Thursday, June 30, 2011

Synthetic hormonal milk and cancer

So back to our cows and synthetic hormones.  Milk that is produced by cows that have been injected with artificial hormones, rBGH/rBST, contains much more IGF-1 than synthetic hormone-free milk.  Studies indicate it contains up to a 20-fold higher level.  The endocrine system is very sensitive, so even subtle amounts exert a big influence.  IGF-1 is an insulin-like growth factor.  So when our children drink their milk, they’ll grow big and strong and they’ll grow taller, right?  No, actually the “growth” here refers to the growth of other cells in our bodies.  All cells in our bodies grow and then at a pre-programmed time self-destruct.  This is the normal state of things.  But what happens when the cells don’t die but continue to grow?  Well, there are a couple names for that condition including “cancer” and “tumor”.   Increased levels of IGF-1 present greater risk of cancer, specifically cancer of the breast, the prostate and the colon.  IGF-1 promotes the growth and invasiveness of cancer cells by inhibiting normal cell death.  Please note that IGF-1 is not destroyed by our digestive tract, nor is it destroyed by pasteurization.  As a matter of fact, its effects are intensified by pasteurization.  A number of studies show a relationship between elevated IGF-1 levels and the development of certain tumors.  In fact 19 scientific publications link increased IGF-1 levels with increased risk of breast cancer; ten studies point to increased risk of colon cancer and seven studies show a correlation with increased risk of prostate cancer.  The initial studies Monsanto commissioned prior to the approval of its use by the FDA consisted of a 90-day study conducted on 30 rats.  There were no studies done on long-term effects on people; there are no studies being done now.  Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition. He has published some 260 peer reviewed articles, and authored or co-authored 11 books including the 2006 What's In Your Milk?  He wrote a great piece on Hormonal Milk and Meat, well worth the reading.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Apples are #1 among the Dirty Dozen??

The Environmental Working Group, a non-profit advocacy group published a new Dirty Dozen list a couple weeks ago, and egads!.. apples have moved up from #4 to #1.  Oh no!  The Dirty Dozen list is a compilation of fruits and vegetables which carry the most pesticide.  No, you can’t wash it away.  The stuff is taken up and becomes part and parcel of the fruit, and no, you can’t pare away the skin to reveal a pesticide-free piece of fruit.  Government data revealed that 92% of apples contain two or more pesticides!  EWG figures that possibly some of the apples are being treated with pesticides and fungicides post-harvest to lengthen their shelf life.  Pesticides are toxic to nervous systems, cause cancer, disrupt hormones and cause brain damage in children.  The Harvard School of Public Health found that children exposed to high level of pesticides run a greater risk of ADHD.  If you would like a downloadable printable copy of the new Dirty Dozen and the Clean Fifteen, you can find it here .  
What can you do about this latest pesticide scare?  You can choose to purchase organic apples, you can choose from other fruits and vegetables from the Clean list; or you can grow your own.

I used to have apple trees.  I had the most delicious tasting Jonathons you could ever find anywhere on earth.  We never sprayed our trees.  My husband found that when he gets “chemicals” on his skin, he immediately gets a really weird, nasty taste in his mouth.  So we opted out of the whole chemical-pesticide-fungicide thing.  I can tell you that a lot, and I mean A LOT of our apples had worm holes in them.  (The usual telltale sign is some brown “coffee grounds”-looking material around the blossom-end of the fruit.)  It was more work when I prepared the apples for pies and applesauce, and a lot of the apples just had to be discarded.  It was never a good experience to bite into one of them and find half a worm.. LOL- much worse than finding a whole worm, but I digress….  In looking into how to tend apple trees without using pesticides I found a huge list of problems that can affect apples.  The western part of the country produces more organic apples than the Eastern and Midwestern states.  Why?  Because of the drier conditions and sandier soil in the western apple producing states, there are far fewer pests.  So the growers in the other regions with the wetter and more humid environments have a lot more to contend with, and therefore a lot more work to produce an organic product!  If you would like to look into growing your own and going pesticide free, you could check out this growing organic apples website.  Good luck with that.  I’ll probably just keep buying organic or risk finding “half a worm” in my fruit. :)

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Holy Cow! Hormones in our milk! Part 2

By the manufacturer's own admission (information printed on the product insert), use of Posilac results in increased risk for cows to develop clinical mastitis (or visibly abnormal milk); and increased risk of sub-clinical (invisibly abnormal milk).  It should be noted here that there are a number of other conditions related to Posilac listed on the label but since those are related to bovine health and not human I haven’t included them here.  Now mind you these risks-- they’re just what Monsanto ‘fesses up to- it’s not everything we need to worry about.  Supposedly our bodies do not have receptors for bovine hormones. (or just no receptors for non-synthetic ones?)  How does one then explain away fairly recent events in China?  In 2010 there was a furor because some baby girls fed on infant formula were developing enlarged breast tissue.  Worse yet in the 1980s in Puerto Rico there were multiple cases of precocious puberty in little girls.  Baby girls under one year old, not yet even walking, were developing enlarged breast tissue.  Girls as young as three developed pubic hair and had vaginal bleeding, and four year-old girls had fully developed breasts.  Boys were also affected and some had to resort to surgery for cosmetic reasons.  The situation was traced to the use of hormones in dairy cows.  Proof?  When the children were taken off dairy milk the symptoms regressed in most cases.  Check it out here. So these events are not related to synthetic hormones?  What then is the explanation?  It hasn’t happened here… yet, and hopefully it won't!  Not to worry then???  When the greater part of the developed world (Canada, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) refuses to use rBGH in milk production, and refuses to buy our dairy products (and meat) because they say not enough research has been done, then I'd say they realize something big agribusiness and our FDA doesn't want us to know.  Land of the Free?  When it comes to our food supply, I'm not so sure.    

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Holy Cow! Hormones in our milk! Part 1

We’ve heard about hormones in our milk supply.  Aren’t hormones natural? What’s the big deal?  Yes, hormones are naturally found in milk.  The naturally occurring hormone found in cow’s milk is BGH (bovine growth hormone).  The body of the cow naturally produces it so that her calf will grow, therefore it is secreted into her milk. Supposedly this is not a problem for people because it is a bovine hormone to which our bodies do not react.  The hormone that scientists, doctors and concerned consumers are troubled by is rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) which is a synthetic form of the growth hormone injected into cows to increase growth rates and milk production.  Other names for this synthetic hormone include rBST (bovine somatotropin) and Posilac, Monsanto's brandname for the synthetic stuff.  The motivation to use it?  Increased profits- a cow can produce from 10 to 25% more milk when injected with rBGH.  I have nothing against someone wanting to increase their profits, but it poses a big problem for me when it comes at the expense of public health.  Initially four companies made the synthetic hormone, today the field is vacated but for Elanco Animal Health, owned by Eli Lilly.  Monsanto sold Posilac to Lilly in August of 2008 for $300 million saying it wanted to devote more of its resources to development of its genetically engineered seed (to the great disadvantage of all of us.)  Don’t worry about Monsanto though- Lilly will give them a cut of further action and also will assume payment of royalties to the University of California… hmmm?   So if BGH doesn’t pose a risk to our health, why would rBGH?  Because it is not the same as the naturally occurring hormone!  It is a manufactured substance made in a laboratory, injected into animals, and no real studies have been done on its long-term effects on people.   Part 2 will appear tomorrow.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Some final thoughts on Soy

Soy- the Japanese thrive on their soy.  On the whole they appear a pretty healthy lot.  I've learned they process their soy in a beneficial way, a process they have been using for thousands of years.  I've learned that the way we process ours is completely different with the net effect that it is NOT good for our health. Then genetically modified soy comes upon the scene and changes the picture even more.  GM soy hasn't been adequately tested. The FDA has approved it for consumption seemingly without much information.  While they hold up the dissemination of new drugs for long periods of time while lengthy testing is done (and these drugs will be taken by far fewer people than the population that will ingest soy in its so many, many forms), genetically modified foods are given a comparatively quick greenlight.  When the scientific community is exhorting caution and saying that more studies are needed, Monsanto effectively says "prove it's not good for you," but doesn't make its seed available for testing.  The Biotech industry can destroy the career of scientists whose findings displease them, like Dr. Arpad Pusztai, who stated on British TV that he wouldn't eat genetically modified foods.  You can check it out at  http://www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm .  You make up your mind on whether you want to eat these foods.  I've already made up mine.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

A Link between Genetically Engineered Crops and Animal Infertility

In the early months of 2011 news stories started circulating about a letter sent by Professor Emeritus Don Huber, a research scientist at Purdue University, to Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture.  Dr. Huber states that at this time his research is incomplete but that there appears to be a link between infertility in farm animals who ingest genetically modified foods- chicken embryos infected with a certain organism are destroyed in 24 - 48 hours of coming into contact with it; 20 - 55% of heifers are miscarrying; and that these genetically modified plants do not carry the nutrients they should be carrying. The following is a link to ABC news, an Australian news source.  (guess that's why they call it "Perdue" University!)  You can read the text of the article at this link and also click on the audio portions of the story. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2011/s3245624.htm Six of Huber's former colleagues at Purdue have stated they have problems with his findings while an equal number are standing by him.  It should be noted that the scientific community has deep concerns where genetically altered food is concerned.  Eight hundred twenty-eight scientists representing eighty-four countries have signed an open letter expressing grave concerns with GM food  http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d5fd9b8d65f4976%2C0
Perhaps Monsanto needs to rescind the agreement they make farmers sign- that they cannot give so much as a handful of seed to a lab to conduct tests.  With openness and transparency, testing could be done.  I just keep wondering why they don't want that testing done.  It would remove all the questions and the concerns, or would it reveal that a terrible mistake has been made and we've all been fed potentially dangerous food?

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Avoiding Soy

I don't think soy is good for my health, nor that of my family.  We must each make his/her own decisions.  If you choose to avoid soy, you need to know some of the names it masquerades under.  Should you see these ingredients in the foods you are about to purchase, well caveat emptor.  Some of the approved FDA names for soy are vegetable protein; soy protein isolate; soy flour; protein concentrate; textured vegetable protein; vegetable oil; and plant sterols.  GM soy is also fed to cattle on those huge feed lots, the CAFOs that I talked about in my blog called Antibiotics in our Meat.  What can we do about the presence of these harmful "foods"?  Buy as little processed food as your schedule and your lifestyle allow you.  I know for so many people the purchase of prepared foods is a lifesaver because they're balancing work, home, and family... it's just a great timesaver.  Let your friends and neighbors know about what's going on with our food supply.  Get the word out.  Contact your representatives in Washington and let them know how you feel.  Ultimately the best way to change things is to REFUSE TO BUY THE PRODUCTS. You can download a 16 page booklet from several sites, one of which is Dr. Mercola's site.  Sixteen pages- that's a lot of printing!  You can also purchase 25 of the booklets for $8 on his site.  Whole Foods has stores where organic products can be purchased.  Grow a garden (true, in most parts of this country gardens don't grow most of the year due to the climate).  Hydroponics might be an option for people with larger properties.  Heirloom seeds (seeds which have NOT been genetically engineered) are available for purchase online and in some stores.  Remember that greed motivates this invasion of our food supply with GMOs.  When they stop making money, they'll change.  That's the bottom line.  To stop buying their products is the best way to effect change.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

More about the dangers of soy

Yeah, soy's all around us, unhealthy as it is, and it'll be here to stay as long as we continue to eat it and not complain.  Al Sears, MD, in his June 1, 2011 health letter http://www.alsearsmd.com/frankenstein-lurking-in-your-pantry enumerates five dangers of soy as listed here: indigestion and blockage of absorption of key nutrients; boost of estrogen; gout and thyroid disruption; cancer and harmful fats; and clotting of Red Blood Cells.  Phil Angell, director of corporate communications for Monsanto, is quoted as saying that food safety is the concern of the government (FDA) and that Monsanto's business is selling as much of its product as it can (I'm referring to genetically modified soy here).  While Michael Taylor, food safety czar at the FDA, would like to see the onus of food safety taken off the federal government and placed on the backs of state and local government. http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-08-monsanto-FDA-taylor I don't know about where you live, but where I live funds in state and local government coffers are pretty much at an all time low.  Guess that would result in little or no testing? more food borne illness, more disease and a field day for the GREEDY?

Monday, June 20, 2011

Genetically Altered Soy

Soy, that ubiquitous legume that's touted as being wonderful and so healthy for us.  Look out into the fields as you drive country roads.  Chances are you'll see corn and soybeans- bet they're GMOs- genetically altered organisms.  It is estimated that 93% of US grown soy is GMO.  Soy is touted as a nutritious food and it's being added to our food supply in so many myriad ways- it's being put in 60 to 70% of all processed foods.  Let's look at the claim that it's a healthy addition to the diet.  Al Sears, MD in a June 1, 2011 newsletter Al Sears, MD June 1, 2011 newsletter points out that researchers have found that GMO foods are linked to infertility, weakened immune systems, accelerated aging, genetic problems with cholesterol and insulin production, and liver, kidney and gastro-intestinal systems diseases.  Apparently these studies follow people who consume genetically altered foods.  Monsanto doesn't allow scientific testing on its seed.  To conduct tests a lab must have access to the seed, but to get the seed they must sign an "end-user agreement" which forbids testing of the seed or comparison with other products!!! Not exactly convinced of the safety of their products, I'd guess. Now look at the USDA and the Secretary of Ag himself, the guy responsible for the agency and its decisions.  His name is Tom Vilsack.  He's a politician who was the governor of Iowa for two terms.  One of the first things he did as governor was to back Trans Ova a company which wanted to clone cows.  He is a supporter of corn- and soy-based biofuels, an industry that reportedly uses as much or more fossil energy in the production of the biofuels than is produced.  Net effect, biofuel production jacks up food prices resulting in heftier pricetags for all and hungry poor folks being priced out of the market.  In 2005 as Iowa governor he vetoed legislation that would have allowed local government a say on regulating where genetically altered seed could be sown, being banned altogether, and the option of designating buffer zones.  He was named Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.  Tom's a shill for Monsanto and now he's top dog at the USDA. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ag-Secretary-Announced-To-by-Jill-Hamilton-and-081216-596.html Hey- but we've got the FDA in our corner- they're lookin' out for us right? Wrong! Check out my blog on Antibiotics in our meat.  Since 1977 the FDA hasn't budged an inch in the direction of food safety in our meat supply coming out of CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations- those gigantic feedlots covering thousands of acres).  The FDA allows harmful antibiotics in our meat.  Michael Taylor was appointed Deputy Commissioner of Foods at the FDA in 2010.  We've got yet another fox guarding the henhouse.  Taylor has been rotating positions between Monsanto and the USDA, Monsanto and the FDA- back and forth.  Isn't that a conflict of interest?  Wouldn't a judge, for instance, be expected to recuse her/himself in a situation like this?  (Is it a question of integrity?)  Where is his allegiance?  Apparently not with the American consumer.  Next time, more on soy and how to avoid it.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Unhealthy soy


Wow, now I learn of another “healthy” food that isn’t so healthy after all.  Soy- it’s a big cash crop.  It’s being forced down our unknowing throats in so many forms… starting with infant formula, to the unhealthy oil our fast food and snacks are fried in, to veggie burgers- we’re ingesting tons of it, quite literally.  It’s good for us, right?  NO!  No way!  I’ve read various sources over a period of time which state that it’s bad for men because one of its components is similar to estrogen and men are not at their optimal when they are ingesting estrogen… they don’t feel well and it’s not healthy for them.  And “they” are putting it in our food without our knowledge.  The Japanese are known as very healthy people usually and they eat soy… tempeh, tofu, soy sauce.  What about that?  The Japanese and the Chinese FERMENT their soy products; they do not eat the form of soy being shoved down our throats.  Their soy products are not produced in massive industrial plants; their soy products are produced the age-old and proven way.  Now if all this soy weren’t bad enough, Monsanto sticks their dirty hands in the mix and comes up with an even worse form of soy- Genetically Modified Soy, FrankenSoy (that’s not the product’s name but it should be.)  Monsanto, whose genius lies in taking a healthy food and turning it into something that’s not (because they can make tons of money at it… and sure do) have genetically altered soy so that it’s even worse for our health.  So now we have a legume processed in such a way that it is unhealthy, and  is genetically mutated in such a way that we don’t even know all the foul effects it has on our health, but hey, they’re making good money at it, at our expense, and GREED wins the day.   More on genetically altered soy later.     

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Basa fish

And speaking of protein on my table, a couple of weeks ago I bought some fish at the grocery store- a type of fish I had never eaten before but the clerk at the market said it was a very mild tasting fish and it was on sale, too.  We had our basa fish that evening and it was mild tasting, boneless, and good.  I really wanted to know how many points it counted for (we were on Weight Watchers) and so I decided to check it out on the computer.  I was kind of surprised when I clicked on a video report made for French TV and it stated that the basa is raised in the most polluted river on the planet, the Mekong.  It showed the female fish being injected with urine containing HCG (human chorionic gonadotropin).   Yikes!  Australian TV did a newscast on the basa too called Murky Mekong Fish .  I have not bought basa since and do not intend to until I know that it is safe!

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Antibiotics in our meat

The suit filed on May 25, 2011, names the FDA; Margaret Hamburg, the Commissioner of the FDA; the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and its director, Bernadette Dunham; the United States Dept of Health and Human Services; and Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  The suit is calling on the FDA to fulfill its mission- as well as the other agencies and their leadership- to protect the public and to put an end to the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics.  A non-therapeutic dose is one that is too low to treat disease but high enough to promote resistance to the drug.  The result of drugging the animals is bigger and stronger bacteria; the subsequent impotence of those drugs; and the scourge of the resulting "superbugs."  Health care providers dispense these antibiotics to their human patients much more judiciously today so as to not compromise them, yet the CAFO's (confined animal feeding operations) who are not being regulated are adding penicillin and tetracyclines and other drugs to the feed of healthy cattle, pigs, and poultry destined for our tables, and it turns out NO ONE is regulating them!  The FDA is sitting on reports they've compiled and held ever since 1977 (their own research) that directly relate this antibiotic use in animals to increased risk in human populations.  And that's just the problem... they're sitting on it.  They haven't implemented anything.  They haven't regulated.  Ah but they've requested the industry to regulate themselves.  Imagine that!  The people who are supposed to protect our health are ASKING the industry endangering our health to play nice.  The farm industry doesn't see anything wrong with the way things are and they refuse to not only to stop the practice but even to divulge much information about what's going on.  I think it's called flying under the radar.  In 2008 Congress mandated the release of drug sale figures in animal agriculture but the meat and poultry industries and the drug makers responded that the public health would not be served were they to do so, and that animal health and food safety would compromised.  WHAT??  Isn't it the other way around?  It is estimated that between 70 and 80% of antibiotics used in this country are used for animals!  And it's not Fido and Fluffy who are ingesting all this... it's the feed lot animals that wind up on our tables.  The UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) estimates that livestock get 24.6 million pounds of antibiotics per year.  But who really knows?  The FDA doesn't keep track because the industry won't give them the figures and the FDA just backs off.   This whole situation is all wrong.  Who's protecting the public health?  Whose job is it to protect the public health?  What is the purpose of the FDA?  Why are our tax dollars being spent on agencies and federal employees who have forgotten what their mission is?  This really aggravates me.  Our representation in Washington is obviously powerless to do anything, or they're not concerned.  Which is it?

Saturday, June 4, 2011

The FDA and antibiotics in our food

I was perusing the editorial page of The New York Times Friday, June 3rd, when I happened upon a piece regarding the use of antibiotics in feed lot animals, those animals which are destined for our tables.  I'm familiar with the subject.. aren't we all?.. of us getting antibiotics in our food, like it or not, and about disease and infections which are now antibiotic resistant because of this indiscriminate use of these drugs.  What really turned my head is that somebody is trying to do something about it... in the COURTS! by bringing suit against the Food & Drug Administration - the federal agency brought about to protect us.  Apparently they haven't been.  A group of advocacy agencies have brought this suit.  According to the brief filed on May 25, 2011, the FDA has been aware and in the possession of material showing that this practice is unhealthy, but has not yet put a stop to it.  They have had these reports since the 70's- as in about 30 to 40 years ago.  Gee, how many presidents- how many congresses- since the 70's?  Apparently no one political party can claim the full blame.  It isn't- nor should it be- a political issue.  The only politics involved should be the politics of getting to the right people to do the right thing.  Since both parties claim to be the guardian of honesty and integrity it should be a slam dunk.  Right?  It will be a slam dunk if we can muster grass-root support across a wide and I mean  W  I  D  E  swath of this country.  It can't be limited to only people who eat meat.  Vegetarians aren't safe either because disease and bacteria don't play favorites- they can lay anyone low.  I just read that 38 people die per a day across our country from infections which have not responded to treatment.  The cost alone runs in the billions, and the cost of losing someone you love?.... no price tag there!  I'll be posting more information soon.  In the meantime let's think about changing the status quo.