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

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

Can This Food Inhibit Cancer Growth?

Source: iHealthTube.com
February 8, 2017

In this week’s edition of natural news headlines, find out what common food may inhibit the growth of cancer cells. Also learn about how your gut health may have a connection to your blood pressure. And learn about an important connection between protein intake and heart health!

This Is the ‘Greatest Devastator in the American Diet’

Source: iHealthTube.com
February 2, 2017

Dr. Patrick Quillin talks about what he and one of his mentors called the greatest devastator in the American diet. We all know too much sugar is bad, but find out exactly why it’s bad and how it’s so damaging to the body.

FDA quietly bans powerful life-saving intravenous Vitamin C

[Editor’s Note]

For those that do not know, the FDA also banned Vitamin B-17, which is one of the things that can cure cancer.  What follows shouldn’t be surprising given how the FDA is merely a watchdog for Big Pharma, and as we can see from their treasonous actions, they continue to prove that daily.

For more information please read A World Without Cancer, The True Story Of Vitamin B-17
Image: FDA quietly bans powerful life-saving intravenous Vitamin C
Source: NaturalNews.com
Howard Roark
February 1, 2017

It would be naive to think that the FDA endeavors to protect the public’s health as its primary focus. Indeed, that would be a conflict of interest, as it serves its master, the pharmaceutical industry. Has the Food and Drug Administration engineered a shortage of intravenous vitamin C as part of an overall attack on natural and non-toxic approaches to healing that compete with prescription drugs? An analysis by Natural Blaze would suggest that the answer is yes.

Natural Blaze claims that a critical shortage of IV bags in general followed an FDA ban on the mass production of intravenous vitamin C. The FDA limited the availability of IV-C and the pharmaceutical industry halted production of injectable vitamins and minerals, after a 60 minute story about the miraculous recovery of a swine flu patient on life support. Because of the shortage of IV-C, doctors called upon compounding pharmacies to produce it. But the FDA began to limit compounding pharmacies after injectable steroids produced by the New England Compounding Center were contaminated with a fungus that caused a deadly outbreak of meningitis. Here is an example of an entire industry being punished for the dubious practices of one compounding pharmacy.

Try and follow this convoluted story: Doctors began to source NECC for its more expensive product because cheaper generic versions were in short supply. But it was the FDA’s increased inspection of drug factories that disrupted the supply chain in the first place. So the meningitis deaths were in part caused by the onerous actions of the FDA.

Natural Blaze reports, “… without anyone noticing, and by many indirect means of banning production of the bags or shutting down those doing the production of the bags and the injectable vitamins and minerals, access to IV solutions for innumerable treatments for diseases, have gone into critical shortage.”

Vitamin C and the Big C

Could the shortage of IV-C be part of an effort to limit alternative cancer therapies?

DrWhitaker.com states, “… vitamin C is a potent antioxidant that has the power to boost immune function, increase resistance to infection, and protect against a wide range of diseases. But there’s an entirely different and largely unknown role of vitamin C, and that is its ability—when administered in very high doses by intravenous (IV) infusions—to kill cancer cells. … Best of all—and unlike virtually all conventional chemotherapy drugs that destroy cancer cells—it is selectively toxic. No matter how high the concentration, vitamin C does not harm healthy cells.”

Dr. Whitaker continues:

“The only way to get blood levels of vitamin C to the concentrations required to kill cancer cells is to administer it intravenously. … For example, 10 g of IV vitamin C raises blood levels 25 times higher than the same dose taken orally, and this increases up to 70-fold as doses get larger.”

Choose health, choose life

When the human body is challenged by pathogens or needs to heal from injuries or surgery, its requirement for vitamin C increases considerably. If hospitals routinely administered intravenous ascorbic acid, a proven and inexpensive treatment, patient outcomes would improve. When one weighs the risk of infection from deadly superbugs in hospitals today, IV vitamin C as a preventative safeguard makes all the more sense.

To learn how to secure IV-C in advance of a hospital stay for yourself or a family member, check out this very useful advice at DoctorYourself.com. You will learn how to deal with objections from physicians and hospital administrators regarding this “alt-health” remedy. It will require some moxie, but doing so may save a life.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NaturalBlaze.com

DrWhitaker.com

DoctorYourself.com