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

These days, you can’t swing a dead cabbage without hitting a reusable bag. The darlings of the environmental movement (totes, not cabbages) are increasingly being provided free or cheap to green-minded consumers. And they serve a good purpose: four or five reusable bags, used at least once a week, can replace the use of 520 plastic bags each year. But if not used for their intended purpose, the bags are hardly an environmental boon. Cotton and canvas bags can require a lotta water and energy to manufacture and may be colored with toxic dyes. Nonwoven polypropylene totes require about 28 times as much energy to produce as standard plastic bags. Bags made from recycled material often cost more than those without. And perhaps most important, shifting ingrained shopping habits is easier said than done, as anyone knows who has forgotten to tote their totes to the store. That may take a while to change; as one marketing professor points out, it’s not yet taboo to be seen carrying a plastic bag.

Source: www.grist.org

The Food and Drug Administration released a “draft guidance” document on September 18th that outlines the regulatory approval process for Genetically Engineered (GE) animals. To date, the process has not been transparent, and maintains that GE animals, like their plant counterparts, do not need to be labeled. Food derived from GE animals will not be labeled and represents a huge risk for human health and the environment. Some GE animals will be designed to produce drugs and might even outcompete native species. Without mandatory labeling, adequate environmental impact studies and genuine public participation, GE animals should be prohibited from entering the food supply. Act now! Visit the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service public comment forum and tell the FDA all Genetically Engineered Animals must be labeled!

Source: OCA

If we were not confused enough already, out comes a new recommendation that runs against nutritional wisdom. The American Academy of Pediatrics recently changed its recommendation for children under 2 years old from whole milk to 2% milk. The measure is to counteract the growing obesity problem among children. These new recommendations appear in the July issue of the journal Pediatrics.

It is bad enough that adults don’t get the fats they need. They have been told for decades that fat is not good for their hearts and leads to weight gain. Now the low-fat debacle is being extended to the population that needs fat the most. Yet, just look where the low-fat craze got us. We are a nation of fatties.

Obesity happens for a number of reasons, nearly all of which boil down to poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle. Unfortunately, the epidemic increase in obesity these last 30-40 years correlates not with increased fat intake but rather with a massive increase in refined carbohydrate consumption. No other nutrient (or lack thereof) has contributed more to obesity. New research published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that either a low-carb or a Mediterranean-style diet may be “effective alternatives” to a low-fat diet, with more favorable effects on cholesterol, triglycerides and blood sugar control. Granted, the low-carb diet used in the study emphasized more fats from vegetable sources than is usually considered in the classic Atkins diet.

Again, the emphasis should not be on the amount of fats eaten, but on the kinds of fats. Science has helped to discriminate between bad fat and good fat. We now know that: 1) nearly all trans fats are bad; 2) there is an imbalance of omega-6 fatty acids in the modern diet; 3) omega-3 fatty acids are healing in so many ways; 4) monounsaturated fats like those in olive oil are healthy; and 5) saturated fat is OK in moderation.

Nevertheless, infants need a certain amount of saturated fat, along with the essential fatty acids. Breast milk contains all these and other important fats, especially if the mother is on a healthy diet balanced with omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. Pregnant and nursing mothers who eat oily fish or take good quality fish oil supplements have smarter, happier and better coordinated babies with superior vision. If breast milk is not available, it is essential to provide these quality fats in the baby’s diet. Consider that, within the first few months of life, a baby’s brain doubles in size. The brain is composed largely of fats, so getting dietary fat in this critical period is a no-brainer.

One other key distinction between bad and good fats is the level of toxins present. Toxins are stored in fat because most toxins are also fatty, and tend to accumulate in the fatty tissue of fish and animals. This is particularly true for factory-farmed animals, which have been exposed to all kinds of toxins. In fact, food from animal sources can be hundreds of times more toxic than those from vegetables and fruits. So, eating fat also means eating an assortment of toxins, unless those animals were raised under nontoxic conditions. In other words, to avoid most toxins, be sure to eat organic meat and dairy products and wild fish.

It’s all about fat quality. Animals on industrial farms reek of pesticides, herbicides, synthetic hormones, antibiotics, heavy metals and arachidonic acid, a pro-inflammatory fat. These toxins and imbalances end up in fat. So, people not buying organic should heed the medical establishment and keep themselves and especially their kids away from animal fat, such as in full-fat milk. In contrast, fat from organic dairy or meat has none of these toxic substances, is much less inflammatory, and provides much more nutrition per gram of fat. Fatty nutrients such as conjugated linolenic acid (CLA), vitamin E, natural beta-carotene and omega-3 fatty acids, are significantly higher in organic than conventional fat. All together, full fat organic animal food is far less toxic, less inflammatory and more nutritious. It’s the quality of fat that makes the grade.

Since dietary fats are especially important for early brain development, whole milk is preferred for weaned babies up to age 2 years. Brain and visual development depends upon obtaining omega-3 fatty acids from animal and vegetable sources. Cows get omega-3 fats from grazing on grass and other plants. That is why organic or grass-fed cow’s milk is naturally high in omega-3 fatty acids, and especially nutritious for children. Plus, the natural vitamin E and beta-carotene in organic milk help protect these good fats from rancidity. And, the natural CLA improves metabolism and protects against weight gain. Omega-3 fats also help with weight management. And, it all comes in one convenient package in organic milk.

Many people are on a tight budget and do not feel like they can afford to buy organic products, which are usually at a premium. However, when you consider all that is gained, and all that is avoided, people cannot afford not to buy organic. This is especially true for animal products fed to children, who are most vulnerable, and who have critical requirements for these nutrients. So, to end all the confusion, just feed your kids full-fat organic milk.

About the author
Dr. Phil Domenico is a nutritional scientist and educator with a research background in biochemistry and microbiology. Formerly an infectious disease scientist, he now works as a consultant for supplement companies and the food industry.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/024266.html

SweetSurprise.com offers a number of surprising facts about high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). For example, the site tells you that, “Research confirms that high fructose corn syrup is safe and no different from other common sweeteners like table sugar and honey. All three sweeteners are nutritionally the same.”

They also claim that “Though the individual sugars are metabolized by different pathways, this is of little consequence since the body sees the same mix of sugars from caloric (nutritive) sweeteners, regardless of source.

Of course, SweetSurprise.com is a site run by the Corn Refiners Association … so I suspect there’s a chance they may be biased.

There are two types of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS): HFCS-55 and HFCS-42. HFCS-55 is composed of 55 percent fructose, 42 percent glucose and 3 percent higher sugars, and tastes as sweet as table sugar, while HFCS-42 is somewhat less sweet.

When HFCS-55 was developed, it was specifically formulated to provide sweetness equivalent to table sugar so that consumers would not perceive a difference in product sweetness and taste.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that the consumption of high fructose corn syrup was just over 40 pounds per year, per person, as of 2007. It accounts for roughly 41 percent of all caloric sweeteners consumed in the U.S.
 Sources:

* SweetSurprise.com

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

SweetSurprise.com is run by The Corn Refiners Association, which recently launched a major advertising and public relations campaign to the tune of $20-30 million, designed to rehabilitate the reputation of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).  You might have even seen a few of their commercials on TV recently.

This site is nothing but an extension of their deceptive advertising that claims the product is no worse for you than sugar. One of their ads, which shows two women talking, reads:

“My hairdresser says that sugar is healthier than high fructose corn syrup.”

“Wow! You get your hair done by a doctor?”

Not surprisingly, the Corn Refiners Association is running these ads in response to the increasing public perception of the dangers of HFCS. But this “perception” was not instigated by chatty hairdressers with nothing to do but spread their own personal opinions to a captive audience. No. Scientists have linked HFCS to the rampant epidemics of obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome in the U.S., and medical researchers have pinpointed various other health dangers associated with the consumption of HFCS compared to regular sugar (which I’ll review below).

The Corn Refiners Association has been trying to counter the seriously bad PR generated by damaging research findings since 2004, but finally realized it could no longer afford to rely on simple grass-roots marketing tactics such as sweet talking nutritionists and doctors.

THAT’S a sign that truthful grass-roots consumer information, such as the information found in this newsletter, is spreading and reaching a much wider audience! Now we just have to maintain the counter-pressure to ensure that people are not deceived AGAIN.

Hopefully we can get the word out about what these ads are really about: money.

Declining Consumption Has Turned Industry Sour… and Desperate

Since the 1970s, the consumption of HFCS in the United States has skyrocketed. Consumption of beverages containing fructose alone rose 135 percent between 1977 and 2001. That is until about 2003.

According to the Corn Refiners Association statistics, the per capita consumption in the United States actually went down from more than 45 pounds per year in 1999 to just over 42 pounds annually 2005. The USDA estimates per capita consumption at about 40 pounds per year as of 2007.

That’s a really good sign for the health of the community, but a bad one for the financial health of the companies that sell HFCS. Hence the multi-million dollar media campaign. In June a nearly $5 billion merger of Corn Products International and Bunge Ltd. signaled that corn manufacturers mean business. Revenues are expected to increase 29 percent in 2008 to reach $4 billion.

High Fructose Corn Syrup is the Number One Source of Calories in U.S. Diet

Although the trend is declining, an average intake of 40 pounds of HFCS per person, per year, is still far too much, if you want to obtain or maintain optimal health that is.

In case you forgot, or never knew in the first place, the number one source of calories in the U.S. is high fructose corn syrup.  Let me restate that so you can more fully appreciate the impact of this fact.  Dietary fat has 250 percent more calories than sugar, but even with this major disadvantage, the food that most people get MOST of their calories from is HFCS, primarily in the form of soft drinks.

The good news about this shocking fact is that stopping the pernicious habit of drinking sodas is one of the easiest things you can do. You can radically improve your health just by cutting out soda.

I am HIGHLY confident that the health improvement would be FAR more profound than if you quit smoking, because elevated insulin levels are the foundation of nearly every chronic disease, including:

• Cancer
• Heart disease
• Diabetes
• Premature aging
• Arthritis
• Osteoporosis

And that’s just naming a few.

But in addition to being an exorbitant source of excess calories for the average American, there are a number of other things SweetSurprise.com fails to tell you the truth about, as it relates to high fructose corn syrup.

High Fructose Corn Syrup Does NOT Metabolize in the Same Way as Sugar

HFCS is a highly processed product that contains similar amounts of unbound fructose and glucose. Sucrose, on the other hand, is a larger sugar molecule that is metabolized into glucose and fructose in your intestine.

Part of what makes HFCS such an unhealthy product is that it is metabolized to fat in your body far more rapidly than any other sugar, and, because most fructose is consumed in liquid form, its negative metabolic effects are significantly magnified.

Whereas the glucose in other sugars is used by your body, and is converted to blood glucose, fructose is a relatively unregulated source of fuel that your liver converts to fat and cholesterol.

There are over 35 years of hard empirical evidence that refined man-made fructose like high fructose corn syrup metabolizes to triglycerides and adipose tissue, not blood glucose. The downside of this is that fructose does not stimulate your insulin secretion, nor enhance leptin production. (Leptin is a hormone thought to be involved in appetite regulation.)

Because insulin and leptin act as key signals in regulating how much food you eat, as well as your body weight, this suggests that dietary fructose may contribute to increased food intake and weight gain.

Additionally, fructose is also known to significantly raise your triglycerides and LDL (bad cholesterol).

Triglycerides, the chemical form of fat found in foods and in your body, are not something you want in excess amounts. Intense research over the past 40 years has confirmed that elevated blood levels of triglycerides, known as hypertriglyceridemia, puts you at an increased risk of heart disease.

New Evidence That HFCS Contributes to Development of Diabetes

Recent research, reported at the 2007 national meeting of the American Chemical Society, found new evidence that soft drinks sweetened with HFCS may contribute to the development of diabetes because it contains high levels of reactive compounds that have been shown by others to trigger cell and tissue damage that cause diabetes.

Chemical tests among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS were found to have ‘astonishingly high’ levels of reactive carbonyls. Reactive carbonyls are undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with “unbound” fructose and glucose molecules, and are believed to cause tissue damage.

By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar because its fructose and glucose components are “bound” and chemically stable.

Reactive carbonyls are elevated in the blood of individuals with diabetes and are linked to the health complications of diabetes. Based on the study data, the researchers estimate that a single can of soda contains about five times the concentration of reactive carbonyls than the concentration found in the blood of an adult person with diabetes.

Fructose Depletes Your Body of Enzymes, Vitamins or Minerals

Fructose also does not contain any enzymes, vitamins or minerals so it takes these micronutrients from your body while it assimilates itself for use.

Unbound fructose, found in large quantities in HFCS, can interfere with your heart’s use of minerals such as magnesium, copper and chromium.

This does not mean you should avoid whole fruit, however, as it contains natural fructose together with the enzymes, vitamins and minerals needed for your body to assimilate the fructose. Eating small amounts of whole fruit also does not provide a tremendous amount of fructose, and is not likely to be a problem for most people unless diabetes or obesity is an issue.

Did You Know? — Most HFCS is Made From Genetically Modified Corn

Adding insult to injury, HFCS is almost always made from genetically modified corn, which is fraught with its own well documented side effects and health concerns.

GMO corn will radically increase your risk of developing corn food allergies. The problem with corn allergies are that once you have a corn allergy from GMO corn you will have an allergy to even healthy organic corn products.

The Bottom Line

Sodas, of course, are not the only source of HFCS (though they represent one of the main ones). This dangerous sweetener is also in many processed foods and fruit juices, so to avoid it you need to focus your diet on whole foods and, if you do purchase packaged foods, become an avid label reader.

But if you want to drastically improve your health, the answer is plain and simple. To lose weight and reduce your risk of developing metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and heart disease, STOP drinking soda and processed fruit juices that are sweetened with about eight teaspoons of fructose per serving!

Switch to pure water as your beverage of choice and you will be well on your way to better health.

However, like most areas in life, when presented with two poisons, choose carefully.

Even though HFCS is clearly something you want to avoid, it is not as bad as artificial sweeteners, which damage your health even more rapidly than HFCS. (I spent several years researching artificial sweeteners for my book Sweet Deception, which goes into these issues in great detail).

So ideally, you’ll want to avoid ALL sodas, but if you have to choose between soda sweetened with HFCS (regular soda) or artificial sweeteners (diet soda), choose HFCS.

The best and safest sweetener (although illegal to use according to the FDA) would be the herb stevia.

Source: www.mercola.com

Mars Pet Food announced a voluntary recall of many brands of dog food and cat food on September 12th, 2008 due to “potential contamination with Salmonella”. The recall only affects products sold in the United States.

Products affected include Old Roy Dog Food, Pedigree Dog Food, Special Kitty Cat Food and several lesser known brands including Members Mark Pet Foods and Wegman’s Pet Foods. The press release states: “Salmonella can cause serious infections in dogs and cats, and, if there is cross contamination caused by handling of the pet food, in people as well, especially children, the aged, and people with compromised immune systems.”

For the full list of products and UPC code and further information visit: (http://www.petcare.mars.com/) .

Quoting the Mars Pet Care website: “The company stopped production at the Everson facility on July 29, 2008 when it was alerted of a possible link between dry pet food produced at the plant and two isolated cases of people infected with Salmonella Schwarzengrund.” Let me repeat — ‘the company stopped production on July 29, 2008’.

From Mars Pet Care’s action of ‘stopping production’ on July 29, 2008 — ten days later an initial limited recall was announced (Pedigree Dog Food only sold in Southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada); 34 days after this, the recall was updated, now including many products sold all across the United States. A total of 44 days passed from when Mars Pet Care states they stopped production, to the recent recall announcement covering 105 different brands, sizes, and varieties of dog food and cat food.

Remember, at the Pet Food Safety meeting the FDA held this past spring, the director of the FDA proudly announced that the action response time for the pet food industry is better than that of the human food side. Hmmm, that doesn’t sound good.

Mars states they are “continuing to work collaboratively with the FDA to determine the nature and source” of the salmonella. The release does not state when Mars contacted the FDA regarding the possible contamination.

If you or anyone you know is feeding their pet a dog food or cat food made by Mars Pet Care, please take notice of this recall and take the necessary precautions.

Wishing you and your pet the best,

About the author
Susan Thixton has an international pet people following providing dog and cat lovers a trusted source for pet food and pet food ingredient information. She’s been called courageous, perseverant, even “the Caped Crusader for Pets” for her 16 year study of pet food. Susan Thixton is the author of hundreds of pet industry articles and the 2006 released book Truth About Pet Food (currently being updated for a second edition). She developed and publishes the pet product consumer magazine Petsumer Report and is a frequent speaker and radio guest all over the U.S. and Canada with more than 70 appearances in the last 2 years.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/024232.html

Aspartame, more commonly known as NutraSweet or Equal, is one of the most toxic substances being consumed today. The artificial sweetener, currently used in over 4,000 products worldwide, entertains a sordid past and has been one of the most tested and debated food additives in the history of the FDA. While the manufacturer maintains that aspartame is not a danger to your health, the scientific studies don’t necessarily agree. The FDA has approved the product for mass consumption, in spite of overwhelming evidence that aspartame can have neurotoxic, metabolic, allergenic, fetal and carcinogenic effects. When you question how such a substance has not been banned, one simply needs to look at the billions of dollars generated by the sale of aspartame each year. In light of the staggering number of dollar signs involved, it’s easy to see that the artificial sweetener industry has reached Big Tobacco status. With so much money at stake, the truth suffers almost as much as the health of the consumers, while the shareholders’ wealth continues to grow exponentially.

The Ingredients

In 1965, James Schlatter, a chemist for G.D. Searle, was developing an anti-ulcer drug when he accidentally stumbled upon aspartame. Made up of aspartic acid (40%), phenylalanine (50%) and methanol (10%), aspartame is 200 times sweeter than natural sugar.

* Aspartic Acid

Aspartate is a neurotransmitter in the brain, facilitating information from one neuron to another. Too much aspartate allows an influx of calcium into the brain cells, triggering an excessive amount of free radicals which kill the cells. Aspartate is referred to as an “excitotoxin” because of the nerve cell damage that it causes. Many chronic illnesses have been attributed to long term excitotoxin exposure, including multiple sclerosis, ALS, memory loss, hormonal problems, hearing loss, epilepsy, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, hypoglycemia, dementia, brain lesions and neuroendocrine disorders.

In 1971, Dr. John Olney, neuroscientist and one of the world’s foremost experts on excitotoxins, informed G.D. Searle that his research had revealed that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of mice. Searle did not inform the FDA of these findings until after aspartame’s approval in 1981. This would prove to be one event in a startling pattern of lies and deception.

* Phenylalanine

Phenylalanine is an amino acid normally found in the brain. Human testing has shown phenylalanine levels in the blood are increased significantly in those who chronically use aspartame. Excessive levels of phenylalanine in the brain can cause the levels of serotonin to decrease, which can lead to depression, schizophrenia and make one more susceptible to seizures.

Studies conducted on rats by G.D. Searle found phenylalanine to be safe for humans. However, Louis J. Elsas, II, M.D., Director of Medical Genetics and Professor of Pediatrics at Emory University School of Medicine told the U.S. Senate in 1987 that, “Normal humans do not metabolize phenylalanine as efficiently as do lower species such as rodents and thus most of the previous studies on aspartame effects on rodents are irrelevant.” Unfortunately, this fell on deaf ears and failed to garner additional testing.

* Methanol

By far, the most controversial ingredient in aspartame is methanol (aka wood alcohol). An EPA assessment of methanol states that it is “considered a cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed. In the body, methanol is oxidated to formaldehyde and formic acid; both of these metabolites are toxic.” This oxidation occurs when methanol reaches 86 degrees F (30 degrees C).

* Formaldehyde

A product broken down from aspartate is a known carcinogen and causes retinal damage, birth defects and interferes with DNA replications.

The EPA recommends a consumption limit of 7.8 mg/day. A 1 Liter aspartame sweetened beverage contains about 56 mg of methanol, seven times the EPA limit.

The most common maladies related to methanol poisoning are vision problems including misty vision, progressive contraction of visual fields, blurring of vision, obscuration of vision, retinal damage and blindness.

The History of Aspartame

In 1973, G.D. Searle submitted aspartame to the FDA for approval as a sweetening agent. Approval was granted in July of 1974 but pulled in December after objections to its safety were filed by neuroscience researcher, John Olney, and consumer attorney, James Turner. Questions regarding G.D. Searle’s research practices were subsequently raised and an FDA investigation was launched.

It is important to note that of the 164 studies that were conducted, 74 of them had industry related sponsorship and 90 were funded without any industry money. Of the 90 non-industry sponsored studies, 83 (92%) identified one of more problems with aspartame.

In 1976, an FDA task force investigation revealed numerous faults in G.D. Searle’s studies. FDA Toxicologist and Task Force member, Dr. Adrian Gross stated, “They [G.D. Searle] lied and they didn’t submit the real nature of their observations because, had they done that, it is more likely that a great number of these studies would have been rejected for adequacy. What Searle did, they took great pains to camouflage these shortcomings of the study… For instance, animals would develop tumors while they were under study. Well, they would remove these tumors from the animals.” In July 1976 the FDA created another task force, headed by Jerome Bressler, to investigate the discrepancies in three studies in particular.

In 1977, a Grand Jury investigation into Searle’s violation of the law was launched, headed by U.S. Attorney William Conlon. Conlon failed to follow through and the statute of limitations ran out. 15 months later, Conlon accepted a job with the law firm representing G.D. Searle in the investigation.

In August of 1977, the Bressler Report was released, citing a myriad of lies and inconsistencies with Searle’s studies. Senior Scientist on the FDA’s task force, Jacqueline Verrett, testified in front of the U.S. Senate, “It would appear that the safety of aspartame and its breakdown products has still not been satisfactorily determines, since the flaws cited in these three studies were also present in all of the other studies submitted by Searle.” Due to these findings, a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) was launched.

In 1980, the PBOI voted unanimously to reject the use of aspartame until additional studies on its potential to cause brain tumors could be done.

In January of 1981, G.D. Searle reapplied for approval, submitting new studies with its application. In March, a 5 member FDA panel of scientists reviewed the PBOI’s findings. The panel referred to the brain tumor data as “worrisome” and could not recommend approval. In July of 1981, FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. overruled the PBOI and approved aspartame for dry foods use, ignoring the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348) which states that a food additive should not be approved if tests are inconclusive.

In October 1982, Searle petitioned the FDA for approval to use aspartame in soft drinks and children’s vitamins. The FDA approved the use in soft drinks in 1983. Shortly after approval, Commissioner Hayes left the FDA under charges of improprieties and was hired as a consultant for G.D. Searle’s PR Firm, Burson Marstellar.

In July of 1983, both Woodrow Monte, Director of the Science and Nutrition Laboratory at Arizona State University and James Turner, Esq. filed petitions objecting to the approval of aspartame based on possible serious adverse side effects from chronic intake of aspartame. In November, the FDA denied the petitions “because public interest did not require it.”

In 1984, 6,900,000 lbs of aspartame were consumed in the U.S.

In 1985, G.D. Searle was bought out by Monsanto, creating the NutraSweet Company as a separate subsidiary from G.D. Searle. 14,400,000 lbs. of aspartame were consumed in the U.S. that same year.

15,700,000 lbs of aspartame were consumed in the U.S. in 1986. 17,100,000 lbs were consumed in 1987. NutraSweet stopped providing consumption data to the USDA after 1987.

In 1996, the FDA removed all restrictions on aspartame and authorized its use in all products, including heated and baked goods. This was done in spite of the fact that aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde above 86 degrees F.

Today, aspartame accounts for over 75% of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. How sweet it is? A few of the 90 different documented symptoms include: headaches/migraines, dizziness, seizures, nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain, rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, tachycardia, insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinnitus, vertigo, memory loss and joint pain. Which one are you ready for?

For more information on the history of aspartame, please check out (www.dorway.com/enclosur.html) .

About the author
Leigh Erin Connealy, M.D. has specialized in Integrative Medicine for over twenty years, using conventional and natural methods to determine and discover the “root of the cause” in her clinic, South Coast Medical Center for New Medicine in Irvine, California, each and every day. Many people come in to the clinic from all over the world with severe chronic illnesses that conventional medical protocols have been unsuccessful treating. www.perfectlyhealthy.com.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/024225.html

It’s difficult to imagine that cigarettes and lies have any connection with pet food — but when you look closely at the advertising tactics of some pet foods, look closely at the ingredients in those pet foods — you’ll find cigarettes, lies, and pet food fits perfectly together.

To give you an example of the connection, we’re looking closely at an extremely popular cat food, sold in every grocery across the country. The pet food manufacturer is one of the most popular and largest producers of pet food, selling cat and dog foods all over the world. I can’t give you the pet food name, so I’ve made up a name and I’ve change some of the wording from the information provided on the pet food bag. But, and this is a really big but(t), the ingredients provided below are the actual ingredients of the real cat food. And dog owners — the same tricks apply to dog food.

I’m using the pretend pet food name of ‘Yummy Good - Super Seafood Dry Cat Food’ instead of the actual cat food name. Just like many pet foods, on the front of the Yummy Good Super Seafood Cat Food bag is a photo of the most beautiful cat you’ve ever seen — his coat almost glows in the picture. Bright big eyes, mischievous face — this cat looks like the picture of health. Your eyes are instinctively drawn to the picture. Right above it you notice the pet food name, Yummy Good, with a big red heart next to it. The ‘yummy’ and the heart leads you to believe this cat food not only tastes good, but somehow you are providing love by feeding it. Under the beautiful cat picture you notice ‘Super Seafood with Ocean Fish, Albacore Tuna, Salmon, and Crab Flavors’. And you think ‘wow, look at all the fish in this cat food… it’s so healthy!’ To seal the deal, you read “100% Complete Nutrition” and “with Healthy Omega’s”.

‘This has got to be a great food for my cat… all those different kinds of fish, complete nutrition, omega’s, and it’s named Yummy!’ You pull the bag of Yummy Good Super Seafood from the shelf, and being a good pet parent, you read a little more about it on the back of the bag. You read that this food offers ‘Healthy Skin and Coat promoted by Omega Essential Oils’, ‘Clear Healthy Vision supported by vitamins and minerals’, ‘Healthy Immune System supported by Complete Nutrition’ and ‘Strong, Lean Muscles supported by High Quality Protein’. Sold! ‘Wow my cat is gonna love me for this!’

While you might think you discovered this cat food by a natural shopping process, it’s actually an expertly scripted sale. It’s exactly how most pet owners decide on a brand of cat or dog food, unknowing participants in the consumer/pet food sales process. Pet owners are precisely led down an expertly scripted path –- inadvertently purchasing and feeding their pets popular brands of cat or dog foods assuming the best of nutrition is being provided to their pet.

So now let’s look at the actual ingredients of one of the most popular cat foods in the U.S.— the pet food I re-named Yummy Good Super Seafood. First, you should know that ingredients listed on pet food labels are listed by pre-cooking weight — heaviest to lightest. So by pre-cooking weight, the first five or so ingredients are the heaviest and make up the majority of the food. Knowing that, here are the first five ingredients of a real cat food sold in grocery stores all over the U.S. that I’ve changed the name to Yummy Good Super Seafood Cat Food: “Ground yellow corn, corn gluten meal, poultry by-product meal, meat and bone meal, animal fat preserved with mixed-tocopherols (form of Vitamin E)”.

• ‘Ground yellow corn’ is the first ingredient — no seafood there and corn has little to no nutritional value to cats or dogs.

• ‘Corn gluten meal’ is the second ingredient — gluten is often used as a binder or thickener for pet foods. No seafood again and no nutritional value to the pet.

• ‘Poultry by-product meal’ is the third ingredient… hmmm, still no seafood. By-products are animal pieces that are considered unsuitable for human consumption, sort of the garbage of the meat processing industry. Poultry by-products consist of animal pieces like chicken feet and turkey heads, providing little to no nutritional value to the pet.

• ‘Meat and bone meal’ is the fourth ingredient. What? Still no seafood? Meat and bone meal, if you can imagine it, is an even worse pet food ingredient than by-products. This ingredient is the garbage from anything and everything animal — things like euthanized sick animals, diseased animal tissue, or even expired grocery store meat. As you can guess, it provides little to no nutritional value to the pet (cat or dog).

• And our fifth ingredient is ‘animal fat preserved with mixed tocopherols’. When chicken feet, turkey heads, cow intestines and expired grocery store meat are cooked (in the pet food industry it’s called rendered), the fat that rises to the top becomes the pet food ingredient animal fat. The pet owner (and even the pet food manufacturer) has no idea what types of animals the fat comes from and worse yet, this common pet food ingredient has been determined by the FDA to be most likely to contain pentobarbital (the drug used to euthanize animals). In other words, you can pretty much assume that the pet food ingredient animal fat contains euthanized animals and the drug used to end their life. Again, no seafood and little to no nutritional value to the pet.

This is perplexing — the majority of an actual cat food (the first five ingredients) that I renamed Yummy Good Super Seafood — contains no seafood. Surely the next five ingredients will be the ‘good stuff’. Well, let’s see… here are the next five actual ingredients of a popular cat food with Seafood in the name: “soybean meal, animal liver flavor, phosphoric acid, calcium carbonate, salt”. Still no seafood. Actually, still no quality nutrition provided to cats in ten ingredients! The first ten ingredients make up a huge majority of a pet food, a guesstimate with this cat food would be around 85%. So the largest majority of an extremely popular cat food I’ve re-named Yummy Good Super Seafood Cat Food contains no seafood and provides little to no nutrition to a cat. It isn’t until the twelfth ingredient on the list that we find what the name implies — seafood — and that’s right before the artificial coloring of the cat food.

Think about that just for a moment. Think about the weight of the food coloring you use when you color Easter eggs. The couple of drops of coloring you put into the water — think about how much those couple of drops of food coloring weigh. Now imagine a piece of salmon or Albacore Tuna that weighs just slightly more than a couple of drops of food coloring. That’s how much seafood is in this bag of cat food.

Amazing huh? And remember, these are the actual ingredients of a cat food that is sold in every grocery store across the country, a pet food that I assure you would be recognized by every U.S. pet owner. A cat food that touts Seafood in the name, containing probably far less than one small piece of Albacore Tuna or Salmon in a ton or more of cat food. A pet food that claims ‘Healthy Immune System supported by Complete Nutrition’ and ‘Strong, Lean Muscles supported by High Quality Protein’, when actually there is only a sliver of high quality protein/nutrition in the food.

As surprising as it might be, this is all perfectly legal and common practice in the pet food and pet treat industry. It’s simply advertising. The existing rules of the pet food industry allow “unqualified claims, either directly or indirectly” on pet food labels. Misleading yes, but it’s nothing new to advertising.

Twenty or so years ago, the tobacco industry sold pretty much the same story to consumers. Similar to this pet food claiming ‘Ocean Fish, Albacore Tuna, Salmon, and Crab Flavors’, Camel Cigarettes for example had slogans such as ‘Slow down - Pleasure up’, ‘More Doctors Smoke Camels than any other cigarette’, and ‘For Digestion’s Sake – Smoke Camels’.

The tobacco industry got caught at their game, but the pet food industry continues on, following some of the exact steps that worked so perfectly for cigarettes. Former effective tobacco marketing techniques such as continuity programs rewarding tobacco loyal consumers with ‘Camel Cash’ and ‘Marlboro Miles’ to exchange for coupons or brand wear t-shirts and hats is commonplace today with pet product consumers. To build a stronger bond with smokers, tobacco companies sponsored sporting and entertainment events. Pet Food Industries have taken that one step further. Not only is every major pet event attached to a pet food name (marketing by association to the best dogs or cats in the country to a particular brand of pet food), but almost every veterinarian graduating in the last twenty or so years has been affected by pet food corporate marketing. Veterinary students up to present day at almost every veterinary college in the U.S. are commonly taught dog and cat nutrition by pet food manufacturers — nutrition classes based on what each manufacturer wants them to know, not pet nutrition based on unbiased science and research. Twenty years ago this would be similar to R.J. Reynolds employees teaching third year medical students respiratory function classes.

Pet food has even joined the TV game show world. Auditions have already begun for the ‘Meow Mix Game Show’ set to air on Game Show Network in November 2008. It’s known as “branded entertainment”; an advertising tactic that has been commonly utilized for many years.

Twenty plus years ago tobacco advertising monies also controlled the media. Numerous behind-closed-door meetings have been reported between major television, radio, and print media with tobacco representatives pointing out that bad ‘press’ would be frowned upon and tobacco would consider removing the millions of advertising dollars provided to the media companies should bad press stories be published. For years, these tactics prevented consumers from knowing the truth about tobacco risks. Today, we can only assume the media’s blind eye to rendered euthanized animals and dangerous chemical preservatives being common to many pet foods is due to the same strong arm tactics. The pet food Industry’s million dollar plus advertising budgets provided by pet food high profits (a ‘seafood’ cat food made with corn and by-products provides a great deal more profit than a ‘seafood’ cat food made with real seafood) continue to keep pet owners in the dark.

How much of an impact does pet food advertising have? In 1989 a Surgeon General’s report regarding the impact of cigarette advertising stated “familiarity of tobacco advertising and promotion may contribute to an environment in which tobacco use is perceived by users to be socially acceptable, or at least less socially objectionable and less hazardous than it is in fact.” Study after study has proven Cigarette advertisements capitalize on the consumers’ misperception of risk factors associated with smoking. In fact, the many studies of tobacco advertising effects on consumers resulted in the eventual end of tobacco advertising.

No one knows the true impact pet food advertising has on the health of pets. No study has ever been done. But using the example provided above — with one of the most popular cat foods in the country, a cat food that touts ‘Seafood’ in the name and blazons ‘Ocean Fish, Albacore Tuna, Salmon, and Crab Flavors’ across the label (and knowing that this cat food has an unimaginable tiny amount of seafood actually in it) — you can guess the effects on a cat’s health. It was proven with cigarettes the power of advertising and it’s basically proven with pet food when such an inferior cat food is a leader in national cat food sales. Familiarity of pet food advertising and promotion surely seems to contribute to an environment that these pet foods are perceived as healthy and premium.

Cigarette smokers today at the very least are informed; they make their smoking or non-smoking decisions based on science, not manipulating advertising. Pet owners are not provided the same privilege. Pet owners continue to unknowingly purchase cat and dog foods whose ingredients cannot match the advertising claims. Remember that even if the pet food label says Yummy or Seafood or even Super, the ingredient list might tell a completely different story. The front of a bag or can of pet food is just marketing, it in no way gives a “petsumer” enough information and/or sound information to judge the actual quality of nutrition that is provided to the pet in the food.

Until misleading pet food advertising is outlawed just as cigarette advertising was, pet owners must read the ingredient list, understand a few common pet food ingredient definitions, and ask a few questions of the pet food manufacturer. Briefly, look for cat and dog foods that contain no ‘by-products’, no ‘meat and bone meal’, no ‘animal fat’, and very little mention of grains (corn, wheat, or soy). Call the manufacturer and ask if any ingredients originate outside the U.S.(avoid pet foods that utilize Chinese imports) and get an assurance that the meat quality is a human grade. There are many quality pet foods out there, pet owners have to look a little further, but the reward to your pet’s health far outweighs the minimal effort to find them.

Susan Thixton has an international pet people following providing dog and cat lovers a trusted source for pet food and pet food ingredient information. She’s been called courageous, perseverant, even “the Caped Crusader for Pets” for her 16 year study of pet food. http://www.TruthAboutPetFood.com

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

The FDA is supposed to protect our pet’s food. Congress took note of the deadly pet food recall last year and mandated the FDA to clean up its act. Human food and pet food regulations are supposed to be updated and in working order by September 2009 according to the Amendments Act. I have my doubts. The list below does not come directly from the FDA in exact words, yet it is a fair interpretation of how the FDA acts in caring for the safety of our pet’s food and treats.

1. All U.S. pet foods are safe –- and will continue to be safe. We have everything under control.

2. The pet food recall last year was not our fault –- China did it. We do not think it’s necessary to restrict Chinese imports or label pet foods with information that some ingredients might come from China. China has taken measures to prevent this from ever happening again. We trust Chinese imports. Besides, around 1% of all imported products are inspected by the FDA. We have everything under control.

3. U.S. pet owners should not be concerned that sick, diseased cattle and other animals are processed into pet food. Even though the FDA currently considers sick, diseased cattle to be Specified Risk Materials to spread mad cow disease and we are aware that cats around the world have contracted the feline version of this disease, we do not believe they are a risk for use in pet foods. The FDA has been told by pet food industry stakeholder groups that Specified Risk Materials –- animal materials at risk to spread mad cow disease –- are too costly to destroy. We trust the advice of these stakeholder groups and agree that the cost to destroy these risk materials is too high. Sorry, but pet food is the only place to discard specified risk materials. We consider Specified Risk Materials safe for your pet to consume. We have everything under control.

4. Pentobarbital –- the drug used to euthanize animals including pets –- is safe for pets to consume. Yes, we are aware that our neighbor government agency, the Fish and Wildlife Agency, reports that over 100 Bald and Golden Eagles have died recently from eating a euthanized animal. The FDA did a lengthy and complete 8 week study and we determined there is no risk to pets consuming this lethal drug over a lifetime. We have everything under control.

5. The FDA has no idea how the euthanizing drug pentobarbital gets into pet food. We are aware that there is some significant evidence that euthanized pets are rendered (cooked) and put back into pet food. We have spent a great deal of tax payer money developing testing procedures to determine the species source of the drug. Our test results found nothing… well, to be more specific, we spent a great deal of our limited budget trying to quiet the rumors that euthanized dogs and cats are processed into pet food… but, we failed. We cannot say for certain where or how pentobarbital gets into many popular brands of pet foods. However, we firmly believe the information that pet food industry stakeholder groups tell us –- pentobarbital in pet food is not from rendered euthanized dogs and cats. Pet owners should not be concerned how pentobarbital gets into pet food nor which pet foods contain euthanized animals. We have everything under control.

6. The FDA finds it completely acceptable for a pet food to make the claim ‘Premium’ or ‘Choice’ on the label even if the food contains chicken feet and cow intestines. Our pets in the U.S. are so fortunate; we understand that chicken feet and cow intestines are considered a delicacy in some countries. The FDA provides a confusing explanation on pet food labels on our website, but we feel the following sums it up: “The pet food label contains a wealth of information, if one knows how to read it. Do not be swayed by the many marketing gimmicks or eye-catching claims.” We have everything under control.

7. Should any pet owner feel the FDA is not completely looking out for the best interest of U.S. pets, please note that the FDA leaves most decisions regarding the rules and regulations of pet food to AAFCO (American Association of Feed Control Officials). Since the pet food industry stakeholder groups provide AAFCO with the same valuable advice they provide us, in fact members of these stakeholder groups sit on the Advisory Boards to AAFCO –- the FDA feels confident that AAFCO has everything under control. Should you still feel the FDA is not doing enough to protect your pet, we provide you with the same response we give whenever we are questioned about our ability to protect human and pet food: “We don’t have the funding or the manpower”.

If it wasn’t so sad, the real life condition of pet food seems almost like it’s been taken straight out of the pages of some script from a twisted humor television show. My guess would be that the FDA does consider they have ‘everything under control’ and that all U.S. pet foods are safe. Many doubt that.

It’s not rocket science to understand that a quality piece of meat is far more nutritious for your pet than chicken feet and/or cow intestines. And even more so, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that sick, diseased animals or euthanized animals (especially the possibility of euthanized pets) should never be processed into pet food. The good news (honestly) is that there are some high quality pet foods out there that do not use these types of inferior ingredients. It takes a small amount of effort to find them, but the rewards are obvious.

Wishing you and your pet the best,

Susan Thixton has an international pet people following providing dog and cat lovers a trusted source for pet food and pet food ingredient information. She’s been called courageous, perseverant, even “the Caped Crusader for Pets” for her 16 year study of pet food. Susan Thixton is the author of hundreds of pet industry articles and the 2006 released book Truth About Pet Food. http://www.TruthAboutPetFood.com

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/024161.html

The U.S. Senate is proposing to cut $2 million per year from the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s premier organic research program, and the Bush Administration is threatening to cut a whopping $8 million, according to the Organic Farming Research Foundation. The move comes after months of grassroots pressure recently delivered a much-needed fivefold increase in mandatory OREI funding, from $15 to $78 million over the next five years, in the 2008 Farm Bill.

Beyond Pesticides has long supported organic methods as the solution to pesticide pollution, with organic agriculture being the centerpiece of the conversion necessary to protect human health and the environment, including slowing global warming. Data shows that organic agriculture sequesters atmospheric carbon while chemical-intensive practices are a major contributor to carbon loading. In addition, the reduced pressure on global warming associated with organic agriculture occurs through the drastic reduction in fossil fuel usage (approximately 75% less than conventional agriculture) as well as the significant increase in carbon sequestration in the soil (approximately 1000 lbs. of carbon per acre). See Beyond Pesticides’ organic page.

Let the Appropriations Committees Congress know that it is essential to expedite the transition to organic agriculture in the U.S. and research funds are an essential tool. Tell members of the committees to keep funding for OREI at the level mandated in the Farm Bill – $18 million for 2009.

The Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative funds highly critical research important to the improvement of organic farming systems. While the organic share of the retail food market is currently about 4%, total USDA spending for organic agriculture research and education was just over 1% of all of the department’s research and education spending in FY2007. The increase in the 2008 Farm Bill still falls short of a fair share for organic research and education, but it is a strong down payment towards achieving that goal.

Organic agriculture embodies an ecological approach to farming that does not rely on or permit toxic, synthetic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, antibiotics, sewage sludge, or irradiation. Instead of using these harmful products and practices, organic agriculture utilizes techniques such as cover cropping, crop rotation, and composting to produce healthy soil, prevent pest and disease problems, and grow healthy food and fiber.

Organic agriculture research is crucial in giving farmers the tools and information they need to address production challenges, improve farming systems, and ultimately meet the growing consumer demand for organic products.

Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to a serious public health and environmental threat.

Ensure that the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative remains fully funded in the FY09 Budget. Ask Congress to keep funding for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative at the level mandated in the Farm Bill - $18 million for 2009.

Take Action
It is helpful for you to send a unique message to your member of Congress (House and Senate Appropriations Committee members) even if it is short and precisely explains that you would like to see full funding for organic research to assist in the broader transition to organic agriculture. Longer messages can rely on talking points provided by Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF).

1) Call or fax the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee who come from your State. The members are listed at: http://appropriations.senate.gov/members.cfm. If you click on the Senators website link, you will find on their homepage a link to email them directly.

2) Call or fax the members of the House Appropriations Committee who come from your State. The members are listed at: http://appropriations.house.gov/members110th.shtml. If you click on the U.S. Representative’s website link, you will find on his/her homepage a link to email them directly.

3) If you prefer, after identifying your Member of Congress, you can call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or toll-free at 866-340-9281, ask to be transferred and leave a voice message.

With each person, ask to speak to the staffer who handles appropriations. If you get their voice mail, leave the following message, or something in your own words that makes the same points:

MESSAGE: My name is ____. I am a constituent [or live in your state]. I would like to see full funding for organic research to assist in the broader transition to organic agriculture. This funding is critical to farmers’ livelihood, consumer access to organic food, farming methods that are protective of the environment and those who work on the farm. Please support full funding ($18 million for 2009) for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative, as authorized by Congress in the 2008 Farm Bill.

Source: http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=561