Food wrappers leach harmful chemicals into food

(NaturalNews) Man-made chemicals are all over the place in today’s environment, and many of them regularly come into direct contact with the food supply. A new study out of the University of Toronto has found that one of the primary sources of exposure to perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs), toxic chemical endocrine disruptors (EDs) used in many consumer products, is food wrappers. Fast-food burger and fries paper wraps, potato chip bags, microwave popcorn bags, and many other forms of processed food product packaging contain various non-stick NS grease-resistant chemicals that are known to cause severe health problems. Clothing, bedding, carpet, cookware, and other common consumer products also contain applications of PFCAs like perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a highly-persistant, toxic chemical that is known to pollute human blood and disrupt hormonal balance. “We suspected that a major source of human PFCA exposure may be the consumption and metabolism of polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters or PAPs,” explained Jessica D’eon, a graduate student in the University of Toronto’s Department of Chemistry, and co-author of the study. “PAPs are applied as grease-proofing agents to paper food contact packaging such as fast food wrappers and microwave popcorn bags.” The team administered and observed the effects of PAPs and PFCAs in rats over the course of three weeks. They compared their findings to previous findings in human participants, and discovered that PAPs definitely build up in the body and cause long-term damage to health — and people all over the world are exposed to them on a regular basis. Previous studies have linked PFOA chemicals to high cholesterol (http://www.naturalnews.com/029676_PFOA_non-stick_cookware.html), as well as thyroid problems, lowered immune function, and cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/022645.html). Editor’s Note: NaturalNews is strongly against the use of all forms of animal testing. We fully support the implementation of humane medical experimentation that promotes the health and well-being of all living creatures. Sources for this story include: http://www.artsci.utoronto.ca/main/newsitems/food-wrappers

Regulators prey on food processing plant in effort to pass federal food legislation (opinion)

(NaturalNews) The Texas Department of State Health Services recently ordered Sangar Produce, a San Antonio-based produce processor, to cease operations and recall all of its bagged salads and cut up fruit and vegetable products. Authorities say the plant was contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, which may have been linked to the deaths of four people. But the company denies these claims, saying independent tests showed the plant to be clean. According to Carrie Williams, spokeswoman for the Texas health department, the state identified a link between the consumption of Sangar’s chopped celery and ten cases of illness, four of which resulted in death. But Sangar president Kenneth Sanquist responded that there must have been a mistake. “The independent testing shows our produce to be absolutely safe, and we are aggressively fighting the state’s erroneous findings,” Sanquist is quoted as saying in a recent CNN.com article. Sanquist went on to say that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not had enough involvement in any actual inspections. Though not directly responsible for closing the plant down and ordering the recall, the FDA is assisting the Texas health department and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the investigation. According to the report, violations at the plant included a condensation leak, some dirt on a food preparation table, and inadequate hand washing. Though such violations are significant, the discrepancy between state and independent tests is highly suspect in the case. Throughout the past several years, NaturalNews has uncovered plots by the federal government and other key players to increase centralized control and power over food (http://www.naturalnews.com/029678_Senate_bill_Big_Agriculture.html) and irradiate all meat and produce (http://www.naturalnews.com/028986_food_irradiation_FDA.html). And all the recent food safety scares seem to be part of the plan to scare the public into giving the government the power it wants over food. No matter who is actually at fault in the Sangar Produce case, you can count on the FDA and other federal authorities to use it as a reason for increased food tyranny. Do not fall for it. Sources for this story include: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/10/21/texas.food.plant/?hpt=T2

World’s top firms cause $2.2 trillion in environmental damage

(NaturalNews) The world’s 3,000 biggest public companies do more than $2.2 trillion worth of damage to the environment every year, amounting to one-third of their total profits, according to a report commissioned by the U.N. Environment Program and the Principles for Responsible Investment initiative. The study was carried out by researchers from the London-based consulting firm Trucost. Later this year, another U.N. study is expected to recommend ways to stop this damage, such as by taxing or otherwise penalizing polluters and eliminating massive public subsidies to destructive industries. “What we’re talking about is a completely new paradigm,” lead researcher Richard Mattison said. “Externalities of this scale and nature pose a major risk to the global economy and markets are not fully aware of these risks, nor do they know how to deal with them.” “Externalities” refer to costs of production borne by someone other than the producer or consumer. Under the current economic system, nearly all environmental destruction is an externality. Well over half the $2.2 trillion figure in the Trucost report comes from current and anticipated effects of global warming. The remainder comes from effects such as air and water pollution. The true cost of these companies’ operations is actually much higher, however. In calculating cost, the researchers did not take into account destructive effects from the consumption of the companies’ goods and services, long-term damage other than global warming, or effects not easily put into economic terms, such as social disruption or loss of biodiversity. The study warns companies that if they do not take action to reduce their environmental footprints, governments may force them to do so with new taxes or regulations. “It’s going to be a significant proportion of a lot of companies’ profit margins,” Mattison said. “Whether they actually have to pay for these costs will be determined by the appetite for policy makers to enforce the ‘polluter pays’ principle. We should be seeking ways to fix the system, rather than waiting for the economy to adapt.” Sources for this story include: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/18/worlds-top-firms-environmental-damage.

High-glycemic carbohydrates lead to heart disease

(NaturalNews) A recent Italian study has found that women who eat diets rich in high-glycemic carbohydrates double their risk of developing coronary heart disease. Published in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine , the study confirms what many already know concerning high-glycemic foods and heart disease risk. High-glycemic carbohydrates are things like refined breads and pizza doughs, bleached rice, and refined sugars, which common sense indicates are bad for health anyway. They are stripped of many of their nutrient components so they turn quickly into energy once in the body, raising blood sugar levels and overburdening the body. Over 47,000 Italian adults were included in the study, and after seven years, researchers concluded that women in particular who had the highest glycemic load were at the highest risk of developing coronary heart disease. Researchers noted that high-glycemic carbohydrates, as opposed to carbohydrates in general, are to blame for the increased risk, but they say they don’t know precisely why this is the case. “A high consumption of carbohydrates from high-glycemic index foods, rather than the overall quantity of carbohydrates consumed, appears to influence the risk of developing coronary heart disease,” explained study authors. They suspect that “good” cholesterol levels are reduced with a high-glycemic diet, but they are unsure why women are affected by them more than men are. High-glycemic foods in general are not healthy when eaten in excess because they raise blood sugar levels and can lead to diseases like diabetes. They also contribute to obesity because, more often than not, they are missing necessary components that have been removed during the processing and refining process. So it makes perfect sense that high-glycemic carbohydrates, or simple carbohydrates, are more harmful than low-glycemic carbohydrates, or complex carbohydrates. The more whole and complete a carbohydrate is, the better it is for the body. The British Heart Foundation (BHF) is recommending that women eat more low-glycemic foods to combat their increased risk. “They could try broadening the types of bread and cereals they eat to include granary, rye or oat; including more beans, pulses; and accompanying meals with a good helping of fruit and vegetables,” emphasized Victoria Taylor, senior heart health dietician at BHF. Both women and men would do well to follow this protocol and limit their consumption of high-glycemic foods, choosing instead to eat whole, complex foods that are rich in vital nutrients that maintain health and prevent disease. Sources for this story include: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8615537.stm

Natural health news gets nuttier: research shows eating nuts lowers cholesterol

(NaturalNews) NaturalNews has covered how eating pistachios lowers the risk of lung cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/027732_pistachios_cancer.html) and how a diet rich in nuts may help prevent age-related blindness (http://www.naturalnews.com/026369_risk_olive_oil_nuts.html). Walnuts appear to have breast cancer-fighting properties, too (http://www.naturalnews.com/026115_walnuts_health_cancer.html). And now there’s even more reason to be nuts about nuts — scientists have found new evidence that nuts are heart healthy because they dramatically improve blood cholesterol levels, without drugs. “Dietary interventions to lower blood cholesterol concentrations and to modify blood lipoprotein levels are the cornerstone of prevention and treatment plans for coronary heart disease,” Joan Sabate, M.D., of Loma Linda University and colleagues stated in their report, which was just published in the Archives of Internal Medicine . “Recently, consumption of nuts has been the focus of intense research because of their potential to reduce coronary heart disease risk and to lower blood lipid (fat and cholesterol) levels based on their unique nutritional attributes.” The Loma Linda University researchers investigated data from 25 international nut consumption trials involving 583 women and men with high cholesterol or normal cholesterol levels. Each study compared a control group of research subjects to a group assigned to specifically eat nuts regularly. None of the study participants took cholesterol lowering drugs such as Big Pharma’s widely prescribed statins. On average, the people in the trials who ate about 67 grams (approximately 2.4 ounces) of nuts each day had an overall reduction in total cholesterol levels of 5.1 percent. Even more important, there was a 7.4 percent drop in low-density lipoprotein (LDL), which is known as the “bad” cholesterol, and a significant 8.3 percent change in the ratio of LDL cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein (HDL), the “good” cholesterol that protects from heart disease. The news got even better when the scientists looked at the effect of nut consumption on high levels of triglycerides in the bloodstream. These blood fats, when excessive, are known to contribute to the development of heart disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease; triglycerides may play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes, too. The Archives of Internal Medicine report showed that eating nuts didn’t change healthy levels of triglycerides in the body. However, in people with high levels, a diet rich in nuts caused triglyceride levels to take a 10.2 percent nosedive. Bottom line: the researchers concluded the results of their study support the inclusion of nuts as a natural dietary therapy aimed at improving blood cholesterol levels. “Nuts are a whole food that have been consumed by humans throughout history. Increasing the consumption of nuts as part of an otherwise prudent diet can be expected to favorably affect blood lipid levels (at least in the short term) and have the potential to lower coronary heart disease risk,” the researchers stated. For more information: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20458092 http://www.naturalnews.com/nuts.html

Men remain oblivious to cancer risk of processed meat

(NaturalNews) Men eat much more processed meat than women and are less likely to know that processed meat consumption has been linked to bowel (colorectal) cancer, according to a poll conducted for the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF). “The evidence that eating processed meat increases bowel cancer risk is convincing and this is why we recommend people avoid eating it,” said the WCRF’s Rachel Thompson. “But despite the strength of the evidence, awareness levels are low and this seems to especially be the case in men. This is a concern because, as men eat roughly double the amount of processed meat as women do, they could make a bigger difference to their cancer risk by cutting down.” The researchers found that men in the United Kingdom eat approximately 50 grams (1.8 ounces) of processed meats such as bacon, ham, salami and sausage per day. In contrast, British women eat only 24 grams of processed meat per day. Research suggests that eating 50 grams of processed meat per day — roughly equivalent to two slices of bacon — increases a person’s risk of bowel cancer by 20 percent. Yet the WCRF poll of 2,000 adults found that only 41 percent of women and 36 percent of men were aware of this risk. Only 63 percent of respondents knew that a poor diet can increase the risk of cancer, and only 60 percent knew that being overweight also increases cancer risk. Researchers believe that one in ten cases of bowel cancer could be averted if everyone kept their consumption to less than 70 grams per week. “It is important to emphasize that while we recommend avoiding processed meat, this is not a question of all or nothing,” Thompson said. “If you do not want to give up processed meat altogether, you can still make a real difference to your cancer risk by cutting down from, for example, having a bacon sandwich every day to only having one a couple of times a week.” Sources for this story include: www.telegraph.co.uk.

Over 130,000 cases of diabetes now linked to soda consumption, HFCS

(NaturalNews) For years, advocates of natural health have been hammering away at the message that soda causes diabetes and obesity . The soda industry, meanwhile, has remained in denial mode, mirroring the ridiculous position of the tobacco industry that “nicotine is not addictive.” Soda doesn’t cause diabetes, the industry claims, and it’s perfectly safe to consume in essentially unlimited quantities. The Corn Refiners Association has joined the denial with its own spin campaign that seeks to convince people High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is totally natural and completely harmless. HFCS is, of course, the primary sweetener used in sodas and soft drinks. Now comes new research presented at the American Heart Association’s Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention annual conference in San Francisco. This new research reveals that over the last decade, soda consumption has conservatively caused: • 130,000 new cases of diabetes • 14,000 new cases of heart disease • 50,000 more “life years” with heart disease over the last decade “The finding suggests that any kind of policy that reduces consumption might have a dramatic health benefit,” said senior study author Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo (associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco). The American Beverage Association, meanwhile, says this study hasn’t been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal yet and therefore it doesn’t count. Soda consumption doesn’t cause diabetes or heart disease, they claim, because “…both heart disease and diabetes are complex conditions with no single cause and no single solution.” It’s silly logic, of course: Diabetes obviously has a cause . It’s not some spontaneous disease that appears out of nowhere. And when you go looking for the cause, you obviously have to look at dietary factors since diabetes is a disease related to the consumption and metabolism of dietary sugars . Once you do that, sodas immediately raise a red flag because they’re liquid sugar in a highly-concentrated form that does not exist naturally in nature. HFCS doesn’t grow on trees, in other words. Nature provides sugars locked into insoluble fibers that slow digestion and lower the effective glycemic index of sugars that are consumed. In nature, sugars are always combined with minerals, too, and many of those minerals help prevent diabetes and heart disease. But High-Fructose Corn Syrup is stripped of virtually all those minerals. It contains no fiber and no healing phytonutrients that you might encounter in plants. As a result, HFCS — sometimes dubbed “liquid Satan” — might be called a dietary poison that causes disease while contributing to nutritional deficiencies that accelerate disease. Bone loss Interestingly, this new study did not look at loss of bone density , which is another side effect of drinking soda. Due to the extremely high acidity of the HFCS sweetener combined with the phosphoric acid used in sodas, people who drink sodas often lose bone minerals and end up being diagnosed with osteoporosis (even at a relatively young age). Other people end up with kidney stones due to all these minerals passing through the kidneys and contributing to the built up of mineral deposits there. Long-term soda consumers may even suffer from pancreatic cancer due to the extreme stress placed on the pancreas following the consumption of liquid sugars. In all, soda consumption is linked to at least six serious diseases: #1) Diabetes #2) Obesity #3) Heart disease #4) Cancer #5) Osteoporosis #6) Kidney stones That’s why taxing sodas is more than merely a way to raise money through soda sales; it’s also a way to dramatically reduce the cost of treating these diseases. It’s no surprise that several U.S. states are now starting to seriously consider slapping new taxes on sodas and other “junk” beverages. That’s not the way I would prefer to see the situation handled, actually. The better option, in my view, would be to ban all soda advertising by effectively stripping Free Speech rights from corporations. Such rights belong only to individuals, not multi-billion-dollar corporations. Corporations whose products physically harm the health of the population at large should not be allowed to openly advertise and promote those products to the public. They can still sell them, they just can’t advertise them. This is the real solution to the problem: Take away the advertising of sodas and consumer consumption immediately plummets. It’s all the advertising that keeps the soft drink sales machine churning out disease and suffering in the name of corporate profits. Soda companies, of course, will argue that they have a Free Speech right to advertise their products even if they do promote disease. That’s an argument to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, of course. But let there be no mistake about it: The continued tolerance of soda advertising is creating a nation of diabetes, obesity and heart disease . There will be a price to be paid for all this, and I fear it will be a price far beyond what society is able to pay. To raise a nation on sodas and processed foods is to ultimately doom that nation because failed health will ultimately lead to a failed nation . You cannot built a healthy nation upon the backs of a diseased population, and thanks to the soda companies and junk food companies, the United States of America is now a nation of diseased, diabetic, obese consumers who continue to poison themselves every single day with the dangerous chemicals found in heavily advertised food, beverage and personal care products. If I were the health advisor for a country, I would outright ban all advertising of harmful consumer products (foods, beverages, personal care, cleaning products, etc.), and in their place I’d run public service announcements teaching people about nutrition, disease prevention, vitamin D and commonsense self-care. Within one generation, that nation would be the healthiest in the world, with the lowest rates of disease and affordable health care coverage for all. The junk food and soda companies, of course, would go broke, and the economy would rearrange itself to open up new jobs in healthier and more productive industries rather than the “disease industries” that dominate America today. Sugary beverages, you see, aren’t just a disease upon those who regularly consume them; they are a disease upon the very nation that threatens its economy and compromises its future. Sources for this story include: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/636642.html

« Previous Page