Breast Cancers Spontaneously Disappear

John McDougall, MD


Dr John McDougall

 

Breast Cancers Spontaneously Disappear

The natural history of invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography by Per-Henrik Zahl published in the November 24, 2008 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine found, “…that the natural course of some screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress.”1 The investigators found invasive breast cancer 22% more often in women who had a mammography every other year for 6 years than those who did not (1909 vs. 1564 per 100 000 women). If all cancer were to naturally progress and none disappear then the same number of cancers would be expected to be found in the women who received regular screening every other year and those who only had one exam after 6 years. Their conclusion was, “it appears that some breast cancers detected by repeated mammographic screening would not persist to be detectable by a single mammogram at the end of 6 years.”  The final remarks of the investigators were, “Our findings are equally consistent with the possibility that mammography either leads to a reduction in breast cancer mortality or has no effect at all. Instead, our findings simply provide new insight on what is arguably the major harm associated with mammographic screening, namely, the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress.”

Comment: Spontaneous regression of advanced breast cancer has been reported.  One recent reported identified 32 such cases, but there are certainly many more unreported cases.2 Advanced melanoma, brain cancer (neuroblastoma), and kidney cancer are also known to disappear without treatment.  Precancerous changes in the female uterine cervix and colon polyps also regress. 

Most of my readers know that I am against doing “early detection” screening tests for most cancers, including those of the breast, prostate, and lung cancer. This study provides one more reason to avoid mammography and even breast-self examination—benefits of which have been seriously questioned.3,4 The harms from these detection campaigns are, however, unquestioned.*

I often see women with breast cancer, men with prostate cancer, and both genders with many other forms of cancer in late stages.  Their doctors have given them no hope—in fact, in most cases their well-intentioned treatments add to their misery.  Hopelessness compounds the suffering.  Patients need to be told that even with advanced cancer, sometimes there is recovery, called spontaneous remission.  I believe this miracle is more likely to happen for someone in good health, rather than in poor health. The only way I know to consistently improve health is by replacing destructive habits with good ones.  The most powerful of these changes is switching from the meat-, dairy-, and junk food-based Western diet to the McDougall starch-based diet.  I have seen what I believe to be spontaneous remissions in my patients several times. Ruth Heidrich, reported as a Star McDougaller, is one remarkable example of metastatic breast cancer diagnosed over 26 years ago—and she lives cancer free today.

*I believe there are minor benefits to be had from PAP smears every 3 to 5 years until age 50, one routine colon exam (polyps) at age 55 to 60, exams of the mouth (leukoplakia), and skin exams (pre-melanoma).

1) Zahl PH, Maehlen J, Welch HG. The natural history of invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography. Arch Intern Med. 2008 Nov 24;168(21):2311-6.

2) Larsen SU, Rose C. Spontaneous remission of breast cancer. A literature review.Ugeskr Laeger. 1999 Jun 28;161(26):4001-4.

3) Baxter N; Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Preventive health care, 2001 update: should women be routinely taught breast self-examination to screen for breast cancer? CMAJ. 2001 Jun 26;164(13):1837-46.

4) Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;(4):CD001877.

Brain Impairment from the Atkins Diet

John McDougall, MD


Dr John McDougall

Brain Impairment from the Atkins Diet

 

 

 

 

Low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets. Effects on cognition and mood by Kristen D’Anci in the February 2009 issue of the journal Appetite concluded that,The present data show memory impairments during low-carbohydrate diets at a point when available glycogen stores would be at their lowest.” Women followed a low-carbohydrate diet, similar to the Atkins diet, or a reduced-calorie balanced diet, similar to that recommended by the American Dietetic Association (ADA). “Results showed that during complete withdrawal of dietary carbohydrate, low-carbohydrate dieters performed worse on memory-based tasks than ADA dieters. These impairments were ameliorated after reintroduction of carbohydrates.”  After about one week of severe carbohydrate deprivation subjects demonstrated impairment of memory.

Comments:  Have you noticed any of your dieting friends slipping with their physical or mental health?  There are scientific reasons to believe this is a real change caused by a deficiency of “brain fuel,” which is carbohydrate. Sugar (glucose) is the primary, preferred fuel for the brain and it is not stored in the brain tissues.  Thus, the brain is dependent upon circulating glucose in the blood stream.  This glucose comes almost exclusively from eating carbohydrates.  Except for milk and honey, only plant-derived foods contain carbohydrate. The body’s stores of carbohydrate last about 24 to 72 hours after starting on a low-carbohydrate, Atkins-type diet.  Upon depletion of carbohydrates the body metabolizes body fat into ketones, which can be used, but less efficiently, by the brain tissues and other body tissues for fuel.

The popularity of low-carbohydrate diets is waning, but I doubt they will vanish because they promise quick weight loss while consuming familiar foods like beef, butter and Brie.  These diets work by simulating sickness.  Without carbohydrate the body turns to fat for energy. Ketones are produced from fat metabolism and with their accumulation a condition of ketosis develops. Ketosis suppresses the appetite. Weight loss follows as long as ketosis-induced, appetite-suppression, is maintained. Most dieters cannot tolerate the unpleasantness of sickness for long and they give up, regaining all their lost body fat.

The foods consumed for a low-carbohydrate diet (meat, poultry, fish, cheese, eggs) are known to cause many serious illnesses, including heart disease, strokes, cancer, osteoporosis, and constipation.  This is not the right way to lose weight.

D’Anci KE, Watts KL, Kanarek RB, Taylor HA. Low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets. Effects on cognition and mood. Appetite. 2009 Feb;52(1):96-103.

Diabetes Treatments Do More Harm Than Good

John McDougall, MD


Dr John McDougall

Undeniable Evidence: Diabetes Treatments Do More Harm Than Good

Glucose Control and Vascular Complications in Veterans with Type 2 Diabetes by William Duckworth in the December 17, 2008 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine found, “Intensive glucose control in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes had no significant effect on the rates of major cardiovascular events, death, or microvascular complications.”1This study, called the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT) was of 1791 military veterans (mean age 60.4 years) who had a suboptimal response to therapy for type-2 diabetes. They were assigned to receive either intensive- or standard-glucose control and studied for 5.6 years.  The intensive-therapy reduced the Hemoglobin A1c levels to 6.9%; compared to 8.4% in the standard-therapy group.  The patients were also put on aspirin and a statin. 

A weight gain of 18 pounds occurred with the intensive-treatment compared to 9 pounds with standard-therapy. There were 95 deaths from any cause in the standard-therapy group and 102 in the intensive-therapy group. In the intensive-therapy group, the number of sudden deaths was nearly three times the number as those in the standard-therapy group (11 vs. 4). More patients in the intensive-therapy group had at least one serious adverse event, predominantly hypoglycemia, than in the standard-therapy group.

These pharmaceutical companies—Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Kos Pharmaceuticals, and Amylin—provided medications and financial support for the study.

Comment: This is the third industry-funded study published this year showing aggressive treatment hurts patients. On June 12, 2008 the ACCORD* trial and ADVANCE** trials were also published in the New England Journal of Medicine.2,3Together, the effect of these three well-designed randomized studies should be enough to halt aggressive prescribing of diabetic pills and insulin to type-2 diabetics.Will this overwhelming evidence change how doctors practice? Probably not. Drug companies have millions of advertising dollars dedicated to emphasizing any slight benefits their drug treatments may show and minimizing the harms. In this manner they convince doctors to prescribe and patients to buy useless and harmful products.  Most doctors are too afraid of lawsuits to stand up for the patients and against the drug companies. To change current practice, doctors need to fear being sued for too aggressively treating patients.  Even more, they need to fear being sued for failing to prescribe the correct treatment for type-2 diabetics—a change in diet.   None of these three studies published in one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals taught dietary and lifestyle modification to their patients.

Currently, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for a diabetic medication requires evidence that the drug will lower blood sugar—not that it improves the patient’s life.  The title of my February 2008 newsletter describes the results of such narrowly focused therapy: “Intensive Therapy Means Dying Sooner with Better Looking Numbers.”  The FDA is as of December 2008 recommending that all new drugs developed for the treatment of type-2 diabetes show that they do not increase the risk of cardiovascular events.  However, this is not a requirement, just a recommendation or suggestion to the pharmaceutical companies.4

Eating the rich western diet causes type-2 diabetes.  My February 2004 newsletterprovides details on the cause and how a change in diet will cure essentially all type-2 diabetics—at the same time causing them to lose weight, reverse heart disease, and dramatically improve their overall health.

*ACCORD = Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes

**ADVANCE = Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation

1) Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, Reda D, Emanuele N, Reaven PD, Zieve FJ, Marks J, Davis SN, Hayward R, Warren SR, Goldman S, McCarren M, Vitek ME, Henderson WG, Huang GD; the VADT Investigators. Glucose Control and Vascular Complications in Veterans with Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008 Dec 17. [Epub ahead of print]

2) Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group, Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, Goff DC Jr, Bigger JT, Buse JB, Cushman WC, Genuth S, Ismail-Beigi F, Grimm RH Jr, Probstfield JL, Simons-Morton DG, Friedewald WT. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008 Jun 12;358(24):2545-59.

3) ADVANCE Collaborative Group, Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, Neal B, Billot L, Woodward M, Marre M, Cooper M, Glasziou P, Grobbee D, Hamet P, Harrap S, Heller S, Liu L, Mancia G, Mogensen CE, Pan C, Poulter N, Rodgers A, Williams B, Bompoint S, de Galan BE, Joshi R, Travert F. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008 Jun 12;358(24):2560-72.

5 Surprising Genetically Modified Foods

Leaving aside the question of whether they’re good or bad for a moment, what exactly are GMOs, and which foods are they in?

By Maggie Caldwell on Mon. August 5, 2013 3:00 AM PDT

Golden rice

GE rice may soon be approved for human consumption. Photo illustration/Photos from IRRI, WIkimedia Commons

By now, you’ve likely heard about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the controversy over whether they’re the answer to world hunger or the devil incarnate. But for right now, let’s leave aside that debate and turn to a more basic question: When you go to the supermarket, do you know which foods are most likely to be—or contain ingredients that are—genetically engineered? A handy FAQ:

So what exactly are genetically modified organisms? 
GMOs are plants or animals that have undergone a process wherein scientists alter their genes with DNA from different species of living organisms, bacteria, or viruses to get desired traits such as resistance to disease or tolerance of pesticides.

But haven’t farmers been selectively breeding crops to get larger harvests for centuries? How is this any different?
Over at Grist, Nathanael Johnson has a great answer to this question—but in a nutshell: Yes, farmers throughout history have been raising their plants to achieve certain desired traits such as improved taste, yield, or disease resistance. But this kind of breeding still relies on the natural reproductive processes of the organisms, where as genetic engineering involves the addition of foreign genes that would not occur in nature.

Am I eating GMOs?
Probably. Since several common ingredients like corn starch and soy protein are predominantly derived from genetically modified crops, it’s pretty hard to avoid GM foods altogether. In fact, GMOs are present in 60 to 70 percent of foods on US supermarket shelves, according to Bill Freese at the Center for Food Safety; the vast majority of processed foods contain GMOs. One major exception is fresh fruits and veggies. The only GM produce you’re likely to find is the Hawaiian papaya, a small amount of zucchini and squash, and some sweet corn. No meat, fish, and poultry products approved for direct human consumption are bioengineered at this point, though most of the feed for livestock and fish is derived from GM corn, alfalfa, and other biotech grains. Only organic varieties of these animal products are guaranteed GMO-free feed.

So what are some examples of food that are genetically modified?
1. Papayas: In the 1990s, Hawaiian papaya trees were plagued by the ringspot virus which decimated nearly half the crop in the state. In 1998, scientists developed a transgenic fruit called Rainbow papaya, which is resistant to the virus. Now 77 percent of the crop grown in Hawaii is genetically engineered (GE).

2. Milk: RGBH, or recombinant bovine growth hormone, is a GE variation on a naturally occurring hormone injected into dairy cows to increase milk production. It is banned for milk destined for human consumption in the European Union, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. Many milk brands that are rGBH-free label their milk as such, but as much as 40 percent of our dairy products, including ice cream and cheese, contains the hormone.

3. Corn on the cob: While 90 percent of corn grown in the United States is genetically modified, most of that crop is used for animal feed or ethanol and much of the rest ends up in processed foods. Sweet corn—the stuff that you steam or grill on the barbecue and eat on the cob—was GMO-free until last year when Monsanto rolled out its first GE harvest of sweet corn. While consumers successfully petitioned Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s to not carry the variety, Walmart has begun stocking the shelves with it without any label.

4. Squash and zucchini: While the majority of squashes on the market are not GE, approximately 25,000 acres of crookneck, straightneck, and zucchinis have been bioengineered to be virus resistant.

5. “All natural” foods: Be wary of this label if you’re trying to avoid GE foods. Right now there is no strict definition of what constitutes a natural food. This could be changing soon as federal court judgesrecently requested the Food and Drug Administration to determine whether the term can be used to describe foods containing GMOs to help resolve pending class action suits against General Mills, Campbell Soup Co., and the tortilla manufacturer Gruma Corp.

Are there any foods I’ve heard might be genetically modified—but actually aren’t?
1. Potatoes: 
In 1995, Monsanto introduced genetically modified potatoes for human consumption, but after pressure from consumers, McDonald’s and several other major fast food chains told their French fry suppliers to stop growing GE potatoes. The crop has since been removed from the market.

2. Seedless watermelon: While it would seem plausible that a fruit that produces no seeds has been bioengineered, the seedless watermelon is a hybrid of two separate breeds. It has been nicknamed the “mule of the watermelon world.”

3. Salmon: Currently no meat, fish, or egg products are genetically engineered, though a company called Aqua Bounty has an application in with the FDA to approve its GE salmon.

4. Soy milk: While 93 percent of soy grown in the United States is genetically engineered, most major brands of soy milk are GMO-free. Silk, the best-selling soy milk brand in the country, joined the Non-GMO Project in 2010. Many popular tofu brands in the United States also sell GMO-free tofu products.*

5. Rice: staple food for nearly half the world’s population, there are currently no varieties of GM riceapproved for human consumption. However, that could soon change. A genetically modified variety calledgolden rice being developed in the Philippines has been altered to include beta-carotene, a source of vitamin A. Backers are lauding it as a way to alleviate nutrient deficiency for the populations in developing countries.

How about organic foods? 
Since the late ’90s, USDA organic standards have prohibited any genetically modified ingredients. Originally, the agency tried to include GE foods under the organic umbrella, but it backed down in 2002 after a massive public outcry to save organic standards.

How long have I been eating GE food?
Scientists conducted the first GE food trials the late 1980s, and in 1994, a biotech company called Calgene released the first GMO approved for human consumption: the “Flavr Savr tomato,” designed to stay ripe on the vine longer without getting squishy. The product, which Monsanto eventually picked up, flopped, but it paved the way for others: Biotech companies have made billions since with GE corn, soy bean, cotton, and canola.

Aren’t food companies required to let me know whether their products contain GMOs?
Not in the United States. Sixty-four developing and developed countries require GMO food labeling, according to Freese at the Center for Food Safety. You may have heard about the recent string of “Right to Know” bills in state assemblies across the country. The bills are aimed to require food companies to label any products that contain genetically modified organisms. Connecticut and Maine recently passed laws that would require food manufacturers to reveal GE ingredients on product packaging, but those laws won’t go into effect until other states adopt similar measures. Americans overwhelmingly support such laws, with poll after poll showing that over 90 percent of respondents support mandatory labeling. Biotech companies and the food industry say that such labeling would be expensive and pointless since genetically engineered foods have been declared safe for human consumption.

So if the food is safe, what’s all the fuss about them?
First off, not everyone agrees that GMOs are safe to eat, especially over the long term. The European Union remains decidedly skeptical, with very few approved GE crops grown on the continent and mandatory labeling in place for products that contain GMOs. Some scientists fear that GMOs could causeallergies in humans. Others point to the environmental consequences of the farming of GE crops.

How do GMOs affect the environment?
One word: Pesticides. Hundreds of millions of extra pounds of pesticides. The six biggest producers of GE seeds—Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow Agrosciences, BASF, Bayer, and Pioneer (DuPont)—are also the biggest producers of chemical herbicides and insecticides. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops, for example, are genetically engineered to be immune to herbicide so that farmers can destroy weeds without killing their cash crops. But the process has spawned Roundup resistant weeds, leading farmers to apply greater and greater doses of the chemical or even resort to more toxic methods to battle back the superweeds.

Where can I learn more about GMOs? 
Mother Jones‘ Tom Philpott writes critically about GMOs often. In this 2011 Scientific American piece, Brendan Borrell lays out the pro-GMO case very well. Grist‘s Nathanael Johnson has written several posts that clarify the basic science behind GE crops, and a New York Times Room for Debate from 2009 offers a pretty good synopsis of the controversy. Food policy wonks might enjoy perusing the Food and Agriculture Organization’s page on biotechnology in agriculture; if you’re looking for a more entertaining way to educate yourself, a documentary called GMO OMG opens in select theaters this fall.

Clarification: Previously this story stated most tofu sold in the United States is GMO-free. While the top-selling US tofu brand Nasoya and many other major manufacturers in the US have items verified by theNon-GMO Project, this doesn’t necessarily encompass all tofu products.

Why Red Meat is at the Root of America’s Health Epidemic

Food

By Tommy Dean | August 7, 2013

Recent health studies show that red meat is a key culprit in a slew of chronic diseases that currently affect the US.

Grilled during backyard barbecues, cooked for homemade meals, and ordered on the go at millions of fast food restaurants across the country, red meat is a mainstay in many Americans’ diets, but a growing body of scientific research released within the last year suggests that it may be the common thread in a slew of ailments that are at the root of the country’s health epidemic. While the animal agriculture industry may be quick to tout burgers and steak as tasty sources of protein, it’s increasingly clear that the food’s dietary detriments, which include cancer, heart disease, and diabetes, may warrant a warning label to caution the general public that they eat at their own risk.

Forkful of Chronic Disease
The country’s health status is at odds with the medical industry. As many fatal and life-threatening diseases are rendered obsolete with the development of vaccines, medications, and treatments, many residents continue to suffer from unprecedented levels of preventable health issues such as type 2 diabetes. According to the Centers for Disease Control, as of 2011, approximately 23 million people in the US currently live with the condition while nearly 70 million are pre-diabetic. Type 2 diabetes can be partially attributed to genetics and a lack of physical activity, but it is also heavily influenced by diet. A review published this year by the Harvard School of Public Health shows that go-to barbecue fare such as pork and beef play a significant role in the disease’s proliferation. During the research, the Harvard scientists analyzed three separate studies that recorded a collective 150,000 patients’ dietary habits since the 1980s. The results revealed that eating an additional 1.5 ounces of the red meat every day increases the likelihood of developing type 2 diabetes by approximately 48 percent, which led them to the conclusion that reducing intake of the food is a key way to keep the chronic condition at bay: “Our results add further evidence that limiting red meat consumption over time confers benefits for [type 2 diabetes] prevention,” wrote the research authors.

At the heart of the country’s diet-related disease dilemma is the heart. Nearly 715,000 US residents have heart attacks each year, killing approximately 600,000 people annually. For years, health professionals have reported that red meat’s high fat and cholesterol content negatively affect the cardiovascular system, but a study published in the journal Nature Medicine in 2013 revealed that there is a chemical component of beef and pork that increases consumer’s risk of suffering heart disease as well. Recently, Cleveland Clinic researchers found that when humans’ gut bacteria digest the compound carnitine—which is abundant in red meat—the byproduct TMAO is released. TMAO was found to inhibit the body from expelling cholesterol, allowing the fatty substance to sink into artery walls—a deadly recipe for heart attack.

Caustic Cancer
Cancer is another leading cause of death in the US, and a significant amount of resources have been dedicated to finding new and effective treatments for the disease. But as healthcare costs become more of a concern for the general population, doctors and dieticians are training their gaze on prevention methods, such as healthier diets, that reduce the likelihood of cancer ever occurring. While fruits, vegetables, and legumes are unanimously lauded as foods that help keep a clean bill of health, there’s also an emphasis on what not to eat. Enter red meat. A study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2012, which analyzed the dietary habits of more than 120,000 people, revealed that consuming a 3-ounce piece of red meat every day increases the risk of dying from cancer or cardiovascular disease by 13 percent, while eating an additional serving of processed red meats, such as hot dogs or bacon, heightens a person’s fatality incidence by 20 percent. Separate studies have also found links between red meat and the development of bladder, lung, and breast cancer, and a recently released study by the American Cancer Society in Atlanta concluded that when a patients ate foods such as beef, pork, and lamb prior to being diagnosed with colon cancer—one of the most common forms of cancer in the US—it significantly raised their mortality risk as well.

Red Meat, Red Flag
In order for the country as a whole to combat chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, we need to start at the source of the problem—our diets. This means looking at the hard data from reputable health sources to make informed decisions, and replacing foods like red meat that have repeatedly proven to be inimical with sustenance that actually sustains a long and healthy existence. It is this urgency to encourage a greater physical well-being and combat the country’s collective health epidemic that has led wellness experts and dieticians to discourage meat and dairy and endorse plant-based diets.

Shiitake Mushrooms – One of the Healthiest Fungi in the World

Christina Sarich

by 
June 30th, 2013
Updated 06/30/2013 at 6:41 am

shiitake mushrooms 263x164 Shiitake Mushrooms – One of the Healthiest Fungi in the WorldIf you haven’t gotten a good dose of fungi lately, particularly shiitake mushrooms, then you are missing out. Used by the Chinese for over 6000 years, shiitake mushrooms are said to be an aphrodisiac, and can sell for upwards of $40 a pound in US markets. The mushroom gets its name from the Shii tree on which the mushrooms most often grow in Japan. The best part? They offer a host of medicinal and healthful benefits from promoting heart health to boosting longevity. Further, they can be added to salads, brown rice dishes, and a plethora of other recipes to ingest their life-giving nutrients and special compounds.

Shiitake mushrooms are an excellent source of some important vitamins and minerals. For starters, they have three B vitamins, B2, B5 and B6, and six important trace minerals: phosphorous, selenium, copper, zinc, potassium, magnesium, and manganese. Selenium is a known cancer-fighting mineral. The mushrooms also contain vitamin D and protein as well as dietary fiber. Finally, they are a great non-meat source of iron, the blood-fortifying element.

In researching the shiitake mushroom, it was found that it helps boost cardiovascular health by preventing too much immune cell binding to the lining of our blood vessels. Because of specific types of protein molecules (ICAM-1, VCAM-1, and E-selectin) in shiitake mushrooms, which have special adhesion characteristics in their molecules, our blood vessels are protected.

Beta-glucan, the soluble fiber in shiitake mushrooms also binds to cholesterol in the gut by forming a gel-like paste, which absorbs it and then expels it from the body. It is through this process that ‘bad’ cholesterol levels can be lowered by eating shiitake.

What’s more, shiitake mushrooms also boost the immune system and add years to our lives by reducing oxidative stress throughout the body due to their high levels of antioxidants.

Finally, the mushrooms farmed organically on forest hardwoods are sustainable and great for the environment, so you can obtain your fill of fungi with absolutely no guilt.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/shiitake-mushrooms-one-of-the-healthiest-fungi-in-the-world/#ixzz2b8j2RdDn
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

Kellogg’s Foods are Full of GMO Sugar Beets: Join the Boycott!

by 

August 4th, 2013
Updated 08/03/2013 at 10:50 pm

gmo flakes 263x190 Kellogg’s Foods are Full of GMO Sugar Beets: Join the Boycott!

Image from gmolabeling.org.

In light of dangers surrounding GMOs, companies are steering clear of the controversial ingredients, or are at least labeling them. Some countries are even banning some GMOs. But they don’t all feel this way. In fact, some of the most popular cereals like Corn Flakes or Froot Loops contain a heaping dose of GMO sugar beets (among other things). Cereal giant Kellogg’s is using Monsanto’s genetically engineered sugar beets to sweeten your morning meal, and at this rate about 90% of the food industry will follow suite, unless we as a collective stop buying products which are full of GMOs.

Sugar beets have been grown in the US since 2008, but Kellogg’s makes the same cereals and ships them to Europe without genetically modified sugar beets, since several countries in the EU will not tolerate their cultivation. Kellogg’s own website states, “For more than 100 years, we’ve worked passionately to help families be their best.” Somehow ‘being your best’ while full of GMO sugar seems to be an oxymoron, and some people clearly don’t agree since there was a recent sabotage of two fields of GMO sugar beets growing in Oregon’s Jackson County just this past month. A total of 6000 plants were destroyed. Why would someone feel this strongly about some simple food-sweetening beets?

To start, sugar beets are genetically altered to be RoundUp Ready – which means they are supposed to be resistant to Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide. The chemicals in RoundUp are questionable at best and pure malevolence at worst. Their main ingredient is glyphosate, which Monsanto calls the ‘perfect herbicide’, but it has been shown to cause greater incidence of breast cancer, as published in a study by the US National Library of Medicine. And of course the chemical has been linked to much, much more.

Furthermore, glyphosate has been found in the urine of several European residents, who were random volunteers asked to participate in a study to see if people were being exposed to this chemical without their active participating in eating GMO foods. It may just be more invasive than we originally suspected. This study suggests that we are being exposed to this chemical in our food, water and soil, even if we don’t eat GMO foods.

Related Read: Top 10 Worst Children’s Cereals

Consuming Kellogg’s products, however, is like adding an extra dose of poison to your endocrine system and purposefully damaging your immune system. You can join Corporate Action Network and sign this petition urging Kellogg’s to stop using GMO – as they already do in their European exports, or you can just change to good old organic oats and almond milk, a cup of free-trade, non GMO coffee, and a piece of organic fruit for breakfast instead. You’ll enjoy better health and drain the profits from companies who continue to persist in using GMOs against the public’s urging not to do so.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/kelloggs-foods-full-gmo-sugar-beets-join-boycott/#ixzz2b8i9CMN3
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

Inaugural Plant-based Nutrition Healthcare Conference

“Type 2 diabetes trends indicate a looming pandemic with incalculable consequences. We’re putting into our bodies foods we were not designed to eat. When we consume a plant-based diet, our bodies begin to recover. We now understand how to prevent and reverse disease: Type 2 diabetes is a disease that never has to occur; it can be prevented and reversed with a whole foods, plant-based lifestyle.“ —Neal Barnard, MD
For more information, visit http://www.pbnhc.com.
Thursday, October 24 – Saturday, October 26, 2013 • Naples Beach Hotel & Golf Club
CME Accredited, Inaugural Plant-based Nutrition Healthcare Conference
Conference Overview
Breaking new ground, this medical conference transcends the individual experience comprised of anecdotal stories and historical research typically associated with plant-based diets. The conference objective is to prove the benefits of the dietary lifestyle through a review of current and progressive scientific research evidencing the preventive and disease fighting capabilities of plant-based, whole foods nutrition. Geared toward medical doctors from a variety of specialty areas, as well as all other healthcare practitioners, the conference is being presented with a commitment to intellectual integrity, without bias or influence.
Our Vision
A nation in which physicians and allied healthcare professionals have received thorough education about the foundational pillar of prevention: a whole foods, plant-based dietary protocol. A sustainable, financially sound healthcare system wherein
nutritional medicine and its proven ability to prevent, suspend and even reverse virtually all chronic disease, as well as many autoimmune diseases, is fully integrated throughout the healthcare practice spectrum.
For physicians and healthcare practitioners to enthusiastically embrace the health-protecting potency of a whole food, plant-based diet; in turn, effectively promoting patient and client adoption. The result: Transformation of medical practices, resulting in transformed and dramatically enhanced health and well-being of the patients and clients served.
Our Mission
The mission is to produce physician and allied healthcare professional educational opportunities, with scientific substantiation as the core principle. This is for the specific purpose of showcasing outstanding leaders in nutritional medicine and disease prevention and reversal.
The goal is to educate, equip and empower the gatekeepers of dietary-related advice—our nation’s physicians and healthcare practitioners—about the power of plant-based nutrition, providing compelling resources they, in turn, can use to inform and inspire their patients and clients to adopt the optimal whole foods, plant-based dietary lifestyle.
Who Should Attend?
Practitioners of family medicine, internal medicine, chiropractic, cardiology, endocrinology, immunology,
oncology, urology, gynecology, geriatrics, pediatrics, lifestyle medicine, integrative medicine, physiatry, surgery, neurology, psychiatry, and rheumatology.
In addition, because of the relevancy of nutritional medicine, this conference’s subject matter is ideal for allied healthcare practitioners representing a broad spectrum: physician assistants, nurse practitioners, health coaches, and registered dietitians—those dedicated to empowering patients and clients with the most proven disease prevention

Harvard Says Reducing Red Meat Consumption can Extend Life by 20%

Christina Sarich

by 
July 21st, 2013

meat heart 263x164 Harvard Says Reducing Red Meat Consumption can Extend Life by 20%According to Harvard Medical Schoolcutting out or reducing red meat consumption can help prolong your life by up to 20%. The study, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, looked at 84,000 women and 38,000 men’s diets in order to determine if it was really beneficial to consume a big juicy steak several times a week. The study found, unequivocally, that people who ate the most red meat (especially processed red meats) died younger, and most often from cardiovascular diseases and cancer.

“We estimated that substitutions of 1 serving per day of other foods (including fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy, and whole grains) for 1 serving per day of red meat were associated with a 7% to 19% lower mortality risk. We also estimated that 9.3% of deaths in men and 7.6% in women in these cohorts could be prevented at the end of follow-up if all the individuals consumed fewer than 0.5 servings per day (approximately 42 g/d) of red meat.”

Even though people who consumed high levels of red meat also tended to smoke, drink, and have less-than-healthy body weights, those factors were calculated into the study, and people who ate more red meat still died sooner than their more vegetarian counterparts. The study concluded that each daily serving of red meat increased risk of death by 13%. The impact rose to 20% if the serving was processed, as in food items like hot dogs, bacon, and cold cuts.

“This study provides clear evidence that regular consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, contributes substantially to premature death,” according to Dr. Frank Hu, one of the senior scientists involved in the study and a professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.

Dr. Walter Willet, a senior scientists on the study said:

“If someone is age 60 and has a 50% chance of dying in the next 25 years, adding one serving a day would increase his risk of dying in that time to about 57%, and if he had two servings a day, this would be about a 63% risk of dying in that time.”

The good news is that you don’t have to go completely meat free, though. You can substitute other proteins that the body can more easily assimilate and digest. Fish resulted in a 7% decrease in risk, beans and legumes resulted in a 10% decrease in risk, chicken and whole grains resulted in a 14% reduction, and nuts as a source of protein offered a whopping 19% reduction in cardiovascular and cancer risks compared to red meat consumption. The study did not measure sprouted beans or other sprouted seeds that often have up to 900% more nutritional value for the body as well.

Furthermore, many farm-raised animals which supply meat are fed on GMO diets, which can cause cancer, organ failure and other unsavory health concerns.

The study was funded by grants from the NIH and by a career development award from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

From around the web:

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/reducing-red-meat-consumption-extend-life-20-percent/#ixzz2aXih0JVJ
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods

It’s Your Health
Health Canada
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca

Labelling of GM Foods

When it comes to labelling, GM foods are treated like any other food because they are only allowed on the market after they have been through a thorough safety assessment. There are no specific laws regarding the labelling of GM food products. However, all food products (including organic products) must comply with the labelling rules of the Food and Drugs Act and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. These Acts require that labels be truthful, not misleading or deceptive and not give an erroneous impression about the quality, merit, and safety of the food.