Sunday, May 13, 2007

Fish oil makes children brighter

South African researchers found that daily doses of fish oil, rich in omega-3’s improved learning and memory of primary schoolchildren. Another study in Thailand showed that primary school children given omega-3’s had reduced severity and duration of common illnesses. Weekend Edition, Sydney Morning Herald, July 29-30, 2006. Very interesting confirmation, yet again, that we must have comprehensive nutrition for good health. Children today need extra nutrition to develop their brains and immune systems. Fast foods are loaded with saturated or junk fats and little Johnny wines to Mom that he doesn’t like taking gel caps or a tablespoon of cod-liver oil so Mom gives in and Johnny gets ADHD and leaning disabilities. Of course then we can put him on Ritalin or whatever the latest legal speed might be. The good oils are needed to support the immune system, make new cells and especially to grow brain cells. Be sure you use a good fish oil certified free of mercury and dioxin. I use Carlson’s, Nordic Naturals and Metagenics. There are others as well, but, I don’t recommend using the cut rate products at discount stores unless it is certified mercury and dioxin free. Get my DVD Real Medicine, Real Health for more on ADHD and children's health.

Beyond Organix

USDA and UK Ministry of Agriculture statistics show that food grown today has from 30 to 70 percent less nutritional value than the same foods grown 50 years ago. Eating all the right foods today still leaves us short of needed nutrition. Yes, we can and should supplement to help make up the shortfall, but the best way the get truly health-giving nutrition is via our food. Nutrients are assimilated better and give us better health if contained in the food in biologically complexed forms.

We would like to believe that "Certified Organic" delivers us better and more comprehensive nutrition. It may in about 20 percent of the cases and certainly "organic" promises a lower pesticide residue of modern pesticides. But "Certified Organic" is a procedural program,not an outcome program. Yes, there are some examples where "organic" products are nutritionally better than conventionally grown (Influence of organic diet on the amount of conjugated linoleic acids in breast milk of lactating women in the Netherlands, Rust L, Mueller A, et al, Research Department, Paracelsus Hospital Richterswil, Bergstrasse 16, CH-8805 Richterswil, Switzerland.)

Outcome is really what counts and the outcome of importance in food is nutrient density and taste. This means actual levels of all the nutrients necessary for human and animal health. With higher nutrient levels, foods taste better, look better, store better, ship better and are proven better for us. To this end after years of work we have formed an independent certification organization called BYO, Beyond Organix in Fresno, California with partners Stan Kadota, Mark and Ted Nakata. The BYO Seal of Quality will not be a replacement for "Certified Organic" or any other label. It is a stamp of documented provable nutritional value of the food, a Seal anyone can get added to their label if their food meets the standard. Keep in mind, as the nutrient value of the food increases, by default we automatically address the pesticide residue issue, the environmental issues, green house gas issue, sustainability of family farms and fair trade issues.

We first will start with brix. The brix is a measurement of dissolved solids and sugars measured with a refractometer. The higher the brix reading the sweeter will be the product. Once a minimum brix is achieved, the produce qualifies for specific nutrient testing. Our initial standards will be 1940 USDA nutrient levels. Once achieved, the food commodity will get the BYO Seal of Quality added to its label.

Initially, BYO fresh foods will only be available in selected small store chains because we only have a very limited supply of such superior quality product and the small store chains cater to the more discerning shoppers starting in Northern California and NW US/Canada. Our intent is to take BYO internationally beginning in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Japan and UK. We are also working on a similar program for dairy and beef. No genetically engineered products will be allowed.

It is a certification whose time has come. Consumers vote daily with their food dollars and the votes say "give me better quality food." BYO's website will be up soon.

Food Safety

It is interesting how many articles there are regarding our food quality problems yet people, particularly doctors, drug and chemical weapons (pesticides) manufacturers, contend that everything is fine, safe and healthful, never better. The following are a few headlines on the

* Illegal pesticide levels found in 2 percent of UK foods. The article states that 36.4% of all food samples tested contained pesticide residues, though below government determined maximum allowable levels.

* Bread consumption linked to cancer. A very interesting overview of the article published in the International Journal of Cancer found that the bread group had 94% higher risk of developing kidney cancer than the limited bread consumption group. Further, pasta and rice eaters also had a higher risk of cancer. The article did comment that this was a study with “white” bread, pasta and rice; further commenting that perhaps there would not be such a trend had the people eaten whole meal or whole grain products. Further, the varieties of these grains eaten today are different than the varieties people at 100 years ago. We need to get back to the heritage varieties of grains as well as fruits and vegetables for best health.

* UK survey detects Listeria in mixed raw veg salads. Just another example of the problems with chemical agriculture; poor soil/plant nutrition breeds pathogens, suppresses benefical probiotics in the soil and on the crops. It is pretty simple and basic biology; just get the science back into farming and these issues will be corrected by default. These pathogen outbreaks rekindle the call for food irridation amongst other adulterations of our food so these "foods" can be shipped around the world. It is really just an excuse to produce dirty food, avoid good nutrition on the farm and continue to perpetuate the sale of poor quality food to the public. Get the nutrition into the food as is should be and all these problems fade away. It is that straight forward. Read how in my book "Science In Agriculture" or attend one of my seminars.

The Cholesterol Hoax

NutriNews, October 2006, by Douglas Laboratories had a very interesting summary of the various cholesterol studies done around the world. I find this to be very timely considering the latest drug company induced physician recommendation to lower LDL cholesterol to 70 or less. It is a excellent business plan for the drug companies to sell more drugs. Of course they never tell you the problems encountered as a result of the lowered cholesterol regarding memory, immune system compromise, free radical control and mental health issues. Further, it is a well know fact that Statin drugs reduce CoQ10 levels in the body and anyone taking such drugs should be on CoQ10 supplementation. Few doctors know what CoQ10 is let alone prescribe it for supplementation. The following are bits of information conveniently left out of these various studies when they were reported to the public.
• Honolulu Heart Program (2001)
– Increased mortality in elderly with low serum cholesterol
• ALLHAT (2002, Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial)
– Mortality of treatment group and controls after 3 or 6 years was identical
• MIRACL (2001) High dose Lipitor
– No change in death rate and no significant change in re-infarction rate or need for resuscitation from cardiac arrest between test and control subjects
• Heart Protection Study (2002) Harvard
– Mortality rates between drugged and control subjects, only 1.7% difference
• PROSPER (2002, Prospective Study of Provastatin in the Elderly at Risk)
– Total mortality no difference
– Treatment group had increased cancer
• J-LIT (2002, Japanese Lipid Intervention Trial)
– No correlation between LDL lowering and death at 5 years
• Meta-Analysis (2003) 44 trials, 10,000 patients
– Death rate was identical between drugged and controls
– 45% of control, 65% of drugged group had adverse event
• Statins and Plaque (2003)
– No statistical difference in progresion of arterial calcified plaque
• Statins and Women (2003)
– Statins offer no benefit to women for prevention of heart disease
• ASCOT-LLA (2003, Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial – Lipid Lowering Arm)
– Total mortality was not significantly reduced
– Women were fared worse with treatment
• Statins and Plaque (2003)
– No statistical difference in progresion of arterial calcified plaque
• Statins and Women (2003)
– Statins offer no benefit to women for prevention of heart disease
• ASCOT-LLA (2003, Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial – Lipid Lowering Arm)
– Total mortality was not significantly reduced
– Women were fared worse with treatment

If we truly have to lower a person's cholesterol, red rice yeast is a good natural alternative along with plant sterols and good liver support with milk thistle and Metagenics Ultra Clear Plus. To lower triglycerides one might consider lowering carbs in the diet. I often will use the Metagenics Ultra Meal program or Ultra GlycemX program. I also suggest supporting the body with adequate antioxidants expecially the fat soluble vitamins A, D, K, E along with C and fish oils and/or flax oil.

Remember, having a metabolic imbalance is not the same as saying you have a "drug deficiency."

Health, Happiness and Nutrition with a little environmental consciousness

Want to be healthier, stronger, sexier, smarter, live longer, better and maintain youthfulness? Eat better and get the nutrition that the body and mind need to achieve these goals. Sounds straight forward, but, the execution can be daunting, nearly impossible in today’s world. Get my book, Real Medicine, Real Health or my 2 hour DVD and learn about your options for better health. The standard allopathic or conventional medical model, largely responsible for the “food pyramid” of today and 20 years ago that perpetuated obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, would like the consumer to believe that nutrition, though a component of life, is more rhetoric than substance when it comes to really addressing disease, longevity, human performance and of course “science.” But of course, cancer treatment in the US alone is a $78 Billion per year business; diabetes $132 Billion (2002) per year; cardiovascular disease nearly $300 Billion. Drugs and surgery make up the lion’s share of these costs. Business necessitates that nutrition cannot become recognized as the most important correction and prevention of these problems. It is not a conspiracy, just a business model to maximize corporate profits so stock holders realize positive returns on their investment portfolios.

* Nutrition is King, Queen, Prince and Princess.

The truth is that the scientific literature is replete with studies directly linking nutrition to the solutions to these problems; from mere dietary modifications to targeted nutritional supplementation. Further, studies have shown that nutrition of the mother determines genetic expression in the offspring for several generations. It is the nutrition, the building blocks of every cell, tissue, organ, system and body of our being, which determines health, disease, performance and everything in between; not the genes themselves per se as the genetic engineers and patent attorneys wish us all to believe. Changing the genes only skirts the underlying defect, nutrition, which eventually will manifest until the nutrition is corrected.

Discussing nutrition does not elicit nearly the sparkling dollar signs in one’s eyes nor the “coooooooool” response from the fan base as do “magic bullets” and “high tech miracle cures.” With every passing decade of “high tech” solutions, we are visited with more severe disease (AIDS, Mad Cow, Ebola, West Nile, cancer, heart disease, and obesity), unexplainable curses (fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, bee colony decline) and higher medical costs.

Despite all the fanfare, “research” dollars, and promise guarantees from penicillin and DDT to Fen Fen and Methyl bromide, not one agriculture or food problem has been solved by “high tech” means. Oh certainly farmers produce more volume, but more volume of nutrient depleted, pesticide tainted, genetically scrambled crops further perpetuate, actually initiate the problems of health and environment.

In spite of the best that Western technology has to offer, farmers around the world are still experiencing profitability problems; poor tasting fruits and vegetables, unacceptable aesthetics and shelf life deficiencies; environmental pollution problems; resistant weeds, diseases and insect pests; soil compaction, erosion and salinization. Whether it be a problem in New Zealand regarding kiwifruit and avocado quality or nitrogen pollution of their lakes and streams or in Australia regarding carrots, grain and pasture, or in South Africa regarding table grapes, maize (corn) and AIDS or in the US regarding any and every crop or animal enterprise you can name, nutrition is the key issue for success.

* Nutrition trumps “high tech” and GMO every time.

Unfortunately, nutrition is largely neglected everywhere. If questioned, professionals in every country contend that nutrition is and has been already adequately addressed. In their minds and rhetoric, disease, weeds, insect pests, food quality and profitability, shelf life and aesthetics are all issues of genetics or the wrath of God and therefore the solutions to these issues are limited to genetic engineering technology and/or chemical weapon technology. Nutrition is not profitable nor patentable so it has no basis in scientific research in this model.

• The reality is that truth is every simple, falsity ever complex. Genetic engineering of foods is ever complex and very unsuitable for human and animal consumption according to several animal and human studies. 15/03/2007 FoodQualityNews - The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has revealed that it will review the new data presented by French scientists that revealed toxicity concerns in rats fed the MON863 variety of GM maize from Monsanto. By Stephen Daniells

The new data, from a 90-day rat study and published in the peer-review journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, indicated liver and kidney toxicity in the rats, as well as differences in weight gain between the sexes as a result of eating the transgenic maize.

This is neither the only nor the most condemning animal study showing toxicity of genetically engineered foods. As far back as 1988 via the l-tryptophan problem in human supplements that led to FDA’s banning of all l-tryptophan supplements, we knew that GE “foods” were not foods at all; rather they are toxic, foreign substances being fronted as foods. The only people having problems with the l-tryptophan were those that took genetically engineered l-tryptophan, more correctly the l-tryptophan produced by genetically engineered bacteria.

* We simply do not NEED genetically engineered crops.

Anyone with a cursory understanding of immunology understands that genetically engineered will never be foods nor accepted by our bodies. The proteins formed by these freak foods are foreign substances, never seen by our immune systems since humankind set foot on this planet. These freak proteins are seen by our immune system as foreign and addressed as such; thus, the immune inflammatory reaction seen in every human and animal study if taken to completion. This inflammatory reaction results in a number of bad consequences from allergies to organ aberration to early death as shown in the Russian mouse study. Of course the industry, having Billions of dollars at stake, the politicians having millions in campaign contributions at stake, do everything possible to discount, even discredit any contrary information.

Regardless of the mass media blitz to promote the GE falsity, the grassroots movement of consumers vote daily with their hard earned dollars, yen and euros against GE foods and chemically coated foods. The grassroots movement of the consumers in every purchasing country continues to swell unimpeded, undaunted by the chemical weapons industry. People are voting for real food, clean food, pure food, healthful food.

As emotional and heated as this argument has become, it is important to understand that the GE industry wants to keep the discussion regarding genetically engineered “foods” in the “philosophical” arena because it knows it cannot win a scientific argument. The real discussion that must be undertaken and shared with the masses is the question of whether such technology is even needed in the first place. Technology simply for the sake of monopolizing profit for a select few is certainly not reason enough to perpetuate the technology.

Consider for a moment that most genetically engineered crops are designed to either produce a poison to kill insects or tolerate a favored herbicide. Of course this perpetuates guaranteed sales of seeds along with their accompanying royalties; herbicides tied to the seed varieties and nitrogen fertilizers because nitrogen is the mainstay of conventional agriculture.

It is important to understand as a consumer that the very reason we have the insect pests attacking agricultural crops in the first place is because of conventional farming practices especially the abuse of nitrogen. Further, the reason for weed problems in crops is the same, conventional farming practices. Conventional agriculture deliberately neglects looking at the underlying causes of these problems because the solutions are rooted in nutrition, not in the continued sales of chemical weapons.

Apply appropriate nutritional management to the soil and we don’t have the insect nor weed problems and; therefore, we don’t need the genetically engineered crops with built-in poisons to kill the insects or the tolerant crops for more herbicide applications.

Contrary to the rhetoric of the perpetrators of this business model, we would more than feed the world with an abundance of food; more importantly, this food would be highly mineralized and actually contribute health rather than depriving us of health. USDA data is very clear; nutritional values of foods produced today by conventional agriculture are 30 to 70 percent lower that in the 1940’s.

People want to talk technology, how about appropriate technology. We have the technology today needed to solve all the agricultural problems of insects, disease, and weeds plus yields, quality, storability, shipping quality and most importantly nutritional value. You need not be impressed with the genetically engineered crops with higher lycopene or omega-3’s or vitamin A. These come naturally when appropriate nutritional management is followed in the field.

When food is grown the way it should be grown, by default, we also solve the environmental issues of greenhouse gases, erosion, pollution and sustainability. Appropriate farming technology sequesters carbon in the soil as humus thus holding the soil together so it doesn’t erode. Appropriate agriculture technology doesn’t use toxic chemicals; rather it actually detoxifies them in the soil via the appropriate microbiology. Truly appropriate agricultural technology is a win-win technology for us and the environment.

* Appropriate agricultural technology addresses both nutritional and environmental problems.

This is why I have partnered with others to form BYO, Beyond Organix to establish a real food quality standard based upon brix and nutrient value (real food value) of the food. This will be an international standard for certification not to replace anyone’s label; rather, as a quality seal of substance regarding actual nutritional value of the food. When the nutrient value is up where it is supposed to be then the taste is superior to anything you have eaten, the shipability and shelf life are superior and the value both to the grower and the consumer are at parity. ONLY with nutrient dense food with we tackle the ills of our society, prevent the “plagues” of the future, and truly solve the issues of environment and climatic change.

I urge you to continue to vote daily with your dollars, yen, euros, etc. for regardless of what happens in November at the ballot box, your dollar votes at the grocery store carry farm more weight and drive the message further home.

The following are just a few excerpts from and their weekly literature abstracts linking nutrition to health and wellness or disease and sickness.

* "Nutrients that affect inflammation, vitamin D activity, oxidative DNA damage, or DNA methylation may be associated with risk of NHL." (Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma)

* …results of both epidemiological studies and randomized dietary trials suggest that adherence to a Mediterranean diet may play a significant role in preventing CHD. Results of the Lyon Diet Heart Study involving patients with CHD found a 50-70% reduction in the risk of recurrence after 4 years of follow up associated with a Mediterranean diet rich in ALA

* …higher adherence to the Mediterranean Diet is associated with a reduced risk for AD.

* regular intake of vegetables - particularly root vegetables and green leafy vegetables - may reduce the risk of gastric cancer in both men and women.
individuals with a history of elevated lead exposure may be able to reduce their risk of lead-associated hypertension by increasing dietary calcium intake."

* higher intake of cola is associated with lower BMD in older women.

* supplementation with selenium may have a potential role to play in the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

* supplementation with 200 mg/d coenzyme Q10 for a period of 4 weeks was found to be associated with significant improvements in cardiocirculatory efficiency.

* "Dietary patterns that reflect a Western way of life [high in fats, animal products, and snacks, and low in fruits and vegetables] are associated with a higher risk of colorectal tumors."

* dietary patterns associated with a Western way of life are associated with an increased risk of colorectal tumors.