Ice from Fast Food Restaurants Dirtier than Toilet Water, Study Reveals

If the thought of drinking toilet water makes you cringe, you will probably be none too pleased to find out that ice served at many fast food restaurants contains more bacteria than the water found in their toilets. As reported by the featured article:1

“Scientific tests have shown that ice from branches of McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC, Starbucks, Cafe Rouge and Nando’s all had higher levels of bacteria than samples of water taken from their lavatory bowls.

Experts say it could be due to them being cleaned more often than the ice machines... The Burger King result suggested the cause was human contamination, likely to be from a staff member failing to wash their hands.”

 

While none of the samples presented an immediate health risk, four of them contained high enough levels to be considered a “hygiene risk,” the laboratory warned.

And, while the study was carried out in restaurants in the UK, the results can be expected to be about the same in the US as the issue relates not to the water itself, but rather the bacterial growth that can occur in the ice machine, and/or lack of hygiene on the part of the workers.

This revelation is similar to an investigation done on lemon wedges served in restaurants, back in 2008. At that time, two-thirds of all restaurant lemon wedges were found to be contaminated with disease-causing bacteria -- including fecal bacteria. In all, 25 different, and potentially dangerous, microorganisms were discovered on the wedges.

The fact that people are not keeling over from food-borne pathogens en masse is proof that your body is equipped to handle these types of infectious assaults, but that certainly does not mean there’s no health risk.

Children, the elderly, and anyone with a poorly functioning immune system are among the most vulnerable. Ironically, regularly frequenting fast food restaurants and drinking lots of sweetened beverages is, in and of itself, a factor that will take a toll on your immune function, which could render you more susceptible to experiencing health problems from contaminated ice. 

Are You Ready to Ditch Sweetened Drinks Yet?

I’ve been warning you of the many dangers of soda and sweetened drinks ever since I started this site over 17 years ago. Americans in particular get a majority of their daily calories from sugar, primarily in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in soda and other sweetened beverages. Half of the US population over the age of two consumes sugary drinks on a daily basis,2 and this figure does not include 100% fruit juices, flavored milk or sweetened teas, which means the figure is actually even higher.

Fructose (and especially HFCS) has been identified as one of the primary culprits in the meteoric rise of obesity and related health problems—in large part due to its ability to turn on your “fat switch.”

The HFCS found in sweetened beverages and most processed foods is also highly processed and has been found to be frequently contaminated withmercury. Add to that the fact that most HFCS is made from genetically engineered corn, and you have a recipe for poor health, regardless of whether you’re ingesting it from a can or a meal...

Please note that freshly squeezed fruit juices also contain fructose, which will have the same detrimental health effects as HFCS when consumed in excess, but at least it’s not processed from GE corn...

Ditching sodas and other sweetened drinks and replacing them with pure, vitalized structured water, I believe, is one of the most powerful actions you can take to improve your health and lower your risk of disease and long-term chronic health conditions.

Especially when you consider that just one can of soda per day can add as much as 15 pounds to your weight over the course of a single year, and increases your risk of diabetes by 85 percent! Fructose is also a likely culprit behind the millions of U.S. children struggling with non-alcoholic liver disease, which is caused by a build-up of fat within your liver cells. Fructose is in fact very hard on your liver, in much the same way as drinking alcohol.

How Much Sugar Do You Consume Each Day?

Around 100 years ago, the average American consumed a mere 15 grams of fructose a day, primarily in the form of whole fruit. Today, 25 percent of Americans consume more than 135 grams per day (that's over a quarter of a pound!), largely in the form of soda and other sweetened beverages. Just one 12-ounce regular soda contains the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar. Similarly, one eight-ounce glass of orange juice has about eight full teaspoons of sugar, and at least 50 percent of that sugar is fructose.

Fructose at 15 grams a day is unlikely to do much if any harm and may even be beneficial for some. But at nearly 10 times that amount it becomes a MAJOR cause of obesity and nearly all chronic degenerative diseases.

As a standard recommendation, I strongly advise keeping your total fructose consumption below 25 grams per day, or 15 grams a day if you are insulin resistant, obese, or have high blood pressure, high uric acid levels, diabetes or heart disease. To get to that low a level, you would essentially need to eliminate processed foods and sweetened beverages from your daily diet, and make sure everything you put into your mouth is a whole food. You might need to limit your whole fruit intake as well. For a list showing the amount of fructose contained in common fruits, please see this previous article.

Sugary Drinks Linked to 180,000 Deaths Annually

In 2009, the American Heart Association (AHA) issued a scientific statement3 about sugar intake and heart health, pointing out that there is evidence for a relationship between the two. According to the abstract:

“High intakes of dietary sugars in the setting of a worldwide pandemic of obesity and cardiovascular disease have heightened concerns about the adverse effects of excessive consumption of sugars. In 2001 to 2004, the usual intake of added sugars for Americans was 22.2 teaspoons per day... Between 1970 and 2005, average annual availability of sugars/added sugars increased by 19%... Soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages are the primary source of added sugars in Americans’ diets. Excessive consumption of sugars has been linked with several metabolic abnormalities and adverse health conditions, as well as shortfalls of essential nutrients...”

The postulated relationship between sugar intake and heart disease is undeniable at this point. Hundreds of excellent scientific articles have linked insulin and leptin resistance to cardiovascular disease much more strongly than cholesterol, and they are in fact at least partially responsible for cholesterol abnormalities. For instance, insulin and leptin resistance result in "small dense" LDL particles and a greater number of particles, which is much more important than your total cholesterol number for evaluating heart disease risk. Insulin and leptin resistance in turn are directly caused by excess fructose and other sugars in your diet.

As I reported back in April, research presented at the American Heart Association’s Epidemiology and Prevention/Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism 2013 Scientific Sessions suggests sugary beverages alone are responsible for about 183,000 deaths worldwide each year, including:

• 44,000 heart disease deaths
• 133,000 diabetes deaths, and
• 6,000 cancer deaths

Among the 35 largest countries in the world, Mexico had the highest death rates associated with sugary beverage consumption. There, the average consumption of sugary beverages was 24 ounces per day. The US ranked third, with an estimated 25,000 annual deaths4 from sweetened drinks.5 (Many might have expected the US to come in first place, but remember that American processed foods contain far more sugars than other nations, so Americans also consume a lot of “hidden” sugar in products other than beverages. This factor was not addressed in this study.) Interestingly, and quite disturbingly, the death rates associated with sweetened beverages were highest in those under the age of 45.

What’s the Healthiest Beverage You Can Drink?

Your body requires a constant daily supply of water to fuel all the various waste filtration systems nature has designed to keep your body healthy and free of toxins. Your blood, your kidneys, and your liver all require a source of good clean water to detoxify your body from the toxic exposures you come into contact with every day. Clearly, the most efficient way help your body both avoid and eliminate toxins is to provide your body with the cleanest, purest water you can find. This is easily done by installing one or more types of water filtration systems in your house.

A whole house water filtration system is ideal, as water contaminants can be even more hazardous to your health when absorbed through your skin into your blood stream, bypassing your gastrointestinal tract. I've written a large number of articles on the hazards of tap water, from fluoride to dangerous chemicals and drugs, to toxic disinfection byproducts and heavy metals, so having a good filtration system in place is more of a necessity than a luxury in most areas. There's just one water line coming into your house, so putting a filter on this is the easiest and simplest strategy you can implement to take control of your health by ensuring the water and the air in your house is as clean as possible. To learn more about different types of water and water filtration systems, please see my special report on this topic.

One of my new passions is structured water as pioneered by Victor Schauburger. Vortexing appears to be one of the best ways to produce this and I'm currently doing some research to help define this better.

Another option to consider is to bottle your own water from a gravity-fed spring. This may be one of the highest quality waters and may not require vortexing as the water is already highly structured and full of H3O2. The web site FindaSpring.com6 can help you find natural springs in your local area. As an added boon, most of these spring water sources are free. Just remember to bring either clear polyethylene or glass containers to collect the water so no unsafe chemicals can contaminate your water, and be sure to wrap them in towels to keep them from breaking during transport.

Ditching Sweetened Drinks Is the First Step Toward a Healthier Life

Remember, sweetened beverages (including flavored milk products, bottled teas, and “enhanced” water products), whether sweetened with sugar, HFCS, naturally-occurring fructose, or artificial sweeteners, are among the worst culprits in the fight against obesity and related health problems, including diabetes, heart and liver disease, just to name a few. Ditching ALL of these types of beverages can go a long way toward reducing your risk for chronic health problems and weight gain.

So what should you drink? Your best most cost effective choice is to drink filtered tap water. The caveat though is to make sure you filter your tap water. Nothing beats pure water when it comes to serving your body’s needs. If you really feel the urge for a carbonated beverage, try sparkling mineral water with a squirt of fresh lime or lemon.

Continue Reading: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/26/fast-food-ice.aspx
______________________________________

Fast-Food Ice Dirtier Than Toilet Water

Jasmine Roberts never expected her award-winning middle school science project to get so much attention. But the project produced some disturbing results: 70 percent of the time, ice from fast food restaurants was dirtier than toilet water.

The 12-year-old collected ice samples from five restaurants in South Florida -- from both self-serve machines inside the restaurant and from drive-thru windows. She then collected toilet water samples from the same restaurants and tested all of them for bacteria at the University of South Florida.

In several cases, the ice tested positive for E. coli bacteria, which comes from human waste and has been linked to several illness outbreaks across the country.

"These [bacteria] don't belong there," said Dr. David Katz, medical contributor to "Good Morning America." "It's not cause for panic, although it is alarming because what she found is nothing new. You're not more likely to get sick now. But she's done us a favor by sounding the alarm."

Both Roberts and Katz said that the ice is likely dirtier because machines aren't cleaned and people use unwashed hands to scoop ice. Toilet water is also surprisingly bacteria-free, because it comes from sanitized city water supplies.

Continue Reading: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=1641825&page=1

Documentary: The Drugging of Our Children

Millions of US children are taking powerful mind-altering drugs, often before they’re even old enough to attend school.

Oftentimes the side effects are far worse than the conditions, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for which they’re prescribed, and rival illegal street drugs in terms of their dangerous risks to health.

In children, the long-term effects are often largely unknown, while in the short term, we’ve seen shocking increases in violent and aggressive acts committed by teens taking one or more psychotropic drugs.

With the problem getting increasingly worse instead of better, now is a perfect time to view Gary Null’s excellent documentary, The Drugging of Our Children.

The number of prescriptions for psychotropic drugs for children more than doubled between 1995 and 2000; the documentary details the devastating consequences of this excessive medicating of our children, with a focus on children who have been diagnosed with ADHD.

Most Children Diagnosed with ADHD Are Given Drugs Even Though Misdiagnosis Is Common

As the documentary points out, many of you reading this probably don’t remember any kids in your class at school who were taking mind-altering drugs. And that’s likely because the vast majority were not.

In contrast, one in 10 US children is now claimed to have ADHD, which is a 22 percent increase since 2003.1 About two-thirds of the children diagnosed with ADHD are on some form of prescription medication, which is unfortunate not only because there are far better (and safer) treatment options but also because many are misdiagnosed.

ADHD seems to have become more or less the catchall designation for children who do not “behave well” -- and one study determined that about 20 percent of children have likely been misdiagnosed.2 That’s nearly 1 million children in the US alone.

The study found that many of the youngest children in any given grade level are perceived as exhibiting “symptoms” of ADHD, such as fidgeting and an inability to concentrate, simply because they’re younger and being compared to their older, more mature classmates.

The documentary, too, points out that an ADHD diagnosis is often made, in part, on the highly subjective observations of teachers or guardians, based on signs nearly every child will display at some point (fidgeting, easily distracted, difficulty waiting his or her turn, and so on), and with little regard for other factors that could be aggravating a child’s behavior, such as diet or home environment.

The outcome is, sadly, typically the same: another child placed on powerful drugs, of which parents are often completely unaware of the extreme side effects they carry.

We’re Talking Hard-Core ‘Class 2’ Narcotics

Drugs prescribed for ADHD are not "mild" by any means. These are hard-core, "class 2" narcotics, regulated by the Drug Enforcement Agency as a controlled substance because they can lead to dependence. The majority of kids diagnosed with ADHD will be prescribed these potentially dangerous drugs, the most common being Ritalin.

By definition, Ritalin stimulates your central nervous system and may certainly interfere with the delicate and complex workings of your brain and personality. According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),3 side effects include:

Sudden death in people who have heart problems or heart defects	Stroke and heart attack	Increased blood pressure
New or worse behavior and thought problems	New or worse bipolar illness	New or worse aggressive behavior or hostility
New psychotic symptoms (such as hearing voices, believing things that are not true, are suspicious)	New manic symptoms	Increased heart rate
Slowing of growth (height and weight) in children	Seizures	Eyesight changes or blurred vision

There are reports of children committing suicide while taking the drug, and the long-term effects are unknown. Researchers have also revealed that Ritalin appears to delay puberty, an effect that was previously unknown, raising questions about what other effects may have yet to be uncovered. Another common ADHD drug is Adderall, which contains amphetamine (aka "speed") and dextroamphetamine, and is used to reduce impulsiveness and hyperactivity in patients with ADHD. Like Ritalin, Adderall can cause potentially life-threatening side effects. Among them:

Aggressive behavior or hostility	Bipolar illness	Worse behavior or thought problems
Psychotic symptoms (hearing voices, believing things that are not true) or manic symptoms	Sudden death in patients who have heart problems or heart defects	Stroke or heart attack
Increased blood pressure and heart rate	Seizures and eyesight changes	Slowing of growth in children

Kids Turned Into ‘Lifetime Paying Patients’

As Drugging of Our Children reveals, there is big money to be made in prescribing medications to kids – especially when those medications are intended to be taken for life, as many psychotropic drugs are. What happens to kids once they become medicated at a very young age, during some of his or her key formative years?

Do these children grow up never knowing who they really are? What passions they may have had if not under the drug's influence? And will they be able to quit when they are older, or will they be turned into life-long addicts? The answers to these questions are unknown.

Further, a prescription for one medication has a tendency to snowball into more prescriptions. If a child isn’t responding to a medication, for instance, or is displaying side effects from the drug, additional mind-altering drugs like antidepressants (which are linked to suicide in kids and teens), sleeping pills or anxiety medications may be prescribed.

The Diagnosis of Mental Illness in Kids Is Often Subjective

Remember, what makes this all the more appalling is that the diagnosis of mental illness in children is far from an exact science. Modern psychiatry has expanded its reach to the point that even the most normal of emotions and mental states now fall under one labeled "disorder" or another. They have been able to cleverly redefine mental illness with the use of theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). This book is created by members of the American Psychiatric Association.

You would think that diseases are put in this book after evaluating carefully executed scientific trials, but nothing could be further from the truth. Additions and changes to this manual are determined by votes by its members. This categorization is NOT based on science at all!

It is well documented that psychiatric drugs in general and atypical antipsychotics specifically, are misused across the board. Children as young as 18 months are now receiving antipsychotic drugs, despite the fact that the diseases they're designed to treat rarely develop before adolescence. So why are toddlers receiving these potent drugs? Sadly, one of the key reasons these drugs are used is because of their sedative effect. They're typically prescribed to control "disruptive" behavior – not to treat severe mental illness.

It’s also come to light recently that the Harvard psychiatrists who invented the pediatric bipolar diagnosis were disciplined for conflicts of interest4 after it was revealed they'd all received millions of dollars in undeclared drug company monies.

Parents Jailed for Not Wanting Their Kids on Drugs?

Perhaps one of the most disturbing trends covered in the documentary are parents being treated like criminals, and in some cases sent to prison, for making a conscious decision to keep their kids off drugs.

While certain US states have already enacted legislation to protect against this very issue, and prevent schools and child protection officials from forcing parents to give their children drugs, it still happens more often than you might think. More and more, we're seeing courts siding with misguided government officials in closed family-court proceedings. Parents are increasingly cut out of the decision-making process about what's in their child's best interest with regard to their health.

And it’s not only an issue in the US, either. Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) issued controversial draft guidelines last year that imply a child could be taken into protective custody if a parent refuses to give their child ADHD drugs. In the case of Australia's NHMRC, the committee's guidelines were already mired with controversy, as its original chairman, Daryl Effron, reportedly resigned because he was affiliated with drug companies that produce ADHD drugs!

Seek Effective Alternatives Before Resorting to Drugs

As a parent, you must be your child’s advocate and fight against allowing the profit of powerful corporations to come before your children's health. If your child is suffering from an emotional or mental challenge, please seek help, but do so from someone who does not regard psychotropic drugs as a first line of defense. Please understand that behavioral problems in children – including what might appear to be serious mental disorders – are very frequently related to improper diet, emotional upset and exposure to toxins.

Increasingly, scientific evidence shows that nourishing your gut flora with the beneficial bacteria found in traditionally fermented foods (or a probiotic supplement) is extremely important for proper brain function, and that includes psychological well-being and mood control. Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride has successfully demonstrated the power and effectiveness of this theory. In her Cambridge, England clinic, she successfully treats children and adults with a wide range of conditions, including autism, ADD/ADHD, neurological disorders, psychiatric disorders, immune disorders, and digestive problems using the GAPS (Gut and Psychology Syndrome) Nutritional Program, which she developed.

Her GAPS theory – which is fully explained in her excellent book, Gut and Psychology Syndrome – is an elegant description of how such conditions can develop as a direct result of gastrointestinal toxicity. Another helpful tool is my three-part interview with renowned children's health expert, the late Dr. Lendon Smith, on Non-Drug Treatment of ADD/ADHD. Here are a few additional guidelines to help you address underlying toxins in your child, without, or at least BEFORE, you agree to any kind of drug therapy:

1. Severely limit or eliminate fructose from your child's diet as sugar/fructose has been linked to mental health problemssuch as depression and schizophrenia.
2. Avoid giving your child ANY processed foods, especially those containing artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives. This includes lunchmeats and hot dogs, which are common food staples in many households.
3. Replace soft drinks, fruit juices, and pasteurized milk with pure water. This is HUGE since high fructose corn syrup is a primary source of calories in children.
4. Make sure your child is getting large regular doses of healthy bacteria, either with high-quality fermented organic foods and/or high-quality probiotic supplements.
5. Give your child plenty of high-quality, animal-based omega-3 fats like krill oil. Also, make sure to balance your child's intake of omega-3 and omega-6 fats, by simultaneously limiting their intake of vegetable oils.
6. Include as many whole organic foods as possible in your child's diet, both to reduce chemical exposure and increase nutrient content of each meal. See my nutrition plan for a comprehensive guide to healthful eating.
7. Also reduce or eliminate grains from your child's diet, especially wheat. Beyond the fact that even healthy organic whole grains can cause problems as they too break down into sugars, gluten-containing grains have pharmacologically active peptides that can contribute to cognitive and behavioral issues in susceptible children.
Additionally, whole and even sprouted wheat contains physiologically significant amounts of wheat germ agglutinin(WGA), which can have adverse effects on mental health due to its neurotoxic actions. Wheat can also interfere with the production of serotonin, the largest concentration of which can, again, be found in your intestines, not your brain. Try eliminating all gluten-containing grains first for 1-2 weeks and see if you don't notice a significant improvement in your child's behavior.
8. Avoid artificial sweeteners and colors of all kinds.
9. Make sure your child gets plenty of exercise and outdoor playtime, remembering that midday sunlight provides the UVB wavelengths necessary to produce vitamin D3.
10. Get them out into the sun to help maintain optimal vitamin D levels. Scientists are now beginning to realize vitamin D is involved in maintaining the health of your brain, as they've recently discovered vitamin D receptors in the brain, spinal cord, and central nervous system. There's even evidence indicating vitamin D improves your brain's detoxification process. For children and pregnant women, getting enough vitamin D is especially crucial, as it may play a major role in protecting infants from autism.
If natural sun exposure is not feasible, for whatever reason, you can use either a safe tanning bed or an oral vitamin D3 supplement.
11. Give your child a way to address his or her emotion health. Even children can benefit from the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), which you or an EFT practitioner can teach them to use.
12. Be sure you are also providing positive praise to your child. Dr. Smith believed parents should be able to say nice things to their child twice as often as they give commands or ask questions. If you are shouting and scolding more than you are complimenting and rewarding your child, it could be contributing to psychiatric problems.
13. Prevent exposure to toxic metals and

Continue Reading: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/20/drugging-children.aspx

10 Foods Sold in the U.S. That Are Banned Elsewhere

#1: Farm-Raised Salmon

If you want to maximize health benefits from fish, you want to steer clear of farmed fish, particularly farmed salmon fed dangerous chemicals. Wild salmon gets its bright pinkish-red color from natural carotenoids in their diet. Farmed salmon, on the other hand, are raised on a wholly unnatural diet of grains (including genetically engineered varieties), plus a concoction of antibiotics and other drugs and chemicals not shown to be safe for humans.

This diet leaves the fish with unappetizing grayish flesh so to compensate, they’re fed synthetic astaxanthin made from petrochemicals, which has not been approved for human consumption and has well known toxicities. According to the featured article, some studies suggest it can potentially damage your eyesight. More details are available in yesterday’s article.

Where it's banned: Australia and New Zealand

How can you tell whether a salmon is wild or farm-raised? The flesh of wild sockeye salmon is bright red, courtesy of its natural astaxanthin content. It’s also very lean, so the fat marks, those white stripes you see in the meat, are very thin. If the fish is pale pink with wide fat marks, the salmon is farmed.

Avoid Atlantic salmon, as typically salmon labeled "Atlantic Salmon" currently comes from fish farms. The two designations you want to look for are: “Alaskan salmon,” and “sockeye salmon,” as Alaskan sockeye is not allowed to be farmed. Please realize that the vast majority of all salmon sold in restaurants is farm raised.

So canned salmon labeled "Alaskan Salmon" is a good bet, and if you find sockeye salmon, it's bound to be wild. Again, you can tell sockeye salmon from other salmon by its color; its flesh is bright red opposed to pink, courtesy of its superior astaxanthin content. Sockeye salmon actually has one of the highest concentrations of astaxanthin of any food.

#2: Genetically Engineered Papaya

Most Hawaiian papaya is now genetically engineered to be resistant to ringspot virus. Mounting research now shows that animals fed genetically engineered foods, such as corn and soy, suffer a wide range of maladies, including intestinal damage, multiple-organ damage, massive tumors, birth defects, premature death, and near complete sterility by the third generation of offspring. Unfortunately, the gigantic human lab experiment is only about 10 years old, so we are likely decades away from tabulating the human casualties.

Where it's banned: The European Union

Unfortunately, it’s clear that the US government is not in a position to make reasonable and responsible decisions related to genetically engineered foods at this point, when you consider the fact that the Obama administration has placed former Monsanto attorney and Vice President, Michael Taylor, in charge of US food safety, and serious conflicts of interest even reign supreme within the US Supreme Court! That’s right. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is also a former Monsanto attorney, but refuses to acknowledge any conflict of interest.

#3: Ractopamine-Tainted Meat

The beta agonist drug ractopamine (a repartitioning agent that increases protein synthesis) was recruited for livestock use when researchers found that the drug, used in asthma, made mice more muscular. This reduces the overall fat content of the meat. Ractopamine is currently used in about 45 percent of US pigs, 30 percent of ration-fed cattle, and an unknown percentage of turkeys are pumped full of this drug in the days leading up to slaughter. Up to 20 percent of ractopamine remains in the meat you buy from the supermarket, according to veterinarian Michael W. Fox.

Since 1998, more than 1,700 people have been "poisoned" from eating pigs fed the drug, and ractopamine is banned from use in food animals in no less than 160 different countries due to its harmful health effects! Effective February 11, 2013, Russia issued a ban on US meat imports, slated to last until the US agrees to certify that the meat is ractopamine-free. At present, the US does not even test for the presence of this drug in meats sold. In animals, ractopamine is linked to reductions in reproductive function, increase of mastitis in dairy herds, and increased death and disability. It’s also known to affect the human cardiovascular system, and is thought to be responsible for hyperactivity, and may cause chromosomal abnormalities and behavioral changes.

Where it's banned: 160 countries across Europe, Russia, mainland China and Republic of China (Taiwan)

#4: Flame Retardant Drinks

If you live in the US and drink Mountain Dew and some other citrus-flavored sodas and sports drinks, then you are also getting a dose of a synthetic chemical called brominated vegetable oil (BVO), which was originally patented by chemical companies as a flame retardant.

BVO has been shown to bioaccumulate in human tissue and breast milk, and animal studies have found it causes reproductive and behavioral problems in large doses. Bromine is a central nervous system depressant, and a common endocrine disruptor. It’s part of the halide family, a group of elements that includes fluorine, chlorine and iodine. When ingested, bromine competes for the same receptors that are used to capture iodine. This can lead to iodine deficiency, which can have a very detrimental impact on your health. Bromine toxicity can manifest as skin rashes, acne, loss of appetite, fatigue, and cardiac arrhythmias. According to the featured article:

"The FDA has flip-flopped on BVO's safety originally classifying it as 'generally recognized as safe' but reversing that call now defining it as an 'interim food additive' a category reserved for possibly questionable substances used in food."

Where it's banned: Europe and Japan

#5: Processed Foods Containing Artificial Food Colors and Dyes

More than 3,000 food additives -- preservatives, flavorings, colors and other ingredients -- are added to US foods, including infant foods and foods targeted to young children. Meanwhile, many of these are banned in other countries, based on research showing toxicity and hazardous health effects, especially with respect to adverse effects on children’s behavior. For example, as reported in the featured article:

“Boxed Mac & Cheese, cheddar flavored crackers, Jell-O and many kids' cereals contain red 40, yellow 5, yellow 6 and/or blue 2, the most popularly-used dyes in the United States. Research has shown this rainbow of additives can cause behavioral problems as well as cancer, birth defects and other health problems in laboratory animals. Red 40 and yellow 6 are also suspected of causing an allergy-like hypersensitivity reaction in children. The Center for Science in the Public Interest reports that some dyes are also "contaminated with known carcinogens.”

In countries where these food colors and dyes are banned, food companies like Kraft employ natural colorants instead, such as paprika extract, beetroot, and annatto. The food blogger and activist Vani Hari, better known as “Food Babe,” recently launched a Change.org petition2 asking Kraft to remove artificial dyes from American Mac & Cheese to protect American children from the well-known dangers of these dyes.

Where it's banned: Norway and Austria. In 2009, the British government advised companies to stop using food dyes by the end of that year. The European Union also requires a warning notice on most foods containing dyes.

#6: Arsenic-Laced Chicken

Arsenic-based drugs are approved for use in animal feed in the US because they make animals grow quicker and make the meat appear pinker (i.e. "fresher"). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated these products are safe because they contain organic arsenic, which is less toxic than the other inorganic form, which is a known carcinogen.

The problem is, scientific reports surfaced stating that the organic arsenic could transform into inorganic arsenic, which has been found in elevated levels in supermarket chickens. The inorganic arsenic also contaminates manure where it can eventually migrate into drinking water and may also be causing heightened arsenic levels in US rice.

In 2011, Pfizer announced it would voluntarily stop marketing its arsenic-based feed additive Roxarsone, but there are still several others on the market. Several environmental groups have filed a lawsuit against the FDA calling for their removal from the market. In the European Union, meanwhile, arsenic-based compounds have never been approved as safe for animal feed.

Where it's banned: The European Union

#7: Bread with Potassium Bromate

You might not be aware of this, but nearly every time you eat bread in a restaurant or consume a hamburger or hotdog bun you are consuming bromide, as it is commonly used in flours. The use of potassium bromate as an additive to commercial breads and baked goods has been a huge contributor to bromide overload in Western cultures.

Bromated flour is “enriched” with potassium bromate. Commercial baking companies claim it makes the dough more elastic and better able to stand up to bread hooks. However, Pepperidge Farm and other successful companies manage to use only unbromated flour without any of these so-called “structural problems.” Studies have linked potassium bromate to kidney and nervous system damage, thyroid problems, gastrointestinal discomfort, and cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies potassium bromate as a possible carcinogen.

Where it's banned: Canada, China and the EU

#8: Olestra/Olean

Olestra, aka Olean, created by Procter & Gamble, is a calorie- and cholesterol-free fat substitute used in fat-free snacks like chips and French fries. Three years ago, Time Magazine3 named it one of the worst 50 inventions ever, but that hasn’t stopped food companies from using it to satisfy people’s mistaken belief that a fat-free snack is a healthier snack. According to the featured article:

“Not only did a 2011 study from Purdue University conclude rats fed potato chips made with Olean gained weight, there have been several reports of adverse intestinal reactions to the fake fat including diarrhea, cramps and leaky bowels. And because it interferes with the absorption of fat soluble vitamins such as A, D, E and K, the FDA requires these vitamins be added to any product made with Olean or olestra.”

Where it's banned: The UK and Canada

#9: Preservatives BHA and BHT

BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole) and BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene) are commonly used preservatives that can be found in breakfast cereal, nut mixes, chewing gum, butter spread, meat, dehydrated potatoes, and beer, just to name a few. BHA is known to cause cancer in rats, and may be a cancer-causing agent in humans as well. In fact, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program's 2011 Report on Carcinogens, BHA "is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” It may also trigger allergic reactions and hyperactivity, while BHT can cause organ system toxicity.

Where it's banned: The UK doesn't allow BHA in infant foods. BHA and BHT are also banned in parts of the European Union and Japan.

#10: Milk and Dairy Products Laced with rBGH

Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is the largest selling dairy animal drug in America. RBGH is a synthetic version of natural bovine somatotropin (BST), a hormone produced in cows' pituitary glands. Monsanto developed the recombinant version from genetically engineered E. coli bacteria and markets it under the brand name "Posilac."

It’s injected into cows to increase milk production, but it is banned in at least 30 other nations because of its dangers to human health, which include an increased risk for colorectal, prostate, and breast cancer by promoting conversion of normal tissue cells into cancerous ones. Non-organic dairy farms frequently have rBGH-injected cows that suffer at least 16 different adverse health conditions, including very high rates of mastitis that contaminate milk with pus and antibiotics.

"According to the American Cancer Society, the increased use of antibiotics to treat this type of rBGH-induced inflammation 'does promote the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the extent to which these are transmitted to humans is unclear,'" the featured article states.

Many have tried to inform the public of the risks of using this hormone in dairy cows, but their attempts have been met with overwhelming opposition by the powerful dairy and pharmaceutical industries, and their government liaisons. In 1997, two Fox-affiliate investigative journalists, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, attempted to air a program exposing the truth about the dangers of rBGH. Lawyers for Monsanto, a major advertiser with the Florida network, sent letters promising "dire consequences" if the story aired.

Despite decades of evidence about the dangers of rBGH, the FDA still maintains it's safe for human consumption and ignores scientific evidence to the contrary. In 1999, the United Nations Safety Agency ruled unanimously not to endorse or set safety standards for rBGH milk, which has effectively resulted in an international ban on US milk.4 The Cancer Prevention Coalition, trying for years to get the use of rBGH by the dairy industry banned, resubmitted a petition to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, MD, in January 2010.5 Although the FDA stubbornly sticks to its position that milk from rBGH-treated cows is no different than milk from untreated cows, this is just plain false and is not supported by science. The only way to avoid rBGH is to look for products labeled as “rBGH-free” or “No rBGH.”

Where it's banned: Australia, New Zealand, Israel, EU and Canada

Originally Posted On: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/10/banned-foods.aspx

China Food Conference Warns Against GMOs, New Zealand Takes Note of GMO Dangers

At a recent conference in China, New Zealand officials took heed to warnings about the dangers of letting genetically modified crops take hold in their own country. The International Conference on Ethnic Food Cultures and Food Safety featured a broad range of topics, with much of the time spent on investigating and discussing the values and dangers of genetically modified crops.

It’s important that we keep watch of the global happenings surrounding genetically modified foods. While the U.S. is “leading” the way in using, commercializing, and supporting the corporations behind genetically modified crops, other countries seem to be taking a more cautious approach, an approach our leaders could certainly learn from. It seems nations are following Italy’s decision to ban at least some GMOs.

“China showed great leadership in opening up the debate on GE (genetically engineered) foods by inviting a group of leading scientists and doctors to present evidence about the cultural, environmental and serious health problems of GE food,” said Claire Bleakly of the organization GE-Free NZ.

At the conference, the U.S. was sort of held up as an example of what not to do. One presenter, Jack Heinemann, explained how diversity, yield, and sustainable farming practices in the U.S. have all taken a hit since the commercialization of soy, corn, cotton, sugar beets, and canola.

Advocates of having a genetically-modified-free New Zealand got many take-aways from the conference, including that their economy could be harmed if they implement GM-foods on a large scale. They recognize that the people of New Zealand and the world don’t want genetically modified foods and would make that clear with their spending dollars.

“The performance indicators overseas and worldwide consumer demand for GE-free food show that there would be a negative impact on the economic viability of any farmers growing GE food here,” said a GE-Free NZ spokesman Jon Carapiet. “This is stark warning for big players like Federated Farmers and Fonterra and the government that they must listen to customers and provide what the market is demanding. At the moment they are pushing in the wrong direction by following what vested interests in the biotechnology sector want to produce.”

Also addressed at the conference were the creation of pesticide-resistant superweeds and pests that are evolving with the increasing use of chemicals on crops. Sustainable agricultural practices seemed to be the order of the day at the conference, where GM crops were also criticized for their poor performance and their negative health effects. No word on whether there were any U.S. representatives present at the conference, though it seems like one that certain FDA officials should have attended.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/china-conference-warn-gmo-dangers-new-zealand-takes-note/#ixzz2bww9Sb7j
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food

I retired 10 years ago after a long career as a research scientist for Agriculture Canada. When I was on the payroll, I was the designated scientist of my institute to address public groups and reassure them that genetically engineered crops and foods were safe. There is, however, a growing body of scientific research - done mostly in Europe, Russia, and other countries - showing that diets containing engineered corn or soya cause serious health problems in laboratory mice and rats.

I don't know if I was passionate about it but I was knowledgeable. I defended the side of technological advance, of science and progress.

I have in the last 10 years changed my position. I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food.

I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.

There are a number of scientific studies that have been done for Monsanto by universities in the U.S., Canada, and abroad. Most of these studies are concerned with the field performance of the engineered crops, and of course they find GMOs safe for the environment and therefore safe to eat.

Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others.

We should all take these studies seriously and demand that government agencies replicate them rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies.

The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.

There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely.

These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.

Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene - one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.

The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.

I have drafted a reply to Paul Horgen's letter to the Comox Valley Environmental Council. It is my wish that it goes viral as to educate as many people as possible rapidly. Any and all social media is fine by me. This can also be used as a briefing note for the councilors of AVICC or anywhere else. Thank you for your help. [Original source with replies from Dr. Paul Horgen] 

Thierry Vrain
Innisfree Farm 

I am turning you towards a recent compilation (June 2012) of over 500 government reports and scientific articles published in peer reviewed Journals, some of them with the highest recognition in the world. Like The Lancet in the medical field, or Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, or Biotechnology, or Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, European Journal of Histochemistry, Journal of Proteome Research, etc … This compilation was made by a genetic engineer in London, and an investigative journalist who summarized the gist of the publications for the lay public. 

GMO Myths and Truths - an evidence based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. A report of 120 pages, it can be downloaded for free from Earth Open Source. "GMO Myths and Truths" disputes the claims of the Biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, that they save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat. Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution. Did I mention superweeds, when RoundUp crops pass their genes on to RoundUp Resistant weeds. Apparently over 50% of fields in the USA are now infested and the growers have to go back to use other toxic herbicides such as 2-4 D. Many areas of Ontario and Alberta are also infested. The transgenes are also transferred to soil bacteria. A chinese study published last year shows that an ampicillin resistance transgene was transferred from local engineered crops to soil bacteria, that eventually found their way into the rivers. The transgenes are also transferred to humans. Volunteers who ate engineered soybeans had undigested DNA in their intestine and their bacterial flora was expressing the soybean transgenes in the form of antibiotic resistance. This is genetic pollution to the extreme, particularly when antibiotic resistance is fast becoming a serious global health risk. I can only assume the American Medical Association will soon recognize its poorly informed judgement. 

In 2009 the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium of GM foods, safety testing and labeling. Their review of the available literature at the time noted that animals show serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. Monsanto writes “There is no need to test the safety of GM foods”. So long as the engineered protein is safe, foods from GM crops are substantially equivalent and they cannot pose any health risks.” The US Food and Drug Administration waived all levels of safety testing in 1996 before approving the commercialization of these crops. Nothing more than voluntary research is necessary, and the FDA does not even want to see the results. And there is certainly no need to publish any of it. If you remember 1996, the year that the first crops were commercialized, the research scientists of the US FDA all predicted that transgenic crops would have unpredictable hard to detect side effects, allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases. That was published in 2004 in Biotechnology if you recall seeing it. 

I know well that Canada does not perform long term feeding studies as they do in Europe. The only study I am aware of from Canada is from the Sherbrooke Hospital in 2011, when doctors found that 93% of pregnant women and 82% of the fetuses tested had the protein pesticide in their blood. This is a protein recognized in its many forms as mildly to severely allergenic. There is no information on the role played by rogue proteins created by the process of inserting transgenes in the middle of a genome. But there is a lot of long term feeding studies reporting serious health problems in mice and rats. The results of the first long term feeding studies of lab rats reported last year in Food and Chemical Toxicology show that they developed breast cancer in mid life and showed kidney and liver damage. The current statistic I read is that North Americans are eating 193 lbs of GMO food on average annually. That includes the children I assume, not that I would use that as a scare tactic. But obviously I wrote at length because I think there is cause for alarm and it is my duty to educate the public.

One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been sick or died after a meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM food. Nobody gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarette either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer. Except this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it’s the whole food system that is of concern. The corporate interest must be subordinated to the public interest, and the policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it is clearly untrue. 

Originally Posted Here: http://preventdisease.com/news/13/050613_Former-Pro-GMO-Scientist-Speaks-Out-On-The-Real-Dangers-of-Genetically-Engineered-Food.shtml

Sources to this article can also be found in above link. 

Orange juice may soon contain pig genes

The future of orange crops are at risk and pig genes may be considered part of the solution.

On July 27, the New York Times (NYT) officially staked its flag into Big Ag’s garden and into the soil of the GMO camp with its wildly controversial piece, “A Race to Save the Orange by Altering Its DNA.”

The feature highlights the story of a highly influential orange grower and his undying quest to stave off Asian jumping lice and the bacteria that they carry, which has been devastating Florida’s orange crop since 2005.

Committed to engineering the world’s first genetically modified orange tree, the article centers on Ricke Kress, the president of Southern Gardens Citrus who is in charge of two and a half million orange trees and a factory that squeezes juice for Tropicana and Florida’s Best. According to NYT, Kress’s GMO savior would fight C. liberibacter and citrus psyllids through whatever means science determines necessary. As for public acceptance, Kress told his industry colleagues, “We can’t think about that right now.”

Rick Kress’ mission to save oranges by whatever means necessary

Kress’ crusade has led him along a path, the past several years, widely out of public view. His work has tested potential DNA donors from two vegetables, a virus, a pig, and a synthetic gene manufactured in a laboratory. Unbeknownst to the world, the NYT reports that later this summer Kress “will plant several hundred more young trees with the spinach gene, in a new house.

In two years, if he wins regulatory approval, they will be ready to go into the ground. The trees could be the first to produce juice for sale in five years or so.”

According to the NYT, whether it is his transgenic tree or someone else’s, Kress insists, “Florida growers will soon have trees that could produce juice without fear of its being sour, or in short supply.”

What is the danger of the “Greening” disease?

C. liberibacter, the bacterium that has all but annihilated Florida’s citrus crop, chokes off the flow of nutrients and are spread by Asian citrus psyllids that can carry the germ a mile without stopping, and the females can lay up to 800 eggs in their one-month life. It was first detected more than a century ago in China and has earned a place, along with anthrax and the Ebola virus, on the Agriculture Department’s list of potential agents of bioterrorism.

When it first hit, Florida growers attempted to subdue the contagion known as “Greening” by chopping down hundreds of thousands of infected trees and by spraying a broad spectrum of pesticides on the lice that carries it. However, the disease could not be contained. It has thus been determined by University of Florida agricultural analysts that the Asian bug and bacteria has cost Florida $4.5 billion and 8,000 jobs between 2006 and 2012.

Presently, there is no known cure for Greening disease. “In all of cultivated citrus, there is no evidence of immunity,” the plant pathologist heading a National Research Council task force on the disease said.

Does the New York Times really care about the health of its readers?

Although our hearts break for the thousands of people who have lost their jobs and for the unknown impact this orange crop devastation will have on the world as it continues to spread, our tempers boil against the New York Times for their highly biased representation of GMOs to their readers, of whom many are ignorant to the harmful realities related to GMOs.

Astoundingly, the NYT attempts to compare genetically modifying oranges to ancient breeding practices, something that they call “genetic merging.”

Because oranges themselves are hybrids and most seeds are clones of the mother, new varieties cannot easily be produced by crossbreeding – unlike, say, apples, which breeders have remixed into favorites like Fuji and Gala. But the vast majority of oranges in commercial groves are the product of a type of genetic merging that predates the Romans, in which a slender shoot of a favored fruit variety is grafted onto the sturdier roots of other species: lemon, for instance, or sour orange. And a seedless midseason orange recently adopted by Florida growers emerged after breeders bombarded a seedy variety with radiation to disrupt its DNA, a technique for accelerating evolution that has yielded new varieties in dozens of crops, including barley and rice.

Completely ignoring the inherent dangers of GMOs and confusing the process with conventional crossbreeding, the NYT states,

Even in the heyday of frozen concentrate, the popularity of orange juice rested largely on its image as the ultimate natural beverage, fresh-squeezed from a primordial fruit. But the reality is that human intervention has modified the orange for millenniums, as it has almost everything people eat.

In addition, the NYT times argues that, “Even conventional crossbreeding has occasionally produced toxic varieties of some vegetables.” The famed news source even insists that, Oranges are not the only crop that might benefit from genetically engineered resistance to diseases for which standard treatments have proven elusive. And advocates of the technology say it could also help provide food for a fast-growing population on a warming planet by endowing crops with more nutrients, or the ability to thrive in drought, or to resist pests. Leading scientific organizations have concluded that shuttling DNA between species carries no intrinsic risk to human health or the environment, and that such alterations can be reliably tested.

A nation divided

Supposedly, the scientific consensus holds that genetic engineering is the only solution to defeating Greening. “People are either going to drink transgenic orange juice or they’re going to drink apple juice,” one University of Florida scientist told Kress.

“And,” according to the NYT, “If the presence of a new gene in citrus trees prevented juice from becoming scarcer and more expensive, Kress believed, the American public would embrace it. ‘The consumer will support us if it’s the only way,’ Kress assured his boss.”

However is this true? Will the American consumer embrace the GM orange and feed GM juice to their children in the quantities that they are now?

According to the NYT,

If various polls were to be believed, a third to half of Americans would refuse to eat any transgenic crop. One study’s respondents would accept only certain types: two-thirds said they would eat a fruit modified with another plant gene, but few would accept one with DNA from an animal. Fewer still would knowingly eat produce that contained a gene from a virus.

- Continue Reading at: http://www.naturalhealth365.com/food_news/orange_juice.html#sthash.3VwZSRGq.dpuf