The Amazing Healing Power of Peaches

(NaturalNews) Peaches, nectarines, plums, apricots and almonds are all closely related fruit trees with very similar pits. In all these fruits, the pit must be broken open to reveal the almond-shaped kernel within. In fact, this is what almonds actually are: the kernel within the pit of the fruit of the almond tree!

The kernels of all these species contain high concentrations of a chemical known as laetrile. It's also known as amygdalin or vitamin B-17. Research has shown that laetrile induces programmed cell death in cancer cells while leaving healthy cells alone. It's sort of like Mother Nature's chemotherapy except that it doesn't make you suffer the way man-made synthetic chemotherapy does.

Laetrile appears to work because the nutrient is actually composed of four separate molecules: two of glucose, one of benzaldyhide and one of cyanide. The latter two chemicals are toxic, but are bound up in a non-bioavailable form. Cancer cells contain an enzyme that healthy cells do not, known as beta-glucosidase. This enzyme actually breaks apart the component pieces of laetrile, and the cell is poisoned by a combination of benzaldyhide and cyanide. Healthy cells do not undergo this effect, which is why they remain unaffected by laetrile.

The medical establishment, learning about this natural "chemotherapy" that killed cancer cells and didn't even require a prescription, quickly began to attack it by spreading lies about the dangers of laetrile. The FDA, long an enemy of healing through nutrition, banned laetrile in 1971. Highly toxic chemotherapy substances, however, remain perfectly legal and continue to kill hundreds of thousands of people every single year. (Most people who "die from cancer" are actually killed by chemotherapy and radiation, not from the cancer itself. "Cancer survivors" are people who miraculously survive chemotherapy.)

G. Edward Griffin wrote a sensational book on this subject called World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17. It's available on Amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/World-Without...

More information is also available at www.VitaminB17.org

Sources for this story include:
http://www.naturalnews.com/027088_c...
http://www.naturalnews.com/025427_a...

Breathe for life or breathe for death

Sunday, March 27, 2011
by Sifu Simon Chong
(NaturalNews) Many of the older cultures and traditions around the world share a concept of health and well-being centered on the breathing process. Foremost of these are the Hindu teachings of Pranayama, which translates as extension of life, and the Chinese practice called Qigong or Chi kung (Chee gung), which translates as breath work. Both traditions place a large emphasis on correct breathing as the key to developing a harmonious internal health symbiosis which brings about and maintains health stasis.

Both modalities incorporate similar approaches to restore what they call natural breathing to the exponent.

In Qigong and Pranayama natural breathing is a combination of abdominal breathing and several other factors (the two other major components being correct breath rate and relaxation). Another name used is child breathing or baby breathing. This name was chosen because these practices believe that babies and young children express the full form and function of natural breathing. The form being relaxed abdominal breathing and the function is boundless energy.

According to the Chinese tradition of Qigong, natural breathing balances and regulates Yin Qi (chee) and Yang Qi in the body; in this context acidity is Yin and alkali is Yang. Acidity/alkali balance is what determines our pH levels; a balanced pH level in humans is one that is slightly more alkali than acidic. If our pH balance is either too high or low, disease can more readily occur. To find the mechanism of how this balance comes about we need to look at the common factor, not the Yin or the Yang, but the Qi. Qi equates to air with many connotations, but in this it is meant literally. How can air balance our pH levels?
In recent times there have been several innovators in the newly named breathwork field which has allowed modern scientists to perform studies into the benefits of abdominal breathing. These studies have shown that correct breathing will leave the body with the proper levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) which is produced naturally within the blood cells. CO2 plays an essential role in the internal breathing function (when oxygen and carbon dioxide are exchanged on a cellular level) and forms what is called the carbonate buffer. The CO2 mixes with bicarbonate ions and carbonic acid and creates the carbonate buffer. This buffer regulates pH balance by counteracting both the hydrogen (which decreases pH) and hydroxide (which increases pH) ions in the blood.

The methodology in Qigong or Pranayama requires the practitioner to hold and/or move in specific postures while breathing in a specific manner. The intent is that through continued practice the respiratory muscles become stronger and your breathing rate is reprogrammed through consistent practice to alter the existing muscle memory.

While breathing exercises are used regularly today, with successful experiences in things such as stress reduction, asthma, pain management and a plethora of other ailments, the path to true health stasis comes from diligent practice. When someone looks to relieve some stress and they take a session with a breathworker, they give themselves a moment respite from their woes. The purpose of these systems, Qigong and Pranayama, is to transform the person into a being that will stand in the stress and strain unaffected by it and maintain health stasis, regardless of the external situations.
Breathing is the most important thing we do for life. There is an old Taoist (Dow-ist) saying, "Breathe for life or breathe for death; it's that simple."

Save Money, Time, AND Lose Weight with ProShape RX

The information on what to eat when and what not to eat when is so overwhelming it is hard to believe what diet will work and what diet won't. Everyone is different so all those claims made by one celebrity certainly won't work for everyone and probably not for you. Dieting alone is really not the answer and certainly one that can be very frustrating and just lead you onto the endless rollercoaster ride of trying diet after diet after diet when you have not had any success.

Other information that you can find can even involve using your doctor to address your weight loss issues to try to come up with a solution. But doctor's appointments can be expensive and sometimes it is just too embarrassing to admit how your weight has gotten out of control. Who wants to stand on that doctor's scale with no privacy and watch as the sliding scale crashes to the far end and you realize you are even ten pounds heavier than you thought? You know you need to lose weight and you don't need a doctor to tell you so.

Other expensive alternatives include over the counter pills that you have already tried and you know don't work. 

There are countless other weight loss systems that come in huge boxes with impressive claims to take an integrated approach to help you lose weight. There are pills, creams, liquids, and even injections that all claim to get you back to the weight that you really want. But they are expensive too and still they just don't seem to even work.� It can be so completely mind boggling to even trying to figure out which one to take when and never mind what you are allowed to eat with each one.

Well the doctors and researchers who have developed the ProShapeRX weight loss system have worked it all out for you, so now you don't have to. This amazing weight loss supplement contains only 100% natural ingredients that work together to help curve your cravings, prevent fat storage, increase your metabolism, and take you right to your weight loss goals without costing you an arm and a leg. 

In fact, there is a limited 30 day free trial offer for the ProShapeRX weight loss system, so not only can you lose weight, but it won't even cost you a cent to try it out. So now you can lose weight without having to lose your wallet. It is certainly worth trying the last weight loss product that you will ever need. Now you can successful shed those extra pounds without the expense of other alternatives. 

It's an easy and simple solution that will be soon wondering why you never found out about it before. So go ahead and order your 30 day free trial of the ProShapeRX weight loss system and within seven days you will already have lost weight and start to feel great. What have you got to lose... except those unwanted pounds!

For more information, go to ProShapeRX.com.

Corporations contaminating agriculture

March 21, 2011

‘A problem arises as a result of family farmers and ranchers not having the bags of cash needed to dump into USDA and FDA to buy access as the bio-pirates do.”

While Homeland Security continues to claim that we must not centralize agricultural production because some terrorist might then poison vast quantities of our food supply, the USDA and FDA continue to rig the system in favor of corporate agricultural producers who are doing that very thing. Maybe they get away with this because what these global corporations are producing can’t really be classified as food, or at least not as food we would recognize as fit for human consumption.

Let me make this perfectly clear: there is no unnamed terrorist in a cave on the other side of the world salivating over the idea of contaminating a corn field in Iowa. We know who the terrorists are, and they all have the word, “Corporation” attached to their names. And they aren’t in caves either; many have very nice and spacious offices right inside the USDA and FDA.

While biotechnology is touted as being the answer to the world’s food requirements, no one has stopped to ask why all this tampering with, mother nature was necessary in the first place. Biotechnology has not caused an increase in food supplies as the bio-pirates claimed it would. In fact, supposedly a world-wide food crisis is building and a larger percentage of people around the world suffer from hunger and starvation. Now, one of two things has to be true here if there is actually a food shortage.
Biotechnology does not increase production as claimed or,
Food is being intentionally withheld from various populations.

Neither thought bodes well for the bio-pirates.

The results of all the tampering has been a contamination of natural food sources with chemicals, altered and unnatural dna causing organ damage in animals and humans, and the onset of systemic diseases. It fouls our water supplies, contaminates our agricultural land and renders previously highly productive agricultural land as unusable for future generations. Absolutely none of it can be justified when viewed from the aspect of world hunger or even from a biological and agricultural point of view. And none of it was done for any reason other than corporate profits. There is no other justifiable or valid reason for what is and has been done to the world’s food supply.

If feeding the world and producing abundant food resources were the real intent of USDA and FDA initiatives, the focus would be on the abundance and safety of true organic agriculture; permaculture. Our domestic family and independent farmers and ranchers would be encouraged and supported to continue to produce locally grown foods, and preventative regulations meant to discourage the contamination of the food supply by bio-piracy corporations would be the first line of defense.

A problem arises as a result of family farmers and ranchers not having the bags of cash needed to dump into USDA and FDA to buy access as the bio-pirates do.

Ending the use of massive amounts of chemically toxic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, all of which remain residually in the end product and which remain in the land and water, are poisoning us all to one degree or another. Here’s the hitch: traditional farming using known successful methods handed down to one generation after another does not require buying patented seeds that require patented chemicals to make them grow. It does not require entering contracts with unscrupulous bio-pirates whose intent is NOT to increase crop production, but rather to monopolize agriculture so that no one can grow or consume anything not purchased from them.

The recent passage of the fake food safety bill, which had absolutely nothing to do with food safety of any kind, did make clear the governments’ intention of complying with multiple unlawful trade agreements. The imperative in that bill was the eradication of, and the declaring illegal of, traditional farming and ranching methods. In order for the bio-pirates to obtain full and total control over production, traditional methods, gleaned from generations of family farmers and ranchers must be done away with. USDA and FDA spared no expense in promoting propaganda meant to convey to the public that there was some form of danger that existed where traditional agricultural activities were being practiced.

This was most evident in the war against fresh raw milk, claiming that because it wasn’t pasteurized, wasn’t full of growth hormones, vaccines and multiple other pharmaceutical concoctions, and the cows weren’t being force fed genetically altered feed which causes tremendous gastric distress for them, it was not safe to drink, when obviously just the opposite was true.

Neither, FDA or USDA ever addressed the real threat to health that exists in processed milk from residuals of the pharmaceuticals used to force an increase in production; one that resulted only from an accumulation of pus in the milk. That, for some reason was of no concern, but drinking fresh milk from cows that weren’t pumped full of chemicals and whose milk didn’t contain huge amounts of pus, was and is considered a health danger.

What USDA and FDA are advocating is the centralization of food production and supply in the hands of bio-pirate corporations. As both of these agencies are privately owned for-profit corporations and are not public service agencies the concern is not decentralization or securing the food supply for the protection, health and safety of the American people, as they claim. Both agencies are staffed with corporate personnel who rotate between the agencies and the corporations they work for maintaining a focus on corporate profits rather than protecting public health and safety.

Centralization of the food supply will be in the hands bio-pirates. It will be a few more generations before we know all the devastating effects of the contamination of land, water, animal and plant life and our bodies, but by then it will be too late. Actually, I think it is too late now.

Marti Oakley
(c) 2011 All Rights Reserved 

8000 IU of vitamin D or sunshine needed a day

Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) The reign of censorship and suppression against vitamin D is now coming to an end. Even though the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and many institutions leading the cancer industry (including the ACS) have intentionally tried to downplay the ability of vitamin D to prevent cancer, a new study appearing in the journalAnticancer Researchlays out the simple, powerful truth about vitamin D that we've been teaching at NaturalNews for years: A typical adults needs4,000 - 8,000 IUs of vitamin D each dayto prevent cancer, MS and type-1 diabetes, not the ridiculously low 400 - 800 IUs recommended by the U.S. government.

The new research was conducted by scientists at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha. It is groundbreaking research because it establishesthe relationship between vitamin D dosage and circulating vitamin D levels in the blood.

This is a first. It is crucial information for thehealth care revolutionthat will be necessary to save states and nations from total health care bankruptcy in the coming years.Vitamin D turns out to be one of the simplest, safest and most affordable ways to prevent degenerative disease and sharply reduce long-term health care costs.

Up to 8,000 IUs needed daily"We found that daily intakes of vitamin D by adults in the range of 4,000 to 8,000 IU [international units] are needed to maintain blood levels of vitamin D metabolites in the range needed to reduce by about half the risk of several diseases -- breast cancer, colon cancer, multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes,"said Dr. Cedric Garland. (http://health.ucsd.edu/news/2011/02...)

Dr. Garland is the professor of family and preventive medicine at the UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center. He went on to say:

"I was surprised to find that the intakes required to maintain vitamin D status for disease prevention were so high -- much higher than the minimal intake of vitamin D of 400 IU/day that was needed to defeat rickets in the 20th century."


Study reveals 90% vitamin D deficiency rate across U.S. population. This particular study involved over 3,000 volunteers who were taking vitamin D supplements. Researchers drew blood samples from them in order to determine their levels of 25-vitamin D (the common form circulating in the blood).

The results were shocking even to the study authors, revealing that90 percent of those studied were deficient in vitamin D, falling below the 40 - 60 ng/ml range now considered healthy. (Most nutritionally-aware experts in the natural health world recommend higher ranges of 60 - 70 ng/ml, actually.)

The U.S. government's Institute of Medicine has intentionally downplayed vitamin D recommendations, seemingly in an effort to keep boosting the profits of the cancer industry by denying any real benefit to vitamin D. The IOMs most recent recommendations seemed designed to actuallycause vitamin D deficiency in the U.S. population (http://www.naturalnews.com/030598_v...).

The IOM has even gone out of its way to artificially lower the threshold of vitamin D deficiency by claiming that 20 ng/ml is a sufficient level. This magically transforms a "deficient" person into a "non-deficient" person by merely changing the definition. So a person with a level of 22 ng/ml, for example, is not considered "vitamin D deficient" by the established medical system, even though their vitamin D levels are so low that they may not be able to prevent cancer, MS or type-1 diabetes.

Why the truth about vitamin D is a huge threat to the established for-profit medical system. As NaturalNews has documented and reported many times over the last several years,the medical establishment -- and especially the cancer industry-- has willfully engaged in attempts to prevent people from learning the truth about vitamin Din order to protect the lucrative profits generated from sickness and disease. Vitamin D represents a greater threat to the medical establishment than any other single nutrient for three reasons:

1) Vitamin D is FREE (you can get it from the sun, without a prescription).

2) Vitamin D prevents over a dozen high-profit diseases and health conditions (osteoporosis, cancer, diabetes, MS, and others).

3) Vitamin D is extremely safe, even when taken in supplement form, because it's a natural vitamin / hormone that the body recognizes.

Read more in our downloadable special report, "The Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D" at http://www.naturalnews.com/rr-sunli...

Or watch the incredibly popular video from the Health Ranger that explains how African Americans, Asians and Latinos are being exploited by the cancer industry through vitamin D censorship and encouraged nutritionally deficiencies:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5A62F...

Highlights from the studyThe following summary is extracted from the results of the study, available at: http://www.grassrootshealth.net/gar...

• The study examined 3,667 people and their vitamin D intake habits.

• Vitamin D intake of 10,000 IU / day had no toxicity.

• For those severely deficient in vitamin D, each 1,000 IU / day of increased supplementation resulted in an increase of 10 ng / ml in vitamin D blood levels.

• For those with existing blood levels above 30 ng / ml, each 1,000 IU / day of increased supplementation resulted in an increase of 8 ng / ml in vitamin D blood levels.

• For those with existing blood levels above 50 ng / ml, each 1,000 IU / day of increased supplementation resulted in an increase of 5 ng / ml in vitamin D blood levels.

• In other words, vitamin D supplementation hasa curve of diminishing returns. Those with existing high levels of vitamin D do not experience as much benefit from vitamin D supplements as those with low levels (which is roughly 90% of the population).

• Vitamin D sales have increased 600% since 2001 (due largely to the efforts of those in both the natural health and honest science communities who are telling the truth about vitamin D).

• Vitamin D is remarkably safe! From the conclusion of the study:

"Universal intake of up to 40,000 IU vitamin D per day is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity."

Yes, that's40,000 IUs per day.

See the abstract reprinted below.

Why nearly everyone in first-world nations needs more vitamin DThanks in large part to this remarkable research, it's now clear that all the intelligent people are going to up their vitamin D intake to something in the range of 8,000 IUs per day (or more), especially through the winter months.

Based on this study, I am personally increasing my intake to10,000 IUs per dayfrom October through April (in North America). And I'll be sure to get plenty of sunshine during the other months.

"Now that the results of this study are in, it will become common for almost every adult to take 4000 IU/day," said Dr. Garland. "This is comfortably under the 10,000 IU/day that the IOM Committee Report considers as the lower limit of risk, and the benefits are substantial."

"Now is the time for virtually everyone to take more vitamin D to help prevent some major types of cancer, several other serious illnesses, and fractures," said Robert P. Heaney, MD, of Creighton University, an experienced biomedical scientist.

It seems the conventional cancer industry, the IOM and even the FDA will not be able to censor the truth about vitamin D much longer.The truth is getting out, thanks in large part due to you, the NaturalNews readers who share these stories and help educate and inform your friends and family members.

Spread the news:Take more vitamin D!Please share this story on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere. Let people know that the research is in, andvitamin D is a remarkably safe "miracle" nutrientthat nearly everyone needs to be supplementing. This is especially true if they have darker skin.

(We recommend vitamin D3 from quality nutritional supplement companies. Beware of cheap "multivitamin" sources that you find at common retailers. Go for quality supplements from reputable sources.)

Here's the title and abstract of the original study:

Vitamin D Supplement Doses and Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D in the Range Associated with Cancer PreventionCEDRIC F. GARLAND, CHRISTINE B. FRENCH, , LEO L. BAGGERLY, and ROBERT P. HEANEY,

"This paper provides a long awaited insight into a dose-response relationship between orally administered vitamin D3 and the resulting levels of serum 25(OH)D in over 3600 citizens. The results will allow new definition of high vitamin D dose safety and reduce concerns about toxicity. This is a landmark contribution in the vitamin D nutrition field!"- Anthony Norman, Distinguished Professor of Biochemistry & Biomedical Sciences, Emeritus, University of California Riverside

Abstract.Background: Studies indicate that intake of vitamin D in the range from 1,100 to 4,000 IU/d and a serum 25- hydroxyvitamin D concentration [25(OH)D] from 60-80 ng/ml may be needed to reduce cancer risk. Few community-based studies allow estimation of the dose–response relationship between oral intake of vitamin D and corresponding serum 25(OH)D in the range above 1,000 IU/d. Materials and Methods: A descriptive study of serum 25(OH)D concentration and self-reported vitamin D intake in a community-based cohort (n=3,667, mean age 51.3±13.4 y). Results: Serum 25(OH)D rose as a function of self-reported vitamin D supplement ingestion in a curvilinear fashion, with no intakes of 10,000 IU/d or lower producing 25(OH)D values above the lower-bound of the zone of potential toxicity (200 ng/ml). Unsupplemented all-source input was estimated at 3,300 IU/d. The supplemental dose ensuring that 97.5% of this population achieved a serum 25(OH)D of at least 40 ng/ml was 9,600 IU/d. Conclusion: Universal intake of up to 40,000 IU vitamin D per day is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity.

The recent increase in interest in vitamin D by the general public has fueled a better than 200% increase in sales of over-the-counter vitamin D preparations from 2008 to 2009, and a more than 6-fold increase since 2001 (1). Additionally, products with progressively increasing content of vitamin D have been introduced with similar rapidity. There seems to have been little precedent for a change of this magnitude and duration for other nutrients (e.g., vitamins C and E) that have enjoyed brief periods of popularity among the general public. There is essentially no information on how the public uses these products or on their impact on the vitamin D status of consumers.

GrassrootsHealth (GRH), a non-profit community service organization dedicated to promoting public awareness about vitamin D, has assembled a database that includes information on supplemental vitamin D intake by a self-selected population cohort, and links these intakes to measured values for serum 25(OH)D, various demographic variables, and a variety of health status measures. GRH data include values from many individuals with daily supplemental intakes in and above the ranges often used today for cancer prevention and co-therapy (2, 3).

This study used the GRH database to describe the relationship of measured vitamin D status to vitamin D supplementation, both as practiced by health conscious individuals and as related to cancer prevention.

Read more at: http://www.grassrootshealth.net/gar...

About the author:

Mike Adams is a natural health researcher, author and award-winning journalist with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guides, and books on topics like health and the environment, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2010, Adams created NaturalNews.TV, a natural living video sharing site featuring thousands of user videos on foods, fitness, green living and more. He's also the CEO of a highly successful email newsletter software company that develops software used to send permission email campaigns to subscribers. Adams is currently the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit, and practices nature photography, Capoeira, martial arts and organic gardening. Known on the 'net as 'the Health Ranger,' Adams shares his ethics, mission statements and personal health statistics at www.HealthRanger.org

Source: www.naturalnews.com

Don't be too sure about Certified Organic Food

By Barbara H. Peterson
Farm Wars
Organic is organic, or is it? It would seem that it is all a matter of perspective when one takes a stroll through the mountains of documents on the FDA and USDA websites.

The word “organic” is fast becoming a high-dollar money-maker for corporations smart enough to jump on the bandwagon and start marketing their products as “made with organic ingredients,” or “certified organic.” Even Monsanto is taking advantage of this burgeoning market, and people naïve enough to believe that what we have traditionally thought of as pure, organic food, is still that way, are being duped.

It makes perfect sense, however, in a Machiavellian sort of way. Flood the food supply with poisons, then lead people to believe that the only safe choice left is USDA Certified Organic. Then buy up the organic companies one by one, and start changing the “organic” rules from the inside out via the bought and paid for government agencies so that you can reap the profits from those trying to escape the poisons.

So let’s take a closer look at just what the word “organic” refers to according to these government agencies. You might be surprised at what we find. The fact that the very agencies (FDA and USDA), which are supposed to be protecting our organic food supply, are intensely active in its adulteration will become apparent.

What is “Certified Organic?”

In the USDA Certified Organic Program, there are four categories established for labeling purposes:

Section 205.301 establishes the organic content requirements for different labeling provisions specified under this program. The type of labeling and market information that can be used and its placement on different panels of consumer packages and in market information is based on the percentage of organic ingredients in the product. The percentage must reflect the actual weight or fluid volume (excluding water and salt) of the organic ingredients in the product. Four categories of organic content are established: 100 percent organic; 95 percent or more organic; 70 to 95 percent organic; and less than 70 percent organic. (Organic Labeling Preamble)

If an item is labeled 100% Organic, then it is supposed to contain nothing but organic ingredients and processing aids that are organically produced.

Products labeled Certified Organic must contain 95% organic ingredients.

Up to 5 percent of the ingredients may be nonagricultural substances (consistent with the National List) and, if not commercially available in organic form pursuant to section 205.201, nonorganic agricultural products and ingredients in minor amounts (hereinafter referred to as minor ingredients) (spices, flavors, colorings, oils, vitamins, minerals, accessory nutrients, incidental food additives). The nonorganic ingredients must not be produced using excluded methods [GMO], sewage sludge, or ionizing radiation. (Organic Labeling Preamble)

70-95% Organic, labeled “Made with Organic Ingredients,” can contain the kitchen sink in the 5-30% of ingredients that are not organic. They can be grown with pesticides, but without the sewage sludge, and cannot be irradiated or genetically modified organisms (GMO).

70% Organic, which is labeled “Contains Organic Ingredients,” can contain the kitchen sink along with the pesticides, sewage sludge, irradiation, and GMOs.

A Matter of Perspective


Let’s say that you have a product that you think is better than its conventional counterpart because it has “certified organic” ingredients. So you buy it and think that you are getting healthier because you are eating mostly good, pure food. It is the word “organic” that led you to believe this. However, if an organic ingredient is mixed with conventional ingredients, doesn’t it become polluted? It’s like putting gasoline in a glass of pure water and charging a premium for that water because it only contains 30% of the contaminant. 30% contamination is probably better than 100%, but would you want to drink it? The whole glass of water is poisoned due to the gasoline, yet the companies selling this product would like you to believe that because it contains pure water it is good. They also know that they can charge you premium prices for that flawed perception.

The FDA and USDA would like us to believe that using “certified organic ingredients” somehow makes the poisons they allow in the other 30% okay, and companies charge through the nose for these adulterated products. It is a matter of perspective. Just how much gasoline in your water are you willing to tolerate just so you can live under the illusion that you are consuming a more pure product? And just how high a price are you willing to pay for it?

Organic Sleight of Hand


“USDA Certified Organic” is a big business, and the deception is great. With a bit of sleight of hand, by simply moving a word around a bit, you have a complete subterfuge.

(1) Use of “Organic” in Product Names. The NOSB, State organic program (SOP) managers, certifying agents, and a large number of individual commenters strongly recommended that USDA prohibit use of the term, “organic,” to modify an ingredient in a product name if the ingredient, itself, is not produced organically. The examples offered were “organic chocolate ice cream” and “organic cherry sweets” in which the ice cream and candy are at least 95 percent organic but the chocolate and cherry flavoring is not organically produced.

We agree with commenters that such product names can be misleading and would be a violation of section 205.300(a). In the examples, the word, “organic,” precedes the words, “chocolate” and “cherry,” and clearly implies that those ingredients are organically produced. The chocolate and cherry flavorings must be organically produced to be used in this way. If the product is at least 95 percent organically produced but the flavoring is nonorganic, the word sequence must be reversed or the word, “flavored,” must be added to the name; e.g., “chocolate organic ice cream” or “chocolate flavored organic ice cream.” A sentence has been added to section 205.300(a) to specify that the term, “organic,” may not be used in a product name to identify an ingredient that is not organically produced. (Organic Labeling Preamble)

So, you see how “organic chocolate ice cream” means that both the chocolate and the ice cream are organic, but if you reverse two words and make it “chocolate organic ice cream,” the chocolate is not organic. Or if you are really adept at manipulation, you can actually manufacture “organic beer” with conventional hops, label it “USDA Certified Organic,” and charge a premium price for it. See the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, which includes hops as one of the approved non-organic substances allowed in USDA Certified Organic products.

Government Treachery


If the FDA is here to help us instead of make money for its corporate owners, don’t you think this agency would demand that labeling be perfectly clear? If the USDA is here to help us, why would it have allowed the gross pollution and treachery that abounds in the National Organics Program (NOP) to have even gotten a foothold in what was the last bastion of safety left in our food supply?

ORGANIC IS ORGANIC. When it is mixed with non-organic ingredients, it is no longer organic, and no amount of agency double-talk will change that. When you play word games to trick people into purchasing something because they see the word “organic” on the label because you have led them to believe it is safe and better than the rest, all in the name of corporate profits, then organic or not, you are one of the bad guys. Period.

Neotame

Neotame


Neotame can be included in USDA Certified “Contains Organic Ingredients” without labeling. As I stated in a previous article “USDA Certified Organic’s Dirty Little Secret: Neotame,” Neotame does not have to be labeled. Period. Why? Because the FDA approved it as a general purpose sweetener, and it is designated as a “flavor, or flavor enhancer.” And since it is not a protein hydrolysate, the following applies:

If the flavor consists of two or more ingredients, the label either may declare each ingredient by its common or usual name or may state “All flavor ingredients contained in this product are approved for use in a regulation of the Food and Drug Administration.” Any flavor ingredient not contained in one of these regulations, and any nonflavor ingredient, shall be separately listed on the label. (FDA)

A document taken from the FDA site even states that pre-approval studies indicated that Neotame is not safe, yet it “was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for general use in July 2002” (Wikipedia).

Sweetos


Enter Sweetos. Sweetos is Neotame. It was created for human and animal use.

EnSigns Health Care Pvt Ltd and The NutraSweet Co USA have recently launched ‘Sweetos’, a cattle feed sweetener. Sweetos has been developed with neotame, a high intensity sweetener.

Amino acids based sweetener Neotame is 8,000 to 13,000 times sweeter than sugar and is a patented product of the NutraSweet Co USA. Ensigns is one of the leading manufacturers of Sweetos, low calorie sweeteners for the food industry. Together the two companies have launched this sweetener to be added to cattle feed. (Business Standard)

Organic livestock feed uses a similar type of labeling system as human food.

(c) Products sold, labeled, or represented as “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).” Multiingredient agricultural product sold, labeled, or represented as “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))” must contain (by weight or fluid volume, excluding water and salt) at least 70 percent organically produced ingredients which are produced and handled pursuant to requirements in subpart C of this part. No ingredients may be produced using prohibited practices specified in paragraphs (f)(1), (2), and (3) of §205.301. Nonorganic ingredients may be produced without regard to paragraphs (f)(4), (5), (6), and (7) of §205.301. If labeled as containing organically produced ingredients or food groups, such product must be labeled pursuant to §205.304.

(d) Products with less than 70 percent organically produced ingredients. The organic ingredients in multiingredient agricultural product containing less than 70 percent organically produced ingredients (by weight or fluid volume, excluding water and salt) must be produced and handled pursuant to requirements in subpart C of this part. The nonorganic ingredients may be produced and handled without regard to the requirements of this part. Multiingredient agricultural product containing less than 70 percent organically produced ingredients may represent the organic nature of the product only as provided in §205.305. (GPO Access)

As in human food regulations, the non-organic ingredients in “Made with Organic Ingredients” and “Contains Organic Ingredients” can contain the kitchen sink.

The question must be asked: Do we really want our cattle to be consuming feed that is made with a neurotoxin? How will it affect the animals that eat it? And just how will eating these animals affect us?

Endless Compromise


When did we learn to accept anything less than the best? When did we acquiesce to inferiority? To the endless compromise of our food supply? Why do we think that we somehow deserve to be robbed blind, lied to, poisoned for profit, and cheated every step of the way by the corrupt corporate system that acts like a black hole – sucking in everything and giving nothing back in return except abject misery? And why do we seem to like it? Why do we keep going back for more instead of ridding ourselves of these pariahs? Do you really want to know why? Because we have been trained that way! That’s why we accept “organic beer” made with conventional hops, and USDA Certified “made with organic ingredients” food items that have been poisoned with the likes of Neotame. We accept these things because we have been conditioned to think that this is somehow okay. It’s time to change our way of thinking.

It’s time to stop bowing to multi-national corporations who may or may not be what we think they are. Know your food producer. Know what you are eating. Become a food warrior, and fight for the right to not be deceived. Know how to read labels and figure out what the ingredients really are. The more people that wake up to the reality that we are surrounded by people who couldn’t care less about our health and are actually out to do us harm as long as they can profit by it, the better our chances of survival. Make no mistake about it. We are in a food war, and that is a war for our very lives.

© 2010 Barbara H. Peterson

Neotame | Aspartame's secret little brother

By Barbara H. Peterson
Farm Wars

Just when we thought that buying “Organic” was safe, we run headlong into the deliberate poisoning of our organic food supply by the FDA in collusion with none other than the folks who brought us Aspartame. NutraSweet, a former Monsanto asset, has developed a new and improved version of this neurotoxin called Neotame.

Neotame has similar structure to aspartame — except that, from it’s structure, appears to be even more toxic than aspartame. This potential increase in toxicity will make up for the fact that less will be used in diet drinks. Like aspartame, some of the concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage from the combination of the formaldehyde metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and the excitotoxic amino acid. (Holisticmed.com)

But surely, this product would be labeled! NOT SO!!! For this little gem, no labeling required. And it is even included in USDA Certified Organic food.

The food labeling requirements required for aspartame have now been dropped for Neotame, and no one is clear why this was allowed to happen. Neotame has been ruled acceptable, and without being included on the list of ingredients, for:

• USDA Certified Organic food items.
• Certified Kosher products with the official letter k inside the circle on labels. (Janet Hull)

Let me make this perfectly clear. Neotame does not have to be included in ANY list of ingredients! So, if you buy processed food, whether USDA Certified Organic or not, that food most likely will contain Neotame because it is cost-effective, and since no one knows it is there, there is no public backlash similar to what is happening with Aspartame. A win/win situation!

But that’s not all. Just love chowing down on that delicious steak? Well, that cow most likely will have been fed with feed containing…..you guessed it…..Neotame! A product called “Sweetos,” which is actually composed of Neotame, is being substituted for molasses in animal feed.

“Sweetos is an economical substitute for molasses. Sweetos guarantees the masking of unpleasant tastes and odor and improves the palatability of feed. This product will be economical for farmers and manufacturers of cattle feed. It can also be used in mineral mixture,” said Craig Petray, CEO, The NutraSweet Company, a division of Searle, which is a part of Monsanto. (Bungalow Bill)

Why would we feed animals food that is so distasteful that we would have to mask the unpleasantness with an artificial sweetener? Most animals will not eat spoiled, rancid feed. They know by the smell that it is not good. Enter Sweetos (Neotame). Just cover up the unpleasant tastes and odors, and you can feed them anything you want to, courtesy of the oh, so considerate folks at Monsanto and company.

But of course, Monsanto is no longer associated with NutraSweet. In the time-honored tradition of covering its assets, Monsanto has a proven track record of spinning off controversial portions of its company that generate too much scrutiny, such as it did with the Solutia solution.

Says the Farm Industry News, “Monsanto, which has long resided in the crosshairs of public scorn and scrutiny, appears to have dodged at least one bullet by spinning off its industrial chemical business into a separate entity called Solutia a couple of years ago. Solutia has since been hammered by lawsuits regarding PCB contamination from what were once called Monsanto chemical plants in Alabama and other states” (Source Watch)

So what is the solution to this problem? Buy local organic food, know your local farmer, and don’t buy processed foods whether they are labeled “Organic” or not. This requires a drastic change in lifestyle that most will not want to make. For those who choose to ride the wheel of chance by succumbing to this genocidal adulteration of our food supply by those who stand to profit from our sickness and early demise, my only comment is….it is your choice. But for those of us who have decided to fight this battle one bite at a time by hitting these sociopaths in the pocketbook where it hurts……viva la revolucion!

(C) 2010 Barbara H. Peterson

At age 102, Therapist Still Psyched About Life

Bolgar attributes her longevity, in part, to her genes:
Her mom lived to 96. (She’s also been a vegetarian since 14,
loves sleep and doesn’t get “anxious about things
that haven’t happened”.)

NOVEMBER 15, 2011

Jasmin Aline Persch, MSNBC

Hedda Bolgar’s job just doesn’t get old. Seeing patients four days a week, the 102-year-old psychologist and psychoanalyst also trains new therapists and has scheduled lectures well into next year.
“I love working with patients,” Bolgar told TODAY.com. “I love to listen to them. I love to understand – even when they’re not saying it.”

Bolgar is the oldest living member of the American Psychology Association. In September, she flew to Washington D.C. to receive an award for America’s Outstanding Oldest Worker by Experience Works, a non-profit that helps senior workers.

“She doesn’t let grass grow on her feet,” says Peter Wolson, a psychologist and psychoanalyst who practices and trains students at the Los Angeles Institute and Society for Psychoanalytic Studies, an institute Bolgar co-founded in 1970.

In fact, she’s so busy friends have suggested she “get off the horse”, Wolson says. But the sharp, healthy and happy Bolgar doesn’t see why. She’s eternally fascinated by the unconscious, where she says pesky problems hide.

Lived through war, famine — and loss of her spouse

“Ultimately what really interests me is to see people change and have better lives – and feel liberated,” says Bolgar, who says she thinks of her patients even when she’s not with them.
She practices from her home in the tony Brentwood area of Los Angeles, scheduling patients so they never run into each other (people talk). Patients can get cozy in a chair while she sits on a beige couch in her office adorned with flowers and a view of the backyard pool.

Bolgar, born in Switzerland in 1909, usually relates in some way to patients she meets – having lived through war, famine, leaving her country, parents’ divorce and loss of her spouse, friends and pets (she’s kept cats for 40 years and just adopted kittens). The best thing she has done in life, she once said, was marrying her husband, who she calls “the love of my life."

“When he died, it was really, for many years, the end of the world. My mourning was endless. It seemed endless, until one day I decided I was alive,” Bolgar says in “The Beauty of Aging”, an upcoming film about vivacious women over 80 (http://www.beautyofaging.com).

While her patients’ tussles can link to a difficult childhood, Bolgar, who ultimately grew up in Hungary and Austria, can’t even recall fighting at home. She speaks admiringly of her mother, a journalist, and her father, a political ambassador. Bolgar attributes her longevity, in part, to her genes: Her mom lived to 96. (She’s also been a vegetarian since 14, loves sleep and doesn’t get “anxious about things that haven’t happened.")

'Marked my life in a way'

Bolgar traces her penchant for protecting others to first grade. Another teacher dragged a second grader to her class and asked a question that stumped the older student. Bolgar later boasted to her mother that she supplied the correct answer.

“I went home and felt very proud,” Bolgar says. “She listened. And then asked, ‘Did it ever occur how that other child must have felt?’ I was 6. I’ve never forgotten it. I always thought I was glad she said it. It marked my life in a way.”

Of course, sometimes it happens that the psychotherapist only shares one commonality with a patient: “being human”. That includes a police officer who left the force due to his violent tendencies. The patient, to Bolgar’s surprise, kept his appointments – but to rant, sharing sick hopes of having more altercations.
“’You must have had a terrible childhood,’” Bolgar recalls telling the ex-police officer one day, after she’d listened extensively. “It was awful. Then he started telling me how awful it was. I was grateful I never had any of those experiences. Everything happened that should never have happened. Then he started to change. He found a girl who was lovely.”

'Three weeks to get a dinner date'

Bolgar, who left the day Hitler marched into Austria, says she’s met a plethora of lovely people herself, especially being welcomed into homes when she first came to the U.S. at 28.

Bolgar now generously welcomes people into her home, Wolson says, throwing soirees in her home that has Old European charm with vintage books, paintings and flowers, which she adores, indoors as well as out. She’s always outfitted in high fashion, statement earrings and necklace – and a smile.

“It takes three weeks to get a dinner date with her,” says Allen Yasser, once an intimidated post-doctoral psychology student of Bolgar at Cedar Sinai who has spent 40 Christmases with her.
He’s now the director of the Wright Institute of Los Angeles, which they co-founded in 1974 with two other students of hers. She also started the Hedda Bolgar Psychotherapy Clinic, which treats those who can’t afford therapy otherwise.

“She has kind of solved the basic problem of getting old, which is isolation. How does she stay tuned in? She has friends in the world,” says 68-year-old Yasser, recalling her recent birthday party with about a 100 people, friends old and new.

Bolgar lives in the present, he says. She e-mails, researches on the Internet and has taught a course via Skype but adores books as well. Bolgar is also tackling current problems in mental health. She launched the Soldiers Project, which offers psychological therapy for soldiers and their families.

“She’s not talking about the past is wonderful and the present stinks – a place an older person goes. She really lives for the present and the future. And I think that’s somewhat unique for someone her age,” Yasser says.

Wolson, 69, calls Bolgar a “model for everybody”.

“She keeps her optimism, her love of life, her vitality,” he says. “She looks at this time as one of the best times in her life – and that amazes me.”
Bolgar thrives on new experiences and connecting with the world around her.

“I don’t know why people are so afraid of being old. It seems to me that what people see only is the loss or the deterioration or the minus – and they don’t see that there are tremendous gains,” Bolgar says in the upcoming documentary. “The ease and the security. The feeling of essentially being able to cope.”

© 2011 msnbc.com

You can read this story in its original location and view more photos at: today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45287411

Even the experts seem to have more questions than answers when it comes to the federal health-care reform law

By Tara Kaprowy
Kentucky Health News

LEXINGTON, Ky. -- Confusion, primary care doctors overwhelmed by an influx of new patients, and employers opting to pay fines rather than health insurance are among the fears experts have about the federal health-care reform law. The experts discussed the issues this week in Lexington at the fall meeting of the Friedell Committee for Health System Transformation, a non-partisan, non-profit group formed several years ago to improve health in Kentucky.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 30 million more people will become eligible for health insurance by 2014. People who have an income 133 percent above the federal poverty level — now $14,404 for individuals or $29,326 for a family of four — will qualify for Medicaid starting in 2014. Additionally, the federal government will give subsidies to help Americans whose income is up to 400 percent above the poverty level. With them, they must buy private coverage through state insurance exchanges.

The experts see problems arising from both options. "If you look at the overall population, it's very clear that the majority of these patients are going to be in the Medicaid program," said Elizabeth Cobb, vice president of health policy at the Kentucky Hospital Association. "Since Medicaid only pays hospitals at 85 percent of cost, that's a real concern" for providers. Cobb estimated that Kentucky hospitals will lose nearly $1 billion in revenue in the next 10 years because of the Medicaid expansion, along with cuts to other federal programs.

While hospitals will feel the stretch, so will doctors, with Kentucky lacking the primary-care infrastructure it needs to support the influx of new patients, said Dr. Steve Davis, acting commissioner for the state Department of Public Health. Davis said the average age of a practicing dentist in Kentucky is 58 years, and "in a few years," the state will have 3,000 fewer primary-care doctors.

"We don't have enough clinicians to meet those needs and that's a real problem," added Kevin Shuer, assistant professor at the University of Kentucky's College of Health Sciences.

Kentucky has taken no firm steps toward creating a state insurance exchange, a marketplace in which people will have to choose from a variety of plans. That will likely have to be done in the 2012 legislative session if the state opts to run its own exchange.

One reason for the delay is a lack of information, said Cris Miller, a partner in the Louisville accounting firm of Mountjoy Chilton Medley. "We know there will be four plans," each paying 60, 70, 80 or 90 percent of the covered benefit, she said. "We know the bronze plan is going to pay 60 percent of the covered benefit, but what is the covered benefit?"

Despite the unanswered questions, Julia Costich, chair of the Department of Health Services Management at UK's College of Public Health, believes Kentucky will set up a state-specific health insurance exchange, rather than let the federal government handle it, and will do so alone rather than partner with other states, since "the logistics to make that happen would be very complicated."

Costich's research shows about 400,000 Kentuckians will be eligible for federal subsidies as part of the exchange. Medicaid will eventually be included in the exchange and, after coverage expansion, the program's numbers could grow from its current 830,000 participants to 1.1 million in Kentucky. The federal government would cover the initial cost, but the state would gradually pick up a share, just as it does for current Medicaid patients.

The area of the state with the highest uninsured population is between Somerset and Bowling Green, according to Costich's research. There, one in four people under the age of 65 don't have any form of insurance. County-specific estimates show Franklin, Fayette and Jefferson counties have the lowest percentage of people without any form of insurance (4 to 8 percent) and Edmonson, Todd and Elliott have the highest (38 to 45 percent).

In 2014, employers with more than 50 employees who don't provide health coverage will be required to pay a penalty. The experts said paying the fines may be cheaper than offering insurance. According to global consulting firm Towers Watson, 3 in 10 American corporations are considering ending employee health coverage when the exchanges begin.

Though about 58 percent of Kentuckians have insurance through their employer, that's down from about 70 percent a decade ago, said Mark Lamberth, president-elect of the Kentucky Association of Health Underwriters. Lamberth said the drop is not surprising. "We've built a system that is really strapped on the back, for premium purposes, on employers," he said.

Another unknown is how accountable care organizations will work in Kentucky. Starting in 2012, providers that are part of an ACO — in which providers and hospitals team up to take care of a specific population in a coordinated way — will start receiving increased reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid.

So far, there are no ACOs in Kentucky, which Miller said is not surprising. "If you know anything at all about ACOs, you know they're driven by volume," she said. "We're going to have a few in Louisville, probably as many as three in Lexington. Maybe have one in Bowling Green, one in Paducah. But I can promise you we will not have one in Pikeville, we will not have one in Somerset. There's not enough population."

With pieces of the law still undergoing legal scrutiny — the Supreme Court seems likely to decide by July whether Americans can be required to buy health insurance — and with many wondering what will remain of the law after the 2012 presidential and congressional elections, it's unclear what answers, if any, consumers might get before the end of the year. For now, "mass confusion" is what the experts are witnessing, Lamberth said. Miller agreed. "The biggest things we are hearing from our customers is fear."