How to count on food – Part 4

This part begins with a little review of a long-running mystery story – it is apparently still unresolved, with strong opinions on both sides about the guilt or innocence of a very common synthetic additive used in countless food products.

June 25, 2017 

By CHRIS CHAN

Beeswax, E901, is used as a glazing agent to make sweets, fruits, confectioneries and medicine pills, etc, externally shiny; that’s how Smarties get that bright, polished look. Photo: VisualHunt.com/Blumenbiene

Read : Part 1  Part 2  Part 3   Part 4   Part 5 

It is almost certain that you would have ingested this compound at some point in your life, and possibly you are even ingesting it every day without even knowing about it.

The compound is the artificial sweetener, E951 (aspartame) – and despite its ubiquity, it is probably even more curious than you might think.

Food regulators in the United States and the European Union assert that aspartame is a non-toxic compound – so how come there is so much controversy?

Well, there have been many odd events in the life of this compound (developed by G. D. Searle & Co) since it first gained approval in 1974 for use as a sweetener additive by the Food & Drugs Agency (FDA) in the United States.

However, this approval was rescinded late in 1975 due to highly questionable issues with the safety studies submitted by G. D. Searle & Co.

E960 is a natural sweetener derived from Stevia leaves and is about 250 times sweeter than sugar. 

Photo: VisualHunt.com/DeathByBokeh

In May 1981, three out of six scientists at the FDA advised against approving aspartame, but in July the same year, the FDA commissioner ignored their concerns and unilaterally approved aspartame for use in dry foods.

This was followed by approval in July 1983 for aspartame use in carbonated drinks and syrups.

Even after approval, various steps were taken to establish the toxicity of aspartame, culminating in the FDA releasing a list in 1992 of over 8,000 complaints categorised by various reported symptoms.

Still, the advice was that aspartame is safe, except for people with phenylketonuria (a rare condition where sufferers cannot metabolise phenylalanine).

Then various European studies appeared to provide contradictory evidence. Tsakiris (2005) reported neurological issues with aspartame consumption by humans within the consumption limits recommended by the FDA – mostly it was related to learning impairment and memory loss.

Even earlier, a study by Trocho (aka Barcelona Study, 1998) had implicated aspartame in both organ and brain damage in test rats.

But possibly the most worrying reports were the 2005 Soffritti Study which claimed that aspartame is a carcinogen in test rats – and this claim was subsequently supported by another study by Ramazzini in 2007.

Fake news

The case against aspartame was really not helped by a fake letter circulated in 1999 by a supposed “Nancy Markle” which claimed that the compound was responsible for multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, and methanol toxicity, causing “blindness, spasms, shooting pains, seizures, headaches, depression, anxiety, memory loss, birth defects and death”. The false claims were easily disproved and led to justifiable accusations of a smear campaign against aspartame.

Regardless of the politics, the facts are quite simple. Aspartame is manufactured using the waste by-products of genetically-modified Escherichia coli bacteria breeding in warm tanks of carbohydrates, nitrogen compounds and other nutrients – however, medical insulin is also produced in a similar manner so this is not necessarily contentious.

It is almost certain that you would have ingested aspartame at some point in your life, and possibly you are 

even ingesting it every day without even knowing about it. Photo VisualHunt.com/Tony Webster

When ingested, aspartame decomposes into two amino acids (40% aspartic acid and 50% phenylalanine) and 10% methanol. Aspartic acid can be manufactured by the body itself but diet is the only source of phenylalanine (which is used as a precursor for dopamine, norepinephrine and epinephrine). Methanol is a toxic compound and is broken down first in the liver into formaldehyde (also toxic), and then into formic acid (yet another toxic compound) before finally being detoxified into carbon dioxide.

Before you worry too much, methanol is a very common compound also found in fruits, vegetables, beers, et cetera – so this compound is not necessarily substantially contentious either, especially as the overall methanol load from normal consumption of aspartame is quite low.

Affecting the brain?

What is curious is that there is some evidence that both dietary aspartic acid and phenylalanine can cross the Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB), and can therefore affect the brain.

The problem is that normal diets with common foods (eg. fish, meat, legumes, corn, soy-based foods, et cetera) have lots of the same amino acids – and fruits, vegetables, beers, wines, et cetera, contain methanol, so eating standard healthy meals might also be a bit risky if aspartame is indeed acutely toxic.

Also, many of the problematic test results involved rodents as test subjects – not humans, whose physiology is significantly different.

However, the human processing of large amounts of aspartame via carbonated drinks may enhance the uptake of aspartic acid and phenylalanine, not unlike people getting drunk faster with sparkling wines (because the bubbles induce a faster absorption of alcohol) – though no research has established yet whether this is of any relevance.

Perhaps more relevant is a 2015 study which showed that glucose intolerance in rodents and some humans can be induced by artificial sweeteners altering the balance of bacterial colonies in the gut microbiome.

Food regulators in the United States and the European Union assert that aspartame is a non-toxic compound – so 

how come there is so much controversy? Photo: VisualHunt.com/Steve Snodgrass

The theory is that the low-calorie sweeteners favour proliferation of the bacteria that are better at extracting energy (ie. glucose) from food – this extra glucose finds its way into blood and body tissue where it promotes insulin resistance, which can eventually lead to health issues like obesity, diabetes and diseases of the liver and heart.

However, on balance, the evidence still suggests that aspartame itself is not toxic, especially if ingested and buffered with other foods – so perhaps do not drink a litre of diet soda at once without proper food.

In any case, there are no compelling medical or health reasons to ingest aspartame at all, so if you want to be safe, perhaps a sensible course of action might be to limit consumption to, say, a quarter of the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 40mg per kilo of body weight.

This means if your weight is 60kg, the industry recommended daily limit for aspartame consumption is 60 x 40 = 2,400mg – or if you want to be safe, 600 mg a day. Aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sucrose so a quarter of the ADI at 600mg is still equivalent to an amazing 120 grams (or over quarter of a pound) of sugar.

For reference, a single 330ml can of diet cola can contain 175mg of aspartame.

Even though it is heavily abridged, the overview of E951 above is important not only due to the many unusual scientific controversies over its use – but because there are also other less well-known, equally strident disputes about the safety of many other EU-approved sweeteners such as E950 (acesulfame K), E952 (cyclamic acids), E953 (isomalt), E954 (saccharins), E955 (sucralose), E957 (thaumatin), E959 (neohesperidine DC), E960 (steviol glycoside), E961 (neotame), E962 (salt of aspartame-acesulfame), E964 (polyglycitol syrup), E965 (maltitol), E966 (lactitol), E967 (xylitol), E968 (erythritol) and E969 (advantame).

Of the list above, both E961 and E969 are notably interesting as they are a new breed of super high-intensity sweeteners – neotame is around 9,000 times sweeter than sugar and advantame is an incredible 20,000 times sweeter.

Stevia, yet not really stevia

Just as a comment, E960 is a natural sweetener derived from the leaves of the Stevia Rebaudiana plant and is about 250 times sweeter than sugar – and research has currently found scant evidence of toxicity in the human use of steviol glycoside.

However, if you attempt to buy this rather expensive compound in the supermarkets, many of the packaged stevia-based sweeteners are substantially adulterated with other synthetic sweeteners – so please be aware of this. It seems that additives are even added to other additives now.

The high use and low cost of artificial sweeteners (and indeed sugar itself) means that it has been suggested that modern processed foods can taste around three times as sweet as similar foods only 50-odd years ago.

The per capita use of natural sugar itself has gone up 30% between 1977 and 2010 in the United States – and consumption of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) there has gone up 245% between 1989 and 2000 alone.

The consumption statistics of artificial sweeteners is not easy to derive given the range of chemicals, producers and uses – but it would be reasonable to assume that the usage of artificial sweeteners has been on a pretty steep upward trend for the last few decades.

For example, in 2014, around 32% of Americans routinely choose to consume artificial sweeteners on a daily basis.

Note that sweeteners are often used to mask the bitterness of other additives – and therefore many societies have generally grown accustomed to the extravagant sweetness of modern processed foods. Think of “honey-cured” meats, caffeine-laden canned drinks or frappucinos, for example.

Other E9xx additives

There are some other curious additives in the E9xx section – and we will start with E900 (dimethylpolysiloxane). In real life, E900 is a compound used to make the silly putty children play with – but it is also used as an additive to frozen French fries and other commercial deep frozen fried foods.

This is because its strong anti-foaming properties help prevent hot oil from splashing or bubbling over when cooking, especially in large commercial deep fat fryers.

How it works is because this silicone compound has a relatively low surface tension and can therefore flow easily onto the external films of hot oil bubbles – once there, E900 acts as a surfactant to reduce the surface tension of the oil bubbles and also weaken the surfaces in between adjoining oil bubbles, causing them to fold gently back into the hot oil.

Glazing

E901 (beeswax), E903 (carnauba wax), E904 (shellac), E905 (paraffin or microcrystalline wax) and E907 (hydrogenated poly-1-decene) are glazing agents, used to make sweets, fruits, confectionaries, medicine pills, et cetera, externally shiny. For example, the use of E901 and E903 is how chocolate Smarties get that attractive bright, polished look.

Sheep wool, human hair and urea

E913 (lanolin) is derived from the oily secretions from the sebaceous glands in the hides of sheep – these secretions are used to oil wool, and apparently often included as part of the gum base for use in chewing gums (though most of the gum base is made from other compounds). Lanolin is also used in cosmetics and bath soaps as a moisturiser.

If chewing on E913 now sounds a little icky, then consider the origins of E920 (l-cysteine) – it is a dough conditioner commonly used to ensure commercial breads remain soft and fluffy long after they have been baked.

E920 was originally derived from human hair though it can also be extracted from bird feathers and animal hairs – in the EU, E920 sourced from human hair cannot be used.

However, in China it seems that much of the E920 produced there is still based at least in part on using human or pig hair – there is no way to test for the origin because the molecules are homogenous after processing into l-cysteine. China is a major exporter of l-cysteine to the world.

E927 (azodicarbonamide) was famous a few years ago for its dual use in making yoga mats and improving the textures of bread rolls in some popular food chains – but it is now banned in the EU.

However, E927b (carbamide) is still permitted as an additive to improve the colour and baking quality of flour. A more common term for carbamide is urea, though of course the urea used in baking is not derived from human or animal waste.

Gassy additives

Gases are also considered additives, though it would be rare to see them listed on a supermarket label as they are usually exhibited only for commercial bulk packaging – E938 (argon), E939 (helium) and E941 (nitrogen) are used as packaging gases to prevent the spoilage of food; E942 (nitrous oxide) is used as a spray propellant for other additives and oils; E943a (butane), E943b (iso-butane) and E944 (propane) are used as flammable gases to char or singe surfaces to finish the presentation of foods such as crème brulee, moussaka, lasagna, et cetera; E948 (oxygen) is used to oxidise food quickly to obtain a matured or aged look; and E949 (hydrogen) is used to hydrogenate fats.

The last of the E9xx series is E999 (quillaia extract) which is used as a foaming agent to improve the bubbles in beer and other fizzy drinks. Photo: VisualHunt.com/Theo Xiong

The last of the E9xx series is E999 (quillaia extract) which is used commonly as a foaming agent to improve the bubbles in beer and other fizzy drinks – it is also a natural humectant, often used to keep cakes, puddings and other desserts moist for extended periods of time.

Yet again, I have to add that over-consumption of many additives may lead to possible health hazards and side-effects – and it is simply not possible to cover all potential reactions due to the numbers and combinations of additives.

However, most food additives are regulated in their use and therefore should not cause problems when processed foods are consumed in reasonable amounts by healthy humans.

The next part has more curious tidbits about other unusual additives and bulking agents – including additives which can peel oranges or glue proteins, yet legally need not be reported, and why.

Read : Part 1  Part 2  Part 3   Part 4   Part 5

\http://www.star2.com/food/food-news/2017/06/25/how-count-food-part-4/

Coke Is a Joke: Alarming Aspartame Facts Infographic

The "Coke Is a Joke" infographic exposes the false weight loss and wellness claims of Coke in its diet soda line, which uses aspartame and other artificial sweeteners. 

http://www.mercola.com/infographics/coke-is-a-joke.htm

How Monsanto Promotes Worldwide Infertility

Monsanto has a long and infamous history of manufacturing and bringing to market such chemicals as DDT, Agent Orange, aspartame, Roundup and dioxin1 — chemical compounds from which society continues to feel the effects.

August 24, 2016

Story at-a-glance

• Monsanto has an infamous history of marketing toxins such as DDT, Agent Orange, Roundup, dioxin, PCBs and aspartame
• Once the largest producer of PCBs in the U.S., Monsanto is now being sued on multiple fronts for health and environmental damage from PCB pollution
• Chemical poisoning begins before your baby is even born as these chemicals pass the placental barrier, affecting neurological and hormonal development

By Dr. Mercola

Monsanto has a long and infamous history of manufacturing and bringing to market such chemicals as DDT, Agent Orange, aspartame, Roundup and dioxin1 — chemical compounds from which society continues to feel the effects.

In an effort to distance the current corporation from past deeds, Monsanto refers to the company prior to 2002 as "the former Monsanto" in their news releases.2However, nothing has really changed aside from their PR machine.

While Monsanto has branched into genetic engineering (GE) of plants, the sale of patented GE seeds simply feeds the need for the company's pesticides. Monsanto is STILL primarily a purveyor of toxins, not life.

Monsanto began forging a unique and financially advantageous relationship with the U.S. government starting with the company's involvement in the Manhattan Project that produced the first nuclear weapons during World War II. During the Vietnam War they were the leading producer of Agent Orange.

The specialization in the production and distribution of toxic chemicals continues today.

Their influence over government runs so deep that despite the fact 64 other countries have been labeling genetically engineered (GE) foods for years, the U.S. now has the distinction of being the first country to un-label GE foods at the urging of a company producing mass amounts of GE seeds.

Monsanto and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

In the latter part of the 1920s, Monsanto was the largest producer of PCBs. This chemical was used in lubricant for electric motors, hydraulic fluids and to insulate electrical equipment.3 Old fluorescent light fixtures and electrical appliances with PCB capacitors may still contain the chemical.

During the years PCB was manufactured and used, there were no controls placed on disposal. Since PCBs don't break down under many conditions, they are now widely distributed through the environment and have made the journey up the food chain.4

Between the inception and distribution of the product and its subsequent ban in the late 1970s, an estimated 1.5 billion pounds were distributed in products around the world.5

Monsanto was the primary manufacturer of PCBs in the U.S. under the trade name Aroclor. Health problems associated with exposure to the chemical were noted as early as 1933 when 23 of 24 workers at the production plant developed pustules, loss of energy and appetite, loss of libido and other skin disturbances.6

According to Monsanto's public timeline, it was in 1966 that "Monsanto and others began to study PCB persistence in the environment."7 However, seven years earlier, Monsanto's assistant director of their Medical Department wrote:

"… [S]ufficient exposure, whether by inhalation of vapors or skin contact, can result in chloracne which I think we must assume could be an indication of a more systemic injury if the exposure were allowed to continue."8

In 1967, Shell Oil called to inform Monsanto of press reports from Sweden, noting that PCBs were accumulating in mammals further up the food chain. Shell asked for PCB samples to perform their own analytical studies.9

With full knowledge of the devastation expected to the environment and humanity, it wasn't until 11 years later, in 1977, that Monsanto reportedly pulled production on PCB.10

PCBs Are Probable Human Carcinogens

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Toxicology Program, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIEHS) have identified PCBs as either probable, potential or reasonably likely to cause cancer in humans.11

If it seems like these agencies are couching their words, they are. Human studies have noted increased rates of liver cancer, gall bladder cancer, melanomas, gastrointestinal cancer, biliary tract cancer, brain cancer and breast cancer when individuals had higher levels of PCB chemicals in their blood and tissue.12

However, the EPA limits the ability of researchers to link a chemical as a carcinogen unless there is conclusive proof. While this proof is evident in animal studies, you can't feed these chemicals to humans and record the results. Thus PCBs are a "probable" carcinogen in humans. Other health effects from PCBs include:

• Babies born with neurological and motor control delays including lower IQ, poor short-term memory and poor performance on standardized behavioral assessment tests
• Disrupted sex hormones including shortened menstrual cycles, reduced sperm count and premature puberty
• Imbalanced thyroid hormone affecting growth, intellectual and behavioral development
• Immune effects, including children with more ear infections and chickenpox

Once PCBs are absorbed in the body they deposit in the fat tissue. They are not broken down or excreted. This means the number of PCBs build over time and move up the food chain. Smaller fish are eaten by larger ones and eventually land on your dinner table.

Chemical Poisoning Begins Before Birth

A recent study at the University of California demonstrated that PCBs are found in the blood of pregnant women.13 Before birth, the umbilical cord delivers approximately 300 quarts of blood to your baby every day.

Not long ago, researchers believed the placenta would shield your developing baby from most pollutants and chemicals. Now we know it does not.

The umbilical cord is a lifeline between mother and child, sustaining life and propelling growth. However, in recent research cord blood contained between 200 and 280 different chemicals; 180 were known carcinogens and 217 were toxic to the baby's developing nervous system.14

The deposits of chemicals in your body or the body of your developing baby are called your "body burden" of chemicals and pollution.

A steady stream of chemicals from the environment during a critical time of organ and system development has a significant impact on the health of your child, both in infancy and as the child grows to adulthood.

Tracey Woodruff, Ph.D., director of the University of California San Francisco Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, was quoted in a press release, saying:

"It was surprising and concerning to find so many chemicals in pregnant women without fully knowing the implications for pregnancy. Several of these chemicals in pregnant women were at the same concentrations that have been associated with negative effects in children from other studies.

In addition, exposure to multiple chemicals that can increase the risk of the same adverse health outcome can have a greater impact than exposure to just one chemical."

Butyl Benzyl Phthalate — Another Monsanto Product

Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), also manufactured by Monsanto, was recently implicated in cell fat storage.15 This specific phthalate was found in human fluids and had an effect on the accumulation of fat inside cells.

BBP is used in the manufacture of vinyl tile, as a plasticizer in PVC pipe, carpets, conveyer belts and weather stripping in your home and office.

Like other phthalates used in the production of plastics, BBP is not bound to the product and can be released into your environment. It may be absorbed by crops and move up the food chain.16 The biggest source of exposure is food.

Drive-through hamburgers and take-out pizzas may be increasing your intake of phthalates. The danger is not in the food itself but in the products used to handle it. The study analyzed data from nearly 9,000 individuals, finding the one-third who had eaten at a fast food restaurant had higher levels of two different phthalates.17

Potentially, BBP may adversely affect your reproductive function. However, at lower doses it also has an effect on your kidneys, liver and pancreas.18 Increased risks of respiratory disorders and multiple myelomas have also been reported in people who have exposure to products manufactured with BBP.19 An increasing waistline from BBP exposure may also reduce your fertility.

Low Sperm Count and Infertility Affecting Animals and Humans

A 26-year study of fertility in dogs, published recently, has distinct similarities to infertility rates in humans. In this study, researchers evaluated the ejaculate of nearly 2,000 dogs. Over the 26 year period, they found a drop in sperm motility of 2.4 percent per year.20

Additionally, both the semen and the testicles of castrated dogs contained by PCBs and phthalates, implicated in other studies to reduction in fertility. Phthalates have been implicated in both decreased sperm motility and quality of your sperm,21 affecting both fertility and the health of your children.22

Researchers used dogs in this study as they live in the same environment as their owners, and often eat some of the same food. This correlation between sperm function and concentration, and environment and food in dogs and humans is significant.

In those 26 years there was also a rise in cryptorchidism in male pups (a condition where the testicles don't descend into the scrotum) born to stud dogs who experienced a decline in sperm quality and motility.23 Cryptorchidism and undescended testicles, occurs at a rate of 1 in 20 term male human infants and 1 in 3 pre-term babies.24

Problems with infertility are also affecting marine animals at the top of the food chain. In the western waters of the Atlantic, the last pod of Orcas are doomed to extinction. High levels of PCB have been found in the fat of over 1,000 dolphins and Orcas in the past 20 years. Now taking a toll on the animal's fertility, this pod of Orcas has not reproduced in the 19 years it has been under study.25

Orcas were living in the North Sea until the 1960s. At that time PCB pollution peaked in the area and the Orca whales disappeared. The same happened in the Mediterranean Sea, where the whales flourished until the 1980s. This pod off the coast of the U.K. is the last living pod in that area.

Monsanto's Argument in PCB Lawsuits

Although Monsanto denies culpability and knowledge of the danger behind the chemical PCB, you'll discover internal documentation in this video that they did, in fact, know of the danger while manufacturing and distributing the product. Monsanto is currently embroiled in several lawsuits across eight cities and the argument is over who owns the rain. The cities are suing Monsanto in Federal Court, saying PCBs manufactured by Monsanto have polluted the San Francisco Bay.26

Monsanto attorney Robert Howard argues that because the city does not own the water rights, the city does not have the right to sue. And, because the PCBs have not damaged city property, such as corroding pipes, Howard claims it is a state problem. Scott Fiske, attorney for three cities, countered with the city's regulatory interests in management of storm water as a fundamental function of the city.27

While Fiske claims he can prove Monsanto knew the product was hazardous as early as 1969, Howard maintains the company should not be liable for the use of the chemicals it produced.

In 2001, Monsanto attorneys in the Owens v. Monsanto case, acknowledged only one health threat from exposure to PCBs: chloracne, and instead argued that since the entire planet has been contaminated, they are innocent of all liability.28 The attorney for Monsanto was quoted in the Chemical Industry Archives, saying:

"The truth is that PCBs are everywhere. They are in meat, they are in everyone in the courtroom, they are everywhere and they have been for a long time, along with a host of other substances." 29

The cities currently engaged in lawsuits against Monsanto for damage to the environment and waterways include Berkley, Oakland, San Jose, Portland, Spokane, Seattle, Long Beach and San Diego. All eight cities attempted to combine their cases against the agrochemical giant but were unsuccessful when one judge found the issues were different enough to warrant separate cases.30

Monsanto's Deep Pockets

Monsanto petitioned the Federal Court to dismiss Portland's lawsuit, claiming it would countersue, adding years to the process. It is likely Monsanto would increase the scope of the case and include companies who used the product and released the PCBs.31Meanwhile, three plaintiffs in St. Louis received better news in May 2016 when a jury awarded them a total of $46.5 million, finding Monsanto negligent in the production of PCBs.32

This suit claimed Monsanto sold PCBs even after it learned about the dangers, bringing to court internal documents dated 1955, which stated: "We know Aroclors [PCBs] are toxic but the actual limit has not been precisely defined."33 To date this win over Monsanto has been rare. Williams Kherkher, attorney for the plaintiffs, explained in EcoWatch:34

"The only reason why this victory is rare is because no one has had the money to fight Monsanto."

Kherkher and other firms pooled their resources in this case and expect wins in upcoming lawsuits. The firm has accumulated the names of approximately 1,000 plaintiffs with claims against Monsanto and PCBs.

SAD NEWS: House Passes DARK Act Compromise

The House passed a compromise to the DARK Act that will force food distributors to disclose the presence of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients with a smartphone scan code. President Obama has signed the bill that removes states’ rights for labeling GMOs. The bill is full of loopholes, which may allow genetically modified ingredients to slip through unannounced.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), aka GE foods, are live organisms whose genetic components have been artificially manipulated in a laboratory setting through creating unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and even viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.

GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is “safe and beneficial,” and that it advances the agricultural industry. They also say that GMOs help ensure the global food supply and sustainability. But is there any truth to these claims? I believe not. For years, I’ve stated the belief that GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet. Genetic engineering is NOT the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be.

The FDA cleared the way for GE Atlantic salmon to be farmed for human consumption. Thanks to added language in the federal spending bill, the product will require special labeling so at least consumers will have the ability to identify the GE salmon in stores. However, it's imperative ALL GE foods be labeled clearly without a smartphone scan code because not everyone owns a smartphone.

The FDA is threatening the existence of our food supply. We have to start taking action now. I urge you to share this article with friends and family. If we act together, we can make a difference and put an end to the absurdity.

Boycott Smart Labels Today

When you see the QR code or so-called Smart Label on a food product, pass it by. Products bearing the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association’s (GMA) Smart Label mark are in all likelihood filled with pesticides and/or GMO ingredients.

The GMA’s 300-plus members include chemical technology companies, GE seed and food and beverage companies. Monsanto, Dow and Coca-Cola are just some of the heavy-hitters in this powerful industry group, which has showed no qualms about doing whatever it takes to protect the interest of its members.

Don’t waste your time searching through their website, which may or may not contain the information you’re looking for. If they insist on wasting your time and making your shopping difficult, why reward them with a purchase?

A little known fact is that the GMA actually owns the "Smart Label" trademark that Congress has accepted as a so-called “compromise” to on-package GMO labeling, and that’s another reason why I believe the Smart Label mark is the mark of those with something to hide, such as Monsanto.

Will you financially support a corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system, or a healthy, regenerative one? There are many options available besides big-brand processed foods that are part of the “GMA’s verified ring of deception.” You can:

• Shop at local farms and farmers markets
• Only buy products marked either “USDA 100 percent Organic” (which by law cannot contain GMOs), “100 percent Grass-Fed,” or “Non-GMO Verified”
• If you have a smartphone and you don’t mind using it, download the OCA’s Buycott app to quickly and easily identify the thousands of proprietary brands belonging to GMA members, so you can avoid them, as well as identify the names of ethical brands that deserve your patronage

Last but not least, encourage good companies to reject QR codes and to be transparent and clear with their labeling. This will eventually ensure that all GMO foods can easily be identified by the GMA’s “verified ring of deception” mark that is the Smart Label.

Campbell’s, Mars, Kellogg’s, ConAgra and General Mills all vowed to voluntarily comply with Vermont's GMO labeling law by labeling all of their foods sold across the U.S. Will their plans change now that the law has been passed by Congress and signed by the President? That remains to be seen, but if you like these companies, I would encourage you to reach out to them and ask them to remain steadfast in their promise.

Non-GMO Food Resources by Country

If you are searching for non-GMO foods, here is a list of trusted sites you can visit.

• Organic Food Directory (Australia)
• Eat Wild (Canada)
• Organic Explorer (New Zealand)
• Eat Well Guide (United States and Canada)
• Farm Match (United States)
• Local Harvest (United States)
• Weston A. Price Foundation (United States)

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/08/24/monsanto-pcb-infertility.aspx

If you are taking Pepsi. Coke and Soda drinks: MUST READ

Coke's Cookie Is Crumbling

Sugary beverages, soda chief among them, have been blamed for rising rates of obesity and related chronic diseases in developed countries, and there's evidence to support such claims.

August 23, 2016 

Story at-a-glance

• Gregory Hand, Ph.D., the former dean of the West Virginia School of Public Health, was forced out as dean because of his involvements with Coca-Cola
• Coca-Cola reportedly gave Hand more than half a million dollars to start a nonprofit group tasked with spreading the word that lack of exercise, and not sugary beverages, is responsible for obesity.
• The beverage giant also gave Hand $806,500 to conduct an “energy flux” study in 2011
• Michael Pratt, senior adviser for Global Health in the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the CDC, has also promoted and led research for Coca-Cola

By Dr. Mercola

Sugary beverages, soda chief among them, have been blamed for rising rates of obesity and related chronic diseases in developed countries, and there's evidence to support such claims.

Leading beverage companies like Coca-Cola, however, want the public to believe they're not part of the problem but rather are innocent scapegoats.

To get this message across and save their quickly deflating public image, Coca-Cola gave money — a lot of money — to Gregory Hand, Ph.D., the former dean of the West Virginia School of Public Health, to start a nonprofit group called the Global Energy Balance Network.

In early August 2016, the school announced Hand had been demoted and was forced out as dean because of his seemingly unscrupulous involvements with Coca-Cola, although he will still be working at the school in another role.

The purpose of the now-defunct Global Energy Balance Network, for instance, was to promote the message that lack of exercise, and not sugary beverages, is responsible for obesity.

Coca-Cola reportedly gave Hand more than half a million dollars to start the misleading nonprofit. About a year ago, health experts called the nonprofit's message "misleading" and "an effort by Coke to deflect criticism about the role sugary drinks have played in the spread of obesity and Type 2 diabetes."1

West Virginia School of Public Health Dean Forced to Step Down Due to Coca-Cola Conflicts

The formation of the Global Energy Balance Network was only one of Hand's underhanded dealings with Coca-Cola. The beverage giant also gave Hand $806,500 to conduct an "energy flux" study in 2011.

When leaders in public health are partnering with soda makers to downplay the risks such beverages pose in obesity, heart disease, diabetes and more, clearly they have not only failed in their duty to protect public health but also have taken steps to worsen it.

Gary Ruskin of the public interest group U.S. Right to Know told Corporate Crime Reporter:2

"Gregory Hand betrayed West Virginia taxpayers and his public health profession by helping Coca-Cola to evade responsibility for its role in the obesity epidemic …

Hand's role as dean was to improve public health, but he did the opposite … It's a good start that Hand was removed from his post at dean, but he should be fired from West Virginia University."

Coca-Cola Front Group Shut Down After Bad Press

The Global Energy Balance Network was basically a front group aimed at confusing you about soda science and diverting attention away from evidence showing soda is a major contributor to obesity and diabetes.

One of the group's primary messages was to tout exercise as the science-backed solution to obesity — while downplaying the importance of dietary issues, like soda consumption.

Coca-Cola did not come right out and disclose that they were behind the supposedly scientific front group — they were outed by The New York Times in August 2015.3

After The New York Times report, the front group received so much bad press and criticism that one of their academic ties, the University of Colorado School of Medicine, said it would return the $1 million grant Coca-Cola had given them to help start the group.

Public health authorities accused the group of using tobacco-industry tactics to raise doubts about the health hazards of soda, and a letter signed by more than three-dozen scientists said the group was spreading "scientific nonsense."4

By December 2015, the Global Energy Balance Network announced it would be shutting down, with Coca-Cola claiming it was working on increased transparency.5

Even CDC Officials Have Close Ties With Coca-Cola

Another leader in public health, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), should be cracking down on corporations promoting products linked to poor health and disease. Instead, they appear to have taken the company under their protective wing.

Earlier this year, for instance, Barbara Bowman, Ph.D., former director of the CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP), left the agency unexpectedly, two days after her close ties with Coca-Cola were revealed.

Bowman reportedly aided a Coca-Cola representative in efforts to influence World Health Organization (WHO) officials to relax recommendations on sugar limits.6Bowman, however, was not the only CDC official looking out for Coca-Cola.

Uncovered emails now suggest that Michael Pratt, senior adviser for Global Health in the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the CDC, has also promoted and led research for the soda giant. According to The Huffington Post:7

"Pratt did not respond to questions about his work, which includes a position as a professor at Emory University, a private research university in Atlanta that has received millions of dollars from the Coca-Cola Foundation and more than $100 million from famed longtime Coca-Cola leader Robert W. Woodruff and Woodruff's brother George.

Indeed, Coca-Cola's financial support for Emory is so strong that the university states on its website that 'it's unofficially considered poor school spirit to drink other soda brands on campus.'"

Coca-Cola CEO Assures Media That People Are Still Spending Money on Soda

Research suggests sugary beverages are to blame for about 183,000 deathsworldwide each year, including 133,000 diabetes deaths, 44,000 heart disease deaths and 6,000 cancer deaths. The health risks must be catching on, as soda consumption has been on a steady decline for decades.

Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of Americans say they actively try to avoid soda in their diet,8 and Americans now consume about the same amount they did back in 1986. Meanwhile, Coca-Cola sales fell 5 percent to $11.54 billion, from $12.16 billion in the year-ago quarter, according to Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent.9

Despite this, Kent told the media that "consumers are still buying and spending money on sparkling beverages," just in smaller amounts. The company has adopted a new strategy of selling smaller sizes of soft drinks at a higher margin in efforts to boost revenue.

Soda May Increase the Risk of Gallbladder and Bile Duct Cancer

Coca-Cola has spent nearly $120 million on grants given to health organizations, including cancer organizations,10 in recent years, which is ironic since soda has been linked to an increased risk of cancer.

Recently, a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute revealed high consumption of sweetened beverages may increase the risk of rare cancers in the gallbladder and bile ducts around the liver.11

The finding is particularly noteworthy because research suggests obesity and elevated blood sugar levels (often found in diabetes) may increase the risk of these rare cancers — and both obesity and diabetes have, in turn, been linked to sugary drinks.

Diet Soda May Disrupt Your Gut Microbiota

As we've seen many times over, the solution to avoiding the health risks of sugary beverages is NOT to switch to artificially sweetened diet soda, as these beverages have just as much risk as their sugar-sweetened cousins — if not more so.

Studies have found that artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, may lead to weight gain12 and glucose intolerance by altering gut microbiota.13

Unbeknownst to many, aspartame has been found to increase hunger ratings compared to glucose or water and is associated with heightened motivation to eat (even more so than other artificial sweeteners like saccharin or acesulfame potassium).14

For a substance often used in "diet" products, the fact that aspartame may actually increase weight gain is incredibly misleading. A study published in the journal Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism also found that consuming aspartame may be associated with greater glucose intolerance, particularly for people who are obese. According to the study:15

"This study provides evidence that consumption of aspartame may be associated with greater diabetes risk in individuals with higher adiposity. Aspartame is reported to be associated with changes in gut microbiota that are associated with impairments in insulin resistance in lean and obese rodents. We observe that aspartame was related to significantly greater impairments in glucose tolerance for individuals with obesity … "

Diet Soda May Make You Consume More Calories

It's a myth that drinking diet soda can help you lose weight. On the contrary, a recent study on fruit flies again found that artificial sweeteners may make you eat more than you normally would.16 For the study, fruit flies were fed a diet of food sweetened with sucralose (Spenda) or sugar for five days.

Those fed sucralose ate about 30 percent more calories than those fed sugar. The researchers then revealed that sucralose activated a fasting response in the flies, which triggered them to eat more to compensate for the perceived lack of food.17

A similar study conducted in mice yielded similar results, with the mice fed sucralose consuming more food. What's more, when the flies were fed real sugar later on, the brains of those that had been used to consuming artificial sweeteners responded differently. They showed more activity in response to the sugar, which suggests it tasted sweeter after getting used to artificial sweeteners. Study author Herbert Herzog told Forbes:18

"These findings further reinforce the idea that 'sugar-free' varieties of processed food and drink may not be as inert as we anticipated … Artificial sweeteners can actually change how animals perceive the sweetness of their food, with a discrepancy between sweetness and energy levels prompting an increase in caloric consumption."

Not to mention, 92 percent of independently funded studies found aspartame, which is often used in diet soda, may cause adverse effects beyond increased calorie consumption, including depression and headaches.19 Writing in Vice, one woman also shared her story of how suffering from chronic migraines virtually ruined her 20s — until a migraine specialist finally made the connection to diet soda.

She was drinking close to three bottles of aspartame-sweetened diet soda a day and suffering from multiple migraines a week. When she gave up the diet soda, the migraines went away.20

The "Coke Is a Joke" infographic exposes the false weight loss and wellness claims of Coke in its diet soda line, which uses aspartame and other artificial sweeteners. 

Don't Fall for Coca-Cola's Marketing — Give up Soda to Protect Your Health

Despite Coca-Cola's slick marketing campaigns, government ties and heavy contributions to academia to give the illusion that drinking soda is perfectly healthy, the fact remains that this is one dietary habit worth kicking to the curb. Your best, most cost-effective choice of beverage is filtered tap water. I strongly recommend using a high-quality water filtration system unless you can verify the purity of your water. Seltzer or mineral water is another option.

Adding a squeeze of lemon or lime is one way to add some flavor and variety, and many soda drinkers find it easier to ditch soda when replacing it with some sparkling water. Unsweetened tea and coffee can also be healthy beverage choices. As for a safer sweetener option, you could use stevia or Luo Han, both of which are safe natural sweeteners.

However, if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would likely benefit from avoiding all sweeteners, including stevia and Luo Han. In order to break free of your soda habit, be sure you also address the emotional component of your cravings using tools such as the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT).

Turbo Tapping, in particular, is an extremely effective and simple tool to get rid of your soda addiction in a short amount of time. In addition, soda cravings may be a sign that you need to make some changes to your diet to better fulfill your nutritional requirements. My free nutrition plan can help you do this in a step-by-step manner.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/08/23/coca-cola-close-ties.aspx