|
|
|
|
|
Friday, July 25, 2014
There is Still Time to Sign Up for Dr. Tom O'Bryan's Lecture Friday July 25th-available 48 hours
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Fish to Avoid Due to Mercury Toxicity: Natural Resources Defense Council
Learn more about mercury and its effects at the Natural Resources Defense Council web site here:
PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY
Consumer Guide to Mercury in Fish
The list below shows the amount of various types of fish that a woman who is pregnant or planning to become pregnant can safely eat, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA recommendation is based on body weight and is, therefore, dependent on a person's size. The guidance below is based on a 6 oz serving of cooked fish for a 130lb/60kg woman. People with small children who want to use the list as a guide should reduce portion sizes. Adult men, and women who are not planning to become pregnant, are less at risk from mercury exposure but may wish to refer to the list for low-mercury choices. For a more personalized recommendation, use NRDC's mercury calculator.
Protecting yourself -- and the fish: Certain fish, even some that are low in mercury, make poor choices for other reasons, most often because they have been fished so extensively that their numbers are perilously low. These fish are marked with an asterisk (read more below).
HIGH MERCURY*
Eat less than four servings per month:
Bluefish
Grouper
Mackerel (Spanish, Gulf)
Sea Bass (Chilean)
Tuna (Canned Albacore)
Tuna (Yellowfin)
HIGHEST MERCURY**
Avoid eating:
Mackerel (King)
Marlin
Orange Roughy
Shark
Swordfish
Tilefish
Tuna (Bigeye, Ahi)
* High mercury: From 0.3 to 0.49 parts per million
** Highest mercury: More than .5 parts per million
source: http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/guide.asp
Monday, July 14, 2014
WHY SHOULD I AVOID GMOs?
Back in March of this year I wrote about Dr. Seneff's work which showed eerily similar damage from GMO crops to the damage from gluten. This is a public health issue as is gluten sensitivity when it is undiagnosed and untreated.
Since then, I have made a serious effort to eliminate and avoid GMO's, especially corn and soya products. I just threw away a new bottle of a supplement I take, which has been reformulated and contains soya bean. I have contacted a number of supplement companies and reviewed their policies on GMO sourced products.
We all have to make the personal decision to avoid GMOs or not. One can not make that decision without getting good information on why one should. Below is an article from the Institute for Responsible Technology entitled "Why should I avoid GMOs?".
I for one believe there should be labelling if the product has GMO's. Without labelling, as things stand now, there is no way to know if any food or product has GMOs in it.
From the Institute for Responsible Technology :
Why are children particularly susceptible to the effects of GM foods?
Children face the greatest risk from the potential dangers of GM foods for the same reasons they face the greatest risk from other hazards like pesticides and radiation, these include:
Young, fast-developing bodies are influenced most.
Children are more susceptible to allergies.
Children are more susceptible to problems with milk.
Children are more susceptible to nutritional problems.
Children are in danger from antibiotic resistant diseases.
How dangerous, or potentially dangerous, are GM foods relative to other food dangers, e.g., pesticides, irradiation, additives, preservatives?
Since so little research has been done on the safety of GM foods, it is not possible to rank its risks. Unlike the others, GM crops persist in the environment, and may continue to pose risks to health for centuries.
In addition, transfer of transgenes to gut bacteria may present long-term chronic exposure, since the foreign protein may continue to be produced inside of us after we no longer consume the GM food.
View all 65 health risks of GM foods, excerpted from Jeffrey Smith's comprehensive book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.
From the Institute for Responsible Technology :
WHY SHOULD I AVOID GMOs?
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) recently released its position paper on Genetically Modified foods stating that "... GM foods pose a serious health risk". The AAEM called for a moratorium on GM food, with implementation of immediate long-term safety testing and labeling of GM food. The AAEM is just one of many organizations worldwide calling for these steps to be taken. Read their position paper on GMOs
Hasn't research shown GM foods to be safe?
No. The only feeding study done with humans showed that GMOs survived inside the stomach of the people eating GMO food. No follow-up studies were done.
Various feeding studies in animals have resulted in potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, damaged immune systems, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy or increased density of the liver, odd shaped cell nuclei and other unexplained anomalies, false pregnancies and higher death rates.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) recently released its position paper on Genetically Modified foods stating that "... GM foods pose a serious health risk". The AAEM called for a moratorium on GM food, with implementation of immediate long-term safety testing and labeling of GM food. The AAEM is just one of many organizations worldwide calling for these steps to be taken. Read their position paper on GMOs
Hasn't research shown GM foods to be safe?
No. The only feeding study done with humans showed that GMOs survived inside the stomach of the people eating GMO food. No follow-up studies were done.
Various feeding studies in animals have resulted in potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, damaged immune systems, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy or increased density of the liver, odd shaped cell nuclei and other unexplained anomalies, false pregnancies and higher death rates.
And more here:
Why are children particularly susceptible to the effects of GM foods?
Children face the greatest risk from the potential dangers of GM foods for the same reasons they face the greatest risk from other hazards like pesticides and radiation, these include:
Young, fast-developing bodies are influenced most.
Children are more susceptible to allergies.
Children are more susceptible to problems with milk.
Children are more susceptible to nutritional problems.
Children are in danger from antibiotic resistant diseases.
How dangerous, or potentially dangerous, are GM foods relative to other food dangers, e.g., pesticides, irradiation, additives, preservatives?
Since so little research has been done on the safety of GM foods, it is not possible to rank its risks. Unlike the others, GM crops persist in the environment, and may continue to pose risks to health for centuries.
In addition, transfer of transgenes to gut bacteria may present long-term chronic exposure, since the foreign protein may continue to be produced inside of us after we no longer consume the GM food.
View all 65 health risks of GM foods, excerpted from Jeffrey Smith's comprehensive book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.
The most concerning to me is the possible permanent changes to one's own microbiota's DNA with the incorporation of abnormal genetic material that makes the microbiota continue to make glyphosate in the bowel. Healthy microbiota are essential to good general health.
Within the last two months there has been news that, Russian lawmakers want to impose criminal penalties on those conducting GMO business.
Lots to think about.
Here is the link again, and at the top, there is an app available for purchase for a GMO free shopping guide.
To Your Health
Dr. Barbara
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
How Genes Can Influence Our Mood-And How They Can Be By-Passed For Better Mental Health-Huffpost
Here is an article by Dr. Michael Stanclift ND in Huffpost Healthy Living on how adding gene studies to assess MTHFR status can be used to help people with mood issues, as part of a systemized approach. I've spoken a little bit about how these genes influence enzymes by the same name, MTHFR, that are important in the production of neurochemicals among other things, and can be by-passed with B12, folate and other supplements. As you know, when I first work with someone with mood issues, I do comprehensive testing for gluten sensitivity, serum vitamin D status, nutritional status, infections, hormone and thyroid status.Thanks to Dr. Stanclift for sharing.
Here is an excerpt, but I suggest you read the whole thing.
Michael Stanclift, N.D. Naturopathic Doctor
How Genes Can Influence Our Mood
Posted: 07/06/2014 2:24 pm EDT Updated: 07/06/2014 2:59 pm EDT Print Article
When Susan* first came to see me, she was feeling pretty low. She had debilitating fatigue, and her body ached all over. Susan had been prescribed an antidepressant, and it helped with her depression a little, but she was still constantly anxious and had difficulty concentrating. Everything seemed "life or death," her performance at work was declining, and she was afraid she would lose her job if things didn't change soon.
..... I agreed and ordered comprehensive thyroid testing, a test to rule out anemia, and some "functional genetic" testing. Her thyroid and anemia tests came back right away: Everything looked normal. The genetic testing came back about two weeks later with some significant findings. Susan had variations in both copies (one from her mother and one from her father) of a gene that converts folate/folic acid into its active form. The gene, called "MTHFR" (think "Mon. THur. FRi.") helps an important biochemical reaction in our body called "methylation." Because of her variations, her body couldn't use folate very efficiently. So how did this factor into her condition?
Folate, in its activated form (5 MTHF), is needed for many important processes in our bodies. In Susan's case it was particularly important with relation to her neurotransmitters. Neurotransmitters are the chemicals our brains make to communicate messages to each other, and they have to be available in high enough amounts for us to successfully communicate those messages. Many of us have heard of serotonin, dopamine, and adrenaline (epinephrine), and may even be familiar with their effects on our emotions and mood. In order to make these neurotransmitters, that crucial step called "methylation" must occur. This step can be particularly difficult for someone with MTHFR variations like Susan had................
A few weeks into her treatment she came back reporting her coworkers had noticed a change. In my office I immediately saw the change in her mood, and even our front desk staff reported Susan sounded happier when she called. I know moods can change periodically, so I asked about something that had been consistent with her: exercise. She had exercised at least 50 percent more per week, and wasn't exhausted from it like before. Her sleep had improved, she reported her concentration was no longer an issue, and her libido was starting to return.We're now many months into her treatment and Susan has continued to do well.
Finding the variations in Susan's MTHFR gene was not the end-all be-all of her symptoms and treatment, but it was a significant factor. It opened up a window into why her depression and fatigue were so significant and why her medications weren't giving her satisfactory results. New and inexpensive "functional genetic" tests like this have opened up whole new areas of medicine and offer patients interventions that are personalized and nutritionally based. These tests have taken a significant amount of guess work into what interventions might work and explain why some people require drastically different dosages of nutrients to achieve the same outcomes. To find out if functional genetic testing could be important to you and your health, ask your doctor if these tests could be relevant for you.
In Health,
Michael Stanclift, N.D.Naturopathic Doctor in Practice in Carlsbad, California
"Functional genetic" testing is done in a number of laboratories in Canada, USA, Europe and Asia. Most require a requisition from your doctor. A normal homocysteine can not be used to assess your MTHFR status (because the "short route" may be working overtime). A high homocysteine level means you probably have a MTHFR issue (lower function of the MTHFR enzymes) and a requirement for more B12, folate,zinc, magnesium, vitamin C and other supplements. If you should decide to add genetic testing, it is best to be guided by a doctor who has some experience with MTHFR issues, as there is the rare person who, to avoid unpleasant effects, needs an individualized programme before starting folate in higher doses.
To Your Health
Dr. Barbara
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Serological Tests for The Diagnosis of Celiac and Gluten Sensitivity- Critical Assessment of Utility.
For years I used biopsy and serology tests along with history, physical, elimination diet, diet challenge and lab assessment to make a diagnosis of gluten sensitivity.
I found serological tests,especially IgA tTG, frustrating because they never matched, in clinical practice, their often quoted and promised specificity and sensitivity of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97, 0.99).
Except in rare circumstances I have abandoned serological testing for celiac and gluten sensitivity and I present two studies that show the tests are less than 60% accurate ( to state it in a general way). In fact, Ontario Health Insurance Plan pays for lab tests in practice, but, for Ontario residents it does not pay for serological tests for celiac and gluten sensitivity, and does not pay for IgA tTG. Have the decision makers at OHIP decided the serological tests are not strong enough utility to be included in the plan while they pay for small bowel biopsy?
See the Health Quality Ontario report on utility of serological tests for the diagnosis of celiac disease:.
Clinical Utility of Serologic Testing for Celiac Disease in Ontario An Evidence-Based Analysis Health Quality Ontario Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010; 10(21): 1–111.
Published online Dec 1, 2010.
Executive Summary
Objective of Analysis
The objective of this evidence-based evaluation is to assess the accuracy of serologic tests in the diagnosis of celiac disease in subjects with symptoms consistent with this disease. Furthermore the impact of these tests in the diagnostic pathway of the disease and decision making was also evaluated.
Celiac Disease
Celiac disease is an autoimmune disease that develops in genetically predisposed individuals. The immunological response is triggered by ingestion of gluten, a protein that is present in wheat, rye, and barley. The treatment consists of strict lifelong adherence to a gluten-free diet (GFD).
Patients with celiac disease may present with a myriad of symptoms such as diarrhea, abdominal pain, weight loss, iron deficiency anemia, dermatitis herpetiformis, among others.
Serologic Testing in the Diagnosis Celiac Disease
There are a number of serologic tests used in the diagnosis of celiac disease.
Anti-gliadin antibody (AGA)
Anti-endomysial antibody (EMA)
Anti-tissue transglutaminase antibody (tTG)
Anti-deamidated gliadin peptides antibodies (DGP)
Serologic tests are automated with the exception of the EMA test, which is more time-consuming and operator-dependent than the other tests. For each serologic test, both immunoglobulin A (IgA) or G (IgG) can be measured, however, IgA measurement is the standard antibody measured in celiac disease.
Diagnosis of Celiac Disease
According to celiac disease guidelines, the diagnosis of celiac disease is established by small bowel biopsy. Serologic tests are used to initially detect and to support the diagnosis of celiac disease. A small bowel biopsy is indicated in individuals with a positive serologic test. In some cases an endoscopy and small bowel biopsy may be required even with a negative serologic test. The diagnosis of celiac disease must be performed on a gluten-containing diet since the small intestine abnormalities and the serologic antibody levels may resolve or improve on a GFD.
Please take a good look at appendix 3 which summarizes 5 studies of serological tests. If you eliminate Zintzaras et al. (2006) (28) and Lewis et al. (2006) (26), the first listed studies, the ranges of sensitivity and specificity, especially of the most useful test IgA tTG are so much lower, than the first two. I don't see any explanation. And the review did not include Dr. Abrams et al , Dr. Peter Green's Celiac research lab's published study in 2006 which showed much lower sensitivity and sensitivity in field trials of IgA tTG.
Dr. Abrams and Green conclude:
The sensitivity of the anti-tTG antibody in clinical practice is not as high as previously reported in research laboratories. The sensitivity is significantly lower in patients with partial villous atrophy. There is also significant variability in test characteristics among major commercial laboratories in the United States. These results need to be confirmed in prospective studies.
This is a partial answer to the question I proposed about the appendix 3 results; variation in condition of the villae needs to be taken into account. In an initial assessment for diagnosis, one would not know the condition of the villae and the treatment does not vary with mild disease or serious disease. Mild disease (with more chance to have a negative serological test) appears to be as dangerous as more severe villous atrophy. But starting the right diet ASAP is very important. So I just want to know if the person is gluten sensitive and get them started on a GAPS diet and protocol.
In my opinion there is a major weakness of this Health Quality Ontario review as it was designed to only look at English language studies of the utility of serological tests. This is unfortunate as there is a wealth of information coming from the Italian, Japanese, Scandinavian, German and other non English, large celiac research centres.
Does anyone know if there is a "Celiac Research Centre" in Canada? Please let me know if you know of one.
Objective of Analysis
The objective of this evidence-based evaluation is to assess the accuracy of serologic tests in the diagnosis of celiac disease in subjects with symptoms consistent with this disease. Furthermore the impact of these tests in the diagnostic pathway of the disease and decision making was also evaluated.
Celiac Disease
Celiac disease is an autoimmune disease that develops in genetically predisposed individuals. The immunological response is triggered by ingestion of gluten, a protein that is present in wheat, rye, and barley. The treatment consists of strict lifelong adherence to a gluten-free diet (GFD).
Patients with celiac disease may present with a myriad of symptoms such as diarrhea, abdominal pain, weight loss, iron deficiency anemia, dermatitis herpetiformis, among others.
Serologic Testing in the Diagnosis Celiac Disease
There are a number of serologic tests used in the diagnosis of celiac disease.
Anti-gliadin antibody (AGA)
Anti-endomysial antibody (EMA)
Anti-tissue transglutaminase antibody (tTG)
Anti-deamidated gliadin peptides antibodies (DGP)
Serologic tests are automated with the exception of the EMA test, which is more time-consuming and operator-dependent than the other tests. For each serologic test, both immunoglobulin A (IgA) or G (IgG) can be measured, however, IgA measurement is the standard antibody measured in celiac disease.
Diagnosis of Celiac Disease
According to celiac disease guidelines, the diagnosis of celiac disease is established by small bowel biopsy. Serologic tests are used to initially detect and to support the diagnosis of celiac disease. A small bowel biopsy is indicated in individuals with a positive serologic test. In some cases an endoscopy and small bowel biopsy may be required even with a negative serologic test. The diagnosis of celiac disease must be performed on a gluten-containing diet since the small intestine abnormalities and the serologic antibody levels may resolve or improve on a GFD.
Please take a good look at appendix 3 which summarizes 5 studies of serological tests. If you eliminate Zintzaras et al. (2006) (28) and Lewis et al. (2006) (26), the first listed studies, the ranges of sensitivity and specificity, especially of the most useful test IgA tTG are so much lower, than the first two. I don't see any explanation. And the review did not include Dr. Abrams et al , Dr. Peter Green's Celiac research lab's published study in 2006 which showed much lower sensitivity and sensitivity in field trials of IgA tTG.
Dr. Abrams and Green conclude:
The sensitivity of the anti-tTG antibody in clinical practice is not as high as previously reported in research laboratories. The sensitivity is significantly lower in patients with partial villous atrophy. There is also significant variability in test characteristics among major commercial laboratories in the United States. These results need to be confirmed in prospective studies.
This is a partial answer to the question I proposed about the appendix 3 results; variation in condition of the villae needs to be taken into account. In an initial assessment for diagnosis, one would not know the condition of the villae and the treatment does not vary with mild disease or serious disease. Mild disease (with more chance to have a negative serological test) appears to be as dangerous as more severe villous atrophy. But starting the right diet ASAP is very important. So I just want to know if the person is gluten sensitive and get them started on a GAPS diet and protocol.
In my opinion there is a major weakness of this Health Quality Ontario review as it was designed to only look at English language studies of the utility of serological tests. This is unfortunate as there is a wealth of information coming from the Italian, Japanese, Scandinavian, German and other non English, large celiac research centres.
Does anyone know if there is a "Celiac Research Centre" in Canada? Please let me know if you know of one.
To Your Health
Dr. Barbara
Monday, June 30, 2014
Tip of the Month: Keeping Bugs at Bay Without the Toxic Spray, From Environmental Defence
Now that the warm weather is here most of us have unwanted contact with insects. I am careful to advise those with gluten sensitivity to avoid all chemical exposures especially for those chemicals where you have control over the purchasing and use of them. You don't want to add to your already copious amounts of toxin exposures, from the air you breath, the clothes you wear, the food you eat (avoid the "dirty dozen plus" and commercially fed meat products) and the water you drink. I've heard the number of new chemicals in our environment over the last 100 years is 84,000.
I believe the person with gluten sensitivity (GS) is much more susceptible to toxic overload because, one is nutrient deficient especially sulphur, and the enzymes that take care of toxins need a full complement of nutrients. And the GS person probably has MTHFR enzymes that are greatly affected and poorly functioning, also adding to the accumulation of toxins in the body. Once you stop eating gluten (a toxin) it is a challenge to reverse these two main conditions in the GS person but it is possible. And depending on your other genes and phenotype, illness due to aggravation by toxins shows up as any number of diseases, eventually.
photo credit: Image by Flickr user uncoolbob
With temperatures getting warmer outside, are you starting to notice some unwanted guests inside your home? In this instance, I am referring to bugs.
Now, like most green-minded people, you appreciate the role bugs have in the environment. But, if you don't want them crawling around your house, what can you do? You can find pesticides for most common household invaders at your local store, but they are normally full of nasty chemicals (Report from the Ontario College of Family Practice) which are harmful to you (Report from Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment), and the environment in general.
Instead of buying a bottle of the chemical stuff, there are a few steps you can take to keep your home bug free, without harming your health and the environment at the same time.
1. Ants
If you spot ants in your home, first remove anything that could attract them such as crumbs on the counter, or a sticky jar of honey in the cupboard. If that doesn’t do the trick, then place cucumber slices at points of entry. Cucumbers are known to repel ants. If that doesn’t work “spice things up” by sprinkling cayenne pepper, chili pepper, black pepper, cinnamon, mint, cloves or garlic where you've seen ants and along your home’s foundation.
2. Mosquitoes
Summer and mosquitoes – you normally can't have one without the other. But there are a few natural ways to keep them at bay. First of all, remove any standing water sources from your backyard and keep your eavestroughs clean. Consider adding mosquito repelling plants, such as lemon balm and marigolds, to your garden. You can also make your own homemade mosquito repellent with essential oils and vegetable oil or apple cider vinegar.
3. Cockroaches
Diatomaceous earth (only the natural) is a known safer alternative to eliminating cockroaches in your home. It can be sprinkled where cockroaches hangout – such as on counter tops and behind appliances. It won't harm humans, however, cockroaches that come into contact with diatomaceous earth normally die within 48 hours. When applying the material, avoid inhaling the dust; it’s not toxic to people, but inhaling it can irritate. If you just want to repel the cockroaches, try leaving small satchels of catnip where you've seen cockroach activity, or simmer the catnip to create a tea that can be sprayed around the house.
4. Flies
A fly buzzing around a room can be hard to ignore sometimes. Flies don't like basil, so having a few basil plants in your home is a good deterrent (and you can use the basil for cooking!). You can also make your own natural fly paper to capture flies by using corn syrup, sugar and brown paper bags.
By taking the above steps, you can make sure, in a toxic-free way, that bugs won't be bugging you inside this summer. Stay tuned for next month when we'll share tips to keep bugs off your body when you're outside! Also, be sure to sign up for our Toxic Nation newsletter to receive toxics news and toxic-eliminating tips all year long.
The other day I was horrified to see a fellow natural doctor pick up a bottle of a popular pesticide to spray on a less than a quarter sized new wasp hive at their front door. I was horrified, because I thought they would know that using pesticides increases their risk for Parkinson's and other severe long term health issues.
How do I deal with wasp nests? I have been using my vacuum cleaner to take care of wasp nests for decades and it always works. By using the long pipe, I don't even have to get close to the nest and risk a sting. You may have to "vacuum" a few times, but then they relocate and stop building in your sensitive area.
I also use the vacuum cleaner if there is a fruit fly infestation. Usually in August.
From Environmental Defence-(the bolds are mine)
photo credit: Image by Flickr user uncoolbob
With temperatures getting warmer outside, are you starting to notice some unwanted guests inside your home? In this instance, I am referring to bugs.
Now, like most green-minded people, you appreciate the role bugs have in the environment. But, if you don't want them crawling around your house, what can you do? You can find pesticides for most common household invaders at your local store, but they are normally full of nasty chemicals (Report from the Ontario College of Family Practice) which are harmful to you (Report from Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment), and the environment in general.
Instead of buying a bottle of the chemical stuff, there are a few steps you can take to keep your home bug free, without harming your health and the environment at the same time.
1. Ants
If you spot ants in your home, first remove anything that could attract them such as crumbs on the counter, or a sticky jar of honey in the cupboard. If that doesn’t do the trick, then place cucumber slices at points of entry. Cucumbers are known to repel ants. If that doesn’t work “spice things up” by sprinkling cayenne pepper, chili pepper, black pepper, cinnamon, mint, cloves or garlic where you've seen ants and along your home’s foundation.
2. Mosquitoes
Summer and mosquitoes – you normally can't have one without the other. But there are a few natural ways to keep them at bay. First of all, remove any standing water sources from your backyard and keep your eavestroughs clean. Consider adding mosquito repelling plants, such as lemon balm and marigolds, to your garden. You can also make your own homemade mosquito repellent with essential oils and vegetable oil or apple cider vinegar.
3. Cockroaches
Diatomaceous earth (only the natural) is a known safer alternative to eliminating cockroaches in your home. It can be sprinkled where cockroaches hangout – such as on counter tops and behind appliances. It won't harm humans, however, cockroaches that come into contact with diatomaceous earth normally die within 48 hours. When applying the material, avoid inhaling the dust; it’s not toxic to people, but inhaling it can irritate. If you just want to repel the cockroaches, try leaving small satchels of catnip where you've seen cockroach activity, or simmer the catnip to create a tea that can be sprayed around the house.
4. Flies
A fly buzzing around a room can be hard to ignore sometimes. Flies don't like basil, so having a few basil plants in your home is a good deterrent (and you can use the basil for cooking!). You can also make your own natural fly paper to capture flies by using corn syrup, sugar and brown paper bags.
By taking the above steps, you can make sure, in a toxic-free way, that bugs won't be bugging you inside this summer. Stay tuned for next month when we'll share tips to keep bugs off your body when you're outside! Also, be sure to sign up for our Toxic Nation newsletter to receive toxics news and toxic-eliminating tips all year long.
I hope these tips help to make your "toxic bug spray free" life easier.
To Your Health
Dr. Barbara
Saturday, June 28, 2014
The Scientist- June issue- Complex layers of science, policy, and public opinion surround the things we eat and drink.
I've been enjoying The Scientist Magazine and would like to share the June issues editorial by Mary Beth Aberlin. The issue is about the food we eat and the science and the politics surrounding such. It starts with a funny quote/clip reflecting our current ironic situation about the confusion around what is healthy to eat. But don't miss the profile of Dr. Bruce Ames, who maybe the first scientist to write about the effects of diet on our gene expression, now called epigenetics.
In his very funny 1973 sci-fi film Sleeper, Woody Allen plays a health-food store owner who is revived after 200 years of cryopreservation. His request for a breakfast of “wheat germ, organic honey, and tiger’s milk”bewilders the doctors who supervised his thawing: “Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life-preserving properties,” says one doctor, to which the other queries, “You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or . . . hot fudge?” “Those were thought to be unhealthy—precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true,” explains the first medic.
Food provides organisms with the vital energy and nutrients they need to survive. But for humans, food is far more than simple sustenance. This issue of The Scientist peels back layers of complexity to report on the science that is revolutionizing nutrition and agriculture from the inside out. What we've uncovered is a cornucopia of technical progress in plant breeding spurred by advances in genomics and gene editing—advances that could feed many more people and counter climate-change threats to food crops.
In “Putting Up Resistance,” associate editor Kerry Grens documents crop scientists’ growing worries that a fungal attack on wheat plants could spread around the world, decimating a crop with insufficient defense mechanisms before breeders can develop a more resistant variety. She outlines the progress toward genetically engineering wheat plants and the factors that make bringing such products to market so difficult.
When it comes to producing genetically modified (GM) animals, the hurdles may be even higher, reports senior editor Jef Akst. In “Designer Livestock,” scientists describe how they have engineered pigs whose poop contains less of the phosphorus that drives algal growth fueled by farm runoff; salmon that grow nearly twice as fast and consume 25 percent less food; animal milk with antibacterial properties to stanch diarrhea; and meat enriched with omega-3 fatty acids.
Most researchers believe that if GM foods are ever to help relieve world hunger, improve poor diets, or fight diseases, the hope lies in precision gene-editing techniques, such as TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9, which can make tailored changes to an organism’s genome without the introduction of genetic material from a radically different species. Fine-tuning existing genes or adding genetic diversity from close relatives—such as the wild kin of today’s food crops, as discussed in an opinion article—may finally win over the general public. I hope so.
Forty years after Allen’s cynical quip, press releases from respected journals about new scientific findings echo the confusion about what’s good for you to eat. Recent studies report that coffee confers health benefits and that the antioxidant resveratrol—found in red wine, chocolate, and grapes, and long touted as healthful—provides none (really bad science, my bold). Dozens more appear each month. In a Thought Experiment Christopher Gardner and Michael Stanton address contradictions of this nature and discuss how to design nutrition studies to find clear, reliable answers.
The entire Notebook section is devoted to food-related subjects: controlling invasive Asian carp by putting them on the menu; using spoiled milk to produce eco-friendly textiles; brewing beers using barley that is devoid of a barf-inducing fungus; and detecting food pathogens with microcantilevers. And three recent scientific papers focus on how the bacteria that roundworms ingest affect their longevity; how green tea spurs DNA repair; and how neurons sense nutrients. In a Reading Frames essay, Robert Dudley explains primates’ relationship with alcohol.
Scientists profiled include octogenarian Bruce Ames (designer of the eponymous test) (a must read, very funny at the end, my bold), who describes his research on the importance of micronutrients, and Haley Oliver, who studies the spread of foodborne pathogens.
So strap on the feed bag. We've served up quite the smorgasbord!
Mary Beth Aberlin Editor-in-Chief eic@the-scientist.com
I've left the links in for your reading pleasure, although I have not read all of the articles.
This issue is truly a gourmet smorgasbord. So delicious with food for thought.
To Your Health
Dr. Barbara
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)