Home Blog Page 35

Decline of the GMO Gangsters: Down But Far from Out!

robertaross
-
0
Decline of the GMO Gangsters: Down But Far from Out!

For many years Monsanto and Friends have been saying that GMO crops (genetically modified organisms) and the chemicals they rely on, such as Roundup and glyphosate, are safe. In fact, they’re a bit infamous for actually suing organic farmers for patent infringement it the past — and winning!

Since 1997, just a year after Monsanto’s first GMO crop was approved by the FDA, the biotech company filed 150 lawsuits against family farmers. About 700 more were settled out of court. Since then, Monsanto has investigated more than 500 farmers annually!

28219887 GMO vs. OrganicToday, however, the tide is finally shifting. Monsanto and Friends have started losing lawsuits from farmers that have had crops destroyed by GMO-related contamination. Monsanto & Friends may have started losing a little ground when it comes to GMO’s, but they are well on the way to new developments like nanotechnology that could eventually replace GMO’s, and We the People may have to start over.

So, the Monsanto Mafia remains alive and well whatever short-term battles they lose. Some of their activities have been weakened but they are far from eliminated. They’ll always be working on the next technology to replace your real food with their laboratory experiments. There IS no “coexistence” with GMO crops or nanotechnologies. It just isn’t profitable enough for Monsanto! The real profit is in the patents on seeds and crops that come from their biotechnology — and that just cannot be allowed to compete with natural crops that have been growing just fine for millions of years.

The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture was working on a plan that to protect farmers from contamination of GMO crops — would you believe “contamination insurance!”  The plan was to shift responsibility for GMO’s to farmers instead of Monsanto and its evil minions.  This was of course based on a fundamental LIE — that GMO and conventional or organic crops can coexist. But the truth is that GMO pollen is spread by wind, insects, birds and animals so will eventually contaminate (i.e., think “destroy”) all organic and non-GMO crops. In fact,  you can bet that Monsanto is counting on it!

“The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded that there’s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender.” – Biotech consultant Don Westfall, Toronto Star, 2001

In a recent press release from the USDA:

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on Wednesday released an Organic Farming Practices Fact Sheet, which said organic crop production losses due to contamination by drift of prohibited substances, such as genetically engineered crops like corn and soy, are not insurable”

Organic farmers have tried to find ways to protect themselves. For example, finding corn seeds that have resistance to cross fertilization by GMO pollen. This may offer some protection for organic corn but it is far from foolproof. Instead of trying to find ways to coexist with GMO’s, farmers need to take a stronger stand against GMO technologies that actually cannot co-exist when they can change the DNA of non-GMO crops until all are contaminated. This represents a permanent change to the environment worldwide…not just a new variety of corn or whatever. Its a very big deal!

Monsanto Crops
A trademark of Monsanto with the same “Roundup Ready” genes.
ٔSo Monsanto & Friends should all be held accountable for any losses associated with

GMO crops and their contamination. When they have the actually pay into a fund to help farmers recover all the costs of GMO contamination maybe they’ll discover that GMO crops are far less profitable when you actually have to pay for all the long term costs to the marketplace, the farmers and the consumers around the world.

The responsibility for preventing contamination should NEVER be shared with farmers. That was an idea created by Monsanto & Friends! Non-GMO and organic farmers shouldn’t have to protect themselves from GMO’s at all. The idea of creating buffer zones and other nonsense was all Monsanto’s, to make it look like they don’t own all responsibility for the environmental impact of GMO’s through GMO-drift on the wind or whatever. If Monsanto is successful at setting a legal precedent that non-GMO farmers bear some responsibility for GMO contamination, it may spell the end of non-GMO and organic crops.

Contamination is definitely already occurring and is the most frequent reason for crops being rejected by buyers — which has already happened in China, of all places, when they rejected organic corn shipments that tested positive for GMO’s. And when the weather is particularly bad (high winds, storms, etc.) the risks of contamination goes way up, regardless of “buffer zones” and other nonsense promoted by Monsanto & Friends.

Costs of contamination are imposed at the marketing level as well as at the farm level. Growers, co-ops and grain marketing organizations incur many costs as well. Testing programs can costs thousands of dollars a year for farmers or co-ops.  If contamination is discovered then crops can no longer be sold for the original intended use. Then farmers have to sell the contaminated GMO crops for animal feed — which is far less profitable for the farmer — after they already spent a small fortune to certify and grow organic crops. GMO animal feed is also highly objectionable to people who don’t want to to be part of anything GMO.

Every contaminated load of GMO crops can cost farmers thousands of dollars if it has to be shipped back to the farm and then on to a different, less discerning buyer. So some farmers just go straight to the animal feed markets to reduce the hassle of trying to sell in markets with rigorous GMO testing. Needless to say, I don’t support the use of GMO’s for animals either!

Ultimately it is unrealistic to expect this issue to be resolved in the marketplace, which is just what GMO companies really want.

More Resources:

https://rawfoodlife.com/10-reasons-why-no-GMO

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1220?t=7&akid=1174.952702.0tBJpz

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1217?t=12&akid=1174.952702.0tBJpz

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/1218?t=14&akid=1174.952702.0tBJpz

Revised & updated June, 2017.

Also read:

Disadvantages of Genetically Modified Crops (GMOs) – Don’t Believe the Industry Hype!

 

Whatever You Think About Monsanto & Friends, it’s Worse — GMO’s are an Attack on Life Itself!

robertaross
-
0
Whatever You Think About Monsanto & Friends, it’s Worse — GMO’s are an Attack on Life Itself!

Monsanto’s GMO’s, political corruption and falsified research has unleashed new microscopic “Frankensteins” that are already making animals & people sick and dramatically decreasing fertility. GMO’s are an attack on life itself! Perhaps you’ve seen the sci fi flick about a world with no children – well, here it comes!

Dr. Don Huber
Dr. Don Huber, acclaimed agricultural scientist
“…according to Dr. Don Huber, an agricultural scientist and expert in microbial ecology… Monsanto’s genetically engineered…crops are responsible for … an outbreak of new plant, animal and human diseases.”

Remember, to be a raw food vegan you have to eat raw, unprocessed, nutritionally-dense, toxin-free food. GMO’s are not only making that impossible — they are attacking life itself!

  • There are no peer-reviewed scientific studies on the safety of GMO’s — though there are several studies that have been funded by Monsanto and Friends that have been shown to be unreliable.
  • There are clinical and peer-reviewed scientific studies that clearly show the dangers of GMO’s.
  • Epidemiological studies have shown that there’s been a significant increase in over 30 human diseases that corresponds to the increased use of glyphosate and GMO’s in our food.
  • Glyphosate is not actually an herbicide. When it was initially patented, glyphosate was considered a mineral chelator that makes nutrients unavailable for your body. It’s also patented as an antibiotic that can damage the gut bacteria we need for proper digestion, further making many nutrients less available.

“You may have the mineral [in the plant], but if it’s chelated with glyphosate, it’s not going to be available physiologically for you to use, so you’re just eating a piece of gravel,”  — Dr. Don Huber

  • The EPA doubled the amount of glyphosate allowed in food. Today’s crops that are heavily sprayed with glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup) have lower nutrient density than organic foods and contain high amounts of pesticides known to be harmful to our health.

Glyphosate is also patented as an antibiotic—and a very effective one at that— against a large number of beneficial organisms. Unfortunately, like all antibiotics, it also kills vitally important beneficial soil bacteria and human gut bacteria.

“Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus faecalis—these are organisms that keep you healthy either by providing accessibility to the minerals in your food or producing many of the vitamins that you need for life. They’re also the natural biological defenses to keep Clostridium, Salmonella, and E.coli from developing in your system,” — Dr. Don Huber

Glyphosate was originally patented as a chelator in 1964 by Stauffer Chemical Co. Monsanto introduced as an herbicide in 1974. In 1996, Roundup Ready crops were introduced creating a sharp increase in Roundup use since it can be applied several times without damaging a crop. Then, to put the final nail in your coffin, Monsanto started using glyphosate as a ripening agent applied just before a harvest to ripen the crops — even for non-GMO crops!

Despite all the documented health risks, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is regularly approached by biotech companies asking for higher limits of this toxic chemical in your food.

GMO’s — an Attack on Life Itself.

GMO’s cannot coexist with conventional crops. All this is connected to the relationships between genes and their environment. When you disrupt these relationships you end up with a variety of effects that have never been studied at all. We actually don’t even know all the effects of this attack on life itself!

“We know how to get these genes in; we don’t know how to remove them…. If you have a gene that is spread by pollen, like Roundup Ready alfalfa, it’s just a matter of time before bees or the wind is going to transfer that particular pollen to every alfalfa crop that you’re going to grow…. for every one of those successful expressions that you get from genetic engineering, you have over a million other things that take place that are negative…. One of the things that we do know is that the genes that are being inserted are extremely promiscuous. They’re not stable.” — Dr. Don Huber.

Research has shown that human cells are able to transfer GMO genes, actually adversely affecting the human genome — that’s you and me! University of Canterbury Professor Jack Heinemann released results from genetic research on GMO wheat that showed that molecules created in the wheat, designed to change its carbohydrate content, can potentially silence human genes, as well.

“If this silences the same gene in us that it silences in the wheat — well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five.” – Judy Carman in Digital Journal:6

Heinemann’s research showed over several hundred pages of possible matches between GMO genes in the wheat with the human genome. Over a dozen of these were “extensive and identical and sufficient to cause silencing in experimental systems.” According to experts, this could create dangerous changes in the way glucose and carbohydrates are stored in our bodies.

Bee Die-Offs

According to Dr. Huber, there are several characteristics of bee colony collapse disorder that suggests glyphosate may be at least partly responsible:dreamstime_xs_70918441

  1. The bees are deficient in minerals, especially in micronutrients.
  2. There’s plenty of food but the bees are not able to use or digest it.
  3. The dead bees have no Lactobacillus or Bifidobacterium, essential components of their digestive systems.

When exposed to glyphosate, bees become disoriented, suggesting endocrine hormone disruption. Neonicotinoid insecticides are endocrine hormone disruptors that have also been shown to make bees disoriented. According to Dr. Huber, a study on glyphosate commonly found in U.S. drinking water systems showed a 30% mortality rate for bees.

So today there is no way to truly know which foods contain GMO’s tainted with high levels of Roundup or glyphosate. Labeling would help and give you the opportunity to choose a different product.

“When the EPA employed the term ‘substantially equivalent,’ it gave the chemical companies essentially a waiver on doing any of the safety tests. The only thing that they’ve ever tested for is acute toxicity. Well, we know that glyphosate, for instance, isn’t an acute toxin. It’s a serious chronic toxin. That’s been well-established in peer-reviewed scientific articles. We have more of those coming along all the time. There is no question that it’s a chronic toxin.” — Dr. Don Huber

According to Dr. Huber, 0.5 ppm of glyphosate is toxic to your endocrine system. 10 ppm is cytotoxic to kidney cells. Just 1 ppm is toxic to your liver. And a  mere 0.1-10 ppm is toxic to a whole range of human cellular functions. Think about that — and remember that we currently use nearly a BILLION pounds of glyphosate annually on crops worldwide. A study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology showed that glyphosate is probably the most harmful chronic toxin we’ve ever had to deal with!

The USDA is Ignoring this Major Threat to Your Health

In 2011, Dr. Huber wrote a letter to the head of the USDA about safety concerns for GMO crops. He also warned them about a new microscopic organism associated with Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS) in soy found in livestock feed, that causes spontaneous abortions and infertility. Needless to say, his warnings were ignored. Why would the USDA completely ignore warnings from a scientist with 50 years of experience with plant pathology, soil-borne diseases, microbial ecology and host-parasite relationships?

“the USDA scientists, who have a tremendous amount of knowledge on the impact of glyphosate, have all been muzzled. They’re not permitted to say anything about it.” — Dr. Huber

GMOs are Not a Solution to Feed the World

There’s is no doubt that GMO’s are NOT a solution to feed the world. On the contrary, GMO’s are an attack on life itself, impairing a crop’s natural immune response — all while actually reducing crop yields. Despite everything Monsanto & Friends like to claim, there’s never been a GMO crop that increases the yield of any crops at all. Farmers actually can improve crop yields significantly using a variety of traditional breeding programs that promote improved gene expression.

We can increase all of the nutrient density with traditional breeding. In fact, the Brazilians are doing that. They’ve just released new varieties of soybean with higher vitamin A, and corn with higher vitamin A and vitamin C. We can do all of that with traditional breeding. We’ve been doing it for years. You don’t need to disrupt the genetic integrity and introduce all the collateral damage with its long-term effects.” — Dr. Huber

According to John Kempf, a leader in the field of high-performance agriculture, farmers harvest only about 10-15% of the genetic capacity of any crop. The true foundation of health, whether it’s plants, soils, animals,or people boils down to adequate mineral nutrition and a strong soil biology.

GMO’s Turn Your Food into a Poison

What the Monsanto & Friends in the biotech industry have actually accomplished is to turn your food into a toxic poison — making this an attack on life itself. In fact, it’s not really food at all. It’s not nourishing to living animals or people. It causes disease rather than nurtures healthy lives. It’s actually more like something cooked, microwaved, mixed with plastics then molded into something that resembles actual food. Biochemically, however, it is not really what most people think of when we go to the market at all.

Glyphosate alone, regardless of other GMO toxins, has several nasty biological effects. In fact, it may be the single most important factor contributing of a wide range of today’s “diseases of civilization.” These toxic effects include:

Glyphosate immobilizes certain nutrients and alters the nutritional composition of the treated crop. Disruption of the synthesis of essential amino acids not produced in your body so supplied through your diet
Increased toxic exposure to high levels of glyphosate and formaldehyde in the GMO food. Impairment of sulfate transport and sulfur metabolism, sulfate deficiency.
Systemic toxicity, a side effect of the disruption of microbial function in your body allowing for overgrowth of pathogens. Gut dysbiosis — imbalances in gut bacteria, inflammation, leaky gut, food allergies, gluten intolerance, etc.
Increased damage by other food-borne chemicals and environmental toxins resulting from glyphosate shutting down the function of detoxifying enzymes. Creation of ammonia (created when microbes break down glyphosate) which leads to brain inflammation associated with autism and Alzheimer’s disease.

How to Protect Yourself from GMO’s

Glyphosate sprayed on conventional GMO crops actually becomes systemic throughout the plant and cannot be washed off. GMO corn, for example, has 13 ppm of glyphosate — compared to NONE in non-GMO corn. That’s 18 times more glyphosate than safe levels set by the EPA. The only way that you currently can safely avoid GMO’s is to make whole, fresh organic foods the majority of your diet — preferably raw foods!

Don’t confuse the “natural” label with “organic.” There is no clear legal definition of the word “natural.” Corporations use that word to sell you anything at all. To label something as “organic,” producers must prove that they’ve grown and processed their crops using well-established organic farming methods that recycle, promote biodiversity, don’t use pesticides, don’t use GMO’s, and never use fertilizers based on petroleum products or sewage.

The majority of Roundup dumped on American crops is on your food! The thing to understand about GMO’s, in addition to everything else, is that they require heavy doses of glyphosate. Monsanto & Friends make a killing (literally) on this because they produce both GMO seeds and the chemicals they require. But it turns out that Roundup is a systemic chemical that is actually absorbed inside the crops. And, as it turns out, glyphosate doesn’t break down in the environment as originally promised. It is abosorbed and stores in your body, as well! But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency still allows farmers to soak their corn crops with 50-times more glyphosate today than they did in 1996!

Glyphosate isn’t just an herbicide, as if that’s not bad enough! Glyphosate is also a registered antimicrobial agent that can kill a wide variety of organisms only harmful pathogens like Clostridium botulinum, Salmonella, and E. coli are able to survive glyphosate. But the good  bacteria that you actually need in your digestive tract (bacillus and lactobacillus, for example) are all killed, setting your digestive tract up for all kinds of health problems, such as leaky gut. When you gut lining gets compromised it lets bacteria and toxins into your bloodstream creating numerous problems.

Roundup Doesn’t Even Work!

Here’s what SHOULD BE the last straw — GMO crops designed to survive herbicides that would otherwise kill them are a doomed technology. Monsanto & Friends seriously overuses these chemicals creating a whole new list of problems including antibiotic-resistant super germs and super weeds that are almost impossible to kill.

dreamstime_xs_62773835When GMO’s were first introduced they falsely promised a way to reduce the use of chemicals — but they actually increased chemical use by more than by 500 million pounds! Despite this truth, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering approval of GMO crops designed specifically to survive even bigger doses of glyphosate, as well as the highly toxic 2,4-D weed killer. This will probably quadruple pesticide use in the near future. Remember, 2,4-D has been linked to hypothyroidism, suppressed immune function, Parkinson’s disease and cancer, among several other health problems.

So when it comes to GMO’s in your food … just say NO!

Renowned natural physician Dr. Joseph Mercola interviews Dr. Don M. Huber, one of the top scientists in the U.S on genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) and Roundup (2 parts). Dr. Huber is probably the leading expert on GMO’s in the world and is an award-winning, internationally recognized scientist, as well as a professor of plant pathology at Purdue University for the over 35 years. His agriculture research over the several decades has guided him to become a very active advocate against GMO crops.

References

The Science & Benefits of Live Alkaline Water

robertaross
-
0
The Science & Benefits of Live Alkaline Water
The Benefits of Live Alkaline Water

Live alkaline water is like live alkaline food — healthier, better tasting and more alive than processed foods or bottled water. Another good word for live alkaline water might be “Organic Water” because it is just like organic food — a nutrient that can be either organic and alive or processed and dead.

Like live, fresh, vegan food, “organic water” is alkaline. It has a higher “pH” that helps your body maintain a healthier acid/alkaline balance.  Another name might be Ionized Alkaline Water, referring to the high number of ionized molecules in live, organic food or live alkaline water.

It is hard to find living alkaline water these days unless you make it yourself with a water ionizer — almost all available water from the tap or in bottles is dead, and may even be contaminated. The only reliable way to get it in fact is to make it yourself! For that, I recommend a Life Water Ionizer. A Life Ionizer increases the pH, antioxidants and available oxygen in water. You see, making the water more alkaline greatly increases the number of “hydroxyl ions” (OH-), which contain oxygen combined with hydrogen. Second, a Life Ionizer increases the negative Oxygen Reduction Potential (-ORP) in the water – which reduces anti-oxidants or free oxygen radicals by combining with them, converting dangerous free radicals into a safe, useful form of oxygen your body can use.

Everything you ever wanted to know about pH – finally made simple!When a water molecule (H20 or H-O-H) is ionized, either in nature or by a Life Ionizer, it is split into two ions – a hydrogen ion (H+) and a hydroxyl ion (OH-). In neutral or distilled water the number of hydrogen ions is equal to the number of hydroxyl ions. Acid water has more hydrogen ions than hydroxyl ions, so can be called “oxygen deficient.” Alkaline water has more hydroxyl ions (oxygen+hydrogen=OH) than hydrogen so it can be called “oxygen rich.” Since the pH scale is logarithmic, at a pH of 10 (which is possible with a Life ionizer, depending on your water source), there can be a MILLION times more oxygen-rich hydroxyl ions in the water than in a highly acidic liquid, like a cola. And since your body’s systems depend on oxygen, it is important to consume as much oxygen rich alkaline substances as possible. This is more true today than ever since the standard American diet (SAD) is highly “acid forming.”

In a healthy, oxygen-rich environment, your body’s processes are mostly alkaline and “aerobic.” In an oxygen deprived environment, your body relies on backup systems designed for use in emergency acidic conditions. Unfortunately, today what once was a temporary emergency condition is often the norm for many people. Many people are in fact addicted to the much less efficient survival mechanisms intended for times when the body is highly acidic and sufficient oxygen isn’t available. To get enough energy under these emergency conditions is difficult since the normal, aerobic metabolic process is about 15 times more efficient at creating energy.

For people addicted to an acidic diet and lifestyle, they have to constantly find sources of quick energy that are inefficient and ultimately toxic, which leads to addictions to caffeine, sugar, simple carbohydrates and sodas. We all know these things are not ultimately healthy, but they provide the quick energy we need throughout the day. When you eat or drink these unhealthy, acid-forming substances, you are also consuming acidic hydrogen ions ( H+), which doesn’t like don’t like being alone so are looking for oxygen to combine with, a process called oxidation, which steals the life-giving available oxygen your body needs.

On the other hand, living alkaline water has more hydroxyl ions (OH-) than hydrogen ions ( H+), so there are more oxygen atoms. That’s why alkaline water is sometimes called oxygen rich water. In the same manner, acid water is oxygen deficient water. For the best health your body needs abundant oxygen-rich hydroxyl ions to neutralize the acidic hydrogen ions in the acidic waste products that accumulate in our body from a SAD diet and lifestyle, and are associated with the aging process and illness.Though your body needs some hydrogen ions, an excess of them has widespread negative effects on the body’s systems. A positively charged hydrogen ion is highly reactive and will quickly combine with negatively charged ions. For example, proteins normally contain many negatively charged and alkaline molecules. An acidic pH can change the ionization of a protein, which may damage its proper function. At more extreme hydrogen ion or acidic concentrations a protein’s structure may be completely disrupted. The protein is then called “denatured” and is mostly indigestible at that point.

Almost all of your body’s systems require enzymes. But enzymes only function properly over a very narrow pH range. For most enzymes this is close to the pH of blood plasma (7.35 to 7.45). Note that the curve on this graph is centered around the pH range of blood and most other healthy bodily fluids. A few enzymes function best at a lower pH, the most obvious being the digestive enzyme pepsin, which is designed for the acid environment of the stomach (pH 1.5-3 ). As enzymes have a huge number of functions around the body, an acidic pH can disrupt a wide range of body systems, causing abnormal respiratory and cardiac function, derangements in blood clotting and much more.

 

The high pH of Living Alkaline Water Stimulates the Formation of Bicarbonates in Your Blood – Essential for Maintaining Acid/Alkaline Balance!

As we age, starting around 45 years, we start losing the alkaline bicarbonates in our blood that neutralize excess acids created by stress, poor diet, pollution and aging.  By 90 years we lose about 18% of these critical bicarbonates. Bicarbonates are so important to maintaining balanced blood pH that if you don’t have enough of them your body will steal them from somewhere else. When it steals calcium from your bones to make bicarbonates it can contribute to osteoporosis! Insufficient quantities of bicarbonates in your blood also reduces your ability to neutralize and excrete the acids your body produces whenever you metabolize carbohydrates for energy – which is one of the key causes of aging. So one of the most important benefits of Organic Alkaline Water is to increase the bicarbonates in the blood that we lose as we age.  If you cannot manage these acids, you accumulate acidic wastes that your body can’t neutralize and excrete, which either get stored in your body as excess fat, cholesterol, uric acid, urate, sulfate, phosphate, kidney stones, etc.

Significantly, 45 is approximately the age when most of us start showing symptoms of diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis and many other degenerative diseases.  Increasing the availability of bicarbonates in your blood increases the ability of your blood to neutralize acids, reducing your risk of getting the degenerative diseases associated with excess acidic toxins!This is also the age when it starts to seem impossible to lose weight! Research by Dr. Robert O. Young, author of The pH Miracle for Weight Loss, shows that the epidemic of obesity in the industrialized world is result of excess acidity in the body because when your body can’t get rid of dangerous toxins, it stores them away safely by binding them to fat.

If blood is always around 7.4 pH, how does drinking living alkaline water make it more alkaline?

The stomach is designed to maintain a constant pH around 4.0.  When you drink high pH alkaline water, the acid brings the pH of the water down – and the pH of your stomach comes up! How high it goes up is a function of the how much alkaline water you drink compared to how much hydrochloric acid was in your stomach, and pH of the water.  When stomach pH rises above 4.5, your stomach produces more hydrochloric acid to bring the stomach pH back down to below pH 4.0. Water, carbon dioxide and sodium chloride combine in cellular chemical reactions that produce hydrochloric acid and sodium bicarbonate.  The hydrochloric acid goes into the stomach and the sodium bicarbonate goes into the bloodstream. Sodium bicarbonate is an alkaline buffer in your blood that helps it to maintain a constant blood pH of 7.365.  Ideally, you should drink alkaline water between meals, so there is a minimum of hydrochloric acid in your stomach to neutralize the alkalinity of the water.

Living Alkaline Water

Live alkaline water is naturally high in pH, which also means it is rich in oxygen, just like the organic fluids in your body and in fresh organic food. On the other hand, processed tap water or bottled water, like processed food, is acidic. In fact, some processed foods and drinks can be from 10,000 times to as much as 100,000 times more acidic than your blood – which doesn’t sound very healthy!

Just like the purest organic foods once grew wild in the wilderness, the purest organic water in nature once came from remote mountain rivers, streams and springs. But today, you have to buy water in bottles in a futile attempt to find pure water – and then you’ll fail! Because most bottled water is nothing more than processed tap water that may even be contaminated by plasticizers and other contaminants – often with an acidic pH. And high-price, designer bottled waters that are more expensive than gasoline are often not much more than a neutral pH! So if you don’t live near an uncontaminated underground spring in the middle of nowhere, what is your family going to drink?

Most popular water filters don’t do the trick either, some doing nothing more than removing most (but not all) of the chlorine and chemicals. Even filters that do remove chemicals and contaminates don’t restore the alkalinity essential to creating healthy organic water. To give your family health-giving, alkaline organic water there is only one reliable, safe and affordable long-term solution – MAKE IT YOURSELF!

Like live food, live alkaline mineral water is has a high negative oxygen reduction potential (-ORP), making it a powerful antioxidant — reducing oxidation from free oxygen radicals that can damage DNA, thus slowing the aging process, and providing more of the healthy forms of oxygen your body can use!Organic fruits and vegetables are the main natural source of negative ions (-ORP) that you can find in a healthy diet. Vitamin C and E, grape seed extract and alpha lipoic acid, for example, are all powerful electron donors. Organic, raw fruits and vegetables are alkaline and have a high –ORP, just like alkaline water, helping give your body the electrons it needs to neutralize free radicals.All chemical reactions in the body occur with the transfer of electrons. Negatively charged particles are called reducing agents, meaning they have plenty of electrons to donate “reducing” the charge of the particles with which they react. Particles that are electron-poor are called “oxidizing agents,” meaning they tend to pull electrons away. Thus, each substance in our body may act as either an oxidizing/oxidant or reducing agent/anti-oxidant.

However, not just any negatively charged ion will be able to neutralize oxygen free radicals. Both organic food and the water from a Life Water Ionizer do have this ability, indicated by the negative ORP value for its “oxidation reduction potential.”

Free oxygen radicals are among the most damaging molecules in the body and are highly unstable electron deficient molecules which are always looking for more electrons. Free radicals MUST get those electrons from somewhere and will steal them from wherever they can, including normal, healthy tissues. Damage to tissues results when free radicals strip electrons from healthy cells. They can even damage your DNA. If the damage is allowed to continue it leads to disease. For example, the oxidation of LDL cholesterol in arterial walls by free radicals causes an immune system response that results in atherosclerosis, the principal cause of heart disease.

Free oxygen radicals contribute to a everything from heart disease and cancer to things like sunburns, arthritis, cataracts, and many other conditions. Obviously, undamaged cells are less susceptible to infection and disease.The negative ions (-ORP) in alkaline water from a Life Water Ionizer are a rich source of electrons that can be donated to free oxygen radicals in the body, neutralizing them — and preventing them from damaging healthy tissues.Live Organic Alkaline Water also improves the balance of healthy micro-organisms in your digestive tract, encouraging “friendly” microflora in the intestinal tract and discouraging “unfriendly” organisms. Many diseases of the digestive system are due to a disturbance in the balance of the micro-organisms that normally live there.

Friendly and unfriendly micro-organisms prefer different oxidation-reduction potentials (ORP), the healthy high negative ORP value of alkaline water favors the growth of beneficial microflora in the gut.

Can you be so healthy, so full of life and so powerful that you are virtually immune to all the diseases associated with today’s Standard American Diet – and live as long as a Hunza?hunza woman

There are five locations in the world where scientists have found a cloudy type drinking water which exhibits extraordinary physical characteristics and where the inhabitants reportedly live to be over 100 years of age, are in excellent health, have no cancer, no dental caries, are robust and have children in their old age. They are called Hunzaland in the Karkorum Mountains just north of Pakistan in the Himalayas, the Vilcambamba in Ecuador, a high mountain valley in Georgia, Russia, another in Mongolia and the final one in Peru. Though all these areas have different cultures and diets, they all have one thing in common – their water has similar properties – especially microclusters!

Microclusters in water are one of the least understood and most controversial subjects associated with alkaline or ionized water. There appears to be some evidence using NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) technology that ionized water forms stable “microclusters,” which was once thought to be impossible. What we know for sure (scientifically speaking) is that hexagonal crystals are formed when water is frozen (i.e., a snowflake). We also know from NMR that electricity appears to reduce similar clusters in water to just 6 molecules, a property that lasts for up to 2 months, after which stored water reverts to 12-13 molecules. Dr. Mu Shik Jhon originally did this study, reporting that there does appear to be a clear and well defined difference between “Hexagonal Water” and tap water.

Dr. Paul Shin, an NMR expert, tried to repeat this experiment and wrote, “Sure enough, I was indeed able to replicate his data precisely!”

Living Alkaline Water is Wetter, Aids Natural Detoxification & Provides Better Hydration!

The body must be continuously hydrated because it loses 2.5 liters of water every day through your normal bodily functions. Alkaline water helps you do that by making water “wetter.” The smaller clusters of this “structured” water are half as large as the water clusters that come out of the tap, reducing water’s surface tension. This means they permeate cellular membranes quicker and for easier, especially important for athletes or after strenuous exercise, increasing intra-cellular hydration and optimizing the other benefits you enjoy from drinking alkaline water: replacing depletion of essential minerals, protecting cells from free radicals, helping to maintain normal blood pH, neutralizing acidic wastes, helping the body detoxify and much more.

If you are suffering through diets, counting calories all day and working out all the time but still not losing that excess weight and keeping it off, perhaps it is because you haven’t given any thought to what you are drinking every day!

As we’ve learned, an acidic diet and lifestyle makes it hard for your body to get rid of acids and toxins, so they bind with fat for storage. Traditional weight loss programs don’t even address what may be one of the main causes of obesity – the excess acids your body can’t get rid of so stores it as fat. In fact, some of the recipes and prepared foods in those programs are probably acid-forming – exacerbating the problem. Reducing calories will not decrease the acidity of the body and may increase it if large amounts of acidic beverages are included. It takes 32 glasses of alkaline water to neutralize the acid from just one 12 oz. cola drink, which has a pH around 3.5. Coffee is not much better at a pH of 4. Even the tap and —-filtered waters you may drink are usually slightly acidic.

Sure, you may lose weight temporarily just because you’ve cut your caloric intake radically – but it won’t last because those acids are still there. And if you work out too much your body creates lactic acid (the cause of muscle burn and Charlie horse) – even more acid!Organic Water, in combination with an alkaline-forming diet including lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, lets you drink all the fresh-tasting alkaline water your body needs to wash away the fat associated with excess acids parked on your hips, thighs, buttocks and stomach! You see, a healthy, non-acidic body will return to its natural, ideal weight naturally!

Freed of the need to store those acidic toxins, the body’s cells, tissues, and organs return to it’s normal weight. All that acid-binding fat just melts right off when there will be no need for the body to hold on to it any more.Natural, clean Life-giving water has gotten so scarce that millions of people pay more for bottled water than gasoline! That makes a Water Ionizer the biggest bargain in town!

Counter to the commonly-held belief, an organic lifestyle is not just healthier, it saves you money and saves the planet! When you calculate the cost of drinking bottled water, it is as from 1,000 to as much as 10,000 times more expensive than tap water – and hundreds of times more expensive than Organic Water! If you drink just one 16 oz. bottle of a moderately priced bottled water every day, at $2.50 or so per bottle an average family could be spending over $2,000 every year – more than the cost of a Life Ionizer. A family of four could be spending twice that. And a Life Ionizer will last for over 20 years – as little as $100 a year. So bottled water is ten times more expensive than alkaline water!

Good for You – Good for the Environment!

As for the environmental cost – watch out! Drinking bottled water is contributing to pollution on a massive scale. That average family is using up 114 gallons of water for every bottle it drinks – that’s how much water it takes to make one plastic bottle. That average family is also burning up 9 gallons of oil used in making that bottle, spewing 68 lbs. of CO2 pollution into the air while doing so, and using up 37 megajoules of electricity!

The Bottle is Worth More than the Water in It!

Only 23% of the 200 billion plastic bottles thrown into landfills each year are recycled, the rest sit there leaking toxic additives such as phthalates into the groundwater and taking 1,000 years to biodegrade. That means bottled water may be harming our future water supply.Supplying Americans with plastic water bottles for one year consumes more than 47 million gallons of oil, enough to take 100,000 cars off the road and 1 billion pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Drinking bottled water actually increases the price of gasoline, because the manufacturing of the bottles and the transportation of the water simply increases demand for oil. Transporting bottled water by boat, truck and train involves burning even more massive quantities of fossil fuels. More than 5 trillion gallons of bottled water is shipped internationally each year. You can buy water from Fiji or Norway – as much as 9,000 miles away. In Fiji there are no bottle factories, so the bottles are made in China, shipped to Fiji, where they are then filled and shipped to you. How much does that bottle cost the environment? Here’s the answer:
  • 81 gallons of fossil fuels
  • 720 gallons of water
  • 153 tons of greenhouse gases

The bottled water industry is also destroying aquifers all over the world by “water mining.” When you mine water you remove it faster than nature can refill it, causing the aquifer to collapse. When that happens, it is lost forever destroying a non-renewable resource – our fresh water supplies. Worldwide, only 3% or so of the water on the planet is drinkable fresh water.So when you drink Organic Water, you are not only saving money on bottled water, you are helping to save the planet, too!

Living Alkaline Water Could Save You Thousands on Health Care Costs Every Year – Literally Paying for Itself!

As you read this a health care crisis and debate has been raging in the U.S. for years – but it isn’t actually a “health” care crisis, since medical care and “health” care are really two different things! In reality it is an economic problem having more to do with the costs of medical care than anything else. And so in the richest free country in the world, medical care is the most expensive in the world – causing us to rank only 36th in the world for health care in a World Health Organization study. Though this study isn’t perfect, the point is that the U.S. ranking was pushed down that low when adjusted for high medical costs.

Less than 9% of the U.S. population actually buys individual health insurance. At least 15% of the country is completely uninsured, and a substantial additional portion of the population is “under-insured.” More money per person is spent on health care in the United States than in any other nation in the world, roughly 16 cents of every dollar. Medical debt is the principal cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States. We spend an astounding $7,439 per person on health care – and even then 36 countries are considered healthier than us, including Cuba, Saudi Arabia, tiny Belize and many others. So even if you can afford to spend more than $600.00 per month on medical care, you are not even getting the quality “health” and wellness services you and your family deserves! With almost of third of families earning less than $30,000 a year – you do the math!

The answer isn’t more medical care – or expensive government programs that just transfer the cost to future generations. The answer is to become healthier – naturally! Without pills! Without hospitals! And without doctors!

In countries that focus on wellness and non-medical prevention (diet, nutrition, lifestyle, etc.), health care costs are considerably lower. But beware of medical industry propaganda that claims prevention increases health care costs – they only consider medical-based prevention as valid, so alternative, holistic or complimentary techniques are not even on their radar! In other words, they think that prevention means only those things that a medical doctor can still charge you for such as vaccines, treatment of risk factors for disease like elevated blood pressure or cholesterol, screening to catch disease early, and medical programs to help people stop drinking, smoking or overeating, which put them at higher risk of disease.Clearly, if you live a healthier lifestyle, eat a healthier, more organic, alkaline diet, drink more alkaline water, exercise regularly and eliminate those things that endanger your health, then you are likely to live a longer, healthier and happier life without as much need for doctors and their expensive pills or procedures. If you don’t need as much medical care, you will significantly reduce your medical costs! You don’t need a medical degree to understand that — It’s just common sense!

A Life Water Ionizer with Living Alkaline Water Can Pay for Itself in 4 Months!

A water Ionizer is a 20-year investment (the life of the ionization chamber) – that’s about $3 a month. Compare that to the $600.00 a month the average American spends on medical care!The savings on health care costs for just one person could pay for a Life Ionizer in a few months – a family of 4 could pay for it in just ONE month! If you finance a Life Ionizer at $100 a month, you are saving hundreds of dollars every month!

Of course, that assumes that you actually make healthy lifestyle and diet changes, including more organic alkaline food and water, regular exercise, etc. Once your body naturally cleanses and heals itself from years or decades of abuse, you will have a stronger immune system that can more effectively fight off dis-ease — and a body free of many of the toxins with known associations to diseases like cancer, heart disease, diabetes and arthritis, diseases long known to have associations to unhealthy lifestyle factors like smoking, drinking alcohol, environmental chemicals and pesticides. With the help of the high pH and negative ORP you get in pure alkaline water, you can significantly reduce those risk factors! And if you don’t get sick, your medical care may be nothing more than annual checkups and hopefully rare emergencies.

Living Alkaline Water Tastes Better – and Makes Everything Else Taste Better, too!

Your taste buds are evolved to help you identify things that are good for you to eat and drink, so the when food is better for you it just tastes better! Of course, after years or decades of eating and drinking highly cooked or processed foods and beverages, your taste buds may be confused by chemicals like “taste enhancers,” and are probably not as sensitive as they should be. In fact, you may actually not like the taste of some vegetables that are really good for you. But once you have rehabilitated your taste buds, things that tasted awful before will taste much, much better.

Though you may think that water has no taste, the opposite is the truth! Highly processed, tap water or filtered bottle water often has little or no taste, but alkaline water will taste better right away! The reason that low-quality water has little or no taste is because of the larger cluster size, lower pH and lower negative ORP. That water is hard for your body, including your taste buds, to absorb and has few of the nutrients your body craves. It may even be loaded with toxic chemicals!

Water rich in antioxidants, oxygen and minerals that is easily absorbed just naturally tastes better – lighter, smoother and even with a slightly sweet flavor! Using this water in the preparation of other foods and beverages makes them all taste better, too. You’ll naturally drink more, stay more hydrated and feel healthier – and you can’t put a price on that!

Selected References
  1. Aihara, Herman. Acid & Alkaline ? An overview of pH and human health. George Ohsawa Macrobiotic Foundation 1986
  2. Whang, Sang. Reverse Aging. JSP Publications. 2001
  3. Liu, K., Cruzan, J.D. and Saykally, R.J.  Water Clusters. Science Spectra. 1996
  4. Mitsui T, Rose MK, Fomin E, Ogletree DF, Salmeron M., Water diffusion and clustering. Science Spectra. 2002
  5. J Microbiol. 2006 Aug;44(4):417-22., Antibacterial effect of electrolyzed water on oral bacteria, Lee SH, Choi BK, Department of Oral Microbiology and Immunology, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  6. Young, Robert O PhD., The pH Miracle for Weight Loss, Time Warner Books. 2002
  7. Smirnov, Igor. Activated Water. Journal of Biotechnology. 2003
  8. “National Health Expenditures, Forecast summary and selected tables”, Office of the Actuary in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2008.
  9. Grogono AW, Byles PH, Hawke W: An in-vivo representation of acid-base balance. Lancet. 1976
  10. Horne, M., Swearingen, P. Pocket Guide to Fluids, Electrolytes, and Acid Base Balance. Mosby. 1993
  11. H. Hayashi., Microwater, The natural solution (Water Institute, Tokyo, 1996)
  12. L. H. Lorenzen, Microclustered water, United States Patent 6,033,678 (2000)
  13. Shirahata, S. et al.: Electrolyzed reduced water scavenges active oxygen species and protects DNA from oxidative damage. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 234, 269-274, 1997.
  14. JAACT 2000 FUKUOKA,  Advanced Functional Foods and Water for Prevention of Disease,” CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF ELECTROLYZED-REDUCED WATER, Hidemitsu HAYASHI, M.D., Water Institute and Munenori KAWAMURA, M.D., Kyowa Medical Clinic,
  15. CLINICAL IMPROVEMENTS OBTAINED FROM THE INTAKE OF REDUCED WATER (1985-2000),  HAYASHI,Hidemitsu,M.D.,Water Institute  & KAWAMURA, Munenori,M.D.,Kyowa Medical Clinic,
  16. Journal of Gerontology: BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 1996, Vol. 51A. No. 1, B91-B99, By Dr. Lynda Frassetto of University of California, San Francisco
  17. Shirahata, S.; Kabayama, S.; Nakano, M.; Miura, T.; Kusumoto, K.; Gotoh, M.; Hayashi, H.; Otsubo, K.; Morisawa, S.; Katakura, Y. (1997). “Electrolyzed–Reduced Water Scavenges Active Oxygen Species and Protects DNA from Oxidative Damage”. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 234 (1): 269-274.
  18. Whang, Sang, Aging and Reverse Aging. Miami: JSP Publishing, 2005, p. 11.
  19. Lonergan, E. Aging and the kidney: adjusting treatment to physiologic change, Geriatrics 43: 27-30, 32-33, 1998.
  20. Frassetto, L. and Sebastian, A. Age and systemic acid-base equilibrium: analysis of published data, Journal of Gerontology, Advanced Biological Science and Medical Science, 51: B91-99, 1996.
  21. 3. Alpern, R. and Sakhaee, K. The clinical spectrum of chronic metabolic acidosis: homeostatic mechanisms produce significant morbidity, American Journal of Kidney Disease 29: 291-302, 1997.
  22. Bushinsky, D. Acid-base imbalance and the skeleton, European Journal of Nutrition 40: 238-244, 2001.
  23. Frassetto, L.; Morris, R.; Sellmeyer, D.; Todd, K. and Sebastian, A. Diet, evolution and aging: the pathophysiologic effects of the post-agricultural inversion of the potassium-to-sodium and base-to-chloride ratios in the human diet, European Journal of Nutrition 40:5 200-213, 2001.
  24. Frassetto, L.; Morris, R. and Sebastian, A. Effect of age on blood acid-base composition in adult humans: role of age-related renal functional decline, American Journal of Physiology, 271: 1114-22, 1996.
  25. Alpern, R. Trade-offs in the adaptation to acidosis, Kidney International 47: 1205-1215, 1995.
  26. Krapt, R. and Jehle, A. Renal function and renal disease in the elderly, Schweizerische Medizinische Wochenschrift, 130:11 398-408 2000.
  27. Adrogue, H. and Madias, N. Management of life-threatening acid-base disorders, New England Journal of Medicine 338: 26-34, 1998.
  28. Maurer, M.; Riesen, W.; Muser, J.; Hulter, H. and Krapf, R. Neutralization of Western diet inhibits bone resportion independently of K intake and reduces cortisol secretion in humans, American Journal of Physiology and Renal Physiology 284: F32-40, 2003.
  29. May, R.; Kelly, R. and Mitch, W. Metabolic acidosis stimulates protein degradation in rat muscle by glucocorticoid-dependent mechanism, Journal of Clinical Investigations 77:614-621, 1986.
  30. Meghji, S.; Morrison, M.; Henderson, B. and Arnett, T. pH dependence of bone resoption: mouse calvarial osteoclasts are activated by acidosis, American Journal of Physiological and Endocrinological Metabolism 280: E112-E119, 2001.
  31. Nabata, T.; Morimoto, S. and Ogihara, T. Abnormalities in acid-base balance in the elderly, Nippon Rinsho 50: 2249-53, 1992.
  32. Robergs, R. Exercise-induced metabolic acidosis: where do the protons come from?, Sport Science 5(2) sportsci.org/jour/0102/rar.thm, 2001.
  33. Sebastian, A.; Harris, S.; Ottaway, J.; Todd, K. and Morris, R. Improved mineral balance and skeletal metabolism in postmenopausal women treated with potassium bicarbonate, New England Journal of Medicine 330:25 1776-81 1994.
  34. Sebastian, A.; Frassetto, L.; Sellmeyer, D.; Merriam, R. and Morris, R. Estimation of the net acid load of the diet of ancestral preagricultural Homo sapiens and their hominid ancestors, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 76:6 1308-1316, 2002.
  35. Wiederkebr, M. and Krapf, R. Metabolic and endocrine effects of metabolic acidosis in humans, Swiss Medical Weekly 2001:131, 127-132, 2001.
  36. S. Okouchi et al: Water desirable for the human body in terms of oxidation-reduction potential (ORF) to pH relationship: J. Food Science 2002: 67(5) 1594-98.
  37. K. Hanaoka: Antioxidant effects of reduced water produced by electrolysis of sodium chloride solutions. J. Appl. Electrochem 2001: 31(12) 1307-13.
  38. S. Shirahata et al: Electrolyzed-reduced water scavenges active oxygen species and protects DNA from oxidatioin damage. Biochem Biophys Res Comm 1997: 234 269-74
  39. K. Kikuchi et al: Hydrogen particles and supersaturation in alkaline water from an alkali-ion-water-electrolyzer. J. Electroanalytical Chem 2001: 506(1) 22-27

Also read:

https://rawfoodlife.com/raw-science-alkaline-minerals-reduce-risk-of-disease/

Is the Fear of Guns a Distraction from a Much Bigger Problem — The Standard American Diet

robertaross
-
0
Is the Fear of Guns a Distraction from a Much Bigger Problem — The Standard American Diet

Anti-gun advocates base their beliefs on the simplistic fact that guns can potentially kill people. But wait — the processed, toxic junk food we are all addicted to causes TEN TIMES more death in America than guns! In the U.S., guns are used 80 times more often to protect a life than to take one – about 2,500,000 defensive gun uses per year versus only 30,000 crimes with guns! And in 92% of those cases a gun is just displayed and never actually fired. The Standard American Diet is actually more dangerous to your health than a gun!

dreamstime_xs_7567352Now, I’m not promoting guns — they’re just a dramatic example to bring this to your attention. I am, however, promoting raw, vegan nutrition and health! You see, people who eat cooked, processed foods are not just more likely to get cancer or diabetes some day, they’re also much more prone to violence. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), poor diet, obesity and physical inactivity causes hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S. every year. Guns, on the other hand, are only responsible for a few thousand — mostly suicides. So a poor diet is actually responsible for more problems than guns — from obesity and diabetes to cancer and heart disease.

So let’s forget about guns for the moment. For a healthy, vibrant life we should worry more about what the food industry is doing to you right now. In the U.S. alone, there are tens of thousands of deaths every year from junk food alone — not to mention everything else unhealthy about the Standard American Diet. Millions of people are dying right in front of our eyes today from the toxic ingredients in things that, sadly, we love to eat, from synthetic hormones and refined sugars to trans fats, preservatives, GMO’s — and so much more.

dreamstime_xs_75903289Of course, when a firearm makes it into the news, it’s usually some heart-wrenching story designed to elicit an emotional response. But when a carrot makes it into the news (if it ever does) it’s rarely due to the health benefits of fresh, raw organic foods. But people addicted to junk food would rather shoot themselves than change the Standard American Diet they love!

You see, a “slow death” from toxic, processed food takes decades to become obvious so gets little attention. You’ll see all kinds of news stories on your TV every day about obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, but they rarely make the connection to our toxic dietary habits. And nobody in the news ever talks about the contribution of fast food to the psychology of crime. The multinational corporate interests would rather have you worry more about guns than what is really killing you — their food!

Fast food is on every street corner in the U.S., but we should care much more about whether you have access to fresh, organic fruits and vegetables! Millions of people die every day from the health consequences of processed foods —  synthetic hormones, artificial sweeteners, refined sugar, trans fats, toxic chemicals, preservatives and GMO’s. Most things that pass as “produce” in teh Standard American Diet are actually genetically modified organisms (GMO’s), covered in pesticides and herbicides or somehow shown to be unsafe for human consumption.

Meanwhile, sincere, caring organic farmers are under attack every day — sometimes even losing their family farms! Your government is passing new regulations daily for the Standard American Diet, which actually don’t affect GMO’s at all. These same regulations, on the other hand, can potentially put organic farmers out of business. It doesn’t make sense! Take a stand now on a raw, vegan, organic diet — and then perhaps we won’t need any guns!

* Based on Kleck & Gertz studies of millions of defensive gun uses per year most of which don’t involve actually firing a gun. A similar study in 1994 under President Clinton found this number to be 1.5 million.

– See more at: http://www.naturalhealth365.com/food_news/banning-guns.html#sthash.iRNtfX0n.dpuf

Opinion by Robert Ross

Also Read:

https://rawfoodlife.com/philosophy-of-raw-whole-food/

Prion Disease Studies Show Mad Cow Disease Caused by Acid pH!

robertaross
-
0
Prion Disease Studies Show Mad Cow Disease Caused by Acid pH!

Diet Affects pH at Cellular Level — Mad Cow Disease is Caused by Acidic pH!

As a raw foodist and vegan, I am not likely to be eating any kind of meat soon, let alone from a mad cow! The thing is — this is hard evidence of the importance of an alkaline-forming diet and lifestyle! Even better, it helps refute the argument that eating and drinking alkaline foods and drinks doesn’t affect the body’s overall pH. The answer is, of course, that it clearly does. Here’s how I come to that conclusion from my research on prion disease.

9855779 - human prion proteinA prion (protein+infection)is a misshapen protein which became an infectious agent when it lost it’s correct shape. You see, it is normal for proteins to fold or bend, but under some conditions they lose control and get permanently bent out of shape, becoming infections that cause a fatal diseases like mad cow or prion disease in cattle, scrapie in sheep and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) in people. There is no cure for these fatal conditions.

You see, the function of a protein is determined by its shape. The shape of a protein is determined by its structure, or its sequence of amino acids. The sequence is determined by the sequence of nucleotides in the gene (DNA) encoding it. The function of a protein is usually dependent on its structure. A number of things can disrupt the structure of a protein, called ” denaturing” the protein. These include:

  • changes in pH (alters electrostatic interactions between charged amino acids)
  • changes in salt concentration (also alters electrostatic interactions)
  • changes in temperature, i.e., cooking (higher temperatures reduce the strength of hydrogen bonds)
  • presence of reducing agents (break S-S bonds between amino acids)

Several researchers have discovered that prion’s deadly misshapen form is determined by exposure to low, acidic pH environments. In a healthy neutral or alkaline environment these proteins are just fine, happy and properly shaped. However, under low pH, acidic conditions all that changes. As pH goes down and acidity increases (red line in chart below), proteins get more and more distorted until at some point they can no longer recover their proper shape and are permanently now Prions — as in “prion disease.”

In the study, On the Fibril Elongation Mechanism of the Prion Protein Fragment PrP106-126, at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, they noted:

Mad Cow Graph“Under acidic condition, one of the residues forms hydrogen bonds with one of the edge strands of the fibril. Then, inter peptide hydrogen bonds gradually form one by one to the end of the peptide (causing them to beak up or change shape – rr). Under alkaline and neutral conditions, the hydrogen bonds within this peptide do not break up.”

You see, the electrical or electrostatic charge on proteins controls their shapes and functions. We learned about acid and alkaline environments in my other articles — alkaline foods have more electrons (i.e., energy) and can be electron donors. In an alkaline environment their are plenty of electrons for proteins to interact and change shape the way they are intended by nature. Conversely, the more acidic an environment, the more the interactions between proteins are disrupted by robbing proteins of their electrons, resulting unhealthy, misshapen proteins. At best, these misshapen proteins are denatured and impossible to properly digest. At worst, they become infectious proteins, i.e., prion disease.

Cows are Happy, Raw Food Vegans … Like Me!

Happy CowCows are raw vegans normally eating a healthy, alkaline-forming diet of fresh, yummy grass. They have a unique digestive system that evolved over millions of years to be able to digest grass with their 4 stomachs (actually, one stomach with four chambers). Of course, factory farms do not feed cows fresh grass. In fact, tjey feed cows the cheapest dead, processed feed they can get – even including dead cow parts to save a few sheckles. They have turned loving, gentle cows into a cannibals — and we wonder why they go mad!

Like all heavily processed, dead food, commercial cattle feed is ACID-FORMING. It has none of the health-giving alkalinity of fresh grass. Add a few dead cows to the feed to improve the bottom line a bit and you get even more acids in the mix. Acids equals PRIONS equals MAD COWS!

So my conclusion is that when you feed cows a acid-forming diet it creates an acidic environment within the bodies of the cow at the cellular level. Proteins in the cow exposed to this low acidic pH can become deadly, infectious PRIONS associated with Mad Cow or Prion Disease and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in people.

This conclusion leads inevitably to the next — that cows, or people, fed a healthy, alkaline-forming raw vegan diet have a more alkaline pH at the cellular level, despite arguments to the contrary, and therefore PRIONS do not form. In fact, most of the health challenges we associate with modern civilization and poor lifestyle choices are likely to be prevented with an alkaline-forming lifestyles and diet!

First, just don’t eat cows.

As human being you should just as mad as these poor factory-farm cows! But unlike a cow, you can do something about it. Mu first rule is just don’t eat cows — or any meat at all. If still want to enjoy a little meat now and then, do it on a rare basis — like a special treat.  Then eat only free-range, organic meats. And for your other meals, start enjoying healthy, alkaline-forming raw food and drink alkaline mineral water from your water ionizer!

Factory farm cows don’t have these choices — but you do!

Creutzfeldt

References
  1. “Prions : The Infectious Protein Agent.” 123HelpMe.com. 15 Jul 2011
  2. Rules of Protein Structure, http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/
    Biology Pages/D/DenaturingProtein.html, 1/18/2011
  3. Bjorndahl TC, Zhou GP, Liu X, Perez-Pineiro R, Semenchenko V, Saleem F, Acharya S, Bujold A, Sobsey CA, Wishart. Influence of pH on the human prion protein: insights into the early steps of misfolding, Biophys J. 2010 Oct 6;99(7):2289-98,
  4. van der Kamp MW, Daggett V. , DS, Detailed biophysical characterization of the acid-induced PrP(c) to PrP(β) conversion process, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E8.
  5. Zahn, R. (2000). NMR solution structure of the human prion protein. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97(1), 145-150.
  6. Calzolai, L. (2003). Influence of pH on NMR structure and stability of the human prion protein globular domain. The Journal of biological chemistry, 278(37), 35592-35596.
  7. Calzolai, L. (2000). NMR structures of three single-residue variants of the human prion protein. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97(15), 8340-8345.
  8. van der Kamp MW, Daggett V, Influence of pH on the human prion protein: insights into the early steps of misfolding, Biophys J. 2010 Oct 6;99(7):2289-98, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
  9. Caughey B, Baron GS. Prions and their partners in crime. Nature. 2006. Caughey B. The most infectious prion protein particles. Nature. 2005. 437:257-61.
  10. Xin Zhao, Shuo-Xing Dou, Ping Xie, and Peng-Ye Wang, n the Fibril Elongation Mechanism of the Prion Protein Fragment PrP106-126, Laboratory of Soft Matter Physics, Beijing National Laboratory for Condensed Matter Physics, Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100080, China
  11. COLYNDA VU, JAMES ROBBLEE, KARIN M. WERNER, AND ROBERT FAIRMAN, ,Effects of charged amino acids at b and c heptad positions on specificity and stability of four-chain coiled coils, Department of Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania 19041, 12/7/2000.
  12. Harris, D. A. (1999) Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 12, 429-444
  13. Prusiner, S. B. (1991) Science 252, 1515-1522.
  14. Prusiner, S. B. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 13363-13383.
  15. James, T. L., Liu, H., Ulyanov, N. B., Farr-Jones, S., Zhang, H., Donne, D. G.,
    Kaneko, K., Groth, D., Mehlhorn, I., Prusiner, S. B., et al. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad.
    Sci. USA 94, 10086-10091.
  16. Riek, R., Hornemann, S., Wider, G., Billeter, M.,Glockshuber, R. & Wuthrich, K.
    (1996) Nature 382, 180-182.
  17. Lopez Garcia, F., Zahn, R., Riek, R. & Wuthrich, K. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
    USA 97, 8334-8339.
  18. Zahn, R., Liu, A., Luhrs, T., Riek, R., von Schroet-ter, C., Lopez Garcia, F., Billeter,
    M., Calzolai, L., Wider, G. & Wuthrich, K. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97,
    145-150. [
  19. Calzolai, L. & Zahn, R. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 35592-35596. [
  20. Caughey, B. W., Dong, A., Bhat, K. S., Ernst, D., Hayes, S. F. & Caughey,W. S.
    (1991) Biochemistry 30, 7672-7680.
  21. Pan, K. M., Baldwin, M., Nguyen, J., Gasset, M., Serban, A., Groth, D., Mehlhorn, I.,
    Huang, Z., Fletterick, R. J., Cohen, F. J. & Prusiner, S. B. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad.
    Sci. USA 90, 10962-10966.
  22. Oesch, B., Westaway, D., Walchli, M., McKinley, M. P., Kent, S. B., Aebersold, R.,
    Barry, R. A., Tempst, P., Teplow, D. B., Hood, L. E., et al. (1985) Cell 40, 735-746.
  23. ] Sunde, M., Serpell, L. C., Bartlam, M., Fraser, P. E., Pepys, M. B. & Blake, C. C.
    (1997) J. Mol. Biol. 273, 729-739. [
  24. Swietnicki, W., Petersen, R., Gambetti, P. & Surewicz, W. K. (1997) J. Bio. Chem.
    272, 27517-27520. [
  25. Hornemann, S. & Glockshuber, R. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95,
    6010-6014.
  26. DeMarco, M. L. & Daggett, V. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 2293-2298.
  27. Armen, R. S., DeMarco, M. L., Alonso, D. O. V. & Daggett, V. (2004) Proc. Natl.
    Acad. Sci. USA 101, 11622-11627.
  28. Muramoto, T., Scott, M., Cohen, F. E. & Prusiner, S. B. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
    USA 93, 15457-15462.
  29. Salmona, M., Malesani, P., De Gioia, L., Gorla, S., Bruschi, M., Molinari, A.,
    Vedova, F. D., Pedrotti, B., Marrari, M. A., Awan, T., et al. (1999) Biochem. J. 342,
    207-214.
  30. Zhang, H., Kaneko, K., Nguyen, J. T., Livshits, T. L., Baldwin, M. A., Cohen, F. E.,
    James, T. L. & Prusiner, S. B. (1995) J. Mol. Biol. 250, 514-526.
  31. Forloni, G., Angeretti, N., Chiesa, R., Monzani, E., Salmona, M., Bugiani, O. &
    Tagliavini, F. (1993) Nature 362, 543-546.
  32. Tagliavini, F., Prelli, F., Verga, L., Giaccone, G., Sarma, R., Gorevic, P., Ghetti, B.,
    Passerini, F., Ghibaudi, E., Forloni, G., et al. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90,
    9678-9682.
  33. Selvaggini, C., Gioia, L. D., Cantu, L., Ghibaudi, E., Diomede, L., Passerini, F.,
    Forloni, G., Bugiani, O., Tagliavini, F., Salmona, M. (1993) Biochem. Biophys. Re. 6
    Comm. 194. 1380-1386.
  34. Kuwata, K., Matumoto, T., Cheng, H., Nagayama, K., James, T. L. & Roder, H.
    (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 14790-14795.
  35. Petkova, A. T., Ishii, Y., Balbach, J. J., Antzutkin, O. N., Leapman, R. D., Delaglio,
    F. & Tycko, R. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 16742-16747
  36. Ma, B. & Nussinov, R. Protein Sci (2002) 11 2335-2350.

Also Read:

How Cooking Creates the Toxins in Food that Cause Disease!

Raw Science: Alkaline pH Minerals Reduce the Risk of Disease

robertaross
-
0
Raw Science: Alkaline pH Minerals Reduce the Risk of Disease
More Proof that Alkaline pH is Essential for Your Health

The human body is naturally intended to be mostly alkaline on the pH scale. Your blood, for example, must stay between 7.35 and 7.45 pH or you could get seriously sick – or even die! This is so important that your body has an alkaline buffering system to make sure your blood stays in that range. But even within that range there is a huge difference in health factors. Most importantly, with a 1/10th of a difference in higher, more alkaline pH your blood can carry as much as 300% more oxygen! Imagine the additional energy and endurance you would have if your blood was always as that optimum level!

Testing Alkaline pHYet, the sad truth is that virtually everything in modern civilization and lifestyle is conspiring against you — trying its best to make your body more acidic, i.e., less alkaline! All the unnatural toxins in our environment these days are acid forming. The toxins in our water supply are acid forming. Even most bottled water is below optimal pH levels– and some are actually slightly acidic. And the toxins created by cooking and processing your food are all acid forming!

A Toxic Overload has Enveloped our Planet!

It is natural, of course, for your metabolism to produce some acidic toxins. Over millions of years the body has evolved an acid buffering system that is more than up to the task of handling those. But in the last 50-100 years, a vast toxic overload has enveloped our entire planet, depending on when you start counting. Pesticides, herbicides, toxic chemicals, preservatives, water pollution, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) — our bodies just are not designed to process all these modern hazards. As a result, we now have what we like to call today’s “diseases of civilization” — cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis and all the rest!

This is all because there is just a slight change in the chemistry of our bodies at the cellular level. In a healthy body your cells convert glucose into a chemical called ATP to store energy at a very efficient level (16:1). But that only works in a slightly alkaline environment. In an acidic environment, which is what our bodies become these days, the chemistry is entirely different! Now your body can’t make ATP! So it falls back on an emergency mechanism to directly convert glucose into energy. That is meant to be part of our “flight or fight” mechanism, and though it does that quickly it is very inefficient (2:1) and burns energy so quickly its not much use for critical energy reserves. That’s why so many people need constant stimulants like coffee, tobacco, colas, sports drinks, etc. to keep going throughout the day. If your body was truly healthy you would have all the energy you need without those crutches!

Now, keep mind that I am not talking about a full fledged “diet-induced acidosis” in the blood. Some raw foodists are confused by this and doctors use this confusion to discredit raw food in general! Actual diet induced “acidosis” can be a life-threatening condition and is rather rare. The more subtle lowering of blood pH towards the lower end of the normal range isn’t called acidosis at all, but is called “acidemia.” Though that isn’t ideal for health your body can handle it. In my opinion, the thing that is really destroying our health is much more subtle – the slight change of our biochemistry at the cellular level from an excess of acidic toxins, making normal cellular respiration impossible. This phenomena is subtle and hard for doctors to quantify let alone diagnose, but modern science is proving the truth of it more and more.

Acid-forming Toxins and the Diseases they can Cause.

10743736 - blood circulationResearch has shown that the effects of acidosis can directly contribute to cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, depression, Crohn’s disease, kidney disease and much more. In 2009, Robey, Baggett, Kirkpatrick et al published a paper in the American Assoc. for Cancer Research Journal proving that alkaline minerals (sodium bicarbonate) raise the extra-cellular pH of cancer tumor cells and prevent metastasis. Their research shows that the pH of  tumors is always acidic and using very alkaline minerals can raise the pH preventing the growth of the cancer.

In 2006, Gatenby, Gawlinski et al published research in the Cancer Journal showing that “chronic exposure of normal tissue to an acidic micro-environment produces toxicity by: (a) normal cell death… and (b) extracellular matrix degradation”. They proffer that glucose imbalance (an acid lifestyle) leads to a chronically acidic micro-environment (the normal cells and molecules that surround a tumor cell) which provides the perfect base for cancer.

A 2009 study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism has shown that consumption of and supplementation with alkaline minerals is essential for good health. The objective of the study was to understand the effect of alkaline minerals on bone health. The participants who were taking the bicarbonate supplements had significant reductions in urinary N-telopeptide and calcium excretion when compared to the control group. This means that when taking the alkaline minerals, bones remained stronger and healthier.

In a 1995 issue of the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, Joseph Campbell provided a review of the scientific literature on minerals and disease. The article shows that the alkaline minerals magnesium and calcium are critical to the prevention of cardiovascular disease. He also shows that acid-forming foods cause the leaching of calcium from bones and teeth to buffer excess acidity.

The above studies prove that having sufficient alkaline mineral buffers to neutralize dietary, lifestyle and metabolic acids is critical to maintaining excellent health, energy and vitality and to the prevention of degenerative disease. Using an alkaline mineral supplement is an effective way of guaranteeing your daily intake of alkaline minerals is sufficient.

The efficacy of using a mineral supplement (and these supplements providing a usable form of these minerals) is further supported by this June 2009 study published in the Nutrition Journal, “Effect of a supplement rich in alkaline minerals on acid-base balance in humans”. The study concluded “that the ingestion of a multimineral supplement is associated with both a significant increase in blood and urinary pH.”

You should always aim to get an abundance of nutrients from whole, organic raw foods and healthy alkaline mineral water! There are no acceptable shortcuts on this. It is essential. Here are some whole food sources of the minerals essential for good health:

  1. POTASSIUM: Avocado, Spinach, Soybeans, Lentils, Swiss Chard, Tomatoes, Broccoli, Squash, Cucumber, Sweet Potato, Beetroot, Greens, Carrots.
  2. MAGNESIUM: Pumpkin Seeds, Spinach, Soybeans, Swiss Chard, Broccoli, Cucumber, Sunflower Seeds, Pumpkin, Tomatoes, Celery, Quinoa, Almonds, Brown Rice.
  3. CALCIUM: Basil, Turnip, Thyme, Spinach, Greens, Kelp, Broccoli, Swiss Chard, Romaine Lettuce, Kale, Celery, Cabbage, Squash, Green Beans, Asparagus, Brussels Sprouts, Garlic.
  4. SODIUM: Avocado, Carrots, Cabbage, Cauliflower, Kale, Lettuce, Greens, Parsley, Peppers, Radish, Sunflower Seeds, Sweet Potato, Turnip, Beets (only the sodium found in whole raw food, not table salt or the salt added to refined foods which is NOT healthy at all).

As you can see, consuming sufficient alkaline minerals is essential to good health. Your body needs you to minimize acid-forming toxins and maximize alkaline-forming minerals. When you consume acid-forming toxins your body uses up alkaline buffers like the calcium in your bones causing many of the most common modern diseases. The most important alkaline minerals are calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium. These are abundant in fresh, organic raw foods (particularly greens), as well as alkaline mineral water from a water ionizer!

Originally published March, 2012

Selected References:
  1. Diet-induced acidosis: is it real and clinically relevant? British Journal of Nutrition Cambridge University Press; Joseph Pizzornoa, Lynda A. Frassettoa and Joseph Katzingera
  2. Acid-Mediated Tumor Invasion: a Multidisciplinary Study; Cancer Research 66, 5216-5223, May 15, 2006; Robert A. Gatenby, Edward T. Gawlinski, Arthur F. Gmitro, Brant Kaylor and Robert J. Gillies
  3. The Potential Role of Systemic Buffers in Reducing Intratumoral Extracellular pH and Acid-Mediated Invasion; Cancer Research 69, 2677, March 15, 2009; Ariosto S. Silva, Jose A. Yunes, Robert J. Gillies and Robert A. Gatenby
  4. Alkaline Mineral Supplementation Decreases Pain in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients; The Open Nutrition Journal, 2008, 2, 100-105; Regina Maria Cseuz, Istvan Barna, Tamas Bender and Jurgen Vormann
  5. Treatment with Potassium Bicarbonate Lowers Calcium Excretion and Bone Resorption in Older Men and Women; The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 94, No. 1 96-102; Bess Dawson-Hughes, Susan S. Harris, Nancy J. Palermo, Carmen Castaneda-Sceppa, Helen M. Rasmussen and Gerard E. Dallal
  6. Minerals and Disease; Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine Vol. 10, No. 3 & 4, 1995; Joseph D. Campbell
  7. Preservative Effect of Electrolyzed Reduced Water on Pancreatic b -Cell Mass in Diabetic db/db Mice; Biol. Pharm. Bull. 30(2) 234—236 (2007); Mi-Ja KIM, Kyung Hee JUNG, Yoon Kyung UHM, Kang-Hyun LEEM, and Hye Kyung KIM
  8. The Effect of Acid/Alkaline Nutrition on Psychophysiological Function; Int J Biosocial Res. Vol. 9(2); 182-202, 1987; Rudolf A. Wiley
  9. Severe Osteomalacia Associated with Renal Tubular Acidosis in Crohn’s Disease; Digestive Diseases & Sciences, Vol 31, No 3, March 1986; Rui MM Victorino, Margarida B Lucas, Miguel Carneiro de Moura
  10. Metabolic acidosis of CKD: diagnosis, clinical characteristics, and treatment; American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Volume 45, Issue 6, Pages 978-993 J. Kraut, I. Kurtz
  11. Lean Tissue: Alkaline diets favor lean tissue mass in older adults; American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 87, No. 3, 662-665, March 2008; Bess Dawson-Hughes, Susan S Harris and Lisa Ceglia

Also Read:

Study: Alkaline Mineral Water Can Raise Your pH

Forty Centuries of Agriculture in Asia – the Original Organic Farmers!

robertaross
-
0
Forty Centuries of Agriculture in Asia – the Original Organic Farmers!

Farmers of Forty Centuries: Organic Farming in China, Korea, and Japan

How did Asian farmers work the same fields for 40,000 years without destroying the land’s fertility and without applying artificial fertilizer? At the turn of the 20th century, a former official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture traveled to Asia to study their ancient farming methods and learn the answer. This landmark book chronicles his travels and observations on waste-free methods of cultivation that conserve natural resources. “One of the richest sources of information about peasant agriculture . . . one of the pioneer books on organic farming.” — The Last Whole Earth Catalog.

27108216 - traditional rice farmerThis amazing study of waste-free methods of cultivation shares the secrets of ancient farming methods while sharing the travels of a remarkable man who studied the conditions among agricultural peoples of Japan, China, Manchuria, and Korea at the turn of the last century. You’ll learn about their customs, their use of waste, irrigation methods, reforestation and land reclamation, cultivation of rice and tea and much more. Features over 240 illustrations and photos.

Read the full e-Book with pictures HERE.
Purchase a print copy of the book HERE.

Also Read:

Farming with Integrity … Organically!

 

Where do you get your Protein? The Sad Truth about Soy Products

robertaross
-
0
Where do you get your Protein? The Sad Truth about Soy Products

The Sad Truth about Soy in America.

30431095 - tractor spraying soyMany people have a false idea of the importance of protein in their diets even after becoming vegan. Many health professionals that promote veganism still rely on out-dated data for the protein that vegans need. That doesn’t even consider the truth about soy in American — that it’s almost all genetically modified (GMO), then heavily sprayed with chemicals and pesticides and just not fit for human consumption!

You see, too much animal protein in your diet actually speeds up the aging process! The latest research shows that reducing a protein found in fish and meat actually slows the aging process and increases life expectancy. A healthy vegan diet without soy actually has all the protein you really need in a much more absorbable form. Animal products have a lot of protein but when you cook them the protein quality degrades and it becomes much harder to absorb — with many more cancer-causing byproducts. You have to eat many time the protein you need from animal products since most of it can’t be absorbed, and the by-products are full of potential carcinogens.

Ultimately, it isn’t the quantity of protein that is important at all … it is the quality! Soy beans, of course, have lots of protein but it is so hard to digest that you actually get little benefit from it. I tmay in fact do more harm than good due to the anti-nutrients, false estrogens and phyto-endocrine disrupters in soy beans can cause serious health issues.

On a raw food diet, raw, fresh and organic leafy greens and sprouts are best sources of protein to get all that your body really needs. These are just two of the many raw, vegan foods with high amounts of protein. Incorporating them into your daily meals will help you achieve optimum protein intake on a raw food diet.

Snacking on healthy, raw nuts is also a great source of protein, but remember these are also sources of a lot of fat. I also recommend, for serious raw foodists, to soak your nuts overnight to remove a lot of the fat and help start the nut’s break-down process (preparing to grow) on the complex proteins, making them more assimilable.

Hemp and Flax Seeds are also a great source of protein. Also, you can carry some around with you to snack on them, helping to make sure that you’re getting all of the protein you need. But whole grain foods and fruits, a great source of healthy carbohydrates and sugars, do not contain high amounts of proteins. Some berries that do have higher amounts of proteins include Goji and Incan berries. Here are some great sources of vegan protein (highest sources in bold).

  • Almonds 15%37590098 - vegan sources of protein
  • Barley 14%
  • Broccoli (raw) 33%
  • Buckwheat 15%
  • Hard red wheat 15%
  • Kale 5% (has lots of other nutrients)
  • Kidney beans (raw) 58%
  • Lentils (raw) 34%
  • Mushrooms (raw) 56%
  • Mustard greens (raw) 41%
  • Peanuts 18%
  • Pumpkin seeds 18%
  • Spinach (raw) 50%
  • Tomatoes 19%
  • Wild rice 16%
  • Watercress (raw) 84%

Too many vegans believe the industry hype about protein, relying on soy beans for protein — the worst possible source. Soy bean protein is extremely hard for the human body to digest and utilize, creating more health problems than solutions. Even worse, most modern soy beans in America are 99% GMO (genetically modified).

“Soybeans are high in phytic acid, an acid that is present in the bran or hulls of all seeds. Phytic acid is also termed the “anti nutrient” because it can block the uptake of essential minerals – calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and especially zinc – in the intestinal tract. The soybean has one of the highest phytate levels of any grain or legume that has been studied and therefore puts you in risk of a mineral deficiency. Furthermore, soy foods contain trypsin inhibitors that inhibit protein digestion and affect pancreatic function … Last but not least, there is the concern of soy’s phytoestrogen (isoflavones) content. Soy isoflavones are phyto-endocrine disrupters, meaning they mimic the body’s naturally occurring hormone functions. This is the biggest concern because soy has the ability to disrupt normal hormone balance.” 

Ignore All the Hype About Soy

Soy is the perhaps the single most hyped food product on the market today. In fact, it is specifically targeted by the food industry to vegetarians and vegans, backed by giants like Monsanto, the world’s leading manufacturer of toxic pesticides and GMO foods. So now, soy has become a commodity grown and sold throughout the world. However, some governments have recognized that GMO’s are bad for our health as well as for the environment. Countries like France, Germany, the U.K., and even China have limited or banned the use of GMO’s! still, soy has become an integral part of the vegetarian/Vegan diet despite its phony claims and alleged health benefits.

20691580 - person in protective suit and gas maskThe truth about soy is that modern American soy was never actually healthy at all — and today’s GMO soy is much worse. It shouldn’t even be recognized as a food — most insects won’t even eat it! GMO foods are made by getting a virus or bacteria to attack a cell thereby artificially inserting an artificial gene. The DNA is designed to force the seed to grow into a new form of a plant,like soy.

A number of studies over the past decade have shown that GMO foods pose serious health risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment. Health effects can include increased toxicity, allergic reactions, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and even cancer. Environmentally, the use of genetic engineering is leading to out-of-control biological pollution that actually is threatening real and even organic plants with contamination or extinction.

Last but not least, the phytoestrogen in soy “mimics” the body’s naturally occurring hormones (such as estrogen) disrupting normal hormone balance. A phytoestrogen called genistein in soy can interfere with normal hormone production and inhibit the uptake of iodine by the body. The thyroid gland is also disrupted by soy, affecting things like heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature and metabolic rate. In studies , genistein has also caused a decline in fertility, ovulatory dysfunction and irregular menstrual cycles.

Other consequences of an unbalanced hormone system can be prostate and breast cancer, early puberty, endometriosis and infertility, irregular and painful menstrual periods, handle bar and stomach weight gain, acne, and depression. Remember, also, that soy is not the only estrogenic food. Dairy, meat products, plastics and even personal care products also contain estrogen-like substances.

Soy is a Staple in Asia but is Very Different from American Soy

Soy is an big part of Asian culture, but this soy is very different than the commercial and GMO junk sold in the U.S. You see, soy products in Asia are usually “cultured,” like tempeh or miso. Cultured soy has a very different nutritional profile than raw soy because the phytic acid is broken down. Also, the most common use for soy in the U.S. is to make soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein — the basis for almost all the processed and packaged foods today that are are loaded with MSG (monosodium glutimate), a potent neurotoxin.

Also, Asians use soy foods only in very small amounts as a condiment, not a replacement for animal foods. Traditional consumption of soy in Asia is only about 2 teaspoons daily. For vegetarians and vegans in the U.S., soy can become the basis for whole meals, not to mention snacks and drinks.

Now what…

Monsanto Logo ParodyMonsanto & Friends likes to claim that soy  helps prevent cancer but that is only true for traditionally fermented soybean products. The real truth about soy is that the isoflavones in GMO-based, non-fermented soy are altered and have NO anti-carcinogenic effects at all.

Soy is the most heavily marketed product that directly targets vegetarians and vegans in America today. Plus, it’s backed by the largest industrial food companies in the world. These companies are all tied to big agrochemical firms like Monsanto, the world’s leading company for pesticides and GMO foods. So today the sad truth about soy today is that it is not a health food at all, if it ever was …  and definitely not in the U.S.

Also read:

What Mainstream Media Isn’t Telling You About GMO Foods!

How a Dehydrator Saved My Sanity — as well as My Health!

robertaross
-
0
How a Dehydrator Saved My Sanity — as well as My Health!

Raw Food and Dehydrators

The Physiology of Chewing!

My first experience of the raw food lifestyle was at the Optimum Health Institute in San Diego, where I eventually become a resident and teacher.  The OHI program began with an intensive juice “feast” or fast for cleansing and detoxifying the body. I had two responses to my first juice feast. First, I never experienced such an energy boost in my life. I went from being chronically fatigued to having more energy than I knew what to do with!

The other response was a noticeable nostalgia for crunchy foods that required some real chewing. Of course, at OHI they tell you to “chew your drinks and drink your solids,” an admonition to chew everything you eat or drink, stimulating production of saliva and increasing the efficiency of the first stage of digestion. But that’s a lot easier to talk about than to remember to do with every sip of juice. Most importantly, it was the first glimmer I was having into the importance of chewing to our minds as well as our bodies.

You see, chewing is more than just a means of digestion. It is so important to our health that we are psychologically wired with a need to chew!  We see that in our pets and even our children, but we seem to forget how important the simple act of chewing is to us all.

Take chewing gum, for example. You would think gum is nothing more than a candy with no health value at all, breath freshening aside.  But it turns out that the simple act of chewing gum actually improves out state of mind. It’s not something in the gum – it’s the act of chewing! A team of psychologists at St. Lawrence University gave 159 students a battery of cognitive tasks – and those randomly assigned to gum-chewing significantly outperformed those in a control group on five out of six tests. (1)

Mastication-Induced Arousal

There is actually a real name for this phenomenon: “mastication-123RF-32599184induced arousal.” There isn’t a whole lot of scientific evidence about the psychological importance of chewing, but the St. Lawrence definitely definitely shows that there is something there. Perhaps we’ve been wired that way to make sure we chew food rather than just wolf it down, improving the first stage of digestion. Maybe it is part of our survival instincts, making us more alert for predators and scavengers that might have designs on our latest catch.  In this study we only have begun to study mastication induced behaviors.

So there I was at OHI for the very first time — and with a definite need chew. But almost all I was getting was raw veggie juice or, as some call a salad, “rabbit food.” Now OHI was telling me that I was supposed to chew my juice and drink my solids – and even a salad requires some chewing. But I believe that there are different kinds of chewing!  Chewing a liquid or even my rabbit food just never had the same satisfaction for me as chewing popcorn or chips!

I eat a large raw salad almost every single day, but raw food doesn’t have the “crunch factor.” Sprouts are healthy and delicious but no significant “crunch.” Raw nuts, which ideally should be soaked, are then crunch-free.  Greens – no crunch. Carrots have some crunch but not quite at the level of crunchiness you get from chips or toast. We need more than just any ol’ chewing – we need to chew something crunchy! And that is where the wonders of dehydrators can help!

Flax Seed CrackersYou see, dehydrators bridge the gap between rabbit foods and the crunchy, cooked foods we are all so addicted to. That is why dehydrated raw foods are sometimes called “transitional” by raw foodists. You see, you take something raw, dehydrate it at under 118°F and turn it into a raw cracker, chip, treat or “bread” without destroying all the enzymes and giving it substantial crunch appeal.  When I was first served dehydrated flax seed crackers at OHI, I was in heaven. Now I could really “get my teeth” into raw food!

What you Need to Know to Buy a Dehydrator

Dehydrators serve many purposes in addition to their nutritional benefits or for food preservation. With a dehydrator you can make it easier to overcome old, entrenched food addictions. Or if cooking is your passion you can replace the stove top and oven with a dehydrator and get even more enjoyment from un-cooking!  And finally, with a dehydrator you can make an important but radical lifestyle change to more raw food in your diet much, much easier.

Types of Dehydrators

All the dehydrators I am writing about are electric models. You can also buy or build your own solar dehydrators. However, solar dehydrators are not ideal for raw foods because it can be difficult to control temperatures without an electric thermostat. Temperature control is essential to dehydrated raw foods because one of the big ideas behind raw is living enzymes. Enzymes die at temperatures above118°F, so you cannot let your dehydrator get above that. Believe it or not, a solar dehydrator can get much hotter, especially in southern climes or anywhere on a hot, sunny day.

With electric dehydrators there are two basic designs – vertical and horizontal.  Since horizontal airflow dehydrators have much better temperature control and efficiency I only recommend these models. Vertical designs are less expensive and have stackable trays, which is convenient. However their heaters are usually located at the bottom of the unit, creating uneven heating between the bottom and top of the units. If you already have one of these, and it has a temperature control (some don’t), then you can use it to get started, but you should use a separate candy or yogurt thermometer to be sure of the internal temperatures and you will need to rotate the bottom and top trays every few hours to get even heating.

Horizontal Airflow Dehydrators
Horizontal Airflow Dehydrators
Excalibur Invented the Parallax Design

Horizontal dehydrators are rectangular-shaped boxes with 4 to 12 or more trays stacked inside the unit that slide in and out.  All these units have one or two fans at the back of the unit that blow air “horizontally” across the trays, creating a much more efficient airflow with more even heating. There are 4 main types of these dehydrators:

  • Economy models with just a simple thermostat and 4, 5, 9 or 10 trays
  • Deluxe models with heavy duty motors, heaters and thermostats
  • Digital models with computer controlled thermostats and/or timers
  • Professional-quality or commercial models made of stainless steelExcalibur Dehydrators
Excalibur Dehydrators
The first horizontal airflow design was invented by Excalibur Dehydrators, and was called the Parallexx™. The square design provides more even, faster drying and increases drying area 25% over round models. Excaliburs are available in economy and heavy-duty models with 4, 5 or 9 trays. Excalibur dehydrators are made right here in the USA.

TSM Dehydrators
TSM Stainless Steel DehydratorsTSM (“The Sausage Maker)” is one of the world’s leading sources for meat processing equipment, including some of the finest dehydrators for home and commercial kitchens. They began over 30 years ago and virtually all of the equipment they manufacture are made and designed in the USA by TSM in Buffalo, New York. TSM stainless steel dehydrators are available in deluxe home models as well as large-capacity, all digital commercial units.

Tribest Dehydrators
Tribest Sedona Dehydrator ClosedThough Tribest began making some of the world’s best masticating juicers over 30 years ago, they only recently entered the dehydrator market. However, they really did their homework before jumping in, designing one of the most innovative and feature-packed, and digitally controlled dehydrators available. The Tribest Sedona 9-tray Dehydrator is a real winner, though the most expensive of the molded plastic units out there. It features a 9-tray design that can be divided into two 4-tray sections, with a solid divider tray between them – each with its own fan and digital controls.  Not only does this eliminate the need to rotate trays, it allows you to dehydrate two entirely different recipes using different temperatures at the same time.

What Makes a Dehydrator Work?

Horizontal Shape
Horizontal airflow dehydrators are the only designs I consider appropriate for living, raw food enthusiasts due to the importance of temperature control – also,  better airflow and faster drying times inhibit growth of molds and other organisms.  These units are basically just rectangular or square boxes with several removable trays stacked inside about 1.75 inches apart. Horizontal airflow dehydrators have one or two fans in the back of the unit blowing warm air over the tops of the trays for better temperature control and efficiency.
The Trays

Horizontal airflow dehydrators are the only units I consider appropriate for living, raw food enthusiasts due to the importance of temperature control for protecting the living enzymes in raw foods. Better airflow and faster drying times also inhibit growth of molds and other organisms.  These units are basically just rectangular or square boxes with several removable trays stacked inside about one to two inches apart. Horizontal airflow dehydrators have fans in the back blowing warm air over the tops of the trays for better temperature control and efficiency.  The trays themselves are a wide-grid type made of plastic or stainless steel. A “mesh” screen like material is placed over the trays to keep things from falling through the grid. Alternatively, drying sheets made of unbleached parchment paper, silicone or a Teflon-like, non-stick materials are used when dehydrating batters or purees for crackers, breads or fruit leathers.  You can remove several trays at a time to make room for small jars when making yogurt, as well.

Heater & Fan Assembly
Sedona Dehydrator Interior
Tribest Sedona Dehydrator Dual Fan Assembly

The main purpose of a dehydrator is to blow heated air across the trays and whatever produces you put on the trays. The air is heated by a heating element using electronic resistance and then blown by a large fan. The heating element is usually just a spring-shared wire that heats up when turned on. All the horizontal airflow dehydrators have at least a thermostat to control the drying temperature by adjusting the current in the heating element.  Most dehydrators operating in the range of 85 to 150 degrees F., however always remember that for raw food, enzymes are completely destroyed at temps above 118°F.

Thermostats in dehydrators on not extremely accurate since they are relatively open to increase airflow and not tightly sealed like an oven. However, they give an approximate range that is close enough for our purposes. For more accurate calibration you can use a candy or yogurt thermometer placed inside the unit to know the precise temperature.  This is an important step when drying very wet items since evaporation inside a dehydrator can low internal temperatures by 10 to 20 degrees. In those cases you’ll want to increase the temperature for the first few hours even above the 118°F max to speed up initial stages of drying and the minimize to potential for mold.

Most 4, 5, 6 or 10 tray dehydrators have a single fan at the back. Smaller units have a small fan around 5 or 6 inches in diameter. They are usually 400-500 watts. The larger 9 or 10 tray models can have one or two fans in the back, improving airflow and control. These are usually around 600-800 watts.

Tribest Control Panel
Tribest Sedona Advanced Digital Control Panel
Thermostats & Timers

There are basically just two types of controls for dehydrators – manual and automatic or digital. Economy models simply have a manual thermostat, which you set by hand. Some better models offer a manual timer as well, like a built-in kitchen timer. Generally these are limited to a relatively short time period of 12- 24 hours – often not enough for dehydrating some raw food recipes. However, I often tell people on a budget to get a model without the timer, then just plug it into a standard heavy-duty kitchen appliance timer that you can buy online for under $20.00.

Better models offer built-in digital timers. The low cost digital models have up to 40 hours on their timers, which is enough for most things. The best models are completely automatic, digital and computer-controlled with up to 99 hours of programmable timing.

A timer can be a two-edged sword. You see, I think it is better to be aware and conscious when you a dehydrating – checking the trays regularly to make sure the process is going as planned. In some cases you may need to raise and lower temperatures a bit. Sometimes your timer can be set too long and you’ll over dry items. Worse, an automatic timer can turn a unit off if you aren’t careful before it is completely dry, leaving food on open-air trays in a warm, moist environment – a good formula for molds and fermentation! So even if you do have a fancy, computer-controlled timer, stay conscious and aware during the entire process and check your dehydrator regularly.

BPA-Free Plastics and Other Materials

Dehydrators can be made of several different types of plastics or, in more expensive models, stainless steel. Of the different plastics available, these break down into two families – standard “food-grade” plastics and BPA-Free plastics.  BPA-free plastics are the latest craze online and in the media, however with dehydrators it is an over-hyped concern.

You see, BPA in plastics that have BPA’s do not out-gas at the temperatures used in a dehydrator. In fact, it takes hundreds of degrees to get any plastic to out-gas BPA. Even the leader in the field, Excalibur, doesn’t use BPA-Free plastics because they chose the best plastic for strength and durability first rather than settling only on those that catered to customers concerned about BPA-free products.

Excalibur uses two plastics in their designs, including polypropylene, considered the safest plastic around food, and polycarbonate for the case because it is virtually indestructible. FDA-approved polycarbonate is considered completely safe when used at the low temperatures inside a dehydrator.

“The use of polycarbonate plastic for food contact applications has been and continues to be recognized as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Food, the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, and other regulatory authorities worldwide. (2)

The concern about the safety of polycarbonates started in 1999 when the TV show 20/20 reported a warning from Consumer Reports about polycarbonate baby bottles releasing biphenyl-A (BPA), a chemical used in making polycarbonate.  However, this only happened when microwaving or boiling polycarbonate baby bottles, repeatedly subjecting them to temperatures over 250 degrees F., which can never happen in dehydrators. Newer models, like the Tribest Sedona do use BPA-free materials in their trays and screens. And, of course, the safest material for any kind of food processing is always stainless steel.

How to Buy a Dehydrator

The first thing I always tell folks is to get the biggest dehydrator they can afford (assuming, of course, you have the space to store it nearby). For most people that is a 9 or 10-tray model, featuring 10-12 sq. ft. of drying area. Smaller 4 or 5 tray models, with less than half the drying area, are only recommended when you don’t have the space for anything bigger. You see, the prep time and drying time is just about the same whether you are doing 12 square feet or less than a third of that!  So you might as well make two or three times as much of your favorite recipe at one time, actually saving you money in the long run.  Dehydrated items can become a staple in a raw food diet, so making it easier and more efficient to dehydrate goes a long way in making it easier to adapt to a raw food lifestyle.

Other Considerations

Cleaning – All horizontal airflow dehydrators have removable trays. Some trays however are much large than the average kitchen sink, making them harder to clean. Measure you sink and check the size of the trays for the easiest cleaning. Even with over-size trays, however, cleaning isn’t much more difficult than with smaller trays.

Counter Space –  try to buy a dehydrator that is easy to store in your kitchen. If you have to go all the way out to a garage to dig it out, chances are it will get less use.  Of course, lots of people do all their dehydrating in the garage. Some models are particularly noisy, and when running all day can keep you up at night. In that case a garage is nice. More recent designs these days are a lot quieter, like the Tribest Sedona. However, the noise factor never bothered me personally and I prefer to just do everything in the kitchen. I bought one of those little rolling kitchen islands with a marble top online for a very reasonable price. It has a bottom shelf just the right size to store my dehydrator. Now all I have to do is put it up on the counter and it’s ready to use.

Slicing – If you don’t already have a vegetable mandolin you should get one when you buy your dehydrator. Unless you have the skills of a great chef, carving perfectly regular slices with a knife is going to be beyond your skill-set. A mandolin makes precise slices that will ultimately save hours of your time. For example, a 2mm veggie slice could dry 33%-50% faster than a 3mm slice!  I always recommend getting the Teflon-type non-stick sheets with a dehydrator. However, it is possible to use unbleached parchment paper instead, which is very inexpensive online.

References

  • Lehrer, Jonah, Cognitive Benefits Of Chewing Gum, Wired Magazine. 11/29/2011
  • www.Excalibur.com

By Robert Ross, Jan. 2012 (Updated March, 2017)

Historic Study on Effects of Fertilizers Has Surprising Results

robertaross
-
0
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

1...34353637Page 35 of 37
© Newspaper WordPress Theme by TagDiv