Butter vs Margarine: The Big Fat Butter Lie

Is butter bad for you? For decades, the food processing industry has used advertising campaigns to successfully lie about the urgent and proven need to replace “unhealthy” butter with “healthy” margarine. But now we know that this teaching was nothing more than made-up. In the battle of margarine vs butter, you may now be surprised which comes out on top.

Even back in the 60s and 70s sufficient scientific evidence indicated that butter was far better than margarine for good health. Who knew? Nevertheless, the industrial fake food industry relentlessly convinced millions of us to eat margarine for health reasons.

The commercial processed fake food industry merged with Madison Avenue, the AMA, and mainstream media to instill a whopper of a lie by reinforcing margarine as better for you. They claimed in unison that saturated fats made you fat and promoted cardiovascular disease.

Damage from Fake Fats that Replace Favorable Fats

Partially hydrogenated fatty acids in margarine damage arteries and blood vessels. They lower good cholesterol, and raise blood levels of triglycerides and lipoproteins leading to cardiovascular damage. They also raise C-reactive protein, an inflammatory and cellular dysfunction marker. Worse yet, they inhibit the utilization of essential omega 3-fatty acids as wells a prostaglandins, which eliminate blood clots. Additionally, a diet high in partially hydrogenated fatty acids has been linked to insulin resistance and type 2 Diabetes.

The NY Times covers hydrogenated oil health issues while still promoting saturated fat nonsense. In order to function properly, your lungs, heart, immune system liver, bones, hormones and cell membranes all require high quality saturated fats - in moderation of course. Fatty acids and cholesterol are needed for healthy cell membranes, hormone and vitamin D production, and the transport and utilization of important vitamins and minerals. Now even mainstream media is spreading the truthful real news on butter. The New England Journal of Medicine recently solidified the link between trans fats and heart disease. Even low levels of trans fats consumption (1%-2%) substantially increase heart disease.

Butter vs Margarine: Butter Hierarchy: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

So what should you be looking for?

• At the top of the pyramid is organic butter made with raw milk from grass fed cows.
• The middle level is organic butter with pasteurized milk from grass fed cows and without rBGH, rBST, or antibiotics.
• The pyramid’s base is butter made from pasteurized milk from confined, grain fed, factory farmed, antibiotic and likely rBGH or rBST injected cows.

Amazingly, the butter at the bottom of the pyramid is still better for you than margarine! Margarine is merely a lab created plastic food-like substance, not by any means a real food. It’s cheap to make, lacks nutritional merit, and damages health. But it has a longer shelve life and a higher profit margin than real butter.

Five Reasons to Eat Real Butter

• 1. Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) - Raw organic, pastured butter has loads of anti- tumor CLA. It inhibits the growth of cancer cells in the skin, colon, breasts and lungs. It’s anti-fungal and it stimulates muscle growth while preventing weight gain.
• 2. Butyric Acid - Butter contains 4% butyric acid – a short chain fatty acid that research indicates can inhibit tumors. It also signals the immune system into action when an infection is brewing.
• 3. Vitamin K2 - Raw, organic, pastured butter and cream contains vitamin K2 – a necessary co-factor in vitamin D synthesis. K2 also ushers calcium out of your blood stream and into bone cells which increases bone density instead of calcifying arterial and heart tissue. Check out Mike Barrett’s article on vitamin K deficiency symptoms.
• 4. Fat–Soluble Vitamins – Butter is a good source of the fat soluble vitamins A, D, and E. It’s also an excellent vehicle for their assimilation.
• 5. The Wulzen Factor - Raw, unpasteurized butter, cream and milk contain the “Wulzen factor” an anti-stiffness agent. It protects against calcification of the joints (osteoarthritis) as well as cataracts, and the calcification of the pineal gland. Pasteurization destroys the Wulzen Factor.

Raw, organic butter is a superfood that won’t make you fat if consumed in moderation. In fact, it consists of short chain fatty acids (SCFA) and medium chain fatty acids(MCFA), which are not significantly stored as fat but easily used as energy.

This may finally be the end of the butter vs. margarine battle.

Additional Sources: Mercola

Source: Natural Society

Mortality rate doubles for females eating refined white sugar - lab mice study rocks soda industry

(NaturalNews) In what is arguably the most shocking food study conducted since the Seralini "GMO rats" study released last year, researchers at the University of Utah have found that even a small amount of refined sugar consumption resulted in a doubling of the death rate of female mice.

Fed merely the equivalent of three cans of soda a day, females experienced a 100% increase in death rates, and males experienced a sharp drop in fertility. Males were also found to have impaired ability to hold territory, according to the study authors.

"Our results provide evidence that added sugar consumed at concentrations currently considered safe exerts dramatic adverse impacts on mammalian health," the researchers explain. (SOURCE)

One of the study authors, James Ruff, explained that even though the mice did not show observable symptoms of obesity or diabetes, a careful monitoring of their behavior showed that they died more frequently and reproduced less frequently.

The study was brilliantly designed to mimic the real-world competitive living environment among mice, forcing them to compete for territory (nesting beds) and reproductive partners. Interestingly, the study found that the toxic effect of feeding the mice refined white sugar was equal to being inbred mice (i.e. offspring of first cousens).

Think about that for a minute: sugar makes mice dumber than if their parents were cousens!

(And if you really want to see some crazy death rates among the mice, feed 'em aspartame...)

Many Americans eat far more sugar, proportionally, than the mice were fed

The diets used in this study were "25 percent sugar-added" diets, meaning the mice were given 25% of their total daily caloric intake in the form of refined sugar (fructose and glucose). See http://science.naturalnews.com/Fructose.html

The obvious implication of this is that a huge portion of the American population already consumes more than 25 percent of its daily caloric intake in the form of refined sugars, including:

• Maltodextrin
• High Fructose Corn Syrup
• Sucrose
• Sugar
• Fructose
• Dextrose

There is no question that the widespread consumption of all these sugars is a primary cause behind the epidemic of diabetes and obesity under which America is currently suffering. Aside from the obvious sources of sugar (sodas, sugary cereals, pastries, candy, etc.), refined sugar is also hidden in everyday grocery items like pizza sauce, salad dressing and even wheat bread.

Unless you make a concerted effort to avoid refined sugars, it's easy to intake large quantities on a daily basis. If this mice study proves to be correct in humans, consuming refined sugars may cause you to die early, become infertile or otherwise act in a cognitively impaired manner that vastly reduces your survivability. (Kinda sounds like half the population, doesn't it?)

Refined white sugar is devoid of nutrients

Why is refined white sugar so bad for your health? Because it's an "anti-food" that has been stripped of nearly all nutrition.

Sugar is refined from cane, a large species of grass. Raw cane juice is actually a dark green liquid with an incredibly sweet, full-spectrum flavor. Processing the raw cane juice into sugar involves removing nearly all the vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients, leaving only empty white calories that are a lot like poison to mammalian biology.

That's why "dehydrated cane juice crystals" are actually good for you, even though "refined white sugar" is bad for you. Cane juice is a full-spectrum sweetener that provides all sorts of minerals and nutrients which help balance the blood sugar effects of consuming sugar in the first place.

Because refined white sugar is an anti-nutrient, people who eat it on a regular basis are stealing from their own nutritional stores to "process" the sugar, causing a net nutritional deficit in their bodies. Lacking the necessary trace minerals, vitamins and phytonutrients to maintain optimum health, body systems and organs start to fail. Medical doctors slap names on those symptoms, calling them things like "diabetes" or "ADHD" or "cancer." (Cancer cells love refined white sugar!)

See:
http://science.naturalnews.com/sugar.html

But the real root cause of most disease is nutrient depletion thanks to the routine consumption of nutrient-depleted, processed refined foods.

If you want to stay healthy, avoid all these refined foods

These are all "foods of disease" that gave rise to the modern era of Big Pharma, degenerative disease and the for-profit cancer industry:

• White sugar
• White bread
• White salt
• White tortillas
• Snack chips
• Processed meats
• Homogenized, pasteurized dairy
• Sodas, sports drinks and energy drinks
• Fake juices made mostly with sugar
• Cake, candy, ice cream and sweets

If you currently crave these things, it's usually because you're utterly deficient in mineral nutrition. Your body is starving for minerals and tells you to keep eating until you get some. But because the foods you're eating have no real nutrition, you just keep packing on the pounds as the calories mount up. What you really need is real nutrition that turns off the hunger. That only comes from high-density, full-spectrum superfoods and food-based nutritional supplements.

That's why I can honestly tell you, without hesitation, that I gave up drinking soda well over a decade ago, and to this day, I do not ever crave soda. I don't crave ice cream, cake, donuts or any such sweets. This is important to understand because if you eat a diet like mine, you don't need any self control whatsoever to avoid sweets. Your body automatically doesn't want them. The reason I don't eat sweets, in other words, is because I don't feel like eating sweets, not because of some amazing form of self-discipline.

Often, successful dieting is not a matter of self control but a matter of strategic dietary choices and nutritional supplementation to make sure your body gets the nutrition what it needs so that your inherent nutritional hunger is satiated.

If you really want the kind of nutrition that satisfied your body's cravings for minerals, grow your own food in mineral-rich soils or buy food from your local farmer's market. You may also benefit from superfoods or mineral-rich food concentrate supplements, both of which have much higher nutrient density than run-of-the-mill grocery foods.

For the record: Potts and Ruff conducted the study with University of Utah biology lab manager Linda Morrison and undergraduates Amanda Suchy, Sara Hugentobler, Mirtha Sosa and Bradley Schwartz, and with researchers Sin Gieng and Mark Shigenaga of Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute in California. (SOURCE)

Sources for this article include:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/sugar-is-toxic-to-mice-in-safe-doses

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130813111722.htm

http://science.naturalnews.com/sugar.html

http://science.naturalnews.com/Fructose.html

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041629_refined_sugar_mortality_experiment.html#ixzz2byQZX1kG

Gluten Confirmed to Cause Serious Weight Gain, or ‘Wheat Belly’ – Scientific Research

The case against gluten seems to have been closed with recent research from a Brazilian research team that published a report in the January 2013 Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry.

It seems to have put an exclamation point on the wheat belly controversy.

Lacking scientific data confirming the mechanics of how gluten may or may not affect obesity, the study was set up to examine the differences in specific genetic and biochemical markers between rats fed gluten and rats that were kept gluten free.

The "wheat belly" syndrome and how it leads to other health issues was the purpose of their research. The research team chose biological markers that could indicate the onset of obesity and metabolic syndrome, precursors to diabetes and cardiac issues.

Both groups of rats were fed high fat diets. But one group was gluten free and the other group's diet was 4.5 percent gluten. Even without tracing their predetermined markers, it was obvious the gluten free mice exhibited weight loss without any trace of lipid (fat) excretion.

An analysis of the study

Sayer Ji of GreenmedInfo.com proposed this analysis: "... the weight gain associated with wheat consumption has little to do with caloric content per se; rather, the gluten proteins ... disrupt endocrine and exocrine processes within the body, as well as directly modulating nuclear gene expression ... to alter mamalian metabolism in the direction of weight gain."

This study report, according to Sayer Ji proves that the major factor of obesity is gluten, not calories.

Sayer Ji recommends that those who are overweight, pre-diabetic, experiencing metabolic syndrome, or suffering from irritable bowel syndrome try avoiding gluten grains, especially wheat, to determine from experience if gluten is the underlying cause.

There is evidence that gluten can be a factor in gut and psychology syndrome (GAPS) and even autism.

So how did wheat, "the staff of life," become a weed of disease.

Wheat is not the same today. It has been agriculturally hybrid, not genetically lab engineered over some decades to resist fungus, grow more quickly, and be more pliable for industrial bread baking. As a consequence, 50-60 years ago wheat containing only five percent gluten has become 50 percent gluten today.

Agricultural resources used the hybrid process for wheat to accommodate the baking industry's mechanical requirements of pliable proteins, leading to the 10-fold increase of wheat's gluten.

The processed food industry's concern for production efficiency and perception of consumer demands has focused on the bottom line with the usual disregard to negative health consequences.

Slightly different high speed methods of baking evolved over time. By artificially bleaching flour and adding "improvers" with often toxic additives and mixing the dough violently, loaves of bread could be baked, cooled, and packaged within a few, short hours. Cheap, unhealthy foods for many with massive profits for a few.

This is beginning to change with measures that seem to offset gluten's damage for some. For example, Whole Foods has their own bakery providing fresh breads daily without bromides, which can displace the thyroid gland's iodine contents and create hypothyroidism.

Other local bakeries may provide sprouted grain and real sourdough breads, which even some celiac sufferers manage to consume without adverse reactions.

If you wish to cut out wheat products completely, beware of gluten free products. Most contain high glycemic substitutes and GMOs.

Sources for this article include: greenmedinfo.com & naturalnews.com

Source: NaturalNews

Considering that both groups of mice were fed high fat diets and the gluten free mice lost weight without excreting lipids also implies that fat free diets for losing weight are bogus. This has been suspected by other nutritional experts who've abandoned matrix thinking.

Did you know that Aspartame was banned by the FDA twice? How is this product legal now?

The bittersweet argument over whether Aspartame is safe or not has been going on for a long time. On one side we have medical evidence that suggests we should avoid using it and on the other side we lean on the FDA’s approval that suggests it is safe.

Since generally that seems to be the factor that many continue to hold trust based upon, I thought we could look into the Aspartame story to find out how it came to be accepted as safe by the FDA. You would think that something so widely used and so well accepted would have quite the pristine story leading to its acceptance. I imagine one will discover otherwise after reading this post.

It all starts in the mid 1960′s with a company called G.D. Searle. One of their chemists accidentally creates aspartame while trying to create a cure for stomach ulcers. Searle decides to put aspartame through a testing process which eventually leads to its approval by the FDA. Not long after, serious health effects begin to arise and G.D. Searle comes under fire for their testing practices.



It is revealed that the testing process of Aspartame was among the worst the investigators had ever seen and that in fact the product was unsafe for use. Aspartame triggers the first criminal investigation of a manufacturer put into place by the FDA in 1977. By 1980 the FDA bans aspartame from use after having 3 independent scientists study the sweetener. It was determined that one main health effects was that it had a high chance of inducing brain tumors. At this point it was clear that aspartame was not fit to be used in foods and banned is where it stayed, but not for long.



Early in 1981 Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (who is a former Secretary of Defense.. surprise surprise) vowed to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Searle took the steps to re-apply aspartame’s approval for use by the FDA. Ronald Reagans’ new FDA commissioner Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It did not take long for the panel to decide 3-2 in favor of maintaining the ban of aspartame. Hull then decided to appoint a 6th member to the board, which created a tie in the voting, 3-3. Hull then decided to personally break the tie and approve aspartame for use. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller. Burstone-Marstella is the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.



It is clear to this point that if anything the safety of aspartame is incredibly shaky. It has already been through a process of being banned and without the illegitimate un-banning of the product, it would not be being used today. Makes you wonder how much corruption and money was involved with names like Rumsfeld, Reagan and Hull involved so heavily. In 1985, Monsanto decides to purchase the aspartame patent from G.D. Searle. Remember that Arthur Hull now had the connection to Monsanto. Monsanto did not seem too concerned with the past challenges and ugly image aspartame had based on its past. I personally find this comical as Monsanto’s products are banned in many countries and of all companies to buy the product they seem to fit best as they are champions of producing incredibly unsafe and untested products and making sure they stay in the market place.



Since then, aspartame has been under a lot of attack by scientists, doctors, chemists and consumers about it’s safety and neurotoxic properties. Piles of comprehensive studies have been completed that show aspartame is a cause for over 90 serious health problems such as cancer, leukemia, headaches, seizures, fibromyalgia, and epilepsy just to name a few. We have written several articles discussing various affects of aspartame. Aspartame Leukemia Link. Aspartame and Brain Damage.

Full Timeline on Aspartame’s Legal and Safety Battles

December 1965– While working on an ulcer drug, James Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle, accidentally discovers aspartame, a substance that is 180 times sweeter than sugar yet has no calories.



Spring 1967– Searle begins the safety tests on aspartame that are necessary for applying for FDA approval of food additives.



Fall 1967– Dr. Harold Waisman, a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin, conducts aspartame safety tests on infant monkeys on behalf of the Searle Company. Of the seven monkeys that were being fed aspartame mixed with milk, one dies and five others have grand mal seizures.



November 1970– Cyclamate, the reigning low-calorie artificial sweetener — is pulled off the market after some scientists associate it with cancer. Questions are also raised about safety of saccharin, the only other artificial sweetener on the market, leaving the field wide open for aspartame.



December 18, 1970– Searle Company executives lay out a “Food and Drug Sweetener Strategy’ that they feel will put the FDA into a positive frame of mind about aspartame. An internal policy memo describes psychological tactics the company should use to bring the FDA into a subconscious spirit of participation” with them on aspartame and get FDA regulators into the “habit of saying, “Yes”.”



Spring 1971– Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney (whose pioneering work with monosodium glutamate was responsible for having it removed from baby foods) informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid (one of the ingredients of aspartame) caused holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle’s own researchers confirmed Dr. Olney’s findings in a similar study.



February 1973– After spending tens of millions of dollars conducting safety tests, the G.D. Searle Company applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies they claim support aspartame’s safety.



March 5, 1973– One of the first FDA scientists to review the aspartame safety data states that “the information provided (by Searle) is inadequate to permit an evaluation of the potential toxicity of aspartame”. She says in her report that in order to be certain that aspartame is safe, further clinical tests are needed.



May 1974– Attorney, Jim Turner (consumer advocate who was instrumental in getting cyclamate taken off the market) meets with Searle representatives to discuss Dr. Olney’s 1971 study which showed that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of infant mice.



July 26, 1974– The FDA grants aspartame its first approval for restricted use in dry foods.



August 1974– Jim Turner and Dr. John Olney file the first objections against aspartame’s approval.



March 24, 1976– Turner and Olney’s petition triggers an FDA investigation of the laboratory practices of aspartame’s manufacturer, G.D. Searle. The investigation finds Searle’s testing procedures shoddy, full of inaccuracies and “manipulated” test data. The investigators report they “had never seen anything as bad as Searle’s testing.”



January 10, 1977– The FDA formally requests the U.S. Attorney’s office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly misrepresenting findings and “concealing material facts and making false statements” in aspartame safety tests. This is the first time in the FDA’s history that they request a criminal investigation of a manufacturer.



January 26, 1977– While the grand jury probe is underway, Sidley & Austin, the law firm representing Searle, begins job negotiations with the U.S. Attorney in charge of the investigation, Samuel Skinner.



March 8, 1977– G. D. Searle hires prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as the new CEO to try to turn the beleaguered company around. A former Member of Congress and Secretary of Defense in the Ford Administration, Rumsfeld brings in several of his Washington cronies as top management.



July 1, 1977– Samuel Skinner leaves the U.S. Attorney’s office and takes a job with Searle’s law firm. (see Jan. 26th)



August 1, 1977– The Bressler Report, compiled by FDA investigators and headed by Jerome Bressler, is released. The report finds that 98 of the 196 animals died during one of Searle’s studies and weren’t autopsied until later dates, in some cases over one year after death. Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead again; a mass, a uterine polyp, and ovarian neoplasms were found in animals but not reported or diagnosed in Searle’s reports.



December 8, 1977– U.S. Attorney Skinner’s withdrawal and resignation stalls the Searle grand jury investigation for so long that the statue of limitations on the aspartame charges runs out. The grand jury investigation is dropped.



June 1, 1979– The FDA established a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) to rule on safety issues surrounding NutraSweet.



September 30, 1980– The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it “has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive.”



January 1981– Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.



January 21, 1981– Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States. Reagan’s transition team, which includes Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.



March, 1981– An FDA commissioner’s panel is established to review issues raised by the Public Board of Inquiry.



May 19, 1981– Three of six in-house FDA scientists who were responsible for reviewing the brain tumor issues, Dr. Robert Condon, Dr. Satya Dubey, and Dr. Douglas Park, advise against approval of NutraSweet, stating on the record that the Searle tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of aspartame.



July 15, 1981– In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products. Hayes says that aspartame has been shown to be safe for its’ proposed uses and says few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated close scrutiny.



October 15, 1982– The FDA announces that Searle has filed a petition that aspartame be approved as a sweetener in carbonated beverages and other liquids.



July 1, 1983– The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) urges the FDA to delay approval of aspartame for carbonated beverages pending further testing because aspartame is very unstable in liquid form. When liquid aspartame is stored in temperatures above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, it breaks down into DKP and formaldehyde, both of which are known toxins.



July 8, 1983– The National Soft Drink Association drafts an objection to the final ruling which permits the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages and syrup bases and requests a hearing on the objections. The association says that Searle has not provided responsible certainty that aspartame and its’ degradation products are safe for use in soft drinks.



August 8, 1983– Consumer Attorney, Jim Turner of the Community Nutrition Institute and Dr. Woodrow Monte, Arizona State University’s Director of Food Science and Nutritional Laboratories, file suit with the FDA objecting to aspartame approval based on unresolved safety issues.



September, 1983– FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searle’s public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweet’s major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.



Fall 1983– The first carbonated beverages containing aspartame are sold for public consumption.



November 1984– Center for Disease Control (CDC) “Evaluation of consumer complaints related to aspartame use.” (summary by B. Mullarkey)



November 3, 1987– U.S. hearing, “NutraSweet: Health and Safety Concerns,” Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, chairman.

Sources for this article:

http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-side-effects.html - http://rense.com/general33/legal.htm - http://dorway.com/

Source: Collective Evolution

McDonald’s Transparency Campaign Revealed 17 Ingredients in Their French Fries

The transparency campaign initiated by McDonald’s last year was intended at marketing a more health conscious image of McDonald’s Corp.–and at using social media more effectively, but instead of talking about their love for the brand, the hashtag became a forum for people to talk about how disgusting they believe the food is. The ingredients in their french fries went viral. Instead of the basic two ingredients-potatoes and oil, consumers found out McDonald’s french fries contain 17 ingredients.

 

The campaign isn’t brand new. Launched by McDonalds Canada last June using a YouTube video to answer a consumer’s question about why their food looks so drastically different in commercials than in the restaurant, the “Our Food, Your Questions” premise opened McDonalds’ kitchen doors, lending the brand to a supposed more honest and transparent feel.

The campaign isn’t brand new. Launched by McDonalds Canada last June using a YouTube video to answer a consumer’s question about why their food looks so drastically different in commercials than in the restaurant, the “Our Food, Your Questions” premise opened McDonalds’ kitchen doors, lending the brand to a supposed more honest and transparent feel.

By prompting consumers to ask their questions on Facebook or Twitter, McDonalds hoped to build trust and credibility in a marketplace where bad press has followed them in the form of viral videos and unappetizing images.

McDonald’s eventually began disclosing the secret behind how the fast food chain’s fries are made. They produced a video answering a series of questions about McDonald’s fries: where the potatoes come from, how they are processed, what kind of oil they’re fried in, and why there is so much salt on them.

Mario Dupuis, a production manager at McCain Foods in New Brunswick, where the potatoes are washed, peel and cut. They’re also blanched to “remove natural sugars” that would cause colour variations then soaked in dextrose for an even colour. There’s also an ingredient to prevent greying, drying to remove excess moisture and a quick-fry for 45 to 60 seconds before the fries are frozen for shipping.

The worst part are the ingredients. Instead of the standard two ingredients necessary to make french fries-potatoes and oil, there are approximately 17 as reported on the ingredients facts list on the McDonald’s website.

The include: 

Potatoes, canola oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, safflower oil, natural flavour (vegetable source), dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (maintain colour), citric acid (preservative), dimethylpolysiloxane (antifoaming agent) and cooked in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil with THBQ, citric acid and dimethylpolysiloxane) and salt (silicoaluminate, dextrose, potassium iodide).

At a glance, many of the ingredients above are hazardous to human health, including those which are genetically modified (canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil), hydrogenated (soybean oil), chemically preserved and antifoaming (THBQ, citric acid, dimethylpolysiloxane), and artificially colored (sodium acid pyrophosphate).

How many people do you think have an awareness that McDonald’s french fries contain this many ingredients? Thanks for the transparency McDonald’s…hopefully it will help wake more people up to the difference between your artificial food and real food.

Sources :

1. Prevent Disease
2. Image Credit

Aspartame Linked to Leukemia & Lymphoma in Groundbreaking Study

Each year, Americans consume about 5,250 tons of aspartame in total. 86 percent of this aspartame (4,500 tons) is from the consumption of diet sodas. Diet soda is the largest dietary source of aspartame  in the U.S. A study recently published at the beginning of December 2012 links the consumption of Aspartame to increased risk of Lymphoma and Leukemia. The study was conducted by the Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA and Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA. The study was a follow up after a 22 year period of data collection including frequent dietary and health check ups of the study group.

We have covered the subject of aspartame on several occasions that included findings that deomstrate how aspartame damages the brain. This new study suggests that as little as a single 355ml can of diet soda daily greatly increases the risk for cancers in men and women. It can also increase the risk of multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men. The results of this study forces us to really look at the effects of aspartame as there has never been a more comprehensive, long term study ever done on the topic. It is important to note that this can also reveal many more serious diseases and illnesses as data is observed even further.

The Most Comprehensive Study to Date on Aspartame

This study tracks over two million person-years giving it a huge pile of data to generate results from. Researchers prospectively analyzed data from the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for a 22-year period. A total of 77,218 women and 47,810 men were included in the analysis, for a total of 2,278,396 person-years of data. It is not just the sample size of this study that makes it impressive, it is also the thoroughness with which aspartame intake was assessed in comparison to previous studies. Over the course of the study, every two years participants were given a detailed dietary questionnaire, and their diets were reassessed every four years. Shockingly, previous studies done on aspartame who revealed no link between aspartame and cancer in humans, only assessed participants’ aspartame intake at one point in time. This poses a major weakness in the accuracy of previous studies.

The combined results of this new study showed that just one 12-fl oz. can (355 ml) of diet soda daily leads to:

- 42 percent higher leukemia risk in men and women (pooled analysis)

- 102 percent higher multiple myeloma risk (in men only)

- 31 percent higher non-Hodgkin  lymphoma risk (in men only)

This is a powerful set of results as it leaves little to ponder about when it comes to the long time talked about risks of aspartame on our health. The results were based on multi-variable relative risk models, all in comparison to participants who drank no diet soda. It is important to note that it still remains unknown why only men drinking higher amounts of diet soda showed increased risk for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but the continuation of this study may reveal these results later.

Most of the past studies showing no link between aspartame and cancer have been criticized for being too short in duration and too inaccurate in assessing long-term aspartame intake. This new study solves both of those issues. The study in fact shows a positive link to cancer and it should come as no surprise given that a previous best-in-class research study done on animals (900 rats over their entire natural lifetimes) showed strikingly similar results back in 2006. More worrying is the follow up mega-study, which started aspartame exposure of the rats at the fetal stage. Increased lymphoma and leukemia risks were confirmed, and this time the female rats also showed significantly increased breast (mammary) cancer rates. This raises a critical question: will future, high-quality studies uncover links to the other cancers or diseases in which aspartame has been implicated?

My Own Thoughts

I have been researching aspartame and other health related illnesses for a few years now and have found a lot of different information as it relates to effects of various substances on health. This study stands out from many as it illustrates the importance of conducting research that is of quality and done over time. While we cannot confirm with 100% accuracy that this was the key factor in these ilnesses, we can confirm that it does play a big role. Also, when we look at what exists today as studies that are in favor of Aspartame being safe, we find that there are many weaknesses behind them that would produce poor results in accuracy.

Of course we can always go back to what feels natural and what would make sense when we look at our foods and I think this is something that we don't require  a scientific analysis to observe. Of course this is my opinion but, when we are adding chemicals that are synthetic and created in a lab to our food, it does not reflect naturally occurring elements that we are designed to consume. The human body was not designed to take in these types of substances through nature, which makes perfect sense as to why the majority of chemicals found in foods today have numerous links to serious health affects. This isn’t to say the body can’t handle all synthetics, but instead just shows that we should not be surprised to find out results like this.

If previous research on the subject was not enough, there is now undeniable evidence that suggests we should not be consuming aspartame at all in our diet. Switching over to sugar sweetened soda is also not a good alternative as this study also found that men consuming one or more sugar-sweetened sodas daily saw a 66 percent increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. It has become clear that having no soda at all in our diet is the ideal way to go. This would not only remove the aspartame and sugar risks, but it will also help in keeping your body in a more alkaline state.

Sources:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16507461

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23097267

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418

15 Foods A Nutritionist Refuses To Eat

Eating in the modern world can be difficult, what with all the genetically modified, chemically treated, and inhumanely raised food floating around out there. Sometimes compromising is necessary when it comes to food choices, if only to make the best of the current food crisis.

That said, there are certain foods that my philosophy as a nutritionist will simply not allow me to eat. Here are 15 foods that will never touch my lips:

1. Artificial sweeteners

Our bodies don't recognize these substances as food, and they tend not to aid weight loss in any meaningful way.

Alternatives: stevia, rice malt syrup, maple syrup, dates, raw honey (in small amounts).

2. Caged eggs

These come from egg-laying hens confined to cages, meaning they don't have space to move or stretch, and they show more fearful behavior and become prone to skeletal problems.

Alternative: Go for pasture-fed and certified organic instead.

3. Breakfast cereals

Highly processed, high GI because of the high and hidden sugar content (which causes your blood sugars to drop very quickly after eating them), high in sodium, high in preservatives. Just don't eat them.

4. Farmed salmon


Farmed salmon has a high mercury content and is usually higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides.

Alternatives: Wild salmon.

5. Processed peanut butter

The second ingredient listed is often sugar, which means a large proportion of the peanut butter is sugar!

Alternatives: 100% nut butters found from in health food stores or a health foods section of grocery stores. My favorite is 100% almond butter or ABC (almond, brazil nut and cashew) nut butter.

6. Canned tomatoes

There's tons of hidden salt and sugar! The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Acidity — a prominent characteristic of tomatoes — causes BPA to leach into your food.

Alternative: Use fresh tomatoes and sauté to make them into tomato sauce.

7. Salted nuts

When nuts come pre-salted, the sodium content is sky high.

Alternatives: Raw and activated nuts and seeds.

8. Pre-packaged or frozen meals

Frozen or pre-packaged meals usually contain hidden sugar, high fructose corn syrup, salt and preservatives.

Alternatives: Home-cooked meals or pre-packaged meals from health food stores.

9. Table salt

Table salt is highly refined, which leaves it with little nutritional value. In high amounts it can be responsible for hypertension.


Alternative: Himalayan pink crystal salt

10. Non-organic dairy


Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk.

Alternatives: Organic milk, A2 milk, almond milk, rice milk, coconut milk

11. Vegetable oil

Most commercial vegetable oils are highly processed and high in trans fats. Saturated fats usually get the blame, but TRANS fats are the ones responsible for the increase in LDL — the bad type of cholesterol that may lead to bad heart health.

Alternatives: Coconut oil,

12. Packaged, processed bread

Bread you find packaged in supermarkets is typically refined and processed. These loaves are packed with (processed) wheat and gluten that the human digestive system finds very hard to break down. This kind of bread is also high in sodium, and is sometimes even high in sugar!

Alternatives: Ezeekial bread, rye or spelt, sourdough, make your own.

13. Processed meats

The animals that make these products are given growth hormones, antibiotics and other veterinary drugs, and are raised in deplorable conditions that promote disease. These meats are also filled with sodium nitrite (a commonly used preservative and antimicrobial agent that also adds color and flavor) and other chemical flavorings and dyes.

Alternatives: Grass-fed and organic meat

14. Margarine

Margarine is high in trans fats, the fats formed during the process of hydrogenation, which turns liquid vegetable oils into a solid substance.

Alternatives: Organic butter and coconut butter

15. Unfermented soy products


Unfermented soy products, including tofu and soy milk, can mess with your hormones.

Alternatives: Fermented soy such as tempeh, miso and natto.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com

Source: Rise Earth

14-Year-Old ‘Mummified’ McDonald’s Burger Virtually Unchanged (Video)

We know fast food is loaded with synthetic chemicals and is downright devastating to your health, but a newly discovered ‘mummified’ McDonald’s burger visually represents just how little the Frankenfood burger actually changed over 14 years time.

Purchased by David Whipple way back in 1999 on July 7th, the burger looks (and even smells) virtually the same as the day he bought it. In fact, there is no visible mold development or decay of any kind.

Whereas you would begin smelling a real homemade beef burger within a matter of hours if it were to sit inside a hot closet, the McDonald’s burger went completely unidentified for 14 full years as it did not even put off any kind of smell.

Whipple actually found it by accident when going through his closet assortment. It wasn’t until Whipple and his family were sorting through the old coats to donate to Goodwill that he found the old hamburger and decided to inspect it.

by Anthony Gucciardi

“We looked at it and said, ‘Oh, my gosh…” he told ABC.  “I said, ‘I wonder how long this thing is going to last?””.

McDonald’s: ‘Completely Normal’

But according to McDonald’s, that’s perfectly normal! In fact, their press response states that McDonald’s burgers are just like what you buy at the store, 100% beef that just magically does not decompose because… well, because science, that’s why! According to McDonald’s post on the issue, the company states that certain conditions need to exist in order for food to attract bacteria and mold, or even decompose. The company said: “…what is scientifically known is that in bacteria and mold only grow under certain conditions…In fact, any food purchased from a restaurant or grocery store or prepared at home that lacks moisture would also dehydrate and see similar results if left in the same environment.” An interesting challenge, one that I may perform. Would a homemade burger that has been ‘freshly prepared’ (which they say their burgers are) be the same after 14 hours let alone 14 years? How about whether or not it would begin to stink? McDonald’s says it would have actually dehydrated and maintained its amazing form for 14 years. Well, one thing that’s for sure is that the mummified burger owner David Whipple isn’t complaining. He has been offered thousands of dollars for the burger, but instead insists on keeping it as a relic of sorts. Source: Natural Society

Yet Another Frankenfood Pandora’s Box: the Majority of Supplements are Now Laced with GMOs

Just when you thought it couldn’t become much worse on the GMO front, information has surfaced indicating supplements often contain genetically modified organisms.

Favorites like B-complex, vitamins C, E and D are particularly risky. Paradoxically, it is believed that a majority of acai and resveratrol products harbor GM material as well.

With genetically modified food, toxic pesticides and harmful pathogens are consumed in each and every bite. These contaminants are not simply sprayed externally, they have been engineered right into the plant — and onto your plate. And now ‘healthy’ supplements have been contaminated with genetically modified materials from corn, soy, cottonseed and bio-technical manufacturing practices.

The Dirty Six

Some vitamins are more likely than others to contain GMOs. Through production methods, B and C vitamins as well as beta-carotene (precursor to vitamin A) are high on the list of GMO contaminated supplements. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is often derived from corn while A and B vitamins are manufactured with a bio-technical process using genetically modified microorganisms. Vitamin E is produced from soybeans or cottonseed. Unfortunately, fat soluble vitamins like D and K are commonly attached to carrier molecules made from starch, glucose or maltodextrin — all of which are likely derived from GM sources such as corn and sugar beets.

Hidden GMO Poisons in Acai and Resveratrol

Acai is famously known as a potent Amazonian superfruit, while grape derived resveratrol is a mighty anti-aging and longevity tonic. Both contain vast amounts of powerful antioxidants that encourage vibrant health. Regrettably, it is estimated that 90 percent of these supplements contain genetically modified material due to magnesium stearate content.

Magnesium stearate seems like a fairly innocuous substance — it is used as an anticaking agent and emulsifier in manufacturing. However, upon closer inspection, magnesium stearate is predominantly made from conventional soy, corn or animal fat — three prime sources of genetically modified organisms. If magnesium stearate is present, so are GMOs unless sourced organically.

Do not despair. Several supplement companies have already adopted 100 percent organic ingredients. According to Jeffrey Smith, director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, if a food or supplement is certified organic, it cannot contain GM ingredients. Some are even verified through the Non-GMO Project. For a list of validated brands visit: www.nongmoproject.org.

The battle continues for safe food. Now more than ever, it is crucial to stay vigilant and informed.

Sources for this article include:

www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15261.cfm
www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey.htm
www.nongmoproject.org
www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/food/360.food_supplements.html
www.powersupplements.com/blog/621/gmo-acai-resveratrol/
www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/ingredients/204.vitamins.html
www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/brands/invisible-gm-ingredients.html
www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/ingredients/200.docu.html
www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/e-numbers/203.vitamin_e.html
www.news.bestmeal.info

First Genetically Modified Meat and Salmon To Be Approved For Summer 2013

Scientists at the University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute are encouraging the Government to support the spread of GM salmon as well as support Genetic Engineering in farm animals.

The United States is expected to approve GM salmon within the next week. The US government is in its final stage of deliberations on whether to allow commercial production of the GM meat and fish.

It’s developed by using a growth hormone gene and a gene taken from the ocean pout. The fish is sterile, and would be raised in a series of large scale tanks. If approved, the salmon would be the first of 30 or more potential GM fish currently under development that could hit the market.

Biotech Corporations like AquaBounty seem to garnish the power of persuasion when it comes to dealings with the United States government. Many major “food and health corporations”, like Monsanto, always have major politicians that lobby for them.

Major AquaBounty shareholder, the Intrexon Corporation (1) is owned by a major pharmaceutical company called Clinical Data Inc. After Intrexon purchased Avalon Pharmaceutical Inc, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Clinical Data Corp (2). Maybe our overall human health numbers are declining because the pharmaceutical companies that own our food want to make a profit? There is a multi-trillion dollar incentive there. Maybe it’s not all about money? Maybe something else is going on?

So called experts that are supporting the push for GM salmon and meat use the concepts of world hunger as justification for production. World hunger is not a problem that stems from a shortage of food. We have more than enough resources to make sure everyone on the planet receives what the human body requires. What North America throws away alone could feed the entire planet. The money that’s spent on War could eradicate world hunger. Since world hunger is not due to the shortage of food on our planet, we don’t need to manufacture more, that seems to be a mainstream media myth. We have to be careful what we put in our bodies, GMOs are modified using chemicals and in the end we are choosing to consume DNA altering food.

Not only is there opposition from a large portion of humanity that do not approve of GMOs, supermarkets, consumer organizations, environmental groups and commercial fishermen are voicing their disappointment. Supermarket chains like the Whole Foods Market will not sell genetically modified salmon.

It seems as if the entire food supply has been taken over and put in the hands of a small group of corporations. We continue to step away from real, natural healthy foods in exchange for genetically altered, unnatural food developed by pharmaceutical companies. Conflict of interest, wouldn’t you say?

Sources:

1) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/84d6ffe2-4061-11e2-8e04-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2S4J9FLE3

(2) http://www.dna.com/content.aspx?ContentID=1357

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/24/genetically-modified-salmon-aquabounty-panama-united-states

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2309668/GM-meat-fish-set-sale-Scientists-press-ahead-despite-public-outrage.html

McDonald's Close all Restaurants in Bolivia, Nation Rejects Fast Food

McDonald's happy image and its golden arches aren't the gateway to bliss in Bolivia. This South American country isn't falling for the barrage of advertising and fast food cooking methods that so easily engulf countries like the United States.

Bolivians simply don't trust food prepared in such little time. The quick and easy, mass production method of fast food actually turns Bolivians off altogether.

Sixty percent of Bolivians are an indigenous population who generally don't find it worth their health or money to step foot in a McDonald's.

Despite its economically friendly fast food prices, McDonald's couldn't coax enough of the indigenous population of Bolivia to eat their BigMacs, McNuggets or McRibs.

One indigenous woman, Esther Choque, waiting for a bus to arrive outside a McDonald's restaurant, said, "The closest I ever came was one day when a rain shower fell and I climbed the steps to keep dry by the door. Then they came out and shooed me away. They said I was dirtying the place. Why would I care if McDonald's leaves [Bolivia]?"

Fast food chain remained for a decade, despite losses every year

The eight remaining McDonald's fast food shops that stuck it out in the Bolivian city's of La Paz, Cochabamba, and Santa Cruz de la Sierra, had reportedly operated on losses every year for a decade. The McDonald's franchise had been persistent over that time, flexing its franchise's deep pockets to continue business in Bolivia.

Any small business operating in the red for that long would have folded and left the area in less than half that time. Even as persistent as McDonald's was in gaining influence there, it couldn't continue operating in the red. After 14 years of presence in the country, their extensive network couldn't hold up the Bolivian chain. Store after store shut down as Bolivia rejected the McDonald's fast food agenda. Soon enough, they kissed the last McDonald's goodbye.

Deep cultural rejection

The McDonald's impact and its departure from Bolivia was so lasting and important, that marketing managers immediately filmed a documentary called, "Why McDonalds's went broke in Bolivia."

Featuring, cooks, nutritionist, historians, and educators, this documentary breaks down the disgusting reality of how McDonald's food is prepared and why Bolivians reject the whole fast food philosophy of eating.

The rejection isn't necessarily based on the taste or the type of food McDonald's prepared. The rejection of the fast food system stemmed from Bolivian's mindset of how meals are to be properly prepared. Bolivians more so respect their bodies, valuing the quality of what goes into their stomach. The time it takes for fast food to be prepared throws up a warning flag in their minds. Where other cultures see no risk, eating McDonald's every week; Bolivians feel that it just isn't worth the health risk. Bolivians seek well prepared, local meals, and want to know that their food was prepared the right way.

This self respect helps Bolivians avoid processed "restructured meat technology," often used by fast food joints like McDonald's.

The McRib: 70 ingredients all restructured into one

Did you know that the McRib is processed with 70 different ingredients which include azodicarbonamide, a flour-bleaching agent often used in producing foamed plastics? McRib's are basically "restructured meat technology" containing a mixture of tripe, heart, and scalded stomach. Proteins are extracted from this muscle mixture and they bind the pork trimmings together so they can be molded in a factory. The McRib is really just a molded blob of restructured meat, advertised and sold like fresh ribs. There's nothing real about it, the preparation or the substance. In fact, McRibs really came about because of a chicken shortage. The restructured meat technology approach kept the McRib on the menu, despite the shortage, and the profits continued rolling in.

This is the very disgusting idea that the Bolivians have rejected in their country.

The Bolivian rejection of McDonald's has set a proper example for the rest of the world to follow.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040752_Bolivia_McDonalds_restaurants_fast_food.html#ixzz2YpA6T7xj