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to elected officials and spends millions in lobbying? Contact your legislators and tell them to say NO to Monsanto’s Dirty Money
• Did you know that almost 100 million pounds of Monsanto’s best selling herbicide, RoundUp, are applied to gardens and lawns each year, accounting for $1 billion dollars in sales? Home Depot is the United States and Canada’s largest home improvement chain and a major vendor of RoundUp.
• Sign OCA’s petition to Home Depot. Tell Home Depot’s CEO Frank Blake: Do the Right Thing, Dump Monsanto!

Learn more and take action

Source: www.organicconsumers.org