10 Foods High in Vitamin E

Why You Need Vitamin E

Advertisements

Cholesterol Confusion: Let’s Make Sense of It

PCRM

 

 

Fat-and-Cholesterol-Social-Graphic

Dietary confusion just reached a whole new level. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee has just announced it is backing off suggesting that traces of cholesterol in foods pose a health risk. The idea is that its effect on blood cholesterol is less dramatic, compared with saturated fat—so maybe an egg here or there is no worse than an occasional drag on a cigarette. Coupled with recent reports questioning how bad “bad fats” really are, many people are unsure what to believe.

Let’s clear up the confusion. Here are the facts, starting with cholesterol:

Cholesterol is not the same as fat. Fat is the white streak in a steak and the grease that dribbles out of a drumstick. But cholesterol is invisible. Cholesterol particles are found in the membranes that surround the cells that make up an animal’s body. Cholesterol is in all animal products and is especially abundant in the lean portions of meats. There are also loads of cholesterol in eggs, cheese, and shellfish, such as shrimp and lobster.

Cholesterol in these foods causes your blood cholesterol level to inch upward.1 The cholesterol-raising effect is not as strong as that of bacon grease and other saturated-fat-laden products, but it is still there. Especially for people whose diets are modest in cholesterol to start with, adding an egg or two a day can cause a noticeable worsening on a cholesterol test.

Some people make a point of saying that cholesterol in foods is not as bad as saturated fat in foods. Maybe, but the issue is academic, because the two travel together. Fat and cholesterol are the Bonnie and Clyde of the culinary world. An egg, for example, has a whopping 200 milligrams of cholesterol and gets nearly 20 percent of its calories from saturated fat. They conspire together to raise your cholesterol level. But most foods from plants—vegetables, fruits, beans, and grains—have virtually none of either one.

Okay, so what about fat? Is it really a health problem or not?

The short answer is yes, it’s a problem. “Bad” fat—that is, saturated fat—raises your blood cholesterol level and increases your risk of health problems, including heart disease andAlzheimer’s disease. Saturated fat is found in meats, dairy products, eggs, and coconut and palm oils. Trans fats—the partially hydrogenated oils used in some snack foods—are bad, too, and people who avoid these products do themselves a favor.

Some news reports have mistakenly suggested that saturated fat isn’t really so bad after all. The confusion came from statistics:

Studies that compare people who indulge in “bad” fats with those who generally avoid them clearly show fat’s tendency to boost heart risks. But studies where fat intake does not vary much from person to person do not show much effect. For example, a Finnish study in which most all the participants followed high-fat diets was unable to detect any benefit of avoiding “bad” fats—largely because there was no group in the study that actually avoided them.

A 2014 meta-analysis combined all the studies—the good ones and the not-so-good ones—and concluded that, if you jumble the data together, the dangers of “bad” fat are no longer clear.2 The study was widely quoted by food writers who saw it as an excuse to try to rehabilitate pork chops’ reputation.

The meta-analysis had another problem. It used adjusted statistics that downplayed the dangers of saturated fat. One of the studies it used was Harvard’s Nurses’ Health Study.3 In the original study, a high saturated fat intake boosted heart disease risk by 52%. But the numbers were then adjusted for protein intake, cholesterol intake, and other factors, and these adjustments made the dangers of “bad” fat hard to see. It’s a bit like studying whether alcohol causes car accidents. If you alter the statistics to compensate for whether people weave as they drive or have blurry vision, the relationship between alcohol and accidents can be made to disappear.

So the answer is not to tuck into a hunk of bacon. The answer is to look at good studies, and they clearly show the risks of fatty, meaty diets.

And what’s that about Alzheimer’s disease? In a 2003 study, the Chicago Health and Aging Project reported that people eating the most saturated fat had a higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, compared with people who avoided “bad” fat.4

So the bottom line is that “bad” fat and cholesterol are as bad for you as ever. The products that harbor them—meat, dairy products, and eggs—are best left off your plate. People following plant-based diets have healthier body weight, better cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and much less risk of diabetes.5-7

So jump in. At the Physicians Committee, the 21-Day Vegan Kickstart Program starts fresh every single month, providing menus, recipes, and cooking videos free of charge. It is available in English, Spanish, and Mandarin, with a special program for people from the Indian subcontinent—plus our new Japanese program. As the confusion clears up, so will many health concerns.

1. Hopkins PN. Effects of dietary cholesterol on serum cholesterol: a meta-analysis and review. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992;55:1060-70.
2. Chowdhury R, Warnakula S, Kunutsor S, et al. Association of Dietary, Circulating, and Supplement Fatty Acids With Coronary Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:398-406.
3. Chiuve SE, Rimm EB, Sandhu RK, et al. Dietary fat quality and risk of sudden cardiac death in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012; 96:498-507.
4. Morris MC, Evans EA, Bienias JL, et al. Dietary fats and the risk of incident Alzheimer’s disease. Arch Neurol. 2003;60:194-200.
5. Tonstad S, Butler T, Yan R, Fraser GE. Type of vegetarian diet, body weight and prevalence of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32:791-6.
6. Berkow S, Barnard ND. Vegetarian diets and weight status. Nutr Rev 2006;64:175-188. 7. Yokoyama Y, Nishimura K, Barnard ND, Takegami M, Watanabe M, Sekikawa A, Okamura T, Miyamoto Y. Vegetarian diets and blood pressure: a meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine 2014;174(4):577-87.

Last updated by at February 12, 2015.

RDA’s: Time to Peel Back the Labels

RDA’s: Time to Peel Back the Labels

Every once in a while, when strolling through the grocery store with my wife, Karen, I get up the nerve to look at those nutrient profiles on the side of the package.

Even though I was recently on a National Academy of Sciences committee on food labeling, responsible for redesigning this information, I still wonder what all this really means. The Recommended Daily Allowances (RDAs) are the nutrient levels considered by governments and industry throughout the world to be desirable for good health. But how desirable are they really? Let’s see what’s beneath the label.

To begin with, the RDA is just what it says it is. It’s a recommended allowance; it’s not a minimum requirement. The underlying assumption is that if you consume exactly the RDA level for a specific nutrient, there is a very high (97-98%) probability that you will exceed your actual minimum requirement. In other words, to play it safe, the RDA represents a substantially higher intake than what you need.

Why then do so many people believe that they must consume an intake at least equal to or even higher than the RDA? This is because the food and vitamin supplement companies carefully coach us to believe in RDAs. For them, this idea makes money, and lots of it. It’s an easier “sell” to say that the nutrient content per serving of a company’s particular product comes closer to the RDA than that of their competitors.

The idea of RDAs started reasonably enough when a few folks began asking about the nutrient value of military rations during World War II. The decision was handed over to the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences. Ever since, this authoritative body has stood at the helm of so-called “good health” by issuing their revised listings every five years. But let’s look at what these reports are actually saying. First, there is an RDA given for each nutrient, broken down according to age and sex. Each RDA represents the minimum intake for a “single” nutrient, along with an upward adjustment thrown in for good measure. While this presumably provides us with a “safety check,” no range is given with high and low numbers. This single bottom number, already higher than the minimum requirement, suggests to many, “the more, the better.”

Making Money from RDAs

Folks, it just ain’t so. Witness the recent beta carotene revelations. You may recall that this study was halted when scientists reported the death rate from lung cancer was 28% higher among the participants who had taken the massive doses of beta carotene and vitamin A than those who had taken a placebo, and the death rate from heart disease was l7% higher. At least in countries like the U.S., where gorging is often the norm and vitamin supplements are treated as medicine, we ought to be thinking more about nutrient excesses than deficiencies. Note especially vitamin labels boasting such claims as “high potency” or “super-stress” formula. This problem is compounded when we forget about good wholesome diets (of plant-based foods) where nature works wonders in her own way.

Another serious problem goes something like this. In the absence of adequate scientific information, scientists establish RDAs which tend to be biased in favor of conventional levels of intake. But what are these “conventional” intakes? It’s this: they are those intakes which characterize diets that are high in fat, low in fiber, and high in animal proteinthe very kind of diet which causes us so many problems. Thus, a tendency exists to keep RDAs for plant-based nutrients low, while keeping animal-based nutrients high.

Even when we know it’s questionable, we find a very strong tendency to maintain the status quo. Vitamin C, for example (only available in plants), is given an RDA of 60 mg/day even though considerable information suggests that levels around 200-300 mg/day are more beneficial. And beta carotene, obtained almost entirely from plants, doesn’t even have an RDA. Generally, beta carotene is viewed as only a part of the “real” vitamin A, called retinol, which is found only

in animal-based foods. Dietary fiber, another plant-based nutrient, is relegated to the same non-category as beta carotene, and is similarly deprived of an RDA status. When it comes time to hand out RDAs, plant-based nutrients are either not assigned one or are given an RDA biased toward the low side. To register the higher, more appropriate intakes would suggest eating considerably more fruits and vegetablesa tough thing to do for meat and potatoes folks.

Standing on Shaky Foundations

By contrast, RDAs for animal-based nutrients are characteristically biased upwards. To take but one example, the RDA for calcium (at 800-1200 mg/day) is considerably in excess of the much lower intakes that are adequate for those on a plant-based diet. Probably a more accurate figure, based on our China Project surveys, would be closer to 400-­600 mg/day. Especially in the case of calcium, the amount of the nutrient needed is influenced by the type of diet consumed. That is, a high-dairy diet brings along baggage in the form of extra protein. And this extra protein causes calcium to be lost; thus more is needed. Why not try cutting down on dairy products so you require less calcium? In this country, about 60-­70% (on average) of total calcium intake is provided by dairy products.

RDAs have for a long time provided the so-called bedrock for dietary recommendations, such as the Basic Four Food Group guide, despite their shaky foundations. Used for so many years as a “good” general nutrition message by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Basic Four Food Group guide was devised to ensure adequate intakes of certain nutrients, especially those which supported high intakes of animal-based foods. As a result, scientists were inclined to “discover” that vegetarian diets were deficient in some nutrientscalcium, “good quality” protein, “good quality” iron, riboflavinwhen they were actually being judged against the biased RDA standards.

Heeding Mother’s Advice

Even though I believe that RDAs have mostly been an albatross around the neck of sound nutrition education, they may possess some value in defining nutritional profiles of large populations. That is, nutrient reference standards, such as the RDAs, can give a rough idea of a nation’s comparative nutritional health. But even so, I still wonder what useful purpose is served when nutrient intakes of a population are judged by reference standards prejudiced in favor of a low-fiber, high animal protein and fat diet.

Of all the dietary recommendations, RDAs are the oldest. In my view, they have been problematic from the start. Fortunately, the USDA’s Basic Four Food Group guide, with its emphasis on RDA standards, is now virtually dead. Still more fortunate is that we are now getting the U.S. Dietary Guidelines and the USDA Diet Pyramid, which pay less heed to the RDAs and which give somewhat more emphasis to plant-based foods, although this emphasis is still preciously limited. And then there are the newer Mediterranean and Asian Diet Pyramids, produced by a prominent well-heeled consumer based agency, which give considerably more emphasis to plant-based foods. I’ll comment on these newer nutrition guidelineswhere they succeed and where they failin an upcoming issue.

Progress is painfully slow in this arena where Big Science, Big Politics, and Big Business tell us what to eat. I rather still like that old advice of our mothers and grandmothers: eat your vegetables!

References

Campbell, T.C., “More Is Not Necessarily Better.” Natural History, 90:12-16, 1981.

Kolata, Gina, Studies Find Beta Carotene, Taken by Millions, Can’t Forestall Cancer or Heart Disease, New York Times, Jan. 19, 1996.

T. Colin Campbell is the Director of the Cornell-Oxford-China Diet and Health Project. He was trained at Cornell (M.S., Ph.D.) and MIT (Research Associate) in nutrition, biochemistry, and toxicology. He presently holds the endowed chair of Jacob Gould Schurman Professor of Nutritional Bio-chemistry at Cornell University.

Dr. T. Colin Campbell has been at the forefront of nutrition research for over forty years. His legacy, the China Project, has been acknowledged as the most comprehensive study of health and nutrition ever conducted. Dr. Campbell is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. Dr. Campbell also serves as the President of the Board for the T. Colin Campbell Center for Nutrition Studies and is featured faculty in our highly acclaimed, Plant-Based Certificate and our online heart course, Nutrition for a Healthy Heart.

Get Omega-3s with Ease

May 12, 2014Health and Nutrition, Plant-Based,

 

Capture

While many people believe that eating fish is necessary to get omega-3 fatty acids and maintain heart and brain health, there is absolutely nothing healthful about fish.

Recent research has even debunked the age-old myth that Eskimos, who ate diets heavy in fish, had a lower risk for heart disease. Fortunately, there are plenty of plant-based sources of omega-3s.

So what do we know about omega-3s?

Omega-3 fatty acids are necessary nutrients that cannot be synthesized by the body, so we need to get them from our food. Since omega-3s do help with cell function, a deficiency in omega-3 fatty acids can result in negative health consequences such as liver and kidney abnormalities, decreased immune function, or dry skin.

While some studies show that omega-3s might help with aging or brain health, omega-3s from fish or other animal products come with some unwanted side effects.

Fish contains toxic contaminants, and all animal products contain cholesterol and saturated fat—and have no fiber, an essential nutrient for digestion, cancer prevention, and weight loss. In my piece for the Huffington Post, I summarize some of the researchdebunking the health halo of fish oil supplements.  Fast food companies have also jumped in on the popularity of fish during Lent, but don’t take the bait—fish is not a health food.

Even if omega-3s are not the fountain of youth, plant sources of omega-3s are full of fiber and rich in other nutrients. Edamame and walnuts contain omega-3s and also contain protein. Winter squash is packed with omega-3s and is also a great source of vitamin A and vitamin C.

Flaxseeds are easy to incorporate into baked goods, smoothies, and a whole variety of recipes. Research has even shown that women who follow vegan diets have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids in their blood than those who consume diets rich in fish, meat, and dairy.

Friends or family have questions about omega-3s? Just share the infographic below!

omega-3-infographic

 

Parasites on the brain

News
Chronic Headaches and Pork Parasites
August 26, 2014 by Michael Greger M.D. in News with 1 Comment

Neurocysticercosis is the sciencey name for an infection of the human central nervous system by pork tapeworm larvae. The invasion of baby pork tapeworms in the brain “has become an increasingly important emerging infection in the United States,” and is the #1 cause of epilepsy in the world. It is the most common parasitic disease of the human brain and used to be found throughout only the developing world (with the exception of Muslim countries, since less pork is consumed there). That all changed about 30 years ago, and now it’s increasingly found throughout North America.

Besides seizures, the pork parasites may actually trigger brain tumors or cause an aneurism or psychiatric manifestation like depression. It can also result in dementia, but with deworming drugs this is often reversible. Only rarely do surgeons have to surgically remove the larvae.

I’ve talked about pork tapeworms before (see my videos Pork Tapeworms on the Brain, Avoiding Epilepsy Through Diet, and Not So Delusional Parasitosis). What’s new is that we now know that they may present as chronic headaches—either migraines or so-called “tension-headaches”—even when the worms in our head are dead. What researchers think is happening is that as our body tries to chip away at the worms’ calcified bodies, bits of them may be released into the rest of our brain causing inflammation that could be contributing to headaches.

This condition is rare even in endemic areas, but we can avoid getting infested with an adult tapeworm in the first place by cooking pork thoroughly. It’s found in some parts of pig carcasses more than others (see the meat chart here), and the worms can be frozen to death no matter how infested the muscles are by storing pork (cut up into small pieces) for a month at subzero temperatures. Then to ensure the larvae are dead the meat is recommended to be cooked for more than two hours. That’s one well-done pork chop!

The New England Journal of Medicine recently featured a case of some guy who must have had thousands of pork tapeworm larvae wriggling through his muscles. In my video, Chronic Headaches and Pork Tapeworms, you can see an x-ray, showing the thousands of little white streaks in this man’s body. Each white streak is a baby tapeworm. That’s why you can get infected by pork, it gets in the muscles. So cannibals might want to cook for two hours too.

Not all parasites are associated with meat, though. An anxious but healthy 32-year-old male physician presented to the family medicine clinic with a sample of suspected parasites from his stools, which had been retrieved from the toilet that same day. They looked to be about an inch long. He had previously traveled to India, had Chinese food the night before—who knows what he had. Maybe it was hookworms? The sample was sent to the microbiology laboratory for analysis. Later that day, the microbiology physician called to report positive identification of Vigna radiata (previously known as Phaseolus aureus) in the stool sample. Or in common parlance, a bean sprout. They were bean sprouts!

“The patient was called and gently but firmly informed of the diagnosis. Given the nature of the identified specimen, the information was presented in a non-judgmental, respectful manner so as not to offend the sensibilities or sensitivities of the patient.”

Their parting advice to fellow physicians in cases of this nature was as follows: “as comical as the findings might seem–try not to laugh!”

Other parasites in meat include toxoplasma (Brain Parasites in Meat), sarcosystis (USDA Parasite Game), and Anisakis (Allergenic Fish Worms). There can even be critters in some dairy products (Cheese Mites and Maggots). Eating Outside Our Kingdom describes a brain malady caused not by meat parasites, but by meat proteins themselves.

One of the nice things about eating plant-based is that plant parasites, like aphids, don’t affect people. When is the last time you heard of someone coming down with a bad case of Dutch elm disease?

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

-Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, and From Table to Able.

Image Credit: ML Cohen / Flickr

Tagged aneurism, brain disease, brain health, brain parasites, brain surgery, brain tumors, cooking methods, dementia, depression, epilepsy, eye disease, eye health, eye parasites, food poisoning, foodborne illness, headaches, inflammation, meat, migraine, muscle disease, muscle health, neurocysticercosis, parasites, polyphenols, pork seizures, sprouts, surgery, tapeworms

About Michael Greger M.D.

Michael Greger, M.D., is a physician, author, and internationally recognized professional speaker on a number of important public health issues. Dr. Greger has lectured at the Conference on World Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the International Bird Flu Summit, testified before Congress, appeared on The Dr. Oz Show and The Colbert Report, and was invited as an expert witness in defense of Oprah Winfrey at the infamous “meat defamation” trial. Currently Dr. Greger proudly serves as the Director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture at the Humane Society of the United States.

View all videos by Michael Greger M.D.

Related Posts

Why the Egg-Cancer Link?

How Eggs Can Impact Body Odor

How to Design a Misleading Study

Get Off Medications

Fuhrman
America is the most medicated nation on Earth. Department of Health and Human Services data shows that at least half of all Americans take at least one prescription drug, with one in six taking three or more medications. Prescription drug use is rising among people of all ages, and use increases with age. Five out of six persons 65 and older are taking at least one medication. Prescriptions for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antidepressants, blood glucose/sugar regulators and cholesterol-lowering statin drugs, in particular increased notably between 1996 and 2002. Prescription drugs are the fastest growing health expenditure; costs have risen at least 15 % every year since 1998. (1)

The safest and surest way to good health is to follow the recommendations in my book, Eat to Live. The key to a tragedy free, long life is nutritional excellence, satisfying relationships and exercise, not medication. Don’t gamble your health on risky medications. The Eat to Live diet has enabled people to reduce or eliminate dependence on a variety of medications including insulin, blood pressure, antidepressants and cholesterol lowering medications. The false sense of security provided by these medications enables patients to continue the same disease causing diet and lifestyle that led to the problem.

My mantra is “don’t treat or control your medical problem, get rid of it.” My goal on this website is to give you information so you can take back control of your health future and recognize that the answer to a long disease free life will not come from a pharmacy company or from your typical doctor. It will come from an understanding that when you supply the body with the prerequisites of optimal health (superior nutrition, avoidance of excesses, elimination of deficiencies, exercise, satisfying relationships and adequate light), and remove the stressors that cause disease, the miraculous self-healing properties of the body will be given free reign and you will be able to sustain excellent health into your later years.

1. Health, United States 2004. 28th report on the health status of the nation submitted by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to the President and Congress. Compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Protein Content of Green Vegetables Compared to Meat?

Fuhrman

Some have inquired about further data and sources, in the listing of the protein content of green vegetables compared to red meat in Eat To Live, so more complete data is posted here.

In the chart below, an equal caloric amount (100 calories) of porterhouse steak is compared to broccoli, romaine lettuce and kale. Broccoli provides the greatest amount of protein per calorie.

Green vegetables are all rich in protein, and relatively low in calories. They provide generous amounts of most micronutrients with no cholesterol and virtually no fat. Meat on the other hand, is relatively low in micronutrients. Remember whole grains, beans and seeds are also high in protein and should be utilized to achieve adequate protein on a diet with no or minimal animal products. But the point in this example was to illustrate how weight-loss favorable green vegetables are and that no matter how many green vegetables you eat, you still cannot take in too many calories. If you fill up on greens, they will reduce your desire and ability to overeat.

Broccoli, frozen,
chopped boiled
Romaine
Lettuce
Kale,
cooked
Beef Short Loin,
Porterhouse Steak,
separable lean & fat,
1/8 “ fat, broiled
Beef short Loin,
Porterhouse Steak,
separable lean & fat,
1/4” fat, broiled
Calories 100 100 100 100 100
Weight (g) 357 (12.6oz) 588 (20.7oz) 358 (12.6oz) 34 (1.2oz) 30 (1.0oz)
Protein (g) 11.1 7.2 6.8 8.0 6.5
Fat (g) 0.4 1.8 1.4 7.4 7.7
Carbohydrate (g) 19.2 19.4 20.2 0 0
Fiber 10.8 12.4 7.2 0 0
Cholesterol 0 0 0 24.1 21.6
Calcium (mg) 118 194 258 2.7 2.4
Iron (mg) 2.2 5.7 3.2 0.9 0.8
Magnesium (mg) 46 82 64.4 7.8 6.0
Potassium (mg) 507 1453 816.2 109 76.5
Vitamin C (mg) 143 23.5 146.8 0 0
Thiamin (mg) 0.2 0.4 0.2 0 0
Riboflavin (mg) 0.3 0.4 0.3 0 0
Niacin (mg) 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.2
Vitamin B6 (mg) 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1
Folate (mcg) 200 800 46.5 2.4 2.1
Vitamin A (IU) 3609 51253 48763 0 0
Vitamin K (mcg) 315 603 2924 0 0

Source: Data was obtained from Nutritionist Pro Nutritional Analysis Software, Version 4.7, Axxya Systems , Stafford TX, 2012.

Please note that 100 calories of steak is only about one ounce, which is not much meat to fill you up. More typically, 4 – 8 ounces is eaten, supplying too many calories and too much animal protein without the lifespan enhancing micronutrients. Bottom line—eat more greens and less meat to get more micronutrient bang per caloric buck and to suppress your calorie intake.

About NutritionFacts.org and Dr Michael Greger M.D.

About NutritionFacts.org

The typical nutrition facts packaging label shows consumers a miniscule fraction of the estimated 100,000+ biological active constituents of food. How do you tell if it may actually help promote health and protect against disease?

It is estimated that North Americans spend in excess of $50 billion annually on diet products and self-help books and videos.  However, given that Western society continues to see increased obesity and other “diseases of affluence” such as Type II diabetes, coronary heart disease and certain forms of cancer, much of that money is being wasted.  We believe that a significant part of the problem is that individuals who want to make the correct nutritional choices for themselves and their families are faced with a deluge of confusing and conflicting nutritional advice.  The goal of this website is to present you with the results of the latest in nutrition and health research, presented in a way that is easy to understand.

 

 

NUTRITIONFACTS.ORG is brought to you by the Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation in partnership with Michael Greger M.D. Dr. Greger scours the world of nutrition-related research, as published in scientific journals, and brings that information to you in short, easy to understand video segments.  We also provide links to the original journal articles whenever possible so that you can source the information directly, if you so desire.

Michael Greger M.D.

Dr. Greger is a physician, author, and internationally recognized speaker on nutrition, food safety, and public health issues.  A founding member of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Dr. Greger is licensed as a general practitioner specializing in clinical nutrition. Currently he serves as the Director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture at the Humane Society of the United States. Dr. Greger is a graduate of the Cornell University School of Agriculture and the Tufts University School of Medicine. Click here for his current speaking schedule and here to send a speaking invitation.

The Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation

The Foundation was established in Toronto, Canada in the year 2000 by Jesse Rasch. Among the objectives of the Foundation is the funding of research into the role of health and nutrition in the prevention and treatment of disease and to ensure that the research results are appropriately disseminated to the medical profession.  The Foundation is also striving to educate the public on the enormous role that health and nutrition play in disease prevention.

%d bloggers like this: