Share |
Showing posts with label raw. pesticide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label raw. pesticide. Show all posts

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Another reason to eat organic/pesticide free

Here's the latest from Dr. Mercola.

As if we needed more reasons to eat organic/pesticide free. The most common excuse I hear is that it's expensive. Sure, it can be expensive, but so is cancer. And, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of pesticide.

A while back I saw a bumper sticker that was very telling about how pesticides have changed our food. Here's what it read:

Remember to eat ORGANIC FOOD, or as your grandparents called it, FOOD.

From Dr. Mercola's website, mercola.com:

Cancer will kill more than 13.2 million people a year by 2030, almost double the number who died from the disease in 2008. Only 7.6 million people died of cancer in 2008.



Around 56 percent of new cancer cases worldwide in 2008 were in developing countries and these regions also accounted for 63 percent of all cancer deaths.


According to Reuters:


"The projection for annual death rates of 13.2 million and annual diagnosis of 21.4 million were based on assumptions that underlying rates of cancer would remain the same over the next two decades".


The rate of men dying from melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer has doubled over the past three decades. In the late 1970s, fewer than 1.5 per 100,000 men died from melanoma; that figure has now risen to over 3.1 per 100,000.


The death rates for women have also risen, from 1.5 per 100,000 to 2.2 per 100,000.
According to BBC News:


"The figures suggest men are either not aware of skin cancer symptoms or are ignoring them and putting off going to see their [doctor]".
In addition, a new study joins the evidence showing just how profound of an effect pesticide use can have on human health. Researchers found that women with a history of farming had a greater risk of developing breast cancer.
The scientists were attempting to find groups with heightened cancer risks because of their jobs. They assumed the most common group would be male industrial workers, but to their surprise, they found it was women with breast cancer who had a history of farming.

According to Sustainable Food:
"Researchers believe chemicals and pesticides are to blame for the increased breast cancer rates in female farm workers. Some pesticides and farm chemicals are carcinogens, while others mimic estrogen. Chemicals that mimic estrogen are linked to cancer and other diseases, particularly if exposure occurred during childhood."
Meanwhile, cancer research keeps discovering the power of foods against cancer.
For example, breast cancer cells, even those of the most aggressive type, died after treatments with peach and plum extracts in laboratory tests. Normal cells were not harmed in the process. Two phenolic compounds are responsible for the cancer cell deaths. Phenols are slightly acidic and may be associated with traits such as aroma, taste or color.
Eurekalert reports:
"According to the National Cancer Institute, there were 192,370 new cases of breast cancer in females and 1,910 cases in males in 2009. That year, 40,170 women and 440 men died from breast cancer. The World Health Organization reports that breast cancer accounts for 16 percent of the cancer deaths of women globally."
Sources:

Reuters June 1, 2010
BBC News May 30, 2010
Sustainable Food May 14, 2010

Eurekalert June 2, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:


There's quite a bit of news about cancer lately. Cancer rates for various types of cancer are on the rise, and pesticide exposure is increasingly being identified as a significant risk factor.



The good news is, studies are also emerging showing the powerful potential of food and lifestyle to prevent and combat cancer.



Cancer Rates on the Rise

According to the United Nations' cancer research agency, cancer rates are predicted to double by 2030 if the current trend continues. More than half of all new cancer cases are now occurring in developing countries, and 63 percent of worldwide cancer deaths also occur in these poorer nations.



The agency launched a database to track the global incidence of cancer in 2008. Based on the collected data, the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide in 2008 were:



Lung cancer

Breast cancer

Colorectal cancer

The deadliest cancers were lung cancer, which claimed 1.38 million lives worldwide that year, followed by stomach cancer and liver cancer, at 0.74 million and 0.69 million deaths respectively.



In addition, BBC News reports that the rate of men dying from melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, has also doubled over the past three decades.



In the late 1970s, the death rate from melanoma was less than 1.5 per 100,000 men. That figure has now risen to over 3.1 per 100,000. The death rates for women with melanoma have also risen, from 1.5 per 100,000 to 2.2 per 100,000.



According to BBC News:



"The figures suggest men are either not aware of skin cancer symptoms or are ignoring them and putting off going to see their [doctor]".



What Could Possibly Stop or Reverse This Troubling Trend?

If we begin with the rising incidence of skin cancer, a common presumption is that melanoma is caused by sun exposure. However, there's almost no evidence at all to support that stance. There is, however, plenty of evidence to the contrary.



Over the years, several studies have confirmed that appropriate sun exposure actually helps prevent skin cancer. In fact, melanoma occurrence has been found to decrease with greater sun exposure, while melanoma rates seem to rise with sunscreen use!



One such study discovered that melanoma patients that had higher levels of sun exposure were less likely to die than other melanoma patients, and patients who already had melanoma and got a lot of sun exposure were prone to a less aggressive tumor type.



In addition, melanoma strikes indoor workers more frequently than outdoor workers to begin with. It is also more common on regions of your body that are not exposed to the sun at all, so clearly the simplistic "sun equals cancer" theory is fundamentally flawed.



The missing piece of information that can explain this puzzle is the fact that melanoma rates are rising as sun exposure and vitamin D status is decreasing dramatically.



Although the sun does increase genetic damage in your skin, and can cause skin cancer, your body has a cleverly designed system to avert cancer growth. But when you avoid sun exposure entirely, you also circumvent your body's built-in system that helps prevent skin cancer naturally, because the key to unlock this mechanism is vitamin D.



As you probably know by now, vitamin D is formed in your skin from exposure to sunlight. The vitamin D then goes directly to the genes in your skin where it helps prevent the types of abnormalities that ultraviolet light causes.



Hence, when you avoid the sun entirely, or slather on sun block whenever you go out, your skin is not making any vitamin D, and you're left without this built-in cancer protection.



This is one of the primary reasons for the rise in melanoma!



Vitamin D – the Key to All Cancer Prevention?

Continuing on to address the rise in cancers of all kinds, you find that vitamin D is a MAJOR player here as well.



Researchers have discovered that at least 16 different types of cancer can be prevented by increasing vitamin D levels, including pancreatic, lung, breast, ovarian, prostate, and colon cancers. As you can see, these include the three most common cancers, as well as the most deadly.



Optimizing your vitamin D levels can cut your risk by as much as 60 percent, so just imagine the reduction in worldwide prevalence that could be accomplished if the importance of vitamin D became common knowledge!



As a reader of this newsletter, you are ahead of the game.



Just remember that to reap the benefits you need to make sure your vitamin D levels are within therapeutic range. For all the latest information on therapeutic vitamin D levels, and vital updates on testing and updated dosing recommendations, please review my article: Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency.



Pesticide Use is Taking Its Toll

In addition to science finally discovering the impact of vitamin D deficiency on cancer rates, researchers are also finding strong links between pesticide exposure and cancer.



A new study illustrates how profound of an effect pesticide exposure during childhood can be on future health. Researchers found that women who worked on farms when growing up had a greater risk of developing breast cancer.



According to Sustainable Food:



"Some pesticides and farm chemicals are carcinogens, while others mimic estrogen. Chemicals that mimic estrogen are linked to cancer and other diseases, particularly if exposure occurred during childhood."



The answer, of course, is to promote organic farming and eat as much organically-grown foods as you can.



As Sustainable Food says, "those kinds of chemicals shouldn't be near our cucumbers, much less near our children." Keep in mind that although farmers are physically exposed to the pesticides they use during the course of their work, you and your children are consuming these same pesticides with every bite of conventionally-grown food you eat.



Although the level of exposure may be less than a farm worker, the chronic exposure from eating pesticide-laden food day in and day out for years can cause tremendous harm.



Healing Foods Come to the Fore

The good news is, cancer research keeps discovering the power of foods against cancer.



According to a Texas A&M AgriLife press release, their researchers have found that breast cancer cells, even those of the most aggressive type, can be killed with extracts of peach and plum, while leaving normal cells unharmed.



Two phenolic compounds, which occur naturally in fruits, are believed to be responsible for the cancer cell deaths.



The press release reads:



"It was a differential effect which is what you're looking for because in current cancer treatment with chemotherapy, the substance kills all cells, so it is really tough on the body," said Dr. David Byrne, AgriLife Research plant breeder who studies stone fruit.



"Here, there is a five-fold difference in the toxic intensity. You can put it at a level where it will kill the cancer cells - the very aggressive ones - and not the normal ones."



Byrne and Dr. Luis Cisneros-Zevallos originally studied the antioxidants and phytonutrients in plums and found them to match or exceed the blueberry which had been considered superior to other fruits in those categories."



Again and again we see promising results such as these. A number of plants, fruits, herbs and spices have been identified as having potent anti-cancer properties that could offer effective prevention. Others show potential in the actual treatment of cancer.



Examples include:



Broccoli

Sweet wormwood plant (Artemisia annua L)

Black cohosh

Black raspberries

CLA from grass-fed beef and grass-fed dairy products

Huang qin

For even more examples, please review the related articles below, and for a comprehensive list of all my cancer prevention strategies, please see this previous article.



The signs are clear, there's plenty you can do to prevent cancer from happening to you, and it starts with living as purely as you can, and eating as healthy as possible.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Food should be As God Intended or Why isn't everything we eat organic?

Buckle-in, folks. This one’s a bit of a long and bumpy ride...but well worth it.

This morning while making my morning shake, which consists of the following:
Eggs - organic, raw, never refrigerated (3 eggs)
Milk - organic, unpasteurized, Amish (grass fed cows, no antibiotics) (1 cup)
Honey - raw, unheated, organic (1 Tbsp)
Orange Juice - organic valencia orange, fresh squeezed (this ingredient varies from day to day, and can even be omitted - today I wanted an orange julius style shake, but the following also tastes great: organic berries (your choice); cinnamon, nutmeg & all spice (for an egg nog experience); banana, and almost any fruit or spice that would taste good in a milkshake works great, but please only use organic, fresh ingredients (or organic dried spices).
Other optional ingredients: raw butter (softened); raw cream; bone marrow - all from organic, grass-fed cattle - Amish dairy and meat is usually raised grass-fed, organically and humanely. (See more at the bottom of this page on Grass-Fed Beef.)

Anyway, while making this delicious shake, I got to thinking...

Why isn’t everything we eat organic?

I don’t mean why don’t we all buy organic, because I think I know why that is and here’s the breakdown:

  • Organic is not always accessible or available for most people
  • Organic is usually more expensive (which is actually ridiculous because it costs less to grow organically, but the “conventional” growers are heavily subsidized by the government - which happens because the pesticide and pharmaceutical manufacturers (they are usually one and the same) lobby congress to maintain subsidies for pesticide and antibiotic-ridden meat, dairy and produce, aka “conventional.”
  • If the first two points don’t exclude any given consumer, the others simply don’t believe organic is really any different or more beneficial.

Please weigh-in if I’ve missed something. And believe me, I can relate to all of the above, though at this point my research has convinced me towards organic (I'm about 90% organic). But back to what I mean when I ask, “Why isn’t everything we eat organic?”

Why are we even using all of these unnatural means of producing food? It doesn’t actually make sense when you think about it.

Firstly, think of human evolution:

Human evolution is slow, to make a gross understatement. It takes thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years for the human being to evolve. This includes our digestive system. So think about this: we’ve been using pesticides for less than 50 years. Prior to Rachel Carson and her groundbreaking book Silent Spring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson farmer’s primarily used natural means of “pest” control including peppermint oil, manure, herbs, salts and lemon - all perfectly safe and edible, obviously). So we’ve only used synthetic pesticides for about 50 years. What does this mean for the human system? Well, the human digestive and immune systems have no idea what to do with pesticides or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), because they don’t occur in nature. So our bodies processes and stores these chemicals as toxins. No wonder we’re more disease-ridden and medicated than ever before!

Secondly, think of toxic exposure:

It’s testimony to the resilience of the human being that we’re all not getting sicker, younger. Oh, wait, we are! But still, we are doing remarkably well considering the following. Fossil fuels have only been around for about 100 years. From polluting the air we breath to polluting the soil, to contaminating the oceans and ocean-life we rely on for so many things (fish-eating being only one of the many gifts our oceans grant humans), fossil fuels have exponentially increased the toxins that we take in on a daily basis. This is not about global warming, which is currently under debate, this is about TOXINS IN OUR ENVIRONMENT. Our bodies, though doing an amazing job of handling all of these toxins, are not really equip to handle all of these toxins...hence there’s more cancer, diabetes, heart-disease, obesity (which given how modified our foods are, should not be blamed solely on the individual since it has reached epidemic proportions). So what do the powers that be do? Add to this fossil fuel toxicity with more toxins in the form of pesticides and antibiotics in our food!

Think about it. Do you really think they’re feeding livestock a) organically and b) what they naturally eat? Cows aren’t meant to eat anything but grass. It screws up their digestive system and makes their meat and milk way more unhealthy for us. Here’s an excerpt from John Robbins’ website:
Cows, sheep, and other grazing animals are endowed with the ability to convert grasses, which those of us who possess only one stomach cannot digest, into food that we can digest. They can do this because they are ruminants, which is to say that they possess a rumen, a 45 or so gallon (in the case of cows) fermentation tank in which resident bacteria convert cellulose into protein and fats.

Traditionally, all beef was grass-fed beef, but in the United States today what is commercially available is almost all feedlot beef. The reason? It's faster, and so more profitable. Seventy-five years ago, steers were 4 or 5 years old at slaughter. Today, they are 14 or 16 months. You can't take a beef calf from a birth weight of 80 pounds to 1,200 pounds in a little more than a year on grass. It takes enormous quantities of corn, protein supplements, antibiotics and other drugs, including growth hormones.

Switching a cow from grass to grain is so disturbing to the animal's digestive system that it can kill the animal if not done gradually and if the animal is not continually fed antibiotics. These animals are designed to forage, but we make them eat grain, primarily corn, in order to make them as fat as possible as fast as possible.

And if this isn’t horrific enough, consider the affects this corn-fed beef has on humans who ingest the meat. When cattle are fed a corn or soy-based diet, their meat and dairy have only short and long chain fatty acids, which clogs arteries and the meat also oxidizes (goes rotten) faster. The medium-chain fatty acids (from grass-fed beef) are more stable, encourage our bodies to burn calories, and actually work to unclog your arteries (they’re the “good” fats). Predictably, there are currently no chain restaurants that serve grass-fed beef. (link to source - wikianswers)

Here’s more on the health benefits of grass-fed beef from author Jo Johnson (link for more), and an easy-to-read chart on why grass-fed beef is healthier:

Consumers have been led to believe that meat is meat is meat. In other words, no matter what an animal is fed, the nutritional value of its products remains the same. This is not true. An animal's diet can have a profound influence on the nutrient content of its products.

The difference between grain-fed and grass-fed animal products is dramatic.

First of all, grass-fed products tend to be much lower in total fat than grain-fed products. For example, a sirloin steak from a grass-fed steer has about one half to one third the amount of fat as a similar cut from a grain-fed steer.

In fact, grass-fed meat has about the same amount of fat as skinless chicken or wild deer or elk. When meat is this lean, it actually lowers your LDL cholesterol levels.


Because grass-fed meat is so lean, it is also lower in calories.

Fat has 9 calories per gram, compared with only 4 calories for protein and carbohydrates. The greater the fat content, the greater the number of calories.

A 6-ounce steak from a grass-finished steer has almost 100 fewer calories than a 6-ounce steak from a grain-fed steer.

If you eat a typical amount of beef (66.5 pounds a year), switching to grass-fed beef will save you 17,733 calories a year [approx 15 lbs. of weight loss per year] —without requiring any willpower or change in eating habits. If everything else in your diet remains constant, you'll lose about six pounds a year. If all Americans switched to grass-fed meat, our national epidemic of obesity would begin to diminish.

Additionally, most of the issues with diary including lactose intolerance and it’s increased toxicity can be avoided by proper handling (of the cattle and the dairy in non-porous containers) and by simply not-pasteurizing! Oh wait, the government requires pasteurization of all dairy unless live in one of the three states where it’s legal or if you buy privately from a local farmer. For more, please link here to: Marcus Lovemore’s blog on Raw Milk FAQ.

Whew. I’m exhausted from this rant. Let me get back to the original question and bring this to a close.

Why isn’t everything we eat organic?

The answer is, I don’t know. It doesn’t actually make any logical sense. It seems the answer is simply political. Conventional farming is heavily subsidized, so it tilts the playing field in the pesticide- and antibiotic-using farmer’s favor. If subsidization were ended, it would level the playing field and organic would actually be CHEAPER than conventional farming because raising organic produce is less expensive.

So that bodes the question, What can we do?

Well, the first few seem to be a mantras among organic and natural-minded folks, but here’s my list thus far:

  • Buy local - from farmer’s markets where the farmer’s practice organic or pesticide-free farming. (Some small, local farmer’s can’t afford the “organic” fees so just ask them if they’re organic and they’ll usually say “pesticide free” and just watch them as they say this - you’ll know if they’re being honest.)
  • Let your representatives know you want a level playing field or an END to SUBSIDIZATION for pesticide and antibiotic farmers, aka “conventional” farming.
  • Let your representatives know #2: No crossover between corporations and the FDA. In other words, absolutely no one who worked for any sort of pesticide-profiting or pharmaceutical/agricultural company (e.g. Monsanto, Pfizer, Dupont, Cargill, etc.) should be allowed to work for the FDA - seems an obvious conflict of interest.
  • Educate yourself. Read The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan and see the Academy-Award nominated documentary film Food Inc. They both will blow your mind.
  • Become a food investigator. Ask a lot of questions of the restaurants and markets you frequent, eat organic produce, and meat and dairy from livestock that is grass-fed (or in the case of chickens, worm-fed - that gives eggs the natural Omega-3s.) Also, ideally eat only raw, unpasteurized dairy which you can usually find by asking a local organic market or co-op. Start asking questions.
  • Share what you’ve learned with everyone you know, but especially your loved ones.
  • Please, when entertaining friends, serve only organic, humanely-raised food.

What else? If you want to hear one of the more extreme people talk about this kind of thing and more, listen to Alex Jones on iphone apps or on InfoWars.com. He’ll blow your mind even more than The Omnivore’s Dilemma and Food Inc.

It’s funny that all of this is really the way we used to treat our crops and livestock 75 to 100 years ago and had been practicing for thousands of years. I love technology as much as the next blogger, but some things were meant to stay the way they were, or as some of my bible-belt friends might say, “as God intended.”

More Interesting Katie Strand World Posts

New Music
&
Posts
at
Katie Strand Music