But Dow Chemical is being allowed to do both, as it puts pressure on farmers to continue using a pesticide that scientists and researchers have tied to childhood ADHD and autism.

As reported by The Intercept, no comprehensive studies were done prior to 2014 into the link between autism and the chemical chlorpyrifos, which Dow manufactures as one of its principle pesticide ingredients.

The CHARGE study, conducted by the University of California-Davis, examined the environmental causes of autism and developmental delay. It found that nearby applications of agricultural pesticides dramatically boost the risk of autism.

Researchers found that mothers who lived less than a mile from fields being sprayed with chlorpyrifos during their second trimester of pregnancy increased their chances of having their child develop autism more than threefold.

Since then, dozens of other studies have linked even small amounts of fetal exposure to the chemical with other neurodevelopmental problems, including ADHD, lower IQ and intelligence, and difficulties in learning.

Finally, in November, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a groundbreaking report that made clear the serious health dangers posed by chlorpyrifos. The report, titled, Chlorpyrifos Revised Human Health Risk Assessment, detailed evidence that the pesticide produces intelligence deficits as well as motor, attention and memory problems in children. The report states that children under the age of 2 risk exposure to the chemical just in their food alone, at levels that are 14,000 percent higher than the level the EPA now considers to be safe. (RELATED: What else is the EPA up to? Stay informed at EPAWatch.org)

Dow, which still makes most of the products that contain chlorpyrifos, has consistently disputed the steadily mounting evidence that its bread-and-butter chemical harms kids. However, the government report makes it clear that the EPA now believes and accepts scientific research conducted independently that the chemical which is used to grow so much of our food is dangerous.

A pre-publication copy of the report, The Intercept noted, said that “residues of chlorpyrifos on most individual food crops exceed the ‘reasonable certainty of no harm’ safety standard under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.” In layman’s terms, that simply means that any particular sample of food may contain unacceptably high levels of chlorpyrifos.

But that’s not all. Officials believe that drinking water and non-drinking water exposures to chlorpyrifos also exceed what is safe. So the only remaining reasonable step is to ban the chemical altogether.

Advocates for public health have been pressuring the EPA to ban the pesticide for a number of years. Also, The Intercept reported, four months prior to the release of the report, 47 scientists and doctors who have expertise in childhood neurological development, to include the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, warned that toxic chemicals in the environment are boosting children’s risk of developing cognitive, behavioral and social disorders, as well as contributing to the rise of ADHD and instances of autism.

Called the TENDR statement, it included a list of the most dangerous neurotoxins, and was akin to a plea for immediate action from government regulators to take them off the market. Organophosphate pesticides, the group to which chlorpyrifos belongs, sat atop the list.

However, when the EPA’s report was published indicating that the agency appeared ready to finally take action against chlorpyrifos, there was not much joy among scientists and environmental activists because, just a few days earlier, GOP nominee Donald J. Trump was elected president.

The fear among scientists is that Trump will ignore the rule or try to change it. His inauguration Jan. 20 was three days after the mandatory 60-day commentary period for the rule/ban ended. The final rule would then take effect March 31. (RELATED: What’s the latest on the science front? Find out at Scientific.news)

Trump has not indicated that he would block this ban, and The Intercept offered no evidence that it would happen. The fear revolves around Trump’s pledge to cut red tape and bureaucracy. However, if there is solid evidence that this chemical is harming children and causing autism, Trump may prove to be the environmentalists’ best friend on this one, given his belief that too many vaccines, too quickly, can lead to autism.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

TheIntercept.com

BeInCharge.UCDavis.edu

Science.NaturalNews.com

Writer Chrissy Mahlmeister proclaims, “A recent study revealed that the average American woman wears a size 16–18, and we want to celebrate that!”

To be clear; just because you are the “average” size does not mean you are a “healthy” size. This is not something we should be celebrating. In the summer of 2016, it was reported that for the first time ever, more than 4 out every 10 women in the United States were obese.

The latest data from the CDC indicates that roughly 40 percent of all women in the US are clinically obese, as are 35 percent of men. Obesity is a problem in this country — and it’s a problem many people, including the mainstream media, are in denial about. [RELATED: Stay current with media’s latest tricks at MediaFactWatch.com]

BMI, waist circumference as indicators of risk

The liberal media loves to criticize the BMI scale. It is an easy target; it doesn’t take into account things like bone density and muscle mass. This is quite true, but the fact remains that BMI is based on average. So, it stands to reason that unless you are above-average in terms of your physique — which most people in this country clearly are not — BMI is still a useful tool for diagnosing potential health risks for the average individual. Is it perfect? Of course not. But for the average person, it is a reasonably accurate predictor of potential disease risk.

It’s also worth noting that in women, BMI tends to underestimate body fatness, rather than overestimate. So, unless you are an actual athlete, BMI is a tool that your doctor can use to help estimate your current health risks fairly accurately.

Even if you still don’t really care for the BMI measurement — there is no escaping your waist measurement. Waist measurement is a respected predictor for the onset of many diseases and health conditions. So, if you think being a size 16 or 18 is not unhealthy, think again. According to the Lane Bryant website, a size 16 equates to  36″ waist circumference, while a size 18 equates to a 38″ waist circumference.  In women, a waist size of 35″ or more is associated with an increased risk of metabolic syndrome. Men with waists of 40″ or more are also at risk. Such large waist measurements are also considered risk factors for diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. (RELATED: Learn how to prevent disease at Prevention.news)

The health risks of obesity are clear

In addition to the outpouring of statistics provided by the CDC and other official organizations, there are countless scientific studies that show overall, being overweight or obese correlates with an increased risk of mortality, disease and disability.

The CDC states that in addition to increasing the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension, obesity also increases your risks for: strokes, gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis, chronic inflammation, sleep apnea, breathing difficulty, certain kinds of cancers, poor quality of life and reduced mobility. Obesity also increases the risk for all-cause mortality. [RELATED: Learn more about the CDC at CDC.news]

Some 30 percent of overweight people are currently living with diabetes, and 85 percent of type 2 diabetics are overweight or obese. Some studies have indicated that being slightly overweight increases your risk of diabetes five times, while being obese can raise the risk by up to 60-fold.

You’ve probably heard about that study that claimed being fat actually helped you live longer. While there has been quite a lot of controversy about the validity of the study, even if we were to entertain the thought — that study did not indicate that those extra years lived would be healthy years lived.

A study published by the International Journal of Obesity found that BMI and waist circumference were related to disability, and a decreased chance of recovering from said disability. The study also observed an increase in years of life lost to disability as weight increased. Data from almost 6,000 participants was collected. In terms of years lost to disability, the researchers found that being overweight cost men 5.87 years of life, and cost women 12.82 years. Grade I Obesity (BMI above 30 but below 35) was correlated with a 7-year loss for men and a 15-year loss for women.

So, it seems that even if you do manage to live longer thanks to your extra energy stores, it doesn’t seem that those years will be particularly pleasant.

While the media tells you being fat is “slaying” or whatever, the truth is that obesity is not natural or healthy. “Average” in America means obese, and there are no if’s, and’s or but’s about that.

Sources:

BuzzFeed.com

HSPH.Harvard.edu

NHLBI.NIH.gov

MayoClinic.org

CBSNews.com

CDC.gov

News.Harvard.edu

And in our profit-driven world, that is an issue that the dairy industry is clamoring to remedy.

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) petitioned the FDA to amend the “standard of identity” for milk and 17 other dairy products. [RELATED: Keep up with the latest FDA headlines at FDA.news]

Why? So they could use any kind of approved sweetener, including artificial sweeteners like aspartame, without having to indicate that the beverage contained a sugar substitute on the label.

Items that contain artificial sweeteners or other ingredients to reduce their calorie counts are required by the state to indicate that they are “reduced calorie” on the label. According to the IDFA and NMPF, this label is a turn off for many consumers. Perhaps this is because many people try to avoid consuming artificial sweeteners?

Regardless, their deceitful proposal would remove the tell-tale phrase from the products’ labels, but it would not impact the actual ingredient list. However, that means one would have to inspect the ingredient list on every milk bottle they purchase to ensure no undesirable ingredients are present. [RELATED: Learn more about what’s hiding in your food at Ingredients.news]

How many people would actually do this, and how many would actually be aware that they had to? The industry relies on consumer ignorance to sell products; a proposal such as this clearly demonstrates that. They are trying to fool people into buying milk sweetened with a chemical they would otherwise avoid.

How is this even being considered as a possibility? Americans have the right to know what is in their food, and industries like Big Dairy do not have the right to be deceitful. Many other products would still be subject to bearing the “reduced calorie” label — why should they get a pass? There is no reason for milk, or any other food stuff, to lie about what it contains — especially when it contains harmful chemicals like aspartame.

The ill effects of aspartame

Aspartame has been the subject of immense scrutiny for quite some time. In 1996, a study published by The Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology posited, “Compared to other environmental factors putatively linked to brain tumors, the artificial sweetener aspartame is a promising candidate to explain the recent increase in incidence and degree of malignancy of brain tumors.”

The research team, from Washington University Medical School, noted that at that time, evidence that potentially indicated aspartame as a cause of brain tumors included an animal study that revealed an “exceedingly high incidence of brain tumors” in rats that had been fed aspartame, compared to no brain tumors at all in the concurrent control group. The team states that aspartame was introduced into the US food and beverage market just a few short years prior to the drastic increase in brain tumor incidence and malignancy around the country.

In their conclusion, the researchers stated, “We conclude that there is need for reassessing the carcinogenic potential of aspartame.” That was just over two decades ago.

Research has continued to demonstrate that aspartame poses a threat to overall health and can be especially harmful to the brain. A more recent study, published in 2007 found that exposure to aspartame over the course of rodents’ lifespans greatly increased the incidence of lymphomas and leukemias in both male and female rats. Female rats exposed to aspartame also exhibited an increased incidence of mammary cancer. The team concluded, “The results of this carcinogenicity bioassay confirm and reinforce the first experimental demonstration of [aspartame’s] multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake for humans.” The team also noted that when exposure began during fetal life, the carcinogenic effects were amplified.

Several researchers from that study went on to publish a report in 2014, entitled, “The carcinogenic effects of aspartame: The urgent need for regulatory re-evaluation.” In that report, the team discussed the increasing evidence of aspartame’s toxic and carcinogenic nature.

In the abstract, the researchers concluded, “On the basis of the evidence of the potential carcinogenic effects of [aspartame] herein reported, a re-evaluation of the current position of international regulatory agencies must be considered an urgent matter of public health.”

And this is what the dairy industry wants to put in milk, to trick children into drinking it?

Sources:

OrganicAndHealthy.org

NPR.org

FDA.gov

NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov

NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov

Less than 2 percent of the population is getting the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of 4,700 milligrams of potassium each day. Most people in the US are potassium deficient purely because they do not eat enough plants; this comes as no surprise in the fast food nation, but it is still quite worrisome. Potassium is an essential nutrient that is needed for a variety of cellular processes, maintaining electrolyte balance, and is imperative to the function of important organs like your heart and kidneys. [RELATED: Keep up with the latest nutrition headlines at Fresh.news]

Simply put, potassium is a vital nutrient that most of us aren’t getting enough of for ideal health. So, what can you do to help boost your intake of this essential mineral? Here are six potassium-rich foods that you can eat to help you meet your body’s potassium needs:

1. Avocado

One whole avocado contains an average of 1,068 milligrams of potassium. A 50-gram serving of this delectable fruit provides about 254 milligrams, or six percent of your daily potassium needs. Avocados also boast many other health benefits, like being rich in healthy fats and fiber.

2. Spinach

A one-cup serving of spinach can provide you with approximately 824 milligrams of potassium; this equates to about 24 percent of the RDA. Spinach is a nutrient-dense leafy green that is also quite low in calories. A one-cup serving is only 41 calories, making it an ideal choice for anyone watching their energy intake.

3. Sweet Potato

In just one medium-sized sweet potato, you will find about 952 milligrams of potassium, reeling in about 27 percent of your daily potassium needs. Sweet potatoes are also a great source of fiber and vitamin A. A simple baked sweet potato topped with some fresh herbs is a great way to serve up this tasty tuber.

4. Coconut Water

Coconut water is all the rage lately, and for good reason. One cup of coconut water can boast up to 600 milligrams of potassium, and contains an average of about 13 percent of the suggested daily amount of this vital nutrient. Many people turn to coconut water as a low-calorie, natural alternative to quench their thirst and bolster their intake of potassium.

5. Banana

Bananas are known for their potassium content. A medium-sized banana will contain about about 12 percent of your daily potassium needs, averaging around 422 milligrams. Bananas are also rich in vitamin B6, manganese and vitamin C. They are also a good source of fiber. Bananas are a great addition to packed lunches and make for a great snack.

6. Yogurt

One eight-ounce serving of low-fat plain yogurt boasts a beneficial 380 milligrams of potassium. That provides about 11 percent of your daily needs. However, the same serving of full-fat yogurt provides a bit more potassium, with 420 milligrams, or 12 percent of the RDA. Greek yogurt tends to contain a bit less potassium due to the way it’s made; a six ounce serving only contains about 250 milligrams.

Potassium can be found in varying amounts across the spectrum of foods. Most fruits and vegetables contain a noteworthy amount of potassium, though certain kinds obviously contain more than others. Even meats and other types of dairy products feature this valuable mineral. [RELATED: Learn more about what is in your food at Ingredients.news]

The human body uses potassium for a number of different functions, including muscle-building, metabolism, heart function and muscle function. Studies have even shown that increasing your potassium intake can help to reduce your risk of stroke. Overall, potassium is a very important nutrient.

If you’re concerned about your potassium intake, you should speak to a naturopathic doctor, especially if you have any other health conditions.

Sources:

RealFarmacy.com

NutritionFacts.org

WHFoods.com

The findings contradict previously held wisdom — that a diet high in saturated fat increases the risk of obesity and metabolic diseases — but are in keeping with more recent research on the topic. (RELATED: Learn more about the health impacts of food ingredients at Ingredients.news)

“There is a tremendous focus on avoiding high-fat foods for weight control but this study challenges the notion that saturated fats have a strongly negative impact on health and weight,” researcher Simon Dankel said.

“The men on a high fat diet not only lost weight but also became slimmer and had lower cholesterol levels.”

Weight and fat levels dropped

The study was conducted on 38 men with abdominal obesity, who were assigned to follow a diet either rich in fat or in mostly unrefined carbohydrates. Researchers measured the participants’ cardiovascular risk factors, along with fat around the abdomen, liver and heart.

Both diets contained similar amounts of calories, protein and polyunsaturated fats (from vegetable oils other than olive oil). Both diets were very low in refined sugar. Fats in the study came mostly from minimally processed sources such as cheese, cream, butter and coconut oil. Neither diet contained highly refined oils, margarine or trans fats.

Men in both groups lost weight and showed dramatic reductions in the risk factors for cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes and cancer. This contradicts official dietary advice, which predicts that the unrefined carbohydrate group would show health improvements, whereas the health of the high-fat group would worsen.

“The very high intake of total and saturated fat did not increase the calculated risk of cardiovascular diseases,” researcher Ottar Nygård said.

Specifically, the men in the high-fat group saw reductions in their blood pressure, insulin, blood glucose, blood lipids, and ectopic fat storage.

All the improvements were seen even in men who increased their total calorie intake.

Eat high-quality foods

The findings suggest that nutrition science may have been missing the point in its focus on individual nutrients, the researchers said.

“Our findings indicate that the overriding principle of a healthy diet is not the quantity of fat or carbohydrates, but the quality of the foods we eat,” said researcher Johnny Laupsa-Borge.

The scientists emphasized that the men’s health improved because they were eating a good diet made up of real, unprocessed foods. It’s possible–but would need to be confirmed–that prior studies found that saturated fat was bad for health because they were studying people with an unhealthy diet overall.

“We here looked at effects of total and saturated fat in the context of a healthy diet rich in fresh, lowly processed and nutritious foods, including high amounts of vegetables and rice instead of flour-based products,” researcher Vivian Veum said. “The fat sources were also lowly processed, mainly butter, cream and cold-pressed oils.”

Also contradicting conventional nutritional wisdom, there was no increase in levels of LDL (“bad”) cholesterol among those on the high fat diet. Levels of HDL (“good”) cholesterol did increase.

“These results indicate that most healthy people probably tolerate a high intake of saturated fat well, as long as the fat quality is good and total energy intake is not too high. It may even be healthy,” Ottar Nygård said.

A number of studies in recent years have begun to undermine the previous consensus on saturated fat. A National Institutes of Health study published in the British Medical Journal in early 2016 showed that people who replaced saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat showed no change in heart disease risk.

This echoed the findings of a 2015 British Medical Journal review into 50 studies into the connection between saturated fat, trans fats and health outcomes. That study showed no evidence that saturated fats were bad for health. In contrast, it showed overwhelming evidence that trans fats (an industrially manufactured product) are highly dangerous.

Read more news about scientific studies at Scientific.news.

Sources:

Express.co.uk

ScienceDaily.com

NaturalNews.com

A research team from King’s College London have uncovered a grim truth about the ever-popular Roundup herbicide: it causes non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

What is NAFLD?

The liver, as you may know, is the second largest organ in the body. It performs a variety of important bodily functions, including removing harmful substances from your blood. It is normal for the liver to contain some fat cells, but when more than 5 to 10 percent of the organ’s mass is made up of fat, it is diagnosed as a fatty liver.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease refers to an overabundance of fat cells that have accumulated in the liver, due to causes not related to alcohol. NAFLD most commonly develops in people who are overweight or obese, diabetic, or have poor blood lipid profiles. Poor eating habits and abrupt weight loss can also contribute to the disease. It has been seen in people who do not meet any of these risk factors, like marathon runner Nick Giordano.

NAFLD may lead to inflammation of the liver, tissue scarring that contributes to the onset of cirrhosis, and may also lead to liver cancer or liver failure.

Glyphosate causes NAFLD

To conduct their two-year study, the research team from London exposed rats to levels of glyphosate on par with doses that are currently approved by regulators. Their results were the first to show a direct causal link between glyphosate consumption at an extremely low dose and the onset of a disease. (Keep up with the latest headlines about Roundup at Glyphosate.news)

In their conclusion, the study authors,  who were led by Dr. Michael Antoniou, declared, “Overall, metabolome and proteome disturbances showed a substantial overlap with biomarkers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and its progression to steatohepatosis and thus confirm liver functional dysfunction resulting from chronic ultra-low dose glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) exposure.”

Toxicity studies in rats are generally accepted by regulators as good indicators of what ill effects a substance may have on human health — so it is clear that this study demonstrates the very real threat that glyphosate poses for humans. (RELATED: See more news about chemical pesticides at Pesticides.news)

Roundup is presently the most ubiquitous herbicide used across the country; it has permeated our food supply indefinitely. Traces of this toxic substance have even been been found in rainwater and air samples. It’s in our food, our tap water, and glyphosate residues have even been seen in breast milk and baby food.  The FDA has admitted to finding shocking amounts of glyphosate in popular foods. (Related: Learn more about contaminates in our food and water here.

“New testing conducted by an FDA-registered food safety lab found alarming levels of the chemical glyphosate (known as Monsanto’s Roundup weed-killer) in several very common foods. This independent research reveals that many popular foods have over 1000 times the glyphosate levels that have been established to be harmful,” reports the Waking Times. (Related: Stay current on FDA issues, policies and research at FDA.news)

And yet, this study shows that doses of glyphosate that are far below the currently approved amount here in the United States can cause NAFLD. The researchers exposed the rats to amounts of glyphosate equivalent to 4 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day — an amount well below the EU’s mandated 0.3mg per kilogram of body weight per day — and it still caused major health problems. Imagine what kind of damage the US’s allotted 1.75 mg per kilogram of body weight can do!

The research team noted, “The results showed that Roundup caused an increased incidence in signs of anatomical pathologies, as well as changes in urine and blood biochemical parameters suggestive of liver and kidney functional insufficiency.”

Dr. Antoniou added, “Our results also suggest that regulators should reconsider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides.”

Sources:

WakingTimes.com

Nature.com

LiverFoundation.org

Researchers from Stanford University have found that coffee can counter the affects of a chronic inflammatory process that may develop in some –but not all– people as they get older. This chronic inflammation is associated with being able to trigger a myriad of cardiovascular problems. Fortunately, however, it appears that coffee and the caffeine it contains may be able to provide relief.

The study, which was published in early January by the journal Nature Medicine, found that this age-related chronic inflammation is primary driver of cardiovascular disease and increased mortality rates. The research team found that breakdown products of nucleic acids — which are the building blocks of our genetic material — circulating in the blood can actually be a catalyst for damaging inflammation. These breakdown products are also known as “metabolites.”

What is more interesting, however, is the finding that caffeine and its own metabolites may actually oppose the affects of the circulating nucleic acids. This activity may explain why coffee drinkers seem to live longer than non-coffee drinkers. (Related: Keep up with the latest headlines on healthy aging at Longevity.news)

The study’s lead author, David Furman, PhD, a consulting associate professor at the Stanford Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection, commented, “More than 90 percent of all noncommunicable diseases of aging are associated with chronic inflammation.”

According to Furman, there have been more than 1,000 papers that have indicated that chronic inflammation plays a role in the onset of many types of cancer and cardiovascular disease, as well as degenerative conditions like Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, and osteoarthritis.

“It’s also well-known that caffeine intake is associated with longevity. Many studies have shown this association. We’ve found a possible reason for why this may be so,” Furman noted.

To conduct their research, the team led a multi-pronged study to best reach a conclusion. To begin, they took blood samples from two separate groups of people. Samples were taken from people in their 20s, and another set of samples were taken from people over the age of 60. What the team found was that the older study participants showcased a much higher activity level of a gene that is associated with the production of a specific circulating inflammatory protein, called IL-1-beta.

Within the group of older participants, the team also discovered another interesting detail: in participants who reported drinking more coffee, the gene seemed to actually be less active. Conversely, people who drank less coffee seemed to have much more activity in regards to the inflammatory protein-producing gene. (Related: Keep up with the latest natural health cures at Cures.news)

The team also noted that those over 60 who reported drinking less coffee were more likely to have high blood pressure, stiff arteries, and higher amounts of the inflammatory IL-1-beta protein circulating around in their blood.

To ensure that this protein was indeed a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, the researchers then conducted an animal study. They found that injecting mice with the IL-1-beta protein resulted in massive, systemic inflammation and high blood pressure. While animal testing is not something to be condoned, the findings do suggest that this protein does have quite harmful effects.

In order to get a better picture of this most unusual finding, the team went back to the lab and loaded up human immune cells with the inflammatory protein. Then, they added caffeine into the mix and observed. It was then that the researchers discovered that caffeine mitigated the harmful effects of the protein. (RELATED: See more news about nutritional medicine at Medicine.news)

One of the study’s senior authors, Mark Davis, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology and the director of the Stanford Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection, commented, “What we’ve shown is a correlation between caffeine consumption and longevity. And we’ve shown more rigorously, in laboratory tests, a very plausible mechanism for why this might be so.”

Davis also notes that finding a beverage people actually want to drink could actually have a meaningful benefit came as quite a surprise to the entire research team.

Sources:

MensHealth.com

Med.Stanford.edu

“For decades or longer, medicine has said diet doesn’t matter, that it doesn’t impact disease,” researcher and gastroenterologist David Suskind said. “Now we know that diet does have an impact, a strong impact. It works, and now there’s evidence.” (RELATED: Learn more about nutrition for disease prevention at Prevention.news)

IBD is a cluster of related diseases characterized by pathological inflammation of the digestive tract. The two most common forms are Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis (UC). The causes of IBD are unknown, but it is believed to arise from an interaction of genetic factors, abnormal composition of the gut microbiome, and immune dysfunction. It is typically treated with steroids or immune-suppressing drugs, both of which can result in lifelong side effects.

Neither treatment addresses the underlying causes of the condition. The new study consisted of an analysis of a small group of pediatric Crohn’s and UC patients at Suskind’s clinic whose parents consented to their treatment solely with an experimental dietary treatment for IBD.

For 12 weeks, participants were placed on a diet called the specific carbohydrate diet (SCD), which is designed as a nutritionally balanced diet based around natural, nutrient-rich foods such as fruits, vegetables, meat, and nuts, but does not contain any grains, dairy, sugars (except honey) or processed foods. No other treatment was given. (RELATED: Learn more about the healing properties of natural foods at Fresh.news)

At the end of the study period, eight of the 10 patients were in remission, showing no further IBD symptoms. “This changes the paradigm for how we may choose to treat children with inflammatory bowel disease,” Suskind said.

More studies will be needed before the medical establishment is willing to embrace the SCD as a treatment for IBD. But no further proof is needed for Nicole Kittelson, whose daughter Adelynne was diagnosed with Crohn’s at age eight. At the time, Suskind offered a variety of treatments, and Kittelson opted for the SCD.

“Today, Adelynne has been in clinical remission for more than two years,” Kittelson said. “She’s a healthy, happy and thriving 11-year-old girl. “I can’t believe how far we’ve come. When we first walked into Seattle Children’s, she was an 8-year-old girl who was barely heavier than our 4-year-old. Now, she’s growing and foods are no longer an enemy.”

Kittelson says that adjusting to the SCD was hard at first, but that following the diet is now relatively effortless and automatic. “Her lunch doesn’t look much different than other kids at school,” said Kittelson. “There are so many options out there. We haven’t felt like we’ve had to sacrifice. We’ve even adjusted holiday traditions to fit into our new lifestyle. Instead of candy for special occasions, we swap them for other things.”

The implications of Suskind’s findings are potentially far reaching. The study is the first to demonstrate clinically that dietary change alone can be a safe and effective method for treating IBD. “Each person’s disease is unique, just as each person is unique,” Suskind said. “SCD is another tool in our tool belt to help treat these patients. It may not be the best treatment option for everyone, but it is an effective treatment for those who wish to try a dietary therapy.”

If further, placebo-controlled studies back up the effectiveness of the SCD, it may lead to treatments for other chronic inflammatory conditions — which includes most chronic diseases that plague modern civilization, including cancer and heart disease.

Because foods are more complex than drugs and don’t make profit for drug companies, medical research has been slow to research dietary intervention. Perhaps the new study will help that pattern start to change. “I don’t have the words to thank Dr. Suskind for what he did for us,” Kittelson said. “To have a doctor that is willing to explore other options and is willing to try new things, it’s incredible.”

Sources for this article include:

TheFreeThoughtProject.com

Pulse.SeattleChildrens.org

The Skittles spill gained notoriety when a Wisconsin Sheriff posted on Facebook that “hundreds of thousands of Skittles” had fallen from a truck and were adorning the highway. The lighthearted post also revealed that the candied were on their way to become cattle feed when the accident occurred.

As it turns out, those particular Skittles were not actually intended for livestock consumption, so Mars, Inc., the candy’s manufacturer, is now investigating. Apparently, the factory that made those Skittles doesn’t sell unused candy for the purpose of feeding livestock. Who knows what else they are using leftover candy for.

However, the candy company itself does sell their leftover candy and unused ingredients to industrial agricultural processors, who transform the Skittle scraps and other materials into animal feed. Specifically, the Skittles are melted down and turned into a sugary syrup that is then combined with other ingredients.  Sounds appetizing, doesn’t it?

The idea of feeding candy to livestock animals like cows may sound shocking, but it is actually a disturbingly common practice that has even been approved of by the FDA.

(Related: Keep up with the FDA’s latest headlines at FDA.news)

Feeding cattle candy has been going on for decades

Turning candy into animal feed has practically become a tradition of conventional factory farming. Even CNN reported on the phenomenon, noting in 2012 that cash-strapped farmers began fattening up their cows with things like chocolate, gummy worms, sprinkles, marshmallows and even powdered hot chocolate.

Livestock nutritionist Ki Fanning, who at the time worked for Great Plains Livestock Consulting Inc., located in Nebraska, told CNN Money, “It has been a practice going on for decades and is a very good way to for producers to reduce feed cost, and to provide less expensive food for consumers.”

As corn prices skyrocketed — partially thanks to a government-subsidized demand for ethanol, partially due droughts — the practice of feeding candy to livestock began to increase in popularity. So-called “thrifty” farmers realized that unwanted food products like candy are a great way to make cattle fatter for less. In 2012, a ton of corn cost about $315, while one ton of ice cream sprinkles cost a mere $160. (RELATED: See more examples of bizarre ingredients in the food supply at Ingredients.news)

Ridiculous cattle “nutritionists” approve

Apparently, this practice has even garnered approval from a number of livestock “nutritionists.”  Mike Yoder, a dairy farmer from Indiana, notes that a nutritionist recommended that his cows’ candy intake shouldn’t exceed 3% of their daily diet. Yoder also said that all the sugar in the ice cream sprinkles he feeds his cattle increased their milk production exponentially. Each cow produced about three extra pounds of milk per day on their new candy-filled diets.

Livestock nutritionist Chuck Hurst — owner of Nutritech, Inc. in Carmen, Idaho — claims that the sugar helps to fatten up lifestock, and claims that this causes no harm to the animals. According to Hurst, it’s the sugar in the candy that’s important. He even goes so far as to claim that for cows, eating candy is the same thing as eating corn.

Even a professor of animal nutrition from the University of Tennessee seems to find nothing wrong with this ludicrous practice. Professor John Waller is unfazed by the practice and claims that it is a viable alternative to feeding cows what they were meant to eat. “It keeps fat material from going out in the landfill, and it’s a good way to get nutrients in these cattle. The alternative would be to put [the candy] in a landfill somewhere.”

What essential nutrients are in Skittles again?

Apparently, these people have forgotten that cows are meant to eat grass (and hay) — not corn, and certainly not leftover candy.

Sources:

NaturalBlaze.com

Money.CNN.com

LiveScience.com

CNN reports that the tapeworm newly discovered in Alaskan salmon is named Diphyllobothrium nihonkaiense, also known as the Japanese broad tapeworm. This species accounts for the most infections in humans, in contradiction to the previous belief that the dubious distinction went to the most common fish tapeworm, Diphyllobothrium latum. A team of scientists found four species of Pacific salmon known to carry the Japanese tapeworm: chum salmon, masu salmon, pink salmon and sockeye salmon. These fish are caught and then shipped worldwide, so the infection may occur in humans anywhere on the planet. (RELATED: Stay informed about the health risks of food ingredients at Ingredients.news)

Tapeworms, including the Japanese version can grow to 30 feet inside a human digestive tract. Infestation often goes undetected, because symptoms may often be mild, with symptoms largely attributed to other conditions by medical practitioners. When fish are commercially caught worldwide, they are placed on ice for the journey to port. But this does not freeze the fish, it only refrigerates them. To kill the possibly present parasite worms, the fish need to be frozen. Salmon sushi at a restaurant or store can be assumed to be an unsafe commodity unless you know it has been frozen or you freeze it yourself. Additionally, the fish can be sufficiently cooked for assurance of safety against parasitic infection.

Jayde Ferguson, a scientist at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game believes, “The tapeworm itself is probably not new — it’s just that more skilled parasitologist started looking for it. Identifying these parasites is challenging. This was simply a more detailed evaluation of the Diphyllobothrium that has occurred here for over a millennium.”

Professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine Dr. William Schaffner stated, “Because we do things that we haven’t done before, now, we have these fresh caught fish that can be transported anywhere and eaten raw. … I am sure we will be on the lookout for this kind of tapeworm going forward.”

Parasitic worms – an under-recognized epidemic

Naturopath Marijah McCain is a widely experienced healer who apprenticed with a parasitologist and knows firsthand about these disgusting critters and how to rid the body of the menace. Though rare, various helminths (worms) such as the tapeworm can find a home in your brain with grave consequences. Quoting Marijah:

“Myself and a handful of others, like Dr. Hulda Clark, have spent years trying to bring the parasite issue to the forefront of preventative & curative medicine. The good news is the medical field is slowly training their doctors once again on the health risks of parasites… Most Americans carry parasites and this is currently a serious health issue. Parasites are not meant to kill you, they just sit inside you and steal your nutrition. But, when a person gets weakened from another ailment the parasites can take hold and become life threatening. This is why EVERYONE with any health disorder should do an anti-parasite program at least once a year. Twice a year if you live with animals. People interested in maintaining good health should also do routine parasite cleansing…”

Marijah says that symptoms caused by parasites include gas, diarrhea, chronic constipation, bloating, fatigue, skin rashes, mood swings, insomnia, nail biting, dry skin, weight gain, bad breath, brittle hair, hair loss, and muscle cramping. Because parasites can invade any tissue in the body, symptoms can occur anywhere. Dr. McCain states that parasites are a contributing factor in conditions such as Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, diabetes, some heart disease, arthritis, asthma, as well as others. She points out that in the US, the medical system is in denial about the health risks of parasitic infections, and doctors make a huge blunder when they fail to recognize the role that parasites play in disease. “Parasites are the cause of hundreds of misdiagnosed ailments,” she claims, and recommends natural anti-parasite formulas in lieu of conventional toxic allopathic medications.

Sources:

CNN.com

HerbalHealer.com