Home Blog Page 47

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also Read:

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

Introduction to Juicing for the Raw Food Lifestyle

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

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

How Much to Drink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction to Juicing for Healing Disease

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Vegetables for Juicing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mock V-8 Juice

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

Cucumber Celery Cooler

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

Mock Tuna Salad Using Juicer Pulp

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

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

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

Click here for more juicing recipes

Also Read:

How to Choose a Juicer for Raw Foodists!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also Read:

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

Make Your Own Alkaline Ionized Water Right at Home

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES:

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

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

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

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

0

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

Freedom, Terrorism & Raw Food

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

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

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

The Color of Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Principles of Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

He who controls the definitions wins!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion by Robert Ross

Also Read:

Equality, Freedom & Raw Food — Your Natural Rights!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ingredients

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

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

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

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

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

Animal & Poultry Fat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additives & Preservatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contaminants

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

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

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

Labeling

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

Genetically Modified Ingredients (GMOs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems Caused by Inadequate Nutrition in Pet Foods

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are your pets eating food industry waste?

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

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

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

Secret Ingredients

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

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

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

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

Also read:

Why We Really Don’t Need GMO Foods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also Watch:

Interview with Robert Ross

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

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

High Fructose Corn Syrup Is Bad for You!

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

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

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

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

Diabetes Disaster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reduce Your Consumption of Fructose and ALL artificial sweeteners!


Selected References

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

Also read:

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

Raw Guide for People Who Hate Vegetables

Why some people hate vegetables and what can they do about it.

In today’s fast-food society, it’s not  uncommon for people to have an aversion to vegetables — actually, they hate vegetables! Of course, this can make becoming a vegetarian, vegan, worse, a raw foodist a little daunting. When I became a vegetarian 40 years ago, people thought I was very strange. Now, after 40 years, being a vegan or vegetarian diet is at least considered healthy, even if a little unusual. It took 4 decades for me just to get to where people at least accept being vegan or vegetarian as a somewhat reasonable idea.

Now we areI Hate Vegetables asking people to accept not just eating mostly vegetables as a way of life, but actually eating them raw! For some people that’s much more than just hard to accept – many people just won’t even try them. They just hate vegetables!

According to the U.S. CDC, about 75% of Americans don’t eat the recommended five to nine servings of fresh fruits and vegetables per day. That’s alarming, considering how important vegetables are to maintaining a healthy and productive lifestyle — but not surprising, given that some people think that ketchup counts as one serving of vegetables!

So when you get to a buffet do you choose the chocolate cake over the carrot sticks even though you know carrot sticks are healthier? Do you skip the salad at the restaurant? Does the idea of eating something green make you gag? Well, many people new to raw food are confronting just such a challenge! They didn’t get interested in the raw food lifestyle merely because they thought it’s delicious – they were overweight or they got sick. Usually that is how they got here – raw food may have been their last resort. They studied raw nutrition, they’ve read stories about people who’ve overcome the very dis-ease they are struggling with using a raw food diet – but it didn’t help. Veggies still make them gag.

If vegetables weren’t good for you, you could simply eliminate them from your diet without any consequences. But in fact, that is what most people in our so-called civilization have done – and it has led to a society with more health problems than ever – from rampant obesity and diabetes to epidemic of cancer and heart disease. So how did we get here? How did we turn our natural taste for things that are good for us, which we evolved with, into an addiction to things that are bad for us – and even an aversion to the good stuff?

The answer is money. Over the last 100 years or so we surrendered our responsibility for what we eat into the hands of big business. In effect, we surrendered the responsibility for our nutrition into the hands of corporations who are legally obligated to put profit before nutrition – so they did. Now we can buy a whole fast food meal for $1.99. Maybe even less – I’m not sure since I haven’t been to a fast food joint in 30 years.

I believe that big business, in their never-ending “fiduciary responsibility” to the Gods of Profit, spent the last 100 years developing various ways to sell more of their products, reduce their costs and increase their profits – at any cost! The results is a testament to the effectiveness of their efforts – people are addicted to artificial preservatives, sweeteners, genetically modified foods and more to such an extent that the delicious natural taste of vegetables now makes them gag! Big business has evolved a new breed of human being, one that with the help of modern pharmaceuticals can manage to survive to a ripe old age without ever eating anything that is truly healthy.

One of the main culprits is sugar. In fact, if you really do hate vegetables, don’t blame the veggies — you are probably just addicted to sugar. Today there is some sort of sweetener in absolutely every single foodI Hate Vegetables, Too that is commercially prepared. It’s not just cane sugar, since we all know to avoid that, it is all the sweeteners – some with innocuous names you don’t even know mean “sugar”! One of the worst is “high fructose corn syrup” (HFCS). “Corn? How bad can that be?” you ask. Well, it’s very bad actually, since HFCS today comes from a variety of genetically engineered corn that isn’t even edible by humans any more! This isn’t the “corn” you think about when you go to the supermarket – it’s designed for motor vehicle fuel and sugar production, and is even sweeter than regular sugar!

This innocuous-sounding product has been linked to obesity and type 2 diabetes and has become perhaps the leading source of added sugar in our diet. There is some kind of sweetener in things that don’t even taste sweet. What’s that about? It is all about creating an addiction … because addicts are the best customers of all. And now that your taste for sweets has been properly programmed, the natural taste of nutrient dense organic vegetables won’t satisfy your sweet tooth. In fact, because they are very “alkaline forming,” they may initially taste bitter or nasty to you — and so you may actually hate vegetables. However, veggies are really not bitter at all, but without all the sugar that you’re addicted to these days you may think they are. The healthier the veggie the worse it tastes! So what are you to do?

Here are 12 raw food strategies for people who hate vegetables:

1. Make a commitment to change
To start out, you have to make a decision or commitment to change. You’ll need to accept that it will be difficult at first, so the first thing you have to change is the way you think about vegetables before you eat them. If you look at a veggie and think, “this is awful,” before it even gets in your mouth, you are not going to like it no matter what you do. You need to discard that initial reaction to your veggies. If you can do that, you can re-train your taste buds.

2. Re-train Your Taste Buds.

I Hate Vegetables

We evolved over millions of years to enjoy the taste of foods that are good for us. It took less than a century for big business to retrain our taste buds to prefer things that are bad for us. They did that by making bad things taste like good things. Many good foods have a little sugar in them. There is nothing wrong with that. Lots of good healthy foods have a little MSG in them.

Yeah … it’s true. Our taste buds evolved so you would like a little MSG. Then big business decided to make artificial MSG that they could add to their empty-calorie foods so you would like those better. The good news is that natural foods are where the artificial sweeteners and “flavor enhancers” got their inspiration in the first place! So it is not all that hard to learn to enjoy them. Your taste buds aren’t broken, they just need to be retrained. By weaning yourself off of the things that confuse your taste buds, like artificial flavors and sweeteners, they can begin to return to normal – and eventually actually develop the ability to taste – and enjoy – the natural nutrition in the foods you put in your mouth!

3. Why all Vegetables are Not Created Equal.

Which veggies look more alive and healthy to you?
Fresh, Living Vegetables
Canned Supermarket Vegetable
Canned Supermarket Vegetable

When I was just a kid I really thought I hated vegetables. I didn’t actually hate vegetables at all, but I really, really hated those awful mushy, nasty things Mom pulled out of the freezer or dumped from a can onto my plate. Then I discovered that those nasty things weren’t real vegetables at all -– they’re something else, a shadow of their former selves.

You see, when you overcook, freeze, genetically engineer and otherwise “improve” a vegetable it becomes something else. It isn’t truly a “vegetable” any more – really! It actually has been chemically changed by cooking and processing to the point that it certainly isn’t food any  longer. It doesn’t taste like real food (once you re-learn what real food tastes like, that is). In fact, it doesn’t even taste good without a lot of salt and artificial (or so called “natural”) flavorings that aren’t good for you either. On the other hand, fresh organic nutrient-dense vegetables taste wonderful, even with nothing on them! I love just plain broccoli or cauliflower. A carrot is like dessert. Avocados – yum!

But take a plastic bag of frozen broccoli, peas and cauliflower, boil it into a limp slimy green mess until it stinks like rotting garbage, slop a ton of margarine and salt on top to hide the taste (doesn’t help the smell though) – and no wonder you hate vegetables! If you had to cope with that when growing up, you’ve been scarred for life! So to change that pattern, you need to realize that the taste of a vegetable changes drastically depending on how it’s cooked –- or in my case, NOT cooked! The taste of raw organic veggies is wonderful to me now, and it will be to you. I promise! To ease your transition, you can try lightly steaming your veggies, or lightly cooking them with a minimum of organic olive oil in a wok.

4. Stick with your program.
In this age of processed foods and sugar-addictions, the poor vegetable can’t possibly have the appeal of a chemically-processed burger that’s been field-tested by marketing and psychology experts who know all your buttons. Making a transition to real, organic, whole food isn’t going to happen overnight. So once you get past your initial disappointment in your vegetables, keep eating them anyway. Eventually, you’ll begin to appreciate them, and then even really desire them. But you must stick with the program. Don’t give up just because that pizza is still calling to you. But if you can’t stand it any more, go ahead and have a slice! Sometimes you have to treat yourself compassionately – don’t give in easily, but don’t make it such a burden that you resent what you are trying to achieve and stop altogether. After the pizza, topped with veggies perhaps, you can get back on the horse and keep on riding.

5. Eat your veggies with other foods.
When you get started, try masking the initial taste of vegetables. A salad dressing you like will make your salad go down easier. I used to get “salad pizza” at my favorite pizza place – a big delicious fresh salad right on top of a slice! Mix toasted almonds or sesame seeds in with your vegetable dish. If you are used to salty things, get some dulse flakes at your local health food store and sprinkle those on instead – or mix in any sea vegetables with your fresh veggies.

6. Drink your veggies!
Juice bars are popping up all over, providing a fresh, tasty alternative to eating vegetables. Keep in mind that even fresh juices are powerful, concentrated foods, and some commercial juice bars include additives like sugar, flavorings or even dairy products. Juiced veggies also don’t have the fiber you get from their whole counterparts. I always tell people to “chew your juices and drink your solids.” You see, digestion starts in the mouth, so for optimum digestion you want to chew solids enough to liquefy them and “chew” liquids to mix them with the enzymes in your saliva. Even more convenient is to get a juicer for your home. I recommend the Green Star Elite, a twin-gear masticating juicer that I use myself. It is the best bang for the buck because it does everything, including wheatgrass, has a slow-speed 80 RPM motor, reducing heat and oxidation for optimum nutrition, and cleans up in just a few minutes.

7. Transform your veggies into sauces, soups, toppings and garnishes.
Tomato sauce, some salad dressings, and salsas are just a few of the recipes you can find for making vegetables more palatable. You can even make delicious raw soups. My books have plenty of recipes. Mix vegetables with ginger, Braggs Amino’s (used sparingly), apple cider vinegar, and sesame oil to make a healthy salad dressing. Half a cup equals one whole vegetable serving. Hate vegetables? If not 100% raw yet, you can add your veggies to other dishes. Top a pizza with fresh broccoli or cauliflower – don’t knock it til you try it! Just crumble up or finely dice the tops first then sprinkle them right on the pizza. Of course, there’s also spinach, mushrooms and peppers, but use them RAW! Toss some fresh sprouts and tomato slices on top for delicious pizza, or add them to any kind of sandwich.

8. Try Something You Haven’t Had Before
Many people hate vegetables because they’ve never tried anything other than peas and carrots. Try something new — you never know what you may discover. Sure, you’re bored with tomatoes, potatoes and iceberg lettuce — so give eggplant or arugula a try! All have very different textures and flavors and are full of nutrients. Ask your local grocer for recommendations or check out the recipes in one of my e-books.

9. Stick with Raw
Many raw vegetables make great snacks just by adding hummus, salad dressings and salsa. Keep them ready for quick easy access by cleaning them when you get back from the store. Cut them into bite size bits and store in the green bags you can get at health food stores. I keep them at eye level in my refrigerator so I see them first whenever I get the munchies. Broccoli, cauliflower and carrots go well with just about anything, and organic baby tomatoes can be eaten just by themselves.

10. Eat from the Rainbow
When you think about vegetables, you probably think green. But vegetables come in a wide variety of colors, from red to purple, yellow to orange. Each color brings a whole new set of vitamins, minerals and flavors to your table.

11. Eat Seasonally
Fresh, in-season, locally grown vegetables offer the most flavor and nutrition. For example, asparagus is ideal in the spring. Arugula, corn and tomatoes are best in the summer. Broccoli, eggplant and pumpkins reach their peak in the fall, Many green veggies are best in the winter.

12. Grow them yourself.
Try growing some vegetables in your own organic garden. It’s very hard not to like vegetables that you grew yourself. In the end, you may find out that you actually don’t hate vegetables, you just hate them prepared in the ways you’ve always tried them. So give some new recipes a try and eat them raw! I suspect you will surprise yourself.

Also Read:

Raw Food Basics — How to Enjoy a Raw Food Lifestyle

Bicarbonates neutralize the acid toxins prevalent in cooked foods.

Your whole body is based on a careful balance between acid and alkaline. In fact your life depends on it! So the body has several systems to make bicarbonates to neutralize the acid toxins prevalent in a cooked food lifestyle. This study helps support that.

Bicarbonate Increases Tumor pH and Inhibits Spontaneous Metastases
Published Online, March 10, 2009; doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-5575 Cancer Res March 15, 2009 69; 2260

Abstract

Journal of Cancer ResearchThe external pH of solid tumors is acidic as a consequence of increased metabolism of glucose and poor perfusion. Acid pH has been shown to stimulate tumor cell invasion and metastasis in vitro and in cells before tail vein injection in vivo. The present study investigates whether inhibition of this tumor acidity will reduce the incidence of in vivo metastases. Here, we show that oral NaHCO3 selectively increased the pH of tumors and reduced the formation of spontaneous metastases in mouse models of metastatic breast cancer. This treatment regimen was shown to significantly increase the extracellular pH, but not the intracellular pH, of tumors by 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy and the export of acid from growing tumors by fluorescence microscopy of tumors grown in window chambers.

NaHCO3 therapy also reduced the rate of lymph node involvement, yet did not affect the levels of circulating tumor cells, suggesting that reduced organ metastases were not due to increased intravasation. In contrast, NaHCO3 therapy significantly reduced the formation of hepatic metastases following intrasplenic injection, suggesting that it did inhibit extravasation and colonization. In tail vein injections of alternative cancer models, bicarbonate had mixed results, inhibiting the formation of metastases from PC3M prostate cancer cells, but not those of B16 melanoma. Although the mechanism of this therapy is not known with certainty, low pH was shown to increase the release of active cathepsin B, an important matrix remodeling protease. [Cancer Res 2009;69(6):2260–8]

Introduction

The extracellular pH (pHe) of malignant solid tumors is acidic, in the range of 6.5 to 6.9, whereas the pHe of normal tissues is significantly more alkaline, 7.2 to 7.5 ( 13). Mathematical models of the tumor-host interface ( 4) and in vivo measurements have shown that solid tumors export acid into the surrounding parenchyma ( 5, 6). Previous in vitro studies have shown that tumor cell invasion can be stimulated by acidic conditions and that this may involve lysosomal proteases ( 79). These observations have led to the “acid-mediated invasion hypothesis,” wherein tumor-derived acid facilitates tumor invasion by promoting normal cell death and extracellular matrix degradation of the parenchyma surrounding growing tumors. Furthermore, pretreatment of tumor cells with acid before injection leads to increased experimental metastases ( 10, 11), and these observations suggest that low pH up-regulates proinvasive and survival pathways. It has been argued that metastatic cancers are selected for their ability to export acid ( 12). Acid is a by-product of glucose metabolism, and notably, elevated consumption of fluorodeoxyglucose by more aggressive cancers has been observed with fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ( 13).

The current work tests the hypothesis that neutralizing the acid pH of tumors will inhibit invasion and, hence, reduce the incidence of spontaneous metastases. Acid pH was inhibited using oral NaHCO3, which has previously been shown to effectively reverse pH gradients in tumors and not affect the pHe of normal tissues ( 14). This was confirmed in the current study using 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) and fluorescence ratio imaging of SNARF-1 in a dorsal skin-fold window chamber. Notably, bicarbonate did not affect the systemic pH or the growth rate of primary tumors but had significant effects on the formation of spontaneous metastases. In two of three experiments, NaHCO3 therapy reduced the colonization of lymph nodes, but in no experiment did it significantly affect the levels of circulating tumor cells. The lymphatic results notwithstanding, these results indicate that inhibition of end-organ metastasis did not occur by a reduction of intravasation. In contrast, the formation of liver metastases following intrasplenic injection of MDA-MB-231 cells was significantly reduced, indicating that end-organ colonization of metastatic sites was affected by NaHCO3 therapy. Similarly, metastases following tail vein injection of PC3M prostate cancer cells were also inhibited by bicarbonate treatment, yet those of B16 melanoma were not. Preliminary investigations into possible mechanisms showed that the release of active cathepsin B into pericellular space was significantly increased by acidic conditions, and thus, NaHCO3 therapy may be acting to inhibit the release of this important matrix remodeling protease.

Materials and Methods

Animals. All animals were maintained under Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee–approved protocols at either the University of Arizona or H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center. Six- to eight-week-old female severe combined immunodeficient (SCID) mice were used as hosts for MDA-MB-231 tumors, 6-wk-old male SCID beige mice for PC3M tumors, and nu/nu mice for B16 tumors.

β-Galactosidase staining. Harvested lung tissue was sliced into 1-mm sections and placed in PBS containing 2 mmol/L MgCl2 (Mg-PBS) on ice. Sections were fixed in 0.5% glutaraldehyde in Mg-PBS on ice for 30 min and afterward rinsed in PBS to remove residual fixative. Fixed sections were then incubated for 3 h at 37°C in 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-β-d-galactopyranoside reaction buffer (35 mmol/L potassium ferrocyanide, 2 mmol/L MgCl2, 0.02% NP40, and 0.01% Na deoxycholate in PBS). After incubation, the tissue sections were washed and stored in PBS. Sections were analyzed using a Stereomaster 4× dissecting microscope (Fisher Scientific) with mounted DC290 ZOOM digital camera (Eastman Kodak Company). Images were captured at the same focal plane with an exposure time of 1/10 s for white-light illumination. β-Galactosidase positive lesions were measured and counted manually by a blinded observer.

Intrasplenic injections. MDA-MB-231 cells (5 × 105) expressing a thermostable firefly luciferase ( 15) were injected into the spleens of SCID mice. Three days postinjection, mice were randomized into bicarbonate and control therapies. Twenty-five days postinjection, spleens and livers were collected and placed in white, clear-bottom, sterile 12-well microtiter plates. Luciferase images were acquired using a VersArray 1300B cooled charge-coupled device camera (Roper Scientific) at 10-min exposures, f2.2. Image data were analyzed with ImageJ. After image acquisition, spleens and livers were homogenized in homogenization buffer (Promega) with five passes in a Dounce homogenizer, followed by addition of 1 volume of cell lysis buffer (Promega). Homogenates were mixed 1:1 with luciferase solution (Promega) and light emission was determined using a Wallac Victor3 (Perkin-Elmer) microtiter plate reader ( 16).

Intravasation. The first step of metastatic spread involves movement of cancer cells from the primary site into the bloodstream (intravasation) either directly or indirectly through the lymphatics ( 17). Measurement of MDA-MB-231/eGFP cells in the blood of tumor-bearing SCID mice was determined by three methods in two separate experiments. In one experiment (113007), untreated (n = 3) and 200 mmol/L bicarbonate–treated (n = 7) animals bearing primary tumors were euthanized after 36 d of tumor growth. At this time point, the primary tumors averaged 463 ± 33.5 mm3 in size in both groups. Blood was extracted by cardiac puncture into microfuge tubes and mixed with an equal volume of 100 mmol/L EDTA to prevent clotting. A blood volume of 10 μL was smeared on glass slides and dried. Green-fluorescing cells were counted manually under a fluorescent microscope at ×40 magnification. Nucleated cells from the remaining blood volume (∼300 μL) were obtained by centrifugation with Histopaque (Sigma), and resulting cells were resuspended in 96-well plates in 100 μL of PBS and measured on a Victor3 with excitation wavelength at 485 nm and emission at 535 nm. In another experiment (011508), blood was extracted by heart puncture from untreated and bicarbonate-treated mice (n = 8 each) by the same methods as above. Average tumor size was 121.8 ± 16.4 mm3. RBC were lysed with fluorescence-activated cell sorting lysing solution (BD Sciences) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Cells were counter-labeled with LDS-751 nucleic acid dye and analyzed by flow cytometry on a FACScan (BD Biosciences) with a 488-nm argon laser. LDS-751 emits at 670 nm upon excitation at 488 nm and is detectable with the fluorescence 3 detector. Nonspecific fluorescence was differentiated from the green fluorescent protein (GFP) signal by gating on cellular light scattering properties and LDS-751.

Dorsal skin-fold window chamber. Tumor constructs were engineered using the tumor droplet method. MDA-MB-231 cells were suspended in 2.5 mg/mL type I collagen (BD Biosciences) and 1× DMEM at a final concentration of 1 × 106 to 2.5 × 106 cells/mL. Using a 48-well non–tissue-cultured plate, a 15-μL drop of the tumor cell suspension was polymerized in the center of the well. Following brief polymerization (∼1–2 min) at 37°C in the incubator, 200 mL of media [DMEM with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS)] were added to the wells and the droplets were left until the addition of stromal mix. The stromal mix consisted of 3 mg/mL type I collagen, 1× DMEM, and ∼12,000 to 15,000 microvessel fragments/mL. Typically, when microvessel fragments are directly reconstituted with type I collagen, they undergo spontaneous angiogenesis by day 3 or day 4 in vitro and following implantation anastamose with the host vasculature and form a vascular network (days 4–7 in window chamber). After 2 d in culture, these constructs were removed with forceps and placed directly into the window chamber.

Because the tumors were relatively circular, growth was analyzed along the horizontal and vertical diameters. At the image magnification, each pixel was equal to ∼25 μm. The mean of the horizontal and vertical diameter was used to report the tumor diameter at the time of imaging. Tumor density was estimated based on the gray-level intensity homogeneity in the tumor region of interest. This estimated tumor density was calculated by first computing the gray-level co-occurrence matrix of tumor region. Using the gray-level statistics generated by the gray-level co-occurrence matrix, the gray-level intensity homogeneity was calculated, a metric reflective of the likelihood that neighboring pixels are the same intensity. A higher homogeneity value was suggestive of a denser tumor because the intensities would vary less from pixel to pixel in regions of high cellularity.

Cathepsin-B activity. Cathepsin-B measurements were carried out in a “real-time” assay as described by Linebaugh and colleagues ( 18). Briefly, cells were exposed to a fluorogenic substrate (Z-Arg-Arg-NHMec) in an enclosed system that monitored the rate of fluorescent product (NH2Mec) formation. MDA-MB-231 cells grown on coverslips to 60% to 80% confluence, washed with Dulbecco’s NaCl/Pi, and equilibrated in assay buffer without substrate at 37°C for 5 min. Measurements consisted of (a) a fluorescence baseline for the assay buffer containing 100 μmol/L Z-Arg-Arg-NHMec substrate for 5 min; (b) the rate of fluorescent product formation due to the introduction of cells followed over 10 min; (c) the rate of fluorescent product formation after removal of cells from the cuvette followed over 10 min; and (d) the rate of fluorescent product formation when cells are placed back in cuvette and cell membrane permeabilized by adding 0.1% (v/v) Triton X-100. Cathepsin-B activity was measured following equilibration of cells in media containing 25 mmol/L PIPES at pH 6.8 and 7.4 for 3 d, followed by overnight incubation in 0.2% FBS at the respective pH values. A cathepsin-B inhibitor, CA074, was added at a final concentration of 10 μmol/L to confirm that the activity measured was due to cathepsin B ( 19). Measurements were recorded in a Shimadzu RF-450 spectrofluorometer, with excitation at 380 nm and emission at 460 nm, equipped with a temperature-controlled cuvette holder, microstirrer, and a DR-3 data chart recorder. After data acquisition, the DNA content on each coverslip was determined by measuring fluorescence using SYBR Green I nucleic acid stain (Molecular Probes) in a microtiter plate at 485-nm excitation and 535-nm emission. Concentrations were calculated based on the salmon sperm DNA standard curve. The rate of product formation was expressed as picomoles per minute per microgram of DNA.

Statistics. All statistical calculations were determined using the analysis feature in Prism version 4.03 for Windows (GraphPad Software) or Microsoft Excel. To compare two means, statistical significance was determined by unpaired, one-tailed Student’s t tests assuming equal variance. If variances were significantly different (P < 0.0001), a Welch’s correction for unequal variances was applied. A log-rank test was applied to survival data. A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare independent groups whose data were ordinal but not interval-scaled.

Results and Discussion

In initial experiments, metastatic MDA-MB-231 adenocarcinoma cells were orthotopically injected into mammary fat pads of female immunodeficient (SCID) mice. Six days after injection, mice were randomized into two groups: one (control) was provided with drinking water and the other (bicarbonate) was provided with 200 mmol/L NaHCO3 ad libitum, which continued for the duration of the experiment. Bicarbonate therapy had no effect on either the animal weights or the rates of growth of the primary tumors. The lack of effects on animal weights (P = 0.98) is shown in Supplementary Fig. S1A, and these data were interpreted to indicate that this therapy did not lead to dehydration because dehydration quickly leads to significant weight loss in experimental mice. Bicarbonate-treated mice drank, on average, 4.2 ± 0.2 mL of water per day, whereas control mice consumed 3.3 ± 0.1 mL/d. The daily intake of bicarbonate was thus calculated to be 36 ± 1.7 mmol/kg/d (9.4 g/m2/d). An equivalent dose in a 70-kg human would be 12.5 g/d ( 20). The lack of an effect on the growth of the primary tumors (P = 0.80) is shown in Supplementary Fig. S1B to D. Although bicarbonate effectively increased the pHe of these large tumors, it did not affect the intracellular pH (pHi), as measured by MRS (see below), and this may be reflected in a lack of an effect on growth rates ( 21, 22).

Despite a lack of an effect on primary tumor growth, bicarbonate therapy led to significant reductions in the number and size of metastases to lung, intestine, and diaphragm. Figure 1A and B shows the size and number of β-galactosidase expressing spontaneous lung metastases after 30 and 60 days of primary tumor growth, respectively. In the 30-day experiment, pooled data (n = 12 mice per group) showed that the bicarbonate-treated mice had a total of 147 metastatic lung lesions, whereas the control group had 326 lung lesions (P = 0.03). The average lesion diameters (± SE) were 4.5 ± 0.12 and 5.2 ± 0.14 mm in the NaHCO3 and control groups, respectively (P < 0.0001). In the 60-day experiment (n = 20 and 15 for control and NaHCO3 groups, respectively), the numbers of pixels associated with lesions >60 μm in diameter were scored. The average numbers of lesion pixels per animal in control and NaHCO3 groups were 382 and 74, respectively (P = 0.0004). None of the animals treated with NaHCO3 had more than 240 lesion pixels per animal, whereas 10 of 20 of the control animals had more than 240 lesion pixels. Both experiments showed dramatically fewer lesions in the bicarbonate-treated group than in control animals.

Figure 1.

Effect of NaHCO3 on metastases and survival. MDA-MB-231 were obtained from American Type Culture Collection and maintained in growth media (DMEM/F-12 supplemented with 10% FBS) at 37°C with 5% CO2 in a humidified atmosphere. These cells were stably transfected with expression vectors for hygromycin-resistant pcDNA3.1/LacZ (Invitrogen). These β-gal–labeled MDA-MB-231 cells (107), suspended in 0.2 mL of 0.8% sterile saline, were injected s.c. into the left inguinal mammary fat pads of 6-wk-old female SCID mice. Mice (n = 8) were started on drinking water (ad libitum) supplemented with 200 mmol/L NaHCO3 at 6 d postinjection and maintained along with untreated animals (n = 8). After 30 d of primary tumor growth, the animals were sacrificed and the β-gal–positive lung lesions were counted and sized after staining, as shown in A. Mean lesion diameters (P < 0.0001) and frequencies (P = 0.0342) were significantly different between the two groups as determined by two-tailed unpaired t test with Welch’s correction for unequal variances. In a repeat of this experiment, 106 β-gal-MDA-MB-231 cells were injected into inguinal mammary fat pads, and control (n = 9) and NaHCO3-treated (n = 15) animals were maintained for 60 d before sacrifice. In this experiment, lung images were analyzed using ImagePro Plus to determine the metastatic tumor burden by counting the number of β-gal–positive pixels per animal. B, numbers of lung lesions per animal following 60 d of growth in the presence of NaHCO3 in drinking water. The frequency of lesions per animal in the NaHCO3-treated mice was compared with that in untreated controls by unpaired t test (P = 0.0004). In a third experiment, MDA-MB-231 cells were stably transfected to express neomycin-resistant pcDNA3/EGFP (a gift from Peter Ratcliffe, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom). MDA-MB-231/eGFP cells (6.5 × 106) were injected into inguinal mammary fat pads of animals that were randomized into bicarbonate and control groups (n = 12 per group) 6 d postinoculation. Tumors were allowed to grow for 5 to 6 wk (to a volume of 600 mm3), at which time they were surgically removed. If the primary regrew (as was the case in 9 of 24 animals), it was resected again. Animals were monitored biweekly and maintained on bicarbonate or water until they evidenced a lymph node lesion >300 mm3 in size, at which time they were sacrificed and necropsied by examination with a fluorescence dissecting scope. Data from this experiment are plotted as a Kaplan-Meier survival curve (C). The difference in the survival curve for the bicarbonate versus control animals was tested using the log-rank test (P = 0.027).

This reduction in metastases also led to increased survival. Figure 1C shows the Kaplan-Meier survival curve, which shows that bicarbonate therapy increased survival (log-rank; P = 0.027). As shown in Fig. 2 , on necropsy, the control group contained significant and notable fluorescent lung lesions, whereas the bicarbonate group had little, if any, fluorescence (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, P = 0.0015). These data were quantified for other metastatic sites in all animals and showed reductions in frequency and fluorescence density in visceral organ (intestines, pancreas, liver, spleen, bladder, and liver) and mesenteric metastases in the bicarbonate-treated groups ( Fig. 3A ). These data are notable in that the effect of the bicarbonate therapy was greater than in any of the previous experiments, yet the median ages of sacrifice were >100 days for both control and bicarbonate groups (i.e., significantly longer than either of the previous experiments).

Figure 2.

Lung metastases. Images were obtained at time of sacrifice from individual (numbered) mice in control and bicarbonate groups of the experiment shown in Fig. 1C. At time of necropsy, organ and lymph node green fluorescent tumor metastases from necropsies were detected by the Illumatool Bright Light System (LT-9500) using a 470 nm/40 nm excitation filter (Lightools Research) and imaged using a Stereomaster 4× dissecting microscope (Fisher Scientific) with mounted DC290 Zoom digital camera (Eastman Kodak). Images were captured at the same focal plane in the presence of 480-nm excitation and >490-nm filtered emission with an exposure time of 4 s for GFP images and 1/10 s for white-light illumination. Image data were analyzed with ImageJ (http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/) by segmenting the green channel and counting total positive pixels per field.

Figure 3.

Metastases and cathepsin B activity. A, at time of sacrifice, animals in the survival experiment shown in Fig. 1C were necropsied and metastases were quantified by fluorescence. Images were captured as described in Fig. 1C and fluorescence was quantified following RGB segmentation using ImageJ analysis software. Columns, average fluorescence pixel densities (fluorescence intensities × area) for lymph nodes, visceral organs, mesentery, and lungs; bars, SE. AUF, arbitrary units of fluorescence. B, red fluorescent protein–expressing MDA-MB-231 tumor cells were incubated at low and high pH values for 4 d, and then overnight in 0.2% serum media, followed by assessment of pericellular and intracellular cathepsin B activity in live cells via a “real time assay”, as described in Materials and Methods.

Although it has previously been shown that chronic oral NaHCO3 can lead to reversal of tumor acidosis ( 14), this was confirmed here for the MDA-MB-231 tumor model using 31P MRS of tumor-bearing animals after 3 weeks of therapy (4 weeks postinoculation). pHi was measured with the resonant frequency of inorganic phosphate, and pHe was measured with the exogenous pH indicator 3-aminopropylphosphonate ( 23, 24). 31P spectra of NaHCO3-treated tumors exhibited significant shifts in the resonant frequency of 3-aminopropylphosphonate, with little or no change in the frequency of inorganic phosphate ( Fig. 4 ). Average pHe values were 7.4 ± 0.06 in the NaHCO3-treated tumors, compared with pH 7.0 ± 0.11 under control conditions ( Fig. 4, inset). Notably, the pHi of tumors was unaffected, being 7.0 ± 0.06 and 7.1 ± 0.09 under treated and control conditions, respectively ( Fig. 4, inset). The pHi and pHe were also measured in nontumor tissues in the same animals (e.g., hind limb muscle) with the observation that the pHi and pHe were unaffected by bicarbonate, being 7.22 ± 0.04 and 7.40 ± 0.08, respectively, in both groups (data not shown), which was consistent with previous results ( 14).

Figure 4.

The effect of NaHCO3 treatment on tumor pH. All in vivo measurements were done at 4.7 T on a Bruker Biospec magnetic resonance imaging spectrometer equipped with a 14 G/cm self-shielded gradient insert, using volume excitation and home-built solenoid coils for reception. Image-guided volume-selective 31P magnetic resonance spectra of tumors in anesthetized mice were acquired as described in ref. 14. The pHe and pHi were measured from the chemical shifts of exogenous 3-aminopropylphosphonate and endogenous inorganic phosphate, respectively ( 17). For spectroscopy of tumors, 0.4 mL of 0.24 mol/L 3-aminopropylphosphonate was administered i.p. to mice a few minutes before anesthetization. Following anesthetization, a further 0.4 mL of 3-aminopropylphosphonate was injected i.p., and the mouse prepared for 31P MRS as before. This figure illustrates representative 31P magnetic resonance spectra from control (solid) and NaHCO3-treated (dotted) MDA-MB-231 tumor xenografts. 3-APP, 3-aminopropylphosphonate; Pi, endogenous inorganic phosphate; PME, phosphomonoesters; NTP, nucleoside triphosphate. Inset, columns, average values for tumor pHi (P = 0.89) and pHe (P = 0.01) in the absence and presence of bicarbonate treatment (n = 6 mice each); bars, SE. Details of the acquisition and processing parameters are provided in Materials and Methods.

Despite significant effects on the formation of metastases and tumor pHe, chronic bicarbonate therapy had no effect on blood chemistries, indicating that systemic pH was fully compensated in these animals (Supplementary Table S1). Thus, as expected due to the chronic nature of the treatment, NaHCO3 did not lead to systemic metabolic alkalosis. Rather, we hypothesize that inhibition of tumor metastasis was due to increased bicarbonate “buffering” of interstitial fluid of either the primary or the metastatic tumors. Thus, the bicarbonate levels in tumors were increased to be consistent with the rest of the body, leading to a selective increase in tumor pHe. This effect has been modeled using reaction diffusion kinetic modeling ( 25) and showed that (a) in the face of a high acid load from hypermetabolic tumor cells, the bicarbonate effect will be incomplete even at 200 mmol/L; and (b) alternative buffers with higher pKa values should be more efficacious. Consistent with these predictions, a dose-response experiment with a 30-day end point showed that concentrations as low as 50 mmol/L reduced the incidence of spontaneous metastases, yet the largest effect was observed at the highest dose investigated, 200 mmol/L (Supplementary Table S2), indicating that, even at this dose, the effect is incomplete. The lack of a complete effect was further investigated by inoculating mice (n = 3 per group) bearing dorsal skin-fold window chambers with GFP-transfected MDA-MB-231 tumor cells. As above, ad libitum 200 mmol/L NaHCO3 was begun 6 days postinoculation. After 1 and 2 weeks of therapy, the pHe was measured by fluorescence ratio imaging of SNARF-1, as described in Materials and Methods ( 5). Representative GFP images used for segmentation are shown in Supplementary Fig. S2. These were used to define a region of interest delineating the tumor boundary, indicated by the solid red line. The corresponding SNARF-1 ratio-derived pHe images for control and bicarbonate-treated animals are shown in Fig. 5A and B , respectively. Note that pHe is more acidic in the control tumors and that this acidity extends beyond the tumor boundary, whereas the acid pHe regions of the bicarbonate-treated mice were confined within the tumor volume. Data were analyzed along coaxial radial lines drawn from the centroid of the tumor ( Fig. 5C) and the least squares fit for all experiments is shown in Fig. 5D, with the centroid located at “0” and the edge of the tumor indicated by the vertical line. Table 1C shows that, whereas the intratumoral pHe was not significantly affected in the bicarbonate group (P = 0.19), the peritumoral pHe, measured within 0.2 mm of the tumor edge, was significantly higher in the bicarbonate-treated group compared with controls (P = 0.05). Thus, both fluorescence and MRS showed higher tumor pHe values in the bicarbonate-treated groups, although the MRS showed a greater effect. These apparent differences may be due to the different preparations, such as measurement by two different techniques (MRS versus fluorescence) in two different systems (orthotopic versus heterotopic) following two different treatment times (21 versus 7 days). Follow-up imaging of window chambers 7 days later showed that the changes in tumor diameters were not significantly different between groups, but that there were significant (P = 0.002) differences in the tumor densities. Specifically, the densities increased with time in the control tumors and decreased in the bicarbonate-treated tumors. Whereas the importance of these observations is not clear, it may lead to a practical application. Tumor cell densities can be measured noninvasively using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging ( 26), and hence, this imaging modality may be useful as a quantitative biomarker for the effects of bicarbonate therapy in vivo.

Figure 5.

Microscopic pH gradients in window chambers. Tumors were inoculated into window chamber as described in Materials and Methods. pHe was measured following injection of SNARF-1 free acid by excitation with a He/Ne laser at 543 nm and emissions were collected in channel 1 with a 595/50-nm bandpass and in channel 2 with a 640-nm-long pass filter. Confocal images were converted to .tif format using ImageJ (http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/); respective background images were subtracted from each fluorescence image (red channel, blue channel); and image was then smoothed with a 2 × 2 kernel. The two images were then divided, subsequently removing zeros and not-a-numbers (NANs), creating a ratiometric image. The in vitro pH calibration was then applied to every pixel in the ratiometric image. Regions of interest were drawn around the tumor, the proximal peritumor region, and the distal “normal” region, and the mean pHe was calculated in these regions. The spatial pH distribution was calculated by drawing an intensity profile (5 pixels wide) from the center of the tumor out to the edge of the window chamber. These profiles were drawn in four orthogonal radial directions, originating from the tumor centroid. The pH profiles were then aligned so that they coincided at the tumor margin using the GFP image to determine the tumor rim. Representative pHe images are shown for untreated (A) and bicarbonate-treated (B) mice (10 × field of view, 12.5 mm). Red lines, region of interest of tumor, defined by GFP images, shown in Supplementary Fig. S2. C, merged confocal image of tumor (white) surrounded by a labeled microvascular network (green). Radial lines, directions along which pHe values were measured. D, least-square fit across all directions and all tumors showing pHe distributions along radial lines for control and bicarbonate-treated tumors. “0” is centroid of tumor, and vertical line indicates tumor edge.

Table 1.

Quantitative analysis of intravasation, extravasation, and pH
  Control Bicarbonate P *
(A) Intravasation
  n Mean (range) n Mean (range)  
Manual (no. of cells) 3 0 (0) 7 1.3 (0–7) NS
Fluorescence (AUF) 3 124 (70–180) 7 746 (0–4,358) NS
Flow (cells/100 μL) 8 3.6 (0–13) 8 1.5 (0–10) NS
(B) Extravasation
n Mean (SE) n Mean (SE) P
Liver 3 109.0 (46.0) 3 11.9 (10.3) 0.007
Spleen 3 231.6 (3.6) 3 608.0 (56.0) 0.011
Ratio 3 0.54 (0.25) 3 0.035 (0.020) <0.001
(C) pH and growth data from window chambers
n Mean (SE) n Mean (SE) P
Intratumor pHe 4 7.00 (0.04) 3 7.07 (0.03) 0.19
Peritumor pHe 4 7.06 (0.00) 3 7.16 (0.03) 0.05
Distant pHe 4 7.11 (0.03) 3 7.15 (0.03) 0.14
ΔDiameter 4 −2.07 (13.32) 3 −5.88 (2.51) 0.39
ΔDensity 4 0.71 (0.26) 3 −3.29 (1.07) 0.002
  • NOTE: See Materials and Methods for experimental and analytic details. Abbreviations: AUF, arbitrary units of fluorescence; NS, not significant. * P value from nonpaired Student’s t

To begin investigating the mechanism of the bicarbonate effect, experiments were designed to separate early events (intravasation) from later events (extravasation and colonization) of the spontaneous metastasis paradigm. Spontaneous metastases occur via movement of tumor cells from the primary tumor into the bloodstream (intravasation), either directly or indirectly through the lymphatics. In xenografts, this can involve active local invasion or a passive process of shedding ( 27). Following intravasation, the circulating tumor cells lodge and colonize in distant sites. There is some controversy whether this occurs via simple lodging of circulating tumor cells in small vessels (prompting local ischemia) or whether it involves specific interaction of circulating tumor cells with post-capillary endothelia followed by extravasation ( 17, 28). To investigate the effect of bicarbonate therapy on intravasation, the incidences of lymphatic involvement and circulating tumor cells were quantified. Lymph node status was assessed in SCID mice inoculated with GFP-expressing MDA-MB-231 tumor cells, which were randomized into control (n = 12) and bicarbonate-treated (n = 11) groups. Primary tumors were grown for 40 days (to volumes of 800–1000 mm3), at which time the animals were sacrificed and lymph nodes and other organs examined by fluorescence imaging. For the purpose of scoring, lymph nodes were characterized as “trace,” with a few fluorescent colonies, or “positive,” wherein the entire lymph node was inflamed. Examples of these are shown in Supplementary Fig. S3. Mice were scored from 0 to 6, as described in Supplementary Table S3, and these analyses showed that most had lymphatic involvement, with those of the NaHCO3-treated animals being less developed. The majority of the NaHCO3-treated animals (9 of 12) had only traces of fluorescence in their lymph nodes, whereas 7 of 11 of the control group had strongly positive nodes and/or metastases (P = 0.044, Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon). Similarly, the lymph node involvement in the survival study showed a more significant effect on the development of lymph node metastases to >300 mm3 (log-rank P = 0.02). As a further test of intravasation, circulating tumor cells were measured in blood from mice bearing GFP-expressing tumors by manual counting of whole blood smears, flow cytometry following erythrocyte hemolysis, and raw fluorescence of blood extracts. With all end points, there were low numbers of circulating tumor cells and no evidence to suggest differences between bicarbonate-treated and control groups ( Table 1A). From these data, we conclude that, whereas bicarbonate may have an effect on lymph node colonization, this does not conclusively lead to an increase in the numbers of circulating tumor cells, although this conclusion is tempered by the low numbers of circulating tumor cells in both conditions.

The effect of bicarbonate therapy on extravasation was measured in two ways. Because breast cancer commonly metastasizes to the liver, the incidence of liver metastases 21 days after intrasplenic injection of 104 luciferase-expressing MDA-MB-231 cells was used as a measure of extravasation for this system ( 29). Table 1B shows that the luciferase levels in livers of bicarbonate-treated mice were significantly lower than those in controls, whether expressed as raw counts or normalized to splenic luciferase values. Thus, in this system, bicarbonate therapy had a more pronounced effect on the process of extravasation and colonization compared with intravasation. The generality of this phenomenon was examined in other cancer models by monitoring metastases following tail vein injection of luciferase-expressing PC3M human prostate cancer cells or B16 mouse melanoma cells. Supplementary Fig. S4 shows luciferase images from both systems that show a clear difference in the PC3M system and a clear lack of an effect in the B16 system. The progression of metastases in PC3M is shown in Supplementary Fig. S5, with the difference between bicarbonate and controls groups being significant (P = 0.04) at 35 days. Although the differences in the B16 system were not significantly different, the pooled values for the bicarbonate group were consistently lower than those of controls at all time points (data not shown). It should also be noted that the B16 tumors are much faster growing, leading to termination of all animals at 17 days, compared with >42 days for the PC3M tumors. Thus, either these cells colonize in a pH-independent fashion or their rates of acid production simply overpower the ability of bicarbonate to effectively buffer the pH ( 25). Nonetheless, these data show that, for at least two human cancers (MDA-MB-231 and PC3M), bicarbonate reduces the efficiency of tumor colonization at distant sites.

The effects of bicarbonate observed in this study could be exerted at either the primary or the metastatic site, and these are currently under investigation. On one hand, it may be that the acid pH of the primary tumor induces a stress response in these cells, leading to increased survival. This would be consistent with previous observations of Hill and Rofstad, who showed that pretreatment of melanoma cells with acid pH before injection leads to enhanced survival at metastatic sites ( 10, 11). Alternatively, it is possible that the bicarbonate buffering inhibits local invasion at the metastatic site. This has been formulated as the acid-mediated invasion hypothesis, wherein tumor-derived acid is excreted into the surrounding parenchyma, leading to degradation of the surrounding extracellular matrix ( 5).

Whether at the primary or the metastatic site, acid pH seems to stimulate invasive behavior and increased survival, either by selection or induction ( 79). Acid pH has been shown to induce the expression and activity of a number of systems involved in matrix remodeling. These include matrix metalloproteinases such as collagenase (MMP1) or gelatinases (MMP-2 or MMP-9; refs. 8, 10, 30); lysosomal proteases such as cathepsin B, D, or L ( 9, 31, 32), which may result from acid-induced lysosomal turnover ( 7, 33); and hyaluronidase and the hyaluronan receptor CD44 ( 3436). Additionally, low pH can stimulate neoangiogenesis through induction of vascular endothelial growth factor or interleukin-8 ( 10, 3739), or it may stimulate invasion simply by inducing apoptosis in parenchymal cells ( 40, 41), as we have previously shown ( 5), at the same time selecting for tumor cells that are apoptosis resistant. Notably, CD44 is associated with breast cancer cells with stem cell–like properties, and these are noted for being resistant to environmentally induced apoptosis ( 42, 43). To begin investigating the myriad of possible molecular mechanisms, we assayed cathepsin B ( 18) in acid-treated MDA-MB-231 cells, and we observed that the activity of this protease secreted into the media was increased up to 4-fold, with no effect on the cell-associated activities ( Fig. 3B). Thus, it seems that the acid pHe of tumors can induce the release of this protease that is involved in extracellular matrix turnover in breast cancer ( 44). Experiments are under way to determine if bicarbonate therapy will inhibit this activity in vivo.

Conclusions

The above data have shown that oral bicarbonate therapy significantly reduced the incidence of metastases in experimental models of breast and prostate cancer and that the effect seems to be primarily on distal (i.e., colonization), rather than proximal (i.e., intravasation), processes. It is not known whether bicarbonate is exerting its effects by decreasing survival of circulating tumor cells (although the numbers are not affected) or by inhibiting colonization at the metastatic site. Increases in pHe significantly reduced the release of a lysosomal protease, cathepsin B.

Medically, the idea of treating cancer through p.o. administration of buffers is attractive but tethered to caveats. Reaction diffusion models show that the effect of bicarbonate on the pHe gradient will be graded with dose and that, at the current dose of 200 mmol/L, is not saturating. This dose translates to an intake of ∼1.5 μmol/h/g of whole mouse. By comparison, the acid production rate of tumors can be ∼100 μmol/h/g of tumor weight ( 45). Thus, these doses of NaHCO3 may be able to counteract the acid load of a 15-mg tumor, which translates to ∼105 cells or a 1-mm3 micrometastasis. The effectiveness of this therapy will be reduced with larger tumors ( 25). It is somewhat surprising that this incomplete effect had such a dramatic effect on metastases. Another concern is that bicarbonate, with an effective pKa of 6.24, would seem to be poorly suited as an alkalinizing buffer; thus, it is possible that better pHe control and more dramatic antimetastatic effects will be observed with a higher pKa buffer. However, it remains possible that this effect may be specific for buffers in the bicarbonate/CO2 family through involvement of carbonic anhydrase activity, which is important to pH regulation in tumors ( 46). Notwithstanding these concerns, however, the dramatic effect of bicarbonate therapy on the formation of breast cancer metastases in this model system warrants further investigation.

Acknowledgments

Grant support: NIH grant CA 077575 (R.J. Gillies).

We thank Libia Luevano, Bethany Skovan, Wendy Tate, James Averill, Maria Lluria-Prevatt, Kathy Brown, and Merry Warner (at University of Arizona) and Robert Engelman, Noreen Leutteke, and Dominique Pasqualini (at Moffitt Cancer Center) for their contributions to this work.

References
  1. Griffiths JR. Are cancer cells acidic? Br J Cancer 1991; 64: 425–7. Medline
  2. Vaupel P, Kallinowski F, Okunieff P. Blood flow, oxygen and nutrient supply, and metabolic microenvironment of human tumors: a review. Cancer Res 1989; 49: 6449–65. Abstract/FREE Full Text
  3. Wike-Hooley JL, Haveman J, Reinhold HS. The relevance of tumour pH to the treatment of malignant disease. Radiother Oncol 1984; 2: 343–66. Medline
  4. Gatenby RA, Gawlinski ET. Mathematical models of tumour invasion mediated by transformation-induced alteration of microenvironmental pH. Novartis Found Symp 2001; 240: 85–96. Medline
  5. Gatenby RA, Gawlinski ET, Gmitro AF, Kaylor B, Gillies RJ. Acid-mediated tumor invasion: a multidisciplinary study. Cancer Res 2006; 66: 5216–23. Abstract/FREE Full Text
  6. Gillies RJ, Raghunand N, Karczmar GS, Bhujwalla ZM. MRI of the tumor microenvironment. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 16: 430–50. CrossRefMedline
  7. Glunde K, Guggino SE, Solaiyappan M, Pathak AP, Ichikawa Y, Bhujwalla ZM. Extracellular acidification alters lysosomal trafficking in human breast cancer cells. Neoplasia 2003; 5: 533–45. Medline
  8. Martinez-Zaguilan R, Seftor EA, Seftor RE, Chu YW, Gillies RJ, Hendrix MJ. Acidic pH enhances the invasive behavior of human melanoma cells. Clin Exp Metastasis 1996; 14: 176–86. CrossRefMedline
  9. Rozhin J, Sameni M, Ziegler G, Sloane BF. Pericellular pH affects distribution and secretion of cathepsin B in malignant cells. Cancer Res 1994; 54: 6517–25. Abstract/FREE Full Text
  10. Rofstad EK, Mathiesen B, Kindem K, Galappathi K. Acidic extracellular pH promotes experimental metastasis of human melanoma cells in athymic nude mice. Cancer Res 2006; 66: 6699–707. Abstract/FREE Full Text
  11. Schlappack OK, Zimmermann A, Hill RP. Glucose starvation and acidosis: effect on experimental metastatic potential, DNA content and MTX resistance of murine tumour cells. Br J Cancer 1991; 64: 663–70. Medline
  12. Gatenby RA, Gillies RJ. A microenvironmental model of carcinogenesis. Nat Rev Cancer 2008; 8: 56–61. CrossRefMedline
  13. Gillies R, Robey IF, Gatenby RA. Causes and consequences of increased glucose consumption in cancers. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 24–42S. CrossRef
  14. Raghunand N, He X, van Sluis R, et al. Enhancement of chemotherapy by manipulation of tumour pH. Br J Cancer 1999; 80: 1005–11. CrossRefMedline
  15. Baggett B, Roy R, Momen S, Morgan S, Tisi L, Morse D, Gillies RJ. Thermostability of firefly luciferases affects efficiency of detection by in vivo bioluminescence. Mol Imaging 2004; 3: 324–32. CrossRefMedline
  16. Sadikot RT, Jansen ED, Blackwell TR, et al. High-dose dexamethasone accentuates nuclear factor-κB activation in endotoxin-treated mice. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 164: 873–8. Abstract/FREE Full Text
  17. Ruoslahti E. How cancer spreads. Sci Am 1996; 275: 72–7. Medline
  18. Linebaugh BE, Sameni M, Day NA, Sloane BF, Keppler D. Exocytosis of active cathepsin B enzyme activity at pH 7.0, inhibition and molecular mass. Eur J Biochem 1999; 264: 100–9. Medline
  19. Murata M, Miyashita S, Yokoo C, et al. Novel epoxysuccinyl peptides. Selective inhibitors of cathepsin B, in vitro. FEBS Lett 1991; 280: 307–10. CrossRefMedline
  20. Freireich EJ, Gehan EA, Rall DP, Schmidt LH, Skipper HE. Quantitative comparison of toxicity of anticancer agents in mouse, rat, hamster, dog, monkey, and man. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966; 50: 219–44. Medline
  21. Gillies RJ. Intracellular pH and control of proliferation in animal cells. In: Cameron IB, Poole TB, editors. The transformed cell. New York and London: Academic Press; 1981. p. 347–95.
  22. Pouyssegur J, Franchi A, Pages G. pHi, aerobic glycolysis and vascular endothelial growth factor in tumour growth. Novartis Found Symp 2001; 240: 186–96. Medline
  23. Gillies RJ, Liu Z, Bhujwalla Z. 31P-MRS measurements of extracellular pH of tumors using 3-aminopropylphosphonate. Am J Physiol 1994; 267: C195–203. Medline
  24. Gillies RJ, Raghunand N, Garcia-Martin ML, Gatenby RA. pH imaging. A review of pH measurement methods and applications in cancers. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 2004; 23: 57–64. Medline
  25. Silva AS, Yunes JA, Gillies RJ, Gatenby RA. The potential role of systemic buffers in reducing intratumoral extracellular pH and acid-mediated invasion. Cancer Res 2009; 69: 2677–84. Abstract/FREE Full Text
  26. Galons J-P, Jennings D, Morse D, Gillies RJ. Mechanisms underlying the increase of the apparent diffusion coefficient of water in response to anti-cancer therapy. Israeli J Biochem 2003; 43: 91–101.
  27. Bockhorn M, Jain RK, Munn LL. Active versus passive mechanisms in metastasis: do cancer cells crawl into vessels, or are they pushed? Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 444–8. CrossRefMedline
  28. Fidler IJ. Cancer metastasis. Br Med Bull 1991; 47: 157–77. Abstract/FREE Full Text
  29. Ishizu K, Sunose N, Yamazaki K, et al. Development and characterization of a model of liver metastasis using human colon cancer HCT-116 cells. Biol Pharm Bull 2007; 30: 1779–83. CrossRefMedline
  30. Turner GA. Increased release of tumour cells by collagenase at acid pH: a possible mechanism for metastasis. Experientia 1979; 35: 1657–8. CrossRefMedline
  31. Cuvier C, Jang A, Hill RP. Exposure to hypoxia, glucose starvation and acidosis: effect on invasive capacity of murine tumor cells and correlation with cathepsin (L + B) secretion. Clin Exp Metastasis 1997; 15: 19–25. CrossRefMedline
  32. Rochefort H. Biological and clinical significance of cathepsin D in breast cancer. Semin Cancer Biol 1990; 1: 153–60. Medline
  33. Raghunand N, Martinez-Zaguilan R, Wright SH, Gillies RJ. pH and drug resistance. II. Turnover of acidic vesicles and resistance to weakly basic chemotherapeutic drugs. Biochem Pharmacol 1999; 57: 1047–58. CrossRefMedline
  34. Bourguignon LY, Singleton PA, Diedrich F, Stern R, Gilad E. CD44 interaction with Na+-H+ exchanger (NHE1) creates acidic microenvironments leading to hyaluronidase-2 and cathepsin B activation and breast tumor cell invasion. J Biol Chem 2004; 279: 26991–7007. Abstract/FREE Full Text
  35. Madan AK, Yu K, Dhurandhar N, Cullinane C, Pang Y, Beech DJ. Association of hyaluronidase and breast adenocarcinoma invasiveness. Oncol Rep 1999; 6: 607–9. Medline
  36. Stern R, Shuster S, Neudecker BA, Formby B. Lactate stimulates fibroblast expression of hyaluronan and CD44: the Warburg effect revisited. Exp Cell Res 2002; 276: 24–31. CrossRefMedline
  37. Fukumura D, Xu L, Chen Y, Gohongi T, Seed B, Jain RK. Hypoxia and acidosis independently up-regulate vascular endothelial growth factor transcription in brain tumors in vivo. Cancer Res 2001; 61: 6020–4. Abstract/FREE Full Text
  38. Shi Q, Le X, Wang B, et al. Regulation of vascular endothelial growth factor expression by acidosis in human cancer cells. Oncogene 2001; 20: 3751–6. CrossRefMedline
  39. Xu L, Fidler IJ. Acidic pH-induced elevation in interleukin 8 expression by human ovarian carcinoma cells. Cancer Res 2000; 60: 4610–6. Abstract/FREE Full Text
  40. Park HJ, Lyons JC, Ohtsubo T, Song CW. Acidic environment causes apoptosis by increasing caspase activity. Br J Cancer 1999; 80: 1892–7. CrossRefMedline
  41. Williams AC, Collard TJ, Paraskeva C. An acidic environment leads to p53 dependent induction of apoptosis in human adenoma and carcinoma cell lines: implications for clonal selection during colorectal carcinogenesis. Oncogene 1999; 18: 3199–204. CrossRefMedline
  42. Sheridan C, Kishimoto H, Fuchs RK, et al. CD44+/CD24 breast cancer cells exhibit enhanced invasive properties: an early step necessary for metastasis. Breast Cancer Res 2006; 8: R59. CrossRefMedline
  43. Shipitsin M, Campbell LL, Argani P, et al. Molecular definition of breast tumor heterogeneity. Cancer Cell 2007; 11: 259–73. CrossRefMedline
  44. Mohamed MM, Sloane BF. Cysteine cathepsins: multifunctional enzymes in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2006; 6: 764–75. CrossRefMedline
  45. Zu XL, Guppy M. Cancer metabolism: facts, fantasy, and fiction. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2004; 313: 459–65. CrossRefMedline
  46. Swietach P, Vaughan-Jones RD, Harris AL. Regulation of tumor pH and the role of carbonic anhydrase 9. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2007; 26: 299–310. CrossRefMedline

Click here to see the original study on the NIH PubMed website!

Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Research Online (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/).

© 2009 American Association for Cancer Research