Aloe Vera Health Benefits

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Dissent Silenced in Nutrition Debate

What are the supporters of the government’s “US Dietary Guidelines for Americans” afraid of?

Last week, investigative journalist and author Nina Teicholz was disinvited from participating in a panel discussion at the Consumer Federation of America’s National Food Policy Conference. Other panelists reportedly said that they would not participate with her, and got the organizers of the conference to rescind Teicholz’s invitation.

Why did this happen? A few background details are necessary to explain why this episode typifies how Big Food works in sneaky ways to silence dissent from the established orthodoxy.

In 2014, Teicholz published a book, The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat, and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet, which received widespread acclaim. It outlined the now-well-documented myths of low-fat diets and described the science behind the benefits of saturated fats—facts that go against the grain of the mainstream, which continues to stand behind directives to decrease fat consumption.

Then, in 2015, Teicholz published an article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that was critical of the outdated science the US government is using to establish the nation’s healthy dietary guidelines. Issued once every five years, the guidelines (published by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, or DGAC) have a big influence on diet in the US, determining nutrition education, food labeling, government research priorities at the National Institutes of Health, and public feeding programs. Teicholz criticized the report for not relying on the most current science when it came to saturated fat (“The omissions seem to suggest a reluctance by the committee behind the report to consider any evidence that contradicts the last 35 years of nutritional advice”)—a criticism echoed by us in Pulse coverage of the guidelines.

In response, the Center for Science in the Public Interest—a nonprofit which similarly ignores decades of science and inexplicably adheres to the outmoded low-fat paradigm—issued a letter calling for the BMJ to retract the article due to eleven alleged factual errors (Teicholz responds to the alleged errors here). Importantly, CSPI’s letter was signed by about 180 “experts”—including many whose work had been examined by Teicholz in a critical light, as well as over a dozen DGAC members. Those calling for a retraction, in short, have an axe to grind with Teicholz. The BMJ began an investigation into the article, and so far no retraction has been announced.

With this context, the identities of two of the panelists who refused to participate if Teicholz speaks at the conference should come as little surprise: the director of nutrition policy at CSPI, and the former chairwoman of the 2015 DGAC! Teicholz’s seat on the panel will be taken instead by the CEO of the Alliance for Potato Research and Education.

It’s unfortunate that the panelists think so little of audience members’ critical faculties that they feel the need to silence views that deviate from their own. If CSPI and DGAC are so convinced of the science backing their claims, why not open them up to healthy debate, and let conference members decide for themselves which arguments hold more water?

This is an example of the softer, subtler ways in which orthodoxies are maintained—controlling the marketplace of ideas and, whenever possible, denying dissenters a seat at the table. This occurs in addition to the more direct methods, such as those pursued by the Big-Food-supported Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) to pass state laws which create monopolies for Registered Dieticians and exclude other qualified professionals from giving nutrition advice.

Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:

Soda Blocks Brain Repair

Will Organic Cattle Be Pumped Full of GMO Vaccines?

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1SNxY5I via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1YdFRCJ

Action Alert: Sugar Slows Brain Recovery

Related article: Soda Blocks Brain Repair

Trouble Taking Action? Click here.

.errordiv { padding:10px; margin:10px; border: 1px solid #555555;color: #000000;background-color: #f8f8f8; text-align:center; width:500px; }
var ai_iframe_width_iframe2895 = 0; var ai_iframe_height_iframe2895 = 0;var aiIsIe8=false;var aiReadyCallbacks = ( typeof aiReadyCallbacks != ‘undefined’ && aiReadyCallbacks instanceof Array ) ? aiReadyCallbacks : [];var onloadFirediframe2895 = false; function aiShowIframe() { jQuery(“#iframe2895”).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiShowIframeId(id_iframe) { jQuery(id_iframe).css(“visibility”, “visible”);} function aiResizeIframeHeight(height) { aiResizeIframeHeight(height,iframe2895); } function aiResizeIframeHeightId(height,width,id) {aiResizeIframeHeightById(id,height);} http://ift.tt/1SNxY5Cvar ifrm_iframe2895 = document.getElementById(“iframe2895”);
var hiddenTabsDoneiframe2895 = false;
function resizeCallbackiframe2895() {}

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1UGiljN via Aloe for Health

from http://ift.tt/1YdFQyG

Soda Blocks Brain Repair

Please don’t give your child sugar after a brain injury. This definitely includes the fructose in a soda. Action Alert!

New evidence shows that processed sugars prevent the brain’s ability to heal after head trauma. As Dr. Russell Blaylock reported in his December 2015 Blaylock Wellness Report, laboratory rats were trained for five days to escape a maze. Next, the rats were randomly assigned to groups that were fed either plain water or fructose-infused water for six weeks. In the seventh week, the rats underwent a procedure to reproduce the aspects of a human traumatic brain injury. After another six weeks, the rats were retested on their ability to escape the maze.

The rats on the sugar diet took 30% longer to finish the maze than those who drank plain water.

The sugar diet had other negative effects on the brain as well. The researchers found that sugar impaired with the ability of neurons to communicate with each other, rewire connections after injury, record memories, and produce enough energy for the body to perform basic functions.

One of the scientists summed up the main takeaway from the study: “Reduce fructose in your diet if you want to protect your brain.” The implication is to reduce fructose intake even if you are not brain injured—but especially if you are.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 1.6 to 3.8 million sports-and-recreation-related concussions occur in the US each year, not to mention all the soldiers with brain injuries returning home from fighting overseas. About 5 million Americans live with ongoing disability from a traumatic brain injury.

In connecting the dots here, keep in mind that the average American consumes about twenty-seven pounds of high-fructose corn syrup each year. Yet no one is even warning parents to eliminate sodas and other high-fructose drinks and foods when their children are injured.

Action Alert! Write to the FDA and tell them to issue a warning to doctors and parents about this new research. Explain how fructose keeps the brain from repairing itself, especially in patients who have brain injuries. Please send your message immediately!

Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:

Will Organic Cattle Be Pumped Full of GMO Vaccines?

Dissent Silenced in Nutrition Debate

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1SNxY5y via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1RCpq2r

Will Organic Cattle Be Pumped Full of GMO Vaccines?

We must act to maintain the integrity of organic standards! Action Alert!

The semiannual meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) will take place April 25–27 in Washington, DC. Because the NOSB makes decisions that, in large part, determine the future of organic foods (it’s the advisory board for the National Organic Program, or NOP), ANH-USA has been engaged with the board for some time.

After reviewing the agenda, we noted two items of concern.

GMO Vaccines

As we reported last fall, the issue of removing GMO vaccines from organic production has been stalled for years. The stated rationale for NOSB’s inaction is the difficulty in distinguishing GMO from non-GMO vaccines, given the rapid pace of technological advancement.

In its Spring 2016 meeting materials, the NOSB seems to be moving forward in establishing a more comprehensive definition of genetic modification. That’s a start—but still a far cry from removing GMO vaccines from organic production.

The problem is that, even if an updated definition of “genetically modified” captures the various techniques used to create GMO vaccines, there is still likely to be great confusion among certifiers and producers as to which specific vaccines on the market were made using “excluded methods.” To address this issue, in 2012 the NOSB asked the NOP to help identify vaccines registered with the USDA as either “GMO” or “non-GMO.” The USDA stonewalled, saying that creating such a list would imply that there is something wrong with GMO vaccines. (Well, there is!) USDA also complained that inaccuracies in the list could create liability issues.

This issue has been dragging on far too long. It is past time for the NOSB and the NOP to work collaboratively to ensure that vaccines created with “excluded methods” such as genetic modification are not allowed in organic production. That it is “difficult” to do so is no excuse.

Toxic “Inert” Pesticide Ingredients

One of the primary functions of the NOSB is to create lists of materials and substances that are allowed or not allowed in organic production. One issue over the last few years has been exemptions for “inerts”—synthetic chemicals in pesticides that are considered to be “inactive,” even though, as we recently pointed out, many so-called inerts are actually very active and very toxic. As some pesticides are comprised almost entirely of inerts, it is especially important for these chemicals to be reviewed by NOSB in a timely manner and disallowed in organic production.

Despite this urgent need, the NOSB has been dragging its feet for years when it comes to reviewing and ruling on the lists of supposedly inert chemicals—some of which are known endocrine disruptors. Following a change in how the EPA classifies inerts, the NOSB recommended the creation of a task force at its April 2010 meeting to work with the EPA to reevaluate and update its own list of inerts. Then, at its October 2010 meeting, the NOSB renewed its exemptions for inerts that were considered to pose minimal risk (EPA’s “List 4” inerts) until October 2017. In May 2012, NOSB recommended the same expiration date for inerts with an “unknown toxicity” level (EPA’s “List 3” inerts).

It used to be that any exemptions from organic standards were set to expire, or “sunset,” on a specific date—unless they were reinstated by a “decisive” two-thirds majority vote of the NOSB. Now, however, it’s just the reverse: a synthetic material can be permitted to remain in an organic food indefinitely unless a two-thirds majority votes to remove it from the exempted list—and that’s a big problem. If the NOSB does not vote to allow inerts to be removed, they could stay in organic production indefinitely.

One specific group of chemicals NOSB is reviewing are nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs). These may cause hormone disruption among other negative health effects. The NOSB should move swiftly and decisively to remove NPEs from organic production.

Consumers often pay a high premium to purchase organic products to promote health and avoid the toxic pesticides and other contaminants that have come to characterize our industrial agricultural system. These consumers deserve an organic label that delivers on these promises and prevents companies from taking shortcuts, not one that is mired in crony capitalist deals.

ANH-USA will be attending the meeting to deliver comments from our members. Click below to add your comment, and we will deliver them in person at the meeting.

Action Alert! Send a message to the NOSB and the USDA, urging them to take concrete steps toward removing GMO vaccines and dangerous “inerts” from organic production, where they do not belong. Please send your message immediately.

Other articles in this week’s Pulse of Natural Health:

Soda Blocks Brain Repair

Dissent Silenced in Nutrition Debate

from The Alliance for Natural Health http://ift.tt/1UGijsd via Aloe for Health
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1N6UthA

Dissent Silenced in Nutrition Debate

What are the supporters of the government’s “US Dietary Guidelines for Americans” afraid of?

Why did this happen? A few background details are necessary to explain why this episode typifies how Big Food works in sneaky ways to silence dissent from the established orthodoxy.