Jan
31
By Dr. Mercola
The government of India has made it very clear that they will not tolerate Monsanto's attempts to commercialize on their indigenous knowledge, a practice known as biopiracy.
India's National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), a government agency, is suing Monsanto, the world leader in genetically modified (GM) crops and seeds, and their collaborators, the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company, for using local varieties of eggplant to develop a genetically modified version.
Quite simply, the biotech giant did not get prior approval to use the naturally occurring breeds for the purposes of genetic modification, and in so doing violated the country's Biological Diversity Act (BDA), enacted in 2002.
India Stands Up Against Corporate Control of Their Food Supply
India's BDA requires that any entity attempting to use a native plant for commercial or research purposes must first get approval from the NBA; the Act is in force specifically to protect the nation's biodiversity.
Monsanto, however, neglected to do this opting instead to essentially steal the native plants in order to modify them for their own commercial gain.
"American seed giant Monsanto and its Indian collaborator, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco) are to be prosecuted for allegedly 'stealing' indigenous plant material for developing genetically modified brinjal variety known as Bt brinjal.
The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), a statutory body set up under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, has decided to initiate legal proceedings against the two companies and their collaborators for using indigenous brinjal germplasm without necessary permission. Taking plant material without any permission and using it for commercial purposes is considered an act of biopiracy."
The Environment Support Group, which filed the initial complaint against Monsanto with the NBA, stated that Monsanto and their collaboraters used six local varieties of brinjal [eggplant] for the development of Bt brinjal. Monsanto has fired back, stating they are not to blame for the development of GM eggplant, other than supplying their Cry1Ac gene, a type of Bt toxin. The Indian media called this a "half truth," noting:
"When contacted Monsanto tried to distance itself from the case by saying that it had not developed Bt brinjal, but it had been 'developed by Mahyco, with the Cry1Ac gene accessed from Monsanto, in collaboration with multiple public sector institutions'. This is a halftruth because Monsanto owns 26 percent of Mahyco, and also has a separate joint venture Mahyco Monsanto Biotech Limited which handles its business related to Bt."
Finally, A Country Stands Up to Monsanto for its Indigenous Rights
The case marks the first time a government has accused Monsanto of biopiracy, and the results could set an important precedent for the future of the food supply. In essence, will we continue to allow corporations like Monsanto to steal, profit from, and patent native plants without compensating the native country from which it came?
As stated in The Ecologist:
"The issue of granting intellectual property rights (IPRs) to life forms?such as seeds, plants, or animals?is a contentious one worldwide. Critics say it's impossible to define when the creation of such a thing took place, and that granting patent rights for a crop such as brinjal negates generations of farmers who, using conventional plant breeding techniques, have managed to develop successful cultivars."
Monsanto has long been trying to establish control over the seeds of the plants that produce food for the world, with little regard for farmers' rights or even basic levels of morality. They have already patented a number of genetically altered food crops, which can only be grown with proper license and the seeds for which farmers must purchase anew each year or face legal prosecution. They have even developed terminator technology?which they hope to deploy soon.
These are seeds that have been genetically modified to "self-destruct." In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year.
The implications that terminator seeds could have on the world's food supply are disastrous: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile. If allowed to continue, every farmer in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply!
Why Bt Eggplant is a Disaster in the Making
There's more reason than biopiracy to thwart the development of Bt eggplant, and that has to do with the technology itself. Some GM crops, such as GM sugar beets and certain varieties of GM corn and soy, are engineered to withstand otherwise lethal doses of Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. Other GM crops, such as Bt eggplant, are designed to produce their own pesticide internally.
In 2011, Cry1Ab, a type of Bt toxin from GM crops, has for the first time been detected in human and fetal blood samples. It appears the toxin is quite prevalent, as upon testing 69 pregnant and non-pregnant women who were eating a typical Canadian diet (which included foods such as GM soy, corn and potatoes), researchers found Bt toxin in:
- 93 percent of blood samples of pregnant women
- 80 percent of fetal blood samples
- 69 percent of non-pregnant women blood samples
As you may know, chronic inflammation is at the root of many increasingly common diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease. According to Jeffrey Smith:
"There's already plenty of evidence that the Bt-toxin produced in GM corn and cotton plants is toxic to humans and mammals and triggers immune system responses. The fact that it flows through our blood supply, and that is passes through the placenta into fetuses, may help explain the rise in many disorders in the US since Bt crop varieties were first introduced in 1996.
In government-sponsored research in Italy, mice fed Monsanto's Bt corn showed a wide range of immune responses. Their elevated IgE and IgG antibodies, for example, are typically associated with allergies and infections. The mice had an increase in cytokines, which are associated with "allergic and inflammatory responses."
Monsanto Quickly Falling From Grace
In the grander scheme, India's suit against Monsanto for biopiracy is yet another nail in the coffin for this corporate giant. Along with being named the worst company of 2011 by Natural Society -- for "threatening both human health and the environment" -- genetically engineered seeds are banned in Hungary, as they are in several other European countries, such as Germany and Ireland. Peru is also following the precautionary principle, and has even passed a law that bans genetically modified ingredients within the nation for 10 years.
The cat is out of the bag, so to speak, and it is now becoming common knowledge why Monsanto is top on list of immoral and destructive corporations. Here are just several examples:
- Suing small farmers for patent infringement after Monsanto's GM seeds spread wildly into surrounding farmers' fields contaminating their conventional crops
- Secretly discharging PCB-laden toxic waste into an Alabama creek, and dumping millions of pounds of PCBs into open-pit landfills for decades after PCBs were banned in the US for being a possible carcinogen.
- Being found guilty of bribery to bypass Indonesian law requiring an environmental assessment review for its genetically engineered cotton.
- In 2007, the South African Advertising Standards Authority also found Monsanto guilty of lying when advertising that "no negative reactions to Genetically Modified food have been reported."
- According to one EPA scientist, Monsanto doctored studies and covered-up dioxin contamination of a wide range of its products. She concluded that the company's behavior constituted "a long pattern of fraud."
Unfortunately, in the United States Monsanto still has undue influence. Certain states are passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion. To date, 14 states have passed such legislation and Michigan's Sen. Bill 777, if passed, would make that 15. The Michigan bill would prevent anti-GMO laws and would remove "any authority local governments may have to adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds."
Bills like these are obviously music to Monsanto's ears, which spends millions of dollars lobbying the U.S. government at the federal level for favorable legislation that supports the spread of their toxic products.
How to Take Back Some of Monsanto's Drive for Power?
It's quite clear that genetically engineered foods threaten not only biodiversity and the environment; they can also pose potentially serious threats to animal and human health when consumed. Unfortunately, the revolving door between Monsanto and the biotech industry as a whole and the agencies in charge of industry legislation makes it very difficult to stop the ongoing madness.
That does not mean it's impossible, however. But it does require your active participation First and foremost, avoid buying GM foods! Since the industry has so far successfully squelched every attempt at getting genetically engineered foods labeled, avoiding them requires you to be an educated consumer.
- Print out the Non-GMO Shopping Guide and refer to it often. It can help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
- Better yet, always buy USDA 100% Organic products when possible, as these do not permit GM ingredients, or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the GMO's you're exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you're not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients.
- When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.
- For ongoing updates, follow our Non-GMO's page on Facebook.
We CAN shift the balance by simply voting with our pocketbooks and forks. Europe successfully did this over a decade ago, without any government assistance, and Americans can drive GMO's out of our food supply as well, but it requires educating the public about what GM foods are.
Important Action Item: Support California's Ballot Initiative to Label GMO's!
In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama promised to "immediately" require GM labeling if elected. So far, nothing of the sort has transpired.
Fortunately, 24 US states have (as part of their state governance) something called the Initiative Process, where residents can bring to ballot any law they want enacted, as long as it has sufficient support. California has been busy organizing just such a ballot initiative to get mandatory labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state. The proposed law will be on the ballot for 2012.
Michigan and Washington are also starting similar campaigns.
Since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, a win for the California Initiative would be a huge step forward, and would affect ingredients and labeling nation-wide. Last month, a coalition of consumer, public health and environmental organizations, food companies, and individuals submitted the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to the State Attorney General. Now, they need 800,000 signatures to get the Act on next year's ballot.
I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can.
If you live in California, volunteer to gather petition signatures. If you live outside of California, please donate to help support this Initiative and spread the word to everyone you know in California. Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S., so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!
Related Articles:
This Food Knowingly Causes Cancer in Rats - Are You Eating it? Finally... Solo Farmer Fights Monsanto and Wins Dangerous Toxins From Genetically Modified Corn Found in Blood of Women and FetusesJan
31
Banned in Germany, But You’re Probably Still Eating It
Filed Under Main Content, Other News | Leave a Comment
By Dr. Mercola
Monsanto, the world leader in genetically modified (GM) crops and seeds, has been named the worst company of 2011 by Natural Society -- for "threatening both human health and the environment."
I couldn't agree more. I have long designated Monsanto the most dangerous corporation on the planet, and clearly this is a growing sentiment ?
"Monsanto is so despised by environmentalists that Google's first suggested search term for the St. Louis company is 'Monsanto evil.'
Readers... voted Monsanto the world's most evil corporation in a January poll, giving the corporation a whopping 51 percent of the vote."
What's Wrong With Monsanto?
You may be wondering what Monsanto -- the world's largest seed company whose net income for the first quarter of fiscal year 2012 totaled $126 million (up from $9 million in 2011) --- has done to have earned such ire.
The list is long, easily enough for a novel, but to sum it up, biotech giant Monsanto has created some of the most dangerous products on the planet, including Agent Orange, dioxin, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH)? and genetically modified seeds.
The latter is one of the most pressing concerns because GM crops are now a mainstay of American agriculture.
Ninety percent or more of all US-grown corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets are genetically modified versions, which means that virtually all processed food items contain at least one or more genetically modified ingredients.
GM foods are, from what I perceive, one of the most significant threats that we have against the very sustainability of the human race. Why? In a nutshell, these toxins are being linked to a growing repertoire of assaults against human health and the environment -- and they are already migrating into fetal blood, which means future generations are now at risk.
Monsanto is Destroying the Food System Via Their GMO Crops
Virtually all of the claims of benefit of GM crops ? increased yields, more food production, controlled pests and weeds, reductions in chemical use in agriculture, drought-tolerant seeds ? have not materialized.
The Global Citizens' Report on the State of GMOs states:
- Contrary to the claim of feeding the world, genetic engineering has not increased the yield of a single crop.
- Herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready) crops were supposed to control weeds and Bt crops were intended to control pests. Instead of controlling weeds and pests, GE crops have led to the emergence of super weeds and super pests ? Herbicide resistant crops such as Roundup Ready cotton can create the risk of herbicide resistant "superweeds" by transferring the herbicide resistance to weeds.
- Despite claims that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will lower the levels of chemicals (pesticides and herbicides) used, quite the opposite has occurred, with 1.6 billion pounds of glyphosate (the active in ingredient in Roundup) being applied to American soil in 2007 alone. This is of great concern both because of the negative impacts of these chemicals on ecosystems and humans, and because there is the danger that increased chemical use will cause pests and weeds to develop resistance, requiring even more chemicals in order to manage them.
- Monsanto has been claiming that through genetic engineering it can breed crops for drought tolerance and other climate-resilient traits. This is a false promise.
- Among the false claims made by Monsanto and the Biotechnology industry is that GE foods are safe. However, there are enough independent studies to show that GE foods can cause severe health damage.
Thanks to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's non-selective, broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, that is sprayed on massive acreages of GM Roundup Ready soybeans, cotton, and corn grown in the United States each and every year, super weeds are growing at an alarming rate. It's estimated that more than 130 types of weeds spanning 40 U.S. states are now herbicide-resistant, and the superweeds are showing no signs of stopping. In fact, the situation is getting progressively worse.
Extremely hardy Roundup-resistant weeds are already boosting costs and cutting crop yields for U.S. farmers. And with world food stores already strained, diminished crop production is a serious problem. In addition, the creation of these superweeds is leading farmers to douse their fields with ever increasing amounts of herbicides in a desperate attempt to stop their spread.
Along with the environmental devastation, research published in 2010 showed that glyphosate causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at far lower levels than used in agricultural and garden applications. And numerous animal studies suggest reproductive problems are a common side effect of glyphosate exposure and the consumption of genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops.
Quite shockingly, the amount of glyphosate residue you can be exposed to through food is remarkably high, and is very close to the maximum residue limit (MRL) legally allowed According to GMO expert Jeffrey Smith, there is so much glyphosate in GM soybeans, when they were introduced, Europe had to increase their allowable residue levels by 200-fold! For more information, please listen to this informative interview with Dr. Don Huber, an expert in an area of science that relates to the toxicity of genetically engineered (GE) foods.
Why GM Foods Should be Labeled with a Skull and Crossbones
Monsanto wants you to simply trust them because they're "experts" and because their industry-funded studies "prove" their GM foods are safe. But these same experts also told you PCB's, Agent Orange, and DDT was safe, and we now know those claims were far from accurate.
Of course, in terms of reliability, there's a big difference between corporate science, which tends to primarily favor and support corporate interests, and independent science, performed without preconceived bias. Scientists have, in fact, discovered a number of health problems related to genetically modified foods, including:
- An analysis of 19 animal studies revealed that nearly 10 percent of blood, urine, organ and other parameters tested were significantly influenced by GMOs, with the livers and kidneys faring the worst.
- A 2009 Brazilian study discovered that female rats fed GM soy for 15 months showed significant changes in their uterus and reproductive cycle, compared to rats fed organic soy or those raised without soy.
- A study performed by Irina Ermakova with the Russian National Academy of Sciences reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, while the death rate in the non-GM soy group was only 10 percent. Additionally, the babies in the GM group were smaller, and, worst of all, could not reproduce. In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova's feeding trials were completed, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55 percent.
- Milk treated with the Monsanto-developed genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH) contains higher levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), a hormone linked to breast, prostate and colon cancers in humans.
Evil Monsanto Continues to Spreads its Poisonous Tentacles
Genetically engineered seeds are banned in Hungary, as they are in several other European countries, such as Germany and Ireland. Peru is also following the precautionary principle, and has even passed a law that bans genetically modified ingredients within the nation for 10 years.
In the United States, certain states are passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion. To date, 14 states have passed such legislation and Michigan's Sen. Bill 777, if passed, would make that 15. The Michigan bill would prevent anti-GMO laws and would remove "any authority local governments may have to adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds."
Bills like these are obviously music to Monsanto's ears, which spends millions of dollars lobbying the U.S. government at the federal level for favorable legislation that supports the spread of their toxic products.
In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government -- a drop from a year earlier, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter. If we all had several million to drop solely on lobbying efforts, suffice to say the world would be a very different place. If you aren't familiar with the power of lobbying please view the recent 60 minutes expansion on it, which is one of the best 60 Minute episodes I have seen in 40 years.
Furthermore, once you realize just how many of Monsanto's employees have shifted into positions of power within the federal government, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to see how this biotech giant has managed to so successfully undermine common sense.
Unfortunately, it's primarily multinational corporations like Monsanto that have this type of clout, and they use it to further their power, wealth and control -- not only in the United States, but throughout the entire world.
For instance, as reported by Netline, Monsanto and other biotech companies have collaborated with the Gates Foundation via the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to inject genetically modified crops into Africa. And Monsanto's golden rice is being pushed in Asia as a way to alleviate vitamin A deficiency, which is common in developing countries where people don't have regular access to beta-carotene-rich foods, like vegetables and fruits.
But it doesn't take much digging beneath the surface to uncover the true motives of seeking to plant golden rice in the developing world, and they have much more to do with dollars and cents than they do with alleviating nutritional deficiencies. In fact, there's reason to believe that GM golden rice will do little to improve vitamin A levels in the poor -- and may actually make vitamin A deficiency worse.
It would be naive at this point to think that these collaborations are designed to solve any other problem than how to help Monsanto monopolize the world's food supply with expensive GM seeds that have to be purchased each year and require expensive and toxic chemical treatment. After all, if you own the rights to all the food grown everywhere, you literally rule the world ...
You Can Stop Supporting Monsanto by Boycotting GM Foods
It's quite clear that genetically engineered foods threaten not only biodiversity and the environment; they can also pose potentially serious threats to animal and human health when consumed. Unfortunately, the revolving door between Monsanto and the biotech industry as a whole and the agencies in charge of industry legislation makes it very difficult to stop the ongoing madness.
That does not mean it's impossible, however. But it does require your active participation.
First and foremost, avoid buying GM foods! Since the industry has so far successfully squelched every attempt at getting genetically engineered foods labeled, avoiding them requires you to be an educated consumer.
- Print out the Non-GMO Shopping Guide and refer to it often. It can help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
- Better yet, always buy USDA 100% Organic products when possible, as these do not permit GM ingredients, or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the GMO's you're exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you're not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients.
- When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.
- For ongoing updates, follow our Non-GMO's page on Facebook.
We CAN shift the balance by simply voting with our pocketbooks and forks. Europe successfully did this over a decade ago, without any government assistance, and Americans can drive GMO's out of our food supply as well, but it requires educating the public about what GM foods are.
Important Action Item: Support California's Ballot Initiative to Label GMO's!
In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama promised to "immediately" require GM labeling if elected. So far, nothing of the sort has transpired.
Fortunately, 24 US states have (as part of their state governance) something called the Initiative Process, where residents can bring to ballot any law they want enacted, as long as it has sufficient support. California has been busy organizing just such a ballot initiative to get mandatory labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state. The proposed law will be on the ballot for 2012.
Michigan and Washington are also starting similar campaigns.
Since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, a win for the California Initiative would be a huge step forward, and would affect ingredients and labeling nation-wide. Last month, a coalition of consumer, public health and environmental organizations, food companies, and individuals submitted the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to the State Attorney General. Now, they need 800,000 signatures to get the Act on next year's ballot.
I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can.
If you live in California, volunteer to gather petition signatures. If you live outside of California, please donate to help support this Initiative and spread the word to everyone you know in California. Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S., so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!
Related Articles:
The Label Even Monsanto Considers a 'Skull and Crossbones'... Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Corn Fields Finally... Solo Farmer Fights Monsanto and WinsJan
30
Don’t Swallow This for Diabetes - Even If a Celebrity Chef, Paula Deen, Hawks It
Filed Under Main Content, Other News | Leave a Comment
By Dr. Mercola
Paula Deen's rise to fame is built on scrumptious high-sugar, highly processed foods with a distinct Southern flare.
Her latest show, "Paula's Best Dishes," is a hit on the Food Network, and she also has several popular cook books to her name.
While no doubt tasty, the meals Ms. Deen promotes can easily lead to weight gain and diabetes, so her recent admission on the Today Show that she's been living with type 2 diabetes for the past three years did not come as a great shock.
Her decision to become the spokesperson for a dangerous diabetes drug however, did, and has raised the ire of many.
In fact, if her plan was to become a role model of healthy living, it has backfired in a dramatic way, as most people are suddenly (and wisely!) shunning the notion that you can just pop a pill to address a diet-related health problem.
"There is something slightly unsavory about the fact that Deen has continued to advocate the type of unhealthy, fattening foods that contribute to obesity and, therefore, to Type 2 diabetes, only to step forward now as the pitchperson for a drug that is designed to treat that disease, which she herself has had in secret for years."
Is a Drug Really the Answer to Type 2 Diabetes?
Many are questioning Ms. Deen's decision to keep quiet about her diagnosis for so long, while continuing to promote her signature high-sugar meals. According to Time Magazine:
"Deen said that she decided not to make her diagnosis public until she could "bring something to the table when I came forward. I've always been one to think that I bring hope." For her, that hope apparently comes in the form of Victoza, a diabetes medication made by Novo Nordisk.
Deen is now the spokeswoman for the drug. Deen and her sons, Jamie and Bobby, have also partnered with the drugmaker to promote the new Diabetes in a New Light program, which provides food tips and stress-management techniques as well as medical interventions for controlling diabetes. "I was determined to share my positive approach and not let diabetes stand in the way of enjoying my life," Deen said in a statement about the launch of Diabetes in a New Light."
Clearly, Ms. Deen did not spend the last few years investigating the underlying causes of diabetes. If she had done so, she would have discovered that you cannot successfully cure type 2 diabetes with drugs and/or insulin.
Why?
Because type 2 diabetes arises from faulty leptin signaling and insulin resistance. It is therefore a fully preventable condition that can be controlled or reversed by recovering your insulin and leptin sensitivities. However, the only known way to reestablish proper leptin and insulin signaling is through a proper diet and exercise. There is NO drug that can accomplish this ? a fact that makes the current disease paradigm even more tragic, as diabetes continues to skyrocket, and the conventional treatments are needlessly killing diabetics prematurely.
In Ms. Deen's case, her drug of choice, Victoza, is a non-insulin diabetes medication that has some very disturbing potential side effects, including cancer! It's certainly not something I would perceive as a "positive approach"...
It is important to know that there is NO pill to cure or even control diabetes that addresses the fundamental issue, insulin resistance. Most of them tend to lower blood sugar, which is why they are called oral hypoglycemics. The problem with most physicians is that they believe high blood sugar is the problem. However, the real problem is insulin resistance, which these drugs do not address in any way.
Victoza?A Potentially Dangerous Option for Diabetics...
According to the prescribing information for Victoza (Liraglutide), there are a number of important warnings you need to be aware of, including a black box warning?the strongest warning issued by FDA?which states that:
"Liraglutide causes thyroid C-cell tumors at clinically relevant exposures in rodents. It is unknown whether Victoza
Jan
30
Breast Cancer and Heart Attacks: A Deadly Side Effect of Calcium Supplements?
Filed Under Main Content, Other News | Leave a Comment
By Dr. Mercola
Calcium is one of the most popular dietary supplements on the market, largely because of the widely circulated mantra that mega-doses of this mineral are essential for building and maintaining healthy bones.
As a result, many people believe that taking a calcium supplement is a simple way to prevent bone fractures associated with osteoporosis.
What they have not been told is that while you can force increased bone mineral density with calcium supplements, you cannot be sure that this will result in greater bone strength.
Be Careful In Interpreting Bone Tests Results
Bone density, while an excellent measurement of compressive strength, does not reveal tensile strength, i.e. whether or not your bone will resist breaking from being pulled or stretched, as commonly occurs in a fall or similar trauma.
Moreover, "osteoporosis," as presently defined by bone scans (DXA scan) using the T-score, inappropriately defines "normal bone density" according to the standard of a 25-year old, young adult.
In other words, if you are 40, 50, or even 100, the T-score-based system says your bones are not normal, or even diseased if they are not as dense as they were when you were a young adult.
If in fact they used the age-appropriate Z-score, most cases of "osteopenia," and many cases of "osteoporosis," would suddenly disappear because they were inappropriately classified from the start.
Do Calcium Supplements Predispose You to Breast Cancer?
Ultimately, the "calcium is good for your bones" mantra is yet another example of a good theory gone wrong, and represents how broadly deluded the mainstream medical community is about bone health and the nature of osteoporosis, and its highly fabricated twin condition "osteopenia."
There are actually a number of studies indicating that mass market calcium supplements increase your risk for cardiovascular incidents and other problems, while offering little benefit to your bones. Only because something can increase your bone density: eating what amounts to chalk or pulverized bone meal, or worse, chemicals like the drugs Fosamax and Evista, does not mean this will translate into improved health for your bones, or any of your other organ systems.
Indeed, before jumping off the lemming-like cliff of conventional medical wisdom, consider there is a solid body of research indicating that higher bone density may actually increase the risk of malignant breast cancer by 300% or more! Considering that close to 1 in 4 women will be diagnosed with cancer in their lives, with breast cancer top on the list, isn't the neurotic fixation on increasing bone density with calcium supplements misplaced, especially when it may increase the overall risk of dying from cancer and, as we will see, cardiovascular disease (the #1 killer), as well?
Taking Calcium Might Increase Your Heart Attack Risk
Heart attacks may be caused by supplemental calcium from elemental sources, which include limestone, oyster shell, and bone meal, according to two meta-analyses of available research (a meta-analysis is a review and summary of the results of many clinical studies on the same subject).
The first, conducted in 2010 and involving over 8,000 people, showed that taking this kind of inorganic calcium supplement in amounts of 500 mg or more would increase your relative risk of heart attack by 27 percent.
Critics of the study pointed out that it only looked at calcium supplementation without vitamin D administered at the same time (vitamin D helps you absorb and utilize calcium). However, the second analysis showed that even when co-administered with vitamin D, elemental calcium still increased heart attack risk by 24 percent, with researchers concluding:
"Calcium supplements with or without vitamin D modestly increase the risk of cardiovascular events, especially myocardial infarction ? A reassessment of the role of calcium supplements in osteoporosis management is warranted."
In fact, the second analysis was even more disturbing, as it found the calcium supplementation (in addition to vitamin D) increased the composite risk of heart attack and stroke by15%!
Calcium Can be Beneficial or Deadly Depending on Where it Ends Up in Your Body
Calcium is the most abundant mineral in your body, necessary for not only bone health but also regulating your heartbeat, conducting nerve impulses, clotting blood and stimulating hormone secretions. Your body does not make calcium, and in fact loses calcium daily through your skin, nails, hair, sweat and elimination, which is why you must replace it via your diet.
It has been estimated, however, that your body excretes as little as 100 mg a day, making the current recommendations by the National Osteoporosis Foundation for women over 50 to take 1200 mg a day, a bit troubling. When we compare our calcium-rich diet to the traditional calcium-poor Chinese peasant diet, which was free of cow's milk and calcium supplements, approximately 250 mg a day of plant-based calcium was all that was needed to fulfill their bodily needs ? and this is a culture with no word for "osteoporosis" in its 3,000+ year old language!
Due to the fact that about 99 percent of your body's calcium is stored in your bones and teeth, if you don't get enough calcium, your body will take calcium from your bones to perform necessary functions. This is where the idea that supplementing with calcium could prevent calcium loss from your bones comes from -- but it is an overly simplified theory that lacks solid evidence to back it up, especially in Western, modernized cultures which consume unprecedentedly large amounts of dairy-derived, fortification-based and supplemental calcium.
For instance, one 2010 article presented evidence for a total lack of support in the research for calcium supplements reducing fracture risk!
Moreover, in the Harvard Nurses' Health Study, a review tracking 78,000 nurses for 12 years found that the relative risk of hip fracture was 45% higher in those women who drank two or more glasses of milk per day versus those who drank one glass or less. Indeed, in countries where both dairy consumption and overall calcium levels in the diet are the lowest, bone fracture rates are also the lowest; conversely, in cultures like the United States where calcium consumption is among the highest in the world, so too are the fracture rates among the highest (see: The China Study).
The truth is that taking any calcium in excess or isolation, without complementary nutrients like magnesium, vitamin D and vitamin K2, which help keep your body in balance, can have adverse effects, such as calcium building up in coronary arteries and causing heart attacks. Even taking calcium with vitamin D does not appear to be enough to prevent these types of adverse effects.
So when you take a biologically foreign form of calcium (such as limestone, oyster shell, egg shell and bone meal (hydroxylapatite), or when your body's ability to direct calcium to the right places becomes impaired (as when you are deficient in vitamin K2), calcium may be deposited where it shouldn't be, which can lead to multiple health problems.
Often, much of the burden of removing the excess calcium falls on the kidneys, which is why it has been proven on numerous occasions that calcium carbonate rapidly calcifies arteries in those with compromised kidney function, especially hemodialysis patients. Calcium deposits are, in fact, major contributors and even causative factors in many conditions, including the following:
Cellulite and scar tissue Coronary artery disease and atherosclerosis Dental plaque and gum disease Hypothyroidism Obesity and diabetes Alzheimer's disease Breast cancer and cysts (fibrocystic breasts) Gallstones, colon cancer and Crohn's disease Kidney stones Ovarian cysts Cataracts, glaucoma, and macular degeneration Bone spurs, stiff joints, osteoarthritis, tendonitis and bone cancer Too Much Calcium May Create Mineral Deficiencies that Promote Disease
Robert Thompson, M.D. wrote a book on this subject called The Calcium Lie, which explains that bone is comprised of at least a dozen minerals, and the exclusive focus on calcium supplementation is likely to worsen bone density and actually increase your risk for osteoporosis. Dr. Thompson believes overconsumption of calcium creates other mineral deficiencies and imbalances that will increase your risk of heart disease, kidney stones, gallstones, osteoarthritis, hypothyroidism, obesity and type 2 diabetes.
If your calcium supplement is being turned into "little rocks" that are being deposited in your soft tissues and arteries, you can begin to understand how this could be increasing your risk for a heart attack, stroke or other health condition.
Many believe that arterial plaque is simply a buildup of cholesterol. But in reality, more than 90 percent of these fatty plaques are calcified. Cholesterol is soft and waxy and does not impair the elasticity of your arteries. But calcium deposits are like concrete, "hardening" your arteries and impairing their ability to expand. It is calcium -- not cholesterol -- that induces arterial stiffness and makes the plaque less stable and more prone to chipping off and subsequently inducing a life-threatening clot.
This is particularly important for postmenopausal women because hormone balance is necessary for proper calcium signaling -- directing your body to deposit calcium into your bones. When hormones fall out of balance, this signaling causes calcium to slowly exit your bones and become deposited in your arteries instead. Simply taking a calcium supplement will not solve the problem because if your body cannot direct the calcium to the right spot, it will cause far more harm than good.
Why Vitamin K2 is Crucial if You Take Vitamin D and Calcium ?
Vitamin K2 engages in a delicate dance with vitamin D; whereas vitamin D provides improved bone development by helping you absorb calcium, there is new evidence that vitamin K2 directs the calcium to your skeleton, while preventing it from being deposited where you don't want it -- i.e., your organs, joint spaces, and arteries. As mentioned, a large part of arterial plaque consists of calcium deposits (atherosclerosis), hence the term "hardening of the arteries."
Vitamin K2 has also actually been found to decalcify certain tissues undergoing pathological (also known as ectopic) calcification.
Vitamin K2 activates a protein hormone called osteocalcin, produced by osteoblasts, which is needed to bind calcium into the matrix of your bone. Osteocalcin also appears to help prevent calcium from depositing into your arteries. In other words, without the help of vitamin K2, the calcium that your vitamin D so effectively lets in might be working AGAINST you -- by building up your coronary arteries rather than your bones. This is why if you take calcium and vitamin D but are deficient in vitamin K, you could be worse off than if you were not taking those supplements at all.
Food is the Best Source of Calcium
In order for calcium to do your body good, it must be in a bioavailable form and balanced out with vitamins D and K and other important trace minerals, as part of a total nutritional plan.
It's more likely your body can use calcium correctly if it's food-based calcium. Good sources include raw milk and cheese from pasture-raised cows (who eat the plants), leafy green vegetables, the pith of citrus fruits, carob, sesame seeds and wheatgrass, to name a few. It's worth mentioning that the studies done about calcium from dairy products are all done with pasteurized dairy, rather than raw dairy products that have more of their nutrients intact, and this muddies the results of these studies.
Calcium from dietary sources is typically better absorbed and utilized than calcium from supplements, which is why studies involving calcium from natural food sources have shown favorable results, including a 25 percent lower risk of dying from all causes, and a 23 percent lower risk of dying from heart disease.
You also need sources of silica and magnesium, which some researchers say is actually enzymatically "transmuted" by your body into the kind of calcium your bones can use. This theory was first put forth by French scientist Louis Kevran, a Nobel Prize nominee who spent years studying how silica, calcium, magnesium, and other minerals are related and transmutable into one another through low-energy nuclear transformation only found within living systems.
His theory explains how cows and chickens produce far more calcium in their milk and eggs than is found in their diet, or why, workers exposed to extremely high temperatures (130 degrees F) in the Middle East are known to consume salt tablets, which their bodies convert to potassium (as measured by their excreta), resulting in a reduction in their bodily temperature.
Good sources of bone-strengthening silica are cucumbers, bell peppers, tomatoes, and a number of herbs including horsetail, nettles, oat straw, alfalfa, and raw cacao, which is also extremely rich in highly bioavailable magnesium.
Dr. Thompson recommends the use of natural unprocessed salt as a far better alternative to calcium supplements because it provides the trace minerals you simply cannot get from food grown in today's mineral-depleted soils. My favorite source of trace minerals is pure, unprocessed Himalayan salt, which contains 84 elements needed by your body.
The bottom line is, optimize your vitamin D levels through sun exposure and consume a variety of fresh, local organic whole foods, including vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, organic meats and eggs, unprocessed salt, and raw organic unpasteurized dairy, which will give you the bioavailable calcium your body needs along with the trace minerals and other cofactors it needs to be absorbed and properly utilized by your body.
Sources:
Related Articles:Comments (166)
Jan
29
The Worthless Way to Prevent Cancer
Filed Under Main Content, Other News | Leave a Comment
By Dr. Mercola
On October 25, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued the recommendation that Merck's vaccine against the human papilloma virus (HPV), Gardasil, be given to males between the ages of 11 and 21.
They further recommend the vaccine series can be given to boys as young as nine, as well as to men up to the age of 26, especially if they engage in homosexual sex?allegedly to offer partial protection against genital warts, and cancers of the penis and rectum.
Another key part of the recommendation is the claim that reducing HPV in men will reduce transmission to girls and women, and thereby prevent cervical cancer deaths.
But according to a recent study, which is based on a mathematical study of HPV transmission, this is not an effective strategy.
Rather, the authors concluded that:
"Increasing vaccine uptake among preadolescent girls is more effective in reducing HPV infection than including boys in existing vaccination programs.
As a rule, directing prophylactic immunization at the sex with the highest prevaccine prevalence results in the largest reduction of the population prevalence."
"Because many countries have started vaccinating girls against HPV, these countries should stick to vaccinating girls, said study researcher Johannes Bogaards, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam. Only once most girls are vaccinated should efforts begin to vaccinate boys, and even then, only if there will be an added benefit to male vaccination, Bogaards said."
There's NO Evidence that Gardasil Reduces Cervical Cancer Incidence
Despite Merck's claims, the question of whether Gardasil will reduce cervical cancer deaths in real-world conditions has actually never been answered. The company-sponsored studies on the subject looked at cervical changes that aren't indicative of cervical cancer in the first place.
According to Discover Magazine:
"Merck says that in males, the vaccine is 89 percent effective against genital warts and 75 percent effective against anal cancer. On closer inspection, some of the numbers don't just deflate, they evaporate ... So how did the HPV vaccine become a multi-billion-dollar winner for Merck? Well you might not be surprised to hear that the company happily lavished money on doctors, professional societies, and over 100 legislators."
Vanishing Efficacy Rates
In her Discover article, medical investigative journalist Jeanne Lenzer goes on to expose how misleading Merck's stated efficacy rates really are:
"On May 10, 2007, Merck published the results of a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that claimed an astounding 98 percent efficacy in preventing changes in the cervix used as a marker for cervical cancer.
But?[to] achieve the 98 percent efficacy claim, Merck excluded from analysis anyone who "violated" the study protocol. In other words, all real-world problems that arose were excluded from analysis. Problems like girls who refused to take a second or third shot after they became sick and (correctly or incorrectly) blamed the vaccine?
To Merck's credit, they reported that when all women in the study were analyzed, the vaccine's efficacy dropped to 44 percent? [But the] 44 percent benefit included only those women with the two specific cancer-causing HPV strains found in the vaccine? [W]hen the researchers looked at negative cervical changes from any causes, they found that changes occurred in unvaccinated women at a rate of 1.5 events per 100 person-years, while vaccinated women had 1.3 events?dropping the benefit to 17 percent.
Moreover, most of the cervical changes tracked by the researchers weren't even indicative of cervical cancer in the first place. Most were innocent cellular abnormalities that either disappear entirely on their own, or never progress to cancer. In fact, when they looked more closely at advanced cervical changes most likely to progress to cancer versus more innocent changes that go away spontaneously, it was the innocent changes that accounted for the decline." [Emphasis mine]
Gardasil has already proven to be a reactive vaccine with potentially devastating side effects. In order to accept a high level of risk to your child's health, don't you think you deserve some pretty overwhelming proof that it is in fact worth this risk? Ultimately you need to carefully review the risk/benefit ratio of this vaccine and carefully consider this important decision.
Why Expose Millions to Potential Harm in Order to Save a Handful?
According to a recent CNN report, the cost to vaccinate 11- and 12-year old boys would be $38 million. How can this in any way be justified as cost-effective, when anal cancer, for example, has so far stricken a mere 5,820 men and women this year. The annual death rate from anal cancer is 770 individuals?300 men and 470 women!
Gardasil is claimed to be 75 percent effective against anal cancer in men, so crunch the numbers? This is nothing short of crazy. They actually want to place millions of people at risk with this dangerous vaccine in order to reduce anal cancer deaths that claims less than 300 men per year? That's incredible! Likewise, cervical cancer accounts for less than ONE percent of all cancer deaths, so this vaccine is certainly not aimed at any major health threat, no matter which way you look at it. But it gets worse. As explained by Lenzer in the featured article:
"First off, let's define the problem: The annual number of deaths from anal-rectal cancer among all men in the U.S. is 300. And how did Merck get its happy statistics on efficacy? Once again, they reported an idealized benefit by excluding from analysis 1,250 study violators out of 4,055 total test subjects. When the real-world analysis was conducted, the numbers plunged?right down to plum nothing. After evaluating tissue changes in male genitalia that were suggestive of a cancer precursor, Merck reported that vaccine efficacy against such lesions "was not observed."Believe me, this is a health emergency in the making. Please do not be deceived into giving this dangerous vaccine to your kids, regardless of their gender. As Angela Raffle, a specialist in cervical cancer screening, told the New York Times three years ago:
"Oh, dear. If we give it to boys, then all pretenses of scientific worth and cost analysis goes out the window."
Gardasil Sorely Lacking in Safety
While cost-effectiveness is an important concern, I believe safety would certainly trump it. It's important to realize that while Gardasil has not been proven to actually prevent cancer in the long term, there is mounting evidence showing it carries tremendous long-term health risks, including:
Bell's Palsy and Guillan-Barre syndrome Seizures Cervical dysplasia, and cervical cancer Blood clotting and heart problems, including cardiac arrest Miscarriages and fetal abnormalities amongst pregnant women who received the vaccine Sudden death
According to the featured article:
"? Nizar Souayah, MD, of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark, says he and his colleagues found "clear evidence from our database of an increased incidence of Guillain-Barr