Information from HSI

[Teresa]

What I post on this thread will be from HSI..
What I post elsewhere is my own stuff.


"Huge Raw Milk Victory in California" is the title of a Weston A. Price Foundation press release posted in the Healthier Talk community forums by an HSI member named JonB.

In a nutshell: Last month a judge granted a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of a state assembly bill that would effectively put farms that produce raw milk out of business.

Following that posting, HSI members have their say...

Ralph: "Boy, if the raw milk is so dangerous, there would a trail of deaths in California, wouldn't there?"

JonB: "That's what I always wondered, why aren't all those people who drink raw milk sick and dying."

Morgan33: "Yep, the coliform level is obviously very dangerous – my kids, raised on raw milk, enjoyed almost continuous good health. That is very dangerous for certain big business interests."

DoubleD: "All The Amish folks here have been drinking Raw milk from generation to generation, and they're still doing it. I don't see them getting sick. As a Matter of fact they are probably more healthier than all of us here put together. Surely I don't need any write ups or studies done on this subject. I have actual living proof , right here where I live."

Morgan33: "Pasteurization was essential years ago, before brucellosis was eradicated from cattle and before improved management for mastitis (listeria) and other bugs such as e Coli and salmonella.
"It is still essential for the average dairy, with intensive farming leading to poor nutrition, poor hygiene, mastitis etc. There is no way I would drink raw milk from a cow kept in these conditions.
"However, raw milk from pasture fed cows that don't have to lie in manure and obtained with meticulous attention to hygiene simply cannot be compared to a substandard product that needs all the intervention it can get."

DoubleD: "Just think, if everyone has at least a 1/4 acre of land which is enough for 1 cow and about 14 dollars for wire fence, they would have it made. And the problem would be solved. Wouldn't even need to cut your grass."

Neal: "Pasteurized milk is a drink, with no more nutritional value than a soda pop. Raw milk from grass-fed cows is a superfood with plenty of nutrition, calcium, and healthy bacteria. Calcium is absorbed from real milk and is not absorbed from pasteurized milk. A large glass of real milk can be half a meal... Definitely worth the extra cost."

Here is the link I found about this..

http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=20825

[Teresa]

It's 6:00 AM and a cell phone rings in the car of a young woman on her way to work in Oakland, California. While reaching for the phone she loses control of her car, which plunges into the estuary between Oakland and Alameda Island. Fortunately, the car doesn't sink. Staying calm and thinking quickly, the woman breaks a window, pulls herself out of her car, and swims to shore. Onlookers report that as she staggers onto dry land, she is carrying her cup of takeout coffee.

THAT is how much we love our coffee. And research suggests that America's national java infatuation might actually play a role in a lower rate of a deadly cancer.

--------------------------------------------
Prevention by the cup
--------------------------------------------

In Asia, where consumption of coffee is low, health officials report the highest incidence of liver cancer in the world. But in the U.S., only about 18,500 cases of liver cancer are diagnosed each year.

These numbers don't necessarily mean that your daily cup-o-joe protects you from this disease, but evidence to support such a claim is mounting.

There is  research from Tohoku University in Japan that combined data from two large studies that assessed coffee consumption in more than 60,000 subjects.
Results showed that occasional coffee drinkers had 30 percent lower risk of liver cancer compared to subjects who didn't drink coffee.

Risk was even lower for those who drank coffee daily, which confirms the results of another Japanese study that found regular coffee consumption to be linked with a significantly reduced risk of developing a type of liver cancer known as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

As reported in the International Journal of Cancer, when the Tohoku team singled out subjects who had a history of liver disease, they found a clear link between coffee intake and a lowered risk of liver cancer. The researchers called for further studies to examine the role that coffee might play in the prevention of liver cancer among high-risk patients.

--------------------------------------------
Just one cup per day
--------------------------------------------

Now – fast-forward two years...

In  2007 researchers  in Milan note that previous research reveals that caffeine and other coffee components have been shown to have beneficial effects on liver enzymes and may play a role in carcinogenic detoxification.

The Milan team conducted an analysis of ten coffee studies that included six case- control studies from Japan and southern Europe, and four cohort studies from Japan. More than 2,200 patients with HCC were included in their analysis.

The combined data produced these results:

In case-controlled studies, risk of HCC was reduced by more than 45 % on average
Subjects who drank the most coffee reduced HCC risk by 55 %
Moderate coffee drinkers lowered HCC risk by 30 %

Just one cup of coffee per day added to normal consumption reduced HCC risk by more than 20%
The Milan team also notes the importance of the similar results from a region where little coffee is consumed (Japan), and a region where the population consumes large amounts of coffee daily (southern Europe).

I have to admit that in these and other coffee studies I find it frustrating that the way coffee is prepared is rarely taken into account.

For instance, could a dark roast coffee provide different benefits than a lightly roasted coffee? Even more useful would be a comparison of black coffee to coffee taken with cream and sugar, which must certainly have some effect on the components in black coffee or on the way your body metabolizes those components.

Obviously we still have a long way to go in resolving questions about coffee's health benefits.
Meanwhile, if you have liver problems, talk to your doctor about these studies before increasing coffee intake.




Sources:
"Coffee Consumption and the Risk of Primary Liver Cancer: Pooled Analysis of Two Prospective Studies in Japan" International Journal of Cancer, Vol. 116, No. 1, 8/10/05, interscience.wiley.com
"Coffee Drinking and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk: A Meta-Analysis" Hepatology, Vol. 46, No. 2, August 2007, interscience.wiley.com

[Teresa]

Gentlemen, Stop Your Engines!
by Alexander Green

While in France a couple years ago, I bumped into my colleague Addison Wiggin, an American publisher (and now filmmaker) who was living in Paris at the time.

During our chat, he told me about a French co-worker who had just returned from her first trip to the United States. When he asked what about America had made the biggest impression on her, she said, "I can't believe you eat in your cars."

We both had a chuckle over this. To Parisians, eating is a sacrament. Even a short lunch has to include fresh bread, good wine, and time enough to enjoy it.

It's a whole different experience than driving down the highway with a Quarter Pounder and fries in your lap, a Big Gulp– the only soda large enough to have its own undertow– sloshing around in the cup holder, while you lick your fingers between bites so grease doesn't get on the wheel.

I'm kidding, of course. We Americans don't really eat this way on a regular basis. Do we?

Get ready to cringe. A recent study conducted by John Nihoff, a professor of gastronomy at the Culinary Institute of America, found that among eighteen- to fifty-year-old Americans, roughly a fifth of all eating takes place in the car. Almost as bad, studies show that a significant percentage of the rest occurs in front of the TV.

Look, I'm a libertarian at heart. If this is how people want to take their meals, so be it. Of course, I wouldn't call them meals, necessarily. They're more like "eating occasions." Still, if this is how millions of my fellow Americans choose to receive their daily caloric intake, all I can say is... "Viva la France!"

Face it. The French are smarter than us when it comes to eating. Surveys show they rarely snack. They consume most of their food at meals shared with others. They eat smaller portions and don't come back for seconds. They also linger, spending considerably more time eating than we do. Put these habits together and you have a food culture in which the French consume less calories than we do, yet enjoy them far more.

As Michael Pollan writes in his new book "In Defense of Food":

"We forget that, historically, people have eaten for a great many reasons other than biological necessity. Food is also about pleasure, about community, about family and spirituality, about our relationship to the natural world, and about expressing our identity. As long as humans have been taking meals together, eating has been as much about culture as it has been about biology...

"It is at the dinner table that we socialize and civilize our children, teaching them manners and the art of conversation. At the dinner table parents can determine portion sizes, model eating and drinking behavior, and enforce social norms about greed and gluttony and waste... The shared meal elevates eating from a mechanical process of fueling the body to a ritual of family and community, from mere animal biology to an act of culture."

The reality is agriculture, technology and the free market have succeeded almost too well. Food today is so easy, so cheap and so plentiful that we forget our ancestors spent most of their waking hours hunting, growing, producing and preparing meals. It defined their lives. For hundreds of millions in the Third World, it still does.

If we eat mindlessly, we experience a disconnection. We miss a chance to bond with our friends and family. We lose our deep connection to the earth. We forego an opportunity to give thanks. And that's regrettable.

In "The Pleasures of Eating," Wendell Berry writes:

"Eating with the fullest pleasure– pleasure, that is, that does not depend on ignorance– is perhaps the profoundest enactment of our connection with the world. In this pleasure we experience and celebrate our dependence and our gratitude, for we are living from mystery, from creatures we did not make and powers we cannot comprehend."

This attitude fosters a more deliberate approach to eating. Our meals become a sort of spiritual practice where gratitude, fellowship and conversation are more important than simply "strapping on the feedbag." We eat less and enjoy it more. Not coincidentally, we look and feel better, too.

So take your cue from the French. Enjoy the company. Savor your meal. And if you really don't have time to eat this way... well, don't forget to buckle up.[/b]

[Teresa]

Our last trip to the supermarket sent both my husband and I into sticker shock. As my husband (oh-so-eloquently) put it, "No wonder people eat like *@%#!
You can get 10 boxes of macaroni and cheese for $5, or a pint of blueberries for the same price -- and you certainly can't feed a family on a pint of blueberries." That's true. But, what you CAN do with those blueberries makes them well worth the cost: A recent study published in The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry found that eating blueberries may reduce the risk of osteoporosis.

Researchers from Florida State University and Oklahoma State University tested the effects of blueberries on bone health in female mice who had had their ovaries removed (to correspond to human menopause). One group of mice was fed a control diet, and another group was fed the same diet with the addition of blueberries.

After 100 days, the researchers found that the mice that ate the control diet had a 6 percent decrease in bone density. The blueberry-fed mice, on the other hand, showed no bone loss.

Granted, the berries didn't increase bone density in the mice, but preventing bone loss is a great step in the right direction. And while the researchers aren't yet sure if the results will translate to humans, adding blueberries to the other natural bone-building strategies Dr. Wright recommends in the March 2001 issue of Nutrition & Healing certainly won't hurt (except for the slight sting to your wallet, of course)

[flo]

  can't resist this - can't feed a family of 4 on a pint of blueberries? Go pick some dandelions and give them a salad to go with it ! I understand they taste like spinach. 

[pam]

Aw Ma, I could of said go pick some poke greens cause they'll do the same thing........ but they don't taste like spinach, they taste like bacon.........once you pour the grease on em anyway

[Teresa]

Salad isn't normally something I get overly excited about. In fact I don't like it!
But I try to add it to my diet when I can.  I never really gave it much thought about whether it is real good for me or not. . Until the other day when I came across some research showing that a daily side of leafy greens may be doing a lot more for me than rounding out my dinner.
According to a study published in the journal Nutrition, lettuce and other greens may cut the risk of lung cancer as much as 50 percent.

Researchers from the Galician Public Foundation for Health Emergencies analyzed the diets of more than 600 people, 295 of whom had lung cancer, while the other 322 were disease-free. They found that consumption of just one portion of leafy green vegetables a day had a dramatic effect on lung cancer -- slashing risk of the disease in half.

In an interesting twist, they found that fruit didn't offer any protection at all, regardless of intake levels.
The researchers attributed this apparent contradiction to the fact that vitamin A is the most important nutrient in warding off lung cancer, and vegetables contain anywhere from 10 to 100 times more of the vitamin than fruits.

Now, over the years I've found that variety is a critical part of avoiding any kind of food burnout (and with salad....lets face it, there's only so many times you can eat the same romaine-carrot-cucumber combo before you never want to look at it again). 

Mixing up your salad components is a great way to experiment and keep the flavors interesting -- not to mention add another layer of nutrition and protection to your plate.
Besides lettuce, the researchers also noted protective effects from cabbage, turnip greens, potatoes, green beans, and tomatoes.
I like vegetables..even raw..so I can do this.
They also think that the combined effect of the vegetables may be the key, so try tossing some -- or all -- of these ingredients into your next side salad.

[Teresa]

Recently I read a revised article about a study that showed how eating almonds with a meal can impede glycemic and insulin responses – a welcome benefit for diabetics. In addition, almond intake protects proteins from oxidative damage while delivering vitamin E and other antioxidants, magnesium, calcium, folate, protein, fiber and living enzymes.

Not bad for a humble nut.
But then I thought,"Would the benefits of almonds also be true of pasteurized almonds?"

I did some checking and The "Living Proof" study used raw California almonds. But that study was conducted in 2006, when a raw almond was actually a raw, unprocessed, unpasteurized whole food. Two years later, everything has changed.

--------------------------------------------
Extreme makeover
--------------------------------------------

More than 200 years ago, Spanish missionaries brought almond cultivation to California where it flourished into an industry that today produces well over one billion pounds of almonds each year – more than 70 percent of the world's supply. If you eat an almond in the U.S., it came from California.

Two small outbreaks of salmonella – in 2001 and 2004 – were attributed to raw almonds. To reassure the public that almonds are safe to eat, the Almond Board of California (ABC) proposed a mandatory sterilization of all raw almonds produced in California for U.S. consumption. The USDA agreed, and now almonds labeled as "raw" are either irradiated or chemically treated to create a "pasteurized" almond.

This is like burning down a house to solve a mold problem, because both of these pasteurization techniques deplete nutritional value, and might even trigger grim health problems.

Irradiation exposes food products to extremely high levels of radiation that kill bacteria, parasites and funguses. Animal studies have shown that irradiation may promote chromosome damage, cancer, and other damaging effects.

But the chemical pasteurization process may be even more dangerous.

This technique is called propylene oxide fumigation, which utilizes a chemical compound that the EPA has classified as a probable human carcinogen.
And 2008 marks a big year for propylene oxide – exactly 50 years ago food producers began using this chemical to pasteurize nuts, cocoa powder, spices, and other food items.
And here's an interesting note: Propylene oxide was once used in racing fuel, but in 1993 the National Hot Rod Association banned its use because of cancer concerns. And yet this poison is still used to pasteurize foods – EPA and FDA approved!

I would call this a "nutty" plan, but that would just make "insidiously stupid" sound cute.

Could this situation get any worse? Of course.

The FDA has decided that irradiated or propylene oxide fumigated almonds can be labeled as "raw" without notifying consumers that a sterilization process has been used. In other words, we've been blatantly betrayed again by the agency that's supposed to protect us.

--------------------------------------------
Go north
--------------------------------------------

There is some good news here, but it's precious little for most of us.

Just as dairy farmers are allowed to sell unpasteurized milk directly to customers, (something too that the FDA is trying to stop)  almond farmers can sell unpasteurized raw almonds at roadside stands. So if you happen to live near a trustworthy small-scale almond farm, you're in luck.

And there's an organic loophole. The ABC and USDA allow organic almond growers to use a steam-heat pasteurization method. This technique also depletes nutrients, but has the clear benefit of not causing cancer in lab rats.

And finally, the Almond Board's pasteurization mandate doesn't extend to the millions of pounds of raw almonds that California exports each year. So in the interest of preventing infrequent and isolated salmonella incidents, the ABC offers U.S. consumers a nutritionally anemic nut that just might be dangerous, while our neighbors around the world continue to enjoy authentic raw almonds.

I wonder if the FDA will start cracking down on U.S. citizens traveling to Canada to purchase "foreign" raw almonds?