Alabama does not have a reputation of being one of the most progressive states in the Union, but they are the first to implement a financial penalty for state workers who refuse to deal with their own obesity. Alabama also hits workers who smoke with extra fees as well. These penalties make a lot of sense, and life insurance companies have been charging smokers higher rates for many years. There is no reason why individuals who have healthy habits should pay the higher costs associated with obesity and smoking.
Encouraging people to stay slim and fit is a very worthy idea, but I hope that they will be steered towards preventative measures such as eating nutritionally-rich foods and exercising, rather than simply seeing a doctor for medications that may do more harm than good. True prevention involves practical lifestyle changes that legitimately lead to wellness and a sense of physical, mental, and emotional wholeness.
Extra pounds mean insurance fees for Ala. workers
By PHILLIP RAWLS, Associated Press Writer
Thu Aug 21, 7:49 PM ET
Alabama, pushed to third in national obesity rankings by deep-fried Southern favorites, is cracking down on state workers who are too fat.
The state has given its 37,527 employees a year to start getting fit -- or they'll pay $25 a month for insurance that otherwise is free.
Alabama will be the first state to charge overweight state workers who don't work on slimming down, while a handful of other states reward employees who adopt healthy behaviors.
Alabama already charges workers who smoke -- and has seen some success in getting them to quit -- but now has turned its attention to a problem that plagues many in the Deep South: obesity.
The State Employees' Insurance Board this week approved a plan to charge state workers starting in January 2010 if they don't have free health screenings.
If the screenings turn up serious problems with blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose or obesity, employees will have a year to see a doctor at no cost, enroll in a wellness program, or take steps on their own to improve their health. If they show progress in a follow-up screening, they won't be charged. But if they don't, they must pay starting in January 2011.
"We are trying to get individuals to become more aware of their health," said state worker Robert Wagstaff, who serves on the insurance board.
Not all state employees see it that way.
"It's terrible," said health department employee Chequla Motley. "Some people come into this world big."
Computer technician Tim Colley already pays $24 a month for being a smoker and doesn't like the idea of another charge.
"It's too Big Brotherish," he said.
The board will apply the obesity charge to anyone with a body mass index of 35 or higher who is not making progress. A person 5 feet 6 inches tall weighing 220 pounds, for example, would have a BMI of 35.5. A BMI of 30 is considered the threshold for obesity.
The board has not yet determined how much progress a person would have to show and is uncertain how many people might be affected because everyone could avoid the charge by working to lose weight.
But that's unlikely -- a nationwide study released one day before the board's vote shows Alabamians have a big weight problem. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Trust for America's Health report found 30.1 percent are now obese.
E-K. Daufin of Montgomery, a college professor and founder of Love Your Body, Love Yourself, which holds body acceptance workshops, said the new policy will be stressful for people like her.
"I'm big and beautiful and doing my best to keep my stress levels down so I can stay healthy," Daufin said. "That's big, not lazy, not a glutton and certainly not deserving of the pompous, poisonous disrespect served up daily to those of us with more bounce to the ounce."
A recent study suggested that about half of overweight people and nearly a third of obese people have normal blood pressure and cholesterol levels, while about a quarter of people considered to be normal weight suffer from the ills associated with obesity.
Walter Lindstrom, founder of the Obesity Law and Advocacy Center in California, said he's concerned that all overweight Alabama employees will get is advice to walk more and broil their chicken.
"The state will feel good about itself for offering something and the person of size will end up paying $300 a year for the bad luck of having a chronic disease his/her state-sponsored insurance program failed to cover in an appropriate and meaningful fashion," he said.
William Ashmore, executive director of the State Employees' Insurance Board, said the state will spend an extra $1.6 million next year on screenings and wellness programs, but should see significant long-term savings.
Ashmore said research shows someone with a body mass index of 35 to 39 generates $1,748 more in annual medical expenses than someone with a BMI less than 25, considered normal.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a few states offer one-time financial incentives for pursuing healthy lifestyles. Ohio workers, for instance, get $50 for having health assessments and another $50 for following through with the advice.
Arkansas and Missouri go a step further, offering monthly discounts on premiums for employees who take health risk assessments and participate in wellness programs to reduce obesity, stress and other health problems.
Alabama's new policy is drawing no objection from the lobbying group representing state workers.
Mac McArthur, executive director of Alabama State Employees Association, said the plan is not designed to punish employees.
"It's a positive," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_bi_ge/obesity_penalty&printer=1;_ylt=An9PbnT9AgyjCw89YWUGJiBv24cA
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Vaccine Propaganda Machine Revs Up Again
I am convinced that the vaccine debacle and all the cover ups, conflicts of interest, and downright lies associated with this issue will be one of the biggest healthcare stories of the century. It kind of sums up the battle between the agenda-driven network of conventional medicine, governmental regulatory agencies, and profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies against free-thinking people who want to actually educate themselves about their healthcare choices and keep the freedoms to choose how they and their families take care of themselves and pursue wellness.
The vaccine issue also is a classic example of the ever-increasing tendency in this country to trample on our Constitutional rights via the illegal and unethical actions of organizations that are given free reign to operate above the law and without accountability. When billions of dollars are at stake, it is amazing what can happen and how quickly freedom can deteriorate even in this great Nation that has been a beacon of hope to so many oppressed people around the world.
Once again on this blog, we turn to the fine work of the National Vaccine Information Center to get a truthful and honest perspective of what is happening in the vaccine arena. As the heat builds against the shameful and hazardous mass implementation of Gardasil on young girls, often against their parents wishes, stories begin to surface regarding a new "measles epidemic" that are full of lies and misrepresentations. As you read the article below, you will see just how ludicrous it is to make the case for such an epidemic based on many factors, one of which is that there have only been 131 cases among a population of 300 million people! This stance by the government may be more about the elimination of groups who dare to defy the pretzel logic of a corrupted regime than simply about healthcare issues. It would be much easier for them to maintain control of the masses and implement their agendas if homeschoolers, religious groups, and other free-thinkers who believe it is the parent's job to raise and protect their children -- NOT government's -- could be controlled and eventually eliminated. Please take the time to read the excellent piece below that shines some much needed light on the whys and wherefores behind the whole concept of mass vaccinations.
Gardasil Meets Measles: A Coincidence?
by Barbara Loe Fisher
vaccineawakening.com
NVIC.org
StandUpBeCounted.org
The bad news about GARDASIL vaccine keeps getting worse and it was only a matter of time before government health officials promoted an "epidemic" to deflect attention from GARDASIL risks and create an excuse to point accusing fingers at parents who decline to give their children one or more of the 16 federally promoted vaccines. They did the same thing in 1985, when publicity about DPT vaccine reactions prompted officials at the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics to allege there were whooping cough epidemics in eight states due to parents rejecting DPT. Then as now, the cases of disease were divided between vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adults, which is hardly big news.
The government's dire warnings came late last week after newspaper articles examined the muscle that Merck used to get GARDASIL fast tracked and licensed, followed by an aggressive multi-media advertising and lobbying campaign targeting teenage girls which has already netted the big pharmaceutical company more than $1.5 billion in sales worldwide. The New England Journal of Medicine published an editorial discussed in the Wall Street Journal asking good questions about the evidence for long term protection and cost effectiveness of mass use of GARDASIL vaccine, questions that NVIC first raised in 2007.
And new concerns are being voiced about whether the vaccine is safe to give to adolescent girls, whose bodies are undergoing hormonal changes, as no studies have been published to evaluate whether there are increased risks for vaccine reactions depending upon when the vaccine is administered during a girl's monthly hormonal cycle.
Last week, a CDC apparently weary of all the bad publicity about GARDASIL got its taxpayer-funded PR machine in gear and issued a media advisory warning that 131 cases of measles have been reported in the U.S. this year and that half of those cases involved unvaccinated children whose parents homeschooled their children or held religious or philosophical beliefs opposing use of one or more vaccines. National news stories and local news coverage examined the measles outbreaks and allegations of growing parental vaccine refusal.
The New York Times published an editorial and repeated unsubstantiated claims made by the CDC about the numbers of children, who were injured and died from measles in the past, stating that there were 400-500 deaths; 48,000 hospitalizations and 1,000 cases of brain injury out of 3-4 million measles cases every year prior to mass use of measles vaccine. A quick look at MMWR historical charts reveals that the highest number of reported cases of measles in the U.S. since 1945 (and before the measles vaccine was licensed in 1963) was 763,094 cases in 1958. Why don't CDC officials publicly release the documented cases of hospitalization, injury and death due to measles in that year - or ANY year - instead of demanding blind faith in their version of the facts? (For decades, parents have been waiting for the CDC to document the widely published allegation that there are "36,000 deaths" due to influenza every year in the U.S., a statistic that is promoted to justify new directives that every baby and child through age 18 get annual flu shots.)
The publicizing of 131 cases of measles out of a population of 300 million people in the U.S. and blaming the "outbreak" on 63 cases that occurred in unvaccinated children, whose parents hold religious or conscientious objections to vaccination or homeschool, is a transparent attempt by federal employees to persecute fellow citizens holding religious beliefs, moral convictions, intellectual positions and wellness lifestyles different from their own. Adopting a strategy that "the best defense is a good offense," CDC officials are whipping up fear of those who do not vaccinate in order to cover up a three decade refusal to scientifically investigate reports of children regressing into autism and other kinds of chronic illness after administration of MMR and other vaccines. They know the truth about vaccine risks is becoming more widely known and are lobbying hard for removal vaccine exemptions they do not control so all Americans will be forced without exception to get every vaccine marketed by industry and mandated by government officials.
The premature licensure and universal use recommendation of GARDASIL is just the latest example of what is wrong with the mass vaccination system. If there is a crisis of confidence in the safety of vaccines, which prompts parents to ask pediatricians more questions and seek alternative health care options for keeping their children well, that crisis of confidence can be laid squarely at the feet of those operating the mass vaccination system for failing to do their job. As Generation Rescue founder J.B. Handley recently commented, "Most parents I know will take measles over autism.
There is a 92 to 100 percent uptake of MMR vaccine and many other federally recommended childhood vaccines among children entering kindergarten in every state. This is one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, especially in such a large population. If the MMR vaccine is so unreliable that a few hundred cases or even a few thousand cases of measles among 300 million people is a cause for panic, then the benefits of MMR vaccine weighed against its risks are far less than industry, government and medical organizations have admitted.
In the 1960's, when the live virus measles vaccine was licensed, parents were told it would give their babies the same lifelong immunity that having the natural disease confers. By the late 1980's, it was clear that was not true because measles was occurring in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Government officials eventually recommended another dose of measles vaccine (usually given as MMR) for all children even though there were outstanding questions about the multiplication of different genetic strains of measles and how this may affect the vaccine's ability to prevent measles on an individual and population basis long term.
Today's young mothers do not have qualitatively superior measles antibodies to transfer to their newborns to protect them in the first year of life as past generations of mothers did because most young mothers giving birth today have been vaccinated and never had measles as children, which confers lifelong immunity. So babies born today are vulnerable to measles from birth instead of from ages 15 months to six years, which is when most children in the past experienced measles by age six and severe complications were rare. For several decades, vaccinologists have been attempting to create a "high titer" EZ measles vaccine that can be given to infants under one year that will override any existing natural maternal antibodies and replace them with vaccine induced antibodies but there have been long-standing questions about EZ measles vaccine safety.
Vaccination does not mimic the natural disease process and offers only temporary immunity, which is why vaccine boosters are frequently given. Every vaccine carries a reaction risk that can be greater for some than others. Measles vaccine, which is part of the combination live virus MMR (measles-mumps- rubella) vaccine can cause brain inflammation and permanent brain damage. There have been more than 46,000 reports of health problems associated with MMR vaccination made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) . However, there is gross underreporting of vaccine- related health problems to VAERS and it is estimated that, for example, fewer than 4 percent of all cases of thrombocytopenia (potentially fatal blood disorder) following MMR vaccination are ever reported to VAERS.
The CDC's one-size-fits-all, no-exceptions MMR vaccine policies allow almost no contraindications to MMR vaccine use. According to the CDC, a child can be sick at the time of vaccination or recovering from an illness; have a fever; be taking antibiotics; have a history of allergies; or have experienced a seizure or regression after a previous MMR shot and still be eligible for more MMR vaccine. This kind of cavalier disregard for minimizing vaccine risks is one reason why more parents are questioning government vaccine policies.
Parents, whether they do or do not vaccinate their children, should become informed and clearly understand the symptoms and complications of every infectious disease, including measles. Parents who choose to vaccinate should have a 99 to 100 percent guarantee that the vaccine will, indeed protect their child. They should have a similar guarantee that the vaccine will not injure or kill their child.
Like all pharmaceutical products, vaccines should be subject to the law of supply and demand. When people are captive and unable to make informed, voluntary decisions about vaccines that have been rushed to market on greased skids by federal health agencies, where every vaccine reaction is unscientifically labeled a "coincidence," the first casualty is freedom and the second is the health of innocent children.
Public health officials and pediatricians should explain why 20 percent of America's highly vaccinated child population suffers with chronic illness and disability rather than blaming parents who refuse to salute smartly and take the risk of watching the child they love become one more victim of vaccine damage.
To report a vaccine reaction to NVIC's Vaccine Reaction Registry, go to http://www.nvic.org/Report/reaction.htm.
To view vaccine reaction reports, go to the Vaccine VictimMemorial at http://vaccinememo rial.org/
Source: NVIC Vaccine E-Newsletter of August 25, 2008
The vaccine issue also is a classic example of the ever-increasing tendency in this country to trample on our Constitutional rights via the illegal and unethical actions of organizations that are given free reign to operate above the law and without accountability. When billions of dollars are at stake, it is amazing what can happen and how quickly freedom can deteriorate even in this great Nation that has been a beacon of hope to so many oppressed people around the world.
Once again on this blog, we turn to the fine work of the National Vaccine Information Center to get a truthful and honest perspective of what is happening in the vaccine arena. As the heat builds against the shameful and hazardous mass implementation of Gardasil on young girls, often against their parents wishes, stories begin to surface regarding a new "measles epidemic" that are full of lies and misrepresentations. As you read the article below, you will see just how ludicrous it is to make the case for such an epidemic based on many factors, one of which is that there have only been 131 cases among a population of 300 million people! This stance by the government may be more about the elimination of groups who dare to defy the pretzel logic of a corrupted regime than simply about healthcare issues. It would be much easier for them to maintain control of the masses and implement their agendas if homeschoolers, religious groups, and other free-thinkers who believe it is the parent's job to raise and protect their children -- NOT government's -- could be controlled and eventually eliminated. Please take the time to read the excellent piece below that shines some much needed light on the whys and wherefores behind the whole concept of mass vaccinations.
Gardasil Meets Measles: A Coincidence?
by Barbara Loe Fisher
vaccineawakening.com
NVIC.org
StandUpBeCounted.org
The bad news about GARDASIL vaccine keeps getting worse and it was only a matter of time before government health officials promoted an "epidemic" to deflect attention from GARDASIL risks and create an excuse to point accusing fingers at parents who decline to give their children one or more of the 16 federally promoted vaccines. They did the same thing in 1985, when publicity about DPT vaccine reactions prompted officials at the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics to allege there were whooping cough epidemics in eight states due to parents rejecting DPT. Then as now, the cases of disease were divided between vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adults, which is hardly big news.
The government's dire warnings came late last week after newspaper articles examined the muscle that Merck used to get GARDASIL fast tracked and licensed, followed by an aggressive multi-media advertising and lobbying campaign targeting teenage girls which has already netted the big pharmaceutical company more than $1.5 billion in sales worldwide. The New England Journal of Medicine published an editorial discussed in the Wall Street Journal asking good questions about the evidence for long term protection and cost effectiveness of mass use of GARDASIL vaccine, questions that NVIC first raised in 2007.
And new concerns are being voiced about whether the vaccine is safe to give to adolescent girls, whose bodies are undergoing hormonal changes, as no studies have been published to evaluate whether there are increased risks for vaccine reactions depending upon when the vaccine is administered during a girl's monthly hormonal cycle.
Last week, a CDC apparently weary of all the bad publicity about GARDASIL got its taxpayer-funded PR machine in gear and issued a media advisory warning that 131 cases of measles have been reported in the U.S. this year and that half of those cases involved unvaccinated children whose parents homeschooled their children or held religious or philosophical beliefs opposing use of one or more vaccines. National news stories and local news coverage examined the measles outbreaks and allegations of growing parental vaccine refusal.
The New York Times published an editorial and repeated unsubstantiated claims made by the CDC about the numbers of children, who were injured and died from measles in the past, stating that there were 400-500 deaths; 48,000 hospitalizations and 1,000 cases of brain injury out of 3-4 million measles cases every year prior to mass use of measles vaccine. A quick look at MMWR historical charts reveals that the highest number of reported cases of measles in the U.S. since 1945 (and before the measles vaccine was licensed in 1963) was 763,094 cases in 1958. Why don't CDC officials publicly release the documented cases of hospitalization, injury and death due to measles in that year - or ANY year - instead of demanding blind faith in their version of the facts? (For decades, parents have been waiting for the CDC to document the widely published allegation that there are "36,000 deaths" due to influenza every year in the U.S., a statistic that is promoted to justify new directives that every baby and child through age 18 get annual flu shots.)
The publicizing of 131 cases of measles out of a population of 300 million people in the U.S. and blaming the "outbreak" on 63 cases that occurred in unvaccinated children, whose parents hold religious or conscientious objections to vaccination or homeschool, is a transparent attempt by federal employees to persecute fellow citizens holding religious beliefs, moral convictions, intellectual positions and wellness lifestyles different from their own. Adopting a strategy that "the best defense is a good offense," CDC officials are whipping up fear of those who do not vaccinate in order to cover up a three decade refusal to scientifically investigate reports of children regressing into autism and other kinds of chronic illness after administration of MMR and other vaccines. They know the truth about vaccine risks is becoming more widely known and are lobbying hard for removal vaccine exemptions they do not control so all Americans will be forced without exception to get every vaccine marketed by industry and mandated by government officials.
The premature licensure and universal use recommendation of GARDASIL is just the latest example of what is wrong with the mass vaccination system. If there is a crisis of confidence in the safety of vaccines, which prompts parents to ask pediatricians more questions and seek alternative health care options for keeping their children well, that crisis of confidence can be laid squarely at the feet of those operating the mass vaccination system for failing to do their job. As Generation Rescue founder J.B. Handley recently commented, "Most parents I know will take measles over autism.
There is a 92 to 100 percent uptake of MMR vaccine and many other federally recommended childhood vaccines among children entering kindergarten in every state. This is one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, especially in such a large population. If the MMR vaccine is so unreliable that a few hundred cases or even a few thousand cases of measles among 300 million people is a cause for panic, then the benefits of MMR vaccine weighed against its risks are far less than industry, government and medical organizations have admitted.
In the 1960's, when the live virus measles vaccine was licensed, parents were told it would give their babies the same lifelong immunity that having the natural disease confers. By the late 1980's, it was clear that was not true because measles was occurring in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Government officials eventually recommended another dose of measles vaccine (usually given as MMR) for all children even though there were outstanding questions about the multiplication of different genetic strains of measles and how this may affect the vaccine's ability to prevent measles on an individual and population basis long term.
Today's young mothers do not have qualitatively superior measles antibodies to transfer to their newborns to protect them in the first year of life as past generations of mothers did because most young mothers giving birth today have been vaccinated and never had measles as children, which confers lifelong immunity. So babies born today are vulnerable to measles from birth instead of from ages 15 months to six years, which is when most children in the past experienced measles by age six and severe complications were rare. For several decades, vaccinologists have been attempting to create a "high titer" EZ measles vaccine that can be given to infants under one year that will override any existing natural maternal antibodies and replace them with vaccine induced antibodies but there have been long-standing questions about EZ measles vaccine safety.
Vaccination does not mimic the natural disease process and offers only temporary immunity, which is why vaccine boosters are frequently given. Every vaccine carries a reaction risk that can be greater for some than others. Measles vaccine, which is part of the combination live virus MMR (measles-mumps- rubella) vaccine can cause brain inflammation and permanent brain damage. There have been more than 46,000 reports of health problems associated with MMR vaccination made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) . However, there is gross underreporting of vaccine- related health problems to VAERS and it is estimated that, for example, fewer than 4 percent of all cases of thrombocytopenia (potentially fatal blood disorder) following MMR vaccination are ever reported to VAERS.
The CDC's one-size-fits-all, no-exceptions MMR vaccine policies allow almost no contraindications to MMR vaccine use. According to the CDC, a child can be sick at the time of vaccination or recovering from an illness; have a fever; be taking antibiotics; have a history of allergies; or have experienced a seizure or regression after a previous MMR shot and still be eligible for more MMR vaccine. This kind of cavalier disregard for minimizing vaccine risks is one reason why more parents are questioning government vaccine policies.
Parents, whether they do or do not vaccinate their children, should become informed and clearly understand the symptoms and complications of every infectious disease, including measles. Parents who choose to vaccinate should have a 99 to 100 percent guarantee that the vaccine will, indeed protect their child. They should have a similar guarantee that the vaccine will not injure or kill their child.
Like all pharmaceutical products, vaccines should be subject to the law of supply and demand. When people are captive and unable to make informed, voluntary decisions about vaccines that have been rushed to market on greased skids by federal health agencies, where every vaccine reaction is unscientifically labeled a "coincidence," the first casualty is freedom and the second is the health of innocent children.
Public health officials and pediatricians should explain why 20 percent of America's highly vaccinated child population suffers with chronic illness and disability rather than blaming parents who refuse to salute smartly and take the risk of watching the child they love become one more victim of vaccine damage.
To report a vaccine reaction to NVIC's Vaccine Reaction Registry, go to http://www.nvic.org/Report/reaction.htm.
To view vaccine reaction reports, go to the Vaccine VictimMemorial at http://vaccinememo rial.org/
Source: NVIC Vaccine E-Newsletter of August 25, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Irradiation of Food Set to Expand
A door that may soon lead to the irradiation of most foods in this country was opened by the FDA last week, and it will likely speed up the agenda for those who wish to see restrictions against this hazardous practice lifted. Using the 2006 E. coli crisis related to spinach as justification, the FDA approved the irradiation of spinach and iceberg lettuce with no labeling to inform consumers whether the produce they buy has been treated this way. The debate over irradiation has been on the table for nine years, and some are pushing for an expanded list of foods that may be legally treated with radiation.
In April of 2007 the FDA suggested allowing the use of the term "pasteurized" to describe irradiated foods as part of its proposed easing of rules on the labeling of irradiated foods.
The safety of irradiated food appears to be the FDA's main "concern." They are claiming that such foods are not "significantly" compromised nutritionally, so this is a non-issue in their book. However, such a statement is absurd. In many independent studies, it has been proven that irradiation destroys the major nutritional components of produce such as vitamins and phytochemicals that are designed to naturally prevent inflammation, heart disease, cancer, and other illnesses. It is very similar to what happens when vegetables are microwaved. Certainly destruction of literally all the nutritional value of a food is not a safe practice, let alone the additional hazards that may accompany the introduction of radiation to foods. Once again, the FDA is pandering to the food industry and other interests who command Big Bucks, and throwing true scientific evidence out the window along with disregarding the safety of the American public.
FDA Allows Irradiation of Some Produce
By Jordan Weissmann
Washington Post Staff WriterFriday, August 22, 2008; D01
Food producers can now use radiation to kill bacteria on fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce because of a new Food and Drug Administration ruling meant to help head off outbreaks of foodborne illness.
This is the first time the agency has allowed produce to be irradiated as a health precaution. Tiny doses of radiation already are used to kill pests on some fruits and vegetables. But the process is most often used on meat -- especially E. coli susceptible ground beef -- and some spices. The food is exposed to just enough radiation to kill off most, though not necessarily all, harmful germs. For instance, the process won't rid the produce of foodborne viruses.
"The ruling is basically giving processors, giving those who deal with providing fresh or minimally processed spinach or lettuce to consumers, an additional tool, another technology to reduce the level of microorganisms that are of concern," said Laura Tarantino, director of the FDA's Office of Food Additive Safety.
The decision, effective today, comes nine years after a coalition composed mostly of food industry groups first petitioned the FDA to expand the number of products that could be irradiated. The original petition had sought to make nearly all foods, from processed grains to seafood, approved for the process.
But in 2006, after an E. coli outbreak traced back to spinach left hundreds ill and three dead, the petitioners went back to the FDA asking the agency to look specifically at iceberg lettuce and spinach.
The FDA is still examining the other foods listed in the original petition.
Bacteria such as E. coli and salmonella can infect produce in a number of ways, including when animal waste makes its way into a farm's water supply, when processing equipment becomes infected or when spread by poor sanitation. Tarantino said that irradiation is not a silver bullet for the problem, and that producers still need sound sanitation practices.
Some health safety organizations questioned the FDA's decision, saying it would give producers a free pass to ignore basic issues.
"Having irradiation of foods provides a disincentive for animal factories and other food production facilities to clean up their act," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety, a non-profit consumer organization that monitors industrial agricultural practices.
The FDA concluded that irradiating spinach and iceberg lettuce had no toxic effects and did not significantly reduce the nutritional value of the vegetables. While some critics, such as Freese, are skeptical whether irradiation is safe for consumers, most believe the process isn't harmful in the products for which it has been approved.
Food industry representatives praised yesterday's move. "It's a good initial first step for products that have been considered high risk," said Robert Brackett, chief science officer at the Grocery Manufacturers Association. "This is meant as a safety net."
Brackett said his organization was pushing the FDA to enforce better farm sanitation practices, but is hoping that it will add other products to the irradiation list, such as radicchio, romaine lettuce and other greens that are often eaten uncooked.
"There are other products down the line that I think could be thought of as well, such as peppers and tomatoes in light of the salmonella," he said. "But they would have to be evaluated in terms of what the irradiation does to the quality and safety of those products as well."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082103547_pf.html
In April of 2007 the FDA suggested allowing the use of the term "pasteurized" to describe irradiated foods as part of its proposed easing of rules on the labeling of irradiated foods.
The safety of irradiated food appears to be the FDA's main "concern." They are claiming that such foods are not "significantly" compromised nutritionally, so this is a non-issue in their book. However, such a statement is absurd. In many independent studies, it has been proven that irradiation destroys the major nutritional components of produce such as vitamins and phytochemicals that are designed to naturally prevent inflammation, heart disease, cancer, and other illnesses. It is very similar to what happens when vegetables are microwaved. Certainly destruction of literally all the nutritional value of a food is not a safe practice, let alone the additional hazards that may accompany the introduction of radiation to foods. Once again, the FDA is pandering to the food industry and other interests who command Big Bucks, and throwing true scientific evidence out the window along with disregarding the safety of the American public.
FDA Allows Irradiation of Some Produce
By Jordan Weissmann
Washington Post Staff WriterFriday, August 22, 2008; D01
Food producers can now use radiation to kill bacteria on fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce because of a new Food and Drug Administration ruling meant to help head off outbreaks of foodborne illness.
This is the first time the agency has allowed produce to be irradiated as a health precaution. Tiny doses of radiation already are used to kill pests on some fruits and vegetables. But the process is most often used on meat -- especially E. coli susceptible ground beef -- and some spices. The food is exposed to just enough radiation to kill off most, though not necessarily all, harmful germs. For instance, the process won't rid the produce of foodborne viruses.
"The ruling is basically giving processors, giving those who deal with providing fresh or minimally processed spinach or lettuce to consumers, an additional tool, another technology to reduce the level of microorganisms that are of concern," said Laura Tarantino, director of the FDA's Office of Food Additive Safety.
The decision, effective today, comes nine years after a coalition composed mostly of food industry groups first petitioned the FDA to expand the number of products that could be irradiated. The original petition had sought to make nearly all foods, from processed grains to seafood, approved for the process.
But in 2006, after an E. coli outbreak traced back to spinach left hundreds ill and three dead, the petitioners went back to the FDA asking the agency to look specifically at iceberg lettuce and spinach.
The FDA is still examining the other foods listed in the original petition.
Bacteria such as E. coli and salmonella can infect produce in a number of ways, including when animal waste makes its way into a farm's water supply, when processing equipment becomes infected or when spread by poor sanitation. Tarantino said that irradiation is not a silver bullet for the problem, and that producers still need sound sanitation practices.
Some health safety organizations questioned the FDA's decision, saying it would give producers a free pass to ignore basic issues.
"Having irradiation of foods provides a disincentive for animal factories and other food production facilities to clean up their act," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety, a non-profit consumer organization that monitors industrial agricultural practices.
The FDA concluded that irradiating spinach and iceberg lettuce had no toxic effects and did not significantly reduce the nutritional value of the vegetables. While some critics, such as Freese, are skeptical whether irradiation is safe for consumers, most believe the process isn't harmful in the products for which it has been approved.
Food industry representatives praised yesterday's move. "It's a good initial first step for products that have been considered high risk," said Robert Brackett, chief science officer at the Grocery Manufacturers Association. "This is meant as a safety net."
Brackett said his organization was pushing the FDA to enforce better farm sanitation practices, but is hoping that it will add other products to the irradiation list, such as radicchio, romaine lettuce and other greens that are often eaten uncooked.
"There are other products down the line that I think could be thought of as well, such as peppers and tomatoes in light of the salmonella," he said. "But they would have to be evaluated in terms of what the irradiation does to the quality and safety of those products as well."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082103547_pf.html
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Will "Home-Doctoring" Soon Be Banned?
The US Government, through the auspices of the FTC and the FDA, is rattling it's sabre again against those who would discuss and share natural and preventative remedies designed to maintain health and wellness. This case is certainly about health care freedom, but an even greater issue is at stake regarding basic constitutional rights. As the author points out, our Constitution allows freedom of choice regarding many issues, including health care, but FTC and FDA appear to feel they can trample on those rights despite the unconstitutionality of such behavior.
I applaud this small ministry for taking a stand against such tyranny. If the health care police continue to have their way, it soon may become illegal for free Americans to treat their own bodies, minds, and spirits with anything other than government-mandated medications and procedures. We could see a time in this country when sharing your homegrown vegetables with a neighbor could be construed as practicing medicine without a license, assuming the act of growing your own food remains legal. It's all about control, and when it comes to governmental control, a loss of freedoms is always part of the package.
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Hands up! Back slowly away from the vitamins!
Feds crack down on reports of natural remedy healings
Posted: August 22, 2008 10:33 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
Copyright 2008 WorldNetDaily
The Goliath-sized Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Food and Drug Administration have launched an attack on a small radio program and its accompanying website for recommending natural remedies to health problems, but in this case, David is fighting back.
Daniel Chapter One, a national Christian radio program and natural healing ministry, told WND today it may end up going to court against the FTC and FDA over the agencies' attempts to censor the information the ministry releases regarding "natural alternatives" to chemical and drug medications.
"If the FTC is successful in silencing Daniel Chapter One, individual consumers seeking to improve their health and the health of American society as a whole will suffer important losses," said Attorney James S. Turner, lead counsel for the organization, which has set up a separate website to track its battle with the federal government over the issue of vitamins, herbs and other natural supplements.
Jim Feijo, who with his wife set up the Rhode Island-based service that operates as a Christian ministry, told WND the dispute arose after officials in the Canadian health service contacted him and ordered him to shut down his operations. After he declined to cooperate, Canadian officials apparently contacted the FTC and FDA to insist on their demands.
But the issue isn't so simple as someone offering to sell illegal drugs; the products the program offers are natural substances and information about the treatments comes from those who experienced different levels of help, not a flam-flam artist.
According to a letter from Turner, his clients turned down the FTC's "offer to settle its claims" by shutting down operations and paying a substantial fine.
"We have stated your strong belief that you have done nothing that you are not entitled to do and that you have complied with any and all just and constitutional laws that govern your conduct," Turner wrote. "We said that because of your strong belief about the propriety of your behavior and that of Daniel Chapter One you are willing, and intend with our assistance, to present your case for a public hearing before the FTC, and if necessary in court.
"Your deeply held convictions raise serious legal questions for the FTC and the courts. First, what is the nature and intent of the law the FTC seeks to enforce and how does the Constitution restrain government power in enforcing that law? The courts are making it increasingly clear that government must clearly identify health claim wrongs and use the least intrusive power to correct them," he continued.
Regarding FDA intrusion into the situation, Turner said, "regulators must prove that the statements are in fact claims, that they are false claims that are impossible to be true for anyone, and that the defendants knew them to be false at the time they made them."
"Should this action move to court, we will raise the issues surrounding your constitutional rights to make a truthful statements supported by the material you have accumulated in your efforts to help people lead better lives," the lawyer wrote.
"We've lived in communist Berlin, Poland, China, and we've never seen anything like this," Feijo told WND. "They're threatening to come in and confiscated our legal products."
The FDA did not return a WND message today requesting comment, and the FTC could not be reached to leave a message.
Feijo, who's been involved with natural remedies and natural foods for decades, said he focuses on traditional folk remedies -- except the federal government wants to ban that phrase -- and he describes the government's goals as "mind-blowing."
"This is an absurd attempt to prevent the sharing of knowledge," he said.
He said if the government is successful in its current maneuver, there would be no limit to the dangers ordinary people could face. Grandmother's cold remedy could be called a medical treatment and regulated and taxed, and anyone administering "treatments" such as water for dehydration could be determined to be practicing medicine, he suggested.
One of the website's top promotions today included a fluoride reduction system that is described as the most "advanced cartridge system in the world" and says it can remove 91 percent of the fluoride in the water.
Interestingly, only a few weeks ago that the National Kidney Foundation has withdrawn its support for the chemical water additive and the American Water Works Association has been notified it must not eliminate or tamper with documents concerning fluoridation of water as they could be needed in potential lawsuits.
Feijo told WND the federal agencies had demanded customer lists and purchase records of all customers. The agencies also had demanded that a letter go to all customers from Daniel Chapter One warning everyone that its products didn't work.
But that doesn't make any sense, Turner insisted. "Some products can be proven safe and effective for everyone, and some can be proven unsafe and/or ineffective for everyone. There are also some claims that can be proven as always true and some that can be proven as always false," he said.
But in the case of the natural remedies, the statements "are either in the area where they are always true or in the gray area [where results of treatment vary by individual.]"
The FTC, however, "mandates that consumers may only receive health information from producers and sellers that the FTC has determined is proven by the 'science' it selects. No historical knowledge, consumer experience, or traditional practice satisfies FTC demands," the protest website said.
Therein lies the dispute.
"By depriving consumer choice and the right to hear sellers' knowledge about health aspects of their products, the one-size-fits-all FTC health information standard deprives consumer access to alternative health approaches. If the FTC had enforced this standard against Daniel Chapter One over the past 30 years, hundreds of people who provide testimony that Daniel Chapter One products improved or even saved their lives may not have survived," the organization said.
"The Constitution allows individuals to make potentially risky choices for themselves. The FTC does not. Instead, the FTC makes highly risky choices for consumers who have no way to object," the organization said. "Daniel Chapter One's goal is to help people honestly and the help of consumers will be crucial to take this historic stand."
Source: WorldNet Daily dated 8.22.08
I applaud this small ministry for taking a stand against such tyranny. If the health care police continue to have their way, it soon may become illegal for free Americans to treat their own bodies, minds, and spirits with anything other than government-mandated medications and procedures. We could see a time in this country when sharing your homegrown vegetables with a neighbor could be construed as practicing medicine without a license, assuming the act of growing your own food remains legal. It's all about control, and when it comes to governmental control, a loss of freedoms is always part of the package.
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Hands up! Back slowly away from the vitamins!
Feds crack down on reports of natural remedy healings
Posted: August 22, 2008 10:33 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
Copyright 2008 WorldNetDaily
The Goliath-sized Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Food and Drug Administration have launched an attack on a small radio program and its accompanying website for recommending natural remedies to health problems, but in this case, David is fighting back.
Daniel Chapter One, a national Christian radio program and natural healing ministry, told WND today it may end up going to court against the FTC and FDA over the agencies' attempts to censor the information the ministry releases regarding "natural alternatives" to chemical and drug medications.
"If the FTC is successful in silencing Daniel Chapter One, individual consumers seeking to improve their health and the health of American society as a whole will suffer important losses," said Attorney James S. Turner, lead counsel for the organization, which has set up a separate website to track its battle with the federal government over the issue of vitamins, herbs and other natural supplements.
Jim Feijo, who with his wife set up the Rhode Island-based service that operates as a Christian ministry, told WND the dispute arose after officials in the Canadian health service contacted him and ordered him to shut down his operations. After he declined to cooperate, Canadian officials apparently contacted the FTC and FDA to insist on their demands.
But the issue isn't so simple as someone offering to sell illegal drugs; the products the program offers are natural substances and information about the treatments comes from those who experienced different levels of help, not a flam-flam artist.
According to a letter from Turner, his clients turned down the FTC's "offer to settle its claims" by shutting down operations and paying a substantial fine.
"We have stated your strong belief that you have done nothing that you are not entitled to do and that you have complied with any and all just and constitutional laws that govern your conduct," Turner wrote. "We said that because of your strong belief about the propriety of your behavior and that of Daniel Chapter One you are willing, and intend with our assistance, to present your case for a public hearing before the FTC, and if necessary in court.
"Your deeply held convictions raise serious legal questions for the FTC and the courts. First, what is the nature and intent of the law the FTC seeks to enforce and how does the Constitution restrain government power in enforcing that law? The courts are making it increasingly clear that government must clearly identify health claim wrongs and use the least intrusive power to correct them," he continued.
Regarding FDA intrusion into the situation, Turner said, "regulators must prove that the statements are in fact claims, that they are false claims that are impossible to be true for anyone, and that the defendants knew them to be false at the time they made them."
"Should this action move to court, we will raise the issues surrounding your constitutional rights to make a truthful statements supported by the material you have accumulated in your efforts to help people lead better lives," the lawyer wrote.
"We've lived in communist Berlin, Poland, China, and we've never seen anything like this," Feijo told WND. "They're threatening to come in and confiscated our legal products."
The FDA did not return a WND message today requesting comment, and the FTC could not be reached to leave a message.
Feijo, who's been involved with natural remedies and natural foods for decades, said he focuses on traditional folk remedies -- except the federal government wants to ban that phrase -- and he describes the government's goals as "mind-blowing."
"This is an absurd attempt to prevent the sharing of knowledge," he said.
He said if the government is successful in its current maneuver, there would be no limit to the dangers ordinary people could face. Grandmother's cold remedy could be called a medical treatment and regulated and taxed, and anyone administering "treatments" such as water for dehydration could be determined to be practicing medicine, he suggested.
One of the website's top promotions today included a fluoride reduction system that is described as the most "advanced cartridge system in the world" and says it can remove 91 percent of the fluoride in the water.
Interestingly, only a few weeks ago that the National Kidney Foundation has withdrawn its support for the chemical water additive and the American Water Works Association has been notified it must not eliminate or tamper with documents concerning fluoridation of water as they could be needed in potential lawsuits.
Feijo told WND the federal agencies had demanded customer lists and purchase records of all customers. The agencies also had demanded that a letter go to all customers from Daniel Chapter One warning everyone that its products didn't work.
But that doesn't make any sense, Turner insisted. "Some products can be proven safe and effective for everyone, and some can be proven unsafe and/or ineffective for everyone. There are also some claims that can be proven as always true and some that can be proven as always false," he said.
But in the case of the natural remedies, the statements "are either in the area where they are always true or in the gray area [where results of treatment vary by individual.]"
The FTC, however, "mandates that consumers may only receive health information from producers and sellers that the FTC has determined is proven by the 'science' it selects. No historical knowledge, consumer experience, or traditional practice satisfies FTC demands," the protest website said.
Therein lies the dispute.
"By depriving consumer choice and the right to hear sellers' knowledge about health aspects of their products, the one-size-fits-all FTC health information standard deprives consumer access to alternative health approaches. If the FTC had enforced this standard against Daniel Chapter One over the past 30 years, hundreds of people who provide testimony that Daniel Chapter One products improved or even saved their lives may not have survived," the organization said.
"The Constitution allows individuals to make potentially risky choices for themselves. The FTC does not. Instead, the FTC makes highly risky choices for consumers who have no way to object," the organization said. "Daniel Chapter One's goal is to help people honestly and the help of consumers will be crucial to take this historic stand."
Source: WorldNet Daily dated 8.22.08
Monday, August 25, 2008
Prevention is the Best Medicine
As government budgets tighten during these trying economic times, ideas that can help save money -- in this case on health care -- are particularly welcome. We in the natural health arena have been touting the benefits of disease prevention for years, but when Uncle Sam and the general public grab hold of the monetary advantages associated with staying healthy instead of treating disease after the fact, perhaps this concept will be taken more seriously.
I'm sure those that make money off illness -- such as the AMA and Big Pharma -- are watching with amusement when such stories surface. As long as people don't begin to take this prevention thing too seriously, none of their profits are at stake. However, what if Americans begin to get healthier and feel better from following a lifestyle of wellness and decide they can do without all the toxic hazards of medications and other conventional medical treatments? We could have a health care revolution on our hands, and I for one say bring it on!
Small Disease Prevention Steps Would Result in Big Gains, Study Says
An Ounce of Prevention Worth More Than a Pound of Cure
By James Arvantes 8/20/2008
The United States could save more than $16 billion a year within the next five years by making small but strategic investments in disease prevention, according to a new study (72-page PDF; About PDFs) released by the Trust for America's Health, or TFAH.
According to the study, an investment of only $10 per person, per year in community-based interventions designed to increase physical activity, improve nutrition and prevent smoking could result in savings of more than $16 billion annually within the next five years. Furthermore, said the study, this savings -- a return of $5.60 on every $1 spent -- does not include gains achieved in worker productivity, reduced absenteeism at work and school, and enhanced quality of life.
Of the $16 billion in savings, Medicare could save more than $5 billion, Medicaid more than $1.9 billion and private payers more than $9 billion, according to "Prevention for a Healthier America: Investments in Disease Prevention Yield Significant Savings, Stronger Communities."
"We are often focused on major change," said Rich Hamburg, director of government relations for TFAH, in an interview with AAFP News Now. "But there is a growing body of evidence showing that even small changes can make a significant difference."
Losing eight to 10 pounds, for example, could prevent many patients from progressing from prediabetes to diabetes, resulting in significant savings to the health care system, said Hamburg. "It doesn't have to be massive weight loss or running 15 miles a week," he noted. "It means doing some small things and removing some barriers that will move us forward."
The report's findings are based on an economic model developed by researchers at the Urban Institute and a review of evidence-based studies conducted by the New York Academy of Medicine. It also relies on strategic low-cost, community-based primary and secondary prevention efforts that are known to either reduce disease rates or improve health choices but that do not involve direct medical care.
Three key factors have a direct bearing on the population's health, according to the study. These are physical activity, nutrition and smoking. Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, one in five do not engage in physical activity, and one in five smoke, notes the report, but these conditions and behaviors can be modified relatively inexpensively.
Various prevention strategies, including enhanced access to affordable nutritious foods, increasing the number of community parks and sidewalks, and raising tobacco taxes to discourage smoking, can target specific communities or at-risk segments of communities, says the report.
These prevention strategies could reduce rates of type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure by 5 percent within five years, while leading to similar reductions in the incidence of heart and kidney disease and stroke within the same amount of time. Prevention strategies also could reduce some forms of cancer, arthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by 2.5 percent within 10 to 20 years, notes the report.
Hamburg stressed that prevention efforts will vary based on the circumstances of individual communities. In some school districts, for example, prevention efforts may entail removing less-than-healthy foods from school vending machines or keeping school gyms open later to allow students to exercise. In another area, prevention may include providing incentives in the food-stamp program to promote the purchase of healthier foods.
One of the keys is to make sure prevention efforts are conducted on a community-wide basis, not in a piece-meal fashion, said Hamburg. In addition, all stakeholders should be involved. "It is difficult to tell someone in a high-crime area to go out and go for a walk," said Hamburg. That's why local police and fire department officials may have to be involved -- to resolve safety issues by making the streets safer, he added.
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/health-of-the-public/20080820-tfah-prev.printerview.html
I'm sure those that make money off illness -- such as the AMA and Big Pharma -- are watching with amusement when such stories surface. As long as people don't begin to take this prevention thing too seriously, none of their profits are at stake. However, what if Americans begin to get healthier and feel better from following a lifestyle of wellness and decide they can do without all the toxic hazards of medications and other conventional medical treatments? We could have a health care revolution on our hands, and I for one say bring it on!
Small Disease Prevention Steps Would Result in Big Gains, Study Says
An Ounce of Prevention Worth More Than a Pound of Cure
By James Arvantes 8/20/2008
The United States could save more than $16 billion a year within the next five years by making small but strategic investments in disease prevention, according to a new study (72-page PDF; About PDFs) released by the Trust for America's Health, or TFAH.
According to the study, an investment of only $10 per person, per year in community-based interventions designed to increase physical activity, improve nutrition and prevent smoking could result in savings of more than $16 billion annually within the next five years. Furthermore, said the study, this savings -- a return of $5.60 on every $1 spent -- does not include gains achieved in worker productivity, reduced absenteeism at work and school, and enhanced quality of life.
Of the $16 billion in savings, Medicare could save more than $5 billion, Medicaid more than $1.9 billion and private payers more than $9 billion, according to "Prevention for a Healthier America: Investments in Disease Prevention Yield Significant Savings, Stronger Communities."
"We are often focused on major change," said Rich Hamburg, director of government relations for TFAH, in an interview with AAFP News Now. "But there is a growing body of evidence showing that even small changes can make a significant difference."
Losing eight to 10 pounds, for example, could prevent many patients from progressing from prediabetes to diabetes, resulting in significant savings to the health care system, said Hamburg. "It doesn't have to be massive weight loss or running 15 miles a week," he noted. "It means doing some small things and removing some barriers that will move us forward."
The report's findings are based on an economic model developed by researchers at the Urban Institute and a review of evidence-based studies conducted by the New York Academy of Medicine. It also relies on strategic low-cost, community-based primary and secondary prevention efforts that are known to either reduce disease rates or improve health choices but that do not involve direct medical care.
Three key factors have a direct bearing on the population's health, according to the study. These are physical activity, nutrition and smoking. Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, one in five do not engage in physical activity, and one in five smoke, notes the report, but these conditions and behaviors can be modified relatively inexpensively.
Various prevention strategies, including enhanced access to affordable nutritious foods, increasing the number of community parks and sidewalks, and raising tobacco taxes to discourage smoking, can target specific communities or at-risk segments of communities, says the report.
These prevention strategies could reduce rates of type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure by 5 percent within five years, while leading to similar reductions in the incidence of heart and kidney disease and stroke within the same amount of time. Prevention strategies also could reduce some forms of cancer, arthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by 2.5 percent within 10 to 20 years, notes the report.
Hamburg stressed that prevention efforts will vary based on the circumstances of individual communities. In some school districts, for example, prevention efforts may entail removing less-than-healthy foods from school vending machines or keeping school gyms open later to allow students to exercise. In another area, prevention may include providing incentives in the food-stamp program to promote the purchase of healthier foods.
One of the keys is to make sure prevention efforts are conducted on a community-wide basis, not in a piece-meal fashion, said Hamburg. In addition, all stakeholders should be involved. "It is difficult to tell someone in a high-crime area to go out and go for a walk," said Hamburg. That's why local police and fire department officials may have to be involved -- to resolve safety issues by making the streets safer, he added.
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/health-of-the-public/20080820-tfah-prev.printerview.html
Friday, August 22, 2008
Olympian Endorses Sugary Breakfast Cereal
Most Americans, unless they've been vacationing on the moon, are aware of the record eight gold medals won by Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps. It was announced this week that he has signed on to endorse one of the largest selling sugar-laden cereals on the market, Kellogs' Frosted Flakes. In light of the recent obesity and diabetes epidemics that are trashing the health of American children and adults, I can't think of a worse ethical move on the part of an athlete and role model. It was also noted that a business arrangement with McDonald's is in the works for Mr. Phelps whereby he will act as an ambassador for the fast-food giant while in Beijing, helping to introduce Chinese children to the wonderful world of burgers and fries.
Perhaps Phelps does not see his endorsements as a sell-out because he himself is known for being a junk food junkie. However, you would think that as strict as the Olympic Committee can be in certain areas, they might set some rules restricting what products Olympians can be paid millions to push. What's next? Athletes touting tobacco products or alcoholic beverages? Or maybe Michael's agent will cut a deal with a pharmaceutical company for a new drug that allows one to eat anything they want and still perform like a world-class athlete.
But alas, it's not all bad news. The real hero in this year's Olympics is 41 year-old Dana Torres, also a swimmer, who won a very impressive two silver medals. She is known for her healthy habits, including the consumption of super foods and other natural forms of energy and nutrition. I would like to see Phelps accomplish that at her age, especially if he continues to eat the junk that he is endorsing.
Breakfast of a champion? Frosted Flakes! Phelps signs with cereal
BY RICH SCHAPIRO DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Updated Wednesday, August 20th 2008, 1:23 PM
After winning a record eight Olympic gold medals in Beijing, American swimming superstar Michael Phelps signs on with sugar-loaded cereal.
You better eat your . . . Frosted Flakes?
Olympic legend Michael Phelps will appear on boxes of the Kellogg's brand sugar cereal, drawing sharp criticism from health experts worried about the message he'll be sending to children across America.
"I would not consider Frosted Flakes the food of an Olympian," said nutritionist Rebecca Solomon of Mount Sinai Medical Center.
"I would rather see him promoting Fiber One. I would rather see him promoting oatmeal. I would even rather see him promoting Cheerios."
The announcement yesterday that Phelps, 23, winner of a record eight gold medals at the Beijing Olympics, would grace Frosted Flakes and Corn Flakes boxes instead of the traditional athlete's choice of Wheaties left many perplexed.
Frosted Flakes has three times the amount of sugar as Wheaties and 1/3rd the fiber.This doesn't matter much to a virtuoso swimmer who consumes 12,000 calories a day.
Still, in a country where childhood obesity is an alarming issue, Phelps' iconic image sharing space with Tony the Tiger sends the wrong message, experts say.
"For a guy like Michael Phelps who isn't worried about obesity because he's burning thousands of calories as an athlete...eating Corn Flakes and Frosted Flakes every so often is not an issue," Solomon said.
The Phelps-emblazoned cereal boxes hit supermarket shelves in mid-September.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/2008olympics/2008/08/19/2008-08-19_breakfast_of_a_champion_frosted_flakes_p.html
Perhaps Phelps does not see his endorsements as a sell-out because he himself is known for being a junk food junkie. However, you would think that as strict as the Olympic Committee can be in certain areas, they might set some rules restricting what products Olympians can be paid millions to push. What's next? Athletes touting tobacco products or alcoholic beverages? Or maybe Michael's agent will cut a deal with a pharmaceutical company for a new drug that allows one to eat anything they want and still perform like a world-class athlete.
But alas, it's not all bad news. The real hero in this year's Olympics is 41 year-old Dana Torres, also a swimmer, who won a very impressive two silver medals. She is known for her healthy habits, including the consumption of super foods and other natural forms of energy and nutrition. I would like to see Phelps accomplish that at her age, especially if he continues to eat the junk that he is endorsing.
Breakfast of a champion? Frosted Flakes! Phelps signs with cereal
BY RICH SCHAPIRO DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Updated Wednesday, August 20th 2008, 1:23 PM
After winning a record eight Olympic gold medals in Beijing, American swimming superstar Michael Phelps signs on with sugar-loaded cereal.
You better eat your . . . Frosted Flakes?
Olympic legend Michael Phelps will appear on boxes of the Kellogg's brand sugar cereal, drawing sharp criticism from health experts worried about the message he'll be sending to children across America.
"I would not consider Frosted Flakes the food of an Olympian," said nutritionist Rebecca Solomon of Mount Sinai Medical Center.
"I would rather see him promoting Fiber One. I would rather see him promoting oatmeal. I would even rather see him promoting Cheerios."
The announcement yesterday that Phelps, 23, winner of a record eight gold medals at the Beijing Olympics, would grace Frosted Flakes and Corn Flakes boxes instead of the traditional athlete's choice of Wheaties left many perplexed.
Frosted Flakes has three times the amount of sugar as Wheaties and 1/3rd the fiber.This doesn't matter much to a virtuoso swimmer who consumes 12,000 calories a day.
Still, in a country where childhood obesity is an alarming issue, Phelps' iconic image sharing space with Tony the Tiger sends the wrong message, experts say.
"For a guy like Michael Phelps who isn't worried about obesity because he's burning thousands of calories as an athlete...eating Corn Flakes and Frosted Flakes every so often is not an issue," Solomon said.
The Phelps-emblazoned cereal boxes hit supermarket shelves in mid-September.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/2008olympics/2008/08/19/2008-08-19_breakfast_of_a_champion_frosted_flakes_p.html
Thursday, August 21, 2008
More Good News About Exercise
Alongside diet, physical activity is one of the key lifestyle factors that can help to prevent and heal disease naturally. The benefits of exercise are numerous, rendering many physical, mental, and emotional advantages. The article posted today focuses on how being active can help our moods and improve our mental faculties as well.
Research studies such as these reveal the science behind what generations past instinctively knew was good for our minds and bodies. When grandma was going through a stressful situation and she washed down all the walls in the house, she may not have understood the reasons behind it, but she knew it helped her manage through tough times. How different from our modern society that has typically bought into the lie that anytime we feel anxious or depressed we should reach for a pill. We have been sold a bill of goods by Big Pharma and their advertising partners that should supposedly help us but has tragically taken us away from wellness and towards dependence upon toxic medications that only worsen our health. Spread the word! Let's get back to the basics of a wholesome, natural diet and plenty of exercise to keep us mentally and physically fit.
Do You Want Happiness, Improved Intelligence and Better Memory?
by Lynn Berry
(NaturalNews) We've all heard about the benefits of exercise for our hearts and to reduce cholesterol, but what about for happiness, improving intelligence and memory as well as for alleviating addiction, stress and aggression.
These are the findings from Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and The Brain, a book published this year by John Ratey, associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Ratey believes that exercise is like medicine and helps depression as well. This is supported by other studies. Depression scores were measured in a German survey where for 10 days people were asked to walk quickly on a treadmill for 30 minutes. Researchers concluded at the end of the survey that exercise significantly reduces depression.
Scientists at Yale University found that regular exercise stimulates the hippocampus which is an area of the brain responsible for mood. Their study of mice showed that exercise activated a gene in the hippocampus called VGF. VGF is linked to a chemical involved in new nerve cell development.
The findings have lead to scientists developing a drug that mimics VGF gene workings in the brain. If so, this would replace conventional antidepressants.
According to Ratey, exercise doesn't make you more intelligent, rather it stimulates the brain making for improved learning capacity thereby optimizing performance. Exercise increases blood flow to the part of the brain which is responsible for memory and learning. The stimulation improves brain functioning in learning situations.
Some schools around the world have taken note and have instituted exercise as part of the school day with teachers at Naperville Central High near Chicago reporting improved exam results.
Other studies have correlated physical activity with improved cognitive processing with the best results amongst people who were the most active. A study in Germany found a relation between the amount of activity in rats during pregnancy and the amount of cells in the hippocampus of baby rats. The more activity, the more cells. We'll have to wait to find out if this applies to humans as well.
Increased blood flow to the brain also improves memory function. From studies with mice at the Columbia University Medical Centre (NY), new brain cells grew in the dentate gyrus area, an area which is affected in old age. With new cell growth due to exercise, memory would improve.
The findings about exercise reducing aggression are not new -- we know that exercise is a good way to let off steam by burning energy. However Ratey says that the reason aggression is reduced is due to changes in the brain due to exercise which removes the feeling of aggression.
Scientists in Britain found that just five minutes of brisk walking can alleviate withdrawal symptoms caused from giving up smoking. They believe that exercise stimulates how much dopamine (a mood enhancing hormone) is produced which reduces the desire for nicotine.
Ratey believes that a brisk 30 minute walk four to five times a week is the minimum to achieve the benefits. He also recommends interval training where you speed it up by sprinting for around 30 seconds then walking for two minutes.
Information for this article was taken from The Sydney Morning Herald June 7-8 2008 Can jogging make you smarter? by Simon Usborne republished from The Independent.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z023884.html
Research studies such as these reveal the science behind what generations past instinctively knew was good for our minds and bodies. When grandma was going through a stressful situation and she washed down all the walls in the house, she may not have understood the reasons behind it, but she knew it helped her manage through tough times. How different from our modern society that has typically bought into the lie that anytime we feel anxious or depressed we should reach for a pill. We have been sold a bill of goods by Big Pharma and their advertising partners that should supposedly help us but has tragically taken us away from wellness and towards dependence upon toxic medications that only worsen our health. Spread the word! Let's get back to the basics of a wholesome, natural diet and plenty of exercise to keep us mentally and physically fit.
Do You Want Happiness, Improved Intelligence and Better Memory?
by Lynn Berry
(NaturalNews) We've all heard about the benefits of exercise for our hearts and to reduce cholesterol, but what about for happiness, improving intelligence and memory as well as for alleviating addiction, stress and aggression.
These are the findings from Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and The Brain, a book published this year by John Ratey, associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Ratey believes that exercise is like medicine and helps depression as well. This is supported by other studies. Depression scores were measured in a German survey where for 10 days people were asked to walk quickly on a treadmill for 30 minutes. Researchers concluded at the end of the survey that exercise significantly reduces depression.
Scientists at Yale University found that regular exercise stimulates the hippocampus which is an area of the brain responsible for mood. Their study of mice showed that exercise activated a gene in the hippocampus called VGF. VGF is linked to a chemical involved in new nerve cell development.
The findings have lead to scientists developing a drug that mimics VGF gene workings in the brain. If so, this would replace conventional antidepressants.
According to Ratey, exercise doesn't make you more intelligent, rather it stimulates the brain making for improved learning capacity thereby optimizing performance. Exercise increases blood flow to the part of the brain which is responsible for memory and learning. The stimulation improves brain functioning in learning situations.
Some schools around the world have taken note and have instituted exercise as part of the school day with teachers at Naperville Central High near Chicago reporting improved exam results.
Other studies have correlated physical activity with improved cognitive processing with the best results amongst people who were the most active. A study in Germany found a relation between the amount of activity in rats during pregnancy and the amount of cells in the hippocampus of baby rats. The more activity, the more cells. We'll have to wait to find out if this applies to humans as well.
Increased blood flow to the brain also improves memory function. From studies with mice at the Columbia University Medical Centre (NY), new brain cells grew in the dentate gyrus area, an area which is affected in old age. With new cell growth due to exercise, memory would improve.
The findings about exercise reducing aggression are not new -- we know that exercise is a good way to let off steam by burning energy. However Ratey says that the reason aggression is reduced is due to changes in the brain due to exercise which removes the feeling of aggression.
Scientists in Britain found that just five minutes of brisk walking can alleviate withdrawal symptoms caused from giving up smoking. They believe that exercise stimulates how much dopamine (a mood enhancing hormone) is produced which reduces the desire for nicotine.
Ratey believes that a brisk 30 minute walk four to five times a week is the minimum to achieve the benefits. He also recommends interval training where you speed it up by sprinting for around 30 seconds then walking for two minutes.
Information for this article was taken from The Sydney Morning Herald June 7-8 2008 Can jogging make you smarter? by Simon Usborne republished from The Independent.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z023884.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
