We pay the doctor to make us better when we should really be paying the farmer to keep us healthy.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Rethink health care.
We pay the doctor to make us better when we should really be paying the farmer to keep us healthy.
Breeding the Nutrition Out of Our Food
What ever happened to, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food” ? To be healthy in mind, body and spirit, eating a nutritious diet is an essential piece of the puzzle.
Jo Robinson tells us that the food system has paid more attention to providing popular flavors than to providing wholesome fruits and vegetables.
Consequently, we need to rethink our purchasing habits, if we want to obtain the nutrients with the potential to reduce the risk of four of our modern scourges: cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and dementia.
May 25, 2013
Breeding the Nutrition Out of Our Food
WE like the idea that food can be the answer to our ills, that if we eat nutritious foods we won’t need medicine or supplements. We have valued this notion for a long, long time. The Greek physician Hippocrates proclaimed nearly 2,500 years ago: “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” Today, medical experts concur. If we heap our plates with fresh fruits and vegetables, they tell us, we will come closer to optimum health.
This health directive needs to be revised. If we want to get maximum health benefits from fruits and vegetables, we must choose the right varieties. Studies published within the past 15 years show that much of our produce is relatively low in phytonutrients, which are the compounds with the potential to reduce the risk of four of our modern scourges: cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and dementia. The loss of these beneficial nutrients did not begin 50 or 100 years ago, as many assume. Unwittingly, we have been stripping phytonutrients from our diet since we stopped foraging for wild plants some 10,000 years ago and became farmers.
These insights have been made possible by new technology that has allowed researchers to compare the phytonutrient content of wild plants with the produce in our supermarkets. The results are startling.
Wild dandelions, once a springtime treat for Native Americans, have seven times more phytonutrients than spinach, which we consider a “superfood.” A purple potato native to Peru has 28 times more cancer-fighting anthocyanins than common russet potatoes. One species of apple has a staggering 100 times more phytonutrients than the Golden Delicious displayed in our supermarkets.
Were the people who foraged for these wild foods healthier than we are today? They did not live nearly as long as we do, but growing evidence suggests that they were much less likely to die from degenerative diseases, even the minority who lived 70 years and more. The primary cause of death for most adults, according to anthropologists, was injury and infections.
Each fruit and vegetable in our stores has a unique history of nutrient loss, I’ve discovered, but there are two common themes.
Throughout the ages, our farming ancestors have chosen the least bitter plants to grow in their gardens. It is now known that many of the most beneficial phytonutrients have a bitter, sour or astringent taste.
Second, early farmers favored plants that were relatively low in fiber and high in sugar, starch and oil. These energy-dense plants were pleasurable to eat and provided the calories needed to fuel a strenuous lifestyle.
The more palatable our fruits and vegetables became, however, the less advantageous they were for our health.
The sweet corn that we serve at summer dinners illustrates both of these trends. The wild ancestor of our present-day corn is a grassy plant called teosinte. It is hard to see the family resemblance. Teosinte is a bushy plant with short spikes of grain instead of ears, and each spike has only 5 to 12 kernels. The kernels are encased in shells so dense you’d need a hammer to crack them open. Once you extract the kernels, you wonder why you bothered. The dry tidbit of food is a lot of starch and little sugar. Teosinte has 10 times more protein than the corn we eat today, but it was not soft or sweet enough to tempt our ancestors.
Over several thousand years, teosinte underwent several spontaneous mutations. Nature’s rewriting of the genome freed the kernels of their cases and turned a spike of grain into a cob with kernels of many colors. Our ancestors decided that this transformed corn was tasty enough to plant in their gardens. By the 1400s, corn was central to the diet of people living throughout Mexico and the Americas.
When European colonists first arrived in North America, they came upon what they called “Indian corn.” John Winthrop Jr., governor of the colony of Connecticut in the mid-1600s, observed that American Indians grew “corne with great variety of colours,” citing “red, yellow, blew, olive colour, and greenish, and some very black and some of intermediate degrees.” A few centuries later, we would learn that black, red and blue corn is rich in anthocyanins. Anthocyanins have the potential to fight cancer, calm inflammation, lower cholesterol and blood pressure, protect the aging brain, and reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
EUROPEAN settlers were content with this colorful corn until the summer of 1779 when they found something more delectable — a yellow variety with sweeter and more tender kernels. This unusual variety came to light that year after George Washington ordered a scorched-earth campaign against Iroquois tribes. While the militia was destroying the food caches of the Iroquois and burning their crops, soldiers came across a field of extra-sweet yellow corn. According to one account, a lieutenant named Richard Bagnal took home some seeds to share with others. Our old-fashioned sweet corn is a direct descendant of these spoils of war. (like with tobacco, the Indians get the last laugh)
Up until this time, nature had been the primary change agent in remaking corn. Farmers began to play a more active role in the 19th century. In 1836, Noyes Darling, a onetime mayor of New Haven, and a gentleman farmer, was the first to use scientific methods to breed a new variety of corn. His goal was to create a sweet, all-white variety that was “fit for boiling” by mid-July.
He succeeded, noting with pride that he had rid sweet corn of “the disadvantage of being yellow.”
The disadvantage of being yellow, we now know, had been an advantage to human health. Corn with deep yellow kernels, including the yellow corn available in our grocery stores, has nearly 60 times more beta-carotene than white corn, valuable because it turns to Vitamin A in the body, which helps vision and the immune system.
SUPERSWEET corn, which now outsells all other kinds of corn, was born in a cloud of radiation.
Beginning in the 1920s, geneticists exposed corn seeds to radiation to learn more about the normal arrangement of plant genes. They mutated the seeds by exposing them to X-rays, toxic compounds, cobalt radiation and then, in the 1940s, to blasts of atomic radiation. All the kernels were stored in a seed bank and made available for research.
In 1959, a geneticist named John Laughnan was studying a handful of mutant kernels and popped a few into his mouth. (The corn was no longer radioactive.) He was startled by their intense sweetness. Lab tests showed that they were up to 10 times sweeter than ordinary sweet corn. A blast of radiation had turned the corn into a sugar factory!
Mr. Laughnan was not a plant breeder, but he realized at once that this mutant corn would revolutionize the sweet corn industry. He became an entrepreneur overnight and spent years developing commercial varieties of supersweet corn. His first hybrids began to be sold in 1961. This appears to be the first genetically modified food to enter the United States food supply, an event that has received scant attention.
Within one generation, the new extra sugary varieties eclipsed old-fashioned sweet corn in the marketplace. Build a sweeter fruit or vegetable — by any means — and we will come.
Today, most of the fresh corn in our supermarkets is extra-sweet, and all of it can be traced back to the radiation experiments. The kernels are either white, pale yellow, or a combination of the two. The sweetest varieties approach 40 percent sugar, bringing new meaning to the words “candy corn.”
Only a handful of farmers in the United States specialize in multicolored Indian corn, and it is generally sold for seasonal decorations, not food.
We’ve reduced the nutrients and increased the sugar and starch content of hundreds of other fruits and vegetables. How can we begin to recoup the losses?
Here are some suggestions to get you started. Select corn with deep yellow kernels. To recapture the lost anthocyanins and beta-carotene, cook with blue, red or purple cornmeal, which is available in some supermarkets and on the Internet. Make a stack of blue cornmeal pancakes for Sunday breakfast and top with maple syrup.
In the lettuce section, look for arugula. Arugula, also called salad rocket, is very similar to its wild ancestor. Some varieties were domesticated as recently as the 1970s, thousands of years after most fruits and vegetables had come under our sway. The greens are rich in cancer-fighting compounds called glucosinolates and higher in antioxidant activity than many green lettuces.
Scallions, or green onions, are jewels of nutrition hiding in plain sight. They resemble wild onions and are just as good for you. Remarkably, they have more than five times more phytonutrients than many common onions do. The green portions of scallions are more nutritious than the white bulbs, so use the entire plant. Herbs are wild plants incognito. We’ve long valued them for their intense flavors and aroma, which is why they’ve not been given a flavor makeover. Because we’ve left them well enough alone, their phytonutrient content has remained intact.
Experiment with using large quantities of mild-tasting fresh herbs. Add one cup of mixed chopped Italian parsley and basil to a pound of ground grass-fed beef or poultry to make “herb-burgers.” Herbs bring back missing phytonutrients and a touch of wild flavor as well.
The United States Department of Agriculture exerts far more effort developing disease-resistant fruits and vegetables than creating new varieties to enhance the disease resistance of consumers. In fact, I’ve interviewed U.S.D.A. plant breeders who have spent a decade or more developing a new variety of pear or carrot without once measuring its nutritional content.
We can’t increase the health benefits of our produce if we don’t know which nutrients it contains. Ultimately, we need more than an admonition to eat a greater quantity of fruits and vegetables: we need more fruits and vegetables that have the nutrients we require for optimum health.
By JO ROBINSON
“Eating on the Wild Side: The Missing Link to Optimum Health.”
Nutritional Weaklings in the Supermarket
Here is how heirloom varieties and wild species of produce have been found, in separate studies, to outshine their cultivated cousins.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/26/sunday-review/26corn-ch.html?ref=sunday
Friday, May 24, 2013
Bigger Portions Are More Calories
This video discusses what is the average calories needed per day, how many calories it takes to make a pound of body fat and an examination of the nutrition and calorie intake of 3 average daily American meals....
Source: http://www.aarp.org/videos.id=2165636662001
Depression: ‘Club Drug’ Ketamine Lifts Depression in Hours
The largest study to date confirms that ketamine — a “club drug” that is also legally used as an anesthetic — could be a quick and effective way to relieve depression.
The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association and represent growing excitement about ketamine’s potential. The study included 72 patients who had previously failed to respond to at least two other medications. After receiving a single intravenous (IV) dose of ketamine, 64% of patients reported fewer depression symptoms within one day compared to 28% of those given midazolam — an anesthetic drug that was used as a control.
“[This research] reports the largest controlled evaluation of the antidepressant effects of ketamine to date,” says Dr. John Krystal, professor of psychiatry at Yale, who published the first study in 2000 suggesting that ketamine could quickly lift depression, but was not associated with this trial.
Antidepressants typically take weeks to improve mood — and that’s a time when people with the disorder are at an especially high risk of suicide. “Among people who respond to antidepressants, it takes on average 7 weeks to produce this response,” Krystal says, “When simply getting through a single day can be difficult, waiting 7 weeks to get better can be daunting.” Ketamine— and similar drugs currently being tested by pharmaceutical companies could help relieve suffering faster and potentially reduce the suicide risk associated with the mood disorder.
And because the doses used were lower than those taken by clubbers or used in anesthesia, most patients didn’t have the extreme experiences of “out of body” sensations or profoundly distorted perceptions of reality. “Nobody freaked out,” says Murrough, adding that most described the experience of the infusion as being similar to having had a few drinks. About 10%, however, did have some dissociative effects. “One patient [reported] wondering whether time still existed during the infusion,” he says.
The results are especially noteworthy because ketamine was compared to another anesthetic with similar psychoactive effects, not just a placebo. Such comparisons are important because drugs that result in highly noticeable responses like sedation also tend to have strong placebo effects. Researchers had argued that without such a comparison, it would be difficult to tell whether ketamine was actually relieving depression.
“This design was elegant because midazolam briefly made patients feel better, but did not produce a real antidepressant effect,” Krystal says, “In contrast, ketamine produced the robust antidepressant effects that have been observed in every study of ketamine since our initial preliminary observations. This is the first direct evidence that the antidepressant effects of ketamine are specific, increasing our confidence in importance of this clinical observations.”
Since the study has not been published, however, the results have not yet been subject to peer review. But Krystal and others are encouraged by the apparently lasting effects of the drug; the study showed that seven days after the infusion, 46% of those who received ketamine were still experiencing significant relief— compared to just 18% of those who received the midazolam.
The findings also follow about half a dozen smaller trials that tested the drug for depression or bipolar disorder. Murrough and his colleagues also published a study last year in Biological Psychiatry that could pave the way for broader use of the drug. In that analysis, his team examined whether ketamine could be used repeatedly for longer term results, perhaps as a replacement for, or addition to, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). In that study, 24 patients with treatment-resistant depression who were not taking any other medications received several daily doses of ketamine; after 12 days, 71% of the patients showed a 50% reduction in depression symptoms, with relief typically coming within 2 hours of the treatment. On average, the patients who responded remained well for 18 days following the last infusion.
But because ketamine distorts consciousness, it likely would not be practical as a daily medication, as Prozac is currently used. In cases of profoundly disabling depression, however, it might be helpful if given several days a week, the way ECT is now prescribed. While ECT is the best existing treatment for cases of depression that do not respond to medication and therapy, the stimulation can interfere with memory and it requires general anesthesia. Murrough envisions ketamine could be administered in conjunction with talk therapy and in combination with other medications to try to maintain recovery.
In fact, since ketamine is already FDA-app
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/22/club-drug-ketamine-lifts-depression-in-hours/#ixzz2UBy23wGg
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
It’s High Time to Consider Legalizing Pot
Legalization is in the air...
LATIN AMERICA
OAS to White House and Hemisphere: It’s High Time to Consider Legalizing Pot
By Tim PadgettMay 22, 201315 Comments
MAURICIO DUEÒAS CASTAÒEDA / EPA
Organization of American States Secretary-General José Miguel Insulza, speaks after the organization presented its report about illicit drugs in the continent to the Colombian Government in Bogota, Colombia, on May 17, 2013.
On the Latin American street, the Organization of American States has always borne a reputation, often undeserved, as Washington’s lackey. But the OAS, based in Washington, just sent the western hemisphere a message the White House would rather not hear: It’s time to seriously discuss legalizing marijuana as one means of reducing harrowing drug violence. That conclusion, from a study presented last Friday in Bogotá, Colombia, by OAS Secretary-General José Miguel Insulza, is one that a growing number of Latin American governments — including Uruguay, which might legalize marijuana this year — are urging the Obama Administration to accept. Having the motion seconded by Washington’s “lackey” makes it harder to ignore.
But even as Insulza and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos were hailing the OAS report last week, something else was brewing in Bogotá that could further undermine resistance to pot legalization. The Colombian capital is about to start a program that uses marijuana to wean junkies off bazuco, a cheap but fiercely addictive cocaine paste. It will mark one of the largest experiments to determine if marijuana — which legalization opponents still insist is a “gateway” to harder drugs like cocaine and heroin — is in reality an “exit” drug. If so, it will only serve to reinforce the argument, mentioned by the OAS study, that marijuana is a relatively benign drug, far more comparable to alcohol than it is, say, to crystal meth.
As Miami Herald South America correspondent Jim Wyss recently wrote from Bogotá, “For the most desperate [bazuco] users, the cannabis cure may be the only way out.” Or as one social worker told Wyss, “We want people to quit a substance that is very, very damaging and transition to something less dangerous and which will allow them to function in society.” Critics say the effort will just turn bazuco zombies into potheads. But for years now, similar projects in countries like Brazil, Jamaica and most recently Canada have indicated that marijuana is in fact an effective exit drug. In British Columbia last fall, a team of U.S. and Canadian addiction researchers determined that “clinical trials on cannabis substitution for problematic substance abuse appear justified.”
That doesn’t mean we should all start smoking herb like Harold and Kumar. The fact that a glass of hot bourbon can relieve common cold symptoms doesn’t mean we should all start drinking Manhattans, either. But affirming marijuana as an exit drug would lead us to reconsider one of modern society’s most glaring double standards: booze good, pot bad. It would reinforce the notion that moderate marijuana use is not more perilous than moderate alcohol consumption. According to studies, in fact, pot smoking in some cases can be a preferable alternative to drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco.
So why do we waste so many resources (almost $10 billion each year in the U.S. alone) as well as lives hunting down marijuana users and sellers? The OAS’s $2 million report “The Drug Problem in the Americas” seems to ask the same thing. It is not an outright call for marijuana legalization. It is, as Insulza said in Bogotá, “the beginning of a long-awaited discussion” about “more realistic [drug war] policies.” Most Latin American leaders — whose countries suffer the bloody brunt of the largely failed U.S.-led drug war — already made it clear to President Obama at last year’s Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, that it’s high time to ask whether marijuana legalization might help reduce drug cartel revenues and therefore drug cartel mayhem. (Studies indicate it could rob Mexico’s narco-mafias of a third of the estimated $30 billion they rake in each year.)
Insulza acknowledged the current “disposition” throughout the Americas to “deal with the legalization issue,” and he called for “greater flexibility” on the part of nations like the U.S. The 400-page OAS study itself concludes that trends in the hemisphere “lean toward decriminalization or legalization of the production, sale and use of marijuana. Sooner or later, decisions in this area will need to be taken.” Santos, who is widely considered Washington’s closest ally in Latin America today, has not yet endorsed legalization, but he said the report should help drug-war battered countries like his “seek better solutions” than the conventional interdiction strategy Washington still pushes.
Former presidents of three of Latin America’s largest economies — Brazil, Mexico and Colombia — have jointly called for marijuana legalization. In the U.S., the states of Washington and Colorado last fall voted to legalize pot. Now that the OAS has joined that chorus, both the White House and the U.S. Congress need to join the discussion with more open ears.
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Uruguay legalized marijuana last year. It is still debating the bill, which Uruguayan President José Mujica supports.
Tim Padgett @TimPadgett2
Organization of American States Secretary-General José Miguel Insulza, speaks after the organization presented its report about illicit drugs in the continent to the Colombian Government in Bogota, Colombia, on May 17, 2013.
On the Latin American street, the Organization of American States has always borne a reputation, often undeserved, as Washington’s lackey. But the OAS, based in Washington, just sent the western hemisphere a message the White House would rather not hear: It’s time to seriously discuss legalizing marijuana as one means of reducing harrowing drug violence. That conclusion, from a study presented last Friday in Bogotá, Colombia, by OAS Secretary-General José Miguel Insulza, is one that a growing number of Latin American governments — including Uruguay, which might legalize marijuana this year — are urging the Obama Administration to accept. Having the motion seconded by Washington’s “lackey” makes it harder to ignore.
But even as Insulza and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos were hailing the OAS report last week, something else was brewing in Bogotá that could further undermine resistance to pot legalization. The Colombian capital is about to start a program that uses marijuana to wean junkies off bazuco, a cheap but fiercely addictive cocaine paste. It will mark one of the largest experiments to determine if marijuana — which legalization opponents still insist is a “gateway” to harder drugs like cocaine and heroin — is in reality an “exit” drug. If so, it will only serve to reinforce the argument, mentioned by the OAS study, that marijuana is a relatively benign drug, far more comparable to alcohol than it is, say, to crystal meth.
As Miami Herald South America correspondent Jim Wyss recently wrote from Bogotá, “For the most desperate [bazuco] users, the cannabis cure may be the only way out.” Or as one social worker told Wyss, “We want people to quit a substance that is very, very damaging and transition to something less dangerous and which will allow them to function in society.” Critics say the effort will just turn bazuco zombies into potheads. But for years now, similar projects in countries like Brazil, Jamaica and most recently Canada have indicated that marijuana is in fact an effective exit drug. In British Columbia last fall, a team of U.S. and Canadian addiction researchers determined that “clinical trials on cannabis substitution for problematic substance abuse appear justified.”
That doesn’t mean we should all start smoking herb like Harold and Kumar. The fact that a glass of hot bourbon can relieve common cold symptoms doesn’t mean we should all start drinking Manhattans, either. But affirming marijuana as an exit drug would lead us to reconsider one of modern society’s most glaring double standards: booze good, pot bad. It would reinforce the notion that moderate marijuana use is not more perilous than moderate alcohol consumption. According to studies, in fact, pot smoking in some cases can be a preferable alternative to drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco.
So why do we waste so many resources (almost $10 billion each year in the U.S. alone) as well as lives hunting down marijuana users and sellers? The OAS’s $2 million report “The Drug Problem in the Americas” seems to ask the same thing. It is not an outright call for marijuana legalization. It is, as Insulza said in Bogotá, “the beginning of a long-awaited discussion” about “more realistic [drug war] policies.” Most Latin American leaders — whose countries suffer the bloody brunt of the largely failed U.S.-led drug war — already made it clear to President Obama at last year’s Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, that it’s high time to ask whether marijuana legalization might help reduce drug cartel revenues and therefore drug cartel mayhem. (Studies indicate it could rob Mexico’s narco-mafias of a third of the estimated $30 billion they rake in each year.)
Insulza acknowledged the current “disposition” throughout the Americas to “deal with the legalization issue,” and he called for “greater flexibility” on the part of nations like the U.S. The 400-page OAS study itself concludes that trends in the hemisphere “lean toward decriminalization or legalization of the production, sale and use of marijuana. Sooner or later, decisions in this area will need to be taken.” Santos, who is widely considered Washington’s closest ally in Latin America today, has not yet endorsed legalization, but he said the report should help drug-war battered countries like his “seek better solutions” than the conventional interdiction strategy Washington still pushes.
Former presidents of three of Latin America’s largest economies — Brazil, Mexico and Colombia — have jointly called for marijuana legalization. In the U.S., the states of Washington and Colorado last fall voted to legalize pot. Now that the OAS has joined that chorus, both the White House and the U.S. Congress need to join the discussion with more open ears.
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Uruguay legalized marijuana last year. It is still debating the bill, which Uruguayan President José Mujica supports.
Tim Padgett @TimPadgett2
Monday, April 22, 2013
Greenpeace app helps consumers find forest-friendly tissue products
This is
one way to get to the practicalities of "voting with your dollars".
Never buy the RED products and the producers will be forced to make some
changes...
...................................................
Greenpeace’s app helps consumers find forest-friendly tissue products
22 April 2013 (Toronto) – Consumers have a new tool for making forest-friendly tissue product decisions, says Greenpeace Canada.The organization launched its first Green Tissue Guide mobile application today, which features a catalogue of over 150 tissue products like paper towels, toilet paper, tissues and napkins found in Canadian stores across the country. The app is free to download from the App Store or Google Play store in both English and French.
Users can browse by rating, name, category or brand. Each item is displayed with a photo making it easy to identify the product in-store. It includes both generic and name brand items such as Bounty, Charmin and President’s Choice.
A product’s rating is determined by its percentage of recycled content and whether it is Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified. At a glance, users can see whether their favorite brand is forest-friendly with a simple green, amber and red icon assigned to each product.
The ratings are explained as follows:
Green: Made from 100 per cent recycled paper fibre. The best option for the environment.
Amber: Less than 100 per cent recycled but FSC certified. FSC is designed to ensure responsible forest management. A smart choice when recycled products are not available.
Red: Contains no recycled fibre and likely comes from destructive logging operations. Avoid these products.
“Shopping aisles are piled high with tissue products making questionable sustainability claims, making it tough to know which ones are forest friendly,” said Shane Moffatt, forest campaigner for Greenpeace Canada. “The Green Tissue Guide allows you to confidently make the greenest choices at the counter, rewarding companies that take responsible sourcing seriously and holding accountable those that do not.”
With over 50 green rated products in the application, it’s easier than consumers may think to bring forest friendly products into their home.”
The app can be downloaded at greenpeace.ca/greentissueguide
- 30 -
Notes:Screenshots from application: http://www.greenpeace.ca/
For more information:
Holly Postlethwaite, Media and Public Relations Officer, (416) 524-8496
------------------------------
This message was sent to Robert. If you no longer wish to receive email from us, please follow the link below or copy and paste the entire link into your browser. http://www.xmr3.com/rm/
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Red meat consumption was associated with a higher risk of early death.
Uncooked
Scientists said Monday that eating red meat was associated with an increased… (Mark Boster / Los Angeles…)
Red meat: What makes it unhealthy?
By Eryn Brown, Los Angeles Times / for the Booster Shots blog
On Monday, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health released study results showing that red meat consumption was associated with a higher risk of early death. The more red meat -- beef, pork or lamb, for the purposes of the research -- study participants reported they ate, the more likely they were to die during the period of time that data collection took place (more than 20 years).
What is it in red meat that might make it unhealthy?
No one is sure, exactly, but the authors of the Harvard study mention a few possible culprits in their paper in the Archives of Internal Medicine. (see below)
First, eating red meat has been linked to the incidence of heart disease.
The saturated fat and cholesterol in beef, pork and lamb are believed to play a role in the risk of coronary heart disease. The type of iron found in red meat, known as heme iron, has also been linked to heart attacks and fatal heart disease. Sodium in processed meats may increase blood pressure, which is a risk factor for heart disease. Other chemicals that are used in processed meats may play a role in heart disease as well, by damaging blood vessels.
Red meat has also been linked to increased risks of colorectal and other cancers.
Again, heme iron could be a culprit — it is more easily absorbed into the body than other forms of iron, and can cause oxidative damage to cells — as could compounds that are created when meat is cooked at a high temperature. Preservatives used in processed meats also may play a role, scientists have said, because they convert into carcinogenic compounds in the body.
source: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/14/news/la-heb-red-meat-why-bad-20120314
..............................
ABSTRACT
Red Meat Consumption and Mortality Results From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies
Background Red meat consumption has been associated with an increased risk of chronic diseases. However, its relationship with mortality remains uncertain.Conclusions Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality.
Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk.
Source: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1134845
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Canadians consuming sky-high amounts of sodium, study finds - Canada
External Links Health Canada sodium fact sheet
Canadians are consuming potentially dangerous amounts of sodium and Ottawa must take action to limit those levels, one expert says.
Marketplace analyzed the daily sodium intake of 80 Canadians and found a great majority are consuming far more than the nutritionally recommended amounts.
High sodium intake is a major health problem in Canada; it’s a leading cause of hypertension, which afflicts one in five Canadians and can lead to obesity, strokes and heart attacks.
Dr. Andrew Pipe of the University of Ottawa Heart Institute says the government needs to step up awareness to combat the problem.
“Our health system as it currently exists is unsustainable,” he told Marketplace co-host Tom Harrington. “We need to more realistically address issues that relates to disease prevention and health promotion. And this is a whole lot more than just fridge magnets that say, ‘Eat less salt.’’”
Dr. Andrew Pipe says ‘alternate strategies are necessary’ to combat Canadians’ high sodium intake. (CBC)Overall, 99 per cent of those tested consumed more than the daily recommended 1,500 milligrams per day, while 77 per cent exceed the recommended maximum of 2,300 mg.
The average Canadian intake is 3,400 mg per day.
Although the recommended limit of 2,300 is still high, Pipe figures there would be a significant improvement in public health if Canadians could stay closer to that amount.
“If we could get Canadians down to 2,500 mg a day, we should see a substantial reduction, across the population, in the incidence of heart attack and the incidence of stroke,” he said. “We're talking anywhere from 10 to 20 per cent.”
Among the study’s findings:
“As someone who’s trying to figure out why he has high blood pressure when he exercises and ‘eats healthy’ that’s a big surprise and not a good one,” he said. “We’re supposed to follow Canada’s food guidelines and I kind of pay attention to those. It makes me angry because I’m really trying to look after my heart and that’s perhaps not what I’m ending up doing.”
“Canadians believe most of our sodium comes from salt shaker when in fact it’s only about six per cent of daily sodium intake,” Pipe said. “Most of the sodium is from processed foods.”
Pipe says processed foods – which use salt as a preservative, and to retain flavor and colour – account for nearly 80 per cent of Canadians’ sodium intake.
Home economist and labelling expert Allison Jorgens says many shoppers make mistakes by not checking the nutritional information labels, or by assuming some products are healthier.
Nutrition expert Allison Jorgens encourages Canadians to read nutritional information labels closely. (CBC)
“Become an informed label reader, and really know what to look for on those labels,” she advises. “Check the sodium amount on those labels, and always reference the serving sizes there so that you can put the amount of sodium into perspective.”
Canned vegetables are another surprising source of sodium, as are organic products. Jorgens warns that many organic foods can contain as much, or more sodium than their conventional counterparts.
The labels show percentages of recommended daily intake, but those amounts are based on a number higher than the maximum. For example, a label that says one serving equals 10 per cent of your daily sodium intake means it’s 10 per cent of 2,400 mg, much higher than the daily recommended 1,500.
In 2010, the government’s Sodium Working Group recommended that the percentage daily value be changed to reflect 1,500 mg per day. But that group was disbanded in 2011 and the recommendation was never implemented.
The group also proposed to lower public sodium consumption to 2,300 mg per day by 2016.
Last year, Health Canada released a “guidance” document with voluntary guidelines on sodium reduction for the industry.
Ottawa must take stronger action to reduce those numbers, says Pipe.
“The government's approach to this point has been… that the voluntary approach will be effective,” he said. “I don't see the evidence of that frankly, and so I think alternate strategies are necessary.”
Setting voluntary targets is the most effective strategy, argues Dr. Colin Carrie, the parliamentary secretary to Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq.
“We're taking action to work towards lowering the amounts, but we have to do it in a way that's actually going to work,” he said. “What we've seen is voluntary approaches have worked very well with industry, and we're committed to this approach.”
He says Canada’s goal of 2,300 mg is “going to be the most aggressive in the world.”
Chuck Ferguson thinks the number is still too high, when groups like the World Health Organization call for even lower targets. A January 2013 advisory from the WHO said adults should consume less than 2,000 mg per day.
"I don’t understand why the daily value is so high," he said. “I’d like to meet the person who set 2,300, show them my health chart and say, “What the hell are you doing?’”
Watch Marketplace's episode, The Great Salt Shakedown, Friday at 8 p.m. (8:30 p.m. in Newfoundland and Labrador).
Marketplace analyzed the daily sodium intake of 80 Canadians and found a great majority are consuming far more than the nutritionally recommended amounts.
High sodium intake is a major health problem in Canada; it’s a leading cause of hypertension, which afflicts one in five Canadians and can lead to obesity, strokes and heart attacks.
Dr. Andrew Pipe of the University of Ottawa Heart Institute says the government needs to step up awareness to combat the problem.
“Our health system as it currently exists is unsustainable,” he told Marketplace co-host Tom Harrington. “We need to more realistically address issues that relates to disease prevention and health promotion. And this is a whole lot more than just fridge magnets that say, ‘Eat less salt.’’”
Dr. Andrew Pipe says ‘alternate strategies are necessary’ to combat Canadians’ high sodium intake. (CBC)Overall, 99 per cent of those tested consumed more than the daily recommended 1,500 milligrams per day, while 77 per cent exceed the recommended maximum of 2,300 mg.
The average Canadian intake is 3,400 mg per day.
Although the recommended limit of 2,300 is still high, Pipe figures there would be a significant improvement in public health if Canadians could stay closer to that amount.
“If we could get Canadians down to 2,500 mg a day, we should see a substantial reduction, across the population, in the incidence of heart attack and the incidence of stroke,” he said. “We're talking anywhere from 10 to 20 per cent.”
Tests find above-average intake
For its sodium test, Marketplace collected urine samples from a broad spectrum of Canadians, including an Ontario high school class and a B.C. major junior hockey team, with an age range from 16 to 69 years.Among the study’s findings:
- 99 per cent of participants exceeded the daily recommended level of sodium of 1,500 mg.
- Average intake levels were 3,600 mg per day, just over the national average.
- 88 per cent of men and 65 per cent of women topped the daily maximum recommended amount of 2,300 mg.
- More than half those tested (51 per cent) exceeded the national average intake.
“As someone who’s trying to figure out why he has high blood pressure when he exercises and ‘eats healthy’ that’s a big surprise and not a good one,” he said. “We’re supposed to follow Canada’s food guidelines and I kind of pay attention to those. It makes me angry because I’m really trying to look after my heart and that’s perhaps not what I’m ending up doing.”
Sodium sources
Part of the problem is that many Canadians don’t know where all that sodium comes from.“Canadians believe most of our sodium comes from salt shaker when in fact it’s only about six per cent of daily sodium intake,” Pipe said. “Most of the sodium is from processed foods.”
Pipe says processed foods – which use salt as a preservative, and to retain flavor and colour – account for nearly 80 per cent of Canadians’ sodium intake.
Home economist and labelling expert Allison Jorgens says many shoppers make mistakes by not checking the nutritional information labels, or by assuming some products are healthier.
Nutrition expert Allison Jorgens encourages Canadians to read nutritional information labels closely. (CBC)“Become an informed label reader, and really know what to look for on those labels,” she advises. “Check the sodium amount on those labels, and always reference the serving sizes there so that you can put the amount of sodium into perspective.”
Canned vegetables are another surprising source of sodium, as are organic products. Jorgens warns that many organic foods can contain as much, or more sodium than their conventional counterparts.
Government taking sodium seriously?
However, Jorgens warns that those nutrition labels can be “misleading,” particularly in the serving sizes and percentages.The labels show percentages of recommended daily intake, but those amounts are based on a number higher than the maximum. For example, a label that says one serving equals 10 per cent of your daily sodium intake means it’s 10 per cent of 2,400 mg, much higher than the daily recommended 1,500.
In 2010, the government’s Sodium Working Group recommended that the percentage daily value be changed to reflect 1,500 mg per day. But that group was disbanded in 2011 and the recommendation was never implemented.
The group also proposed to lower public sodium consumption to 2,300 mg per day by 2016.
Last year, Health Canada released a “guidance” document with voluntary guidelines on sodium reduction for the industry.
Ottawa must take stronger action to reduce those numbers, says Pipe.
“The government's approach to this point has been… that the voluntary approach will be effective,” he said. “I don't see the evidence of that frankly, and so I think alternate strategies are necessary.”
Setting voluntary targets is the most effective strategy, argues Dr. Colin Carrie, the parliamentary secretary to Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq.
“We're taking action to work towards lowering the amounts, but we have to do it in a way that's actually going to work,” he said. “What we've seen is voluntary approaches have worked very well with industry, and we're committed to this approach.”
He says Canada’s goal of 2,300 mg is “going to be the most aggressive in the world.”
Chuck Ferguson thinks the number is still too high, when groups like the World Health Organization call for even lower targets. A January 2013 advisory from the WHO said adults should consume less than 2,000 mg per day.
"I don’t understand why the daily value is so high," he said. “I’d like to meet the person who set 2,300, show them my health chart and say, “What the hell are you doing?’”
Watch Marketplace's episode, The Great Salt Shakedown, Friday at 8 p.m. (8:30 p.m. in Newfoundland and Labrador).
source:
Canadians consuming sky-high amounts of sodium, study finds - Canada - CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/03/07/marketplace-sodium.html
Sugar industry's secret documents echo tobacco tactics - Health - CBC News
Sugar industry's secret documents echo tobacco tactics
Sugar Association's intent to use science to defeat critics uncovered by dentist
By Kelly Crowe, CBC News
Posted: Mar 8, 2013 11:53 AM ET
Last Updated: Mar 8, 2013 1:28 PM ET
Video Content
Sugar industry's secret documents2:32Related Stories
External Links
(Note:CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external links.)Her obsession started in an unlikely place, at a dental conference in Seattle in 2007 about diabetes and gum disease. When one speaker listed foods to avoid, there was no mention of sugar. "I thought this was very strange," Couzens said. And when a second speaker suggested sugary drinks were a healthy choice, she chased him down at the end of the conference to make sure she'd heard him correctly. "How could you possibly recommend sweet tea as a healthy drink?" she asked the speaker, who paused just long enough to say, "There is no evidence that links sugar to chronic disease," before he bolted out the door.
Cristin Couzens publicized secret documents in a magazine article titled Big Sugar's Sweet Lies. (Eric Weber)"I was so shocked by that statement," she said, "I felt obligated to do a little bit of research, thinking perhaps the sugar industry had somehow had an influence over the lack of advice to limit sugar intake to prevent and control diabetes. That's what set me off."She quit her job, exhausted her savings and spent 15 months scouring library archives. Then one day she found what she was looking for, in a cardboard box at the Colorado State University archives.
"The first folder that I opened jumped right out at me," she said. "It was on the Sugar Association letterhead which is the trade association in Washington for cane and beet sugar producers. And the word "confidential" was right under the letterhead. So the first document I saw was a confidential Sugar Association memo talking about their PR strategies in the 70s."
What Couzens found was something food industry critics have been seeking for years — documents suggesting that the sugar industry used Big Tobacco tactics to deflect growing concern over the health effects of sugar.
"So I had lists of their board reports, their financial statements, I had names of their scientific consultants, I had a list of research projects they funded, and I had these memos where they were describing how their PR men should handle conflict of interest questions from the press," she said.
The documents survived in the Colorado University Library Archives only because they helped explain a photograph of three men and a trophy. When the Great West Sugar Company went out of business in the 1980s, someone put the files in a box so that librarians would know who the men were and why they were being honored. So who were they?
"That was a picture of sugar industry executives being awarded the Silver Anvil, which is like the Oscars of the PR world," Couzens said. In the 1976 photo, the president of the Sugar Association and its director of public relations smile as they pose with their prize for their successful campaign "forging public opinion," in the face of mounting consumer and government concern over the health risks of sugar.
After unidentified sugar industry executives were awarded the Silver Anvil trophy for public relations in 1976, company documents were archived to explain their successful campaign. (Courtesy Colorado University Library Archives)"It's a little bit shocking to me that an industry would be rewarded for manipulating scientific evidence," Couzens said. "At the time the award was given in 1976, there was a controversy. Many people thought sugar was harmful, the sugar industry wanted to turn public opinion toward thinking sugar was safe so they forged public opinion on how the public viewed the effects of sugar," she said.As Couzens sorted through the documents, the full extent of that campaign to forge public opinion emerged. The documents describe industry lobby efforts to sponsor scientific research, silence media reports critical of sugar, and block dietary guidelines to limit sugar consumption.
The Sugar Association's president reported to the Board of Director's meeting in October, 1976 that, "in confronting our critics we try never to lose sight of the fact that no confirmed scientific evidence links sugar to the death-dealing diseases. This crucial point is the life blood of the association."
And the Sugar Association was clear about its intention to use science to defeat sugar’s critics. To support "our desire to maintain research as a main prop of the industry's defence," the member companies were told that $230,000 was being reserved to fund scientific research, according to a report from the Sugar Association's annual meeting of the board of directors, in Chicago in 1977.
At the next meeting, a year later in Washington, the Sugar Association updated the board of directors on the research program, listing 17 different scientists at some of the world's most prestigious universities, including M.I.T., Harvard, and Yale, receiving sugar industry money
Some of the money was supplied by "contributing research members," heavy sugar users including "Coca-Cola, Hershey, General Foods, General Mills and Nabisco" who contributed the funds specifically for the lobby group's scientific effort. The document reports that those companies each "contributed $10,000 to our general research fund."
Targeting media coverage
The documents also reveal efforts to manipulate media coverage. The Sugar Association had been stung by a New York Times headline: "The Bitter Truth About Sugar," written by a prominent nutritionist in June 1976. "It's bad for the health, bad for the teeth, and we eat more of it than we think", the article declared.The Sugar Association president warned the board of directors that this "shoddy piece" was being followed up by "naive writers working for other papers around the country." But the association had saved the day. Thanks to an inside tip, they were able to keep Reader's Digest from running a condensed version of the same article.
"Thanks to friendly sources who alerted us, a progressive approach to research by the Digest and persistence on our part, we were able to persuade them to cancel the story," the document reports. "We did it in two stages. We failed in our initial conversations, but succeeded when we took our case to the editor-in-chief. Our telegraph to him is included in your folders and might be helpful should you be confronted by criticism."
"Sugar can be the willpower you need to undereat," a vintage advertisement proclaimed. (Mother Jones)The documents Couzens found in that cardboard box also reveal that the Sugar Association was busy trying to block dietary guidelines that would recommend limits on sugar consumption. At the time, the US Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, headed by Senator George McGovern, had released "Dietary Goals for the United States," which recommended that Americans should reduce their sugar intake by 40 per cent.The Sugar Association had been warned by a committee insider that "the final conclusions would hang sugar," the association's president reported to the board in 1977. And now that the committee's report had been released the results "certainly bear this prediction out," he added.
But the lobby group had a plan. "The McGovern Report has to be 'neutralized'" that document reports, assuring the members that the Sugar Association would fight back, because "the consequences of losing this battle and permitting dietary goals to become a basic reference are too grave to be taken lightly."
Sugar industry committed to sucrose consumption
When Couzens approached the sugar industry for comment, she was told the documents were ancient history. "They gave a comment like, that was in the past and does not reflect the mission of the sugar association currently," she said. But then she found one more document, an internal Sugar Association e-newsletter from August, 2003 that announced "the Sugar Association is committed to the protection and promotion of sucrose consumption. Any disparagement of sugar will be met with forceful, strategic public comments and the supporting science."'It's very, very difficult to find those kinds of …[documents], so it was a real treasure.' — Marion NestleCouzens said that document showed "the sugar industry is still very active in nominating scientists to serve on the dietary guidelines advisory committee, and it is still publishing research through connections with the World Sugar Research Organization, based in London. These scientific reviews that are published by the sugar industry are still considered in the evidence review for the dietary guidelines, so they’re still serving to balance out the evidence," she said.
Armed with all of these documents, Couzens' next challenge was to make them public somehow. She sought out author Gary Taubes, an American science writer who has reported extensively on the health effects of sugar. He listened to her story and offered to help her get the documents published in the independent news magazine Mother Jones, under the provocative title "Big Sugar's Sweet Lies." What happened when this bombshell was finally revealed, after months of research and sacrifice? Nothing, Couzens said. The story failed to be picked up by the mainstream media.
Couzens blames it on Hurricane Sandy. The media was distracted. But, she said, the story "has gotten particular attention from food policy folks here in the U.S. and also from researchers who had been studying the tobacco industry who see the parallels," she said.
"I thought it was just wonderful and I got in touch with her right away," said Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics, a professor at New York University and vocal food industry critic. "Those kinds of things are very, very hard to come by. One of the things that brought down the cigarette companies was finding enormous documentation of the efforts of cigarette companies to cover up the fact that they knew that cigarettes were unhealthful. It's very, very difficult to find those kinds of things, so it was a real treasure."
When CBC News asked the Canadian Sugar Institute for comment on the revelations that the sugar lobby group influenced science and public opinion, it didn't answer the question. Instead we received this reply: "The Canadian Sugar Institute (CSI) is the national, non-profit association representing Canadian sugar manufacturers on nutrition and international trade affairs. I am providing you with a summary of the scientific consensus on some common misconceptions about sugars and health."
Chiara DiAngelo, the Canadian Sugar Institute's coordinator of nutrition communications, also offered the names of several university professors to talk to for more information about industry-sponsored research.
This is the second of two special features by CBC health reporter Kelly Crowe on how industry designs food so that we crave them.
Sugar industry's secret documents echo tobacco tactics - Health - CBC News
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Food companies and our health
Fat and salt can satisfy the human appetite like few other foods.
Photograph: Ian Garlick/ActionAid/PA
Food companies and our health
While some companies are taking genuine steps to supply healthier food to their customers, there is a long way to go before this is universal
Charlotte Sankey for the Guardian Professional Network
guardian.co.uk, Monday 2 July 2012 11.48 BST
When hunger is gnawing, there is a food we find almost impossible to resist: a plate of hot chips, sprinkled with plenty of salt. Fat and salt in this glorious combination can satisfy the human appetite like few other foods.
It reflects a sad state of affairs – how we are overly attracted to eating things which, in excess, do us harm: fat, salt, sugar. Delicious.
Once upon a time, when we were running around the veld and food was hard to come by, a lust for fat and salt was pretty helpful. Those who best survived hardship were the ones who had gorged themselves on energy-rich animal fat. Sugar love goes back to our primate heritage, when we spent our days in the forest searching for fruit – riper fruit supplied more energy and water.
Out of date taste buds
Today our taste buds have not moved on in tandem with our lifestyles. Sugar and salt are addictive. Going to the supermarket can be quite overwhelming for anyone with an addictive personality.
England has one of the highest rates of obesity in Europe, doubling over the last 25 years, with over 60% of adults overweight or obese today (26% obese, 34% overweight). Diet-related chronic disease costs the NHS £7 billion a year, and poor diet could account for a third of all cases of both cancer and cardiovascular disease. "Our food system is failing," said Joan Walley MP, chair of the government's Environmental Audit Committee.
A multi-faceted solution
Is it really beyond our collective ken to sort this out? The tricky bit is that the solution does not, of course, come in the shape of a single silver bullet. It depends on complex web of factors such as how much we exercise (or not) and what we eat (or don't) – and what we choose to eat stems from the way food is priced, advertised, the culture we live in. There is also what we are allowed to eat, either by governments regulating what can be sold to us, or us disciplining ourselves.
So how are we doing? We are certainly eating less salt – in this the UK leads the world (the WHO says salt reduction is as important as stopping smoking). Salt and fat consumption are down 9% since 2006. One of the main culprits, branded sliced bread, has a third less salt since 2006.
Until the recession, nutrition in the UK was improving – we were eating more fruit and vegetables year on year. Various health campaigns contributed: the Soil Association's Food for Life, National Heart Alliance in Ireland, the Healthy Eating campaign in Scotland. The famous Five A Day campaign, launched by the Department of Health in 2002, was having an impact: at its launch we were eating 1.4 pieces of fruit and veg a day, which rose to 3.3 by 2006. With the recession, this fell to 3.2 by 2009, and we were eating more fats and sugars. "Foods high in fat, sugar and salt seem less expensive but actually deliver less nutrition," says Dr Emma Williams of the British Nutrition Foundation.
In the UK, food producers and retailers are not obliged to make food healthy: unlike for smoking and alcohol there is no regulation on food. While countries such as Denmark and France use various fat taxes this does not happen in the UK – which prefers targets and guidelines – or in most of the US.
Witness the impassioned backlash when the mayors of New York and Cambridge MA proposed banning 30oz supersize drinks. The campaign, supported by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told how larger portions make us eat or drink 20-50% more – and we don't make up by eating less later. The largest drink you can get in Australia, the UK or Italy equates to a medium in the US.
While McDonald's drinks sizes are 457% larger than in 1955, some companies are taking real steps to make their products healthier.
Says Jane Landon of the National Heart Forum: "We have got to where we are largely thanks to willing food companies meeting targets set by the Food Standards Agency in 2006 and 2009."
Andrew Lansley's Responsibility Deal calls on companies to voluntarily make food healthier. It replaces measures by Labour which culminated in Food 2030, a national food strategy under Brown. Professor Tim Lang of City University London is one of the Deal's critics: "Labour created a real focus for a joined-up, solution, and half the food companies were entirely happy with it. This Responsibility Deal has taken us backwards. There are very strong forces against a systemic solution." He explains how a company can sign up to the Deal and do nothing. Jamie Oliver and Sustain's Children's Food Campaign have gone further, calling it "shameful". Lansley defends it, claiming more will be achieved by voluntary action than by "costly and intrusive regulation". A familiar exchange.
What are companies doing?
"But some companies are genuinely concerned and it's not just PR," says Professor Lang. Campaigners and public health experts talk of a split between companies who are taking the issue seriously – especially ones with upmarket customers – and those who are window dressing.
Initiatives range from manufacturers such as Kellogg's reducing the salt in its products by 44%, to retailers like M&S cutting salt in 95% of its foods. M&S has invented a new type of low-salt bacon with 30% less salt, compensated by using a new Asian flavour. "It's not that companies don't want to make food healthier, says Claire Hughes, M&S nutritionist. "More that they don't have enough techniques to make it taste good."
Around 350 food manufacturing, retailing, catering and health organisations have signed up to the Deal. They range from big names Co-Op, Nestle, Mars, Kraft and Tesco to small cheese companies.
But there are the thousands who have not: Budgens, Caffé Nero, Iceland, Londis are some of the better known.
Small surprise that David Stuckler of Cambridge University believes voluntary action is not enough: "There is little or no evidence that self-regulation works without the threat of public regulation in the background. If food companies believed these steps were profitable, they would already being doing them."
Isn't asking a retailer or producer to voluntarily reduce delicious nasties such as sugar and fat a bit like asking them to voluntarily reduce their profits?
So where does that leave us? It is quite baffling that we can take a child into a Wetherspoons and either buy it a sandwich with chips that has more salt (4.8g) than the child should consume in a day (4g), or a spaghetti bolognese that has just 0.1g.
Wouldn't regulation create a more level playing field? "Regulating how much salt should be in 100g of bread is not the way forward," replied M&S nutritionist Claire Hughes. "There are so many different types of bread. It's better to look at rewarding people's good behaviour," she adds.
Pass the chips.
Charlotte Sankey runs Creative Warehouse, a publishing and communications consultancy specialising in the environment, arts and education
Source:
Food companies and our health | Guardian Sustainable Business | guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/food-companies-health-wellbeing
Jane Barthelemy @jhealthykitchen
“He who loves the world as his body may be entrusted with the empire.”
-- Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, 600 BCE
"We metabolize information about the universe into our bodies through the food that we eat." --- Deepak Chopra
"One secret to reverse aging is through diet. Favor fresh food, as life energy comes from the sun."
--Deepak Chopra
If you focus on success, you’ll have stress. But if you pursue excellence, success will be guaranteed.
-- Deepak Chopra
“You must find the place inside yourself where nothing is impossible.”
-- Deepak Chopra
“Every time you're tempted to react, ask: Do I want to be a prisoner of the past or a pioneer of the future?”... Inspiration is contagious.
The longing for sweets is really a yearning for love or "sweetness.”
-- Marion Woodman
Visualize your creative dream for your life. Break out of your comfort zone and get comfortable with the unknown....
Walking and physical contact with the earth grounds and balances the energy body.
Sorry, there´s no magic bullet. You gotta eat healthy and live healthy to be healthy and look healthy.
-- Morgan Spurlock
People on the Paleo Diet report that they lose weight and experience higher energy levels.
“We don’t stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing."
-- George Bernard Shaw.
Let your food be your medicine, and your medicine be your food.”
-- Hippocrates 460 - 400 BCE Greek Physician.
Walking in nature reduces chronic pain, depression, ADD, PMS, blood pressure, and blood sugar levels.
“Without ice cream, there would be darkness and chaos.”
-- Don Kardong
I'm pretty sure that eating chocolate keeps wrinkles away. I've never seen a 10 year old with a chocolate bar and crows feet.
-- Amy Neftzger
A good meal soothes the soul as it regenerates the body.
-- Frederick W. Hackwood
Boy George sheds 50# "Portion control, 5 hours between meals, less coffee & tea, Pure water, No bread or sugar!"
“Forget love—I’d rather fall in chocolate!" -- Sandra J. Dykes
“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.”
-- Soren Kierkegaard, Danish...
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.
-- Charles M. Schulz
Walking stimulates the brain and balances left and right brain hemispheres.
“Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. Let's do it, let's fall in love.”
-- Cole Porter
“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”
-- Michael Pollan, In Defense of Food. Paleo
Is food a substitute for love? No, love is a substitute for food.
-- Rohan Candappa
After a full belly all is poetry.
-- Frank McCourt
After a good dinner one can forgive anybody, even one's own relatives.
-- Oscar Wilde
Pull up a chair. Take a taste. Come join us. Life is so endlessly delicious.
-- Ruth Reichl
Food is a gift and should be treated reverentially--romanced and ritualized and seasoned with memory.
-- Chris Bohjalian
Walking reduces anxiety and stress levels
"Let food be your medicine and medicine be your food." Hippocrates, father of modern medicine. 460-370 BC Greece....
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what’s for lunch.
-- Orson Welles
"Be yourself. The world worships the original."
-- Ingrid Bergman
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have...
A good meal soothes the soul as it regenerates the body.
-- Frederick W. Hackwood
“All you need to do is hold on tight...and believe!” -- Stephen King
"If the bee disappears from the Earth, man would have no more than 4 years left to live." -- Albert Einstein.
Shop on the edges of the supermarket where you'll find the fresh foods. Avoid the processed foods in the middle.
“Don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food.”
-- Michael Pollan.
“Silence is the language of god, all else is poor translation.”
― Rumi
A wild goose never laid a tame egg. – Gaelic
Cooking done with care is an act of love. - Craig Claiborne
With grains, dairy, and refined sugars off the Paleo menu, indulging isn’t easy.
Exercise reduces stress, improves breathing, increases circulation, and massages all the organs.
The Paleolithic diet and lifestyle—based on eating hunter/gatherer foods for optimal health—has surged in popularity.
Great food is like great sex. The more you have the more you want. -Gael Greene
Rice, Buckwheat, Cassava (Tapioca), Corn, Millet, Montina, Quinoa, Sorghum, Teff and Wild rice are all gluten-free.
Coffee is one of the Top-10 gluten cross reactors, exacerbating gi symptoms. Try this delicious brew instead!
15 year old invents New Method of Diagnosing Cancer
Refined dairy, cereals, sugars, oils, and alcohol make up 72.1 % of the total energy consumed in the USA.
"Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." Emerson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)