06 March 2012

Tips for the Careful Food Shopper

Confused over what to buy to eat healthy? Here is a nifty little guide that may help to cut through the confusion. Here are two lists: the first is the 'dirty dozen' that are likely to have the highest amount of chemical pesticides, etc that must be bought 'organic'. The other list is of the 'cleanest 15' that are typically lower in chemicals. It's not a perfect solution but it may help.

Executive Summary

Eat your fruits and vegetables! The health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure. Use EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides to reduce your exposures as much as possible, but eating conventionally-grown produce is far better than not eating fruits and vegetables at all. The Shopper's Guide to Pesticide in Produce will help you determine which fruits and vegetables have the most pesticide residues and are the most important to buy organic. You can lower your pesticide intake substantially by avoiding the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables and eating the least contaminated produce.

Commodity crop corn used for animal feed and biofuels is almost all produced with genetically modified (GMO) seeds, as is some sweet corn sold for human consumption. Since GMO sweet corn is not labeled as such in US stores, EWG advises those who have concerns about GMOs to buy organic sweet corn.

^ back to top

EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce

Dirty Dozen

Buy these organic

Apples

Celery

Strawberries

Peaches

Spinach

Nectarines
– imported

Grapes – imported

Sweet bell peppers

Potatoes

Blueberries
– domestic

Lettuce

Kale/collard greens

Clean 15

Lowest in Pesticide

Onions

Sweet Corn

Pineapples

Avocado

Asparagus

Sweet peas

Mangoes

Eggplant

Cantaloupe
- domestic

Kiwi

Cabbage

Watermelon

Sweet potatoes

Grapefruit

Mushrooms

^ back to top

Raw Milk War Rages

Anybody who thinks that the right to good food is guaranteed has not been paying attention. There is a war raging over the issue. On one side are ordinary folks who think that somehow they have a right to eat the good wholesome food of their choice such as raw unprocessed milk. Ranged against them with the full backing of government police power are those who are determined that whole natural foods be driven out of existence and replaced with a debased food that is privately owned and patented by corporations like Monsanto.

SWAT teams have been used to raid raw milk producers and sellers, in addition to widespread suppression of the ability of Americans to access raw milk across state lines as though somehow it is a crime to want to consume wholesome food. Well maybe in this society at this time it is a crime, but Martin Luther King was clear when he said that there is no obligation to obey an unjust law. Under the Constitution of the United States it is the people who are responsible for -not just judging the guilt or innocence of their peers through juries- but judging the law itself!

Raw Milk Wars Continue in California with Arrest of Rawsome Foods Owner

$1 million dollar bail set

NaturalSociety
March 5, 2012

milksplashglass 220x137 No Justice Allowed? Raw Milk Provider Held on $1 Million Bail

James Stewart, owner of Rawsome Foods of Los Angeles, was arrested on Friday March 2, 2012 by the Clara Shortridge Foltz LA County Superior Court. His bail is set at $1 million and he was still in custody on Sunday. When contacted by phone, a Sheriff’s Department representative said that Stewart was charged with grand theft.

It is unknown at this time whether this case is related to Mr. Stewart’s raw milk enterprise and why his bail has been set so high.

James Stewart has faced legal challenges before. Rawsome Foods was raided by armed food police on 2 prior occasions on June 30, 2010 and again August 3, 2011 for selling raw milk to the public without proper permits. Raw milk is legal in California. Watch this video of the first raid where you can see that officers have drawn their weapons:

Rawsome’s private members-only food club gave members an ownership interest in the farm.

According to the Rawsome members’ contract, the food sold there excluded chemical contaminants like industrial pesticides, fertilizers and cleansers. The members’ contract clearly spells out that the natural foods they were selling could contain salmonella, e. coli, parasites, etc. Some people prefer the risk of eating natural foods over chemically processed foods. It is the right of the individual to choose what they put in their body.

05 March 2012

California Vaccine Wars

[Reprinted with the permission of Dr. Tim O'Shea, DC, from The Doctor Within newsletter, 3/02/12]

By Dr. Tim O' Shea, DC

Didn't take much of a fortune teller to predict the attack on the philosophical vaccine exemption in California, which I did in the April 2011 Newsletter . But it's here, right now in California. A week ago Bill AB2109 was proposed:

"AB2109 was introduced on February 23, 2012 by Assembly Member Richard Pan, a Democrat physician.
"This bill, if passed, would require parents to obtain the signature of a "health care practitioner" for a personal beliefs/religious exemption. MDs, nurse practitioners, and physician's assistants can sign. Naturopaths and chiropractors cannot. The signature will need to be obtained on a separate form provided by the Department of Public Health which states that the health care practitioner has provided risk and benefit information to the parent."

Wow. Do I see a compliment in there, hidden behind the academic insult? They knew better than to include us DCs.

Let's see what actions are taken by any chiropractic organizations for this slight.

Gonna save you a lot of time here, as far as what it all means and what's going to happen. I went through all of this last year with the good people of Washington State and Dawn Winkler, who organized opposition to the exact same bill up there. Read my April 2011 Newsletter for details of that fiasco.

As predicted, Washington was the guinea pig state. Running roughshod over the small amount of opposition, the bill became law in just a few short months. In a flash of "why didn't we think of this before?" since it was a virtually painless shoo-in, several other states have introduced similar bills, chaired by the usual mouthpieces for Big Pharma in their respective states. Campaign coffers runneth over.
If California falls, the rest of the domino states are certain to fall in the next 2 years. Remember - you read it here.

Once the informed minority of California parents who don't vaccinate get over the initial outrage of 'how could they?" and "who do they think they are?", etc., there will be some amount of grassroots petitions outside Whole Foods and facebook lists and emails lists, etc., registering opposition. Which I will certainly be a part of. And it might even get to the physical level of a small group assembling at some point at the committee meeting in Sacramento whose job it will be to ram this bill through.

But if that opposition is defused, deceived, and rudely ignored, the bill will pass.
I will certainly participate in any opposition with every available resource. But I know how this game is played. Wish I didn't.

Such a bill probably will have a much easier time being passed in California than in Washington State. Washington has a much higher percentage of informed parents who don't vaccinate than California, which means a more informed public, and greater likelihood of opposition. But all that is irrelevant.
Grassroots democracy is all but gone in California. Just ask the people of Watsonville how effective their recent referendum against fluoridation was. Or any of a hundred other such stories exemplifying the force of corporate quid pro quo's upon legislative decisions which have significant economic consequences for vested interests. Political outcomes guaranteed by corporate stocking-stuffers...
Think you get the picture here without going all Alex Jones on you. It's as old as Julius Caesar.

Let's remove the word vaccination from the whole discussion for a minute here. Let's pretend this whole issue isn't about vaccines at all, but rather about any other medical procedure. Got that picture?
OK so then tell me, what kind of political system, or medical system anywhere on earth would presume to make it a law for you to obtain permission to opt out of any medical procedure, which decisions are completely your choice in the first place? Permission not to get medicine? See what I'm getting at here?

What’s next - permission not to be euthanized?

The lines begin to blur, as more and more we see government as medicine and medicine as government.

Let us be very clear here. This new law is not about trying to inform parents about the value of vaccines. That's the cover story - the front, the mask they're using. No, it's really about one thing and one thing only: making vaccine exemptions all but impossible in California.

So much for the internal dialogue and connecting the dots. See how much time I saved you? But what does it really mean to the young parent who has just finished Vaccination Is Not Immunization or some other well documented literature, and who has decided that no vaccine will pollute the sacrosanct environment of their newborn's blood?

Now it's going to cost them money and time to make an appointment with a nurse "practitioner," P.A., or MD to get permission to protect their child. The health care practitioners are going to take this opportunity to educate this poor deluded individual, who is so recklessly putting the child at risk, etc. And those with weak resolve will fall back, roll over, go with the flow, and inject the hapless child.

It may well be that the above named 'health care' professionals have no intention of signing anything. If they can't convince the parent to vaccinate, the parent will leave with an unsigned document, having just wasted their time and money. This is already happening in Washington state.

The bill may well be passed in the next few months. To follow the progress of the opposition and learn how to voice your opinion, your best resource is certainly Dawn Winkler’s site: www.hapihealth.org/

So here are some practical suggestions on how to protect your child's emerging immune system from this newest and most invidious of legal/corporate machinations, should it pass:

1. Ask friends for an enlightened MD who signs the original medical exemptions. Rare, but they're out there. These exemptions are still valid. This is real one-stop shopping - end of story.

2. For the philosophical exemption, don't make an appointment with someone where you don't know the outcome. If you do, likely there will be no outcome. Except the needle. They're waiting there with the needle. Which is why DCs or NDs can’t sign.

3. Under no circumstances take the child to the appointment.

4. Be impatient. Don't sit there politely and allow them to spew forth endless mantras. They are insulting you by your very presence. To them you are a reckless idiot, who is now required by law to listen to their uninformed uneducated rambling. Any parent who is ready to sign a vaccine exemption is manifestly more educated than one of these marionettes at the very outset.

5. The information contained in Vaccination Is Not Immunization may be helpful. They will say - oh that was only written by a chiropractor. Irrelevant – it might have been written by a shepherd. All the references in the book are mainstream medical. All the endorsements are from MDs. Even so, don't go into a debate that lasts longer than 5 minutes. As soon as it seems that further discussion will be fruitless, you stand up and say:
"I didn't come here for your opinion. I came here for your signature, and I paid the fee to get it. So please sign this and I'll be on my way."
Then shut up and hand them the paper.

In fact, it might save time to open with that. Don’t lose your sense of constitutional outrage here.

In retrospect, the only thing that will ultimately matter here is this: was the child left unmolested? Did you protect that emerging immune system?

All else is smoke and mirrors, and the Science of Lying. And one further incursion of government into areas where it has no business - morally, legally, or constitutionally.
View the AB2109 Bill here http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2101-2150/ab_2109_bill_20120223_introduced.pdf

Visit The Doctor Within and Subscribe To Their Newsletter for Future Updates

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Eat Right, Get Happy!

Healthy Natural Foods Make You Happy!

NaturalSociety
March 4, 2012

foodhealthy1 220x137 Healthy Foods and Lifestyle Proven to Make You Happier

Engaging in unhealthy activities have an obvious negative impact on your physical health, but did you ever consider how these activities are impacting your emotional health? Activities leading to poor health like drinking alcohol and smoking regularly have been shown to also greatly contribute to a lower level of overall happiness. Taking this aspect into consideration offers an even greater reason to establish an overall healthy lifestyle.

Unhealthy Diet Leads to an Overall Lower Quality of Life

Authors of the study coming to this finding used data from Understanding Society — a long-term study of 40,000 UK households. Researchers analyzed the life at home and the health-related behavior of close to 5000 kids ages 10 to 15. The nearly 5000 kids were questioned on family friends, appearance, and various other factors including their overall happiness levels. What they found was that teenagers who never or seldom engaged in drinking alcohol were between four and six times more likely to be happier than those those who do drink. Similarly, teens who refuse cigarettes are nearly five times more happy than their smoking counterparts.

To add to the findings, the authors also found that higher consumption of healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables and less ingestion of junk food was associated with a higher happiness level.

Unfortunately for virtually the entire adolescent population, psychological food advertisements are an indirect reason for the decreased happiness level. Researchers have found parental disapproval of junk food only resulted in 13 percent less children choosing junk food, which is oftentimes full of synthetic chemicals and genetically modified ingredients. These advertisements are also contributing to the severe lack of nutritious food intake, with only 10 percent of high school students consuming the appropriate amount of fruits and vegetables.

The processed junk foods which are contributing to a lack of happiness have also been shown to trigger addiction and brain damage. In fact, research finds that processed foods and sugary drinks are addictive as cocaine.

“Another explanation could be that youths who smoke and drink first fit themselves into certain groups that tend to be unhappier, and then they find themselves unhappy. It becomes a vicious cycle…It’s probably a combination of both [turning to these activities and fitting in with groups first]. Some will take up smoking because they want to feel more adult, but then find themselves hanging out with people who are less happy and then they become less happy”, co-author Cara Booker says.

Advertising plays a large part in the high rate of smokers as well, with the subconscious and conscious mind constantly being bombarded with smoking scenes in movies and TV. Unfortunately when children choose to take such a glorified role in society as suggested by film, they are also subjecting themselves to not only the dangers of smoking, but the unhappy life that often comes with it as well.

540x80 papaya leaf extract Healthy Foods and Lifestyle Proven to Make You Happier

Explore More:

04 March 2012

The Horrors of Diet Soda

The truth is regular soda is not good for you- its about the most artificial chemical drink imaginable- that is until you consider diet soda. So what was just merely bad becomes unbelievably harmful-

Is Diet Soda Addictive?

By Lisa Collier Cool
Feb 22, 2012

Send

Health Experts Main

Day in Health

by Lisa Collier Cool

Darren Jones wants to check himself into rehab for an unusual “addiction.” He says he’s so hooked on Diet Coke that he downs 18 cans a day and can’t leave home without it. Judging by his photos in The Daily Mail, all that diet soda hasn’t helped him control his weight, which was edging toward 500 pounds when the pictures were taken.

He’s not alone. Former president Bill Clinton, Victoria Beckham, Elton John and movie moguls Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Katzenberg have all admitted to a Diet Coke habit, according to the New York Times.

And then there’s Elisa Zied, a high profile registered dietician with no discernible weight problem and three books and numerous TV appearances to her credit. Last year she confessed to a Diet Coke addiction on Twitter, a deliberate strategy - she said she hoped that “putting it out there would make me accountable”.

Replace soda with these healthy smoothie recipes.

The Addiction Question

Surveys show that people who drink these beverages rarely stop with just one. In fact, the typical consumer of diet sodas downs an average of more than 26 ounces per day, and 3 percent of diet-soda drinkers have at least four per day. But are hardcore diet soda fiends actually hooked?

If there’s anything in diet colas that could be addicting, the most likely suspect is caffeine (although many diet soda guzzlers prefer caffeine-free colas). Besides, comparisons with coffee show that cola can’t deliver the caffeine kick equal to a cup of java. An 8-ounce Diet Coke gives you a measly 47 milligrams of caffeine, compared to 133 in a cup of ordinary coffee and 320 in a Starbucks’ grande.

Learn about the most addictive prescription drugs on the market.

Insights from Brain Science

Another plausible explanation is habit: diet soda becomes part of daily rituals - a break from work, lunch, watching the news, you name it. And sipping a zero-calorie beverage may not seem to have downside to curb the urge to overindulge.

More persuasive, perhaps, is the notion that artificial sweeteners trigger the brain’s reward system. In a study of women who drank water sweetened with sugar or Splenda, the women couldn’t taste the difference between the two, but functional MRIs showed that the brain’s reward system responded more strongly to sugar.

Study author Martin P. Paulus, MD, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California San Diego suggests that diet soda might be addicting because “artificial sweeteners have positive reinforcing effects - meaning humans will work for it, like for other foods, alcohol and even drugs of abuse.”

Is diet soda making you fat?

Is Diet Soda Harmful?

Beyond the addiction issue, diet soda has been linked to increased rates of heart attack and stroke, kidney problems, preterm deliveries, and, yes, weight gain. While not yet carved in scientific stone, the emerging evidence is a bit disturbing. Here’s a rundown:

Heart Attack and Stroke: Drinking diet sodas daily may increase the risks for heart attack and stroke and other vascular events by 43 percent, but no such threat exists with regular soft drinks or with less frequent consumption of diet soda. These results come from a study including more than 2,500 adults published online in the Journal of General Internal Medicine on January 30, 2012. So far, no one knows what it is about diet sodas that could explain the added risk.

Kidney Trouble: In 2009, researchers at Harvard found that drinking two or more diet sodas daily could lead to a 30 percent drop in a measure of kidney function in women. No accelerated decline was seen in women who drank less than two diet sodas daily. The drop held true even after the researchers accounted for age, high blood pressure, diabetes and physical activity.

Read more facts about diet soda.

Preterm Delivery: A Danish study including more than 59,000 women found a link between drinking one or more diet sodas daily and a 38 percent increase in the risk of giving birth to preterm babies; the risk was 78 percent higher among pregnant women who drank four or more diet sodas daily. No such risk was seen with regular soda.

Weight Gain: Wouldn’t it be ironic if instead of helping you lose weight, diet sodas had the opposite effect? A study at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio found that compared to those who drank no diet sodas, study participants who did had a 70 percent greater increase in waist circumference; worse, drinking two or more diet sodas daily led to ballooning waist circumference that was 500 percent greater than those who drank none. This doesn’t prove that diet soda is to blame since the study was observational - it could be that participants began gaining weight and then started drinking diet sodas.

Can the length of your fingers indicate the likelihood of developing certain health issues?

Life Abundantly

06 March 2012

Tips for the Careful Food Shopper

Executive Summary

EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce

Raw Milk War Rages

05 March 2012

California Vaccine Wars

END OF VACCINE EXEMPTIONS IN CALIFORNIA?

Print Options

Media Blackout On Bill AB2019 Threatening Vaccine Rights

Are Your Addictions Getting The Best Of You?

Chemicals As "Nutrients" In "USDA Organic" Infant Formula

Un-Earthed: Is Monsanto's Glyphosate Destroying The Soil?

The Attack On Pregnant Mothers Escalates by S. Humphries, MD

Special Report: The Vitamin C Treatment of Whooping Cough

The Death of Dietitians...The Resurrection of a French Chef!

Hep B Vaccine Damages The Liver It Is Supposed To Protect

Quacks, Quack Doctors, and Quackery

Research: A Tsp. of Aloe Daily Reverses Signs of Skin Aging