Saturday, October 23, 2010

Cow's Milk, Breast Cancer, Prostate Cancer, and Osteoporosis

Posted May 22 2009 11:55pm
 
Further research, from other sources, reveals this:

We hear a lot about the possibility that cow's milk is - in fact - not good for us. Doctors say cow's milk can lead to iron deficiency anemia, allergies, diarrhea, heart disease, colic, cramps, gastrointestinal bleeding, sinusitis, skin rashes, acne, increased frequency of colds and flus, arthritis, diabetes, ear infections, osteoporosis, asthma, autoimmune diseases, and more, possibly even lung cancer, multiple sclerosis and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

One of these doctors is Frank Oski, M.D., author of Don't Drink Your Milk! is the Director of the Department of Pediatrics of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Physician-in-Chief of the Johns Hopkins Children's Center. He is the author, co-author, editor or co-editor of 19 medical textbooks and has written 290 medical manuscripts.

Another outspoken critic of cow's milk is Dr. William Ellis, a retired osteopathic physician and surgeon in Arlington, Texas, who has researched the effects of dairy products for 42 years. Dr. Ellis is listed in Marquis' Who's Who in the East, Leaders of American Science, the Dictionary of International Biography and Two Thousand Men of Achievement. Dr. Ellis says dairy products are "simply no good for humans... There is overwhelming evidence that milk and milk products are harmful to many people, both adults and infants. Milk is a contributing factor in constipation, chronic fatigue, arthritis, headaches, muscle cramps, obesity, allergies and heart problems."

When Washington D.C.-based pediatrician Dr. Russell Bunai was asked what single change in the American diet would produce the greatest health benefit, his answer was, "Eliminating dairy products."

Dr. Christiane Northrup, a gynecologist in Yarmouth, Maine, states, "Dairy is a tremendous mucus producer and a burden on the respiratory, digestive and immune systems." Dr. Northrup says when patients "eliminate dairy products for an extended period and eat a balanced diet, they suffer less from colds and sinus infections."

But don't we need to drink milk to get calcium? No. The best way to add calcium to your diet is to eat more fresh green vegetables. Cow's milk is high in calcium, but Dr. Ellis explains, the problem is that it is in a form that cannot be assimilated very well by humans. Dr. Ellis states, "Thousands and thousands of blood tests I've conducted show that people who drink 3 or 4 glasses of milk a day invariably had the lowest levels of blood calcium." Dr. Ellis adds, "Low levels of blood calcium correspond with irritability and headaches. In addition, the low calcium level in milk-drinkers also explains why milk-drinkers are prone to have muscle spasms and cramps. Since calcium is necessary for muscles to relax, a lack of calcium causes muscle cramps, etc."

WHY WOMEN IN CHINA DO NOT GET BREAST CANCER

Prof Jane Plant

WHY WOMEN IN CHINA DO NOT GET BREAST CANCER 
By Prof. Jane Plant, PhD, CBE

I had no alternative but to die or to try to find a cure for myself. I am a scientist - surely there was a rational explanation for this cruel illness that affects one in 12 women in the UK ? I had suffered the loss of one breast, and undergone  radiotherapy. I was now receiving painful chemotherapy, and had been seen by some of the country's most eminent specialists. But, deep down, I felt certain I was facing death. I had a loving husband, a beautiful home and two young children to care for. I desperately wanted to live.
Fortunately, this desire drove me to  unearth the facts, some of which were known only to a handful of scientists at the time.

Anyone who has come into contact with breast cancer will know that certain risk factors - such as increasing age, early onset of womanhood, late onset of menopause and a family history of breast cancer - are completely out of our control. But there are many risk factors, which we can control easily.
These "controllable" risk factors readily translate into  simple changes that we can all make in our day-to-day lives to help prevent or treat breast cancer. My message is that even advanced breast cancer can be overcome because I have done it.

The first clue to understanding what was promoting my breast  cancer came when my husband Peter, who was also a scientist, arrived back from working in China while I was being plugged in for a chemotherapy session. He had brought with him cards and  letters, as well as some amazing herbal suppositories, sent by my friends and science colleagues in China . The suppositories  were sent to me as a cure for breast cancer. Despite the awfulness of the situation, we both had a good belly laugh, and I remember saying that this was the treatment for breast cancer in China , then it was little wonder that Chinese women avoided getting the disease. Those words echoed in my mind.

Why didn't Chinese women in China get breast cancer?

I had collaborated once with Chinese colleagues on a study of links between soil chemistry and disease, and I remembered some of the statistics. The disease was virtually non-existent throughout the whole country. Only one in 10,000 women in China will die from it, compared to that terrible figure of one in 12 in Britain and the even grimmer average of one in 10 across most Western countries.

It is not just a matter of China being a more rural country, with less urban pollution. In highly urbanized Hong Kong , the rate rises to 34 women in every 10,000 but still puts the West to shame.
The Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki  have similar rates. And remember, both cities were attacked withnuclear weapons, so in addition to the usual pollution-related cancers, one would also expect to find some radiation-related cases, too.

The conclusion we can draw from these statistics strikes you with some force. If a Western woman were to move to industrialized, irradiated Hiroshima , she would slash her risk of contracting breast cancer by half. Obviously this is absurd.

It seemed obvious to me that some lifestyle factor not related to pollution, urbanization or the environment is seriously increasing the Western woman's chance of contracting breast cancer.
I then discovered that whatever causes the huge differences in breast cancer rates between oriental and Western countries, it isn't genetic.

Scientific research showed that when Chinese or Japanese people move to the West, within one or two generations their rates of breast cancer approach those of their host community.
The same thing happens when oriental people adopt a completely Western lifestyle in Hong Kong . In fact, the slang name for breast cancer in China translates as 'Rich Woman's Disease'. This is because, in China, only the better off can afford to eat what is termed ' Hong Kong food'.

The Chinese describe all Western food, including everything from ice cream and chocolate bars to spaghetti  and feta cheese, as "Hong Kong food", because of its availability in the former British colony and its scarcity, in the past, in mainland China .

So it made perfect sense to me that whatever  was causing my breast cancer  and the shockingly high incidence in this country generally, it was almost certainly something to do with our better-off, middle-class, Western lifestyle.

There is an important point for men here, too. I have observed in my research that much of the data about prostate cancer leads to similar conclusions.

According to figures from the World Health Organization, the number of men contracting prostate cancer in rural China is negligible, only 0.5 men in every 100,000.
In England, Scotland and Wales , however, this figure is 70 times higher. Like breast cancer, it is a middle-class disease that primarily attacks the wealthier and higher socio-economic groups, those that can afford to eat rich foods.

I remember saying to my husband, "Come on Peter, you have just come back  from China . What is it about the Chinese way of life that is so different?"
Why don't they get breast cancer?'
We decided to utilize our joint scientific backgrounds and approach it  logically.
We examined scientific data that pointed us in the general direction of fats in diets.
Researchers had discovered in the 1980s that only l4% of calories in the average Chinese diet were from fat, compared to almost 36% in the West. But the diet I had been living on for years before I contracted breast cancer was very low in fat and high in fibre.
Besides, I knew as a scientist that fat intake in adults has not been shown to increase risk for breast cancer in most investigations that have followed large groups of women for up to a dozen years. Then one day something rather special happened. Peter and I have worked together so closely over the years that I am not sure which one of us first said:

"The Chinese don't eat dairy produce!"
It is hard to explain to a non-scientist the sudden mental and emotional 'buzz' you get when you know you have had an important insight. It's as if you have had a lot of pieces of a jigsaw in your mind, and suddenly, in a few seconds, they all fall into place and the whole picture is clear.

Suddenly I recalled how many Chinese people were physically unable to  tolerate milk, how the Chinese people I had worked with had always said that milk was only for babies, and how one of my close friends, who is of Chinese origin, always politely turned down the cheese course at dinner parties.

I knew of no Chinese people who lived a traditional Chinese life who ever used cow or other dairy food to feed their babies. The tradition was to use a wet nurse but never, ever, dairy products.

Culturally, the Chinese find our Western preoccupation with milk and milk products very   strange. I remember entertaining a large delegation of Chinese scientists shortly after the ending of the Cultural Revolution in the 1980s.

On advice from the Foreign Office, we had asked the caterer to provide a pudding that contained a lot of ice cream. After inquiring what the pudding consisted of, all of the Chinese, including their interpreter, politely but firmly refused to eat it, and they could not be persuaded to change their minds.

At the time we were all delighted and ate extra portions!

Milk, I discovered, is one of the most common causes of food allergies .

Over 70% of the world's population are unable to digest the milk sugar, lactose, which has led nutritionists to believe that this is the normal condition for adults, not some sort of deficiency. Perhaps nature is trying to tell us that we are eating the wrong food.

Before I had breast cancer for the first time, I had eaten a lot of dairy produce, such as skimmed milk, low-fat cheese and yogurt. I had used it as my main source of protein. I also ate cheap but lean minced beef, which I now realized was probably often ground-up dairy cow.

In order to cope with the chemotherapy I received for my fifth case of cancer, I had been eating organic yogurts as a way of helping my digestive tract to recover and repopulate my gut with 'good' bacteria.
Recently, I discovered that way back in 1989 yogurt had been implicated in ovarian cancer. Dr Daniel Cramer of Harvard University studied hundreds of women with ovarian cancer, and had them record in detail what they normally ate. Wish I'd been made aware of his findings when he had first discovered them.

Following Peter's and my insight into the Chinese diet, I decided to give up not just yogurt but all dairy produce immediately. Cheese, butter, milk and yogurt and anything else that contained dairy produce - it went down the sink or in the rubbish.

It is surprising how many products, including commercial soups, biscuits and cakes, contain some form of dairy produce. Even many proprietary brands of margarine marketed as soya, sunflower or olive oil spreads can contain dairy produce
.
I therefore became an avid reader of the small print on food labels.

Up to this point, I had been steadfastly measuring the progress of my fifth cancerous lump with callipers and plotting the results. Despite all the encouraging comments and positive feedback from my doctors and nurses, my own precise observations told me the bitter truth.

My first chemotherapy sessions had produced no effect - the lump was still the same size. Then I eliminated dairy products. Within days, the lump started to shrink
.
About two weeks after my second chemotherapy session and one week after giving up dairy produce, the lump in my neck started to itch. Then it began to soften and to reduce  in size. The line on the graph, which had shown no change, was now pointing downwards as the tumour got smaller and smaller.

And, very significantly, I noted that instead of declining exponentially (a graceful curve) as cancer is meant to do, the tumour's decrease in size was plotted on a straight line heading off the bottom of the graph, indicating a cure, not suppression (or remission) of the tumour.

One Saturday afternoon after about six weeks of excluding all dairy produce from my diet, I practised an hour of meditation then felt for what was left of the lump. I couldn't find it. Yet I was very experienced at detecting cancerous lumps - I had discovered all five cancers on my own. I went downstairs and asked my husband to feel my neck. He could not find any trace of the lump either.

On the following Thursday I was due to be seen by my cancer specialist at  Charing Cross Hospital in London . He examined me thoroughly, especially my neck where the tumour had been. He was initially bemused and then delighted as he said, "I cannot find it." None of my doctors, it appeared, had expected someone with my type and stage of cancer (which had clearly spread to the lymph system) to survive, let alone be so hale and hearty.

My specialist was as overjoyed as I was. When I first discussed my ideas with him he was understandably sceptical. But I understand that he now uses maps showing cancer mortality in China in his lectures, and recommends a non-dairy diet to his cancer patients. I now believe that the link between dairy produce and breast cancer is similar to the link between smoking and lung cancer.

I believe that identifying the link between breast cancer and dairy produce, and then developing a diet specifically targeted at maintaining the health of my breast and hormone system, cured me. It was difficult for me, as it may be for you, to accept that a substance as 'natural' as milk might have such ominous health implications. But I am a living proof that it works and, starting from tomorrow, I shall reveal the secrets of my revolutionary action plan.

Extracted from Your Life in Your Hands, by Professor Jane Plan

Thursday, October 14, 2010

A New Beginning for Organic Food Industry

By Mohamad Noh Samik
Director Vegetables and Field Crops Division
Department of Agriculture
And Salmah Mohd. Nordin
Standards Management Department
SIRIM Berhad
In Klang Valley, there are many establishments selling organic food products and quite a number of restaurants that serve only organic food. Organic food products are retailed at a higher price than non-organic products. The table below shows the range of price for organic vegetables.

Products
Price (RM/Kg)
Long bean
12
Brinjal
11
Tomato
12.6
Cabbage
9.5

What makes these products organic and who certifies them?

Concept and principles of organic farming

Organic farming is a holistic production management system, which promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health including biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It emphasises the use of management practices in preference to the use of off farm inputs. This is accomplished by using wherever possible cultural, biological and mechanical methods as opposed to using synthetic materials to fulfil any specific functions within the system.

An organic farming system is designed to:

a)         enhance the biological diversity within the whole system;
b)         increase soil biological activity;
c)         maintain long term soil fertility;
d)         recycle wastes of plant and animal origin in order to return nutrients to the land thus minimising the use of non-renewable resources;
e)         rely on renewable resources in locally organised agricultural system;
f)           promote the healthy use of soil, water and air as well as minimise all forms  of pollution thereto that may result from agricultural practices;
g)         handle agricultural products with emphasis on careful processing methods in order to maintain the organic integrity and vital qualities of the products at all stages.

For products to be called organic, the production must conform to a certain established organic standard and certified by a recognised certifying body.  Recognising the need for such a standard and the consequential certification process, a Malaysian Standard, MS 1529: 2001 entitled The production, processing, labelling and marketing plant-based organically produced food was developed for adoption by growers and processors.

MS 1529: 2001
The standard was developed by the Working Group on Organic Foods which comprises representatives from the Department of Agriculture (DOA), Ministry of Health, Malaysian Palm Oil Board MPOB), Malaysian Palm Oil Association (MPOA), Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI), Centre for Environment Technology and Development Malaysia (CETDEM), a few organic product producers and SIRIM Berhad.

This standard has been prepared to provide a harmonised approach to the requirements, which relate to the production of, and the labelling and claims for, organically produced foods.  It sets out the principles of organic production at farms, preparation, storage, transport, labelling and marketing stages. This standard also provides an indication of accepted permitted inputs for soil fertilising and conditioning, pest and disease control and, food additives and processing aids.
The aims of this standard are:
a)         to protect consumers against deception and fraud in the market place and unsubstantiated product claims;
b)         to protect producers of organic produce against misrepresentation of other agricultural produce as being organic;
c)         to ensure that all stages of production, preparation, storage, transport and marketing are subject to inspection and comply with this standard;
d)         to harmonise provisions for the production, certification, identification and labeling of organically grown produce;
e)         to provide national standard for organic food control system in order to facilitate recognition of national systems as equivalent for the purpose of export, and
f)           to maintain and enhance organic agricultural systems in Malaysia so as to contribute to local and global sustainability.

The standard applies to both unprocessed plant and plant product, and processed products for human consumption (derived mainly from unprocessed plant and plant products) which carry or intended to carry, descriptive labelling referring to organic production methods.

Inspection and certification
Inspection  and  certification  systems  are used to


verify  organic production system and the labelling
of, and claims for, organically produced foods.

The institutional framework for the process of inspection and certification of organic products in this country is shown in the chart below.  As in the chart, the Department of Agriculture will initially be the certifying body. This is to ensure that the cost of inspection and certification will be kept to the minimum as organic industry in Malaysia is still in the preliminary stage of development.

The procedures and guidelines for inspection and certification are being formulated. This will be followed by intensive training of inspectors. 

Conclusions
MS 1529 and the related inspection and certification systems are new beginnings for the organic industry in this country. With these, consumers will not be deceived and producers of organic products are protected against other food products falsely labelled as organic.

It is hoped that more farmers will convert to organic farming, as this method of production is environmental friendly and in harmony with nature. Moreover, the demand for organic products is steadily increasing from both the domestic and international markets.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Why Digestive Enzymes are Critical to Your Health - by Vin Miller

Good health is dependent on properly digesting and absorbing the food we eat, and in turn, this ability is dependent on the availability of digestive enzymes. Although you’ve probably heard of digestive enzymes, chances are that your diet is deficient in them and that your potential for optimal health is being compromised as a result.
Enzymes are proteins that facilitate chemical reactions. Nearly every biological function of a cell depends on enzymes, and as such, they’re critical to our health. Similar to the theory that mammals are limited to approximately 1 billion heartbeats, it’s also believed that we have a limited capacity for enzyme production. Based on this theory, anything that puts unnecessary demand on the body to produce enzymes, such as a diet that’s deficient in them, could compromise health and shorten lifespan.



Enzymes Aren’t Just For Digestion

As I already mentioned, enzymes facilitate nearly all cellular activity which means that they support the function of organs, glands, and all other types of tissue that are critical to life. When digestive enzymes are not obtained through diet and the body must manufacture more of them to compensate, this infringes on the resources that are available to produce the metabolic enzymes that are needed to support these other important functions. Because of this, it’s desirable to regularly eat food that’s rich in enzymes and minimizes this unnecessary burden.

The activity of enzymes often depends on a variety of external factors such as temperature and pH, and when such external conditions are not appropriate, enzymes will remain inactive. This conditional behavior is what allows foods to be digested by the very same enzymes that they naturally contain. Research has shown that the digestive system recognizes when these enzymes exist in the food we eat, and in response, is able to conserve resources by limiting production of additional enzymes. As such, foods that are rich in enzymes are easier to digest because they reduce the burden on the digestive system, and by doing so, they also preserve the body’s capacity to produce metabolic enzymes.

In addition to breaking down the food we eat, digestive enzymes are also important to immune function. They help to break down bacteria, viruses, parasites, and damaged cells, all of which can pose a significant threat to our health. Furthermore, when digestive enzymes are obtained through diet, the resulting conservation in digestive effort reduces the chance of immune function being impaired by a limitation in capacity to produce metabolic enzymes.
Why the Modern Diet is Deficient in Enzymes

The enzymes naturally found in food are destroyed at 118 degrees Fahrenheit. As such, cooked food is generally lacking in enzymes and forces the body to compensate by producing more of its own. Because most processed foods are highly refined and exposed to high temperatures, they’re typically depleted of enzymes as well. Unfortunately, these two categories of food are staples of the modern diet. The pancreas produces most of the digestive enzymes that are needed to compensate for such a diet, and research has shown that such a burden causes it to enlarge which is generally recognized as a warning sign of overuse and dysfunction.

Natural whole foods are the foundation of a truly healthy diet, and consuming them raw will provide a natural supply of digestive enzymes that will relieve the body of unnecessary burden. In turn, the additional resources that remain will be available to produce the metabolic enzymes that will help to fight illness, prevent disease, slow aging, and promote optimal health.

Incorporating Digestive Enzymes Into Your Diet

Consuming more raw food to benefit from a natural external supply of digestive enzymes doesn’t mean that you need to become fanatical about eating everything raw. In fact, some vegetables can interfere with digestion and absorption when eaten raw, and some anthropologists believe that the cooking of meat has made important contributions to our evolution including a significant increase in brain size. In my opinion, the best way to incorporate digestive enzymes into your diet is to find a compromise between cooked and raw. An additional benefit of doing so is that raw foods are very easy to prepare and will reduce your cooking time.

Enzymes aren’t the only nutrients that are damaged or destroyed by heat, so the more you cook your food, the less nutritious it will be. I eat all fruit and nearly all vegetables raw, and although I typically cook meat, I do so at a low temperature of 225 degrees Fahrenheit or below. On occasion, I’ll eat beef or fish completely raw. Although some might say this increases the risk of infection, I believe this is much less of a concern with the quality of food that I buy. Either way, this is one of the many decisions in life that you’ll have to take accountability for and make yourself.

Another simple and natural way to take advantage of digestive enzymes is to chew more thoroughly. Saliva naturally contains enzymes that break down carbohydrates and fat, so the more time you spend chewing, the more of a chance these enzymes will have to predigest the food you eat. Furthermore, thorough chewing will break down food more completely, result in more surface area being exposed to enzymes, and in turn, reduce digestive burden.

The Value of Digestive Enzyme Supplements
Although I prefer to error on the side of obtaining nutrients from whole foods rather then supplements, I think digestive enzymes are worth consideration, especially if most of the food you eat is cooked or processed. While most supplements are intended to provide vitamins or minerals that aren’t adequately obtained through diet, digestive enzymes facilitate the ability to obtain more of these nutrients from the food we eat, and they reduce digestive burden in the process.

The digestive enzymes in supplements originate from animals or plants. Although both are beneficial, many people prefer plant enzymes because they have been shown to be more effective. In addition, it’s difficult to verify the quality of animal enzymes and be sure that they haven’t been taken from unhealthy livestock that were raised in factory farm conditions.

Although there are many different digestive enzymes, they all fall fit into the categories of proteases, carbohydrases, and lipases which respectively break down proteins, carbohydrates, and fats. Most supplements contain a combination of digestive enzymes from each category, and the higher quality brands usually list them by active units rather than grams and are also free of unnecessary fillers and additives. Depending on your nutritional individuality, it may be beneficial to find a supplement that combines these different types of enzymes in proportions that match your typical meal.

Additional Information

For more information about digestive enzymes and how our limited capacity to produce them affects our health, I highly recommend reading Enzyme Nutrition by Dr. Edward Howell. Although this book was written more than twenty years ago, it still provides a very compelling argument for the significant importance of digestive enzymes and is one of the most informative and influential resource on the topic.
Another interesting book that was written more recently is Everything You Need to Know About Enzymes by Tom Bohager. This book provides more detail about the specific enzymes used in supplements and explains how they can also be used without food to help resolve a number of health issues.

The Benefits Of Enzymes

An important branch of twentieth century nutritional research, running parallel to and equal in significance to the discovery of vitamins and minerals, has been the discovery of enzymes and their function. Enzymes are complex proteins that act as catalysts in almost every biochemical process that takes place in the body. Their activity depends on the presence of adequate vitamins and minerals. Many enzymes incorporate a single molecule of a trace mineral -- such as copper, iron or zinc -- without which the enzyme cannot function. In the 1930's, when enzymes first came to the attention of biochemists, some 80 were identified; today over 5,000 have been discovered.

Enzymes fall into one of three major classifications. The largest is the metabolic enzymes which play a role in all bodily processes including breathing, talking, moving, thinking, behavior and maintenance of the immune system. A subset of these metabolic enzymes acts to neutralize poisons and carcinogens such as pollutants, DDT and tobacco smoke, changing them into less toxic forms that the body can eliminate. The second category is the digestive enzymes, of which there are about 22 in number. Most of these are manufactured by the pancreas. They are secreted by glands in the duodenum (a valve that separates the stomach from the small intestine) and work to break down the bulk of partially digested food leaving the stomach.

The enzymes we need to consider when planning our diets are the third category, the food enzymes. These are present in raw foods and they initiate the process of digestion in the mouth and upper stomach. Food enzymes include proteases for digesting protein, lipases for digesting fats and amylases for digesting carbohydrates. Amylases in saliva contribute to the digestion of carbohydrates while they are being chewed, and all enzymes found in food continue this process while it rests in the upper or cardiac portion of the stomach. The upper stomach secretes no digestive juices whatsoever, but acts much like the crop of a bird or the first stomach of ruminant animals. It can be described as a holding tank where the enzymes present in raw foods do their work on what we have eaten before this more or less partially digested mass passes on to the lower stomach, about 30 minutes after food is ingested. Hydrochloric acid secretion occurs only in the lower stomach and is stimulated by the passage of food from the upper to lower stomach. (This hydrochloric acid does not digest meat, as is commonly believed, but activates the enzyme pepsinogen to its active form pepsin that digests protein.)

Enzyme research has revealed the importance of raw foods in the diet. The enzymes in raw food help start the process of digestion and reduce the body’s need to produce digestive enzymes. All enzymes are deactivated at a wet-heat temperature of 118 degrees Fahrenheit, and a dry-heat temperature of about 150 degrees. It is one of those happy designs of nature that foods and liquid at 117 degrees can be touched without pain, but liquids over 118 degrees will burn. Thus we have a built-in mechanism for determining whether or not the food we are eating still contains its enzyme content.

A diet composed exclusively of cooked food puts a severe strain on the pancreas, drawing down its reserves, so to speak. If the pancreas is constantly overstimulated to produce the enzymes that ought to be in foods, the result over time will be inhibited function. Humans eating an enzyme-poor diet, comprised primarily of cooked food, use up a tremendous amount of their enzyme potential in the outpouring of secretions from the pancreas and other digestive organs. The result, according to the late Dr. Edward Howell, a noted pioneer in the field of enzyme research, is a shortened life-span, illness, and lowered resistance to stress of all types. He points out that humans and animals on a diet comprised largely of cooked food have enlarged pancreas organs while other glands and organs, notably the  brain, actually shrink in size. His research also uncovered the fact that the body recycles enzymes by absorbing them through the intestine and colon and transporting them in the blood back to the upper intestine to be used again. The body is thus designed to conserve its precious enzyme stores.

Dr. Howell formulated the following Enzyme Nutrition Axiom: The length of life is inversely proportional to the rate of exhaustion of the enzyme potential of an organism. The increased use of food enzymes promotes a decreased rate of exhaustion of the enzyme potential. Another rule can be expressed as follows: Whole foods give good health; enzyme-rich foods provide limitless energy.

Almost all traditional societies incorporate raw, enzyme-rich foods into their cuisines -- not only vegetable foods but also raw animal proteins and fats in the form of raw dairy foods, raw muscle and organ meats, and raw fish. These diets also traditionally include a certain amount of cultured or fermented foods, which have an enzyme content that is actually enhanced by the fermenting and culturing process. The Eskimo diet, for example, is composed in large portion of raw fish that has been allowed to "autolate" or "predigest," that is, become putrefied or semi-rancid; to this predigested food they ascribe their stamina. The culturing of dairy products, found almost universally among pre-industrialized peoples, enhances the enzyme content of milk, cream, butter and cheese.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Organic Foods

In response to a need to standardize the use of such terms as organic and natural, the U.S. Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, which established the U.S. National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). In 1995, the NOSB defined organic agriculture as "an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity , biological cycles and soil biological activity.


It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony." Organic production uses "materials and practices that enhance the ecological balance of natural systems and that integrate the parts of the farming system into an ecological whole," though such practices "cannot ensure that products are completely free of residues" of pesticides, herbicides, and other additives or contaminants. However, "methods are used to minimize pollution from air, soil, and water. Organic food handlers, processors, and retailers adhere to standards that maintain the integrity of organic agricultural products. The primary goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals and people" (NOSB).

Certification and Labeling of Organic Foods

According to regulations set forth by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), organic foods must come from farms or ranches certified by a state or private agency that has been accredited by the USDA. Foods labeled "100 percent organic" must contain only organically produced ingredients, excluding water and salt. Foods labeled "organic" must contain, by weight, at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients. Products meeting these requirements must display these terms on their principal display panel and may use the USDA seal and the seal or mark of certifying agents on packages and in advertisements. Foods labeled "made with organic ingredients" must contain, by weight, at least 70 percent organic ingredients. Up to three separate organic ingredients may be listed on the principal display label, and a certifying agent's seal or mark may be used on the package. The use of a USDA seal is prohibited, however. Livestock can be certified "organic" if they have been raised on organic foodstuffs for over one year.
Other labeling provisions include:
  • Packaging of any product labeled "organic" must state the actual percentage of organic ingredients and use the word "organic" to modify each organically produced ingredient.
  • The name and address of the certifying agent must be displayed on the label's information panel.
  • There are no restrictions on the use of truthful labeling claims, such as "pesticide free," "no drugs or growth hormones used," or "sustainably harvested."
  • Products made with less than 50 percent organic ingredients may make no claim other than designating specific organic ingredients with the ingredient information.

Advantages of Organically Grown Foods

  • Less artificial or synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, and hormone residue.
  • May contain higher concentration of nutrients and phytochemicals.
  • May taste better.
  • Environmental advantages, such as enhanced soil fertility, higher biodiversity, and increased water conservation.
  • Decreased energy input for production.
  • May have higher animal welfare standards.

Disadvantages of Organic Foods

  • More expensive.
  • May be fertilized with manure or sewage containing potentially harmful organisms.
  • May have undesirable appearance.
  • May be cross-contaminated with chemicals from other farms (also a risk with conventionally grown foods).
  • Lower crop yield.
  • Uncertainty over long-term sustainability of crop.
Over ninety private organizations and state agencies (certifying agents) currently accredit farms that produce organic food, but standards for growing and labeling organic food may differ. For example, different agencies may permit or prohibit the use of specific natural pesticides or fertilizers in growing organic food. In addition, some of the language contained on seals, labels, and logos approved by organic certifiers may differ.
Science has not proven any nutritional difference between organically grown foods and conventionally grown foods. However, the methods employed by organic farmers may be more sustainable in the long term than conventional farming.

 

The Market for Organic Foods

The global market for organic foods is expected to expand from $26 billion in 2001 to $80 billion in 2008. The greatest market growth has been in the European Union, where market revenues were forecast to expand by a third in 2001 to reach $12 billion, largely due to growth in Germany, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom. In all these countries, except the United Kingdom, growth has resulted from organic foods moving into mainstream marketing channels and from increased consumer interest. Japan is the third largest market for organic foods and accounts for the bulk of Asian organic market revenues. High growth is also occurring in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, though these markets remain much smaller than the Japanese market.


The U.S. organic foods marketplace reached $6.95 billion in sales in 2001, up 19 percent from 2000. Sales are expected to increase in the United States, reaching $20 billion by 2008. The largest market for organic products worldwide is in fresh produce. Other popular organic foods include soy foods, meat, poultry, eggs, and meat and dairy alternatives.
Fresh produce is the top-selling organic food, but organic dairy products are rapidly gaining popularity. Organic foods can be significantly more expensive than their conventionally grown counterparts, and research has not proven that health reasons alone justify their cost.

Safety and Nutritional Value of Organic Foods
The nutrient content of plants is determined primarily by heredity, and organic foods generally contain no less fat or sodium, or more vitamins , minerals , or fiber , than the same food grown using conventional methods.

However, organic farming methods can enhance soil fertility, resulting in an increased concentration of some
minerals and phtyochemicals in organic food. Organic food cannot be guaranteed pesticide-free, though organic farmers use only naturally occurring pesticides such as sulfur, copper, nicotine, and Bacillus thuringiensis (a naturally occurring bacterial disease of insects). Organic foods may contain pesticide residues that have drifted from farm to farm, or residual pesticides found in soil or water, though the amounts of such residues are certainly greater in conventionally produced foods, where pesticides are directly applied to the crops.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of consistent differences in appearance, flavor, or texture between organic foods and conventionally produced foods. Organic foods may be more susceptible to microbiological contamination. Several food-borne illness outbreaks resulting from Salmonella enteriditis, Listeria monocytogenes, and E. coli O157:H7 have been associated with consumption of organically grown produce.

Organic foods can be more costly than conventionally grown foods. The USDA Economic Research Service, in USDA/ERS Food Cost Review 1950–97, reports that in 1995 an average American household with two parents and two children spent $6,992 on food. Purchasing only organic foods would increase total food costs by $4,000 to $10,977 per year. However, as the organic market grows, the cost is likely to continue to drop.

Organic agriculture is generally seen to be environmentally friendly. Organic agriculture decreases the amount of nitrogen-containing chemicals that seep into groundwater supplies, decreases soil deterioration via crop rotation, and minimizes exposure of farm workers and livestock to potentially harmful compounds. However, use of animal manures may increase the risk of food-borne illness, and a dependence on nitrogen-fixing, green-manure crops uses large amounts of land. On the other hand, these methods can make nutrients more available to subsequent crops, increase crop productivity, and conserve water resources.

Many kinds of pesticides, including insecticides and herbicides, are commonly used in producing and marketing the food supply. High doses of some of these chemicals have been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals, though the low concentrations found in some foods are generally well within established limits. Environmental pollution by slowly degrading pesticides can lead to food-chain bioaccumulation and persistent residues in body fat. These residues may increase the risk for certain cancers. Studies have shown that concentrations in tissues are low, and the evidence has not been conclusive. Continued research regarding pesticide use is therefore essential to insure food safety, improved food production, and reduced environmental pollution.

Sensible food practices can significantly reduce pesticide residue on foods. Such practices include washing and scrubbing fresh produce under running water, peeling and trimming produce when possible, removing the outer leaves of leafy vegetables, and trimming fat from meat and skin from poultry and fish. Eating a variety of foods from a variety of sources will reduce the likelihood of exposure to a single pesticide.

Organic foods are produced with ecologically based practices, such as biological pest management and composting. To be labeled "organic," foods must have been produced on certified organic farms and conform to established labeling requirements. From a scientific viewpoint, organic foods are no safer or nutritious than conventionally produced foods. Most major health organizations maintain that the health benefits of consuming a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains significantly outweigh any health risk from residual pesticide, herbicide, or fertilizer consumption. According to the American Institute for Cancer Research, there is no convincing evidence that eating foods containing trace amounts of chemicals such as fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and drugs used on farm animals increases the risk for cancer. Organic agriculture provides consumers with an additional choice when purchasing food, however, and also provides some assurance of where a food was produced and how it was produced.




Read more: Organic Foods - food, nutrition, body, diet, health, fat, nutrients, eating, weight, water, vitamins, Certification and Labeling of Organic Foods, The Market for Organic Foods http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/Ome-Pop/Organic-Foods.html#ixzz128sEUpDE

Bibliography

Berlau, John (1999). "The Risky Nature of Organics: Growing Produce in Manure Raises Concerns." Investor's Business Daily, March 3.
Bourn, D., and Prescott, J. (2002). "A Comparison of the Nutritional Value, Sensory Qualities, and Food Safety of Organically and Conventionally Grown Produced Foods." Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 42(1):1–34.
Hartman Group (2000). Organic Lifestyle Shopper Study: Mapping the Journey of Organic Consumers. Bellevue, WA: Author.
Williams, P. R., and Hammitt, J. K. (2001). "Perceived Risks of Conventional and Organic Produce: Pesticides, Pathogens, and Natural Toxins." Risk Analysis 21(2):319–330.

Internet Resources

Elitzak, Howard (1999). "USDA/ERS Food Cost Review 1950–97." Available from <http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer780/>
National Organic Standards Board. "National Organic Program." Available from x <http://www.ams.usda.gov/nosb>

Nutrition Business Journal (2001). "Organic Foods Report 2001." Available from <http://www.nutritionbusiness.com>

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

How to Make a Fruit Enzyme

Enzymes are vital to metabolism and food digestion. Consuming homemade fruit (or vegetable) enzymes help our bodies digest, absorb and utilize nutrients while delivering oxygen throughout the body-thereby providing energy. Here's how to make your own fruit enzyme at home.

Did I mention...this is also fun to make and watch ferment!

 
INSTRUCTION: -

PREPARATION

1.Clean a large glass jar with hot water and mild soap. Rinse thoroughly. Allow to air dry. Wash and air dry fresh and ripe fruit. Remove peels, which can be used in a vegetable enzyme for cleaning or in compost. Discard pineapple eyes.

NOTE: Use a 3-1 ratio. This means Three (3) part fruit. One (1) part sugar (or honey).


2. Add the first layer of fruit, cutting as you go by layering 1/3 of the jar with slices of cut fruit pieces (pineapple, oranges, line, lemon and apples solely or in combination are good choices). Avoid contamination by not lying any of the fruit on a countertop or anywhere other than the interior of the jar.
3. Add a 1/3 layer of brown sugar (or honey) on top of the first layer of fruit.

4. Repeat this procedure another 2-3 times, alternating fruit and sugar as if making lasagna until full. The last layer should be of sugar (or honey) and you should leave breathing room at the top of the jar.

 
IMPORTANT: Allow breathing room at the top of the jar. This allows the process to release natural gases.

5. FERMENTATION - Store the jar of layered fruit and sugar in a cool dry space. After three days and on the sixth day, open the jar and stir the contents. Re-seal the jar (not too tight) and allow the mixture to ferment for a month.
6. HARVEST - Pour the fruit enzyme into glass bottles using a funnel and sealing the bottles.
7. PRESERVATION - Store the fruit enzyme in a cool dry place. Refrigeration isn't required.
8. CONSUMPTION - Drink the enzyme an hour prior to eating to stimulate your nerves and promote blood circulation by placing a tablespoon of the enzyme under your tongue and swallowing.