THE GREATEST MEDICINE OF ALL… IS TEACHING PEOPLE HOW NOT TO
NEED IT
Vitamin Update:
The
only effective vitamin supplements that you or your children should use are
Whole Food vitamins. Read the article below for a better understanding of why
regular synthetic vitamins are not good for you. Synthetic vitamins (99% of
what is sold) do not work well and are a waste of money. Whole food vitamins will say Whole Food right on the label.
Top Brand of Children's Vitamins Contains Aspartame, GMOs,
& Other Hazardous Chemicals
Written by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2020
The #1 Children's Vitamin Brand in the US contains
ingredients that most parents would never intentionally expose their children
to, so why aren't more opting for healthier alternatives?
Kids vitamins are supposed to be healthy, right? Well then,
what's going on with Flintstones Vitamins, which proudly claims to be
"Pediatricians' #1 Choice"?
Produced by the global pharmaceutical corporation Bayer, this wildly successful
brand features a shocking list of unhealthy ingredients, including:
Aspartame
Cupric Oxide
Coal tar artificial coloring agents (FD&C Blue #2, Red
#40, Yellow #6)
Zinc Oxide
Sorbitol
Ferrous Fumarate
DL-alpha tocopherol (synthetic vitamin E)
Hydrogenated Oil (Soybean)
GMO Corn starch
Let's look a little closer at some of these ingredients....
ASPARTAME
Aspartame is a synthetic combination of the amino acids
aspartic acid and l-phenylalanine, and is known to convert into highly toxic
methanol and formaldehyde in the body.
Aspartame has been linked to over 40 adverse health effects in the
biomedical literature, and has been shown to exhibit both neurotoxicity and
carcinogenicity. What business does a
chemical like this have doing in a children's vitamin, especially when non-toxic,
non-synthetic sweeteners like stevia already exist?
CUPRIC OXIDE
Next, let's look closer at Cupric Oxide, 2mg of which is
included in each serving of Flintstones Complete chewable vitamins as a
presumably 'nutritional' source of 'copper,' supplying "100% of the Daily
Value (Ages 4+), according to Flintstones
Vitamins Web site's Nutritional Info.
But what is Cupric Oxide? A nutrient or a chemical?
According to the European Union's Dangerous Substance
Directive, one of the main EU laws concerning chemical safety, Cupric Oxide is
listed as a Hazardous substance, classified as both "Harmful" and "Dangerous
for the environment". Consider that
it has industrial applications as a pigment in ceramics, and as a chemical in
the production of rayon fabric and dry cell batteries. In may be technically
correct to call it a mineral, but should it be listed as a nutrient in a
children's vitamin? We think not.
COAL TAR ARTIFICIAL COLORING AGENTS
A well-known side effect of using synthetic dyes is
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. For direct access to study abstracts
on this topic view our Food Coloring research page. There is also indication that the
neurotoxicity of artificial food coloring agents increase when combined with
aspartame, making the combination of ingredients in Flintstones even more
concerning.
ZINC OXIDE
Each serving of Flintstones Complete Chewable vitamins
contain 12 mg of zinc oxide, which the manufacturer claims delivers 75% of the
Daily Value to children 2 & 3 years
of age. Widely used as a sun protection
factor (SPF) in sunscreens, The EU's Dangerous Substance Directive classifies
it as an environmental Hazard, "Dangerous for the environment." How it can be dangerous to the environment,
but not for humans ingesting it, escapes me.
One thing is for sure, if one is to ingest supplemental zinc, or market
it for use by children, it makes much more sense using a form that is
organically bound (i.e. 'chelated') to an amino acid like glycine, as it will
be more bioavailable and less toxic.
SORBITOL
Sorbitol is a synthetic sugar substitute which is classified
as a sugar alcohol. It can be argued that it has no place in the human diet,
much less in a child's. The ingestion of higher amounts have been linked to
gastrointestinal disturbances from abdominal pain to more serious conditions
such as irritable bowel syndrome.
FERROUS FUMARATE
The one clear warning on the Flintstones Web site concerns
this chemical. While it is impossible to die from consuming iron from food,
e.g. spinach, ferrous fumarate is an industrial mineral and not found in nature
as food. In fact, ferrous fumarate is so toxic that accidental overdose of
products containing this form is "a leading cause of fatal poisoning in
children under 6." The manufacturer further warns:
Keep this product out of reach of children. In case of
accidental overdose, call a doctor or poison control center immediately.
DL-ALPHA TOCOPHEROL ACETATE
This synthetic, petrochemically derived analogue of vitamin
E consists of 8 different chemical molecules, all of which have questionable
bioactivity and safety. This mix of chemicals may adversely affect immune
function, gene expression, and neurological health in the very young.
HYDROGENATED SOYBEAN OIL
Finding hydrogenated oil in anything marketed to children is
absolutely unacceptable. These semi-synthetic fatty acids incorporate into our
tissues and have been linked to over a dozen adverse health effects, from
coronary artery disease to cancer, violent behavior to fatty liver disease.
GMO CORN STARCH
While it can be argued that the amount of GMO corn starch in
this product is negligible, even irrelevant, we disagree. It is important to
hold accountable brands that refuse to label their products honestly,
especially when they contain ingredients that have been produced through
genetic modification. The 'vitamin C' listed as ascorbic acid in Flintstones is
likely also produced from GMO corn. Let's remember that Bayer's Ag-biotech
division, Bayer CropScience, poured $381,600 of cash into defeating the
proposition 37 GMO labeling bill in California. Parents have a right to protect
their children against the well-known dangers of genetically modified foods and
the agrichemicals that contaminate them, don't they? GMO corn starch is GMO,
plain and simple. We'd appreciate it if Bayer would label their
"vitamins" accordingly.
In summary, Bayer's Flintstone's vitamin brand is far from a
natural product, and the consumer should be aware of the unintended, adverse
health effects that may occur as a result of using it.
So, what's the alternative? We encourage our readers to
strike to the root problem of nutritional deficiencies: poor food quality and
selection. Organic, local, sustainable, and traditionally prepared food in line
with an ancestral diet is the way to go. Failing that, look into whole food
concentrates and whole food supplements. Nature, and not the chemist's
laboratory, is where we will all find the best solution.
My Comment:
You can find Children's or Adult whole food multivitamins at Super
Supplements or online. If you go into Super Supplements just ask and they can
show you several good options. Costco sells a low priced Adult whole food multivitamin that you can look at here: https://www.costco.com/kirkland-signature-usda-organic-multivitamin%2c-80-coated-tablets.product.100458954.html
Here are a few children's whole food choices on Amazon:
Remember, if it doesn’t say “vitamins sourced from Whole Food” ....then
it isn’t. Even if it says organic, that isn’t good enough. Be sure to only use
whole food vitamins or you are wasting your money because the regular synthetic
vitamins do not work well in the body. They are just cheaper to make.
GMO Update:
Mounting results confirm what I have been saying for years:
GMO crops and the poison they have to use on them is harmful to humans and will
be proven so in the end. As usual to protect big business profits, the US will be the last to admit the danger and make a change.
Mexico to Phase Out Glyphosate
Organic Farming of Soy, Corn and Wheat is More Profitable
than GMO & Underhanded Stories of Science by the Biotech Industry
As reported by Institute for Responsible Technology
By Jeffrey Smith
Four pieces of news got my attention this week that I want
to share, two quite good, and two more of the same kind of influence-peddling
by the biotech industry and the chemical industry. The first, my favorite of
the four, is that Mexico is banning glyphosate. It’s phasing it out by 2024,
their environment ministry announced, and they’re actually doing some things
that I think are really great.
First of all, they’re acknowledging that glyphosate is not
healthy for individuals and the environment. They’ve already stopped the import
of a thousand tons of glyphosate (glyphosate, of course, is the chief poison in
Roundup) and they’re analyzing alternatives. And not just the alternatives
pushed by big ag, but also weed management experience and methods that farmers
and indigenous communities have applied for thousands of years. So they’re
looking for indigenous wisdom. And over and above that, they’re actually
educating people.
They’re creating infographics and videos. It will be
translated into several languages and distributed to alert people on the
dangers of glyphosate-based herbicides for health and the environment. So
they’re doing something that is simply stunning: indigenous wisdom, decisive
action, consumer education.
If we go over to Europe, we see two items that demonstrate
how the biotech industry likes to try to manipulate regulatory agencies and
science. The first comes out of Le Monde, one of France’s leading daily papers.
They report the fact that 19 so-called experts published an identical opinion
piece in six different scientific journals, dismissing the dangers of
endocrine-disrupting chemicals and opposing their regulation.
First, let me tell you about an endocrine-disrupting chemical.
About 20 years ago or so, it was confirmed that certain chemicals in very low
doses have a different impact on the body than they do in higher doses.
And it may be a very significant negative impact, where it
could throw off our hormones. This is very serious information because things
like plastic containers can shed things that may be endocrine-disrupting. But
we’re talking about parts per billion and parts per trillion. So we’re not
talking about high amounts and yet it’s in these low amounts that have the most
effect. It’s kind of counter-intuitive. You think that you’d increase the dose
and you’d always get a worse effect, but for the endocrine disruption side of
it, that’s actually not the case. The lower the dose, often the worse the
effect has. This is a problem for the industries that sell chemicals, because
if it was discovered that their chemicals had endocrine-disrupting capacity,
then they would have to take these chemicals off the market. Right now the
regulatory agencies in the United States and in Europe do not require
in-depth–or in some cases –ANY evaluation of these low dose effects. That’s
certainly the case for Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides.
So Le Monde basically blew the whistle on these 19 scientists
and quoted a lot of experts, basically talking about them as self-proclaimed
experts, but not really experts at all, violating ethical principles, having
conflicts of interest, and in fact, the six journals that published it had
these members as their editors or on editorial boards. They’re very low-level
journals, but nonetheless, it was a full–court press trying to influence
scientific opinion. But as Le Monde points out, 15 of the 19 scientists had
ties with the industries that are concerned about endocrine disruption — the
chemical/pesticide/fossil fuel or tobacco industries– over the course of their
careers. They all declared no conflict of interest, and yet if you look at
their history, it is ridiculous. There’s Helmut Grime, for example. He was
hired by Monsanto as a consultant many times, and paid by Monsanto to write a
so-called independent expert panel opinion on the safety of glyphosate.
He authored two papers defending glyphosate safety that were
largely influenced and rewritten by Monsanto, even though he declared the
opposite. He was also promoting Monsanto’s Dioxin and PCBs. Others were
consultants for BASF, Bayer, DuPont, and Monsanto. Some organized attacks on
Professor [Gilles-Eric] Séralini’s
findings that glyphosate and Roundup-ready corn caused damage to rats. One
was on the advisory board of Sense about Science, which is basically one of the
front groups of the biotech industry. They also organized attacks against
Professor Christopher Portier, who worked with the World Health Organization’s
Cancer Committee to determine that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen.
Professor Portier was one of the expert witnesses at the trials that nailed
Monsanto’s Roundup as the cause of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. So these 19 guys–
these pseudo-scientists– are just basically regurgitating the same tactics used
by tobacco, and they’re now doing it in Europe… again.
They were able to have some influence in 2013, and they’re
trying to stop the regulations now. At the same time, across the channel in the
UK, the biotech industry is trying to push its friends in government to amend
an agricultural bill that would give the Secretary of State for the Environment
(one of their in-the-pocket people), the power to change the definition of what
a GMO is and reclassify gene editing as non-GMO. So that’s the way that they’re
trying to use an end-around–not having it taken up by the full Parliament, but
just running it through one of the Houses of Commons or the House of Lords and
trying to push it through so that they can eliminate any regulations,
notification or labeling requirements for the new form of GMOs called gene
editing, which is extremely dangerous.
I have seen both of these types of scenarios–the fake
scientists, the fake front groups — and the working to try and change laws
through the back-end to benefit biotech. I’ve seen that all over the world. In
fact, it kind of puts you off, but I really appreciate those non-profit groups,
those non-governmental organizations that work in the area of government, that
try and keep the government regulations sane. Our focus at the Institute has
been more on consumers. I’ve certainly worked with governments around the
world. I’ve traveled and spoken in 45 countries. I often meet with the
ministers and the parliamentarians, and we do our best to support the local
groups. But our main focus in the United States has been (so far) on consumer
opinion, and also in some cases farms. I’m happy to report that organic farming
in a study over a 10 year period by Purdue University found that organic
farming is more profitable than conventional.
So that doesn’t require government decision making;
lobbyists can’t wrestle that opinion away from the facts. It’s true that
organic agriculture for corn, soybeans, and wheat gives the farmer more money.
Net profits per acre, for their scenario, was $50 on organic, and for
conventional systems net losses of $60 to $70 per acre. Now, that’s pretty
significant: $50 profit versus $60 to $70 per acre loss. But this particular
study assumed that organic was going to produce less, like one third less corn,
one third less soybeans, and about 25% less for wheat. But in reality, the
Rodale Institute has been studying side-by-side organic versus conventional,
including GMO, and found that after five years of a transition period, organic
actually yields about the same. And so you don’t have that yield drag. And in
times of drought tolerance, change.
Short Walks Cut Type-2 Diabetes Risk
If you're at risk for developing type-2 diabetes, you may
think you need to make a major lifestyle change to get your health back on
track. But that's not entirely true, if you are only "at
risk." Even small lifestyle changes can cut your risk for developing this
chronic disease.
In fact, new evidence out of George Washington University
suggests that even short walks after meals can make a world of difference.
In this small but interesting study, GW researchers
recruited 10 men and women at risk for developing type-2 diabetes. All the
participants had moderately high fasting blood sugar levels of 105 to 125
mg/dL. The "normal" range for fasting blood sugar levels is 70 to 100
mg/dL normal. Plus, the researchers classified all the participants as obese,
with body-mass indexes (BMIs) over 30. (Although, to this point, I must remind
you that the BMI test is a poor indicator of overall body composition, health
and fitness.)
As part of the study, the participants walked on a treadmill
at different times during the day. The participants kept a pace of three miles
per hour. Researchers then measured their blood sugar levels following the
moderate exercise.
Overall, they found that walking for 15 minutes after meals
significantly reduced blood sugar levels in these older adults. And walking
after dinner reduced blood sugar levels most dramatically.
A single, longer walk of 45 minutes in the morning also
helped to reduce blood sugar. But not as much as walking after meals.
Why is a short walk, taken after dinner in particular, so
beneficial?
We know that walking after a meal is not so much about
cardiovascular "fitness." But improves your glucose metabolism. And
our parents and grandparents must have intuitively known this.
I remember my grandparents often took a stroll down the lane
after dinner. This was a common practice in Europe and in many parts of the
U.S. Like their good advice about what to have for dinner, we should have paid
more attention to what they did after dinner.
The after-dinner period is an especially vulnerable time for
aging people at risk of diabetes. In fact, sitting down on the sofa to watch TV
after dinner is just about the worst thing you can do for blood sugar control.
You see, insulin production deceases in the evening. And you
may go to bed with high blood sugar levels, which increases the risk of
developing diabetes.
So–always go for your short walk half an hour after eating. This
gives your body time for digestion to begin. Then, as glucose begins to flood
from the gastro-intestinal tract into the bloodstream, get up to begin your
walk.
Obviously, moderate walking works your muscles. But your
muscles also burn off the glucose. This helps prevent it from flooding into
your bloodstream. Moderate exercise also helps the pancreas secrete insulin to
drive sugar into the tissue cells and out of the blood. This common-sense study
was not large or expensive. But in terms of practical advice people can really
use, it's a great one. I'm actually amazed that this is the first study to
address how exercising at different times of the day impacts blood sugar.
You don't need a major lifestyle overhaul to take control of
your blood sugar. These short walks can do a world of good. And they're easier
on your joints than more strenuous workout routines.
But you do have to walk every day to get the benefits.
Until next time, stay healthy and happy
JD Roma
The information on this blog is provided for educational
purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical care, and
medical advice and services are not being offered. If you have, or suspect you
have, a health problem you should consult your physician (preferably a
Naturopath).
No comments:
Post a Comment