2014 YEAR OF THE HORSE

What Your Pee Says About Your Health

July 1, 2012

Dark Urine? Smelly Urine? Frequent Urination? 

Appeared in the print version as “What Your Next Trip to the Bathroom Can Reveal About Your Health"

You would be surprised by how much information can be gleaned from the urine that you produce each day (one to two quarts, on average). For example, the simple “dipstick” urine test that doctors often use to check for a urinary tract infection also can help them diagnose kidney disease, diabetes, cancer and other conditions. But there is more.

What you may not realize: If you know what to look for, you can tell a lot about your health just by being aware of the physical characteristics of your urine—such as color, smell and frequency. What to watch out for…

COLOR

When you’re healthy and drinking enough water, your urine should be mainly clear or straw-colored with just a hint of yellow. The yellow color comes from urochrome, a pigment produced by the breakdown of a protein in red blood cells.

Urine is naturally darker in the morning because you don’t drink water while you sleep. If a color change persists, however, it could be a problem. For example…

Brown or dark brown. Pay attention if your urine is dark for more than a week.

What this usually means: Liver disease. The liver normally breaks down and excretesbilirubin, a pigment that’s produced by the turnover of red blood cells. Patients with liver disease accumulate bilirubin. This initially will cause jaundice, a yellowing of the skin or the whites of the eyes. As more bilirubin accumulates, it can cause the urine to become brown. A combination of dark-colored urine and jaundice means that liver disease might be getting worse. See your doctor right away.

Dark-colored urine also can be a side effect of some antibiotics, laxatives and muscle relaxants. Eating large amounts of fava beans, rhubarb or aloe can cause brown urine as well. In some cases, dark-colored urine can signal kidney failure.

Red or pink. Urine that’s tinged with red or pink could simply mean that you have been eating beets. (The medical term for beet-induced urine changes is beeturia). Or it could mean that you’re urinating blood.

The amount of blood will affect the color. If the urine resembles cabernet wine, you’re bleeding a lot…urine that’s pinkish or just slightly red contains only traces of blood. A microscopic amount of blood won’t be visible—it can be detected only with a laboratory test.

What this usually means: Blood in the urine is always a problem. Make an appointment to see your doctor. If you see blood and it also hurts when you urinate, you could have an infection—in the urethra, bladder or kidney or even a malignancy in the bladder, for example. Bleeding without pain also can indicate these conditions.

Green. Though rare, a person’s urine can turn a greenish color.

What this usually means: Green urine can appear when you’ve consumed a chemical dye—from food coloring, for example, or from taking medications such as amitriptyline(Elavil), an antidepressant, or indomethacin (Indocin), a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. In some cases, urine with a greenish tint can signal a urinary tract infection with certain bacteria (such as pseudomonas) that affect the color.

If your urine is greenish, increase fluid intake to see if it clears. If it doesn’t in two days, see your doctor or a urologist.

ODOR

If you’re healthy, your urine should be highly diluted, consisting of about 95% water, with only small amounts of dissolved chemical compounds and metabolic by-products. It typically has no—or only a faint—odor.

Of course everyone is familiar with the effect that asparagus and some other foods, such as onions or fish, have on the smell of one’s urine. This strong “rotten” smell is due to the chemical compounds in certain foods, particularly molecules that are not completely broken down by the body. The smell usually disappears within a day or so.

Some other less common urine smells include…

Ammonia-like. If your urine is concentrated, with a larger-than-normal amount of urea (a chemical compound in urine), you might smell an aroma that resembles ammonia. Or you might just notice that it has a stronger smell than usual.

What this usually means: Dehydration. The less water you drink, the higher the concentration of urea and other substances—and the stronger the smell. You can diagnose this yourself by drinking, say, one extra glass of water an hour for several hours to add water to your urine. The strong urine smell will probably disappear within a few hours. If it does not, see your doctor.

Foul-smelling. If your urine smells foul or unusual in any way for more than a few days, pay attention to the odor.

What this usually means: If it’s not caused by a food that you’ve eaten, it could signal an infection in the bladder or kidneys. Less often, it’s due to a metabolic disorder that reduces the body’s ability to fully break down foods during digestion.

Uncontrolled diabetes can cause an abnormally sweet odor, and penicillin can cause a distinctive medicinal odor.

Even if you have no other symptoms, such as pain while urinating, but your urine continues to have an unusually strong smell for more than a couple of days, talk to your doctor.

FOAMY OR BUBBLY

It’s natural to see foam in the toilet when you really have to go and have a heavy stream. But urine that’s consistently foamy or bubbly could mean that you’re losing protein.

What this usually means: Kidney disease. Large amounts of protein in the urine is one of the main signs of chronic kidney disease. See your doctor right away.

MUCUS OR CLOUDY

Mucus in urine could indicate inflammation in the urinary tract.

What this usually means: Urinary tract infection. See your doctor.

Cloudy urine also can be related to infection but often is just an indication that your urine is alkaline, which is harmless at low levels.

VOLUME AND FREQUENCY

The average adult typically urinates four to eight times in 24 hours. A change in the frequency of your urinary habits, including getting up more than twice a night to urinate, or an increase or decrease in the amount that you urinate, warrants attention.

What this usually means: An increase in the frequency of urination, along with an increase in volume, is one of the telltale signs of diabetes.

If the amount of urine seems the same but you’re urinating more often, you could have a urinary tract infection. If this is the case, you’ll probably have very strong urges to urinate even when just a small amount comes out.

Frequency of urination and/or urinary urgency in the absence of a urinary tract infection can indicate an overactive bladder.

In men, enlargement of the prostate gland can trigger urinary urgency. Patients with neurological conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, can also have this symptom.

Don’t worry if there’s been a decrease in the amount or frequency of urination. You probably just need to drink more water. If this doesn’t help, see your doctor.

Source: Jonathan M. Vapnek, MD, a urologist and clinical associate professor of urology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. A member of the American Urological Association, he’s been named by New York Magazine as one of New York City’s best urologists. Dr. Vapnek has authored or coauthored more than 35 papers on urological topics.

http://www.bottomlinepublications.com/content/article/health-a-healing/dark-urine-smelly-urine-frequent-urination-what-your-pee-says-about-you

5-Cent Cure for Kidney Disease

May 11, 2010

Common Kitchen Ingredient Slows Chronic Kidney Decline

Finally -- some great news for the 26 million people with chronic kidney disease! Because the problem is progressive and incurable, it can seem hopeless, but new research shows that a natural remedy that is safe, effective and costs just a few pennies a day can dramatically slow down kidney decline. What is it? Baking soda, believe it or not -- or, if you want to be technical, sodium bicarbonate.

Though it may well be the most medically important, this is hardly the first unconventional health-related use for this simple and inexpensive kitchen ingredient -- some swear by it as a remedy for acid indigestion, while others use baking soda to brush their teeth or in lieu of antiperspirant or to soothe rashes and skin eruptions. For people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), however, it is important to take this only under your doctor’s close supervision -- read on to learn why.

RATE OF DECLINE SLOWED BY TWO-THIRDS

CKD affects one in nine adults. It runs the gamut from poor function and minor discomfort to end-stage renal disease that requires dialysis (getting hooked up to a machine to filter blood when your kidneys can no longer do so). The body naturally creates bicarbonate to help maintain the correct acid-alkaline balance (or pH), and insufficient levels can cause problems ranging from minor all the way to death. A low bicarbonate level (the condition is called metabolic acidosis) affects 30% to 50% of advanced CKD patients, and doctors have long speculated that baking soda might help boost kidney function by bringing up the level.

In a study of 134 people with advanced CKD and low bicarbonate levels, Magdi Yaqoob, MD, a professor of renal medicine at The Royal London Hospital in England and his colleagues put this theory to the test. They gave half the participants a small daily dose of sodium bicarbonate in tablet form at mealtime while also continuing their regular medical care.

Over a two-year period, investigators discovered that people who took the sodium bicarbonate experienced...

• A two-thirds drop in kidney decline. They lost kidney function at the rate of just 1% per year, compared with 3% in those who didn’t take sodium bicarbonate. Though these percentages sound tiny, they are quite significant for people losing kidney function.

• A dramatic decrease in the need for dialysis. Only 6.5% in the bicarbonate group required dialysis, compared with 33% in the untreated group.

• Better nutrient absorption. Nutritional parameters, including the ability to metabolize protein effectively, improved in those who took bicarbonate tablets. While sodium levels rose, blood pressure did not.

Sodium bicarbonate seems to help people with CKD by suppressing production of ammonia and endothelin (proteins that constrict blood vessels and raise blood pressure), which in turn discourages scarring and dysfunction in the kidneys, Dr. Yaqoob explains. These findings were published in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology(JASN). They require further validation in a larger, multi-center study but are very significant and encouraging, Dr. Yaqoob said.

ASK YOUR DOCTOR

If you have CKD, Dr. Yaqoob recommends asking your doctor about incorporating sodium bicarbonate into your medical care -- but stresses this should not be attempted on your own. Though easily available and very helpful for particular people, sodium bicarbonate is not an innocuous substance. Dosage must be carefully calibrated to keep blood levels within normal limits. Excess can lead to milk alkali syndrome (calcium deposits in kidneys and other tissue), especially for kidney patients -- but also in otherwise healthy people who consume excessive amounts.

That said, sodium bicarbonate may be a simple and inexpensive treatment to add to our medical arsenal against CKD. Talk to your doctor about it.

Source: Magdi Yaqoob, MD, professor of renal medicine, The Royal London Hospital, London, England.

http://www.bottomlinepublications.com/content/article/health-a-healing/5-cent-cure-for-kidney-disease

The fats paradox

5 December 2013 

Jonathan Tan
lifestyle@thesundaily.com

CONTRARY to popular belief, fat consumption is not the main culprit that makes us fat, or the cause of the obesity epidemic today.

The ‘war’ on saturated fat is a big mistake in the history of nutrition and has been largely spun by food producers championing their version of healthy ‘fat-free’ products.

Consumerism has had us believing that fat-free is what will make you less obese. What many don’t realise is that fat-free does not mean it is equally healthy in comparison to a regular product.

A gramme of fat is a gramme of fat, be it good or bad fat. It is nine calories in each gramme. By comparison, this is only two calories more than a gramme of carbohydrate or protein, which is seven calories each.

In many processed food, fat-free just means sugar added. A diet rich in fruits can unknowingly set you back plenty of calories, as certain fruits are high in sugar content.

Fats in our bodies are not formed from fat, but from excess consumption, with sugar being one of the culprits.

While people have reduced their intake of animal fat and cholesterol, the incidence of many serious diseases is still going up.

Studies conducted in the past few decades have shown that neither saturated fat nor dietary cholesterol cause harm in humans.

Scientists are now beginning to realise that the entire low-fat theory was based on flawed studies that have since been debunked.

The French Paradox is used to describe that seemingly paradoxical fact that French people have a low risk of heart disease while eating a diet that is high in saturated fat.

Are they genetically better in managing fat or healthily fitter in general?

The truth is there is no paradox. Saturated fat is not the main cause of cardiovascular disease.

In the 70s, as the lifestyle of baby boomers got better, so did their food choices.

The low-fat diet was recommended to all Americans. People started giving up traditional foods like butter in place of processed ‘low-fat’ foods high in sugar and additives.

Sugar is also a carbohydrate and excess carbohydrates in the body are turned to fat, eventually. So, while consumers have been happily buying all things ‘non-fat’ guilt free, in reality, the same harm is being done.

Since then, many studies have been conducted on the low-fat diet. They show that the low-fat diet does not cause weight loss and has zero effect on cardiovascular disease in the long term.

Unfortunately, despite these results, this diet is still recommended by nutrition organisations all over the world.

Diets that are high in fat but low in carbohydrates cause more weight loss than diets that are low in fat. They consistently lead to much better managed results than low-fat, high-carb diets.

Not only do they cause more weight loss, they also lead to big improvements in weight management and for prevention of diseases like diabetes.

Back when everyone started pointing the finger at saturated fat as the cause of heart disease, nutrition professionals started telling people to replace butter with margarine, eat white meat ... which is low in saturated fat, but high in man-made trans fats.

As with so many of the “truths” in nutrition, this ended up having the exact opposite result. Whereas saturated fat is harmless, additives like trans fats are highly toxic.

But the trend towards a paradigm shift has started to change now. Wellness advocators are now adding new buzzwords to the lexicon for weight management, weight loss and general fitness.

“Moderation, fresh, raw and unprocessed” are some the new buzzwords popping up.

But at the end of the spectrum towards wellness, health and fitness and how you manage consumption – which is only 60% of the plan – good old exercise still counts in managing body function, growth and expulsion of toxic wastes.

Let’s be fit!

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/897993

Beer Busts Kidney Stones

Best and Worst Drinks for Preventing Kidney Stones

BeeJanuary 15, 2014

Mention kidney stones and everyone within earshot winces—because we’ve all heard how painful these stones can be. So if you want to be stone-free, you’re probably following the common advice to drink lots of liquids. But instead of focusing on how much you drink, the crucial question is what you drink, a new study reveals. Certain beverages—including some very surprising ones, such as beer!—are particularly helpful in protecting against stones, while other drinks do more harm than good.

Unfortunately, kidney stones are common, plaguing 19% of men and 9% of women in the US at least once in their lifetimes—and recurrences are quite common. Drinking plenty of water helps prevent stones from forming…but actually, there are other fluids that can be even more effective.

DRINK THIS, NOT THAT

Using data from three large studies, researchers followed 194,095 people, none of whom had a history of kidney stones, for more than eight years. Participants periodically completed questionnaires about their diet and overall health. During the course of the study, there were 4,462 cases of kidney stones.

More Ways to Keep Kidneys Healthy

1. 5-Cent Cure for Kidney Disease
2. Is It Just a Bladder Infection...
   or Are Your Kidneys In Danger?
3. Is Kidney Disease Contagious?
4. Got Kidney Stones? How to 
   Never Get Another One

Researchers adjusted for health factors (age, body mass index, diabetes, medications, blood pressure) as well as various dietary factors (including intake of meat, calcium and potassium) known to affect kidney stone risk. Then they calculated the stone risk associated with various types of beverages.

How the comparison was done: For each analysis, the effects of drinking an average of one or more servings per day were compared with drinking less than one serving per week. Because data from three different studies were used, serving sizes were not necessarily alike across the board. But in general, a serving was considered to be 12 ounces of soda or beer…eight ounces of coffee, tea, milk or fruit punch…five ounces of wine…and four to six ounces of juice. The researchers’ findings were eye-opening.

Kidney stone risk boosters…

• Sugar-sweetened noncola sodas increased kidney stone risk by 33%.
• Sugar-sweetened colas increased risk by 23%.
• Fruit punch increased risk by 18%.
• Diet noncola sodas (but, surprisingly, not diet colas) increased risk by 17%.

Kidney stone risk reducers…

• Beer reduced kidney stone risk by 41%.
• White wine reduced risk by 33%.
• Red wine reduced risk by 31%.
• Caffeinated coffee reduced kidney stone risk by 26%.
• Decaf coffee reduced risk by 16%.
• Orange juice reduced risk by 12%.
• Tea reduced risk by 11%.

Consumption of milk and juices other than orange juice did not significantly affect the likelihood of developing kidney stones.

Theories behind the findings: Because sugar-sweetened sodas and fruit punch are associated with higher risk, researchers suspect that their high fructose concentration may increase the amount of calcium, oxalate and uric acid in the urine—and those substances contribute to kidney stone formation. So how to explain the beneficial effects of orange juice, which is also high in fructose? Perhaps orange juice’s high concentration of potassium citrate offsets the fructose and favorably changes the composition of urine.

Regarding the beneficial effects of coffee and tea, it could be that their caffeine acts as adiuretic that promotes urine production and thus helps prevent stones. Tea and coffee, including decaf, also contain antioxidants that may help combat stone formation. Alcohol, too, is a diuretic, and wine and beer contain antioxidants as well—though of course, with any type of alcoholic beverage, moderation is important.

Source: Pietro Manuel Ferraro, MD, physician, department of internal medicine and medical specialties, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. His study was published in Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

http://www.bottomlinepublications.com/content/article/health-a-healing/best-and-worst-drinks-for-preventing-kidney-stones

Blood Type Diet Debunked

Study debunks science behind popular blood type diet

20 January 2014

The blood type diet involves eating -- and avoiding -- certain foods
in relation to one’s blood type. AFP RELAXNEWSAdd caption

A TEAM of Canadian researchers has quashed the theory behind a popular diet that prescribes eating foods according to your blood type.

The news may come as a blow to faithful followers of the internationally best-selling book "Eat Right for Your Type" first penned by naturopath Peter D'Adamo in 1996. Disappointed fans may include celebrities such as Miranda Kerr, Demi Moore and Elizabeth Hurley, who are said to be followers.

For their study, published in PLoS One this week, researchers from the University of Toronto examined the dietary intake and blood type of 1,455 healthy young adults.

After comparing the information against the food items listed in the book, researchers came to the unequivocal conclusion that the blood type diet is baseless.

"It was an intriguing hypothesis so we felt we should put it to the test," said study author Ahmed El-Sohemy in a statement.

"We can now be confident in saying that the blood type diet hypothesis is false,"

According to D'Adamo, different foods are said to react chemically with individual blood types. To lose weight and decrease the risk of chronic diseases, the naturopath advises eating -- and avoiding -- certain foods in relation to one's blood type.

For example, those with a type O blood type are advised to follow a high-protein diet that's light on grains, beans and dairy. Those with type B blood are advised to avoid everything from corn, wheat and lentils to tomatoes and chicken in favour of greens, eggs, and low-fat dairy.

The book has sold more than 5 million copies in 50 languages around the world.

The Canadian study follows on the heels of another review that debunked the blood type diet, published last year in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. – AFP Relaxnews

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/934476

Raw Milk on the Rise -- No Illness Seen

27 January 2014

Story at-a-glance

• In 2013, Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe signed into law HB 1536, which legalized the sale of locally produced raw milk from the farm.
• Four months after the bill took effect, as of January 20, no illnesses have been caused as a result of this increase in raw milk sales
• Statistics suggest raw milk produced by grass-fed cows from small, clean, well-run farms is actually less dangerous than drinking pasteurized milk
• Whether you drink milk or not, the assault against raw dairy products is an assault to your food freedom

By Dr. Mercola

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) commonly warns against drinking raw milk, citing numerous “outbreaks” linked to the product.

But drinking raw milk produced by grass-fed cows from clean, well-run farms is actually far LESS dangerous than drinking pasteurized milk. In fact, not only does raw milk contain good bacteria that are essential for a healthy digestive system, raw milk also offers protection against disease-causing bacteria.

CDC data show there are about 412 confirmed cases of people getting ill from pasteurized milk each year, while only about 116 illnesses a year are linked to raw milk.1 Eventually, as the numbers of raw milk dairies increase, and so too do their happy customers, the CDC may be forced to change its tune.

No Illnesses Linked to Raw Milk in Arkansas

Last year, Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe signed into law HB 1536, which legalized the sale of locally produced raw milk from the farm. Four months after the bill took effect, as of January 20, no illnesses have been caused as a result of this increase in raw milk sales. According to Arkansas Online:2

“Four months after a state law took effect allowing the sale of unpasteurized milk, the Arkansas Health Department has yet to identify an illness 'definitively linked' to consuming the beverage.”

The new bill impacts both cow and goat milk. Previously, Arkansas allowed farmers to sell up to 100 gallons of raw goat milk per month at the farm, but HB 1536 will increase that to 500 gallons. Additionally, raw cow’s milk is now also allowed, with a few caveats. According to RealMilk.com:3

“Arkansas permits the sale of up to 500 gallons of raw cow or goat milk per month directly to consumers on the farm where the milk is produced.

Farmers must post a sign at the farm and their products must display a label noting that the milk is not pasteurized. Farms and cows are not state inspected and buyers assume all liability for any health problems that may arise from drinking raw milk.”

So far, those “health problems” are non-existent, adding further support for those seeking to legalize raw milk sales across the US.

Health Risks? What About the Health Benefits?

Public health agencies are conspicuously silent about the proven benefits linked to drinking unpasteurized dairy products versus their conventional pasteurized counterparts.

For instance, school-aged children who drank raw milk were 41 percent less likely to develop asthma and about 50 percent less likely to develop hay fever than children who drank store-bought (pasteurized) milk, according to one study that used data from more than 8,000 children.4

And while public health agencies are quick to say that there are no nutritional differences between raw and pasteurized milk, this study suggests otherwise. The researchers believed that the beneficial effect may have been due to whey proteins, including bovine serum albumin (BSA) and alpha-lactalbumin, in the raw milk, which were destroyed by the heating process in the pasteurized milk.

While the study didn't find an association between any health outcomes and thebacterial contents of the milk, it did demonstrate noted differences between raw and pasteurized varieties, which the CDC continues to deny. Additionally, high-quality raw milk has a mountain of health benefits that pasteurized milk lacks. For example, raw milk is:

• Loaded with healthy bacteria that are good for your gastrointestinal tract
• Full of more than 60 digestive enzymes, growth factors, and immunoglobulins (antibodies)
• Rich in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which fights cancer and boosts metabolism
• Rich in beneficial raw fats, amino acids, and proteins in a highly bioavailable form, all 100 percent digestible
• Loaded with vitamins (A, B, C, D, E, and K) in highly bioavailable forms, and a very balanced blend of minerals (calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and iron) whose absorption is enhanced by live lactobacilli

The Real Issue Here Is Your Food Freedom

Increasing numbers of small farmers and Americans are challenging the “nanny state” mentality that the government should tell you what you can and can’t eat. If you desire to drink raw milk, and you have found a farmer who wants to provide it to you, should that not be your inherent right to eat the food of your choosing?

There have been some positive strides made, including not only the Arkansas legislation but also a bill has passed the Wisconsin Senate that would allow dairy farmers to sell raw milk directly to consumers. In Oregon, too, sales of raw milk from small farms directly to consumers are legal, but advertising that such milk is available is not (a restriction that’s currently being challenged).

Truth be told, many people should not consume dairy, as they are allergic to the milk proteins, whether it is raw or pasteurized. Additionally, many who are seeking to lose weight, have high blood pressure, or diabetes would likely be better avoiding raw or pasteurized milk, as it has the dairy sugar lactose and those carbs can worsen insulin/leptin resistance.

However, if you are healthy and want to drink milk, then it makes more sense to fear drinking pasteurized milk. While there has not been one single death due to raw milk between 1998 and 2008,5 the United States' largest recorded outbreak of Salmonella resulted from pasteurized milk. Yet this and other outbreaks of illness resulting from the consumption of pasteurized milk are kept from public knowledge, and escapes warnings from the CDC.

Do You Know How to Identify High-Quality Raw Dairy?

Ultimately, where you get your milk really matters and this is true of raw milk in particular. It’s contrary to reason that milk (and many other foods) that comes from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) is thought of as safe, while raw milk sourced from a small carefully run farm is not. In CAFOs, large groups of animals are kept in a small space, oftentimes without natural light or access to the outdoors.

The conditions are filthy, with animals standing in one another's waste. Needless to say, harmful bacteria naturally thrive in these conditions. As a result, drinking CAFO milk raw would be extremely dangerous. It must be pasteurized for safety. On the other hand, milk from grass-fed cows raised on smaller, clean farms can be safely consumed without being pasteurized, provided the farmer is committed to providing a safe, quality product.

Getting your raw milk from a local organic farm is one of the best ways to ensure you're getting high-quality milk, but even then if you're thinking about purchasing milk from a small farmer, it would be very wise to visit the farm in person. Look around and ask questions about the following general conditions, which should indicate a source of high-quality raw milk.

Low pathogenic bacteria count (i.e. does the farmer test his milk regularly for pathogens?)	The milk comes from cows raised naturally, in accordance with the seasons	The cows are not given antibiotics and growth hormones to increase milk production
The milk is quickly chilled after milking	The cows are mainly grass-fed	Cows are well cared for

You Can Stand Up for Food Freedom!

The fight for food freedom isn’t just for those who love raw milk – it’s for everyone who wants to be able to obtain the food of their choice from the source of their choice. Raw milk isn’t the only food on the chopping block. Raw-milk cheeses and heritage-breed pigs are also being targeted, and there’s no telling what other small-farm, niche foods may be next. So please, get involved! I urge you to embrace the following action plan to protect your right to choose your own foods:

1. Get informed: Visit www.farmtoconsumer.org or click here to sign up for action alerts.
2. Join the fight for your rights: The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) is the only organization of its kind. This 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization provides a legal defense for farmers who are being pursued by the government for distributing foods directly to consumers.
Your donations, although not tax deductible, will be used to support the litigation, legislative, and lobbying efforts of the FTCLDF.
3. Support your local farmers: Buy from local farmers, not the industry that is working with the government to take away your freedom.

[+] Sources and References

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/01/28/drinking-raw-milk.aspx

Is This Corporation Actually More Evil Than Monsanto?

28 January 2014

Grocery Manufacturer’s Association Overtakes Monsanto as “Most Evil Corporation on the Planet”

Story at-a-glance

• Before there was Monsanto, junk food companies were already hard at work influencing American politics to further their own agenda. In fact, the junk food industry has had full control over federal policy for more than six decades

• The Grocery Manufacturer’s Association of America (GMA), which represents the biggest junk food manufacturers in the world, has a detailed plan for combating GMO labeling efforts across the US

• This includes the pursuit of statutory federal preemption—an industry-friendly, soft law that does not include a labeling requirement. This federal solution would trump state rules

• The GMA has sued Washington State for the right to hide corporate campaign funds—a move that threatens the transparency of the state’s elections on every issue

• GMA is also trying to get the FDA to permit GMOs to be labeled “natural”

By Dr. Mercola

The addictive and health-harming nature of sugar and processed food has been repeatedly confirmed through the years, and genetically engineered foods rank equally high on the list when it comes to foods that do more harm than good.

Monsanto, as most of you may already know, has long been referred to by those in the know as "the most evil company on the planet." But it has stiff competition. Before there was Monsanto, junk food companies were already hard at work influencing American politics to further their own agenda.

The processed food industry has a lot to answer for when it comes to the general health of Americans, who spend upwards of 90 percent of all their food dollars on processed convenience foods.

The latest developments in the fight for GMO labeling actually makes a strong case for giving the title of "Most Evil Organization on the Planet" to the Grocery Manufacturer's Association of America (GMA), which represents the processed food leaders, including Pepsi, Coke, Kraft, Kellogg's, and General Mills.

The Grocery Manufacturer's Association also lists Monsanto as a member, so it would make sense that the sum would be greater than the parts.

This organization is no stranger to stooping way down low to protect their members' interests—your health and human rights be damned. And that is, in my opinion, evil.

GMA Caught in Money Laundering Scheme

But before I get into the latest developments, let me backtrack for a moment. During last year's I-522 ballot campaign to label GMOs in Washington State, the GMA came up with an ingenious, and illegal, money laundering scheme to protect the identity of members who donated funds to the opposing campaign.1

Several major food companies experienced massive backlash and consumer boycotts once their contributions to the anti-labeling campaign in California (Prop. 37) in 2012 became widely known. This was a fate they all wanted to avoid, no doubt, and to prevent you from knowing which companies funded the anti-labeling campaign in Washington State, the GMA create a "brand defense" account, which paid for the campaign's propaganda without disclosing where the money came from.

This illegal move helped them defeat I-522 by a mere one percent margin. The scheme fell apart however, and the GMA was sued by Attorney General Bob Ferguson,2 who accused them of intentional money laundering and violating state campaign disclosure laws.

As a result, the identities of the companies paying to defeat I-522 were released.3Not surprisingly it contained the usual suspects: Pepsi, Coke, General Mills, and Nestle – all primary purveyors of chronic disease.

Documents Unearthed in GMA Money Laundering Scandal Reveal Long-Term Plans to Combat GMO Labeling

Lawbreakers or not, the GMA's work continues unabated, and job number one is to keep you as uninformed about GMOs as possible. This was clearly evidenced in heavily redacted documents4 released through the Attorney General's investigation of the GMA money laundering scheme.

A previous Politico report5 revealed that a key aspect of the GMA's plan for combating GMO labeling efforts across the US included the pursuit of statutory federal preemption—a law that prevents a labeling requirement.

This is one part of a detailed, five-pronged strategic plan to keep its members from having to reveal what their foods are made of. The documents6 released through the Attorney General also reveal quite a bit about the GMA's strategic plan by what they hide. Large sections of the documents are redacted, including:

• A portion under the heading "Industry Image Efforts," which appears to be related to the GMA's plan for addressing "attackers," i.e. people and organizations working toward letting you know what's in your food
• Under the subhead "Industry Image Campaign," it is revealed that a PR firm, the name of which is redacted, "has been retained to help develop a comprehensive program for execution in 2014." The details relating to this plan are redacted
• A section redacted in its entirety is titled, "Examining Options for Conveying Information to Consumers"
• Also redacted is the name of an entity that "understands the need for continued opposition to efforts at the state level to impose mandatory labels and has directed GMA staff to continue to oppose such efforts." I for one am curious as to who this mysterious entity is that has "directed" the GMA to oppose labeling in the face of public demand for disclosure and transparency...
• Also redacted are several pages-worth relating to the Association's long-term plans to quench GMO transparency issues

GMA Now Pushing for Industry-Friendly GMO Labeling

As reported in the featured article7 and elsewhere,8 the GMA's preemptive attempts are now in full swing. As stated earlier, a major part of the GMA's plan is to prevent states from creating their own labeling laws by pushing for an industry-friendly, voluntary labeling law at the federal level.

"The push for a softer national standard on GMO labeling comes as consumer interest in biotech foods has blown up into an intense national conversation, and the food industry is clearly trying to get out ahead of a strong, vocal movement pushing strict labeling requirements in multiple states around the country," Politico writes.9 "GMA's proposal is aimed at protecting its members from having to fight a series of state labeling efforts as several states..."

On December 5, 2013, the GMA sent a letter 10 to Elizabeth Dickinson, Chief Counsel of the FDA, informing her that "GMA will be filing a Citizen Petition early in 2014 that asks FDA to issue a regulation authorizing foods containing ingredients derived from biotechnology to be labeled "natural."

According to the letter, 26 state legislatures are currently considering whether GMOs should be permitted in products bearing a "natural" label, and some 65 class action lawsuits have been filed against food manufacturers who use GMO ingredients in their "natural" products. The GMA essentially wants the FDA to settle the dispute and close the door on future lawsuits. The letter reads, in part:

"Consumers and the food industry would all benefit from uniform legal requirements and the consistent outcomes that result from federal regulations, rather than state-by-state dictates... As such, federal rulemaking is needed here so that the issue of whether foods that contain ingredients derived from biotechnology can be labeled "natural" is removed from judicial or state interpretation..."

The Center for Food Safety has previously urged the FDA to reject such petitions.11 Clearly, genetically engineered foods are far from natural. It is the very epitome of unnatural.

GMA Sues Washington State for Right to Hide Corporate Funding!

But the GMA has more dirty tricks up its sleeve. On January 13, the Washington State Office of the Attorney General announced that the GMA has countersued the state, challenging its campaign finance laws.12 Essentially, the Association is suing for the right to hide corporate campaign funds—a move that threatens the transparency of the state's elections on every issue! What's more, the GMA has also filed a civil rights complaint against the Attorney General himself, claiming that he acted unconstitutionally when he enforced the state's laws! According to the press release:

"In its counterclaim and civil rights suit, the GMA claims the following are unconstitutional as they have been applied in this case:

• Washington's law requiring the GMA to file a political committee before collecting funds from its members for specific political activity in Washington;
• Washington's law requiring the GMA to disclose the organizations who contributed to its special political fund and how much they donated; and
• Washington's law requiring the GMA to secure $10 in donations from 10 separate registered Washington voters as part of its political committee before donating to another political committee"

It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. This is bullying at its finest. The GMA wants to send a message to any individual who thinks he has the power to stand in its way, and to any state who tries to protect the rights of its people, that it's going to cost you. Fortunately, Attorney General Ferguson is no wuss, boldly declaring:

"After breaking our state's campaign finance disclosure laws, the GMA now seeks to have them declared unconstitutional. I look forward to defending transparency in Washington elections."

A GMA document also lays out a clear-cut strategy for addressing any state that successfully implements a GMO labeling law, stating that, “The first state to implement a GMO labeling law will be sued on the constitutional grounds seen in IDFA v. Amestoy.” Costly litigation is clearly part of the GMA’s overall master plan to protect industry profits in the face of growing consumer awareness about the many problems inherent with genetically engineered and grossly adulterated, processed foods....

GMA Litigation Conference

The GMA also holds an annual Litigation Conference,13 where its members are taught to push for more mandatory vaccines to circumvent lawsuits against tainted CAFO products, and how to squash consumer groups seeking to rid the industry of hazardous ingredients . Here are just a couple of the presentations scheduled for the 2014 event:

• Preventing Foodborne Illness through Vaccinations. Vaccinations and inoculations can be an effective tool for preventing foodborne illness outbreaks, however employment and labor laws create a significant hurdle to this approach. 
  For example, Hepatitis A is the cause of numerous outbreaks every year. A simple vaccination for food service employees would greatly reduce this risk, however current labor laws prevent employers from forcing the vaccination on employees. This session will explore this and other methods for preventing foodborne illness outbreaks, and how these approaches are impacted by employment and labor laws.
• Trans Fats and Beyond: Anticipating the Next Generation of Industry Risks. The FDA’s recent decision regarding GRAS status for partially-hydrogenated oils (PHO) containing trans fats may be just the tip of the iceberg if consumer groups and plaintiff’s attorneys have their way.  This presentation will discuss the litigation and regulatory implications of FDA’s PHO decision, the increasing power and tactics of CSPI and other consumer groups, and the next generation of risks to face the food industry, such as the Pew Food Additives Project, challenges to GRAS self-affirmation, nanotechnology, pesticide residues, and involvement by state attorneys general in false labeling cases.

Junk Food Industry Has Had Full Control Over Federal Food Policy for More Than 60 Years

Pesticide producers and junk food manufacturers have been allowed to create terrifyingly ignorant policies for health, in exchange for a rather lucrative business model that benefits their own bottom lines.

The GMA has not only resorted to illegal means to further the agenda of its junk food-producing members—some 300 of them in all—the organization is also trying to muscle its way out of its legal conundrums by filing countersuits at the expense of state governments.  

An article written in 1950, titled "The Battlefront for Better Nutrition,"14 clearly shows just how little has changed in the past 60 years, and how the junk food industry has had full control of our federal food policy this entire time. As you can see by the following excerpt, the corruption was already well-recognized 60 years ago, yet has been allowed to continue to flourish and grow with each passing year.

"... [T]here is a battle going on between those who are trying to promote better nutrition, and the food manufacturers who insist on making products 'worse so that they can be sold for less,' thereby eliminating the competition of more honest and self-respecting producers who would prefer to apply in business the Golden Rule...

These commercial interests have the United States Government on their side, ever since they ousted Dr. Harvey W. Wiley from his job as head of the Food & Drug Administration in 1912. The present head of the Food & Drug Division of Nutrition, Dr. Elmer M. Nelson in a special Constitutional Court in Washington... testified that: 'It is wholly unscientific to state that a well fed body is more able to resist disease than a less well-fed body. My overall opinion is that there hasn't been enough experimentation to prove dietary deficiencies make one more susceptible to disease.' (Washington Post,October 26, 1949.)

This is nothing new for Dr. Nelson. Ten years ago he, with his group of experts, testified in a similar court, that neither degenerative disease, infectious disease, nor functional disease could result from any nutritional deficiency. For all these years, he has battled for the maker of devitalized foods, tried to stem the tide of public opinion against the use of white flour, refined sugar, pasteurized milk and imitation butter by vigorous prosecution of any maker of any dietary supplement designed to abate the consequences of using such devitalized food, basing his arguments on the thesis that there were no such things as deficiency diseases.

Truly, as Dr. Wiley sadly remarked in his book The History of a Crime Against the Pure Food Law (1930) the makers of unfit foods have taken possession of Food & Drug enforcement, and have reversed the effect of the law, protecting the criminals that adulterate foods, instead of protecting the public health."

Take Control of Your Diet and Your Health

It's time we started to make real change, and we need to take that upon ourselves first and foremost.

You don't have to be a victim of corrupted food and health policy. Your diet is foundational for optimal health, and healthy eating is actually less complicated than most people think. Here's a quick and dirty summary. For a comprehensive, step-by-step program, please see my free optimized nutrition plan. If you're new to healthful living, these four basic steps alone can put you on the right path toward vastly improved health, regardless of how corrupted our government is:

• Focus on raw, fresh foods, and avoid as many processed foods as possible (for those who still have trouble understanding what "processed food" is: if it comes in a can, bottle, or package, and has a list of ingredients, it's processed)
• Avoid foods that contain fructose (check the label for ingredients like corn syrup or high fructose corn syrup.) Not only is excessive fructose consumption responsible for obesity and chronic disease, most processed fructose is made from genetically engineered corn
• Limit or eliminate grain carbohydrates, and replace them with healthful fats, such as avocados, butter made from raw grass-fed organic milk, grass-fed meats and organic pastured eggs, coconuts and coconut oil, and raw nuts such as macadamia
• Replace sodas and other sweetened beverages (whether diet or regular) with clean, pure water

Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day

The food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State—to prevent you from knowing what's in your food. You can send a message right back to the GMA and its members who tried to deceive you by illegally hiding their campaign contributions by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference.

I also encourage you to continue educating yourself about our agriculture and food policies, and to share what you've learned with family and friends.

[+] Sources and References

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/01/28/gma-evil-corporation.aspx?