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

The FDA approved two versions of a new zero-calorie sweetener developed by the Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo.

Cargill, which is marketing the sweetener Truvia from Coca-Cola, received notification from the FDA that it had no objection to the product, calling it “generally recognized as safe.”

PepsiCo said it also had received a similar letter and the same “generally recognized as safe” designation for its sweetener, PureVia.

Both products use rebiana, an extract from the stevia plant.

Sources:  New York Times December 17, 2008

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

I’ve commented on the stunning and mindboggling inconsistencies over the FDA’s approval of these Stevia-based sweeteners in a couple of previous articles. Because what they have approved is the use of certain active ingredients – these sweeteners are Stevia-based — NOT the entire plant, which has been used as a natural sweetener for more than 1,500 years.

No, contrary to logic, the FDA actually declared natural Stevia an “unsafe food additive” at the end of 2007. Hain Celestial Group Inc, maker of Celestial Seasonings herbal teas, received a letter from the FDA saying the Stevia used in some of their teas may be dangerous to blood sugar and reproductive, cardiovascular, and renal systems.

Why Was Natural Stevia Deemed Non-GRAS?

The fact that Stevia has such an extraordinarily long history as a natural sweetener is a major clue and testament to its safety. Remember, usually it’s the synergistic effect of all the agents in the plant that provide the overall health effect, which oftentimes includes “built-in protection” against potentially damaging effects.

But what happens if you take only one or two of these agents, and discard the rest?

Will it affect your body the same way?

Probably not.

Truvia may turn out to be a very good substitute to sugar, but I’d have to see some more details before giving it a thoroughly enthusiastic thumbs-up – for the same reason the FDA uses as the basis for their refusal to consider Stevia GRAS (generally recognized as safe): there’s just not enough evidence to prove its safety.

No one has consumed just the active ingredient rebaudioside A for any length of time to be able to tell what might happen.

Meanwhile, in the United States, natural Stevia has been the subject of searches and seizures, trade complaints, and embargoes on importation. Many believe that the FDA’s actions regarding Stevia have been, and still are, nothing more than a restraint to trade, designed to benefit the artificial sweetener industry.

No doubt these patented Stevia-based sweeteners will rake in more money than you could possibly make from using the whole, natural plant! Since Stevia cannot be used in foods, Truvia and other Stevia-based sweeteners bound to spring forth, stand to gain an enormous market share as its most natural competition has been successfully eliminated.

What Do We Know About These Stevia-Based Sweeteners?

As I’ve written about before, Stevia contains a number of agents, including various stevioside compounds, rebaudiosides, and glycoside.

What the FDA has approved as GRAS are just a couple of the active ingredients, including rebaudioside A. It is this agent that provides most of the sweet taste.

In the recent Toxicology of Rebaudioside A: A Review, researchers point out that stevioside compounds and rebaudioside A are metabolized at different rates, making it impossible to assess the risk of rebaudioside A from toxicity assessments of stevioside (which has been used as food and medicine in Japan and South America for decades or longer).

Additionally, in a human metabolism study, stevioside and rebaudioside A had different pharmacokinetic results. In layman’s terms, that means that your body reacts differently to the two compounds; each compound is metabolized differently and remains in your body for different lengths of time.

On the other hand, another study from July 2008, looking at the subchronic toxicity of rebaudioside A, found no observable adverse effects below 4161 and 4645 mg/kg body weight/day in male and female rats, respectively. You’d be hard pressed to ever reach that amount even if you poured it on everything.

What Do We Know About Natural Stevia?

But there are also studies exonerating natural Stevia, and showing it has other health benefits aside from sweetening.

One such study, published in the December 2008 issue of the Journal of Animal Psychology and Animal Nutrition, comments on its antimicrobial and antifungal properties. Researchers looked at Stevia’s potential use as a prebiotic animal feed supplement, in light of the 2007 ban on the use of seven common antibiotics in animal feed.

They found that dietary Stevia reduced blood levels of glucose, triglycerides and triiodothyronine (T(3)). In contrast, animals who received only the active agent stevioside, only saw a decrease in T(3).

So, at least for health benefits, consuming whole Stevia could be preferable to only one of its agents, even if that one agent does not cause undue harm.

Another 2007 study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry reported that the Stevia plant may be useful as a potential source of natural antioxidants.

Is Natural Stevia Safe for Everyone?

My traditional advice has been that if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would benefit from avoiding ALL sweeteners, including Stevia. However, I might need to revise that recommendation in light of the study referenced above.

According to a 1995 study in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology, rats receiving chronic administration of Stevia extract for 40 and 60 days developed hypotension (abnormally low blood pressure), diuresis (increased formation of urine by the kidney), and natriuresis (excretion of an excessively large amount of sodium in the urine).

This, by the way, is likely one of the studies used by the FDA to declare Stevia non-GRAS…

However, if you compare it to the damage caused by consuming too much sugar – which is GRAS, and VERY easy to overdo if you eat the standard American diet laden with fast food and processed food products – then I still believe Stevia is a far lesser evil of the two. And it’s definitely preferable to artificial sweeteners at any amount!

I must tell you that I am biased; I prefer Stevia as my sweetener of choice, and I frequently use it. However, like most choices, especially sweeteners, I recommend using Stevia in moderation, just like sugar. Additionally, in excess it is still far less likely to cause metabolic problems than sugar or any of the artificial sweeteners.
So if you are going to sweeten your foods and beverages anyway, I strongly encourage you to consider using regular Stevia, and toss all artificial sweeteners, limit sugar, and hold off on the Stevia-based sweeteners until their safety have been thoroughly assessed.

Source: www.mercola.com

The average refrigerator consumes more energy than any other household appliance. We spend over $10 billion in the U.S., alone, to supply energy to our household refrigerators. The following tips will save you money and reduce your carbon (energy) footprint:

1) Clean the filter and coils annually: Most Americans rarely, if ever, get around to vacuuming out the filter and coils on the back of the fridge. A dusty coil can increase energy consumption by 20 percent or more.

2) Keep it full but not stuffed: A fridge and freezer will be able to retain their coolness better if they’re full. If you’re not at full capacity, place a few containers of water in the freezer.

3) Think about what you want before you open the fridge. Every time you open the fridge to browse for a snack, you consume  around of 9 to 13 watt/hours, which is enough power to light a 60-watt bulb for 10 minutes.

4) Let hot items cool before placing them in the refrigerator.

5) Defrost the freezer regularly.

6) Check the door gasket for a tight seal.

7) Cover liquids and foods stored in the refrigerator. Uncovered foods release moisture and make the compressor work harder.

8) If your fridge is older than 1993, get a new one. You’re spending so much on your electric bill, you’ll actually save money. New models use less energy than a 75-watt light bulb. Be sure to look for the Energy Star label.

Source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/

Despite a deluge of over 100,000 emails and petition signatures from organic consumers and farmers objecting to the appointment of biotech and biofuels booster Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture, the Senate is scheduled to begin confirmation hearings for Vilsack today.

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is disappointed in this controversial appointment, and we are calling on our national network and allies to pressure Obama to move beyond “agribusiness as usual” by drafting Jim Riddle to head the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), the department that oversees organic food, farming, and standards. Riddle is an organic farmer from Minnesota, former Chair of the National Organic Standards Board, and a longtime advocate for sustainable and organic farming. With Riddle heading up the AMS, farmers markets, Community Supported Agriculture, transition to organic programs, and the National Organic Program will finally receive the attention, technical assistance, and funding they deserve.

Take action

Source: Organic Consumers Association

A key question that is often asked about ecological agriculture, including organic agriculture, is whether it can be productive enough to meet the world’s food needs. While many agree that ecological agriculture is desirable from an environmental and social point of view, there remain fears that ecological and organic agriculture produce low yields.

Below is a summary by Lim Li Ching, a researcher with Third World Network, of the available evidence to demystify the productivity debate and demonstrate that ecological agriculture is indeed productive, especially so in developing countries.

A recent study examined a global dataset of 293 examples and estimated the average yield ratio (organic : non-organic) of different food categories for the developed and developing world (Badgley et al., 2007). For most of the food categories examined, they found that the average yield ratio was slightly less than 1.0 for studies in the developed world, but more than 1.0 for studies in developing countries.

On average, in developed countries, organic systems produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture. In developing countries, however, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms.

With the average yield ratios, the researchers then modeled the global food supply that could be grown organically on the current agricultural land base. They found that organic methods could hypothetically produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without putting more farmland into production.

Moreover, contrary to fears that there are insufficient quantities of organically acceptable fertilizers, the data suggest that leguminous cover crops could fix enough nitrogen to replace the amount of synthetic fertilizer currently in use.

This model suggests that organic agriculture could potentially provide enough food globally, but without the negative environmental impacts of conventional agriculture.

For the entire article, please click on the Source Link below.
Sources: * Organic Consumers Association December 19, 2008

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

I’m continually amazed that so many policymakers find it hard to believe that organic and sustainable farming can actually produce enough food to feed the world.

If you’re still unconvinced, I highly suggest you read the whole article linked above. As you’ll read, one recent study that examined a global dataset of 293 farming examples found that in developing countries, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms. And a review of 286 projects in 57 countries found that farmers who used “resource-conserving” or ecological agriculture had increased agricultural productivity by an average of 79%!

“It is clear that ecological agriculture is productive and has the potential to meet food security needs … Moreover, ecological agricultural approaches allow farmers to improve local food production with low-cost, readily available technologies and inputs, without causing environmental damage,” Lim Li Ching writes.

Really, the question we should be asking ourselves shouldn’t be ‘Can organic or sustainable farming feed the world?’, but ‘How can food production possibly continue as it is?’

The Modern Food System is Crumbling

There are so many problems facing the food system that it’s hard to even pinpoint a place to begin, but I’ll start with factory farms — the modern world’s “solution” to raising animals for food.

It may surprise you to learn that such farming creates some of the worst pollution in the United States. The Farm Sanctuary points out that farm animals produce 130 times more waste than humans. And agricultural runoff is the primary reason why 60 percent of U.S. rivers and streams are polluted.

Meanwhile, in areas where animal agriculture is most concentrated (Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Illinois and Indiana round out the top five states with the most factory-farm pollution) bacteria known as pfiesteria is common in waterways. Not only does pfiesteria kill fish, it also causes nausea, memory loss, fatigue and disorientation in people!

Aside from the pollution, factory farms use vast quantities of resources. According to FactoryFarm.org, industrial milking centers that use manure flush cleaning and automatic cow washing systems, go through as much as 150 gallons of water per cow per day.

Energy costs are even steeper.

A 2002 study from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that industrial farms use an average of three calories of energy to create one calorie of food. Grain-fed beef is at the top of the list of offenders, using 35 calories of energy to produce one calorie of food! And this does not even take into account the energy used to process and transport the foods, so the real toll is even larger.

So when I hear someone extolling the virtues of “modern” agriculture and wondering how “organic” or “sustainable” farming could possibly be the solution, I maintain the fact that we have come to accept inefficient, industrial practices, including dousing our food with chemical fertilizers and pesticides, as a viable way to grow food is the real wonder.

And what about genetically modified foods, which were “supposed” to end the global food crisis years ago? Well, lest I open up another can of worms entirely (GM foods are easily one of the biggest threats to both mankind and the earth today) I will suffice to say that GM crops have NOT increased yields as promised.

In fact, research by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho of the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) found that GM soy decreased yields by up to 20 percent compared with non-GM soy, and up to 100 percent failures of GM cotton have been recorded in India.

It is quite apparent that the food system began its dramatic decline the second the world turned away from the farming practices of our ancestors, and began to attempt to outdo nature with technology. What is needed is clearly a return to nature, and that is what organic and sustainable farming practices are striving to accomplish.

How to Support Organic and Sustainable Farming Movements

If you have the time and the space, I encourage each of you to consider starting your own small-scale “farm” in your backyard. It takes just a small patch of land, or even several large containers, to grow ample amounts of produce for your family.

I also suggest you steer clear of foods that come from factory farms or any large industrial farms, and instead support sustainable agriculture movements in your area. After declining for more than a century, the number of U.S. small farms has increased 20 percent in the past six years. This is in large part a result of the growing demand for locally grown foods, which is slowly but surely shaping the business of food in the United States.

So please realize that each and every one of you can make a HUGE difference.

To find sustainable agriculture movements in your area, from farmer’s markets to food coops and more, please see this comprehensive list.

It is important to understand the impact you have when you spend your money on factory food. Changing your shopping patterns by supporting local agriculture will not only help improve your health, it will also help improve the environment and bring back our rural communities.

Source: www.mercola.com

Drugs that receive FDA approval right before deadline are more likely to cause serious side effects than those approved with more time to spare, according to a study published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

“The article is a wake-up call,” said renowned cardiologist Steven Nissen, who was not involved in the study. “It puts the FDA in a very difficult situation when they’re trying to make complex decisions under these very, very tight deadlines. We’ve got to reevaluate now whether that’s good public policy.”

In order to speed up the rate at which new medicines hit the market, Congress has imposed strict deadlines by which the FDA must approve or reject a drug. But critics have charged that this policy encourages the FDA to rush to approve drugs without being sure that they are safe.

The researchers said that over the last few decades, drugs approved just before the deadline were between four and five times as likely to require serious safety warnings or be withdrawn from the market.

Drugs withdrawn from the market included diabetes drug Rezulin, which caused liver problems; cholesterol drug Baycol, which caused muscle damage; painkiller Vioxx, which increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes; and painkiller Bextra, withdrawn for similar reasons. Another drug approved just before deadline was the diabetes drug Avandia, which later had its label revised to warn of severe heart risks.

The researchers also found that a drug was 3.4 times more likely to be approved within two months of the deadline than at any other time in the approval process.

“FDA staffers by their own admission feel very much under the gun as these deadlines loom,” said study co-author Jerry Avorn of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “If they’re forced to make decisions prematurely, they may not make the right decisions. That needs to be debated openly.”

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/025272.html

How can the U.S. significantly reduce health-care costs, and yet plan on increased employment in the health-care industry? According to the article linked below, this is the moral crux for American medicine. If Americans become healthier, there will be fewer jobs. Maybe this is why modern medicine drags its feet when it comes to preventive medicine.

The government is complicit in spawning the diabetes/obesity epidemic by subsidizing the production of non-nutrient-dense foods and high-fructose corn syrup. Statin anti-cholesterol drugs are approved by the FDA even though they don’t reduce mortality rates. Modern medicine is an industry that wants more, not less, disease to treat. Doctors aren’t interested in disease prevention — conventional medicine is quick to dismiss any truly preventive therapies as unproven and requiring more study.

Still, an estimated 38 percent of U.S. adults, along with 12 percent of children, use some type of complementary and alternative medicine, according to a new U.S. government survey.

Complementary and alternative medicine refers to a wide-ranging collection of medical and health care systems, practices and products that aren’t generally considered conventional medicine. They include herbal supplements, meditation, chiropractic treatment and acupuncture.

For the survey, more than 23,300 adults were interviewed about their use of complementary and alternative medicine. More than 9,400 were also asked about their children’s use of complementary and alternative medicine.

The survey found that the use of techniques such as deep breathing, meditation, massage therapy, and yoga increased significantly. The most common supplements used by adults are omega 3 fats, glucosamine, echinacea, flaxseed, and ginseng.

Other findings from the survey showed that more women than men use complementary and alternative medicine (42.8 percent versus 33.5 percent). Older, more educated and wealthier adults also used complementary and alternative medicine in greater numbers.

It’s no wonder that 38 percent of American adults have opted for alternative medicine. Where else can the public turn? Many patients are belittled when they tell their doctors they are taking dietary supplements instead of prescription drugs.

Americans are increasingly distrustful of prescription medicines. According to a 2005 poll, 35 percent of Americans who were prescribed drugs didn’t take them because they wanted to save money, and another 28 percent didn’t take them because of “frightening side effects.

It is becoming increasingly clear that conventional medicine is working against the public welfare.
 Sources:

* LewRockwell.com December 13, 2008
* U.S. News December 10, 2008
* National Health Federation

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Across the country, trust in institutions that were established to guard our health has fallen to an all-time low. According to an article in 2004 in the Harvard Public Health Review, this country is having a “crisis of confidence.”

Patients don’t trust insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, or their physicians. Physicians, in turn, are skeptical of clinic and hospital administrators. I am certain that the situation has not improved in the past four years and has probably further deteriorated.

The Matter of Trust

Why does trust matter?

“Trust is an important lubricant of the social system,” Kenneth Arrow writes in the Harvard article. “Without it, the gears of the nation’s health system will continue grinding down.”

But here is an interesting thought; maybe this system should grind down as it has been dysfunctional for so many years.

One of the “side effects” of a dissatisfied populous is that people take matters into their own hands. This has had a beneficial effect in the United States as people have begun to investigate other ways to achieve health—alternative and complementary medicine. Not only have they dipped their toes into the water, they have jumped in.

As the featured article states, Americans are embracing alternative medicine for its focus on health versus illness, prevention versus cure. People are hungry for a holistic alternative in which they feel treated like people, rather than diseases.

Natural medicine not only provides a less expensive and safer alternative to conventional medicine, but an empowering one, since many of the health techniques are done at home, by you, the patient. It often involves simple lifestyle changes, nutrition, exercise, etc., and emphasizes something I have long advocated—taking charge of your own health.

Repairing Damaged Relationships, or Moving On

Does this new paradigm really mean that modern medicine has to be at war with the public? Do you have to sacrifice your relationship with your physician in order to embrace new forms of health care?

I say no.

In fact, there is nothing to be gained by being at war with anyone. The relationship is the cornerstone of the medical system—nobody can be helped if physicians and patients aren’t getting along.

But increasingly, research and anecdotal reports suggest that many patients don’t trust their physicians.

About one in four patients thinks his physician sometimes exposes him to unnecessary risk, according to a study published this year in the journal Medicine (cited in an article in the New York Times). And two recent studies show that patients’ trust in their doctors strongly influences their medication compliance.

Many studies have documented that the quality of the interaction between physician and patient can strongly influence patient outcomes. As long ago as 400 BC, Hippocrates wrote about how “the patient, though conscious that his condition is perilous, may recover his health simply through his contentment with the goodness of his physician.”

Dr. Newman, author of the book Hippocrates’ Shadow: Secrets from the House of Medicine, said studies of the placebo effect suggest Hippocrates was right when he claimed that faith in physicians can help healing. “It adds misery and suffering to any condition to not have a source of care that you trust,” Dr. Newman writes.

The Placebo Effect is Real and Can Be Used for Good

Many physicians have enormous potential to positively influence outcomes and behavior just by the way they interact.

In 2001, Blasi Z et al. did a systematic review of 25 clinical trials (Lancet 2001 Mar 10;357(9258):757-62) to determine if doctor-patient relationships had any measurable therapeutic effect. They concluded that physicians who were “warm, friendly and reassuring” were more effective than those who were more formal and less nurturing in their approach.

Unfortunately, physicians today are working in settings where they are usually expected to funnel patients through every 7-12 minutes, which churns out a tall stack of invoices by the end of the day but leaves no time for relationship building.

As the public demand for complementary and alternative medicine grows, a new and different type of provider will emerge.

This is already happening!

If you find that you have philosophic differences with your health care provider that seem irreconcilable, perhaps it’s time to make a change.

There will always be some physicians who are behind the times, some who are on the cutting edge, some who want to learn from their mistakes, and some who don’t. It is your job as a proactive individual to evaluate what is moving you toward better health, and what isn’t—and that includes your relationship with your doctor.

By Dr. Mercola

www.mercola.com

The current model of pharmacy practice, and of Western medicine as a whole, is based upon managing symptoms. In some cases, this may be necessary, at least for a limited amount of time. The problem is that care for the patient often stops with a prescription being handed over. A competent pharmacist will provide medication counseling with the goal of ensuring optimal drug therapy. Ultimately, however, the underlying cause of the symptoms is not being addressed. At this point, dispensing drugs to patients without providing further wellness education only compounds the problem. It is like giving them a crutch to rely on; patients receive false reassurance that their problem is “taken care of.” And considering that most people only think about their health status when something is obviously wrong, a great opportunity for intervention and assistance with therapeutic lifestyle changes (TLCs) is missed. Thus, the patient is left with degrading health, a lack of awareness, and masked symptoms. Furthermore, drugs may produce side effects, many times resulting in additional prescriptions. Under such conditions, it isn’t hard to see how a downward spiral in the patient’s health might be established.

Where are we now?

Just take a quick glance at our current healthcare system. Spending is on the rise, while the country’s health deteriorates. Obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer are epidemic. The scope of allopathic medicine is too narrow to reverse this trend on its own. It certainly has its place in the healthcare arena, most notably for acute care, as in cases of trauma. And an incredible amount of information has been discovered under its umbrella. Still, what good is the most thorough understanding of biochemistry, pharmacology, or surgical technique if millions continue to suffer from debilitating chronic disease?

You see, the strength of the allopathic model can also be its weakness, depending upon the situation to which it is applied. When used to temporarily stabilize the body, system by system, there is no better approach. It fails miserably, however, for keeping individuals disease-free over the long run. The innate healing ability of the body is too complex, and the factors that contribute to chronic disease too numerous to lend themselves to a quick fix solution.

Likewise, judging the effectiveness of natural medicine, using allopathic standards, fails to acknowledge its aggregate and superior healing ability. It’s like comparing apples with oranges. These two medical philosophies are founded on distinct principles and treatment practices.

Without a more integrative model, health care will continue down a doomed path. We cannot keep doing the same thing and expect different results.

Where should we go from here?

Thoreau is known to have said that “there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one striking at the root.” Look around, and you can see those devoted to working on the root causes of chronic disease, focusing on prevention and overall wellness. Naturopathic physicians, nutritionists, educators, herbalists, and even some medical doctors and pharmacists, to name a few, represent this group of healers who hint at the possible paradigm shift in medicine.

Pharmacists, in particular, hold an excellent position for implementing positive changes. They are the first point of access to health care for the majority of Americans, owing to the accessibility and convenience of pharmacies.

The profession of pharmacy is already following a trend away from the dispensing role toward one of patient-centered care. This is partly because most aspects of dispensing can now be accomplished by automated equipment or technicians. Why would a company want to dish out high salaries for a job that can be done by a robot, especially when robots don’t make mistakes?

Compensation no longer depends entirely upon filling as many prescriptions as possible. It also comes from functioning as a consultant, as an information expert, and as an educator. So, why not take one more step forward and continue this trend? Pharmacy services could promote wellness and optimal outcomes, not just optimal medication usage. Pharmacists have an opportunity to push the envelope, serving as genuine patient advocates, while securing their future as indispensable healthcare providers.

Integrative pharmacies offer a glimpse of hope for the future of health care. These are centers of wellness, rather than centers of disease. Here, conventional and complementary medicine go hand in hand. Typical employees include naturopaths, nutritionists, nurses, massage therapists and aestheticians, as well as pharmacists. Education is highly emphasized, with classroom lectures and workshops being a normal part of services. Many topics are covered including smoking cessation, weight reduction, yoga instruction, and management of various disease states. Nutritional supplements and herbal products are as commonplace as prescription drugs.

Impressive business models for such an operation already exist. For example, Elephant is a pharmacy that originated in Berkeley, California and continues to grow in the San Francisco area. Pharmaca is another integrative pharmacy that has locations throughout the Western United States.

About the author
Jeremiah Smith is a pharmacy student with a strong interest in naturopathic medicine and a passion for helping people achieve optimal health.

Source:  http://www.naturalnews.com/025193.html

A report by Toronto Public Health advises children to limit their use of cell phones as much as possible, citing studies that have linked long-term mobile phone exposure to an increased risk of brain tumors.

“We think it’s responsible to limit children’s exposure,” the researchers wrote.

“While scientists were pretty dismissive of any risk years ago, with the accumulation of studies, it appears people who have been using their phones for a long period of time are at greater risk of certain kinds of brain tumors.” said report co-author Loren Vanderlinden.

Toronto Public Health recommends that children use land lines whenever possible, using mobile phones only for “essential purposes.” When cell phones are used, the report urges children to keep calls shorter than 10 minutes and to use headsets or other hands-free devices as much as possible. Limiting cellular phone use is especially important for pre-adolescents, the authors said.

“Teach [children] the ways to use a cell phone responsibly,” Vanderlinden advised parents. “To make shorter calls, to use other modes of communication; if it’s possible, use a landline.”

Researchers suspect that the thinner skulls and smaller heads of children place them at greater risk than adults from the same degree of mobile phone radiation. Indeed, some studies have confirmed that cell phone radiation penetrates deeper into the brains of children than adults.

The use of cellular phones has dramatically increased in Canada over the last 10 years, particularly among children. Approximately 61 percent of children between the ages of 12 in 19 now use mobile phones. The numbers for children under the age of 12 are not known.

The Toronto warning is the first warning against cellular phone use in Canada, and is similar to warnings that have been issued in Belgium, England, France, Germany and Russia. Health Canada, the country’s public health agency, said it had no plans to follow Toronto’s lead.

Sources for this story include: www.upi.com; www.ctv.ca; www.cbc.ca.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/025181.html

According to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, heart disease is the leading cause of death for both women and men in the United States. The great irony is that cardiovascular disease is largely preventable. Have you taken the necessary steps to heart attack-proof yourself?

There’s a simple, proven and easy way to reduce the chance of you becoming part of these grim statistics, and that is to increase your intake of the healthy omega-3 fatty acids.

The research has continued to pour in from countless sources about the amazing benefits of the omega-3’s. In fact, scientists and medical professionals alike now agree that the omega-3 fats can prevent – and even reverse - the deadly effects of cardiovascular disease and stroke (the first and third leading causes of death, respectively).

Omega-3 fats have gotten so much good press lately that you’re probably already aware that you can get your omega-3 fatty acids from all types of seafood, particularly the oily fish like salmon, herring, mackerel and sardines. Studies have shown that people who consume high amounts of fish improve their overall health and well being in too many ways to list.

A 17-year study of men with no history of heart disease, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that those with the highest blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids were more than 80 percent less likely to die suddenly from heart disease. And the benefits apply to women as well. A 16-year study of almost 85,000 women found that those who ate fish two to four times weekly cut their risk of heart disease by 30 percent, compared with women who rarely ate fish.

A 1999 study called “Food intake patterns and 25 year mortality from coronary heart disease,” revealed some very interesting findings about omega-3 fatty acids by comparing the diet of people from America to other regions of the world. The results of this study showed that in countries like Japan, where seafood consumption is high, the prevalence of death from heart attacks is much lower than in America.

Scientists believe that this is due to the fact that Asians eat far more seafood than Americans, and 85 percent of Americans are deficient in omega-3 fatty acids. The same findings were uncovered with the Eskimos from Greenland, who also consume large amounts of seafood. The 1970 study found that despite eating a high fat diet, the Inuit had significantly lower incidence of heart disease.

So what is it about omega-3 fatty acids that make them so great for your heart? It boils down to the chemical composition of the fatty acids. If you looked at them under a microscope, you would see that omega-3 fatty acids are long strands of polyunsaturated fatty acids. These polyunsaturates - alpha linolenic acid (ALA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) - lead to significant reduction in cardiovascular disease risk and other health benefits.

Studies show that consuming these fatty acids over an extended period of time can decrease blood cholesterol levels, cause regression of coronary heart ailments and even help in preventing the progression of colon cancer.

According to the American Heart Association, people without documented coronary heart disease (CHD) should consume fatty fish twice a week at the minimum. Those with documented CHD should consume 1 g of EPA and DHA on a daily basis.

It is also beneficial for pregnant women to consume an adequate amount of EPA and DHA each day. Because of the high amounts of mercury found in fish, however, it can be dangerous to consume the amount of seafood you would need in order to reach the optimal intake. That’s why fish oil supplements are a great way to obtain your essential fats.

Carlson’s Liquid Fish Oil is an excellent choice. This is due to the optimal amounts of EPA and DHA, the strict guidelines they follow for purity (keeping their oil free of chemical modification and contaminants like mercury or lead) and the addition of extra vitamin E to protect the freshness and potency of the oil.

Carlson’s test their fish oil regularly for potency and purity by an independent, FDA registered laboratory and found them to be free of detectable levels of mercury, cadmium, lead, PCB`s and 28 other contaminants. These are all important considerations because there is no doubt that all brands of fish oil are not the same and you really do get what you pay for.

What about flaxseed oil? You may have heard that flaxseed is a rich source of omega-3 fats. This is true. However, flaxseed oil supplements may be less effective than fish oil and here’s why: Flaxseed has high amounts of alpha linolenic acid (ALA), which your body must convert into EPA and DHA. However, the EPA and DHA found in fish oils are broken down more rapidly and far more effectively than ALA. Furthermore, because the average American already consumes high amounts of ALA already, supplementing with more ALA isn’t always optimal.

Bottom line: It’s not often that a nutritional supplement comes along that gets unanimous thumbs up from the scientific community as well as the natural health community, but fish oil is certainly one supplement you cannot go wrong with in your quest to improve your health and protect yourself from heart disease naturally.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/025138.html

Is your child constipated, or showing signs of constipation? If so, you may want to do something about it, especially in view of the findings of recent research conducted at Nationwide Children’s Hospital. The study found that the negative impact on children suffering from constipation as well as the costs associated with the ailment are roughly as significant as those for asthma and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Details of Study

The study team, comprising gastroenterologists and researchers from the hospital, used data from a survey which represented the national population. In particular, the team analyzed data of children aged under 18 who had been diagnosed with constipation or who were prescribed with laxatives for two years in a row (2003 and 2004), in a bid to ascertain their use of healthcare services and the costs they incurred.

Findings of Study

The study, to be published in The Journal of Pediatrics in early 2009, found that children who had constipation used healthcare services more than their counterparts who did not have the condition, to the tune of an additional $3.9 billion each year. However, despite the potential costs, both health-wise and financially speaking, constipation does not receive the same amount of health campaign publicity as other conditions like asthma and ADHD. And it is hoped that the findings of this study will help raise some awareness of the potential gravity of the condition.

“Despite being considered by many a relatively benign condition, childhood constipation has been shown to be associated with a significantly decreased quality of life. The day-to-day struggle caused by constipation can often be emotionally devastating, and can also have an impact on the overall health and well-being of affected children and their families,” said Carlo Di Lorenzo, MD, head of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, the leader of the study.

About Constipation

And, hopefully, the increased awareness will also lead to more and earlier action on the part of parents. But before we go into that, a little more on constipation should be discussed.

What do you understand by constipation? Broadly speaking, most of us would take the condition to mean infrequent or difficult bowel movements, or both. But how infrequent should bowel movements be before one is considered constipated? That very much depends on whose point of view we are seeking.

Conventional medicine seems to think that it is within normal to go to the toilet once every couple of days. Indeed, this is stated on the National Institutes of Health website: “Some people think they are constipated if they do not have a bowel movement every day. However, normal stool elimination may be three times a day or three times a week, depending on the person.”

In natural healing circles, however, many believe that our bowels should be moving at least once every day. In fact, some even state that, for optimal health, a person should be having a bowel movement for every main meal one consumes – that is at least two big toilet visits a day. Going by this definition, almost all of us would be considered constipated to some extent!

In debating this issue, let us exercise some common sense. Imagine having a meal, perhaps even a burger or a steak, and then not going to the toilet for the next 48 to 72 hours. That means that that meal you just had would be sitting in your intestines for at least that long. If that food had been left on the dinner table at room temperature, it would probably have gone bad during that time. Now, imagine it sitting in your warm innards, at body temperature. Many natural healers contend that that food would have putrefied in our bodies, releasing untold toxins for our systems to deal with!

Unblocking Constipation

If your child is having infrequent or difficult bowel movements, there are some natural remedies you could consider trying before you turn to pharmaceutical laxatives, which can have undesirable adverse effects.

The most obvious tip is to consume more fruits and vegetables. Refined foods and fast food tend to be constipating, and consumption of those items should be reduced, if not cut out altogether. Flaxseeds are great for relieving constipation, as is psyllium. These items are generally considered suitable for long-term use and, if taking them, one should ensure the intake of adequate amounts of water.

Prune juice is another effective option. And, if more push is needed, a supplement containing stimulating herbs such as senna leaves, cascara sagrada bark and aloe latex could be used; these plants contain chemicals which stimulate contraction of the bowel muscles.

Good bowel habits is critical for both short-term and long-term health, and taking steps toward it is something which all of us, and not just children, should attempt. There is a saying that “death begins in the colon”, and there is surely good reason why it came about in the first place.

About the author
Reuben Chow has a keen interest in the area of natural health and healing and carries out regular research on the topic. His website, All 4 Natural Health, offers a basic guide on natural health information. It details simple, effective and natural ways, such as the use of nutrition, various herbs, herb remedies, supplements and other natural remedies, to deal with various health conditions as well as to attain good health.

source: http://www.naturalnews.com