May 19

The State Of Ag-Gag By Mercy For Animals

Categories:

Animals, Politics

by

May 16, 2012

State of the Ag Gag

By Nathan Runkle
The meat, egg, and dairy industries are desperate to keep the public from learning about the abuse and suffering farmed animals endure behind closed doors. At the behest of the agricultural industry, several states recently introduced so-called “ag-gag” legislation, aimed at criminalizing undercover investigations and silencing those who dare to expose cruel, corrupt and even illegal practices at factory farms and slaughterhouses.

Due in large part to the compassionate MFA supporters who contacted their legislators, and the behind-the-scenes efforts of a broad coalition of national groups, the shameful attempts by pro-factory farming legislators in several states to criminalize such investigations have stalled out.

Earlier this year, the Florida legislature removed the objectionable ag-gag language from a larger omnibus agricultural bill after voters harshly criticized it. In Indiana, the bill was denied a hearing and died in committee. In Illinois, the bill was tabled by its sponsor, and Tennessee’s ag-gag bill failed to garner support in the House of Representatives.

Nebraska’s bill has been “indefinitely postponed,” and in New York, bill sponsor Jean Richie withdrew her ag-gag from consideration, crediting animal advocates with alerting her to “Big Ag’s” hidden agenda. And last week, in another victory for farmed animals, the Minnesota Senate adjourned without passing its ag-gag legislation. That’s right. The Minnesota bill is dead!

Unfortunately, Missouri’s ag-gag bill is still moving dangerously close to passage. If you are a Missouri resident, farmed animals need your continued support in fighting this bill. Please click here and take a few seconds to contact your representatives and tell them to focus on prosecuting animal abusers, not those who dare to expose them.

While most of these dangerous ag-gag bills have been defeated, and despite the valiant efforts of MFA supporters nationwide, Iowa and Utah have bowed to pressure from Big Ag, and put the interests of big business ahead of animal welfare, public safety, and our constitutional rights.

Both Governor Terry Branstad (Iowa) and Governor Gary Herbert (Utah) signed ag-gag legislation into law in early 2012. As reported in the Des Moines Register, the election campaigns for many of the Iowa legislators who supported the bill, as well as Governor Branstad himself, were heavily funded by agricultural interests, and ultimately, these legislators sold out their constituents and animals to such interests.

Not surprisingly, one of Governor Branstad’s top campaign sponsors was Iowa Select Farms, the target of a 2011 Mercy For Animals undercover investigation. A quick look behind the scenes at Iowa Select shows what this cruel company is working so desperately to hide:


Time and again, MFA’s undercover investigations at factory farms and slaughterhouses nationwide have revealed abuses that shock and horrify most Americans–which is why the animal agriculture industry is fighting so hard to keep the suffering of farmed animals hidden behind closed doors.

Not a single federal law protects farmed animals from abuse or neglect during their lives on factory farms and many states specifically exclude farmed animals from protection against even some of the worst forms of factory farm cruelty. But instead of strengthening laws to protect animals and consumers, corrupt legislators in some states are attempting to silence undercover investigators who expose cruel and even criminal activities at factory farms.

While most of these bills failed to pass this year, it is certain the powerful factory farming lobby is already hard at work ensuring they will be introduced again next year–making it even more vital that animal advocates continue to distribute undercover videos of factory farms, hatcheries and slaughterhouses and expose consumers to the cruelty inherent in animal agriculture. Now is the time to speak out!

Click here to learn more about how you can help expose the truth that factory farmers are working so desperately to hide.

Tags: ,

Dec 20

FBI = American Gestapo

Categories:

Politics

by

FBI Says Activists Who Investigate Factory Farms Can Be Prosecuted as Terrorists

by WILL POTTER on DECEMBER 20, 2011

Re-posted from Green Is The New Red.

This recent investigation of a McDonald’s egg supplier is an example of the type of activism the FBI calls terrorism.

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act.

This new information comes as the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as unconstitutional because its vague wording has had a chilling effect on political activism. This document adds to the evidence demonstrating that the AETA goes far beyond property destruction, as its supporters claim.

The 2003 FBI file details the work of several animal rights activists who used undercover investigation to document repeated animal welfare violations. The FBI special agent who authored the report said they “illegally entered buildings owned by [redacted] Farm… and videotaped conditions of animals.”

The animal activists caused “economic loss” to businesses, the FBI says. And they also openly rescued several animals from the abusive conditions. This was not done covertly in the style of underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front — it was an act of non-violent civil disobedience and, as the FBI agent notes, the activists distributed press releases and conducted media interviews taking responsibility for their actions.

Based on these acts — trespassing in order to photograph and videotape abuses on factory farms — the agent concludes there “is a reasonable indication” that the activists “have violated the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 18 USC Section 43 (a).”

The file was uncovered through a FOIA request by Ryan Shapiro, who is one of the activists mentioned. The file is available for download here. [Please note that this document has additional redactions in order to protect the identities of the other activists, at their request.] Shapiro is now a doctoral candidate at MIT.

Click here to view the FBI document.

“It is deeply sobering to see one’s name in an FBI file proposing terrorism charges,” he said in an email. “It is even more sobering to realize the supposedly terroristic activities in question are merely exposing the horrific cruelty of factory farms, educating the public about what goes on behind those closed doors, and openly rescuing a few animals from one of those farms as an act of civil disobedience.”

When I testified before Congress against the AETA in 2006, one of the primary concerns I raised is that the law could be used to wrap up a wide range of activity that threatens corporate profits. Supporters of the AETA have repeatedly denied this, and said the law will only be used against people who do things like burn buildings.

So how do we explain that such a sweeping prosecution was being considered in 2003, under the law’s somewhat-narrower precursor?

One possibility is that FBI agents lack training, education, and oversight. They are spying on political activists without understanding or respecting the law.

Another explanation is that this document is no mistake, nor is it an isolated case. It is a reflection of a coordinated campaign to target animal rights activists who, as the FBI agent notes, cause “economic loss” to corporations.

At the state, federal, and international levels, corporations have orchestrated an attempt to silence political activists, and a key target has been undercover investigators. For example:

The FBI makes clear that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is not about protecting public safety; it is about protecting corporate profits. Corporations and the politicians who represent them have repeatedly lied to the American public about the scope of this legislation, and claimed that the law only targets underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front. The truth is that this terrorism law has been slowly, methodically expanded to include the tactics of national organizations like the Humane Society of the United States.

This document illustrates how the backlash against effective activism has progressed within the animal rights movement. However, if this type of legislation is not overturned, it will set a precedent for corporations to use this model against Occupy Wall Street and anyone else who threaten business as usual.

Tags:

Aug 24

The Vegan Diet: Backed By Science

Categories:

Awareness, Health

by

This is a very good article I had to share from Hope Bohanec published on One Green Planet. The plant based diet is like the genie in the bottle. Eventually people’s desire to shift away from chronic illness and obesity will overcome their fear of change. 

The Vegan Diet: Backed by Science

We are fortunate to live in one of the most well-informed societies ever, yet the majority of us have no idea how to analyze and understand the cornerstone of information in our modern age: science. It seems that there is a scientific study to prove anything, and a corresponding sucker who will believe it. I know a young man who is adamant that all grains (refined or whole) are destructive to your health and insists you must have meat in your diet. His arguments are cogent, and he is knowledgeable on the subject citing a variety of authors and scientific studies. How can we argue with that? We can and we must because the vegan community actually has the weight of scientific truth on our side.

Decoding Scientific Studies If one study, or even ten studies imply that something is so, does that make it a scientific fact? Our society is in need of a set of comprehensive skills that allow us to rigorously analyze scientific data and make informed judgments about the validity of the information. We need to ask critical questions such as: was this a peer reviewed, double blind/controlled study? Is it published in a reputable scientific journal? How many test subjects were there? Ten? One hundred? Tens of thousands (like the Harvard Nurses study, or the China Study for example). What is the duration of the study conducted? Even if all these factors are satisfactory, how many times was this study conducted with the same results? And perhaps most importantly, have the findings been accepted by major health organizations charged with the responsibility of analyzing all available data and presenting the public with a position? It is important to consider who sponsored or funded the study as well. You can find lots of studies saying milk does a body good, but who paid for those studies? If you investigate deeply you will find that the dairy industry is behind much of this “research.” Likewise there are a plethora of studies showing that evolution is impossible, and global warming is a myth. But why do most reasonable people accept evolution and global warming as scientific truths? Because the majority of the scientific community has come to the certain conclusion that they are truths based on the rigorous analysis of the facts. We must have a consistent standard that we apply to all science, regardless of our political or pious prejudice.

Who Can You Trust? For an analysis of nutrition, reputable organizations such as the American Dietetic Association, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, can be good sources.  These organizations take hundreds, even thousands, of peer-reviewed studies, compiled over decades, and come to collective conclusions based on these studies.  Not surprisingly, they have all come to pretty much the same conclusion on nutritional recommendations. Unfortunately they lack the marketing power that food and supplement industries enjoy. Simply put, every mainstream health organization recommends eating more vegetables, fruits, and whole grains and imposes restrictions on meat consumption. What is the natural extension of this recomendation? A plant-based diet. These organizations will mention meat and dairy but encourage it’s intake in much smaller amounts, sometimes twice a week, as opposed to every meal. They are mainstream agencies and are cautious not to scare people away, but the message is clear- eat more veggies and fruits, less meat and dairy. They know that this will reduce the harmful, risk-factors that animal products establish in the diet. The American Dietetic Association even recommends more veggies and restricted or no meat for athletes. There is a reason mainstream health organizations are trying to get the public to eat more fruits, veggies and whole grains. Plant-foods are high in fiber, phytochemicals and antioxidants, have no cholesterol and are generally low in saturated fat (with the exception of coconuts, palm kernel oil, and an insignificant amount in nuts and seeds). Conversely, animal products are high in both cholesterol and saturated fat, and are completely devoid of cancer-fighting fiber and phytochemicals.

The Tide is Turning A hopeful sign that mainstream nutrition is moving in the veggie direction is the new food guide, MyPlate recently unveiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Surgeon General. MyPlate replaces the Food Pyramid, the standard nutrition guide since 1992. The innovative new guide shows four portions on an image of a plate with vegetables and grains being the largest segments, with fruit and “protein” making up the smaller sections. Not only is it very exciting that the vegetable and grain section are by far the largest slice of the plate, but it is also noteworthy that vegetables, fruits, and grains are listed as “food”, while the fourth section, “protein” is listed simply as a nutrient. Not as “meat”, or as “meat/beans” but just as protein. The other sections could be listed as “carbohydrates” or “vitamins” but they are not. It is apparent that they are specifically recommending eating vegetables, grains, and fruits, however, how you get your protein is optional. The clear message is that meat is no longer recommended or required in the diet. This is truly a turning point in mainstream nutrition education. This is practically a vegan plate! So, contrary to the beliefs of my aforementioned friend, actually,whole grains are a perfect staple food, meeting the nutritional recommendations of every major health organization in the U.S. Despite our small (but growing) numbers, there is nothing “fringe” or “radical” about veganism in terms of scientific validation; it is simply an extension of mainstream health recommendations to eat more plants and restrict animal foods. Anyone can cite a study to the contrary, much like the anti-climate change camp, or the anti-evolution crusaders. But the position of mainstream health organizations takes into consideration the entire body of literature available, and make recommendations based on the weight of that scientific research, not simply citing the self-serving bias of some rogue studies. And their recommendations are increasingly supportive of plant-based nutrition. So the next time someone is spouting facts and studies supporting a claim, check the science. Don’t just believe someone because they have letters after their name, or they are telling a story that sounds believable. Be critical thinkers. Research and look into it. Scientific truth is a powerful tool if we choose to utilize it.

Hope Bohanec, Contributor One Green PlanetHope Bohanec has been active in animal protection and environmental activism for over 20 years. She is the Grassroots Campaigns Director for the international animal protection organization, In Defense of Animals. Hope was the Sonoma County Coordinator for Proposition 2 and soon after that victory, founded Compassionate Living Outreach. Hope offers an influential power point presentation called Eco-Eating: A Cool Diet for a Hot Planet that addresses the environmental impact of animal agriculture through peer reviewed scientific research. She is a nationally recognized leader and speaker in the animal protection movement, and a well known presenter throughout the Bay Area and across the U.S.

Tags: ,

Aug 20

Fruits and Vegetables Are Good For You!

Categories:

Health

by

As originally posted by:

The Harvard School Of Public Health

The Nutrition Source

Vegetables and Fruits: Get Plenty Every Day

Table of contents

Introduction

“Eat your fruits and vegetables” is one of the tried and true recommendations for a healthy diet. And for good reason. Eating plenty of vegetables and fruits can help you ward off heart disease and stroke, control blood pressure, prevent some types of cancer, avoid a painful intestinal ailment called diverticulitis, and guard against cataract and macular degeneration, two common causes of vision loss.

Your Questions Answered - Vegetables and Fruits

Q. What counts as a cup of vegetables and fruits?

A. For most fresh or cooked vegetables and fruits, 1 cup is just what you would put in a household measuring cup. There are two main exceptions to that rule: For lettuce and other raw leafy greens, you need to eat 2 cups to get the equivalent of 1 cup of vegetables. For dried fruit, you only need to eat ½ cup to get the equivalent of 1 cup of fruit.

Remember—on the Healthy Eating Pyramid, created by the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, potatoes are not counted as a vegetable, since they are mostly starch and should be used sparingly.

What does “plenty” mean? More than most Americans consume. If you don’t count potatoes—which should be considered a starch rather than a vegetable—the average American gets a total of just three servings of fruits and vegetables a day. The latest dietary guidelines call for five to thirteen servings of fruits and vegetables a day (2½ to 6½ cups per day), depending on one’s caloric intake. (1) For a person who needs 2,000 calories a day to maintain weight and health, this translates into nine servings, or 4½ cups per day (2 cups of fruit and 2½ cups of vegetables).

Over the past 30 years or so, researchers have developed a solid base of science to back up what generations of mothers preached (but didn’t always practice themselves). Early on, fruits and vegetables were acclaimed as cancer-fighting foods. In fact, the ubiquitous 5 A Day message (now quietly changing to Fruits and Veggies: More Matters) seen in produce aisles, magazine ads, and schools was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute. The latest research, though, suggests that the biggest payoff from eating fruits and vegetables is for the heart.

Vegetables, Fruits, and Cardiovascular Disease

There is compelling evidence that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables can lower the risk of heart disease and stroke.

The largest and longest study to date, done as part of the Harvard-based Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study, included almost 110,000 men and women whose health and dietary habits were followed for 14 years. The higher the average daily intake of fruits and vegetables, the lower the chances of developing cardiovascular disease. Compared with those in the lowest category of fruit and vegetable intake (less than 1.5 servings a day), those who averaged 8 or more servings a day were 30 percent less likely to have had a heart attack or stroke. (2) Although all fruits and vegetables likely contribute to this benefit, green leafy vegetables such as lettuce, spinach, Swiss chard, and mustard greens; cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, bok choy, and kale; and citrus fruits such as oranges, lemons, limes, and grapefruit (and their juices) make important contributions. (2)

When researchers combined findings from the Harvard studies with several other long-term studies in the U.S. and Europe, and looked at coronary heart disease and stroke separately, they found a similar protective effect: Individuals who ate more than 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per had roughly a 20 percent lower risk of coronary heart disease (3) and stroke, (4) compared with individuals who ate less than 3 servings per day.

Vegetables, Fruits, and Blood Pressure

Nutrition In-Depth

High Blood Pressure and Salt

Nine out of 10 U.S. men and women will develop hypertension at some point in their lives. Read more about ways to lower blood pressure by reducing salt and sodium.

Lower Salt and Sodium— A Key to Good Health: An in-depth article about the health hazards of too much salt, and how we can reduce salt and sodium intake

Salt and Heart Disease: A closer look at three key studies that show the harmful effects of sodium on the heart

Delicious Recipes that Spare the Salt: Fourteen lower-sodium recipes from The Culinary Institute of America that use herbs, spices, and culinary techniques to boost flavor

Vegetables on a forkHigh blood pressure is a primary risk factor for heart disease and stroke. As such, it’s a condition that is important to control. Diet can be a very effective tool for lowering blood pressure. One of the most convincing associations between diet and blood pressure was found in theDietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) study. (5)

This trial examined the effect on blood pressure of a diet that was rich in fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products and that restricted the amount of saturated and total fat. The researchers found that people with high blood pressure who followed this diet reduced their systolic blood pressure (the upper number of a blood pressure reading) by about 11 mm Hg and their diastolic blood pressure (the lower number) by almost 6 mm Hg—as much as medications can achieve.

More recently, a randomized trial known as the Optimal Macronutrient Intake Trial for Heart Health (OmniHeart) showed that this fruit and vegetable-rich diet lowered blood pressure even more when some of the carbohydrate was replaced with healthy unsaturated fat or protein. (6)

Vegetables, Fruits, and Cancer

Numerous early studies revealed what appeared to be a strong link between eating fruits and vegetables and protection against cancer. But because many of these were case-control studies, where people who already have a certain health outcome (cases) are compared to people who do not have that outcome (controls), it is possible that the results may have been skewed by problems inherent in these types of studies; people with illnesses, for example, often recall past behaviors differently from those without illness, which can lead to potential inaccuracy in the information that they provide to study investigators.

Cohort studies, which follow large groups of initially healthy individuals for years, generally provide more reliable information than case-control studies because they don’t rely on information from the past. And data from cohort studies have not consistently shown that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables prevents cancer in general. For example, in the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, over a 14-year period, men and women with the highest intake of fruits and vegetables (8+ servings a day) were just as likely to have developed cancer as those who ate the fewest daily servings (under 1.5). (2)

A more likely possibility is that some types of fruits and vegetables may protect against certain cancers. A massive report by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research suggests that non-starchy vegetables—such as lettuce and other leafy greens, broccoli, bok choy, cabbage, as well as garlic, onions, and the like—and fruits “probably” protect against several types of cancers, including those of the mouth, throat, voice box, esophagus, and stomach; fruit probably also protects against lung cancer. (7)

three tomatosSpecific components of fruits and vegetables may also be protective against cancer. For example, a line of research stemming from a finding from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study suggests that tomatoes may help protect men against prostate cancer, especially aggressive forms of it. (8) One of the pigments that give tomatoes their red hue—lycopene—could be involved in this protective effect. Although several studies other than the Health Professionals study have also demonstrated a link between tomatoes or lycopene and prostate cancer, others have not or have found only a weak connection. (9) Taken as a whole, however, these studies suggest that increased consumption of tomato-based products (especially cooked tomato products) and other lycopene-containing foods may reduce the occurrence of prostate cancer. (7) Lycopene is one of several carotenoids (compounds that the body can turn into vitamin A) found in brightly colored fruits and vegetables, and research suggests that foods containing carotenoids may protect against lung, mouth, and throat cancer. (7) But more research is needed before we know the exact relationship between fruits and vegetables, carotenoids, and cancer.

Vegetables, Fruits, and Gastrointestinal Health

One of the wonderful components of fruits and vegetables is their indigestible fiber. As fiber passes through the digestive system, it sops up water like a sponge and expands. This can calm the irritable bowel and, by triggering regular bowel movements, can relieve or prevent constipation. (10) The bulking and softening action of insoluble fiber also decreases pressure inside the intestinal tract and so may help prevent diverticulosis (the development of tiny, easily irritated pouches inside the colon) and diverticulitis (the often painful inflammation of these pouches). (11)

Vegetables, Fruits, and Vision

variety of fruitsEating plenty of fruits and vegetables also keeps your eyes in good shape. You may have learned that the vitamin A in carrots aids night vision. Other fruits and vegetables help prevent two common aging-related eye diseases—cataract and macular degeneration—which afflict millions of Americans over age 65. Cataract is the gradual clouding of the eye’s lens, a disk of protein that focuses light on the light-sensitive retina. Macular degeneration is caused by cumulative damage to the macula, the center of the retina. It starts as a blurred spot in the center of what you see. As the degeneration spreads, vision shrinks.

Free radicals generated by sunlight, cigarette smoke, air pollution, infection, and metabolism cause much of this damage. Dark green leafy vegetables—such as spinach and kale—contain two pigments, lutein and zeaxanthin, that accumulate in the eye; these pigments are found in other brightly colored fruits and vegetables as well, including corn, squash, kiwi, and grapes. (12) These two pigments appear to be able to snuff out free radicals before they can harm the eye’s sensitive tissues. (13)

In general, a diet rich in fruits and vegetables appears to reduce the chances of developing cataract or macular degeneration. (14–17) Lutein and zeaxanthin, in particular, seem protective against cataract. (18)

The Bottom Line: Recommendations for Vegetable and Fruit Intake

Vegetables and fruits are clearly an important part of a good diet. Almost everyone can benefit from eating more of them, but variety is as important as quantity. No single fruit or vegetable provides all of the nutrients you need to be healthy. The key lies in the variety of different vegetables and fruits that you eat.

(recipes5Ffor5Fhealth.jpg)

Ruby chard

Get your leafy greens today—try Mollie Katzen’s delicious spring recipe forruby chard.

Try these tips to fit more fruits and vegetables into your day:

  • Keep fruit out where you can see it. That way you’ll be more likely to eat it. Keep it out on the counter or in the front of the fridge.
  • Get some every meal, every day. Try filling half your plate with vegetables or fruit at each meal. Serving up salads, stir fry, or other fruit and vegetable-rich fare makes it easier to reach this goal. Bonus points if you can get some fruits and vegetables at snack time, too.
  • Explore the produce aisle and choose something new.Variety is the key to a healthy diet. Get out of a rut and try some new fruits and vegetables—include dark green leafy vegetables; yellow, orange, and red fruits and vegetables; cooked tomatoes; and citrus fruits.
  • Bag the potatoes. Choose other vegetables that are packed with more nutrients and more slowly digested carbs.
  • Make it a meal. Try some new recipes where vegetables take center stage, such as Tunisian carrot salad and spicy broccolini with red pepper.

References

1. 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

2. Hung HC, Joshipura KJ, Jiang R, et al. Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of major chronic disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96:1577–84.

3. He FJ, Nowson CA, Lucas M, MacGregor GA. Increased consumption of fruit and vegetables is related to a reduced risk of coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of cohort studies. J Hum Hypertens. 2007; 21:717–28.

4. He FJ, Nowson CA, MacGregor GA. Fruit and vegetable consumption and stroke: meta-analysis of cohort studies. Lancet. 2006; 367:320–26.

5. Appel LJ, Moore TJ, Obarzanek E, et al. A clinical trial of the effects of dietary patterns on blood pressure. DASH Collaborative Research Group. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336:1117–24.

6. Appel LJ, Sacks FM, Carey VJ, et al. Effects of protein, monounsaturated fat, and carbohydrate intake on blood pressure and serum lipids: results of the OmniHeart randomized trial. JAMA. 2005; 294:2455–64.

7. World Cancer Research Fund, American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective. Washington DC: AICR, 2007.

8. Giovannucci E, Liu Y, Platz EA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. Risk factors for prostate cancer incidence and progression in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Int J Cancer. 2007; 121:1571–78.

9. Kavanaugh CJ, Trumbo PR, Ellwood KC. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s evidence-based review for qualified health claims: tomatoes, lycopene, and cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99:1074–85.

10. Lembo A, Camilleri M. Chronic constipation. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349:1360–68.

11. Aldoori WH, Giovannucci EL, Rockett HR, Sampson L, Rimm EB, Willett WC. A prospective study of dietary fiber types and symptomatic diverticular disease in men. J Nutr. 1998; 128:714–19.

12. Sommerburg O, Keunen JE, Bird AC, van Kuijk FJ. Fruits and vegetables that are sources for lutein and zeaxanthin: the macular pigment in human eyes. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998; 82:907–10.

13. Krinsky NI, Landrum JT, Bone RA. Biologic mechanisms of the protective role of lutein and zeaxanthin in the eye. Annu Rev Nutr. 2003; 23:171–201.

14. Brown L, Rimm EB, Seddon JM, et al. A prospective study of carotenoid intake and risk of cataract extraction in US men. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999; 70:517–24.

15. Christen WG, Liu S, Schaumberg DA, Buring JE. Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of cataract in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005; 81:1417–22.

16. Moeller SM, Taylor A, Tucker KL, et al. Overall adherence to the dietary guidelines for Americans is associated with reduced prevalence of early age-related nuclear lens opacities in women. J Nutr. 2004; 134:1812–19.

17. Cho E, Seddon JM, Rosner B, Willett WC, Hankinson SE. Prospective study of intake of fruits, vegetables, vitamins, and carotenoids and risk of age-related maculopathy. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004; 122:883–92.

18. Christen WG, Liu S, Glynn RJ, Gaziano JM, Buring JE. Dietary carotenoids, vitamins C and E, and risk of cataract in women: A prospective study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008; 126:102–109.

Terms of Use

The aim of the Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Source is to provide timely information on diet and nutrition for clinicians, allied health professionals, and the public. The contents of this Web site are not intended to offer personal medical advice. You should seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this Web site. The information does not mention brand names, nor does it endorse any particular products.

Tags:

Jul 26

Agricultural Subsidies Tax our Health

Categories:

Awareness, Politics

by

This is an article I read on PCRM that I thought was a great topic and wanted to share.

By Neal Barnard, M.D.

This opinion piece was printed in the St. Petersburg Times on April 18, 2011.

As we wrap up tax season with federal spending under scrutiny, Americans should consider this: Congress continues to spend billions of federal dollars on food policies that contribute to bad health.

This boondoggle is worse than a bridge to nowhere—it’s a publically funded super-highway carrying the entire country into a dismal future filled with diet-related medical problems and soaring healthcare costs.

The figures are staggering. In recent history, the federal government has spent about $16 billion per year on agricultural subsidies. Of subsidies that go toward food production, the majority support the kind of unhealthful food that the U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends we eat less of to protect our health.

As a doctor and nutrition researcher, I believe the best way to resolve that contradiction is to put unhealthy agricultural subsidies on the federal chopping block.

The contrast between federal dietary advice and federal subsidies is stark. The government’s own recently released Dietary Guidelines document advises Americans to cut back on cholesterol and saturated fat. Yet agricultural subsidies continue to favor fatty meats, dairy products, and sugar.

Industrial hog producers, for example, enjoyed a savings of 15 percent in operations costs between 1997 and 2005 because federal funds were subsidizing the grains fed to pigs. Direct and indirect subsidies to dairy producers totaled $4.8 billion between 1995 and 2009, even as consumption of high-fat cheese products reached new heights. This means that companies responsible for producing the most unhealthful food are doing so with the help of taxpayer dollars.

Meanwhile, healthful foods—fruits and vegetables—receive less than 1 percent of subsidies. That’s disturbing given that the USDA’s Dietary Guidelines say eating more healthful plant-based foods and less saturated fat and cholesterol helps prevent heart problems and other life-threatening medical conditions.

As the Dietary Guidelines point out, “Vegetarian-style eating patterns have been associated with improved health outcomes—lower levels of obesity, a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, and lower total mortality.”

More than 60 percent of all deaths in the United States are caused by diseases linked to unhealthy diets, including heart disease, cancer and stroke. Poor diets are also linked to epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes. But poor health isn’t the only negative outcome of the current system. Being sick is expensive.

The medical costs of chronic health problems run in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The annual medical cost of obesity reached $147 billion in 2008. The Medicare and Medicaid spending for obesity-related conditions now totals $61 billion per year. If current trends continue, 86 percent of adults will be overweight or obese by 2030.

Cardiovascular disease costs the nation about $189 billion a year, and by 2030, the annual medical costs for cardiovascular disease are projected to triple to $818 billion. A large portion of these costs could be saved by cultivating healthier diets to prevent many cases of these diseases from happening in the first place.

Paying taxes is never pleasant, but it’s especially galling when you realize that the taxpayer-funded food system is literally making us sick. It’s time for Congress to fix this problem and address our country’s epidemics of obesity and other health problems. Let’s put agricultural subsidies on a diet.

Neal Barnard, M.D., is a clinical researcher, author, and health advocate. He is the president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Tags: ,

Jul 10

Why Milk Won’t Prevent Osteoporosis and the protein myth

Categories:

Awareness, Health

by

This is a great article on the real facts behind dairy and protein.

By Dina Fitzsimons

 

Let’s play word association. When you hear the word “osteoporosis,” what’s the first word that comes to your mind? If you said “calcium,” then the American Dairy Association has done its job.

Osteoporosis is a condition of abnormal porousness of bone resulting from gradual bone loss, leading to increased fractures, loss of height, hip and back pain, and spinal curvature. The disease affects about 25% of postmenopausal women in the US. Since osteoporosis is a disease of bone loss, and since 99% of the body’s calcium is found in bone, it certainly seems logical that if people eat as much calcium as possible, osteoporosis risk may be diminished. The Dairy People capitalize on this idea by constantly reminding us that dairy products constitute some of the richest sources of calcium in the supermarket (never mind that calcium is found in varying amounts in all fruits, vegetables, and grains). But this “you need your milk” idea is not universally accepted.

The truth is, there has been little or no success in preventing osteoporosis by eating dairy products. Plainly and simply, when enough calcium is consumed to prevent deficiency (which is much lower than the Recommended Dietary Allowance), taking in excess does little more than put a person at risk for kidney stones. In fact, Americans consume excessively large quantities of calcium, yet risk of osteoporosis continues to threaten millions of Americans. Most people are not aware that the US already has one of the highest calcium intakes in the world. Calcium deficiency caused by an insufficient amount of calcium is not known to occur in humans, even though most people in the world don’t drink milk after weaning because of custom, lactose intolerance, or unavailability. In fact, nations with the highest levels of dairy consumption are the same nations with the highest rates of osteoporosis.

In addition, although it seems to be common sense, few people consider this: humans all over the planet have been living relatively long, healthy lives free of osteoporosis for millennia. These people, for the most part, never touched dairy food, calcium supplements, or hormone therapy. Today, most of the world’s population consume less than 500 mg of calcium daily (the RDA is roughly twice this amount), and there is no convincing evidence that countries with lower dietary intakes are disadvantaged in regard to osteoporosis.

What is undoubtedly clear is that the more PROTEIN a population consumes, the higher its prevalence of osteoporosis. That’s correct- there is a direct correlation between protein intake and loss of calcium from the bone. This calcium-wasting effect by protein has been documented time after time in studies for over 70 years. Something to remember is that along with the calcium in your glass of milk there is also a sizable dose of protein. How strong is the effect of protein on calcium loss? If protein intake is doubled without changing intake of other nutrients, calcium in the urine increases by about 50%.

This argument does not go unchallenged, of course. For example, intake of the mineral phosphorus has been shown to decrease protein-induced urinary calcium loss. The problem with this reasoning is that phosphorus intake does not offset the negative effect of protein. It turns out that as phosphorus intake is increased, there is a subsequent increase in fecal calcium. In fact, when a phosphorus supplement is given along with a high protein load, urinary calcium is decreased but fecal calcium is increased. Scientists have taken this biochemical evidence one step further: many studies have found a strong, positive association between protein intakes and hip fracture rates among different populations around the world. In any given population, the greater the intake of protein, the more common the prevalence and more severe will be the osteoporosis. How about some examples?

The African Bantu consumes an average of 350 mg of calcium per day (current recommendations for Americans is about 1000 mg per day) yet do not have calcium deficiency, seldom break a bone, and rarely lose a tooth. (Plenty of Bantus live past age 65.) They consume very low-protein diets with sufficient calories. Osteoporosis among the Bantu is very rare until they migrate to the United States and begin to consume a typical, protein-laden American diet.

Native Eskimos have the highest dietary calcium intake of any other people in the world– above 2000 mg per day from fish bones. Their diet is also the highest in the world in protein- up to 400 g per day primarily from fish (Americans rarely eat quite this much). Native Eskimos have the highest rate of osteoporosis in the world.

This news is really hard to swallow for most people. After all, don’t we need lots of protein to be healthy and strong? Even the most conservative nutritionists out there can tell you that there is an ongoing Protein Myth in this country. Americans eat about 400% more protein than necessary to maintain protein balance, and even vegetarians eat more than they need. As a nutritionist and vegetarian, I am often asked, “Well, where do you get your protein?” and my answer is, “From food- fruits, vegetables, grains, and beans.” Have you ever heard of anyone suffering from a protein deficiency? Do any vegetarians you know look like those starving kids from Africa with huge bellies and pencil-thin thighs? Of course not. Protein deficiency is so hard to attain, it would be nearly impossible for any American to have. Unfortunate individuals in developing countries who suffer from protein malnutrition have a condition called kwashiorkor, and this develops as a result of consuming a staple food that is low in protein, such as cassava root, and practically nothing else.

The general rule is, if one gets enough calories, he or she will automatically get enough protein. We do not need foods with a high protein concentration (i.e. animal products) to meet our protein needs. In fact, calorie for calorie, broccoli contains more protein (45%) than corned beef (25%). Of course, a typical serving of corned beef has more protein than a typical serving of broccoli (which is about 91% water by weight), but this supports the idea that with enough calories in the diet, enough protein automatically follows.

What about protein complementation? Again, part of the Protein Myth. Amino acid deficiency simply is a notion that has never been demonstrated in well-fed individuals, even the strictest of vegans. The US is a country of overconsumption, not underconsumption. The leading causes of death today are all diet-related- and are not due to “not getting enough,” but of getting too much. We are eating more and more -of nearly everything- and chronic diseases like osteoporosis are more and more prevalent.

Granted, many factors contribute to osteoporosis risk, including low levels of physical activity and smoking. But calcium intake has received a grossly inordinate amount of attention with regard to osteoporosis prevention. Again, leave it to groups who will benefit financially by feeding the unsuspecting public partial and misleading information. There are so many risks associated with dairy consumption (See previous articles in AnimaLife Vol 3, Issue 1, pg 8, and Vol 5, Issue 1, pg 1.), and research continues to fail to show any significant relationship between intake of dairy foods and osteoporosis. Again, all of the published studies to date are concordant; all find that increased protein intake leads to increased loss of calcium. And, not surprisingly, several studies demonstrate that vegetarian women experience less osteoporosis on average than their omnivorous counterparts. One main dietary difference between omnivores and vegetarians is protein intake, since animal-derived foods are concentrated protein sources.

Why is this evidence surrounding protein so ignored? Why don’t we read about these studies in the media? For one thing, there is no group that lobbies about the advantages of a low-protein diet. The primary sources of protein in the typical American diet are meat and – you guessed it – dairy products. The meat and dairy boards will do everything in their power to not let such news leak into the popular press. No one will sell products which boast a low protein content – we’ve been spoon-fed the Protein Myth our whole lives – and this works out well for the meat and dairy lobbyists.

Unfortunately or fortunately, the secret to health, longevity and chronic disease prevention -notably osteoporosis- is a plant-based diet with ample carbohydrates and moderate amounts of protein and fat.

(Dina Fitzsimons (Cornell ’94) is currently earning her R.D. and Master’s Degree in Nutrition at Tufts University.)

 

Sources

Abelow BJ, Holford TR, and Insogna KL. (1992) Cross-cultural association between dietary animal protein and hip fracture: a hypothesis. Calcified Tissue International 50: 14-18.

Arnaud CD and Sanchez SD. (1990) The role of calcium in osteoporosis. Annual Reviews of Nutrition 10: 397-414.

Dawson-Hughes B. (1991) Calcium supplementation and bone loss: a review of controlled clinical trials. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 54: 274S-280S.

Heany RP. (1993) Protein intake and the calcium economy. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 93: 1259-1260.

Heany RP and Recker RR. (1982) Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus and caffeine on calcium balance in women. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 99: 46-55.

Kanis JA. (1991) Calcium requirements for optimal skeletal health in women. Calcified Tissue International 49: S33-S41.

Levitsky, David, lecture in Nutritional Sciences 115, Cornell University, 12/1/93.

Marsh AG, Sanchez TV, Chaffee Fl, Mayor GH, and Mickelsen O. (1983) Bone mineral mass in adult lacto-ovo-vegetarians and omnivorous males. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 37:453-456.

Marsh AG, Sanchez TV, Mickelsen O, Keiser J, and Mayor G. (1980) Cortical bone density of adult lacto-ovo-vegetarian and omnivorous women. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 76: 148-151.

Mazess RB and Mather WM (1974) Bone mineral content of North Alaskan Eskimos. American Journal Clinical Nutrition 27: 916-925.

McDougall, JA. The McDougall Plan. Clinton: New Win Publishing; 1983.

Riggs BL, Wahner W. Melton LJ, Richelson LS, Judd HL, and O’Fallon M. (1987) Dietary calcium intake and rates of bone loss in women. Journal of Clinical Investigation 80: 979-982.

Robbins, J. Diet For A New America. Walpole: Stillpoint Publishing; 1987.

Smith R and Rizek J. (1966) Epidemiologic studies of osteoporosis in women of Puerto Rico and Southeastern Michigan with special reference to age, race, national origin and to other related or associated findings. Clinical Orthopedics 45: 31-48.

Walker ARP. (1965) Osteoporosis and calcium deficiency. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 16: 327-336.

Tags: ,

Jul 04

Happy 4th Of July!

Categories:

Animals, Earth, Health

by

Celebrate your independence from the standard American diet – GO VEGAN!

For the Animals – For the Earth – For your Health

Tags: , ,

Jul 03

BlendTec offers free shipping in July!

Categories:

Health, The Green Smoothie Guy, Vegan Food

by

BlendTec is offering free shipping in July only through their authorized web affiliates. To take advantage of this offer, follow the links on this site and make sure you have entered JULYFREESHIP in the coupon code.

Get the official blender of The Smoothie Guy on facebook and The Green Smoothie Guy soon to be on the web!

Tags: , ,

Jul 01

Mercy For Animals releases undercover video as the Iowa ag-gag bill dies.

Categories:

Awareness, Politics

by

Mercy For Animals, the Chicago based animal advocacy group released another horrifying video depicting abuse to pigs at one of the nation’s largest pork producers – Iowa Select Farms in Kamrar, Iowa.

This video is not easy to watch, please be advised it contains some disturbing scenes.

Between April and June of 2011 an undercover MFA investigator documented more suffering at the hands of factory farming. See the Des Moines Register story about her haunting experience here. This particular facility just so happened to provide pork products to JBS Swift, who in turn supplied chains stores such as Kroger, Costco, Safeway, and Hy-Vee. It appears that virtually all of these stores have suspended or stopped purchasing From either JBS Swift, or Iowa Select Farms as a result of this investigation. I think more likely is that reaction has been based upon a business decision due to public outcry. A wise choice in my opinion.

Since the videos release on June 29th, the response and coverage has been amazing. Everyone from this blog, to the Wall Street Journal has covered this. Sooner or later the factory farming community must realize that this kind of abuse must stop. Even if laws are passed to make exposing this abuse illegal, there are people willing to risk prosecution to expose this.

This video included a celebrity of sorts when Brooke Albertsen, Iowa’s 2005 Pork Princess, now the head of the farrowing department at Iowa Select Farms, was recorded on video, stating that “pigs are very bouncy” and “it’s like a roller coaster ride for piglets”. Other parts of the video showed open pus filled sores, herniated intestines, and sick and injured piglets left to die a slow agonizing death. There were also castrations and tail docking without anesthesia. Typical in these undercover videos were employees violently handling the animals hence the comment that “pigs are very bouncy”.

Just a day later, the Iowa Legislature closed up shop for the year, leaving the ag-gag bill to die like others in Florida and Minnesota and New York. Iowa’s version had easily made it through the house, had The Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad’s support, and appeared to be unstoppable. That is where the outpouring of support came in. Numerous animal advocacy groups created petitions, including Mercy For Animals. Countless op-eds from nearly all major outlets questioned everything from the legality to the moral implications of the laws.

Did Iowa’s lawmakers listen to the outpouring of opposition to the bill?  Perhaps it was the countless op-eds – or was it from the tens of thousands of people in Iowa and across the country – or was it a procedural snafu as they battled other state issues? One thing is for sure, this bill, or one very much like it will surface again in Iowa.

  • Iowa is one of the most agriculturally based states in the union.
  • Iowa leads the nation in hog and egg production.
  • There are 19.2 million hogs (almost 27% of the nation’s hogs), 4 million cattle, 260,000 sheep and 66.9 million chickens in Iowa. Iowa chickens laid 13.9 billion eggs in 2007.
  • Iowa ranks second nationally in red meat production. In 2007, 6.6 billion pounds of red meat were produced.
  • Iowa’s dairy industry produced an estimated 4.28 billion pounds of milk in 2007. The average milk produced per cow was 20,146 pounds.
  • In 2007, a little more than 4 million turkeys produced nearly 274 million pounds of turkey was produced at a value of $123 million. Source: http://www.agclassroom.org/kids/stats/iowa.pdf

I am quite confident when the next version of the ag-gag bill surfaces there will again be an outpouring of support to oppose it. Regrettably this does not ensure it’s defeat. The Iowa Legislature in 2011 passed a law opening up a hunting season for mourning doves despite overwhelming statewide support against it and appeared unapologetic about it as well.

I believe the only way to ensure the next ag-gag bill is defeated is to be prepared for the next legislative session and step up our game. I know the agricultural community, it’s lobbyists and money drenched councils and associations will be stepping up theirs. Thankfully we have the likes of Mercy For Animals and the HSUS on our side as well as overwhelming support from animal advocates everywhere. Stay tuned.

Tags: ,

Jun 05

The addictive nature of staple foods in the standard American diet.

Categories:

Awareness, Health

by

It’s no wonder why obesity is on the rise in America. When chocolate, cheese, meat and sugar are physically addictive.

I can personally attest to the addictive nature of cheese. It kept me from being a Vegan for probably 6 years. I knew how badly the dairy cows suffered, but I could not kick my cheese pizza addiction. I still get the urge, but fortunately, my better judgement kicks in and I do not even like the smell anymore. It is the addiction that makes me miss it.

This video is an excellent teaching, and learning tool about these foods. It helps you realize just how bad they are for you as well. Dr Neal Barnard is one of the best Vegan advocates out there. His non-confrontational approach to teaching veganism is the best I have seen. He can reach people others cannot.

If you have not seen this, enjoy. If you have seen this, share it with those in your life who need to know this information.

Check out more from Dr Barnard at PCRM today.

Tags: , ,

Older posts «

Content Protected Using Blog Protector By: PcDrome.