How WHOLE Turmeric Heals The Damaged Brain

Source

http://www.greenmedinfo.com

Sunday, August 18th 2019

Sayer Ji, Founder

This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2019

Brain regeneration: long considered a feat impossible to accomplish, compelling research now reveals how a simple spice might contribute to stimulating the stem-cell mediated repair of the damaged brain.

Turmeric is hands down one of the, if not the, most versatile healing spice in the world with over 800 experimentally confirmed health benefits, and an ancient history filled with deep reverence for its seemingly compassionate power to alleviate human suffering. It may also represent the pharmaceutical industry’s single most existential threat, given that the preliminary science signals turmeric is at least as effective as 14 drugs, and orders of magnitude safer as far as toxicological risk.

That said, most of the focus of turmeric research over the past decade has been centered on only one of its many hundreds of phytocompounds: namely, the primary polyphenol in turmeric known as curcumin which gives the spice its richly golden hue.  This curcumin-centric focus has lead to the development of some very good products, such as phospholipid bound curcumin concentrate (e.g. Meriva, BCM-95) which greatly helps to increase the absorption and bio-activity of curcumin. But, curcumin isolates are only capable of conferring a part of turmeric’s therapeutic power – and therein lies the limitation and hubris of the dominant model where the focus is on isolating the presumably primary “magic bullet ingredient.”

Indeed, it has become typical within the so-called nutraceutical industry to emulate the pharmaceutical model, which focuses on identifying a particular “monochemical” tree within the forest of complexity represented by each botanical agent, striving to standardize the delivery of each purported ‘active ingredient’ with each serving, as if it were a pharmaceutical drug. These extraction and isolation processes also generates proprietary formulas which are what manufacturers want to differentiate their product from all others and henceforth capture a larger part of the market share; a value proposition that serves the manufacturer and not the consumer/patient.

Truth be told, there is no singular ‘magic bullet’ in foods and herbs responsible for reproducing the whole plant’s healing power.  There are, in fact, in most healing plants or foods hundreds of compounds orchestrated by the intelligent ‘invisible hand’ of God or ‘Nature,’ or whatever you wish to call it, and which can never be reduced to the activity of a singularly quantifiable phytocompound or chemical.

Beyond The Curcumin ‘Magic Bullet’ Meme

Not long ago, a highly compelling study published in the journal Stem Cell Research & Therapy provided additional support for the concept that curcumin alone is not enough to explain the healing power of turmeric as a whole plant. The study found that a little known, fat-soluble component within turmeric – Ar-tumerone – may make “a promising candidate to support regeneration in neurologic disease.”

Titled, “Aromatic-turmerone induces neural stem cell proliferation in vitroand in vivo,” German researchers evaluated the effects of this turmeric-derived compound on neural stem cells (NSCs) – the subgroup of brain cells capable of continuous self-renewal required for brain repair.

The study found that when brain cells were exposed to ar-tumerone, neural stem cells increased in number through enhanced proliferation. Moreover, these newly formed neural stem cells also increased the number of fully differentiated neuronal cells, indicating a healing effect was taking place. This effect was also observed in a live animal model, showing that rats injected with ar-tumerone into their brains experienced increases in neural stem cell proliferation and the creation of newly formed healthy brain cells.

This study did not go unnoticed by major medical news channels. Here are some good reviews if you wish to explore the implications in greater depth:

• Newsweek: Curry Power: Turmeric Compound Boosts Growth of Brain’s Stem Cells
• Guardian Liberty Voice: Turmeric Cure Evidence Grows
• Monthly Prescribing Reference: Turmeric May Help Regenerate Brain Cells
• Times of Malta: Turmeric Link to Brain Cell Repair
• Medical Daily: Turmeric Helps Your Brain Heal Itself: Spice Up Your Brain

The GreenMedInfo.com Turmeric Database Confirms It’s Brain-Saving Power!

As you may already know, our database is the world’s most extensive open access natural medical database on over 1,600 different natural substances, with over 2700 study abstracts on turmeric’s healing properties indexed thus far: view the Turmeric research page here to view!  (Watch the video below for more details about our public resource).

If you take a look at the laundry list of over 800 diseases that this spice (or its components, e.g. curcumin) has been studied for to prevent and/or treat, the sheer volume of supportive literature is astounding. Amazingly, we have identified over 270 physiological pathways – according to their conventional pharmacological characterization, e.g. COX-2 inhibitor, Interleukin 6 down-regulator – by which turmeric or its components heals the human body.  In addition, you will find over 217 articles on turmeric’s neuroprotective properties on this page: Turmeric as a Neuroprotective agent. (Find out how we generate these results in the video below)

The research clearly indicates that turmeric is a great brain supportive plant. For a more layperson oriented review, read the following articles:

• How Turmeric Can Save the Aging Brain From Dementia
• Turmeric Produces ‘Remarkable’ Recovery in Alzheimer’s Patients
• The Spice That Prevents Fluoride From Destroying Your Brain

How To Get The Most Out of Your Turmeric

One of the most frequent questions we field is ‘what is the best type of turmeric or curcumin to use’? Obviously, given the aforementioned research, the whole plant is going to carry a wider range of therapeutic compounds than curcumin alone. And yet, most have been heavily enculturated to focus entirely on the ‘how much’ question, opting to identify the molecular weight (i.e. how many milligrams in a serving) of a particular compound as more important than the qualitative dimensions (e.g. is it organic? It is delivered within its natural context as food or a whole plant?) which reflect the type of nutrigenomic information the substance contains, and therefore the ‘intelligence’ it embodies.

And really, there is no generic answer to a generic question about the best way to take turmeric/curcumin. The question always comes from an individual with a particular need, and so, recommendations must be bio-individualized.

For instance, if you have colonic inflammation or polyps, and you are trying to use turmeric to reduce inflammation there or regress precancerous growths, then using the whole plant is best versus a highly bioavailable form of curcumin in capsule form (e.g. Meriva), for instance, which will likely be absorbed by the small intestine and mostly pass through the liver never getting adequate quantities to the large intestine. So, in this person’s case taking a teaspoon of relatively difficult to absorb turmeric may result in painting the diseased surfaces of that person’s intestinal or colonic lumen with exactly the form needed to reverse disease.

But what if you have someone who wants to experience a systemic effect, say, for arthritis or for brain cancer? In these instances, getting turmeric compounds such as curcumin through the glucuronidation barrier in the liver with a phospholipid-bound or black pepper (piperine) combination could be ideal. There is certainly a place for the ‘nutraceutical’ model when properly applied, especially when provided as an adjuvant to the pharmaceutical model within an integrative medical setting.

Ultimately, the goal is not to wait to have such a serious health problem that you have to force yourself to take a ‘heroic dose’ of any herb or food extract. Better is to use small amounts in culinary doses in combination with ingredients that synergize on a physiochemical/informational and sensual basis (producing the all important vitamin P [pleasure] as well!). Recently we actually featured a study that showed culinary doses of rosemary helped improve memory whereas higher ‘heroic’ doses impaired it!

This is why exploring the use of turmeric in curries, or by adding a pinch in a smoothie, may be an ideal daily supplementation approach, versus capsules, whose questionably ‘natural’ capsules and excipients all can add up to cause some stress on the liver you are trying to protect with these natural interventions.  Just remember quality is everything and less can be more!

Originally published: 2018-11-20

Article updated: 2019-08-18

Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Let’s talk about fruits, sugar, and their confusing connection

Source

Natural News

by: Rex Carter

Monday, August 12, 2019 

Most people know that fruit is nutritious, but is it a good choice for those who are trying to lose weight? It’s not something that everyone agrees on: Some believe that most fruits are loaded with sugar – which, of course, is not good when you’re trying to slim down. That said, the effect of sugar on your health depends on what kind and how much you consume.

The dose makes the poison

Paracelsus, one of the first modern medical professors, said: “The dose makes the poison.” This also applies to sugar. At its most basic, your body breaks down the food you eat into glucose (also known as blood sugar) and other simple sugars. The body then uses these for energy.

Of course, that’s not to say that all types of sugar benefit the body. For one, having excess amounts of sugar in your body is harmful and is often a precursor to chronic diseases. Fructose, in particular, is a type of sugar that’s often misunderstood – since it’s found in fruit and is often seen on ingredient labels as an added sugar.

Indeed, fruit does contain fructose, but it also contains vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals that provide nutrition. Most fruits are also loaded with fiber and water, which help with portion control.

However, when fructose is found in added sugars like high fructose corn syrup, it’s a different story. For one, it stands out from other sugars since the body cannot utilize it directly. The liver converts fructose to glucose first, so it can be used by the body as a source of energy. When the body gets too much of it and too quickly – like in the case of sweet juices and soda – the liver gets overloaded and instead converts fructose to fat, causing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

This has led to some diet purists claiming that fruit, by virtue of its fructose content, is harmful as well. This claim is inaccurate, however, as it’s not the sugar itself that’s bad, but the amount. Adding sweeteners to your diet, however, can lead to excessive fructose consumption, which can lead to the following effects.

• An imbalance in your blood lipid profile by raising VLDL (very low-density lipoprotein)levels, also known as “bad cholesterol.” This leads to fat deposition in the organs, particularly the heart, and makes you a candidate for cardiovascular disease;
• Increased insulin resistance which in turn increases risk of Type 2 diabetes;
• Increased leptin resistance, the hormone that regulates satiety, which effects how body fat is stored and causes you to overeat;
• Increased risk of colorectal cancer by accelerating the growth of tumors; and
• Increased levels of uric acid in the blood, leading to hypertension and gout.

The positive effects of eating fruit

Aside from fructose, most fruits are also loaded with important nutrients which can help the body feel fuller for longer and prevent cell damage.

Vitamins and minerals

Many fruits possess a lot of vitamins and minerals that you may otherwise overlook in your diet, and it’s easy to get these nutrients from fruit because “nature’s fast food” can be eaten as snacks or while you’re on the go. Most fruit, especially those eaten with the skin, are rich in vitamin C and antioxidants, which help prevent premature cell aging and damage. Fruit is also a great source of vitamin A, which helps protect your eyesight from age-related decline. You can also find electrolytes like potassium and magnesium — minerals that facilitate the functions of the nervous system — in most fruit. Folate, also called vitamin B9, is also present in citrus fruits. A large orange, for example, contains up to 55 micrograms or 14 percent of the recommended daily intake.

Fiber

Most fruit is packed with fiber and water, so you take time to eat and digest it. As a consequence, foods rich in fiber make you feel fuller for longer. By contrast, processed foods and sweets contain similar or higher amounts of fructose but have less nutritional value and satiety. Moreover, insoluble fiber maintains regular bowel movement, while soluble fiber plays a role in weight management, cholesterol regulation, and blood sugar stability. (Related: Learn which carbs are actually good for you in moderate amounts.)

Adding a variety of fruit to your diet is always a great idea. While many may contain sugar, the benefits far outweigh whatever negatives the fructose content brings.

Sources include:

Healthline.com 1

Healthline.com 2

Healthline.com 3

Livestrong.com

QuickAndDirtyTips.com

MedicalNewsToday.com

ScientificAmerican.com

Is China Hoarding Food, Gold And Other Commodities In Anticipation Of A Global Collapse?

Source

endoftheamericandream.com

by Michael Snyder

Aug 8, 2019

Does China believe that we are on the verge of a major global crisis?  The communist Chinese government has always been very big into planning, and it appears that they have decided that now is the time to hoard food, gold, and other commodities.  Of course, in recent days the fact that China is completely cutting off U.S. agricultural imports has made headlines all over the globe, but at the same time, China is dramatically increasing the amount of food that it is importing from the rest of the world.  The end result is actually a substantial surge in Chinese imports, and this is starting to show up in the official numbers.  For example, we just learned that Chinese soybean imports in July were actually up 8 percent compared to last year…

China’s soybean imports in July rose 8% from a year earlier, to their highest level in almost a year, customs data showed on Thursday, as importers increased their purchases of Brazilian beans on higher crush margins.

As I discussed the other day, China had already been drastically reducing soybean imports from the United States even before this recent announcement that U.S. agricultural imports were being cut off completely.  So American farmers were definitely not benefiting from this Chinese import boom, and now that China has decided not to buy any of our crops it is going to be a  “devastating blow” for our farmers…

With China officially pulling out of buying U.S. agricultural products, American farmers are losing one of their biggest customers. It could be a devastating blow in an already tough year for crops and commodity prices. It may also dent U.S. gross domestic product and hurt companies like Deere, whose business is directly tied to farming in the Heartland.

“Sales have already been lower this crop year because of the existing tariffs. If we went all the way to no China exports whatsoever, that would of course result in even larger market and price impacts,” said Pat Westhoff, director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri. “Cutting China completely out of the market would be a very big deal.”

Needless to say, China has had to turn to other sources to supply their needs, and last month we learned that China had decided to substantially increase wheat and soybean imports from Russia…

China has approved wheat imports from the Russian region of Kurgan, the Chinese customs office said on Friday, bringing Russia a step closer to its goal of dramatically increasing grain exports.

It also approved soybean imports from all parts of Russia, the General Administration of Customs said in a separate statement on its website, having all but halted U.S. soy imports as the trade dispute between Beijing and Washington deepened.

This is yet another sign that Russia and China are drawing closer, and this is something that we have been anticipating.

Meanwhile, China is also hoarding gold.  In fact, July was the eighth month in a row in which the Chinese increased their reserves…

China bought nearly 10 tons of gold in July, marking the eighth consecutive month the country increased its reserves, Bloomberg reported Wednesday morning.

The purchase is another signal from China that it’s gearing up for a prolonged trade conflict with the US. Gold serves as a historic safe-haven investment, and its price typically rises when markets and other currencies see increased volatility or prolonged weakness.

In addition, Bloomberg is reporting that Chinese commodity purchases of all types were very, very strong in July…

Commodity purchases by China rebounded strongly in July. Imports of soy to coal and crude oil gained, signaling demand in the world’s biggest buyer remains solid even as a trade spat with the U.S. escalates.

So why are the Chinese suddenly stocking up on everything?

Well, the truth is that the answer to that question is quite obvious.  The trade war between the United States and China is rapidly escalating, war in the Middle East could erupt at any time, the global economy has been steadily slowing down, crops are failing all over the planet, and everywhere we look we seem to see rising political instability.

In fact, we even see it in China’s own backyard.  After weeks of unprecedented political protests in Hong Kong, it looks like we could be right on the verge of a brutal crackdown.  The following comes from the New York Post…

After eight weeks of huge Hong Kong street protests against Beijing’s rule, the People’s Republic is massing police and soldiers just across the border. Message: If the protesters don’t quit, a bloodbath is coming.

Beijing has also started denouncing the protests as the work of American provocateurs. That’s so the regime can paint its Tiananmen Square-style crackdown as a battle against “foreign influence,” not a smashing of Chinese people who decided all on their own that they’d rather be free.

The relative stability that we have been enjoying for the past several years is ending, and it appears that the months ahead could potentially be quite chaotic.

Normally I would never suggest that anyone should emulate the Chinese government, but in this case they appear to be doing the wise thing.  Now is the time to get prepared for what is coming, because the road ahead promises to be quite tumultuous.

Most people don’t realize it, but U.S. relations with China have already passed the point of no return.  Things are going to become increasingly tense between our two nations, and that is going to have very serious implications for all of us.

 

About the author: Michael Snyder is a nationally-syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including Get Prepared Now, The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters. His articles are originally published on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News. From there, his articles are republished on dozens of other prominent websites. If you would like to republish his articles, please feel free to do so. The more people that see this information the better, and we need to wake more people up while there is still time.

Beyond Meat says its burgers are healthier than beef. Health experts aren’t so sure

Experts say the data doesn’t exist yet to show that a processed plant-based burger trumps meat

Source

http://www.cbc.ca

Sophia Harris

Jul 24, 2019 

Canadians are eating up U.S.-based Beyond Meat’s plant-based burger. But is it better for you than beef? (Elizabeth Chorney-Booth)

Canadians can’t get enough of Beyond Meat’s plant-based burger that’s designed to taste just like beef.

It has attracted not only vegetarians but also meat eaters such as Jim Allen, who recently dined on a Beyond Burger at A&W, believing it was the healthier choice.

“I was quite eager to try it,” said Allen, who lives in Toronto. “Everybody’s saying get away from red meat and eat more plants.”

Canada’s new food guide advises Canadians to consume less meat and eat more healthy plant-based protein foods such as beans and lentils.

But does Beyond’s burger qualify as a healthy protein alternative?

Beyond Meat says yes. On its website, the California-based company markets its plant-based products as “better for you” options that don’t come with the major health risks associated with certain kinds of meat.

However, nutrition experts CBC News interviewed argue that there’s no hard scientific data — at least not yet — to show that a processed plant-based patty trumps beef.

“Where is their research saying that — that this is better than eating a small, portion-controlled, lean piece of meat?” said Toronto-based dietitian and nutritionist Rosie Schwartz.

Toronto-based registered dietitian Rosie Schwartz said the Beyond Burger is highly processed, and may not necessarily be healthier than a small, portion-controlled, lean piece of meat. (CBC)

The Beyond Burger contains close to 20 ingredients, including refined coconut oil, pea protein isolate and flavouring. Schwartz says that qualifies it as a highly produced food — something that Canadians are advised to limit in their diet, along with processed and fatty meat.

“When Health Canada says we should be choosing more plant-based protein alternatives, I believe they’re talking about whole foods. They’re not talking about ultra-processed foods,” said Schwartz.

Beyond Meat CEO weighs in

Food scientist Ben Bohrer says when comparing a Beyond Burger with beef, the nutritional composition is fairly similar.

A Beyond patty contains 270 calories, five grams of saturated fat and 390 milligrams of sodium. In comparison, Walmart’s Great Value Beef Burger has 30 fewer calories and two more grams of saturated fat. It also has 300 mg less sodium, but it’s not pre-seasoned like the Beyond patty.

• How the new plant-based burgers stack up to beef

“They try to match ground beef as closely as they can,” said Bohrer, a professor at the University of Guelph. “If you’re doing that, then I don’t know how you could say that there’s advantages to the product that you’ve made.”

Beyond Meat CEO Ethan Brown argues such comparisons are too simplistic because they don’t factor in the reported health risks — such as cancer and heart disease — that are associated with eating red and processed meat.

Nutrition experts say there is no research showing a Beyond Burger is a healthier food choice compared to eating beef. (CBC)

“The media has an obligation to get this stuff right,” said Brown in a phone interview. “If consumers are reading these [news] pieces, and going away thinking they just as well might be eating red meat, that’s not fair to them.”

As proof, Beyond Meat sent CBC News information on numerous health studies looking at the implications of eating meat.

Research lacking

The most recent study the company pointed to was published in June by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. It found that upping one’s red meat intake — processed red meat, in particular — increased the risk of premature death.

“I’m imploring people to please do their research,” said Brown.

“The health implications of red and processed meat really stretch far beyond saturated fat levels.”

Ethan Brown, founder and CEO of Beyond Meat, says comparing the nutritional composition of a Beyond Burger with beef is too simplistic because it doesn’t factor in the reported health risks — such as cancer and heart disease — that are associated with eating red and processed meat. (Brendan McDermid/Reuters)

Dr. Frank Hu, senior author of the Harvard study, says the research so far demonstrates that eating too much red meat, especially processed meat, can be harmful to one’s health.

“Replacing red meat with other sources of protein, especially plant-based protein food, can reduce [the] risk of chronic disease and premature death,” said Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard.

But he said we don’t yet have research showing that a processed plant-based burger is a healthier food choice.

• Plant-based eating goes mainstream as Beyond Meat targets Canadian grocery shelves

• ‘Is red meat good or bad?’ Researchers say that’s the wrong question

“Based on the data we have, we can make a prediction they’re better,” said Hu. “But this type of study hasn’t been done yet to directly compare the health effects of the two types of burgers.”

Beyond Meat, however, is sticking to its claims.

“Given the abundance of research clearly demonstrating the link between red and processed meat consumption and health risks, we stand firmly behind our belief that Beyond Meat products are an improvement nutritionally,” Dariush Ajami, Beyond Meat’s chief innovation officer, said in an email.

He added that the Beyond burger also has the benefit of containing no cholesterol or animal-derived saturated fat, and is lower in saturated fat than burgers made from fattier cuts of beef.

A&W’s Beyond Meat burger, with bun and sauces, contains 1,1110 milligrams of sodium. The restaurant chain says customers can modify their burgers to reduce the sodium. (A&W)

As for customer Allen, he’s decided that unless new research tells him otherwise, he’ll continue to presume that Beyond’s plant-based burger is healthier. However, he doesn’t plan to purchase it again at a fast-food restaurant. That’s because he discovered that once the bun and sauces are added, A&W’s version has 1,110 milligrams of sodium.

“I’m disappointed,” said Allen, who’s trying to cut down his sodium intake.

A&W told CBC News that customers can modify their burger to suit their dietary needs, such as swapping the bun for a lettuce wrap.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sophia Harris

Business reporter

Sophia Harris has worked as a CBC video journalist across the country, covering everything from the start of the annual lobster fishery in Yarmouth, N.S., to farming in Saskatchewan. She now has found a good home at the business unit in Toronto. Contact: sophia.harris@cbc.ca

• @sophiaharrisCBC
• More by this author

Enjoy your cheese! New research says it’s probably good for you after all

Source

Natural News

by: Evangelyn Rodriguez

Monday, July 15, 2019

Cheese has long been considered as fattening and unhealthy. It is rich in saturated fat, which is linked to heart disease. However, a recent study shows that, contrary to popular belief, cheese may actually be beneficial for the heart as well as general health.

Is cheese really unhealthy?

Cheese is a dairy product made by curdling milk using acids or bacterial cultures. Processed cheese, in particular, contains high amounts of saturated fat and sodium. These two components are often cited as the main reasons why cheese should be consumed in small amounts or even avoided altogether. According to the American Heart Association, saturated fat raises the levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) or “bad” cholesterol, which increases the risk of heart disease. In the same vein, too much sodium elevates blood pressure, which leads to hypertension – another risk factor for heart disease. Excess sodium intake also increases a person’s risk of developing stroke, heart failure, osteoporosis, kidney disease, and stomach cancer.

However, in recent years, studies have emerged contradicting previous findings regarding the unhealthiness of saturated fat. New scientific evidence points to saturated fat being healthier than processed carbohydrates, like sugar, pasta, and white bread. The results of these studies even suggest that saturated fat in dairy products and meat may confer cardiometabolic benefits. For instance, a meta-analysis published in PLOS ONE focused on the role of butter — another dairy product with high saturated fat — in total mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and Type 2 diabetes. Researchers found that consumption of butter has very little association with either of the three conditions. In fact, their results imply that saturated fat might offer protection against diabetes. These data are just part of a growing body of evidence suggesting that the low-fat diet may actually be just a misguided trend.

Cheese consumption may not be associated with heart disease

In a recent meta-analysis that appeared in the European Journal of Nutrition, researchers from China and the Netherlands studied the effects of long-term cheese consumption on the development of CVD. They combined data from 15 prospective studies that involved more than 200,000 people. The researchers reported that people who ate more cheese had a 14 percent lower risk of CVD compared with those who ate less or didn’t eat cheese at all. The same people also had a 10 percent lower risk of stroke.

However, the researchers also found a U-shaped relationship between cheese consumption and CVD risk, suggesting that eating a lot of cheese isn’t necessarily good for the health either. Only people who ate about 40 g of cheese on average seemed to benefit from it; they had the lowest risks for CVD and stroke. Experts believe that while the results mean something, they only show an association, not a concrete cause-and-effect relationship. Further studies are needed to truly vindicate cheese and determine once and for all whether cheese does more good for the health than bad.

The healthy side of cheese

Cheese isn’t just composed of fat, salt, and unhealthy things. On the contrary, cheese can provide important nutrients for the body. It even offers some health benefits. Here are some healthful facts about cheese that you might not be aware of. (h/t to Time.com)

• It is a great source of protein, calcium, and the hard-to-get vitamin B12.
• It could lower the risk of stroke, CVD and bad cholesterol levels.
• It doesn’t increase blood pressure despite its high sodium content.
• It contains probiotics that promote gut health. (Related: Swiss cheese found to contain powerful probiotic that promotes longevity.)
• It contains palmitoleate, a fatty acid that lowers blood sugar, fights inflammation, and protects against Type 2 diabetes.

Cheese has been branded as bad food for years, but there are always two sides to every coin. As with any food, healthy or not, eating in moderation is the best policy to adopt. If you love cheese, you can continue eating it, but in regulated amounts. This ensures that you get only the best out of your food and do not cause any harm to your health.

Sources include:

Health.com

EverydayHealth.com

Heart.org

LiveScience.com

Time.com 1

Time.com 2

Journals.PLOS.org

Link.Springer.com

If we were really worried about children’s health, we would BAN junk food advertising

Source

Natural News

by: Isabelle Z.

Saturday, July 13, 2019

The classic picture of obesity is typically a balding, middle-aged man with a huge beer belly protruding from an ill-fitting shirt hanging unattractively across his waist. However, a  different vision of obesity is becoming all too common as the beaches fill up this summer with overweight children whose swimsuits can barely contain them. While their parents certainly shoulder some of the blame, there are a lot of factors that contribute to this problem – and predatory junk food ads are one part of it that can and should be controlled.

In fact, the Obesity Health Alliance is calling for all ads for foods high in sugar, fat and salt to be banned before 9:00 pm. This U.K. coalition is made up of more than 40 organizations that are trying to tackle weight problems. They’d like to see the ads restricted not only on live TV but also TV on demand, online, in social media, apps and games, at the movies, on billboards and on the radio.

Current restrictions in Britain only apply to programs or sites that are geared toward children, and this means that kids watching shows like game shows and talent competitions with their family are still being exposed to such ads.

Most people are opposed to junk food ads targeting children

A survey carried out by YouGov found that people widely agree with such sentiments. Sixty-nine percent of people believe that junk food marketing plays a role in childhood obesity. When it comes to junk food ad bans until 9p.m., 72 percent of people support one during popular family shows on TV, 70 percent support one online, and 68 percent would like to see one on digital advertising outside of homes, such as digital posters at bus stops or cinemas.

The University of Liverpool’s Dr. Emma Boyland said that research has shown that exposure to junk food advertising has a negative effect on kids’ diets. Making matters worse, overweight kids are more vulnerable to the suggestions of ads, which results in them consuming more calories than kids of a healthy weight when they see these ads for junk food.

A survey of nearly 2,500 children carried out by Cancer Research U.K. found that those who watch TV or use the internet for more than 30 minutes a day have a greater likelihood of asking for, buying, or consuming junk food.

It also revealed that each additional hour a child spends watching commercial TV is linked to a 22 percent greater chance of asking for foods they saw advertised, a 21 percent greater chance of buying food they saw advertised, a 23 percent greater chance of drinking sugary beverages, an 18 percent greater chance of eating pastries, and a 16 percent greater chance of eating chips and sweets. Similar trends were associated with additional time spent online.

Kids might not have the power to buy food themselves, but they do have what ad execs term “pester power” – every parent knows just how relentless kids can be when they want something. The food companies tap into this, and it’s part of the reason childhood obesity is getting out of control.

As long as food companies are allowed to target kids with brightly-colored ads that make eating food that will slowly but surely kill them somehow seem fun and exciting, the childhood obesity epidemic is unlikely to let up any time soon. One in five school-aged kids in the U.S. are already obese, and while many factors can contribute to the problem, we shouldn’t let the pursuit of the almighty dollar be one of them.

Sources for this article include:

DailyMail.co.uk

ITV.com

NHS.uk

CDC.gov

Toward an Eco-Socialist Revolution

Toward an Eco-Socialist Revolution

With permission from

http://www.counterpunch.org

by ROB URIE

JULY 12, 2019

The most important political project of the modern era is an appropriately conceived and implemented eco-socialist Green New Deal. If done right, such a program would facilitate a transition away from the environmental and social pathologies of industrial capitalism to a world where people exist in symbiosis with the bounty of nature. If done wrong, it would be the last gasp of a relationship with the world that has brought a collective ‘us’ to environmental ruin.

The social problem is one of transformation, of taking apart the ways of doing things that aren’t working— and they are myriad, to create new relationships that work in concert with ‘the world,’ most particularly for its inhabitants. Given the trajectory of environmental decline, Western political economy will either be used to ring-fence rich from poor to leave the poor to their own devices, problems will be deemed unsolvable and decline will take its course, or capitalism will be overthrown and replaced with something workable.

The logical and humane path forward is to undertake a profound transformation of global political economy beginning with reconsidering the human condition— what meaningful existence entails, with a grounding in social justice. Given that background political and economic relations aren’t conducive to collective action, the path forward— should such be possible, will come through creating the conditions in both spheres for democratic participation.

Graph: The sources of environmental decline are easy to identify through CO2 concentrations. First came industrialization. Then following WWII came the distribution of the American capitalist model around the world. Competition to control industrial inputs, e.g. oil and gas, led to most of the military conflicts of the modern era. The solution to current environmental woes is to stop creating them. Doing so would mean the end of capitalism. Source: ourworldindata.org.

Urgency comes through the relationship of existing ways of doing things to the rising costs of correcting environmental imbalances. The greater these become, the more cumbersome, and therefore the less politically likely, solutions will be. It is long-term environmental relationships that have been altered, meaning there are no quick fixes. The only guarantee is that whatever the costs in the present, they will be exponentially greater in the future.

Analysis and arithmetic argue against capitalist solutions to capitalist problems. Green production is neither green, nor can it replace existing dirty technologies fast enough to sufficiently reduce environmental harms. The issue gets to the heart of the capitalist conundrum. In a narrow sense, making products that are more environmentally efficient will lower their carbon footprint. In a broader sense, making clean products is intrinsically dirty.

The popular imagining of ‘the problem’ emerges from the logic of capitalism where intended outcomes are considered unrelated to unintended outcomes even though they 1) both emerge from the same production process and 2) are indissociable in the sense that one can’t be produced without the other. In like fashion, green technologies solve specific problems while creating others. When the total costs of green technologies are considered, what becomes apparent is that the broader logic is flawed.

The arithmetic problem is laid out by the IPCC, sort of. The realm of the IPCC report is climate change, meaning that species loss (mass extinction) is considered in a separate silo. To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade requires radically reducing carbon emissions as well as actively de-carbonizing the atmosphere. The popular conception of a Green New Deal is to 1) increase carbon emissions to build low emission technologies while 2) gradually phasing out existing technologies.

A typical way of calculating the impact of green production is to reduce estimated emissions from existing technologies as more efficient green technologies replace them. But the old and new technologies both exist in broadly integrated webs of economic production. By analogy, an electric car may (or may not) produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a gasoline powered car, but this tells us little about the environmental impact of manufacturing cars more generally.

What of the infrastructure— factories, roads, transmission lines, industrial inputs, etc. that must be built and maintained to produce them? And what of the inputs that must be mined, transported, processed, transported (again), processed (again) and transported (again) to production facilities? This research paper by economist Jan Kregel provides a description of the distribution of capitalist production. The environmental impact of ‘green’ products is the totality of what went into their production, not end-use calculations.

Regarding the manufacture of solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles, not only should the environmental costs be calculated as carbon emissions, but also in terms of the arable land, breathable air and drinkable water consumed. And what of the natural systems destroyed? These have bearing when habitat loss is considered. Habitat loss is also both a product of industrial agriculture and it impacts the future viability of all agriculture. These in turn are aspects of natural systems, interrelated webs of life that people disrupt at our own peril. This is a central finding of research into mass extinction.

A Green New Deal conceived as tampering around the edges of industrial capitalism— employing the un- and under-employed to manufacture solar panels and batteries for electric vehicles, would add to carbon emissions and other environmental harms at a point in history when the collective ‘we’ can’t afford it. However, when considered more broadly as a social and environmental program operating under a strict carbon budget, it is the best chance for making the transition to a sustainable and just future.

The carbon budget should both be taken to heart and broadened to include a concept of sustainability beyond just the climate. Within the carbon budget laid out by the IPCC, there is no way to implement the conception of a GND (Green New Deal) as existing political economy with green manufacturing added to it. In fact, there is no conception of a GND other than as funding a radical transition away from almost everything that defines current economic production. And the alternative isn’t business as usual— environmental decline will force the issues.

Given the central role of agriculture in both climate change and species loss, land reform is needed to decentralize, rescale and localize agricultural production. This has historically been among the most contentious issues between capitalist and socialist visions of political economy. Powerful corporations currently own or control vast swaths of agricultural land. A GND could compensate large tract owners for their land and the proceeds be taxed to assure that democratic political control is maintained.

Second, agribusiness should be removed from anything related to agriculture in favor of regenerative farming methods. Animal agriculture should be nationalized, with humane conditions mandated and the price of animal products made to reflect their true production costs, including environmental costs. Local and regional agricultural cooperatives should be created as autonomous and democratic collectives, with legal mandates to grow and distribute nutritious food to everyone in the region while minimizing the environmental footprint.

Local and regional agricultural collectives could serve as models for green production of non-agricultural goods. Using comprehensive environmental accounting methods that have been around since the 1970s, all environmental costs related to producing and distributing goods should be mandated to 1) minimize environmental production costs while 2) prioritizing the production of necessities (housing, clothing). Inclusive employment would be used to produce and distribute necessities according to need.

Prototypes for this system already exist across the U.S. Amish communities use organic and regenerative farming methods, minimally participate in consumer culture, avoid energy intensive technologies, support specialized production within their communities and grow what makes sense for their respective regions and growing seasons. They also partake of modern medicine and dentistry, participate in the cash economy and trade goods and services locally and regionally.

There is no agrarian romance at work here. In the poor rural areas where I meet the Amish, they are conspicuously healthier than the non-Amish, have established community support systems and seemingly functioning lives, relationships and economies. This, despite having little to none of the consumer accoutrement considered essential in the wider culture. Life is hard everywhere, but the essential nature claimed for capitalist culture— of consumption, acquisition and individual self-realization, seems improbable given this focus on community. Left largely unconsidered regarding ending capitalism is that there really might be better ways of doing things.

Despite the deep instantiation of agrarianism in the American imagination, most Americans don’t / won’t see reversion to primitive agrarian collectives as viable. And such a vision is utopian without taking apart the large, complex and deeply integrated relations of Western political economy. And even if these were addressed, the rest of the world shows little indication of abandoning capitalism.

If the world could be sectioned off and environmental decline with it, these would be good counter arguments. However, that China has been reinvented with a heaping helping of green technology has done little to slow global environmental decline. Russia is a petrostate with a long history of human-inflicted agricultural calamities. Like the rest of us, the Russians will need a functioning climate and the species-abundance that makes agriculture possible.

The proposals deemed realistic— green tinkering around the edges, won’t solve the environmental problems the world faces. And the reason that potential solutions are so complicated is that social complexity has been built into modern political economy. Addressing the parts means addressing the whole— witness the systemic carbon footprint that green production is indissociable from. The problem isn’t aspects of capitalist modernity, it is the whole of it.

The attractiveness of pre-modern political economy is that there is several thousand years of accumulated knowledge to support it. Homes built before the existence of mechanical systems were situated to capture sun and shade and could be opened to allow air flow in summer and closed to restrict it in winter. They were built using materials and methods that allowed single rooms or areas of houses to be heated with degrading the broader integrity of the buildings.

Traditional agricultural methods likewise descended as accumulated knowledge to ‘passively’ control insect damage, use the entire growing season to maximize fresh food production and produce crops that last through the winter. Monoculture production is an industrial package that includes genetically modified seeds and chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Agribusiness and regenerative agriculture are fundamentally incompatible.

Industrial agriculture has historically replaced traditional farming methods by externalizing costs. In economic terms, industrial food costs less to grow than through traditional farming. However, regenerative agriculture has low environmental costs while industrial agriculture has high environmental costs. Through this mismatch between economic and environmental costs, what is efficient by capitalist logic is suicidal by environmental logic. The environmental reckoning that is upon us tells the true story.

The idea of commensurability is crucial here. A forest felled to build a shopping center represents the loss of a functioning ecosystem. A price or tax charged for doing so, e.g. a carbon tax, doesn’t replace the forest in environmental terms. Money is to a forest as a horse is to a rocking chair. Outside of capitalist theology, the concept is nonsensical. And neither God nor the forest set the price or received the payment. Even in capitalist terms the market price is contextual— it depends on factors like scarcity to which the forest bears no relation.

As it regards land redistribution, the Amish way of spreading their communities isn’t scalable because of land costs. They go where arable land is cheap. Any large-scale redistribution of land as part of a Green New Deal could only work if land costs are near zero. Borrowing money to buy agricultural land immediately imparts the logic and relations of capitalism. The lender would own the land until the debt is repaid, giving it say over how the land is used. The same would be true for agrarian collectives globally.

In the most basic sense, capitalism must be gotten out of the way for a GND to produce environmentally sustainable political economy. Gresham’s Law implies that solar panel producers can undercut their competition by externalizing their costs (polluting). This leaves the firms that can most effectively pollute as the survivors of market competition. Regenerative agriculture can’t compete with industrial agriculture because the competition is rigged.

The proposition laid out here isn’t that the whole of Western political economy be shifted to primitive agrarian production. It is to suggest that there exists accumulated knowledge about how to get by in the world that preceded capitalist modernity. The ‘end of history,’ the broad and deep replacement of the knowledge, methods, relationships and logic that preceded modern capitalism, leaves few places to turn as it is proved unworkable.

The first battle to be fought toward environmental and social justice is political. The politicians who used a Green New Deal as a talking point, as well as the few who actually thought about it, can’t win the political battle without a broad political movement backing them. However, such a movement would be foolish to muster the political strength and then hand it over to stewards of the existing order.

The 2020 presidential election seems the time and place to raise the political stakes. Given the improbability of resolving environmental problems within capitalism, and that Bernie Sanders is the only national political figure to take a stand, however qualified, against capitalism, his candidacy can serve as a rallying point. Unless radical action is taken quickly, events will unfold that pose a risk to large numbers of people. Once Mr. Sanders has been pushed out of the way by establishment Democrats, and he will be, events can take on a life of their own. Crisis by default or with a purpose, the choice is yours.

 

More articles by:ROB URIE

Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is published by CounterPunch Books.