Fresh meat versus processed meat: Here's why it matters

(NaturalNews) Every July 4th, Americans gobble down enormous quantities of meat. Some of it actually comes from animals. The rest comes from factories that assemble bits and pieces of meat scraps, using chemical additives to make the final substance resemble something edible. That's where hot dogs come from… and sausage, pepperoni and deli meats.

If you're eating hot dogs this Fourth of July, you're engaged inacts of nutritional tyranny against your own body. So if you eat meat, eat fresh meat, not processed meat. Here's why:

Read meat versus processed packaged meat

Countless scientific studies have concluded that eating red meat is bad for you. But in those studies, researchers routinely fail to differentiate between processed junk meat versus free-range, grass-fed organic beef which isn't processed with chemicals. And in doing so, they cast a dark shadow of doubt over all red meat when the reality is that there is a huge difference in the health impacts of fresh meat versus processed factory-made meat.

Just like the primary health risk of smoking cigarettes is from the chemical additives, not merely the tobacco (http://www.naturalnews.com/032795_t...);the primary health risk from eating red meat is from the chemical additives, not from the meat itself.

That's my conclusion after reading tens of thousands of news headlines, research reports and study abstracts: Red meat may be objectionable for lots of reasons -- the ethics of raising animals in food factory concentration camp conditions, for example -- but any focus on thehealth impactsof the meat must conclude that the chemicals are the real problem, not merely the meat. (Unless, of course, it's meat raised on genetically modified corn, in which case the meat probably is biologically toxic, and that's 95% of all conventional meat, just so ya know…)

Why I don't eat red meat

I don't eat red meat, by the way. That fact possibly gives this article even more impact, because it's not even being written by a routine red meat eater. (I tried a bit of organic free-range beef a month ago but just couldn't stomach it. Not my bag, baby!)

From an ethical standpoint, I personally don't wish to participate in the beef industry's treatment of cattle, yet at the same time I've found myself advocating grass-fed organic beef to those who still choose to consume beef for their own reasons. I'm not a food Nazi. People can eat whatever they want -- I just try to help them make healthier choices, and all the evidence I've seen on this issue convinces me that it's theadditivesin processed meat that are killing people, not the consumption of fresh meat itself.

It doesn't take much sodium nitrite, for example, to greatly increase a person's risk of pancreatic cancer or colon cancer. And guess where you find that chemical? Hot dogs, bacon, sausage, pepperoni, ham, lunchmeat and even beef jerky. It's also in all the quick lunch trays for children, by the way. But never in the fresh meat.

People who eat fresh meat don't poison their bodies with sodium nitrite. Nor MSG (bacon, sausage, beef jerky) nor all the other chemical additives typically added to meat products. That's something to remember if you shop for meat of any kind. And don't forget that unless it's organic meat, it's almost certainly contaminated with GMOs, because cows, pigs and chickens are all fed genetically modified corn and soy as part of their diets.

If you're eating that stuff, you're committing slow suicide. And maybe not even that slow, come to think of it.

People who eat their own farm-fresh meat are remarkably healthy

One interesting angle in all this is that people who eat farm-fresh meat usually don't have all the chronic health problems of people who buy and consume processed factory-made meat. It's the quality of the meat that makes all the difference. I know people who eat their own chickens, cows and pigs, and their health is just great! (But they wouldn't dare eat GMO-contaminated pork sausage sold at the grocery store…)

When research says that "red meat" is linked to pancreatic cancer (for example), what they mean is processed red meat laced with chemical additives. We're never told this, of course, because the entire medical system is so nutritionally ignorant that modern medical researchers don't even recognize any qualitative difference between LIVE foods versus DEAD foods -- nor fresh meat versus processed meat. To them, it's all the same. So their questionnaires simply ask study participants about "meat consumption" without breaking it out into "fresh" versus processed. That's why all meat gets a bad rap when it's really just the processed, GMO-contaminated meat that's the culprit.

Avoiding meat isn't a guaranteed health strategy, either

Interestingly, avoiding meat doesn't automatically make you healthier. While I personally follow a largely plant-based diet that's rich in superfoods and smoothies, I've also met quite a few sick vegetarians and vegans who are eating processed vegetarian foods (pastas, white rice, factory-made foods, etc.) that make them look like they're about to die from malnutrition. An alarming number of vegetarians, I've discovered, are chronically deficient in omega-3s and vitamin B12. They've taken on vegetarianism but never learned how to pursue a plant-based diet in a healthy way.

(Veganism, when done correctly, is undoubtedly the best diet for a sustainable planet, but personally I've found it impossible to follow as someone who works on a ranch and engages in a fair amount of physical work each day. For me, powering my work takes a small amount of fish, fresh farm eggs, some Moxxor omega-3s and other fish oils such as those from Living Fuel. Overall, my diet is probably 95% plant based. No dairy. I do buy grass-fed free-range beef bones for my dog Roxy who greatly benefits from the raw bone nutrition.)

The real answer in all this is simple:

The QUALITY of what you eat matters more than you think.

A vegetarian living on Cheetos and Diet Coke is going to have far worse health than a farmer eating farm-fresh eggs and his own home-grown beef steaks. It's not merely about meat versus no meat, it's about the quality of the food (meat or otherwise) you choose to consume.

From a nutritional standpoint alone, I'm convinced that avoiding chemical additives and GMOs is far more important than merely avoiding meat.

What about the ethics of eating meat? Well, that's a question for another article.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/032890_red_meat_food_additives.html#ixzz1RUA9cR31

Durbin 'Dietary Supplement Labeling Act' to reward FDA for failures and punish responsible supplement producers

(NaturalNews) A new bill introduced by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), S. 1310, the "Dietary Supplement Labeling Act of 2011," threatens to undermine the dietary supplement industry by giving the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) more power over it, despite the agency's failure to enforce existing laws that are already on the books.

The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), the leading trade association representing the dietary supplement industry, has come out in opposition to the bill, saying it will essentially "punish all responsible companies with its overreaching mandates."

The introduction of S. 1310 is allegedly a response to the sale of "Lazy Cakes," a brownie food that contains an added supplement melatonin, but that is currently being illegitimately sold as a regular food item in grocery stores and night clubs.

But rather than properly handle the situation like it is tasked to do under current law, the FDA has decided to simply let the product remain on the market. And instead of the agency being reprimanded or held accountable for its error, some lawmakers are actually suggesting that the FDA be given more unnecessary power under S. 1310 (http://www.anh-usa.org/melatonin-ca...).

"The bill contains requirements that already exist under current law that give FDA the proper legal authority to take action to protect consumers and maintain safety standards," writes CRN in a recent press release. "FDA needs to continue working toward becoming a more efficient steward of its resources, and we continuously call on the Agency to use its power under the law."

Because Lazy Cakes contains a food additive that has not received pre-market approval demonstrating its safety, the product cannot legally be sold as "food." So the FDA has a responsibility, in this case, to require that its manufacturer either relabel the product as a dietary supplement, or else require that it no longer be sold -- and the FDA has the power to handle this situation right at this moment without the needed for more power.

Interestingly, none of the provisions in S. 1310 have anything to do with issues surrounding the illegal sale of Lazy Cakes -- they all apply to supplement manufacturers, the vast majority of whom produce safe, effective products in accordance with current law. The producers of Lazy Cakes are basically selling a "supplement" product as a food, which current law prohibits -- and the FDA could choose to take action against the company for its violations, but for whatever reason it is choosing not to.

S. 1310 appears to be nothing more than an assault against the supplement industry disguised as an effort to improve supplement safety. And the FDA's lax response to Lazy Cakes is perhaps an attempt to tarnish the reputation of the dietary supplement industry in order to push for more control over it. Based on their previous actions, both the FDA and Sen. Durbin have demonstrated blatant animosity towards the supplement industry, so it is no surprise to see S. 1310 introduced on their behalf.

Provisions in S. 1310 include burdensome registration requirements for all supplement manufacturers, "enhanced" labeling requirements that mandate the disclosure of proprietary supplement blends, and new legal definitions for "supplements" and "conventional foods." In the end, these provisions grant the FDA more control over supplements, and make it that much more difficult for honest supplement manufacturers to conduct business.

Instead of giving the FDA more power over dietary supplements, how about holding the agency accountable for its current industry responsibilities? And if the FDA is unable to adequately perform the even the duties it has already been tasked with, perhaps it is time to remove dietary supplements from its regulatory arsenal altogether.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.anh-usa.org/dietary-supp...

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/032911_dietary_supplement_labeling_act_FDA.html#ixzz1RU5F1ZD4

Monsanto's Roundup Linked to Deadly Disease and Birth Defects

(NaturalNews) A recent report put together by various professors, scholars and researchers affiliated withEarth Open Source, a collaboration group devoted to food issues, cites in great deal the multitude of peer-reviewed scientific studies which show that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide (glyphosate), which is applied to many genetically-modified (GM) crops, is responsible for causing birth defects, endocrine disruption, DNA damage, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and cancer -- and yet government agencies around the world continue to ignore this crucial information, and withhold it from the public, as they push for its approval or expanded use.

One of the main studies highlighted in the report was published in the August 2010 edition ofChemical Research in Toxicology, and it showed that Roundup causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at levels much lower than those used on agricultural crops. And since Roundup-ready GM crops are designed to tolerate the herbicide, not resist it, they literally absorb Roundup, which is then passed on in much higher levels to humans that eat the tainted crops.

Another study conducted as part of the Argentine government's research group CONICET found high rates of the same or similar birth defect in humans living near GM soy crops that were routinely sprayed with Roundup, indicating a clear connection between the chemical and human birth defects. More than half of the growing land in Argentina is now dominated by GM soy, which is sprayed with about 53 millions gallons of Roundup every single year.

The authors of the report say that this and the bulk of other independent, indicting evidence against Roundup has been largely ignored by governments, including in the EU where new data requirements will demand that proper investigation into the safety of GMOs is conducted. Rather than rely on industry-funded pseudoscience that claims GMOs are safe, authors say those working for the people must rise to the occasion and take charge in having proper safety evaluations conducted on the safety of Roundup.

"The public ... has been kept in the dark by industry and regulators about the ability of glyphosate and Roundup to cause malformations," write the authors in their summary. "[T]he work of independent scientists who have drawn attention to the herbicide's teratogenic effects has been ignored, denigrated, or dismissed ... They have also contributed to the growing division between independent and industry science, which in turn erodes public trust in the regulatory process."

Sources for this story include:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/...

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/032920_Roundup_birth_defects.html#ixzz1RU3O4ytZ

Is your medication causing you to suffer from malnutrition?

(NaturalNews) Most people trust that the medicines that they take will help them overcome illness, enhance their health and promote well-being. Unfortunately medications often deplete important nutrients from the body, and people don't find the relief that they seek.

People who have become malnourished as a result of their medications are vulnerable to a host of nutrition related diseases. To make matters worse, they may find themselves having to treat malnourishment with a new batch of medications and this may become a dangerous cycle.

For instance, statins which are used to control cholesterol levels reduce CoEnzyme 10 and other important nutrients. Statins may also result in lower levels of A, D, K, folic acid and iron in the body. Cholesterol gets a bad rap, but it helps the body digest fats and nutrients and is important for regulating hormones.

Even common medications such as laxatives and antacids can deplete or block the uptake of essential nutrients. PPI antacids, for example interfere with Vitamin B-12. Furthermore blocking acid production for long periods of time using antacids may reduce the body's ability to absorb minerals. Loss of B12 over time may result in anemia, as well as other conditions including fatigue. Blocked acid production by antacids can leave the body vulnerable to infections and bone fractures as well.

The use of antibiotics has become a hot topic because the overuse of these medications has led to antibiotic resistant bacteria, and the loss of healthy bacteria. Antibiotics may also be harmful because they deplete the body of essential nutrients such as zinc, magnesium, Vitamins B, and iron.

Another group that decrease nutrients are pain killers and anti-inflammatory drugs. Aspirin and salicylates available over the counter for example, rob the body of folic acid and potassium. Other medicines commonly used for pain and swelling such as Cortisone, and Prednisone reduce levels of the nutrients calcium, magnesium, folic acid, vitamins D and C to name a few.

Diuretics such as Lasis and Endecrin deplete sodium, potassium, magnesium and Vitamins B1 and B6. Other medications that serve as a diuretic like Enduron deplete levels of Co-Q 10, and sodium and other important nutrients. Women who take hormone replacement drugs and birth control drugs are also at risk for malnutrition as they deplete levels magnesium,zinc and B2, B6, B12 and folic acid.

SSRI(selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors)drugs that are widely used are also associated with nutritional deficiencies. While a SSRI is commonly used to treat depression, they are also prescribed for some sorts of injuries, pain and are used on occasion to treat allergies. SSRI interferes with the absorption of B-12 as well as other nutrients like biotin and folic acid. SSRIs may also deplete Co-Q 10.

Before beginning a new medication consult with your doctor, or pharmacist to find out what your nutritional risks are. Here are just a few important nutrients commonly depleted by medications and some of the ways that can lead to new disease.

* Lack of proper levels of sodium may result in; nausea, diarrhea, weight loss, and muscle cramps

* Magnesium depletion may result in soft bones, fatigue, heart palpitations, convulsions and acne

* Zinc loss may disturb digestion and retard growth

* Iron is important in growth, vitality and a deficiency leads to anemia

* Vitamin A is essential in bone and tooth development and health. It is also important for the immune system.

* B1 is crucial for heart health, fights depression, constipation and fatigue. Provides protection for the heart

* B5 lack of this important vitamin may result in insomnia, abdominal pain, depression, rapid pulse, lowered blood pressure and disturbed electrolytes.

* B12 crucial for development and health of nervous system, lack of B12 may result in anemia.

* Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ 10)is crucial in all cellular functions, and is highly concentrated in heart tissue. A deficiency may lead to heart disease.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/032923_drugs_malnutrition.html#ixzz1RU0Wv74d

TAKE ACTION NOW

Help us oppose the FDA's proposed new rules by signing this online petition.Click here for the petition.

Once again, your representatives in Washington need to hear from you --pronto!-- if you hope to maintain your right to purchase vitamins and supplements in the USA.

Lest you think this is an exaggerated warning, keep in mind thathundreds of dietary supplements have just been banned across the EU (http://www.naturalnews.com/032302_h...). Regulators in the USA are gunning for the same kind of wipeout of the supplements industry as a way to lock in decades of disease profits for Big Pharma and the greed-driven cancer industry (which cares far more abouttreatingcancer thanpreventingit).

If these new FDA regulations go into effect, your access to dietary supplements could simply disappear before the end of this year, turning vitamin sellers into "criminal dealers" and "smugglers" (much like raw milk retailers today). Armed FDA raids would be conducted on vitamin and supplement companies, and the founders of those companies would be rounded up and sent to prison for their "crimes" of selling unapproved ingredients.

This is the FDA's end game. Even if the FDA only partially enforces this new rule, it would still place a heavy compliance burden on small nutritional supplement companies. As the ANH says, "The bottom line is that when new and unreasonable burdens are placed on supplement manufacturers, it immediately becomes a financial increase for consumers. And if the pressure becomes too great, the nutritional supplements on which you rely may simply become unavailable."

That's exactly what the FDA wants, of course: To put dietary supplement companies out of business, leaving the field open only to those pharma-chemical vitamin companies largely owned by the drug companies themselves. They use synthetic chemicals which are NOT subjected to these new FDA rules. Many of those synthetic vitamins are, in essence, poisons. Isn't it interesting that the FDA says companies need no approval to usepoisonsin their formulations, but they need FDA permission to use natural substances that actually prevent disease?

Learn more at the ANH:http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-new-snea...

And please consider supporting this outstanding group with a donation so that it can continue its mission of staying on top of legislative and regulatory issues that impact our health freedoms. NaturalNews is a long-time ANH supporter, and we honor the work this group is doing.

Stay tuned to NaturalNews.com for more reporting on this latest FDA assault on health freedom.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/032912_FDA_dietary_supplements.html#ixzz1RTzCoJzy