Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
What is the buzz on GMOs?
GMO stands for genetically modified organism. GMOs are made in laboratories and are found in corn, soy, sugar, canola, and all food containing corn. Health issues such as allergies and autoimmune diseases are on the rise due to GMOs.
We currently eat genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GM) foods and don’t realize it.
A genetically modified food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria, in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature, and is experimental. The scientific term is "transgenics," and is also often referred to as genetically modified.
For example: genetically modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO Corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an insecticide, but is sold unlabeled.
The health risks of genetically modified foods are unclear.
Unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the safety of genetically modified foods for human consumption is not adequately tested.
There have been no long-term studies conducted on the safety of genetically modified foods on humans.
The issue of GM food safety was first discussed at a meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and biotech representatives in 1990. The "substantial equivalence" concept was proposed in early 1996. The adoption of the concept of substantial equivalence allowed permission to market and sell new foods without any safety or toxicology tests as long as they were not too different in chemical composition to foods already on the market, the FDA GRAS proposal. To decide if a modified product is substantially equivalent, the product is tested by the manufacturer for unexpected changes in a limited set of variables such as toxins, nutrients or allergens that are known to be present in the unmodified food. If these tests show no significant difference between the modified and unmodified products, then no further food safety testing is required.
There is a growing wave of concern from citizens, farmers, and scientists who question the way the research is currently being handled by large, profit-hungry corporations. In addition to the scientific debates on the merits of genetically modified food, there are important, debates on the socioeconomic ramifications of the way this science is marketed and used.
Critics believe:
• The problem of food shortages is a political and economic problem.
• Food shortages and hunger are -- and will be -- experienced by the poorer nations.
• GE or GM Food is an expensive technology that the farmers of the developing nations would not be able to afford easily.
• Patenting laws go against the poor around the world and allow biotech companies to benefit from patenting indigenous knowledge often without consent.
• This is a very young and untested technology and may not be the answer just yet.
• Crop uniformity, which the biotech firms are promoting, will reduce genetic diversity making them more vulnerable to disease and pests. This furthers the need for pesticides (often created by the same companies creating and promoting genetically modified crops.)
Thus this leads to questions of the motives of corporations and countries that are using the dilemma of the developing world as a marketing strategy to gain acceptance of GE or GM food as well as dependency upon it through intellectual property rights. These corporations are against any labeling or other precautionary steps and measures that states may wish to take and this is of utmost concern.
The majority of the world requires labeling of genetically modified foods.
There are at least 50 countries with over 40% of the world’s population who already label genetically modified foods. What do these countries know that we don't?
California is taking the lead on this important issue with Proposition 37 on the November ballot.
The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act states that the initiative would require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically modfied (GMO) ingredients.
New campaign finance reports reveal that Monsanto Co. just contributed $4.2 million to defeat Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically modified food. This is the largest contribution in the race. Total contributions to defeat Proposition 37 amount to $25 million and nearly $23 million during the last week.
Other major new contributions against Proposition 37 were given by E. I. DuPont de Nemours ($1,273,600), Dow Agrosciences ($1,184,800) and PepsiCo ($1,126,079).
“The giant pesticide and food companies are afraid of the mothers and grandmothers who want the right to know what’s in our food,” said Stacy Malkan, media director of California Right to Know. “These companies will try to buy the election, but it won’t work. California moms and dads will prevail over Monsanto and DuPont. “
So far, the “Big 6” pesticide companies (Monsanto, Dow, BASF, Bayer, Syngenta and DuPont) have contributed $13.5 million to defeat Proposition 37.
Of the twenty largest contributors to the No on 37 campaign, Nestle USA is the only company based in California and Nestle is a subsidiary of the giant Swiss food conglomerate Nestlé S.A.
To learn more about Monsanto and genetically modified food, check out these youtube videos:
http://youtu.be/MbvYwg-Aqis
http://youtu.be/vEFC4rsQ4B8
How to get involved in your community
Visit any of these websites to volunteer, donate, or lead an event to support the Yes on 37 campaign.
http://www.carighttoknow.org/
http://www.labelgmos.org/the_science_genetically_modified_foods_gmo
http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/
Sources:
http://www.labelgmos.org/the_science_genetically_modified_foods_gmo
http://www.globalissues.org/issue/188/genetically-engineered-food
We currently eat genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GM) foods and don’t realize it.
A genetically modified food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria, in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature, and is experimental. The scientific term is "transgenics," and is also often referred to as genetically modified.
For example: genetically modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO Corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an insecticide, but is sold unlabeled.
Unlike the strict safety evaluations required for the approval of new drugs, the safety of genetically modified foods for human consumption is not adequately tested.
There have been no long-term studies conducted on the safety of genetically modified foods on humans.
The issue of GM food safety was first discussed at a meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and biotech representatives in 1990. The "substantial equivalence" concept was proposed in early 1996. The adoption of the concept of substantial equivalence allowed permission to market and sell new foods without any safety or toxicology tests as long as they were not too different in chemical composition to foods already on the market, the FDA GRAS proposal. To decide if a modified product is substantially equivalent, the product is tested by the manufacturer for unexpected changes in a limited set of variables such as toxins, nutrients or allergens that are known to be present in the unmodified food. If these tests show no significant difference between the modified and unmodified products, then no further food safety testing is required.
There is a growing wave of concern from citizens, farmers, and scientists who question the way the research is currently being handled by large, profit-hungry corporations. In addition to the scientific debates on the merits of genetically modified food, there are important, debates on the socioeconomic ramifications of the way this science is marketed and used.
Critics believe:
• The problem of food shortages is a political and economic problem.
• Food shortages and hunger are -- and will be -- experienced by the poorer nations.
• GE or GM Food is an expensive technology that the farmers of the developing nations would not be able to afford easily.
• Patenting laws go against the poor around the world and allow biotech companies to benefit from patenting indigenous knowledge often without consent.
• This is a very young and untested technology and may not be the answer just yet.
• Crop uniformity, which the biotech firms are promoting, will reduce genetic diversity making them more vulnerable to disease and pests. This furthers the need for pesticides (often created by the same companies creating and promoting genetically modified crops.)
Thus this leads to questions of the motives of corporations and countries that are using the dilemma of the developing world as a marketing strategy to gain acceptance of GE or GM food as well as dependency upon it through intellectual property rights. These corporations are against any labeling or other precautionary steps and measures that states may wish to take and this is of utmost concern.
The majority of the world requires labeling of genetically modified foods.
There are at least 50 countries with over 40% of the world’s population who already label genetically modified foods. What do these countries know that we don't?
California is taking the lead on this important issue with Proposition 37 on the November ballot.
The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act states that the initiative would require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically modfied (GMO) ingredients.
New campaign finance reports reveal that Monsanto Co. just contributed $4.2 million to defeat Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically modified food. This is the largest contribution in the race. Total contributions to defeat Proposition 37 amount to $25 million and nearly $23 million during the last week.
Other major new contributions against Proposition 37 were given by E. I. DuPont de Nemours ($1,273,600), Dow Agrosciences ($1,184,800) and PepsiCo ($1,126,079).
“The giant pesticide and food companies are afraid of the mothers and grandmothers who want the right to know what’s in our food,” said Stacy Malkan, media director of California Right to Know. “These companies will try to buy the election, but it won’t work. California moms and dads will prevail over Monsanto and DuPont. “
So far, the “Big 6” pesticide companies (Monsanto, Dow, BASF, Bayer, Syngenta and DuPont) have contributed $13.5 million to defeat Proposition 37.
Of the twenty largest contributors to the No on 37 campaign, Nestle USA is the only company based in California and Nestle is a subsidiary of the giant Swiss food conglomerate Nestlé S.A.
To learn more about Monsanto and genetically modified food, check out these youtube videos:
http://youtu.be/MbvYwg-Aqis
http://youtu.be/vEFC4rsQ4B8
How to get involved in your community
Visit any of these websites to volunteer, donate, or lead an event to support the Yes on 37 campaign.
http://www.carighttoknow.org/
http://www.labelgmos.org/the_science_genetically_modified_foods_gmo
http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/
Sources:
http://www.labelgmos.org/the_science_genetically_modified_foods_gmo
http://www.globalissues.org/issue/188/genetically-engineered-food
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Is Sugar Toxic?
CBS News’ “60 Minutes” asks "Is Sugar Toxic?" on Sunday. This segment explores a pediatric endocrinologist’s theory that sugar is toxic. Dr. Robert Lustig of the University of California talks to Dr. Sanjay Gupta for the report.
Americans consume about 130 pounds of added sugars per person each year, CBS News says.
Lustig sees little difference between sugar and high fructose corn syrup. ”They are basically equivalent. The problem is they’re both bad. They’re both equally toxic,” he tells Gupta. Lustig attributes the sickness in the obese children he sees to the sugar they have eaten.
A sugar-packed diet can result in Type 2 diabetes, hypertension and heart disease, Lustig says. “Ultimately, this is a public health crisis … you have to do big things and you have to do them across the board,” Lustig says.
Sugar needs the regulations and warnings slapped on tobacco and alcohol, Lustig argues.
Watch “60 Minutes” at 7 pm ET/PT Sunday.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Are you addicted to your Acid Reflux medication?
On August 23, 2011, the research-based advocacy group, Public Citizen, called for stricter warnings on popular acid reflux drugs, called proton pump inhibitors.
In a petition filed yesterday, Public Citizen urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to require a black box warning, the strongest warning possible, on the drugs' packaging detailing their side effects and potential to cause dependence among users.
Public Citizen Calls for Stricter Warnings on Acid Reflux Drugs
Public Citizen successfully lobbied the FDA in 2009 to add a black box warning to Botox, citing the potential for the product to spread from the point of injection and cause breathing and swallowing problems.
In a petition filed yesterday, Public Citizen urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to require a black box warning, the strongest warning possible, on the drugs' packaging detailing their side effects and potential to cause dependence among users.
Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, said he hopes stricter warnings will curb unnecessary use of the drugs.
"These drugs have a use, but they're grossly overused," Wolfe said. "We hope use will go down when doctors and patients know the risks."
Some risks, including bone fractures, infections and heart rhythm abnormalities, are listed in fine print on the drugs' packaging. But the potential for the drugs to exacerbate acid reflux when patients discontinue use, a relatively recent observation, is not.
"There's absolutely no warning that these drugs can cause dependence," Wolfe said, adding that he hopes a black box warning will prompt doctors and patients to consider other, safer options first.
Proton pump inhibitors, such as Nexium, Protonix and a slew of generic versions, are approved to treat heartburn, gastro esophageal reflux disease and gastric ulcers. But up to two-thirds of people using the drugs fail to meet those diagnostic criteria, according to a 2009 study published in the journal Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. And often less intensive treatments, such as antacids, can soothe symptoms sufficiently.
"It's absolutely true that too many people are on these medications," said Dr. Jacqueline Wolf, a gastroenterologist and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. "I think lifestyle changes can make a big difference in patients' symptoms."
Quitting smoking, losing weight, and avoiding certain foods, such as garlic, onions, coffee and carbonated beverages, can help minimize symptoms, Wolf said.
"I think physicians need to be aware of the medications' risks and get patients to try to change lifestyle changes and antacids first," Wolf said. "I absolutely agree we need to taper off these drugs."
A 2009 study published in Gastroenterology found that proton pump inhibitors could actually provoke reflux disease when healthy people stopped taking them. a discovery that could tilt the risk-benefit balance for patients who don't need the drugs.
"Since over half the people using these drugs don't even have conditions that warrant their use, you're essentially causing acid reflux disease," Public Citizen's Wolfe said of doctors who overprescribe proton pump inhibitors. "We want doctors to know that, for some patients, these drugs are possibly causing more harm than good."
Proton pump inhibitors are the third highest-selling class of drugs in the United States. Nexium, made by AstraZeneca, has the second highest retail sales among all drugs -- $4.8 billion in 2008. Some brands, such as Prilosec and Zegerid, are available in over-the-counter form.
"I think it's really important that we have educational information in pharmacies and in doctor's offices that speaks to lifestyle changes and guide patients on what they should start with and when to see a doctor," said Harvard's Wolf.
The Public Citizen petition calls for black box warnings on prescription and over-the-counter proton pump inhibitors. A spokeswoman for the FDA declined to comment on the petition, saying only that the department would review it and respond to the organization that submitted it.
Public Citizen successfully lobbied the FDA in 2009 to add a black box warning to Botox, citing the potential for the product to spread from the point of injection and cause breathing and swallowing problems.
Sources:
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Alex + Von Testimonial
I am a member of a women's swapping group on yahoo called lets swap goodies. It is primarily a group of women with a direct sales business. One of our members, Holly Petrie introduced me to alex + von. Before I tried the products, my face was really dry. I thought I was washing my face too much. After using the 100% Pure products, the dryness/redness has gone away and my skin is really smooth!
Alex + Von carries a few different skincare and cosmetic lines which are natural and/or organic. So, if you are looking for natural and organic skincare, try 100% Pure. Oh, and their scents are too die for!!! Yummy!
Alex + Von carries a few different skincare and cosmetic lines which are natural and/or organic. So, if you are looking for natural and organic skincare, try 100% Pure. Oh, and their scents are too die for!!! Yummy!
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Women's Wellness Conference
I had an amazing time at David Wolfe's Women's Wellness Conference in Costa Mesa, CA. There were so many awesome speakers and learned so much. It was a joy to finally meet David! I have listened to him via recorded lectures but to meet him in person was great!
One thing I learned that I have to share is Earthing or grounding. Earthing is fascinating to me.
One thing I learned that I have to share is Earthing or grounding. Earthing is fascinating to me.
The surface of the Earth resonates with natural, subtle energies. There is ongoing scientific research discovering why people feel better when they connect with these energy fields. Earthing refers to the process of connecting to the Earth by walking barefoot outdoors, sitting on the ground, etc outdoors, and working or sleeping grounded indoors. Many people are now incorporating Earthing into their daily routines. They report that they sleep better, have less pain and stress, and faster recovery from trauma. Earthing immediately equalizes your body to the same energy level as the Earth. This results in synchronizing your internal biological clocks, hormonal cycles, and physiological rhythms, and suffusing your body with healing, negatively charged free electrons abundantly present on the surface of the Earth.
Ever wonder why dogs and cats burrow themselves in the grass, they do this to heal themselves.
Earthing
›Reduces inflammation
›Affects anxiety, irritability
›Affects circulation
›Produces a calming effect on the brain
›Reduces stress
›Improves wound healing
›Reduces pain
›Helps blood sugar
›Helps balance metabolism
Monday, January 30, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)