A Temporary Arrivederci and Your Top 5 Favorite Vegetables

Sweet readers!

It’s me, Kris. Hi!

This Sunday, I’m marrying this guy I like, hurricane permitting. And for a few weeks after that, we’re gonna drive around Italy, searching for duomos and large plates of spaghetti. (And wine. Always wine.)

During that time, and Leigh (of Veggie Might fame) will be running CHG. The schedule will stay the same. There’ll just be a slightly different voice behind it – namely, a vegetarian one with cute hair and much better cooking skills.

I really enjoy keeping this blog, and will miss our discussions while I'm away. In the meantime, hope y’all have wonderful Septembers, and I'll speak to you soon!

P.S. Oh, yeah! The results of last week’s Ask the Internet are as follows:

36 votes: Tomatoes

26 votes: Onions

19 votes: Leafy greens (Kale, lettuce, collards, etc.)

17 votes: Bell peppers

16 votes: Asparagus, Broccoli

15 votes: Corn, Peas (all kinds), Sweet Potatoes

12 votes: Spinach

11 votes: Carrots, Garlic, Potatoes

10 votes: Mushrooms

9 votes: Cucumbers

8 votes: Brussels sprouts

7 votes: Avocado

6 votes: Zucchini

5 votes: Beets, Eggplant

4 votes: Artichokes, Cauliflower, Green Beans, Winter Squash (Butternut, Kabocha, etc.)

3 votes: Garlic and onions (whole Allium family), Hot peppers, Parsnips

2 votes: Cabbage, Leeks, Lima Beans, Pumpkin

1 vote: Broccoli Rabe, Celery, Edamame, Fennel, Lentils, Okra, Red Cabbage, Romanesco Broccoli, Yellow Squash

Tomatoes, for the win.

Read more »

Posted in: Ask the Internet

Animals give GM the thumbs down

Animals give GM the thumbs down

from GreenHealthWatch.com

The UK Government decision to grant Aventis’s application to grow GM maize commercially in the UK was not based on the studies reported, but on two different animal-feeding trials both funded and submitted by Aventis.

The first trial fed Chardon LL maize grain to 280 young broiler chickens over 42 days, supposedly to compare the nutrient quality of GM and natural maize samples. All the chickens were allowed to eat at will. The official report claimed that no differences were found in body weight, feed intake or mortality, as compared to similar chickens fed on natural maize. Closer examination of the data gives cause for concern:

• During days 0-18, the GM maize grain-fed chickens consumed nine grams more than the natural maize-fed group, but during days 18-32 their consumption fell to seven grams less. During days 32-42 their consumption fell even further, to 63 grams less than that of the natural maize-fed group
• Whereas the final average body weights and total feed intakes of the GM- and natural maize-fed chickens were not very different, there was a much wider range in individual weights and intakes amongst the GM-fed birds, suggesting that at least some of them were not thriving on the GM maize
• Death rates during the trial in the two groups were reported to be “similar”. In fact, the average death rate in the GM-fed chickens (7.14%) was double that in the natural maize-fed chickens (3.57%)

The validity of this study was dismissed by animal nutrition expert Dr Bob Orskov [1] on the grounds that feeding maize grain to chickens could never tell you anything about feeding whole maize plants as forage to cattle.

The second study fed diets with various mixes of protein to groups of male and female rats. The total amount of protein in each diet was the same:

Diet 1. A mix comprising 10% GM oilseed rape protein (PAT), 90% natural soya protein (SOY)
Diet 2. 100% PAT
Diet 3. 100% SOY
Diet 4. The standard diet for laboratory rats

The primary purpose of the study was to test for toxicity. The data suggests that at least some of the rats may not have been thriving on a diet including PAT:

• Whereas the male rats eating low amounts of PAT (diets 1,3 and 4) maintained similar weights, the average weight of the male rats on diet 2 fell from being the highest to the lowest of all the male groups
• The average weights of the female rats fed either low or high amounts of PAT (diets 1 and 2), heaviest at the outset, fell below those of the females not eating PAT (diets 3 and 4)
• Both male and female rats consuming high amounts of PAT (diet 2) achieved lower weight gains per day, averaged over the 14 days, than those of their counterparts eating diets containing low or no PAT (diets 3 and 4)

The validity of this study was also dismissed, this time by independent toxicologist Dr Vyvyan Howard, [2] on two grounds:

• “By feeding purified PAT protein, rather than the whole maize plant (as it would be fed to cattle), this experiment is specifically designed to not detect any unpredicted effects
• “I do not consider that this study using rats can be used as a basis for making judgements about the safety of Chardon LL maize with respect to cattle”

Existing scientific and anecdotal evidence indicates that farm animals prefer organically-produced to conventionally-produced feed. Now there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence that both domestic and wild animals will avoid GM feed, given the choice and, if forced to eat GM feed, do not thrive.

Ed.- (i) However bizarre, the fact that AgrEvo (later renamed Aventis and since renamed Bayer Crop Science) used chickens and maize grain, then rats and protein derived from GM oilseed rape, to prove the safety of whole GM maize plants for cattle no longer comes as any surprise. Nor does the UK Government’s readiness to accept such obviously fake science. The battle over GM is not, after all, about science or “feeding the world’s poor”, as biotech companies and their supporters pretend, but profit. What is surprising is that the UK Government still imagines that the public will accept their reassurances that GM is safe

(ii) The second study was just 14 days long, so there was no attempt to identify long-term effects.

(iii) Eva Novotny’s report for the Institute of Science in Society also mentioned:

(a) cattle’s refusal to eat GM Sheridan forage maize when they strayed into a GM crop trial field in Somerset in November 2000. [3] Sheridan contains the same genetic construct (conferring herbicide tolerance) as Chardon LL, the variety approved by the UK Government, and

(b) the article When the Corn Hits the Fan by American journalist Steven Sprinkel (19.9.99). It reported pigs which wouldn’t eat their ration when GM crops were included, cattle which went off their food or lost weight when switched to GM silage, cattle which broke through an old fence and ate all the normal corn but wouldn’t touch GM Round-up Ready corn, and deer and racoons which decimated organic crops but avoided GM crops nearby.

[1] Dr Bob Orskov, Honorary Professor in Animal Nutrition at Aberdeen University and Director of the International Feed Resource Unit (18.10.2000)
[ 2] Dr Vyvyan Howard, Senior Lecturer and Head of the Foetal and Infant Toxicopathology Group at the University of Liverpool, and Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists (18.10.2000)
[ 3] reported by the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 10.11.00

(10716) Eva Novotny. Institute of Science in Society

Read more »

Posted in: GM Food

Green Kitchen: Fresh Garbanzo Beans and the Excitement of New Vegetables

Green Kitchen is a bi-weekly column about nutritious, inexpensive, and ethical food and cooking. It's penned by the lovely Jaime Green.

Don't get me wrong – a good chunk of my love for the greenmarket is love of, and belief in the goodness of, local eating. I like meeting my farmers, I like minimizing my food's road trips, I like the dirt on my kale that comes from nearby. (Okay, I did not love the cocooned caterpillar that came along with that local kale and its local dirt this weekend, but that's my own problems with squeamishness. In theory, I loved that caterpillar.)

But I also fell in love with the farmers market because, during our early courtship, everything was so new. Kale, collard greens, kohlrabi, lambsquarter, Brussels sprouts still on the stalk – my first couple of greenmarket years, I took home something new and strange almost every weekend. I hit the internet and hit the books, and almost every time I added a new and delicious veggie to my repertoire.

I still love the greenmarket, lo these many years later, but things have become a little... predictable. A few extra bucks in my wallet this summer are opening a few new doors – berries, grapes (that actually taste like something!), and endless varieties of stone fruits – but the veggies are all familiar territory. As each veggie comes back into season, sure, there's a weekend or two of excitement, but true vegetal strangers are few and far between.

So I hope you'll allow me a digression from the agricultural bounty of the greater New York area (love you, Pennsylvania peppers!), as I allowed myself when I met an international temptation too strange and exciting to ignore.

Fresh garbanzo beans.

The bin of fuzzy green pods was nestled between portabellos and quail eggs in the Whole Foods produce aisle, and I could not resist. At $4/lb I thought my few experimental handfuls would cost me a buck or so. These beans are so light, though, that my bag rang up at a mere twenty-nine cents. Score one for the beans.

I hit the internet, and hit the kitchen, and here is what I learned:

1. Fresh garbanzo beans can be eaten raw. Popped out of the pods they look just like their canned and dried cousins, just green. They have a fresh, not particularly strong taste, like starchier edamame.
2. The internet will tell you that they should be steamed in salt water in their pods. This works, but the pods are so roomy that they become little saline capsules, which then burst in your mouth or in your hands. The beans are still tasty, but they get lost in the saltwater, and it doesn't really work. So, fresh garbanzos edamame-style: technically works, but not so awesome.
3. If you use the same method, though, but shell the beans first, well bingo, there you go. A quick boil in salted water gives you bright, salty, tasty little beans.

The internet is full of more elaborate preparations, but I like to get to know a new veggie simply, at first. (Okay, I often end up sticking with those most basic preparations – salt, and sometimes oil, usually make veggies taste like their best versions of themselves.)

Next time – if I even see them again, because their appearance was sudden and they may vanish as quickly and with as little fanfare - I may try some sort of pan-frying, with cumin and other chickpea-friendly spices. I bet the green flavors of the fresh beans would play nicely with that. But for now, for my new friend the fresh garbanzo, simple and quick is the way to go.

~~~

If you enjoy this, you might also enjoy:

• Pasta with Zucchini and Chickpeas
• Steamed Asparagus
• Sweet Potato and Chickpea Puree

~~~

Fresh Garbanzo Beans
Serves 2

1/2 lb fresh garbanzo beans (about 1 cup shelled)
1 T (or so) salt

1) Shell the garbanzo beans. They usually pop out easily, but scissors can be helpful.

2) In a sauce pan or small soup pan, bring a couple of inches of salted water to a boil.

3) Add the garbanzos. Boil, covered, for about a minute.

4) Drain, and eat warm or cooled.

Approximate Calories, Fat, Fiber, Protein, and Cost Per Serving
134.5 calories, 2.1g fat, 6.3g fiber, 7.3g protein, $0.26

Calculations
1 cup fresh garbanzo beans: 269 calories, 4.2g fat, 12.5g fiber, 14.5g protein, $0.50
1 T salt: 0 calories, 0g fat, 0g fiber, 0g protein, $0.02
TOTAL: 269 calories, 4.2g fat, 12.5g fiber, 14.5g protein, $0.52
PER SERVING (TOTAL/4): 134.5 calories, 2.1g fat, 6.3g fiber, 7.3g protein, $0.26

Read more »

Posted in: Desserts and Snacks,Vegan,Vegetarian

Ask the Internet: Top 5 Fruits?

Sweet readers! The results of last week’s Top 5 Vegetables inquiry are coming a little later today. (Hint: Celery does much worse than expected.) In the meantime, we had a few requests for this follow-up question, which could be even tougher to answer.

Q: What are your top five favorite fruits, and why?

A: Mine, in order:

1. Cherries. I fear death as a concept in general, but mostly because I wouldn’t get to eat cherries anymore.
2. Pluots. I don’t particularly like apricots, but this plum/apricot hybrid is a genetic anomaly I can get behind.
3. Plums. There's nothing more satisfying than digging into a cold, juicy plum on a hot summer’s day. William Carlos Williams was right on.
4. Bananas. Portable, cheap, and packed with potassium, they're the reliable utility outfielders of the fruit world.
5. Lemons: You can’t eat them by themselves, but they brighten up so many savory dishes, I can’t imagine cooking without them. Also? Lemonade. BAM.

Mangoes, blueberries, limes, and a really good pear just miss my top tier, and cantaloupe, kiwi, and apricots are way at the bottom.

Readers, what about you? Keep in mind we’re going with the conventional idea of fruits here, which means no tomatoes. And again, look for those veggie results later today.

Want to ask the interweb a question? Post one in the comment section, or write to Cheaphealthygood@gmail.com. Then, tune in next Tuesday for an answer/several answers from the good people of the World Wide Net.

Read more »

Posted in: Ask the Internet

Peanut Butter and Jelly Oatmeal: Quick and Tasty Nostalgia

Today on Serious Eats: Pork Roast en Cocotte with Apples and Shallots – an infallible America’s Test Kitchen recipe that tastes as good as it sounds.

I apologize for being horrifically negligent with posting lately. But, woof. Thangz iz crazy here at CHG central. Husband-Elect’s bachelor party was this weekend. Friends and family are already starting to trickle into Brooklyn. And oh, the wedding is Sunday.

Mommy?

Anyway, I’ve been keeping Peanut Butter and Jelly Oatmeal in my back pocket (um, the recipe, not the food itself) for just such an occasion. It’s the world’s easiest breakfast, and will fill you up clear through the next morning. Not to mention: tasty.

There’s the nostalgia thing, too. Like everybody, I’m sure, peanut butter and jelly holds a special place in my heart (um, the idea of it, not the food itself). My mom packed my lunch with PB&J from first grade clear through to sixth. I didn’t touch it for years after that, being as tired of the sandwich as the general U.S. populace was of Alanis Morissette’s “Ironic” by November 1996.

But now? I will house that sandwich without ever coming up for air. And having a bowl of it for breakfast feels indulgent, like a treat. Like Mrs. Nall let me clap the erasers out back after school, because I scored a 99 on the spelling test. (Note: In the Morissettiest of ironies [meaning, not really an irony at all], I misspelled “sandwich,” adding an extraneous “t.”)

I urge you to commit the oatmeal to memory (um, the recipe, not the food itself). It’s a culinary trip back in time, not to mention a fast meal when the world becomes busier than you ever thought it could.

~~~

If you enjoy oatmeal and related recipes, you might also dig into:

• Banana Oatmeal Muffins
• Gingersnap Oatmeal
• Oatmeal with Soy Sauce and Scallions

~~~

Peanut Butter and Jelly Oatmeal
Serves 2.
NOTE: This is not my picture, but a placeholder, and a pretty good approximation of the real thing. It comes from one of those ad-drenched blogs that obviously steals content, so I won't link to it here. Apologies to the actual photographer. My pic is coming a bit later.

1 cup dry 5-minute oats
1 cup water
1/2 cup skim milk
About 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
1 or 2 tablespoons natural creamy peanut butter
1 or 2 tablespoons your favorite jelly
Kosher salt to taste

1) Combine oats, water, and milk in a small pot. Heat over medium.

2) After a minute or two, add vanilla extract, peanut butter, jelly, and salt to taste. Stir to combine, though the peanut butter will gradually melt into the mixture as the oatmeal heats up. Cook a few minutes, stirring occasionally.

3) When the oatmeal reaches your desired consistency, taste it. If you’d like a little more of either PB or J, add it in.

4) Serve, and wonder why you’re not eating this for every meal.

Approximate Calories, Fat, Fiber, Protein, and Price Per Serving
304 calories, 7.4 g fat, 2.9 g fiber, 7.9 g protein, $0.38

Calculations
1 cup dry 5-minute oats: 147 calories, 2.3 g fat, 4 g fiber, 6.1 g protein, $0.30
1 cup water: negligible calories, fat, fiber, protein, $0.00
1/2 cup skim milk: 45 calories, 0.4 g fat, 0 g fiber, 4.4 g protein, $0.11
About 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract: 6 calories, 0 g fat, 0 g fiber, 0 g protein, $0.03
1 1/2 tablespoons natural creamy peanut butter: 135 calories, 12 g fat, 1.5 g fiber, 5.3 g protein, $0.09
1 1/2 tablespoons your favorite jelly: 84 calories, 0 g fat, 0.3 g fiber, 0 g protein, $0.21
Kosher salt to taste: negligible calories, fat, fiber, protein, $0.01
TOTAL: 609 calories, 14.7 g fat, 5.8 g fiber, 15.8 g protein, $0.75
PER SERVING (TOTAL/2): 304 calories, 7.4 g fat, 2.9 g fiber, 7.9 g protein, $0.38

Read more »

Posted in: 15 Minutes or Less,Breakfast,Vegetarian

FDA Looking into Triclosan?

UPDATE: 8/29/10  Triclosan and antibacterial warnings -
Updates at Natural Healing through Natural Health -

New article here from Jill Richardson, compiling much of what we have been teaching about the risk of triclosan since the late 80s.

from Natural Health News...

Natural Health News: FDA Looking into Triclosan?

Apr 09, 2010

In a claim filed Tuesday, the National Resources Defense Council says the FDA didn't regulate the levels of triclosan and triclocarban in the soap, two toxic chemicals that can cause problems with reproductive organs, sperm quality and ...

Chloroform Danger With Antimicrobial Soap

Apr 16, 2005

The main reason for my advice has been that these chemicals, such as triclosan, disturb the balance of naturally occurring staph bacteria on the skin's surface (epidermis). Now here is more convincing evidence. ...

Hand Sanitizers: UPDATE

Nov 01, 2009

If the product contains Triclosan, also be cautious: Researchers who added triclosan to water and exposed it to ultra-violet light found that a significant portion of the triclosan was converted to dioxin. Triclosan reacts with chlorine ...

Another "Green Living"© writer warns of hand sanitizers

May 26, 2008

But I did already know that certain hand purifying gels contained, among other undesirables, the hormone disrupting antibacterial/antifungal agent triclosan, which can form dioxins when it comes into contact with water and has some

Natural Health News: MRSA - Alternative Cure For 'Flesh-Eating ...

Dec 26, 2009

These contain Triclosan and will kill off naturally occurring bacteria on your skin that serves to protect you from infection. Many non-effective anti-biotics are on the market today and some of these have very serious side effects.

UPDATE: 8/21/10 - Two Dangerous Ingredients in Everyday Products That Are Threatening Our Health

Triclosan and triclocarban are widely used in antibacterial soaps, body washes, deodorants, lip glosses, dog shampoos, shave gels and even toothpastes. Read more...

UPDATE: 7/30/10 -

Health Group Sues FDA Over 'Dangerous' Antibacterial Soap

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is being sued by a nonprofit environmental group for what the members claim is dangerous “antimicrobial” soap, Reuters reports.
In a claim filed Tuesday, the National Resources Defense Council says the FDA didn’t regulate the levels of triclosan and triclocarban in the soap, two toxic chemicals that can cause problems with reproductive organs, sperm quality and the production of thyroid and sex hormones.
Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, is named as a defendant in the suit, but no specific manufacturers or retailers were mentioned, according to Reuters.
The nonprofit claims it first approached the FDA about regulating this soap and other personal care products for over-the-counter use more than 30 years ago, but no action has been taken.
According to the lawsuit, the FDA proposed a ban from interstate trading of both chemicals in 1978 but nothing changed until 1994 when some ingredients were reclassified, Reuters reports.
The FDA said in April that the ingredient triclosan has not been shown to be harmful
to humans and that further study is needed.
The plaintiffs are requesting the FDA be given a deadline to complete its study on the conditions for using these products.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted April 2010: It never ceases to amaze me just how slow out US government agencies are slow to act to protect the citizenry. And they won't comment until sometime in 2011. Maybe an addendum to the health bill should require that the FDA clean up its political quagmires.

I've been warning about triclosan for at least 15 years, based on the science and at least the MSDS data.

What is so bad about triclosan is that is destroys what is referred to as the protective "acid mantle" of the skin, and creates a breeding ground for infection because it destroys the healthy bacteria on your skin:the healthy bacteria that is there to protect you from infection.

This is one time it pays to read labels and another to look to the use of natural castile soaps without fragrance and using truly health promoting skin lubrication like you can get from my colleague at Kettle Care.

FDA Warns of Risk in Antibacterial Additive
By Cole Petrochko, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: April 08, 2010


WASHINGTON -- The FDA has notified consumers that the antibacterial agent triclosan's safety data is being reviewed due to concerns raised in lab tests on animals.
Research from the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development found triclosan had thyroid and estrogen effects in animals.
The agent is a common ingredient in antibacterial soaps and washes, toothpastes, and cosmetics, all of which are regulated by the FDA.
The ingredient's profile was raised in January when Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, wrote the FDA to ask about a review of triclosan's use in consumer products.
Additional investigation was deemed necessary after animal studies showed potential negative effects of the ingredient, the FDA said in a prepared statement. Though studies are ongoing, the FDA does not currently have enough evidence to suggest a change to any consumer products with triclosan.
The FDA noted that although triclosan provided a clear benefit in some consumer products, the extra health benefit it offered in others was not as apparent.
The agency advised consumers that the ingredient poses no apparent danger to humans, but that soaps and body washes with triclosan may not provide additional health benefits over soaps without the additive; consumers concerned about its potential health hazards should switch to regular soaps without triclosan.
The FDA announced it will work with other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to study the effects of triclosan on humans, animals, and the environment.
The agency said it planned to publish its findings in spring 2011.

Chloroform Danger With Antimicrobial Soap, a 2005 post from Natural Health News

Hand Sanitizers: UPDATE

Nov 01, 2009

If the product contains Triclosan, also be cautious: Researchers who added triclosan to water and exposed it to ultra-violet light found that a significant portion of the triclosan was converted to dioxin. Triclosan reacts with chlorine ...

Another "Green Living"© writer warns of hand sanitizers

May 26, 2008

But I did already know that certain hand purifying gels contained, among other undesirables, the hormone disrupting antibacterial/antifungal agent triclosan, which can form dioxins when it comes into contact with water and has some ...

Natural Health News: MRSA - Alternative Cure For 'Flesh-Eating ...

Dec 26, 2009

These contain Triclosan and will kill off naturally occurring bacteria on your skin that serves to protect you from infection. Many non-effective anti-biotics are on the market today and some of these have very serious side effects. ...

Read more »

Posted in: antibacterial hand sanitizers,antibacterial soap,FDA,triclosan

AG Money: Gates and Monsanto

Gates Foundation underwrites vaccine insanity and now GMO Food, Weed overgrowth -

Well, well, well. It's about time. Kind of like when Fox News gave $1 million in campaign contributions to Republicans. It wasn't exactly a secret before, but now it's official. The Gates Foundation just bought a whopping 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock.Now, there's nothing wrong with buying stock. My parents hold lots of BP stock, and they are hardly guilty of dumping the 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf. But this is one more step in a long line of actions by the Gates Foundation in which it is advocating policies and agricultural technologies that will directly benefit and profit Monsanto while screwing over the most vulnerable people on earth: hungry subsistence farmers in developing countries.
I wrote a piece recently about what happens when American industrial agriculture collides with poor, uneducated subsistence farmers in the developing world and it ain't pretty. In fact, it's tragic. It's criminal. For a corporation to prey upon such a vulnerable population for its own gain, when the result is the starvation, continued impoverishment, or loss of land and lifestyle of the poor.
Perhaps Gates thinks he is doing something good for the world with his advocacy of biotechnology and industrial agriculture. No doubt all of the executives from Monsanto and other biotech and chemical companies tell him that every day. He should instead listen to the 400 scientists who spent 3 years performing the most comprehensive study of agricultural knowledge, science, and technology in the history of the world, the IAASTD report. The report recommends agroecology - what many in the U.S. would refer to as "organics" (even though the term is more nuanced than that).
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/3953/gates-foundation-puts-its-money-where-its-mouth-is

GATES FOUNDATION INVESTS IN MONSANTO 
Both will profit at expense of small-scale African farmers

Seattle, WA - Farmers and civil society organizations around the world are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation's investment portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010 (see the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission). This marks a substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over $360,000 (see the Foundation's 2008 990 Form).

"The Foundation's direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels," said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering. "First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation's heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests."

Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto's genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of theAfrica Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. "When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising," said Mayet. Monsanto's aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue-and bankrupt-farmers for "patent infringement."

News of the Foundation's recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, "We have long suspected that the founders of AGRA-the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto." Indeed, according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, "The Foundation's ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa." In 2008, AGRA Watch, a project of the Seattle-based organization Community Alliance for Global Justice, uncovered many linkages between the Foundation's grantees and Monsanto. For example, some grantees (in particular about 70% of grantees in Kenya) of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)-considered by the Foundation to be its "African face"-work directly with Monsanto on agricultural development projects. Other prominent links include high-level Foundation staff members who were once senior officials for Monsanto, such as Rob Horsch, formerly Monsanto Vice President of International Development Partnerships and current Senior Program Officer of the Gates Agricultural Development Program.

Transnational corporations like Monsanto have been key collaborators with the Foundation and AGRA's grantees in promoting the spread of industrial agriculture on the continent. This model of production relies on expensive inputs such as chemical fertilizers, genetically modified seeds, and herbicides. Though this package represents enticing market development opportunities for the private sector, many civil society organizations contend it will lead to further displacement of farmers from the land, an actual increase in hunger, and migration to already swollen cities unable to provide employment opportunities. In the words of a representative from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, "AGRA is poison for our farming systems and livelihoods. Under the philanthropic banner of greening agriculture, AGRA will eventually eat away what little is left of sustainable small-scale farming in Africa."

A 2008 report initiated by the World Bank and the UN, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), promotes alternative solutions to the problems of hunger and poverty that emphasize their social and economic roots. The IAASTD concluded that small-scale agroecological farming is more suitable for the third world than the industrial agricultural model favored by Gates and Monsanto. In a summary of the key findings of IAASTD, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) emphasizes the report's warning that "continued reliance on simplistic technological fixes-including transgenic crops-will not reduce persistent hunger and poverty and could exacerbate environmental problems and worsen social inequity." Furthermore, PANNA explains, "The Assessment's 21 key findings suggest that small-scale agroecological farming may offer one of the best means to feed the hungry while protecting the planet."

The Gates Foundation has been challenged in the past for its questionable investments; in 2007, the L.A. Times exposed the Foundation for investing in its own grantees and for its "holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices." The Times chastised the Foundation for what it called "blind-eye investing," with at least 41% of its assets invested in "companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals or socially-concerned philosophy."

Although the Foundation announced it would reassess its practices, it decided to retain them. As reported by the L.A. Times, chief executive of the Foundation Patty Stonesifer defended their investments, stating, "It would be naïve...to think that changing the foundation's investment policy could stop the human suffering blamed on the practices of companies in which it invests billions of dollars." This decision is in direct contradiction to the Foundation's official "Investment Philosophy", which, according to its website, "defined areas in which the endowment will not invest, such as companies whose profit model is centrally tied to corporate activity that [Bill and Melinda] find egregious. This is why the endowment does not invest in tobacco stocks."

More recently, the Foundation has come under fire in its own hometown. This week, 250 Seattle residents sent postcards expressing their concern that the Foundation's approach to agricultural development, rather than reducing hunger as pledged, would instead "increase farmer debt, enrich agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta, degrade the environment, and dispossess small farmers." In addition to demanding that the Foundation instead fund "socially and ecologically appropriate practices determined locally by African farmers and scientists" and support African food sovereignty, they urged the Foundation to cut all ties to Monsanto and the biotechnology industry.

AGRA Watch, a program of Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice, supports African initiatives and programs that foster farmers' self-determination and food sovereignty. AGRA Watch also supports public engagement in fighting genetic engineering and exploitative agricultural policies, and demands transparency and accountability on the part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and AGRA.

Read more »

Posted in: AGRA,Bill Gates,Gates Foundation,Jill Richarson,LaVida Locavore,Melinda Gates,Monsanto

CDC Fudges FLU Data

Hoping that more people now see the misreported death rates are a scare tactic.  And interestingly, the CDC has so far lumped ALL respiratory illnesses in a single category so FLU data is not specifically reported based ONLY on FLU deaths.

Figures on flu deaths are misleading, usually too high, CDC says 

In a typical season, about 36,000 deaths are reported, but that number is too high and grossly misleading, analysts say. Depending on the influenza strain, actual rates vary widely from year to year.

By Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times

August 27, 2010

Most reports about seasonal influenza cite an average of about 36,000 deaths in a typical season, but that number is too high and grossly misleading, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday.

The actual average is a little more than 23,000, the agency reported in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. But even that figure is misleading, the report added, because the numbers have ranged from as low as 3,300 deaths to nearly 50,000 over the last 30 years. The period in the analysis covers up to 2007 and does not include last year's H1N1 influenza pandemic.

"There is no average flu season," lead author Dr. David Shay of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases said in a news conference. The number of deaths "can vary dramatically" from year to year, he said.

The number of deaths in a given year depends on a variety of factors, including how long the flu season lasts, how many people get sick and who gets sick. But by far, the most important factor is the strain of flu that predominates in a given season.

When an H3N2 strain predominates, the number of deaths typically is about 2.7 times higher than in years when an H1N1 strain predominates. Researchers are not sure why that is, but it occurs at least in part because the H3N2 virus mutates more rapidly.

"Even if you have been sick with it in the past, you are more likely to get a subsequent infection," Shay said. It also tends to make more older people ill.

Shay noted that the 36,000 figure that is frequently quoted was an average for the decade of the 1990s, when H3N2 predominated in most years.

During the 30 years covered by the study, nearly 90% of flu-related deaths occurred in people over the age of 65, about 10% in those ages 19 to 64 and about 1% in those younger than 19. One thing that was dismaying about the recent swine flu outbreak: The majority of deaths linked to it occurred in the two younger age groups.

Shay noted that there is no way to tell before a flu season begins — or even a few weeks into the start of the season — which strain will predominate. "Flu really is unpredictable," he said. The best way to protect yourself, he added, is to follow the CDC's recommendation and get vaccinated every year.

thomas.maugh@latimes.com                                                    latimes.com/health/la-sci-flu-deaths-20100827,0,7767551.story

Read more »

Posted in: CDC,flu,flu data,misreporting by CDC

Removing Your Right of Access to Health Care of Choice

herbalYODA Says! - It is important to note that there are thousands of scientific articles rgarding the safe and effective use of herbs.  And not to forget that the National Formualry was built on the original herbal medicines and homeopathic remedies taught for years in medical schools, until the advent of Big PhRMA. 

EFSA set to mass reject 100s of herbal health claims

By Shane Starling, 27-Aug-2010

Hundreds of proposed botanical-health relationships ranging from antioxidant activity to skin health to immunity to gut health will almost certainly be rejected if the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) holds to its current methodologies, according to an EU herbal group.

Patrick Coppens, the secretary general of the European Botanical Forum, said it was unlikely any herbs in line for assessment in the third batch of article 13.1 claims, would win positive opinions.

“If EFSA continues to ignore the existing consensus on the traditional effects of these botanicals, we expect not a single one of these plants to survive the claims process,” Coppens said.

A sneak preview obtained by NutraIngredients of 100s of herbs that have been processed by EFSA’s health claims panel but not yet published, indicates an exhaustive list has been assessed including cranberry, lutein/zeaxanthin, green and black tea, Echinacea, sea buckthorn, rosehip, ginkgo, rosehip, hibiscus, arnica and eucalyptus.

The prebiotic industry will also be holding its breath as chicory, oligosaccharides, isomalto-oligosaccharides and polysaccharides have all had their dossiers assessed by EFSA’s Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA).

“The approach EFSA has adopted is not appropriate for botanicals,” Coppens added.

“The kind of studies requested are not even available for traditional medicinal products. We trust the Commission and the Member States acknowledge this and continue to seek solutions for this valuable category of health products.”

An EFSA spokesperson said the third batch of opinions would be published at the end of September or beginning of September.

Other herbal health claims the NDA has dealt with include green coffee, guarana, blueberry extracts, mangosteen, schisandra, marjolaine feuille, grape seed extracts and broccoli extracts. Typically, the claims are antioxidant related.

Copyright - Unless otherwise stated all contents of this web site are © 2000/2010 - Decision News Media SAS - 

Arnica photo: Verissima 

Read more »

Posted in: EFSA,health care access,limits on herbs

Big Food, Big AG, Fake Food Pyramids and Your Health

Marion Nestle - We need new food policy

FOOD, Inc. see it here
Insight into were our food comes from and how it is produced ....and the big companies that control everything.


http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2010/08/food-inc-corporate-controlled-food.html


Food is Medicine, GM Food is Poison
Among all developed countries, Americans are the fattest people in the world. The World Health Organization found over 60% of the American population is obese or overweight. Even more disturbing, the U.S. is the only country in the developed world to label obesity a national security health risk. Top Pentagon officials have warned Americans are becoming so fat, most of those volunteering for the Army are disqualified because of their size. Child obesity is also on the rise in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control estimates 1 in every 3 American kids are either obese or overweight. Jeffrey Smith, the author of Seeds of Deception, points to the mass production and consumption of genetically modified foods in the U.S. as a possible source of the problem.


http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2010/08/food-is-medicine-gm-food-is-poison.html

Read more »

Posted in: Big Food,Celente,food politics,GM Food,health,Marion Nestle,nutrition

Teach Teens and (Yourself!) how to W.A.I.T

By Tristan Gorrindo, M.D.





By now, over 80 percent of teens have an account with Facebook, Twitter, or some other social networking site. A common feature on almost all of these sites is the ability to share with your friends whatever is on your mind. Commonly these posts appear on a “wall” or other profile page for everyone to see.





Postings come in several versions: short bits of text, pictures, movies, and links to other websites. And the content of these posts can range from mundane observations about the weather, to the exuberant joy of being accepted to a highly desirable college, and everything in between. With the average teen having hundreds of “friends” on Facebook every post is fairly public event.





Teenagers are often defined by their impulsivity and their limited appreciation of long-term consequences. As a child psychiatrist, I see how poorly thought through social network posts can have real-life consequences. For example, a teen facebooking, “I’m so mad at Jessica, I could kill her,” might result in suspension from school. Even posts about, “getting wasted last night,” can have consequences for participation in school athletics or college recruitment if adults stumble across them.





In my work with teens, I try to get them in the habit slowing down the entire process of posting, with the hope that they’ll think before they post. One such tool I’ve created is the mnemonic W.A.I.T.





W. Wide-audience





“W” asks the question: Would I say this in front of a school assembly? If a teenage boy, for example, has 800 friends on Facebook, it is then helpful for have him visualize standing in from of 800 peers at an assembly school assembly reading his Facebook posting aloud. Still sound like a good idea?





A. Affect





“A” asks the question: Am I in a good emotional place right now? Drawing from the basic notion that thoughts and feelings are connected, here teens learn to think about the ways in which their mood might be affecting what they are about to say.





I. Intent





“I” asks the questions: Might my intent be misunderstood? The teen tries some perspective-taking to determine if his or her comment might be misunderstood.





T. Today





…tomorrow, or the next day? “T” asks the question: Can this wait a day? In an effort to slow the emotional drive that pushes teens to post to the Internet, this intervention asks teens to evaluate the urgency of what they are about to say. Why is it so urgent? What will happen if I wait?





I recognize that it’s unrealistic to expect that teens will W.A.I.T. every time they want to share something on a social media site, but I ask the teens I work with to write it on a post-it and stick it on their computer with the hope that it’ll slow them down. Using this technique, teens learn a structured way of evaluating whether or not something belongs on the Internet. It also provides clinicians and parents with a structured conversation tool to engage teens in discussions about what they are posting online.





Happy posting.

Read more »

Posted in: internet safety,teens,Tristan Gorrindo MD

Problems with New Sweetener

UPDATE: August 2010
Here's a toxic sweetener you most likely had never heard of, but I would caution you to make sure you do not ingest it:

^{HealthEdge's NaturallySweet} 

This is manufactured by these folks.

Truvia, Purevia, Zevia, Zerose, Zsweet are marketing names for this artificially blended  erythritol and rebiana mix.  Rebiana is a chemically modified form of  stevia, it is NOT pure stevia.

UPDATE 4, Consumer complaints regarding Truvia

UPDATE 3, 23 December 08: A reader comments on Erythritol as not causing her any problems as noted in our researcher's report. Just like all substances, the ingestion of a substance needs to be in the right form, the right amount, et al, and the effect and outcomes are individual. Please realize that our researcher is a former FDA investigator who has an indepth background in the sciences necessary to make such statements. Please note that the artificial sweeteners referred to, Truvia (Cargill) and PureVia(Whole Earth Sweeteners) are manufactured by these agribusness corporations with an extract of stevia (rebiana)and erythritol and are NOT whole leaf stevia or pure(whole leaf)stevia extract.

UPDATE 2, 22 December 08: Please note that contrary to other reports you may be reading, the FDA DID NOT APPROVE STEVIA. The FDA, in cahoots with Cargill and Coke, approved a synthesized product - as reported originally in this article - manufactured with rebiana (an extract from Stevia) and erythritol (a sugar alcohol).

As Dr. Evangelista states (quoted below): "DO NOT CONFUSE REBIANA (TRUVIA) WITH STEVIA"

UPDATE 1, 20 December 08: Zerose is the Cargill synthesized artificial sweetener made from stevia and erythritol. Zsweet is a similar product in UK and EU. There are numerous scientific studies presenting that this, and related products such as Truvia, may lead to calcium, potassium and phosphate loss with calcification (and lesions) in the kidneys (just like Splenda) and bowel alterations. Please read more.

As to Zevia soda, it seems to me to be quite irresponsible on the part of the company CEO (an attorney)to make the following quote, "Why not supplement a steady breast milk diet with some refreshing ZEVIA?" This quote is associated with a photo of an infant being fed soda by the mother on the company blog. I would suggest the mother is irresponsible as well. While the company web site does not state that Zerose is the sweetener used in their products it does mention that eryrithritol is an ingredient.

I am sure this fellow was not in my 'Social Responsibility of Business' class in grad school.

We suggest Just Like Sugar, unaltered Stevia (order the extract via the Starwest link on this page) and Agave.

We do not endorse the use aspartame or sucralose or any forms of these chemicals, first developed as inseticides, or any products containing them, as they are known toxins to human health, nor do we endorse the use of acesulfame K.
----------------------------------------
12-19-08
The news this morning on NPR seems to be focused on helping you be in the spin on 'rebiana'(Truvia) and how it is "just stevia".

Coke (using Truvia) and Pepsi (using PureVia) are marketing this new artificial sweetener in their beverages but apparently aren't open to presenting both sides of the story.

Even the one TV ad I saw recently for "Truvia" would lead you to believe that this is a safe and natural additive.

Zevia(a soda), because it contains erythritol, may also have similar problems.

The problem is that is may come from natural sources but it is an extracted and modified chemical when it comes out the other end.

DO NOT CONFUSE REBIANA (TRUVIA) WITH STEVIA
Do not confuse this with pure stevia, it is a combination of chemicals with a dab of the stevia plant. Stevia itself is a sweetener and yet they are using Erythritol which is a sugar alcohol known to cause such things as bloating, diarrhea and cramps. That tells you they are not using much stevia. Nor are they removing the poisonous aspartame from Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi. They are simply trying to satisfy a part of the population that knows how deadly aspartame is and wants to use something else.

Notice this sentence: "Stevia was not approved as a food additive by U.S. regulators, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued letters to the companies on Wednesday saying it had no objections to their sweeteners, which are derived from the plant." The FDA has made themselves clear. Industry can do anything they please but they have no intention of approving something safe for the general public. They don't want to displease the aspartame industry who is powerful and takes care of those who defend their poison. Make sure you understand this is a combination of sweeteners and chemicals and not real stevia. The pop companies feel "a dab will do you, so just buy our product regardless of how its made". The public again will be the guinea pigs and lab rats. Also, see the admission that Pepsi's Purevia is being developed with Merisant, an aspartame manufacturer. Nobody should use these products until they are analyzed. Industry is constantly adding small amounts of aspartame because its addictive. If they do this to these products aspartame victims will react because aspartame is so poisonous it causes chemical hypersensitization.

Lab Tests Point to Problems with New Sweetener
Consumer group says product can increase cancer risk
September 2, 2008

A consumer group says a new commercial sweetner, said to be 200 times sweeter than sugar, may cause health problems and needs more study. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are planning to introduce new drinks made with the sweetner, rebiana, an extract of stevia leaves.

In a letter to the Food and Drug Administration, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says the agency should require additional tests, including a key animal study, before accepting rebiana as Generally Regarded as Safe, or GRAS.

The letter cites a new 26-page report by toxicologists at the University of California, Los Angeles, several, though not all, laboratory tests show that the sweetener causes mutations and DNA damage, which raises the prospect that it causes cancer.

"A safe, natural, high-potency sweetener would be a welcome addition to the food supply," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "But the FDA needs to be as sure as possible that rebiana is safe before allowing it into foods that would be consumed by tens of millions of people. It would be tragic if the sweetener turned out to cause cancer or other problems."

One key animal study has not been conducted, according to the UCLA experts and CSPI. The FDA's guidelines advise testing prospective major new food additives on two rodent species, usually rats and mice. The new sweetener has only been tested on rats, but not mice.

The toxicologists' report said that because several studies found mutations and DNA damage, a lifetime mouse study designed to evaluate the risk of carcinogenicity and other health problems was particularly important.

The UCLA toxicologists emphasized the need for more genotoxicity tests, because of the evidence that derivatives of stevia that are closely related to rebiana damage DNA and chromosomes.

Their report noted that much of the recent research on rebiana was sponsored by Cargill and urged the FDA to obtain independently conducted tests to ensure that corporate biases don't influence the design, conduct, or results of the tests.

Rebiana is shorthand for rebaudioside A, a component of stevia. It is obtained from the leaves of a shrub native to Brazil and Paraguay. Coke, Pepsi, and other companies are excited about rebiana, because it supposedly tastes better than crude stevia, which is sold as a dietary supplement in health-food stores.

After all the controversies pertaining to saccharin, aspartame, and other artificial sweeteners, the food industry expects many calorie-conscious consumers to eagerly opt for this natural sweetener.

Two companies -- Cargill and Merisant -- have told the FDA that rebiana should be considered GRAS, a category given less scrutiny by the FDA than ordinary food additives. A third company, Wisdom Natural Brands, has declared that its stevia-based sweetener is GRAS and will market it without giving evidence to, or even notifying, the FDA. That company gave CSPI only a heavily redacted report prepared by scientists it hired to declare its stevia derivative, which is of unknown purity, is safe.

Stevia is legal in foods in Japan and several other countries, but the United States, Canada, and the European Union bar stevia in foods because of older tests that suggested it might interfere with reproduction. New tests sponsored by Cargill did not find such problems.

"I am not saying that rebiana is harmful, but it should not be marketed until new studies establish that it is safe," Jacobson said.

Cargill's version of rebiana is called Truvia and would be used by Coca-Cola. Pepsi's version is called PureVia and is produced by Merisant's Whole Earth Sweetener division. Merisant is best known for marketing the Equal brand of aspartame.

CSPI has not questioned the safety of two artificial sweeteners, sucralose (Splenda) and neotame, but says that suggestive evidence indicates that saccharin, aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), and acesulfame-K pose small risks of cancer.

"The whole issue of what gets GRAS status needs to be reviewed by Congress," Jacobson said. "It's crazy that companies can just hire a few consultants to bless their new ingredients and rush them to market without any opportunity for the FDA and the public to review all the safety evidence."

Two of the most harmful ingredients in the food supply are considered GRAS: salt, which raises blood pressure and causes thousands of unnecessary heart attacks and strokes every year, and partially hydrogenated oil, which is the source of artery-clogging artificial trans fat. CSPI has long campaigned to get partially hydrogenated oil out of the food supply and to reduce salt to safe levels.
From Consumer Affairs

Read more »

Posted in: aspartame,green living expert,health news,natural health expert,natural health news,natural news,organic living expert,rebiana,splenda,stevia,Truvia,Zevia