Día de la mujer

Con una foto de mi abuela, que era una gran señora transgresora e inteligente, quiero saludar el día de la mujer. Ojalá pronto no sea necesario recordar que las mujeres padecen discriminación y olvido. Y en muchos países maltrato amparado por los gobiernos.

Chocolate al asparmato

Neurotoxins in Your Chocolate Milk?
By Charles Foerster

Los consumidores deberíamos estar muy atentos a lo que ingerimos. Me explico. Un estudio de última hora, cuyos resultados recogen hoy muchos periódicos de la zona euro, apuntan a los efectos nocivos del consumo exagerado de productos cárnicos elaborados: embutidos, salchichas, carnes enlatadas, patés... y toda una larga lista de alimentos populares. La costumbre de incorporar a la dieta abundantes especialidades cárnicas elaboradas es característica de países como Alemania. En España, Grecia, o Portugal las dietas tradicionales incluyen pescado (blanco y azul), aceite de oliva, legumbres, pasta y ensaladas entre otras delicias.
Una vez más la conocida como dieta mediterránea sale bien parada. Aquí se llama la atención sobre un componente, asparmato, que se adiciona a algunas leches con chocolate. El chocolate, manjar de dioses, cuando es de calidad puede ser muy sano. Pero adulterado o elaborado con elementos extraños al fruto natural constituye, tal vez, una fuente de neurotoxinas. Antes de decidirse a meter un artículo en la cesta de la compra es muy conveniente leer la letra pequeña. Y si uno tiene dudas, no cortarse un pelo y preguntar. Les propongo el siguiente ejercicio gastronómico: si van a un "burguer", atrévanse a pegarle un buen bocado a eso que supone ser carne de vacuno. A palo seco. Sin el pan, que generalmente sabe bien. Sin ketchup. Sin cebolla. No sabe a nada. Da asco. Les aseguro que no repiten la experiencia. O sí.

Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/neurotoxins-in-your-chocolate-milk/5325038

This is a time when the public has an opportunity to materially affect how they, the consumers, may protect their own health and that of their offspring for generations to come. In that respect the timer is running down and anyone who consumes milk might want to see what the milk producers have planned.
The 17 other dairy products on the hit list include:
-acidified milk, cultured milk, sweetened condensed milk, nonfat dry milk, nonfat dry milk fortified with vitamins A and D, evaporated milk, dry cream, heavy cream, light cream, light whipping cream, sour cream, acidified sour cream, yogurt, low-fat yogurt, and non-fat yogurt.

To summarize the corporate petition, the IDFA and NMPF (International Dairy Foods Association and the National Milk Producers Federation) have petitioned the FDA to seek approval to allow optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk (e.g., chocolate flavoring added to milk) to be sweetened with any safe and suitable sweetener–including non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame.[1]
The Federal Register has the petition listed on their website where it can be viewed and comments can be posted
The proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity would be to promote more healthy eating practices, reduce childhood obesity as well as to promote honesty and fair dealing in the marketplace, so they say.
A more likely scenario is that by using aspartame to flavor the dairy products their costs will be lowered and their profits will increase.
Buyers beware.
Without doubt, the petitioners are using childhood obesity as the talking point to sell the idea of using the cheap but toxic aspartame as the sweetener or flavoring in dairy products.
While the idea of more healthy eating habits and a reduction in childhood obesity are obviously good ideas, using additional aspartame in the food chain is counter-productive and dangerous. The diets of Americans and their children in particular, are already loaded with the substance.

Aspartame
Aspartame is an artificial, non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar substitute in some foods and beverages. In the European Union, it is codified as E951. Aspartame is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. (Wikipedia)

Formula: C14H18N2O5

Molar mass: 294.3 g/mol

IUPAC ID: N-(L-?-Aspartyl)-L-phenylalanine, 1-methyl ester

Melting point: 246 °C

Density: 1.35 g/cm³

So why should we be concerned?
A study was done by the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio which showed adverse health effects to people who consumed aspartame flavored diet drinks. [2] The study suggested that instead of fighting obesity and its associated hazards, the use of aspartame might actually contribute to the conditions. Honesty and fair dealing would necessarily preclude adding even more aspartame to our diets. Right off, that alone is reason enough to question their motives, however, there is more.
Professor E. Pretorius, P. Humphries and H. Naudé, reported several disturbing observations concerning aspartame consumption in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Methanol, which forms 10% of the broken down product, is converted in the body to formate, which can either be excreted or can give rise to formaldehyde, diketopiperazine (a carcinogen) and a number of other highly toxic derivatives. Previously, it has been reported that consumption of aspartame could cause neurological and behavioural disturbances in sensitive individuals. Headaches, insomnia and seizures are also some of the neurological effects that have been encountered, and these may be accredited to changes in regional brain concentrations of catecholamines, which include norepinephrine, epinephrine and dopamine. The aim of this study was to discuss the direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain, and we propose that excessive aspartame ingestion might be involved in the pathogenesis of certain mental disorders (DSM-IV-TR 2000) and also in compromised learning and emotional functioning. [3]
Perhaps the longest on-going study on the deleterious effects of aspartame consumption has been that of Woodrow Monte, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Food Science and Nutrition at Arizona State University. His 30-year research has established direct links between aspartame and several diseases, particularly the diseases of civilization such as heart disease, cancer, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s. Dr. Monte’s studies center on the methanol-formaldehyde toxicity paradigm with compelling evidence. In his book, "While Science Sleeps", Monte explains how he considers methanol a medical Trojan Horse.
Until 200 years ago, methanol was an extremely rare component of the human diet and is still rarely consumed in contemporary hunter and gatherer cultures. With the invention of canning in the 1800s, canned and bottled fruits and vegetables, whose methanol content greatly exceeds that of their fresh counterparts, became far more prevalent. The recent dietary introduction of aspartame, an artificial sweetener 11% methanol by weight, has also greatly increased methanol consumption. Moreover, methanol is a major component of cigarette smoke, known to be a causative agent of many diseases of civilization (DOC). Conversion to formaldehyde in organs other than the liver is the principal means by which methanol may cause disease. The known sites of class I alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH I), the only human enzyme capable of metabolizing methanol to formaldehyde, correspond to the sites of origin for many DOC.
Dr. Monte has also compiled a list of 745 other studies showing that aspartame is indeed a very dangerous substance when consumed by humans. [4]
Numerous other researchers have consistently found damaging evidence linking aspartame andformaldehyde via the methanol component of aspartame. Rich Murray, MA, has also compiled a list of respected studies. [5]
A study included in that list by C. Trocho et al, reports the following:
Formaldehyde derived from dietary aspartame binds to tissue components in vivo. It clearly demonstrates cellular persistence and accumulation, or in layman’s terms, that formaldehyde can remain and accumulate in the body. It is absolutely established that formaldehyde converted from the methyl ester in aspartame embalms living tissue and damages DNA. [6]
Virtually all non-industry research shows that aspartame should never be consumed by humans. If this amendment is passed the mission of the FDA would be compromised and public health will be endangered.
A small window of opportunity exists for concerned citizens to exercise a degree of self-defense in dietary matters for themselves and for the health of their children; May 21, 2013, is the last day for public comments on the issue of allowing aspartame to be used in a wide range of diary products.

Charles Foerster is a former Naval Aviator and professional pilot. Email: jcfoers@msn.com

As this piece is being written, there is a little known petition awaiting action at the Food and Drug Administration. The official title is Flavored Milk; Petition to Amend the Standard of Identity for Milk and 17 Additional Dairy Products. It is in the public comment period until May 21, 2013.

See:https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products

Notes:
[1]Federal Register via the Government Printing Office ([www.gpo.gov] FR Doc No: 2013-03835

[2] Waistlines in People, Glucose Levels in Mice Hint at Sweeteners’ Effects: Related Studies Point to the Illusion of the Artificial, Science Daily.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110627183944.htm

[3] European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2008) 62, 451–462; doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602866; a review, published online 8 August 2007.

http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/liu10/files/2010/09/Direct-and-Indirect-Cellular-Effects-of-Aspartame-On-The-Brain.pdf

Fuentes de contaminación alimentaria

Polluted America: GMO Manmade Biological Threats, Plant Diseases, Germ Warfare

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Saber comer es muy importante. Nos va la vida en ello. Por eso he escogido el presente artículo que ofrece un sombrío panorama de la contaminación alimentaria. Recientemente los consumidores de la zona euro nos hemos visto sorprendidos por la presencia de carne de caballo en artículos supuestamente de ternera. La carne de caballo no es tóxica. La mentira sí.


Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/polluted-america-gmo-manmade-biological-threats-plant-diseases-germ-warfare/5324336

In the United States everything is polluted.

Democracy is polluted with special interests and corrupt politicians.

Accountability is polluted with executive branch exemptions from law and the Constitution and with special legal privileges for corporations, such as the Supreme Court given right to corporations to purchase American elections.

The Constitution is polluted with corrupt legal interpretations from the Bush and Obama regimes that have turned constitutional prohibitions into executive branch rights, transforming law from a shield of the people into a weapon in the hands of government.

Waters are polluted with toxic waste spills, oil spills, chemical fertilizer run-off with resulting red tides and dead zones, acid discharges from mining with resulting destructive algae such as prymnesium parvum, from toxic chemicals used in fracking and with methane that fracking releases into wells and aquifers, resulting in warnings to homeowners near to fracking operations to open their windows when showering.

The soil’s fertility is damaged, and crops require large quantities of chemical fertilizers. The soil is polluted with an endless array of toxic substances and now with glyphosate, the main element in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide with which GMO crops are sprayed.
Glyphosate now shows up in wells, streams and in rain.

Air is polluted with a variety of substances, and there are many large cities in which there are days when the young, the elderly, and those suffering with asthma are warned to remain indoors.

All of these costs are costs imposed on society and ordinary people by corporations that banked profits by not having to take the costs into account. This is the way in which unregulated capitalism works.

Our food itself is polluted with antibiotics, growth hormones, pesticides, and glyphosate.

Glyphosate might be the most dangerous development to date. Some scientists believe that glyphosate has the potential to wipe out our main grain crops and now that Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, has approved genetically modified Roundup Ready alfalfa, maintaining sustainable animal herds for milk and meat could become impossible.

Alfalfa is the main forage crop for dairy and beef herds. Genetically modified alfalfa could be unsafe for animal feed, and animal products such as milk and meat could become unsafe for human consumption.

On January 17, 2011, Dr. Don Huber outlined the dangers of approving Roundup Ready alfalfa in a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack. Huber requested that approval be delayed until independent research could evaluate the risks. Vilsack ignored the letter and accommodated Monsanto’s desire for monopoly profits that come from the company’s drive to control the seed supply of US and world agriculture by approving Roundup Ready alfalfa.

Who is Don Huber, and why is his letter important?

Huber is professor emeritus at Purdue University. He has been a plant pathologist and soil microbiologist for a half century. He has an international reputation as a leading authority. In the US military, he evaluated natural and manmade biological threats, such as germ warfare and disease outbreaks and retired with the rank of Colonel. For the USDA he coordinates the Emergent Diseases and Pathogens Committee. In other words, he is high up in his scientific profession.

You can read online what Huber told the Secretary of Agriculture. Briefly, the outcome of many years of Roundup Ready GMO corn and soybeans has been a decline in nutritional value, the outbreak of new plant diseases resulting in widespread crop failures, and severe reproductive problems in livestock, with some herds having a spontaneous abortion rate that is too high to maintain a profitable business.

Glyphosate is a powerful biocide. It harms beneficial soil organisms, altering the natural balance in the soil and reducing the disease resistance of crops, thus unleashing diseases that devastate corn, soybean, and wheat crops, and giving rise to a new pathogen associated with premature animal aging and infertility. These developments, Huber told the Agriculture Secretary, “are threatening the economic viability of both crop and animal producers.” The evidence seems to be real that genetically modified crops have lost their genetic resistance to diseases that never previously were threats.

There is evidence that the new pathogen is related to a rise in human infertility and is likely having adverse effects on human health of which we are still uninformed. Like fluoride, glyphosate might enter our diet in a variety of ways. For example, the label on a bottle of Vitamin D says, “Other ingredients: soybean oil, corn oil.”

Monsanto disputes Huber’s claims and got support for its position from the agricultural extension services of Iowa State and Ohio State universities. However, the question is whether these are independently funded services or corporate supported, and there is always the element of professional rivalry, especially for funding, which comes mainly from agribusiness.

The Purdue University extension service was more circumspect. On the one hand it admits that there is evidence that supports Huber’s claims: “The claim that herbicides, such as glyphosate, can make plants more susceptible to disease is not entirely without merit. Research has indicated that plants sprayed with glyphosate or other herbicides are more susceptible to many biological and physiological disorders (Babiker et al., 2011; Descalzo et al., 1996; Johal and Rahe, 1984; Larson et al., 2006; Means and Kremer, 2007; Sanogo et al., 2000; Smiley et al., 1992). . . . Although some research indicates there is an increase in disease severity on plants in the presence of glyphosate, it does NOT necessarily mean that there is an impact on yield.”

On the other hand, the Purdue extension service maintains its recommendation for “judicious glyphosate use for weed control.” However, one of Huber’s points is that weeds are developing Roundup resistance. Use has gone beyond the “judicious” level and as glyphosate builds up in soil, its adverse effects increase.

A submission to the Environmental Protection Agency by 26 university entomologists describes the constraints that agribusiness has put on the ability of independent scientists to conduct objective research. The submission, in which the scientists are afraid to reveal their names because of the threat of funding cutoffs, is included as an item in one of the bibliographical references below. Here is the statement:

“The names of the scientists have been withheld from the public docket because virtually all of us require cooperation from industry at some level to conduct our research. Statement: Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.”

Monsanto is not only sufficiently powerful to prevent any research other than that which it purchases with its funding, but also Monsanto succeeded last year in blocking with money and propaganda the GMO labeling law in California. I would tell you to be careful what you eat as it can make you ill and infertile, but you can’t even find out what you are eating.

You live in America, which has “freedom and democracy” and “accountable” government and ”accountable” corporations. You don’t need to worry. The government and responsible corporations are taking good care of you. Especially Obama, Vilsack, and Monsanto.

Short bibliography:

http://fhr.branditimage.com/hot-topic-letter-to-us-secretary-of-agriculture/

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/apr/6/don-hubers-cover-letter-euuk-commissions/