Industry Sneak Attack on
Organic Standards Rammed through Congress
For right now, what that means to you, the consumer, is that you
cannot trust any product in the grocery store that is labeled “organic” to be
anything of the sort. Once again, the big bucks people bought the congress critters to
change the rules. Just Plain Old Soap is all You
Need
Fun with Labels? So, those of you who did spend the extra for antibacterial soaps can
stop now. J Personally, however, I’d like to see all of you off most of the
store-bought hand and bath soaps. No, my reason is not because Lannie makes her own soaps
(and antifungal, at that) for our personal use, but because of all the nasty chemicals
that are in most store-bought soaps and shampoos and tooth pastes, etc. Check the label on
your toothpaste tube. You might have to get out a magnifying glass to read the small print,
but this tube of toothpaste I am playing with says it contains: ACTIVE INGREDIENTS: Sodium
monoflurophosphate 0.76%. INGREDIENTS: Glycerin, Saccharin, CarboxyMethylCellulose,
Calcium carbonate, Sodium Silicate, Sodium Benzoate, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Sorbitol,
Flavor, Water. Let’s analyze that list. Sodium
monoflurophosphate is used in toothpaste to
protect tooth enamel from attack by bacteria. Why is that the active ingredient? The
active part of the molecule is the fluoride ion, which reduces the ability of bacteria to
make acids, and it remineralizes the areas of the teeth that have been attacked by acids
from bacteria. But note that of all the ingredients, that constitutes less than 1% of the
volume of the tube. What is all that other stuff for? Glycerin is a thick, sweet, odorless, colorless,
or pale yellow liquid obtained from fats and oils as a byproduct of soap manufacture.
Because of its hygroscopic quality, pure, 100 percent glycerin placed on the tongue may
raise a blister, because it is dehydrating. But the reason it is probably used here is
that the rest of these chemicals will dissolve in it when they wouldn’t dissolve in
water. Saccharin, you might already know, is a
white crystalline compound that is several hundred times sweeter than sugar and is used as
a sugar substitute. Hey, if this paste wasn’t sweet, would you say “yum”
after brushing your teeth? Look up saccharin on the web and see what kind of
brain-altering drug that crap is. Carboxymethylcellulose
(CMC) is a modified cellulose gum (plant fiber). In foods, it is used as a stabilizer,
thickener, film former, suspending agent and extender. CMC is biodegraded aerobically and
anaerobically by bacteria commonly found in the environment. It has a low bioconcentration
potential because the molecule is too large to penetrate the cells of living organisms. Calcium
carbonate is
commonly used as an antacid, and is the active ingredient in agricultural lime. It is a
common substance found as rock in all parts of the world and is the main component of
seashells and the shell of snails. Sodium Silicate (also called
Waterglass) is used in detergent, construction, and metallurgy. It is also used to treat
wood to make it fireproof. It is made by fusing sand and sodium carbonate in various
proportions and is chiefly used to make silica gel. Why is it in your toothpaste? Mostly,
this stuff is used as a cement or as a protective coating and to preserve eggs. A hardener
for your teeth maybe? Sodium Benzoate is a polyunsaturated fat. Sodium benzoate is
used as a preservative in food. It prevents the growth of most microorganisms. It’s
concentration is limited to 0.1% because it is poisonous. Sodium benzoate
works best in acidic environments and is used in such foods as salad dressing, pickles,
fruit juices, and carbonated drinks. It is also used in medications like Actifed and
Tylenol. Sodium Lauryl Sulfate is used in products such as shampoo, toothpaste, and
mouth rinses as a foaming and cleansing agent, producing lots of lather. Sodium lauryl
sulfate is an irritant, and a
shampoo containing 15% SLS is mainly tolerable only because it comes in contact with the
scalp for just a few minutes and is diluted with water while in use. Should you get some
in your eyes you’d certainly want to flush it out as soon as possible, and you really
don’t want to swallow the stuff. The MSDS (material safety data sheet) for sodium
lauryl sulfate, under the “Health Hazard Data” section, says this stuff can
produce some rather nasty effects if you inhale or ingest it, get it in your eyes, or
leave it in contact with your skin for too long. The general results of its misuse are
symptoms such as skin irritation or nausea, and even though it is used as a concrete
cleaner, it is an urban myth that it causes cancer.
Sorbitol is a white,
odorless, sweet-tasting powder. It is a sugar alcohol and is another sweetener in your
toothpaste. Most sorbitol in foods and other products is made from corn syrup. Sorbitol is used in low calorie
candies, and in many foods as both a sweetener and as a humectant (moisture retaining
ingredient). Sorbitol is used as an emollient (skin softener) in soaps. There also might be some link between sorbitol and
Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). Flavor? It
doesn’t say what that is or what it is made from. Is the mint in Mint-Flavored
toothpaste from real mint? I doubt it. Water,
I assume, means water, but one never knows in today’s labeling practices. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does require that fluoride
toothpastes shipped as of April 7, 1998 carry a warning label about the dangers of
swallowing too much toothpaste. The three potentially harmful ingredients being sodium
lauryl sulfate, sorbitol, and fluoride. Why? Because it can cause diarrhea. I don’t recall, however, ever seeing such a
warning on any toothpaste I’ve bought. You probably don’t want me to decode the label on your shampoo.
That would take another two pages of this newsletter and you’d probably never wash
your hair again. So, from the above, do you plan to keep using toothpaste, or would you
prefer to just use baking soda and suffer through it? Baking soda? Yuck! Mom made us use
this when we were kids (it was much cheaper than Ipana).
But if you want to use it, mix a couple spoons of baking soda with just enough water to
turn it pasty, then add a couple drops of food-grade essential oils (e.g., mint). If you
insist on having a sweet toothpaste, add a drop of Stevia. What do you have then? A
product that is indistinguishable from a commercial tooth cleaner called Pearl Drops. Decoding
Food Labels While the food label can help you to make sense of how to choose
healthier foods (assuming you can decode the chemicals), you first need to know what the
rules of labeling are. For instance, what does it mean when a food says it is “fat
free”? I’m sorry to say this, but this does not mean the
contents contains no fat. Fat-free means less than half a gram (0.5g) of fat per
serving (fat and saturated fat). How about Calorie-Free?
Unless it specifically claims zero, that phrase permits the inclusion of five
calories or less per serving. How about Low Fat? The
Low-whatever claim can be used on all foods that can be eaten often without going over the
limit for one or more of these items: saturated fat, cholesterol, fat, sodium, and
calories. Low-saturated fat is one
gram or less per serving. Low-fat is three
grams or less per serving. Low-cholesterol is 20 milligrams or less and two grams
or less of saturated fat per serving. Low-sodium is 140 milligrams or less per
serving (which finally answers that question I had about the Coke label back in issue #01
of this newsletter – yes, 35 mg is low by these rules). Low-calorie means 40 calories or less per serving.
But “low” isn’t the only word used to mean this. Sometimes you will see
“little,” “few,” and “low
source of,” all of which must follow the same rule as “low.”
Just because something is “reduced fat” or “lighter”
in calories, does not mean than you can eat all you want of it. Choosing foods lower in
saturated fat might help you to reduce your mycotoxin exposure, but by eating a larger
portion, you might just be eating more fats than you would have with a smaller portion of
the “regular” foods. What is
the Correct Portion Size? The kind of food you eat
is very important, but even eating the right food in the wrong portion will still make you
fat and/or unhealthy in other areas. According to a
survey conducted by the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), most Americans
(78%) still believe that the kind of food they eat is more important in
managing their weight than the amount of food they eat. Melanie Polk, MMSc, RD, director of Nutrition Education at the
AICR, says, “People are eating more and wondering why they’re getting fatter.
One big reason is that their focus is too narrow.”
She adds that Americans are concentrating too much on cutting fat, or relying on fad diets
that restrict carbohydrates, sugar(1) (ala Atkins), or some other specific nutrient. Studies reveal that
these strategies fail to address the issue of the total calories consumed, as well as
overall good nutrition. You need to address your dietary needs as a whole rather than
focusing on getting rid of only one thing. Note 1: It
could be implied that reducing carbs and sugars is exactly what we suggest with the Phase
I or II diets, but for the wrong reasons. Those things on SAD (standard American diet)
either add fungi/mycotoxins or feed them. However, what we suggest is to compensate for
the loss of grain carbs by increasing veggie carbs, which don’t carry the fungal load
that grains do. And we also suggest simple sugars (see glyconutrients article) instead of
processed sugars. Participants in an AICR survey were asked to estimate the standard servings defined by the USDA Food Guide Pyramid (yes, I do still plan to write the rant on that) for eight different foods, including pasta, green salad, beans, and mashed potatoes. Only 1% of respondents correctly answered all eight serving-size questions, while 63% missed five or more. A notable 31% managed to estimate only one serving size correctly. “These are distressing numbers,” says Ms. Polk. “They suggest that an important message about portion control isn’t getting through.” Experts say that understanding the concept of standard serving sizes
is essential to good nutrition. Standardized serving sizes help consumers, health
professionals, and food manufacturers find a common language for the sake of
communication. But even with serving sizes “standardized,” individual portion
sizes will vary, because different people have different caloric requirements. Portion
size also depends on a person’s specific weight
management goals and health needs. The problems of obesity and lack of nutrition awareness also seem to
have a cultural component. Take a serious look at all those fast-food restaurants. Most of
those choke and pukes offer “super-size” or “value” meals, which often
contain an entire day’s worth of calories and
fat in one serving! Statistics from the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) reveal that
Americans’ total daily caloric intakes have risen by 148 calories per day since 1980.
Do the math and you will find that amount puts an extra 15 pounds on you every year. Those same studies, however, show that the amount of fat in the
average American diet has decreased from 40% of total calories to 33% during the same
period. So even though calories from fat have decreased – at nine calories per gram
of fat versus only four per gram of carbohydrate or protein – Americans have more
than made up for their lower fat intakes with larger portion sizes of other types of
foods. Larger portion sizes equal more calories, and more calories lead to weight gain,
regardless of the source of the calories (fat, protein, or carbs). Fat does provide us with a feeling
of fullness, which can help some people avoid eating to excess. So be aware that by
cutting fat out of your diet, you might lose this signal of when to stop eating. In
addition, many “low-fat” and “no fat” foods can be just as high (in
some cases higher) in calories compared to the regular versions. This is because
manufacturers often add extra sugar to make up for the taste that was lost by cutting down
on the fat. Portion sizes and overall dietary requirements depend on several
factors, including your activity level. For example, a couch-potato-type person only needs
one standard serving size of breakfast, while someone who runs several miles a day or who
engages in other forms of aerobic exercise might need two or three standard serving sizes.
The runner will burn it off immediately while the couch potato will store it as body fat. So what is a “portion” size? According to the American Dietetic Association, you can use the
following “models” to approximate portion sizes
(assuming you don’t weigh your food):
When you are at home, take time to “eyeball” the serving sizes of your favorite
foods (using some of the models listed above), then measure out single servings onto your
plates and bowls, and remember what they look like.
Figure out how many servings should make up your personal portion, depending upon whether
you need to lose, gain, or maintain weight. Avoid serving food “family style.”
Serve up plates with appropriate portions in the kitchen, and don’t go back for
seconds. Never eat out of the bag or
carton. When you are in restaurants, ask for smaller portions. Yes, I know, that is not cost-effective, and
mom always told me to clean my plate because there are starving children in China, but
that’s probably also why I’ve been fat most of my life. So buck up, folks; if
you’re going to eat out and stay on your diet, you will have to either ask for less
food or let half your plate go to waste – either in their waste can or on your waist.
So, eyeball your appropriate portion, then set the rest aside and ask for a doggie bag
before you even take the first bite. If you order any dessert, either share it or choose a
healthier option like tart fruit. What the
FDA Never Told You about Artificial Sweeteners A public Board of Inquiry advised against the approval of aspartame
on September 30, 1980, stating: “The Board has not been presented with proof of a
reasonable certainty that aspartame (aka NutraSweet) is safe for use as a food additive
under its intended conditions of use.” In 1981, however, the FDA did approve
aspartame for consumer use based on studies that seem tainted by heavy financial interest
in its approval. To many medical practitioners and consumer interest groups, the approval
was a gross betrayal of public trust. In the book, Excitotoxins Dr. Russell L. Blaylock says, “To
think that there is even a reasonable doubt that aspartame can induce brain tumors in the
American population is frightening. And to think that the FDA has lulled them into a false
sense of security is a monumental crime.” Excuse me? Brain tumors? Well, if you want
to follow that line, go visit http://www.newstarget.com/
and find the article about artificial sweeteners. If you want a reasonably good comparison of all chemical sweeteners,
try these sites: http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-sweeteners.html
or http://www.dorway.com/kids_sweetener.html.
Of course there are many more and many different opinions on what is
safe or not. Who to believe? Always see if there is a money trail when trying to answer
that one. If they stand to profit, they’re probably bending the facts (or lying).
However, for this particular article, I want to focus on aspartame because it is the one
found in most diet soda pops. Here’s a study done by Jennifer Cohen, a concerned 11-year-old,
sixth grade student, who paid for the testing with her own money (over $1200 – a
whole year’s worth of babysitting): ABSTRACT: The level of aspartame in a can of Diet Coke was found to be 0.06% by a food-testing laboratory. The remaining cans from one case of Diet coke were stored under three different heat conditions for 10 weeks. Seven cans were stored in an incubator (104 °F), seven cans were stored at room temperature (68-70 °F). At the end of 70 days samples were tested for levels of aspartame, formaldehyde and DKP (diketopiperazine). The refrigerated sample contained 0.058 percent aspartame, 0.001 percent DKP and 53.5 ppb (parts per billion) of formaldehyde. The room temperature sample contained 0.051 percent aspartame, 0.002 percent DKP and 231 ppb of formaldehyde. The incubator sample contained 0.026 percent aspartame, 0.010 percent DKP and 76.2 ppb of formaldehyde. In addition 10 human subjects tasted each soda sample plus a new can of Diet Coke and rated each sample for taste on a 1-4 scale with 1 being the best and 4 being the worst. The new can of Diet Coke received an average rating of 2.0. The sample stored in the refrigerator received an average rating of 2.6. The sample stored at room temperature received an average rating of 2.5. The sample stored in the incubator received an average rating of 3.8. The effects of heat on Diet Coke produced the worst taste and the highest amount of loss of aspartame as well as the greatest increase in levels of DKP. The most pleasing taste was for the new can of Diet Coke. The room temperature sample and the refrigerated sample scored almost the same in the taste test. All samples revealed a presence of formaldehyde. However, the highest level of formaldehyde occurred in the room temperature can. There was also formaldehyde present in the refrigerated sample. HISTORY: The ingredients in aspartame are aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methyl alcohol. Methyl alcohol is a chemical that breaks down in high temperatures and turns into formaldehyde and DKP (diketopiperazine), two chemicals known to cause problems in the nervous system. Aspartame’s life is 262 days at 77 °F (25 °C). The FDA gets more complaints about aspartame than any other food or drink. The symptoms of aspartame are a lot like the symptoms of multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease. Ever since aspartame was approved in 1985, there has been an increase in brain tumors (maybe the NewsTarget article is right?). There is no direct proof that aspartame caused the brain tumors, but there is enough reason to suspect that, and the television show, “60 Minutes” recently did a report linking the increase in brain cancer to aspartame use. The FDA reviewed Searle’s studies of this artificial sweetener in which rats were fed aspartame daily with their meals for one year. There were 12 brain tumors in the 320 rats that were fed aspartame and no brain tumors in the 120 rats that were not fed aspartame. There was also a study done at the University of Wisconsin on rhesus monkeys. They were fed aspartame daily. After day 200 of a one-year study, the monkeys developed epileptic seizures. After the study ended, the aspartame was discontinued and the monkeys were fully watched for 60 days. The monkeys had no more seizures. METHOD: I did my own experiment on aspartame. On January 21, 1997, I bought a new case of Diet Coke from the supermarket. I put 7 cans in the refrigerator, 7 cans in my room at room temperature (about 69 degrees) and I put 7 cans in a BOEKEL incubator (80 Watts, 120 AC volts, 0.75 Amps, catalog # 131500) and set the temperature at 40 °C, which is 104 °F. I left them in there for 10 weeks (70 days). I had a thermometer next to each group of cans and I checked the temperatures daily. I took the remaining three cans and brought them to Winston Laboratories in Ridgefield, New Jersey to test for a beginning level of aspartame. When I got the test results back, they revealed that there was normally 0.06 per cent of aspartame in the can of diet soda. I chose that temperature because in 1985 the National Soft Drink Association reported a similar experiment in which diet soda stored at that temperature turned into formaldehyde. In that experiment they explained that 104 degrees Fahrenheit was equal to a daytime temperature in Phoenix, Arizona over the summer. The National Soft Drink Association recommended that aspartame not be approved for use by people in soda. They published this experiment and their recommendation in the Congressional Record. On April 1, I took the cans of aspartame out of the refrigerator, out of my room and out of the incubator. That day I brought the samples to Winston Laboratory for analysis. … The text goes on, but I think you have enough data here to see this
stuff can be a killer. I salute this young lady for doing this. Her methods were
scientific and her results presented logically. She did find that aspartame is a dangerous
substance, as have many other researchers. We have known this stuff is bad for at least 25
years, so why is this in nearly every can of diet soda pop on the market? Simple: the big
money bought the FDA once again. Everything in this country is about money, isn’t it? He who has
the money has the power and gets the rules written according to his wishes, even if that
kills you. Will the American sheeple ever wake up? Big business and big government are not
doing anything for your benefit. They do it for their own
pocketbooks, which appears to be the bottom line on everything. So sad… So let’s try some more of Mike Adams’ humor (Health Ranger
at http://www.NewsTarget). Black-Boxer: A consumer who takes drugs that are so dangerous, the FDA requires the drug packaging to carry a large black-box warning about severe harm or death. Black-boxers usually don’t care about the long-term harm to their health, they just want the pain (or other symptom) to go away so they can get back to watching prime-time television in relative comfort. The Wall: Short for Walgreens, one of the top street-corner pharmacies in America. The Wall is where medheads and black-boxers go to buy dangerous drugs to treat their fictitious diseases because they’ve been subjected to spontaneous mass diagnosis Drug Madvertising: The practice of allowing drug companies to advertise patented chemicals directly to consumers in order to create demand for drugs that everyday people frankly do not understand. Every country in the world bans the practice of Direct-To-Consumer (DTC) drug advertising... except the United States, of course, where consumers are subjected to a never-ending barrage of ridiculous drug ads showing happy, healthy people popping purple pills they would never consume in real life. Of all industrialized nations in the world, only the U.S. (with the ever-caring support of the Food and Drug Administration) endorses drug madvertising.
|