Hi there, welcome to my 'personal library'. I am just another ordinary guy who love to share and care! This is some sort of my very own one-stop reference centre. It's kinda 'out of the box' thinking, not to the average Malaysians.. to dig of such infos up to this depth. Whatever health challenge happened to the other side of the globe is possible to happen to me as well. U R most welcome to visit my library.. I Care, U Care, We Care!! Love U all..
Sodium occurs naturally in many foods and is also added in the form of salt or other sodium-containing substances. Common salt or table salt is a chemical compound of sodium and chlorine and is called sodium chloride. The sodium content of food has important implications for health. Salt contains about 40 per cent sodium, and a teaspoon of salt, which weighs about 5 grams, contains about 2 grams of sodium.
Rock salt and sea salt are almost entirely sodium chloride, with only traces of other elements (minerals). In contrast to pepper, which loses flavour once ground, there is no advantage in freshly grinding salt prior to its use. Iodized salt contains about 0.03 milligram of iodine per gram of salt. It is intended as a supplement for people whose diet is deficient in iodine. Recent findings in the U.S.A. indicate that the level of iodine in the diet has increased and that the widespread use of this salt is unnecessary.
Varying amounts of sodium are added to food, but not always in the form of salt. Common food additives, such as baking soda, some preservatives, and monosodium glutamate (MSG), also contribute to the total amount of sodium we consume.
SALT AND HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE
Probably one-fifth of the population, because of genetic predisposition, may be increasing their risk of high blood pressure (hypertension) by having a high intake of sodium. People who have a high intake of sodium have a high incidence of hypertension and stroke. High blood pressure is rarely seen in those who consume less than 1.2 grams (1200 milligrams) of sodium per day. In Australia, on the other hand, where the sodium intake can be in the region of 4 to 8 grams per day, about one in five adult Australians has high blood pressure. Salt is not necessarily the only important factor leading to high blood pressure, but in some cases it is. There are sound reasons why Australians should reduce their sodium intake. But sodium is an essential nutrient, and we need a certain amount for normal body function. A safe intake is considered to be between 0.9 and 2.3 grams of sodium per day, although in special circumstances, such as excessive sweating and diarrhoea, higher levels may be needed.
There is usually no need to increase salt intake in hot climates to avoid cramps, fainting and other symptoms because the body's hormones will adjust over a few days and conserve body sodium. Excessive heat presents other risks and should, in any case, be avoided.
HOW CAN WE CONTROL OUR SALT INTAKE?
Some people find it hard to reduce their intake of sodium. We all have the ability to taste salt, but the extent to which we like our food salted can be modified by experience. The amount of salt we consume cannot be wholly controlled by the moderate use of the salt shaker at the dinner table. This use only accounts for about one-third of our daily intake. Up to half of our salt intake is from processed food, with the balance occurring naturally in food and water. The amount consumed in processed food is difficult to control, although with highly salted foods, taste is a reliable guide. Some items that do not taste highly salted can contribute significant quantities of sodium to our diet because of the amounts we consume. Examples include bread, tomato sauce, and cakes and biscuits. Many 'take-away' foods, such as fish and chips, hamburgers and Chinese food, are highly salted. Bottled mineral waters can contribute a significant amount of sodium. An indication of sodium content is usually given on the label.
An increase in potassium intake seems to offset the adverse effect that sodium has on blood pressure. Foods that contain significant amounts of potassium and also low levels of sodium are fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables. But there is no justification for the unrestricted use of potassium salts as substitutes for sodium, as this would present new problems. Potassium supplements and salt substitutes can be potentially hazardous to health and should only be used under medical supervision.
SODIUM INTAKE
Recommended daily dietary intake of sodium (Australia):
Here are some facts that you won’t find advertised on most of the vitamin supplements at your local vitamin store:
The majority of commercial vitamin supplements are made up of synthetic vitamins.
Synthetic vitamins do not perform the same functions in your body as vitamins found naturally in whole food.
Many synthetic vitamins deplete your body of other nutrients and tax your kidneys before being excreted through your urine. If you want a comprehensive understanding of what vitamins are and what they do in your body, it would be best to take a full course in biochemistry. Do you remember all of those molecular formulas and chemical reactions that you studied in your high school chemistry class? Biochemistry is really just an extension of chemistry, with an emphasis on the thousands of chemical reactions that occur in your body on a moment-to-moment basis. Anyone who studies biochemistry learns that vitamins do not exist as single components that act on their own. Vitamins are made up of several different components –
enzymes,
co-enzymes,
and co-factors–
that must work together to produce their intended biologic effects. Vitamins that are found naturally in whole foods come with all of their necessary components. The majority of vitamins that are sold in pharmacies, grocery stores, and vitamin shops are synthetic vitamins, which are only isolated portions of the vitamins that occur naturally in food.
A good example is vitamin C. If you take a look at a variety of vitamin C supplements, you will find that the majority of them contain only ascorbic acid or a compound called ascorbate, which is a less acidic form of acorbic acid.
Ascorbic acid is NOT vitamin C.
It represents the outer ring that serves as a protective shell for the entire vitamin C complex, much like an orange peel that serves as a protective shell for an orange.
Real vitamin C found in whole foods like fruits and vegetables contain the following components:
Rutin
Bioflavonoids (vitamin P)
Factor K
Factor J
Factor P
Tyrosinase
Ascorbinogen
Ascorbic Acid
When you take only ascorbic acid found in your synthetic vitamin C tablet or powder, your body must gather all of the other components of the full vitamin C complex from your body’s tissues in order to make use of it. In the event that your body does not have adequate reserves of the other components, ascorbic acid itself does not provide any of the health benefits that the full vitamin C complex does. After circulating through your system, the unused ascorbic acid is eliminated through your urine.
Just like vitamin C, almost all other vitamins that we know of offer their full health benefits when they are in the presence of a number of
enzymes, co-enzymes, co-factors, and even minerals.
For example:
Vitamin D may have as many as twelve different active components,
while vitamin P has at least five different components.
The mineral copper is needed for full vitamin C activity,
while vitamin E works closely with the mineral selenium to provide its health promoting, anti-oxidative effect.
Clearly, it is best to get your vitamins from whole foods because whole foods provide complete vitamins rather than fractions of them. In many cases, whole foods also provide the minerals that are necessary for optimal vitamin activity. For example, sunflower seeds are an excellent whole food source of vitamin E and the mineral selenium, both of which need each other to offer their full health benefits. How do you know if the vitamins on your kitchen counter are from whole foods or if they are synthetic?
If the list of ingredients includes an actual vitamin like “Vitamin C” rather than an actual food that contains natural vitamin C like “acerola cherry powder”, you can bet that it is a synthetic vitamin.
If you choose to use nutritional supplements, it is in your best interest to use only those products that list actual foods as their ingredients rather than synthetic and isolated vitamins. While some synthetic and isolated vitamins have been shown to provide minimal health benefits, on the whole, most of them cause more harm than good and you are far better off spending your money on whole foods. It is important to note that the principles in this article are just as relevant and applicable to minerals and mineral supplements.
Why are wax coatings used on some fruits and vegetables? Are they safe? Many fruits and vegetables make their own natural waxy coating to help retain moisture because most produce is 80 to 95 percent water. After harvest, but before the produce is paJul 15, 08 Morpholine is a solvent and emulsifier used in the preparation of wax coatings for fruits and vegetables. In the presence of excess nitrite, formed mainly from naturally-occurring nitrate in the diet, morpholine can be chemically modified (nitrosated) to form N-nitrosomorpholine (NMOR), a genotoxic carcinogen in rodents.
While morpholine alone does not appear to pose a health concern, the main issue is whether sufficient NMOR can be produced by humans upon ingestion, to pose a health risk. Morpholine itself is neither a carcinogen nor a teratogen and does not cause chronic toxicity in rats and mice. Based on a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) in a chronic oral toxicity study and several safety factors, an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.48 mg/kg bw/day was estimated. When not considering the potential for nitrosation, the respective morpholine exposure for children and adults is about 8% and 5% of the ADI, and not a cause for concern. In studies conducted in experimental animals it has been determined that the formation of NMOR is dependent on the administration of sufficiently large doses of morpholine and nitrite.
Under these specific conditions, rats fed morpholine and nitrite develop hepatocellular carcinoma (cancer of the liver), presumably due to the formation of NMOR. Although it is often assumed that there is some probability of harm at any level of exposure to a genotoxic carcinogen, actual exposure may be so low that the health risk is essentially negligible. Extrapolation of rat tumour data was used to estimate a safe dose in humans (4.3 ng/kg bw/day). Regarding the presence of NMOR on apples coated with wax containing morpholine: No NMOR was determined to be present on these apples, and no NMOR was formed when morpholine and nitrite were combined in experiments conducted in the presence of apple flesh.
The possibility that morpholine might be nitrosated by humans to form NMOR during digestion was investigated. Since there is no direct human data on the nitrosation rate of morpholine to NMOR, this was estimated indirectly. The inhibitory effects of antioxidants present in apple were also considered. From the estimated morpholine exposure, the possible endogenously formed NMOR was estimated to be 2.2 and 3.6 ng/kg bw/day for adults and children, respectively. This possible exposure to NMOR derived from morpholine on waxed apples is less than the above estimated safe dose of 4.3 ng/kg bw/day. Uncertainties in this estimate of NMOR formation include the physiological differences between humans and rats, and actual levels of nitrite consumed.
It is unlikely that these uncertainties would increase the estimated NMOR formation. Waxes are applied in order to: help retain moisture in fruits and vegetables during shipping and marketing; help inhibit mold growth; protect fruits and vegetables from bruising; prevent other physical damage and disease; enhance appearance. By protecting against moisture loss and contamination, wax coatings help fresh fruits and vegetables maintain wholesomeness and freshness. Waxing does not improve the quality of any inferior fruit or vegetables; rather, waxing — along with proper handling — contributes to maintaining a healthful product.
Waxes by themselves do not control decay; rather, they may be combined with some chemicals to prevent the growth of mold. The Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency strictly regulate the safety and use of these substances. Waxes are also used on candies, pastries and gum and come from natural sources. Wax sources generally are plants, food-grade petroleum products or insects (similar to honey from bees). Some waxes can be made from dairy or animal sources, but we are not aware of any such coatings being used on fruits and vegetables in this country.
This is particularly important for people following Kosher or vegetarian diets and who don’t want any animal-based wax on their produce. Any commodities that do have this type of coating must be labeled "Coated with animal-based wax." Waxes are used only in tiny amounts. In fact, each piece of waxed fruit only has a drop or two of wax. Waxes may be mixed with water or other wetting agents to ensure they are applied thinly and evenly. The government regulates wax coatings to ensure their safety. Coatings used on fruits and vegetables must meet the food additive regulations of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Extensive research by governmental and scientific authorities has shown that approved waxes are safe to eat. Waxes are indigestible, which means they go through the body without breaking down or being absorbed. Produce shippers and supermarkets are required by federal law to label produce items that have been waxed so you will know whether the fruits and vegetables you buy are coated. Consumers will see signs in produce departments that say "Coated with food-grade vegetable-, petroleum-, beeswax-, and/or shellac-based wax or resin, to maintain freshness." None of these coatings are animal-based, and they all come from natural sources. Any consumers who have questions about wax coatings should talk to their grocers. Waxes may turn white on the surface of fruits or vegetables if they have been subjected to excessive heat and/or moisture.
This whitening is safe and is similar to that of a candy bar that has been in the freezer. Consumers do have choices. Waxes generally cannot be removed by regular washing. If consumers prefer not to consume waxes — even though the waxes are safe — they can buy unwaxed commodities or can peel the fruit or vegetable, thereby removing any coating. Commodities that may have coatings applied include apples, avocados, bell peppers, cantaloupes, cucumbers, eggplants, grapefruits, lemons, limes, melons, oranges, parsnips, passion fruit, peaches, pineapples, pumpkins, rutabagas, squash, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, turnips and yucca. However, they are not always waxed.
This is a true story (from my friend). Mum said my uncle saw it in Tunjang (Kedah) and the pasar malam in Titi Chai Kangar (Perlis) where goreng pisang was sold on afternoons. The hawker added a plastic drinking straw into a wok of hot oil and let it melt completely before he started to fry some bananas in the bubbling oil. This is why some fried bananas and ubi are so crispy... for hours...!! My uncle asked the hawker about this, but the hawker did not answer him. When my uncle told my mum about this, they realised this is how the hawkers ensure that fried food stays crispy for their customers. My mum said that in Thailand, they do the same thing to keep fried ikan bilis and fried onions crispy, even if left in the open for hours!!
Another time, I was with my family in Cameron Highlands. It was 3:00 pm and we were hanging around the market area, where there were several hawker stalls. At one of them, there was a big wok of boiling oil with an empty plastic bottle floating in it and slowly melting. At first I thought it had fallen into the oil accidentally, but then I saw a little girl, about 7-years old, holding a pair of chopsticks and stirring the bottle around in the hot oil. I realised, Oh my God... these people were using melted plastic to fry food, so that the fried snacks would not turn soft when it cooled down later.
Please forward to all your friends... DO NOT EAT CRISPY FRIED SNACKS from the hawkers!! Even if you don't see them melting the plastic in oil, they might have added the plastic a few hours before. After all, they keep the black oil for next day's frying as well, to save cost on cooking oil.
WANT longer-lasting crispiness in your food? Just add plastic. No this isn't a page from Psychotic Cooking 101.
Causing a stir of late are unsubstantiated reports that some hawkers in Malaysia are adding plastic straws and bottles into boiling oil and frying it with their snacks, which then remain extra crispy for several hours.
But Singaporeans fearing such bizarre, cancerous culinary calamities could happen here need not get steamed up.
Scientists say that adding melted plastic to a dish to give it extra crunch is pointless as it would not work.
And health authorities here assure that checks have not turned up any examples of such health hazards.
Malaysian paper The New Straits Times had cited 'witnesses' as seeing a goreng pisang (banana fritters) seller in Johor Baru throwing a plastic bottle into boiling oil, and frying it with his snacks. Apparently the hawker said his customers are fine with it and the new recipe is popular with other hawkers.
The report was picked up by Singapore papers, and while some sceptics scoffed, others were alarmed.
Housewife Alice Kang, 60, was so horrified that she warned her family members to avoid deep-fried foods when eating out.
She said: 'You never know if local hawkers are doing the same. Even if they throw in a straw, it can be harmful. So it's just better to avoid it totally.'
The starch fact is this: Goreng pisang's crispy crust is due to a chemical reaction between starch and proteins in the flour-coated food. And Dr Ludger Paul Stubbs, senior research fellow at the Agency For Science, Technology And Research (A*star), said: 'The same effect is certainly not possible with plastics.'
A*star senior scientist Chen Zhikuan said that plastics, when thrown into hot frying oil, can soften and melt, but it also degrades into 'mainly aromatic compounds which may contain cancer-causing substances'.
Dr Stubbs added: 'What can be said with certainty is that none of these degradation products would be beneficial in the frying process. Deep-fried plastic or anything deep-fried together with plastic should not be consumed due to possible health risks.'
General practitioner and popular food blogger Leslie Tay agrees: 'When PVC burns, it releases dioxins which can cause lower fertility rates, neurological problems (and) cancers.'
A spokesman for the National Environment Agency (NEA), which governs licensing for all food and beverages retailers, said: 'We have not come across such harmful practices being used by local food operators.'
The agency conducts routine hygiene checks on the food retailing industry, and an operator found guilty of non-compliance with regulations can be fined up to $2,000, and may have his licence suspended or revoked.
Local goreng pisang seller Corlinn Lim, 46, owner of the popular Lim Kee banana fritters at Maxwell food centre, said the stir over stirred plastic is 'ridiculous'. Every hawker has his own special recipe for preparing the same dish, he said, but as for adding something like plastic, there is no such practice in Singapore.
He also pointed out that the strict hygiene standards and checks here will ensure it does not happen.
Do you know what is in your food? Is it genetically engineered?
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: Why don't the food manufacturers and the biotech companies want you to know if your foods have been genetically engineered?
Answer: Because if they are labeled, you will start asking questions such as "Have these genetically engineered foods been safety tested on humans?" The answer to that question is NO!
-----------------------------------------------
Question: Doesn't the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require genetically engineered foods to be safety tested like they do for new drugs and food additives before they are sold to the public for consumption?
Answer: NO! With limited exceptions, under current FDA regulations, companies are not even required to notify the agency they are bringing new genetically engineered products to the market.
------------------------------------------------
Question: How much of the food I buy in the grocery stores contain genetically engineered ingredients?
Answer: Since genetically engineered soy and corn are used in many processed foods, it is estimated that over 70 percent of the foods in grocery stores in the U.S. and Canada contain genetically engineered ingredients.
------------------------------------------------
Question: Are people all over the world eating genetically engineered foods?
Answer: No, all of the European Union nations, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries require the mandatory labeling of foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients. As a result, food manufacturers in all those countries choose to use non-genetically engineered ingredients.
------------------------------------------------
Question: Are you telling me that people in the United States and Canada are eating a lot more genetically engineered foods than in many other countries in the world?
Answer: Yes, citizens in the United States and Canada are engaged in the largest feeding experiment in human history and most people are not even aware of the fact.
------------------------------------------------
Question: What countries are growing genetically engineered crops?
Answer: There were only five countries that grew about 98 percent of the $44 billion of commercial genetically engineered crops in 2003-2004. Those five countries were: the United States ($27.5 billion), Argentina ($8.9 billion), China ($3.9 billion), Canada ($2.0 billion) and Brazil ($1.6 billion).
------------------------------------------------
Question: What can I do to help properly regulate genetically engineered foods so that I can rest assure that these experimental crops will not harm human health or the environment?
Answer: The single most important step you can take is to mail three letters using the U.S. Postal Service. One letter goes to your Congressional Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives and the other two to your state's two Senators serving in the U.S. Senate. The letters request that they support legislation to label genetically engineered foods. We have form letters on this web site for this purpose. Click here for more information.
A brief word about terminology
Analysts use many different phrases to describe genetically engineered foods. The biotech industry rarely uses the phrase "genetically engineered foods," sticking with the more bland (and less controversial) phrase "biotech foods."
In Europe, genetically engineered foods are more commonly referred to as genetically modified foods, genetically altered foods or GMOs (short for genetically modified organisms). But scientists generally agree that "genetically engineered" more accurately represents the process than "genetically modified."
Supporters of biotech foods often try to argue that we have been genetically modifying our foods for centuries, through a process known as hybridization, or interbreeding. But that process is far different than the recombinant DNA splicing used in modern agricultural biotechnology.
It is interesting to note that the eleventh edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary added the word "Frankenfood" as another term to describe genetically engineered food.
Parents are becoming increasingly aware of the dangerous products and toxins that make their way into our homes these days. From the household cleaners under the kitchen sink to the lead in many lipstick brands it is not hard to find chemicals in the products we use every day. These dangerous chemicals are hidden in places we might never suspect though and shockingly they can even be found in products designed for the smallest and most vulnerable members of society, babies.
An industrial chemical called Bisophenol A or BPA is making the headlines all too often. Interestingly it is not getting so much attention because of it hormone-like qualities and dangerous ramifications as it is the fact that it can most commonly be found in products like baby bottles, sippy, cups, and baby formula cans. It is hard to understand why products aimed at babies would contain such harmful ingredients.
What is BPA and why should it be avoided?
Bisphenol A is an industrial chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins. BPA is used to make lightweight, high-performance plastics that are tough and heat resistant. It is also used to make durable epoxy linings for metal cans. Immediately then you can see the benefit to companies in choosing to use this ingredient for things such as bottles, cups, and formula cans.
This chemical has the ability to mimic hormones as well and several studies have linked BPA to weight gain, abnormalities that can lead to breast and prostate cancer, brain damage, abnormal organ development, and hyperactivity. The companies using BPA have declared their products only contain amounts considered safe but this does not address cumulative exposure from all the various products we use that contain BPA.
When you consider all of the different products you may use that contain this chemical the exposure level does not appear to be so safe or small. In fact the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has declared that “human exposures are above the current U.S. safety limit.”
What can you do to avoid BPA?
The good news is that consumer demand has prompted several companies to refrain from using Bisphenol A in their product formulations. If you use baby bottles in the home you can find safe alternatives from companies like Born Free, Nubi, and Green to Grow. They all offer plastic baby bottles that do not contain BPA. Classic glass baby bottles are another good alternative as well. They are quite durable and since they are plastic free they are also BPA free. If you are worried about possible breakage there also a few companies like Siliskin and Wee-Go that sell glass bottles covered with protective silicone sheaths.
In lieu of sippy or toddler cups that commonly contain BPA parents might opt to use stainless steel sippy cups and bottles from Klean Kanteen or Thermos. Sigg makes an aluminum alternative with a water based epoxy lining on the inside and a large array of kid friendly designs. Born Free also makes a safe sippy.
Breastfeeding would reduce or even eliminate the need for bottles or formula and subsequent exposure to BPA. For parents that need to use formula though it is hard to find companies that are not using BPA to line their cans of powered or liquid formula. A new study from the Environmental Working Group has discovered that 4 out of 5 formula manufacturers acknowledge using BPA in their formula cans and while some did not acknowledge using BPA, they could not provide documentation of their alternative packaging. Their study also concluded that powdered formula has 8 to 20 times less BPA than liquid formula. So parents who need to use formula should look to powdered formula to reduce overall exposure to BPA.
While BPA exposure should be a concern for parents they can take comfort in the fact that there are a growing number of alternative products that are designed to keep our babies safe.
"Sugar is without question one of the most dangerous substances on the food market today.
What we are talking about here is sucrose, the white crystalline sugar refined from cane or beet juice by stripping away all its vitamins, minerals, protein, fiber, water, and other synergists.
White sugar is an industrially processed chemical not found in nature, and it is not fit for human consumption.
Other sugars such as fructose (in fruit and honey), lactose (in milk), and maltose (in grains) are natural substances with nutritional value.
Raw sugar is a coarse, brown, sticky variety made by simply boiling down whole cane juice and it too is a wholesome food, but it is very difficult to find in the Western world.
The so called 'brown sugar' sold in supermarkets is nothing more than refined white sugar with some molasses spun back into it for color and flavor. It is not a 'health food'.
Sugar suppresses the immune system by causing the pancreas to secrete abnormally large quantities of insulin, which is required to break it down.
Insulin remains in circulation in the bloodstream long after sugar has been metabolized, and one of its main side effects is to suppress the release of growth hormone in the pituitary gland.
Growth hormone is a primary regulator of the immune system, so anyone who eats a lot of sugar every day is going to experience critical growth hormone deficiency and consequent immune deficiency caused by the constant presence of insulin in the bloodstream.
Furthermore, refined white sugar is treated as a toxic foreign agent by the immune system, owing to its unnatural chemical structure as well as the industrial contaminants it retains from the refining process.
Sugar thus triggers an unnecessary immune response while simultaneously suppressing immune function, thereby debilitating the immune system with a double edged sword.
Sugar is the chief culprit in many diseases and degenerative conditions.
It can easily cause diabetes and is a major factor in candidacies, both of which are epidemic in the industrialized Western world.
Since sugar is 'nutritionally naked', the body must 'borrow' the missing vitamins, minerals and other synergistic nutrients required to metabolize sugar from its own tissues.
Heavy sugar consumption therefore causes a constant siphoning of nutrients from the body. Recent evidence suggests that sugar causes dental problems not so much by contact with the teeth but rather by leaching the teeth of calcium from within.
Sugar also depletes the body of potassium and magnesium, which are required for proper cardiac function, and is therefore a major factor in heart disease.
The nutritional leaching caused by sugar can give rise to intense food cravings and eating binges, as the body seeks to replenish the nutrients 'stolen' from it by sugar.
Most people consume far more sugar than their bodies can possibly use for energy. When this happens, the liver converts the extra sugar into molecules called triglycerides and stores it as fat, or else produces cholesterol from the by-products of sugar and deposits it in veins and arteries. Sugar is thus a major factor in obesity and arteriosclerosis as well.
Sugar is an addictive substance. In Sugar Blues, William Dufty writes; 'The difference between sugar addiction and narcotic addiction is largely one of degree.'
Abruptly giving up sugar invariably brings on the sort of withdrawal symptoms associated with narcotic drugs- fatigue, lassitude, depression, moodiness, headaches, aching limbs.
Its addictive nature is also reflected in current per capita consumption in the USA- an average of 130 pounds of sugar per person per year, or about 1/3 pound daily. That qualifies as 'substance abuse'. Most people don't even realize how much sugar they're taking every day because much of it is hidden in other foods.
A 12-ounce can of a typical soft drink, for example, contains about nine teaspoons of refined white sugar.
Sugar consumption in the USA is so high that it has also caused a social problem through its deleterious effects on behaviour, especially in children, who are displaying increasingly severe behavioral disorders and learning disabilities.
In a recent study conducted by Dr. C. Keith Connors of the Children's Hospital in Washington, DC, a 'deadly' link was established between the consumption of sugar with carbohydrates (such as breakfast cereal, cake, and biscuits) and violent behaviour, hypertension, and learning impediments.
In other studies, chronic violence in prisons was remarkably reduced simply by eliminating refined sugar and starch from prison diets. Singapore in 1991 banned sugary soft drink sales from all schools and youth center's, citing the danger that sugar poses to the mental and physical health of children.
If you or your children have a sweet tooth, you can easily satisfy it by concocting treats with honey, molasses, and barley malt, which are not only sweet but also nutritious and therapeutically beneficial."
The average American consumes an astounding 2-3 pounds of sugar each week, which is not surprising considering that highly refined sugars in the forms of sucrose (table sugar), dextrose (corn sugar), and high-fructose corn syrup are being processed into so many foods such as bread, breakfast cereal, mayonnaise, peanut butter, ketchup, spaghetti sauce, and a plethora of microwave meals.
In the last 20 years, we have increased sugar consumption in the U.S. 26 pounds to 135 lbs. of sugar per person per year! Prior to the turn of this century (1887-1890), the average consumption was only 5 lbs. per person per year! Cardiovascular disease and cancer was virtually unknown in the early 1900's.
The "glycemic index" is a measure of how a given food affects blood-glucose levels, with each food being assigned a numbered rating. The lower the rating, the slower the absorption and digestion process, which provides a more gradual, healthier infusion of sugars into the bloodstream. On the other hand, a high rating means that blood-glucose levels are increased quickly, which stimulates the pancreas to secrete insulin to drop blood-sugar levels. These rapid fluctuations of blood-sugar levels are not healthy because of the stress they place on the body.
One of sugar's major drawbacks is that it raises the insulin level, which inhibits the release of growth hormones, which in turn depresses the immune system. This is not something you want to take place if you want to avoid disease.
An influx of sugar into the bloodstream upsets the body's blood-sugar balance, triggering the release of insulin, which the body uses to keep blood-sugar at a constant and safe level. Insulin also promotes the storage of fat, so that when you eat sweets high in sugar, you're making way for rapid weight gain and elevated triglyceride levels, both of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease. Complex carbohydrates tend to be absorbed more slowly, lessening the impact on blood-sugar levels.
Sugar depresses the immune system.
We have known this for decades. It was only in the 1970's that researchers found out that vitamin C was needed by white blood cells so that they could phagocytize viruses and bacteria. White blood cells require a 50 times higher concentration inside the cell as outside so they have to accumulate vitamin C.
There is something called a "phagocytic index" which tells you how rapidly a particular macrophage or lymphocyte can gobble up a virus, bacteria, or cancer cell. It was in the 1970's that Linus Pauling realized that white blood cells need a high dose of vitamin C and that is when he came up with his theory that you need high doses of vitamin C to combat the common cold.
We know that glucose and vitamin C have similar chemical structures, so what happens when the sugar levels go up? They compete for one another upon entering the cells. And the thing that mediates the entry of glucose into the cells is the same thing that mediates the entry of vitamin C into the cells. If there is more glucose around, there is going to be less vitamin C allowed into the cell. It doesn't take much: a blood sugar value of 120 reduces the phagocytic index by 75%. So when you eat sugar, think of your immune system slowing down to a crawl.
Here we are getting a little bit closer to the roots of disease. It doesn't matter what disease we are talking about, whether we are talking about a common cold or about cardiovascular disease, or cancer or osteoporosis, the root is always going to be at the cellular and molecular level, and more often than not insulin is going to have its hand in it, if not totally controlling it.
The health dangers which ingesting sugar on an habitual basis creates are certain. Simple sugars have been observed to aggravate asthma, move mood swings, provoke personality changes, muster mental illness, nourish nervous disorders, deliver diabetes, hurry heart disease, grow gallstones, hasten hypertension, and add arthritis.
Because refined dietary sugars lack minerals and vitamins, they must draw upon the body's micro-nutrient stores in order to be metabolized into the system. When these storehouses are depleted, metabolization of cholesterol and fatty acid is impeded, contributing to higher blood serum triglycerides, cholesterol, promoting obesity due to higher fatty acid storage around organs and in sub-cutaneous tissue folds.
Because sugar is devoid of minerals, vitamins, fiber, and has such a deteriorating effect on the endocrine system, major researchers and major health organizations (American Dietetic Association and American Diabetic Association) agree that sugar consumption in America is one of the 3 major causes of degenerative disease.
Honey is a simple sugar
There are 4 classes of simple sugars which are regarded by most nutritionists as "harmful" to optimal health when prolonged consumption in amounts above 15% of the carbohydrate calories are ingested: Sucrose, fructose, honey, and malts.
Some of you may be surprised to find honey here. Although honey is a natural sweetener, it is considered a refined sugar because 96% of dry matter are simple sugars: fructose, glucose and sucrose. It is little wonder that the honey bear is the only animal found in nature with a problem with tooth-decay (honey decays teeth faster than table sugar). Honey has the highest calorie content of all sugars with 65 calories/tablespoon, compared to the 48 calories/tablespoon found in table sugar. The increased calories are bound to cause increased blood serum fatty acids, as well as weight gain, on top of the risk of more cavities.
Pesticides used on farm crops and residential flowers have been found in commercial honey. Honey can be fatal to an infant whose immature digestive tracts are unable to deal effectively with Botulinum Spore growth. What nutrients or enzymes raw honey does contain are destroyed by manufacturers who heat it in order to give it a clear appearance to enhance sales. If you are going to consume honey, make sure it is raw, unheated honey. Good to use in special cures, but not as an every day food. It is not much better than white or brown sugar. window.google_render_ad();
Here is a list of ways sugar can affect your health:
Of the over 4 million cancer patients being treated in the U.S. today, almost none are offered any scientifically guided nutrition therapy other than being told to "just eat good foods." Many cancer patients would have a major improvement in their conditions if they controlled the supply of cancer's preferred fuel: GLUCOSE. By slowing the cancer's growth, patients make it possible for their immune systems to catch up to the disease. Controlling one's blood-glucose levels through diet, exercise, supplements, meditation and prescription drugs - when necessary - can be one of the most crucial components to a cancer treatment program. The saying "Sugar feeds cancer" is simple. The explanation is a little more involved.
German Otto Warburg, Ph.D., the 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. The gist of his Nobel thesis was this: malignant tumors frequently exhibit an increase in "anaerobic glycolysis" - a process whereby glucose is used by cancer cells as a fuel with lactic acid as an anaerobic by-product - compared to normal tissues.(1) The large amount of lactic acid produced by this fermentation of glucose from the cancer cells is then transported to the liver. This conversion of glucose to lactate creates a lower, more acidic PH in cancerous tissues as well as overall physical fatigue from lactic acid build-up.(2,3) Therefore, larger tumors tend to exhibit a more acidic PH.(4)
Hence, cancer therapies should attempt to regulate blood-glucose levels through diet, supplements, exercise, medication when necessary, gradual weight loss and stress reduction. Since cancer cells derive most of their energy from anaerobic glycolysis, the goal is not to eliminate sugars or carbohydrates entirely from the diet but rather to control blood-glucose within a narrow range to help starve the cancer cells and boost immune function.
and has been approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA).
Since 1982 complaints of 92 different symptoms have been submitted to the FDA for adverse reactions to Aspartame. This accounts for over 75 percent of adverse reactions to all food additives reported.
Is Aspartame Really Safe?
Aspartame breaks down into 3 Components (Aspartame: C14H1805: L-aspartyl-L-phenylalnine Methyl Ester):
aspartate the conjugate base of aspartic acid Aspartic acid in its free form becomes an excitotoxin, a toxic molecule that stimulates nerve cells to the point of damage or death.
phenylalanine an amino acid Once phenylalanine is released in its free form, it is metabolized into diketopiperazine, a carcinogen.
methanol a methyl ester Once within the body, the methanol is broken down into formaldehyde and formic acid.
How Aspartame is Broken Down in Our Bodies
When Aspartame is absorbed into the body, it is broken down into the component parts: phenylalanine (50%), aspartate (40%), and methanol (10%).
Aspartame is made by combining phenylalanine which is naturally produced by bacteria, with another amino acid.
Once phenylalanine is released in its free form, it is metabolized into diketopiperazine, a carcinogen. Phenylalanine is a natural amino acid, that in high doses can produce neurotoxicity. To enable the bacteria produce more phenylalanine , Monsanto has Genetically engineered them.
The way things work in nature almost all amino acids occur as whole proteins. Therefore, our bodies slowly assimilate it, break it down, and then convert it in the liver so that the level or concentration of their amino acids is kept at low levels, and the brain is not assaulted by dangerous proteins.
In food, naturally occurring phenylalanine and aspartic acid are bound to other amino acids in long, complex chains of proteins so that they are not absorbed in a way that could cause damage. But in Aspartame they are not, and enzymes in the gut can easily split them apart.
When companies like Monsanto manipulate foods and drinks, creating sweeteners that contain high levels of these amino acids in isolation, blood levels become extraordinarily high, resulting in a significant increase of these amino acids in the brain. It is these high levels that produce destruction of certain groups of brain cells and produce disease, seizures, even death.
Methanol, known also as wood alcohol, is used to bind the phenylalanine molecule to the aspartate molecule in Aspartame. Anyone drinking about three cans of a drink sweetened with Aspartame per day is consuming about 56mg of methanol. When freed of its bonded state, methanol quickly circulates throughout the body, accumulating predominantly in the liver and the nervous system.
Each time you consume a product containing Aspartame, the methanol is accumulating near the DNA resulting in damage to the DNA in the form of deletions and breakage of genes. Methanol has an affinity for cellular DNA and it tends to accumulate with each dose. Every time you consume Aspartame, these toxins are accumulating within your body.
It is very easy for us to gain an accumulation of Aspartame in our bodies since so many products contain it. Breakfasts, gelatin desserts, breath mints, juice beverages, soft drinks such as Diet Coke, Coke zero and Diet Pepsi, tabletop sweeteners, tea beverages, sugar-free chewing gum, milk drinks, yogurts, Monster Munch crisps, some forms of Lipton Tea, Icebreakers Mints, Clear Splash flavored water, vitamins, including children’s vitamins, pharmaceuticals and supplements, we could go on and on.
Methanol is naturally occurring in fruits and vegetables and plants even in higher dosages than Aspartame but is always accompanied by ethanol. The alcohol ethanol (grain alcohol) is used medically as a treatment of wood alcohol (methanol) poisoning. When you eat say… a piece of fruit, the ethanol in that fruit neutralizes the methanol very quickly so no harm is done.
However the methanol in Aspartame is not accompanied by ethanol. In Aspartame, methanol is a pure toxin. Then once within the body, the methanol is broken down into formaldehyde and formic acid. Formaldehyde used to be used as an embalming fluid and preservative for laboratory specimens, though not since it has been shown to be a potent and dangerous carcinogen.
Aspartate is converted in the liver into Glutamic Acid. This makes up for 40% of the molecular structure. Aspartate is also an isolate amino acid. Aspartate is a powerful excitotoxin and reacts like phenylalanine does in the brain as a neurotoxin. (Blaylock,1997)
Excitotoxin is an unusual group of compounds of which are proteins. When you expose brain cells to it the brain cells become hyper-excited, firing their impulses very rapidly. They continue this behaviour until the cell becomes so exhausted that it actually dies.
Normally substances in the brain, glutamate and aspartate, are used as transmitter substances, allowing cells to communicate with each other. These compounds are so toxic that the brain ‘normally’ keeps them in minutely low concentrations; it is very carefully regulated. Anything that alters that and causes these compounds to increase can destroy brain cells and produce what is called neurodegeneration, or degeneration of the brain and spinal cord. This is the case with Aspartame.
The aspartic acid is an exitotoxin and phenylalanine and methanol are neurotoxins at high levels in the brain.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (usually) controls methanol exposure very carefully, allowing only very minute levels to be found in foods or in environmental exposures. Yet the level allowed in NutraSweet is 7 (Seven!) times the amount that the EPA will allow used elsewhere.
So we now have a product called Aspartame, which breaks down in our bodies into phenylalanine, aspartic acid and methanol which are all recognized as neurotoxins and combined into one sweet sugar. (Blaylock, 1997)
Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and Aspartame
November 21, 1986 the FDA: “The data and information supporting the safety of Aspartame are extensive. It is likely that no food product has ever been so closely examined for safety. Moreover, the decisions of the agency to approve Aspartame for its uses have been given the fullest airing that the legal process requires. Few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated, close scrutiny and the process through which Aspartame has gone should provide the public with additional confidence of it’s safety.” (FDA, 2002)
The FDA figures indicate most Aspartame users only consume about 4-7 percent of the ‘acceptable daily intake’ the agency has set for NutraSweet/Aspartame. (Remember what you read above; anyone drinking about three cans of a drink sweetened with Aspartame per day is consuming about 56mg of methanol. That’s not taking into account consumption of Aspartame from any additional sources throughout the day; and that’s just the methanol.)
That level of daily consumption that is judged to be safe per the FDA is 50 milligrams (50 Milligrams = 0.0017636980974790206 Ounces) per kilogram (1 Kilogram = 2.2046 pounds) of body weight per day. The FDA considers Aspartame to be one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved. More than 100 toxicologists and clinicians studied and the agency has reviewed, confirming that Aspartame is safe for the general population. (Harvey, 2002)
Some math…0.00176369809747902 ounces = 50mg2.204600 pounds = 1 kilo0.0000352739619495804 ounces = 1 mgSo per the FDA for every 2.2046 of your pounds you can have 0.00176369809747902 ounces Divide your weight by 2.2046
Example: if you are 100 pounds, 100/2.2046=45.359702 Multiply your result, in this case 45.359702, by 0.00176369809747902 ounces = 0.080000821 ounces.0.080000821 ounces converts to 2267.95mg. That’s your limit if you’re 100lbs.0.080000821 ounces, or 2267.95mg per day says the FDA. That’s the limit set by the FDA. It gets worse. According to the FDA, Aspartame users are supposedly only consuming 4-7 percent of those 0.080000821 ounces. Four percent of 0.080000821 ounces = 0.003200033 ouncesFour percent 2267.95mg = 90.718mg
Yet one soda can in the United States is 12 (Twelve) ounces.12 ounces = 340,194.278mg
One can of Diet Coke is Illegal. One can of Diet Coke exceeds the level of daily consumption that is judged to be safe for even a one hundred pound person… heck, anybody! per the FDA.
However in1981, Satya Dubey, an FDA statistician, stated that the brain tumor data on Aspartame was so “worrisome” that he could not recommend approval of NutraSweet.
The late Dr. Adrian Gross, an FDA toxicologist, even testified before the United States Congress that Aspartame was capable of producing brain tumors.
This made it illegal for the FDA to even set an allowable daily intake at any level. The Research on Aspartame:
Who Conducted it, Who Sponsored it It is critical for us to observe what was researched, how it was researched, who paid for it, and who conducted the tests that were relied upon to bring the Aspartame product to market. Was the study(s) that were relied upon to bring the product to market done by parties with a vested interest with the sale or selling of the product? (As is often the case when Monsanto is involved?) Or were the study(s) that were relied upon to bring the product to market done independently? The FDA, Butchko,1994, Leon 1989, Moser 1994, all cited this study by Schiffman: In 1987 Schiffman published a double-blind cross-over study of 40 subjects claiming to have headaches from Aspartame ingestion. The author concluded no increase in headaches were seen in the Aspartame group. “In this population, Aspartame is no more likely to produce headaches than a placebo.” What the researcher$ fail to mention is that the $chiffman (1987) research is useless because of major design flaw$. Schiffman 1987 major flaws: 1.) Aspartame was given for only 1 day. 2.) The Aspartame was given in encapsulated form, thereby decreasing the toxicity by eliminating the sudden absorption of the excitotoxin amino acid and methanol. (Stegink,1987) 3.) The Schiffman study was partially funded byMonsanto/NurtaSweet and conducted at the Searle Center at Duke University. 4.) G.D.Searle is owned by Monsanto. 5.) Susan Schiffman performed her research at the “Searle Center” at Duke University. 6.) The Searle Center is under the guidance of William Anlyan, a former G.D. Searle Director. 7.) Schiffman is a former General Foods and G.D. Searle Consultant. 8.) The FDA itself assisted in the very design of the study protocol. The following study was done at the Clinical Research Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, USA. It was also supported by a grant from the NutraSweet Company itself, to the Center for Brain Sciences and Metabolism Charitable trust. ( JCN, 1998 ): The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition cited the research report done by P.A. Spies, L.Sabounjian, A. Reiner, D.K. Myers, J. Wurtman and D.L. Schomer, who stated in their study: Background: Neurobehavioral symptoms have been reported anecdotally with Aspartame. Objective: This study sought to determine whether Aspartame can disrupt cognitive neurophysiologic or behavioral functioning in normal individuals. Results: Plasma phenylalanine concentrations increased significantly during Aspartame treatment. Conclusion: Large doses of Aspartame had no effect in neuopsychologic, neurophysiologic or behavioral functioning in healthy young adults. In the Journal of the American Medical Association Article “Aspartame and Memory Loss” The question was asked “Is there any evidence that Aspartame causes memory loss?” The response provided by Robert H. Moser, “Aspartame does not cause memory loss. Aspartame is a dipeptide; it is composed of two amino acids, L-aspartic acid and L-phenylalanine as the methyl ester. It is completely digested into its components, which enter the portal blood and are rapidly incorporated into the metabolic cycles of the body. These amino acids are identical to those that occur after the digestion of all protein foods, except the amounts are far less. Thus the end products of Aspartame digestion are normal food components found in much greater amounts in common foods.” Then he goes on to say “ I am a consultant to the NutraSweet Company and have been for the past 8 years, and I have reviewed the world literature on this subject.” (JAMA, 1994) Yet the Koehler ( 1988 ) Study administered Aspartame for 4 weeks and came up with a much different conclusion. Not one of the above mentioned cited the Koehler ( 1988 ) double blind study. Not one. Clearly many of studies that have been cited, quoted and relied upon for accurate and truthful data indicating the safety of Aspartame have been done by interested, vested parties that have a close connection to the NutraSweet Company themselves. In a survey of 166 studies on the effects of Aspartame on human health, 74 had industry-related funding and 92 were independently funded. Of the industry-sponsored articles 100 percent attested to aspartame’s safety. Of the non-industry sponsored articles 92 percent demonstrated some type of adverse reaction. Data provided by research that is unbiased and studied independently clearly paints a completely different picture of the safety, and lack thereof, of Aspartame/NutraSweet: The Ecologist in June 2000 states in their article titled “Sweet Talking” that research shows the potential health risks of Aspartame. While NutraSweet maintains that its product is entirely safe, independent researchers continue to present evidence of the chemicals neurotoxicity. It has linked it’s ingestion with the onset of numerous adverse symptoms including headaches, seizures, convulsions and mood disorders. Aspartame had been the focus of controversy long before it was approved for public consumption in 1981. It is 18 years later that further tests on brain tumors are being conducted, not by NutraSweet (of course not) instead, by independent researchers at King’s College London. In August 1979 the Bressler Report was released. Investigators found significant deviations from acceptable procedures for conducting non-clinical studies. In 1987 Dr. Jacqueline Verrett, a toxicologist and member of the Bressler Task Force, testified before a US Senate hearing. She described the discrepancies found in the Searle Tests of Aspartame as serious departures from acceptable toxicological protocols. Dr. Jacqueline Verrett stated, “It is unthinkable that any reputable toxicologist giving a complete objective evaluation of this data resulting from such a study could conclude anything other that the study was uninterruptible and worthless and should be repeated.” Many of the flaws cited in these studies were also present in all of the other studies submitted by Searle. (Gold, Martini and Metcalfe, 2000) Therefore it appears the safety of Aspartame and its breakdown products has still not been satisfactorily determined by NutraSweet’s own researchers. The American Dietetic Association, “As the market for foods containing Aspartame continues to increase, practitioners need to be aware of Aspartame’s health implications. There is concern about the influence of Aspartame’s constituent amino acids in brain function.” ( JADA, 1990) R.J. Wurtman did a study that was reported in The New England Journal of Medicine indicating Neurochemicals changed following high-doses of Aspartame consumption with dietary carbohydrates. (1983) Dr. Adrian Gross, an FDA toxicologist, testified before the United States Congress that Aspartame was capable of producing brain tumors. Making it illegal for the FDA to set an allowable daily intake at any level. He stated in his testimony before the United States Congress that Searle’s studies were in most aspects unreliable, and that at least one of those studies has actually established beyond any reasonable doubt that Aspartame is capable of inducing brain tumors in experimental animals. (Hearing, 1987) Many Healthcare Professionals, including Nutritionists have known all along that Aspartame is hazardous. Now a growing number of those Professionals are seeing the consequences of medium and long-term aspartame uses and have begun to warn their clients to stay away from Aspartame. (Barua &Bal, 1995) In 1981, Satya Dubey, an FDA statistician, stated that the brain tumor data on Aspartame was so “worrisome” that he surely could not recommend approval of NutraSweet. Labeling, Your food, and Aspartame Aspartame containing products must be labeled: “Phenylketonurics: Contains phenylalanine.” This warning is specifically to aid individuals who suffer from PKU (The genetic disorder Phenylketonuria), so that they can avoid such foods. This dietary restriction also applies to pregnant women with hyperphenylalanine (high levels of phenylalanine in blood) because they do not properly metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine. United Kingdom: According to the Food Standards Agency In the UK, foods containing Aspartame must carry ingredient panels that refer to the presence of ‘Aspartame’ or it can state ‘E951′. They must include a warning on the label: “Contains a source of phenylalanine.” This is usually towards the last line of the ingredients. Products containing sweeteners such as Aspartame also must show the statement “with sweetener(s)”, this should be close to the main product name. Foods that contain both sugar and Aspartame must carry the statement “with sugar and sweetener(s)”. Now I ask you the question: “Is Aspartame Really Safe?”
Did you know that many retired FDA officials go to work as special advisors to the pharmaceutical and food industries? It's true. Federal agencies like the FDA—which were created to protect consumers—often behave like branch offices of companies like Monsanto, which they are supposed to regulate. And when the names and dossiers of the individuals who work with allies in Congress and the White House to oppose food safety measures are revealed, the picture becomes even more sinister. The fact is, it has been widely reported that FDA (Federal Drug Administration), EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) officials are frequently rewarded with lucrative jobs at the companies they were regulating.
Conflict of interest
This insidious conflict of interest exhibited by the U.S. food and pharmaceutical industries has been going on for almost half a century. Mark Gold, founder of the Aspartame Toxicity Information Center in Concord, New Hampshire (mgold@holisticmed.com) provides an overview of the situation in his "Analysis of the influence of the Aspartame Industry on the Scientific Committee on Food."1 "In the United States, corruption of governmental and scientific committees by the food industry was disclosed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In an article in the journal Science (1972), it was revealed that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Food Protection Committee was being funded by the food, chemical and packaging industries. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration was relying on the NAS Committee for 'independent' information. The Chairman of the NAS Subcommittee investigating monosodium glutamate (MSG) had recently taken part in research partially funded by the MSG manufacturer. Another member of the Subcommittee became a spokesperson for the MSG industry. (Science 1972) Other members of the Subcommittee had ties to the MSG industry.Since that time numerous governmental committees have been corrupted by the placement of food industry-funded consultants on these committees."2,3
The revolving door
A recent report by the Edmonds Institute lists names of the possible hundreds of men and women who move in and out of "revolving doors" as Federal regulators and directors, commissioners and scientists at the companies they are supposed to regulate.4 Close relationships between regulators and those they regulate are always a cause of concern because the conflict of interest inevitably results in the quality of regulation and oversight of a technology being compromised … which inevitably results in the promotion of foods and drugs that are frequently unsafe.
The Edmonds Institute has been researching these relationships for some time. Here are some examples:
Margaret Miller … former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto, … now Deputy Director of Human Food Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine in the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).5,6
Michael Taylor, former legal advisor to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical Devices and Bureau of Foods, later executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA,…still later a partner at the law firm of King & Spaulding where he supervised a nine-lawyer group whose clients included Monsanto Agricultural Company, … still later Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the United States Food and Drug Administration, … and later with the law firm of King & Spaulding … now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.5,6
Margaret Miller, Michael Taylor, and Suzanne Sechen (an FDA "primary reviewer for all rbST and other dairy drug production applications") were the subjects of a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation in 1994 for their role in the FDA's approval of Posilac, Monsanto Corporation's formulation of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbST or rBGH). The GAO Office found "no conflicting financial interests with respect to the drug's approval" and only "one minor deviation from now superseded FDA regulations". (Quotations are from the 1994 GAO report).
The FDA and Monsanto: Strange bedfellows
Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on rBGH to the FDA so the agency could determine the growth hormone's safety. Margaret Miller put the report together, and in 1989 shortly before she submitted the report, Miller left Monsanto to work for the FDA. Guess what her first job was? Strangely enough, to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto! The bottom line is that Monsanto approved its own report. Miller was assisted by another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen.
But in an article titled "Not Milk: The USDA, Monsanto, and the U.S. Dairy Industry" Ché Green, founder and director of The ARMEDIA Institute, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization focusing on farm animal issues in the United States, writes that, "The results of the study, in fact, were not made available to the public until 1998, when a group of Canadian scientists obtained the full documentation and completed an independent analysis of the results. Among other instances of neglect, the documents showed that the FDA had never even reviewed Monsanto's original studies (on which the approval for Posilac {rBGH} had been based), so in the end the point was moot whether or not the report had contained all of the original data."7
And as though the FDA didn't already exhibit enough audacity it handed Michael Taylor the responsibility to make the decision as to whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled. (At the time, Michael Taylor, who had previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto, was executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA.)
In 1994, Taylor ended up writing the rBGH labeling guidelines that prohibit the dairy industry from stating that their products either contain or are free from rBGH. Even worse, to keep rBGH-milk from being "stigmatized" in the marketplace, the FDA ruled that the labels of non-rBGH products must state that there is no difference between rBGH and the natural hormone.8
According to journalist Jennifer Ferraro, "while working for Monsanto,Taylor had prepared a memo for the company as to whether or not it would be constitutional for states to erect labeling laws concerning rBGH dairy products. In other words, Taylor helped Monsanto figure out whether or not the corporation could sue states or companies that wanted to tell the public that their products were free of Monsanto's drug."9
The current situation
Monsanto is suing Maine-based Oakhurst Dairy for labeling their milk "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones." According to Monsanto, Oakhurst Dairy does not have the right to let its customers know whether its milk contains genetically engineered hormones. What hogwash! Oakhurst says they've been labeling their products like this for four years, in response to consumer demand.
Although rBGH has been banned in every industrialized nation in the world except for the United States, Monsanto continues to claim that rBGH-derived milk is no different from the natural stuff, despite documentation that rBGH milk contains substantially higher levels of a potent cancer tumor promoter called IGF-1.
This poses a serious risk to the entire U.S. population, which is now exposed to high levels of IGF-1 in dairy products, since elevated blood levels of IGF-1 are among the leading known risk factors for breast cancer, and are also associated with other major cancers, particularly colon and prostate.10
In 1994, Monsanto sued two dairies and threatened several thousand retailers for labeling or advertising milk and dairy products as "rBGH-free." Despite Monsanto's intimidation tactics, more than 10% of U.S. milk is currently labeled as "rBGH-free," while sales of organic milk and dairy products (which prohibit rBGH) are booming.
And just to add insult to injury, in recent months a Monsanto-funded front group, the Center for Consumer Freedom, has launched a smear campaign against organic dairies, including Organic Valley, claiming they are defrauding consumers.11
How Monsanto's policies have become U.S. policy
Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put G.W. in office, Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation. The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor. The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Attorney General John Ashcroft. (Source: Dairy Education Board)
What can you do?
Contact your state representatives and let them know your views.
Educate yourself about what is really in our food. Three recommended books: Eric Schlosser, "Fast Food Nation" New York: Harper Collins, 2002. Marion Nestle, Food Politics: "How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health." University of California Press, March 2002. Marion Nestle, "Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism." University of California Press, March 2003.
Eat only organically grown and produced food. Sadly and unfortunately, we cannot trust the FDA or USDA to ensure the safety of our food.
Samuels, A. 1999. "The Toxicity/Safety of Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG): A Study in Suppression of Information," Accountability in Research, Volume 6, Pages 259-310. Available at: http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript.htm
Collins, R., 2000. "Science Conflicted: Restoring Trust in the National Academy of Sciences," Integrity in Science Project, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Also in the Baltimore Sun on August 29, 2000, Full text available at: http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/baltsun_article.html
Samuels, A. 1999. "The Toxicity/Safety of Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG): A Study in Suppression of Information," Accountability in Research, Volume 6, Pages 259-310. Available at: http://www.truthinlabeling.org/l-manuscript.htm
Collins, R., 2000. "Science Conflicted: Restoring Trust in the National Academy of Sciences," Integrity in Science Project, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Also in the Baltimore Sun on August 29, 2000, Full text available at: http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/baltsun_article.html
Monsanto's Hormonal Milk Poses Serious Risks of Breast Cancer, Besides Other Cancers, Warns Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health. Cancer Prevention Coalition, http://www.preventcancer.com/
