Tag Archives for " vegetables "

biotech scholarships

Is It Possible To Avoid Genetically Modified Food?

Genetically modified food has divided experts for years. Some say that it is necessary to feed a growing global population whilst others object to GM food on the grounds that it is unethical and poses health risks for both humans and for the natural environment.

Although many consumers are wary about eating GM products, food producers have continued to seek new ways to increase profits and reduce wastage. As a result many everyday products now contain GM ingredients. And GM food may be more prevalent than you expect. In fact, around 90% of the corn grown in the US is genetically modified.

So what exactly does Genetically Modified mean?
Genetically modified foods are produced by making changes to the DNA structure of food crops to give specific benefits. Examples include apples that have been modified not to brown as quickly or potato crops that have been modified to be more resistant to viruses.

How to avoid GM ingredients
It can be difficult to spot which products have been genetically modified, particularly as a large amount of animal feed contains GM ingredients. Even though the eggs you eat might not have been modified themselves, the chicken that laid them may be eating genetically modified feed.

If you want to avoid GM ingredients, the best thing to do is look for labels that state that a product is ‘GM Free’. Alternatively, choose organic products that feature the Soil Association logo.

The Soil Association campaigns against the use of GM ingredients in both human food and animal feed. For more information about the Soil Association, visit: www.soilassociation.org

jan16 07 704970 1200x6751 e1475610291511

What You Eat Affects Your Productivity

Think back to your most productive workday in the past week. Now ask yourself: On that afternoon, what did you have for lunch?

When we think about the factors that contribute to workplace performance, we rarely give much consideration to food. For those of us battling to stay on top of emails, meetings, and deadlines, food is simply fuel.

But as it turns out, this analogy is misleading. The foods we eat affect us more than we realize. With fuel, you can reliably expect the same performance from your car no matter what brand of unleaded you put in your tank. Food is different. Imagine a world where filling up at Mobil meant avoiding all traffic and using BP meant driving no faster than 20 miles an hour. Would you then be so cavalier about where you purchased your gas?

Food has a direct impact on our cognitive performance, which is why a poor decision at lunch can derail an entire afternoon.

Here’s a brief rundown of why this happens. Just about everything we eat is converted by our body into glucose, which provides the energy our brains need to stay alert. When we’re running low on glucose, we have a tough time staying focused and our attention drifts. This explains why it’s hard to concentrate on an empty stomach.

So far, so obvious. Now here’s the part we rarely consider: Not all foods are processed by our bodies at the same rate. Some foods, like pasta, bread, cereal and soda, release their glucose quickly, leading to a burst of energy followed by a slump. Others, like high fat meals (think cheeseburgers and BLTs) provide more sustained energy, but require our digestive system to work harder, reducing oxygen levels in the brain and making us groggy.

Most of us know much of this intuitively, yet we don’t always make smart decisions about our diet. In part, it’s because we’re at our lowest point in both energy and self-control when deciding what to eat. French fries and mozzarella sticks are a lot more appetizing when you’re mentally drained.

Unhealthy lunch options also tend to be cheaper and faster than healthy alternatives, making them all the more alluring in the middle of a busy workday. They feel efficient. Which is where our lunchtime decisions lead us astray. We save 10 minutes now and pay for it with weaker performance the rest of the day.

So what are we to do? One thing we most certainly shouldn’t do is assume that better information will motivate us to change. Most of us are well aware that scarfing down a processed mixture of chicken bones and leftover carcasses is not a good life decision. But that doesn’t make chicken nuggets any less delicious.

No, it’s not awareness we need—it’s an action plan that makes healthy eating easier to accomplish. Here are some research-based strategies worth trying.

The first is to make your eating decisions before you get hungry. If you’re going out to lunch, choose where you’re eating in the morning, not at 12:30 PM. If you’re ordering in, decide what you’re having after a mid-morning snack. Studies show we’re a lot better at resisting salt, calories, and fat in the future than we are in the present.

Another tip: Instead of letting your glucose bottom out around lunch time, you’ll perform better by grazing throughout the day. Spikes and drops in blood sugar are both bad for productivity and bad for the brain. Smaller, more frequent meals maintain your glucose at a more consistent level than relying on a midday feast.
Finally, make healthy snacking easier to achieve than unhealthy snacking. Place a container of almonds and a selection of protein bars by your computer, near your line of vision. Use an automated subscription service, like Amazon, to restock supplies. Bring a bag of fruit to the office on Mondays so that you have them available throughout the week.

Is carrying produce to the office ambitious? For many of us, the honest answer is yes. Yet there’s reason to believe the weekly effort is justified.

Research indicates that eating fruits and vegetables throughout the day isn’t simply good for the body—it’s also beneficial for the mind. A fascinating paper in this July’s British Journal of Health Psychology highlights the extent to which food affects our day-to-day experience.

Within the study, participants reported their food consumption, mood, and behaviors over a period of 13 days. Afterwards, researchers examined the way people’s food choices influenced their daily experiences. Here was their conclusion: The more fruits and vegetables people consumed (up to 7 portions), the happier, more engaged, and more creative they tended to be.

Why? The authors offer several theories. Among them is an insight we routinely overlook when deciding what to eat for lunch: Fruits and vegetables contain vital nutrients that foster the production of dopamine, a neurotransmitter that plays a key role in the experience of curiosity, motivation, and engagement. They also provide antioxidants that minimize bodily inflammation, improve memory, and enhance mood.

Which underscores an important point: If you’re serious about achieving top workplace performance, making intelligent decisions about food is essential.

The good news is that contrary to what many of us assume, the trick to eating right is not learning to resist temptation. It’s making healthy eating the easiest possible option.

 

SOURCE…hbr.org

Nutrition As Medicine

Most people truly do not understand the concept of nutritional medicine and fewer yet understand the concept of cellular nutrition.  This article will give you a better understanding of how I approach my patients as a specialist in Nutritional Medicine. Hopefully, this will give you a better understanding of how and why you can better protect your health or even regain your health by applying these concepts to your own life.

Concept of Oxidative Stress

Even though oxygen is necessary for life itself, it is inherently dangerous for our existence.  In the process of utilizing oxygen within your cells to create energy, you also create a by-product referred to as free radicals.  Free radicals are charged oxygen molecules that are missing at least one electron and desire to get an electron from the surrounding area.  If it is not readily neutralized by an antioxidant, which has the ability to give this free radical the electron it desires, it can go on to create more volatile free radicals, damage the cell wall, vessel wall, proteins, fats, and even the DNA nucleus of the cell.  So the same process that turns a cut apple brown or rusts metal is causing you to rust inside.  In fact, the medical literature now shows us that over 70 chronic degenerative diseases are the result of this process.  Diseases like coronary artery disease, cancer, diabetes, Parkinson’s, arthritis, macular degeneration, MS, lupus, among others are the result of small oxidative changes that occur over a long period of time.

It is all about Balance

The number of free radicals you produce is not steady.  In other words, some days you produce more than others.  Because of our stressful lifestyles, polluted environment, and over-medicated society, this generation must deal with more free radicals than any previous generation that has ever walked the face of the earth.  If you want to prevent oxidative stress, you need to have more antioxidants available along with their supporting nutrients than the number of free radicals you produce.  You see, we are not defenseless against this process.  Antioxidants are the answer.  The question is whether or not we are able to get all the antioxidants we need from our food.  This was the question I had to answer for myself and the reason that I wrote my book What Your Doctor Doesn’t Know about Nutritional Medicine.   After spending over 2 years reviewing the medical literature, I concluded that the only way you have a chance of preventing oxidative stress is by taking high quality, complete and balanced nutritional supplements that provide, what I refer to as, cellular nutrition.  If you have not read my book or listened to any of my CD’s on this subject, I would certainly encourage you to do just that.  The medical references are detailed in my books and provide the medical evidence that demands a verdict—should you be taking nutritional supplements?

History of Nutritional Medicine

            Over the past half century, nutritional medicine has been practiced with the belief that you had to determine what nutrients in which you were deficient and then supplement that particular nutrient.  It became very obvious to me early on in my research that the underlying problem most of us are facing is not a nutritional deficiency, but instead, the result of oxidative stress.  It was also apparent to me that medication, which actually increases the production of free radicals, would never be the answer to preventing any of these diseases.  Also if this was the case, the goal had to be to provide the nutrients that were necessary to build up our body’s natural antioxidant defense system so that you did not develop oxidative stress.  It became so apparent to me that our bodies, not the drugs I could prescribe, were the best defense against developing any of these diseases.  The problem is NOT a nutritional deficiency.  The problem is oxidative stress.

Modern Nutritional Research

Today’s research is focused on trying to find the magic bullet in regards to a particular disease.  For example, there were many studies that showed that those smokers who had the highest antioxidant levels in their blood stream had a significantly lower risk of developing lung cancer than those smokers who had the lowest level of antioxidants.  Most of the researchers felt that it was primarily due to the high levels of beta carotene.  So they decided to do a study and supplement a large number of smokers with just beta carotene.  They were dismayed when they found that the group that received the beta carotene alone actually had a higher incidence of lung cancer than the control group.  This led researchers and the media to actually claim that beta carotene was dangerous and should not be taken in supplementation in smokers.  A review of the same data reported a couple of years later showed that those smokers who had the highest levels of total antioxidants in their blood stream had a significantly decreased risk of developing lung cancer compared to those who had the lowest levels of antioxidants.

Beta carotene is NOT a drug.  It is merely a nutrient that we get from our food; however, because of supplementation we are now able to get it at levels you cannot obtain from your food.  Beta carotene works in only certain parts of the body and against only certain kinds of free radicals.  Beta carotene needs the other antioxidants along with the antioxidant minerals and B cofactors in order to do its job effectively.  However, researchers are focused on trying to find the magic bullet instead of stepping back and understanding the basic principles and concepts of cellular nutrition.  The amazing thing is how so many of these studies that look at just one or possibly two nutrients actually show a health benefit.  What would the health benefit be if you would put all of these nutrients together at these optimal levels?  Enter in the concept of cellular nutrition.

Concept of Cellular Nutrition

There are over 180 epidemiologic studies (studies that involve a very large number of people) that all show the very same thing.  Those individuals who have the highest levels of total antioxidants in their body compared with those who have the lowest levels have a 2- to 3-fold decrease risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and even Alzheimer’s dementia.  Obviously, those individuals who consume more of the fresh fruits and vegetables, which contain a large amount of these antioxidants, had the highest levels of antioxidants in their body.  This only makes logical sense when you understand the concept of oxidative stress as being the root cause of over 70 of these chronic degenerative diseases.  Therefore, a physician would conclude the best thing that they could advise their patients to do is to be consuming at least 8 to 12 servings of fresh whole fruits and vegetables each and every day.  The second best thing would be to recommend high quality, complete and balanced nutritional supplements that provided cellular nutrition.

Cellular nutrition would be defined as providing ALL of the micronutrients to the cell at these optimal or advanced levels that have been shown to provide a health benefit in our medical literature.  In other words, you would want your supplementation to be balanced and complete, much like a healthy diet is. The only difference is the fact that, unlike today’s food supply, supplementation can provide all of these nutrients at optimal levels.  We all need to be supplementing a healthy diet; however, because of our stressful lifestyles, polluted environment, and over-medicated society we do need to be supplementing.

Cellular nutrition has been shown in our medical literature to build up our body’s natural immune system, antioxidant system, and repair system.  You not only replenish any nutritional deficiency within 6 months of supplementation, but you also optimize all of the body’s micronutrients.  You are given the absolute best chance to reverse or prevent any oxidative stress and protect your health.  You see, nutritional supplementation is really about health—not disease.  Nutritional supplements are natural to the body and the nutrients the body requires to function at its optimal level.

Every man, woman, and child needs to be supplementing a healthy diet and be involved in a modest exercise program.  This is the key to protecting and maintaining your health.  However, what if you have already lost your health and have developed one of these chronic degenerative diseases?  Does supplementation provide any hope?  This is the question that I had to answer for myself and for my patients.  This has been the focus of my practice for the past 11 years and why I have developed my online practice located at www.raystrand.com.

The Concept of Synergy

The medical literature had showed me over and over again that those patients who were already suffering from a chronic degenerative disease like rheumatoid arthritis, MS, or diabetes actually had significantly more oxidative stress than the normal, healthy patient.  Cellular nutrition is generally adequate to help someone who is in excellent health; however, it would not be enough supplementation to bring oxidative stress under control in someone who is already suffering from a major disease.

It became very apparent to me early on that if you were going to be able to have any effect on improving the health of someone who was already suffering from cancer, heart disease, macular degeneration, diabetes, macular degeneration, and the like that you would have to truly optimize every aspect of the body’s natural defense systems.  I quickly began to realize that by placing all of my patients on basic cellular nutrition, I was able to create a synergistic effect.  Vitamin E is a great antioxidant within the cell membrane.  Vitamin C is a great antioxidant within the plasma.  Glutathione is the best intracellular antioxidant.  However, all of these antioxidants needed the antioxidant minerals and B cofactors to do their job well.  Also, vitamin C was able to replenish vitamin E so it could be used over and over again.  Alpha lipoic acid, another great antioxidant, was able to regenerate both vitamin E and glutathione.  I found that 1 plus 1 was no longer 2, but instead, 8 or 10. This powerful approach allowed me a much better chance of bringing oxidative stress back under control.

Once my patients were consuming my recommendations of cellular nutrition, I simply began adding enhancers to their nutritional supplement regime.  I began looking for the most potent antioxidants that were available.  Grape seed extract was found to be 50 times more potent than vitamin E and 20 times more potent than vitamin C at handling oxidative stress.  CoQ10 was not only a very important antioxidant but has been found to significantly boost our natural immune system and help provide increased energy for the cell to function at its optimal level.  Other nutrients like glucosamine sulfate, saw palmetto, phytonutrients, additional vitamin E, calcium, magnesium in various illnesses produced amazing results.

Over the past 12 years, I have learned how to best support my patients’ natural defenses and allow them the best chance to take back control of their health.  Again, it is all about balance.  I want my patients who are already suffering from an illness to also bring oxidative stress back under control.  This is my entire goal.  Then and only then do they have a chance to see their health improve.  By combining cellular nutrition with specific enhancers, I give all my patients the best chance of bringing oxidative stress back under control.  The results that I have seen in my medical practice using these principles have been nothing short of amazing and something that I had never witnessed in my first 20 plus years of medical practice.

Now, I want to share a couple of precautions that I have learned along the way.  First, nutritional medicine is not like taking drugs.  It takes a minimum of 6 months to build up the body’s natural defenses and many of my patients did not even begin to see any improvements in their health until after 6 months.  Not everyone responds to my recommendations; however, I feel the majority of my patients have had significant health improvements when they followed these recommendations.  None of my patients were cured of their underlying illness.  Nutritional supplementation is not an alternative or substitute for traditional medical care.  You should never quit taking any medication prescribed by your doctor without his or her consent and direction.  Many of my patients have been able to decrease their dependence of medication and in some cases even discontinue some of their medication.  However, this is always because of a significant positive improvement in their health and under the direction of their personal physician.

 

 

 

 

 

SOURCE…www.raystrand.com

11249118 849907961768311 317859590 n

The Truth Behind The Meat Industry

 

Our food system is in dire need of change in order to protect human health, but it’s a system that is difficult to change. It’s not impossible, but it will require more people to change their shopping habits in order to drive up demand, and hence the industry’s resolve to address the shortcomings.

Multi-Faceted Problems Stemming from Industrial Farming Practices

Industrial-scale farming has wide-ranging problems. Typically, the focus is on deteriorating food quality and safety. Certainly, the factory farm model directly contributes to Americans’ increasing reliance on processed junk foods the very same foods that are making us obese and riddled with chronic disease.Emerging diseases in livestock, wildlife, and humans are also traceable to industrial farming practices. This includes antibiotic-resistant diseases, mad cow disease in cows, and chronic wasting disease (CWD) in deer and elk.

Infectious proteins causing mad cow and CWD have also been implicated in Alzheimer’s disease in humans—the only differentiating factor being the time it takes for symptoms and death to occur.According to one estimate, up to 13 percent of all Alzheimer’s victims may actually have mad cow infection , acquired from eating contaminated CAFO meat.The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) also attribute nearly 133,000 illnesses each year to contaminated chicken parts. The agency has set a goal to reduce illness by 34 percent.

As for salmonellosis cases, the USDA estimates contaminated chicken and turkey cause about 200,000 illnesses a year. FSIS’ goal is to reduce that number by at least 25 percent by 2020. Factory farmed chicken is by far the greatest culprit when it comes to food poisoning.Beef is also frequently tainted, and a USDA rule requiring labeling of mechanically tenderized beef has been under consideration for six years already, for the fact that the procedure compresses pathogens from the surface down into the meat, where it can more easily thrive and survive cooking. Mechanically tenderized beef has been blamed for at least five E.Coli outbreaks between 2003 and 2009.

But like a multi-headed hydra, the adverse effects of industrial farming sprout in many other directions as well. For example, large-scale factory farming is also responsible for:

  • Loss of water quality through nitrogen and phosphorus contamination in rivers, streams, and ground water (which contributes to “dramatic shifts in aquatic ecosystems and hypoxic zones”)
  • Agricultural pesticides also contaminate streams, ground water, and wells, raising safety concerns to agricultural workers who use them
  • A decline in nutrient density of 43 garden crops (primarily vegetables), which suggests possible tradeoffs between yield and nutrient content
  • Large emission of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
  • Negative impact on soil quality through such factors as erosion, compaction, pesticide application, and excessive fertilization

Industrial Farming Is Destroying Food Quality

“How do you alert people to the problems of industrial-scale farming?” a recent article in National Geographic asks.

“The issues are urgent, but they are also difficult to confront: The indifference to animal welfare, the strip-mining of poor countries’ resources to feed the rich, the environmental damage and antibiotic overuse can be so hard to face that many people just turn away.”

Philip Lymbery, an animal-welfare activist and author of the book Farmageddon: The True Cost of Cheap Meat, notes that one of the techniques used to perpetuate factory farming is secrecy. For example, in Europe, eggs from caged hens are marked “battery eggs,” whereas in the US, those same eggs are labeled as “farm fresh” or “country fresh.”

If you don’t know there’s a problem, you won’t root for change, and that is exactly why the food industry is fighting tooth and nail to prevent labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the US, as well as legislation that would prevent them from fraudulently labeling GMOs as “Natural.”It is imperative for the food and chemical technology industries that currently monopolize agriculture to keep you in the dark about how your food is produced.

They’ve even lobbied for gag laws that make it a felony to video tape animal cruelty or other heinous activities occurring on factory farms, lest sympathy start upsetting the proverbial apple cart… When asked if he’s opposed to animal farming for food altogether, Lymbery replies:

“This is not, in any way, a call to vegetarianism. This is a call to put animals back on the farm. Pasture is one of the most ubiquitous habitats on the planet, covering 25 percent of the ice-free land surface.

This is about using that ubiquitous habitat to produce great food in a way which is environmentally friendly and kinder to animals, leaving much-scarcer arable to grow crops directly for people…Three times a day, through our meal choices, we have an opportunity to change our lives and thereby help change the world.

It’s as simple as buying free-range eggs, pasture-raised beef and chicken, and looking for milk that has come from cows that have been able to graze… We’ll start to support family farms, will help to support a better environment, and will help to feed the world in a more humane and efficient way.”

The US Meat Racket

Most all conventional meat and poultry (beef, pork, chicken, turkey, etc.) is raised in CAFO’S It’s a corporate-controlled system characterized by large-scale, centralized, low profit-margin production, processing, and distribution systems.This is the cheapest way to raise meat, for the largest profits. But the ultimate price is high, as there’s a complete disregard for human health, the environment, and ethical treatment of animals and plant workers alike.

A series of recent articles, listed on NewAmerica.org delve into the various aspects of the monopoly that is America’s meat market. In one, titled “The Meat Racket,” Christopher Leonard reveals how the US meat industry has been seized by a mere handful of companies, and how this tightly controlled monopoly drives small livestock farmers out of business.Other articles detail the drugs used in CAFO farming, and the risks this drug based farming poses to human health. One side effect is the creation of  antibiotic -resistant superbugs , which I’ve addressed on numerous occasions.

Martha Rosenberg also recently highlighted a USDA Inspector General Report,which revealed that beef sold to the public have been found to be contaminated with a staggering 211 different drug residues, as well as heavy metals.

Hazardous growth-promoting drugs like Zilmax and Ractopamine are also routinely used in American CAFOs, and as much as 20 percent of the drug administered may remain in the meat you buy. Their use is disturbing when you consider that side effects in cattle include brain lesions, lameness, heart failure, and sudden death. Salon Magazine also recently ran an article on the subject of factory farming, penned by Lindsay Abrams, in which she discusses journalist Ted Genoways’ new book,The Chain—an expose of the American pork industry. She writes in part:

“What journalist Christopher Leonard recently did for Tyson and the chicken industry, Genoways… does for pork, recounting the history of Hormel Foods… as it evolved from humble beginnings to an industrial giant with a nearly myopic focus on expansion and acceleration, regardless of the costs.

And boy, are there costs… a mysterious neurological disorder linked to a machine that has workers breathing in a fine mist of pork brains… abuse suffered by the animals on whom workers’ frustrations are instead taken out; and a decline in food safety that, unbelievably, is set to become the new industry standard.”

Genoways book reveals how societal issues “fan out in all directions,” as he puts it, from the way our pork is produced. Sure, there are many disturbing safety issues, but it doesn’t end there. According to Genoways, another hidden issue is that many of the health hazards that affect plant workers affect already exploited immigrant workers to a disproportionate degree.

Agricultural Subsidies Fleece American Taxpayers to Keep Meat Monopoly Going

As detailed in a previous article by Food Revolution, CAFOs and the products they produce are largely sustained by American taxpayers. In essence, we’re being shrewdly fleeced to keep this flawed and unhealthy system going. Taxpayer-subsidized grain prices, for example, save CAFOs billions of dollars each year. Grass-fed cattle operations, on the other hand, receive no benefit at all from such agricultural subsidies, and hence the price of grass-fed beef is markedly higher. But that’s not the end of that story either. As the article explains:

“Federal policies also give CAFOs billions of dollars to address their pollution problems, which arise because they confine so many animals, often tens of thousands, in a small area. Small farmers raising cattle on pasture do not have this problem in the first place.

If feedlots and other CAFOs were required to pay the price of handling the animal waste in an environmentally health manner, if they were made to pay to prevent or to clean up the pollution they create, they wouldn’t be dominating the US meat industry the way they are today. But instead we have had farm policies that require the taxpayers to foot the bill

Why Is Most Grass-Fed Beef Sold in the US Imported?

Did you know that most of the grass-fed beef sold in the US is actually imported from Australia and New Zealand? One estimate, which is based off of the USDA’s import/export data, suggests as much as 85 percent of grass-fed beef sold in the US may be imported, although it’s virtually impossible to ascertain a definite number. Some grass-fed beef is also sourced from countries like Mexico, Nicaragua, Brazil, and Uruguay.

To many, that will probably come as a big surprise. According to National Journal, the restaurant franchise Chipotle is one of the latest companies to turn to Australian ranchers to meet demand for grass-fed beef, as American suppliers are falling short, and/or cannot compete with Australia’s lower prices. In a Huffington Post op-ed published earlier this summer, Chipotle founder Steve Ells said:

Over the years, we have had great success serving the premium beef we call Responsibly Raised… Nevertheless, sometimes the existing supply of the premium meats we serve is unable to meet our growing demand… Rather than serve conventionally raised steak, we recently began sourcing some steak from ranches in Southern Australia, which is among the very best places in the world for raising beef cattle entirely on grass.

The meat produced by these ranchers is ‘grass-fed’ in the truest sense of the term: The cattle spend their entire lives grazing on pastures or rangelands, eating only grass or forages… In the short-run, the grass-fed beef purchased from Australia will continue to supplement the premium Responsibly Raised beef we have long purchased from across the U.S. But over time, we hope that our demand for grass-fed beef will help pave the way for more American ranchers to adopt a grass-fed program, and in doing so turn grass-fed beef from a niche to a mainstream product.”

Some of the reasons driving the import of grass-fed beef include the fact that Australia and New Zealand have a climate that permits grazing year-round. You also need a lot of land to allow herds to graze, and grasslands are plentiful Down Under. In fact, 70 percent of all Australian cattle are pasture-raised and finished, and many of the grass-fed cattle operations are massive. Volume makes it cheaper, so Australians can sell their meat for less than American grass-fed cattle ranchers can.

The question is, is it really “impossible” for American ranchers to produce enough grass fed beef? Probably not. Neither climate nor lack of grasslands is a factor in certain states. However, there is one factor that severely hobbles American cattle ranchers, and that is slaughterhouse shortage…

USDA’s Stranglehold on American Cattle Ranchers

All farmers must use USDA-approved slaughterhouses, and laws place special restrictions on grass-fed slaughtering. If a grass-fed rancher doesn’t have access to a slaughterhouse, he cannot stay in business. This is yet another shrewd if not perverse strategy that effectively maintains the status quo of CAFOs. Large slaughterhouses can also refuse smaller jobs, as they—just like CAFOs—operate on economy of scale. As explained by The Carnivore’s Dilemma:

“At harvest time, small family farmers are forced to transport their animals to the nearest legal ‘processing plant’ that will accept their animals. These plants often do not conform to the high standards farmers have for their animals’ welfare, but the farmers have no choice. Humane certification requires humane slaughter, which only some slaughterhouses do. From an animal welfare standpoint, how animals die is as important as how they live. So unless the farmer is lucky enough to have access to an outstanding small slaughterhouse with transparent policies, they can’t get the certification, even if they did the right thing every day of the animals’ lives.”

Basically, there may be plenty of demand for grass-fed beef, and plenty of supply, but USDA rules and regulations prevent the American-bred supply from ever reaching the customer… Across the US, smaller slaughterhouses catering to grass-fed ranchers have been closing up shop, pushed out by larger processors, adding to the shortage of processing facilities to choose from. A recent article in the Nutrition Business Journal addresses the question of: why are there so few meat processors in the US?

The answer is complex. Part of the problem is that once refrigeration came into play in the 1950s, slaughterhouses started moving from the downtown areas of bigger cities to more rural areas, from where the meat was then distributed to consumers. Again, economy of scale made this the less expensive option, once meats could safely be chilled and boxed. And, since rural slaughterhouses were no longer constrained by limited amounts of space, they grew increasingly larger. Eventually, they began to consolidate into fewer companies.

Today, the market is consolidated in the extreme. Just FOUR companies, Cargill, Tyson Foods, JBS, and National Beef Packaging Co, control more than 80 percent of all cattle slaughtered in the US. As noted in the cited article: “The Big Four’s grip on the market make everything—from slaughter to distribution to face-time with stretched-too-thin USDA inspectors—more problematic for small operations.”

Small processing facilities are more costly to run across the board, compared to large-scale slaughterhouses. They cut everything by hand, which takes longer, and requires workers with a high degree of specialized skill. The seasonality of grass-fed beef is another hurdle. Grass-fed beef is typically slaughtered in the fall, after a full summer of grazing, whereas CAFO beef doesn’t follow that same seasonal pattern. For a slaughterhouse to stay in business, it needs business year-round.

Small slaughterhouses also struggle to meet USDA’s strict, and costly, regulations—many of which are geared toward mechanized plants and not a small-scale hands-on butchery. Adding to the list of complications are restrictive zoning and eco-impact regulations. Again, change is needed on many fronts, but I am hopeful that change will be forced to occur once public demand becomes too overwhelming to ignore.

Greenwashing Meat Industry Standards

A Global Roundtable on Sustainable Beef (GRSB) recently presented new “sustainability principles and criteria” for beef production. The proposal has been vehemently rejected by nearly two dozen consumer, animal welfare, worker, public health, and environmental groups. The initiative has the potential to shape the definition of sustainable beef production around the world. As reported by Common Dreams:

“In a  to the Roundtable’s Executive Committee, 23 groups…criticized the principles and criteria, stating: ‘We—and no doubt many other organizations like us—must overwhelmingly reject the Principles and Criteria for Global Sustainable Beef. Unless the GRSB addresses the fundamental flaws outlined in our letter, the document will represent nothing more than an industry-led attempt to greenwash conventional beef production at a time when real, measurable, and verifiable change is so desperately needed.'”

For starters, the GRSB fails to address the overuse of antibiotics in farming. Nor does it adequately address workers’ rights, animal welfare, environmental sustainability, waste management systems, or the establishment of a solid verification system. The latter leaves the door wide open for greenwashing beef products that are anything but sustainable. According to Andrew Gunther, Program Director at Animal Welfare Approved:

“We urgently need to change the way we farm and feed ourselves, yet the GRSB’s Principles and Criteria for Global Sustainable Beef promises nothing more than ‘business as usual’ beef. The collective failure of GRSB members to acknowledge—let alone address—some of the fundamental faults of modern intensive beef production reveals a staggering lack of accountability and foresight at the very heart of the beef industry, particularly when we know public trust in beef is already at an all-time low.”

Rethink Your Shopping Habits to Protect Your Family’s Health

Part of the problem is that the current model is focused on growth; not steady profit, and certainly not sustainability. I believe the movement toward sustainable food and ethical meat is very important, both in terms of human health and animal welfare. Organic,  grass -fed and finished meat  that is humanely raised and butchered is really about the only type of meat that is healthy to eat. Many grocery chains are now responding to customer demand, and will provide at least a small assortment of grass-fed meats.

If your local grocer still doesn’t carry any, go ahead and ask the purchasing manager to consider adding it. Some stores, like Publix, will even stock specialty items requested by a single customer… The least expensive way to obtain authentic grass-fed beef though is to find a local rancher you can trust, and buy it directly from the farm. Alternatively, you can now purchase grass-fed beef from organic ranchers online, if you don’t have access to a local source. The following organizations can also help you locate farm-fresh foods in your local area that has been raised in a humane, sustainable manner:

SOURCE… WWW.articles.mercola.com

 

meat versus veggies1

How Much Meat versus Veggies?

 

Lets try to settle this debate. Meat or no Meat. With Ph.D   Sarah Ballantyne, . a.k.a. The Paleo Mom we’ll find out ….

In the first two parts of this series (here and here), I looked at the (hotly debated!) question of whether humans are innate herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores from a variety of scientific angles: evolutionary history, surveys of modern hunter-gatherers, clues from our primate relatives, comparative anatomy, and our unique genetic adaptations to starch and dairy.

Yes, Part 1 and Part 2 contained A LOT of information, but I promise the goal wasn’t to drown you in a geek-fest of facts and figures! I wanted to demonstrate that no matter which angle we approach it from, the answer is the same: humans are very clearly omnivores. Our need for (and adaptation to) both plants and animals is written all over our history, anatomy, and DNA. The rationale for claiming otherwise doesn’t hold up to scientific scrutiny, no matter what’s floating around on The Google and in Facebook memes!

But, that brings us to another important issue: we might be omnivores in a general sense, but what exactly does that mean? How much animal versus plant products should we be eating? How much meat do we really need in order to be healthy? How many vegetables does it take to cover our phytochemical bases? How far can we tilt in the direction of mostly plants or mostly animals before we start running into trouble? In other words, how do we do this omnivore thing the right way?

The short answer to all these questions is, “There’s no exact answer!” Your nutritional needs depend on a huge number of factors, ranging from your health status to your activity level to your age to your genetics (and that’s just scratching the surface of relevant variables). But, we can still estimate what to shoot for as an average based on the available evidence, both observational and clinical. And a good place to start is with hunter-gatherer populations, who’ve figured out how to feed generation after generation of healthy, chronic-disease-free humans. Let’s dive in!

More Clues from Hunter-Gatherers

As I mentioned in Part 1 of this series, the exact menu of our early ancestors is impossible to piece together without a time machine. (And that’s totally okay! This isn’t an historical reenactment. Rather, understanding what our Paleolithic ancestors ate is a starting point for understanding what shaped our nutritional needs and how to best feed our bodies now.) We do, however, have plenty of evidence from more recent hunter-gatherer populations that showcase what kinds of plant and animal food combinations can deliver awesome health.

A widely cited paper by Loren Cordain, et al. analyzed data for 229 hunter-gatherer societies (as recorded in an ethnographic atlas), and found that the vast majority of tribes ate between 45 and 65% of their diet as animal foods (as a percent of total energy), with 35 to 55% of their diet coming from plants. (Tribes that fell outside those ranges were typically from polar regions (like the Inuit), where genetic mutations made it possible to thrive on an extremely high meat intake, or equatorial regions, where the greater bounty of nutrient-dense vegetables and fruits skewed the ratio more towards plant foods.) Because many of those 229 tribes were from North America (where hunting dominated) and relatively fewer were from Africa, Asia, Australia, and South America (where starchy or fatty plant foods were a frequent staple), the average proportion of plant foods might be a bit higher in reality than Cordain’s analysis reflected. (For instance, the !Kung bushmen of southern Africa ate about 33% of their diet as meat and 67% of their diet as plant foods, because they made use of the energy-dense mongongo nut in lieu of a higher animal food intake.)

So, as a ballpark figure, we could say that hunter-gatherers average about half of their diet (calorie-wise) as animal foods and about half as plant foods—with lots of wiggle room thrown in on either side! What’s for certain is that whenever both meat and vegetation is abundant, humans tend to gravitate towards a truly omnivorous diet that’s about equal parts plants and animal, rather than anything nearly herbivorous or nearly carnivorous. That ensures a broad micronutrient intake and plenty of fiber, phytochemicals, high-quality protein, and essential fats. For those of us who can only hunt and gather in the supermarket, 50-50 is still a pretty safe ratio to aim for!

But wait! Keep in mind that 50% of your dietary calories from one type of food isn’t the same as 50% of your dietary volume from that food (that is, how much space it takes up on your dinner plate). Meat and other animal products tend to be much more energy-dense relative to most plant foods (for an extreme example, one cup of beef steak has 338 calories, whereas one cup of raw spinach has only 7 calories!). That means that a meal containing an assortment of vegetables, plus a smaller portion of meat, fish, or eggs could easily come out to be a 50/50 ratio of calories from plants versus animals—even though it looks like more plant foods to the naked eye. Tricky, eh?

So, what does that mean for how you should plan your diet? Although both plants and animals can vary in their energy density (bone marrow is more dense than chicken breast, and a sweet potato is more dense than broccoli), it’s typically safe to say that if you aim for a diet of approximately 50% plants and 50% animals, the plants will take up more visual space in each meal and the animal foods will take up less—typically on the order of plant foods taking up 2/3 to 3/4 of your plate.

But, the last thing I want you to do is haul around a calculator every time you eat in order get the 50-50 ratio exactly right. Keep in mind, indigenous populations have stayed healthy on a wide spectrum of plant-to-animal-food ratios (as well as macronutrient ratios, which I wrote about here!). It’s only at the extremes that things get sketchy. Even if your ratio ends up being closer to 25/75 or 75/25 or if it varies fairly wildly between those two day by day, you’ll probably be just fine as long as you’re choosing from high-quality, nutrient-rich foods. Which brings us to…

Nutrients: Getting The Best of Both Kingdoms (Plant and Animal!)

When it comes to our omnivorous diet, keep in mind that we get different nutritional needs met through animal foods versus plants. It’s not a competition between these two kingdoms, where one is “better” or “worse” than the other; both play a distinct but equally valuable role! In fact, there’s a huge spectrum of micronutrients and other beneficial compounds found mostly or exclusively in either plant foods or animal foods, such as:

Plant Foods

  • Vitamin C
  • Carotenoids (lycopene, beta-carotene, lutein, zeaxanthin)
  • Diallyl sulfide (from the allium class of vegetables)
  • Polyphenols
  • Flavonoids (anthocyanins, flavan-3-ols, flavonols, proanthocyanidins, procyanidins, kaempferol, myricetin, quercetin, flavonones)
  • Dithiolethiones
  • Lignans
  • Plant sterols and stanols
  • Isothiocyanates and indoles
  • Prebiotic fibers (soluble and insoluble)

Animal Foods

  • Vitamin B12
  • Heme iron
  • Zinc
  • Pre-formed vitamin A (retinol)
  • High-quality protein
  • Creatine
  • Taurine
  • Carnitine
  • Selenium
  • Vitamin K2
  • Vitamin D
  • DHA (docosahexaenoic acid)
  • EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid)
  • CLA (conjugated linoleic acid)

The fact is that there’s nutrients we can only get from plants and nutrients we can only get from animal foods: we need both to get the full complement of nutrients that our bodies need to be healthy. Instead of fighting about whether bacon rules and vegetables suck (or vice versa), we should be celebrating the fact that the plant and animal kingdoms are both totally awesome and necessary for health!

With that in mind, how can we choose a diet that gives us the best nutritional bang for the buck (and, y’know, helps protect us from chronic disease, maximizes our chances of having a long and healthy life, makes us feel awesome, and tastes delicious to boot)? We already know that the Western diet is abysmally low in micronutrients (especially compared to other primates and human populations eating wild foods instead of heavily processed storebought fare).

A good rule of thumb is to eat abundantly from the most micronutrient-rich foods of both plant and animal origin. While the idea of sticking with “whole foods” is a great guideline, there are definitely some standouts in the food world that can take an omnivorous diet to the next level:

  1. Shellfish and fish. Unless you have an allergy, seafood like oysters, mussels, salmon, mackerel, and fish eggs are amazing sources of minerals (especially oysters, which are the King of Zinc!), omega-3 fats in the form of DHA and EPA, selenium and iodine, and vitamin D. (Read more about why seafood rocks here, and what to make of the mercury issue here!)
  2. Organ meats. Have I mentioned lately how much I love organ meats?! While grass-fed muscle meats are totally delicious, organ meats are nutritional rockstars, serving as the most concentrated source of almost every nutrient (seriously). Liver, heart, kidney, and more are all great to try, and I promise they’re not as scary as they seem, even if they give you terrifying flashbacks to childhood. (If you want to read more about why I gush so hard on organ meats, click here!)
  3. Cruciferous veggies include broccoli, cabbage, bok choy, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, kale, collard greens, mustard greens, turnips, and arugula. And, they offer some of the most consistently proven health benefits of any plant food, showing up in study after study as powerfully cancer-protective due to their array of phytochemicals (especially isothiocyanates and indoles). Load up and read more about why they are a non-issue for thyroid health concerns here.
  4. Leafy greens. Leafy greens are packed with a huge spectrum of micronutrients and beneficial compounds (like beta-carotene, folate, lutein, and vitamin K), especially relative to their calorie content. Basically, adding some leafy greens to any meal will instantly boost its vitamin and mineral content while also delivering fiber and flavor. Let’s take a hint from the chimps here and chow down on some leaves!
  5. Fermented foods. Delicious and absolutely nutritious; what’s not to love? Fermented foods are an amazing source of healthy bacteria, and not to mention, the fermentation process increases the bioavailability of nutrients naturally present in the food. There’s a reason nearly every traditional culture includes some form of fermented food in their cuisine. (Read more here!)

Add these to a menu already rich in nutrient-dense whole foods (quality meats, other colorful vegetables, glycine-rich foods like bone broth, fruit, quality fats, starchy roots and tubers), and you’ll have an omnivorous diet that gets the best of both the plant and animal kingdoms, supporting your health in the process. As long as you don’t veer too far towards all-plants or all-animals, your micronutrient and macronutrient bases should be easily covered!

Remember, being an omnivore means being able to benefit from everything nature provides—whether it came from a plant or an animal (er, or insect!). It’s all about making wise choices within the giant spectrum of foods that the “omnivore” umbrella allows.

Take-Away Message

So, although the “are we herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores?” issue is obviously a hot topic, it should be clear by now that we can truly put the question to rest. Every scientific avenue leads to the conclusion that we’re omnivores—whether we approach it from an evolutionary angle, an ethnographic one, or comparative anatomy and physiology.

Perhaps the better label is the word “nutrivore”, meaning that we choose foods based on their nutritive value, the quantity and quality of micronutrients they provide, and aiming for diversity of nutrients in order to get the full complement of nutrients that our bodies need to thrive. And guess what? The Paleo Diet—especially one that embraces seafood, organ meat, and large portions of veggies—is a nutrients-first approach consistent with all of this evidence!

 

SOURCE…www.thepaleomom.com

 

 

www.thepaleomom.com/the-diet-were-meant-to-eat-part-3-how-much-meat-versus-veggies/ Sent from my iPhone

hawaii709130308AR b1

Why One Diet Affects People Differently

Ever try the same diet with a friend or loved one and get two different results? In this article,  we’ll dive deeper into why the results may or may have not been what you were looking for as we will began to understand the physiological reasons why a diet does or does not work.

Q. My neighbor and I went on a low-fat diet together. She lost weight and I didn’t. Why?

A. Assuming you both ate the same amount of calories, differences in body composition (percent body fat versus muscle), frequency of past dieting attempts and amount of physical activity could influence your results. Differences could also be related to the amount of insulin your body secretes after meals.

Insulin is a hormone that converts blood sugar into energy for cells. A study published in the May 16 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association showed a relationship between insulin levels and success with different diet plans; 73 obese young adults were assigned to either a low-glycemic load diet (40 percent carbohydrate, 35 percent fat) or to a low-fat diet (55 percent carbohydrate and 20 percent fat). The study lasted 18 months. Researchers wanted to learn why some people have success with low-fat diets and others don’t. Although will power can play a role, sometimes there’s more to the story.

Food and drinks that are high in processed carbohydrates such as sodas and white rice have a high glycemic load. This means, they cause a rapid rise in blood sugar after they are eaten. Low-glycemic-load foods are sometimes called “slow carbs” because they enter the blood gradually and have less effect on blood sugar. They include vegetables, fresh fruits, whole grains and starchy beans.

In this study, participants who secrete insulin slowly lost equally on both diets. In contrast, those with high insulin levels lost more weight on the low-glycemic-load diet (12.8 pounds) compared with the low-fat diet (2.6 pounds).

In people who pump out a lot of insulin in an exaggerated response to sugary foods and processed starches, reducing the glycemic load of the diet may keep insulin levels steady.

Past studies on low-glycemic-load diets produced mixed results. Sometimes they showed weight loss, sometimes not. This may be because nobody compared insulin levels in the participants!

Just because you’re overweight does not mean your body produces excess insulin. The only way to know is by having your doctor do an oral glucose tolerance test.

When it comes to weight control, one size does not fit all. If you’ve had trouble losing weight on a low-fat diet, you may want to try decreasing the glycemic load in your diet.

 

SOURCE…www.honoluluadvisor.com

 

organic1

Scientific Proof Organic Foods Are More Nutritious !!!

Must everyone who has ever selected their fruits and vegetables from the “organic” section while grocery shopping probably thought they were doing something good for their bodies and the environment. Yet the question of whether organic foods are in fact more nutritious than their conventionally grown counterparts remains a topic of heated scientific debate.

On Monday, the British Journal of Nutrition published research that disputed the notion that organic foods are essentially no more healthful than conventional foods. After reviewing 343 studies on the topic, researchers in Europe and the United States concluded that organic crops and organic-crop-based foods contained higher concentrations of antioxidants on average than conventionally grown foods. At the same time, the researchers found that conventional foods contained greater concentrations of residual pesticides and the toxic metal cadmium. “This shows clearly that organically grown fruits, vegetables and grains deliver tangible nutrition and food safety benefits,” said study coauthor Charles Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University’s  Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources.

However, the study’s findings came with some caveats. “The first and foremost message is people need to eat more fruits and vegetables,” Benbrook said. “Buying organic is the surest way of limiting exposure if you have health issues, but by all means, people need to increase their consumption of fruits and vegetables whether it’s organic or conventional.”To carry an organic label in the U.S., foods must be grown without synthetic pesticides, growth hormones, antibiotics, genetic engineering or chemical fertilizers.Scientists have hypothesized that organic plants produce more antioxidants and natural toxins to defend themselves against insects and other environmental threats.It’s not entirely clear to scientists whether the human body can absorb the extra antioxidants in organic foods and put them to use.Although Benbrook and his colleagues said they suspected the antioxidants could be used by the body to combat damaging free radicals, they could not say so conclusively.

“It is important to point out that there is still a lack of knowledge about the potential human health impacts of increasing antioxidant/polyphenolic intake levels and switching to organic food consumption,” the study authors wrote.Despite prohibitions on using synthetic pesticides, up to 25% of organic crops contain pesticide residues because of contamination during packaging or from trace amounts in drifting soils or tainted irrigation water, some researchers have said.When comparing organic and conventional crops, Benbrook and his colleagues found that conventionally grown fruits and vegetables were four times more likely to contain pesticide residues. That finding was based on 11 of the examined studies and did not evaluate the quantity of pesticides, Benbrook said.

Defenders of conventionally grown crops argue that any pesticide residues found are too small to pose a health risk.”Our typical exposures are at least 10,000 times lower than doses we can give to laboratory animals every day throughout their lifetimes and not cause any effects,” said Carl Winter, a pesticide and food toxin expert at UC Davis, who was not involved in the study. “If your concerns about pesticide residues are leading you to reduce your consumption of fruits and vegetables, then I think you’re doing yourself more harm than good.”

The findings about antioxidants and pesticide residues were not as surprising as the finding that organic foods were 48% less likely to contain cadmium.Study authors said it remained unclear why, and what the specific health consequences could be. More research was necessary, they wrote. Cadmium, which also is present in cigarette smoke, can cause damage to the liver and kidneys at certain levels.For that reason, the study authors said, people should try to minimize their cadmium intake. However, they wrote, “the exact health benefits associated with reducing cadmium intake levels via a switch to organic food consumption are difficult to estimate.”

 

SOURCE…www.latimes.com