How To Vote Toxin Free With Your Shopping Cart

by David Wallinga, M.D.

Rising prices and food recalls have exposed the myriad challenges facing our global food system. Dr. David Wallinga of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy discusses how to use our food dollars to improve our general nutritional health and forge a sustainable agricultural economy.

Signs of an emerging crisis: melamine in baby formula and candies; a rise in obesity and diet-related diseases; air and water pollution from factory farms; and the record-sized “Dead Zone” in the Gulf of Mexico, caused in large part by natural gas-derived corn fertilizers flowing from the Mississippi. And we are likely heading for more changes because our industrialized food system relies on costly and polluting fossil fuels, used intensively in the form of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers as well as for transporting food around the world.

Public confidence in our food system has also been shaken by the growing awareness that today, most healthy U.S. livestock and poultry receive human antibiotics or heavy metals in their feed. As a result, supermarket meat is often contaminated with bacteria resistant to multiple antibiotics or with arsenic residues. Consolidation of food production, processing and distribution in the hands of a few large entities exacerbates a number of food safety risks. And we have experienced a string of recalls due to contamination with melamine, heavy metals like mercury, or disease-causing bacteria like E. coli O157:H7 or Salmonella.

We have surveyed the food landscape and zeroed in on ten steps we can all take to steer our global food system in a more favorable direction.

1. Buy pesticide-free produce.

Produce from conventional, industrialized agriculture systems–where use of synthetic pesticides is routine–tend to have more pesticides compared to produce raised organically or under other, more sustainable systems. Data from the USDA’s Pesticide Data Program (PDP) show 90 percent or more of conventionally produced apples, peaches, pears and strawberries have pesticide residues; 2004 PDP data found at least 4 pesticides in 11 percent of fruits and vegetables tested. Pesticides are designed to be toxic to biological endpoints that are typically shared by humans and pests alike.

There is growing scientific consensus that even very small doses of pesticides can adversely affect people, especially during the vulnerable periods of in utero and early childhood development when organ systems are maturing most quickly, when toxic defenses are least established, and when early programming of risks for chronic disease later in life takes place. Exposure to pesticides is linked to chronic diseases including Parkinson’s Disease, child and adult cancers and neurodevelopmental harm. Dozens of pesticides are known or suspected to disrupt normal hormone function.

At present, government-certified or third-party certified food labels, like certified organic, are the best avenue for avoiding dietary exposure to pesticides. Recent studies suggest switching to an organic diet can eliminate residues of certain pesticides in children’s urine in just a few days. Switching to certified organic produce for the “dirty dozen”—the 12 domestic and imported fruits and vegetables most routinely contaminated–will greatly reduce one’s exposure to the 14 or so different pesticides typically found on conventionally grown produce on a given day, according to analysis by the Environmental Working Group.

2. Be a “locavore.”

Buy locally produced foods, when possible, to support the economic health of your local foodshed, and to help reduce “food miles.” The U.S. food production system accounts for an estimated 17 percent of the nation’s fossil fuel use.16 Truck-shipped produce in Chicago traveled an average of 1500 miles in 1998, according to Iowa State University. Buying local can reduce your carbon “foodprint.” Buying from the farmer (directly, on the internet, or via a Community Supported Agriculture program) allows you to know exactly where your food comes from and how it has been grown. Much non-certified, locally grown produce also uses few or no pesticides.

3. Know where your food comes from.

Our global, consolidated food system can make it hard to know exactly where your food comes from. A single hamburger patty can co-mingle meat from a hundred different head of cattle, from four different countries. Or, looked at from another perspective, a single contaminated carcass shredded for hamburger can pollute eight tons of finished ground beef. Given the huge size of many meat processing plants, a single package of ground beef can contain meat from hundreds of cows. In the Jack in the Box outbreak, investigators found that the ground beef from the most likely supplier contained meat from 443 different cattle that had come from farms and auctions in six states via five slaughterhouses. In July 2008, the USDA finally issued a rule requiring country of origin labeling of some food commodities. Beginning in September 2008 muscle cuts and ground beef (including veal), lamb, chicken, goat, pork; fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables; macadamia nuts; pecans, ginseng, and peanuts will be labeled for their country of origin.

4. Shop for safer, more sustainable fish.

Find fish good for you (high in healthful fats, low in environmental toxins), as well as good for the ocean. Fish are an important source of protein and omega-3 fatty acids. But overfishing and unsustainable fish harvesting practices have left many seafood species depleted or on the brink of extinction. Global dispersal of certain toxic pollutants—like PCBs or mercury—that persist in the environment and/or bio-accumulate in the food chain, make some larger, more predatory fish less safe to consume than others. This is especially true for pregnant woman and children. A huge body of research supports the importance of omega-3 fatty acids in the diet, American diets are highly deficient in omega-3 fats. People should neither avoid fish consumption, nor consume fish blindly. The most prudent approach for the health of our environment and the people in it is to eat safer,
less polluted fish species from sustainable fisheries.

5. Eat grass-fed meat and dairy products.

In recent decades, ruminants and other food animals have been moved from outdoors to indoors, and from grass and forage diets to feed composed primarily of grains. There is some evidence that animals fed grain-based diets are themselves less healthy, and produce meat and dairy products lower in omega-3 fatty acids and other beneficial fats. Eating food from grass-fed animals can address some of these concerns. The USDA’s 2007 voluntary standard for meat marketed as grass-fed precludes these animals from getting routine antibiotics. Antibiotics are used to promote growth as well as to compensate for the industrialized conditions that put these animals at greater risk of infection. About half of these feed antibiotics are from medically important classes, including penicillins, tetracyclines and erythromycins. Scientific consensus exists that these unnecessary agriculture antibiotics are helping create an epidemic of hard-to-treat (and sometimes untreatable) multi-drug resistant infections in humans.

6. Avoid chicken raised with arsenic.

Instead of conventional chicken, buy certified organic, which is arsenic-free, or from local producers who can assure arsenic was not used. In addition to routine antibiotics, at least 70 percent of conventionally raised broiler chickens in the U.S. are fed arsenic. The most common additive is roxarsone (3-nitro-4-hydroxyphenylarsonic acid). Roxarsone is an “organic” form of arsenic, once thought medically benign. Once ingested by animals, however, roxarsone can degrade into cancer-causing inorganic forms of arsenic (arsenite and arsenate) within the animal’s digestive tract and in animal waste. Roxarsone is FDA-approved for growth promotion, feed efficiency and “improved pigmentation” of meat. Significantly, the 27 countries of the European Union have never approved this practice as safe.

Meat from chickens fed arsenic can carry arsenic residues, only adding to a person’s risk of disease from arsenic exposure elsewhere in one’s diet and environment. The ultimate fate of 75 percent of the arsenic in U.S. poultry feed resides in the 26-55 billion pounds of chicken litter created annually, 90 percent of which is currently applied to fields and cropland as “fertilizer".

7. Buy dairy products from cows not given synthetic growth hormone (rBGH).

The FDA-required package insert for rBGH lists 17 adverse health impacts for cows treated with the hormone, including mastitis. Cattle treated with rBGH get more mastitis, and therefore receive more antibiotics, which contributes to antibiotic resistance. Animal and human health concerns have led most industrialized nations, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the European Union to ban rBGH use in dairy production.

IGF-1 is a growth factor found in both cows and humans. Increased IGF-1 levels in humans are associated with elevated risk for colon, breast, and prostate cancer. It is known that rBGH use raises IGF-1 levels in cows and milk. What remains unclear is whether drinking milk with higher IGF-1 levels will raise IGF-1 levels in humans. Given this uncertainty Health Care Without Harm–a global health coalition of 473 organizations in more than 50 countries–encourages health care providers to recommend non-rBGH dairy products.

8. Avoid plastic bottles and food packaging.

Most soft drinks, juice and water bottles are made of PETE (polyethylene terephthalate ethylene.) While these petroleum derived bottles are recyclable, the vast majority are thrown away. The plastic packaging in some cling wraps and squeeze bottles, cooking oil and peanut butter jars, is made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or #3 plastic. PVC often contains phthalates (pronounced "thAl-ates"), phthalic esters or benzenedicarboxylic acid esters, used primarily as plasticizers to make the PVC product soft and elastic. Since phthalates are not chemically bound to PVC polymer, they readily leach out of PVC products.

Phthalates act as hormone disruptors increasing the risk of reproductive damage and asthma. PVC manufacture and incineration produces dioxins, another hormone disrupting family of chemicals and a human carcinogen. As of 2008, new federal law bans six phthalates from children’s toys, but not from food wraps, lunch boxes, shower curtains, vinyl blinds or other vinyl products.

Concerns about hormone disruption have also been raised for bisphenol A, the chief chemical building block of polycarbonate, some #7 plastics, and epoxy resins. Clear plastic polycarbonate is found in many reusable water and baby bottles; bisphenol A is also found in the plastic liners of cans of tuna fish and infant formula. Bisphenol A is a synthetic estrogen, similar to diethylstilbesterol (DES), and has been found to leach from plastic containers into breast milk and other foods at levels known to cause harm.

9. Eat an anti-inflammatory diet to help prevent cancer and heart disease.

The anti-inflammatory diet has three major components. First aim for a diet rich in antioxidants by consuming 7-9 servings of fruits and vegetables per day. Second, try to find a better balance between your ingestion of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. The average American probably eats 15 times more omega-6s than omega-3s; a more healthful balance is a ratio of between 2:1 and 4:1. To reach this balance, both boost your omega-3 intake, and shrink your consumption of beef, poultry, and processed foods high in soybean, safflower, corn and other oils rich in omega-6 fatty acids. Third, choose more complex, less processed carbohydrates to avoid spikes in blood sugars which ultimately lead to a pro-inflammatory cascade. These carbs are, for example, whole grain cereal grains and bakery products, rather than those from bleached grains or white flour.

10. Choose your foods wisely to prevent diseases linked to the toxic chemicals prevalent in our industrialized foods and farming systems.

Preferably eat whole, fresh foods. Minimize consumption of processed, refined and most fast food. And avoid partially hydrogenated oils–a source of trans fats–and high fructose corn syrup, both signs of low quality food.

Follow these ten steps and we not only improve our health, we send a strong signal to farmers, grocery stores, and policymakers as to the kinds of food we want to eat—at home, in our schools and in our hospitals. How we spend our food dollars can steer the future direction of our global food system in a healthier, more sustainable direction.

David Wallinga, M.D., is Director of the Food and Health Program at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Source: http://healthychild.org/blog/comments/tackling_the_toxic_table_in_a_global_economy_ten_steps_we_can_all_take/#ixzz1IoUWKVup

NATURALLY HEALTHY INFANTS AND CHILDREN

Which Food Additives Cause Mood and Behavioral Problems in Children

by TIM UTTON, Daily Mail, UK

Research has shown that the food additives used in hundreds of children's foods and drinks can cause temper tantrums and disruptive behavior. A Government-funded study confirms what many parents have long suspected about the effect of chemicals put into sweets, biscuits and foods. Colorings in products such as Smarties, Jelly Tots and fizzy drinks could spark behavior changes in up to a quarter of toddlers.

Research into a group of three year-olds found they were more likely to lack concentration, lose their temper, interrupt others and struggle to get to sleep when they drank fruit juice dosed with colorings and preservatives.

Following the study, food watchdog the Food Commission has found that 200 children's foods and drinks contain one or more of the additives called into question by the research.

The Commission is calling for the additives to be removed from the everyday foods and drinks which appeal to children. Even youngsters with no history of hyperactivity can be affected, said the scientists. They concluded that all children could benefit from the removal of specified artificial food colorings from their diet.

The Food Commission claims it is the first time a Government-sponsored scientific study has corroborated the link between food colorings and preservatives and changes in children's mood and behavior.

A group of 227 three-year olds from the Isle of Wight took part in a month long project by the UK Asthma and Allergy Research Center. For two weeks the children drank a daily fruit juice dosed with 20mg of artificial colorings and 45mg of preservative, which are either equal to or below permitted levels. The additives tested were the artificial food colorings Tartrazine E102, Sunset Yellow E110, Carmoisine E122, Ponceau 4R E124, and the preservative Sodium Benzoate E211. All five were given at the same time in a single drink.

For the other two weeks the children drank a fruit juice which was identical in appearance but without the additives. Parents filled in reports assessing their child's behavior on criteria such as interrupting, fiddling with objects, disturbing others, difficulty settling down to sleep, concentration and temper tantrums. The report said the results showed the artificial food colorings and sodium benzoate preservative had 'substantial effects' on behavior.The scientists concluded that significant changes in children's hyperactive behavior could be produced by removing colorings and additives from their diet. They added: 'The findings suggest that benefit would accrue for all children from such a change - and not just for those already showing hyperactive behavior or who are at risk of allergic reactions.'
The Food Commission wants a ban on the additives and says the colourings tested have been restricted in other countries to protect children.

A spokesman for the Government's Food Standards Agency said the research was not conclusive. Nestlé Rowntree, which makes Smarties, Fruit Pastilles and Jelly Tots, said food additives it used were permitted by European and UK laws and any additives or colours had been tested to the highest standards. GlaxoSmithKline, which produces Ribena, said: 'We certainly wouldn't use any additives unless they were approved as safe.' Burton's Foods, which makes Jammie Dodgers, said its biscuits contained only half the amount of Carmoisine stated in legal guidelines. Cadbury Trebor Bassett, which makes Maynard Wine Gums, said: 'Carmoisine is a permitted colouring which has been used for many years.' Campina UK, which produces Yazoo Milk Drinks, said it used only approved ingredients.

Source: www.dailymail.co.uk/health...

Which Additives Do We Need To Look Out For?

Artificial Colors

(in sweets, drinks, takeaways, cereals and many processed foods)

• 102 tartrazine,
• 104 quinoline yellow,
• 107 yellow 2G,
• 110 sunset yellow,
• 122 azorubine,
• 123 amaranth,
• 124 ponceau red,
• 127 erythrosine,
• 128 red 2G,
• 129 allura red,
• 132 indigotine,
• 133 brilliant blue,
• 142 green S,
• 151 brilliant black,
• 155 chocolate brown Natural colour,
• 160b annatto (in yoghurts, icecreams, popcorn etc, 160a is a safe alternative)

Preservatives

• Preservatives200-203 sorbates (in margarine, dips, cakes, fruit products)
• 210-213 benzoates (in juices, soft drinks, cordials, syrups, medications)
• 220-228 sulphites (in dried fruit, fruit drinks, sausages, and many others)
• 280-283 propionates (in bread, crumpets, bakery products)
• 249-252 nitrates, nitrites (in processed meats like ham)
• Synthetic antioxidants - in margarines, vegetable oils, fried foods, snacks, biscuits etc
• 310-312 Gallates 319-320 TBHQ, BHA, BHT (306-309 are safe alternatives)
• Flavour enhancers - in flavoured crackers, snacks, takeaways, instant noodles, soups 621 MSG 627, 631, 635 disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate, ribonucleotides

Table compiled by Sue Dengate, author of the bestselling book and film 'Fed Up: Understanding how food affects your child and what you can do about it.'

Our food has changed so drastically in the last few decades it is no wonder that food-related behavior and learning problems in children are increasing. Contrary to what many parents think, additives - more importantly than just sugar - are to blame for behavior problems. Reactions are related to dose, so the more additives children eat, the more likely they are to be affected.

Additives are now used widely in foods such as bread, butter, crackers, yogurt, juice and muesli bars as well as in junk food. Parents who say ‘we eat healthy food’ are generally shocked to find that their children can be consuming 20 additives or more per day.

Irritability, temper outbursts, oppositional defiance, restlessness and difficulty falling asleep are the main behavioral effects of additives. But parents rarely realize that food chemicals can be associated with many other effects including arguing with siblings, making silly noises, speech delay, anxiety, depression or difficulty concentrating. Additive-free children are generally calmer, happier and more cooperative.
Rashes, headaches, bed wetting, stomach aches, sneaky poos, constipation or asthma can also be a problem. Parents of asthmatic children are usually unaware that sulphite preservatives (220-228) in foods such as dried fruits, sausages, cordials and some fruit drinks can irritate airways.

So what can we eat? Read ingredient labels. Choose preservative-free bread. Buy color-free yogurts, ice creams and lollies such as caramels and toffees. Choose plain rather than flavored chips, crackers and noodles. Encourage your children to drink water as their main drink.
Source: http://www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info/
###

NATURALLY HEALTHY INFANTS AND CHILDREN

Shrinks are Shrinking! - There is a better way!

Do you ever wonder if insurance company executives and drug company executives get together late at night and dream up ways to milk us for every dime we're worth?

I don't wear a tinfoil hat and I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm convinced that they're in cahoots.

Exhibit A...

A recent New York Times article tells the tale of Dr. Donald Levin, an old-school "talk therapy" psychiatrist who's nearing retirement.

There was a time when Dr. Levin's session with a patient ran 45 minutes. Under his guidance, patients would talk about their most personal issues, learn to cope, and rediscover self-worth.

But throughout the 1980s and 90s, insurance companies sharply reduced reimbursement for traditional talk therapy. This amounted to a drastic pay cut for most psychiatrists who didn't have patients wealthy enough to afford $200 or more per session.

So the profession realigned. Today, instead of spending 45 minutes with a patient, most psychiatrists--including Dr. Levin--spend just 15 minutes. The patient quickly details or updates his primary personal concerns and the doctor writes or adjusts prescriptions for one or more psychoactive drugs.

In short, the insurance industry has created a new profession: Drug pimp.

There was a time when psychiatrists avoided the use of drugs while a patient improved with talk therapy. It was a point of professional pride. For the majority of the profession, that time is long gone.

Now, instead of earning about $90 from an insurance company for a single 45-minute talk therapy session, psychiatrists collect about $150 from insurance companies for three sessions per hour, 15 minutes each, little talk and mostly drugs.

If you're ever referred to a psychiatrist and find yourself in the express lane to the drugstore, say no thanks and ask for a referral to a psychologist, a social worker or your clergy person if they are trained in this speciality. The expense will be lower, and it might even be covered by insurance.

Some mental health professionals use nutrition to solve emotional problems.  www.BestSelfUSA.com is well known for nutritional solutions to emotional problems.  Best Self USA also does phone counseling from coast tp coast. 

Recent research, resulting in the “orthomolecular” approach to stress and the symptoms relating to it, has made some tremendous strides in the approach to emotional problems.

A growing percentage of the population is now beginning to experience anxiety or depression symptoms that seem to be uncontrollable without the simple fix of drugs, prescribed by doctors or otherwise. Ground breaking work by Dr. Carl Pfeifer, Dr. George Samra, and others addressing the nutritional basis of such symptoms has given us some clinical guidelines that consistently produce results.

We found that a percentage of clients seemed to respond to traditional psychotherapies better than others. On introducing high quality nutrition to our counseling regimen we found a startling increase in effectiveness.

What Causes Negative Feelings?

The cause of negative emotions—depression, anxiety, anger, impatience, frustration, guilt, irritability—is a matter of opinion.

• To Freudian psychoanalysts, they are the result of repressed feelings that typically date back to childhood relationships with parents. This is sometimes called “standard insight therapy” or “the talking cure.”  Best Self USA therapists are eclectic in their approach to problems and use standard insight therapy with those persons who need to “talk it out.”

• To biological psychiatrists, negative feelings stem from chemical imbalances in the brain.  Best Self USA uses nutritional solutions for biologically based emotional problems

• To cognitive therapists, they represent distorted thinking. Cognitive therapy is comparatively new to the mental health profession, but its approach was first espoused more than 2,000 years ago by the Greek philosopher, Epictetus, who said, “People are not disturbed by events themselves, but rather by the views they take of them.” Shakespeare put it well in Hamlet: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”  Best Self USA uses Cognitive/Behavioral therapy in most cases.

Some emotional turmoil is clearly the result of problems early in life, for example childhood abuse, and Freudian-style talk therapies can help. “But most people don’t have to spend a great deal of time understanding the past to improve how they react to potentially depressing situations in the present,” says psychologist Mark Sisti, Ph.D., associate director of the Center for Cognitive Therapy in New York City.

Cognitive therapy is sometimes called “short term, solution focused” therapy because it finds direct solutions to problems using more efficient and effective techniques than other forms of therapy. This results in fewer sessions, and less expense, in helping clients achieve their desired results by building health, rather than prescribing medications which will cause a whole new onslaught of debilitating side effects. Thus people can more quickly return to an enhanced level of enjoyment and productivity in their lives and relationships.

Before seeking psychiatric solutions for emotional problems, consider seeking the guidance of a nutritionally oriented Cognitive Behavioral Therapist. Find natural, health building solutions to enhance your overall well being!

Brain Training Games

Brain Training Gameswww.lumosity.com
Improve memory with scientifically designed brain exercises.

Natural Supplements Work - Landmark Study key findings

Natural Supplements Work - Landmark Study key findings

Landmark Study ~ key findings

Shocking Revelation - If you are not using natural supplements the supplements you are taking may actually put you more at risk for disease than taking nothing at all.

You’ll see that taking no multi-vitamin may is safer than taking other company brands. Shaklee Corporation came out of the study with bragging rights that it’s users had markedly lower incidence of coronary heart disease, angina, congestive heart failure, diabetes, stroke and emphysema not to mention lower homocysteine, LDL,(bad cholesterol), Triglycerides and higher HDL (good cholesterol).

Quote from Landmark Study:
"In general, disease prevalence was lower in multiple dietary supplement users as compared to single multivitamin users and nonusers. Long-term supplement users also had a lower risk of elevated blood pressure and diabetes compared to single multivitamin users and nonusers."

The groundbreaking study of long-term dietary supplement users showed that people who took Shaklee supplements had markedly better health than both multivitamin and non-supplement users alike. The attached study at the link below is long, but could make a huge difference in your health! Please note that persons who took low quality supplements were at higher risk for disease than those who took nothing. Shaklee supplement users had significantly lower incidences of disease.

http://www.nutritionj.com/content/pdf/1475-2891-6-30.pdf
Nutrition Journal 2007, 6:30 doi:10.1186/1475-2891-6-30

If you're like nine out of 10 Americans, you don't eat enough fruits and vegetables, which can really affect your health down the line. That's a great reason to supplement what you eat. But the important question is, how do you feel today?

The average person over age 65 has taken 19.1 prescriptions.

The average person 50 to 65 has taken 7.6 prescriptions.

The Shaklee user for 20+ years has taken 0.6 prescriptions. (avg. age 62)

View the Vitalizer Video
http://www.shaklee.net/bestself/prodVitalizer00

S.M.A.R.T Delivery system

S.M.A.R.T.™ Shaklee Micronutrient Advanced Release Technology™
The right nutrients, to the right place, at the right time.

12 patents and 2 patents pending on the S.M.A.R.T. delivery system means you can't find it anywhere else.

www.bestself.myshaklee.com   239/591-4565

Products in harmony with nature! Sam and Bunny Sewell

SHAKLEE LANDMARK STUDY - Natural molecules vs drugs

SHAKLEE LANDMARK STUDY

The Findings

DRAMATIC COMPARISON

Prescription Drug Usage

The average person 50-65 has been on 7.9 different prescriptions.

The average person over age 65 has been on 19.1 different prescriptions.

The average person taking Shaklee has been on 0.6 different prescriptions. (Average age 62)

A Landmark study—the first of its kind and the largest long-term supplement study conducted in history—to lend even more scientific support to this claim.

The Landmark Food Supplement Study was conducted by Dr. Gladys Block, head of the UC Berkeley School of Public Health and considered one of the top epidemiologists in the US.  She and her team randomly selected 300 from more than 1000 people who had been using Shaklee supplements for at least 20 years (20 – 42 years, to be exact).  She chose Shaklee users because they were the only long-term group of supplement users that could be found for such a large sample.  Their health was assessed through questionnaires, a physical examination, and blood tests, then compared with the health of people who had supplemented for at least 20 years with non-Shaklee brand multi vitamins, and also with people who had not supplemented at all for at least 20 years.  

Officially the study is named “Usage patterns, health, and nutritional status of long-term multiple dietary supplement users: a cross-sectional study.”  It was published on October 24, 2007 in Nutrition Journal, a prestigious online peer-reviewed international scientific journal. 

The scientific language of the conclusion of the study says that the Shaklee supplement users “were more likely to have optimal concentrations of chronic-disease-related biomarkers, and less likely to have suboptimal blood nutrient concentrations, elevated blood pressure, and diabetes compared to non-users and multivitamin/mineral users.”  The more general, but accurate, interpretation is that the group that supplemented with Shaklee had dramatically better health than those who did not.

Published Study Explained

Dr. Block approached Shaklee with the idea for the study.  She was concerned over the media distortions of vitamin supplementation and wanted to do a long-term study to show the benefits and to overcome some of the flaws in the “bad” studies.  She asked Shaklee to provide subjects for the study.  While Shaklee did fund the study, the design and execution of the study and the conclusions drawn and published were under the control of Dr. Block from the start.  The structure of the study is to compare people who took a bunch of Shaklee supplements to those    who took just a multi to those who took none.  Finding people who took just a Shaklee multi for 20 years (for a direct comparison) would be nearly impossible, because Shaklee customers tend to be better nutritionally educated (because  their distributors provide good information) and therefore take more supplements.

The first, and most obvious, point is that the Shaklee group scored a more healthy total on virtually every marker in the study—disease-related, nutrient-related, or general-health-related.  There was absolutely no sign of any toxicity or “poisoning” from taking too many supplements—and this group took a lot of supplements.  In addition, the Shaklee group was older than either of the other groups (almost 10 years older than the non-supplement group!), and it still scored better, including a lower Body Mass Index (BMI).

The nutritional numbers (“serum nutrient concentrations”) were quite revealing.  In every comparative category, the Shaklee users had better results than either of the other two groups—most of them statistically significant.  Interestingly, when ferritin (iron) was measured, the results were different between men and women.  Women in general struggle with low iron—the Shaklee group had the highest measure at 117.4 (an optimal level).  Men are more prone to elevated iron levels—the Shaklee group had the lowest measure at 117.6 (much lower than the other groups).  So whichever gender was taking Shaklee supplements, whatever the tendency of that group, the score was right smack in the optimal range.  And the one non-comparative measure in the study—Vitamin D—showed the Shaklee group right in the middle of the optimal range—and no single individual tested was outside the optimal range on either end.

While the study doesn’t directly draw this conclusion, it’s clear that taking Shaklee supplements, even in relatively high quantities compared to the population at large (only 3 out of 11,000 individuals in the entire NHANES study, which was used for the comparative data, took supplements at the level of the Shaklee group) is not only safe, but it resulted in serum nutrient levels that are about as good as they can get. 

The serum biomarker concentrations section compares a number of non-nutrient blood components that are directly tied to health and disease.  Some of these measures are quite familiar (cholesterol, triglycerides), while others are less commonly known (homocysteine, c-reactive protein).  Again, in every category,   the Shaklee users had better numbers.  And this particular section produced two very dramatic results (as though winning every category isn’t dramatic enough!).

C-reactive protein (CRP) is a measure that is predictive of future cardiovascular disease risk (and has been strongly linked to the risk of developing certain cancers).  In other words, the higher the level of CRP, the greater the risk of heart disease and some cancers.  It’s one of those measures that you really want to be low in your bloodstream.  Not only was the Shaklee group the only one that was within the optimal range (<.3), but not a single individual in the entire group was outside the optimal range.  Let’s word that differently; while not one person in the Shaklee group had elevated levels of CRP, both of the other groups averaged in the elevated range.

Similarly, triglycerides are clearly linked to heart disease risk and metabolic syndrome.  And similarly, not a single person in the Shaklee group had triglycerides over 150 (the top of the optimal range), while the Shaklee group as a whole averaged 121—really good.  The non-supplement users averaged over 180!

While perhaps not quite as dramatic, the measures of homocysteine (another important cardiovascular disease predictor) in the non-Shaklee groups were approximately 50% higher (a bad thing) than in the Shaklee group.  And again, while the Shaklee group measured well inside the optimal range (6.1, optimal is <9), each of the other two groups’ average was above the optimal range.

One of the very interesting findings concerned blood pressure.  A positive link between serum nutrient levels and blood pressure has been shown in some studies (and not in others), but it has been difficult to show that any particular nutrient  can reduce elevated blood pressure.  In this study, the Shaklee group had “significantly lower” blood pressure than either of the other two groups, but the multi user group was not significantly lower than the non-user group.  The authors speculate that Vitamins B and C (each of which has been studied individually, with mixed results, in relation to blood pressure, and each of which were present in optimal levels in the Shaklee group) together may have a synergistic effect—producing better results in combination than the sum of each of their individual benefits.  

Finally, in the area of incidence of disease, dramatic results can be seen in several areas.  In the cardiac-related group, which includes coronary heart disease,  heart attack, angina, and congestive heart failure, the Shaklee group—not surprisingly, given the blood readings discussed above—showed lower incidence of each disease.  And be reminded again, the Shaklee group is 10 years older than the non-user group and 6 years older than the multi group.  The Shaklee group also showed a lower incidence of emphysema.

Perhaps the most dramatic disease-related finding, however, was with diabetes.  The non-user and multi- user groups had a 4-5 times higher incidence of diabetes than the   Shaklee group—again, despite being younger.  The study even posits that the comparatively high levels of multiple antioxidants found in the blood of the Shaklee group members could be a contributing factor to this finding. 

It must be noted that the designers of the study eliminated cancer from the study.  Anyone with a history of cancer (other than non-melanoma skin cancer) was removed from consideration in the study (in all 3 groups), because cancer and cancer treatment alter blood chemistry in a way that would have skewed the results.

And lastly, a measure of overall health that has been used in many studies and has been found to be a statistically accurate measure is self-assessed health status.  In this study, the Shaklee group reported their health to be much better than either of the other groups, and there was little difference between those other two groups in their reporting.  In other words, just taking a Brand X multi for 20 years did not result in a statistically significant difference in how people reported their health versus taking no supplements whatsoever.

So what does is all mean?  Well, a lot.  This study is a very big deal.  Conclusions in a scientific journal have to be proven by solid data and procedures.  Conclusions in a wrap-up paragraph like this one follow a somewhat looser set of requirements.  They can actually use common sense and logic instead of just data.

First, the study shows very clearly that using a broad array of Shaklee supplements for at least 20 years produces some pretty dramatic health benefits—both in indicators as well as disease incidence.  We’ve said for many years that you will pay for your health—whether it’s good health or bad health—so it makes more sense to pay for good health.  With this study, it’s clear that paying for (and taking!) Shaklee supplements produces dramatic, positive impact on health.  Now, the study results don’t mean that if you take Shaklee, you’re bulletproof.  But they do indicate that if you take Shaklee, you’ll be better off than if you don’t.  So now the question of “What is your health worth?” becomes a more meaningful one, because there are clear results to pin to the cost of the supplements.

Second, the study shows very clearly that taking a lot of Shaklee nutrients is a good thing for your health.  We often run into fears about “overdosing” on vitamins in people (but strangely, we’ve never run into anyone afraid of “overdosing” on M&M’s or ice cream, which have virtually zero benefits and plenty of downside).  The subjects in the Shaklee group took a lot of supplements, and the only results seem to be positive.  There is NO indication of toxic effects, and there are LOTS of indications of substantial health benefits—some of which seem to be clearly tied to taking relatively large amounts of Shaklee nutrients.  In other words, having plenty of a broad array of Shaklee nutrients in your system produces better health.  It’s a simple equation.  There may be (and likely are) limits beyond which there is diminishing effect, but this study gives no indication of where those limits may be.

Is the fact that the multivitamin-only group used Brand X (an assumption, but logically true) and the multiple-supplement group used Shaklee products a significant factor?  That’s a harder question to answer based just on the data.  But the fact that Shaklee supplements are scientifically tested in over 100 clinical studies, are manufactured to pharmaceutical standards, are tested and tested and tested for purity, are naturally-sourced from better-than-organic raw materials (not from chemicals produced in a lab), are produced in a way that preserves the “life” of the nutrients (no high temperatures, harsh solvents, etc.), and are unconditionally guaranteed by a company with more than 50 years of experience—the #1 natural food supplement company in the country—all would lead one by common sense to answer, “YES!”  And when you consider that the multivitamins consumed by the multi-only group were almost certainly synthetic (since the vast majority of multivitamins are synthetic), and that there are a number of measures in the study in which the no-supplement group actually had better readings than the multi-only group, it only adds weight to that answer.

And finally, the study provides something that no other supplement manufacturer anywhere in the world has—proof that taking their supplements long-term provides substantial health benefits.  No other company can make that claim and back it with evidence like this.  If you want better health over the long run—from lower CRP and triglycerides and blood pressure to lower incidence of diabetes and heart disease; if you want to be able truthfully to report your health as very good or excellent; if you want to feel better—simply swallowing a few Shaklee supplements on a daily basis is a very easy—and very effective—way to start.

Healthy Adults

Over the past 50 years we've been helping people with their health.  Thousands of health stories have been documented.  These are just a few.

Migraines-I had four children under five and was having migraines that would last for at least two days, two to three times a month.  My mom thought Shaklee might help.  I started using supplements and had amazing results.  I went three months without a migraine!  I tried to stop taking Soy Protein for a couple days but the headaches returned.  Now, I won't go on vacation without my Shaklee.  I live life to the fullest and don't worry about planning things around my migraines.  My husband can go to work without the worry of possibly having to leave to come home and take care of me and the kids.  This is my daily program: 3 Tbsp Soy Protein, 1/4 C Meal Shake, 2 Vita Lea, 3-4 OmegaGuard, 12 Alfalfa, 2 Fiber Tabs, 4 Cal Mag, 4 Lecithin, 1 CarotoMax, 2 Vita-E, 1 Iron, and 1 Zinc. -Lynn Burley

Fatigue-My health gradually declined after the birth of my daughter.  Labor was very long and I was given lots of medications for complications.  My biggest complaint was constant heart palpitations and fatigue.  I had EKG's, ultra-sounds, blood work and other tests but everything came back normal.  My doctor thought I was suffering from depression and anxiety and wanted me to take Prozac.  I declined knowing that although I was feeling those things, they weren't the cause of my problems.  Then I was introduced to a Shaklee distributor.  She believed, as my naturopath did, my thyroid was weak after the childbirth ordeal.  I started on Vita Lea, Vita-C, B-Complex, Vita-E, Soy Protein, and Optiflora.  In 30 days I noticed my energy was up and after 90 days, I felt like I did before I was pregnant.  Last year I caught everything my family brought home, but NOT this year, I feel great!  I can work out, clean, chase a toddler, run errands and grow my Shaklee business all in the same day without running out energy. -Elizabeth Verduga-Lodbell

Better at 63 than 23-I was a sick child with colds, flu, pneumonia (8 times) and hypoglycemia.  Add to that tranquilizers, antidepressants and heart palpitations.  I noticed only a slight improvement with generic vitamins.  After starting Shaklee, I slowly increased quantities until I was able to stay well.  My doctor no longer detects my floppy mitral valve.  I have lots of energy and stay busy from 6am to 11pm.  I never get sick.  If I feel a cold coming on, I attack it with Vita-C and Garlic (5 every 3-4 hours) and Defend and Resist (3 every 2 hours) symptoms disappear!  Daily supplementation include: 9 Vita-C, 3 Vita-E, 2 Vita Lea, 12 Alfalfa, 3 Cal Mag, 1 Herb Lax, 3-Mental Acuity, 1 Optiflora, 6 Lecithin, 9 OmegaGuard, 6 GLA, 2 Carotomax, 2 CoQHeart, 9Tbsp Soy Protein, and Performance throughout the day.  At 63 I feel 100% better that I did at 23! -Opal Hernandez

INITIAL RESULTS

Objective: to validate & quantify the effects of 20+ yrs of top brand vitamin supplementation and to verify safety & effectiveness
Headed by Dr. Bloch - one of the most well known nutritional epidemiologists.
Some background: The study was conducted by medical researchers at University of California, Berkeley. The study compared people who have consistently used Shaklee nutritional products for 20 years or more, with people who have used other brands of supplements over 20 years, and with people who have not used supplements.

THE NUMBERS

The Shaklee group had ZERO abnormal levels of C-Reactive Protein (marker for inflammation) or abnormal triglycerides.

Iron Levels Women:
Women: 100 is optimal level (below is increased risk for anemia)
Non-Supp - 109.5
Other Brands - 81.9
Shaklee Users - 124.5
Iron Levels Men:                          Men: Over 200 is dangerous and risk for liver & cardiac toxicity
Non-Supp - 200.2
Other Brands - 202.0
Shaklee - 117.7
Biomarkers for heart disease & cancer:
Homocysteine
Non-Supp - 9.9
Other Brands - 8.5
Shaklee - 6.3
C-Reactive Protein: should be below 3
Non-Supp - 5.1
Other Brands - 3.6
Shaklee - 2.2
HDL Cholesterol: over 55 is good
Non-Supp - 51.9
Other Brands - 53.4
Shaklee - 58.3
Triglycerides: Below 150 is good
Non-Supp - 173.8
Other Brands - 152.2
Shaklee - 116.5
Reported Incidences of Disease: Coronary Heart DiseaseNon-Supp - 7.9
Other Brands - 9.8
Shaklee - 5.0
*Note users of other brands actually had MORE reported heart disease than non-supp group.
Heart Attack
Non Supp - 7.4
Other Brands - 9.1
Shaklee - 2.5
Congestive Heart FailureNon Supp - 5.2
Other Brands - 5.1
Shaklee - 1.4
Diabetes Type 2
Non-Supp - 11.6
Other Brands - 13.1
Shaklee - 2.9
Quality of Life Questions:
Participants were asked to rate their quality of health.
Non Supp - 45%
Other Brands - 48%
Shaklee - 85%

DRAMATIC COMPARISON

Prescription Drugs

The average person 50-65 has been on 7.9 different prescriptions.

The average person over age 65 has been on 19.1 different prescriptions.

The average person taking Shaklee has been on 0.6 different prescriptions. (Average age 62)

Sam and Bunny Sewell  239-591-4565

BUNNYSAM@BESTSELFUSA.COM

We do free nutritional counseling

 http://bestself.myshaklee.com/us/en/welcome.html

For a more complete overview of how
Shaklee can be used to create wellness, read:

 “I FIRED MY DOCTORS AND SAVED MY LIFE”

Sam & Bunny’s story of triumph over adversity!

*Doctors, drugs & surgery are not always the best answer!

*Includes scientifically validated Total Life Saving Regimen!

*NOW ~ You can buy our new book:

         “I FIRED MY DOCTORS AND SAVED MY LIFE”

     Healthy, Natural Alternatives to Drugs and Surgery

        and have it sent directly to family & friends at:

            http://www.lulu.com/content/1575438

         $19.95 PRINT ~ only $12.50 as PDF download

      For autographed copies, call 239/591-4565

View videos at: www.ifiredmydoctors.blogspot.com

Read our famous Chapter 16 on Stress Management at

 http://stressmood.blogspot.com/

prescription drugs kill more people than illegal drugs

NaturalNews) A report by the Florida Medical Examiners Commission has concluded that prescription drugs have outstripped illegal drugs as a cause of death.

An analysis of 168,900 autopsies conducted in Florida in 2007 found that three times as many people were killed by legal drugs as by cocaine, heroin and all methamphetamines put together. According to state law enforcement officials, this is a sign of a burgeoning prescription drug abuse problem.

"The abuse has reached epidemic proportions," said Lisa McElhaney, a sergeant in the pharmaceutical drug diversion unit of the Broward County Sheriff's Office. "It's just explosive."

In 2007, cocaine was responsible for 843 deaths, heroin for 121, methamphetamines for 25 and marijuana for zero, for a total of 989 deaths. In contrast, 2,328 people were killed by opioid painkillers, including Vicodin and Oxycontin, and 743 were killed by drugs containing benzodiazepine, including the depressants Valium and Xanax.

Alcohol directly caused 466 deaths, but was found in the bodies of 4,179 cadavers in all.

While the number of dead bodies containing heroin jumped 14 percent from the prior year, to a total of 110, the number of deaths influenced by the painkiller oxycodone increased by 36 percent, to a total of 1,253.

Across the country, prescription drugs have become an increasingly popular alternative to the more difficult to acquire illegal drugs. Even as illegal drug use among teenagers have fallen, prescription drug abuse has increased. For example, while 4 percent of U.S. 12th graders were using Oxycontin in 2002, by 2005 that number had increased to 5.5 percent.

It's not hard for teens to come by prescription drugs, according to Sgt. Tracy Busby, supervisor of the Calaveras County, Calif., Sheriff's Office narcotics unit.

"You go to every medicine cabinet in the county, and I bet you're going to find some sort of prescription medicine in 95 percent of them," he said.

Adults can acquire prescriptions by faking injuries, or by visiting multiple doctors and pharmacies for the same health complaint. Some people get more drugs than they expect to need, then sell the extras.

"You have health care providers involved, you have doctor shoppers, and then there are crimes like robbing drug shipments," said Jeff Beasley of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. "There is a multitude of ways to get these drugs, and that's what makes things complicated."

And while some people may believe that the medicines' legality makes them less dangerous than illegal drugs, Tuolumne County, Calif., Sheriff's Office Deputy Dan Crow warns that this is not the case. Because everybody reacts differently to foreign chemicals, there is no way of predicting the exact response anyone will have to a given dosage. That is why prescription drugs are supposed to be taken under a doctor's supervision.

"All this stuff is poison," Crow said. "Your body will fight all of this stuff."
Tuolumne County Health Officer Todd Stolp agreed. A prescription drug taken recreationally is "much like a firearm in the hands of someone who's not trained to use them," he said.

While anyone taking a prescription medicine runs a risk of negative effects, the drugs are even more dangerous when abused. For example, many painkillers are designed to have a delayed effect that fades out over time. This can lead recreational users to take more drugs before the old ones are out of their system, placing them at risk of an overdose. Likewise, the common practice of grinding pills up causes a large dose of drugs to hit the body all at once, with potentially dangerous consequences.

"A medication that was meant to be distributed over 24 hours has immediate effect," Stolp said.

Even more dangerous is the trend of mixing drugs with alcohol, which, like most popularly abused drugs, is a depressant.

"In the case of alcohol and drugs, one plus one equals more than two," said Tuolumne County Sheriff's Office spokesperson Lt. Dan Bressler.

Florida pays careful attention to drug-related deaths, and as such has significantly better data on the problem than any other state. But a recent study conducted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) suggests that the problem is indeed national. According to the DEA, the number of people abusing prescription drugs in the United States has jumped 80 percent in six years to seven million, or more than those abusing cocaine, Ecstasy, heroin, hallucinogens an inhalants put together.

Not surprisingly, there has been a corresponding increase in deaths. According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network, the number of emergency room visits related to painkillers has increased by 153 percent since 1995. And a 2007 report by the Justice Department National Intelligence Drug Center found that deaths related to the opioid methadone jumped from 786 in 1999 to 3,849 in 2004 - an increase of 390 percent.

Many experts attribute the trend to the increasing popularity among doctors of prescribing painkillers, combined with a leap in direct-to-consumer marketing by drug companies. For example, promotional spending on Oxycontin increased threefold between 1996 and 2001, to $30 million per year.

Sonora, Calif., pharmacist Eddie Howard reports that he's seen painkiller prescriptions jump dramatically in the last five years.

"I don't know that there is that much pain out there to demand such an increase," he said.
The trend concerns Howard, and he tries to keep an eye out for patients who are coming in too frequently. But he admits that there is little he can do about the problem.

"When you have a lot of people waiting for prescriptions, it's hard to find time to play detective," he said.

Still, the situation makes Howard uncomfortable.

"It almost makes me a legalized drug dealer, and that's not a good position to be in," he said.

Sources for this story include: www.nytimes.com; www.uniondemocrat.com

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ALSO SEE:

DEATH CAUSED BY CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE IN AMERICA

also see: Doctors Are the Third Leading Cause of Death
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Why would big drug companies be interested in the outcome of vitamin studies? Well, common sense tells us that there is much more money to be made pushing drugs one must take for a lifetime, than in addressing real health deficiencies. You can't get a patent on one of God's molecules.

Scientific research tells us that there is more compelling reason for drug companies to discourage the use of high quality nutritional supplementation.


The average person over age 65 has taken 19.1 prescriptions.


The average person 50 to 65 has taken 7.6 prescriptions.


The Shaklee user for 20+ years has taken 0.6 prescriptions. (avg. age 62)


How can I find out what is natural, safe, and effective?

What healthy alternatives do you have? Especially when prescription – and even non-prescription – medications carry so much extra baggage in the form of dangerous side effects, not to mention the fact that these drugs don’t really address the cause of the problems, just the symptoms.

We share the SCIENTIFIC TRUTH on the effectiveness of nutritional supplementation!

Recently, the University of California at Berkley did a long-term (20 year) study of the effectiveness of supplements.

The scientists who conducted this research are the leaders in their field.

The study was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal: see the abstract at: http://www.landmarkstudy.com/

We will reveal and discuss this research and shed some light on such questions as:

* What supplements can I use that have the highest safety & effectiveness?

* Is there a significant difference between the health of high quality supplement users & non users?

* Are there certain kinds of vitamins that can actually damage my health?

* How can I get started on a simple, easy-to-manage, scientifically validated supplement regimen?

Feeling Good? Here’s how to stay that way!

(239)591-4565

Live Longer, Feel Better:
Shaklee, Products in Harmony with Nature!
Please contact us for free nutritional counseling bunnysam@bestselfusa.com

and browse our Shaklee website at: http://bestself.myshaklee.com/us/en/welcome.html