Kraft Foods, on the other hand, is still neck-deep in the program and insists it will continue to use the “Smart Choices” symbol on its own processed, factory-made food products. The Smart Choices organization itself also continues to defend its position, declaring that labeling processed, sugared-up dead foods as “Smart” is a great idea. “Our nutrition criteria are based on sound, consensus science,” said Smart Choices chair Mike Hughes (in all seriousness).

As NaturalNews previously reported (http://www.naturalnews.com/027077_n…), the fraudulent Smart Choices food labeling program was being led by a Tufts University dean named Dr. Eileen Kennedy, a woman who continues to insist that sugary breakfast cereals made with 40% sugar, artificial coloring chemicals and partially-hydrogenated oils are really, really healthy for kids! (Eat more!) To paraphrase her view, they’re smart choices because they are “better than a donut.”

The whole purpose of the Smart Choice program, of course, was to influence gullible parents into buying highly-processed, dead food products that earn more profits for participating food companies. And in order to accomplish that, this group had to abandon commonsense nutrition and push processed food products onto a nation full of children who are already obese, diabetic and increasingly diagnosed with ADHD.

That’s why Michael Jacobson from the CSPI resigned from the group early on. He said publicy, “It was paid for by industry and when industry put down its foot and said this is what we’re doing, that was it, end of story.”

The American Society for Nutrition pretends to invoke science

This Smart Choices program was also engineered in part by the American Society for Nutrition, a corporate-sponsored group that caters to the financial and political interests of its members like GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Monsanto, Procter & Gamble, the Sugar Association, Abbott Laboratories, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, ConAgra Foods, National Dairy Council, PepsiCo and the drug giant Wyeth. (http://www.nutrition.org/media/abou…)

(Are you starting to get the picture here yet?)

The American Society for Nutrition has now removed their former page touting the Smart Choices program (http://www.nutrition.org/news/smart…). Now, the page just says, “The page you requested is forbidden. The page you are looking for is restricted.”

For its role in the Smart Choices scheme, the American Society for (Mal?)Nutrition has received the Integrity Disgrace Award from TheNewIQ.com. (http://www.thenewiq.com/integritywa…).

Page 19 of its 2007-2008 annual report explains that the American Society for Nutrition seeks to “Position [itself] as an authoritative leader in nutrition through science.”

It’s laughable, of course, when you’re pushing refined sugar to children and calling it a “smart” choice. Where’s the science in that? Maybe all the scientists they hired are whacked out on a sugar high from eating too much Froot Loops…

Complete marketing hoax

I find it fascinating that the minute the FDA says it’s going to investigate the Smart Choices labeling program, the big food companies who funded the project flee like cockroaches scurrying under the kitchen counter. If the Smart Choices program was really based on such great nutritional science as its hucksters claim, then why did these food companies distance themselves as quickly as possible the minute a hint of scrutiny was announced?

The reason, of course, is because the entire Smart Choices program was a fraud to begin with. Nutritionally, it was a complete joke, and from a regulatory point of view, it was a disaster… did anybody really think the processed food industry could police itself?

If a genuine Smart Choices labeling program were ever put into place, it should have required large red warning symbols on virtually all the products from the participating companies. “Warning: Don’t eat this unless you, too, want to get cancer, diabetes and heart disease! (50 cents-off coupon on back!)”

I can’t think of a single product made by PepsiCo that’s actually good for you. Kellogg has some products that could qualify as somewhat nutritious, but Kraft Foods manufactures primarily nutrient-depleted, processed dead foods that in my opinion no parent should ever feed a child. It’s difficult to imagine any of these being labeled “smart” anything. Processed, dead foods loaded with sugar and refined carbohydrates actually make children obese and diabetic, and diabetes has been scientifically linked to impaired cognitive function (http://www.naturalnews.com/027281_d…). So if you really do the math on processed foods, they tend to make kids stupid, meaning this “Smart Choice” program would have been more accurately named, “Stupid Foods!”

Why did the FDA tolerate this fraud for so long?

It’s a relief to see this fraudulent Smart Choices program falling apart so quickly. The program was an outright fraud that pushed health-harming disinformation onto parents and families.

Of course, that was the whole point of the program, and it would have succeeded if it wasn’t so blatantly stupid to begin with. With Smart Choices, the food industry tried to hoodwink the entire American population, and they got schooled on it by a few outspoken nutritionists who exposed the program as complete bunk. Dr. Eileen Kennedy also got an earful, most likely, for her role as head honcho of the fraudulent program, if not for her hilarious comment about processed foods being “smart” because they’re better than donuts.

Any person who tries to push 40% sugar cereals onto children while labeling it a “Smart Choice” probably deserves to be caned in a public square in Singapore. Or better yet, they should have their hands tied behind their backs and thrown into a neck-deep marsh pit full of soggy Froot Loops then ordered to try to eat their way back to shore without getting diabetes…

But here’s my real question: You know how the FDA conducts raids on herbal companies that dare to tell the truth about their herbal products, like the fact that astragalus supports immune function? (http://www.naturalnews.com/027303_t…) Well, why isn’t the FDA threatening PepsiCo, Kraft Foods, Unilever and Kellogg with the confiscation of their products that are being sold through these fraudulent labeling claims?

In other words, why does the FDA threaten companies that tell the truth on their labels, but it completely ignores (influential) companies that lie on their labels? If the FDA had any real credibility left, it would have sent nasty warning letters to these big food companies long ago, threatening their CEOs with criminal arrest and prosecution, confiscating their products, shutting down their companies and listing them on the FDA website as violators of federal law.

But that never happened. Care to guess why? The answer, as you well know, is because in the food and drug industries, MONEY TALKS. The companies with the big bucks get a wink and a nod instead of a threatening letter. In fact, it was only after a huge public outcry forcing the FDA’s hand that these food companies decided to flee the Smart Choice labeling program at all. Had nobody raised a stink about it, absolutely zero enforcement action would have taken place.

Food companies will get away with everything the public lets them get away with. They will use dangerous chemical additives in their products, they’ll target children with obesity-promoting sugary cereals, they’ll engage in blatant labeling fraud to promote junk products as “smart,” they’ll use clever packaging illusions to make a small quantity of food look larger, and they’ll even lobby lawmakers in Washington to stop the passage of any new laws that might hamper their ability to keep on selling disease-promoting products to a gullible population of hungry (but nutritionally deficient) consumers.

The only way to stop these crooks is to stand up and shout the truth about what’s they’re trying to shove down our throats. From processed white sugar via genetically modified sugar beets to snack chips laced with monosodium glutamate, these companies are in the business of selling poison to a population that’s already among the sickest in the world.

When will the criminal investigations begin?

What we really need in America goes way beyond any labeling program. What we really need is an army of deputized nutritional investigators to arrest and prosecute these food company executives for poisoning our children with aspartame, MSG, chemical food additives and nutrient-depleted processed ingredients like sugar and white flour. We need food company executives to start serving jail time for the crimes of negligence they’ve committed against our people.

People have a right to nutritious food. When they are forced to eat from a national food supply that makes them diseased and nutrient deficient, that’s a crime. When sodas and junk foods are sold in vending machines in public schools, that’s a crime against children. And when food companies engage in blatant marketing fraud to try to push their dangerous, disease-causing products onto gullible consumers, that’s a violation of federal labeling laws and should be prosecuted as such.

It’s time we took the crooked food companies to task. It’s time we demanded honest, nutritious food that prevents disease and supports both mental and physical health. And as long as we tolerate the shenanigans of both the FDA and the big food companies it is protecting, we’ll never get a national food supply that promotes a healthy population.

Here are some things you might want to check out to learn more:

This report from Yale University researchers details the marketing of sugary cereals to children:
http://www.cerealfacts.org/media/Ce…

Be sure to watch the movie Food, Inc.:
http://www.foodincmovie.com/

You’ll find the trailer on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKY…

Reposted from NaturalNews.

(NaturalNews) The evidence is in. Eating a plant based diet is the key to health and longevity. The only question left is how to get the best value for each dollar you have to spend on fruits and vegetables. The Environmental Working Group, a non-profit organization devoted to human and environmental health, has come up with some guidelines that may help you decide. In a recently published listing, they pointed out those fruits and vegetables with the highest levels of pesticides that should be avoided unless they are available from known local growers, grown at home, or labeled as organic. They also identified which conventionally grown fruits and vegetables have low levels of pesticides and can be bought without too much compromise.

EWG, as the group is often known, analyzed results from 87,000 tests on 47 fruits and vegetables conducted by the USDA and FDA between 2000 and 2007. Nearly all the studies used to create their list tested produce after it had been rinsed or peeled. Contamination was measured in six different ways and crops were ranked based on a composite score from all categories.

Their Dirty Dozen showed the highest levels of contamination. Fruits topped this list, taking 7 of the 12 top slots in this dubious distinction. Nectarines had the highest percentage of samples testing positively for pesticides (97.3 percent), followed by peaches (96.7 percent) and apples (94.1 percent).

Peaches had the highest likelihood of multiple pesticides on a single sample, with 87.0 percent tested having two or more pesticide residues. They were followed by nectarines (85.3 percent) and apples (82.3 percent). Peaches and apples had the most pesticides detected on a single sample, with nine residues, followed by strawberries and imported grapes in which eight pesticides were found on a single sample of each. Peaches had the most pesticides overall, with some combination of up to 53 pesticides found on the samples tested, followed by apples with 50 pesticides and strawberries with 38.

Among the dishonored vegetables, sweet bell peppers, celery, kale, lettuce, and carrots topped the list for exposing consumers to pesticides. Celery had the highest percentage of samples test positively for pesticides (94.1 percent), followed by sweet bell peppers (81.5 percent) and carrots (82.3 percent). Celery was also the most likely to have multiple pesticides on a single sample (79.8 percent), followed by sweet bell peppers (62.2 percent) and kale (53.1 percent).

Sweet bell peppers had the most pesticides detected on a single sample (11 detected), followed by kale (10 detected), and lettuce and celery which both had nine detected. Sweet bell peppers had the most pesticides overall (a jaw dropping 64), followed by lettuce (57) and carrots (40).

Although they escaped classification in the Dirty Dozen, note should also be given to spinach, potatoes, and domestic grapes because of their popularity in certain segments of the population. Spinach, which ranked number 14 in highest pesticide load, is thought of as a healthy food. Health minded shoppers have loaded their carts and salad bar servings with spinach thinking they were getting a vegetable that would support their health. Yet spinach was found to have a pesticide load of 58 (with 100 being the worst). Potatoes, one of the favorites of men and children, had a pesticide load of 56 and was ranked right behind spinach at number 15. Children love to eat their way through the summer with a fist full of grapes. But domestic grapes had a pesticide load of 44. By comparison, the pesticide loads for onion, avocado and sweet corn were numbered 2 or less.

EWG also identified the Clean 15, a list of produce least likely to have pesticide residues. Vegetables on this list were onions, sweet corn, asparagus, sweet peas, cabbage, eggplant, broccoli, tomatoes and sweet potatoes.

Over half of the tomatoes (53.1 percent), broccoli (65.2 percent), eggplant (75.4 percent), sweet pea (77.1 percent), and cabbage (82.1 percent) had no detectable pesticides in the samples. Among onions, sweet corn and asparagus, there were no detectable residues on 90 percent or more of the samples.

Multiple pesticide residues were extremely rare on any of these Clean 15 vegetables. Tomatoes had the highest likelihood of having multiple pesticide residues, with a 13.5 percent chance of having more than one pesticide. None of the samples of onions or sweet corn contained more than one pesticide.

The greatest number of pesticides detected on a single sample of any of the Clean 15 was five, compared to 11 found on sweet bell peppers, the vegetable with the most residues on a single sample.

Fruits making the Clean 15 list were avocados, pineapples, mangoes, kiwi, papayas, watermelon and grapefruit. Fewer than 10 percent of pineapple, mango, and avocado samples had detectable pesticides, and fewer than one percent of samples had more than one pesticide residue. Although 54.5 percent of grapefruit had detectable pesticides, multiple residues were less common, with only 17.5 percent of samples containing more than one residue. Watermelon had residues on 28.1 percent of samples, and just 9.6 percent had multiple residues.

Pesticides are designed to kill

There is an endless parade of research demonstrating the toxicity of pesticides to human health and to the environment, even at doses considered “safe” by the industry and government. This research has linked pesticides to many toxic effects including nervous system disorders, cancer, hormone disruption, liver and thyroid dysfunction, and skin, eye and lung irritation.

According to EWG, “Even in the face of a growing body of evidence, pesticide manufacturers continue to defend their products, claiming that the amounts of pesticides on produce are not sufficient to elicit safety concerns. Yet, such statements are often made in the absence of actual data, since most safety tests done for regulatory agencies are not designed to discover whether low dose exposures to mixtures of pesticides and other toxic chemicals are safe, particularly during critical periods of development.” Most studies are done using high doses and are designed to find only the gross, obvious toxic effects. In the absence of low dose studies, pesticide and chemical manufacturers claim safety where none has been demonstrated or proven.

Children bear the highest risk

Pesticides pose a risk to vital organ systems from conception to maturity. Exposure to pesticides during critical periods of development often has lasting negative effects that manifest throughout the lifetime. Because the metabolism, physiology and biochemistry of a child differ from those of adults, a child is often less able to metabolize and inactivate toxic chemicals and can be particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects. Pesticides that may have no harmful effect on the mother can damage the nervous system, brain, reproductive organs, and endocrine system of a fetus.

Without public outcry, the government will continue to cave to big agribusiness

The fact that the government is allowing the use of pesticides on produce does not mean it is safe to eat that produce. A look back in history shows that the government once approved the use of such damaging and deadly pesticides as DDT, chordane, dursban and others. Without public outcry these chemicals might still be in use. Despite this threat to the population, the government moves very slowly, and only when the mountain of evidence against a pesticide can no longer be ignored. Pesticide manufacturers and agribusiness groups are some of the most powerful people. They have fought the government every step of the way to overrule the pesticide laws now in place.

However, the U.S. has stringent governance of pesticides and their use compared to many other countries likely to export produce. Produce from other countries often contains higher levels of pesticides, and these pesticides are more deadly. The EWG study tested only grapes from both domestic and foreign sources. Yet, the results of that testing revealed the glaring difference in magnitude. Grapes from foreign countries carried a pesticide load of 66, compared with grapes grown in the U.S. with a pesticide load of 44. This difference exists across the range of fruits and vegetables grown in foreign countries compared to those grown domestically. Included in this difference is produce that is canned and frozen as well as produce sold fresh. It also includes produce used in processed or prepared foods from foreign countries.

Pesticide is systemic

Many people are still operating under the myth that pesticide can be washed off. It is a myth that even health oriented grocers like to exploit by selling special vegetable washes for the uninformed. This research is a clear revelation that is not the case, as the studies were done after the produce was washed and in many cases peeled.

Pesticide is taken into the plant as it photosynthesizes, and it becomes contained in every cell of the plant. No amount of soaking, scrubbing, or washing with special compounds can get it out. Once pesticide is applied, the plant and the pesticide become one.

Corporate farming methods have increased the need for pesticides

Pesticide is expensive. Growers only use pesticide when they absolutely must. The need for pesticide is so great because crops produced by the large corporate farms are grown with very little regard for soil conditions, although it is the quality of the soil that determines the quality of the plant. Poor quality plants are weak and unable to fend off pests. When one pest has attacked a crop, it is weakened even further and is less able to fight off the next pest assault. This snowball effect is why some crops have so many different pesticides used on them.

A weakened plant riddled with pests is only able to produce a poor quality fruit or vegetable. This is why most conventionally grown produce is so lacking in taste and appeal compared to organically grown produce. The hidden factor is that most conventionally grown produce is lacking in nutritional quality as well.

The best choice: Say “no” to conventionally grown produce

There is much value in this research. People on budgets can look at it and tell instantly what conventional produce can be bought without taking a big chance with their health, and they can also see which produce should be bought only when it has been grown organically, by a local grower who can be trusted or grown in one’s own garden. It also underscores the need to buy only domestically grown produce or to grow your own. And it is a reminder that the consumer is ultimately king, because produce will only be grown conventionally as long as people are willing to buy it.

Yet this research is also a sad commentary on the state of the food supply. All that conventionally grown produce sitting in the stores will be eaten by someone. Out of all the produce tested, only onions and avocado showed to be truly safe. Buying any of the others when grown conventionally involves some kind of trade off between money and health, a trade off that should not have to be made.

For more information and complete list of pesticides on produce:
http://www.foodnews.org/
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/349263_pesticide30.html
http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/pesticides.htm

Reprinted from Natural News.

“Child-parent dietary resemblance in the U.S. is relatively weak, and varies by nutrients and food groups and by the types of parent-child dyads and social demographic characteristics such as age, gender and family income,” said Youfa Wang, MD, PhD, senior author of the study and associate professor with the Bloomberg School’s Center for Human Nutrition. “When looking at overall diet quality, parent-child correlation in healthy eating index score was similar for both younger and older children. To our knowledge, this is the first such study that examined the similarities between children’s and their parents’ dietary intakes in the United States based on nationally representative data. Our findings indicate that factors other than family and parental eating behaviors may play an important role in affecting American children’s dietary intakes.”

Researchers examined data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals, a nationally representative multi-stage sample of 16,103 people containing information about dietary intake, socioeconomic, demographic and health parameters surveyed from 1994 to 1996. Average dietary intake and dietary quality indicators were assessed using two 24-hour dietary recalls provided by study participants. Researchers also assessed the overall quality of the participating children’s and their parents’ diets based on the USDA 2005 Health Eating Index (HEI) along with a number of other covariates. They found that the correlations between children’s and their parents’ HEI scores ranged from 0.26 to 0.29 across various child-parent dyads such as mother-daughter and father-son; for total energy intake they were 0.14 to 0.29, and for fat intake, -0.04 to 0.28. The range of the correlation measure is between -1 and 1, while 0 means no resemblance and 1 indicates a perfect resemblance. The researchers also found some differences in the resemblance between different types of child-parent dyads and nutrient intakes, and by children’s age and family income.

“Factors other than parental eating behaviors such as community and school, food environment, peer influence, television viewing, as well as individual factors such as self-image and self-esteem seem to play an important role in young people’s dietary intake,” said May A. Beydoun, PhD, co-author of the study and a former postdoctoral research fellow at the Bloomberg School.

“Our findings have a number of important public health implications. In particular, the overall weak to moderate parent-child resemblance in food groups, nutrients and healthy eating index scores suggest that interventions targeting parents could have only a moderate effect on improving their children’s diet. Nevertheless, based on our findings stratified by population groups, for interventions targeting parents, those would be more effective when targeted at mothers, minority groups, and as early as possible in childhood. We suspect that the child-parent resemblance in dietary intake may have become weaker over time, due to the growing influence of other factors outside of the family,” said Wang.

“Parent-child dietary intake resemblance in the United States: Evidence from a large representative survey” was written by May A. Beydoun and Youfa Wang.

###

The research was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.

This article was reposted from the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“Our tests strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted,” the study authors write. “Given the industry’s refusal to make available data to support their claims of superiority, consumer confidence in the purity of bottled water is simply not justified.”

Researchers conducted comprehensive tests at the renowned University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory on 10 leading bottled water brands, purchased from retailers in nine states and the District of Columbia (D.C.). A total of 38 toxic pollutants were detected altogether, with each brand containing an average of eight. Chemicals detected included fluoride, byproducts of chlorine-based disinfection, caffeine, pharmaceutical drugs, fertilizer residue, plasticizers, solvents, fuel propellants, arsenic, other minerals and heavy metals, and radioactive isotopes. Four brands also contained bacteria.

More than a third of the chemicals detected are not regulated by the bottled water industry. Voluntary industry standards regulate the following two-thirds, but water purchased in five states and in D.C. contained levels of some carcinogens in excess of even the industry’s standards.

“In other words, this bottled water was chemically indistinguishable from tap water,” the authors write. “But with promotional campaigns saturated with images of mountain springs, and prices 1,900 times the price of tap water, consumers are clearly led to believe that they are buying a product that has been purified to a level beyond the water that comes out of the garden hose.”

Further analysis at the University of Missouri found that when applied to breast cancer cells, one brand of water led to a 78 percent increase in proliferation rate compared with untreated cells. The addition of estrogen-blocking chemicals noticeably reduced this effect.

“Though this result is considered a modest effect relative to the potency of some other industrial chemicals … the sheer volume of bottled water people consume elevates the health significance of the finding,” the researchers write.

The researchers were unable to determine if estrogen-mimics in the water came from the water itself or had leached out of the plastic bottle.

In accordance with standard scientific practice, the report does not name the brands tested. Exceptions were made for the brands Sam’s Choice (Wal-Mart) and Acadia (Giant), however, which contained toxin levels high enough to violate California law.

Samples of both brands tested positive for trihalomethanes, which have been linked to reproductive disorders and cancer. The chemicals form when water disinfectants react with pollution. The water also contained bromodichloromethane, a carcinogen regulated under California law. In response, EWG is preparing a lawsuit against Wal-Mart to require that Sam’s Choice water contain the legally required notice: “WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.”

Acadia-brand water is not sold in California.

Bottled water purchased from these brands also exceeded the bottled water industry’s voluntary standards.

“The bottled water industry boasts that its internal regulations are stricter than the FDA bottled water regulations,” the researchers write, “but voluntary standards that companies are failing to meet are of little use.”

Reprinted from NaturalNews.

Seattle, WA, March 31- Providing housing and support services for homeless alcoholics costs taxpayers less than leaving them on the street, where taxpayer money goes towards police and emergency health care. Stable housing also results in reduced drinking among homeless alcoholics, according to a Seattle-based study published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

The study found that the program saved taxpayers more than $4 million dollars over the first year of operation. During the first six months, even after considering the cost of administering housing for the 95 residents in a Housing First program in downtown Seattle, the study reported an average cost-savings of 53 percent — nearly $2,500 per month per person in health and social services, compared to the costs of a wait-list control group of 39 homeless people.

“Our study suggests that homeless alcoholics who qualify to take part in Housing First can stay out of jails and emergency rooms, and cost the taxpayer a lot less money as a result,” said Mary E. Larimer, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and adjunct professor of psychology at the University of Washington and lead author of the study. “We also found that these benefits increase over time and that they are possible without requiring that participants stop drinking. And yet, the longer the participants stay in the housing program, the less they drink.”

“The Housing First model was developed in response to the problem of long-term homelessness among those living with severe mental illnesses and substance abuse problems,” said William G. Hobson, a co-author on the JAMA paper and executive director of Downtown Emergency Service Center in Seattle. “In most US cities, people with behavioral health disabilities die on the streets far more frequently than any other subset of the homeless population. Before they die, they use large amounts of taxpayer-funded services in our healthcare and criminal justice systems. The housing program, known in Seattle as the 1811 Eastlake project, was created to stabilize people and stop them from endlessly cycling through emergency rooms, prisons and other crisis institutions, reducing the amount of taxpayer money spent on them.”

The Housing First approach offers stable housing to chronically homeless, alcohol-dependent individuals without requirements of abstinence or treatment. It is being implemented in major cities throughout the United States. Initiatives that have adopted the comprehensive model have been criticized for allowing enrollees — virtually all with severe substance abuse problems — to continue to consume alcohol in their new quarters. The 1811 Eastlake study, funded by the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (SAPRP) of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, represents the first US controlled assessment of the effectiveness of Housing First specifically targeting chronically homeless alcoholics.

Researchers began enrolling people for the study and the control group in November 2005 and finished in March 2007. A list of the most expensive homeless users of health and social services in the community provided the target population from which participants were drawn.

“These findings suggest that stable housing provided to people who are still drinking and addicted to alcohol can reduce their use of crisis services and ultimately their consumption of alcohol,” Larimer said, noting that virtually every person invited to participate had agreed to enroll. The study also notes that restrictions on the consumption of alcohol in a housing environment may well prevent those most in need from accepting help.

The wait-list comparison study lasted six months, comparing usage of health and social services of participants in the program to those in the control group. But researchers also followed the enrollees for another six months, looking at the trend in alcohol consumption among residents and comparing their use of services to levels in the year before they enrolled in Housing First. After one year in the program, the 95 participants had reduced total costs relating to their care by more than $4 million compared to the year before.

“Each of them had cost state and local governments an average of $86,062 per year before being housed, compared to an average of $13,440 it costs per person per year to administer the housing program,” Larimer said.

In assessing utilization and cost of services, the researchers collected data from jail bookings, days incarcerated, shelter and sobering center use, hospital-based medical services, publicly-funded alcohol and drug detoxification and treatment, emergency medical services, and Medicaid-funded services.

Because healthcare and criminal justice system costs for the participants continued to decrease over time, as did their alcohol use, Larimer says, she and her co-authors concluded that permanent housing may be necessary in order to take full advantage of the cost-savings identified in the study. The authors concluded that several factors were key to the success of the program, including the decision to limit rules and regulations on residents, and to provide them with supportive case managers, as well as easy access to providers of mental health and health care services within the housing program.

The authors started with a list of 388 of the most expensive users of hospitals, jails and sobering centers. The study enrolled every willing candidate until the downtown apartment building was filled up. Hobson said “we only had to offer housing to 79 people to get 75.” The waiting list was comprised of others who also wanted the housing.

###

The Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (http://www.saprp.org/) of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funds research into policies related to alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation focuses on the pressing health and health care issues facing our country. As the nation’s largest philanthropy devoted exclusively to improving the health and health care of all Americans, the Foundation works with a diverse group of organizations and individuals to identify solutions and achieve comprehensive, meaningful and timely change. For more than 30 years the Foundation has brought experience, commitment, and a rigorous, balanced approach to the problems that affect the health and health care of those it serves, helping Americans lead healthier lives and get the care they need. The Foundation expects to make a difference in our lifetime. For more information, visit http://www.rwjf.org/.

T. Colin Campbell,Caldwell B. Esselstyn Jr.

As scientific researchers who have spent our careers establishing the link between diet and disease, we find President Obama’s directive on “restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making” very welcome news.

We hope this will lead to health care policy that is informed by America’s most ignored scientific fact on health: That a whole-foods plant-based diet can prevent and in many cases reverse heart disease, diabetes, cancer and other chronic diseases.

Today’s health care debate has very little to do with what makes us sick. It is centered almost entirely on who gets covered and who pays. Extending coverage to more people is a good thing. But Americans who already are covered are suffering rising rates of chronic disease. Lack of coverage is not causing their disease, and expanding coverage won’t cure these diseases in others. We have to do more than increase coverage.

The No. 1 cause and cure of America’s health care crisis is right under your nose – it’s what you put in your mouth.

Unfortunately, the scientific findings on diet and disease are marginalized by the political power of huge, mutually reinforcing commercial interests – meat, dairy, sugar, drugs and surgery.

These industries are desperate to sell a solution that obscures their part in the problem. If they can convince people that the cause of our health crisis has nothing to do with eating unhealthy food, and everything to do with increasing access to drugs and surgery, Americans will spend trillions more on health care without improving their health. That’s what happens when you leave science out of public policy.

If President Obama wants Americans to get the full benefit of scientific research on health, then he should add three measures to his health reforms.

One: Change the way government develops its dietary guidelines. Right now, the U.S. government’s most widely publicized dietary recommendations are deadly. The Food and Nutrition Board’s 2002 report says that to reduce degenerative diseases like heart disease and cancer, we can consume up to 35 percent of our calories as fat, up to 35 percent of our calories as protein and up to 25 percent of calories as added sugars.

Here is a daily diet that meets those nutrition guidelines: Breakfast: 1 cup Fruit Loops; 1 cup skim milk; 1 package M&M milk chocolate candies; fiber and vitamin supplements. Lunch: Grilled cheddar cheeseburger. Dinner: 3 slices pepperoni pizza, with a 16-ounce soda and 1 serving Archway sugar cookies.

This helps explain why 12-year-old schoolchildren develop thickening of their carotid arteries to the brain, and 80 percent of 20-year-old soldiers, dying in combat, are found to have coronary artery heart disease.

How could the government distribute this information and call it science? Members of the committee had financial ties to industries that benefit from higher protein and sugar allowances, and the panel was partly funded by corporate money.

The Obama administration should establish a rule: No scientist with financial ties to the food and drug industries should chair – or choose the members of – panels that set dietary guidelines.

Two: President Obama should establish a new institute at the National Institutes of Health dedicated exclusively to exploring the link between diet, health and disease. Today, there are 27 institutes and centers at the National Institutes of Health, but none devoted to nutrition, despite the great public interest in the subject. For the sake of the people who pay the bills, it’s time for NIH to dedicate an institute to studying the effect of nutrition on health.

Three: Congress should require that medical schools – as a condition of receiving federal grants – offer residency programs on dietary approaches to preventing and treating disease. Americans don’t understand the disease-fighting power of a good diet because their doctors don’t. Medical schools teach a drug-centered curriculum. They do not learn about the many population-based studies that show the connection between diet and disease. They do not review the biochemical studies on disease formation that support the population-based studies. And they do not study the results found in treating disease with diet in clinical settings. Drugs and surgery can offer miraculous benefits in certain cases. But it’s unconscionable for doctors not to know about – or tell their patients about – the preventive and healing power of food.

These three proposals won’t cost much, and they will pay back our investment a million-fold by making people healthier and reducing health care costs. Moreover, they reflect a commitment – expressed by the White House last week – to finally let the public enjoy the health benefits of scientific research.

T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell University. He is co-author of “The China Study.” Caldwell B. Esselstyn Jr., M.D., former president of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons, is a preventive medicine consultant at the Cleveland Clinic. He is the author of “Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease.”

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/17/ED3K16FAI8.DTL

This article appeared on page A – 15 of the San Francisco Chronicle

“We found that the more controlling the parents were about telling their child to clean their plate, the more likely the kids, especially the boys, were to request larger portions of sweetened cereal at daycare,” says lead author Brian Wansink at the keynote address of the Carolinas HealthCare System Obesity 2009 Conference in Charlotte, NC on Friday.

Researchers asked 63 mothers of preschool-age children the extent to which they tell their children to clean their plates at meals. The researchers then asked the children how many Fruit Loops they would like for their morning snack at day-care. Children were able to fill their bowl until they indicated they had received enough and the bowl of cereal was weighed.

“Parents who force their kids to clean their plates at meals, may be interfering with the development of self-control that children have around food,” said co-author Collin Payne of New Mexico State University, “When children have little control over what they eat- or don’t eat, they may react by acting out and overeating when away from home.”

“Preschool-age children are at a vulnerable age, and are forming eating habits that will follow them throughout their life” says Wansink, author of Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think.

He recommends that parents provide moderate portions of a variety of foods, encouraging the child to at least try all of the foods, and let them decide whether they want additional servings.

###

The research extends a 2008 study, “Consequences of Belonging to the ‘Clean Plate Club,’” in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. More can be found at http://www.smarterlunchrooms.org/.

Reprinted from Cornell Food & Brand Lab.

The research, published today in the British Medical Journal, highlighted a 44% increase in risk of cognitive impairment when exposed to high levels of second-hand smoke.

Previous studies identified active smoking as a risk factor for cognitive impairment and dementia. However, this is the first large-scale study to conclude that second-hand smoke exposure could lead to dementia and other neurological problems in adults. (Previous findings suggested that second-hand smoke exposure could impair cognitive development in children and adolescents.)

The research, led by Dr Llewellyn, used saliva samples from nearly 5000 non-smoking adults over the age of 50. By measuring levels of cotinine (a by-product of nicotine) in their saliva and taking a detailed smoking history, the researchers were able to assess levels of exposure to second-hand smoke.

A range of neuropsychological tests were then used to assess aspects of brain function such as verbal memory (recalling words immediately and after a delay), numerical calculations, time orientation, and verbal fluency (naming as many animals as possible in one minute). These results were added together to provide a global score for cognitive function, and those whose scores were in the lowest 10 per cent were subsequently identified as suffering from cognitive impairment.

From their results they concluded that exposure to second-hand smoke may be linked to an increased chance of developing cognitive impairment, including dementia. The authors proposed a number of possible explanations for why exposure to second-hand smoke may increase the odds of dementia, including an increased risk of heart disease and stroke which are known to increase the risk of cognitive impairment and dementia.

Dr Llewellyn commented on the research, “We have conducted the first study to examine the association between second-hand smoke exposure and cognitive impairment in elderly non-smokers.

“Our results suggest that inhaling other people’s smoke may damage the brain, impair cognitive functions such as memory, and make dementia more likely. Given that passive smoking is also linked to other serious health problems such as heart disease and stroke, smokers should avoid lighting up near non-smokers. Our findings also support calls to ban smoking in public places.”

Reprinted from University of Cambridge.

(NaturalNews) The vast array of toxins and chemicals that are common to many households is cause for concern – both for the environment and for human health. These toxic chemicals can be reduced and even eliminated by first learning about the different chemicals and then learning about the many choices that are available for safe and effective alternatives. The first step is to determine where the toxic chemicals are; the next step is to replace them with safe products.

Kitchen Chemicals

All-purpose cleaners, ammonia-based cleaners, bleach, metal polishes, dishwater detergents, dishwashing detergents, disinfectants, drain cleaners, floor waxes, floor polishes, glass cleaners, oven cleaners, and scouring powders all contain toxic chemicals.

*Sodium Hypochlorite: Contained in chlorine bleach. When mixed with ammonia the result is toxic chloramine gas being released. Short-term exposure may cause mild asthmatic symptoms. Long term exposure may result in more serious respiratory problems.

*Ammonia: Contained in glass cleaners. Ammonia is an eye irritant that may cause headaches and lung irritation.

*Phenol and Cresol: Contained in disinfectants. These are corrosive chemicals that may cause diarrhea, fainting, dizziness, kidney damage and liver damage.

*Nitrobenzene: Contained in floor and furniture polishes. This may cause skin discoloration, shallow breathing, vomiting, and even death. This chemical is associated with both cancer and birth defects.

*Formaldehyde: A common preservative. Formaldehyde is a chemical that is a suspected carcinogen. This is also a strong irritant to eyes, throat, skin, and lungs.

*Petroleum Distillates: Contained in metal polishes. Short-term exposure may result in temporary eye clouding; long term exposure may result in damage to the nervous system, skin, kidneys, and eyes.

Utility Room Chemicals

Many products typically contain toxic ingredients. This includes carpet cleaners, room deodorizers, laundry softeners, laundry detergents, dryer sheets, mold and mildew cleaners, mothballs, and spot removers.

*Perchloroethylene or 1-1-1 Trichloroethane Solvents: Common ingredients in spot removers and carpet cleaners that may cause liver and kidney damage if ingested. Perchloroethylene is a known carcinogen.

*Naphthalene or Paradichlorobenzene: Common ingredients in mothballs. Naphthalene is a suspected carcinogen that may harm eyes, blood, liver, kidneys, skin, as well as the central nervous system.

*Paradichlorobenzene: May harm the central nervous system, liver, and kidneys.

*Hydrochloric Acid or Sodium Acid Sulfate: Common ingredients in toilet bowl cleaners. Burns the skin on contact or will cause vomiting diarrhea and stomach burns if swallowed. May also cause blindness if contacts the eyes.

*Formaldehyde, Phenol, and Pentachlorophenol: Common ingredients in spray starch that often irritates the lungs.

Living Room and Bedroom Chemicals

Surprisingly, even the furnishings in many American homes may be harmful. Home decor fabrics that are labeled “wrinkle-resistant” are often treated with formaldehyde. This includes no-iron sheets and bedding, curtains, and especially polyester/cotton blends that are labeled as “permanent press” or “easy care.”

Newer furniture is typically made of pressed wood products that contain formaldehyde and other chemicals that enter into the air. Carpeting is typically made of synthetic fibers that are treated with pesticides and fungicides. Often office carpets contain a chemical called 4-phenylcyclohexene. This is an additive to the latex backing that is present in commercial and home carpets.

Bath Chemicals

There are many cosmetics and personal care products that contain hazardous chemicals.

*Cresol, Formaldehyde, Glycols, Nitrates/Nitrosamines and Sulfur Compounds: Common ingredients in shampoos.

*Butane Propellants: Common ingredient in hair sprays.

*Aerosol Propellants, Ammonia, Formaldehyde, Triclosan, Aluminum Chlorhydrate: Common ingredients in antiperspirants and deodorants.

*Glycols and Phenol: Common chemicals giving fragrances and colors to lotions, creams, and moisturizers.

Hobby Room Chemicals

There has been legislation passed that has reduced many of the dangerous chemicals in hobby products; however, there are still materials that are harmful to human health.

*Lead is present in many ceramic glazes, stained-glass materials, and pigments.

*Cobalt is present in some blue oil and acrylic paint pigments.

*Cadmium is present in silver solders, pigments, and ceramic glazes.

*Chromium is present in many paint pigments and ceramic colors.

*Manganese Dioxide is present in ceramic colors and acrylic paint pigments.

*Formaldehyde is present as a preservative in many acrylic paints and photographic products.

*Aromatic Hydrocarbons are present in paint and varnish removers, aerosol sprays, and permanent markers.

*Chlorinated Hydrocarbons are present in ink, varnish, paint removers, rubber cement, and aerosol sprays.

*Petroleum Distillates are present in paint and rubber cement thinners, spray adhesives, and silk-screen inks.

*Glycol Ethers and Acetates are present in photography products, lacquer thinners, paints, and aerosol sprays.

Garage Chemicals

Paints, paint thinners, benzene, kerosene, mineral spirits, turpentine, motor oils, and gasoline are common in many garages.

*Chlorinated Aliphatic and Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Contained in paint thinners and may cause liver and kidney damage.

*Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Contained in gasoline, motor oils, and benzene and may be associated with skin and lung cancers.

*Mineral Spirits: Present in oil-based paints. Spirits are a strong skin, eye, nose, throat, and lung irritant. High air concentrations can cause nervous system damage, unconsciousness, and even death.

*Ketones: Present in paint thinners and may cause respiratory ailments.

*Toluene: Present in wood putty. This is highly toxic and may cause skin, kidney, liver, and central nervous system damage. In addition, may damage the reproductive system.

Gardening Chemicals

Pesticides are one of the most hazardous chemicals used around the home. There are approximately 1,400 pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides that are common ingredients in household products. Often, these chemicals are combined with other toxic substances like solvents and these combinations create over 34,000 different product formulations.

Patio Chemicals

Lighter fluid for charcoal grills contains petroleum distillates. Some petroleum distillates contain benzene, which is a known human carcinogen.

Charcoal briquettes contain starch, nitrate and borax. When these chemicals are exposed to high temperatures they release chemicals that can cause respiratory problems and illnesses. In addition, burning charcoal can be harmful because this results in the release of hydrocarbons, free radicals and small soot particles that may result in heart and lung problems.

Another reason to avoid burning charcoal is that it creates the formation of two potentially carcinogenic compounds. These are Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Heterocyclic Amines. These compounds are formed when meat is grilled over charcoal and are considered very harmful. In addition, these compounds have been connected to elevated risks for pancreatic, colorectal and breast cancers.

Source: http://www.inspiredliving.com/healt…

Reprinted from NaturalNews.

Exposure to more television and other electronic media during the teenage years appears to be associated with developing depression symptoms in young adulthood, especially among men, according to a report in the February issue of Archives of General Psychiatry, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.

Depression, the leading cause of non-fatal disability worldwide, commonly begins in adolescence or young adulthood, according to background information in the article. “The development of depression in adolescence may be understood as a biopsychosocial, multifactorial process influenced by risk and protective factors including temperament, genetic heritability, parenting style, cognitive vulnerability, stressors (e.g., trauma exposure or poverty) and interpersonal relationships,” the authors write. Media exposure is another plausible influence, since teens are exposed to an average of eight and one-half hours of electronic media per day.

Brian A. Primack, M.D., Ed.M., M.S., of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, and colleagues used data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (Add Health) to determine exposure to electronic media among 4,142 adolescents who were not depressed at the beginning of the study in 1995. The teens were asked how many hours they had spent during the last week watching television or videocassettes, playing computer games or listening to the radio (the survey was conducted before DVDs or the Internet became widely used). They reported an average of 5.68 hours of media exposure per day, including 2.3 hours of television, 0.62 hours of videocassettes, 0.41 hours of computer games and 2.34 hours of radio.

Seven years later (at an average age of 21.8), participants were screened and 308 (7.4 percent) had developed symptoms consistent with depression. “In the fully adjusted models, participants had significantly greater odds of developing depression by follow-up for each hour of daily television viewed,” the authors write. “In addition, those reporting higher total media exposure had significantly greater odds of developing depression for each additional hour of daily use.” Given the same amount of media exposure, young women were less likely to develop symptoms of depression than young men.

Media exposure could influence the development of depression symptoms through many different mechanisms, the authors note. The time spent engaging with electronic media may replace time that would otherwise be spent on social, intellectual or athletic activities that may protect against depression. Media exposure at night may disrupt sleep, which is important for normal cognitive and emotional development. In addition, messages transmitted through the media may reinforce aggression and other risky behaviors, interfere with identity development or inspire fear and anxiety.

“Psychiatrists, pediatricians, family physicians, internists and other health care providers who work with adolescents may find it useful to ask their patients about television and other media exposure,” the authors write. “When high amounts of television or total exposure are present, a broader assessment of the adolescent’s psychosocial functioning may be appropriate, including screening for current depressive symptoms and for the presence of additional risk factors. If no other immediate intervention is indicated, encouraging patients to participate in activities that promote a sense of mastery and social connection may promote the development of protective factors against depression.”

Reprinted from JAMA and Archives Journals.

COLLEGE STATION – There’s an emerging star in the super-food world.

Plums are rolling down the food fashion runway sporting newly discovered high levels of healthy nutrients, say scientists at Texas AgriLife Research.

Plainly, “blueberries have some stiff competition,” said Dr. Luis Cisneros, AgriLife Research food scientist.”Stone fruits are super fruits with plums as emerging stars.”

Far from fruit snobbery, the plum is being ushered in after Cisneros and Dr. David Byrne, AgriLife Research plant breeder, judged more than 100 varieties of plums, peaches and nectarines and found them to match or exceed the much-touted blueberries in antioxidants and phytonutrients associated with disease prevention.

The duo acknowledge that blueberries remain a good nutritional choice. But Byrne said their findings are plum good news, especially in tight economic times, because one relatively inexpensive plum contains about the same amount of antioxidants as a handful of more expensive blueberries.

“People tend to eat just a few blueberries at a time – a few on the cereal or as an ingredient mixed with lots of sugar,” Cisneros said. “But people will eat a whole plum at once and get the full benefit.”

Discovery of the plum’s benefits – along with that of fellow stone fruits, the peach and the nectarine – came after the researchers measured at least five brands of blueberries on the market. Against those numbers, the team measured the content of more than 100 different types of plums, nectarines and peaches.

The first comparison was for antioxidants, molecules that sweep through a body looking for free radicals to knock out. Free radicals are atoms or molecules that lurk where diseases like cancer and heart disease are found.

“If the radicals aren’t taken care of,” Cisneros said, “they will cause the problems that lead to disease.”

But the scientists didn’t stop at knowing that plums and peaches were flexing their antioxidant muscles.

“Knowing that we had all these varieties with high levels of antioxidants, then the possibility of preventing these diseases would also be high with their consumption, so we went to the next step – how these compounds could actually inhibit chronic diseases,” Cisneros said.

The team examined the full content of plums and peaches, then tested the effect of the compounds they found on breast cancer cells and cholesterol in the lab.

“We screened the varieties again with the biological assays,” Cisneros said. “And that had never been done before, because it is expensive and a lot of work. But that investment is small in terms of the information we got, and how it can be used now for breeding efforts to produce even better fruit.”

Byrne noted, for example, that one benefit the team found was that the phytonutrients in plums inhibited in vitro breast cancer growth without adversely affecting normal cell growth.

He said this type of research needs further study but is an indication that breeders ultimately will be able to produce new crop varieties with the best ratio of various phytochemicals to have an impact on disease prevention and inhibition. And these fruits will be available as fresh produce as well as in extracts for dietary supplements.

“Future work with stone fruits will focus on cardiovascular and cancer using animal models and identification of specific compounds that exert the properties,” Cisneros added.

Bottom line from the researchers: “We suggest that consumers take seriously the recommendation to eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables – or even more – every day and to make sure that plums are part of that,” Byrne said.

Funding comes from the Vegetable and Fruit Improvement Center at Texas A&M University and the California Tree Fruit Agreement.

Reprinted from Texas A&M.

New kinesiology research shows early diet may have a profound influence on adult obesity, diabetes

If you have trouble keeping weight off and you’re wondering why – the surprising answer may well be the cheeseburgers you ate – when you were a toddler.

Surprising new research by University of Calgary, Faculty of Kinesiology researcher Dr. Raylene Reimer, published in an international journal, indicates a direct connection between an adult’s propensity to put on weight and our early childhood diet.

Reimer is a leader in a growing field of study that examines the developmental origins of health and disease. Researchers in this area believe our pre-natal and early childhood environment influences our future risk of developing conditions like cardio vascular disease, obesity and diabetes.

“My research has shown that the food we eat changes how active certain genes in our body are – what we call genetic expression. In particular we believe that our diet has a direct influence on the genes that control how our bodies store and use nutrients,” says Reimer. “There’s a growing body of work that indicates a relationship between our health as adults and our early diet, and even our mother’s diet. This research shows for the first time that our early childhood diet may have a huge impact on our health as adults.”

Reimer’s study published in the current Journal of Physiology (London,) compares three groups of rats. At a very young age the rats were weaned onto three separate diets. One group was fed a high protein diet; one group was fed a high fibre diet and a third group was fed a control diet. When the rats became adults, they were switched to a high fat, high sugar diet, which reflects the reality of the typical western diet.

The results were astonishing. The group of rats who were reared on the high protein diet as packed on much more weight and body fat than the rats who had ‘grown up’ eating the high-fibre diet, who put on the least amount of weight and body fat.

“I believe this study clearly shows that the composition of early childhood diet may have a direct lifelong impact on genes that control metabolism and obesity risk,” says Reimer. “This study clearly indicates that diet composition alone can change the trajectory of circulating satiety hormones and metabolic pathways that influence how we gain weight or control blood sugar as adults.”

###

The 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey conducted by Statistics Canada revealed that a majority of Canadians are now overweight. 36.1% of the population is officially overweight and an additional 23.1% of the population is officially obese (BMI of 30 or more.)

Reprinted from University of Calgary.

by Richard Stacel, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) Most people today are usually aware that fast food is not the healthiest or “best” food to eat. Typically, the majority of people eat it several times a week or more. People generally eat fast food for a few main reasons, mostly because it’s convenient, cheap and usually tastes pretty good.

The cost factor is certainly an understandable reason given the current state of the world economies and everyone’s need to tighten up on their spending. But even this is really no excuse to be pumping the tons of toxic chemicals and “dead” food into you or your families’ bodies.

Nearly all books and documentaries that have come out in recent years showing how bad fast food is mostly focuses on it’s high fat/ high sodium content. Very few of them truly reveal the real dangers of consuming fast food and just why it is totally unfit for human consumption.

Hopefully this article will help you to truly begin to understand why it’s not just a “less healthy” food, but something so terrible, so disgusting, and so horrible that you are far better off eating nothing at all than to consume fast food. If most people truly knew what it is that they’re putting into their bodies when they go up to that drive through window and place their order, surely the vast majority would rarely if ever consume it again.

Certainly anyone who is interested in overcoming illness and disease and attaining higher levels of health and internal purity must vastly limit or completely eliminate their consumption of these so called foods.

So just what is in fast foods today and why is it really so bad for you? Come along as we cover some main reasons for such a strong stance against fast foods and just why they are to be avoided at all cost. Be warned that some of this information may be quite disturbing to some readers.

Fast Food Nation

In 2002, author Eric Shlosser, a correspondent for the Atlantic Herald, came out with a ground breaking book called “Fast Food Nation” which takes us through a sordid maze of deception, cover up, lies, fraud and both animal and human cruelty that has unfortunately become all too common in the meat packing industry today. This was even turned into a 2006 movie release of the same name.

If you only saw the movie, then you missed virtually all of the “meat and potatoes” of this story because the movie was but a pale shadow of the mind blowing information contained in the book.

The movie mostly focused on the plight of the immigrant laborers who work in the meat packing plants. These plants are the main suppliers of the meat, chicken and other foodstuffs sold in the fast food industry.

The book covers every aspect of the fast food industry. From the truly horrible and inhumane conditions of the animals themselves from birth till death, to the often slave like conditions of the plants where the mostly immigrant and poor workers toil in 12 hour shifts or longer each day and more.

Fast Food nation is a thoroughly well researched book that has won worldwide praise for its author Eric Shlosser. Eric was able to gain access to feed lots, slaughter houses and even the J.R. Simplot plant in Aberdeen, Idaho where millions upon millions of French fries are made on a daily basis. The majority of which are mostly destined for area McDonald`s restaurants.

The fast food industry came out in strong protest against his book saying that they don’t agree with his conclusions. At the same time when asked if there were any errors in the book the same industry said “no” that they could not find any errors in his facts or figures at all.

The Processing Line

Twenty years ago the standard number of cattle processed per hour in a typical meat packing plant was 175. The older meatpacking plants in Chicago slaughtered about 50 per hour. Today the workers at many plants are required to kill up to 400 cattle per hour. At the rate worker injuries are all too common as the workers stand close together in one spot for hours a day performing the same task over and over again. Mostly this involves swinging a large sharp knife over and over again to carve up the animal into smaller pieces for processing. Mistakes and injuries to other workers are common as they struggle to keep up with the fast pace of the line in constant fear of falling behind or being fired.

The pace of the line that these workers are forced to work at is a major cause of many serious injuries to workers and has even led to several deaths. How do these workers die exactly…well this is where the story gets downright grizzly. Many times these workers are near the meat grinders when some get limbs caught in them or simply fall into the larger machines completely. By the time the machine can be shut down, there is nothing of the worker left to recover.

That means that along with the meat from the cattle, there is at times, human meat mixed in with the animal meat itself. Fortunately it doesn’t occur all that often, but the author is surely not taking any chances on putting such meat into his body or that of his family and I strongly suggest that you don’t either. There are other things mixed into with the meat as well which we’ll cover shortly.

The speed of the cattle line not only producers a danger to the workers themselves, but it causes them to make a much higher percentage of mistakes in the cutting of the meat itself. What this means is that, because these workers are being forced to do the same motion up to 10,000 times per day, they can and do make mistakes and end up cutting the wrong part of the animals.

Instead of cutting the meat parts that are to be sold, they can end up hitting the bowels which often causes a “mixing” of the animals waste to be mixed in with the meat that is eventually sold to restraints and the public. This is a main source of various E-coli outbreaks that we hear about on the news from time to time. How many more people get sick from such “food” but never report it?

Animal Cruelty

With the terrible and inhumane way in which the animals themselves are treated which causes the meat to lose any of it’s health benefits, coupled with the contamination of the meat itself during processing, you now have a situation where this meat is not only providing very little nutrition or bio-energy, but it can be quite dangerous and deadly.

“Every day in the United States, roughly 200,000 people are sickened by a food borne disease, 900 are hospitalized and fourteen die. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), more than a quarter of the American population suffers a bout of food poisoning each year. Most of these cases are never reported to authorities or properly diagnosed” – Fast Food Nation, page 195

Not only are these animals often killed while they’re in poor health, as a recent investigative film by the human society showed that even animals that are too sick or weak to walk are being picked up by forklifts and led to the slaughter anyway. This is against current animal welfare policies but is rarely enforced due to a loophole in the laws.

Aside from the obvious reasons for animals to be sick and weak such as hormone injections and cramped feedlots which stresses animals out just as it does humans, there are other more stomach churning reasons for their ill health.

The animals are not only unhealthy due to how they’re treated in terms of actual abuse or crowded and stressed conditions, but what they’re being fed is absolutely disgusting a crime against nature itself. These cattle are ruminants, meaning that they’re designed to eat grass and perhaps some grain. They have four stomachs because they’re meant to eats things with high cellulose content.

So what is it that these animals are being fed that further contributes to their being in such ill health and overweight? Until 1997, about 75% of the cattle in the US were being fed livestock wastes, the rendered remains of dead sheep and cattle. They were also fed millions of dead pets from animal shelters. The FDA banned such practices after evidence from Great Britain suggested that this might be responsible for a widespread outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) also known as “mad cow disease”

However, current FDA regulations do allow dead pigs and horses to be turned into cattle feed, along with dead poultry too. They also allow the poultry to be fed to dead cattle. Other constituents of cattle feed include cattle blood, metal fragments and sawdust.

Is it any wonder then that these poor animals are sick and weak and some are unable to even walk to their own slaughter?

Many such animals go to the slaughter with their bodies wracked with tumors, viruses, infections and some reports indicate that a majority of them have cancer throughout their bodies. Meat packers are taught how to cut around the cancers and tumors to avoid infecting the meat itself. But this means that even the “uninfected” parts are so weakened of nutrients, oxygen, energy and life force that it is still unfit for human consumption.

Because of their low nutrient content, higher levels of diseased tissues, bacteria, weak and impure electromagnetic and life force energies along with little to no exercise and not being allowed to eat the grasses that they are designed to eat and other reasons constitute why these animals are unfit for human consumption and a horrible choice of food to be putting into your body.

The Chicken is No Better

If you think the chickens that are sold at fast food places are treated any better, then please take a look at this 48 minute video recently featured on Mercola.com

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic…

How Science is used to Deceive

The meat and other foods sold at fast food restaurants bears little to no resemblance to actual freshly cut meat. Food scientists employ a number of very deceptive and clever techniques to fool the senses into thinking that such foods are tasty and healthy. Science has discovered many chemicals that can exactly emulate the smells of fresh foods found in nature.

For example; Ethyl-2-methyl butyrate smells just like an apple. Adding methyl-2-peridylketone makes something taste like popcorn. Ethyl-3- hydroxybutanoate makes something taste like marshmallow. On and on these combinations go and it can all be done without effecting the appearance or nutritional value of the processed foods. These ingredients can be listed as “natural flavors” on the labels, even on foods that are listed as “organic”

At the Lamb Weston plant in American falls, Idaho, Eric Shlosser saw how the French fries undergo an amazing amount of scientific testing and chemical tweaking to attain just the right taste, consistently, mouthfeel, cooking time and even after taste. At one point they had him close his eyes and he was asked to identify various foods just from their smell. When the first sample was brought him he said “hmm… apples”. When the next sample was brought to him he said “French fries”, the third smelled just like a hamburger. Upon opening his eyes and expecting to see each of the foods present, all he saw was a scientist in a lab coat holding small white pieces of paper under his nose. These were the samples of the chemicals used to make fast food taste and smell so good.

This process is certainly not limited merely to fast food or French fries. At the IFF (International Flavor and Fragrances) plant in Dayton, NJ, Eric saw how chemicals that make nearly every single food or product sold on the market today taste and smell just as they do. Some of these products include; toothpastes, colognes, pop tarts, frozen and restaurant foods, ice cream, snack cakes, cookies, mouthwashes, antacids, potato chips, corn chips, breakfast cereals, soft drinks, sports drinks, bottled teas, beer, wine coolers, all natural juice drinks, frostings, dishwashing detergents, floor waxes, shampoo, soaps, furniture polish, and the list goes on and on.

Why such a focus on the aroma of food, because up to 90% of the taste of a food is actually linked to its aroma. Of course if the food is healthy and fresh, why do they need to add aroma and taste back into the food? Simple, because the food sold at most if not all fast food restaurants is so degraded, so old and of such poor quality that if you actually were to see it’s color and smell it before all of this chemical processing, you would never put such foods into your stomach. This is especially true of the meats that are sold at fast food restaurants.

This is a major reason why reading those labels and eating as much organic, unpackaged and unprocessed foods as possible is so incredible vital to health and longevity. Too often even foods that are labeled as “natural” or “organic” will contain many of these chemical potions. Eating as much raw real foods such as fruits, vegetables and locally grown meats is about the only way to make sure that you’re not consuming foods with these myriad of chemicals in them.

What Color is the Food?

Aroma is not the only tweaking that goes into fast foods. The color of food also has a lot to do with it’s perception of flavor. This is by design because we know that color often indicates whether a food is ripe or rancid. In the early 1970′s an experiment was done where people were given an “oddly tinted” meal of steak and French fries that appeared normal under the colored lights they were subjected to. Everyone thought that the food tasted fine that is until the lighting was changed. As soon as people saw that the steak was actually blue and the fries were green, people were shocked and several even became ill.

If you have bought stand supermarket meats at anytime, you probably noticed that it has that bright red “healthy” looking color in it. Well that meat is not much better than your typical fast food meats. The bright red color is from the same kind of chemical food coloring and chemical wizardry of sight and aroma as the food colorings used in the fast food industry.

The processing of these foods whether it’s the beef, chicken, other meats or French fries has not only destroyed its chemical and nutritional value, but the energetic and phytonutrient or light energy of these foods long before they get to the dinner table.

Understanding how this food is processed, what the animals are eating, how they’re treated and what effect all of this has on the animals that you’re consuming is critical to understanding why fast food is something that you want to avoid at all costs.

The Quick and the Dead

At the very least you want to limit your consumption of this convenient food to no more than once a week, making sure to take digestive enzymes with every meal to ensure proper digestion. Since these foods are enzymes, nutrient and energy dead, that means that you will use up far more of your own digestive enzymes to process this food. This is why fast food equals dead food and the more dead foods we consume, the faster we end up dead ourselves. We truly are what we eat.

Most natural raw foods contain their own natural enzymes which helps the food to digest itself in the stomach and intestines. This takes a big load off of the pancreas which makes most of our digestive enzymes. This is very important since digestion is the number one drain on our store of enzymes. What’s not well known is that enzymes are also a major part of our immune system and are responsible for every process that occurs in the human body, even the beating of your heart.

This is why eating foods high in natural enzymes, which means eating raw, fresh and minimally processed foods as much as possible along with sufficient enzyme supplements, can go a long way to not only aiding in digestion and absorption of nutrients, but can even help boost the immune system and ward off disease.

When enzymes are not busy digesting our last meal, they travel around the body dissolving tumors, killing bacteria, viruses and germs, absorbing dead tissues and rebuilding new ones along with strengthening the entire system. This is the main reason why juicing is so effective at helping people at overcoming and eliminating their serious diseases

We get a plethora of these natural vitamins, nutrients and enzymes when juicing or making natural smoothies with plenty of raw, fresh ingredients. Their natural enzymes are released in the juicer or the blender in the same way that cutting up a fresh salad also releases and activates the nutritional and enzymatic contents in the leaves.

Hopefully you can now see more clearly why it’s vital to avoid fast foods. This truth extends to just about all packaged and processed foods. Food that is packaged and processed is almost totally enzyme, nutrient and energy dead. These foods use up and drain the human body of tremendous amounts of enzymes required to digest and assimilate their nutrient content while giving very little in the way of true life giving energies back.

The longer we keep putting these denatured and energy dead processed foods into our bodies, the faster we’re using up our own limited stores of these life sustaining substances. This can not only hasten the onset of disease, but can accelerate the arrival of our own demise. It for these and other reasons why you should avoid fast food at all costs.

If you want to read more about this, the author highly recommends the book “Fast Food Nation”.

Sources;

“Fast Food Nation”, Eric Schlosser
“The Complete Book of Chinese Health and Healing” Daniel Reid

About the author

Richard Stacel is a network engineer and practitioner of Chinese martial arts, medicine and chi-gung for over twenty four years. Having learned many Chinese health and healing arts from old world gung-fu and healing masters and practitioners, Rich has helped many people to overcome their health issues and achieve their fitness goals. Through diligent study and experience he has taken this knowledge even further over the years including reading scores of books on Chinese medicine, health, nutrition, supplements, meditation, martial arts, physics, science and many other subjects. Utilizing the web, health and fitness videos, newsletters, articles, teachings and lectures, Rich is passionate about spreading the true knowledge of health, healing, fitness and spiritual truths. I’m proud to be writing articles for NaturalNews.com You can learn more about the Chinese Health and Fitness video by visiting his website at www.chinesehealthandfitness.com

Reprinted from NaturalNews.

by Sheryl Walters, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) Drink all of your milk is a phrase many people grew up hearing. Yet evidence increasingly suggests that milk is not as healthy as it has been believed to be. Health concious people are giving up milk and turning to alternatives. Here are 7 reasons why all of us can consider avoiding cow’s milk:

1) Milk doesn’t keep our bones healthy, preventing fractures and osteoporosis. In fact, according the Nurse’s Health Study, dairy may actually increase the risk of fractures rather than protecting our bones. Countries such as those in Africa and Asia who don’t consume large amounts of dairy actually have the lowest rates of osteoporosis.

2) Milk is not the great source of calcium that most people believe it is. First of all, pasteurizing milk kills all of the nutrients, including calcium. Second, spinach, tahini, kale and other green leafy vegetables are the best sources of calcium on the planet.

3) Milk is has been linked with acne by at least three large-scale studies reported in the American Journal of Dermatology. Research shows that there is up to 44% more chance of developing acne in those who drink milk.

4) Dairy may raise cancer risk. Research has revealed that a higher intake of dairy products may increase a man’s risk of prostate cancer by 30 to 50 percent. In addition, the body’s insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which is a known cancer promoter is increased by drinking milk.

5) Approximately 75 percent of the world’s population is lactose intolerant, which means that they are unable to fully digest dairy. Lactase is the enzyme needed to digest lactose, and most people stop producing it around the age of 5.

6) Dairy is full of saturated fat and is linked to heart disease. Like cancer, countries such as Japan have a very low level of heart disease, and research commissioned by the New Zealand company A2 shows that there could be a link between a protein in milk.

7) People with many different healthy complaints notice a significant improvement when they avoid dairy. Health complaints associated with dairy intolerance include irritable bowel syndrome, allergies, sinus problems, and ear infections.

So what is the first step in giving up milk?

*Get loads of sunshine to ensure plenty of vitamin D.

*Start eating masses of green leafy vegetables so you can ensure you are getting your calcium.

*Try substituting milk with nut milk.

*Many studies show that raw milk (unpasteurized) is far better because the nutrients have not been destroyed. Raw goat’s milk and raw sheep’s milk are both increasingly popular.

*Avocado is a wonderful butter substitute. It offers a creaminess that is people who have given up milk miss. Many vegans and raw foodists find that avocado is one of the most essential transition foods.

*Coconut butter is another buttery, creamy substitute for those that want to give up milk. Coconut butter is the healthiest oil in cooking. It can also replace butter as a spread and cream in healthy cakes and desserts.
http://www.womenrepublic.co.uk
www.mercola.com

 About the author

Sheryl is a kinesiologist, nutritionist and holistic practitioner. Her website www.younglivingguide.com provides the latest research on preventing disease, looking naturally gorgeous, and feeling emotionally and physically fabulous. And her latest website www.raiselibido.com offers a vast quantity of information on how to increase sex drive and enjoy a vibrant sex life.

Reprinted from NaturalNews.