Industrial Food | Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health

Ag-Gag Law Struck Down in Idaho

Tue, 01 Sep 2015 13:00:54 +0000

Armed with this precedent, it’s time to roll these anti-consumer laws back in other states. State-based Action Alert!
Recently, a judge in the federal District Court for Idaho ruled that the state’s so-called “ag-gag” law was unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.
Idaho’s bill was signed into law last year and, like similar ag-gag laws in seven other states, makes it a felony to document and expose illegal and cruel practices at concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and other agricultural facilities without permission.
In his decision, Judge B. Lynn Winmill wrote:

The effect of the statute will be to suppress speech by undercover investigators and whistleblowers concerning topics of great public importance: the safety of the public food supply, the safety of agricultural workers, the treatment and health of farm animals, and the impact of business activities on the environment.

This decision sets a strong precedent for similar legal challenges to ag-gag laws in other states.
Idaho’s law came about as a result of a 2012 exposé of Bettencourt Dairies, the largest dairy factory farm in Idaho. The video showed cows being beaten by workers, dragged by the neck in chains, and confined in pens covered in feces, which caused the animals to slip and injure themselves.
Unsurprisingly, the video rankled Big Farma companies, powerful players in Idaho. Shortly after it was released, lobbyists with Big Farma began working with lawmakers on legislation to prevent similar investigations into their practices. In a true testament to the power of the agribusiness lobby in the state, Idaho’s bill was introduced on February 10, 2014—and signed into law on February 28.
Rather than applauding members of the public for performing duties that state and federal regulators were either unable or unwilling to perform themselves, state politicians rushed to the defense of industrial farmers. In his decision, Judge Winmill mentions state politicians who condemned the activists who made the exposé as “terrorists” and compared them to “marauding invaders centuries ago who swarmed into foreign territory and destroyed crops to starve foes into submission.”
Let’s keep in mind what these lawmakers and their counterparts in other states are using such sensational language to defend. CAFOs are responsible for foodborne illnesses like salmonella and listeria; are notorious for their overuse and misuse of antibiotics, exacerbating the “superbug” problem that is rendering many antibiotics all but useless; and ruin rural economies in a variety of ways. In addition, there is the incredibly inhumane treatment of the animals themselves.
Action Alert! If you live in one of the two states where ag-gag laws are currently being considered, click on your state below to send a message to your legislators urging them not to support this legislation. Please send your message immediately.

Colorado
New Mexico

If you live in one of the seven states listed below that currently has an ag-gag law on the books, click the “Take Action” button to ask your representatives to repeal the law in order to avoid a costly lawsuit like the one in Idaho.

Iowa
North Carolina
North Dakota
Missouri
Montana
Utah
Wyoming

The post Ag-Gag Law Struck Down in Idaho first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Federal Dietary Guidelines Being Criticized Even by Government Cronies

Tue, 07 Apr 2015 19:49:44 +0000

Yale scientists don’t get it right either!
The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), run jointly by the USDA and Health and Human Services, has been working on releasing its 2015 report about what our diet should look like. This is revised and updated every five years.
We covered this recently because the committee finally came around to seeing the error in its previous warnings about dietary cholesterol. The committee now admits that “cholesterol is [no longer] considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.”
The committee’s recommendations, though, seem to have a lot of people upset. The preliminary DGAC report called for a “plant-based” diet, which has the meat industry and some legislators on Capitol Hill up in arms.
Other aspects of the report that have drawn attention are measures to promote a “culture of health”—including a soda tax, a dessert tax, and electronic tracking of the use of “screen-based” technologies to deter sedentary lifestyles that lead to obesity.
To address these and other concerns about the report, the open comment period has been extended to May 8. And it is clear that any food group (like the meat, soda, or dessert industry) that feels it has been maligned by the DGAC’s guidelines will simply use its considerable influence to get more favorable treatment. It’s next to impossible to avoid crony-capitalist influence over such guidelines—which is one reason the government should not be in the business of telling people what or how to eat.
Cronyism isn’t the only problem, though. DGAC is always woefully out of date on nutrition, and not just about cholesterol. One glaring example is vitamin D. DGAC bases its estimates on the amount of essential vitamins we need on the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) recommended levels, which we’ve shown before to be grossly inadequate. As a point of reference, the IOM now recommends 600 IU (international units) of vitamin D for people between the ages of 1 and 70. Note that the recommendation is identical for people of all ages and weight, which is absurd. The previous recommendation was a mere 200 IU—whereas Harvard and the Vitamin D Council recommend anywhere from 1,000 to 5,000 IU a day. Also of concern is the report’s caution against dietary supplements as a means to achieve their recommended levels, despite supplements’ well-established safety record.
The report also advises Americans to reduce their consumption of saturated fat, presumably because of an alleged link to heart disease. Yet more up-to-date evidence shows that saturated fat does not cause heart disease and actually has a number of health benefits.
Finally, as mentioned above, the report recommends a diet low in red meat. But, as we’ve shown in the past, not all red meat is created equal: meat from corn-fed, CAFO-raised cows is quite different in nutrient composition than meat from grass-fed, organically raised cows, which is high in healthy omega-3 fatty acids.
Rather than telling us what to eat, government at all levels should instead stop gagging free speech about nutrition, an issue we’ve covered extensively in the Pulse of Natural Health. It is absurd, on the one hand, to be subjected to government health guidelines that are obsolete and likely tainted with crony influence, and on the other hand to be prevented from sharing nutrition advice with friends without a special license or consulting the nutritionist of our choice.
Nutrition is a science, which means that data and appropriate conclusions are constantly changing. Even some distinguished scientists can get it very wrong.
Consider an effort by Yale scientists to create a chart that would rank all foods in general from best to worst. This is very difficult, because all foods have advantages and disadvantages. It only makes things worse if you still labor under the old idea that saturated fat is bad.
Let’s look at one example: these Yale scientists say that nonfat milk is “very good” with a high rating of 100, while 2% milk has only a rating of 84, and whole milk has a rating of 52. But cream-topped whole milk at least is more natural and possibly safer, if you can find it non-homogenized (homogenization changes the fat molecules). A recent study also found that consuming high-fat dairy products is linked to a reduction in the risk of developing type-2 diabetes. Other strange outcomes on the Yale list: brown eggs (also linked to reduced risk of type-2 diabetes) are ranked very low with a score of 33, while Pepperidge Farms Whole Grain Bread is ranked higher with a score of 51.
Our grade for this whole list is an F. It misleads more than it helps.

The post Federal Dietary Guidelines Being Criticized Even by Government Cronies first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Should Anyone Be Force-Fed Soy?

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:00:46 +0000

Seven prisoners say it’s happening to them—and their health is being damaged because of it.

The Weston A. Price Foundation is seeking an injunction against serving Illinois prisoners soy-laden meals as a source of cheap protein. And now a judge has ruled that the lawsuit will go forward.
The use of soy in Illinois prison meals seems to have begun when Rod Blagojevich was elected governor of Illinois. Beginning in January 2003, inmates began receiving a diet largely based on processed soy protein, with very little meat. In most meals, small amounts of meat or meat by-products are mixed with 60 to 70 percent soy protein; fake soy cheese has replaced real cheese; and soy flour or soy protein is now added to most of the baked goods.
There are three types of soy products: raw soy, which is poisonous to humans; processed soy products such as soy milk; and fermented soy products such as miso. Although tofu is not exactly fermented, it is usually classed as a fermented soy product. Although processed soy foods are often thought of as “health foods,” knowledgeable researchers consider them risky, and quite unlike the healthier fermented soy products.
The Weston A. Price Foundation has been a leading voice on the dangers of processed soy foods, especially when consumed in large amounts. The lawsuit claims that six plaintiffs are suffering bodily injury and adverse health effects from being fed too much soy, and alleges that the private corporation that runs the prison, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and its doctors have been negligent in failing to provide adequate medical care because of the soy overload. One Florida inmate is also suing, and it might become a class action suit. Weston Price is picking up court fees.
In 2007, the Weston A. Price Foundation began hearing about soy-related health complaints, including chronic and painful constipation, diarrhea, vomiting, sharp pains in the digestive tract, passing out, heart palpitations, rashes, acne, insomnia, panic attacks, depression, and symptoms of hypothyroidism, such as low body temperature (feeling cold all the time), brain fog, fatigue, weight gain, frequent infections, and thyroid disease.
Most soy in the US is genetically engineered. GMO soy is grown on 91% of US soybean fields. And, as we reported previously, GMO soy has been linked to infant mortality in hamsters, with complete sterility by the third generation.
Soy is highly estrogenic, and can interfere with our absorption of iodine, reduce fertility in women, trigger early puberty, and disrupt fetal development. Dr. Joseph Mercola lists just a few of the health effects that have been linked to soy consumption (though not to fermented soy products such as tofu and miso):

Breast cancer
Brain damage
Infant abnormalities
Thyroid disorders
Kidney stones
Immune system impairment
Severe, potentially fatal food allergies
Impaired fertility
Danger during pregnancy and nursing

The Weston A. Price Foundation has compiled a wealth of information about soy and soy products, including numerous scientific studies on their website, which is a treasure trove of information on many subjects ranging from diet to roots canals. The recent court ruling emphasized how important scientific and medical testimony will be at the trial, so it should be a most exciting case to watch.

If you enjoyed this article please join us on Facebook and Twitter

The post Should Anyone Be Force-Fed Soy? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

State Action Alert: New York Says “Stop Exposing Our CAFOs!”

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:00:08 +0000

Pending legislation in New York State wants to send investigative journalists to jail for photographing factory farms. A new State Action Alert.

According to the Humane Society, a recent investigation at New York’s largest dairy factory revealed shocking images of animal abuse, and the state’s agribusiness industry is now attempting to shield its inhumane practices from any further public scrutiny and debate.

S5172 aims to curtail free speech by prohibiting whistleblowing at factory farms, though the bill deceptively claims to be fighting “unlawful tampering with farm animals.” Of course, it’s all a matter of how terms are defined. According to the bill, “unlawful tampering” includes “unauthorized video, audio recording or photography done without the farm owner’s written consent”!

Rather than stop cruel treatment of animals, this bill will simply ensure that the public never learns about it. Rather than sending perpetrators of animal cruelty to jail, agribusiness wants to send those who expose the cruelty to jail.

Don’t let New York get away with the same censorship tactics other states have tried. If you are a New York resident, please contact your legislators immediately and ask them to oppose S5172!

TO SEND YOUR MESSAGE TO THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE

Click THIS LINK to go to the Action Alert page. Once there, fill out the form with your name and address, etc., and customize your letter. We have a suggested message for you, but please feel free to add your own comments to the letter.
We’d also love to hear your comments about this article—just add your thoughts below—but remember that the messages below are only seen by our ANH-USA readers and not state legislators, FDA, Congress etc.

The post State Action Alert: New York Says “Stop Exposing Our CAFOs!” first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Expose CAFO conditions—Stop the Ag-Gag Bills!

Tue, 17 May 2011 17:42:02 +0000

The communications director for the third-largest pork producer in the country has co-sponsored legislation to keep cameras out of his CAFO. You’d think he had something to hide. A state-based Action Alert.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Factory farms. Poultry prisons. Whatever you call them, they are a national horror. And as we reported recently, a number of states are trying to pass laws to make it illegal to film or photograph inside factory farms without permission. Clearly they do not want the shock and shame of these places revealed to a public that votes with its pocketbook.

Now more than ever, CAFOs need more scrutiny from the public, not less. The L.A. Times recently reported that almost half the meat in stores may have drug-resistant bacteria. Another study finds salmonella to be less prevalent in organic chicken—a finding that stands in sharp contrast to the incredibly unhealthy conditions at chicken farms.

By exposing unlawful animal cruelty, and deplorable environmental, working, and animal conditions, citizens are doing the jobs that regulators are unable or unwilling to do: protecting consumers and animals from feedlot operations that are breaking the law.

But this very activity has the factory farms running scared—and they are trying to stop it via the state legislatures. A new bill has been introduced in Minnesota that is a version of the bills in Iowa and Florida we told you about a few weeks ago. Thanks in part to your efforts, the Florida “Gag-Ag” bill was defeated last week! It passed the Florida Senate, but the House has withdrawn it from consideration and it died in committee! The other bill passed the Iowa House, but the Senate has not yet voted on it. Iowa residents: if you have not already done so, please write your state senators today and stop SF 431!

But back to Minnesota. HR 1369 and SF 1118 are outrageous bills. Not only do they provide for new criminal penalties and civil liabilities for those who document what goes on at CAFOs, the law also seeks to penalize the “participants in conspiracy” as well—whoever would use or publicize the videos or photographs. This is an obvious shot at the organizations that are highlighting the illegal abuse and unsanitary conditions of CAFOs.

The bills would prohibit recording, possessing, or distributing an image or sound recorded at an animal facility. They would also outlaw “obtain(ing) access to an animal facility by false pretenses for the purpose of committing an act not authorized by the owner of the animal facility.” The first offense would constitute a gross misdemeanor; the second, a felony.

Wait, it gets worse. Who would introduce such a bill, which is so obviously pro-Big Farma? Why, it’s Big Farma! The sponsor of the bill, Minnesota House Republican Rodney Hamilton, lists his occupation as “pork producer.” But he’s not just any pork producer. He’s the communications director for third largest pork producer in the country.

The Minneapolis-based organization Simple, Good, and Tasty did some superb research into the bill and learned that a majority of the bill’s co-authors are indeed factory farmers or are otherwise connected with the CAFO industry.

Co-sponsors are already dropping from the bill, so let’s send a powerful message to the rest of them. If you are a resident of Minnesota, please contact your state legislators and voice your opposition of these bills!

TO SEND YOUR MESSAGE TO THE MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE

Click THIS LINK to go to the Action Alert page. Once there, fill out the form with your name and address, etc., and customize your letter. We have a suggested message for you, but please feel free to add your own comments to the letter.

We’d also love to hear your comments about this article—just add your thoughts below—but remember that the messages below are only seen by our ANH-USA readers and not Minnesota Legislature, the FDA, etc.

The post Expose CAFO conditions—Stop the Ag-Gag Bills! first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Hearing Loss among Teens is Up 30% – are we focusing solely on noise?

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:39:50 +0000

Earbuds are causing more damage than previously thought—and the government is doing nothing to warn people! But the proper nutritional support can lessen the hearing loss, and in some cases even reverse it.

The Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston reviewed adolescent hearing tests from 1988–1994 and 2005–2006. Their conclusion, published in a recent issue of JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, was that hearing loss among teens aged 12–19 has increased a significant thirty percent.
In a different study, published online last month in the Journal of Adolescent Health, researchers examined the ears of 8,710 teenage girls who were from homes and neighborhoods “stressed by poverty, substance abuse, and violence.” At the beginning of the study, 10.1% of the girls were diagnosed with high-frequency hearing loss. Twenty-four years later, that figure had nearly doubled to 19.2%, the researchers found.
What’s more, among girls with documented hearing loss, the proportion that were classified as having cases that were “mild or greater” (as opposed to “slight”) rose from 26% in 1985 to 61% in 2008. In 2001, researchers began asking the teens about their use of personal listening devices. In that year, 18% said they listened to music through headsets; by 2008 that figure had ballooned to 76%.
The number of girls who listened for more than three hours per day tripled during that period, according to the study. Nearly 24% of those who spent a significant chunk of their day with earbuds in their ears were diagnosed with high-frequency hearing loss, and almost 20% wound up with tinnitus, or “ringing in the ear.”

The problem, of course, is that the human ear is not made for continuous and especially loud music right inside the ear. Even an hour a day of sufficiently loud music can lead to ear damage. Shockingly, even though these studies have been reported in medical journals and mainstream media alike, the government has still not seen fit to warn the public with any concerted effort.
But as Time magazine recently reported, diet and nutrition, as well as exposure to toxins, might also be factors. Living in poverty is also associated with greater risk of hearing loss among youngsters, as children in lower-income families may not be getting adequate nutrition to support proper development of the auditory system. Jonathan Wright, MD, is currently conducting a clinical study regarding dietary supplementation and hearing loss.
Some of the most intriguing research comes from the Armed Forces Research Lab and that of Dr. Michael Seidman at Henry Ford Hospital. In fact, Navy researchers developed a tiny catheter to deliver antioxidants directly into the ear canal of those afflicted with combat-related hearing loss. It makes economic sense with the military costs of hearing loss related to combat $1.5 billion in 2007. This research has focus on loud noise as a free radical that can negatively impact the cilia that line the auditory canal. Antioxidants, including vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin A, and magnesium, have been infused into the ear canal to those exposed to loud noises from combat sources with excellent results. It appears that antioxidants can help prevent hearing loss and even reverse it if administered within 4 to 8 hours of a combat-related hearing loss.
Some studies have indicated that magnesium intravenously along with vitamin C have great benefit to prevent and even reverse hearing loss. There is now a move to formulate a pill of antioxidants focusing on n-acetyl, cysteine a precursor to an important antioxidant, glutathione, to address the oxidative stress of loud noise. The combination of a fast, processed American diet often lacking in antioxidants in conjunction with loud, continual exposure to noise from technology appears to be deadly to our ability to hear. The major antioxidants used to address hearing loss include vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin A, magnesium, n-acetyl cysteine as well as folate (see below).
There has been much enthusiasm using antioxidants to prevent and even restore hearing loss, and a firm has embarked to develop a proprietary medication of an antioxidant to address hearing loss from loud noise and from chemotherapy agents. There is also interesting research that natural folate acid along with the other B vitamins, thiamine and B12, may have benefit to prevent and even reverse hearing loss. Keep in mind there is a growing body of evidence that just as there is a difference clinically between synthetic beta carotene and the natural mixed carotenoids, there is a difference between synthetic folic acid and natural folate. It appears that the use of natural folate may have far superior results in terms of human clinical use.
It is a tragedy that there is little focus on lifestyle education regarding hearing health. The modest use of earbuds along with optimizing antioxidants to protect the delicate cilia that line our auditory canals may be an excellent preventive action for all of us to take to preserve the health of our hearing. The exciting news that hearing loss may be reversed using antioxidants has been overlooked by the mainstream media.
There are a myriad of multiple vitamin and mineral formulas on the market to protect our vision. How long will it take for formulations to appear to protect our hearing? The baby boomers who rocked often losing their hearing for 30 minutes after a Ted Nugent concert (come on, admit it, it happened to me) along with the current generation of teens plugged into their iPods on a continual basis may appreciate lifestyle choices to preserve and protect their hearing.
Deborah Ray, MT (ASCP)

The post Hearing Loss among Teens is Up 30% – are we focusing solely on noise? first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Americans Overfed, Undernourished

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:48:29 +0000

People who eat nothing but processed foods for a few days in a row often notice that despite ingesting lots of sugar, processed grains and hydrogenated fats, they are consuming few nutrients. And so they remain hungry. The paradox of malnourished obesity even affects hospital economics, for although gastric bypass surgery is replacing heart surgery as the most lucrative source of revenue for hospitals, more than one gastric bypass surgery has had to be delayed while the patient’s evident malnourishment was addressed.
A review of data gleaned from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Exam Surveys reveals how widespread poor nutrition is among Americans, from vitamin B12 deficiency among seniors to vitamin D deficiency in all age groups.
Several researchers have stressed the connection between poor nutrition and poor health: for example, Bruce Ames, Ph.D., of the University of California, Berkeley, with his “triage theory”. In 2006 professor Ames published “Low micronutrient intake may accelerate the degenerative diseases of aging through the allocation of scarce micronutrients by triage” in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, arguing that congenital conditions can be addressed by giving high-dose nutrition to bypass the co-factors, enzymes and nutrients influenced by the affected genes. According to Ames, “Many micronutrient (i.e., vitamin and mineral) deficiencies are associated with chromosome breaks and cancer in humans, such deficiencies having caused DNA damage in rodents or human cells in culture. It had also been established that chromosomal breaks cause early aging.” Dr. Ames’ work has profound consequences for industrialized countries whose populations eat a great deal of processed foods.
It is interesting to note that great minds such as Dr. Ames, the late Dr. Abram Hoffer, the late Dr. Linus Pauling, Dr. Jeffrey Blumberg and Dr. Lester Packer take or took their vitamins each and every day. But as Ames says: “A new idea is always hard to get through.”

The post Americans Overfed, Undernourished first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

‘Good Fats’ Always Good

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:50:13 +0000

On January 19, 2010, the British Journal of Nutrition published a study that concluded that increased intakes of fats — whether from saturated, monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fats — might increase the risk of prostate cancer. Medical researchers who surveyed 512 men with prostate cancer and 838 healthy controls noted that men with the highest average-intake of total fat had an increase of 153 percent in prostate cancer compared with men with the lowest average-intake of total fat.
Must we conclude that a diet rich in a balance of Omega 3:Omega 6 fatty acids has the same effect as a diet laden with trans/hydrogenated fats? While admitting that the carbohydrates in a French-fries-and-soda combo are not identical to the carbohydrates in steamed broccoli, medicine has been slow to acknowledge that not all fats are the same. Total fat-consumption is important; but men at risk of prostate cancer would be wise to educate themselves about their intake of the essential fatty acids and the balance of omega 3:omega 6 in their diet, and to eliminate all “bad fats.” Demonizing fat is not a wise message for practitioners to give their patients wishing to prevent prostate cancer.

The post ‘Good Fats’ Always Good first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

FDA Reverses Its Order on Antibiotics in Animals

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:58:49 +0000

In July 2005, the FDA banned the use of an animal antibiotic called Baytril, citing a threat to human health. Baytril, used to treat infections in chickens and turkeys, had caused some strains of bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics, both in animals and in humans. Baytril is closely related chemically to antibiotics used in humans such as Cipro. According to NPR, this was the first time the FDA acted to withdraw an animal drug to prevent drug-resistance problems in humans.
In December 2007, a coalition of consumer, environmental, science, and humane groups known as Keep Antibiotics Working wrote to the FDA commissioner, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, urging further FDA action. Their letter presented evidence that the widespread use of antibiotics in livestock contributed to the MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus) epidemic in Europe, and showed that the effectiveness of antibiotics against deadly bacteria was questionable at best. They cited data that a new strain of MRSA bacteria in pigs was linked to 20% of all human MRSA infections in the Netherlands and Canada, though there are insufficient studies to make that link in the U.S., where MRSA cases have recently surged. The coalition also estimated that 70% of all antibiotics used in the U.S. are used as feed additives in chicken, pigs, and cattle.
This past summer the FDA instituted an order banning the off-label use of drugs in food-producing animals, while noting that the same family of drugs was important to treat disease in humans. This fall, the FDA echoed again the same sentiment, taking note of the increasing evidence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in cattle. But the FDA’s action met with harsh industry criticism. Pfizer argued that the drugs were essential for preventing disease in animals. Other groups, including the Animal Population Health Institute, the KS Health Department, the National Turkey Federation, and the American Veterinary Medical Association, also criticized the FDA’s ban, which was to go into effect on November 30.
So despite the mounting concern over antibiotic resistance—which is known to endanger human life—on November 25 the FDA revoked their earlier order, to the profound dismay of the Keep Antibiotics Working coalition and researchers like Dr. Stuart Levy at Tufts University, who leads the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics. Dr. Levy has collected a considerable body of evidence to educate his colleagues and consumers about the dangers of the overuse and abuse of antibiotics both in humans and in animal use.
This action and others like it are important reasons to reform the FDA. AAHF has a program in concert with numerous other organizations to create a new and better FDA called ReformFDA.org. Visit www.reformfda.org to sign the petition and learn more information.

The post FDA Reverses Its Order on Antibiotics in Animals first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

The Japanese Paradox — Americans Have Changed the Fats in Their Diet

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:00:00 +0000

When Time magazine asked to Dr. Water Willett, of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard, to name the most significant scientific news of the 20th century, he said simply, “We changed the fats in our diet.”

According to the September 2008 PUFA newsletter, the link between the type and amount of fats consumed and long-term cardiac health is now dubbed “the Japanese Paradox.” Why do Japanese men smoke, have high cholesterol, diabetes, and high blood pressure, yet have half the mortality from heart disease as Caucasian American men? And why do Japanese men who migrate to the U.S. develop atherosclerosis (commonly known as hardening of the arteries) as readily or more so than American white males?

Recent research indicates a long-term diet rich in omega-3 fatty acids tends to counteract the development of atherosclerosis. Other studies indicate the Japanese have less carotid artery plaque and a lower incidence of nonfatal heart attacks simply because of their consumption of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids.

Dr. Willett’s point is that our fast and overly processed American diet changed the traditional ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids. This shift not only created more inflammation but more allergies than ever before. And current research indicates that when the ratio is skewed above a certain level, depression and suicidal behavior rise dramatically.
Giants in the field of orthomolecular psychiatry like Abram Hoffer, M.D., and Richard Kunin, M.D., have successfully treated schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, and other brain biochemistry diagnoses by focusing on lifestyle choices that include diet and supplements. Though they have solid scientific backing, these physicians often suffered the attacks of peers and boards of medicine; at the same time, the media were beginning to report that vested interests were affecting many specialties in medicine, but psychiatry in particular.
Other new research showed that women who ate fish more than three times a week had fewer non-fatal heart events; additionally, they had fewer tiny hemorrhages in the brain. People without these brain lesions are less likely to have a stroke or impaired cognitive/thinking ability. Another study showed that EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) supplements reduced the likelihood of having a second stroke in those who have already had one. The incidence of stroke has increased dramatically in recent years, and is now the leading cause of disability in the U.S. Omega-3 fatty acids now appear to be integral to the healthy performance of nearly all the body’s major systems.
Dr. Phil Landrigan of Mt. Sinai School of Medicine says that one in seven American children have a learning or behavior disorder. So it is sobering indeed that there has been so little focus on omega-3 fatty acids in the food pyramid, in school lunch menus, and in other federal guidelines. Research shows that children whose mothers eat more than 12 ounces of fish per week outperform those whose mothers avoid eating fish.
Practitioners like Carol Locke, M.D., and Andrew Stoll, M.D., author of The Omega-3 Connection, found that U.S. women have the lowest levels of DHA among all industrialized countries. Their work with bipolar disorder and omega-3 supplements was groundbreaking, though far too few physicians use key supplements like the omega-3 fatty acids in their treatments. You can find a physician schooled in nutritional medicine at the AAHF website.
The science is clear: a public health campaign to “change the fats in our diet” would have far-reaching health benefits for every American.

The post The Japanese Paradox — Americans Have Changed the Fats in Their Diet first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.