The Meatrix II -- TONITE is THE NIGHT!

The hard launch of The Meatrix II: Revolting is set for 12 a.m. EST TONITE! Thursday, 3/30 … but you can take a peak now if you’d like. The Flash animation has just gone live at www.themeatrix2.com.

Be sure to check out the companion site, The Meatrix 360° Interactive at (http://www.themeatrix.com/interactive/index.html).

Juice Box Junkies!

Helping Our Kids Kick the Fruit Juice Habit.

by Cori Young

I get a lot of email each month from parents who are concerned about how much fruit juice their kids are drinking. Some are looking for reassurance, “Is it really that bad, it’s made out of fruit?” Or, “At least they’re getting lots of liquids...” Others are worried about all the cavities their kids are getting, or because it seems to effect their kids’ behavior, “Is it me, or is this juice making my son hyperactive?” Parents are also concerned because their kids aren’t drinking water anymore. But the most common theme being expressed by these parents is, “My child is addicted to fruit juice!”

Are our toddlers and young children strung out on fruit juice? It certainly seems so. Fruit juice has become the drink of choice for many children, replacing water and milk. In many cases children start on fruit juice even before they have begun eating solid foods.

It’s not all that surprising. Take a look around. Juice is everywhere! We’ve become a culture of juice box junkies. It’s not just at home either. Kids are given juice at daycare and preschools. Many elementary and middle schools offer juice in vending machines.

This is no accident. Juice is being aggressively marketed as a ‘wholesome drink for growing bodies’. It’s the new milk.

Remember when fruit juice was considered a breakfast drink? For as long as I can remember orange juice has been touted as an integral part of a ‘healthy breakfast’. But the idea of drinking fruit juice all day is a new thing. It’s a result of marketing campaigns that target specific age groups.

Juice companies, (many of which are owned by major soft drink corporations,) have packaged fruit juice in convenient child-sized containers with little straws and pictures of children’s favorite cartoon characters. Some even have games and quizzes on the packaging just like cereal boxes.

And it isn’t just orange juice anymore! Today’s kids have a choice between everything from mixed berry to mango-passion fruit .

Many parents are lured in by this convenience, or by the savvy labels promising a full days’ supply of vitamin c. Some fruit juice boxes even claim to contain a complete multi-vitamin in each serving. (Wow! That’s a lot of synthetic vitamins in one day for a child who consumes 3 or 4 juice boxes!)

There are studies being done on the long term effects of growing children consuming so much fruit juice. But we won’t see the results for awhile. And, we can’t deny the fact that juice is big business. It will be interesting to see how these studies are interpreted.

Here’s what we do know: Eight ounces of fruit juice contains nearly 6 teaspoons of sugar. Even though it’s from fructose, a fruit sugar, it still causes the same major increase in insulin levels as refined sugar. Research suggests that this distortion of insulin balance may lead to hormone and neurotransmitter shifts which could increase the risk of ear infections, allergies, and ADHD.

The changes in blood sugar caused by fruit juice consumption can also cause children to crave starches and sweets.

Children who are addicted to fruit juice don’t drink enough water. Young children need 60% more water each day than adults, but kids who habitually drink fruit juice rarely drink water.. .Fruit juice contains no fiber. Many parents worry when their child is constipated and, assuming they need more liquids, offer even more fruit juice. But fruit juice is not filling like fruit, and kids end up drinking more calories than they eat. The World Health Organization estimates that 22 million children under age 5 are overweight or obese.

Not all fruit juices are 100% juice. Some contain high fructose corn syrup or other sweetners as well as artificial colors and preservatives. Many of the pesticides used for growing the fruit are in fruit juice as well, and in concentrated forms.

100% organic fruit juice is still pasturized and stripped of most of the valuable nutrients and enzymes of fresh juice. What’s left? Sugar!

Simply put, if our children have a fruit juice habit, they have a sugar habit. This could pose a greater risk for yeast overgrowth, allergies, ADHD, diabetes, obesity, and chronic ill health.

What can we do?

Fortunately, with a some mindfulness and persistence there are ways to break the juice habit.

Prevention, of course is the easiest route, but there are also effective ways to wean kids off of juice.

Things to Consider Before a Habit Starts:

Drink water! By far the most vital element to success here is for the whole family to drink water. When babes and toddlers start experimenting with solid foods the first thing they want to do is start eating and drinking what you do. Make it a habit to drink water and to offer children water.

Don’t use plastic cups. I know how radical this sounds. But I have come to see how these cups contribute to kids not wanting to drink water. Why? Because water doesn’t taste good in them. Try drinking plain water out of your child’s sippy cup and see what I mean. Plastic cups taste like plastic - especially to unadulterated taste buds. They also absorb the taste of dish soap. Dishwashers seem to seal in that soapy taste. One reason kids come to want juice instead of water is because the juice tastes better in those plastic cups than water does. It masks the plastic taste.

We’ve really come to rely on plastic cups for babies and toddlers. It’s hard to imagine giving them anything else. But it can be done. I didn’t use plastic cups with either one of my children. I gave them small ceramic cups or small glass jars. As a result they learned to drink without lids and straws. I suggest using the smallest glass canning jars because they don’t break easily. The same is true of most commercial glass jars. I’d save the small jars that capers and artichoke hearts come in and my kids drank out them without a single broken jar. In the car you can offer water bottles with the pull up spouts.

Weaning off of Fruit Juice

This can be a bit trickier. It’s important to understand the forces at work here. We don’t want to enter into power struggles with our kids over this. Especially with younger kids. The developing will of a toddler is every bit as strong as a sugar addiction! With pre-rational children all of the reasoning in the world is completely futile. It’s not our children’s fault that they are strung out on fruit juice. It won’t do any good to make them feel bad for wanting it. Instead, we do better to align ourselves with our children’s needs - to be their ally. One way we do this is by modeling what we expect. In other words, let them see us drinking lots of water. Children are biologically geared to do what ‘their people’ are doing. If everyone is drinking water out of glasses then it’s just a matter of time until your child is also.

Practical Advice for Breaking the Juice Habit

Kids who are used to drinking fruit juice are not going to switch to water overnight. And they don’t need to. What’s important is that they start drinking some water and less juice. It can be very gradual.

You can start by offering water in a non plastic container. No need to insist - just offer it. Do this at times when you know your child is really thirsty, like after hard play. This helps them see that water does taste good when it’s not in plastic.

Offer children fruit. They will be less likely to crave sweet juices, and they’ll be getting lots of fiber, vitamins and minerals.

Stop buying juice boxes. If you buy processed juice, get the frozen concentrates. If you must buy small child size drinks try the new mini bottles of water. Kids can hold them easily and as long as you don’t reuse them or leave them sitting in the sun they don’t taste like plastic.

Very gradually dilute the fruit juice with water to wean their systems off of the sugar.

Herbal Infusions can be a big help in weaning off of juice. Especially if you are drinking them yourself.

Make a routine out of making a nourishing infusion such as nettle and oatstraw every evening. Let children take part if they want. Strain your infusion in the morning and put it in the fridge. You can dilute it with water and sip throughout the day. You can also use it to dilute your child’s juice. The minerals will help stabilize blood sugar, especially chromium. Chromium is also found in foods like brewer’s yeast, meat, cheese, beans, dulse, eggs, mushrooms and potatoes.

Gradually stop buying fruit juice all together. Like other forms of sugar, juice is everywhere. Children will get more than enough of the stuff out in the world. Rather than imposing a ban on all juice consumption, I think our best bet is to not offer at home, and to get into the habit of drinking lots of water. This way fruit juice takes a more appropriate place as an occasional treat, rather than a child’s main source of fluids and calories.

About the author:

Cori Young is an herbalist dedicated to providing information about using foods and herbs to nourish our bodies and regain balance. Her beautifully illustrated
Wellness Wallcharts show food and herbal sources of vitamins and minerals and fit nicely on the refrigerator for easy reference. *Learn more about the
Wellness Wallcharts here.

Antiperspirant Use Can Increase Your Breast Cancer Risk

http://www.mercola.com/2006/mar/30/antiperspirant_use_increases_breast_cancer_risks.htm
The aluminum salts found in many antiperspirants could increase the risk of breast cancer. Other risk factors, such as shaving the armpits before using antiperspirants, may heighten the risk even further.

Mimics Estrogen

Aluminum salts, which account for 25 percent of the volume of some antiperspirants, can mimic the hormone estrogen. Chemicals that imitate that hormone are known to affect breast cancer risk.

Higher Risk Activities
Given that antiperspirants are used in the armpit, the aluminum salt concentration is highest near the breasts. Applying antiperspirants immediately after shaving will also result in a higher aluminum salt absorption rate due to damaged skin.

Journal of Applied Toxicology February 17, 2006

To avoid all the above harms, purchase Crystal Deoderant instead!

Crystal Deodorant Stick - Regular, 4.2 oz

Crystal Deodorant Spray - , 4 oz

Crystal Deodorant Stone - trial size, 1 oz

With Tysabri decision, FDA declares no drug is too dangerous to be FDA approved

March 28 2006

http://www.newstarget.com/019331.html

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the agency that claims to be
responsible for protecting consumers from dangerous food and drug
products, has just surrendered its primary responsibility. Recently,
an FDA advisory panel voted to recommend that a dangerous
prescription drug Tysabri, which was withdrawn from the market a year
ago due to its promoting of a deadly brain disease, should now be put
back on the market.

But here's the really shocking part: The justification for this
decision to reinstate a drug with known deadly side effects is based
on the idea that patients should now weigh the risks of dangerous
drugs and decide for themselves whether the risks outweigh the
benefits, if any.

Stop the music for a minute. Do you realize that with this decision,
the FDA has just rendered itself irrelevant? If patients are going to
be held responsible for making risk vs. benefits decisions on
prescription drugs, then why do we need the FDA at all?

As you may have guessed, there are enormous problems with this new
stance by the FDA. The first is that patients do not have the medical
knowledge to understand and interpret the significance of these side
effects that will no doubt only be mentioned in small print somewhere
on a piece of paper that most patients will probably ignore. How can
the FDA justifiably turn over safety decisions on deadly drugs to
patients?

The second problem with this new stance by the FDA is that it exposes
a wicked double standard: With prescription drugs, patients should be
able to weight benefits vs. risks, even for drugs that may kill you.
But with herbs and nutritional supplements, no such decision is
extended to patients. The FDA merely bans whatever natural substances
it wishes, usually based on reports of very small numbers of people
being harmed be extremely rare overdoses (such as with ephedra). In
those cases, the FDA proudly proclaims it is, "Protecting everyone
from a dangerous herb!"

In other words, the FDA now sees its job as protecting the public
from "dangerous" herbs while shirking safety responsibilities on
truly dangerous prescription drugs. It's up to the public to decide
whether deadly drugs are worth the risk, according to the FDA. But
when one herb which has been safely used for 5,000 years in Chinese
medicine happens to harm 20 people who overdosed in a mad weight loss
frenzy, the FDA bans it "to protect everyone!"

The FDA's position now comes down to simply this: Everyone needs to
be protected from herbs and nutritional supplements, but no one needs
to be protected from prescription drugs.

And this now completes the full reversal of the FDA. The agency now
has both feet squarely in Bizarro world.

In doing this, I wonder if the FDA realizes it has made itself
irrelevant. If the agency is now merely going to pass through drug
safety decisions to doctors and patients, then why do we need the FDA
at all? The agency is no longer a gatekeeper. It is a toll booth,
where drug companies pay a toll on their way to customers. And
apparently, the toll fee is happily accepted regardless of whether
the drug in question helps people or kills them.

I've often said that no drug is too dangerous to meet FDA safety
requirements, and now the FDA has proven it. Even a drug that
outright kills patients with a painful, horrifying death will now be
FDA approved. There is no longer even the concept of safety standards
at the FDA. Now, there is merely avoidance of assessing safety.

The agency that was once tasked with actually regulating the drug
industry has now become its largest marketing department. The concept
of drug "safety" is now history. Any drug, no matter how dangerous,
is now qualified for FDA approval. If thalidomide were a new drug
today, the FDA would no doubt happily approve it for any use as long
as it carried a small-print warning about its side effects.

In fact, we may soon see the FDA (arm-in-arm with Big Pharma
marketing reps) bringing back all sorts of deadly, dangerous drugs
over the next few years. Drugs that were once withdrawn from the
market due to outrageous side effects (such as Vioxx, which
reportedly caused the death of tens of thousands of Americans) will
now be re-approved and dumped onto patients who must now make their
own safety assessments of patented, synthetic chemicals.

~*~*~*~*~*
To shop for whole food supplements and herbs,
visit BeTotallyHealthy.com
Don't put your hands in the FDA's!

Poll: Americans See a Climate Problem

In a new TIME survey, most people see global warming worsening — and
want action
Sunday, Mar. 26, 2006

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1176967,00.html


A large majority of Americans — 85% — say global warming is probably
happening, according to a new TIME magazine/ABC News/Stanford
University poll. An even larger percentage (88%) think global warming
threatens future generations. More than half (60%) say it threatens
them a great deal; 38% feel that global warming is already a serious
problem, and 47% feel that it will be in the future.

Just over half of Americans (52%) say weather patterns in the county
where they live have grown more unstable in the last three years and
half (50%) feel that average temperatures have risen in their county.
A large majority (70%) think weather patterns globally have become
more unstable in the last three years and 56% feel average
temperatures around the world have risen.

Almost half (49%) say the issue of global warming is "extremely
important" or "very important" to them personally, up from 31% in
1998. When asked about the causes of rise in the world’s
temperatures, 31% feel it is caused by the things people do, 19% feel
it is due mostly to natural causes, and 49% feel it is a combination
of the two. Almost seven-in-ten (68%) Americans think the government
should do more to address global warming, according to the poll;
however, 64% think scientists disagree with one another about global
warming.

Two-thirds of Americans (66%) say President George W. Bush’s policies
did little or nothing to help the environment in the past year. More
than half (54%) feel American businesses did little or nothing to
help. Three-quarters want to see Bush and others — Congress, American
businesses and the American public — take action to help the
environment in the year ahead. About one-third (35%) of Americans say
that in the past year they have personally given a lot of thought to
the impact they were having on the environment.

Six in ten Americans (62%) think much can be done to curb global
warming and 52% favor government mandates. A majority (61%) say they
would support a government mandate on lowering power plant emissions,
and 87% support tax breaks to develop water, wind and solar power.
But 81% oppose higher taxes on electricity, 68% oppose higher
gasoline taxes and 56% oppose giving companies tax breaks to build
nuclear power plants.

The partisan gap on global warming seems to be shifting, according to
the poll. In 1998, 31% of Republicans and independents alike were
sure that global warming was happening, compared with 39% among
Democrats. Today, 46% of Democrats and 45% of independents are
certain, but only 26% of Republicans feel that way, according to the
poll.

The TIME/ABC News/Stanford University poll was conducted by telephone
March 9-14, 2006 among a random national sample of 1,002 adults. The
results have a three-point error margin.

~*~*~*~*~*~
note: If so many of us see it, why did Bush blow off Kyoto and not get involved?
oh wait, I know, for the same reason he's still in office when so many of us think he should be impeached!

Now what? Cloned Pig! all in the name of 'health'

Cloning May Lead to Healthy Pork
By GINA KOLATA
March 27, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/health/27pig.html?_r=2&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin



A group of university researchers said yesterday that they had
created what sounds like a nutritional holy grail: cloned pigs that
make their own omega-3 fatty acids, potentially leading to bacon and
pork chops that might help your heart.

For now, the benefits of the research are theoretical. Omega-3 fatty
acids, which have been linked to a lowered incidence of heart
disease, are primarily found in fish. No one knows whether they would
have the same effect if eaten in pork.

And government approval for such genetically modified foods is
certain to face monumental opposition from some consumer groups. Some
already object to feeding farm animals genetically modified grain,
and genetically modifying the animals themselves and cloning them
would be "a double whammy," said Joseph Mendelson, the legal director
for the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit group that opposes the
use of genetically engineered products. "I am confident that
consumers would not want them."

Still, some scientists say the findings, published online by the
journal Nature Biotechnology, are an important forerunner of things
to come. Although close to a dozen animals have been cloned in the
decade since Dolly the sheep, using cloning to change the nutritional
value of farm animals is groundbreaking.

"At this point, it's a new era," said Alice H. Lichtenstein, a
professor of nutrition science and policy at the Gerald J. and
Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts
University.

Alexander Leaf, an emeritus professor of clinical medicine at
Harvard, said he was confident that pork and other foods with
omega-3's would eventually get to American consumers and that they
would be better for it.

"People can continue to eat their junk food," Dr. Leaf said. "You
won't have to change your diet, but you will be getting what you
need."

For years, people have been urged to eat fish rich in omega-3 fatty
acids. But fish can be expensive, not everyone likes it, and
omega-3's are in greatest abundance in oily fish like tuna, which
contains mercury.

That nutritional conundrum led a group of scientists from Harvard
Medical School, the University of Missouri and the University of
Pittsburgh Medical Center to think of modifying pigs.

What resulted was five white piglets with muscle tissue larded with
omega-3 fatty acids. They live at the University of Missouri in
individual pens with fiberglass-railed sides, concrete floors and
black foam pads for beds.

Pigs with their own omega-3 fatty acids exist in nature, notably a
Spanish breed called Ibérico. But Dr. Jing X. Kang, an associate
professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the lead author
of the new paper, said pigs were only the beginning, adding that he
was also developing cows that made omega-3's in their milk and
chickens that had the fatty acids in their eggs.

It will be years before such products make their way to market, if
ever. Michael Herndon, a spokesman for the Food and Drug
Administration, said in an e-mail message that research with
genetically engineered animals would probably require approval from
the agency and that the F.D.A. "also expects documentation of plans
regarding the disposition of all investigational animals after their
participation in the study is completed."

Mr. Herndon said the F.D.A. had not yet approved any genetically
modified animals for food.

Mr. Mendelson of the Center for Food Safety added that his group
worried about the ability of the food and drug agency to determine
the safety of genetically modified foods. And he said the cloning
process could produce unhealthy animals.

For those who do not object to genetically modified or cloned
animals, the question is whether eating such altered foods will make
a difference in health. And on that, "all bets are off," said Dr.
Lichtenstein of Tufts.

Many questions remain, she said: How important are omega-3 fatty
acids to human health? Would getting the fatty acids in meat be the
same as getting them in fish? And is it really such a good idea to
put omega-3's into foods like pork that contain saturated fats and
cholesterol, which could increase risk of heart disease?

Dr. Kang said the work began a few years ago when he put a gene for
the production of omega-3 fatty acids into mice. Mammals do not have
that gene; it is found instead in microorganisms, plankton, algae and
worms, he said. Fish get the fatty acids by eating algae.

Dr. Kang used a gene from roundworms that converts an abundant form
of fatty acid, omega-6, to omega-3. He had to modify the worm enzyme,
making it into one that would function in mammals.

Then he injected the gene for the enzyme into mouse embryos, some of
which took it up, yielding mice that made their own omega-3's. (In a
paper that is being readied for publication, he says these mice are
protected from a variety of chronic illnesses, presumably because
they make the fatty acids.)

The next step was to create pigs with the enzyme. That work was done
by Randall S. Prather, a pig cloning expert at the University of
Missouri, who used genetically modified pig cells to create the five
cloned pigs that had the gene in every cell of their bodies and made
their own omega-3 fatty acids in their muscles.

Although pigs have been cloned before — along with a growing list of
animals, including sheep, mice, rats, cows, goats, rabbits, cats, a
mule, a horse and a dog — these are the first livestock to be cloned
and genetically modified to make omega-3's.

Dr. Prather said the omega-3 pigs, born in November, will be bred
when they reach puberty. Then, he said, "we will distribute them to
researchers who are interested."

Pigs are often used to study heart disease, and the cloned pigs offer
a new opportunity, Dr. Prather said. Instead of comparing human
populations who happen to eat, or not eat, foods with abundant
omega-3, scientists can ask their question directly: Compared with
pigs without the omega-3 fatty acids, do these cloned pigs have a
reduced heart attack risk, or don't they?

Will consumers have a beef with test-tube meat?

ANNE MCILROY
From Monday's Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060327.wxmeat27/BNStory/Science/home?pageRequested=all&print=true



Scientists can grow frog and mouse meat in the lab, and are now
working on pork, beef and chicken. Their goal is to develop an
industrial version of the process in five years.

If they succeed, cultured or in vitro meat could be coming to a
supermarket near you. Consumers could buy hamburger patties and
chicken nuggets made from meat cultivated from muscle cells in a
giant incubator rather than cut from a farm animal.

Home chefs could make meat in a countertop device the size of a
coffee maker. Before bed, throw starter cells and a package of growth
medium into the meat maker and wake up to harvest fresh sausage for
breakfast.

You could feel good about eating a healthy breakfast; the meat would
have the fat profile of salmon, not pork. One day, the truly
adventurous may be able to grow ostrich, wild boar, or other game.

First, however, meat researchers in the United States and the
Netherlands must find a way to replicate on an industrial scale a
process that works in a petri dish. The price will have to be right.
It is hard to imagine consumers paying more for an in vitro burger
than they pay for a regular one.

They will also have to overcome the "ick" reaction. Many find the
idea of cultured meat unappealing or downright disgusting. How would
it taste?

"I don't find it hard to believe that in vitro meat can be produced
that tastes like hamburger or chicken nuggets," said Jason Matheny,
one of the founders of Vive Research, a U.S. form working on growing
meat for the global market. Most of the flavour in burgers and
nuggets now sold in grocery stores or restaurants comes from
seasoning or filler, he said.

Researchers have succeeded in growing bits of meat, the type that
could be used in burgers or spaghetti sauce.

Growing a test-tube steak or pork roast will be more challenging,
said Henk Haagsman, professor of meat sciences at the University of
Utrecht. He is part of a team of Dutch researchers who are leading
the world in the meat-making field.

He and his colleagues grew mouse meat in their lab because the stem
cells they could turn into muscle fibres were easily available. Now
they are working on pork.

Australian researchers have grown muscle tissue from a frog, which
they served with Calvados sauce at an exhibition in France in 2003.
The frog steaks, they said, tasted like jelly on fabric.

In 2001, U.S. researchers, funded by the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, grew muscle tissue from a goldfish -- a kind of
carp -- as part of an experiment on whether it is possible to grow
fish for astronauts on long space journeys. Morris Benjaminson and
his colleagues at Touro College in New York bathed pieces of goldfish
muscle in fetal bovine serum -- which contains growth factors that
spur muscle growth.

The fish muscle grew nearly 14 per cent over a few weeks. It smelled
normal, the researchers reported. But they didn't taste it.

NASA, however, has decided against space burgers -- fish or beef --
for astronauts on long missions.

This has cut off an important funding source for U.S. researchers
interested in cultured meat, said Vladimir Mironov, a tissue engineer
at the Medical University of South Carolina.

He said mass production of cultivated meat will be difficult, and
expensive, at the least in the short term. But smaller, countertop
bioreactors, or incubators, could more easily mimic the meat-making
experiments scientists have done in petri dishes.

"It would look like a coffee maker -- this is my dream," he said
wistfully. "No one wants to fund it."

One group, which he would not name, did offer him money, but they
wanted him to grow meat from human cells, so they could grow pieces
of themselves to eat.

"I don't want to participate in high-tech human cannibalism," he said
he told them.

Theoretically, he said, it would be possible. Researchers have
harvested human myoblasts, cells that can grow into muscle fibre.

Even without the stomach-turning notion of a human burger, cultured
meat is not an appetizing idea for many people.

"There is no demand," said Mr. Mironov, who came to the United States
from Russia. During the Cold War, he said, Soviet scientists
developed bacteria that could produce protein. But no one wanted to
eat the final product, because it smelled revolting.

Cultured meat burgers will probably taste and smell no different from
conventional products, Mr. Mironov said. Eventually, he said, the
world will need it.

"I believe it is inescapable."

A public educated about the benefits of in vitro meat might come
around to the idea, said Mr. Matheny, a doctoral student at the
University of Maryland.

Last year, he and other researchers published a paper on how to grow
affordable meat for the modern dinner table.

The health and environmental benefits could be significant, they
reported.

Cardiovascular disease and diabetes are associated with the
overconsumption of animal fats. Cultivated meats could be engineered
to be healthier.

"Using this technology, you could grow ground beef or pork or chicken
that had the fat profile of salmon. That would have an enormous
public health impact."

Cultured meat could also reduce the risk of diseases such as bovine
spongiform encephalitis -- or mad cow disease -- and avian flu.

Growing meat in an incubator would cut down on the cropland, water,
fertilizer, pesticides and energy now required to produce animals for
slaughter. It would also reduce the millions of tonnes of manure and
other waste produced every year in North America.

Demand for meat is growing in the developing countries, and
alternative animal farming might help meet that need, Mr. Matheny
said.

He and his fellow researchers established a non-profit, New Harvest,
as a clearinghouse for information on cultivated meat. Last month,
they set up Vive Research, which Mr. Matheny said is backed by angel
investors. It involves numerous skeletal muscle tissue engineers in
the United States, who plan to collaborate with the Dutch scientists.
They want to develop a technology to produce ground meat in vitro in
five years.

Most attempts to grow meat require cells cultured from an animal.
They can be stem cells, originally taken from an embryo, which can
develop into any kind of cell -- skin, bone or muscle fibre, for
example. The trick is coaxing them into muscle fibre with special
growth factors.

Cells known as myoblasts, which are on their way to becoming muscle
fibre, are also being used.

The Dutch researchers have embarked on a five-year state-funded
project to cost-effectively produce pig meat.

They face challenges. The first is to isolate the best starter cells
for meat production.

They also need to develop a culture medium that doesn't require fetal
bovine serum, a blood product extracted from embryonic calves that
has a seemingly magical power to make muscle cells grow.

Calf serum is expensive, costing $10,000 (U.S.) per kilogram of
cultured meat, according to one estimate. Using it doesn't make
sense, Dr. Haagsman said.

"It is ridiculous to make meat using meat products," he said. The
whole idea is to reduce the resources that now go into producing the
240 billion kilograms of meat humans around the world eat every year.

The scientists, from three universities in the Netherlands, are also
figuring out the best way to exercise muscle fibres to get them to
grow. Electrical stimulation works, but so does stretching, then
shrinking the fibres.

Taste is another issue. Scientists don't know whether lamb meat
tastes like lamb meat because of characteristics of its muscle cells.
Perhaps the flavour comes from the grass an animal grazes on, or the
food it is given to eat.

They should know in five years whether growing meat on an industrial
scale can be done, Dr. Haagsman said. He said he believes consumers
are open-minded enough to try cultured meat.

Modern farm factories, he said, have essentially turned animals into
meat-producing machines. And avian influenza and other diseases may
drive consumers away from conventional sources.

He is hopeful that vegetarians, or partial vegetarians, would give
cultivated meat a try.

Charles Miller, part-owner of the Green Door Vegetarian Restaurant in
Ottawa, said he wouldn't try a bite.

"It is still an animal product," he said. "I wouldn't touch it. I
wouldn't eat it.''

Churchill predicted it

An idea whose time has finally come? In 1932, Winston Churchill
predicted that in five decades, people would be eating cultured meat.

"Fifty years hence, we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole
chicken in order to eat the breast or wing by growing these parts
separately under a suitable medium."

Researchers say he might have been inspired by Nobel Prize winner
Alexis Carrel, who put a hunk of heart muscle cut from a chicken
embryo in a bowl of nutrients and kept it alive for more than 30
years.

In the past few years, scientists have grown more than meat in their
labs. In 2002, researchers in Japan reported they had grown tadpole
eyeballs from scratch. In 2003, scientists in the United States
announced that they had successfully grown a rabbit penis in the lab.

Anne McIlroy

How to make your own meat

Vladimir Mironov, a tissue engineer at the Medical University of
South Carolina, wants to build a device the size of a coffee maker
that would allow people to grow meat in their kitchens.

Here is how it might work.

1. Myoblasts, immature cells that develop into muscle fibre, would be
harvested from a pig, cow, chicken or turkey and cultured.

2. Cooks could buy these starter cells, and add them to a growth
medium, which would contain water, sugar, salt vitamins, amino acids
and growth factors that would stimulate them to reproduce.
(Scientists now use fetal bovine serum, but say they would have to
come up with a product that was more affordable).

3. The mixture would be put into a counter top incubator, where it
would be warmed to encourage growth.

4. The cells would develop into muscle fibre.

5. Hours later, small pieces of meat could be harvested, washed and
cooked, either in a patty or a sauce.

Dagoba ORGANIC Chocolate Bars! mmmm mmm good

Even though yes these have sugar in them, there's about 5 times LESS sugar in these than 'regular' chocolate bars and these have huge beneficial antioxidant qualities.

They're also certified organic by International Certification Services

and:
*Not only are the cocoa chocolate beans organic, but the unrefined cane sugar used for sweetener and the essential oils, fruits and nuts are used are also all organic.
*No chemical pesticides or fertilizers are used, and organic cacao beans are never mixed with non-organic beans.
*Dagoba bars contain NO fillers like vegetable oil
*No GMO or irradiated ingredients of any sort are used in these bars
*All products are also Kosher and are Fair Trade Certified™

Dagoba Bars are Also Environmentally Friendly

Not only does the company that makes these bars use renewable energy sources, they obtain the raw ingredients for the chocolate bars from the natural rainforests of Latin, Central and South America in order to help preserve these fragile environments.



Organic Dark Chocolate - Eclipse, 87% cocoa, 12 Units / 2 oz

Organic Dark Chocolate - Xocolatl, 74% cocoa, 12 Units / 2 oz

Dagoba ORGANIC Chocolate Bars! mmmm mmm good

Even though yes these have sugar in them, there's about 5 times LESS sugar in these than 'regular' chocolate bars and these have huge beneficial antioxidant qualities.

They're also certified organic by International Certification Services

and:
*Not only are the cocoa chocolate beans organic, but the unrefined cane sugar used for sweetener and the essential oils, fruits and nuts are used are also all organic.
*No chemical pesticides or fertilizers are used, and organic cacao beans are never mixed with non-organic beans.
*Dagoba bars contain NO fillers like vegetable oil
*No GMO or irradiated ingredients of any sort are used in these bars
*All products are also Kosher and are Fair Trade Certified™

Dagoba Bars are Also Environmentally Friendly

Not only does the company that makes these bars use renewable energy sources, they obtain the raw ingredients for the chocolate bars from the natural rainforests of Latin, Central and South America in order to help preserve these fragile environments.



Organic Dark Chocolate - Eclipse, 87% cocoa, 12 Units / 2 oz

Organic Dark Chocolate - Xocolatl, 74% cocoa, 12 Units / 2 oz

Order Nature's Sunshine Products NOW to save!!!

Order Nature's Sunshine Products before 3/31/06 to SAVE $$$$$$

Prices on some items (not all) will increase April 1st, so NOW is the time to
ORDER


Just a few of our products:
Cellu-Smooth w/Coleus® [Weight Loss, Circulatory] provides nutrients that may support circulation; help mobilize fat for better distribution; and protect against free radical damage to structural skin proteins. One ingredient, Coleus forskohlii root extract, may cause a shift from a more fatty body mass to a more lean body mass, which may benefit overall health. Cellu-Smooth also includes bladderwrack, which contains minerals essential for thyroid function, thereby supporting metabolism; milk thistle, which acts as an antioxidant, supporting the liver cells’ detoxifying function; ginkgo, a known free radical scavenger; rhodiola root extract, which may improve strength and stamina; and rhododendron root, an antioxidant that may promote microcirculation.
Take 1 capsule with a meal two or three times daily. Drink at least eight glasses of water a day. Not recommended for pregnant or nursing women, or children.


as well as
Energ-V® [Circulatory, Glandular, Nervous] was designed to support the body’s own energy-building system. It works with the glandular, nervous and circulatory systems to help relieve stress and support energy production. It provides a variety of nutrients to support vitality?some that nourish the glands (kelp and licorice) and some that nourish the brain and nervous system (gotu kola), better enabling the body to cope with stress. Energ-V also provides support from adaptogenic herbs (schizandra and eleuthero) that help the body under environmental stress. It contains:
Bee pollen
Eleuthero root
Gotu kola aerial parts
Licorice root
Rose hips
Yellow dock root
Barley grass aerial parts
Schizandra fruit
Kelp leaves and stems
Capsicum fruit
Energ-V is commonly used in conjunction with vitamin C, B complex, bee pollen and iron supplements.
Take 2 capsules with a meal twice daily.


and
Enviro-Detox [Vital Nutrition]. Environmental pollutants and toxins can build up in the body, slowing the body’s natural cleansing processes. Enviro-Detox is a combination of 14 nutrients selected for their ability to provide ongoing support to the body’s organs that may play roles in detoxification: the liver, kidneys, lungs, bowels and skin. It contains:
Burdock root
Dandelion root
Fenugreek seed
Ginger rhizome
Marshmallow root
Pepsin
Red clover flowers
Yellow dock root
Marshmallow root extract
Sarsaparilla root extract
Lactobacillus spores
Cascara sagrada bark
Echinacea root extract
Milk thistle seed concentrate
All have a long history of folk use. Each nutrient in this exclusive formula has been carefully selected to provide maximum nutrition for individual body systems and the body as a whole. The beneficial intestinal flora Lactobacillus sporogenes helps populate the intestinal tract as cleansing may cause a flushing of friendly flora. Unlike other strains of the organism, it does not need to be refrigerated to maintain viability.
NOTE: This product contains cascara sagrada. See your health care provider prior to use if: pregnant or nursing, any medical condition exists, or when taking any medication. Read and follow recommendation carefully. Do not use if diarrhea, loose stools, or abdominal pain are present or develop. Not intended for prolonged use. Use of this product may worsen these conditions and be harmful to your health. Chronic diarrhea can result in serious illness.
Take 1 capsule with a meal and 8 oz. water three times daily.

and sooo many more

Order Nature's Sunshine Products before 3/31/06 to SAVE $$$$$$

Oil Gushes into Arctic Ocean from BP Pipeline

by Leonard Doyle
The Independent / UK
Tuesday, March 21, 2006

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0321-06.htm

Across the frozen North Slope of Alaska, the region's largest oil
accident on record has been sending hundreds of thousands of litres
of crude pouring into the Arctic Ocean during the past week after a
badly corroded BPO pipeline ruptured.

The publicity caused by the leak in the the 30-year-old pipeline
could seriously damage BP's image, which has been carefully crafted
to show it as a company concerned about the environment. Unlike other
major oil companies, BP boasts that it is fully signed up to the
dangers of global warming and it makes a conspicuous effort to flaunt
its green credentials, tackling local environmental problems and
erecting wind turbines above its petrol stations.

The first indication of the spill came in early March, when an oily
patch was discovered near the elevated oil transmission pipeline, but
the full scale of the accident is only becoming clear with time.
Environmentalists who vociferously objected to the construction of
the BP pipeline may now see their worst fears realised.

Clean-up crews have removed more than 190,000 litres of crude oil and
melted snow off the frozen tundra but reports indicate that the leak
is the second largest crude oil spill in Alaska - second only to the
1989 Exxon Valdez disaster.

The oil gushed from the pipeline at a spot where it dips to ground
level to allow caribou to cross, and has led industry critics and
environmental groups to question whether BP is saving money on
maintaining its network of wells, pumps and pipelines crisscrossing
the tundra - a complaint the company vigorously denies.

As oil is increasingly transported through environmentally sensitive
areas by pipeline, the dangers posed by poorly maintained rotting
pipes has become increasingly clear.

Exploration Alaska, the BP subsidiary that operates the pipeline from
which more than 910,000 litres of oil has leaked, has recently been
fined more than $1.2m (£635,000) for its poor environmental safety
record.

The company has now been told it cannot restart pumping oil until it
the entire pipeline has been inspected and repaired. Employees claim
that they repeatedly warned that money-saving cutbacks in routine
maintenance and inspection had dramatically increased the chances of
accidents or spills.

"For years we've been warning the company about cutting back on
maintenance," Marc Kovac, a union official told the New York Times.
"We know that this could have been prevented."

In the interview, Marc Kovac, an official of the United Steelworkers
union which represents workers at the BP facility, said he had seen
little change in BP Exploration Alaska's approach despite the
warnings.

In an e-mail to a company lawyer in June 2004, Mr Kovac forwarded a
collection of his earlier complaints to management. One of these,
dated 28 February 2003, concerned "corrosion monitoring staffing
levels". It began, "The corrosion monitoring crew will soon be
reduced to six staff down from eight."

It added: "With the present staff, the crew is currently one month
behind. The backlog is expected to increase with a further reduction
in manpower."

Daren Beaudo, a company spokesman, said: "Whenever employees raise
concerns about our operations we address them. When we inspected the
line in September 2005, points of manageable corrosion were evident
and all were within standards of operations integrity.

"Something happened to the corrosion rates in that line between
September 2005 and the time of the spill that we don't yet fully
understand."

Stevia ~ Give up your Sugar habit

Stevia Powder Extract

NSP Stevia Powder Extract is made from an unusually sweet herb called stevia (Stevia rebaudiana). Glycosides present in the Stevia rebaudiana plant, such as stevioside and rebaudioside, attribute to the plant’s unique characteristics.
Fill scoop to line (approximately 1/4 teaspoon) and use as desired as a dietary supplement.
Also available in convenient .7 gram packets. Each box contains 50 two-serving packets of stevia powder extract. These small packets slip easily into your wallet or purse, ready for use anytime, anywhere.
Approximately two 1/4 teaspoon servings per packet.
ORDER NOW

Meat out day TODAY! FREE Vegetarian Kit

Meatout is an international observance helping individuals evolve to a wholesome, nonviolent diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains. The purpose is to expose the public to the joys and benefits of a plant-based diet, while promoting the availability and selection of meat and dairy alternatives in mainstream grocery stores, restaurants, and catering operations.

Meatout has grown explosively since its inception in 1985 to become the world's largest annual grassroots diet education campaign. Thousands of caring people in all US 50 states and a host of other countries welcome in the Spring with colorful educational events. These range from simple information tables ('steakouts'), exhibits, and cooking demonstrations to elaborate receptions and festivals. Visitors are asked to "kick the meat habit on March 20 (first day of spring) and explore a wholesome, nonviolent diet of fruits, vegetables and whole grains."

Several mainstream health advocacy organizations, including the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, Johns Hopkins University, and the American Heart Association, have since launched their own campaigns to promote consumption of plant-based foods.


FREE Vegetarian Starter Kit

or if you want one on one counseling to transition, visit WholeBodyAndSpirit.com

Vegetarians, Vegans, Raw Foodists, Macrobiotics & more

What do Mahatma Gandhi & Steve Jobs have in common?
By DAVID SCHMEICHEL
March 19, 2006

http://winnipegsun.com/News/FoodFright/2006/03/19/pf-1495094.html

There are almost as many different kinds of vegetarians out there as
there are vegetables themselves. There's even a name ("flexitarian")
for those sliders who claim to be vegetarians, but surrender every
once in awhile to their cravings for a meat loaf or filet mignon. For
the uninitiated, here's a primer:

- Pollo- or pesco-vegetarians: Pescetarians adhere to a vegetarian
diet but also consume fish and seafood, while pollo-vegetarians round
out their diets with chicken and other fowl. Many practitioners avoid
red meat and/or poultry because they don't want to support factory
farming or other inhumane methods, but will eat meat products from
free-range or cruelty-free farms.

- Lacto- or ovo-Vegetarians: Lacto-vegetarians include dairy products
in their diets, while ovo-vegetarians eat eggs in addition to their
greens. Lacto-ovo-vegetarians (the most common variety in the Western
world) are cool with eating both milk and eggs.

- Vegans: The "truest" vegetarians, dietary vegans omit all animal
products from their diet, including eggs, milk, cheese and honey. The
strictest types also won't wear leather, wool or silk, and avoid
cosmetics with bees wax or lanolin. Most choose to go vegan because
of ethical concerns or a love of animals, although some are allergic
to dairy products or eggs. Moby, Bryan Adams and Alicia Silverstone
(right) are some famous examples.

- Macrobiotics: Loosely based on Chinese medicine, macrobiotic diets
eschew all processed foods -- including flours and sweeteners -- in
favour of unrefined foods like beans, whole grains, seaweed, certain
vegetables and fermented foods (pickles, miso, soy sauce). Though
primarily vegan, those who adhere to macrobiotic principles are
sometimes allowed to eat fish. Think Madonna, Gwyneth Paltrow (left)
and John Travolta, to name a few.

- Raw foodists: Usually vegan, these folks won't eat food with a
temperature above 46.7 C, claiming the cooking process destroys
essential enzymes and/or portions of each nutrient. Some warm their
food slightly, thus negating such destruction, while others (living
foodists) activate enzymes by soaking their food in water before
eating. Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson are practitioners.

- Fruitarians: Taking things even further, fruitarians only eat foods
that can be gathered without harming the plant (an attitude that
typically arises from a holistic approach) and some only eat food
that's already fallen off the plant itself. Diets include fruits,
nuts and seeds, although some believe fruitarians are more
susceptible to malnutrition than other vegetarians. Apple co-founder
Steve Jobs was a fruitarian in the 1970s (that's reportedly where the
company got its name), as was Mahatma Gandhi (right) in his later
years.


~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Ready to make the transition?
WholeBodyAndSpirit.com offers counseling!

US probe seeks second calf from Alabama mad cow

Reuters

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1739024

WASHINGTON - Officials investigating the new U.S. case of mad cow
disease said on Friday they had a "strong lead" on a second calf from
the crossbred beef cow and hoped to find the farm where the cow was
born a decade ago.

The U.S. Agriculture Department announced the new case, in a cow in
Alabama and the third U.S. case overall, on Monday. A reexamination
of the carcass has confirmed the cow was at least 10 years old.

A six-week-old calf, identified as offspring of the infected cow, has
been shipped to a USDA lab in Iowa. A USDA spokesman also said the
cow gave birth to a black-coated bull calf in early 2005 and
investigators are in the process of tracing the animal.

USDA wants the calves for observation. They are too young to test for
the brain-wasting disease, which scientists believe is spread through
contaminated feed.

"We are going to do everything we can," said Alabama Agriculture
Commissioner Ron Sparks during a news conference in Montgomery, to
trace the infected cow back to its herd of origin and to find
offspring. "We have to be honest, that might not be possible."

Officials declined to identify the owner, the general location of the
farm or the name of the auction barn, also in Alabama, where the
farmer bought the cow a year or so ago.

Asked how far the cow's history has been traced, Sparks said
investigators have interviewed the owner, the auction barn and
"individuals that possibly sold this animal." Because the cow was
bought at auction, the seller might not be immediately known.

Because of the age of the cow, officials said it probably was
infected before a 1997 ban on using cattle parts in cattle feed.
Investigators try to find the farm of origin to see if other cattle
of similar ages might be infected.

"This cow was infected a long time ago," said Sparks.

~*~*~*~*~*
Ready to become vegetarian or vegan yet???
Do it NOW!

Benzene ~ Soft drinks found to have high levels of cancer chemical

By Rajeev Syal
March 02, 2006

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2-2065539%2C00.html

TRACES of a carcinogenic chemical have been found in soft drinks at
eight times the level permitted in drinking water, it was revealed
last night.

Tests conducted on 230 drinks on sale in Britain and France have
identified high levels of benzene, a compound known to cause cancer,
according to the Food Standards Agency. There is a legal limit of one
part per billion of benzene in British drinking water. The latest
tests revealed levels of up to eight parts per billion in some soft
drinks.

Benzene has been linked to leukaemia and other cancers of the blood.
Traces found in Perrier water 15 years ago led to the withdrawal of
more than 160 million bottles worldwide. The disclosure has prompted
food safety campaigners to demand that the Government reveal which
products contain benzene. At present, the drinks’ identities have not
been revealed.

Richard Watts, of Sustain, a pressure group lobbying for better food
standards, said that this should be done urgently because the drinks
were being marketed to children. “The scientific evidence is unclear
about whether there is any safe level of benzene. We see no reason
why it should be different from the designated safe level in drinking
water. If it is unsafe in drinking water, why should it be safe in
soft drinks?” he said.

The Food Standards Agency, the government watchdog, said that the
products did not pose an immediate health risk, but called for
further investigation from the British drinks industry. “Let’s have
further investigations and regular discussions with the drinks
industry to check what is happening. If levels are high then the FSA
will take action to protect consumers,” an agency spokesman said.

Food scientists believe that high levels of benzene may have been
produced by the reaction of two commonly used ingredients — sodium
benzoate, a preservative, and ascorbic acid (vitamin C). Sodium
benzoate is widely used in the drinks sector. In Britain, it is used
in Britvic brands including Britvic 55 apple and orange flavours,
Pennine Spring flavoured waters and Shandy Bass.It is not known if
any of these products were included in the latest tests. A spokesman
for Britvic has previously expressed confidence in its products.

A spokesman for the British Soft Drinks Association said yesterday
that the industry was working to reduce the levels of benzene in soft
drinks. “There is an obligation on the industry to have as low a
level of benzene as possible and we are looking at ways of reducing
the levels — and maybe even removing the preservative — if we can
replace it with something else,” he said.

When minuscule traces of benzene were discovered in Perrier water 15
years ago, it forced the French company to withdraw millions of
bottles.

Tests have been carried out in Europe after US food watchdogs found
benzene in juices and sodas. The Food and Drug Administration
registered its concern about the possible long-term effects on
health.

Professor Glenn Lawrence, of Long Island University, who first
conducted tests for benzene in soft drinks 13 years ago, said that
the combination of sodium benzoate and vitamin C was commonly used in
drinks in the early 1990s.

He said that drinks firms were now putting vitamin C back into drinks
to encourage consumers to buy the product. He said that this was
being done to encourage parents to buy the drinks to improve their
children’s health but it might just be doing the opposite.

BENZENE FACTS

# Michael Faraday discovered benzene in 1825 when he isolated it from
oil gas to form a chemical, six parts carbon, six parts hydrogen

# It is produced during incomplete combustion of carbon-rich
substances: it is produced from petrochemicals, but occurs naturally
in volcanoes, forest fires and in cigarette smoke

# In the 19th and early 20th centuries it was used in aftershave, for
its pleasant smell, and to decaffinate coffee. It is now used as an
anti-knock agent in petrol

# It is an aggressive carcinogen and may lead to leukaemia and other
cancers of the blood

# In 1993, Professor Glenn Lawrence, of Long Island University,
published research showing that the sodium benzoate and vitamin C
found in soft drinks could react to form benzene. He suggested that
drink companies were putting vitamin C into drinks to encourage
customers to buy them

Protect your Health Freedom ~~ Health Freedom Protection Act

Protect your health freedom: Put an end to Codex and support the
Health Freedom Protection Act
March 15 2006

http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/alert/%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/alert/?alertid=8240751&type=CO

The United States has come to a decision point on nutritional
supplements. Choice A is to continue participating in the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), which could be hazardous to public
health by setting limitations on supplements, and Choice B is to pass
the Health Freedom Protection Act (HFPA), which could revolutionize
the health supplement industry and greatly benefit public health, in
part by no longer allowing the FDA to prohibit disease treatment
claims for foods and supplements.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said in his Nov. 10, 2005 speech before
the U.S. House of Representatives, "Because of the FDA's censorship
of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with
diseases and other healthcare problems they may have avoided by using
dietary supplements." Paul cited the FDA's four-year prohibition of
telling consumers that folic acid reduces birth defects, which
resulted in an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable birth defects,
as evidence that the FDA's current policy obstructs good public
health.

We're at a fork in the road, so to speak. If the United States'
participation in Codex continues, things could get much worse than
they are already. However, if Congress passes the HFPA, the U.S.
could be entering a new era in health care, when consumers will be
allowed to make informed decisions about which nutritional
supplements they want to use to support good health.

The Health Freedom Protection Act is relatively simple, yet it could
mean so much, not only to proponents of alternative medicine, but to
public health care in general. In Paul's words, the HFPA merely
allows consumers to have access to information about nutritional
supplements: "Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops
the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative
or preventable effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal
court's suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to
censorship."

Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA)
This topic of disclaimers first came up in the Dietary Supplement
Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which first decreed which
statements nutritional supplement companies could and could not make
about their products. The law reads, "Under DSHEA, firms can make
statements about classical nutrient deficiency diseases -- as long as
these statements disclose the prevalence of the disease in the United
States. In addition, manufacturers may describe the supplement's
effects on 'structure or function' of the body or the 'well-being'
achieved by consuming the dietary ingredient. To use these claims,
manufacturers must have substantiation that the statements are
truthful and not misleading and the product label must bear the
statement: 'This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and
Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat,
cure, or prevent any disease.'"

As any trip down the supplement aisle of your local grocery store or
health food store will tell you, nutritional companies are following
the DSHEA's disclaimer guidelines to the tee, yet the FDA still
insists on censoring these products' proposed health benefits --
statements that definitely fall under the category of "the
supplement's effects on 'structure or function' of the body," such as
the DSHEA allows.

In his Nov. 10 speech, Paul went on to say, "The Health Freedom
Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution
of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of
nutrients in protecting against disease."

One of the DSHEA's main goals is for the public to have access to
scientific information on nutritional supplements, stating, "The
DSHEA provides that retail outlets may make available 'third-party'
materials to help inform consumers about any health-related benefits
of dietary supplements. These materials include articles, book
chapters, scientific abstracts, or other third-party publications."

FDA suppression of health information and free speech
Now, 12 years after Congress' passage of the DSHEA, the FDA continues
to limit the public's access to the very information that the 1994
act prescribes. Paul addressed this issue in his speech, accusing the
FDA of violating First Amendment free speech rights. "FDA bureaucrats
are so determined to frustrate consumer access to truthful
information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four
federal court decisions [such as the 1999 case Pearson v. Shalala]
vindicating consumers' First Amendment rights to discover the health
benefits of foods and dietary supplements."

Furthermore, free speech (or the lack thereof) is a major factor in
both the FDA's and the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) restriction
of the nutritional supplement industry. By Paul's reasoning, the
FTC's censorship on supplements' health claims completely reverses
the U.S. government's notion of free speech, a concept that has been
essential to the United States since its birth as a nation. Paul
explains, "Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the
federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising
statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC has
reversed the standard in the case of dietary supplements by requiring
supplement manufacturers to satisfy an unobtainable standard of proof
that their statement is true."

Paul isn't alone in his belief that the FDA's standards for
nutritional supplement companies are unrealistic. In fact, in the
1999 case of Pearson v. Shalala, the United States Court of Appeals
for the DC Circuit Court decided that, in the case of nutritional
supplements, "the mere absence of significant evidence in support of
a particular claim does not translate into negative evidence against
it."

Even after the 1994 DSHEA and the 1999 case of Pearson v. Shalala,
the FDA regularly suppresses health benefit information on
nutritional supplements and sometimes even the distribution of the
supplements themselves. Though the FDA often overlooks the DSHEA's
goal of making scientific information on nutritional supplements more
available to the public, it readily exercises the Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act (FD & C), most specifically its definition of drugs.
The FD & C, which is best-known for making it mandatory to list food
coloring additives in 1938, states that, "the term 'drug' means ...
articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals." In
other words, whenever a nutritional supplement claims to prevent
disease, the FDA can, based on the FD & C, term it a "drug" and apply
the same standards demanded of a new pharmaceutical before allowing
the nutritional supplement to enter the consumer market.

This is where the problem arises. Because products of nature cannot
be patented, it is simply not economically feasible for companies to
run millions of dollars of tests on a nutritional supplement, which
is a natural substance. This is why pharmaceutical companies take
natural substances and break them apart at a molecular level to make
the isolated active ingredients patentable.
FDA suppression in action: Optimal Nutrients
The FDA's Feb. 2, 2005 letter to Tim Lally of Optimal Nutrients
offers a sad but remarkable picture of this "unobtainable standard of
proof" in action. Dr. Susan J. Walker, the director of the FDA's
Division of Dietary Supplement Programs, begins a letter to Lally by
listing the "offending" products listed on his website and
referencing the FD & C's definition of drugs:

"This is to advise you that the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) has reviewed your website ... and has determined that the
products Borage, EPA (Fish Lipid Concentrate), Flax (100% Organic
Flax Seed Oil), Evening Primrose Oil, Attention Support, Barley
(Barley Juice Powder), Cat’s Claw, CoQ10 (Co-Enzyme Q10), DHEA
(Dehydroepiandrosterone), St. John’s wort and Valerian Root are
promoted for conditions that cause these products to be drugs under
section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)]. The therapeutic claims on your website
establish that these products are drugs because they are intended for
use in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of diseases."

Flax seed is a drug? Of course not, but according to Dr. Walker,
Optimal Nutrients' following statement makes it a drug under FD & C:
"Flax Seed Oil is an important source of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA),
an Omega 3 series of essential fatty acids. ALA is the precursor to
EPA and the Series 3 prostaglandins ... 3PGEs protect the body
against the deleterious effects of high blood pressure."

It's interesting that, throughout the entire letter, Dr. Walker never
references the much more recent DSHEA, especially considering that,
again, the 1994 act specifically states that "manufacturers may
describe the supplement's effects on 'structure or function' of the
body or the 'well-being' achieved by consuming the dietary
ingredient." In its claim about flax seed oil, the company simply
describes ALA's "effects on 'structure or function' of the body"
("ALA is the precursor to EPA and the Series 3 prostaglandins ...
3PGEs protect the body against the deleterious effects of high blood
pressure"), which is of course permissible by DSHEA standards.

Then, later on in the letter, Dr. Walker takes the second step in the
FDA's classification of nutritional supplements as drugs by requiring
Optimal Nutrients' natural products to go through the same approval
process as new pharmaceuticals. She writes:

"Furthermore, your products are not generally recognized as safe
and effective for the above referenced conditions and therefore,
these products are ... 'new drugs' under section 201(p) of the Act
[21 U.S.C. § 321(p)]. New drugs may not be legally marketed in the
U.S. without prior approval from FDA as described in section 505(a)
of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 355(a)]. FDA approves new drugs on the basis
of scientific data submitted by a drug sponsor to demonstrate that
the drugs are safe and effective."

Obviously it would not be economically feasible for Optimal Nutrients
to run millions of dollars worth of tests on substances that, as
products of nature, are not patentable. Today, the Optimal Nutrients
web site has no products listed on it and reads that it is "under
construction." Unfortunately, this is just one of many nutritional
supplement companies oppressed by the "unobtainable standard of
proof" that Paul spoke of in his speech before Congress.

Don't put your health freedom in the hands of the government
As if this present war against nutritional supplements was not
enough, the situation could get worse. In their Congressional
Oversight Letter, Paul and fellow U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.)
express concern about the United States' participation in the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), which is part of the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and the World
Health Organization (WHO) Food Standard Program. Through Codex, the
WTO hopes to "harmonize" food and other safety regulations of all WTO
countries; however, it also serves to put power in the hands of
national and international agencies and out of the hands of
consumers. For example, Codex's 2005 Guidelines for Vitamin and
Mineral Supplements reads, "Vitamin and mineral food supplements
should contain vitamins/provitamins and minerals whose nutritional
value for human beings has been proven by scientific data and whose
status as vitamins and minerals is recognized by FAO and WHO."

The field of nutrition is constantly growing with new and remarkable
products. With this in mind, putting the sole right to judge a
product's worth on FAO and WHO severely limits consumers' rights to
choose groundbreaking products that FAO and WHO may simply not be
aware of yet.

Codex's use of the term "harmonization" gives the illusion that the
WTO is working to better the world, bringing diverse nations into a
state of harmony, but that is not the reality. Codex is little more
than an attempt by Big Business to further control the global economy
and put more money in pockets that are already deep. In fact, in
their Congressional Oversight Letter, Paul and Defazio give this
warning: "Harmonization may be beneficial for the large corporations
and international businesses that control the WTO, but it would be a
disaster for American consumers of dietary supplements!" In other
words, don't let the choice words fool you. As is all too often the
case with public policy, money talks louder than the public good.

If the United States' participation in Codex continues, Paul and
DeFazio worry that the WTO will pressure the United States to enforce
draconian policies on nutritional supplements. They write, "We are
concerned that the end result of this process will force the United
States to adopt the same strict regulations of dietary supplements
common in European countries such as Germany, where consumers cannot
even examine a bottle of dietary supplements without a pharmacist's
permission."

Can you imagine living in a society like that? Most consumers would
not want to live in such a society and, according to Paul and
DeFazio's interpretation of past legislation, neither would Congress.
"By participating in this process, the FDA is ignoring the will of
Congress as expressed in DSHEA and in the FDA Modernization Act of
1997, which expressively forbid the FDA from participating in the
harmonization process, as well as the will of the American people,"
they explain.

Paul and DeFazio end their Congressional Oversight Letter with the
following wish: "We also express our hope that Congress will act to
protect the freedom of American consumers from overregulation of
dietary supplements whether imposed by the FDA or through the back
door by an international organization such as the WTO."

Paul's proposed Health Freedom Protection Act is a step toward making
that simple yet profound hope a reality. Currently, 10 congressmen
co-sponsor the HFPA. They include Paul, DeFazio, Dan Burton (R-Ind.),
Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Rob Bishop (R-Utah), John J. Duncan (R-Tenn.),
Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), Butch Otter (R-Idaho)
and Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.). Hopefully, this number will grow. You can
do your part by visiting the Health Action Center web site and
sending the online letter to your U.S. representative. It will take
only one or two minutes to do, and it won't even cost you a postage
stamp. Remember, you don't want to live in a nation in which you need
a pharmacist's permission to look at a bottle of vitamins.

Another resource to visit is http://www.stopfdacensorship.org/

Cranberry Seed Oil ~ a Scientific Break-Through!

Research from Decas Cranberry Products, Inc., the largest independently-owned cranberry ingredient company in the world, recently confirmed that the full range of omega 3, 6 and 9 essential fatty acid oils are found in rich, potent abundance in cranberry seeds.

From the outset of Pinnacle for Life, we made a commitment to provide our Ambassadors and our customers with only the best that nutritional science and nature had to offer. Our research has now confirmed that cranberry seed omega oils have some very significant pluses when included in our product. Therefore, effective immediately we will be using in both Pinnacle Complete and Pinnacle Essentials, omega 3, 6 and 9 essential fatty acids from cranberry seeds. Under the trademark of OmegaCran™, these omega oils are processed by Decas Botanicals, Inc.

What is Cranberry Seed Oil?
It's brand-new! Cranberry oil is a unique and precious healthy oil that contains a blend of omega 3, 6 and 9 essential fatty acids that are crucial to skin, heart, brain and total cellular health. The body does not produce its own essential fatty acids, so we must get it from our diets.
Cranberry seed oil solves the problem of getting important omega 3 fatty acids into the diet without using fish, micro-algae or flax oil, both of which can quickly oxidize becoming rancid, thereby contributing to a very unpleasant odor, taste and aftertaste. Cranberry seed oil has a "neutral" taste….there is no odor; there is no aftertaste! It is unique in that it contains natural antioxidants that keep it fresh for up to two years
Cranberry seeds are packed with nutrients that are vital to all living beings. Using a revolutionary cold processing technology without the use of solvents or chemicals, Decas proprietary cranberry oils retain the highest possible levels of these vital nutrients.
Cranberry seed oil is known for the following:

1.
Ideally balanced omega-3, omega-6 and omega-9 essential fatty acids.
2.
These essential fatty acids include a number of other important stable phytonutrient compounds that are significantly important to the body.
3.
Polyunsaturated fatty acids such as linolenic acid (omega-9 - the key component in olive oil).
4.
Naturally-occurring, heart-healthy phytosterols (plant sterols), including beta-sitosterol that have been shown to positively influence cholesterol levels in the bloodstream.
5.
Beautiful, golden color & sweet smell
6.
No allergenic proteins
7.
No fish smell or taste. Traditional sources of omega-3 fatty acids have been connected with the sea. Cold water species of fish, such as salmon and Hokai, are well known sources of this dietary supplement. Now OmegaCran™ cranberry seed oil represents an impressive source of balanced, plant-derived omega oils with a pleasant light fruit overtone
8.
Powerful antioxidants, including the following:
1. Cranberry seed oil is rich in both tocopherols and tocotrienols (vitamin E) with an unprecedented profile of all 8 isomers of vitamin E. Tocotrienols are known as "super vitamin E" and can be 4 times more powerful than tocopherols. Cranberry seed oil has significant levels of both.
2. Carotenoids which give cranberries their deep red color and, like other antioxidants, help protect cells from free radical damage.
3. Phospholipids and other healthy phytonutrients

Omega-3 EFA’s are vital to proper cell membrane function and influence nearly every bodily function and component to include healthy skin and hair. They have consistently been associated with heart health, and are also thought to lower the risk of certain cancers, reduce inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, support the neurological system, provide healthy joints and help prevent autoimmune diseases such as type II diabetes.

Click HERE to get yours NOW!

Giving Up Myths about Protein is Like Changing Your Religion

http://tinyurl.com/ompmb

From Dr. Fuhrman’s book Eat to Live:

Remember those four basic food group charts we all saw in every classroom in elementary school? Protein had its own box, designated by a thick steak, a whole fish, and an entire chicken. Dairy foods had their own special box as well. A healthy diet, we were taught, supposedly centered on meat and milk. Protein was thought to be the most favorable of all nutrients, and lots of protein was thought to be the key to strength, health, and vigor. Unfortunately, cancer rates soared. As a result of scientific investigations into the causes of disease, we have had to rethink what we were taught. Old habits die hard; most Americans still cling to what they were taught as children. There are very few subjects that are more distorted in modern culture than that of protein.

Keep in mind that we do need protein. We can’t be healthy without protein in our diet. On the other hand, plant foods have plenty of protein, and you do not have to be a nutritional scientist or dietician to figure out what to eat and you don’t need to mix and match foods to achieve protein completeness. Any combination of natural foods will supply you with adequate protein, including all eight essential amino acids as well as unessential amino acids.

It is unnecessary to combine foods to achieve protein completeness at each meal. The body stores and release amino acids needed over a twenty-four-hour period. About one-sixth of our daily protein utilization comes from recycling our own body tissue. This recycling, variation from meal to meal in amino acid “incompleteness.” It requires no level of nutritional sophistication to get sufficient protein, even if you eat only plant foods.

It is only when a vegetarian diet revolves around white bread and other processed foods that the protein content falls to low levels. However, the minute you include unprocessed foods such as vegetables, whole grains, beans, or nuts, the diet becomes protein-rich.

Government to Scale Back Mad Cow Testing

By LIBBY QUAID
14 March, 2006

http://www.localnewsleader.com/kindred/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=157828

WASHINGTON - Despite the confirmation of a third case of mad cow
disease, the government intends to scale back testing for the
brain-wasting disorder blamed for the deaths of more than 150 people
in Europe.

The testing program detected an infected cow in Alabama last week,
and further analysis confirmed Monday that the animal had mad cow
disease.

"As we approach the conclusion of our enhanced surveillance program,
let me offer a few thoughts," Clifford said, explaining that the U.S.
will follow international standards for testing.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns pointed out testing is not a food
safety measure. Rather, it‘s a way to find out the prevalence of the
disease.

Higher testing levels were intended to be temporary when they were
announced two years ago.

"This would be a tenth of a percent of all animals slaughtered," Jean
Halloran, director of food policy initiatives at Consumers Union,
said Tuesday. "This starts to be so small that in our opinion, it
approaches a policy of don‘t look, don‘t find."

"USDA ought to continue a sound surveillance testing program to
demonstrate that U.S. beef is indeed safe and that anti- BSE
safeguards are, in fact, working," said Harkin, senior Democrat on
the Senate Agriculture Committee.

"It‘s not cost-effective; it‘s not necessary," Weber said. "The
consumers we‘ve done focus groups with are comfortable that this is a
very rare disease and we‘ve got safeguards in place."

"All those things add up to safety," he said.

Tests are done on brain tissue from cows, so animals must be killed
before they can be tested. There is no test for the disease in a live
animal.

Since June 2004, the department has tested 652,697 cows for the
disease. The nation has about 95 million cattle.

The medical name for mad cow disease is bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, or BSE. In humans, eating meat contaminated with BSE
is linked to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Creutzfeldt-Jakob
Disease, a rare and deadly nerve disease.

An outbreak in the United Kingdom killed more than 180,000 cows and
was blamed for more than 150 human deaths. It began in 1986 and
spread throughout Europe, peaking in 1993.

The first American case appeared 10 years later in Washington state
in a Canadian-born cow. The disease was found again last June in a
Texas cow.

___

Agriculture Department: http://www.usda.gov

~*~*~*~*~*~
my comments: HOW STUPID! and I'll leave it at that!
Meanwhile, if interested in a healthier lifestyle,
visit WholeBodyandSpirit.com to
Improve Your Weight, Health, Body & Life ~ Naturally

The Meatrix II: Revolting – Taking on Factory Farming with a Modern

http://www.oriononline.org/pages/ogn/members/st.html

What is the Meatrix? It is the lie we tell ourselves about where our
meat and animal products come from.

In an age characterized by mechanization, there is a large gap
between our illusions about where food comes from and the stark
industrial reality of meat production. No longer the dominion of the
suspender-clad farmer, most modern day production of meat and dairy
has changed to accommodate the demands of the corporate bottom line –
profit above all else, meaning human health, our environment, our
society, and animal welfare. While independent family farmers become
an endangered species, children no longer understand where their food
comes from, and corporate forces control food production for the
masses, the obstacles to a just and sustainable food system can seem
insurmountable.

Enter the Meatrix films. In March 2006, The Meatrix II: Revolting
will be released on the Internet, the second chapter of the smash
hit, Webby Award-winning exposé of industrial farming, The Meatrix.
Continuing the fight against these factory farms, the sequel delves
deeper into dairy, exposing the routine use of artificial growth
hormones and antibiotics, as well as the cruel and horrendous
practices found on industrial dairy farms – the places where most of
America’s milk and cheese products come from. With advanced Flash
animation technology, an interactive 360 degree view of a rural
landscape, and an interactive community forum, the next stage of the
Meatrix experience aims to push advocacy even further into new
territory and to bring an even wider audience of consumers into the
sustainable food movement.

In 2003, the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment’s
Sustainable Table project teamed up with Free Range Graphics to take
on this issue. The Meatrix, a short film on factory farming, was
launched on the internet and became a huge success, garnering awards
for advocacy, animation and web design while waking up over 10
million people worldwide to the problems of factory farms and
industrial food production.

Simultaneously spoofing the popular Matrix films while educating
consumers about the evils of factory farming, much of The Meatrix’s
success has been attributed to its combination of humor, parody and
pop culture references. This non-threatening approach redefines the
connotations of the word “activism” and ultimately places the power
to affect change in the hands of consumers. As the first step in a
three-pronged approach, The Meatrix entertains and educates, then
directs viewers to more information and practical yet fun ways to
start living more sustainably. Scheduled for launch along with the
second film, the new and improved website will not only educate
viewers about how to stop factory farms and start supporting small,
local, sustainable farms, but will allow them to participate in an
online forum that cultivates ideas and action.

SustainableTable.org
http://www.sustainabletable.org/home/index.html
is the second step, a site which allows consumers to explore the
issues of both factory farming and sustainable farming in easy to
understand terms, while also providing recipes, book reviews,
educational resources and ways to get people and communities involved
in the sustainable food movement. With regular feature articles, news
and events updates on the ST Blog and forums for guest writers from
the Sustainable movement (coming soon!), Sustainable Table aims to
create a positive arena in which to solve the problems of modern food
production, and stimulate dialogue amongst the many different kinds
of people and perspectives arriving at the threshold of the food
movement.

Thirdly, the ambitious EatWellGuide.org
http://www.eatwellguide.org/
connects consumers with producers through a growing database of
sustainable farms, stores, restaurants, organizations, online
retailers and bed & breakfasts throughout the US and Canada,
searchable by zip code. Listings are detailed and specific, providing
information on types of meat or dairy served, how the animals were
raised, maps and links to websites. Visitors can also search the
guide by type of meat, production method, or type of establishment.
With close to 6,000 entries continually updated, the Guide has become
a reliable resource and a useful tool for those seeking practical
ways to change their diet and buying habits.


With the overwhelming success of The Meatrix, Sustainable Table has
expanded to become a larger independent program. The Meatrix has been
the most successful of Sustainable Table’s unique projects, with
accolades that include a 2005 Webby Award, an Environmental Media
Award and acceptance into film festivals across the globe. It has
been translated into over 20 languages and has been dubbed into
Spanish, Polish, French, German, Catalan and Portuguese. And thanks
to popular demand, dubbed versions in Italian, Mandarin and Kiswahili
are coming soon.

Each month, approximately 200,000 new people watch the film
worldwide, over two years after its release. You too can join us and
help end The Meatrix.

Watch the original Meatrix at www.themeatrix.com and The Meatrix II:
Revolting at http://www.themeatrix2.com.

Switching to vegetarian keeps weight down

study
13 March 2006

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2006/March/theworld_March318.xml§ion=theworld&col=

LONDON - If you want to keep the weight down, switch to a meat-free
diet, scientists said on Tuesday.

Researchers, who studied the eating habits of 22,000 people over five
years, including meat eaters and vegetarians, found they all put on a
few kilos but meat eaters who changed to a vegetarian or vegan diet
gained the least.

"Contrary to current popular views that a diet low in carbohydrates
and high in protein keeps weight down, we found that the lowest
weight gain came in people with high intake of carbohydrates and low
intake of protein," said Professor Tim Key.

The research compared weight gain among meat eaters, fish eaters,
vegetarians and vegans -- who eat no animal products -- and is
published in the International Journal of Obesity.

It showed that on average people gained 2 kilos (4.4 lb) over five
years. None of the volunteers was overweight.

"The weight gain was less in the vegans than in the meat-eaters and
somewhere in between in the other groups," said Key, of Britain's
Cancer Research UK charity and the University of Oxford, who
conducted the study.

"The lowest weight gain was in people who changed their diet to eat
fewer animal products," he told Reuters.

Key and his colleagues said exercise was another important factor in
controlling weight.

"The data also showed that people who became more physically active
during the five-year period gained less weight than people who did
very little exercise," Key said.

The findings are from the British arm of EPIC (European Prospective
Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition), which is comparing the
diets of 500,000 people in 10 countries to discover how diet is
linked to cancer.

The EPIC study has already revealed that diabetics have three times
the normal risk of developing colorectal cancer, which kills more
than 490,000 people worldwide each year.

It also showed that diet is second only to tobacco, as a leading
cause of cancer, and, along with alcohol, is responsible for nearly a
third of cancer cases in developed countries.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Anytime you're ready to make the switch, check out
our Counseling Services