Home Blog Page 29

Historic Study on Effects of Fertilizers Has Surprising Results

32-Year Field Study on Effects of Organic & Inorganic Fertilizers Has  Surprising Results

I published this study over a decade ago because it is still highly significant even now There have been many studies on organic food from a variety of perspectives since then, but this is one of the best! I recently updated the articles to include some pertinent facts about GMO crops, which were not a factor at the time of this study.

A Note About GMO Crops

This fertilizer study was done before the advent of GMO’s (genetically modified organisms). Today, non-GMO and organic crops are even more important than ever! The difference between organic crops and GMO’s is far, far greater than the difference between non-GMO and organic crops — especially when it comes to fertilizers, the original point of this study.

You see, GMO crops are genetically engineered specifically to survive many times the application of chemicals like Monsanto Roundup (glyphosate) and 2,4-D. Normal plants would just die. Making GMO crops more resistant to toxic chemicals that would kill organic crops really only does one thing, regardless of the company hype — it sells more pesticides and herbicides. Some of Monsanto’s most profitable chemicals were originally chemical weapons in World War II and are so profitable that they STILL are selling them, but not to the military — to our farmers.

2,4-D was originally used as part of the infamous, Vietnam era chemical weapon, a defoliant called Agent Orange. 2,4-D has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, lowered sperm counts, liver disease, Parkinson’s disease and many other adverse effects, and is one of the largest sources of dioxins in our environment. Dioxins are highly toxic and build up in your body and the environment over time. Also, 2,4-D sticks around in the environment. It can actually drift through the air from where it is sprayed to a nearby organic farm — or be tracked inside your house by pets or children. In fact, the EPA has already detected 2,4-D in our water, including drinking water. It can also poison small animals that ingest it after eating grass contaminated with 2,4-D.

Yet despite the obvious health risks, in 2014 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved the combined use of 2,4-D and Monsanto’s Roundup (also known as glyphosate) is sprayed on GMO crops (Enlist soy and Enlist corn), engineered to be resistant to these toxins. Basically, its now completely “legal” for farmers to soak their fields with high concentrations of these toxic weed killers engineered to resist Roundup (glyphosate) and Enlist (2,4-D). The U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated that by 2020 America’s farms could be spraying as much as 600% more 2,4-D on our crops!

Destroying Our Entire Food Delivery System

This practice is now actually destroying the genetic diversity of our crops. It is also destroying the soil, which is now no longer truly alive (with living bacterial organisms that have a lot to do with a plant’s nutritional uptake. This practice also creates new super weeds that cannot be killed easily, resulting in even more Roundup and glyphosate being sprayed by the poor, hapless farmers. This has gotten so out of hand that it can actually be more profitable today to be an organic farmer than to grow GMO crops at all — which were supposed to save the farmer with higher yields and cheaper farming methods. But that’s not at all how things turned out!

What actually is happening today is that GMO’s are destroying both our health and, ultimately, our entire food-delivery system — in the name of profit for the companies that engineer GMO’s. They pull every trick in the book to fool you and the rest of the world into believing short-term, heavily biased studies and outright lies.

Organic and non-GMO food are now the last defenses we have against this insanity. Please make a commitment to eat only fresh, raw, organic or non-GMO whole foods. You’ll soon discover that it’s both cheaper and healthier to eat when you consider all the real costs and the health consequences of a toxic GMO diet.

32-Year Field Study on Effects of Organic & Inorganic Fertilizers

In 1958, Bo Pettersson began an agricultural experiment that lasted for 32 years. The focus was primarily on aspects of crop quality, and the fertilizer application rates for the various treatments were adjusted to bring about comparable yields. Interestingly, though one of the goals was to get similar yields from both organic and conventional farming, there were some surprising results!

Research Farm

  • Crop yield increases were significantly higher with the organic treatments.
  • Though crude protein content of potatoes and wheat was lower in the organic treatments protein quality was higher.
  • Resistance to decomposition and store quality for potatoes were higher in organic treatments.
  • Wheat starch quality seemed to be higher.
  • The organic treatments resulted in a higher soil fertility and in crops with higher quality protein, a higher starch content and greater ability to tolerate stressful conditions and long-term storage vs. the inorganic treatments.
  • Crops produced in organic treatments showed a structure that has a higher “organizational level.

Long-Term Field Experiment in Sweden: Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Soil Fertility and Crop Quality

In 1958, Bo D. Pettersson in the Nordic research Circle for Biodynamic Farming in Järna, Sweden, began an agricultural field experiment that lasted until 1990, i.e. 32 years. The field experiment included eight different fertilizer treatments, each with a four-year crop rotation without repetitions: summer wheat, lover/grass mix, potatoes, beets. The focus was primarily on aspects of crop quality, and the fertilizer application rates for the various treatments were adjusted to bring about comparable yields. Two “daughter experiments” emerged from the K-experiment and were run in parallel with the mother project during 1971-1976 in Uppsala and 1971-1979 in Järna.

In these experiments a comparison was made between two systems, biodynamic farming and conventional farming, in which both fertilizer regimes and crop rotations were studied. One of the main objectives in the K-experiment, i.e. to obtain nearly the same yield over the experimental period in the organic-treatment variants and in the inorganic treatments has largely been achieved, but there were differences between crops. During the time between 1958 and 1990 the yield increased in all treatments in accordance with the overall trend in the Swedish agriculture, but the increase was highest in the organic treatments (65% in the biodynamic in comparison with 50% in the conventional). The effects of the different fertilizer treatments on product quality are in accordance with findings in the two “daughter experiments” which were based on the original K-experiment. Compared with the conventional treatments, the crude protein content of potatoes and wheat was lower in the organic treatments, but protein quality was higher (i.e. relatively pure protein and essential amino acids, lower amount of free amino acids). Resistance to decomposition and store quality for potatoes were higher in the organic treatments, and in wheat starch quality seemed to be higher.

The organic treatments resulted in a higher soil fertility capacity and in crops with higher quality protein, a higher starch content, and a greater ability to tolerate stressful conditions and long-term storage in comparison with the inorganic treatments. Furthermore, the crops produced in the organic treatments developed a structure that can be studied through a picture formation method (Crystallization with CuCl2). This has also been described as a higher organizational level which is evident in terms of both soil and crop formation as a result of the long-term effects of organic manure compared with conventional NPK-fertilizer. New experiments in Sweden and Finland have been started to study the effects of different organic treatments on farms. Preliminary results of these experiments confirm the described differences between organic and inorganic treatments, but indicate also that the effects of liquid organic manure on quality parameters are more similar to those of inorganic fertilizer.

Introduction

In 1958, Bo D Pettersson and the Scandinavian Research Circle in Järna, Sweden, began an agricultural field experiment to determine in what ways various types of fertilizers affect the soil and final quality of grain and vegetable products. Various quality parameters and quality-assessment methods were developed and tested during the experiment period which spanned 32 years (up to 1990), and several reports have been published (Pettersson, Reents & Wistinghausen, 1992).

Two “daughter experiments” emerged from the K-experiment and were run in parallel with the mother project during 1971-1976 in Uppsala and 1971-1979 in Järna (referred to as UJ-experiments in the following text). In these experiments a comparison was made between two systems, biodynamic farming and conventional farming, in which both fertilizer regimes and crop rotations were studied (Pettersson, 1982; Dlouhy, 1981). Before that, the influence of these systems on quality parameters for potatoes under different climatic and soil conditions also had been studied in different parts of Scandinavia (Pettersson, 1970).

Description of the K-experiment

The K experiment was located at 59° North, 17° East at an elevation of 10 m above sea level. The mean yearly precipitation was 550 mm, and the mean annual temperature was 6 degrees C, with 6-8 snow-free months per year. The soil was a silty loam with an intermediate humus content.

Experimental Layout: To ensure that the field experiment could be used for the plant quality assessments while providing the flexibility to support other experiments that had yet to to designed, a very broad basis was adopted. This scheme included eight different fertilizer treatments, each with a 4-fold crop rotation without repetitions. The size of each subplot was 36 m² gross, with a net harvestable area of 27 m².

The Crop Rotation: Within each fertilizer variant the following crops were rotated without interruption so that in any given year all four would be present: summer wheat (undersown with clover/grass), clover/grass mix, potatoes and beets.

Fertilization Scheme: To facilitate focusing primarily on aspects of crop quality, the fertilizer application rates for the various treatments were adjusted to bring about comparable yields. This applies to the variants 1,2,3,4,7 and 8; variant 5 was not fertilized at all (Tables 1 and 2):

Table 1. The fertilization program (application rates of N- tot, P and K in kg/ha/yr averaged for the years 1958-1990 in parentheses).
K1. Composted manure (82/38/76).: aged half a year with the addition of biodynamic
K2. Composted manure (82/38/76): same as in K1 with the exception that treatments with
K3. Raw manure (95/30/91): with horn and bone meal added to reach 1% contents.
K4. Raw manure + NPK (63/28/66): half the K3 manure rate; half the K6 NPK rate, resp.
K5. Control: unfertilized.
K6. Inorganic NPK (19/19/41)
K7. Inorganic NPK(59/36/81): twice the rate applied in K6.
K8. Inorganic NPK(114/36/81): as in K6 but 4 times the N rate and twice the P and K rates.

Table 2. Breakdown of the fertilization scheme within the rotation, in %.
K1, 2 & 3 Organic –40 60
K6, 7 & 8 P K –40 60 N 20 -40 40

Description of the UJ-experiment

In the UJ experiment conventional (A) and biodynamic (B) treatments were compared with each other in two crop rotations as described below for the experiment in Järna (table 3): Crop rotation 1 represented a rotation without animals, and crop rotation 2 represented a system with animals related to an organic farming system which under Nordic conditions is self-sufficient with fodder with 0.8 CU (cattle units)/ha (average 50 kg N/ha and year).

The field conditions were almost the same as those in the K-experiment. A split-split-plot design was used with three replications. All crops were grown each year. The soil was a silty loam well supplied with plant nutrients but with a low humus content. The weather was drier than normal for the region during the first years of the experiment period and had a strongly negative effect on the yields of the grain and ley.

During 1971-1976 a parallel project was carried out in Uppsala (called UJ-experiment Ultuna) with the same treatments as in Järna (for more details see Dlouhy, 1981). The soil was an intermediate clay, well supplied with plant nutrients and moderately rich in humus.

Table 3. Crop rotation and fertilization scheme in UJ Experiment in Järna 1971-1979.

Yield and soil fertility

Yield in the K-experiment. The summer wheat and beet yields were increased by fertilization, and a considerable difference was also found between the K1 (compost + B-D sprays) and K2 (compost without sprays) variants. Yields of clover/grass declined in response to fertilizer treatment and were highest in the organic variants. A decrease in the yield of the legume mix can be expected to result in a reduction in nitrogen fixation (Table 4). In the K5 variant that did not receive any fertilizer for 30 years, the yield of ley was on the same level as that in the other treatments, and also here, the yield tended to increase over the period, although the increase was not as pronounced.

Table 4. Average yields during 1958-1989 in dt/ha/yr for single crops

table4
In terms of their 32-year averages, the yields are all comparable with the exception of the control variant (K5) and excluding data from the conversion period for the organic treatments. All yields except for those of the unfertilized variant (K5) increased with successive rotation periods (figure 1). The figures indicate that there was a conversion period of about 8 years during which the yield level was lower in the organic treatments.

.
Figure 1. K-experiment 1958-1989. Yield, MJ/ha

Development of soil fertility.
Data on soil physical properties, soil chemistry and soil biology were collected after 19, 28 and 32 years in the K-experiment (Pettersson, Reents and Wistinghausen, 1992). The analysis of soil data shows that nearly all chemical (pH, P, K, Mg, C and N) (macronutrient availability was an exception) and biological parameters (respiration, DHA, urease, earthworms) assessed were improved by organic fertilization whereas no such improvements were observed following the application of mineral fertilizer. Similar results concerning soil parameters were obtained in the UJ-experiment (Pettersson, 1982). In the UJ-experiment at Järna, humus contents had increased significantly after 9 years (by more than 10 percent) in B2 compared with the recent value of 2.72 percent and the value of the conventional treatment of 2.74 percent (A2B2 P<0.001).

Mineralization capacity.
The mineralization capacity of the soil was studied in summer wheat after potatoes (the third year after ley) in the K-experiment. Net mineralization in the soil was estimated by measuring the mineral nitrogen content of soil samples taken in spring and at harvest and by determining the total nitrogen uptake of the spring wheat crop (Granstedt, 1992). The mean mineralization capacity during 1988-1990 was, on average, 95% higher (i.e. 106%, 146% and 33% higher) in the organically farmed treatments as compared with the treatments receiving commercial fertilizer. The higher mineralization capacity compensated completely for the absence of applied mineral nitrogen in the organically farmed treatment. In the organic manure system we built up a more stable and higher mineralization capacity compared with the commercially fertilized treatments.

Quality of potatoes in the K-experiment (1958-1989) and UJ-experiment (1971-1979) comparing biodynamic and conventional farming.
The main aims of the K-experiment were to study how product quality is influenced by the fertilization system and to develop quality-assessment methods. The K-experiment was designed with eight treatments and four crops each year but without replications. Variation in mean values was generally higher between years than between treatments, but the relation between treatments for each individual year was mostly the same for most of the response parameters. Still, it has been possible to compare the results of biodynamic and conventional treatments in the K-experiment with those from the above-described daughter projects. However, it should be kept in mind that the K-experiment was limited to comparing fertilization regimes. The UJ-experiments included a comparison between alternative and conventional farming systems with respect to crop rotation and pesticide use (Dlouhy,1981 and Pettersson, 1982.)

Potatoes
Quantitative parameters.

Tuber yield
The average tuber yield in the K-experiment was nearly the same in the organic and conventional treatments, whereas the yield was significantly lower in the unfertilized treatment (287 dt/ha). During years with higher precipitation, when conditions were more conducive for the mineralization of nitrogen in organic manure, organic treatments tended to outperform the conventional ones. In both UJ experiments, with shorter experiment periods, the yield was significantly lower (ca 20 percent) in the biodynamic treatments, partly owing to the higher yield losses caused by Phytophtora since pesticides were used in the conventionally fertilized treatments. This difference was partly compensated for by a better storability of the biodynamcially produced potatoes.

Dry matter content
There was a clear tendency for dry matter content to be higher in the biodynamic treatment than in the conventional one in both the K-experiment and in the two UJ-experiments. Dry matter content was significantly higher in both B1 and B2 compared with the conventionally fertilized systems A1 and A2.

Protein levels and protein quality
The level of crude protein was determined on the basis of Kjeldal-N, whereupon the pure protein was precipitated with CuSO4 and NaOH and expressed as per cent of the crude protein. In terms of crude levels of protein in percent of dry matter a clear gradient was found from low levels in the organically grown samples to high levels in the conventionally grown ones. The crude protein content was also significantly higher in the inorganic treatments in both UJ-experiments (figure 2), but the content of relatively pure protein was significantly higher in the biodynamic treatments than in the inorganic ones.

The content of the free amino acids was measured by titration with feromol according to Sörensen. In the K-experiment the contents of these low molecular-weight, non-protein nitrogen compounds were lower in the organic treatment K1 than in K8 in all 19 studied years and lower in K1 than in K7 in 13 of the 19 years during which this parameter was studied during the experiment period. The higher protein quality of the organically grown crops was confirmed by comparing the relative content of essential amino acids and the biological value of protein, expressed as an EAA-index value (Dlouhý, 1981; Pettersson, 1982).

.
Figure 2. Potatoes. Crude protein in percent of dry matter.
Physiological parameters.

Darkening of tissue and extracts
The enzymatic darkening of raw, exposed potato tissue was measured with a reflectance attachment on a photospectrometer (described by Pettersson 1982). The speed of darkening of potato-tissue extracts was measured photometrically daily for four days at 530 nm. Both methods are described by Pettersson and E. v. Wistinghausen (1979) and Pettersson (1982). In the K and UJ-experiments both methods were used for evaluating the browning of the potatoes. The darkening of extract was greater in K1 than in K8 in 18 of the studied 24 years and greater in K1 than in K7 in 17 of the years. The UJ-experiments revealed that discoloration was more pronounced and developed faster in the chemically-fertilized variants than in the organically fertilized ones, and the difference was significant (P<0.01 in the UJ-experiments).

Extract decomposition
In this particular test of the resistance against the enzymatic and bacterial decomposition in
water extract (Rd/Ro = the maximum decrease in the electrical resistance, in percent of the starting value in extract dissolution 1:10 during 4-5 days, according to Pettersson, 1982), decomposition values were generally lower for the organically grown variants than for the others (24 of 24 studied years in K1 compared with K8 but only in 15 of 24 years in K1 compared with the K7). Differences similar to those obtained between K1 and K8 were found in the comparison of conventional and biodynamic treatments in the UJ-experiments (P<0.01 in the UJ-experiments).

Storage losses
Storage tests were conducted harvesting in? April in 20-kg bags. The storage losses was measured in percent of the initial weight and included losses through respiration and damage caused by storage fungi, etc. In the K-experiment storage losses tended to be lower in the organic treatments than in the inorganic ones (9 of studied 11 years). This difference was even more pronounced in the UJ experiment at Järna and Uppsala (Figure 3) (P<0.05 and P<0.1).

.
Figure 3. Potatoes. Storage losses after 6-7 months in percent of original stored weight

Field survey of Phytophthora infestans
Frequencies of infection were significantly lower in treatments K1 and K2 (composted manure) and in K5 as compared with K8 ( high rate of NPK), and K3 and K4 (raw manure) over the 14­year period during which this parameter was studied. In the UJ-experiments the conventional treatments were treated with fungicide, and the yield difference was highest during the years with high infection levels (4 years).

Pathogen infection with Phytophora infestans (studied only during 1966-1969)
Although the spread of values was great with this testing method, a similar trend in the results was, nonetheless, seen, with lower values (i.e. less in vitro infection) in the organically grown samples than in the conventionally grown ones.

Morphological methods. Morphology of stems
The number of horizontal stems did differ appreciably between treatments, although values tended to be somewhat lower in the organic variants than in the conventional ones (Pettersson, Brinton & v, Wistinghausen, 1979). This negative correlation indicates that a low number of horizontal stems corresponds with high product quality according to the index. The method is described by Pettersson (1970). In the UJ-experiment at Järna (where this method was also used) the number of side (horizontal) stems was significantly lower in the biodynamic
treatments.

Crystallization investigation
As with the foregoing results, these tests (Engqvist, 1970; Pettersson, 1982) revealed a similar trend, with organizational traits in the tissues being better in the organically grown samples than in the conventional ones. In the K-experiment, this was true for all studied years between 1966 and 1989.

Influence of previous crop on the quality of potatoes
The effects of ley and barley on quality parameters of succeeding crops differed in some respects. For example, potatoes following a ley tended to show a higher degree of extract dissolution and to have a higher nitrate content compared with potatoes following barley in the UJ-experiment. This type of farming-system effect was not possible to study in the K-experiment which was strictly a fertilization experiment.

.
Figure 4. Potatoes. K-experiment 1958-1989, UJ-experiment in Järna 1971-1979, UJ-experiment in Uppsala 1971-1976. Difference, in percent, between the biodynamic treatments and the conventional ones for parameters..

Wheat in the K- and UJ-experiments

Average yield
Average yield levels in K1 and K8 were nearly the same. For K2, in which no biodynamic field preparation was carried out, the yield level was significantly lower, and differences were highest during years with a low yield level. In the UJ-experiments, with shorter experimental periods, the yield levels were significantly lower in the biodynamic treatments.

Quality parameters
In wheat as well, the crude protein content was higher in the inorganic treatments in the K-experiment and in both UJ-experiments (Figure 5). However, the content of relatively pure protein was higher in the biodynamic treatments in the K-experiment and higher in the UJ-experiment at Järna (P<0.01 and P<0.1) That the protein quality was higher in the organic treatments was also confirmed by the index for the essential amino acids (EAA-index, Figure 5 a), which was significantly higher in the biodynamic manured systems during the years when it was measured in the UJ-experiment.

.
Figure 5 a. Index of essential amino acids in the UJ-experiments. Figure 5 b. Amylase activity in wheat in the UJ-experiments.

The resistance against extract dissolution
was also higher in the biodynamic treatments in these studies. In addition, starch quality seemed to be higher in the biodynamic treatments, measured in terms of falling number (in the K-experiment and the UJ-experiment in Järna) and as indicated by amylograms (figure 5 b). The differences, in percent, between the biodynamic treatments and the conventional ones for quantitative and qualitative parameters for wheat are illustrated in Figure 6.C

.
Figure 6. Wheat. K-experiment, 1958-1989, UJ-experiment in Järna, 1971-1979, UJ-experiment in Uppsala 1971-1976. Difference, in percent, between the biodynamic treatments (K1) and the conventional ones (K8) for quantitative and qualitative parameters for wheat.

Final discussion concerning the significance of the studied quality parameters.

Correlation between crude protein content and other parameters
In the UJ experiment at Järna significant correlations were observed between crude protein content and most of the studied parameters in both potatoes and wheat (Pettersson, 1982). For potatoes this parameter was correlated with dry matter content (negative, P<0.001), relatively pure protein (negative, P<0.01), EAA-index (negative, P<0.001), ascorbic acid content (negative, P<0.001), cooking quality (negative, P<0.01), taste quality (negative, P<0.001), free amino acids (positive, P<0.001), extract dissolution (positive, P<0.001) and darkening of extract (positive, P<0.001). For wheat, the correlations were with EAA-index (negative, P<0.01), extract dissolution (positive P<0.001) falling number (positive P<0.05), gluten content and baking tests (positive, P<0.01). It can thus be concluded that cereals with a high crude protein content, which is generally desired by the baking industry, tend to rank low in terms of biological and physiological quality parameters. Similarly potatoes with a high crude protein content tend to rank low in terms of biological and physiological quality parameters and taste.

Light and shade
The studied parameters were divided into three groups: chemical/biological, physiological and a third called morphological. Parameters falling into the last-mentioned group has been studied through a method based on observations of the morphology of stems in potatoes and a picture formation method (Crystallization with CuCl2). It was assumed that the lower quality of the crops, assessed in terms of these parameters studied here, in the conventionally fertilized systems is similar to what would have been found had the plants been grown under more shaded conditions. Likewise, the higher biological value of the protein and the higher values found for quality parameters are similar to what would have been expected had the plants been grown under full light. In the interpretation, the organic treatments are described as having the same effect as an increase in solar radiation, and likewise, the effects of NPK-treatments are analogous to those induced by an increase in shade (Pettersson, 1982).

“Organization level”
The better protein composition, with a lower content of free amino acids, and better storage properties were attributed to the higher organization level resulting from the organic and biodynamic fertilizing systems. The higher “organization level”, reflected in the higher biological value of the protein and lower content of free amino acids not used in protein synthesis, was correlated with better resistance against pests, less darkening, less extract dissolution and lower losses of potato during storage. Future research should be aimed at improving our understanding of the significance of these qualitative values in terms of their effects on the human health.

Further studies
Upon completion of the K-experiment, a new experiment was begun in both Sweden (1992) and Finland (1995) in which different manure systems were compared in connection with various types of crop rotations on organic farms. The aim is to gain a better understanding of the differences between composted, non-composted and liquid manure in terms of their effects on the parameters discussed here and to develop effective methods for regularly testing product quality. In addition, the biodynamic preparation treatments are being studied so that their effects can be predicted more reliably. Preliminary results from studies in potatoes in Finland indicate that the use of liquid manure, like mineral fertilizer, tends to decrease the biological value. The ultimate goal is to tailor the fertilizing regime to the soil, climate and crops in a way that offers both a good yield an a healthy product with a high nutrient value.

From Int’l Conference on Agricultural Production & Nutrition, Tufts Univ., Boston, MA, 1997 by:
1. Artur Granstedt, Agricultural Research Centre of Finland, Partala Research Station for Ecological Agriculture, FIN-51900 Juva, Finland
2. Lars Kjellenberg, Biodynamic Research Institute, Skilleby, S-153 00 Järna, Sweden

REFERENCES
  1. Dlouhy, J. 1981. Alternativa odlingsformer – växtprodukters kvalitet vid konventionell och biodynamisk odling (Alternative forms of agriculture – quality of products from conventional and biodynamic growing. With English summary). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Dep. of Plant Husbandry. Report 91. Uppsala.
  2. Engqvist, M. 1970. Gestaltkräfte des Lebendigen. Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main.
  3. Granstedt, A. 1992. The potential for Swedish farms to eliminate the use of artificial fertilizers. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. Vol 6. Numb. 3, 122-131.
  4. Granstedt, A. 1995. The mobilization and immobilization of soil nitrogen after green manure crops. I: Proceedings of the third international conference, Soil management in sustainable agriculture, 31 August – 4 September 1993. Wye College. University of London, 265-275.
  5. Pettersson B.D. 1970. Verkan av växtplats, gödsling och tillväxtreglerande substanser på matpotatisens egenskaper. (Influence of growing locality, manure and growth regulating substances on the quality properties of potatoes Nordisk Forskningsring. Meddelande nr 23, Järna.
  6. Pettersson, Brinton & v, Wistinghausen, E.v. 1979. Effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soils and crops. Results of a long term field experiment in Sweden. Nordisk Forskningsring, Meddelande Nr. 30. Järna.
  7. Pettersson, B. D. 1982. Konventionell och biodynamisk odling. Jämf`rande försök mellan tvD odlingssystem. (Investigations within Conventional and Biodynamic Farming Systems. Summary in English). Nordisk forskningsring, Järna.
  8. Pettersson, B. D., Reents, H. J. & Wistinghausen E.v. 1992. Düngung und Bodeneigenschaften
  9. – Ergebnisse eines 32-jahrigen Feldversuches in Järna, Schweden.Nordisk Forskningsring, Meddelende nr 34. Järna.

Also Read:

Non-GMO — The Front Line in the Battle to Save Your Food

The Battle to Avoid GMO Foods: Introducing Jeffrey Smith, Non-GMO Advocate

As a raw foodist, you should be more concerned about how to avoid GMO foods (Genetically Modified Organisms) than anyone else. Being a raw foodist requires that you maximize the purity, bio-availability and nutrient density of absolutely everything you consume, both foods and drinks. Anything less and it just won’t work – you’ll get hungry, cravings, and go on junk food binges … eventually building up a resentment for raw food and just giving up. I’ve not only seen it happen, it has happened to me. I just pick myself up and start again, like any other diet program.

However, when you eat nutritionally dense raw foods that don’t overload your immune system with toxic chemicals and foreign DNA it can’t digest, the opposite happens — you feel completely satisfied with simple, delicious, nutrient-dense meals, overcome your old food addictions, feel more energy and enjoy what you actual do choose to eat more than ever!

To avoid GMO foods is more important than ever. GMO’s are such a significant health threat these days that I’ve arranged to include a regular column on this website by my dear friend Jeffrey Smith, the world’s foremost anti-GMO advocate and founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology.

GMO Basics by Jeffrey Smith

genetic engineeringA GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process where genes from the DNA of one species are extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal. The foreign genes may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. Because this involves the transfer of genes, GMO’s are also known as “transgenic” organisms.

Today, its can be hard to avoid GMO foods. GMO’s can be found In most of the food you see at the supermarket, except for items actually labeled non-GMO or organic.  First introduced into the food supply in the mid-1990s, GMO’s are now present in the majority of processed foods in the U.S. While they are banned in much of Europe and elsewhere, in America the FDA doesn’t even require the listing of GMO’s on labels.

The main traits that have been added to food with genetic modification are herbicide tolerance, the ability for plants produce their own pesticides and improved productivity. These new traits have no health benefits at all — only an economic benefit. In fact, the nutritional content of the GMO foods is hardly a concern at all.dreamstime_s_83394392

Just try to avoid GMO foods with virtually all the commercialized GMO’s now in the U.S. — including most soy (93%), cotton (93%), canola (90%), corn (87%), sugar beets (95%), Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%), zucchini and yellow squash (small amount), and even tobacco (Quest brand). Products derived from the above crops include oils from all four, soy protein, soy lecithin, cornstarch, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup among others. There are also many “invisible ingredients,” derived from GMO crops that are not obviously from corn or soy.

Genetically modified foods have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. The effects on humans of consuming these new combinations of proteins produced in GMO’s are unknown and have not been studied.

Crops such as Bt cotton produce pesticides inside the plant. This kills or deters insects…. The plants themselves are toxic, and not just to insects. Farmers in India, who let their sheep graze on Bt cotton after the harvest saw thousands of sheep die! Comparative studies on the toxic residues in foods from such crops have not yet been done. Pollen from GM crops can contaminate nearby crops of the same type…. In fact, virtually all heritage varieties of corn in Mexico… have been found to have some contamination. The long-term effects on the environment could be disastrous.

Reasons to Avoid GMO’s by Jeffrey Smith

  1. GMO’s are extremely unhealthy. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GMO) foods leave material behind inside us, such as glyphosate, possibly causing long-term problems. Then genes from GMO soy can find their way into the DNA of bacteria living inside us. For example, the toxic insecticide produced by GMO corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses. American Academy of Environmental MedicineNumerous health problems increased after GMO’s were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years. Food allergies skyrocketed through the roof. Once rare disorders like autism, digestive problems, reproductive disorders and others are on rising. Groups like the AAEM tell us not to wait before we do something to protect ourselves and our children.
  2. GMOs contaminate forever. GMO’s cross pollinate and their seeds can travel on the wind for many miles, often contaminating nearby organic and non-GMO farms — putting those farmers out of business. Worse, Monsanto may even try to sue those farmers for patent infringement! GMO pollution is ultimately more damaging and dangerous than any other environmental concern including global warming and nuclear waste, threatening the health of several future generations.
  3. GMOs increase herbicide use. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s popular Roundup weed killer, has now officially been added to California’s list of chemicals known to cause cancer (CA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). The listing is the latest legal setback for Monsanto which has been facing increased lawsuits over glyphosate since the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer said that it is “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. Listing glyphosate as a known carcinogen in California will require the chemical to have warning labels. Warnings would also be required if glyphosate is being sprayed at unsafe levels by landscapers, golf courses, orchards, vineyards and farms. Glyphosate producers have about a year to re-label products or remove them from shelves if further legal challenges are lost.
  4. GMO crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant.”  Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops, for example, are genetically-engineered to survive extremely heavy applications of Roundup herbicide — which means Monsanto now sells 3 times more Roundup than before! However, overuse of Roundup has now produced “super weeds” resistant to the herbicide. This causes farmers to use even more toxic herbicides and even more heam to the environment. Monsanto’s GMO foods contain higher residues of Roundup linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer. Glyphosate, supposedly biodegradable in the environment, has also been found is blood test of most people around the world!
  5. Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects. By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.
  6. Government oversight is dangerously lax. Most of the health and environmental risks of GMO’s are ignored by the government. The reason for this is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn’t require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMO’s, and allows companies to put their GMO foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GMO foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA’s own scientists was that GMO’s can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the government was instructed to promote biotechnology respite the dangers.
  7. The biotech industry uses “tobacco science” to claim product safety. Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCB’s, and DDT were safe. They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have demonstrated without a doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding problems and how adverse findings are distorted or denied. Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed. Scientists who discover problems with GMO’s have been gagged, fired, threatened and denied funding. The journal Nature acknowledged that a “large block of scientists . . . denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge.” No major media are trying to expose the problems since they are often bought and paid for by Monsanto and Friends.
  8. GMOs harm the environment. GMO crops and associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GMO crops are eliminating the habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations have been cut down 50% in the US. Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GMO canola has been found growing wild in several states, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.
  9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world. While sustainable non-GMO agriculture in developing countries is clearly resulting in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMO’s do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report Failure to Yield—the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GMO crop yields were “highly variable” and in some cases, “yields declined.” The report noted, “Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.” They determined that the current GMO’s have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability. On the contrary, GMO’s divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.
  10. By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply. Because GMO’s offer no consumer benefits, if even a small percentage of us start rejecting brands that contain them, GM ingredients will become a marketing liability. Food companies will kick them out. In Europe, for example, the tipping point was achieved in 1999, just after a high profile GMO safety scandal hit the papers and alerted citizens to the potential dangers. In the US, a consumer rebellion against GM bovine growth hormone has also reached a tipping point, kicked the cow drug out of dairy products by WalMart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most of America’s dairies. NOTE: As an additional motivation to avoid GMOs, you may wish to take a lesson from the animals. Eyewitness reports from around the world describe several situations where animals, when given a choice, avoid genetically modified food. These include cows, pigs, geese, elk, deer, raccoons, mice, rats, squirrels, chicken, and buffalo. We’re pretty sure the animals didn’t read the above 10 reasons.

The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to achieve a tipping point against GMO’s in the US. The number of non-GMO shoppers needed is probably just 5% of the population. The key is to educate consumers about the documented health dangers and provide a Non-GMO Shopping Guide to make avoiding GMO’s much easier. Please choose healthier non-GMO brands, tell others about GMO’s so they can do the same, and join the Non-GMO Tipping Point Netwooundup. Together we can quickly reclaim a healthier non-GMO food supply.

Jeffrey SmithThe world’s leading consumer advocate for non-GMO choices, Jeffrey M. Smith, is the creator of the world’s best selling books and videos on the dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMO’s). Jeffrey exposes how biotech companies mislead consumers, legislators and safety officials to put everyone’s health in peril. Jeffrey founded the Institute for Responsible Technology in 2003.

Also Read:

The Real Purpose of GMO’s — and It’s Not Feeding the World!

Learn How to Listen to Your Body: the Key to a Healthy Raw Food Diet

A raw food diet sounds great to someone who just loves healthy food. It’s so alive, so pure, that it’s one of the best ways to get a wide variety of fresh, living nutrients — whether you choose to eat 100% raw or just 75% — as well as help with many modern diseases associated with the modern Standard American Diet (S.A.D.). But occasionally there are people that begin a raw food diet without learning how. When this happens, they’ll probably make some mistakes, triggering a cleansing reaction or “detox.” To avoid this try some of these suggestions instead.

Listen to Your Body – When food isn’t properly digested your body will say something about it! You may experience bloating, acne, fatigue, headaches and general malaise. To avoid all this just ease into your raw food lifestyle and listen to your digestion. Do NOT blindly listen so some raw food guru that says a raw food diet is the end all and be all — not even me!

Don’t Become Obsessive – Never forget that you won’t die from a little cooked food. My rule of thumb is that you are a Raw Foodist if just 75% of your diet is raw! At that level, your body can safely eliminate all the toxins in whatever cooked food you eat. Just figure out what works best for you, whether it’s low carb, cooked, raw, Paleo — or whatever your body seems to prefer. But remember to give yourself all the time your body may need to make a healthy transition before drawing any conclusions about what works best for you!

Not Getting Enough Varied Nutrition – Do not try to live off nothing but fruits, vegetables and greens right away. Though these are high in nutrition, they usually can’t give you everything you need — at least not right away. You see, your body has spent many decades adjusting to a diet of dead, cooked foods, and un-doing that can take some time. You may need several months, or even years for some people, to rehabilitate your entire digestive system so that you can efficiently digest real live food again. Right now, your body doesn’t know how to absorb all the extra enzymes and nutrients in live food. All your systems need time to adapt. So at first you’ll want to look for foods that are higher in calories and nutrients to prevent any potential health problems.

Diving in Too Carelessly – Your body doesn’t come with an on and off switch. Just starting a vegetarian or vegan diet requires some preparation. Raw food can be much more difficult for many people, causing them to cleanse so quickly that they feel sick and weak. The cleansing experience of a sudden 100% raw food diet is an extremely powerful detox for most people and not really the smartest way to start. Instead, ease into the raw food lifestyle by slowly reducing the cooked foods in your diet. I suggest shooting for 50-75% raw at first. If you count your between-meal snacks as one meal, you eat 4 meals a day. So to avoid an unexpected detox reaction, eat normal meals once or twice a day. Remember to avoid GMO foods (genetically modified) and eat as much organic food as possible.

Overdoing Fruit & Nuts – Fruits and nuts can provide a lot of calories for a raw foodist, The nuts provide plenty of protein and fat, but are hard to digest for many people. It’s actually best to soak all your nuts before eating them to activate the enzymes in the nuts, which will begin to break down the nutrients and make them more easily bio-available to your body.

Fruits are another story! Fruits have far too much sugar when transitioning to a raw food diet. Even though fruit sugar is fructose, you’ve been getting way too much fructose in your system for many years. The corporate food-delivery industry today adds tons of fructose to everything from desserts to soft drinks — and these corporations don’t want to put “sugar” on their labels. So I recommend that you avoid ALL fruit for awhile, at least until your body learns how to properly digest real food again — something most of us have forgotten how to do. For some people this can take several months or even years.

You may hear of some people that are “fruitarians,” eating nothing but fruit all day long and feeling great. But this is actually pretty rare. For most people, living off fruit alone is not ideal. If you love fruit and just have to eat some, stick to low-sugar fruits like lemons, limes, rhubarb, apricots, cranberries, raspberries, kiwi, guava, blackberries, strawberries, tangerines, nectarines and oranges.

Doing a Detox Intentionally – Going through a detox can actually help some people reach a new level of purification very quickly, but it’s not for everyone. Benefits include clearer sinuses, fast weight loss, clearer skin, more energy, more regular bowel movements, improved mental clarity, improved emotional stability and much more.

If you’re getting terrible headaches, just add some cooked grains or something to slow down the detox and make it easier for your body to adjust. YOU are in control of how fast you detox! Also, you can add other therapies to greatly enhance the detox and reduce any discomforts. Personally, i like to do dry skin brushing! Remember, your skin is the largest organ of elimination on your body!

Colonics & Enemas – Your colon is home to billions of microflora (bacteria). Besides forming stool, the beneficial bacteria living in you colon and digestive tract are important for proper nutrient absorption, maintaining pH balance, controlling hunger and counteracting any possible dangerous bacteria. recommend doing enemas and/or colonics to cleanse your colon during your transition to a raw food lifestyle, particularly if you want to eventually become 100% raw.

The goal of a good colon cleanse — whether an enema or a colonic — is to help your digestive system do its job in a way that won’t interfere with your normal bowel functions. Poor gut health, allergies, inflammation, pesticides, GMOs and other chemicals within the digestive system cause many people to struggle with having their bowel movements. Colon cleanses aren’t needed by everyone but some people can really benefit from help eliminating waste, bacterial matter and toxic material that’s been stored in their bodies for years.

Also Read:

Toxic Soup: How the Chemistry of Cooking is Making You Sick

Introduction to Juicing for the Raw Food Lifestyle

Juicing is a one of the easiest yet most powerful things you can use to make your raw food lifestyle more successful – and improve your overall health and wellness. Usually I juice every day and drink between one or two quarts of mostly-green juice every day. Some people prefer to have one regular juice day every week, also called a juice ‘feast’ or juice fast day.

By removing all the hard-to-digest fiber from your nutrient-rich veggies, juicing improves your absorption of all the important nutrients. This is particularly important for people beginning a raw food lifestyle because most of us have poor digestion and incomplete absorption after decades of eating cooked and processed foods. Juicing, using only a slow-speed masticating juicing to protect t he nutrients, breaks down the cell walls of your veggies releasing the nutrition so you can absorb it like a sponge.

How Much to Drink

I usually recommend at least 16 ounces of juice daily. Most days I fill up a 16 oz. insulated sports canister and drink it throughout the day. When I am doing a juice ‘feast’ I double that, drinking it throughout the day, but mostly around meal times or whenever I am feeling hungry.

Making this much juice every day might seem tedious, but I have a secret.  First, I don’t actually make juice every single day.  I actually juice every two or three days and make enough for the next two or three days, which I then store in a tightly sealed, insulated container in the fridge. If you do this a lot you may want to get one of those food saver appliances that sucks the air out of a ball-jar style container, but I have found that my juice lasts up to 3 days just fine without that – though as always, the sooner you drink it the better!

In order to do this you MUST you only a high quality masticating juicer that produces little oxidation hence has a high juice quality and juice stability. These include single-auger juicers like those made by Samson, Hurom, Omega and Kuvings and twin-gear models like the Green Power, Green Star and Super Angel.

Omega NC800HD SilverIf you are new to juicing I recommend a single-auger juicer. Avoid low-cost, high-speed centrifugal juicers entirely (like the Juiceman or Jack LaLanne models) because they break easily, produce low quality juice, and are very loud. Most importantly, they have the lowest juice quality because they fling tiny droplets of juice through the air to separate it from the pulp, and this thoroughly oxidizes all the juice before it even reaches the glass! Oxidation is the enemy of nutrition, enzymes and health in general. So plan on spending between $200-300 for a good single-auger juicer.Omega VSJ43RS Juicer

The next step up is a vertical slow speed juicer, starting around $400. These are great for smaller counters since they take less space. While they do a good job of juicing, they are not multipurpose kitchen tools like some other juicers, i.e., they just make juice. That’s it!

As your juicing expertise grows you may want to trade up to a twin-gear juicer, which start around $500. These are the best juicer when you talk about juicing efficiency (more juice from the same veggies), juice quality (more nutritional density from the same veggies), juice stability (longer lasting in the fridge) and ease of use or cleaning. Beyond that there is something called the juice press, but these are thousands of dollars, are very messy and tedious to use or clean for very little additional benefit compared to the best twin-gear model from Super Angel. In fact, I have sold many Super Angel juicers to people who own hydraulic juicers that just cannot stand them any more!

Once you get used to your new juicer and start enjoying all the benefits, you’ll be surprised to discover that it’s much easier than you thought it would be. In fact, it can be a lot of fun! After many years, I’ve got my juicing down to a routine that usually takes less than 15 minutes including clean up.  Since I only juice every two or three days, I only have to clean up every two or three days, too. I generally just rinse all t he juicer components under hot water and toss them in the dish rack. I clean and brush the juicing gears and juicing screen more thoroughly. One or twice a week I scrub everything more thoroughly using soapy water.

Though most of the nutrients are removed from the pulp by your juicer, it is still a valuable resource. I mix my pulp with my dog’s food – and he loves it!  It makes a great topping for almost anything, especially salads. You can also compost it.

Introduction to Juicing for Healing Disease

OHI LogoWhen I first went to the Optimum Health Institute in San Diego (OHI) as a guest for three weeks, mostly to accompany my elderly mother, I was the poster boy in my neighborhood for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFIDS). After years of trying all kinds of alternative therapies, from Chinese medicine to homeopathy, Tai Chi, acupuncture and much more, I had some limited success and actually thought at the time I was cured since I no longer had to sleep all day long – and could actually stay awake most of a day. But in reality I had forgotten what normal felt like.

The program at OHI begins with a 3-day juice “feast” or fast.  After three days on simple, basic juices I suddenly felt more energy than I had in years and years. I realized then that not feeling noticeably “sick” was not the same thing as being wonderfully alive and bursting with more energy than I knew what to do with.

Before that first juice feast I was walking around like a zombie that didn’t know it was dead. If you reached out to shake my hand and introduce yourself, I would stick a limp arm out and offer a weak hello in reply. But after the juice fast I was genuinely excited to meet people, and thrilled to make new friends. I walked around with a perpetual smile on my face the whole time I was there and made lots of new friends.

In fact, I was so impressed by the miraculous transformation in my life that a few months later I returned to OHI as a volunteer, agreeing to work there for 3 months in exchange for room and board. I ended up staying there for six years, losing over 75 lbs. and changing my life forever.

The OHI program is a comprehensive, life-altering program of juicing vegetables and wheatgrass combined with detoxification and an intense education in nutrition, physiology and other ltd topics – but juicing is the core nutritionally!

My experience after the first few days is not the exception! In fact, my mother, who was in her 70’s and extremely overweight at the time, had a similar experience.  On the first day we had to change her room to a more expensive room closer to the main buildings because she couldn’t even walk up a flight of stairs. After the first week she was a different woman, walking all over the place, up and down stairs, with a glow I hadn’t seen in decades.

Realistically, though you may experience intense highs at first, you can also experience uncomfortable lows associated with detoxifying your body. So it is important when you undertake a any juicing program or any juice feast longer than a day or so to support your body’s excretory system in removing released toxins with colon-cleansing techniques such as colonic irrigation or even just a daily enema. The colon is one of the most important organs for eliminating waste during detox and if no food is moving through it you need to give it some help.  I also recommend not to attempt juice feasting for more than three days without professional guidance like we had at OHI.  That much intense fasting is usually not required to achieve amazing results and get quite uncomfortable and even dangerous for some people.

Real, lasting transformational results, of course, only come after months or even years of making raw food part of your lifestyle. At first you may only be half raw, but you can ad to that bit by bit, cleansing and educating yourself along the way until months later you are 75% raw, then 80%, and so on. The more raw food you eat the faster your body can eliminate backed up toxins.

In my experience, if you eat at least 75% or more of your diet as raw, live food, in about three months you’ll start to see dramatic improvements in your health. That’s because it takes that long for your body to replace most of it’s red blood cells. So don’t expect juicing to be a magic bullet or overnight miracle in every case.

You’ll probably notice some immediate benefits like Mom and me, but you will also go through ups and downs in your personal process of growth and transformation. Even living at a raw food health center, it took me 6 years to become 100% raw…and that only lasted a few years before moving to another state caused new challenges and issues in my life. One thing is certain, I think, and that is the ups as well as the downs are much easier to enjoy as a raw foodist, just like riding a roller coaster and laughing all the way.

Best Vegetables for Juicing

31375074 - young woman choosing leafy vegetablesThe most powerful ingredients for your juice are the dark green leafy vegetables. These are the most alkaline-forming vegetables, but they don’t taste as good as the veggies we are typically used to in the market. So to compensate for that I add just one or two carrots, a lemon or an apple. I recommend not making the juice any sweeter than that because it will exacerbate any problems your body has with sugar metabolism.

Even if you aren’t diagnosed with a sugar problem, you probably have borderline, undiagnosed sugar issues results from sugar being added to everything in your cooked, processed diet for your whole life. So limit your use of sweet veggies like carrots and beets, and try to eliminate most fruit at least until your body rehabilitates it’s ability to properly metabolize sugars.  Avoid fruit and sweet veggies entirely if you have candida, hypoglycemia, insulin resistance, diabetes, or cancer.

Juicing Tips
  • Start juicing the vegetables that you already enjoy eating whole so you won’t be overwhelmed with strange flavors right away – you should enjoy your juice!
  • Never juice orange or grapefruits peels since they contain toxic oils.
  • Rotate vegetables and try new recipes regularly to get a variety for best nutrition and to avoid developing sensitivities or allergies from too much of the same thing constantly.

NOTE: Unless you are doing a controlled juice fast or detoxification program, please don’t use juice as a meal replacement. Juice has very little protein and almost no fat so it cannot replace a nutritious meal. It is really just a powerful nutritional supplement or boost to your diet, ideally used in addition to regular meals.

My favorite veggies for juicing …
(organic and washed thoroughly, of course)

  • Dark green leafy veggies like collard greens, Swiss chard and kale
  • Celery
  • Parsley (high in vitamin C, bioflavanoids, iron, minerals and chlorophyll)
  • Cucumbers (with skin)
  • Leftover veggies in the fridge (broccoli, cauliflower, sprouts, whatever)
  • Carrots (use sparingly due to high sugar content)
  • Ginger root, for its anti-inflammatory properties
  • Lemons (high in vitamin C & bioflavanoids.
My Favorite Juicing Recipes

Mock V-8 Juice

  • 1/4 cup spring water
  • 2 tomatoes
  • 2 cloves garlic
  • 1 handful spinach
  • 1/4 sweet onion
  • 1-2 celery stalks
  • 2 tsp. lemon juice
  • 1-2 shots hot sauce to taste

Cucumber Celery Cooler

  • 4 medium carrots, greens removed
  • 1/4 medium cucumber, peeled
  • 1 stalk celery
  • 1 apple, sliced
  • 1/2 lemon, peeled (optional)

Mock Tuna Salad Using Juicer Pulp

  • carrot or vegetable pulp
  • raw mayonnaise (see link below)
  • whatever else you’d like (celery, onions, etc.)

Add raw mayonnaise to your juicer pulp. Add other veggies to taste (scallions, celery, etc.).
Add spices to taste. Add to salad dressings, use on greens, etc.

My dog, Buddy, also LOVES the pulp from my juicer, which I regularly share with him!

Click here for more juicing recipes

Also Read:

How to Choose a Juicer for Raw Foodists!

The Devastating European e.coli Super Bug of 2011 was Bioengineered

The thing about tyrants and bullies is that they live in a fear-based reality. Fear is all they know – because they themselves are afraid — afraid of losing control, bad quarterly profits, going bankrupt, losing a job, bad press — and they’re deathly afraid of a healthy, empowered people — you!
Mad Scientist or Extraterrestrial Invader?

e.coliA few years ago, while a super-resistant e.coli outbreak was straining hospital resources in Germany, nobody in the mainstream media seemed concerned about where this new e.coli superbug suddenly came from. The German e.coli was from the 0104 strain that was almost never resistant to antibiotics before. What was so strange about this? I’m glad you asked.

You see, it isn’t easy for a bacteria to become a super-bug overnight. It happens slowly, relatively speaking, as the bacteria are exposed to more and more different antibiotics over time. Usually you’ll see a strain resistant to one or two antibiotics first. Then, as different antibiotics must be used to treat the infection, the e.coli eventually becomes exposed to other antibiotics becoming resistant to them, as well. But not this time. This new German strain magically became resistant to every antibiotic that can be used against it overnight!

How could this happen in nature? Well, it can’t!

In studying the DNA of the German e.coli it was discovered that nature didn’t do it — a genetic engineer did! Or maybe it was extraterrestrials? Germany’s Robert Koch Institute analyzed the DNA of the O104 e.coli and discovered that it is resistant to some of the most widely used antibiotics by hospitals, including:

  • penicillin
  • tetracycline
  • nalidixic acid
  • trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazol
  • cephalosporins (ceftazidime, cefuroxime, cefotaxime)
  • amoxicillin / clavulanic acid
  • piperacillin-sulbactam
  • piperacillin-tazobactam

This e.coli has two other unusual features that shouldn’t have been there in a common e.coli strain like 0104 — dangerous TEM-1 and CTX-M-15 genes. The rare e.coli strains normally found with these genes are so virulent that patients quickly die from organ failure. The only way this could have happened was by exposing this e.coli to all these antibiotics one by one over time, carefully selecting the resistant bacteria and reproducing them. Though resistance to a one antibiotic is common, this repeated, continuous exposure to so many antibiotics is virtually impossible in nature. That leaves only one possible source – that nefarious genetic engineering lab we’ve all seen in a grade-B science fiction movie — like this:

Scene 1. Create a problem — a deadly strain of E. coli in our food.
Scene 2. Create a huge public outcry of people so terrified that they’re even afraid to eat fresh organic food!
Scene 3. In response to that, enact even more controls over the global food supply and require that all fresh food is irradiated or sprayed.
Scene 4. Legislate even more control over fresh vegetables, raw sprouts, raw milk and anything else that could be blamed for this deadly outbreak!
Maybe it was extraterrestrials?14182172_cu - alien head

Though this scenario may be hard to believe, unfortunately it isn’t merely bad science fiction. This strain of e.coli actually had to be intentionally exposed to eight major types of antibiotics again and again before it just suddenly showed up in the food supply overnight. In nature, spontaneous mutations on a scale like this are virtually unknown. This had to be intentional. The only question left is who did it — mad scientists or extraterrestrials?

To answer that you first have to ask why would someone do such a horrible thing? Well, if they are extraterrestrials they may be preparing for an invasion. However, on a personal note, I trust extraterrestrials more than the mad scientists working for agribusiness companies like MonSatan. What is it that mad scientists in B-movies always want? To take over the world, of course! It would be funny, as well grade-B sci fi, if it wasn’t so close to the truth!

monsatan logoConsider the scientists at the #1 GMO company in the world today, which I like to call MonSatan. They have a problem — most of the world wants nothing to do with their unlabeled, unhealthy GMO foods. But MonSantan is heavily invested in the future of GMO’s so what can they do? Maybe they’ll try to make you more afraid of organic food than you are of GMO’s!

Control the food supply and you control the profits. It’s what I call the “business-as-usual-conspiracy.” You saw it in action when the FDA demolished farm freedom in America by passing the “Food Safety Modernization Act” using consumer fear following several e.coli outbreaks in the U.S. When people are afraid it’s not that hard to get them to accept almost anything.

Raw Food Defense Against MonSatan and their Super-Bug Minions!

When you transform your health with a raw food based lifestyle, you eventually begin to lift yourself out of a reactive, knee-jerk, fear-based paradigm. Then you discover a self- actualized, empowered and healthier life based on compassion, hope and glowing health rather than fear and dis-ease. You’ll enjoy a renewed immune system as well as natural plant remedies like colloidal silver, garlic, ginger, onions and other herbs that help empower your innate immunity to all dis-ease. When this happens, Monsatan’s minions will fear YOU!

Nearly all the “diseases of civilization” we have today are caused by e.coli and other diseases can be easily avoided with a raw, nutritionally dense, organic diet and lifestyle that rebuilds your body’s own defenses against all disease. It’s can start for you right here, right now — just make a commitment to start eating more natural, organic, alkaline-forming raw foods and drinking more high-pH alkaline mineral water. Do it today!

Also Read:

Non-GMO — The Front Line in the Battle to Save Your Food

Make Your Own Alkaline Ionized Water Right at Home

Washijng Your Fruits and VegetablesThere are several ways to make alkaline ionized water. You could use a little baking soda or just add lemon juice to water and alkalize it that way. Of course, lemon juice is acidic — but when you actually drink it you are “alkalizing” your body. You see, when people talk about aid and alkaline balance with water, they are actually using short-hand. What they really mean is “alkaline-forming” and “acid-forming” — terms to how the body responds to what you are eating or drinking. Many fruits are acidic, like lemons, and “alkaline-forming” in your body. But remember, this home-brew system doesn’t filter your water at all…it just alkalizes it.

A water ionizer is a home appliance that can raise the pH of drinking water by using electrolysis to separate the incoming water stream into acidic and alkaline components. There are several scientific studies which show that drinking alkaline ionized water has many health benefits. See my other posts on alkaline water for some references.

For pure, clean healthy water you need to use a filter system before using this home brew ionizer, like the Berkey water filter system. Berkey makes some the most powerful filtering systems available. The filters provide reliable high quality quality water, removing viruses, pathogenis, cparasites, and dangerous chemicals.

Commercial alkaline ionized water systems can cost from under $1,000 to over $4,000, yet it’s quite easy to build your own basic system for nearly the same end results and for much less money.  However, it will require a bit of time and effort on your part.  Building your own basic water ionizer will let enjoy many of the benefits of the more expensive models. And they make fun, educational projects for a science fair or school project. Difficulty: Moderately Challenging.

Things You’ll Need:
  • Two 1-gallon plastic storage containers (BPA-Free plastic)
  • One 2-inch PVC pipe
  • Electrical wire (NSF Certified Medical Grade Titanium)*
  • Piece of chamois cloth or other organic fiber cloth slightly larger than PVC pipe for a membrane
  • 12V or 24V power adapter
  • Two crocodile clips
  • Two 0.5-inch by 0.75-inch pieces of Platinum Coated Medical Grade Titanium to use as electrodes (NSF Certified)*

Step 1: Set up the 2 1-gallon plastic containers next to each other and cut a 2-inch hole on the side of each one so that they line up and face each other.
Step 2: Insert the chamois cloth or membrane into the PVC pipe so that it fills the entire diameter of the pipe, like a wad or ball, and insert the pipe into the 2 holes you cut out of the plastic containers.
Step 3: Attach the titanium electrodes to some electrical wire.
Step 4: Attach the alligator clips to the 12V or 24V power system and to the wire that is running to the titanium electrodes.
Step 5
: Place a titanium electrode in each 1-gallon plastic container, and make sure the contact between the alligator clips and the wire running to the electrodes remain out of the water.
Step 6: Fill the containers with water from your faucet and turn on the power adapter. This initiates the ionizing process.
Step 7: Wait at least 2 hours and watch as the water separates into the 2 containers. The water in one container will turn brown and murky while the water in the other container will be clear and clean. Once the ionizing process is complete (up to 12 hours), the brown water is the acidic water and the clear water is the alkaline water.

NOTES:

  • A home-made ionizer system takes much longer to make alkaline ionized water than commercial systems since you use much smaller electrodes and less power. Commercial alkaline ionized water devices make the water instantly on demand.
  • The chamois cloth inside the PCV pipe may get moldy or need replacement. Remove the membrane, squeeze it out, and let it dry between use, or just soak it in acid water. If the ionizer is used daily mold probably won’t grow. Remember to use organic unbleached natural fibers.

Remember, this is moderately challenging project and exposes you to electrical current and water. Be careful and know exactly what you’re doing before you build.

* Please use only medical grade platinum plates titanium electrodes. Other materials, like stainless steel, will break down and leach into the water making it impure. ASTM-F67 Titanium is recommended.

Raw Food & Liberty – The Battle for Control of What You Think

0

Raw Food & Liberty: The legal battle to control what you eat … and think!

Freedom, Terrorism & Raw Food

On the the 4th of July in America we remember one of the world’s greatest struggles for true freedom and liberty. The thing to remember at this special time is that our founding fathers sacrificed their wealth and often their lives for what we called “natural rights.” Natural rights only came into existence, for the first time in human history, when our American forefathers were willing to fight to the death to claim them.

Before we fought for our liberty,  the entire world at best enjoyed only “civil rights,” or rights granted to them by the government or king, i.e., a privilege. The Colonies, which became America, started with a King, who gave us a lot of freedom to express ourselves as long as we behaved according to his rules. But the King didn’t honor his deal with his subjects in America. So after years of making all the appropriate legal arguments under international law, our Founders went to war to claim and defend our “natural rights.” The Founders hoped that this victory would be handed down to their posterity, essentially saying, “here are your rights — keep them if you can.”

Thomas Jefferson famously said that when we stated, “the tree of Liberty needs to be replenished occasionally with the blood of tyrants and patriots.” We must be willing to fight to protect our natural rights!

The Color of Law

If you are into health and nutrition this is very important to understand. Under “color of law,” which means that it looks like law but really isn’t, we may actually lose our access to real, organic, healthy food! Instead of real food we may find ourselves left with just “the color of food.”  These food-like products may look like food but have little useful nutrition. Even worse, they’re often very toxic , loaded with foreign DNA (GMO’s) and bad for our health.

42846558 - GMO cropsGenetically modified (GMO) foods are losing ground in most countries today. but many politicians are still financed by Monsanto & Friends and pushing for more and more control of their market. They want to protect their GMO technology while created new technologies that may even replace GMOs some day with things like nanotechnology. At the same time they are pushing to get control of vitamins, natural herbs and supplements. They even want to make vaccines mandatory — even though the evidence is clear that many vaccines are both ineffective and contain toxins known to cause serious health problems like autism or Alzheimer’s.

Genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are created in laboratories by inserting genes from one species into the DNA sequence of another to create new life forms designed for agricultural purposes (survive more pesticides, grow faster grow in depleted soil, etc.).

Nanotechnology is used to create new foods by breaking matter down into microscopic nanoparticles programmed for specific tasks (mimicking the flavor and texture of familiar foods, etc.).

While these two genetic manipulation technologies have been around in laboratories for decades, they have never been proven to be safe for either people or the environment.

If we do not take a stand for raw food & liberty now, organic food could effectively be gone forever — or priced out of the range of average consumers. Without fresh, non-GMO, organic food you cannot be truly healthy!  Period!

And that is their real goal! You see, they cannot control a healthy, awake and aware population that takes responsibility for itself — and that’s YOU!

Legal Principles of Control

Our system of “education” could teach this understanding to everyone in high school, but we somehow miraculously manage to ignore it. Meanwhile, the food pyramid charts use din most schools are provided as a “public service” to our schools by the diary industry!

The first legal concept is that “silence is an admission of acceptance or guilt.”  Second, “if you do not defend your rights they are deemed to have been waived.”

In other words, if you let them get away with all this nonsense then you have agreed to it, even if through ignorance. You see, legally ignorance is no excuse since it is your responsibility to educate yourself about your rights if you actually want them.

A basic understanding of law and legal principles should be part of every high school education. Conspicuously, it is absent. Schools are not  required to teach your kids anything at all about the law or your rights. But legally it is your responsibility to learn about your right and teach them to your kids — if you want to keep them. Kind of screwed up if you ask me, but this is called Personal Responsibility and the only one that can be responsible is YOU.

15943564 -Love AmericaYou must actually WANT freedom in order to be truly free! You do NOT get your human, God-given, natural rights merely because you exist, even though you are born with them, because if you don’t actually CHOOSE to learn about them and defend them you have essentially “volunteered” to give them up! That’s why every single printed document from the IRS reminds you that filing your taxes is a form of “Voluntary Compliance.” You can be sure that if the IRS wasn’t LEGALLY REQUIRED to use the word “voluntary,” they wouldn’t come anywhere near that word!

In the early 20th century education was considered so important that the very first thing that “socialists” did in those days was to co-opt the teaching profession. Today, almost all schools, universities and teachers are almost entirely “progressive,” i.e., socialist.  Today, these socialist-minded folks control almost everything you and your kids learn in our educational system, as well as the major media. They actually control what you think … unless you wrest control away from them and start thinking for yourself again. And it all starts with cleansing and purifying what you eat!

He who controls the definitions wins!

The first thing the socialist/progressive politicians did was take control over some essential legal definitions.  That’s the “double-speak” George Orwell tried to warn us about in his prophetic novel, 1984. In fact, “1984” already exists, particularly throughout the U.S. Statutes.

You see, a statute often redefines a word so that the legal meaning is exactly the opposite of what you think it means, or its “conversational” meaning! This control of definitions starts in public schools — where they also redefined the word “socialism,” so that now the word “democracy” means the same thing. Of course, America was never a democracy — it is a Constitutional Republic (very different legally).

In the medical field “they” routinely define imbalances caused by poor nutrition as “diseases,” actually giving them proprietary names and creating highly profitable new drugs to treat the relatively minor symptoms of their new diseases with side effects generally worse than the symptoms they are designed to treat.

Death has now been redefined, too! Some drugs routinely list death as a “side effect!” In the same way, most Americans today have voluntarily agreed to waive their natural rights as an American or citizen of a State, choosing instead to become federal citizens, or “U.S. Persons,” inadvertently giving up any legal claim to their “constitutional rights” as citizens of a sovereign State.  Now these U.S. Citizens or Persons only have the “civil rights” granted to them by “civil” authorities like the Federal Government.

Briefly, here is a summary of what happened — the 14th Amendment created a new class of citizenship called “United States citizen” or “U.S. Person.” There are 3 legal definitions of the United United States — only one of which refers to the Federal government (Washington, DC and other federal territories), as well as several legal definitions for a “Person.”

We think a “person” is a human being, so it should be synonymous with “people.” However that is sadly wrong! It is case where the legal definition is different from the conversational meaning in a way purposely intended to confuse you.

You are actually NOT a “person,” i.e., a legal identity assigned to you but not referring at all to your actual humanity. That is why a corporation or a car can legally also be a legal “person.” “Person” is a “term of art” often used in statutes and regulations to make it look like they include you when in fact they do not.

So, a “U.S. Person” is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government — not a State. And YOU are legally “presumed” to be a U.S. citizen or person. A “Citizen of the United States of America” (American Citizen), however, lives in one of the 50 sovereign States and has inalienable rights secured by their State and national constitutions.

39600368 - woman with maskA “Person” is a legal fiction subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government. That is why you don’t even have to be a “human being” to be called a Person under the law. In fact,  corporations and other artificial entities are also legally called Persons. You see, the word “Person” is actually derived from the Latin word “persona” — originally meaning “mask.” In the ancient world, real people (actors) actually wore a mask to represent their character in the play. So the word originally referred to a character wearing a mask in a play. In time it came to mean any artificial person under law, like a corporation. Today, it also refers to the artificial, “corporate” identity under law that actually means YOU, but not the real YOU — your corporate “persona” or U.S Person. What you really want to be is a Citizen of the United State of America, but most people have waived that status voluntarily — without ever knowing it.

If you don’t realize that legal definitions are not the same as what words mean in an ordinary conversation, than it is easy to be fooled by the 14th Amendment, believing that “civil rights” are the same as your God-given natural rights. When you do that you have volunteered into Federal jurisdiction and now the Constitution of the United States legally no longer applies to you. You are a U.S. Person governed by federal statutes and regulations — not the Constitution.

Fortunately, We the People are starting to wake up and fight to restore our “natural rights” legally.  A big part of this for many people is choosing to enjoy a healthier, more conscious way of life! For those like me that starts with a live, raw food lifestyle.

Opinion by Robert Ross

Also Read:

Equality, Freedom & Raw Food — Your Natural Rights!

Raw Pet Food: Why You Should Feed Jasper Fresh, Raw Food

WARNING
Do not read this article while eating your dinner or feeding your pet!

If you think your pet food really contains healthy ingredients like whole chicken, choice cuts of beef, fresh grains and all the nutrition your dog or cat will ever need … think again!

Raw Pet DogIf you care at all for your beloved pets, please do not believe the ads from the $30 billion/year U.S. pet food industry when it comes to the health of your beloved pets. Rather than being designed scientifically to provide everything your pet needs for good health, as advertised, commercial pet food actually lacks sufficient minerals, enzymes and vitamins for good health – and often contain ingredients, food additives, pesticides and GMO’s actually harmful to pet health. Instead, discover raw pet food!

Basically, the pet food industry is in reality just an extension of the human food industry, and their products are often just as bad as fast food or processed foods — and often much worse! Pet food, from the corporate point of view, is just a place for slaughterhouse waste and grains considered “unfit for human consumption” to be turned into profits!

What you will probably find in commercial pet foods are the contaminated or condemned remains of animals – that means Dead, Dying, Diseased or Disabled livestock. They use absolutely ALL of these waste products, including tongues, esophagi, nails, claws, feathers, beaks, tendons, lungs with pneumonia and other diseased and cancerous meat – nothing goes to waste in the name of profit. You may even find blood and fecal wastes. These are all listed on the label as byproducts which are found in moist as well as dry pet foods.

Those nutritious-sounding “whole grains” used in pet foods are just a cheap filler. In addition to being hard to absorb in a carnivore’s digestive system, these grains are waste products, too, and have had the starch and oil removed for use in other products (usually by chemical processing) or they are the hulls and other remnants from the milling process. Some of the grains used may have been deemed unfit for human consumption because of mold, contaminants or poor storage practices.

Ingredients

12810451 - dog eating carrotThe protein in pet food comes from a variety of sources. When cattle, swine, chickens, lambs, or any number of other animals are slaughtered, the choice cuts such as lean muscle tissue are trimmed away from the carcass for human consumption. Whatever remains of the carcass — bones, blood, pus, intestines, ligaments, and almost all the other parts not generally consumed by humans — is used in pet food.

These “byproducts,” as they’re called on pet food labels, have no legal definition for what is required. Many of these remnants are indigestible and provide a questionable source of nutrition for animals. In addition, the amount of nutrition provided by byproducts can vary from vat to vat.

Another source of meat you won’t find mentioned on pet food labels are dogs and cats that have been put to sleep, dead zoo animals and roadkill. Once it is rendered, Protein is protein – right? Rendering is the process of melting animal carcasses in a huge vat to extract oil, fat, bone meal and meat. The high heat used in rendering is supposed to make all this toxic waste safe – but it doesn’t. Though some bacteria are destroyed initially, there is little attention to paid to the process afterwards, leaving a high probability of contamination later from contact with the raw material. The manufacturers are not required to test for re-contamination. They also don’t test for endotoxins – toxins released from a bacterium when it dies.

What can the feeding of such ingredients do to your companion animal? Some veterinarians claim that feeding slaughterhouse wastes to animals increases their risk of getting cancer and other degenerative diseases. For example, feeding byproducts of dead cows to live cows has been linked to mad cow disease. One factor is that the cooking methods used by pet food manufacturers and rendering plants can’t destroy the hormones used to fatten livestock, or medications, such as those used to treat diseased animals or those used to euthanize dogs and cats.

There is virtually no information on the bio- availability of nutrients…in many of the dietary ingredients used in pet foods. These ingredients are generally byproducts of the meat, poultry and fishing industries, with the potential for a wide variation in nutrient composition. Claims of…the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO)…do not give assurances of nutritional adequacy …”  –– James Morris, Quinton Rogers, Dept. of Molecular Biosciences, University of California at Davis Veterinary School of Medicine (2008)

Animal & Poultry Fat

You may notice a pungent odor when you open a container of pet food. What is the source of that delightful smell? It is refined animal fat, kitchen grease, and other oils too rancid or deemed inedible for humans, doctored up for the noses of your pets then added to the pet food.

Restaurant grease has been a major component of feed grade animal fat over fifteen years. This grease is held in fifty-gallon drums outside of restaurants for weeks, exposed to extreme temperatures with no regard for its future use. The next few times you dine out, be sure to look out back behind the restaurant for a container with a rendering company’s name on it. It is almost guaranteed that you will find one. Rendering companies pick up this rancid grease and mix the different types of fat together, stabilize them with powerful antioxidants to retard additional spoilage, and then sell the blended products to pet food companies. These fats are sprayed directly onto dried kibble or extruded pellets to make an otherwise bland or distasteful product palatable to your pet. The fat also acts as a binding agent to which manufacturers add other flavor enhancers as well. Pet food scientists have discovered that animals love the taste of these sprayed fats. Manufacturers are masters at getting a dog or a cat to eat something she would normally turn up her nose at.

Wheat, soy, corn, Peanuts Hulls & Other Vegetable Protein

The amount of grain used in pet food has risen over the last decade. Once considered filler by the pet food industry, grain products now make up a considerable portion of pet food. The availability of nutrients in grain products is dependent upon the digestibility of the grain. The amount and type of carbohydrate in pet food determines the amount of nutrient value the animal actually gets. Dogs and cats can almost completely absorb carbohydrates from some grains, such as white rice. Up to 20% of other grains can escape digestion. The availability of nutrients for wheat, beans, and oats is poor. The nutrients in potatoes and corn are far less available than those in rice. Carbohydrate that escapes digestion is of little nutritional value due to bacteria in the colon that ferment carbohydrates. Some ingredients, such as peanut hulls, are used strictly for “filler” and have no nutritional value at all!

Two of the top three ingredients in pet food are almost always some form of grain. But since cats and dogs are carnivores — they must eat meat to fulfill certain physiological needs. Why are we feeding a corn-based product to them? The answer is that corn is cheaper than meat.

In 1995 Nature’s Recipe pulled thousands of tons of dog food off the shelf after consumers complained that their dogs were vomiting and losing their appetite. Nature’s Recipe’s loss amounted to $20 million. The problem was a fungus that produced vomitoxin, an aflatoxin, which is a subset of mycotoxin, a poison given off by mold contaminated the wheat. Although it caused many dogs to vomit, stop eating and have diarrhea, vomitoxin is a milder toxin than most. The more virulent strains of mycotoxins can cause weight loss, liver damage, lameness, and even death. The Nature’s Recipe incident prompted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to intervene. Dina Butcher, Agriculture Policy Advisor for North Dakota Governor Ed Schafer, concluded that the discovery of vomitoxin in Nature’s Recipe wasn’t much of a threat to the human population because “the grain that would go into pet food is not a high quality grain. Which means that the grain used in pet food is not fit for human consumption and therefore not a threat to the human population.

Soy is another common ingredient sometimes used as filler in pet food. It adds bulk so that when an animal eats a product containing soy it will feel more satisfied. While soy has been linked to gas in some dogs, other dogs do quite well with it. Vegetarian dog foods use soy as a protein source. Industry critics note that many of the ingredients used as humectants — ingredients such as corn syrup and corn gluten meal which bind water to prevent oxidation — also bind the water in such a way that the food actually sticks to the colon and may cause blockage. The blockage of the colon may cause an increased risk of cancer of the colon or rectum.

Additives & Preservatives

Additives are used in commercial pet foods to improve stability or appearance, and of course provide no nutritional value. These include emulsifiers to prevent water and fat from separating, antioxidants to prevent fat from turning rancid and antimicrobials to reduce spoilage. Added color and flavor make the product more attractive to consumers and their pets.

Two-thirds of the pet food manufactured in the United States contains preservatives. In the remaining third, 90% includes ingredients already stabilized by synthetic preservatives. Premixed vitamin additives used to supplement pet food can also contain preservatives. This means that your pet may eat food with several types of preservatives that have been added at the rendering plant, the manufacturing plant and in the supplemental vitamins.

In the last 40 years, the number of food additives has greatly increased. Of the more than 8,600 recognized food additives today, no toxicity information is available for 46% of them. Cancer-causing agents are sometimes permitted if they are used at low enough levels. The risk of continued use at these cancer-causing agents has not been studied and the build up of these agents may be harmful. Ethoxyquin (EQ), for example, was found in dogs’ livers and tissues months after it had been removed from their diet, and as of July 31, 1997, the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine requested that manufacturers reduce the maximum level for EQ be cut in half, to 75 parts per million.

Though the law requires studies of direct toxicity of additives and preservatives, most of them have not been tested for their combined effect after ingestion. Three commonly used preservatives, BHA, BHT, and EQ, have a proven synergistic effect that may lead to the development of certain types of cancer. Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxtoluene (BHT) are the most commonly used antioxidants in processed food for human consumption. For these antioxidants, there is little information documenting their toxicity or the safety of long-term use in pet food.

In animal feeds, the most commonly used antioxidant preservative is ethoxyquin. Some pet food critics and veterinarians claim ethoxyquin is a major cause of disease, skin problems, and infertility in dogs. Ethoxyquin is not approved for use as a preservative in human food.

Nitrate, also used in meat for human consumption. combines with bacteria, which changes it to another chemical form with carcinogenic properties called nitrosamines. Very small amounts of this chemical can cause acute and chronic liver damage.

“Natural preservatives” and antioxidants are like Vitamin C, Vitamin E, may seem better than chemical preservatives they may be less effective than chemical preservatives.

To make pet food nutritious, manufacturers “fortify” it with vitamins and minerals, which are also just more highly processed, hard to digest chemicals. They have to do this, however, because the other ingredients in the pet food basically have little or no nutrition left after processing.

The answer, of course, is to use fresh, whole raw foods that don’t need preservatives, that aren’t rancid and rendered, that aren’t made from by -products, and that are too disgusting to discuss during dinner!

Contaminants

Commercially manufactured or rendered meat meals are highly contaminated with bacteria because their source includes animals that have died because of disease, injury, or natural causes. These dead animal may not be rendered until days after death. Therefore the carcass is often contaminated with bacteria. While cooking may kill bacteria, it does not eliminate endotoxins that can cause disease. Pet food manufacturers do not test their products for endotoxins.

Escherichia coli (E Coli) is another bacteria that can be found in contaminated pet foods. E Coli bacteria, like Salmonella, can be destroyed by cooking at high temperatures, however, the endotoxin produced by the bacteria will remain.

Aflatoxin comes from mold or fungi. Improper drying and storage of crops causes mold growth, which results in Aflatoxin contamination. Ingredients that are most likely to be contaminated with this toxin are cottonseed meal, peanut meal, and fish meal.

Labeling

The National Research Council (NRC) of the Academy of Sciences set the nutritional standards for pet food until 1974, when the pet food industry created a group called the American Association of Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). At that time AAFCO chose to adopt the NRC standards rather than develop its own. The NRC standards required feeding trials for pet foods that claimed to be “complete” and “balanced.” The pet food industry found the feeding trials to be too restrictive, so AAFCO designed an alternate procedure for claiming the nutritional adequacy of pet food. Instead of feeding trials, chemical analysis would be done to determine if a food met or exceeded the NRC standards. But chemical analysis does not address the palatability, digestibility and biological availability of nutrients in pet food. So it is unreliable for determining whether a food will provide an animal with sufficient nutrition. To compensate for the limitations of chemical analysis, AAFCO added a “safety factor,” which was to exceed the minimum amount of nutrients required to meet the complete and balanced requirements. By establishing its own standards and disregarding the NRC standards, AAFCO established itself as the governing body for pet food. In essence the pet food industry developed its own standards for nutritional adequacy.

Genetically Modified Ingredients (GMOs)

Most pet foods on the market today are probably mostly made from corn products that are genetically modified (GMO) — the seeds genetically modified to produce plants that can withstand repeated spraying with Monsanto’s Roundup, a glyphosate-based weed killer demonstrated to have adverse health effects in animals!

Today, more than 90% of the corn grown in in the U.S. is genetically modified. Studies have shown that genetically modified corn causes significant kidney and liver disease in rats after only a 90-day feeding trial, and has a negative effect on the heart, spleen and other organs. A new lifetime study of rats fed GMO corn shows they died earlier than rats on a standard diet plus they developed tumors and severe kidney and liver damage as well. Half the male rats and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with 30 percent of males and 20 percent of females in the control group.

A 2009 article in the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition asserted that “The results of most of the rather few studies conducted with GM foods indicate that they may cause hepatic, pancreatic, renal, and reproductive effects and may alter hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters the significance of which remains unknown. The above results indicate that many GM foods have some common toxic effects.

The toxic insecticidal agent Bacillus thuringiensis is present in most GMO crops in the U.S. that wind up in animal feed and pet food. Glufosinate and glyphosate are herbicides, applied to millions of acres of genetically modified crops in the U.S. These herbicides cause kidney damage in animals, endocrine disruption and birth defects in frogs, and are lethal to many amphibians. Glyphosate has also been linked to miscarriages, premature births, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, in humans.

Health experts are connecting the rise in human allergies, including skin conditions and inflammatory GI disorders, to consumption of GMO foods – in particular, GMO soy

Independent animal feeding safety studies show adverse or unexplained effects of GMO foods, including inflammation and abnormal cell growth in the GI tract, as well as in the liver, kidney, testicles, heart, pancreas and brain. GMO crops have also been shown to be unstable and prone to unplanned mutations.

Also, remember that corn and soy ingredients are not biologically appropriate for dogs dog and cats, even if they’re not GMO. Both these ingredients are associated with a variety of health problems in animals, from allergies and skin disorders to oral disease, inflammatory bowel disease,and cystitis.

Problems Caused by Inadequate Nutrition in Pet Foods

The idea of one pet food providing 100% of a pet’s nutrition for its entire life is a myth. Since cereals are the primary ingredients in most commercial pet foods, and dogs and cats eat need protein and variety, commercial pet foods can’t provide adequate nutrition. The problems associated with a commercial diet are seen every day at veterinary establishments. Chronic digestive problems, such as chronic diarrhea, are among the most frequent illnesses treated. Allergy or hypersensitivity to foods is a common problem usually seen as diarrhea or vomiting. The market for “hypoallergenic” pet foods is now a multi-million dollar business. These diets were formulated to address the increasing intolerance to foods that animals have developed to commercial pet foods.

Even the actual meat that is used in commercial pet foods has poor protein digestibility. Diets containing protein with less than 70% digestibility cause diarrhea in dogs. Some fillers used in these foods can also cause colitis, which is the inflammation of the colon. Most pet food companies do not publish digestibility statistics and they are never seen on pet food labels. Acute vomiting and diarrhea is also a symptom of bacteria contamination. Dry commercial food is often contaminated with bacteria which may cause problems. Improper food storage and some feeding practices may result in the multiplication of this bacteria. For example, adding water to moisten pet food and then leaving it at room temperature causes bacteria to multiply. Yet this practice is suggested on the back of some kitten and puppy foods.

Pet food formulas and the practice of feeding that manufacturers recommend have increased other digestive problems. Feeding only one meal per day can cause the irritation of the esophagus by stomach acid. Feeding two smaller meals is better. Urinary tract disease is directly related to diet in both cats and dogs. Plugs, crystals, and stones in cat bladders are caused by commercial pet food formulas.  Dogs can also form stones as a result of their diet.

Rapid growth in large breed puppies has been shown to contribute to bone and joint disease. Excess calories in manufactured puppy food formulas promote rapid growth. There are now special puppy foods for large breed dogs. But this recent change will not help the countless dogs who lived and died with hip and elbow disease.

There is also evidence that hyperthyroidism in cats results from commercial pet food diets. This is a new disease that first surfaced in the 1970s, when canned food products first came on the market. The exact cause and effect are not yet known. This is a serious and sometimes terminal disease and treatment is expensive.

Many nutritional problems appeared with the popularity of cereal-based commercial pet foods. Sometimes this is because the diet is incomplete. Sometimes it’s a result of additives or a result of contamination with bacteria, toxins and other organisms. In some diseases the role of commercial pet food is understood, in others, it is not. The bottom line is that diets composed primarily of low quality cereals and rendered meat meals are not as nutritious or safe as you should expect for your cat or dog.

Are your pets eating food industry waste?

We’re often able to deceive ourselves into believing pet foods are good for dogs and cats is because the changes to a pet’s health and vitality brought on by a dead, processed, chemically-laden diet are usually not acute nor immediate. For half-century our pets have been fed inappropriate diets that have kept them alive — but not thriving. In fact, we’ve created several generations of pets that suffer from a variety of degenerative diseases we think come from age but are actually linked to nutritional deficiencies.

To multi-national food companies, a pet food company is just a marketing strategy for turning their waste products and garbage into profits. The pet food consumer is shown glossy pictures of choice cuts of meat and fresh vegetables on the pet food label…but what guarantee is the consumer given that those labels are truthful, honest depictions of the ingredients used in the pet food?  None.

The purchase and use of these ingredients by the pet food industry not only provides nutritional needs for pets at reasonable costs, but provides an important source of income to American farmers and processors of meat, poultry and seafood products for human consumption.
The Pet Food Institute on the use of by-products (i.e., waste)
as extra income for producers and farmers

Secret Ingredients

Of the top 4 ingredients in Purina O.N.E. Dog Formula (Chicken, Ground Yellow Corn, Ground Wheat, and Corn Gluten Meal) 2 are corn-based products … the same product. This industry practice is known as splitting. When components of the same whole ingredients are listed separately — such as Ground Yellow Corn and Corn Gluten Meal — it appears there is less corn than chicken, even though the combined corn ingredients outweigh the chicken.

The answer for feeding your beloved pets is the same as it is for the rest of your family – whole, live, fresh raw food! And thankfully, it isn’t as difficult as you may think. This web site provides some recipes and links to other raw pet food web pages. Just take a dash of your love for your pet and mix it thoroughly with a little online research and you’re on your way!

Additives Commonly Found in Commercial Pet Foods
  • Anticaking agents
  • Lubricants
  • Antimicrobial agents
  • Non-nutritive sweeteners
  • Antioxidants
  • Nutritive sweeteners
  • Coloring agents
  • Oxidizing, reducing agents
  • Curing agents
  • pH control agents
  • Drying agents
  • Processing aids
  • Emulsifiers
  • Sequestrants
  • Firming agents
  • Solvents, vehicles
  • Flavor enhancers
  • Stabilizers, thickeners
  • Flavoring agents
  • Surface active agents
  • Flour treating agents
  • Surface finishing agents
  • Formulation aids
  • Synergists
  • Humectants
  • Texturizers
  • Leavening agents
Suggested References
  • American Pet Products Association.
  • http://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp
  • Animal Protection Institute. “What’s Really in Pet Food.” 05/01/2007.
  • http://www.bornfreeusa.org/facts.php?more=1&p=359
  • Consumer Search. “Cat Food: Full Report.” 02/01/2009.
  • http://www.consumersearch.com/cat-food/review
  • Consumer Search. “Dog Food: Full Report.” 02/01/2009.
  • http://www.consumersearch.com/dog-food/dog-food-ingredients
  • Dunn Jr., Dr. TJ. “Basic Nutrition for Dogs.” Dog World Magazine. 09/15/2009.
  • http://www.thepetcenter.com/article.aspx?id=3406
  • De La Cruz, Dr. Keith. “Feed Your Dog Right.” Business Mirror. 03/07/2010.
  • http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22644:feed-your-dog-right&catid=32:life&Itemid=68
  • The Humane Society of the United States. “U.S. Pet Ownership Statistics.” 12/30/2009.
  • http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html
  • Nash, Holly. “Dog Food Standards by the AAFCO.”
  • http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=2+1659+1661&aid=662
  • Newman, Lisa. “What’s in Your Pet’s Food?” Purely Pets. 06/24/2009.
  • http://www.purelypets.com/articles/whatsinfood.htm
  • Phillips-Donaldson, Debbie. “Something to chew on: Petfood still growing.” Petfood Industry. 12/18/2009.
  • http://www.petfoodindustry.com/stillgrowing0912.aspx

Originally written by Robert Ross  in 2010, updated April 2017.

Also read:

Why We Really Don’t Need GMO Foods

The Benefits of Raw Food – Robert’s Raw Food Videos in West Palm Beach, FL

soma cafe palm beachHere are some raw food videos of talks I gave at the Soma Cafe in Florida about the benefits of a raw food lifestyle, how raw food actually can change your consciousness, how cooked food is addictive and how it causes disease. I always approach raw food with the basic premise that food is our medicine. Experience the raw vegan diet for yourself and you’ll also start to enjoy a vibrant new connection with your food, as well as the the role you play on our planet. The impact of this will awaken something inside you that’s been suppressed by a diet fill with mind numbing toxins. So enjoy!

Everyone can have this transformational experience by thinking about your diet and in totally new ways — and committing to a healthier, cleaner, toxin-free lifestyle. Remember, you are what you eat. So your food is the most direct connection you will ever have to your world, more than even the air you breathe.

Raw Food Video #1
I talk about how raw food restores the cell’s normal sugar metabolism and how an abnormal, anaerobic sugar metabolism for the cell causes cooked food addictions and dis-ease.

Raw Food Video #2
I talk about digestion and energy, transit times, autointoxication and more – with a couple of rants about quantum biology and the Whole Foods scam of “California” Medley frozen organic veggies made in China!

Raw Food Video #3
I rant a bit about the environmental impact & dangers of organic products that come from china, plastic water bottles, genetically modified foods, global warming and much more.

Raw Food Video #4
I rant a bit more about environmental issues, why I teach, how raw food changes consciousness and creates miracles in my life, my struggle to stay raw, high fructose corn syrup, sugar metabolism and more.

Also Watch:

Interview with Robert Ross

The Raw Truth: What You Probably Don’t Know About Agave Nectar

If you are reading this article you probably already know the truth about agave and avoid foods containing High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). But just as John Q. Public is learning that this is actually very bad for you, the commercial food industry has discovered something even better to fool us with — and it’s targeted right at the health-conscious consumer! Welcome to the world of agave nectar — a diabetic friendly, raw, and 100% natural sweetener. Except that’s completely UNTRUE!

High Fructose Corn Syrup Is Bad for You!

Today, agave nectar is found in the health food aisles of many supermarkets. It’s also be found as an ingredient in many foods labeled organic or even raw, from ketchup and ice cream to chocolate and healthy snacks. The labels on these products are designed to make you think that agave is a natural unrefined sweetener that has been used by indigenous peoples in Mexico for thousands of years — but that’s just a sad joke given the actual history of agave.

While it is true that a long time ago in Mexico they used the sweet sap from the Pina (top  of the plant), the agave nectar in stores today is a relative newcomer to the world of artificial sweeteners actually invented during the 1990’s. The “Blue Agave” that you find  in stores now isn’t even made from the sap or nectar of a real agave plant, as the original white agave was. Instead, Blue Agave is processed by removing the root or bulb of the plant, then treating it with chemicals and processing beyond all recognition!

The traditional Agave Salmiana (White Agave) associated with health benefits is made much more naturally — and tediously. It is very rare today.  Agave Salmiana grows a flower from the center of the plant called the Quiote.  The Quiote is cut off when the plants is 7-8 years old, creating a hole or pool of liquid in the center of the plant, called “Aguamiel.”  The plant is then milked twice daily as the Aguamiel collects.

Aguamiel is not the “sap” of the leaves as is some commercial sources like to claim. In fact, the sap from the leaves is actually inedible — containing saponins, raphides and calcium oxalate.  Aguamiel is the juice that the plant makes to feed the Quiote, so is full of nutrients like carbohydrates, fructans, vitamins and amino acids. The removal of the water in the Aquamile juice leaves White Agave nectar — the healthy, traditional agave that’s almost impossible to find and very expensive. Even if you do locate some, it still has far  too much fructose for most people. It is also quite acid-forming for your body.

Diabetes Disaster

Because high fructose agave syrup won’t spike blood glucose levels, some ruthless companies promote agave syrup as a good alternative for diabetics! For this they should probably be criminally prosecuted!  Of course fructose doesn’t trigger a test for glucose – but that doesn’t actually make it a healthy substitute even for diabetics!  Unlike glucose, which is metabolized by the pancreas, fructose is metabolized by the liver just like alcohol and produces many of the same side effects as chronic alcoholism! That can include mineral depletion, liver inflammation, hardening of the arteries, insulin resistance & diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, obesity, stroke, cancer, arthritis and premature aging.

Yucca plants also contain saponins – highly toxic steroid derivatives. Yet this nasty, unscrupulous industry actually tries to claim that saponins have some ridiculous health benefits,. However, you should avoid them at all costs, especially if pregnant or breastfeeding!

If you have any insulin-related issues like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes or overweight problems, I suggestions you avoid all sweeteners, including fructose or agave. I even limit my use of Stevia, a natural sugar substitute. As a raw foodist I believe its far better to rehabilitate your ability to enjoy the natural goodness in unadulterated foods without adding any sweeteners. That will empowers your innate ability to eat “intuitively.”

If you want something sweet, eat a piece of fruit. Even raw organic snack bars are loaded with processed sugars. I say that because even drying fruit in the sun is actually a form of processing! Dried fruits are sources of highly concentrated sugars and can be almost as bad as any other kind of sugar.

Now, of course that is an ideal. You might have to work up to it, since most people are addicted to everything tasting sweeter than it really needs to. Also, your body may have adapted to an emergency form of cellular metabolism that relies more on glucose, since that is all you have been eating for decades.

Instead, here are a few alternatives — though eliminating your need for sweet things is really the best long term strategy. Until then, for raw dishes try using raw honey or dates. For cooked dishes try organic maple syrup. For an occasional desert use dehydrated cane sugar juice or maple sugar in moderation. Freshly made apple juice or orange juice can also provide plenty of sweetness – but remember, juicing sweet fruits is also a form of processing that concentrates sugars so should be used in moderation. If you must use agave, look for traditional raw, organic agave if you can find it.

But here is the bottom line — ultimately all sweeteners are bad and acidic-forming to your body just like cooked food. Healthy food actually taste wonderfully naturally once you are used to the natural taste of food. When you alter the way foods taste you actually confuse your ability to know “intuitively” what’s good and what’s not. With a raw, live food diet, after a period of cleansing and healing at the cellular level, your natural ability to taste real food begins to return. That’s when live, fresh foods begin to taste wonderful without any enhancement. After that, if you have a craving its no longer your addictions calling, it means your body actually has a real nutritionally need.

The Raw Food Answer – No Processing, No Labels, No Lies

When you eat fresh, organic raw food it doesn’t come with fine print on the label that can be distorted and twisted by greed. Every single new sweetener like agave syrup introduced into the market was invented to do one thing – make a profit for a corporation. Since the FDA doesn’t enforce food-labeling laws, you can’t be sure what you’re eating is what is on the label of any processed food. So please, just don’t eat that junk!

Reduce Your Consumption of Fructose and ALL artificial sweeteners!


Selected References

  • Morell SF and Nagel R. “Agave nectar: Worse than we thought,” April 30, 2009. Weston A. Price Foundation
  • US Patent 5846333—Method of producing fructose syrup from agave plants
  •  Carr C. “Agave’s sweet spot,” January 31, 2009, Time Magazine
  • “Heat forms potentially harmful substance in high-fructose corn syrup,
    bee study finds,” ScienceDaily August 27, 2009
  • LeBlanc BW, Eggleston G, Sammatarot D, , et al,. “Formation of hydroxymethylfurfural in domestic high-fructose corn syrup and its toxicity to the honey bee,” J. Agric. Food Chem., 2009, 57(16), pp 7369-7376

Also read:

The 2nd Most Important Molecule in Your Body – Say Hello to ATP!