Why Organic Food Is Genuinely Better For Your Health?

By Marianne B. Conway
uPublish.info
June 3, 2011

Organic food is certainly nothing new and has existed for thousands of years, however recently more people have been taking an interest in it and the word organic has turned into a big buzzword. Those individuals involved in the health food business are creating massive profits during this hype as organic food costs more then the non-organic foods found in the shop. Keeping all this in mind, the question must be asked; is organic food dramatically beneficial or actually necessary for our bodies?

Believe it or not, but green living has impacted the lives of untold amounts of people. We see so many cases in our every day lives, and it can function as an important reminder. What is interesting about this is the amount of material that is generally unknown to people. There is adequate understanding surrounding this so people know what to expect. But when you can uncover all you can and learn, then you will find oneself in a greater position. That is why we want to present you with some appropriate tips about green living, and with any luck, they will help you in the future.

Organic food is certainly nothing new and has existed for thousands of years, however recently more people have been taking an interest in it and the word organic has turned into a big buzzword. Those individuals involved in the health food business are creating massive profits during this hype as organic food costs more then the non-organic foods found in the shop. Keeping all this in mind, the question must be asked; is organic food dramatically beneficial or actually necessary for our bodies? Since its definitely be costing more, is it unquestionably better for us?

To find out all the basic facts, lets take an initial look at what the phrase “organic” actually means to us. The term organic represents something that has not been chemically modified or had chemicals added to it. For instance, organic crops have been produced without the use of pesticides, ionizing radiation, synthetic fertilizers, GM (Genetically Modified) organisms or sludge from sewers. Organic meat, dairy products and eggs have no growth hormones or antibiotics added to promote production or growth.

The procedure for growing commercial organic food is not an easy one as a total of 3 years need to pass before their produce can be termed “organic” The purpose of this waiting period is to permit the soil to build up natural nutrients and minerals so that the new crop is completely free from chemicals when it is grown A lot of toil and time goes into organic food, hence its no real shock that its more expensive. As good as this all appears, some still contemplate if it is still necessary. Is there any other rationale why I have to be interested in eating organic food?

Many of us recognize that organic food boasts a more significant nutritional value then regular food. A sample of milk used by analysts revealed up to twice as many natural antioxidants, 50% more Vitamin E and 70% more Beta Carotene then milk taken from regular cows. Deciding to use organic food will also be great for your general health and fitness since it contains no chemicals such as insecticides and other harmful substances. Also, you do not run the risk of ingesting cancer-causing toxins that is a massive benefit to choosing organic food. The next benefit is a matter of opinion, as many people say organic food tastes better than non organic, but again you cannot say this as a fact because its down to ones personal preferences.

Organic food is also good for the environment. Pesticides and insecticides have been proven to have a major effect on the global ecosystem and as organic food includes neither of these its better for the ecosystem. Pollution is adding to the important problem of global warming, however organic farming keeps pollution to a minimum which is great news. Organic food additionally impacts the way animals are treated, as free range chickens are allowed to roam free and eat when they like whereas many normal chickens are subject to abuse, such as being crammed in cages with lots of other chickens and force fed food to fatten them up.

I personally think that organic foods are usually better, not just for your health but also for the environment and the welfare of animals. The cost factor should also be looked at but based on all the positive benefits, I seriously recommend you take a serious look at trying to do things the organic way.

Did you realize how much there is to learn about green living? A lot of people are when they get down to reading through about it. All we desired to do is demonstrate what is available but still useful at the same time. But there exists a great deal even more than that about this. There is much more that can really produce the kind of outcomes anyone would want. What follows after this is the kind of material that most will probably have no idea about.

Human Milk from Genetically Modified Cows

Scientists have created genetically modified cattle that produce “human” milk in a bid to make cows’ milk “more nutritious”.

The Telegraph
April 3, 2011

The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk. Human milk contains high quantities of key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections.

The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute.

They hope genetically modified dairy products from herds of similar cows could be sold in supermarkets. The research has the backing of a major biotechnology company.

The work is likely to inflame opposition to GM foods. Critics of the technology and animal welfare groups reacted angrily to the research, questioning the safety of milk from genetically modified animals and its effect on the cattle’s health.

But Professor Ning Li, the scientist who led the research and director of the State Key Laboratories for AgroBiotechnology at the China Agricultural University insisted that the GM milk would be as safe to drink as milk from ordinary dairy cows.

He said: “The milk tastes stronger than normal milk.

“We aim to commercialize some research in this area in coming three years. For the “human-like milk”, 10 years or maybe more time will be required to finally pour this enhanced milk into the consumer’s cup.”

China is now leading the way in research on genetically modified food and the rules on the technology are more relaxed than those in place in Europe.

The researchers used cloning technology to introduce human genes into the DNA of Holstein dairy cows before the genetically modified embryos were implanted into surrogate cows.

Writing in the scientific peer-reviewed journal Public Library of Science One, the researchers said they were able to create cows that produced milk containing a human protein called lysozyme,

Lysozyme is an antimicrobial protein naturally found in large quantities in human breast milk. It helps to protect infants from bacterial infections during their early days of life.

They created cows that produce another protein from human milk called lactoferrin, which helps to boost the numbers of immune cells in babies. A third human milk protein called alpha-lactalbumin was also produced by the cows.

The scientists also revealed at an exhibition at the China Agricultural University that they have boosted milk fat content by around 20 per cent and have also changed the levels of milk solids, making it closer to the composition of human milk as well as having the same immune-boosting properties.

Professor Li and his colleagues, who have been working with the Beijing GenProtein Biotechnology Company, said their work has shown it was possible to “humanise” cows milk.

In all, the scientists said they have produced a herd of around 300 cows that are able to produce human-like milk.

The transgenic animals are physically identical to ordinary cows.

Writing in the journal, Professor Li said: “Our study describes transgenic cattle whose milk offers the similar nutritional benefits as human milk.

“The modified bovine milk is a possible substitute for human milk. It fulfilled the conception of humanising the bovine milk.”

Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, he added the “human-like milk” would provide “much higher nutritional content”. He said they had managed to produce three generations of GM cows but for commercial production there would need to be large numbers of cows produced.

He said: “Human milk contains the ‘just right’ proportions of protein, carbohydrates, fats, minerals, and vitamins for an infant’s optimal growth and development.

“As our daily food, the cow’s milk provided us the basic source of nutrition. But the digestion and absorption problems made it not the perfect food for human being.”

The researchers also insist having antimicrobial proteins in the cows milk can also be good for the animals by helping to reduce infections of their udders.

Genetically modified food has become a highly controversial subject and currently they can only be sold in the UK and Europe if they have passed extensive safety testing.

The consumer response to GM food has also been highly negative, resulting in many supermarkets seeking to source products that are GM free.

Campaigners claim GM technology poses a threat to the environment as genes from modified plants can get into wild plant populations and weeds, while they also believe there are doubts about the safety of such foods.

Scientists insist genetically modified foods are unlikely to pose a threat to food safety and in the United States consumers have been eating genetically modified foods for more decades.

However, during two experiments by the Chinese researchers, which resulted in 42 transgenic calves being born, just 26 of the animals survived after ten died shortly after birth, most with gastrointestinal disease, and a further six died within six months of birth.

Researchers accept that the cloning technology used in genetic modification can affect the development and survival of cloned animals, although the reason why is not well understood.

A spokesman for the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals said the organisation was “extremely concerned” about how the GM cows had been produced.

She said: “Offspring of cloned animals often suffer health and welfare problems, so this would be a grave concern.

“Why do we need this milk – what is it giving us that we haven’t already got.”

Helen Wallace, director of biotechnology monitoring group GeneWatch UK, said: “We have major concerns about this research to genetically modify cows with human genes.

“There are major welfare issues with genetically modified animals as you get high numbers of still births.

“There is a question about whether milk from these cows is going to be safe from humans and it is really hard to tell that unless you do large clinical trials like you would a drug, so there will be uncertainty about whether it could be harmful to some people.

“Ethically there are issues about mass producing animals in this way.”

Professor Keith Campbell, a biologist at the University of Nottingham works with transgenic animals, said: “Genetically modified animals and plants are not going to be harmful unless you deliberately put in a gene that is going to be poisonous. Why would anyone do that in a food?

“Genetically modified food, if done correctly, can provide huge benefit for consumers in terms of producing better products.”

Codex Alimentarius: No More Health Freedom

The United Nations and World Health Organization’s FrankenScience to Push Restrictions on What You Eat

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 1, 2010

Almost no time is given to considering the one type of freedom that we all seem to take for granted. Health freedom, or the possibility to choose a good state of being and to nourish it through methods of our own choosing, is something that many times borders into the abstract. Besides being a population accustomed with consuming pharmaceuticals as a way to “maintain” and “improve” our health, many people are unaware that all we need to stay healthy is to provide our body with the nutrients it needs in order to maintain a strong immune system. Part of the reason why this is so is that we all have been brought up within a cultural frame that from our very early years induces us to rely on processed synthetic products, instead of the natural ones which cost just a fraction of the price and that are more effective in providing us the health we all seek.

If the fact natural medicines and products really are the solution to our health problems was not true, the big pharmaceutical conglomerates would not spend billions every year in research and development with profit written all over it. If you have never asked yourself where pharmaceuticals come from, this is a good time to learn. To a great extent, such products are developed based on the curative properties of natural ingredients found in plants and trees. They are then copied and synthetically mass produced for everyone to consume. Given the fact chemical conglomerates use natural solutions to create their products, one would think there would be a concerted effort to promote the use of such natural solutions, however it is not so. Since the 1960´s there is a concerted effort to not only limit the choices we as consumers and human beings have in order to take care of our health, but also to restrict the access to food itself as we know it.

Codex Alimentarius (Codex for short) means “Food Code.” This world food code is a United Nations agency, jointly sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It has existed for nearly 50 years and its International Statute gives it a joint mission: protecting food safety and promoting world food trade. It is supposed to do so by adopting voluntary Guidelines and Standards (defining foods in international trade) and its decisions are enforced through the World Trade Organization (WTO) which considers its Guidelines and Standards as presumptive evidence in WTO trade disputes. It has become a creature of the Bigs – Big Govt, Big Agra, Big Pharma… etc.

Codex Alimentarius (Codex for short) means “Food Code.” This world food code is a United Nations agency, jointly sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It has existed for nearly 50 years and its International Statute gives it a joint mission: protecting food safety and promoting world food trade. It is supposed to do so by adopting voluntary Guidelines and Standards (defining foods in international trade) and its decisions are enforced through the World Trade Organization (WTO) which considers its Guidelines and Standards as presumptive evidence in WTO trade disputes. It has become a creature of the Bigs – Big Govt, Big Agra, Big Pharma… etc.

In order to understand what Codex Alimentarius is, one needs to know it has nothing to do with consumer protection as its charter says. Such statement is just a catchy phrase to have the people and the nations approve its implementation. “Codex Alimentarius” means “food rules” in Latin. The plan was born in 1962 when the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was founded by the U.N. to supposedly facilitate trade relations. In reality, it was created to regulate and control the way in which food and nutrition are guided and how products are sold to people. It is indeed all about the profits of multi-national corporations. The relation is very simple: the more natural products people use, the less profits the pharmaceutical corporations make. Codex Alimentarius was created to protect Big Pharma´s profits through the elimination of natural health products and treatments. What is more alarming at this point is that Codex was scheduled to be approved on December 31st, 2009. Once this plan is signed, it will be mandated through its approval by Congresses around the world, and imposed to all nations; a lot like the Copenhagen Treaty is intended to be implemented.

As in several other programs that the U.N. FAO and WHO want to impose, Codex is based on pseudo-science. For example, it classifies nutrients as toxins and uses “Risk Assessment” to set ultra low so-called “safe upper limits” for them. The proper science for classifying nutrients and its proper levels is Biochemistry, but Codex does not use Biochemistry. Instead, it uses Risk Assessment which is a branch of Toxicology, or the science of assessing toxins. Those who propose Codex as a way to maintain and improve health have the unscientific idea that vitamins and other nutrients´consumption needs to be reduced. Codex is composed of a series of rules specifically focused on all aspects of food. For example, one of them ratified (approved) on July 2005; Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG), seeks to ban all high potency and clinically effective vitamins and minerals such as Vitamin C which would be limited to a few milligrams per dose. Other nutrients, such as amino acids, are also under threat.

How was Codex broadly accepted?

As it is typical in this kind of programs, the U.N. and the WHO use their favorite technique to mandate and implement Codex Alimentarius; that is Compartmentalization. In plain words, this is the policy of creating little groups of people who in theory work for a common purpose; to achieve a grand goal, but who in reality are fed different kinds and amounts of information in order to manipulate the outcome of such discussions. Codex is not the exception. Although its formation seems inclusive from the outside, the truth is that each and every committee created to work on Codex, had its own set of standards and guidelines. Such committees formed at the local, regional and international levels are headed by the CAC, the top-level of the Codex hierarchy. After these committees and task forces formulate rules which become ready for ratification (once they reach step 8 of the formulation process), they are then presented to the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) for ratification.

Codex is not only unscientific and manipulated; it is also undemocratic. One example of how Codex is run is the way in which the Chairman of the CAC conducts business. Dr. Grossklaus, Chairman of CAC and anti-nutrition Chairman of the pivotal “Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses” (CCNFSDU), had the delegate from India bodily removed during a November 2003 CCNFSDU meeting. The delegate’s crime? Insisting on discussing the inclusion of CCNFSDU-approved material in baby formula which could kill 10% of newborns in his country. After the delegate was forcibly removed, Dr. Grossklaus declared the issue approved by “consensus”. The Chairman can prevent a delegate from being heard by deliberately refraining from turning on the delegate’s microphone. So if the Chairman (i.e. Dr. Grossklaus) does not like what is being said, he can flip a switch and that will be that. This guarantees that there is no sustained opposition if the Chairman does not want there to be any opposition.

How will Codex be Implemented?

According to Codex Alimetarius´ own records, once a rule or standard is ratified by CAC it becomes an official regulation and it is implemented through the World Health Organization (WHO) where it is used to decide trade disputes. Outrageous sanctions will be applied onto countries that are deemed to be in violation of the Codex Alimentarius Standards via the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Resolution process. By Codex´s writings a compliant nation is deemed to be the automatic winner in a trade dispute with a country whose laws are not Codex-compliant. The plan then gives the WTO a set of rules to judge if a country is providing a hidden or overt barrier to trade (i.e. not complying domestically with Codex regulations).

The prevailing country, by the way, selects the area in which the trade sanctions will be applied in order to damage the offending country in the way that serves its needs best. Both the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPSA) and the Technical Barrier to Trade Agreement (TBTA) have provisions which could be used to force law into compliance with Codex Alimentarius. Many fear that both CAFTA and NAFTA could do the same (force compliance with Codex) as could the FTAA agreement. Article 3 of the SPSA makes domestic compliance mandatory with WTO-accepted standards (e.g. Codex Alimentarius) regarding toxins. Countries whose domestic law complies with Codex are held to be in automatic compliance with Codex Alimentarius for the WTO Dispute Resolution purposes. Countries not in internal compliance with Codex Alimentarius can be held to be providing a hidden barrier to trade in any food-related trade dispute and be subject to severe WTO trade sanctions.
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D., author of “Death by Medicine”, attended a Codex committee meeting (CCNFSDU, Bonn, 2004), a long-time employee of Codex told her that once the World Trade Organization took over Codex in 1995…

“It was no longer in the hands of the 165 member nations of the WHO (World Health Organization) but in the hands of trade organizations in the 148 countries of the WTO (World Trade Organization), which seems intent on standardizing everything to do with international trade in our emerging global economy.”

How will Codex negatively affect humans and the Environment?

Implementation of Codex Alimentarius would result in severe consequences for human and the environment. For example, high potency nutrients will be labeled as illegal, valuable nutrients not on Codex list will be illegal, new nutrients or herbs will be illegal, traditional medicines with nutritional value will be illegal, antibiotic and hormone-free milk, poultry, fish and meat will not be available in supermarkets due to degraded organic standards, levels of pesticides, hormones, animal drugs and other toxins will be increased in the food supply, labeling for GMOs will not be required, irradiated food will become an accepted practice, and so on.
A new study by French scientists from the universities of Caen and Rouen on three varieties of genetically modified maize, shows clear evidence of health risks. Spain is the only EU country that allows the cultivation of one of these maize, MON810, in large scale. The other two corns are authorized for import and for entry into human and animal food supplies. Farmers, consumers and environmentalists call for applying the precautionary principle and ban GM crops and foods. The study was conducted through tests by the multinational Monsanto, which sells the three types of corn. The science team examined data from tests with rats that were submitted to obtain authorization, which were hitherto confidential and have been obtained in many cases through the courts. According to the authors, it is the first time that these confidential tests from Monsanto have been released to be reviewed by independent researchers.

Scientists have found clear evidence -by analyzing the data- that there are health risks in blood parameters associated with kidney and liver functions. The changes observed in transgenic maize are the three typical patterns of disruption in the metabolic system. The team also sharply criticized the way the data were analyzed by Monsanto, without complying with international statistical standards, or standards for food tests. The three maize have, however, clearance from European authorities, which enabled them to enter the food and feed in Europe. “These studies demonstrate that it is not possible to guarantee the safety of GM food. We must apply the precautionary principle and withdraw transgenic food from our agriculture and our food “said David Sanchez, in charge of Agriculture and Food Friends of the Earth.

This new study adds to a long list of independent studies on the environmental impacts and health risks of transgenic products, which are repeatedly ignored by the Spanish and European authorities. Ana Etchenique, vice president of the Confederation of Consumers and Users (CECU) said: “It is not possible that a government listens to the industry before the public. The government has to ensure responsible agricultural practices for food safety and the health of citizens / consumers. Why our government does not follow the lead of countries like France, Austria and Germany, which already have banned the planting of GM crops? ”

According to the Natural Solutions Foundation, Codex will also bring a considerable loss of access to natural products, which would mean a huge increase in illness. On July 4 in Rome, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) ratified the destructive Codex Alimentarius “Vitamin and Mineral Guideline”. Vitamins and minerals in doses high enough to have a therapeutic effect could become just a memory. Other nutrients (such as amino acids and herbs) will, according to Codex, follow quickly. The driving force of the VMG is economics, not medicine, and has nothing to do with consumer protection. Dr. Rima Laibow a co-founder of NSF has been fighting Codex for many years, and she concludes that nothing positive will result from the adoption of the U.N.´s sponsored program. “High potency nutritional products are highly beneficial for health. Many people would suffer greatly if nutritional products were removed from their reach while health promotion and disease prevention would be nearly impossible without them,” Laibow says.

This would leave, says the doctor, more than 60% of the world’s population without any legal medical care of any kind. In addition to cutting down access to vitamins and supplements, Codex also promotes the use of pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply such as growth hormone as well as insect and vegetable genes in produce. The direct health consequence of this will be a perpetual state of disease because both pesticides and drugs are highly toxic to the liver, our primary organ of detoxification. The poisoning of organs and enzyme systems leads to side effects and illness. If you think that the connection between pesticides and Big pharma is unbelievable, if you do not think a corporation could ever plan such a continuum of disease, think again. It is well-known that drug companies fabricate illnesses for the sake of drug sales. For example, the “fabrication” of mental illnesses.

“Despite a nearly 500 percent increase in mental health drugs being prescribed to children in the previous six years, the NFC [New Freedom Commission on Mental Health] recommended a plan of mandatory mental health screening for all public school students and follow-up treatment with drugs when needed. “The fact is, this is nothing more than another elaborate profiteering scheme hatched by Bush and the pharmaceutical industry to convert the millions of people in public systems into customers for new psychiatric drugs in order to funnel more tax dollars to Pharma,” asserts Evelyn Pringle on the Online Journal.

Codex Alimentarius allows pesticides, veterinary drugs and other toxic residues in foods at levels much higher than even industry lobbyists have asked for! In speaking only of current pesticide levels (Codex levels would be much higher), the Ontario College of Family Physicians notes. Codex Alimentarius would not only allow for the use of more pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and other GMO in food, but will also open the door to more dangerous substances like aflatoxin. This drug is a strong carcinogen in milk, peanuts, almonds and other foods. Aflatoxin is the second most potent non-radiation cancer-inducing agent known to man. However, Codex allows corporations to use high levels of aflatoxin in milk: 0.5 mg/kg. That is at least 100 times more than the recommended dose.

How to stop Codex on its tracks?

As it often happens, the people will need to rise against Codex in an effort to inform their relatives, neighbors and friends. The best way in which countries can reject Codex Alimentarius is by opting out of it. This is a decision that must be made by the people through Congress. A letter is available here to send to your Congressman along with detailed information contained in this article or any of the sources provided. Each Congress and the representatives who are negotiating Codex in each local, regional and international committee need to oppose Codex and officially, on behalf of each nation, opt out of it. Only a massive opposition by the people can defeat this initiative. Citizens may not trust their politicians to make the right decisions when it comes to their health freedom. So, contact your government officials and inform them about Codex right now.

Sources:

Who is Behind Codex Alimentarius?

Amended Codex vitamin and mineral guide

Risk Assessment Science + Nutrition = A Toxic Brew!

Documentary: We Become Silent – The Last Days Of Health Freedom

British Parliament Officially Warns About Pharmaceutical Industry

8-Step Codex Decision Process

50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods

Codex Threatens the Health of Billions

Billions of people expected to die under Codex Alimentarius

The Coming Nutricide: Former Nazi is the Father of Codex

Los riesgos para la salud de transgénicos cultivados y consumidos en España