-
Discover What They're Hiding in Your Organic Food
By Dr. Mercola
The video above features Mark Kastel, the co-director and Senior Farm Policy Analyst at the Cornucopia Institute. The Cornucopia Institute, based in Wisconsin, acts as an organic industry watchdog. In his presentation, Mark raises serious issues currently facing the organic food industry, and how you can help.
Lawfully Tainted Organics—How Did that Happen?
You've probably heard the health conscious mantra popularized by Michael Pollan: "If you can't pronounce it, you shouldn't be eating it."
The easiest way to side step synthetic food additives has been to simply eat certified organic foods. But we've seen an increasing number of questionable additives being approved for use in organics. There are currently almost 300 non-organic and synthetic compounds approved for use in organic farming or food production. The video shows a long list of such ingredients—all of which are supposed to have been carefully reviewed for safety prior to approval.
But just how rigorous were those reviews, and are these additives really safe and appropriate for use in organics? Mark rightfully points out that fighting for the integrity of the organic label is well-worth it, considering the fact that conventional foods are allowed to use thousands of synthetic processing aids and additives, plus residues from a myriad of agricultural chemicals and genetically engineered ingredients.
Research by the Cornucopia Institute reveals disturbing evidence showing that large corporate interests have infiltrated the process, and that the rules put in place to maintain organic integrity are severely compromised.
"... It seems evident that the people doing the supposedly careful scientific reviews and approving these chemicals have mostly been affiliated with the same corporate agribusinesses and the same food producers that are lobbying for their use," Mark says.
"We thought organics would be different from the rest of the money-dominated corruption in Washington... But the corporations that have gobbled up most of the pioneering organic businesses are relentless in their short-sighted pursuit of profit."
The Organic Watergate
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is charged with enforcing the laws regulating organic foods, so how are improprieties occurring? According to Mark, what we have here is nothing short of an Organic Watergate. He explains:
"An incident last fall caused Cornucopia staff to do a cursory review of many non-organic and synthetic ingredients that have been approved for use in organics since the USDA took over regulation in 2002. And what do we find? A corporate and governmental conspiracy to allow almost any chemical petitioned by agribusinesses in organic food, regardless of the fact that Congress mandated review of all such substitutes to make sure that they will not damage the environment or human health."
In November, 2011, the USDA's National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) held a meeting in Savannah, Georgia. During that meeting, two 12-billion-dollar corporations-- Martek Biosciences (a division of the Dutch biotechnology giant DSM), and WhiteWave (a division of the dairy behemoth Dean Foods)—received approval for synthetic, genetically mutated DHA and ARA oils derived from algae and soil fungus, which are then grown in a medium of genetically engineered corn products and organics.
Furthermore, the oil is then extracted from this biomass using synthetic solvents including hexane, a neurotoxic byproduct of gasoline refinement that is specifically banned in organics. Martek Biosciences' lobbyists duped the NOSB into believing that banning hexane was enough of a safeguard but they failed to look at the other petroleum-based solvents used (illegal in organic production). " But petrochemical solvent extraction is just the tip of the iceberg. Other questionable manufacturing practices and misleading statements by includedi:
- Undisclosed synthetic ingredients, prohibited for use in organics (including the sugar alcohol mannitol, modified starch, glucose syrup solids, and "other" undisclosed ingredients)
- Microencapsulation of the powder (possibly using nanotechnology), which are prohibited under organic laws
- Use of volatile synthetic solvents, besides hexane (such as isopropyl alcohol)
- Recombinant DNA techniques and other forms of genetic modification of organisms; mutagenesis; use of GMO corn as a fermentation medium
- Heavily processed ingredients that are far from "natural"
Shocked by this incident, the Cornucopia Institute began a more in-depth review of other chemicals approved for use in organics, to determine whether proper procedures and safeguards were followed in the past.
"Guess what? For the most part, sadly, they were not," Mark says.
One of the first products the Cornucopia Institute looked at was carrageenan. Like most people in the industry, the initial belief was that it was natural and benign since it comes from seaweed. However, as it turns out, carrageenan is an inflammatory agent tied to serious intestinal disease and is even categorized as a "possible carcinogen." Just how did that get approved for use in organic foods?
The Integrity of the Organic Label has Been Compromised
The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) provides a structure for reviewing non-organic ingredients being petitioned for approval for use in organic foods, in order to assure the integrity of the organic label. The first line of defense is the National Organics Standards Board (NOSB), which must, by law, maintain a certain diversity of members:
- 4 farmers
- 2 handlers (processors/marketers)
- 3 environmentalists
- 1 conservation expert
- 3 representatives of the public or consumers
- 1 certifier
- 1 retailer
- 1 scientist
The intention was for this board to act as a balance against competing interests and corporate power. Unfortunately, abuses and obvious violations of the Congressional intent have been rampant.
According to Mark:
"The most egregious example of this was when a corporate employee of General Mills was nominated as the "consumer representative." There was such a strong backlash that her name was withdrawn and later she was nominated and served in a slot reserved for a scientist. She might have technically qualified as a scientist. But by filling a slot with a corporate representative that Congress obviously intended as an independent voice, the board's agribusiness bias was reinforced.
During the Obama administration, a full-time employee of a 700-million-dollar-a-year agribusiness was appointed as a "farmer." And a similar "farmer" was just appointed to the board, this time a manager at Driscoll's, the giant, primarily conventional berry producer in California."
Absurd Bias Showing up in "Independent" Technical Reviews
Before an ingredient can be approved for use in organic foods, it must undergo a technical review by the NOSB. As you can see by the list of mandated board members above, the NOSB is not a scientific panel; rather these organic industry stakeholders are meant to use their individual field of expertise and judgment to help evaluate each petition. In order to do so, the petition must include accurate and comprehensive scientific data from truly independent sources.
According to Mark:
"One of the problems of the recent Martek proposal was the gross level of bias exhibited in the technical review (TR) supplied to the NOSB. Even though materials that are highly processed by bleaching or deodorizing have previously been deemed as "synthetic," the Martek materials presented in the TR as "natural."
Natural?
From genetically mutated strains of algae never existing before in nature? Instead of presenting independent research regarding a material, the TR was filled with biased statements lacking the required scientific citations. How could the NOSB use their best judgment in evaluating the Martek petitions without sound scientific advice?"
Making matters worse, it turns out that of the handful of industry experts who have been advising the NOSB on scientific matters, one of them, Dr. Theuer, co-authored 45 of approximately 50 technical reviews during a two-year span in the 1990s—virtually all of them in support of approving the synthetic material in question for use in organics.
And if you think matters may have gotten better since then, think again. USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack was appointed to his post despite massive public outcry, as he was well-known for his agribusiness and biotechnology industry bias'. He's been a strong supporter of genetically engineered crops (including bio-pharmaceutical corn), Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), and animal cloning, for example. The USDA now contracts the Organic Center to produce technical reviews for the NOSB. And who's behind The Organic Center?
According to Mark:
"[The Organic Center] began as the non-profit organic arm of the powerful Organic Trade Association (OTA) and are generally controlled and funded by the same giant corporations that run that OTA. The rest of The Organic Center's leadership reads like a who's who of giant corporations involved in organics: Aurora Dairy, the giant distributor UNFI, the vegetable giant Earthbound Farms, Safeway Grocers, Organic Valley, Whole Foods, and no fewer than four individuals with financial relationships to Dean Foods and their WhiteWave division."
Talk about proverbial foxes guarding the organic chicken coop... Mark points out that some of the board members of The Organic Center are even from the same companies petitioning for, and/or supporting the use of synthetics in organics! So how can employees of The Organic Center be expected to actually provide wholly independent technical reviews and solid scientific advice to the NOSB, when their bosses are neck-deep in corporate interests?
Carrageenan—Another Ingredient that Should Never have Been Approved
As mentioned earlier, once the Cornucopia Institute began reviewing carrageenan, a seaweed derivative used as a stabilizer, it became clear that just like Martek's DHA/ARA oils, it does not belong in truly organic foods. This is a timely issue, as carrageenan is currently up for a sunset reevaluation by the NOSB. (By law, all synthetic ingredients in organics must be reevaluated every five years.) According to Mark:
"When carrageenan was first reviewed in 1995, the NOSB, as required by law, looked at the potential environmental and health impacts after examining a technical review produced by three experts with corporate agribusiness ties: Dr. Steve Harper, director of R&D at Small Planet Foods (now owned by General Mills), Dr. Richard Theuer, a vice-president of R&D at Beech Nut, and Dr. Stephen Taylor, professor of food science at the University of Nebraska and defender of genetic engineering. Dr. Taylor has published studies on genetically engineered organisms (GMO) and allergy risks, co-authored by agribusiness scientists at DuPont and Pioneer Hi-Bred (manufacturers of chemicals and organic seed).
This technical review hardly mentions some potential serious health impacts from degraded carrageenan, failing to cite any of the research to inform the board that historically, as much as 25 percent of carrageenan on the market was categorized as degraded. Current research shows all types of carrageenan can degrade in the body and can create serious known health impacts.
A number of peer-reviewed published papers that should have been cited indicate that degraded carrageenan causes inflammation and can cause serious intestinal abnormalities. Degraded carrageenan is also considered a possible carcinogen, and it's in organic foods! There is no doubt that carrageenan is an inflammatory agent. In fact, in testing anti-inflammatory drugs, laboratory animals are given carrageenan to produce inflammatory symptoms. There's no secret in the medical community that this is a problem.
The technical review also failed to document the known environmental hazards from discharge of alkaline water, the deleterious impacts of seaweed farming to coral reefs, coastal ecosystems, and mangroves. By law, organics is supposed to do no harm. By law, these environmental externalities needed to be considered. Now, carrageenan is up for review again this year. As before, no negative environmental impacts and no human health threats were recognized by the NOSB's industry-friendly handling subcommittee, which unanimously again recommends its approval.
We must oppose the relisting of carrageenan and assure that it is taken out of organic foods. It shouldn't be in any food – conventional or organic. We need to be careful about reviews of all synthetics and organics. We need to re-review them, and the weight of your voice will help us make this argument."
A Call to Action
The Cornucopia Institute are now pursuing a pressure campaign aimed at the organic program at the USDA, and at the National Organics Standards Board, to persuade them to review the manipulation and misinformation provided at the November NOSB meeting, which led to the approval of synthetic, genetically mutated DHA and ARA oils—ingredients that have been "confidently linked" to health problems in infants.
"We need to be careful about reviews of all synthetics and organics. We need to re-review them," he says.
On the Cornucopia Institute's website, you'll find a proxy letter calling for careful scrutiny of all synthetics and organics; a creditable and independent review process; and a diverse NOSB that truly reflects the organic community as Congress intended. Please take a moment to download and sign the proxy letter, and mail it back to the Cornucopia Institute.
"We will deliver your message as an organic industry stakeholder to the powers in Washington, who can preserve or destroy organics," Mark says. "Please download and sign the proxy letter that's posted at Cornucopia.org to amplify our message and your voice...
The law requires the imperative to make sure we have independent oversight. Please, don't reject organics because corporations have acted recklessly and the USDA has failed to do their legally mandated job. Organic farmers and their ethical processing and marketing partners need your support now more than ever, and your family deserves authentic organic food."
References:
-
Kashi Cereal Stirs Anger - Exposed by Small Rhode Island Grocer
By Dr. Mercola
A simple sign on a grocery store shelf has gone viral, causing a storm of outrage among consumers who feel they've been misled by cereal maker Kellogg's claims about its Kashi cereals. A Rhode Island grocer posted a note on the shelf where Kashi was supposed to be, saying he'd learned it wasn't 100 percent natural after all, and therefore wasn't carrying it anymore.
It turns out the soy in Kashi cereals comes from genetically modified Roundup-ready soybeans, which have a gene inserted in them that allows the crop to withstand otherwise lethal doses of the weed killer.
USA Today reported that consumers felt duped into believing that Kashi was all-natural when it's noti. Their complaints were initially brushed off by Kashi general Manager David DeSouza, who told USA Today that since the FDA doesn't regulate the term "natural," the cereal maker has done nothing wrong by defining "natural" as minimally-processed with no artificial flavors, colors, preservatives or sweeteners.
Were You Duped by Kashi's Wholesome Brand Identity?
People generally tend to believe that the word "natural" refers to foods grown "in a natural way," which really amounts to organic farming methods, or close to it; sans harsh chemicals, and most definitely not something that has been genetically engineered. Unfortunately, that's not what the "natural" label represents at all. In fact, the "natural" label is unregulated, and companies can define it as they please.
But most food manufacturers are well aware of this general misperception of what the label means, and frequently misuse it to lure health conscious consumers into spending more. This is known as "green-washing" and it certainly applies in this case.
Adding insult to injury, the company appears to have made a poor attempt to save face by further misleading consumers about the accuracy of the information that led the Rhode Island grocer to not carry the Kashi brand anymore.
The Cornucopia Institute released a report, Cereal Crimes, back in November of last yearii, which details the presence of genetically engineered grains in a number of leading "natural" cereal brands, including Kellogg's Kashi brand. Shockingly, many of the products tested were found to contain high amounts of genetically engineered grains—some, including Kashi, containing 100 percent genetically engineered grains!
The report also mentions a class action lawsuit filed against Kellogg/Kashi on August 31, 2011, "for allegedly misleading consumers with its "natural" claims. One Kashi® product in particular, GoLean® Shakes, is composed almost entirely of synthetic and unnaturally processed ingredients, according to the plaintiff."
The report contrasts these findings with tests of certified organic cereal products, which by law are not allowed to contain any genetically engineered ingredients or synthetic pesticides. While some were found to be mildly contaminated with genetically engineered ingredients, overall, the report highlights the fact that the ONLY way to ensure you're not buying a genetically engineered product is to buy a product bearing the USDA 100% Organic label.
When Greenwashing Attempts Finally Backfire...
Once the grocer's sign went viral and angry consumers began overloading the Kashi telephone lines, the company switched to a recorded message stating they were temporarily unable to accept calls. Then, according to an April 26 report by Cornucopia Instituteiii:
"When the company again began accepting calls, a Kashi consumer affairs employee, Rick Duran, told a Cornucopia staff member that "no actual testing" of their cereal products had been performed. This mimicked the analysis also offered in a response by the company in an online video posted that same afternoon on the Kashi Facebook page. The video spokesperson called Cornucopia's information "scientifically inaccurate and misleading because it was not based on actual testing of Kashi products."
"This characterization of our work by Kashi is blatantly false," said Will Fantle, Cornucopia's Research Director. "We purchased a readily available box of Kashi's GoLean® cereal from a Whole Foods store. We then sent a sample to an accredited national lab for testing, finding that the soy in the natural cereal was 100% GMO."
The Kashi video also suggested, disingenuously, that any genetically engineered contamination in their food was from incidental sources rather than crops intentionally grown from GMO seed. While acknowledging that over 80% of the soybeans grown in North America are GMO, they explain that, "practices in agricultural storage, handling, and shipping, have lead to an environment where GMOs are not sufficiently controlled."
"This is classic public relations spin and crisis communications work, where corporations use misinformation to try to cover their tracks," said Rebekah Wilce, of the Center for Media and Democracy/PRWatch, which helps expose corporate PR tactics..."
Three days later, the USA Today reportediv:
"... Kellogg got itself into trouble by "not being entirely transparent," says Roger Nyhus, president of Nyhus Communications in Seattle. He sees a trend among some companies "of fudging language to allay consumer concerns and jump on the green bandwagon, and I think it's starting to backfire." ... Kashi's DeSouza says that by 2015, all new Kashi products will "contain at least 70 percent USDA organic certified ingredients."
So, in a matter of days, Kashi ended up backpedaling as their initial attempt to discredit the Cornucopia Institute's test results backfired, and now the company has agreed to ensure their products will, within the next three years, contain at least 70 percent certified organic ingredients. While this is probably not going to be enough for most health conscious consumers, Kashi's pledge is at least a good demonstration of the power of consumer education, and that consumers ultimately have the power to influence even the largest of food companies. After all, they can only sell what you're willing to buy!
"Natural" Label is Frequently Misused to Lure Health Conscious Consumers
The misuse of the term "natural" by companies who simply pay lip service to sustainability and the organic movement undermines companies that are truly sincere in their efforts to bring you eco-friendly, unadulterated, safe foods.
And companies like Kashi cannot rightfully claim ignorance about the impact the word "natural" has—marketing firm polls have shown that more people respond favorably to the "all-natural" label than the organic label! It's a powerful word that conjures up wholesomeness in most people's minds. Marketing terms such as "natural" are certainly not chosen willy-nilly. No, they're selected based on what works and what sells. As illustrated by this market research summary by The Hartman Groupv:
"Consumer understanding and shopping behavior of organic and natural foods and beverages continues to change and evolve. Today's consumers are confused, yet continue to be engaged by the vast array of products, messages, symbols and labels they encounter when making decisions about what to eat or drink and where they shop.
... This study will identify the hierarchy among these attributes and point out differences by product category as well as deeper distinctions between "organic" and "natural" themselves. It will enable companies to go beyond the clutter of product call-outs to have a singular focus on what matters most to consumers thereby increasing brand loyalty and likelihood of purchase"
According to a 2010 Hartman Group poll, more than 60 percent of consumers erroneously believe that the "natural" label implies or suggests the absence of genetically engineered ingredients, so Kashi's statement that there's nothing wrong with using genetically engineered ingredients in their "natural" products is rather weak. Food companies know this misconception exists, and they actively prey on consumers' assumptions. Fortunately, the Cornucopia Institute's report has awakened many to this sad truth. As one now-former Kashi consumer stated on the company's Facebook page:
"Yours is the only brand cereal I have bought for years. Not anymore! You are despicable. Everything you supposedly stand for is a lie."
The Difference Between Natural and Organic
It's important to understand that the "natural" label is not regulated and does not provide a guarantee of being free of genetically engineered ingredients or synthetic pesticides and additives. Currently, the ONLY label that can protect you against genetically engineered ingredients and other unsavory additives is the USDA 100% Organic label.
The USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) took effect October 21, 2002, and regulates the standards for any farm, wild crop harvesting, or handling operation that wants to sell an agricultural product as organically produced. The labeling requirements of the NOP apply to raw, fresh products and processed products that contain organic agricultural ingredientsvi. In order to qualify as organic, a product must be grown and processed using organic farming methods that recycle resources and promote biodiversity.
Crops must be grown without synthetic pesticides, bioengineered genes, petroleum-based fertilizers, or sewage sludge-based fertilizersvii. Organic livestock must have access to the outdoors and cannot be given antibiotics or growth hormones.
- Products labeled "USDA 100% organic" must contain only organically produced materials
- Products labeled simply "USDA organic" must contain at least 95 percent organic ingredients, whereas
- The label "made with organic ingredients" can contain anywhere between 70 to 95 percent organic ingredients
Organic products cannot be irradiated, are not allowed to contain preservatives or flavor enhancing chemicals, nor can they contain traces of heavy metals or other contaminants in excess of tolerances set by the FDAviii. Additionally, the pesticide residue level cannot be higher than 5 percent of the maximum EPA pesticide toleranceix. For the complete National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances under the USDA organic label, see this linkx. To learn more about organic foods and the findings detailed in the Cereal Crimes report, please listen to my interview with Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute.
Download Interview Transcript
Mom Stands Up to Monsanto and Wins Major Environmental Award
Genetically engineered foods do not just pose a health hazard for those consuming them. GE crops also threaten the health of the environment and those living in GE farming communities, due to the heavy use of pesticides required to grow these crops.
A woman in Argentina who was instrumental in getting the president of Argentina to investigate the connection between pesticide use and the incidence of cancer and other devastating illnesses and deaths in her town has been awarded the 2012 Goldman Environmental Prize—the world's largest prize honoring grassroots environmentalists. The Goldman recognizes unsung heroes who often take great personal risks to work to protect the world's natural resources and human lives.
Thirteen years ago Sofia Gatica gave birth to a daughter who died three days later of kidney failure. Determined to learn what killed her child, she learned that the people in her working-class neighborhood, surrounded by genetically engineered soy fields and subjected to regular insecticide spraying, were plagued with unexplained health issues including high rates of neurological and respiratory diseases, birth defects, and infant mortality. Even though she faced an uphill battle and death threats, Gatica succeeded in getting a municipal ordinance passed prohibiting aerial spraying around her town. Argentina's Supreme Court followed with a ruling that not only banned chemical spraying near populated areas, but ordered the government and soy producers to prove the chemicals are safe.
The Devastating Health Effects of Roundup
As of July 2013, Argentina will no longer allow the use of endulsofan, an off-patent organochlorine insecticide, and Gatica is currently involved with an effort to enact a nationwide ban on glyphosate as well. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, which is used on all genetically engineered Roundup-Ready crops, which have been genetically altered to withstand otherwise lethal doses of the chemical.
Glyphosate is easily one of the world's most overlooked poisons. Research published in 2010 showed that the chemical, which works by inhibiting an enzyme called EPSP synthase that is necessary for plants to grow, causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at far lower levels than used in agricultural and garden applicationsxi. The malformations primarily affected the:
- Skull
- Face
- Midline and developing brain
- Spinal cord
The amount of glyphosate residue you can be exposed to through food is remarkably high, in terms of being close to the maximum residue limit (MRL) allowed. According to a report in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, the highest MRL for glyphosate in food and feed products in the EU is 20 mg/kg. Genetically engineered soybeans have been found to contain residue levels as high as 17 mg/kg, and malformations in frog and chicken embryos occurred at 2.03 mg/kg!xiiThat's 10 times lower than the MRL. Other independent scientific research has also found that glyphosate has the potential to cause grave health damage, including a 2009 study that tested formulations of Roundup that were highly diluted (up to 100,000 times or more) on human cells, and even then the cells died within 24 hours.xiii
Why We MUST Insist on Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
Labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of genetically engineered foods in the U.S,, but simple petitions will likely fail. We strongly support state initiatives, such as California's ballot initiative to require labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state. A coalition of consumer, public health and environmental organizations, food companies, and individuals has already submitted the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to the State Attorney General, and thousands of volunteers have done an outstanding job collecting the required signatures.
Now, the campaign needs funding. Needless to say, it's going to be an enormous battle, as the biotech industry will outspend us by 100 to 1, if not more, for their propaganda aimed at stopping Californians from voting it into law.
I urge you to participate in the Money Bomb Against Monsanto, which was launched on May 1. By May 26, a broad coalition of food-, farming-, health groups, and organic food manufacturers, will attempt to raise one million dollars (i.e. "The Money Bomb") to help get this law passed.
Donations can be made online, via regular snail mail, and over the phone. And to sweeten the deal further, a group of "Right to Know" public interest organizations and organic companies have pledged to match the first million dollars raised in this nationwide "Drop the Money Bomb on Monsanto Campaign." So please, help us raise two million dollars to win this historic campaign!
You can donate online, by phone, or by dropping a check in the mail.
References:
- i USA Today April 29, 2012
- ii Cornucopia Institute, Cereal Crimes Report, October 11, 2011
- iii Cornucopia Institute April 26, 2012
- iv USA Today April 29, 2012
- v Hartman Group, Beyond Organic and Natural: Resolving Confusion in Marketing Foods and Beverages
- vi United States Department of Agriculture,Agricultural Marketing Service, National Organic Program, Organic Labeling and Marketing Information
- vii Food Marketing Institute, Natural and Organic Foods, Executive Summary
- viii US Food and Drug Administration, August 2000, Action levels for poisonous or deleterious substances in human food and animal feed
- ix Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Health and Safety, Pesticides and Food:
What the Pesticide Residue Limits are on Food
- x US Department of Agriculture, The National list of allowed and prohibited substances
- xi Chemical Research in Toxicology 2010; 23(10):1586–1595
- xii Chemical Research in Toxicology 2010; 23(10):1586–1595
- xiii Chemical Research in Toxicology 2009 Jan;22(1):97-105.
-
The Secret Weapon U.S. Lobbyists Use to Ruin Your Health
By Dr. Mercola
If you're a corporation or a lobbyist and you want to "buy" a member of Congress, one common and effective way to do so is by secretly promising them a high-paying job once they leave office.
Since such deals are not made public, legislators can pass laws or create special tax cuts that benefit their future employer with little or no accountability. Politicians do not have to disclose job negotiations while in office, and also do not have to disclose how much they're paid after leaving office.
But it is probably not a coincidence that former Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) spent his last year in office fighting reforms to the derivatives marketplace, and then upon leaving office joined that board a derivatives trading company and became an "advisor" to Goldman Sachs.
According to the featured article in Republic Reporti :
"Our research effort uncovered the partial salaries of 12 lawmakers-turned-lobbyists. Republic Report's investigation found that lawmakers increased their salary by 1,452 percent on average from the last year they were in office to the latest publicly available disclosure".
Is it Bribery, or Legitimate Career Change?
A previous Republic Report highlights the questionable job search of another Congressman about to quit Congress. Heath Shuler (D-NC) is reportedly already talking to different lobbying firms, assessing his options. According to Republic Reportii :
"One of the organizations taking a serious look at Shuler is The Majority Group, a lobby shop founded by former Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho), according to sources. Rob Ellsworth, a former legislative assistant of Shuler's, is a co-founder of the boutique lobbying firm.
The Majority Group... currently represents the beef industry, a foreclosure servicing company called FCI Lender Services, as well as bank holding companies with business in health, life, and real estate insurance. And while Shuler meets with lobbying firms openly interested in hiring him, the Congressman continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the laws we all live under... [L]awmakers like Congressman Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Congressman Dan Boren (D-OK), and many others are [also] possible recruits for K street.
While some call this phenomenon the "revolving door," the line between casual bribery and simply changing careers is incredibly fuzzy. How do we know that lawmakers like Shuler aren't influenced by the lobbying firms already promising them cash?"
Bribery - The Sordid Details of How the U.S. Political System Works
After viewing the shocking 60-Minute expose about the former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, it's quite clear that the entire system runs on bribery, in one form or another. It is fatally flawed, and cannot be fixed through reform efforts, because those creating the reforms are the very people affected by them.
Jack Abramoff has been characterized as the most notorious and crooked lobbyist of our time, and is the classic example of brazen corruption and influence-peddling. In his interview with Leslie Stahl for 60-Minutes, he details how he used corporation's money to buy powerful friends and influence legislation. He was a master at showering gifts on lawmakers in the 1990s in return for their votes on legislation. He was so good at it, he took home 20 million dollars a year!
It all came crashing down five years ago when he plead guilty to corrupting public officials, tax evasion, and fraud, and served three and a half years in a federal prison. If you haven't seen this interview, I urge you to take the time to watch it now. It's a dramatic eye-opener to the reality of our political system.
Download Interview Transcript
How Large Corporations Manipulate the System for Their Benefit
Abramoff was able to freely share the specific details of how he manipulated the political system because he had already served prison time for his crimes. Otherwise, we would never have become privy to these first-hand accounts of how it's really done. He believes that most Congressmen actually do not feel they're being bought and are able to rationalize their actions, and the system as a whole, in their own minds... And that, according to Abramoff, is a mindset that is nurtured by lobbyists, as it is exactly the way lobbyists want them to feel.
This is similar to doctors; most of whom do not believe they're being unduly influenced by their pharmaceutical representatives. Little do they know these reps are actually trained in highly sophisticated brainwashing techniques. They are meticulously taught to spot the weaknesses of every client.
Doctors usually believe they are immune to persuasion tactics, and drug reps know just how important it is to maintain that illusion. Not only are reps trained to assess their personality, practice style, and medical preferences, they're also instructed to sniff out personal information, like the names of family members, birthdays, and family interests -- as well as the physician's professional interests and recreational pursuits. All of this information goes into a database for future reference. When the time comes to devise an "incentive" -- say a dinner, sporting event, or membership -- it is custom tailored to suit the prey.
It's all about establishing personal rapport. Oftentimes doctors mistake the reps' cleverly disguised interest in them as personal friendship. This is exactly how it's designed to work.
The same appears to be true for many lobbyists. Abramoff, for example, admits to having had "very strong personal relationships with a lot of his staff," referring to staff members of Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
The Ace in the Sleeve...
Abramoff would lavish certain Congressmen and Senators with access to private jets and junkets to the world's great golf destinations, free meals at his own upscale Washington restaurant, and he spent over a million dollars a year to give them access to the best tickets to all the areas' sporting events. In response to Leslie Stahl's question, "Was all of that legal?" he replies:
"We would certainly try to make the activity legal, if we could. At times, we didn't care."
However, lavish getaways and sports events aside, Abramoff's greatest, most effective "weapon" was the promise of a future job at a huge pay increase. In his case, he would typically focus on a Congressman's Chief of Staff; offering him or her a position after finishing working for the Congressman. This allowed him inside access, and the ability to control the Congressman's votes on legislation. In his own words:
"I would say... to him or her at some point, "You know, when you're done working on the Hill, we'd very much like you to consider coming to work for us." Now the moment I said that to them... that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they're going to do. And not only that, they're going to think of things we can't think of to do!"
His influence was so pervasive that he alone controlled about a quarter of the U.S. Congress! Sadly, he is not alone in his corrupt and criminal behavior, and that's largely why we're in the mess we're in. As of last year, there were 12,654 registered lobbyists in the U.S.iii That's a lot of people working to influence politicians in favor of their clients...
Private Industries Control the Political System
It is a well-documented fact that the drug companies have the largest political lobbying organizationsiv . They are some of the most clever marketers on the planet, and know exactly how to leverage their resources by bribing politicians to give them an unfair advantage in the marketplace. One primary technique is by creating legislation that devastates their competition. This is typically implemented through federal regulatory agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Another political powerhouse is the biotech industry, led by Monsanto.
While many other nations are banning genetically engineered foods, and/or require such foods to be labeled, Monsanto's reach into the very heart of the U.S. regulatory agencies and political offices has ensured that most Americans are completely unaware of what they're eating, or the many dangers of genetically engineered crops to both the environment and animal- and human health.
Contrary to other nations, certain U.S. states are actually passing legislation that protects the use of genetically engineered seeds and allows for their unabated expansion! At present, no less than 14 states have passed such pro-industry legislation. Michigan's Senate Bill 777v , if passed, would make that 15. The Michigan bill would prevent anti-GMO laws, and would remove the any authority that local governments may have to "adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds."
Bills like these are essentially bought and paid for through the millions of dollars Monsanto and other biotech companies spend lobbying the U.S. government each year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government -- a drop from a year earlier, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter. Monsanto is a perfect example of the revolving door between industry, political offices, and various regulatory agencies. There can no longer be any doubt that Monsanto's success is largely due to the fact that an ever growing list of former Monsanto employees are now in positions of power within the federal government.
Can the System Be Saved?
Most people are under the impression that political corruption only involves somebody handing over a check and getting a favor. But as the first-hand account of Abramoff reveals, that's usually not the case. The foundation of the corruption, really, is all about bribery that involves giving a gift to somebody who makes a decision on behalf of the public. At the end of the day, that's really what bribery is.
And while there have been efforts at reform, the system has never actually changed and continues to this day because the people who make the reforms are the people within the system itself. According to Abramoff:
"There's an arrogance on the part of lobbyists—and certainly there was on the part of me and my team—that no matter what they come up with, we're smarter than they are, and we'll overcome it. We'll just find another way through. That's all."
"Reform efforts" are in actuality little more than fake efforts to appease the critics. For example, the system forbids lobbyists from taking a Congressman to sit-down lunch for 25 dollars, but allows them to take him to a fundraising lunch—where food is served standing up—and give him 25,000 dollars extra to boot. So despite "reform efforts" to stop lobbyists from plying politicians with free meals, they still have all the same access, and all the same interaction with that Congressman—they just have to stand up to do it...
"Our system is flawed, and has to be fixed," Abramoff says. "Human beings populate our system, and human beings are weak."
According to Abramoff, the only solution is to prohibit members of Congress and their staff from ever becoming lobbyists in Washington. I agree. I believe if you make the choice to serve the public with public service, then serve the public, not yourself.
Whether or not we can make that happen is another question...
The good news is that increasing numbers of people are now waking up to these harsh realities, and you, being among those who are informed, can help share this knowledge with others. Remember that the definition of fascism is a government system that has complete power in regimenting all industry and forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism. What we have here is a hybrid—a sort of corporate fascism, where industry has powerful control over government, and forcefully suppresses anything that threatens their monopoly on profits.
But, this doesn't mean that you have to buy into their agenda.
From my perspective, two of the top industries running the U.S. at present are the pharmaceutical- and biotech industries. But they can still be stopped. The goal is to reach a critical mass of people who refuse unnecessarily dangerous drugs and genetically engineered foods, and who demand that our public servants serve the public rather than corporate interests. I believe that can and will serve as a powerful stimulus to generate authentic change. More than 1.6 million people currently receive this newsletter, and together we can make a huge difference.
References:
-
Nearly 1 in 2 Americans are Now Victims of This Heartless Marketing Ploy
By Dr. Mercola
As most of you know, the conventional medical system tends to equate "health" with the absence of symptoms of disease. The entire industry is built around treating symptoms with expensive patented drugs, many of which are profoundly toxic and dangerous.
Pharmaceutical companies now rule the entire healthcare system, and they go to great lengths to protect their profits, even if it means sacrificing patients' health in the long run.
A recent story from the United Kingdom illustrates how far drug companies will go to make sure their expensive drugs are used when cheaper ones are available, and how medical facilities completely ignore more obvious cost-saving and safe solutions.
In London, in a legal maneuver intended to eliminate their competition, drug maker Novartis is now trying to force state-run hospitals to use their eye drug, which costs nearly 12 times as much as a cheaper drug the hospitals are currently using.
Novartis' drug, Lucentis, is the only one recommended for treatment of macular degeneration in Great Britain. But in an effort to save money, hospitals have been using the cancer drug Avastin instead, even though it's an off-label use that its manufacturer, Roche, says it hasn't even studied. (Avastin was recently recalled by the U.S. FDA because of its dangerous side effects, which include heart attacks.)
Novartis is now demanding a judicial review, to make the hospitals comply with the standard recommendation to use their drug and stop using Avastin off-label to treat this eye disease. Needless to say, using a dangerous cancer drug off-label to treat macular degeneration is far from an ideal solution, even though it's 12 times cheaper than the other drug alternative...
If they really wanted to save money and spare people's eyesight, they'd start paying closer attention to the research into astaxanthin. Studies have shown this safe and natural supplement is therapeutic for macular degeneration, and it's a product anyone can take without running the risk of potentially devastating side effects. Astaxanthin may in fact be one of the most powerful nutrients ever discovered for eye health, and it costs pennies on the dollar compared to either Lucentis or Avastin.
Research Supports Astaxanthin for Macular Degeneration
While the off-label use of Avastin for macular degeneration is said to be based on a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine last year, which showed Avastin worked just as well as Lucentis for treating macular degeneration, numerous studies exist demonstrating the treatment potential of astaxanthin for this eye disorder. For example, one 2008 study, published in the journal Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, concluded thati:
"Astaxanthin treatment, together with inflammatory processes including NF-kB activation, subsequent upregulation of inflammatory molecules, and macrophage infiltration, led to significant suppression of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) development. The present study suggests the possibility of astaxanthin supplementation as a therapeutic strategy to suppress CNV associated with age-related macular degeneration (AMD)."
For more information, please see this previous article that describes how astaxanthin can help protect your eyesight.
Hospitals Seeing More Babies Born Addicted to Prescription Drugs
Conventional medicine is more than a little fond of using costly, toxic drugs. Unfortunately, this "health" strategy exacts a tremendously high price, both in terms of dollars and cents and in actual health status. I've written a lot about the many side effects of most drug categories on the market, but one aspect that doesn't get much publicity is the generational impact of pharmaceutical drug use.
In one of the most startling news reports yet on the overuse of opioid drugs like Oxycontin in America, a new study found that newborns suffering from withdrawal symptoms due to their mothers' use of prescription painkillers tripled between 2000 and 2009.
An estimated 13,500 babies are now born with opioid withdrawal symptoms each year. Over the same time period the number of women using these drugs quintupled. Health-care costs to treat these drug addicted babies rose from $190 million to a whopping $720 million.
"This serves as a reminder that this is really a public health emergency," lead author Dr. Stephen Patrick of the University of Michigan told JAMA Reportii.
The study also found that the withdrawal problems appear to affect poor children disproportionately: 78 percent of the drug-addicted babies were born to mothers on Medicaid (an indication of poverty level), compared to 46 percent born to mothers receiving no public aid.
According to Time Magazineiii:
"Prescription drug misuse has risen in tandem with a sharp increase in legitimate prescriptions for pain medication, owing to a better recognition of the high prevalence of severe chronic pain. Both trends are likely to have affected painkiller use by pregnant women, but it is difficult to say exactly how many women use the drugs legitimately and how many do so without a prescription."
Either way, it's interesting to note that while there was great outcry over the horrors of "crack babies" being born to mothers abusing crack-cocaine, the response to legal drug addiction in newborn babies is far more muted. Take the comment of Carl Hart, associate professor of psychology at Columbia University, for example, who is quoted in the featured Time articles as saying:
"[The research] failed to take into account that there are many women who are prescribed opioids for medical reasons and these women are following their physicians' orders and behaving in the way that society wants them to behave. There's no distinction made between these women and those who are using opioids illicitly."
My question is: Does it really make a difference? Whether you're following doctor's "orders" and "behaving the way society wants you to behave" by dutifully taking your drugs or not, the harm inflicted is real—and it's caused by overuse of prescription drugs.
The Rise of Polypharmacy
Another factor of our current drug use trend that is frequently ignored is the impact of polypharmacy, i.e. the use of multiple drugs. For example, people with chronic pain or depression will oftentimes take more than one drug to ease their daily suffering. This exponentially increases your risk of side effects, but many still ignore this obvious fact. This holds true for ALL drugs, of course, not just pain medications and antidepressants.
There's no doubt that the U.S. has been purposely manipulated into becoming a "polypharmacy nation." In just one decade, from 1992 to 2002, the number of prescriptions written increased by a whopping 61 percent, and the number of opiate prescriptions increased by almost 400 percent in that same timeframe.
It doesn't have to be this way. My 83 year old father and 77 year old mother do not take ANY drugs. Whenever they have to go for a conventional medical visit, their providers are always shocked at this fact, as it's in stark contrast to the vast majority of the rest of the population.
According to statistics from the Kaiser Health Foundationiv, the average American adult, aged 19 to 64, now takes more than 11 prescription drugs. So while polypharmacy used to be primarily a concern for seniors—who, on average fill more than 31 prescriptions per year—polypharmacy now applies to virtually everyone, including children and toddlers, whose drug use now averages out to four or more drugs per child!
This is a very significant problem that is not getting much attention. I've also heard many stories of concerned patients bringing it up with their doctors, only to be rebuffed. Still, it's essential to understand that when you mix two or more drugs together, you exponentially increase your chances of suffering serious side effects. But just how did we get to the point where the average American is taking nearly a dozen pharmaceutical drugs daily?
Big Pharma Wants You Hooked on Drugs for Life
A major factor is the fact that the U.S. allows direct-to-consumer advertising for drugs. Most other nations do not allow pharmaceutical advertising, and their population consequently also does not consume nearly as many drugs. Advertising works—that's a fact! There are two effective marketing strategies employed by drug companies on a regular basis, and they include:
- Convincing you that drugs you used to take only when you needed them are now everyday "prevention" necessities in the form of a prescription; and
- Selling you the idea that just being at risk for a chronic disease makes you someone who should be taking a drug for the disease.
The supreme success of these two strategies arises from the fact that YOU are the one who then demands it from your doctor. Furthermore, the treatment goal of most of the drugs advertised is to keep taking them for life. After all, if you're at risk for a chronic disease, that risk never goes away, so you have to keep taking the drug until you die, or cannot afford it any longer.
In a recent article, Martha Rosenbergv lists six types of drugs that are "marketed for perpetuity," meaning they're intended to be taken for life. This type of marketing has also been profoundly effective. According to statistics, 46 percent of all Americans take five or more prescriptions chronically (as opposed to "as needed").
Sadly most of these drugs come with potential side effects that can be far worse than your original symptom, and few of them have been definitively proven to actually provide any significant health benefits. In fact, some of these drugs have been found to worsen the very condition they're meant to treat (such as antidepressants, statins, proton pump inhibitors, and asthma-control meds), and/or cause other serious diseases. For more information, please follow the hyperlinks provided:
The Incredible Cost of Polypharmacy and Perpetual Drug Use
Four years ago, an analysis of federal data by the nonprofit Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) discovered that in the first quarter of 2008, fatalities from adverse drug reactions accounted for 23 percent of all adverse reaction reports!vi
It's quite likely that this could be due to the exponential increase in polypharmacy. And it should serve as a wakeup call for everyone. We're not talking about headaches and nausea anymore—we're talking about death being reported as the side effect in nearly one out of every four cases...
Excessive drug use is also extremely expensive. First, drugs cost the US health care system nearly one trillion dollars a year. But that's not all. We also spend tens of billions of dollars to treat the side effects of those drugs! And despite all these "magic pills," the United States ranks 49th in the world for both male and female life expectancy, down from 24th in 1999.
From my point of view, the idea that "more and better drugs" is the answer to our nation's failing health is clearly misguided. This is also part and parcel of the point I wanted to make in the beginning of this article, which is: Why focus on trying to determine which toxic and expensive drug to use when there are safer, in many cases completely natural, alternatives available? No one has died yet from too many whole food supplements, but drugs taken as prescribed kill at least 106,000 people annually and more than two million people suffer serious side effects.
Isn't it time for another approach? Like Taking Control of Your Health without drugs.
References:
-
Nine Ways to Make Yourself Smarter
By Dr. Mercola
Looking for ways to boost your intellect, stave off mental aging, and maybe even live a longer life? You might be surprised to learn that not only do such strategies exist, but many are easily attainable by making simple tweaks here and there to your daily routine. Embracing the strategies that follow may give a hearty boost to your brainpower, help you keep mentally healthy and ultimately even make yourself smarter.
Nine Tips for a Smarter You …
1. Exercise
Exercise encourages your brain to work at optimum capacity by causing nerve cells to multiply, strengthening their interconnections and protecting them from damage. During exercise nerve cells release proteins known as neurotrophic factors. One in particular, called brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), triggers numerous other chemicals that promote neural health, and directly benefits cognitive functions, including learning. Further, exercise provides protective effects to your brain through:
- The production of nerve-protecting compounds
- Greater blood flow to your brain
- Improved development and survival of neurons
- Decreased risk of cardiovascular diseases such as stroke
A 2010 study on primates published in Neurosciencei also revealed that regular exercise not only improved blood flow to the brain, but also helped the monkeys learn new tasks twice as quickly as non-exercising monkeys, a benefit the researchers believe would hold true for people as well.
Still more research has shown that exercise boosts mitochondria, organelles that produce energy within every cell of your body, which suggests exercise may help your brain work faster and more efficiently.ii
To get the most out of your workouts, I recommend a comprehensive program that includes Peak Fitness high-intensity exercise, strength training, stretching, and core work.
2. Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats
Docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, an omega-3 fat, is an essential structural component of both your brain and retina. Approximately 60 percent of your brain is composed of fats—25 percent of which is DHA. DHA is also an essential structural ingredient of breast milk, which is believed to be a major reason why breastfed babies consistently score higher on IQ tests than formula-fed babies.
Omega-3 fats such as DHA are considered essential because your body cannot produce it, and must get it from your daily diet. DHA-rich foods include fish, liver, and brain—all of which are no longer consumed in great amounts by most Americans.
DHA is found in high levels in your neurons -- the cells of your central nervous system, where it provides structural support. When your omega-3 intake is inadequate, your nerve cells become stiff and more prone to inflammation as the missing omega-3 fats are substituted with cholesterol and omega-6 instead. Once your nerve cells become rigid and inflamed, proper neurotransmission from cell to cell and within cells become compromised.
The influence of omega-3 fat on physical and mental health has been the subject of intense research over the last four decades, and there's compelling evidence that animal-based omega-3 fats can help reduce the symptoms of a variety of psychiatric illnesses and degenerative brain disorders. For example, low DHA levels have been linked to memory loss and Alzheimer's disease.
Even more exciting is research showing that degenerative conditions can not only be prevented but also potentially reversed. For example, in one study, 485 elderly volunteers suffering from memory deficits saw significant improvement after taking 900 mg of DHA per day for 24 weeks, compared with controls.iii
Another study found significant improvement in verbal fluency scores after taking 800 mg of DHA per day for four months compared with placebo.iv Furthermore, memory and rate of learning were significantly improved when DHA was combined with 12 mg of lutein per day.
Interestingly, research suggests that the unsaturated fatty acid composition of normal brain tissue is age-specific, which could imply that the older you get, the greater your need for animal-based omega-3 fat to prevent mental decline and brain degeneration.
To compensate for our inherently low omega-3 diet, a high quality animal-based omega-3 supplement is something that I recommend for virtually everyone, especially if you're pregnant. I prefer krill oil compared to all other animal-based omega-3's, because while the metabolic effects of krill oil and fish oil are "essentially similar," krill oil is as effective as fish oil despite the fact that it contains less EPA and DHA.v This is because krill oil is absorbed up to 10-15 times as well as fish oil, due to its molecular composition, and is less prone to oxidation (rancidity) because it is naturally complexed with the potent fat-soluble antioxidant astaxanthin.
3. Sleep
Sleep is not only essential for regenerating your physical body, but it is imperative for reaching new mental insights and being able to see new creative solutions to old problems. Sleep removes the blinders and helps "reset" your brain to look at problems from a different perspective, which is crucial to creativity.
Research from Harvard indicates that people are 33 percent more likely to infer connections among distantly related ideas after sleeping, but few realize that their performance has actually improved. Sleep is also known to enhance your memories and help you "practice" and improve your performance of challenging skills. In fact, a single night of sleeping only four to six hours can impact your ability to think clearly the next day.
The process of growth, known as plasticity, is believed to underlie the brain's capacity to control behavior, including learning and memory. Plasticity occurs when neurons are stimulated by events, or information, from the environment. However, sleep and sleep loss modify the expression of several genes and gene products that may be important for synaptic plasticity. Furthermore, certain forms of long-term potentiation, a neural process associated with the laying down of learning and memory, can be elicited in sleep, suggesting synaptic connections are strengthened while you slumber.
As you might suspect, this holds true for infants too, and research shows that naps can give a boost to babies' brainpower. Specifically, infants who slept in between learning and testing sessions had a better ability to recognize patterns in new information, which signals an important change in memory that plays an essential role in cognitive development.vi Even among adults, a mid-day nap was found to dramatically boost and restore brainpower.vii You can find 33 tips to help you get the shut-eye you need here.
4. Coconut Oil
One of the primary fuels your brain needs is glucose, which is converted into energy. Your brain actually manufactures its own insulin to convert glucose in your bloodstream into the food it needs to survive.
If your brain's production of insulin decreases, your brain literally begins to starve, as it's deprived of the glucose-converted energy it needs to function normally. This is what happens to Alzheimer's patients -- portions of their brain start to atrophy, or starve, leading to impaired functioning and eventual loss of memory, speech, movement and personality.
In effect, your brain can begin to atrophy from starvation if it becomes insulin resistant and loses its ability to convert glucose into energy. Fortunately, your brain is able to run on more than one type of energy supply, and this is where coconut oil enters the picture.
There's another substance that can feed your brain and prevent brain atrophy. It may even restore and renew neuron and nerve function in your brain after damage has set in.
The substance in question is called ketone bodies or ketoacids. Ketones are what your body produces when it converts fat (as opposed to glucose) into energy, and a primary source of ketone bodies are the medium chain triglycerides (MCT) found in coconut oil! Coconut oil contains about 66 percent MCTs. Therapeutic levels of MCTs have been studied at 20 grams per day. According to research by Dr. Mary Newport, just over two tablespoons of coconut oil (about 35 ml or 7 level teaspoons) would supply you with the equivalent of 20 grams of MCT, which is indicated as either a preventative measure against degenerative neurological diseases, or as a treatment for an already established case.
Everyone tolerates coconut oil differently, so you may have to start slowly and build up to these therapeutic levels. My recommendation is to start with one teaspoon, taken with food in the mornings. Gradually add more coconut oil every few days until you are able to tolerate four tablespoons. Coconut oil is best taken with food, to avoid upsetting your stomach.
5. Vitamin D
Activated vitamin D receptors increase nerve growth in your brain, and researchers have also located metabolic pathways for vitamin D in the hippocampus and cerebellum of the brain, areas that are involved in planning, processing of information, and the formation of new memories.
The National Institutes of Mental Health recently concluded that it is vital that the mother get enough vitamin D while pregnant in order for the baby's brain to develop properly. The child must also get enough vitamin D after birth for "normal" brain functioning. In older adults, too, research has shown that low vitamin D levels are associated with poorer brain function, and increasing levels may help keep older adults mentally fit.viii
Appropriate sun exposure would take care of these issues, as the sun is irreplaceable when it comes to the body's ability to produce adequate amounts of vitamin D.
Appropriate sun exposure is all it takes to keep your levels where they need to be for healthy brain function. If this is not an option, a safe tanning bed is the next best alternative, followed by a vitamin D3 supplement. It now appears as though most adults need about 8,000 IU's of vitamin D a day in order to get their serum levels above 40 ng/ml, which is the lowest they should be. Ideally, your serum levels should be between 50-70 ng/ml, and up to 100 ng/ml to treat cancer and heart disease. However, it's important to realize that there's no magic dosage when it comes to vitamin D. What's important is your serum level, so you need to get your vitamin D levels tested to make sure you're staying within the optimal and therapeutic ranges as indicated below.
6. Optimize Your Gut Flora
Your gut is your "second brain," and your gut bacteria transmits information to your brain via the vagus nerve, the tenth cranial nerve that runs from your brain stem into your enteric nervous system (the nervous system of your gastrointestinal tract). There is a close connection between abnormal gut flora and abnormal brain development, and just as you have neurons in your brain, you also have neurons in your gut -- including neurons that produce neurotransmitters like serotonin, which is also found in your brain and is linked to mood.
Quite simply, your gut health can impact your brain function, psyche, and behavior, as they are interconnected and interdependent in a number of different ways.
Your gut bacteria are an active and integrated part of your body, and as such are heavily dependent on your diet and vulnerable to your lifestyle. If you consume a lot of processed foods and sweetened drinks, for instance, your gut bacteria are likely going to be severely compromised because processed foods in general will destroy healthy microflora and sugars of all kinds feed bad bacteria and yeast. Limiting sugar and processed foods, while eating traditionally fermented foods (rich in naturally occurring good bacteria), taking a probiotic supplement and breastfeeding your baby are among the best ways to optimize gut flora and subsequently support brain health.
Download Interview Transcript
7. Vitamin B12
Vitamin B12, or rather a lack thereof, has been called the "canary in the coalmine" for your future brain health, and recent research has bolstered the importance of this vitamin in keeping your mind sharp as you age. According to the latest research, people with high levels of markers for vitamin B12 deficiency were more likely to score lower on cognitive tests, as well as have a smaller total brain volume,ix which suggests a lack of the vitamin may contribute to brain shrinkage.
Mental fogginess and problems with memory are two of the top warning signs that you have vitamin B12 deficiency, and this is indicative of its importance for your brain health.
In addition, a Finnish study found that people who consume foods rich in B12 may reduce their risk of Alzheimer's in their later years.x For each unit increase in the marker of vitamin B12 (holotranscobalamin) the risk of developing Alzheimer's was reduced by 2 percent. Research also shows that supplementing with B vitamins, including B12, helps to slow brain atrophy in elderly people with mild cognitive impairment (brain atrophy is a well-established characteristic of Alzheimer's disease).xi
Vitamin B12 deficiency is widespread and many have trouble absorbing this nutrient properly from food sources. Blood tests for vitamin B12 are not always a reliable indicator of B12 status, so watching for symptoms of deficiency and increasing your dietary and supplemental intake is a practical alternative to blood testing.
B12 is available in its natural form only in animal food sources. These include seafood, beef, chicken, pork, milk, and eggs. If you don't consume enough of these animal products (and I don't recommend consuming seafood unless you know it is from a pure water source) to get an adequate supply of B12, or if your body's ability to absorb the vitamin from food is compromised, vitamin B12 supplementation is completely non-toxic and inexpensive, especially when compared to the cost of laboratory testing. I recommend an under-the-tongue fine mist spray, as this technology helps you absorb the vitamin into the fine capillaries under your tongue.
8. Listen to Music
It's long been theorized that listening to music may boost your brainpower; you've probably heard of this with the "Mozart Effect," which suggests listening to classical music can make you smarter. Indeed, research has shown that listening to music while exercising boosted cognitive levels and verbal fluency skills in people diagnosed with coronary artery disease (coronary artery disease has been linked to a decline in cognitive abilities). In this study, signs of improvement in the verbal fluency areas more than doubled after listening to music compared to that of the non-music session.xii
Listening to music has also been associated with enhanced cognitive functioning and improved mental focus among healthy adults, so take advantage of this simple pleasure whenever you can.
9. Challenge Your Mind
One of the simplest methods to boost your brain function is to keep on learning. The size and structure of neurons and the connections between them actually change as you learn. This can take on many forms above and beyond book learning to include activities like traveling, learning to play a musical instrument or speak a foreign language, or participating in social and community activities.
Another important method? Brain aerobics. As with learning, challenging your brain with mind-training exercises can keep your brain fit as you age. This can be something as simple as thinking of famous people whose first names begin with the letter A, doing crossword puzzles or playing board games that get you thinking. Research has even shown that surfing the Web activates regions in your brain related to decision-making and complex reasoning.xiii So unlike passively watching TV, using the Internet is an engaging task that may actually help to improve your brainpower.
References:
|
Health & Well Being News Updates 