A woman who put a vegetable garden in her front yard has been charged with a misdemeanor and could even be facing jail.
Julie Bass, of Oak Park, Michigan, created the garden after her front yard was torn up to replace a sewer line.
But a neighbour complained and called the city, who deemed it unsuitable.
Every front yard in the area is grass.
Home-grown: Julie Bass has fallen foul of local authorities by growing vegetables in her front yard
Miss Bass's garden features five large planter boxes containing fresh basil, cabbage, carrots, tomatoes and cucumbers.
The city sent out a code enforcement who gave her a warning.
Miss Bass then received a ticket and now she's been charged with a misdemeanor.
Neither side is backing down and the case could be heading for a jury trial.
She said: 'The price of organic food is kind of through the roof.
'We thought it'd be really cool to do it so the neighbours could see.
'The kids love it. The kids from the neighborhood all come and help.'
Legal fight: Unwilling to back down, Julie Bass is bracing herself for a jury trial
Tough stance: Kevin Rulkowski says a front yard must be 'suitable' with grass, bushes and flowers
'I think it's sad that the City of Oak Park that's already strapped for cash is paying a lot of money to have a prosecutor bothering us.'
Oak Park City Planner Kevin Rulkowski said: 'That's not what we want to see in a front yard.'
'If you look at the definition of what suitable is in Webster's dictionary, it will say common.
'So, if you look around and you look in any other community, what's common to a front yard is a nice, grass yard with beautiful trees and bushes and flowers.'
When asked by Myfoxdetroit.com if the whole saga was a little ridiculous, Mr Rulkowski replied: 'I would argue that you won't find that opinion from most people in Oak Park.'
The offending boxes: Julie Bass says local children love to watch the vegetables growing
Some neighbours are backing Miss Bass.
Devorah Gold said: 'I have a bunch of little children and we take walks to come by and see everything growing.
'I think it's a very wonderful thing for our neighborhood.'
Ora Goodwin added: 'They don't have anything else to do if they're going to take her to court for a garden.'
Miss Bass is unrepentant. She said: 'They say, "Why should you grow things in the front?"
Follow up on this story: "All charges dropped against Julie Bass, the Michigan gardener threatened with jail time for growing vegetables in her own yard" This is a breaking news update: Michigan gardener Julie Bass has confirmed with NaturalNews that all charges have been dismissed in her case, including the two misdemeanor dog licensing charges the city threatened her with after dropping her "illegal gardening" charge.
For far too long, breakfast cereal makers have carried out highly deceptive product labeling and positioning campaigns through the use of the term "natural." Consumers are easily misled by this term, believing it to mean the product is free from pesticide chemicals and genetically engineered ingredients. But an explosive new investigation by the Cornucopia Institute (www.Cornucopia.org) -- the same group that exposed the widespread use of hexane solvents in soy protein -- is set to send shockwaves through the "natural" products industry by revealing which so-called "natural" brands actually contain high levels GMOs and toxic chemical pesticides.
NaturalNews is helping the Cornucopia Institute break this story with exclusive articles and email alerts going out to hundreds of thousands of subscribers. This story is being shared on Facebook and Twitter, and on the NaturalNews Radio Network (www.NaturalNewsRadio.com). This story will also be covered this Thursday on the Alex Jones Show (www.InfoWars.com), when a representative from the Cornucopia Institute will be interviewed on live national radio. You can help spread the word about this important story by sharing this article.
Three facts you need to know about GMOs before you read the explosive test results below
Before you view the Cornucopia's test results below, there are three important things you need to know about GMOs:
#1) There is GE contamination in almost everything. Even "non-GMO" food products almost always contain trace levels of GMOs (often between .01% and 0.5%). A test for the mere presence of GMOs is not considered conclusive. What's important is the level of GMOs in a particular food item. Some of the "natural" items tested by the Cornucopia Institute showed GMO contamination levels between 28 and 100 %, which means the key ingredients in those cereals are most definitely genetically engineered from the source (and it's not just a chance contamination from some other nearby field).
#2) All GMO tests are merely a "snapshot" that can change over time. Foods that test free of GMOs today may contain higher levels tomorrow due to supply line errors, contamination, supply source changes, and so on. At the same time, foods that test at high levels of GMOs today may test at lower levels in the future or even for different batches from the same manufacturer. Sometimes manufacturers are lied to by their suppliers. Some manufacturers test for GMOs in every batch, but others take a "don't ask don't tell" approach where they don't test because they'd rather not know.
#3) Products may be "enrolled" in the Non-GMO Project and still contain GMOs before they are "verified." The Non-GMO Project has two designations for products. There are products which are "enrolled" which means they are "on the path" to becoming free of GMOs but may not have achieved it yet. Thus, it is true that products "enrolled" in the Non-GMO Project may still contain substantial levels of GMOs. Products that meet far more stringent supply line audits and GE testing requirements are granted the label "Verified" by the Non-GMO Project.
You got all that? It's a lot to keep in mind. GMOs are a complicated issue. But one thing is certain: Most "natural" breakfast cereals contain surprisingly high levels of genetically engineered ingredients. This is why it's crucial to shop for certified organic breakfast cereals from companies like Nature's Path, whose products are 100% certified organic and free from GMOs.
All these concerns about GMOs don't even cover residues of toxic and carcinogenic pesticides in the grains used to produce "natural" breakfast cereals. The Cornucopia report cites extensive USDA testing and research revealing which "natural" grains and ingredients may be routinely contaminated with chemical pesticides. Synthetic pesticides are banned in organic production with oversight by independent certifiers and USDA accreditation, so organic is once again the way to go if you wish to avoid pesticide residues.
Keep reading to see some of the shocking test results uncovered by the Cornucopia Institute...
• Kashi brand cereals (Kellogg's) contains "high levels" of GMOs. Not just a trace of GMOs, in other words, but a high level meaning the key ingredients are genetically engineered from the get-go. In fact, NaturalNews has learned that test results reveal 100% of the soy used in tested boxes of Kashi cereal was genetically engineered soy.
• Mother's brand cereals (PepsiCo) contains "high levels" of GMOs. Test results revealed 28% of the corn to be genetically engineered.
• Whole Foods' 365 brand Corn Flakes contains "high levels" of GMOs (more than 50% GE corn).
• Barbara's Bakery Puffins cereal was also shown to contain more than 50% genetically engineered corn.
• Both Barbara’s Bakery Puffins and Whole Foods 365 Corn Flakes are "enrolled" in the Non-GMO Project, says Cornucopia (see below). Note that this does not mean "verified" by the Non-GMO Project, which is a different designation. Still, the term "enrolled" in the Non-GMO Project may imply to many shoppers that the products are free from GMOs. This is something NaturalNews will address later, as it is a concern for both us and many readers who have long believed that any affiliation with the Non-GMO Project meant the same thing as "GMO free," which it does not.
• One of the shining examples honest organic cereal is Nature's Path, whose products are all certified organic, contained no significant GMO contamination and are clearly made with entirely non-GMO ingredients.
• As the report states: Numerous “natural” products were indeed contaminated with high levels of GE ingredients, sometimes as high as 100%: Kashi GoLean, Mother’s Bumpers, Nutritious Living Hi-Lo, and General Mills Kix.
• Kashi Heart to Heart Blueberry cereal costs more than Nature's Path Organic Blueberry Cinnamon Optimum Cereal, and yet the grains used in Kashi cereal were found by the USDA, to typically contain residues of all the following pesticide chemicals: phosmet, carbaryl, azinphos methyl, malathion, chlorpyrifos methyl, chlorpyrifos. (Note: This does not mean these Kashi cereals were tested for each of these chemicals, only that these chemicals are admitted by the USDA to be found in the non-organic grains used to manufacture Kashi cereals.)
• Quaker Oats states that it is an "all-natural" product. But Quaker Oats (a unit of PepsiCo) manages a processing plant that emits roughly 19,000 pounds of sulfuryl fluoride yearly. Sulfuryl fluoride is a toxic greenhouse gas used to treat crops like oats in storage.
• "Natural" Peace Cereal Wild Berry Crisp is produced from conventional commodity ingredients commonly containing the neurotoxin phosmet and the carcinogen captan in 11% and 55% of samples, respectively.
• Mom's Best Naturals Raisin Bran cereal contains "natural" (non-GMO) ingredients that are commonly contaminated with malathion and phosmet chemicals, both of which are neurotoxins.
• Several Bear Naked and Kashi products contain conventional soy protein. Soy protein in this country is nearly universally hexane-extracted. The "hexane bath" that the soybeans are immersed in consists of more than 50% n-hexane, which is a known neurotoxin, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Where you can learn more
What you've read here are only the highlights of this groundbreaking research report. You can learn more in the following ways:
NaturalNews plans to bring you additional coverage of this breaking news, including feedback from the Non-GMO Project and others. This research obviously raises many questions and concerns about GMOs in "natural" products which need to be carefully addressed.
The quick conclusion from all this is that if you really want to be 100% safe from GMOs in your breakfast cereal, buy Nature's Path cereals. They are the best of the best, and they don't play games with "natural" labeling that might mislead consumers. Nature's Path is also supporting the mandatory GMO labeling initiative in California.
Some other trusted cereal sources, according to the Cornucopia Scorecard, include Kaia, Laughing Giraffe, Lydia's Organics and Two Moms In the Raw.
Some of the brands that didn't score well on the Cornucopia's Scorecard include Bear Naked, Kashi, Mom's Best, General Mills, Barbara's Bakery, Health Valley, Back to Nature, Arrowhead Mills, Bob's Red Mill and Post Natural.
Farm advocates to gather for a court hearing of the Bakers
Falls Church, Virginia–(July 8, 2013)–The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), through the Michigan Attorney General, is asking the judge hearing Mark Baker’s caseto fine him $700,000. DNR believes Mark has 70 “illegal pigs” being raised in violation of an invasive species order (ISO). Possession of prohibited swine carries penalties of up to two years in jail and fines of up to $10,000 per violation, so the state is asking for the maximum fine allowed under the law for raising what the state deems the wrong breed of pig.
In February of 2012, Baker filed suit against the state of Michigan for loss of livelihood due to the ISO. Supporters of food rights from around the country will gather at the Missaukee County Courthouse in Lake City, Michigan at 2:00 pm on July 12, 2013, for an initial hearing in the case. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), a farmer advocacy group, has provided funding for legal representation in the Mark Baker case.
The ISO supposedly was issued so the state could get rid of feral pigs; but the way DNR is interpreting the order, it could be applied to any domestically raised hog. In December 2011 the DNR issued a Declaratory Ruling stating it would determine whether the pig was a prohibited swine based on its physical characteristics instead of whether it was actually feral (i.e., running in the wild outside and not under the husbandry of humans). Under the Declaratory Ruling, which has the force of law, DNR can ban a pig with “straight tail” as well as a pig with a “curly tail.” On April 1, 2012, enforcement of the ISO went into effect.
“Because of the ISO, I have not been able to process or sell any pork in Michigan since April 2012 or sell the live pigs. This threatens the viability of my farm, my income and the health and well-being of my family,” Baker says. “The ISO is a threat to genetic diversity and freedom of choice as well as the ability of small farms to make a living. This order denies consumers their rights to access foods of their choice and violates property rights and the right to make a living. Farmers and other hog owners in Michigan must either get rid of their now ‘prohibited’ property or become felons.”
Baker and supporters hope that the hearing July 12 will lead to a dismissal of the fines and determine whether there will be a jury for the trial on August 27, 2013.
Originally Posted On: http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/news_wp/?p=11155
Nearly a decade before the first genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were ever approved for commercial cultivation, "Frankenscientists" were already busy developing GM pesticides to spray on food crops being grown in the U.K., according to little-known reports. And few people today are aware of the fact that these GM pesticides were - and possibly still are - being openly sprayed on cabbage plants grown for human consumption in Great Britain, and perhaps elsewhere, without ever being properly safety tested.
It is a trend that continues to this very day: The biotechnology industry cozies up to government regulators to get dangerous, untested chemicals approved for "safe" use in the general food supply. And by the time the population at large figures out what has happened, said chemicals have already become a commonplace fixture in commercial agriculture, putting the health and lives of millions of people at serious risk.
According to an Independent piece published back in 1994, a GM pesticide containing scorpion venom was quietly approved for use by a U.K. government committee without proper safety review. Formulated in the late 1980s, this pesticide reportedly contains a virus and "extra genetic material from scorpions" that releases a nerve poison toxic to caterpillars. The stated purpose of the chemical, of course, is to protect crops from being eaten by caterpillars.
But many scientists were vehemently opposed to the release of this chemical at the time, not only because of its untested GM materials, but also because the virus it contained was sure to be released into the wild upon being sprayed. According to the experts, applying a virus-based chemical in an area where the virus is not even native is dangerous. But their words of caution were ignored, and the chemical was applied to cabbage plants in the Oxfordshire region of England.
Is GM cabbage with built-in scorpion poison coming down the biotech pipeline? It would be one thing if these heinous experiments were a one-time thing that has since been scrapped. But according to a recent report by Heidi Stevenson from Gaia Health, another study published nearly a decade after the cabbage spraying trials suggests that Frankenscientists are not finished tinkering around with using scorpion poison in conventional agriculture.
"In the newer incarnation of scorpion poison genetic engineering, genes from the scorpion Androctonus australis hector for production of poison are being genetically engineered into cabbages," she writes. "The goal is to produce them for public consumption. With the FDA's history of rubber stamp approvals for genetically modified crops, it seems unlikely that anything will interfere with their production and entry into a supermarket near you."
The study Stevenson cites was published in the journal Cell Research back in 2002, and speaks of a "recombinant scorpion insectotoxin" that scientists found to be capable of destroying cultured insect cells. Recombinant poisons are commonly injected into the genetic code of GMOs, which suggests that the goal of the project was to develop yet another genetic tweak for biotech agriculture.
"The reality is that, instead of spraying pesticides onto the plants, the plants will contain them in every cell," adds Stevenson. "The result is that the pesticide will end up in the bodies of people who eat the cabbage."
“I’ve never seen scientific evidence discounted and refused to be looked at the way they’re doing with fluoride.” We’re facing a bottom-line reality. There can be no question that the US government’s policy is that water will be fluoridated no matter how much harm is done to the people.
In this age of repression on genuine scientific research, we need to take note that scientists free to do open and honest research, and report on it, have often taken stands that dispute their agencies’ officials stances. Nowhere has that been more true than in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the issue of fluoride. Rank and file EPA scientists have strongly opposed water fluoridation.
EPA scientists protected by the National Treasury Employees Union were approached by an employee in 1985. His concern was that he was:
… being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have “funky” teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn’t have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.[1]
A statement issued by EPA scientists stated that they tried to “settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure.” Therefore, they went public with it and filed an amicus curiae brief supporting a public interest group’s suit against the EPA. In their statement, from which the above quote was extracted, the scientists avered that their opposition to fluoridation only grew stronger after that incident.
Studies Showing Fluoride Lowers Intelligence
That article goes on to document research by Phyllis Mullenix, PhD, who had established the Department of Toxicology at the Forsyth Dental Research Institute. She was also involved with a research program at Harvard’s Department of Neuropathology and Psychiatry. That research documented significant neurotoxic effects of fluoride.
Dr. Mullenix described going to a conference of the National Institute of Dental Research, a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to present her findings and realizing, on walking in, that she was in hostile territory. The entry areas were filled with propaganda declaring “The Miracle of Fluoride”. Of her experience at that conference, she stated:
The fluoride pattern of behavioral problems matches up with the same results of administering radiation and chemotherapy [to cancer patients]. All of these really nasty treatments that are used clinically in cancer therapy are well known to cause I.Q. deficits in children. That’s one of the best studied effects they know of. The behavioral pattern that results from the use of fluoride matches that produced by cancer treatment that causes a reduction in intelligence.[2]
On meeting with dental industry representatives afterwards, she was asked if she’d been saying that fluoride lowers children’s IQ. She says, “And I told them, ‘basically, yes.’”[2]
That was the end of her career. She was fired from Forsyth Dental Center and has gotten no related grants since then. Shortly after her firing, Forsyth received a quarter million dollar grant from Colgate, the toothpaste manufacturer. She has since stated:
I got into science because it was fun, and I would like to go back and do further studies, but I no longer have any faith in the integrity of the system. I find research is utterly controlled.
EPA scientists also noted a Chinese study documenting that children between ages 8 and 13 consistently score 5-10 IQ points lower than children subjected to less fluoride.
Fluoride and Cancer
Dr. William Marcus, the chief toxicologist of the EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, was fired for his refusal to be silent about his work on fluoride.
Dr. Marcus was particularly concerned about several studies showing that fluoride causes osteosarcoma (bone cancer), particularly in young men. A 2-year study was conducted by the National Toxicology Program. It documented bone cancer and cancer in other tissues in rats. This coincided with other studies documenting fluoride’s ability to cause cellular mutations, which are associated with cancer, and osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey.
Dr. Marcus called for an unbiased evaluation of these studies. He was vindicated, though it didn’t result in full restitution of his losses, when he won his lawsuit against the EPA, which found that he was clearly dismissed for his anti-fluoride advocacy.
Brain and Kidney Damaging Effects of Fluoride
The EPA scientists then noted a study by JA Varner, KF Jensen, W Horvath, and RL Isaacson[3] that demonstrated as little as 1 ppm (part per million) of fluoride in water causes damage to the brains and kidneys of rats. The scientists referred to this as:
… especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats – rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans.
Most significantly, the EPA considers such doses to be benign.
Pineal Gland and Early Maturation
The scientists reported on a study documenting that fluoride collects in the pineal gland, resulting in early sexual maturation in children. A comparison of girls in two different towns, one with flouridated water and one without, showed that those drinking the treated water matured an average of six months earlier.
Bone Pathology Caused by Fluoride
EPA scientists expressed concerns about crippling skeletal fluorosis. It was ethical deficiencies in the standards-setting process that resulted in them filing the amicus curiae brief discussed above.
Many of the symptoms from dioxin poisoning are indistinguishable from fluoride poisoning, an unsurprising fact, since dioxins usually contain fluoride. It’s probaby the primary reason for dioxin’s devastating effects.
Lack of Efficacy in Preventing Dental Decay
Finally, the scientists pointed to the lack of double-blind studies in support of caries prevention. They pointed out that a study done by dentists of the National Institute of Dental Research, involving more than 39,000 children aged 5-17, documented no significant differences in tooth health among fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and nonfluoridated communities. The study considered decayed, missing, and filled teeth.
They also reported a 50-year study comparing two New York communities, Newburgh and Kingston. It documented no benefit from fluoridation, but showed double the amount of fluorosis in the teeth of children drinking fluoridated water, the first sign of fluoride toxicity.
They cited a publication by John Colquhoun, Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, New Zealand, titled “Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation”. The article stated that:
Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.
EPA Scientists’ Conclusion
The EPA scientists’ report stated:
For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.
They used the EPA’s own risk control methodology, called the Reference Dose, to determine what an acceptable fluoride dose is. By that method, they determined that the Reference Dose for fluoride is 0.000007 mg/kg of body weight/day.
In Washington DC, they determined that people drinking only one quart from the public water supply each day ingest 0.01 mg/kg a day. That is more than 1,428 times the safe dose of fluoride!
The EPA scientists concluded:
The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.
The EPA’s Current Policy
The EPA has set a standard of no more than 4.0 mg/liter of water as a maximum allowed. In minor deference to children, who are at far greater risk, they set a secondary standard of 2.0 mg/liter. They don’t regulate against it; rather, they merely require that communities with fluoridation at that level must be informed.
This is nothing less than a declaration of war on the people, especially those without the funding to protect themselves by drinking bottled water (which carries its own environmental issues) or purifying tap water. It also means that farm animals are at risk for fluoridation, as documented in this video:
The Environmental Protection Agency is charged with protecting the environment and protecting people’s health from environmental contamination. Clearly, the EPA doesn’t take this seriously. Its own scientists, the ones charged with studying issues of environmental health, are ignored and forced to silence on fluoride, a substance that’s been shown to provide none of the claimed benefit for teeth and a host of devastating health effects. Children are losing their full potential in intelligence and health.
In 2005, 11 EPA employee unions representing more than 700 professional environmental and public health officials, officially called for a moratorium on fluoridation.[4] It was based primarily on “an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young boys” by the EPA.
The EPA still hasn’t taken a stand on the dangers of fluoride in the environment or water. They even help in the promulgation of outright lies about its safety. Who does the EPA really represent? It certainly isn’t the people.
As Dr. Robert Carton, former President of the EPA Headquarters Union, stated:
This whole thing is politics. You’re not talking science at all.
Sources: Available here http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-01-31/epa-scientists-oppose-water-fluoridation/ and article originally posted here.
No matter how you slice it – choosing the right foods to feed your family is tough! Not only are kids and parents inundated with commercials and peer pressure to eat the baddies everyone knows about, the candy bars, sodas, snack cakes, and candy that kids seem to pick up for ‘free’ at every ‘kid’ activity they go to, but the things that people typically do NOT know about can be just as or even more harmful. While we parents should certainly watch what’s on the front label of the foods our kids eat, it’s also important to pay attention to the ingredient list on the back. A front label might say ‘all natural,’ or ‘packed with vitamins and minerals,’ but that doesn’t mean it isn’t filled with toxic and potentially harmful ingredients. It’s up to us to educate ourselves and vote with our dollars – if enough people do, manufacturers will be forced to listen.
These three ingredients are a great place to start:
1.) High Fructose Corn Syrup
It’s hard to find a processed food without High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), although it’s easier than it used to be.
The Corn Growers Association and other special interest groups that have a direct monetary stake in the continuance of turning genetically modified corn into a sweetener that populates seemingly every product on every grocery store aisle are constantly insisting that HFCS is the same as sugar or any other sweetener – except that it’s not. According to Dr. Joseph Mercola (Mercola.com),
Part of what makes HFCS such an unhealthy product is that it is metabolized to fat in your body far more rapidly than any other sugar, and, because most fructose is consumed in liquid form, its negative metabolic effects are significantly magnified.
HFCS has been linked to diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome. Additionally, HFCS is made from genetically modified corn, which brings on a host of other issues.
How to avoid it – Don’t get me wrong – sugar is bad for you, period, and replacing HFCS with regular sugar isn’t the ‘answer’ either, although if you’re going to eat one or the other I would certainly go with organic non-GMO sugar, honey, or stevia as a sweetener over anything with HFCS in it. The best way to avoid HFCS altogether is to check out the labels of everything you buy. If it’s on there, put it back. The good news is, more and more companies are aware of the growing segment of the public that doesn’t want to consume HFCS. Look for more and more boxes and labels that explicitly advertise the absence of HFCS. While it’s best to avoid most processed foods altogether, avoiding HFCS and other dangerous ingredients is certainly a step in the right direction.
2.) Aspartame
Aspartame (NutraSweet, Spoonful, Equal-Measure, and Equal) is 180 times sweeter than sugar. It’s composed of three primary ingredients – phenylalanine (50 percent), aspartic acid (40 percent), and methanol (wood alcohol – 10 percent). Discovered accidentally when a G.D. Searle chemist testing an anti-ulcer drug licked his finger after spilling one of the chemicals he was using, aspartame’s road to FDA approval is more shady than Barak Obama’s birth certificate.
The problem is not so much the amino acids in aspartame, but the ratios and chemical manipulation involved, which causes the body to break them down into free amino acids. Unable to recognize them in that form, it tries to metabolize them anyway, causing the central nervous system to flood and (potentially) causing brain neurons to fire excessively. This condition, called ‘excitotoxicity,’ can cause a whole host of physical and neurological problems. Additionally, the menthol in aspartame, having no natural binder (in nature, menthol is bound to pectin), turns into cancer-causing formaldehyde in the body.
There is so much more to the aspartame story – one that is well worth researching and reading about yourself. Your health and the health of your children could depend on it!
Sadly, in addition to the packet sweeteners at most restaurant tables, aspartame is in so many products, from chewing gum (we had to give up most of our favorite gums – turns out that uncanny ‘long-lasting’ flavor comes with a price!) to yogurts, dessert mixes, gelatins, and lots of ‘sugar-free’ desserts. As always, it’s important to check the labels.
3.) Monosodium Glutamate
Monosodium glutamate (MSG), another excitotoxin added by the ‘big-food’ manufacturers as a ‘flavor-enhancer’ designed to mask the lack of ‘real’ ingredients in processed food, has been linked to brain damage, migraines, ADD, ADHD, obesity, and other health issues. MSG is well known for its prevalence in Chinese food, but it’s also found in certain processed soups, snack foods, and even infant formula and baby food! MSG can be tough to avoid because the ingredient labels aren’t always clear. Here’s a great resource to help educate parents on the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ to avoid MSG.
Those are three great first steps on the road to better nutrition. At first it can be discouraging to find these ingredients in so many things you once purchased regularly, but the effort to avoid them is well worth it. It’s one thing to make our kids ‘eat their veggies,’ but that’s only part of the picture. If they are also eating a load of potentially harmful empty-calories, their little bodies are going to be so busy reversing the effects of a system overloaded with garbage that they won’t be as effective at fighting off disease. No wonder kids, especially during Fall and Winter, seem to be constantly finishing or starting runs of antibiotics! As the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates once said,
Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.
Feed your kids well, and they’ll stay well more often!
Originally Posted On: http://wakeup-world.com/2013/01/28/3-ingredients-to-stop-feeding-you-and-your-kids/
Soy Lecithin has been lingering around our food supply for over a century. It is an ingredient in literally hundreds of processed foods, and also sold as an over the counter health food supplement. Scientists claim it benefits our cardiovascular health, metabolism, memory, cognitive function, liver function, and even physical and athletic performance. However, most people don’t realize what soy lecithin actually is, and why the dangers of ingesting this additive far exceed its benefits.
Lecithin is an emulsifying substance that is found in the cells of all living organisms. The French scientist Maurice Gobley discovered lecithin in 1805 and named it “lekithos” after the Greek word for “egg yolk.” Until it was recovered from the waste products of soybean processing in the 1930s, eggs were the primary source of commercial lecithin. Today lecithin is the generic name given to a whole class of fat-and-water soluble compounds called phospholipids. Levels of phospholipids in soybean oils range from 1.48 to 3.08 percent, which is considerably higher than the 0.5 percent typically found in vegetable oils, but far less than the 30 percent found in egg yolks.
via The Farmacy Soy lecithin is a common ingredient in hundreds of processed foods, including cereals, pasta, breads, soy milk and many meats. Lecithin is also available as a health supplement; proponents claim that it can benefit the heart, brain, liver and athletic performance. However, there are potential dangers of soy lecithin that could outweigh the possible benefits.
Origin
To solve the problem of disposing of the gummy waste residual generated from the soy oil refining process, German companies patented a process of vacuum drying the sludge to make soybean lecithin. Although lecithin originally had many uses, today soy lecithin is used as an emulsifier in foods and infant formulas and also as a health supplement.
Genetic Modification
In 2007, the GMO Compass reported that soy lecithin, like many food products in American supermarkets, contained genetically modified soy. Genetically modified, or GM, foods are biotechnically changed to increase yields and resistance to herbicides and insects. Some health-food advocates and scientists have concerns with the potential long-term impact from eating genetically modified food. For example, a study published in the "Journal of Applied Toxicology" discovered that mice fed GM soybean developed a decrease in pancreatic function. Although the nutrition of the soy was not altered, the study showed that as few as five days of feeding GM food caused pancreatic cellular changes, which were reversed after 30 days of non-GM foods.
Cancer
A compound of soy lecithin, phytoestrogen, can produce effects on the body similar to the hormone estrogen. Soy phytoestrogens may promote an increased risk of breast cancer in adult women by altering or decreasing natural estrogen, although the direct link to cancer is inconclusive. One study reported by Cornell University examined 28 women receiving soy supplements for six months. The women were found to have an increased growth of milk ducts in their breasts, which is a leading forerunner of cancer, according to the Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors in New York State. Conclusions suggest that premenopausal women may be at greatest risk, but further research is needed.
Reproduction
Soy and soy lecithin contain a compound called fenistein that may have a negative effect on fertility and reproduction. According to a study at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, rats that were fed soybeans containing genistein produced offspring with abnormal reproductive organs, including smaller testes, larger prostate glands and lower testosterone levels. Conclusions suggested that exposure to soy during reproductive development could have long-term detrimental effects in males, ultimately leading to reproductive abnormalities and sexual dysfunction.
Brain Development
Soy lecithin may affect immature brain cells leading to impeded brain development. "Developmental Psychobiology" published the results of a study on brain function in rats fed soy lecithin. Groups were divided into pregnant rats, rats in fetal development and weaned offspring. In the earliest stages, deficits in sensory motor skills, including righting and swimming abilities, were observed in the soy lecithin group. Long-term consumption of soy lecithin produced rats that were inactive physically and mentally with poor reflexes. The study concluded that soy lecithin supplementation in early stages of life may lead to behavioral and cerebral abnormalities.
Dosage
Because lecithin and other dietary supplements do not need FDA approval, there is no defined recommended daily amount. In addition, different brands of supplements may vary in content, purity and strength, which makes safe and effective dosing inconsistent. Talk to your doctor about the amount of lecithin required for your condition. If you are concerned about the amount of lecithin from food you are ingesting, read labels carefully. Lecithin must be listed on labels containing soy in accordance with The Federal Food and Drug Act. However, many processed foods, including fast foods, baked goods and delicatessen and meat products, are not labeled.
