GMO News Archives - Page 2 of 81 - Dr. Leonard Coldwell.com : Dr. Leonard Coldwell.com

RSSAll Entries in the "GMO News" Category

8 Ways Microbes Can Save Us From Ourselves

microbesBy Sayer Ji

Could bacteria and related microbes, widely believed to be a primary cause of disease, explain how we are capable of surviving through the self-created chemical nightmare of industrialized society?

Environmental chemical exposures number in the tens of thousands among industrialized populations.  Our water, air, food, and now bodies, are saturated through with xenobiotic chemicals (compounds foreign to our biochemistry) most of which did not even exist on the planet before the industrial revolution of the late 19th century. The problem of their bioaccumulation is so severe that one autopsy study performed back in 1985 when things were arguably better, revealed that 48% of the livers and 46% of the spleens of the 465 autopsies analyzed showed signs of mineral-oil induced lipogranuloma.

Remarkably, our bodies are equipped with detoxification systems (such as the cytochrome P450 superfamily of enzymes), whose intelligent design makes it possible to degrade chemicals that did not even exist at the time in the distant past that these elaborate enzyme systems evolved – almost as if we were predesigned to be able to survive the burgeoning, geometrically expanding chemical onslaught of the past century.

Eventually, however, our elaborate and resilient detoxification systems become overloaded, which naturally leads to the emergence of acute and chronic diseases – diseases that the conventional medical establishment often pretends do not have an environmental origin, and therefore are treated by suppressing symptoms of poisoning with new, patented toxicants and biologicals known as pharmaceuticals. This approach has resulted in our becoming the sickest organism ever known to inhabit the Earth.

Thankfully, we are not alone. We have helpers all around and within us. Friendly bacteria (and beneficial yeast), with which we co-evolved, and have formed symbiotic alliances with, with cells numbering in the trillions. It has been proposed that our very definition of self should be updated to include these “others,” and that humans are truly a “meta-organism.”  This is no metaphor, because if you take away these bacteria, we die. Learn more on the topic by reading my essay How The Microbiome Destroyed the Ego, Vaccine Policy, and Patriarchy.

In order to bring this relationship into clearer focus, let us look at a few things these bacteria do for us, that we aren’t very good at doing for ourselves:

  • Perchlorate Toxicity – perchlorate is an ingredient in jet fuel and fireworks that widely contaminates the environment and our food. It is now found in disturbing concentrations in breast milk and urine, and is a well-known endocrine disrupter capable of blocking the iodine receptor in the thyroid, resulting in hypothyroidism and concomitant neurological dysfunction.  A recent study found that the beneficial bacterial strain known as Bifidobacterium Bifidum is capable of degrading perchlorate, and that breast fed infants appear to have lower levels than infant formula fed babies due to the breast milk bacteria’s ability to degrade perchlorate through the perchlorate reductase pathway.[i]
  • Pesticide Toxicity – Lactic acid bacteria strains isolated from the fermented cabbage dish known in Korean culture as kimchi were shown capable of degrading four different organophosphorous insecticides using these poisons as a source of carbon and phosphorus.[ii] [iii]
  • Vaccine-Toxicity – As we have documented in depth in the past, the unintended adverse health effects of vaccines often far exceed their purported benefits. This is especially true for so-called “attenuated” live vaccines, such as oral polio vaccine, which have recently been linked to tens of thousands of cases of childhood vaccine-induced paralysis in countries like India.  Oral Saccharomyces boulardii, a beneficial form of yeast, has been found in an animal model to prevent oral polio vaccine-induced IgA nephropathy, a form of immune-mediated kidney damage. [iv] Additionally, probiotic bacteria have been found to positively regulate the two poles of immunity (TH1/TH2), which vaccines often upset by inducing hypersensitization via over-activation of the adaptive/humoral (TH2) pole of immunity.[v]
  • Bisphenol-A Toxicity – Bisphenol A is an omnipresent petrochemically-derived toxicant with endocrine-disrupting properties. It has been shown to accumulate in the human body, and has been linked to a wide range of health problems. Bifidobacterium breve and Lactobacillus casei have been found in the animal model  to both reduce the intestinal absorption of BPA and facilitating its excretion.[vi]
  • Chemotherapy Toxicity – No chemical category is more fraught with life-threatening risks than chemotherapy – ironic, considering it is used to treat already terribly sick people.  Some chemo-agents, such as the nitrogen mustard class, are so toxic that they bear chemical weapons designations, and are banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention. There is evidence that the probiotic Bifidobacterium breve is capable of reducing the adverse effects on immune health induced by chemo-agents.[vii]
  • Aspirin Toxicity – Some chemicals we eat prophylactic ally, like aspirin, despite the fact that they cause small bowel injury and other serious adverse health effects. Even though aspirin’s adverse health effects far outweigh by number its purported health benefits, millions take it on a daily basis without full knowledge of how it is affecting them.  The bacteria known as Lactobacillus casei has been found to decrease the mucosal damage done by aspirin.[viii]
  • Sodium Nitrate Toxicity – Many foods today are preserved with nitrates, which may form DNA-damaging nitrosamines.  Lactic acid bacteria extracted from kimchi have been found to degrade sodium nitrate.[ix]
  • Gluten Toxicity – Wheat has increasingly been identified as a contributing factor in a wide range of health problems; research on 300 potential adverse health effects can be found in our Wheat Toxicity Database.  It has been known for some time that longer duration of breastfeeding (a plentiful source of probiotics) is associated with a delayed onset of celiac disease. It is possible that breast milk probiotics may have something to do with this.[x] Bifidobacteria may reduce the immuntoxic properties of gluten peptides by further degrading them into non-toxic peptides.[xi]  Interestingly, the oral cavity has recently been found to contain bacteria capable of degrading gluten, indicating there may be other gluten-degrading microorganisms within the upper gastro-intestinal tract, and that thoroughly chewing your food would reduce the potential antigenicity/immunotoxicity of wheat gluten peptides.[xii]

These are only a few examples of the health benefits of probiotics and related microbes, with special consideration towards reducing the adverse health effects of chemicals and toxins.  There are hundreds of additional health benefits of probiotics that we have indexed, now numbering over 200, with three dozen distinct beneficial mechanisms of action that have been characterized, e.g. anti-infective, anti-inflammatory, immunodulatory, etc.

To gain deeper insight into how the microbiome profoundly extends our genetic capabilities read my essay How The Microbiome Make Us “Supra Human.

Article sources:

Originally posted: https://wakeup-world.com/2019/04/08/8-ways-microbes-can-save-us-from-ourselves/

A peek behind the (toxic) curtain: Here’s why glyphosate is sprayed on food crops before harvest

glyphosateNow that two juries have named Monsanto’s top weedkiller, Roundup, as a “substantial factor” in causing cancer in at least two people, concerns about current farming practices are on the rise. The food industry has a dirty little secret they’ve been hiding for many years: Farmers sometimes use Roundup for off-label purposes — and by doing so, they are putting public health at risk. Shocking research published by Environmental Sciences Europe describes the ways in which many grain farmers now use Roundup to expedite the harvesting process — and how they contaminate their crops in the process.

Given the groundbreaking court cases we’ve seen taken up against Monsanto and their toxic herbicide in the last year, the fact that farmers are spraying crops with Roundup a week before harvest is highly alarming. Research from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has shown that a striking majority of cereals, snack bars and other grain-based foods are tainted with glyphosate residue. Many of these foods are positioned as snack options for children — but they’re more poison than they are healthy.

Glyphosate and harvest season

Glyphosate use has been on the rise since the 1970s, but most of the 1.6 billion kilograms used on crops has been sprayed within the last 10 years. Research published in 2016 by Charles M. Benbrook shows that there have been many disturbing changes in glyphosate usage since it first hit the market over forty years ago. He writes that “no pesticide has come remotely close to such intensive and widespread use,” — a fact that is most unsettling, given the grievous health effects glyphosate formulations are now known to cause.

The power of the elements: Discover Colloidal Silver Mouthwash with quality, natural ingredients like Sangre de Drago sap, black walnut hulls, menthol crystals and more. Zero artificial sweeteners, colors or alcohol. Learn more at the Health Ranger Storeand help support this news site.

Waking Times reports that research led by Benbrook indicates the practice of using glyphosate to dry out, or “desiccate,” wheat crops first began in 1980’s Scotland.

Via the Waking Times:

Farmers there often had trouble getting wheat and barley to dry evenly so they can start harvesting. So they came up with the idea to kill the crop (with glyphosate) one to two weeks before harvest to accelerate the drying down of the grain.

Benbrook’s 2016 paper notes that the practice of using glyphosate as a desiccant first started gaining popularity in the United States in the mid-2000s. So much glyphosate is applied to our crops, regulatory agencies have drastically altered tolerance levels to accommodate increases in herbicide spraying.

Benbrook writes:

Because such applications occur within days of harvest, they result in much higher residues in the harvested foodstuffs [42]. To cover such residues, Monsanto and other glyphosate registrants have requested, and generally been granted, substantial increases in glyphosate tolerance levels in several crops, as well as in the animal forages derived from such crops.

In the EU, the expected increases in glyphosate residues from expanded spraying practices were so large that many countries have banned “harvest aid” herbicide applications. In the U.S., they simply raised the threshold.

Glyphosate is dangerous

In the last year, two people have taken Monsanto to court over allegations that glyphosate — the star ingredient of Roundup — causes cancer. And in both cases, the jury has decided in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the herbicide was a “substantial factor” in their illnesses.

The World Health Organization has named glyphosate as a probable carcinogen — and there is a mountain of independent science which clearly demonstrates the potential risk it poses to human health.

More, scientists are now admitting that it is impossible for them (or pesticide manufacturers) to truly predict the effects their products will have in real life. There is little to no data on what happens when pesticides interact with each other, for example — even though almost all conventionally grown crops will contain traces of more than one chemical. Across the board, safety testing on pesticides is woefully lacking.

Glyphosate isn’t just a nuisance, it’s a major health hazard. Learn more about the dangers of agrichemicals at Pesticides.news.

Sources for this article include:

WakingTimes.com

SpringerOpen.com

NBCNews.com

Originally posted: https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-04-07-heres-why-glyphosate-is-sprayed-on-food-crops.html
Author:  

Have Fruits and Vegetables Become Less Nutritious?

fruits and vegetablesBy Marco Torres

Due to currents levels of soil depletion, genetic modification and pesticides, crops grown decades ago were much richer in vitamins and minerals than the varieties most of us get today. But what’s the nutritional difference between a carrot in 1950s and one today?

Higher antioxidant levels, lower pesticide loads, better farming practices all lead to a more nutritious end product when choosing organic over GMO foodsBut the primary culprit in this disturbing nutritional trend is soil depletion: Modern intensive agricultural methods have stripped increasing amounts of nutrients from the soil in which the food we eat grows. Sadly, each successive generation of fast-growing, pest-resistant carrot is truly less good for you than the one before.

A landmark study on the topic by Donald Davis and his team of researchers from the University of Texas (UT) at Austin’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry was published in December 2004 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. They studied U.S. Department of Agriculture nutritional data from both 1950 and 1999 for 43 different vegetables and fruits, finding “reliable declines” in the amount of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and vitamin C over the past half-century. Davis and his colleagues chalk up this declining nutritional content to the preponderance of agricultural practices designed to improve traits (size, growth rate, pest resistance) other than nutrition.

Other findings published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry showed that organically produced apples have a 15 percent higher antioxidant capacity than conventionally produced apples.

“Efforts to breed new varieties of crops that provide greater yield, pest resistance, and climate adaptability have allowed crops to grow bigger and more rapidly,” reported Davis, “but their ability to manufacture or uptake nutrients has not kept pace with their rapid growth.” There have likely been declines in other nutrients, too, he said, such as magnesium, zinc, and vitamins B-6 and E, but they were not studied in 1950 and more research is needed to find out how much less we are getting of these key vitamins and minerals.

The Organic Consumers Association cites several other studies with similar findings: A Kushi Institute analysis of nutrient data from 1975 to 1997 found that average calcium levels in 12 fresh vegetables dropped 27 percent; iron levels 37 percent; vitamin A levels 21 percent, and vitamin C levels 30 percent. A similar study of British nutrient data from 1930 to 1980, published in the British Food Journal, found that in 20 vegetables the average calcium content had declined 19 percent; iron 22 percent; and potassium 14 percent. Yet another study concluded that one would have to eat eight oranges today to derive the same amount of Vitamin A as our grandparents would have gotten from one.

Tomatoes grown by organic methods contain more phenolic compounds than those grown using commercial standards. A study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry analyzed the phenolic profiles of Daniela tomatoes grown either using ‘conventional’ or organic methods, finding that those grown under organic conditions contained significantly higher levels of phenolic compounds than those grown conventionally.

What can be done? The key to healthier produce is healthier soil. Alternating fields between growing seasons to give land time to restore would be one important step. Also, foregoing pesticides and fertilizers in favor of organic growing methods is good for the soil, the produce and its consumers. Those who want to get the most nutritious fruits and vegetables should buy regularly from local organic farmers.

UT’s Davis warns that just because fruits and vegetables aren’t as healthy as they used to be doesn’t mean we should avoid them. “Vegetables are extraordinarily rich in nutrients and beneficial phytochemicals,” he reported. “They are still there, and vegetables and fruits are our best sources for these.”

GMO Foods Are A Source of The Problem

Most nations in the world have no GMO-Free platform to protect their citizens and although this is slowly changing, most nations are far behind places like Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Egypt, Russia and others who have GMO-Free or national bans on GMOs. Nations such as The United States, Canada, China, UK, Australia, Mexico, and most of South America, Asia and Africa who have no formal GMO-free platforms so that they continue their unrestricted and widespread use in all foods.

The important thing to note in these deficiencies is that these are exactly the deficiencies in a human being that lead to susceptibility to sickness, disorders and cancer. People who have osteoporosis are low in calcium and magnesium, people who have cancer are low in maganese. The list goes on and on. A stunning report on GMO vs. organic corn posted on Moms Across America clearly showing the nutritional value difference between GMO corn and NON GMO corn.

  • Non-GMO corn has 6130 ppm of calcium while GMO corn has 14 — non-GMO corn has 437 times more calcium.
  • Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of magnesium while GMO corn has 2 — non-GMO corn has about 56 times more magnesium.
  • Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of potassium while GMO corn has 7 — non-GMO corn has 16 times more potassium.
  • Non-GMO corn has 14 ppm of manganese while GMO corn has 2 — non-GMO corn has 7 times more manganese.

Overall, non-GMO corn is 20 times richer in nutrition, energy and protein compared to GMO corn.

Article sources:

Originally published: https://wakeup-world.com/2019/04/06/have-fruits-and-vegetables-become-less-nutritious/

 

Latest FDA Pesticide Monitoring Report reveals that nearly 50% of food samples contain pesticide “residues”

RoundUpThe Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Annual Pesticide Report for 2016 found pesticide “residues” in nearly 50 percent of the samples that the agency targeted across the United States and abroad. Six percent of the samples “violated” tolerable pesticide residue amounts.

The FDA tests for over 700 different pesticides and industrial compounds in both domestic and imported food products and agricultural commodities. The agency targets products that are most likely to contain pesticide residues, especially in imported goods. For 2016, the FDA tested 7,413 samples, which included 6,946 human foods and 467 animal foods. There were no pesticide residues detected at all in 52.9 percent of the domestic samples. While 99 percent of the domestic products complied with pesticide tolerance levels, 90 percent of human import foods did not. Almost half of the samples contained pesticide residues (47.1 %) and over 400 of the samples violated tolerable pesticide residue amounts established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Who makes up the pesticide tolerance levels and why do they vary from one food to the next?

According to the EPA’s Code of Federal Regulations, tolerances are expressed in terms of parts by weight of the pesticide chemical per one million parts by weight of the raw agricultural commodity. The FDA’s “Pesticide Analytical Manual” details the analytical methods that are used to determine whether raw agricultural commodities are in compliance with the established tolerances. The question is: How are pesticide tolerance levels configured?

100% organic essential oil sets now available for your home and personal care, including Rosemary, Oregano, Eucalyptus, Tea Tree, Clary Sage and more, all 100% organic and laboratory tested for safety. A multitude of uses, from stress reduction to topical first aid. See the complete listing here, and help support this news site.

If the toxicology of a specific pesticide has been firmly established, then why is there such great disparity in the allowable tolerance residue from one commodity to the next? For example, in section 180.364, the tolerance level for glyphosate in asparagus is .5 parts per million (ppm). The tolerance level for glyphosate in carrots is ten times greater (5ppm). The tolerance residue level for barley is even more lenient (30ppm). For corn, the EPA tolerates 100ppm glyphosate, and for animal feed, the tolerance level is 800 times greater than asparagus (400ppm). How are the tolerance levels established in the first place? Are these tolerance levels adjusted per crop just to accommodate the demand for pesticide use? Why is .5ppm the tolerance level in one food but suddenly this same pesticide is safe at a concentration 800 times that level in another commodity? If the dose makes the poison, why is there such variance in allowable residue levels from one crop to the next?

Glyphosate is pervasive in corn and soybean samples, but no samples exceeded “tolerance residue” levels

In the 274 corn sample analyzed, 173 tested positive for glyphosate residues, but none of the measurements surpassed the EPA’s tolerance level for the herbicide. Out of the 267 soybeans samples, 178 tested positive for glyphosate residues, but there were no violations. The good news: There was no glyphosate residue detected in milk and egg samples. For a full list of pesticides detected, check out page 36-37 of the FDA’s Annual Pesticide Report. The findings from the report include:

The domestic violations occurred primarily in vegetables (3%), where mis-application, over-application and pesticide cross contamination occurs. Domestic grains were generally cleaner than imported grains. Out of 70 honey samples, only one sample was “violative.” All the other animal-derived ingredients were within tolerable levels, including venison, rabbit, elk, bison, milk, and eggs. Out of 177 whole grain and seed samples, two were “violative.” One soybean sample contained 2,4D pesticide greater than the tolerable level.

Imported food samples were more likely to violate the tolerable residue levels (9.8%) compared to domestic samples (.9%). Most of the foreign violations occurred in grains (19.7%) followed by vegetables (10.1%) and fruits (6.5%). There were no violations for dairy/eggs and minimal violations in fish (.7%). The import commodities of greatest concern include rice, with a violation rate of 29.7%. The greatest offenders were prickle pears, onions, leeks, papaya, mushrooms, cashews, spinach, and wheat gluten.

Still, the most important question remains: How are tolerance levels established for each pesticide and why do the levels vary from one food to the next? Also, what are the toxicological effects of intermixing pesticides? And finally, how does human DNA interact with these chemical residues over time, due to repeated exposure?

For more on environmental and human health protection, visit EPA.News.

Sources include:

ScientificAmerican.com

FDA.gov

GovInfo.gov

Originally posted: https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-04-01-fda-pesticide-monitoring-report-food-samples-pesticides.html
Author: 

New study finds that aspartame-sweetened diet soda causes stroke, dementia risks to skyrocket… is aspartame DESTROYING brain function?

aspartameThe most popular yet infamous artificial sweetener on the market just got tagged by two highly credible science studies as being correlated with accelerated brain aging. On the hook for causing smaller overall brain volume, a significantly smaller hippocampus and poorer memory, not only was aspartame implicated in the science studies, but “regular” soda also. Most people know that soda is loaded with sugar but did anyone know their brains were being damaged, or could they even realize it themselves? This mind-blowing research reveals that these soda and diet soda consumers, who drink even just two of these drinks a day, were nearly three times as likely to have a stroke and develop dementia than people who already know better and avoid sodas in general.

Aspartame is made in a laboratory using genetically modified bacteria that causes brain damage and dementia

Americans consume more than 10 million metric tons of sugar every year. Millions of consumers believe the only way to get their sweetness without sugar is to consume artificial sweeteners like aspartame, sucralose and sorbitol, but there’s a steep price to pay for all this “sweet misery.” Now, new research shows that fructose and aspartame are both health criminals that do much more damage to the brain than the brain-damaged consumers can ever imagine.

Of course, no one or two clinical studies are the “be-all and end-all” of the conclusion about these toxic products’ effects on the body and brain, but let’s be honest with ourselves – filtered water and organic tea are safer than consuming any drinks made by corporations in laboratories using genetically modified corn sugar and genetically modified bacteria. Certainly the CDC is not interested in protecting Americans from soda or diet soda, or they would step in and conduct further scientific studies like these two.

100% organic essential oil sets now available for your home and personal care, including Rosemary, Oregano, Eucalyptus, Tea Tree, Clary Sage and more, all 100% organic and laboratory tested for safety. A multitude of uses, from stress reduction to topical first aid. See the complete listing here, and help support this news site.

Author of two scientific studies on soda and diet soda found multiple signs of cognitive decline and accelerated brain aging

The author of the two scientific studies on soda and diet soda found multiple signs of cognitive decline and accelerated brain aging – all risk factors for early-stage Alzheimer’s disease. Using MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scans and cognition tests of 4,000 people who drink soda, fruit juice or diet soda regularly, researchers found these consumers to have smaller brain volume and three times higher risk of stroke and dementia. This figure includes people who drink just one diet soda per day for 10 years.

Surely age, poor diet quality and other factors (like smoking) factor into these dire health results; however, preexisting conditions can’t wholly explain the new shocking findings regarding brain size reduction and severe deterioration of memory and learning.

The link between diet soda consumption and dementia was not previously known. It’s also possible that artificial sweeteners are transforming gut bacteria and altering the brain’s perception of what food is actually “sweet” or not. The body could be getting tricked into ingesting and utilizing carcinogenic material that it would otherwise discard as unusable. Consumers would be wiser (literally) to avoid soda, diet soda, artificial sweeteners and conventional sugar altogether.

Big Food America often tricks consumers into believing there are only two or three choices out there – all of which are toxic. This is called “close by choice” and it’s an insidious sales tactic used by marketing professionals focused on their corporations’ bottom line. Should you drink regular soda, diet soda, or sports drinks? Which one does your favorite celebrity or sports hero drink? The answer is none. Go organic.

Sources include:

ScienceDaily.com

Sroke.ahajournals.org

AlzheimersAndDementia.com

Originally Posted: https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-03-05-aspartame-sweetened-diet-soda-causes-stroke-dementia.html
Author:  

70% Of Produce Sold In US Is Contaminated With Pesticides, Even After You Wash It

By Elias Marat

If you’re buying fresh fruits and vegetables in the United States, 70 percent of it will carry pesticide residues on it even after you’ve washed it, according to a new study from a widely-respected health advocacy group.

The Environmental Working Group’s annual analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture data offers grim evidence of the over-saturation of pesticides and toxic chemicals in conventional agriculture in the United States, with top crops such as spinach and strawberries counting among the most contaminated produce.

The group hopes the report will inform shoppers of the risks inherent in buying and consuming conventionally-grown produce versus organic fruits and vegetables.

Most surprisingly, kale–that trendy dark green superfood that’s risen to the top of health-conscious grocers’ lists in the past decade–is among the top three contaminated fruits and vegetables, with 92 percent of non-organic kale containing residues from at least two or more pesticides. Some kale sampled carried the residue of no less than 18 different types of pesticides.

In a statement, EWG toxicologist Alexis Temkin said:

“We were surprised kale had so many pesticides on it, but the test results were unequivocal … Fruits and vegetables are an important part of everyone’s diet, and when it comes to some conventionally grown produce items, such as kale, choosing organic may be a better option.”

Both spinach and kale carried between 10 to 80 percent more pesticide residue by sheer weight than any other crop, respectively ranking second and third on the “dirty dozen” list of popular vegetables carrying the most pesticides.

Strawberries lead the pack, containing an average of nearly 8 different pesticides per sample–a shocking figure when considering that the average U.S. resident consumes around eight pounds of fresh strawberries per year.

Strawberry growers in regions across the west coast dump vast amounts of pesticides and poisonous gases on fields to make them safe for strawberry cultivation before further exposing crops to fumigation. The use of toxic pesticides in agricultural communities has seen California cities such as Oxnard, Santa Maria and Watsonville face mounting numbers of respiratory disorders, birth defects and illnesses, particularly by farm workers and neighborhoods near the fields.

And while the European Union has banned many of the pesticides used by U.S. strawberry growers, lobbyists from corporations like Dow Chemical Company have ensured that government turns a blind eye to the overuse of carcinogenic pesticides.

The EWG also noted that over “90 percent of samples of strawberries, apples, cherries, spinach, nectarines and kale tested positive for residues of two or more pesticides.”

All nutritional experts and scientists agree that people benefit from a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, as well as fresh produce–be it organic or conventional, depending on people’s budgetary constraints.

Yet the continued excessive usage of pesticides–largely by big food manufacturers and growers seeking to minimize costs–has made it difficult for health experts and regulatory bodies to accurately gauge the extent of pesticide exposure in our day-to-day lives, let alone to understand how the combinations of chemicals we’re exposed to can affect our bodies.

EWG research analyst Carla Burns noted:

The main route of pesticide exposure for most Americans who do not live or work on or near farms is through their diet … Studies have shown that eating fruits and vegetables free of pesticides benefits health, and this is especially important for pregnant women and children

Yet the researcher noted that regardless of the grim findings from the EWG study, “the health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure.”

EWG’s “Dirty Dozen” for 2019 is:

  1. Strawberries
  2. Spinach
  3. Kale
  4. Nectarines
  5. Apples
  6. Grapes
  7. Peaches
  8. Cherries
  9. Pears
  10. Tomatoes
  11. Celery
  12. Potatoes

This article was sourced from The Mind Unleashed

FDA Approves Controversial GMO Salmon For Import

salmonBy Mac Slavo

The United States Food and Drug Administration has decided that their previous ban on genetically modified salmon can be lifted.  In 2016, Congress said the salmon could not be sold in the United States until the FDA finalized labeling guidelines to inform consumers the product was genetically engineered. That’s when the FDA implemented the import alert.

But all that has changed now. In 2015, the FDA deemed the AquaAdvantage Salmon safe, marking the first U.S. approval of a genetically engineered animal intended for food.  But the 2016 import alert prevented the salmon from being sold in the U.S…until now.

According to CNN,  Congress passed a law directing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to set a national mandatory standard for disclosing bioengineered foods. That standard was issued last December.

FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said because of the 2016 law and the USDA’s new standard, the FDA “no longer has the authority to issue labeling guidance,” CNN reported. “However, the FDA believes this Congressional mandate has been satisfied by the USDA’s issuance of final regulations implementing that law in late 2018 because the law and regulations require that human food containing GE [genetically engineered] salmon bear labeling indicating that it is bioengineered,” Gottlieb said in a statement.

This will allow for the importation of genetically modified salmon eggs into the U.S. to be raised for human consumption.

For some, GMO, when used for food, is a blessing.  The ability to feed many more people than possible with strictly organically raised animals. Many feel that in order to sustain the constantly burgeoning population, GMO foods are a necessity. But for others, the health risks and long term unknown consequences are a curse.

Many claim GMO foods are safe; however, most of the research used to claim that GMOs are safe has been performed by biotechnology companies – those who stand to profit from proclaiming GMOs as “safe.” Still, “several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with genetically modified (GM) food (AAEM 2009),” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.

Will you be trying some GMO salmon?

Originally posted: https://www.naturalblaze.com/2019/03/fda-approves-controversial-gmo-salmon-for-import.html

40 Different Studies that Confirm GMO Foods are Destroying Your Health

There has been a debate raging about GMOs for a long time now.

On one side of the debate is the idea that genetic engineering is progress for humanity, and it is a natural extension of more traditional breeding techniques. The other side believes genetically modified foods are unsafe for human consumption and harmful to the environment.

Biotech companies claim that genetic modification yields more precise control over artificial selection. Studies funded by the industry consistently demonstrate safety, but only over the short term.

Nothing to worry about?

For years Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, and other biotech based agricultural companies have told the public that we have nothing to worry about.

This will be the technology that will improve food in every conceivable way. Food will be more nutritious, more vigorous, more disease resistant, etc. There are literally thousands of studies demonstrating GMO safety.

A pattern has emerged, however

Their glowing, short-term studies are funded or performed by the industry itself.

As more and more independent scientists complete long-term studies, a very different picture has emerged about the safety of GMOs and their many other drawbacks.

When these studies are not funded by industry, the results show us an uncontrollable, uncontainable, and dangerous technology with serious health hazards.

The Research That Broke New Ground

Many experiments on GMOs had produced some horrible tumors and event death in rats and other lab animals, but most genetically modified products on the market were considered to be harmless to humans. Image source: march against monsanto
Many experiments on GMOs had produced some horrible tumors and event death in rats and other lab animals, but most genetically modified products on the market were considered to be harmless to humans. Image source: march against monsanto

One of the first studies to ring the alarm was a 2-year, long-term chronic toxicity study.

Don’t believe the hype churned out by biotech that criticizes the Seralini study until you take the time to look into the defense of their methods.

The Seralini study was actually a well-designed and well-conducted study. If we are to accept the argument that Seralini’s study does not provide substantial evidence that genetically modified food is dangerous, then we must also conclude that the short-term toxicity studies funded by the agriculture industry (primarily Monsanto) on GM foods cannot prove that they are safe.

They are in fact the same type of studies, done the same way and they even used the same type of rats. The only significant difference was the duration of the study.

Seralini’s study showed how the previously 90-day studies are misleading as 90 days is not long enough to test for long term effects like organ damage, cancer, and premature death. The first tumors appeared in the rats after four months.

This study was able to distinguish the effects of GM food from GM food grown with allotted pesticides.

The results provide strong evidence supporting the claim that genetically modified food, especially genetically modified food grown with Roundup, is highly toxic and unfit for animal or human consumption.

The Overwhelming Evidence

The following studies were compiled by GMO-Free USA and prove the detrimental effects of GMOs. 

-Increased intestinal infections
-High cholesterol
-Birth defects
-Weight-increase and higher incidence of mortality
-Organ pathologies in the liver, kidneys, pancreas, ovaries, testes, and adrenals
-Major issues with both the intestinal tracts and immunity of the animals tested

1. E. Abdo, et al. “Feeding Study with Bt Corn (MON810: Ajeeb YG) on Rats: Biochemical Analysis and Liver Histopathology,” Food and Nutrition Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 2, 2014, pp. 185-195.

2. Battistelli S., Baldelli B., Malatesta M. (2008), Influence of a GMO-containing diet on pancreatic acinar cells of adult mice: effects of a short-term diet reversion, “Microscopie”, 10, pp. 36-43

3. S. Battistelli, B.Citterio, B. Baldelli, C. Parlani, and M. Malatesta (2010) Histochemical and morpho-metrical study of mouse intestine epithelium after a long term diet containing genetically modified soybean Eur J Histochem. September 26;54(3): e36

4. Brasil FB, Soares LL, Faria TS, Boaventura GT, Sampaio FJ, Ramos CF.(2009) The impact of dietary organic and transgenic soy on the reproductive system of female adult rat. Anat Rec(Hoboken).292(4):587594.

5. B Cisterna, F Flach, L Vecchio, SML Barabino, S Battistelli, TE Martin, M Malatesta, M Biggiogera (2008) Can a genetically modified organism-containing diet influence embryonic development? A preliminary study on pre- implantation mouse embryos.Cisterna.Vol.52(4)

We’ve just a listed a few of the studies here. To view the full list of over 40 studies please visit GMO Free USA.

Originally posted: https://wisemindhealthybody.com/wmhb/40-gmo-studies/?fbclid=IwAR3dNmvrvSYFtemaTuPL_PCZacJXDqPwhPNBYFKbZO6fdXgy9Zb_2vdb5iE

Author:

Diet soda definitively linked to increased stroke, heart attack risk

diet sodaMany people choose to drink diet soda because they believe it can help them keep their weight under control. Although science has shown this isn’t really the case, there’s an even better reason to shun these artificially sweetened drinks as a new study has linked drinking two diet sodas or more per day to a higher risk of heart disease and stroke.

The study tracked almost 82,000 postmenopausal women in the Women’s Health Initiative trial who were between the ages of 50 and 79 when they first enrolled. Three years into the study, the women were asked to indicate how often they drank diet soda and diet fruit drinks during a three-month period. They were followed for nearly 12 years on average overall.

The researchers found that those who drank two or more diet drinks each day saw their overall risk of stroke climb by 23 percent compared to to the women who drank diet drinks less than once per week.

For many of these women, the main culprit was blocked arteries, with drinking lots of diet sodas linked to a 31 percent rise in ischemic stroke risk – the type of stroke that is triggered by a blood clot. These findings persisted even after accounting for the nutritional value of each woman’s overall diet and stroke risk factors like smoking history, age and blood pressure status.

According to the researchers, diet drinks can be linked to cardiovascular risks in several ways. For example, women who drank two diet drinks per day or more saw their risk of developing heart disease rise by 29 percent, while their overall risk of premature death from any cause rose 16 percent.

100% organic essential oil sets now available for your home and personal care, including Rosemary, Oregano, Eucalyptus, Tea Tree, Clary Sage and more, all 100% organic and laboratory tested for safety. A multitude of uses, from stress reduction to topical first aid. See the complete listing here, and help support this news site.

There were certain groups whose outcomes were even worse. For example, obese women with no history of diabetes or heart disease noted a twofold increase in their risk of clot-driven stroke; the rise was fourfold for black women in this category.

Everyone should avoid all types of soda

It’s important to note, however, that the researchers did not keep track of which brands of diet drinks the women in the study consumed, so it’s hard to say with certainty which artificial sweeteners are behind the problem. However, what we already know about commonly used artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose should be enough to give anyone pause.

While the study only looked at post-menopausal women, these results should be enough to cause men and women of all ages to think twice before drinking diet sodas. In fact, soda is always a bad choice, regardless of how it’s sweetened. Part of the risk could be related to women missing out on the nutrition they might have gotten from other drinks, like pure fruit or vegetable juice or milk, but the chemicals in these drinks are also dangerous.

Sadly, many women are taking on these additional risks for no good reason. Research has also linked drinking diet soda to an expanding waistline. In a study that followed people over the age of 65 for nine years on average, it was determined that those who never drank diet soda gained an average of 0.8 inches in waist circumference, while those who drank diet soda occasionally gained 1.83 inches and those who drank it daily put on more than three inches in waist circumference, even after accounting for other factors like physical activity, smoking and diabetes.

The lead author of that study, Dr. Sharon P.G. Fowler of the University of Texas at San Antonio, summed it up nicely when she said: “Calorie-free does not equal consequence-free.”

These studies remind us that tricking your body is always going to backfire. Any time you are consuming something unnatural like artificial sweeteners, you’re taking on tremendous risk that could be easily avoided by sticking to the many great options nature has provided us.

Sources for this article include:

CBSNews.com

ScientificAmerican.com

Originally posted: https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-02-19-diet-soda-definitively-linked-to-increased-stroke-heart-attack-risk.html
Author: 

Sugar addiction is REAL: What you need to know about this scary addictive response

sugar addictionPeople with a sweet tooth may not realize that their love for sugar might be an addiction.

This may be hard to believe since unlike most addictive substances, sugar is not illegal. Sweets are available almost everywhere and can even be bought by anyone, regardless of age. However, this only means that people have to be more careful with the amount of sugar that they’re eating to avoid getting addicted to it.

Sugar triggers the reward pathway, the same one that’s activated by any pleasurable activity, and causes neurons to produce more dopamine. This chemical is one of the feel-good hormones in the body. It signals the part of the brain called nucleus accumbens, which is involved in pleasure-related decision-making and motor movements. Furthermore, the process activates hormones that create cellular memory of the pleasurable experience of eating sweets. Because of these, people who are addicted to sugar tend to reach out for more sweets and will crave them more in the future.

Although this process also happens for other foods, it is stronger for sugar and carbohydrates. This is because the brain’s pleasure center has evolved to reward eating energy-giving foods. Sugar is a great source of energy. However, too much of it can cause blood glucose to rise to dangerous levels.

How does sugar addiction affect your body?

Sugar has been shown to work in a manner similar to drugs, causing abnormal dopamine spikes not caused by healthy foods. Studies have also shown that sugar affects the opioid pathway, the same one that’s activated by the use of heroin and morphine. (Related: Sugar junkie? Study suggests excessive sugar intake is similar to drug addiction.)

100% organic essential oil sets now available for your home and personal care, including Rosemary, Oregano, Eucalyptus, Tea Tree, Clary Sage and more, all 100% organic and laboratory tested for safety. A multitude of uses, from stress reduction to topical first aid. See the complete listing here, and help support this news site.

Sugar addiction has also been associated with many health problems, including:

  • Heart disease — In one study, researchers found that people who ate 25 percent of their daily calorie intake from sugar were twice as likely to die from heart diseasecompared to those who got less than 10 percent of their calories from sugar.
  • Depression — A person’s mental health can also suffer from sugar addiction. This is because regular sugar consumption can cause blood glucose levels to fluctuate throughout the day and consequently, induce mood swings. Studies have also shown that sugar can increase the risk of depression, especially in patients with schizophrenia, since it can suppress the hormone known as brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF).
  • Excessive inflammation — Inflammation is a natural response that occurs during the healing process. However, too much of it can lead to chronic health problems like heart disease, cancer, stroke, and arthritis. People who eat too much sugar put their body in a constant state of inflammation which consequently increases their risk of these diseases.
  • Diabetes — Sugar addiction can lead to insulin resistance, which allows blood sugar levels to rise to unhealthy levels. This condition can progress into Type 2 diabetesand increase the risk of amputation due to the insufficient blood supply to peripheral areas like the legs and feet.

Sugar withdrawal

Completely removing sugar from your diet may lead to withdrawal symptoms similar to those that result from a drug detox. These include anxiety, depression, mood swings, irritability, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, headaches, and trembling. In addition to this, you may experience more intense sugar cravings, changes in appetite, and sleeping problems like insomnia.

Overcoming sugar addiction is more easily achieved if you gradually remove sugar from your diet. Go for healthier options like fruit instead of sugar-laden sweets. There are also healthy sugar alternatives that you can use.

Read more news articles on the harmful effects of sugar by visiting Sweeteners.news.

Sources include:

NaturalHealth365.com

Healthline.com

SweetDefeat.com

Guide.Michelin.com

Originally posted:

Author: