Coca-Cola’s Beverages are “Poisonous” Rules Nigerian Judge, Boycott Ensues

CocaCola

Source: TheMindUnleashed
Christina Sarich
April 5, 2017

Coca-Cola is in vehement opposition to the recent ruling of a Nigerian judge concerning their sugary sodas. In a lawsuit over beverages Coca-Cola makes in a Nigerian factory, a Lagos High Court judge recently stated that the drinks contained high levels of carcinogens that are both harmful and “poisonous.”

coca

The Carcinogens in Question

The carcinogens in question are benzoic acid and other additives like 4-methylimidazole (4-MI), which are used to create the “caramel coloring” that is added to Coca-Cola’s products. The judge’s warning implies that consumers of the popular drinks have much more to worry about than just rotting teeth and obesity caused by sugar consumption. (Just months ago, it was found that Coca-Cola funded scientists were paid to tell Americans they were too worried about what they were eating and drinking though sugary sodas have been directly linked to an obesity epidemic.)

A Nigerian judge has called Coca-Cola products

A Nigerian judge has called Coca-Cola products “poisonous.”

The Nigerian court Justice, Adedayo Oyebanji, held that high levels of carcinogenic additives were causing an unnecessary health risk, and that when mixed with ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) they could cause dire health consequences. Coca-Cola’s Nigerian Bottling Company (NBC) was forced to put warning labels on Coke’s products – including Fanta and Sprite, and awarded 2 million naira (around $6,350 U.S. dollars) against the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) for failing to ensure specific health standards.

“It is manifest that NAFDAC has been grossly irresponsible in its regulatory duties to the consumers of Fanta and Sprite manufactured by Nigeria Bottling Company,” the judge said.

He continued, “NAFDAC has failed the citizens of this great nation by its certification as satisfactory for human consumption products … which become poisonous in the presence of ascorbic acid.”

Meanwhile the Nigerian Health Ministry released a claim stating that Coca-Cola’s products were safe to consume even though several studies including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) have confirmed that soft drinks containing a mixture of the salt of benzoic acid, sodium benzoate and vitamin C can cause cancer and other chronic conditions

Coca-Cola representatives are also trying to quash the roiling ramifications of Justice Oyebanji’s verdict now that Nigerians are boycotting Coca-Cola products in the lawsuit’s aftermath.

Additionally, the NBC and the federal food-safety agency are both appealing the ruling, arguing: “Coke’s products don’t exceed benzoic acid limits in Nigeria …” The Coca-Cola Company and the agency cite limits set by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which technically wouldn’t label the sodas as dangerous, but only because permissible ingredient levels vary by country, depending on many factors.

Coca-Cola’s Incendiary History

Many are not wise to Coca-Cola’s shady past, though most are well advised of the company’s current lackluster image.

  • Coca-Cola Beverages Used to Contain Cocaine. This addictive drug was used to keep people coming back for more Coke. It was only removed in 1929, more than forty years after Coke products were introduced to a mass market. (In other words, plenty of time for the company to have developed a mass following through a highly-addictive product.)
  • Coca Leaf Extract is Still Used in CocaCola Products Today. This plant alkaloid still has a highly stimulating effect on the brain, just like speed.
  • The Coca-Cola Corporation has been Accused of Assassination to Further the Company’s Greed. The notorious Columbian death squad terrorism funded by Coca-Cola are detailed here.
  • Coca-Cola is Not All-American. The company has promoted its drinks as all American when they were doing business with Nazi Germany, with their logo resting comfortably next to the 3rd Reich’s Swastika.

    Is the Nigerian judge over-zealous in his determination that Coca-Cola’s products are “poisonous”? If the company’s history is explored, he seems quite right.

    Read More At: TheMindUnleashed.com

    Image: SourceSource

WARNING: Sugar destroys your body’s ability to absorb these 5 essential nutrients

Image: WARNING: Sugar destroys your body’s ability to absorb these 5 essential nutrients
Source: NaturalNews.com
Russel Davis
March 24, 2017

The sugar industry in the U.S. thrives at a whopping $100 billion in annual revenue. That is because Americans consume an average of 150 lbs of sugar  per year. Most people are aware of the adverse effects of excessive sugar consumption such as obesity, diabetes, and cancer. However, what is known as well-known is that high sugar intake leads to nutrient deficiency. Excessive sugar intake was shown to deplete and reduce the absorption of essential vitamins and minerals needed by the body.

High sugar intake robs the body of essential nutrients

The human body can synthesize vitamin C on its own, but eating too much sugar limits the beneficial effects of the vitamin. Sugar and vitamin C use the same transporters to reach the cells. More sugar in the blood stream means more competition for vitamin C absorption. Increased glucose levels appear to inhibit vitamin C from entering the cells, thereby resulting in limited vitamin absorption. Sugar-induced vitamin C deficiency may result in suppressed tissue regeneration and decreased immune function.

Vitamin D, another important nutrient, can also fall prey to sugar’s unwanted effects. Sugar promotes the expression of enzymes that degrade vitamin D, while simultaneously decreasing enzymes needed to synthesize the vitamin. This then results in vitamin D deficiency. Low vitamin levels were tied to various health conditions such as autoimmunity, dementia, and infection as well as inflammation and certain types of cancer. Vitamin D deficiency was more common in regions with the least amount of sunlight.

Excessive sugar intake results in high blood sugar levels and increased insulin rates. In turn, higher blood sugar and insulin levels promote magnesium excretion by the kidneys, thereby inhibiting tubular reabsorption of the mineral. This prompts the body to use up its magnesium reserves. Magnesium is essential in certain body functions such as blood sugar control, muscle and nerve regulation, and bone building. Excreting this essential mineral from the body can lead to adverse health effects.

Eating too much sugar greatly affects chromium absorption in the body. Similar to magnesium, sugar triggers chromium deficiency by prompting the body to excrete the essential mineral. One study revealed that eating a diet containing 35% sugar leads to a 10% increase in chromium excretion. Chromium is a key mineral the promotes blood glucose control, insulin binding, and macronutient metabolism. Chromium deficiency leads to high blood sugar levels and poor glucose tolerance.

Calcium is vital for skeletal health, blood clotting, and electrolyte balance. Vitamin D expedites calcium absorption in the body by regulating calcium transport in the small intestine. Excessive sugar intake was shown to negatively affect vitamin D absorption, which in turn causes a ripple effect to the body’s calcium absorption. Sugar was also shown to promote calcium excretion by inhibiting tubular reabsorption by the kidneys. Low calcium levels result in unwanted health conditions.

Sweet killer: The nasty effects of high sugar intake on the body

People are becoming more aware of the undesirable health consequences of excessive sugar intake through extensive research and information dissemination. Sugar is associated with a host of other damaging reactions.  To wit: eating too much sugar leads to suppressed immune function and triggers hyperactivity in children. It may lead to kidney damage, increased blood acidity, and advanced aging.

Tooth decay, arthritis, asthma, as well as digestive disorders and candida albicans (a fungus that causes yeast infections) are also among the results of excessive sugar intake. Consuming high amounts of sugar can result in atherosclerosis, eczema, asthma, depression, and free radical formation. Decreased cardiac blood flow, brittle tendons and increased liver and kidney sizes were also among the most hazardous effects of sugar.

Follow more news on sugar and other sweeteners at Sweeteners.news.

Read more At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NaturalHealth365.com

ThePaleoMom.com

TheDoctorWithin.com

Whole Food’s promise to label everything with GMOs by 2018 is quickly approaching

Image: Whole Food’s promise to label everything with GMOs by 2018 is quickly approaching
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 21, 2017

As 2017 trudges on and 2018 grows ever-closer, inquiring minds want to know: will Whole Foods meet their promise of total and complete GMO labeling by next year? With tumbling sales and the closing of multiple stores, going back on their word is not something the food retailer can afford to do right now.

Four years ago, Whole Foods announced their plans to roll out GMO labels for all products that contain genetically modified ingredients. The grocery chain described their March 2013 decree as being the first time a grocery store would set a deadline for labeling GMO products. At the time, Whole Foods did not disclose what kind of labeling they intended to use.

On the Whole Foods website, the grocery chain states that they are “well on their way” to meeting their 2018 GMO labeling goal, and advertises that they have more than 30,000 organic and 13,500 Non-GMO Project-verified items in stores already. Whole Foods purports itself as a leader in the organic industry and claims to be one of the first retailers to pursue GMO transparency.

“At Whole Foods Market, we believe you have the right to know what’s in your food. So we’re the first national grocery chain committed to providing GMO (genetically modified organism) transparency for our customers,” states their web page.

The irony here, of course, is the fact that Whole Foods supported legislation that would dismantle state-level GMO labeling efforts, and replace them with at the federal level with fake GMO labels in the form of a QR code. Whole Foods Market CEO Walter Robb is on the record announcing his support of the phony Stabenow-Roberts bill. [RELATED: Read more about GMO labeling and legislation at GMO.news.]

Mike Adams reported that in this Aspen Institute video discussing the bill, Robb stated, “My view on the bill is that, and I’m pretty intimately aware of it, is that I think it’s an incredible thing that Sen. Stabenow has put together with Sen. Robert, when you take a look at the atmosphere up there on Capitol Hill, that this much was accomplished together [emphasis added].”

Robb went on to explain how he thought manufacturer choice in GMO labeling efforts was a great idea, and praised the compromise. But is it really a compromise when one has to use a QR code or call a 1-800 number to verify a product is GMO-free? It’s a deceptive compromise that will be cumbersome and confusing to consumers.

While Robb may be the co-CEO of a grocery chain, he is also quite the politician. Soon after the criticism of his support of the bill began rolling in, Robb made a statement on Facebook and authored a blog post in an attempt to explain away his approval of the bill. Naturally, the blog post was completed with a reminder of the company’s “transparency” and a few touches of self-aggrandizement for their efforts.

Robb has even reportedly called Vermont’s GMO labeling “too complex to follow.”

But, Whole Foods promise of GMO labeling hasn’t come to fruition quite yet — and there are lots of questions at hand. For example, will they be allowing their product manufacturers to opt for QR codes that cannot be read by humans and require a scanner? Or will they do the transparent thing and insist on a simple, easily understood label?

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

WholeFoodsMarket.com

DenverPost.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

#Vault7 Problem Reaction Solution – #NewWorldNextWeek

Source: TheCorbettReport
James Corbett
March 9, 2017

Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:

Story #1: CIA Can Hack Cars to Carry Out “Undetectable Assassinations” – Just Like Michael Hastings
http://bit.ly/2n892M6

Crashes of Convenience: Michael Hastings
http://bit.ly/2mDpjLq

“The Operators” pp. 64-65
http://bit.ly/2m0Uex8

Story #2: Why “More Than a Million Traders” Are Boycotting Coca-Cola, Pepsi In India
http://bit.ly/2mDudrG

Interview With Max Keiser On Coke Boycott
http://bit.ly/2mDtc2C

NWNW Flashback: Indian Rapper “Overwhelmed” by Success of Unilever Protest Song (Aug. 14, 2015)
http://bit.ly/2m15oBV

Story #3: 3D-Printed House Takes Less Than A Day To Build And Only Costs $10,000
http://bit.ly/2mDuniW

#GoodNewsNextWeek: Sharing Is Fundamental
http://bit.ly/2ml8UsJ

Researchers: 9% of the world’s food supply is thrown away or left to spoil

Image: Researchers: 9% of the world’s food supply is thrown away or left to spoil
Source: NaturalNews.com
Tracey Watson
March 7, 2017

Unemployment and rising food costs have resulted in about a billion people around the world going to bed hungry every day – that’s nearly one in seven people who is officially starving. This problem is only likely to worsen, since the global population is growing at an unprecedented rate, and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs predicts that it will reach around 9.6 billion by 2050. With statistics like these, one would expect that the whole world would be focused on minimizing waste to ensure that more people have access to food, but just the opposite is true. In fact, according to Science Daily, almost 9 percent of the world’s food supply is simply thrown away or left to spoil, while around 10 percent more is lost to overeating.

These startling figures were highlighted in a recent study conducted by researchers from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland’s Rural College, the University of York, the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, and the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, and published in the journal Agricultural Systems. The study focused on 10 key areas of global food production to see where the most losses were occurring, utilizing information gleaned from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization.

Some of the study’s startling findings included the fact that almost half of all crops harvested worldwide (around 2.1 billion tons) are lost to poor production processes, over-consumption and waste by consumers. The least efficient and most wasteful of all food production involves livestock, with more than two-thirds of all product lost (around 78 percent, or 840 million tons). Livestock production also directly impacts crop production, since about 1.08 billion tons of fresh produce is needed to produce just 240 million tons of animal products like eggs, meat, and dairy products. Taken holistically, livestock production alone is responsible for about 40 percent of all lost crops.

The study’s findings regarding overeating are especially interesting; it would seem that while a billion people starve, the other six billion are just plain greedy and/or wasteful.

“Reducing losses from the global food system would improve food security and help prevent environmental harm. Until now, it was not known how over-eating impacts on the system. Not only is it harmful to health, we found that over-eating is bad for the environment and impairs food security,” said the lead researcher of the study, Dr. Peter Alexander, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of Geo Sciences and Scotland’s Rural College.

In the U.S., some of the biggest contributors to food waste are supermarkets, which throw out an average of 3,000 pounds of produce per store, each year. For the most part, the food is rejected not for safety, but for esthetic reasons. If fresh fruit is starting to turn brown or is in some other way blemished it will be consigned to the trash heap, as will produce that is perfect in appearance, simply to make way for new stock to be displayed on the shelves.

Though legislation was put in place in 1996 to protect stores from prosecution should food past its “sell-by-date” be donated to the hungry, most supermarkets still balk at the idea of donating food they perceive to be “old,” citing fears of litigation or bad press as concerns.

It is said that knowledge is power, and it is vitally important that consumers become aware of the enormous food supply problem being faced worldwide. After all, it is the picky consumer who refuses to buy even slightly blemished produce that is a large contributor to the problem of waste. And how often do we toss out fresh produce that we have simply forgotten about or failed to use quickly enough, never stopping to think about the millions of people worldwide who are doing the same thing, all while millions of others starve? (RELATED: Great tips to help you stop wasting food can be found in this Natural News article.)

It is time to turn the tide. In a generation of people who have become accustomed to instant gratification and visually perfect produce, we need to become more self-sufficient and less wasteful. Our very survival depends upon it. Follow more news about the food supply at Harvest.news.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources include:

ScienceDaily.com

UN.org

TheGuardian.com

NaturalNews.com

Blogs.NaturalNews.com

Children’s consumption of artificial sweeteners has officially hit a 200% increase

Image: Children’s consumption of artificial sweeteners has officially hit a 200% increase
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
February 25, 2017

Artificial sweeteners are contentious ingredients that have been the subject of controversy for quite some time. It seems as if since the day they were introduced into the marketplace, their safety has been questioned. In spite of overwhelming concern, sugar substitutes have carved their very own niche in our society and have become a staple in many homes.

Unsurprisingly, an increasing number of adults and children are consuming artificial sweeteners. These non-nutritive substitutes are marketed as low-calorie, and few are able to resist the chance to have the cake and eat it too. However, the health consequences of these nefarious chemicals still remains something of an unknown.

Currently, several artificial sweeteners have been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They are aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame-potassium, saccharin, neotame and advantame. Stevia is a natural low-calorie sweetener that is also FDA-approved. In spite of FDA approval, many people rightfully remain skeptical at the actual effects these chemicals may have on the human body.

The findings were recently published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. A staggering 200 percent increase in artificial sweetener consumption among children was observed, while a 54 percent increase was seen in adults. This drastic increase was seen between the years of 1999 and 2012.

In a press release, the study’s lead author Dr. Allison Sylvetsky, an assistant professor of exercise and nutrition sciences at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, said,”The findings are important, especially for children, because some studies suggest a link between low-calorie sweeteners and obesity, diabetes and other health issues.”

This study offers some of the most recent stats on the consumption of low-calorie sweeteners in the form of food, beverages or packets for the United States’ population.

What is most concerning about the substantial increase in artificial sweetener usage among children is that the effects of long-term consumption on kids is entirely unknown. The Nutrition Source from Harvard’s School of Public Health recommends that children avoid consuming sugar substitutes for this very reason.

To conduct their study, the research team disseminated data from the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES) from 2009 to 2012, and compared their analysis to a previous study that used data from 1999-2008. In total, data from some 17,000 people was analyzed.

More specifically, the scientists reviewed survey results from two dietary interviews in which participants were asked to recall what they ate and drank during the previous 24-hour period. This, of course, comes with many inherent drawbacks. Regardless, their analysis revealed that 44 percent of adults and 20 percent of children were consuming sugar substitutes more than once a day.

Interestingly enough, the team noted that the amount of low-calorie sweetened foods and drinks consumed actually increased with body mass index. Previous studies have also indicated that consuming artificial sweeteners may actually increase your risk of diabetes, obesity and other health issues.

The team also discovered that some children as young as two-years old were reportedly consuming artificial sweeteners, either in food or drink. Given that the data collected was self-reported, it is very possible that the number of adults and children consuming artificial sweeteners could be much higher than indicated.

The study authors noted that some parents may not understand that labels indicating “light” or “no added sugar” could mean a product contains a low-calorie sweetener. It’s also possible that many people do not understand that those ingredients are not inherently healthier than natural sugar.

In their news release, the team advised parents to follow federal dietary guidelines, recommendations that include limiting consumption of added sugars.  Sylvetsky also suggested, “Drink water instead of soda. Sweeten a serving of plain yogurt with a little fruit.”

“And don’t forget an apple or another piece of fresh fruit is a great snack for both kids and adults.”

One thing is for certain: we, as a country, need to stop being so reliant on artificial sweeteners, and start eating more whole foods.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

FoxNews.com

ScienceMag.org

HSPH.Harvard.edu

Processed Food is Dying: Nestlé Takes Worst Hit in 20 Years as Public Opinion Shifts

Emails Show Flint Government Bought Clean Water For Themselves While ...
Source: TheMindUnleashed.com
Cassius Methyl
February 23, 2017

This “Q4” as the corporate world calls it, Swiss processed food giant Nestlé took a harder hit than they have in 20 years.

Even mainstream business articles are sporting headlines such as “Nestlé Drops Targets as Consumer Giants Struggle,” from the Wall Street Journal.

According to Investopedia:

“Switzerland-based global food and drink giant Nestlé SA (NSRGY) posted its most recent full-year 2016 and fourth-quarter earnings report on Thursday. The maker of KitKats, Nescafe and Purina pet food failed to meet the consensus estimates, posting its slowest organic sales growth in 20 years.

In 2016, Nestlé’s net profit came in at 8.53 billion Swiss francs ($8.53 billion) down 6.6% from 9.1 billion over the same period last year and falling short of the Street’s forecasted 9.59 billion.”

Could it be that consumer giants are actually struggling because of a shift in public opinion? From the perspective of an activist, feeling the collective spirit of activism right now, it seems like there is a health awakening underway.

Searching for tangible evidence that a rise in health consciousness is happening, you can find polls. To put our finger to the pulse, we can look at what people are saying around us, polls, reading all the different headlines, and by researching in general.

Some polls suggest public opinion is moving away from favoring processed, or chemical food.

A poll released in February found “Only one-third of parents think they are doing a good job helping kids eat healthy,” according to MedicalXPress.

A Canadian poll released this week found that “Food fraud worries more than half of Canadians,”according to CTV News. Reading from their article:

“In an online survey conducted by researchers at Dalhousie University, 63 per cent of respondents said they were concerned about the widespread practice known as food fraud. Notably, worries about counterfeited food products coming from Canada were even greater in those study participants with food intolerances.”

Perhaps going against the grain of public opinion, but toward the agenda of industry, mainstream media articles can be found mocking the concept of moving away from processed or chemical food.

A mainstream headline in favor of it reads:

February 9, 2017, Washington Post: “Not all processed foods are bad for you. How they’re made matters.”

Other headlines are in stark opposition to the mainstream opinion:

February 20, 2017, the Canary: “The food industry is making it difficult for parents to help children eat healthily.”

Censorship of what people call fake news or fake science is rising as well.

Yesterday Natural News announced that they have been blacklisted by Google, with the headline “Google blacklists Natural News… removes 140,000 pages from its index… “memory holes” Natural News investigative articles on vaccines, pharma corruption, fraudulent science and more.”

However we put our finger to the pulse of public opinion, some kind of shift is taking place. Speak with some people about vaccines, food safety, pesticides, or chemicals and you may notice very different, polarizing opinions.

Read More At: TheMindUnleashed.com

Image credit: NFS, clip  art

Horrifying: Toxic chemical in Pepsi known to cause DNA breaking, fragmentation

Image: Horrifying: Toxic chemical in Pepsi known to cause DNA breaking, fragmentation
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
February 22, 2017

High-fructose corn syrup is’t the only ingredient found in sodas that consumers should be concerned about. Pepsi and other sodas contain a toxic byproduct known as 4-Methylimidazole, or 4-MEI for short, that may be increasing your cancer risks.

Pepsi has come under fire for violations of California’s Proposition 65 in relation to 4-MEI. The Center for Environmental Health even filed a complaint against the beverage giant in 2013 due to their violations. Pepsi has since paid the organization some $385,000 and provided them with updates on product compliance, and a settlement was reached in 2015. Following that settlement, Pepsi “agreed to require its caramel coloring suppliers to meet certain 4-MEI levels in products shipped for sale to the United States, to ensure that the carcinogen’s levels will not exceed 100 parts per billion.”

As of 2016, a newer settlement will now be requiring Pepsi to apply the same product standards nationwide.

What is 4-MEI and why should it be regulated?

4-MEI is an impurity that is created during the manufacturing of caramel colors III and IV. The FDA maintains that they have “no reason to believe” that 4-MEI is carcinogenic. The agency is reportedly re-evaluating the public’s exposure to 4-MEI to ensure manufacturers are using it safely but is not currently recommending dietary changes.

This is rather perplexing because studies conducted by the federal government clearly showed that long-term exposure to 4-MEI increased the incidence of lung cancer in both male and female mice. The federal government’s findings even prompted the state of California to add 4-MEI to their Proposition 65 list of carcinogens. While there are no federal limits yet for 4-MEI, the state of California requires products that contain more than 29 micrograms (mcg) to be labeled.

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment chose 29 micrograms as the “cut off point” because they concluded that amounts at that level or above pose a one in 100,000 risk of cancer — meaning that being exposed to that amount daily for a lifetime will result in no more than one excess cancer case per 100,000 people.

Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D., toxicologist and executive director of Consumer Reports’ Food Safety & Sustainability Center, believes that this amount is too high. “It’s possible to get more than 29 micrograms of 4-MEI in one can of some of the drinks we tested. And even if your choice of soft drink contains half that amount, many people have more than one can per day.”

Rangan explains that because colorants are deliberately added to foods, they should pose a negligible risk, which is defined as no more than one excess case of cancer per one million people. To meet that level, the experts at Consumer Reports say that sodas need to contain no more than 3mcg of 4-MEI per can.

Research on 4-MEI in soda

In 2014, Consumer Reports led investigative research on the amount of 4-MEI found in a number of different sodas. Between April and September of 2013, they tested 81 samples of different soft drinks from five separate manufacturers. In December 2013, another 29 samples were collected from the same five manufacturers. All of the samples were purchased in the California or New York metropolitan areas.

What they found was shocking: there was a tremendous amount of disparity and inconsistency among the samples. Most notably, samples of regular Pepsi from the New York area gathered during the first round of testing was revealed to contain an astronomical average of 174 mcg of 4-MEI. During the second round, samples from the same area averaged  32 mcg. The researchers also found that in general, New York samples boasted much higher levels of 4-MEI than their Californian counterparts.

The findings prompted Consumer Reports to petition the FDA for 4-MEI regulation and labeling. “Europe has labeling requirements and consumers in the United States should have the right to make an informed choice about what they are drinking and eating,” said  Dr. Rangan.

Following the Consumer Reports 2014 study, researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center For A Livable Future conducted their own research, which was published in 2015. Their research estimated average exposure to 4-MEI and modeled the potential cancer burden owed to the ingredient. What they found was that between 44 and 58 percent of people over the age of 6 consumed at least one can of soda per day.

Their data showed that current average 4-MEI exposure from soft drinks poses a cancer risk that exceeds the accepted negligible risk of one extra case of cancer per one million people.

Senior study author, Keeve Nachman — also the director of the Food Production and Public Health Program at the center, and an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health — stated that their research indicated soft drink consumers were being exposed to an avoidable and unnecessary cancer risk thanks to an ingredient that is added for purely aesthetic purposes.

“This unnecessary exposure poses a threat to public health and raises questions about the continued use of caramel coloring in soda,” Nachman said.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

TheHeartySoul.com

FDA.gov

FoodNavigator-USA.com

OEHHA.CA.gov

ConsumerReports.org

Journals.PLOS.org

Hub.JHU.edu

Selling Food From Home Should Be Legal But It’s Not

organicchoice

Source: TheDailyBell.com
February 17, 2017

Make It Legal to Sell Home-Cooked Food … As food delivery becomes ever more popular in the U.S., some innovators have been looking to do for meals what Uber and Lyft have done for rides. Good cooks or even professional chefs working at home can produce tasty food for people nearby, income for themselves, and tax revenue for cities and states. Or they could if it were legal to sell home-cooked food. In most states, it’s not. – Bloomberg

Have you ever been sickened by home-cooking? We’ve had problems sometimes with food bought elsewhere but never with food that is prepared at home. Never that we can remember anyways.

We’d venture to say that food prepared at home is probably as safe or safer than any other food.

But that’s not what regulators think. For them, food cooked at home is subject to myriad difficulties and dangers.

Regulators have all but banned food cooked at home from being sold commercially.

More:

In some states, it’s simply illegal to sell most food that’s been prepared at home, no matter what technology is in the kitchen.

… Even if the risk from home-cooked food were as high as or higher than that from restaurant-cooked food, the danger would have to be extraordinarily great to justify a ban.

Some home-cooking startups have tried to get around the present ban by using shared cooking spaces that meet restaurant-grade safety standards. But food prepared in such kitchens may run afoul of other legal requirements.

The article gives examples of the many kind of requirements that confine food to the home. It goes over licenses an ice-cream maker might need. You have to get a license from the Department of Public Health to sell to consumers.

But if you want to sell directly to restaurants, you have to get a license from the Department of Agriculture & Markets’ Division of Milk Control and Dairy Services.

But this license doesn’t actually exist. You can sell to consumers directly but not indirectly to a restaurant. That’s just one example.

Old laws, the article says, were established for hub-and-spoke distribution. But now we want a more flexible market.

We tends to think this is not true entirely. We believe it is the Internet itself that is giving rise to discontent about what can be sold and from where.

It’s one reason top elites are so set on reconfiguring the Internet so that it avoids controversial topics.

We’ve been right about the Internet. The ‘Net began by suggesting certain changes and is now suggesting changes to almost everything.

Additionally, despite suggestions that parts of the Internet are run by the alt.right, many important and influential sites are still libertarian oriented. This is driving top elites nuts.

Their idea is to virtually ban all but properly approved concepts, but even if this ban goes into effect, it won’t last. Inventions like the Internet are not static and tend to be used, one way or another until their innovations have been exhausted. That could take a long time.

The article also states that, “To determine what safety requirements are most appropriate for home kitchens, states need to build on our existing knowledge about food safety — including data gathered by the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control — to put together a clear picture of the risks involved.”

No it doesn’t. The market simply needs to do away with this “knowledge about food safety.” Leave it up to individuals. That’s what is going on anyway. You’re simply punished after-the-fact for any kind of food poisoning.

And chances are there won’t be any. Do you get food poisoning from food you cook at home? If you are trying to build a business you are going to be pretty careful about what you give customers to eat.

Conclusion: It is the market itself that disciplines you and makes sure you provide what is timely and necessary. If you do not do not deal with food in this manner, you go out of business. Regulations have little or nothing to do with it.

Scientists Discover New Link Between Sugar And Cancer

sugar cubes wikimedia
Source: ReadyNutrition.com
Joshua Krause
February 18, 2017

It’s no secret that sugar is incredibly bad for you. The typical American diet, which probably has more added sugar than any national diet in the world, is known to cause obesity, heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, liver disease, tooth decay, nutrient deficiencies, and of course, cancer (and that’s just the short list). Cancer in particular, has been connected to sugar consumption for some time now, by both mainstream and alternative medicine. Plenty of theories have been posited to explain the precise mechanism for how sugar fuels cancer growth, and it seems that modern science has just discovered another compelling link.

A study conducted by Lorenzo Cohen at the University of Texas was recently published in the Cancer Research journal. It found that sugar influences a metabolic pathway called LOX-12, which affects how cancer spreads in the body. This is big news, because as Cohen noted in an interview with NBC, “The majority of cancer patients don’t die of their primary tumor. They die of metastatic disease.” They discovered this link after feeding mice copious amounts of sugar.

Cohen’s team used mice for their study but say they took many steps to make sure the process was as close as possible to what happens in people. They fed sugar to the mice in doses very similar to what Americans eat every day, and they used mice that are genetically predisposed to breast cancer in much the same way that many people are.

They fed mice four different diets that were either heavy in starch or heavy in different types of sugar.

“A human study reported that dietary sucrose/fructose/glucose but not starch is associated with increased risk of breast cancer,” they wrote in their report.

When the mice were six months old, 30 percent of those fed a starch-dominant diet had breast cancer. But half the mice that had been fed extra sucrose had breast tumors. And the more sugar they were fed, the bigger the tumors grew.

While all forms of sugar contributed tumor growth, it was fructose that had the biggest effect. Mice that were fed the most fructose had stronger LOX-12 pathways, and as a result, grew the largest tumors. Considering that there is significantly more high fructose corn syrup (which is 55% fructose) in the American diet today than there was a few decades ago, this may explain why the United States has one of the highest cancer rates in the world.

What the study didn’t address however, is the relationship between naturally occurring sugars and cancer, or if there’s any link there at all. Fructose is of course, commonly found in fruit, and in smaller amounts, certain vegetables. That’s one of the reasons why representatives for the food industry claim that their sugary drinks and candies are relatively safe for human consumption.

Lorenzo Cohen stated that it’s simply a matter of quantity, since our bodies only need sugar in small amounts. “We need glucose. We need sugar. It is an energy source and we need it to live. We refine sugar that’s extracted from its source and consumed in extremely high quantities.”

On the other hand, the way these sugars are delivered to our bodies may be just as important as their quantity. While it’s true that the sugar in a candy bar is made of the same glucose and fructose as the sugar in fruit, it’s also wrapped up in fiber and other nutrients when found naturally in food. This serves to significantly slow down the absorption of sugar in our digestive tract.

So if you only ate sugar from natural sources, not only would you be eating less sugar since those foods usually don’t contain nearly the same amount found in processed foods, but that small dose of sugar would also be delivered to your body at a much slower rate. There’s a good chance that this LOX-12 pathway would be exposed to a negligible amount of sugar, if we stuck to a strictly natural diet.

Though the study doesn’t address the difference between natural and added sugar, it does sound like added sugar is the real culprit here. The recommended amount of added sugar for any diet, is no more 6 teaspoons a day for women and 9 teaspoons for men. Even when Cohen fed the mice an equivalent to those small amounts, it still contributed to tumor growth.

So it’s very possible that no amount of refined sugar is safe. The human body is simply not built to digest it in a healthy manner, and cutting it out of your diet should be your highest priority if you want to reduce your cancer risk.

Read More At: ReadyNutrition.com
_______________________________________________________

Joshua Krause was born and raised in the Bay Area. He is a writer and researcher focused on principles of self-sufficiency and liberty at Ready Nutrition. You can follow Joshua’s work at our Facebook page or on his personal Twitter.

Joshua’s website is Strange Danger