MUST READ: This vegetable defeats cancer at the genetic level

Whoever concocted the phrase “You are what you eat” was more accurate about our bodies than he ever knew.

According to researchers, not only do the natural substances in certain plants help keep us safer from problems like cancer and heart disease, in some cases they can intervene in the genetic workings of our cells.

As a matter of fact, detailed studies now demonstrate that the genetic material from plants alters how our genes express themselves and influences the production of proteins in ways that can shrink the risk of cancer. This alteration of genetic expression by outside influences is called “epigenetics.” It’s become a big thing in cancer research.

One epigenetic champion turns out to be broccoli. . .

9 November 2016

Newsletter #655
Lee Euler, Editor

From broccoli’s genes to yours

For a while now, researchers have been arguing over the likelihood that genetic material from vegetables like broccoli survive their trip down the digestive tract and enter the body more or less intact and ready to help our genes function.

Until recently the argument for and against this possibility seemed pretty evenly pitched. Evidence goes both ways – with some studies apparently showing the genetic material broken apart by digestion and others finding evidence of this material intact in the bloodstream.

But now the most advanced analyses clearly indicate that after you eat vegetables like broccoli, your blood becomes home to alien genetic material – from the vegetables. And this material – known as microRNA or miRNA – can take part in cellular processes to fight cancer.

Help your genes express themselves better

RNA (ribonucleic acid) is primarily a messenger molecule that cells use to transfer instructions from DNA to other parts of the cell. The instructions are for making proteins that take part in cellular processes. MicroRNAs are small RNA molecules that affect the function of other RNAs in the cell.¹

Researchers believe the malfunction of RNA often plays a role in the development of cancer. Consequently, if microRNAs from broccoli or other vegetables can “silence” misbehaving RNA or alter gene expression in other ways, they could lower the risk of cancer.

Now, lab tests in China show that this can be happening after you eat broccoli.²

To further investigate this interaction, researchers at the University of Toronto and other Canadian institutions went beyond the lab and analyzed, in tests on people, what happens to microRNAs from broccoli that could potentially interact with 11 different genetic sites that are involved with the development of lung cancer.

They compared blood samples from people who regularly eat broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables (like cabbage and Brussels’s sprouts) with blood from folks who rarely eat these vegetables. Their analysis confirmed that vegetable microDNA was circulating in the blood of the vegetable consumers.³

While they were at it, they also tested cooking methods to see what best preserved the microRNA in broccoli and could lead to the best health results. What they found confirms what other experts have said is the best way to prepare vegetables: Cook them briefly or eat them raw. In contrast, “long exposure to hot water, steaming and blending degrade microRNAs’ integrity, reducing the potential benefits.”⁴

Then, in lab tests, the Canadians also showed that the microRNAs from eating broccoli, once in a person’s blood, can enter cells and stop processes that might otherwise lead to cancer.

In general, what they found is that a combination of both the microRNAs from broccoli and other chemicals in the vegetable called isothiocyanates (which includes sulforaphane and diindolylmethane or DIM) seem to be necessary to help coax genetic functions away from cancerous activities.

While the Canadian researchers don’t consider their research to be absolutely conclusive, they do point out that their results show the more broccoli you eat, the more of these microRNAs you probably have circulating in your body – although at some point, if you eat this vegetable every day, the amount your body takes up plateaus and stops increasing.⁵

Keeping genes under control

However, it isn’t only this genetic material from broccoli that can keep cells and their genes under control and less likely to succumb to cancer. Various studies show that the isothiocyanates in broccoli – even without the microRNA – also can cause epigenetic effects that tame rogue genes – deactivating them and keeping them from being expressed.

Sulforaphane is probably the most investigated isothiocyanate. It’s even extracted and sold as a supplement. Research at the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University demonstrates that sulforaphane can restrict the activity of a group of enzymes that can obstruct the functions of genes that are supposed to stop the development of tumors.⁶

Aside from inhibiting these troublesome enzymes, sulforaphane can play another epigenetic role by speeding up what’s called DNA methylation (a process that changes the molecular structure of DNA and alters its function).

“It appears that DNA methylation and HDAC [enzyme] inhibition, both of which can be influenced by sulforaphane, work in concert with each other to maintain proper cell function,” says researcher Emily Ho, Ph.D.. “They sort of work as partners and talk to each other.”

According to Dr. Ho, this kind of molecular tag team wrestling involving these processes improves cell functions and keeps cellular division under tight control, preventing the wild kind of reproduction that takes place during cancer.

“Cancer is very complex and it’s usually not just one thing that has gone wrong,” Dr. Ho points out. “It’s increasingly clear that sulforaphane is a real multi-tasker. The more we find out about it, the more benefits it appears to have.”

She further explains that DNA methylation is a normal process that switches off genes, and is part of the process that limits which DNA material gets communicated in each cell. Harmful alterations in methylation can increase the risk of cancer.

“With these processes, the key is balance,” Dr. Ho says. “DNA methylation is a natural process, and when properly controlled is helpful. But when the balance gets mixed up it can cause havoc, and that’s where some of these critical nutrients are involved. They help restore the balance.”

Good news ahead

The really good news about these discoveries is that there is probably much more ahead. Broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables contain a wealth of other chemicals classified as isothiocyanates. These other isothiocyanates have already been shown to help make radiation more effective against tumors,⁷ slow the growth of cancer⁸ and kill cancer cells without affecting normal cells.⁹

Originally, broccoli was cultivated by the ancient Romans, who referred to the plant as the “five fingers of Jupiter” – probably because of its powerful benefits on health. If you put your five fingers around it and eat it raw, your body will absorb most of its isothiocyanates.

If you do cook it, just cook it lightly; don’t steam it for more than four minutes – otherwise you may eliminate some of its most important anti-cancer ingredients.

References:

¹ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25027649/

² https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25473495/

³ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015063/

⁴ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015063/

⁵ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015063/

⁶ http://clinicalepigeneticsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1868-7083-3-3

⁷ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19482673/

⁸ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16272172/

⁹ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21778226/

http://www.cancerdefeated.com/this-vegetable-defeats-cancer-at-the-genetic-level/3877/

SEE ALSO:  MUST READ: This Vegetable Stalks Aging and Cancer Like a Guard Dog

Pesticides in Milk Causing Brain Damage - Support Raw and Grass-Fed Dairy

Both pesticides and dairy products have been linked to Parkinson’s disease in the past, and a new study suggests the combination of products – pesticides in your milk – could also play a role.

December 22, 2015

Story at-a-glance

• Residues of the insecticide heptachlor were found in 90 percent of heavy milk drinkers’ brains compared to 63 percent for those who consumed no milk
• Those who drank more than two cups of milk per day had 40 percent fewer brain cells in the mid-brain than those who drank less milk
• Milk intake is associated with SN neuron loss in the brain, a hallmark of Parkinson’s

By Dr. Mercola

Both pesticides and dairy products have been linked to Parkinson’s disease in the past, and a new study suggests the combination of products – pesticides inyour milk – could also play a role.

The study tracked nearly 450 men from Honolulu, Hawaii, an area where high levels of the insecticide heptachlor were used on pineapple fields during the 1960s, ‘70s, and ‘80s.1 Very high levels of the insecticide were found in milk in Hawaii during the ‘80s as a result.

The study revealed a strong association between heptachlor residue and the loss of brain cells, especially among heavy milk drinkers. Among those who drank the most milk, residues of heptachlor were found in 90 percent of brains compared to 63 percent for those who consumed no milk.

Further, those who drank more than two cups of milk per day during the ‘60s had 40 percent fewer brain cells in the midbrain substantia nigra (SN) area of the brain upon their death than those who drank less milk. Diminished substantia nigra is often seen in Parkinson’s disease.

The study showed that milk intake is associated with SN neuron loss in the brain, a hallmark of Parkinson’s.

And while the milk in the study wasn’t directly tested to determine if it was contaminated, heptachlor was known to be found at excessively high levels in the Hawaiian milk supply during the time of the study’s milk-intake data collection.

What Else Might Be Lurking in Your Milk?

In 2011, Spanish and Moroccan researchers used a highly sensitive test to determine what types of medications could be found in a variety of milk (cow, goat, and human breast milk).

They hit the chemical jackpot. Medications used to treat diseases in both humans and animals were revealed. Among the drugs and hormones detected were:2

Anti-inflammatories (niflumic acid, mefenamic acid, ketoprofen, diclofenac, phenylbutazone, naproxen, flunixin, and diclofenac)	Antibiotics (florfenicol)	Natural hormones (estrone)
Sex hormones (17-beta-estradiol)	Steroid hormones (17-alpha-ethinylestradiol)	Anti-malaria drugs (pyrimethamine)
Anti-fungal drugs (triclosan)

While all types of milk tested contained chemicals, cow's milk contained the highest levels. Some of these drugs and hormones were given to the cows directly, while others were likely ingested from the cattle food or contamination on the farm.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authority to require milk be tested if evidence exists that drug residues may be in the milk supply.

However, although the FDA has stopped some dairy farms from selling their cattle for meat after drug residue violations, this prohibition doesn’t typically extend to the milk.3

This is ironic, since the FDA and other government agencies seem to have no problem going after raw milk farmers, even when there is no evidence of contamination whatsoever.

Farmers Continue to Be Harassed for Selling Safe Raw Milk

Michael Schmidt, a raw milk farmer in Canada, has been battling with the government for decades in order to provide safe raw milk to area residents.

He has been harassed with threats, surveillance, intimidation, and raids, even though no one has ever gotten sick from drinking the raw milk products he provides.

Since it is illegal to sell raw milk in Canada, those who wanted to enjoy Schmidt’s raw milk products formed the Glencolton farm share, in which each owned a piece of a cow and could therefore legally enjoy its milk.

The government eradicated this loophole, however, so the shareholders moved to own the farm instead of just the cow. The government still intervened, forcing the members to “operate with caution” out of fear that they might be raided while trying to pick up a gallon of milk.

Although members have tried to set up meetings with government officials to outline their concerns and reach an agreeable conclusion, the government has not been interested.4

Surveillance Cameras Take the Raw Milk Wars to the Next Level

The case is getting even more outrageous, as the Ministry of Natural Resources reportedly set up surveillance cameras on public property without residents’ permission.

Schmidt and others believe the cameras’ purpose is to monitor Glencolton farm’s raw milk production, although area police wouldn’t disclose who owned the cameras or why they were there.

Schmidt and other residents removed the cameras and now he’s being charged with theft. As reported by Collective Evolution:5

“Neighbors of Schmidt took it upon themselves to take down the cameras and work to discover who placed them there (and why). They found over 80,000 images and video on SD cards of citizens jogging, walking dogs, and moving through day-to-day life.

They called the police to find out whose cameras they were but were unsatisfied when police refused to disclose their ownership and instead demanded the cameras be handed over.

Schdmit refused and cited an infraction to privacy, transparency, and justice as his main reason for not giving them up. Now, he is being charged with theft under $5k for not sitting by while the government invades the privacy of his community.

… All Schmidt and his advocates ask for is their right to choose what they put into their bodies … This group of people is fighting for way more than the right to drink raw milk.

In a way, they are a microcosm of the greater threat to our privacy and rights, and the more we go along with whatever the state says without question, the more we give up our individual sovereignty.”

Australians Rally for Raw Milk

In Australia, it’s illegal to sell raw milk for human consumption, so it may instead be labeled as “bath” milk that’s sold for cosmetic purposes. In December 2014, a 3-year-old boy from Victoria reportedly died after drinking raw milk labeled as “bath” milk, but the coroner’s report into the death has not been released.

After the death, the government introduced a requirement that a bittering agent be added to all “bath” milk to prevent anyone from drinking it.

Mark McAfee, the founder of Organic Pastures Dairy, and one of the leaders in the raw milk movement, spoke at an event in Melbourne hosted by the Australian Raw Milk Movement.

He believes the time is right in Australia to begin the debate about consumption of raw milk products, and noted that the bittering agent requirement was “continuing the charade that bath milk is not consumed and people are taking a bath in it.”6

Milk from Grain-Fed Cows Likely Contains Glyphosate

Glyphosate is another pesticide that’s likely to be contaminating pasteurized milk, as many dairy farmers feed their cows genetically engineered (GE) corn in lieu of their natural diet, grass. Their cornfields, in turn, are sprayed with Roundup, of which glyphosate is the active ingredient. This is even true in states like Vermont, which was the first in the U.S. to require labeling on GE foods.

Raw milk from grass-fed cows is far less likely to be contaminated with glyphosate, even if it’s not organic, because the cows don’t eat corn. According to VTDigger in June 2015:7

“Most conventional Vermont dairy farmers this spring sprayed their fields with glyphosate, a weed killer that is gaining popularity among dairy farmers who grow corn to feed their cows.

On fields where weeds and grass are brown, many farmers have already sprayed the herbicide this year and will likely spray again. According to state data, nearly all of the corn grown in Vermont is genetically engineered to survive the application of pesticides.

Over the past decade, farmers who plant ‘Roundup Ready’ corn have increasingly turning to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, to kill a variety of weeds that take nutrients, water and sunlight away from corn, which can affect yields.

In 2013, Vermont farmers and chemical applicators purchased five times more glyphosate than they did a decade ago, according to new data requested from the Agency of Agriculture.”

It’s unclear just how much glyphosate may be in U.S. milk because the U.S. Department of Agriculture doesn’t test for its residues in food.

This is concerning because in a study published in The Lancet, scientists convened by the World Health Organization found that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans."8 Past research has also found glyphosate residues “enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease.”9 

Glyphosate also causes extreme disruption of microbes’ function and lifecycle. What’s worse, glyphosate preferentiallyaffects beneficial bacteria, allowing pathogens to overgrow and take over. In a study published in 2013, researchers even concluded that glyphosate is a xenoestrogen that is functionally similar to estradiol, the most potent human estrogen, and concentrations in the parts-per-trillion range had carcinogenic effects.10

Overall, glyphosate has a number of devastating biological effects, including the following, which is why it’s a chemical you certainly do not want in your milk:

Nutritional deficiencies, as glyphosate immobilizes certain nutrients and alters the nutritional composition of the treated crop	Disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids (these are essential amino acids not produced in your body that must be supplied via your diet)
Increased toxin exposure (this includes high levels of glyphosate and formaldehyde in the food itself)	Impairment of sulfate transport and sulfur metabolism; sulfate deficiency
Systemic toxicity — a side effect of extreme disruption of microbial function throughout your body; beneficial microbes in particular, allowing for overgrowth of pathogens	Gut dysbiosis (imbalances in gut bacteria, inflammation,leaky gut, and food allergies such as gluten intolerance)
Enhancement of damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and environmental toxins as a result of glyphosate shutting down the function of detoxifying enzymes	Creation of ammonia (a byproduct created when certain microbes break down glyphosate), which can lead to brain inflammation associated with autism and Alzheimer's disease

Nutrition Group Tells the FDA: Raw Milk Cheese Is Safe

In August 2015, the FDA issued a request for comments on "potential intervention measures to reduce the risk of foodborne illness" from raw milk cheeses. More than 70 comments have been added, including a comprehensive comment from the Weston A. Price Foundation. Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation who is also a cheesemaker, explained:11

"Unfortunately, the FDA is starting with an incorrect assumption, namely that more regulations would benefit consumers of raw milk cheeses … But the government's own data shows that there have been very, very few outbreaks from raw milk cheeses produced under the current regulations. Imposing additional testing or lengthening the aging period would simply drive many artisan producers out of business and reduce consumer choices."

Included in the Weston Price Foundation’s comments was an extensive review of the scientific literature related to raw milk cheeses, including their safety in comparison to pasteurized cheeses. According to Fallon Morell:12

“The scientific studies show that the diverse community of microorganisms in raw milk cheese effectively limits the growth of pathogenic organisms, and thus post-process contamination is actually a greater risk in cheeses made from pasteurized milk."

Mark McAfee has on many occasions tried to set the record straight with U.S. authorities regarding the safety of raw milk products, including cheese, to no avail. Most of the outbreaks associated with raw milk cheese have been linked to illegal Mexican bath tub cheese that is not made from raw milk produced in the U.S. – and new regulatory requirements against illegal bathtub cheese would be “futile.”13

Support Raw, Grass-Fed Milk Products

Raw milk dairy products from organically raised pasture-fed cows rank among some of the healthiest foods you can consume. It’s far superior in terms of health benefits compared to pasteurized milk, and if statistics are any indication, it’s safer, too.

While many believe that milk must be pasteurized before it can be safely consumed, it’s worth remembering that raw milk was consumed for eons before the invention of pasteurization. It’s also important to realize that pasteurization is only really required for certain kinds of milk; specifically that from cows raised in crowded and unsanitary conditions, which is what you find in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

It really needs to be pasture-raised, NOT pasteurized. Organically raised cows that are allowed to roam free on pasture where they can graze for their natural food source produce very different milk. Their living conditions promote and maintain their health and optimize their milk in terms of the nutrients and beneficial bacteria it contains. A number of supportive legislative efforts are underway.

This includes the Milk Freedom Act of 2014 (HR 4307) and the Interstate Milk Freedom Act of 2014 (HR 4308), the latter of which would allow raw milk to be sold nationwide, across state lines. HR 4308 would also prevent the federal government from interfering with trade of raw dairy products between states where distribution or sale of raw milk is already legal. In 2014, Rep. Thomas Massie said:14

"As a producer of grass-fed beef, I am familiar with some of the difficulties small farmers face when marketing fresh food directly to consumers. Our bills would make it easier for families to buy wholesome milk directly from farmers by reversing the criminalization of dairy farmers who offer raw milk. The federal government should not punish farmers for providing customers the foods they want, and states should be free to set their own laws regulating food safety."

The fight over raw milk stands as a symbol of the much larger fight for food freedom. If the FDA and other government agencies are allowed to impose their view of "safe food" on consumers, raw milk won't be the only thing lost — all food could potentially be pasteurized, irradiated, and genetically engineered.

The effort to reclaim your right to buy and consume raw milk is leading the way for everyone who wants to be able to obtain the food of their choice from the source of their choice. So please, get involved! Getting your raw milk and other food from a local organic farm or co-op is one of the best ways to ensure you're getting high-quality food. You can locate a raw milk source near you at the Campaign for Real Milk Website.

California residents can find raw milk retailers by using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com. As with all foods, the source matters, and this is just as true with raw milk as any other food. If you’re interested in raw milk, here are tips for finding high-quality raw milk sources.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/12/22/pesticides-milk.aspx

This post is on Healthwise

GM Salmon: U.S. groups pan FDA approval of genetically modified fish for human consumption

Health Canada says the FDA's decision will not affect its decision on whether to allow the sale of the salmon in Canada

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

This undated 2010 file handout photo provided by AquaBounty Technologies shows two same-age salmon, a genetically modified salmon, rear, and a non-genetically modified salmon, foreground. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first genetically engineered animal product for human consumption on Thursday Nov. 19, 2015, raising concerns that the commercial production of the fish at a plant in P.E.I. could pose serious environmental risks.

By: Alison Auld The Canadian Press, Published on Thu Nov 19 2015

HALIFAX—The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first genetically engineered animal product for human consumption Thursday, raising concerns that the commercial production of the fish at a plant in P.E.I. could pose serious environmental risks.

Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network said the approval of the AquAdvantage Salmon means production of the fish eggs could ramp up at the AquaBounty facility in Souris, P.E.I.

“We have grave concerns about the environmental risk of producing GM fish and fish eggs,” she said. “We’re also very concerned about the lack of transparency for consumers on grocery store shelves.”

In a statement, the FDA said it did a “comprehensive review” of the product and found it fit for human consumption. The agency said the salmon met several safety criteria, as well as being found to have a similar nutritional value to conventionally farmed salmon.

“The FDA has ... determined that they have met the regulatory requirements for approval, including that food from the fish is safe to eat,” said Bernadette Dunham, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine.

Boston-based AquaBounty Technologies had been seeking regulatory approval in the States since 1995, but the process was slowed by study and significant public opposition that has led some U.S. retailers to refuse to sell what has been dubbed by some as “frankenfish.”

The company sought the approval after claiming it had found a way to make Atlantic salmon grow twice as fast as normal by modifying eggs with genes from chinook salmon and an eel-like fish called the ocean pout.

It received approval from Environment Canada for the production of Atlantic salmon fish eggs at the Island hatchery, but has not received approval to market the fish for human consumption in this country.

Health Canada has confirmed it is reviewing a submission by AquaBounty to sell the salmon in Canada. A spokesman for the agency said it is aware of Thursday’s decision by the FDA.

“The regulatory decision in the United States does not impact on Health Canada’s review or decision-making process,” said Sean Upton via email.

“Only when Health Canada has reviewed all required information to complete the assessment will a decision be made.”

Ronald Stotish, AquaBounty’s CEO, said the long-awaited decision means the company can provide a steady supply of salmon in a more environmentally responsible way than traditional ocean-based fish farming.

“This rich source of protein and nutrients can be farmed close to major consumer markets in a more sustainable manner,” he said in a statement.

The FDA approval restricts the production of the fish only to P.E.I. and Panama, where the salmon eggs would be grown.

Environmentalists have long opposed the plan, saying the modified fish could escape its containment and mix with wild salmon populations.

The FDA said an escape is almost impossible because of redundant measures put in place to contain them in tanks. It also says that because the fish are sterile, they would not be able to breed with wild salmon.

Food and Water Watch in the States panned the approval, saying the decision “disregards AquaBounty’s disastrous environmental record, which greatly raises the stakes for an environmentally damaging escape of GM salmon.”

Sharratt says she is also concerned that the FDA didn’t mandate the company to label the product as being genetically modified, since it found there was no material difference between GM salmon and non-GM salmon.

“That would be voluntary, so it’s meaningless,” she said.

The decision comes days after several environmental groups challenged Environment Canada’s decision to approve the production of the genetically modified Atlantic salmon eggs.

The suit, heard Tuesday in Federal Court, contends the department did not follow its own legislated rules and do a full risk assessment before clearing AquaBounty to produce the eggs in Prince Edward Island.

http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/11/19/us-groups-pan-fda-approval-of-genetically-modified-fish-for-human-consumption.html

This post is on Healthwise