HealthBeat News

Category: Opinion

  • Are GMO Foods Safe To Eat?

    Are GMO Foods Safe To Eat?

    By Dr. Dana Myatt

    Many people don’t even know what a "GMO food" is, much less whether or not such food is safe to eat. GMO stand for "Genetically Modified Organism," and the truth is that you are almost certainly already eating GMO foods without knowing it because there are no label requirements for manufacturers and growers to list GMO’s in food. Since these foods are already in our daily food supply, shouldn’t we understand something about the "pros" and "cons" of their use?

    Let’s take a look at what "GMO" is all about.

    Genetically Modified Organisms are plants or animals that have been "genetically engineered" to contain genes from an entirely different plant or animal. The resulting organism is called transgenic or GMO (genetically modified organism).

    Genetic engineering is different than traditional cross breeding, where genes can only be exchanged between two closely-related species. In genetic engineering, genes from completely different species are inserted into each other. For example, scientists in Taiwan have inserted jellyfish genes into pigs in order to make them glow in the dark.(1) My pondering: why do we need "glow in the dark" pigs?

    The Extent of GMO Foods in the U.S. Food Supply

    It is legal for farmers in the U.S. and a very few other countries such as Argentina to produce and sell GMO foods for human and animal consumption without making mention of this on the label. In other places including Europe and Japan, GMO foods are banned until adequate testing confirms that they are safe for human consumption and for the environment. Currently, approximately 70% of all processed foods in American supermarkets contain GMO ingredients.(2) Genetically engineered foods that have been approved for consumption and are already in current use include alfalfa, cherry tomatoes, chicory, corn, cotton, flax, papaya, potato, rapeseed (canola), rice, soybeans, squash, sugar beets, and tomatoes.(3)

    Why Manufacturers Favor GMO Foods

    On the "pro" side of the GMO question, manufacturers argue that genetically modified crops can be bred to resist disease or damage from chemicals, thus making harvests more stable. Most genetically engineered crops grown today are bred to be resistant to herbicides and /or pesticides so they can withstand the rigors of weed killer without being killed. Proponents claim that genetically engineered crops use fewer pesticides, but in reality GE plants often require more chemicals than non-GE crops.(4) The reason this occurs is because weeds grow resistant to pesticides, requiring higher levels of weed killer to subdue them. Because the GMO food-crops are resistant to higher doses of herbicides, the higher doses can safely be used without killing the food plants. Naturally, this exposes the food crops to higher levels of chemicals, but because the GMO crops are resistant, they are not killed. Instead, they wind up in the grocery store, often containing significantly higher levels of the chemical toxins they have been bred to withstand.(5)

    This resistance of GMO plants to chemical toxins works so well that some GMO crops are actually classified as pesticides. For example, the New Leaf Potato was genetically engineered to produce Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) toxin in order to kill any pests that attempted to eat it. This potato was designated as a pesticide and as such was regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), not the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) which regulates food. Safety testing for these potatoes was not as strict as with food because EPA regulations had never anticipated that people would intentionally consume pesticides as food. These GMO "not intended as food" potatoes did in fact make it into grocery stores (they have since been taken off grocery store shelves), but this case underscores how GMO foods whose safety is unknown can make it into our "protected" food supply. (6)

    Most of the GMO produce is approved for human consumption, even without your knowledge of what it is or that you are eating it.

    Potential Dangers of GMO Foods

    One of the biggest concerns over GMO foods is simply that their safety has not been tested. The science of genetic engineering is relatively new, and we simply do not know what effects can result from putting DNA of one species into another species. The practice might prove to be safe. On the other hand, we may be creating incredibly dangerous "Franken Foods" and "Franken animals," the long-range effects of which are entirely unknown and little-studied at this point. Opponents to genetic engineering state that GE foods must be proven safe before they are sold to the public and I must agree.

    Potential problems that could arise with genetic engineering include:

    • Allergic reactions. There are two main concerns regarding allergic reactions.
      The first is with known allergens. For example, if genes from peanuts were inserted into another commonly consumed food such as tomatoes, and considering that these GMO modifications are not required to be labeled, a person with a known peanut allergy could no longer deliberately avoid peanut-containing foods. Some people have such severe reactions to particular foods that the allergy can be life-threatening.
      The second concern is the possibility of creating new allergies. The new combinations of genes and traits have the potential to create allergic reactions that have never existed before.
    • Antibiotic resistance. Most GMO food contains antibiotic resistant "marker genes" that help producers track the transfer of genetic material to the host plant or animal. We already know that many GMO foods can be bred to be resistant to toxic chemicals, bacteria and viruses. Will genetically engineered foods which are bacteria-resistant increase human resistance to antibiotics when consumed? We don’t know, but having seen the rise of "Super Bugs" (bacteria which are resistant to all known antibiotics because of the overuse and inappropriate use of antibiotics) gives us serious cause for concern.
    • Nutritional degradation. Genetic engineering can change the nutritional value of food, and this has not been studied as to whether such changes may improve nutrition or seriously degrade the nutritional composition of foods.(7)
    • Environmental damage. Insects, birds and wind can carry genetically altered pollen to far away locations, pollinating plants and randomly creating new species that would carry on the genetic modifications. Until more is known, we could be creating a "Pandora’s box" of genetic mutations. (I’m feeling the plot of a seriously scary movie in here somewhere).
    • Super-weeds. GE crops can cross-pollinate with weeds, potentially creating super weeds that could become difficult if not impossible to control.
    • Irreversible Gene mutations. Scientists don’t yet know if the forced insertion of one gene into another gene could destabilize the entire organism, and encourage mutations and abnormalities. Likewise, no one knows if or how eating mutated food could affect people’s own DNA.
      Genetic pollution cannot simply be "cleaned up." Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination that can be removed from the environment, genetically engineered organisms cannot simply be "recalled" or "cleaned" by a SuperFund.

    How to Avoid GMO Foods

    Until more is known — or until ANYTHING is known — about the safety of GMO foods, those who want to steer clear of GMO-containing foods can do so by following these steps:

    • Look for foods labeled GMO-free. Today, almost all
      major brands have GMO ingredients. Foods that are GMO-free go out of their way to say so on the label. www.truefoodnow.org features a shoppers guide to brands that are GMO-free.
    • Buy organic foods. USDA regulations governing organic food do not permit genetically-modified fruits and vegetables, and organic meats cannot come from animals that were fed GMO crops. Eating organic is a much surer way to avoid GMO foods. Better yet, buying local organic foods further reduces the likelihood of GMO contamination.
    • Grow your own! Raise a portion of your vegetables at home. You can grow 10 vegetables in a 4’x4′ plot using the easy micro garden system that I have talked about before. Sprouts are easy to grow indoors. Consider raising a few chickens (a simple "chicken tractor" allows even city-folk to harvest their own eggs, and chickens make a great "bio-organic composting machine." "Pigs with wings" is what we call ours).

    GMO "Factoids"

    • 4 countries have 99% of the world’s GE acreage, they include: US (68%), Argentina (22%), Canada (6%), China (3%) (8)
    • Over 75% of US-grown soybeans in 2003 were bioengineered.(9)
    • Herbicide tolerant GE crops have created weed resistance, causing pesticide use to increase by 70 million pounds between 1996 and 2003.(10)

    My Ten Cents Worth on GMO Foods

    The unsuspecting public (that’s you and I, folks!) are continually acting as guinea pigs for everything from foods and drugs to environmental chemicals and cosmetics. AND SO FAR, THE TRACK RECORDS OF THE SAFETY OF THESE ITEMS DOES NOT FAVOR THE PUBLIC. Personally, I don’t like being forced to "test" the safety of every new chemical, drug and "technique" that Big Industry dreams up without my consent. Isn’t this what, ostensibly, the FDA, the USDA, the EPA and other government-acronymed groups (GAG’s) are supposed to be protecting us from? Yet you and I are still exposed to hazardous chemicals and techniques that are "approved" before their safety is truly verified. I don’t know about you, but I’m not happy about this.

    I take good care of myself. Why should I let the government use me as a test subject for so many potentially dangerous chemicals and now (perhaps even worse), gene-splicing experiments? Until I have proof that me, the honeybees (11) and the environment are safe from GMO crops, I’m going to stay as far away from them as I can. I believe we should be more circumspect about what we are creating, and the safety of same, before we unleash genetically modified organisms on an unsuspecting public.

    References
    1.) Hogg, Chris, “Taiwan breeds green-glowing pigs.” BBC News, January 12, 2006.
    2.) California Department of Food and Agriculture. “A Food Foresight Analysis of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Report to the Legislature,” January 1, 2003.
    3.) Center for Food Safety, “The Hidden Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods.” Food Safety Review, Spring 2000.
    4.) Benbrook, Charles M., “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Eight Years,” BioTech InfoNet, November 2003.
    5.) Ibid.
    6.) U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Biotechnology Consultation, Note to the File, BNF No. 000033, March 25th, 1996.
    7.) Center for Food Safety, “The Hidden Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods.” Food Safety Review, Spring 2000.
    8.) Union of Concerned Scientists. “Genetically Engineered Foods Allowed on the Market” February 16, 2006 (accessed August 1, 2006).
    9.) California Department of Food and Agriculture. A Food Foresight Analysis of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Report to the Legislature. January 1, 2003.
    10.) Ibid.
    11.)     Where the H#!l are The HoneyBees? HealthBeat News, 03/29/07.

  • A Look Back At HealthBeat News In 2008

    The year 2008 was a busy one for us at HealthBeat News – with newsletters every month bringing you articles that were informative, groundbreaking, and even controversial.

    Let’s look at some of the high-points:

    In January we looked at IODINE – The “Missing Mineral” for Thyroid, Heart, Immune and Cancer Protection. Dr. Myatt is a top expert on the relationship between this mineral and health, and because of her extensive research she now recommends Iodine Testing for many of her private practice patients.

    February brought us a clinical report on the beneficial effects of Fish Oil – More Good News About Fish Oil – For Diabetes and Weight Loss. This report, produced by conventional researchers, in a conventional clinical setting, and reported in conventional mainstream medical journals, tells us in conventional terms what we have always known: Fish Oil is beneficial in normalizing diabetes, and for helping to reduce belly fat in dieters.

    Nurse Mark wrote an article in February that brought in plenty of comment both good and bad. You see, since Nurse Mark is usually the first person anyone talks to when calling The Wellness Club he bears the brunt of the calls wanting information – and the displeasure of those who call wanting "freebies" such as free medical advice. One angry reader even wrote in to take Nurse Mark to task for suggesting that even though a person might not be disposed to spend actual money on alternative health care (as opposed to "insurance" money for drugs or surgery) so they could stay healthy, that person would likely scrape up the money to repair their car so they could get to work – healthy or not… How dare he be so heartless! See what you think when you read Can’t Afford Natural Care And Treatments – So What To Do?

    In March Dr. Myatt and Nurse Mark gave readers the first look at a major research work that had been consuming much of their time over the previous months: Could A Vitamin B-12 Deficiency Be Causing Your Symptoms? This research also led Dr. Myatt to begin using and to carry for her patients and Wellness Club Members a new product: B-Extreme. This research paper should be required reading for anyone with any neurological disease, and is especially pertinent to sufferers of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, or Cognitive Impairment.

    Dr. Myatt also published a paper Twenty-Five Surprising Benefits of a Dietary "Non-Nutrient" extolling the virtues of fiber in the diet – another fully-referenced article for you, the HealthBeat reader, and Nurse Mark took a hard look at our drinking water and why it might be turning guys into "girlie-men" in Are There Female Hormones In Your Drinking Water? Whew! A busy time!

    In April Dr. Myatt created a bit of controversy with her article Soy: Risks and Benefits. Soy is often considered to be the darling of the "natural foods" crowd, and is especially revered by vegetarians and vegans. Dr. Myatt stood up to the "natural" party line by suggesting that in many cases not only is soy not a "wonder food" but that it can in some cases be downright detrimental to human health. Comments ranged from the expected outrage of those unaccustomed to having their dietary beliefs challenged, to praise from a number of readers including some clinicians for her willingness to "tell it like it is".

    We also reviewed 10 Dangers of Carbohydrates and Dr. Myatt exposed the dangers of Fungus, Yeasts and Molds: Hidden Cause of Many “Unexplained” Diseases. While they may sound like doom and gloom, article such as these provide us with the information we need to make healthy choices and avoid the dangers around us. In that same vein, Dr. Myatt discussed dietary fats and their relationship to health in Big Fat Lies!

    Nurse Mark followed up with an article in May that exposed the dangerous hypocrisy of the "Anti-Fat, Anti-Cholesterol" movement, and the source of their misinformation. Saturated Fats: Another Big Fat Lie exposed the origins of the campaign against saturated fats and how the efforts of one man were aided and abetted by Big Industry – in the form of the soy industry – to achieve market dominance over another – the tropical oils (palm oil and coconut oil) industry. This was an eye-opening expose!

    Dr. Myatt similarly exposed the fallacies of "conventional wisdom" – natural conventional wisdom this time – when she gave us the truth about teflon in Teflon – Is It Safe?  This was another article that generated a firestorm of feedback from both sides – from the acolytes of some well-known holistic "gurus" who wrote in outrage that the pontifications and pronouncements of their heroic health crusaders might be challenged, to a number of calmer readers who wrote with their appreciation for a well-researched look at a common concern and to express their thanks to Dr. Myatt for being willing to depart from the "natural" party line regarding teflon.

    In June we reported that Dr. Michael LeFevre of the US Preventive Services Task Force had made a very bold statement: Conventional Medicine Finally Admits PSA Screening For Prostate Cancer is a Bust included an eye-popping statement from this  prominent doctor, researcher and policy-maker: "The benefits of screening for early prostate cancer are unknown. There are substantial harms associated with detection and treatment of prostate cancer, and the research fails to show a reduction in prostate cancer death and a net improvement in a patient’s well-being". Yikes! Now that’s news!

    June also gave us an amazing about-face on the part of the FDA regarding mercury amalgam dental fillings: FDA Forced To Change Position On Toxic Mercury Fillings! told us that the FDA quietly removed from it’s webpage all it’s claims that there is no scientific evidence of danger from mercury-containing fillings, and adopted a more neutral tone where it now admits: “Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetus." Can you imagine the uproar this must have caused in the pro-mercury halls of the American Dental Association?

    And those were just a few of the highlights from the first half of 2008 – in an upcoming HealthBeat Newsletter we’ll look at some of the great, and controversial articles from the second half of last year…

  • Another Chance For Stevia?

    Opinion by Nurse Mark

    Stevia, a naturally sweet herb used safely and effectively for thousands of years by South American indigenous peoples for thousands of years, has gotten a rough ride from the FDA. Jackbooted FDA "swat teams" have raided warehouses and health food stores, confiscated products, even confiscated books that contained recipes that included stevia as a sweetener.

    Since stevia is a naturally-occurring plant it cannot be patented, and it is widely felt that the FDA’s persecution of this innocuous, sweet herb has been carried out at the direction of the artificial sweetener industry in order to protect their toxic but patentable (and profitable) offerings.

    Yes, the future has looked grim for stevia, but there may be a ray of hope on the horizon…

    You may have noticed the headline recently:

    Coke to unveil natural diet drink in U.S.: report – Yahoo! News

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081215/us_nm/us_cocacola

    It seems that the American Industrial giants Coca Cola and Pepsico are listening to the demands of consumers for less toxic soft drinks (or perhaps heeding the advice of their corporate lawyers, who must be warning them about the possibility of class-action lawsuits – Vioxx-style), and they have begun investigating stevia as a natural alternative to toxic artificial sweeteners. But it appears that even these giants know what they are up against: they appear to realize that it will not be a simple matter of just adding a bit of herbal stevia to sweeten their offerings – oh, no!

    You see, it is highly unlikely that the FDA will ever admit that it has been wrong about stevia, or back down from their current position on the herb. Certainly not so long as it is a natural and therefore non-patentable substance!

    So, what’s a company to do? Do what the drug companies do – take a natural, harmless substance into the lab and figure out how to modify, concentrate, purify, synthesize or otherwise alter this poor harmless herb until it is un-natural, and therefore patentable!

    Once it has been transformed into a patented compound, Voila! It can be "submitted" to the FDA along with all the necessary bribes – er, fees – that will be required to obtain protection – er, approval – for this new high-tech patented sweetener.

    What will this mean for stevia? My guess is that this new sweetener, some synthesized form or modification of natural stevia, will give the FDA heartburn – because as natural Red Rice Yeast is to synthetic statin drugs, so will stevia be to Truvia or PureVia, or whatever other name some MegaCorporation decides to give their patented version of this natural substance.

    It will be obvious that the natural form of this substance is, as has been maintained all along by proponents of stevia, safe.

    If the FDA continues to declare stevia to be unsafe, then the new, modified sweetener must also be unsafe. If the new modified stevia-based substance is safe, then isn’t the natural stevia also safe? Could this be an uncomfortable "Catch-22" for the mighty FDA?

    It will be fun to watch this one unfold, and to watch the FDA wriggle and squirm as they try to satisfy Big Business’ demands for an ingredient that will satisfy their customers, while they simultaneously try to avoid admitting that they have been wrong about stevia…

  • Some Questions We Just Can’t Answer!

    Here’s a good one! See if you can guess our what our answer will be after reading this question that was sent anonymously to us – no name, no "Hi, How are you", no "Thanks for your time":

    Anonymous wrote:

    It has been a month and three weeks now since I have started taking Lucidal.  I started twice a day and then three a day . After two weeks I sufferred an acid reflux, so I took Prilosec for 14 days as instructed in the box and during the 14 days I was in Prilosec I was taking Lucidal once a day, a week after that I sufferred another acid reflux.  Should I continue   taking Lucidal ?

    Okee-Dokee… Let’s see now…

    First, this is not a product that we sell here at the Wellness Club. In fact, given the amounts shown in the supplement facts box that I found after some searching on the Lucidal sales website, we would not even consider offering such an incomplete, low potency vitamin mixture for sale.

    Here is a challenge: find the Supplements Facts Box on the Lucidal Sales website, and compare it with that of Dr. Myatt’s Maxi Multi. As a multiple vitamin, Lucidal is a lightweight – an expensive lightweight, but a lightweight all the same.

    Second, without knowing an awfully lot more about this person, how can we possibly say that the "acid reflux" has anything to do with Lucidal? Is this person old? Young? Healthy? Ill? Using other drugs?

    Third, who are we to say whether or not this person should continue to take this product? We know nothing about this person, we did not sell this person the product, and we are not the formulators of this product. While we have a general idea of the ingredients in the "proprietary" formulas listed on the Supplements Facts Box, we do not know amounts – that is the beauty of "proprietary" formulas – exact amounts need not be listed.

    Perhaps this person should pose these questions to the "certified neurosurgeon and expert in brain biochemistry" that formulated this product – Dr. Larry McCleary.

    Folks, this is a classic example of the sort of questions that we see all too often, and that we simply cannot answer.

    As for Lucidal, I would not want to say that this product is a waste of money for if the testimonials on the Lucidal sales website are to be believed at least some people are finding it helpful. But looking at the Supplement Facts Box reveals vitamin and mineral dosages that we here would refer to as "Pixie Dust". Lots of "stuff" to make the product sound impressive but not enough of any one thing to do much good. A lot of people like products with "lots of stuff" in them – it feels like they are getting a better "deal".

    It is certainly better than no vitamin at all…

    But, at the price that is being asked for this product (someone has to pay for those "free" bonuses and the expensive "as seen on TV" infomercials!) we still believe that as a multiple vitamin Lucidal is a very expensive lightweight.

     

    For a truly effective multiple vitamin, try Dr. Myatt’s Maxi Multi.

    For some straight, honest information about neurological disease, see our webpage: Neurological Disease.

    For help with "acid reflux" see Dr. Myatt’s article What’s Burning You and see our webpage on Indigestion.

  • Freedom – Ours to Keep or Lose

    Freedom – Ours to Keep or Lose

    As we prepare to welcome a new President here are some thoughts on freedom from Dr. Myatt

    The elections are over. The American People have spoken. In January a new President will solemnly swear to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." We extend to our new President every wish for success: may he represent America and Americans truthfully, compassionately, and well. May he always remember this pledge and execute his duties faithfully on behalf of We the People. May he remember that America is not a country of political parties, or ideologies, or of left or right, conservative or liberal, red or blue; it is a country of hard-working, well-meaning people whom deserve to have their voices heard, not dismissed – each and every one of them.

    For the record, I’m proud and grateful to be an American and glad I live in the USA. Although we’re not as free as we used to be, we’re still freer than the rest of the world. I truly give thanks for that.

    As the Founding Fathers knew, the way we remain free as individuals is because we each have a voice and a vote. If we fail to exercise our freedom to speak and to elect our officials, then we get the government we deserve. That is why I continually encourage you to be pro-active. It’s the only way we can continue to enjoy the freedoms that we do, health freedom included.

    When It Comes to Health, Are You Really Free?

    I’m not going to rant (at least not today), about how the FDA and other government organizations act in the best interests of Big Business and curtail our health choices in the process. No siree, I’ll save that for another day.

    The "freedom" I inquire about is that of your own making. Are you a self-imposed prisoner to the insurance companies and Organized Medicine? No one imposes that on you, you know. Such enslavement is entirely a personal choice, but one that many people have blindly been led to choose. It doesn’t have to be that way.

    What do I mean? For example, I know many people who stay at a job they hate because of the Medical insurance. They’ll buy a big-screen TV with "surround sound" for thousands of dollars and pay out of pocket, but if insurance doesn’t cover a $97 test, they’ll complain and moan and won’t have it done. And under that guise, they’ll remain a prisoner of their medical coverage, all by choice. Then there are the folks who have a shiny new "Bass Boat" or ATV or other expensive toys, all of which they are more than happy to find monthly payments for, but who complain that they cannot possibly afford medical insurance – so they and their families do without and then complain even more bitterly when one of them has an accident on that ATV and needs medical care…

    Perhaps for these reasons for at least some people the socialized medical care that Michael Moore is advocating in his movie "Sicko" really would be the best solution – not that it is "free" (as you know, "there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch!"), but that it would force them to have some sort of "sickness insurance" paid for with their tax dollars.

    But then, could that be yet another kind of enslavement? Bureaucrats deciding what medical care you may and may not have? Drugs are OK, but nutritional supplements are not?

    You, as an American citizen, will decide, either through your actions or your inaction. As a democracy, the future of The United States Of America rests with you. Remember that your elected representatives as well as your governmental bureaucrats are your employees – and not the other way around!

    Just some thoughts for you as we make ready to usher in the "change" so lavishly promised by our new President and so eagerly awaited by so many.