Manufacturers add excitotoxins to your foods as flavorings and preservatives. An excitotoxin is a substance that affects the cells in the brain. It enters the cell and excites it into frenzied activity until it dies from exhaustion.

Instructions:

 

 

 

This recipe serves: 6
Preparation time: 10 minutes
Cooking time: 40 minutes

Ingredients

1 tablespoon peanut oil
1/2 cup finely chopped onions
2 cups chopped leeks, well rinsed
1 sprig fresh thyme, or 1/4 teaspoon dried thyme
salt to taste
white pepper to taste
about 1 1/2 quarts chicken stock  (1qt of chicken stock and 1/2 qt of water)
2 cups peeled potatoes, cut into 1/2" cubes (keep in bowl of water so they do not discolor)
1 tablespoon chopped, fresh chives

Cooking Instructions

1. Heat the peanut oil in a saucepan over low heat. Add the onion, leek and thyme, season lightly with salt and pepper, and cook for 15 minutes.
2. Add the stock and bring to a boil quickly over high heat.
3. Lower the heat and simmer for 15 minutes, or until the leeks are completely tender.
4. Add the potatoes and simmer about 10 minutes more, or until the potatoes are tender.

5. Puree in a blender.
6. Adjust the salt and pepper to taste.
7. Serve garnished with chives.

 Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips

 

 

 

 

This recipe serves: 6

Preparation time: 20 minutes

Cooking time: 40 minutes

 

1/2 tablespoon olive oil

1/4 cup finely chopped carrots

1/4 cup finely chopped celery

1 large onion, chopped

6 ripe plum tomatoes, halved

Salt to taste

Freshly ground black pepper

1 bay leaf

1/4 teaspoon dried oregano

About 1 quart low-sodium chicken broth or vegetable broth

3 medium eggplants, peeled and chopped

1/4 cup freshly grated Parmesan cheese

3 tablespoons non-fat sour cream

 

1. Heat the olive oil in a saucepan over low-medium heat. Add the carrots, celery, onion and tomatoes, season lightly with salt and pepper, and cook for 10 minutes.

2. Add the bay leaf, oregano and stock and bring to a boil quickly over high heat.

3. Lower the heat and simmer until the vegetables are completely tender, about 15 minutes.

4. Add the eggplant and simmer until tender, about 5 to 7 minutes.

5. Blend the Parmesan cheese and sour cream together and set aside.

6. Remove the bay leaf and puree the soup in a blender. Strain and adjust the salt and pepper.

7. Serve the soup in bowls with a dollop of Parmesan cream.

More than ever before, Americans are worried about the safety of the food they put in their mouths - and with good reason.

In little less than a year and a half, the nationwide recalls of tainted products have formed their own peculiar food pyramid: meats, vegetables, salad, snacks, fast food, even dessert items. The various pathogens in those products killed at least three people, sickened more than 1,300 others and touched almost every state in the country as well as Canada.

And even though the number of outbreaks has leveled off over the past few years, it is the variety of outbreaks that most troubles the scientists and government health officials who deal with them: Many of the contaminations are showing up in foods never before associated with poisoning.

"It's been a little bit of a roller coaster the past 10 years," said Dr. Robert Tauxe, deputy director of the division of food-borne bacterial and mycotic diseases at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "I am struck that I am seeing new food vehicles. New foods are a problem. Spinach was a new one. And peanut butter, there's a surprise. Also the Veggie Booty, or vegetarian snack food."

Not only are scientists puzzled about how such staples became tainted, but they are concerned that U.S. health officials need to do a better job of pinpointing potential sources of contamination before unsafe food winds up on supermarket shelves.

Such improvement in oversight won't come easily, experts noted.

The first obstacle, they said, is an agricultural industry that's becoming increasingly monopolized by a handful of high-volume producers, which means no contamination is small in size or scope.

Making matters worse, they added, is an outdated, imbalanced food-surveillance system that can't really police the nation's entire food supply.

And there's a lot to handle when it comes to food safety.

The number of outbreaks and cases of food-borne illness almost doubled in the United States between 1995 and 2000. In 1995, officials recorded 13,497 cases of food-related illness from 645 outbreaks; in 2000, there were 26,043 cases from 1,417 outbreaks. By 2005, however, the numbers had dipped a bit: There were 20,179 cases from 982 outbreaks.

But the types of outbreaks are now far more varied, due in large part to Americans' growing appetite for raw fruits and vegetables, which can harbor dangerous bacteria.

Outbreaks of Listeria, a bacterium found in raw foods, have declined, while incidents of salmonella infection have stayed relatively flat. But infection with E. coli, the dangerous bacteria that can show up in undercooked ground beef as well as dairy and vegetable products, which dropped dramatically in 2003 and 2004, is rising again - and it's showing up in unexpected foods, such as spinach.

There seems to be more evidence mounting in the ongoing Perflurooctanoic Acid (PFOA) debate. PFOA is used in the production of Teflon and other non-stick surfaces and is found in the packaging of candy bars, microwave popcorn, fast food packaging like french fry and pizza boxes, bakery items, drinks, paper plates, and a host of "stain resistant" products such as carpets. Other well-known brand names containing PFOA include Stainmaster, Scotchgard, SilverStone, Fluron, Supra, Excalibur, Greblon, Xylon, Duracote, Resistal, Autograph and T-Fal.

Although the DuPont Corporation has stated that PFOA is only used in the manufacturing process and should not be found in the final products, it must be noted that the chemical is found in the bloodstream of 95% of American men, women, and children. It seems that no one is quite certain how the chemical residue has made it into the bloodstream of such a large number of people if it is not located in the final product. Research has shown that PFOA was still present in the blood for approximately four years after exposure and levels were only reduced by half. It has been implicated by some research to cause increased instances of cancer in the pancreas, liver, testicles, and mammary glands. Also increased were instances of miscarriage, weight loss, thyroid problems, weaker immune systems, and low organ weights.

There is a growing community of scientists including a research team at the University of Toronto that believe the largest concentration of PFOA is not the manufacturing process of Teflon, but a cousin of Teflon called "telomers."

Telomers are also made by DuPont and a select few other companies. These telomers are used to make the stain and grease repellent coatings for fast food containers, apparel, and carpeting.

In a study conducted at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, there appears to be a correlation between PFOA and low birth weight in newborns.

ABC news network reported in February of 2007 that the researchers tested the blood of 300 newborn infants and examined their levels of exposure to PFOA and "other fluorinated chemicals in relation to their birth weight, head circumference and other developmental markers."

One of the head researchers in the independent study, Dr. Lynn Goldman said, "It appears that there is a relation between a higher level of exposure and lower birth weight, as well as the circumference of the head." Dr. Goldman described the decreases in the over all size of the children as, "very small."

With looming legal action and numerous law suits currently pending against the DuPont Company, if these findings are proven accurate, the results could have a major influence on the outcome of the court cases. It could also bring about regulation from the Federal government where there had previously been none.

In addition, the Environmental Working Group has reported that PFOA has been "found in wildlife from Italy, the US, Japan, Russia, Belgium, and Canada, and in places as remote as the Sand Island Wildlife Refuge in Midway Atoll." They also report that scientists have found PFOA "in the egg yolks of double crested cormorant from Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba Canada; in the blood of Russian Caspian seals; and in a short-snouted spinner dolphin off the coast of Florida."

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in Morgantown, West Virginia, under the direction of John Meade, have completed a study that showed PFOA priming immune system response and causing an overreaction to allergens in mice.

In the study, mice were given PFOA before exposure to an egg allergen. The mice produced more "allergen-specific antibodies and experienced more constriction of their airways than those exposed to the allergen alone."

A science director at DuPont, Robert Rickard has said that he did not believe that PFOA was likely to be a cause of allergy-related health issues in humans; but to date, there have been no studies to examine this possibility.

The EPA has urged DuPont to eliminate this toxin from their manufacturing process but even as late as mid 2007, the elimination of PFOA has been strictly voluntary. DuPont claims to have already reduced PFOA emissions from manufacturing plants 97% but have never made a commitment to discontinue the use of the chemical altogether.

PFOA is not regulated. Any restrictions on the use of the substance has resulted from court settlements without intervention by US regulatory committees. At this time no permits are required from the EPA or state departments. DuPont has said that it would handle its own monitoring and provide reports with the results.

The EPA has already identified PFOA as a "likely" human carcinogen. DuPont maintains, regardless of the studies or research done, that the substance is not related to any adverse health effects and that all exposure and levels in humans fall within "normal range." The fundamental question remains: Is any amount of PFOA in the body "normal"?

What can you do to protect your self and your family?

Most of the items that are in direct contact with non-stick coating like those mentioned above are not healthy for the body to consume. If at all possible, avoid french fries, candy bars, pizza, and microwave popcorn where Teflon is commonly used.

Vacuuming any carpeting with the "stain-resistant" claim releases the chemical into the air to be circulated in your home.

There are alternatives to using Teflon and other non-stick cookware. Heating non-stick cookware to broiling temperatures or above 350 degrees F, releases the PFOA into the air and according to some naturopaths, into your food especially if there is a scratch in your non-stick cookware. Alternative food storage and cooking source suggestions include glassware, stoneware, and enamel coated cast iron.

The realization that a potentially hazardous chemical is in numerous products that individuals and families come into contact with daily, may seem daunting. While the DuPont Company remains passive regarding any research findings regarding PFOA, those who are skeptical about its safety seem to find more vindication with the publication of every study. If independent research continues to show consistently negative effects of PFOA, DuPont's legal team may need more than a little Teflon from their science division to get them out of an ever increasing "sticky" situation.

1/4 cup fresh basil, minced
1/4 cup fat-free, less-sodium chicken broth
2 tablespoons grated fresh Parmesan cheese
4 teaspoons extravirgin olive oil
1 teaspoon salt, divided
2 garlic cloves, minced                                                                                                                                                                                                           4 (6-ounce) cod fillets
1/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper 
 Cooking spray

Preparation

Combine basil, broth, cheese, oil, 1/2 teaspoon salt, and garlic in a small bowl.

Sprinkle fish with remaining 1/2 teaspoon salt and pepper. Heat a large nonstick skillet coated with cooking spray over medium-high heat. Add fish; sauté 5 minutes on each side or until fish flakes easily when tested with a fork. Serve fish with the basil mixture.

Yield

4 servings (serving size: 1 fillet and about 1 1/2 tablespoons basil sauce)

Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips

Chef Tim Johnson

Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!

Along with airplane food, hospital food has been the butt of jokes for years. Today, it's not just the cold, tasteless meals people are complaining about. In a haven for restoring health, consumers expect healthy food, both for their bodies and the environment. That means less processed and deep-fried foods and more whole, local, organic foods rolling out of the hospital's kitchen doors.

Unhealthy Hospital Food
Yes, hospitals have a long way to go when it comes to serving up healthy food. The Center for Science in the Public Interest tested French fries from 14 of the top 16 hospitals with Honor Roll status in U.S. News & World Report's rankings and six leading children's hospitals in 2006. Trans fats were found in the fries at all 20 institutions. The American Medical Student Association conducted a survey of fast food in healthcare facilities in 2006 and discovered that of the 234 hospitals surveyed, 42% were selling brand-name fast food on their campuses. In a 2005 survey conducted by nutrition professionals from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, along with ADinfinitum, Inc., menus and foods served in hospitals across the country were studied. The survey results indicated that on many days at some hospitals, customers will not find a single low-fat, cholesterol-free entrée in the main dining area. Many entrées described as healthful were actually very high in fat. And less than one third of hospitals surveyed offered either a daily salad bar or a daily low-fat vegetarian entrée.

Hospitals Leading the Way to Healthy
The good news is that there's a socially aware hospital food movement in the air, with some hospitals leading the way to a healthier food system. A detailed nutrition statement and call to action was developed by the University of Arizona College of Medicine's Program in Integrative Medicine and The Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons. Kaiser Permanente, the country's largest nonprofit health system, has gotten positive press for instituting weekly farmers' markets at many of its hospitals. Norfolk General Hospital and Norfolk Hospital Nursing Home in Ontario had their waste minimization efforts recognized by the Recycling Council of Ontario and received the Outstanding Achievement in Energy Management Award given by the Task Force on Energy Management in Health Care Facilities in Canada. It also developed a new waterless Medical Air and Medical Vacuum system that reduces energy demand and eliminates the use of water. Organic fruits and vegetables are served at St. Luke's Hospital in Duluth, Minn. Good Shepherd Health Care System in Hermiston, Ore., has replaced beef with antibiotic- and hormone-free bison. Saint Louise Regional Hospital in California swapped frozen-concentrate coffee with fresh-brewed, certified fair trade coffee. And this is just a taste of what's to come in hospital food - service departments across the United States.

Health Care Without Harm
One organization helping to pave the way to a model healthcare system is Health Care Without Harm (HCWH), a global coalition of 443 organizations in 52 countries that works to protect public health and the environment within the healthcare industry. Healthy Food in Health Care is a campaign within HCWH. "HCWH realizes that a food system-how food is grown, transported, processed, and prepared-affects health. Hospitals have the opportunity to redefine healthy food in healthcare beyond the nutritional value to include the human and environmental health consequences of how food is grown and raised. HCWH is working with over 100 hospitals nationally to address these issues-procuring local/organic produce, nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in meat, milk without recombinant bovine growth hormone [rBGH], reducing waste through composting, and developing hospital food policies," says Holly Freishtat, food media coordinator at HCWH and Food and Society Policy Fellow. Many healthcare organizations are getting behind such measures. For example, more than 300 organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Public Health Association, have advocated ending the nontherapeutic use of medically important antibiotics as feed additives.

Kick-start Your Commitment to Healthy Food
Healthy Food in Health Care helps healthcare organizations get moving toward a healthier, more sustainable foodservice. Its Web site (www.healthyfoodinhealthcare.org) has valuable resources to get you started-from purchasing guidelines to success stories. Freishtat says you can get your hospital moving in the right direction by signing the Healthy Food in Health Care Pledge (shown above), which fosters a commitment to support local, organic agriculture; minimize waste; and educate the community about a healthier, sustainable food system. Dietitians can play a leadership role in creating a team within their facility that includes foodservice directors, physicians, marketing staff, and nurses to address these issues and sign the pledge. Hospitals are beginning to change the culture of food in their facilities through farmers' markets on hospital grounds, community- supported agriculture boxes for employees, and through developing overarching food policies. You can establish numerous activities within your hospital, including a hospital wellness and recycling program, pulling deep-fat fryers out of the kitchen, cleaning out the vending machines, and changing purchasing contracts. Some steps are quite easy-it's a simple fix to make a switch to rBGH-free milk. In committing to healthy, sustainable food, it doesn't hurt that hospitals can also bask in the positive glow of the green healthcare buzz. I would like to engage the dietetics community to be leaders in the hospital to define healthy, sustainable food. The access point is fruits and vegetables and eating foods that taste great. Eating a tomato ripe and in season inspires more consumption of fruits and vegetables.

 

Private health insurance is "oil" in the "water" of Public Health. They do not belong together. We have heard much about the redundancy, and excess, unnecessary costs of private insurance, and a lot about the horrors faced by those with and without coverage. But there are other basic, root issues that so far have not been widely addressed. The presidential campaign traveling show now offers opportunities to raise some of these questions.

* Private insurers are invariably investors, with what was our health care money, in all sorts of industries, many of them being notorious for causing health problems.

We know, from SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) material, that top insurers have been or still are multi million dollar investors in cigarette manufacturing! They may also invest in tobacco pesticides and even the firms that supply carcinogenic radioactive (!) fertilizers to tobacco growers...not to mention chlorine interests that are responsible for presence of dioxin in the smoke from adulterated products, agricultural firms that supply pesticide-contaminated crop ingredients, paper/pulp, sugar, burn accelerants, and flavorings/sweeteners/aromas etc from pharmaceutical firms.

This glaring Conflict-of-Interest goes far to explain why we have a war on undefined, unanalyzed, unpatentable tobacco plants, and on smokers...on the unwitting victims of these fraudulently-marketed concoctions...instead of on the manufacturers and adulterant suppliers and their compliant agents in regulatory positions.

No insurer with cigarette production holdings ought be anywhere near our health care system, and they certainly ought not be among those participating in compulsory programs.

* If an insurer is invested in, or does business insurance with, pharmaceutical firms, such an insurer has motive, opportunity and fiduciary duty to promote its investment property's drugs over others that may be cheaper, more effective, and safer. Apparently, no laws prohibit this. Such an insurer has same motives to ignore, or not even look for, problems with drugs made by its investment properties. Such an insurer might also work to discredit, prohibit, or not authorize traditional natural unpatented drugs, herbs, vitamins, minerals and supplements.

* An insurer invested in pesticides or bio-tech firms has a huge motive to ignore the harms and risks of pesticides (in typical cigarettes or elsewhere) and Genetically Engineered foods, and to fail to advise proper prevention such as avoidance of toxics and synthetics, and the use of organics.

* With whatever control private insurers have over HMOs, hospitals, doctors, etc., one has to worry that patients may not receive proper medical diagnoses if medical staff avoids even looking for body burdens of industrial chemicals or radiation. It is hard to imagine how proper care can be administered if certain causes of illnesses are not sought or found.

What we have with private, investor insurers is a "Company Doctor" situation like in the old Coal Mine Towns where a doctor finds that a miner has "a cold", not black lung disease caused by unsafe work conditions.

Not a day goes by without reports that some natural thing, or peoples' "behavior", or natural plants (like tobacco), or "faulty" genes, or bad diet, or something ,causes such-and-such problems. We only hear about Industrial Causes when a problem becomes too big to cover-up.

* Insurer investments create problems all over the board...as many, most, or all customers would not care to have this second-handed economic investment relationship with firms they may oppose for religious, moral, political, environmental or even business reasons. But who is told where an insurer invests? Who thinks to even ask? One would have to go to the significant trouble of navigating the SEC EDGAR Database, if they even knew such a thing existed.

* No matter how the issue is sliced, one who patronizes a private insurer, either willingly or under gov't compulsion, therefore contributes funds to things that have nothing whatever to do with health OR the Public Interest. Besides the investment funds, these include advertising, campaign gifts to politicians, CEO bonuses, corporate conventions, corporate jets, lobbying, and even lawn care and brass polish at corporate headquarters. With no Public Interest relating to those matters, it is hard to see how compulsory insurance patronage can even be legal.

* Speaking of legality, compelling the purchase of private health insurance services is importantly different from states' police-enforced compulsion on drivers to buy auto insurance. In that case, in order to comply with First Amendment prohibition on Compulsory Speech, officials point out that no one is forced to drive. However, with health insurance, the only ways to opt out legally, without penalty, would be to leave the country, or commit suicide. This Constitutional question needs to be addressed. Some presidential contenders seem resolved to commit perjury even as they take the oath of office, swearing to preserve, protect, and defend The Constitution.

* Beside all that, private insurers must grow or face shareholder suits. This guarantees rate hikes forever. They have that motive and duty to charge as much as possible for services, and to provide the least possible in return. This is an unacceptable Adversarial situation.

The United States public is capable of taking care of its own health system, as citizens of other countries manage quite well, without the questionable "help"...thanks anyway...from unnecessary, parasitic private insurers.

In 2005 it was estimated that 211,240 American women were diagnosed with breast cancer, and 40,410 women died from the disease. Breast cancer rates have nearly tripled in the United States over the last 60 years making it the second most common cancer in women. The lifetime risk for a woman to develop breast cancer in 1940 was 1 in 22. In 2006 it was up to 1 in 8, and has continued to rise. The probability of a woman contracting any form of cancer in the United States is an astonishing 1 in 3.

Similar increases can be seen in "developed" countries such as England, Japan, and Denmark. Within the European Union a woman dies of breast cancer every 7.5 minutes making it the number one killer of women between the ages of 34 and 54. These are "developed" nations, with increased screening through mammograms, breast exams, and regular doctor visits. What explains this drastic increase?

The genetic component of breast cancer (BRCA-1 and BRCA-2) plays an important role, yet how much of the recent increase in breast cancer does genetics actually account for? Ponder this: According to Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, "Not more than 10% of human breast cancers can be linked directly to germline mutations" and the 2006 Current Medical Diagnosis & Treatment reports that "There is no history of breast cancer among female relatives in over 75% of patients." New research now points out that the BRCA-1gene isn't all negative and it actually plays a role in DNA repair, protecting a woman from breast cancer. Therefore, the recent climb in breast cancer rates cannot be solely explained by genetics.

A fact worth exploring in Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (2005) is "the risk [of breast cancer] is higher among women born after 1940, presumably due to promotional effects of hormonal factors." Breast tissue is estrogen-dependent, this is why the breasts will become larger when a woman takes birth control pills or becomes pregnant. Besides estrogens the body makes there is also a substantial number of estrogen mimicking, disrupting and promoting substances, both natural and manmade, that we are exposed to in our environment every day. This poses a significant question: are environmental toxins acting on the breast tissue and increasing your risk of cancer? A plausible answer is given by Colbom et. al. "because total estrogen exposure is the single most important risk factor for breast cancer, estrogenic chemicals, toxins and compounds, which would add to this lifelong exposure, are an obvious suspect when searching for the cause of rising rates (of breast cancer) over the past half century." Although no firm data correlation exists across all breast cancer cases it is certainly more than plausible that estrogen and estrogen like substances are contributing to the increase in these cancers in the modern era.

History will show us that the idea of industrial and environmental toxins inducing cancer is not a new one. We have known for over a hundred years that manmade chemicals can cause cancer. Way back in 1895 aniline dyes, made from coal tar, were proven to cause bladder cancer. Later, during the environmental movements of the 1960s, Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring. In this book she exposed the known and proposed health hazards of the pesticide DDT while also warning us about many other chemicals that surround us every day. Since the writing of the book, research has mounted in support of her claims.

Between 1938 and 1971, an estimated 5 to 10 million pregnant women in the United States were encouraged to take DES (Diethylstilbestrol), a synthetic estrogen, which was originally prescribed by doctors for women who were at risk for miscarriage. Not coincidentally, in 1970, a rare cancer called Clear Cell Adenocarcinoma (CCA) began to show up in unprecedented numbers of young women. Studies were performed to answer the rising number of questions and in 1971 and 1972 DES was identified as a cause of this cancer in young women who had been exposed to DES in the womb. Researchers have also found that DES daughters are 40 times more likely to develop cancer of the vagina and cervix than women who were not exposed to the drug. We know estrogenic compounds can cause and promote cancer.

Medical research is mounting a huge collection of evidence showing that our environment, and the toxins we are all exposed to, increases the likelihood of breast cancer and cancer in general. Studies show that hormone (endocrine) disrupting chemicals can act together and that small, seemingly insignificant quantities of individual chemicals can have major cumulative effects on the body. Multiple estrogenic chemicals can collect in the body and act together to produce unknown effects, even when each individual component is believed to be within the considered "safe zone" set by the EPA. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals capable of disrupting the normal functioning of the endocrine system, and may pose a growing threat to human and wildlife health. These compounds can modulate both the endocrine and immune systems resulting in alteration of homeostasis, reproduction, development and behavior. The endocrine and reproductive effects of these chemicals are believed to be due to their ability to: (1) mimic the effect of endogenous (produced in the body) hormones, (2) antagonize the effect of endogenous hormones, (3) disrupt the synthesis and metabolism of endogenous hormones, and (4) disrupt the synthesis and metabolism of hormone receptors.

From heavy metals to industrial accidents to conventional medicine, your body is being exposed to and storing these endocrine disruptors. Studies have shown the heavy metal cadmium (Cd) mimics the effects of estradiol in estrogen-responsive breast cancer cell lines. Cadmium is found in cigarette smoke, certain art supplies, and is usually a component of air pollution produced by traffic. A study of 981 Italian women who were exposed to dioxin, from an industrial explosion in 1976, showed a significantly increased risk of breast cancer when evaluated. Antibiotics have been instrumental in our health, in certain situations, yet when over prescribed they stress the liver, create dysbiosis (imbalance of bowel flora) and leave residues or metabolites that can add to the toxic mixture in your body. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, "When they analyzed all the information they were able to gather, the researchers found that the more antibiotics women used, the greater their breast cancer risk was."

With all of this information and research helping us to understand how our environment can be increasing our risk of breast cancer, among other diseases, it seems only logical to take steps to protect your loved ones and ourselves. The environmental medicine movement is picking up momentum and people are beginning to understand that we really do live in a toxic world. "The world that surrounds us; including the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink; is full of toxins. Many of these toxins are known carcinogens (cancer causing), and the vast majority have never been studied for their effects on humans," says the site breastcancer.org. The effects on the body are complex and are influenced by many factors, including the route and site of exposure (skin, oral, injection, inhalation etc), the timing, the duration and frequency of exposure, and the susceptibility of the individual exposed. Although, some of the pieces are still unclear, we do know that there are many chemicals in our environment that cause cancer. We also know that everyone has these toxins, to some degree, stored in their body. "Our findings revealed that under the current regulatory system, toxic chemicals from consumer products and industrial pollution contaminate each of us and threaten our health," writes Erika Schreder of the Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition.

We need to start the movement of prevention in the breast cancer world, and I don't mean things like preventive mastectomies. Find a physician who is trained in preventative medicine because breast exams and mammograms only detect, they do not prevent breast cancer. Detection without prevention is like standing on the train tracks, watching a train roll towards you, and being content that after you get hit the medical community will try to put you back together. When possible, use prevention, and step off the tracks.

The FDA has sent a warning letter to the Hain Celestial Group, instructing the natural and organic food producer to relabel certain products that contain the sweetener stevia. The letter concerned the Celestial Zingers To Go tea and drink mix products, which the FDA charges are being labeled and marketed as food products, even though an ingredient they contain -- the stevia herb -- has not been approved for use in foods in the United States.

Stevia, derived from a South American plant, has become popular as a sweetener because it has 300 times the sweetness of table sugar but almost no impact on blood glucose levels. Its taste is said to have a slower onset than that of sugar and to last longer.

Stevia has been approved for use in food and beverage products in a number of countries, including Brazil, Canada, China and Japan, but to date the FDA has only approved it as an ingredient in dietary supplements.

In response to the warning letter, Hain Celestial Group removed the term "iced tea mix" from all labels of the products in question, and made the words "herbal supplement" much more prominent.

In light of the increasing popularity of stevia and the fact that companies like Hain Celestial have apparently been trying to get around regulations of its use, the FDA said that it expects to soon receive a petition to approve the sweetener for use in foods. Reportedly, both the Coca-Cola Company and Cargill are interested in producing stevia-sweetened products, with Coca-Cola having filed 24 patent applications related to the sweetener.

But the FDA said that current information is not sufficient to prove stevia safe as an ingredient for food.

"Data and information necessary to support the safe use have been lacking," the FDA's letter to Hain Celestial read. "In fact, literature reports have raised safety concerns about the use of stevia, including concerns about control of blood sugar and the effects of reproductive, cardiovascular and renal systems."

The FDA has been stalling on stevia approval for well over a decade in order to protect the profits of aspartame. Stevia is safely used around the world by hundreds of millions of consumers with absolutely no problems, while aspartame is tied to seizures, blindness, headaches and other serious neurological problems. The FDA once ordered the destruction of books containing stevia recipes, that's how desperate this criminal organization is to protect the profit racket of aspartame.

The essence of lying is in deception, not in words. 

 The news about the newest cholesterol lowering drugs and disclosure of the fact that there had been non-disclosure. It was reminiscent of the cigarette ads of many years ago.

 An ad for Philip Morris that appeared in the May 22, 1943 Saturday Evening Post was full of great news about Philip Morris cigarettes, even though by then their creator knew they were killing their friends and devotees. The ad's headline in large letters cheerfully inquired: "Smoking Less- or Smoking More?" and then  referred one to a small note that proudly proclaimed: "Gov't Figure show all-time peak in smoking". That was followed by the statement that "You're safer smoking PHILIP MORRIS!" It then went on to proudly state that those cigarettes were "Scientifically Proved less irritating for the nose and throat."

 Having gotten through the hype, the ad continues in a more sober vein stating that: "Reported by eminent doctors-in medical journals. Their own findings that when smokers changed to Philip Morris 'every case of irritation of the nose or throat-due to smoking-either cleared up completely, or definitely improved!'" The additional good news imparted by the ad was that the subject of the tests that proved the beneficial effects of smoking were "actual men and women" as distinguished from "laboratory analysis" thus demonstrating conclusively that Philip Morris cigarettes were "far less irritating to your nose and throat." The only caveat to the obviously unmitigated benefits of switching to Philip Morris was the equivalent to today's warning that they might kill you. It stated: "NOTE we do not claim curative power for Philip Morris. But, man! What solid proof they're better . . . . . safer. . . to smoke." There's no indication what text was omitted from the ellipses.

 It was all brought to mind when reading the full-page ads by Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals trumpeting the virtues of Zetia and Vytorin, the latter being a combination of Zetia and Zocor, a statin. The drug companies conducted a test called "Enhance" that ended almost two years ago. They forgot to disclose the results of the test until January 14, 2008. Among the results was the fact that Zetia failed to slow the accumulation of fatty plaque in the arteries and might have contributed to its formation. The tests also disclosed there might be adverse effects on the liver when Zetia was used in combination with statins, the drugs that lower cholesterol.

 Dr. Harlan N. Krumholz, a Yale cardiologist faulted the drug companies' failure to disclose the results of the study when they became available. Commenting to the New York Times he said: "People may have been on this drug without the ability to know that there was additional data that may have thrown into question its effectiveness. That's extremely unfortunate, and that's an understatement." Dr. Steven E. Nissen, the chairman of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic, described the results of the tests as "shocking" and went on to say that the test results were "as bad a result for the drug as anybody could have feared."

 It was not only a bad result for patients and the drugs. It was also a bad result for stockholders in the two companies since the two drugs generated $5 billion in sales in 2007. Although the tests only raised the possibility of damage to the liver and threw into doubt whether or not those taking the drugs lowered their risk of heart attack, there was one thing the tests did lower-the companies' profits from sales of the drugs. Following disclosure of the report, the stock's price dropped and sales of the drugs will certainly follow suit. Fortunately for stockholders, the two drug companies are not sitting quietly by. They have begun an advertising campaign to counter the bad results of the study believing, as all drug companies do, in the magical power of advertising.

 In full-page ads in major newspapers around the country they describe the study as one study that has "generated a lot of confusion," although apparently not in the minds of the doctors quoted above. The ad states that the "American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association agree that lowering bad cholesterol is important," conveniently overlooking the fact that while the drug lowered bad cholesterol it increased the growth of fatty plaque in the arteries when compared with patients taking Zocor alone. The rest of the ad differed from the cigarette ad in one important respect. Less than half the ad extolled the virtues of the drugs. The remainder described in excruciating detail all the terrible things that might happen to those taking the drug as is the requirement in drug advertisements.

 The ad won't help those who have taken the medicine. They can only hope the medicine hasn't harmed them. Whether it helps the stockholders to whom non-disclosure of the test results suggests the companies have greater loyalty than to their customers, only time will tell.

Consumer advocates have been campaigning for years to curb the use of antibiotics in agriculture, citing studies that show that 70 percent of all U.S. antibiotics are administered in low doses - not to treat disease, but to promote the growth of pigs, sheep, chicken and cattle.

 

Low doses of antibiotics in animal feeds have been shown to boost the speed of food-to-muscle conversion by 5 percent, and can prevent the spread of disease in the tight quarters of modern factory farms.

 

But as early as 1963, researchers tied the emergence of drug-resistant strains of salmonella in humans to antibiotics fed to cattle. Among the drugs routinely found in animal feed are erythromycin, penicillin and streptomycin. Critics warn that the use of antibiotics in feed at low dosages helps to breed resistant bacteria in the gut of farm animals - threatening the future of these drugs for use in animals or humans.

 

Major antibiotic classes such as tetracyclines and the Cipro-like fluoroquinolones have already been compromised, according to Keep Antibiotics Working, a coalition backed by environmental groups and the American Medical Association.

 

The stakes are high. The Union of Concerned Scientists calculated in 2001 that U.S. farm interests were using 24.6 million pounds of anti-microbials - almost 40 percent higher than industry estimates.

 

Ron Phillips, vice president of the Animal Health Institute, a Washington trade group for agricultural drugmakers, maintains that growth promotion accounts for only 4.5 percent of antibiotic consumption in agriculture. The rest are used to prevent, treat or control the spread of disease. "Antibiotics," he says, "are a net positive for both animal health and human health."

 

After antibiotics were banned from animal feed in Europe beginning in 1995, farmers there found they had to use more antibiotics to care for illnesses that cropped up in their livestock.

 

Keep Antibiotics Working nevertheless is pushing for a federal ban on antibiotics in feed. Introduced by Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass, and Olympia Snow, R-Maine, the "Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act" would phase out in two years antibiotics deemed "important in human medicine."

Courtesy of Healthy Cooking Tips

Chef Tim Johnson

Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!