What You Don’t Know About Sugar Can Kill You

(Natural Blaze by Lisa Egan)

“Sugar causes diseases: unrelated to their calories and unrelated to the attendant weight gain. It’s an independent primary-risk factor. Now, there will be food-industry people who deny it until the day they die, because their livelihood depends on it.” – Dr. Robert Lustig

****

In part 1 of this series, How Sugar Keeps You Trapped in a Cycle of Addiction, we talked about the prevalence of sugar in the typical diet, how easy it is to inadvertently consume too much, and how addictive the tiny white crystals are. Here, in part 2, we will discuss just how dangerous sugar is.

****

Remember when dietary fat was demonized and “experts” told us it would give us heart disease and cancer and kill us all?

It didn’t take long for “food” manufacturers to capitalize on that information. Seemingly overnight, supermarkets were filled with non-fat and low-fat products: cookies, crackers, snack foods, cake, cheese, ice cream – you name it, there is a fat-free or low-fat version available.

For many, the assumption was that calories and carbohydrate content no longer mattered. As long as a food was low-fat or fat-free, it was fair game, and we indulged.

Related: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

Those of us who fell for the trend are paying for it now. Dearly.

That’s because in order to make reduced-fat and fat-less foods taste good, sugar was added. Lots and lots of sugar.

The low-fat/fat-free diet became the High Sugar Diet.

The food industry – aided and abetted by politicians and lobbyists – has undermined (to say the least) the American diet for decades. Without bribery partnerships between corporations and politicians, after all, who else would make the outrageous claims that ketchup and pizza are vegetables?

In 2014, Dr. Robert Lustig, pediatric endocrinologist and expert on sugar and obesity, told Time that since the low-fat/no-fat craze began, we’ve suffered some serious ramifications:

Since then, childhood obesity rates have increased from 5% to 30%, children developed type 2 diabetes (never seen before) and doctors discovered a new entity, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, now prevalent in one-seventh of all American children. At the same time, academic test scores fellbehavior problemsand the need for medication increased, and spending on health care rose from 9.0% of our GDP in 1980 to 17.2% today. More people are shuttled through the medical system every day, and 75% percent of healthcare dollars are spent on preventable diseases that are either caused by or related to sugar consumption.

Change Your Thinking – Change Your Life! Optimal Thinking Works (ad)

Oh, and Dr. Lustig added:

If we don’t acknowledge and aggressively address the inherent connection between “all dessert, all the time” and the medical, social and economic devolution we currently face, America will find itself fat, stupid, and broke.

Last year, Dr. Lustig and his colleagues published the results of a study they conducted on 43 children ranging in age from 8 to 18. First, the researchers collected detailed food questionnaires from each of the adolescents to get an idea of the average amount of calories they ate per day. Then they designed a special menu for each of them for nine days that matched the total numbers of calories they would normally eat. The only difference in the nine-day diet was that most of the sugar the children ate was replaced by starch – the overall number of calories remained the same.

Related: Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

The children weighed themselves daily, and if they were losing weight, they were told to eat more of the provided food in order to keep their weight the same throughout the study. Their total dietary sugar was reduced to 10% of their daily calories.

The results?

“Everything got better,” said Lustig.

Some of the children went from being insulin resistant (a precursor to developing diabetes in which the body’s insulin levels can no longer keep up with the pace of breaking down sugar that is being consumed), to insulin sensitive (that’s an improvement).

The children’s fasting blood sugar levels dropped by 53%, along with the amount of insulin their bodies produced since insulin is normally needed to break down carbohydrates and sugars. Their triglyceride and LDL levels also declined and, most importantly, they showed less fat in their liver. These improvements occurred in children whether or not they lost weight.

Dr. Lustig said the improvements happened even though the children were not given ideal diets for the study. Starches were given instead of more healthful options for a reason – he wanted to prove the point that even with a less than optimal diet, the removal of most sugars still resulted in significant improvements in health measures.

Best Paleo Cookbook for Beginners (Ad)

The good doctor’s study adds to accumulating evidence that sugar is damaging to health.

Here’s an overview of what research has discovered so far.

Sugar is a real heart-breaker…

Consuming a diet high in sugar has been shown to cause numerous abnormalities found in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), such as high total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL, oxidized LDL, uric acid, insulin resistance and abnormal glucose tolerance, low HDL, and altered platelet function. Oh – and these changes can occur within just a few weeks of high sugar consumption. It doesn’t take long for damaging effects to begin.

Added fructose – generally in the form of sucrose (table sugar) or high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in processed foods and beverages is especially harmful. Consuming these sugars can lead to resistance in leptin, which is a key hormone in the maintenance of normal body weight. The overconsumption of added fructose increases the risk for obesity, which is also a risk factor for CHD.

More than one study has shown a link between high sugar consumption and high blood pressure.

Sugar can damage your liver and kidneys, too

Related: Sugar Leads to Depression – World’s First Trial Proves Gut and Brain are Linked (Protocol Included)

Excess fructose significantly increases the risk for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) – the most common liver disease in the US and a strong independent risk factor for CHD. The association between NAFLD and CHD is stronger than the link between CHD and smoking, hypertension, diabetes, male gender, high cholesterol, or metabolic syndrome. Yikes.

Right now, you might be wondering how sugar causes fat to build up in the liver and arteries. Here’s an explanation. When there is more fructose in your body than it can use for energy, it stores the excess by converting it into fatty acids, which are then packaged into small fat molecules called triglycerides. Some of those fat globules enter your bloodstream and can line your arteries…increasing your risk of a heart attack. Other triglycerides build up in your liver and can lead to NAFLD.

Scientifically Proven Method to Reverse Diabetes (Ad)

NAFLD often has no symptoms, but it can cause fatigue, jaundice, swelling in the legs and abdomen, mental confusion, and more. If left untreated, it can cause your liver to swell, which is called non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). It can also contribute to cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer.

Overweight and obese people aren’t the only ones who can develop NAFLD – it is seen in thin people too. In fact, doctors have coined the term “TOFI” (“thin on the outside, fat on the inside”) to describe such cases.

Some findings suggest that sugar consumption – particularly in the form of sugary drinks – may cause kidney disease. Diabetes is also a major risk factor for kidney disease.

Diabetes, cancer, and aging are linked with high consumption as well…

A diet high in sugar has also been found to promote prediabetes and diabetes. And people with both of these conditions have a much greater risk for CHD compared to normal healthy patients, particularly a severe narrowing of the left main coronary artery.

The amount of fat in the liver is associated with insulin resistance (a condition in which the body produces insulin but doesn’t use it effectively) and plays a role in Type 2 diabetes – whether or not a person is obese.

High amounts of dietary sugar in the typical western diet may increase the risk of breast cancer and metastasis to the lungs.

Added sugar can make tumors grow faster.

Sugary beverages may have been responsible for 133,000 deaths from diabetes, 45,000 from cardiovascular disease, and 6,450 from cancer.

Burn belly fat by avoiding this one food (Ad)

Regular consumption of sugary drinks has been associated with the onset of type 2 diabetes independent of obesity.

Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages every day is associated with an increase in visceral fat, a particularly nasty type of body fat that has been linked with diabetes, heart disease risk, and a multitude of other health issues.

Related: Best Supplements To Kill Lyme and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Lyme Disease

Studies have found a relationship between sugar consumption and the aging of our cells. Aging of the cells can be the cause of things as simple as skin aging to conditions as serious as chronic disease. But even more alarming is the evidence that sugar may affect the aging of the brain: it has been linked to deficiencies in memory and overall cognitive health.

I’ll conclude with a warning from part 1:

The only ones benefiting from your high sugar consumption are the sugar and processed food industries. Think you can rely on your government to provide you with accurate information about the dangers of sugar? That’s not going to happen – Big Sugar is a large, powerful, and wealthy industry that has been using Big Tobacco-style tactics to influence policy and ensure that government agencies dismiss troubling health claims against their product for decades.

Your health – and that of your family – is in YOUR hands.

****

Stay tuned for part 3 of this series – we will cover tricks that will help you break the sugar addiction cycle.

****

Additional Resources

Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease

Sugar Has 56 Names: A Shopper’s Guide

Good Calories, Bad Calories

Pure, White, and Deadly: How Sugar Is Killing Us and What We Can Do to Stop It

Explore our articles on SUGAR

This article appeared first at Nutritional Anarchy and appears here with permission.

Disclaimer

Nutritional Anarchy is owned and operated by Lisa Egan and may contain advertisements, sponsored content, paid insertions, affiliate links or other forms of monetization.

Farmed Salmon Contaminated With Toxic Flame Retardants

(Dr. Mercola) Fish are an important part of the ecosystem and the human diet. Unfortunately, overfishing has depleted many fish stocks, and the proposed solution — fish farming — is creating far more problems than it solves. Not only are fish farms polluting the aquatic environment and spreading disease to wild fish, farmed fish are also an inferior food source, in part by providing fewer healthy nutrients; and in part by containing more toxins, which readily accumulate in fat.

Farmed Salmon = Most Toxic Food in the World

Salmon is perhaps the most prominent example of how fish farming has led us astray. Food testing reveals farmed salmon is one of the most toxic foods in the world, having more in common with junk food than health food.1 Studies highlighting the seriousness of the problem include:

A global assessment2 of farmed salmon published in 2004, which found 13 persistent organic pollutants in the flesh of the fish. On average, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentrations in farmed salmon was eight times higher than in wild salmon, prompting the authors to conclude that “Risk analysis indicates that consumption of farmed Atlantic salmon may pose health risks that detract from the beneficial effects of fish consumption.”

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

The International Agency for Research on Cancer and the Environmental Protection Agency classify PCBs as probably carcinogenic.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, PCBs elicit a significant number of health conditions in animal studies, including cancer, immunosuppression, neurotoxicity and reproductive and developmental toxicity.3 Disturbingly, research suggests contaminated fish is the most common source of PCB exposure, as the chemicals accumulate and build up in the fat tissue.4

A 2005 investigation5 by another group of scientists concluded even relatively infrequent consumption of farmed salmon may be harmful to your health thanks to the elevated dioxin levels in the fish.

Toxicology researcher Jerome Ruzzin, who has tested a number of different food groups sold in Norway for toxins, discovered farmed salmon contain five times more toxins than any other food tested. (In light of his own findings, Ruzzin has stopped eating farmed salmon.)

A 2011 study6 published in PLOS ONE found chronic consumption of farmed salmon caused insulin resistance, glucose intolerance and obesity in mice, thanks to the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) found in the fish.

According to the authors, “Our data indicate that intake of farmed salmon fillet contributes to several metabolic disorders linked to Type 2 diabetes and obesity, and suggest a role of POPs in these deleterious effects. Overall, these findings may participate to improve nutritional strategies for the prevention and therapy of insulin resistance.”

Researchers Warn Farmed Salmon May Contain Fire Retardant Chemicals

Now, researchers warn7,8 farmed Atlantic salmon sold in the U.S. and U.K. may also contain polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), toxic POPs that have been restricted or banned in the U.S. and many European countries due to their toxic influence on child development.9 As reported by The Star,10 “[A] new study by the University of Pittsburgh has found evidence of PBDEs in food fed to farmed salmon — even in those in supposedly PBDE-free environments.”

Related: Does Meat Cause Cancer? Yes and no…

PBDEs are a class of chemicals that for years were used as flame retardants, and while restrictions were placed on some of the chemicals in this class in 2004, they can still be found in older products — and in the environment. China, Thailand and Vietnam — three areas that process significant amounts of electronic waste — are known to have higher levels of PBDEs in the environment.

In more recent years, flame retardant pollution has raised serious concern, as these chemicals build up in the environment over time and are in many areas now found in both ground water and open waters.

Health risks associated with these chemicals, including PBDEs, include infertility, birth defects, neurodevelopmental delays,11 reduced IQ,12 hormone disruptions13 and cancer. In fact, flame retardant chemicals have been identified as one of 17 “high priority” chemical groups that should be avoided to reduce breast cancer.14,15

Toxic Fish Food Blamed for Farmed Salmon Toxicity

You’re probably familiar with the saying that “you are what you eat.” However, a key take-home message here is that “you are what your food eats.” In other words, whatever the animal you eat consumed, you consume also, which means you really need to know the source of the animals’ feed as well. In the case of farmed fish, toxins in the fish feed and environmental concentrations of the chemicals have been identified as the two primary culprits.

Related: How Farmed Fish Degrades Our Health and the Environment – Better Options Included

According to the authors, when the fish are raised in areas with high PBDE concentrations in the water, the feed becomes a relatively minor contributor. In PBDE-free waters, on the other hand, elevated concentrations of these toxins in the feed may be high enough to end up on your plate. As noted by lead author Carla Ng, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Pittsburgh’s Swanson School of Engineering:16

“[I]n otherwise clean and well-regulated environments, contaminated feed can be thousands of times more significant than the location of the farm for determining the PBDE content of salmon fillets … The international food trade system is becoming increasingly global in nature and this applies to animal feed as well.

Fish farming operations may import their feed or feed ingredients from a number of countries, including those without advanced food safety regulations. The United States and much of Europe banned several PBDEs in 2004 because of environmental and public health concerns. PBDEs can act as endocrine disruptors and cause developmental effects. Children are particularly vulnerable.”

What Makes the Fish Feed so Toxic?

One of the main ingredients in farmed salmon feed is fatty fish such as eel, selected for their high protein and fat content. The problem is, many toxins readily bind to fat, and the fish feed industry is using fish deemed unfit for human consumption due to elevated toxicity. As you might expect, when the fish used in fish feed contain toxic levels of pollutants, they get incorporated into the feed pellets.

One significant source of fish for farmed salmon feed is the Baltic Sea, which is well-known for its elevated pollution levels. Nine industrialized countries dump their toxic waste into this closed body of water, which has rendered many Baltic Sea fish inedible. In Sweden, fish mongers are actually required to warn patrons about the potential toxicity of Baltic fish.

According to government recommendations, you should not eat fatty fish like herring more than once a week, and if you’re pregnant, fish from the Baltic should be avoided altogether. As mentioned by Ng, fish farms may also import their feed, or individual ingredients from other countries with lax regulations and significant pollution.

Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Lyme and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Lyme Disease

Toxic Manufacturing Processes Add to the Problem

Some of the toxicity also stems from the manufacturing process of the feed pellets. The fatty fish are first cooked, resulting in protein meal and oil. While the oil has high levels of dioxins and PCBs, a chemical called ethoxyquin is added to the protein powder as an “antioxidant,” which further adds to the toxicity of the final product. Ethoxyquin, developed as a pesticide by Monsanto in the 1950s, is one of the best kept secrets of the fish food industry — and one of the most toxic.

The use of ethoxyquin is strictly regulated on fruits, vegetables and in meat, but not in fish, because it was never intended for such use. Fish feed manufacturers never informed health authorities they were using this pesticide as a means to prevent the fats from oxidizing and going rancid, so its presence in farmed fish was never addressed. Disturbingly, testing reveals farmed fish can contain levels of ethoxyquin that are up to 20 times higher than the level allowed in fruits, vegetables and meats.

What’s more, the effects of this chemical on human health have never been established. The only research done on ethoxyquin and human health was a thesis by Victoria Bohne, a former researcher in Norway who discovered ethoxyquin can cross the blood-brain barrier and may have carcinogenic effects. Bohne was pressured to leave her research job after attempts were made to falsify and downplay her findings.

Environmental Pollution Is Also Affecting Wild Fish, Including Some Salmon

Salmon is one fish species looked to as an indicator of environmental conditions, and salmon have become increasingly toxic. While farmed salmon is by far the worst, even wild salmon can contain unwanted pollutants. In a study17 of salmon found in Puget Sound, researchers discovered 40 contaminants, including drugs, in the flesh of the fish.

Some of the drugs were found at levels known to interfere with growth, reproduction and behavior. No one knows exactly how this chemical cocktail affects the fish, especially as they are exposed in combination. In all, the study found 81 of 151 contaminants tested for in Puget Sound off the coast of Washington.

Aside from toxins already mentioned above, such as PCBs, PBDEs and other POPs, researchers have also found a long line of pesticides — including the long-banned DDT — at concerning levels in fish off the coast of California.18 And despite the Clean Water Act, enacted nearly 40 years ago, there are areas of the U.S. where the water is so contaminated with mercury that residents are warned to refrain from eating any locally caught fish.19

Microplastic Pollution — Another Increasingly Common Seafood Hazard

The fish you eat may also come with a side order of microplastic,20 as 13 metric tons of plastic enter the waterways every year. Once consumed, microplastic particles tend to remain in the body and accumulate, becoming increasingly concentrated in the bodies of animals higher up the food chain.

Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

Scientists are still unsure of the effect this may have on those who eat the fish, but common sense would suggest it might not be entirely harmless, considering the fact that microplastic fibers soak up toxins like a sponge, concentrating PCBs, flame retardant chemicals, pesticides and anything else found in the water.

Evidence also suggests these microscopic particles can cross cellular membranes, causing damage and inflammation inside the cell. According to a 2016 report21 by the British Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs [DEFRA], microplastics have been found in a wide variety of sea creatures, from zooplankton to whales and everything in between.

According to this report, “microplastics are present in seafood sold for human consumption, including mussels in North Sea mussel farms and oysters from the Atlantic.” Eating six oysters could introduce about 50 plastic microbeads into your body and, according to DEFRA, this kind of contamination may indeed “pose a threat to food safety.” Other studies have found one-third of the fish caught in the English Channel contain microbeads, as do 83 percent of scampi sold in the U.K.22

Nutritional Differences Between Farmed and Wild Salmon

As mentioned at the beginning, farmed salmon is also nutritionally less desirable than wild, which actually ties in with its toxicity. One significant nutritional difference is the fat content. Wild salmon contains about 5 to 7 percent fat, whereas the farmed variety can contain anywhere from 14.5 to 34 percent.

This elevated fat content is a direct result of the processed high-fat feed that farmed salmon are given, and since they contain more fat, they also accumulate higher amounts of toxins. Even when raised in similarly contaminated conditions, farmed salmon will absorb more toxins than the wild fish because of this.

But farmed salmon doesn’t just contain more fat overall; another nutritional travesty is its radically skewed ratios of omega-3 to omega-6 fats.23 Half a fillet of wild Atlantic salmon contains about 3,996 milligrams (mg) of omega-3 and 341 mg of omega-6.24 Half a fillet of farmed salmon from the Atlantic contains just a bit more omega-3 — 4,961 mg — but an astounding 1,944 mg of omega-6;25 more than 5.5 times more than wild salmon.

While you need both omega-3 and omega-6 fats, the ratio between the two is important and should ideally be about 1-to-1. The standard American diet is already heavily skewed toward omega-6, thanks to the prevalence of processed foods, and with farmed salmon, that unhealthy imbalance is further magnified rather than corrected.

A Norwegian report on farmed fish feed ingredients26 talks about the negative impacts of the antinutritional factors of plant proteins and other additives in the feed. Some of the most common ingredients in farmed fish feed include soybeans, rapeseed/canola oil, sunflower meal and oil, corn gluten meal from corn grains, wheat gluten, pulses (dry, edible seeds of field peas and faba beans), palm oil, and peanut meal and oil — none of which are natural wild salmon foods.

Recommended: Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

However, as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) explains,27 Atlantic farmed salmon feeds can also contain animal by-products from poultry, meat meal, blood and hydrolyzed feathers. Additives such as enzymes, crustacean products (to color the salmon flesh), vitamins and selenium are also added — and again, none these are ingredients that any wild salmon has ever encountered and all are about as far from a species-appropriate diet as you can get.

Salmon Farming Is Not a Green Solution

More than half of the fish Americans eat now comes from fish farms.28 Aquaculture promotes itself as a sustainable solution to overfishing, but when you consider it takes 1.5 to 8 kilograms (3.3 to 17.6 pounds) of wild fish to produce a single kilogram (2.2 pounds) of farmed salmon, you start to realize there are significant holes in that claim. In reality, the aquaculture industry is actually contributing heavily to the depletion of wild fish stocks rather than saving it.29

A salmon farm can hold upward of 2 million salmon in a relatively small amount of space. As with land-based factory farms where animals are kept in crowded conditions, fish farms are plagued with diseases that spread rapidly among the stressed fish. Sea lice, pancreas disease and infectious salmon anemia virus have spread all across Norway, yet consumers have not been informed of these fish pandemics, and sale of diseased fish continues unabated.

To stave off disease-causing pests, a number of dangerous pesticides are used, including one known to have neurotoxic effects. Workers who apply this pesticide must wear full protective clothing, yet these chemicals are dumped right into open water, where it spreads with local currents.

Recommended: How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

The pesticides used have been shown to affect fish DNA, causing genetic effects. Estimates suggest about half of all farmed cod, for example, are deformed due to genetic mutations. What’s worse, female cod that escape from farms are known to mate with wild cod, spreading the genetic mutations and deformities into the wild population.

Genetically Modified Salmon May Hit US Grocers by 2019

It’s become quite clear that fish farms are not a viable solution to overfishing. If anything, they’re making matters worse, destroying the marine ecosystem at a far more rapid clip. Consumers also need to be aware that some farmed salmon may be genetically engineered (GE) to boot. AquaBounty salmon, engineered to grow twice as fast as typical farm-raised salmon, received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in November 2015, and could be on sale in the U.S. by 2019.

Crazy enough, the FDA is not regulating Aquabounty’s salmon as food. It chose to review it as a drug. All GE animals, it turns out, starting with this GE salmon, will be regulated under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, “because the recombinant DNA (rDNA) construct introduced into the animal meets the definition of a drug.” Yet the reason given for not requiring the fish to carry some form of GE label is that it’s nutritionally equivalent to conventional farm-raised Atlantic salmon.

The unnatural growth rate was achieved by inserting the DNA from two other fish, a growth-promoting gene from a Chinook salmon and a “promoter” gene from the eel-like ocean pout. This genetic tweaking results in fish with a chronic, continuous release of growth hormone. While a typical salmon might take up to 36 months to reach market size (and grow only in spurts during warm weather), AquaAdvantage GM salmon are ready for market in just 16 to 18 months.

The fish are being grown on land and have several other supposed safeguards in place to prevent both escape and breeding with wild populations but, in nature, nothing is foolproof. This became readily evident last year, when thousands of land-based Atlantic salmon escaped when the pens were broken asunder by a passing storm.30

Are There Any Healthy Seafood Options Left?

So, what’s the answer? Unfortunately, the vast majority of fish — even when wild caught — is frequently too contaminated to eat on a frequent basis. Most major waterways in the world are contaminated with mercury, heavy metals, POPs and agricultural chemicals.

This is why, as a general rule, I no longer recommend eating fish on a regular basis. There are exceptions, however. One is authentic wild-caught Alaskan salmon, the nutritional benefits of which I believe still outweigh any potential contamination. The risk of wild Alaskan salmon accumulating high amounts of mercury and other toxins is reduced because of its short life cycle, which is only about three years.

Alaskan salmon (not to be confused with Atlantic salmon) is not allowed to be farmed, and is therefore always wild-caught. Canned salmon labeled “Alaskan salmon” is a less expensive alternative to salmon fillets. Remember that wild salmon is quite lean, so the fat marks — those white stripes you see in the meat — are on the thin side. If a fish is pale pink with wide fat marks, the salmon is likely farmed. Avoid Atlantic salmon, as salmon bearing this label are almost always farmed.

Another exception is smaller fish with short lifecycles, which also tend to be better alternatives in terms of fat content, such as sardines and anchovies. With their low contamination risk and higher nutritional value, they are a win-win alternative. Other good choices include herring and fish roe (caviar), which is full of important phospholipids that nourish your mitochondrial membranes.

Whole Foods Withdraws Promise to Label GMOs

(Dr. Mercola) While Whole Foods Market, founded in 1980, has been a leading retailer of organic produce in the U.S. for decades, the company has faced its share of criticism; in later years being accused of operating more like an industrial organic company rather than a local distributor of high-quality organic food.

In 2007, it bought its chief rival Wild Oats — an acquisition initially challenged by the Federal Trade Commission, which said the merger violated federal antitrust laws and provided Whole Foods unilateral market power that could raise prices and lower quality. The issue was eventually settled by selling off the Wild Oats brand and more than 30 physical store locations.1,2

Amazon Now Owns Whole Foods

Last year, Amazon announced its intention to acquire Whole Foods Market and its 465 stores, a $13.7 billion deal that had food manufacturers quaking in their boots, while organic producers worried the deal might compromise and dilute organic food standards even further.3 The acquisition went through on August 28, 2017.4 Within two days of the merger, Whole Foods’ store traffic rose by 25 percent. Within the first month, Amazon made $1.6 million off its online sales of Whole Foods private label products.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

But while the success story of Whole Foods continues, questions about whether it’s really socially commendable to shop at Whole Foods have festered well over a decade.5 The company has faced well-deserved criticism for its effects on employees by refusing unionization, the environment due to its limited supply of local produce, and its selling of questionable products such as items containing MSG and rBGH, making label scrutiny a necessity even here.

Like most large corporations, it has shareholders to contend with, and the company has been accused of cutting corners to make a profit on more than one occasion. This trend is unlikely to change with Amazon at the rudder. As a matter of fact, while Whole Foods has spent the last five years promoting its promise to implement a comprehensive labeling policy6 for genetically modified organisms(GMOs) — a promise that has been a major selling point to entice customer support — that plan has now been laid aside.

Whole Foods Reneges Its Promise to Implement GMO Labeling

As reported by New Food Economy,7 Whole Foods’ GMO labeling policy was scheduled to take effect September 1, 2018. However, in a May 18 email, Whole Foods president and CEO A.C. Gallo announced the company’s labeling requirement is being “paused” in response to concerns from suppliers about having to comply with both Whole Foods’ rules and those proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The public comment8 period ended July 3 and the final rule is expected to be delivered July 29.

“As the USDA finalizes the federal regulation in the coming months and the food industry assesses the impact, we do not want our Policy to pose further challenges for you and your business,” Gallo writes. As reported by New Food Economy:

“As currently proposed, the USDA policy would make several substantive changes to the way GMOs have traditionally been defined by the food industry — starting with the terminology itself. The government’s preferred nomenclature is “bioengineered” (BE), which only refers to a food that has had another organism’s genes spliced into it by a process called transgenesis.

Other types of genetic modification, including some produced by gene-editing tools like CRISPR, would not need to be labeled. As currently written, Whole Foods’ requirements would be more stringent than the proposed USDA rules in at least two significant ways.

First, USDA has suggested letting companies label BE ingredients by QR code, meaning that customers would need to be directed to a website via smartphone to find out what’s in their food … Whole Foods has never planned to allow QR codes to count as GMO disclosures …

Second, USDA rules contain perplexing carveouts for meat products, which are regulated under a different system9,10 … Whole Foods now faces a choice: It can move forward with its original plan, or defer to the government’s less comprehensive new rules.”

Is Whole Foods Committing Fraud?

As noted by New Food Economy, “All this begs a question: Is Whole Foods softening its commitment to GMO-labeling transparency?” The company promised its customers it would lead the way by labeling food sold in its stores in a clear and transparent manner. In fact, it was the first national grocery chain to make such a commitment, and many have patiently waited for the implementation of this promise, as it would set a new, higher standard for others to follow.

Related: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

Transparent GMO labeling is also what more than 8 in 10 Americans want.11 If Whole Foods ends up adopting USDA rules, many GMO-containing foods will remain unlabeled, which is nothing short of unacceptable, especially for a company that claims to be a leader among organics. As noted in the featured article, “It would mean that a company that’s long claimed the moral high ground would be no more transparent, as far as GMO labeling goes, than any other grocery store.”

Whole Foods assured New Food Economy that it remains “committed to providing our customers with the level of transparency they want and expect from us and will continue to require suppliers to obtain third-party verification for non-GMO claims.” But if that’s the case, why has no new deadline for its GMO labeling been announced?

March 8, 2013, Whole Foods issued a statement saying, “by 2018, all products in its U.S. and Canadian stores12 must be labeled to indicate if they contain GMOs. Whole Foods Market is the first national grocery chain to set a deadline for full GMO transparency. ‘We are putting a stake in the ground on GMO labeling to support the consumer’s right to know,’ said Walter Robb, co-CEO of Whole Foods Market.”

To me, it seems incredibly disingenuous to mislead and lie to customers for five years with a promise to be the first to really do the right thing, and then not follow through just because the government is working on rules that in no way, shape or form fulfill customers’ expectations of transparent labeling. It is my sincere hope that some of you will be angered enough to file a class-action lawsuit against them for this injustice.

Recommended: Sugar Leads to Depression – World’s First Trial Proves Gut and Brain are Linked (Protocol Included)

USDA Bioengineered Labeling Is a Joke

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its proposal13 for the labeling of foods containing GMOs May 3 — a bizarre, or to use the word of Sierra Club, “Orwellian,” rule that appears to misdirect and create unnecessary confusion on purpose. Perhaps most problematic is the fact that it’s not clear whether “highly refined foods” will be included in the standard. Not only are a majority of foods sold in grocery stores highly refined, or contain highly refined ingredients, but these foods are also the most likely to contain GMOs.

If highly refined foods will not require GMO labeling, the labeling requirement will be essentially useless, as very few whole foods are genetically engineered. Another significant problem is the absence of the phrases “genetically modified” or “genetically engineered” on the label. Not even the now well-recognized household word “GMO” is to be found anywhere on the USDA’s GMO label. Instead of calling it what it is, and what people now are most likely to understand, the USDA is using the word “bioengineered” or BE for short.

This is a misleading phrase for the simple fact that it sounds far more natural than it is; closer to biodynamic than genetically modified. The proposal also does not address whether foods produced using newer forms of genetic engineering, such as gene editing, CRISPR technology and synthetic biology, will need to be labeled, and/or whether they would require another type of label to distinguish them from in-vitro DNA techniques.

Adding insult to injury, the logo itself is clearly designed to impart a false impression of GMOs as being natural and wholesome. The proposed logo (two versions of which are included here), is the word “be” inside a smiley-face sun. The whole thing smacks of biotech promotion and misdirection. As stated by George Kimbrell, legal director for the Center for Food Safety, “We would support a little circle that said ‘GE’ or ‘GMO’ — something neutral that’s not pro-biotech propaganda.”

bioengineered

Last but not least, the proposed rule does not even include the requirement to use a standardized icon. Rather than mandating an easily recognizable icon or logo, companies would have the option of using:

  • The smiley sun logo (above)
  • Two other “BE” logos (see the proposed rule document14
  • Adding a sentence along the lines of “Contains a bioengineered food ingredient” without logo

Simply including a QR code directing you to the company’s website for more information about the ingredients, which will require you to have a smartphone and reliable connection inside the store, something which one-third of Americans don’t have.

As a result, the use of QR codes has been criticized as being inherently discriminatory against rural, low-income and elderly populations.15 Internet and smartphone availability really should not be a criterion for getting information about what’s in the food you’re holding in your hand and contemplating buying

Why Rename What Everyone Already Knows?

A solid decade has been spent educating Americans about genetically engineered (GE) foods and foods containing GMO ingredients — what they are and that they exist in the first place. With this in mind, the USDA’s decision to ditch the terms GE and GMO and replace them with BE seems extremely suspect.

As noted by Sophia Kruszewski, senior policy specialist with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the timing is even more suspect “since many companies have responded to consumer desire for transparency and started voluntarily labeling their products. [GMO disclosure] doesn’t seem to pose an enormous challenge.”16

The only reason I can come up with for unnecessarily complicating matters is that the USDA is assisting the biotech industry by making the labeling as obscure as possible. And, if Whole Foods decides to just follow along with this opaque and nonsensical strategy, it stands to lose consumers’ respect, not to mention trust.

The Great GMO Escape

In related news, “missteps by agribusiness giants” have allowed invasive GE grass developed for golf courses to spread across Jefferson and Malheur counties in Oregon.17 The creeping bentgrass developed by Scotts Miracle-Gro and Monsanto a decade ago was engineered to withstand Roundup application, which would be a boon for keeping golf courses pristine and clear of weeds.

The grass was never approved by the USDA. Alas, it spread from old seed fields into areas it doesn’t belong — a perfect example of why GMO test plots should not be allowed outdoors, and why farmers really should have the right to sue companies for contaminating their fields with GE seeds, and not the other way around. (Historically, farmers found growing GE crops without having purchased seed are the ones who have been getting sued for patent infringement).

Some 80 acres of the GE bentgrass was planted in Canyon County, Idaho, and another 420 acres in Jefferson County, Oregon. In late summer 2013, two storms swept through Oregon, scattering the seeds “well beyond the designated control area.” Since then, the grass has become part of the natural environment, with virtually no possibility of getting rid of it. According to High Country News, the grass “thrives in canals and ditches, where it collects sediment and impedes water flow.”

The fact that it’s so hard to kill has become “a headache” for farmers who are already battling a number of other weed problems, and many fear the GE grass will eventually migrate into Willamette Valley, where many of the primary grass businesses in Oregon are located. Don Herb, a seed dealer in Linn County, told Oregon Live,18 “That would be a catastrophic event for Oregon’s grass seed industry. We don’t need Scotts and others to put our industry at risk.”

Scotts was fined $500,000 in 2007 for allowing the grass seeds from its test plots to escape, and the company has reportedly tried to rein in the spread of its unapproved grass but, now, the company will no longer be held liable. “[I]n a series of decisions over the last several years, the USDA has relieved Scotts of future responsibility in return for the company’s promise not to market the grass,” High Country News writes.

This hardly seems like a fair deal, considering estimates suggest it’s costing as much as $250,000 annually to keep up with its removal. Who will pay that bill? State, county government and local growers, most likely. What’s worse, the GE bentgrass also has the potential to impact national forests and grasslands, which would further add to the financial burden caused by Scotts and Monsanto’s carelessness.

Will You Remain Loyal to Whole Foods or Let Them Know How You Feel About Their Deception?

There are many problems associated with GMOs, from environmental problems to human health risks. As such, it’s really imperative for consumers to be fully informed about what they’re buying, especially when it comes to their food. Whether Whole Foods will fulfill its promise to lead the way by requiring GMO foods sold in its stores to be clearly labeled remains to be seen.

At present, it seems to have decided that making it easy for suppliers is more important than fulfilling its promise for labeling to its customers. If you’re a frequent shopper at Whole Foods, you may want to share your views with the company’s leadership. You can find company contact information on the Whole Foods Market customer service page.19

French Beekeepers Go After Bayer After Glyphosate Found In Honey

“I’m not going to be like everyone else, I’m going to file suit against Monsanto”

(Natural Blaze by Brandon Turbeville) A beekeeping cooperative in northern France has filed a legal complaint against Bayer, the German chemical giant that recently merged with Monsanto after finding traces of glyphosate in their honey.

The herbicide was detected by Famille Michaud, one of France’s largest honey marketers, in three batches of honey provided by its members.

The head of the cooperative in the region of Aisne, Jean-Marie Camus, said “They systematically analyse the honey shipments they receive, and they found glyphosate.”
Glyphosate, also known as Roundup, is the most widely used in France, though French President Emmanuel Macron has agreed to attempt to ban it by 2021.

While evidence has repeatedly shown that links glyphosate to cancer, liver disease, and a host of other negative health effects, it has also been linked to the decline in the bee population, making the discovery of glyphosate in honey all the more concerning since it is clearly reaching bees.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

The new European Soviet, the EU, renewed the license for glyphosate weedkillers last November despite many Europeans and even European governments having deep reservations and intense opposition.

A lawyer for the cooperative, Emmanuel Ludot, says the contaminated honey came from a producer whose hives are located near sunflower fields, beets, and rapeseed.

But Ludot warned not to dismiss the idea that the contamination was also coming from gardeners who use Roundup on their properties.

The complaint came right as the merger between Monsanto and Bayer took place, which has created a agrochemical monster the likes of which has never been seen before, at least not since IG Farben, which Bayer was very much a part of, being engaged in the facilitation of Hitler’s Nazi atrocities and the extermination of Jews in Germany’s network of concentration camps.

Ludot hopes that the complaint will inspire and inquiry that will determine the amount of glyphosate in honey batches and the health consequences it may have for humans.

“It’s also a matter of knowing how widespread this might be. Famille Michaud tells me this isn’t an isolated case,” he said.

The President of Famille Michaud, Vincent Michaud, told AFP that “we regularly detect foreign substances, including glyphosate.”

If glyphosate is found, the organization rejects the entire shipment.

“Usually, beekeepers will say ‘In that case I’ll sell the honey at a roadside stand or a market’, where there’s no quality control,” Michaud said.

“But this beekeeper had the courage to say ‘I’m not going to be like everyone else, I’m going to file suit against Monsanto’,” he said.

This article (French Beekeepers Go After Bayer After Glyphosate Found in Honey) was created by and appeared first at Natural BlazeIt can be reshared with attribution but MUST include link to homepage, bio, intact links and this message. 

Goodbye Monsanto; Hello Bayer On “Steroids”

(Natural BlazeOh, how prognosticating words about Monsanto apparently have come true!

And people say there’s nothing to astrology!

Moneywatch published online on June 5, 2018, “As Bayer Monsanto merger closes, a toxic corporate name to be retired” not quite five years after I published the article “GMOs: What Do The Stars Say Astrologically?” regarding Monsanto with how I ended that article:

However, as this writer assesses the GMO issue, Coppolino’s prognostications ought to revitalize all who are working to expose the dangers of GMO farming and foods, plus bring new-found hope and unfailing determination. When certain aspects are written in the stars, who knows what can happen. We just have to keep on, keeping on.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

Well, who would have thought then that Monsanto, often referred to as ‘Monsatan, the most evil corporation in the world,’ [1] would no longer be around in name, but probably in ‘corporate spirit’ when taken over by Bayer [2], the German pharmaceutical giant, effective Thursday, June 7, 2018.

After 117 years of producing “questionable and toxic chemical products,” Monsanto will disappear in name from the business and corporate worlds, but their ‘toxic philosophies’ probably will be valued and hyped by Bayer, since it is paying $63-$66 BILLION for the takeover! However, one has to wonder what the stars will have in mind astrologically for the ‘coup’ Bayer apparently thinks it has been able to pull off.

My car sported the bumper sticker “Millions Against Monsanto” for more years than I can remember. Remarkably, a rear-end auto accident recently, which ruined my back bumper and trunk lid, rather serendipitously made it extremely easy for me to get rid of that now-obsolete bumper sticker.

Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

However, I wonder where I can find a bumper sticker that says, “Billions Against Bayer.

Shouldn’t health-nutrition-and-environmentally-minded consumers now turn our thoughts, activism and buying habits toward influencing the stars to work on dealing with Monsanto’s chemical legacy moved to a corporation whose documented history is less than stellar, in my opinion?

Bayer supported Adolph Hitler. In today’s trendy era of “political correctness,” how will Bayer’s Nazi past be viewed compounded by Bayer’s acquiring the Monsanto legacy of genetically-modified seeds and organisms, Roundup®/glyphosate, and the chemical ‘sins’ Monsanto produced for decades?

Sources: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

[1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Monsatan
[2] https://qz.com/1297749/the-end-of-the-monsanto-brand-bayer-pharmaceuticals-is-dropping-the-name-monsanto/

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.