Agribusiness in question

While on the campaign trail in Iowa, Barack Obama boasted, “We’ll tell ConAgra that it’s not the Department of Agribusiness. We’re going to put the people’s interests ahead of the special interests.”¹ Despite that promise, it seems that ConAgra’s friends at Monsanto and CropLife are still finding their way into the USDA.

Last month, President Obama nominated two “Big Ag” power brokers–Roger Beachy and Islam Siddiqui–to key agency positions, putting agribusiness executives in charge of our country’s agricultural research and trade policy. Please join us in telling the President that this isn’t the change we voted for. We don’t want Big Ag running the show any more.  

Siddiqui’s confirmation hearing is set for next week. Please help us reach our goal of 50,000 signatures to make a real impact.

http://fdn.actionkit.com/go/65?akid=35.63486.sfhQtX&t=1

Obama’s first agribusiness selection is Roger Beachy, to be head of the USDA’s newly created National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Beachy is the founding president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, MO. It may sound innocuous, but the Danforth Center is essentially the non-profit arm of GMO seed giant Monsanto; Monsanto’s CEO sits on its board, and the company provides considerable funding for the Center’s operations.²

As the head of the USDA’s new research arm, formerly known as the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CREES), Beachy is responsible for deciding how U.S. research dollars will be spent in agriculture.³ Translation: more research on biotech, less research on how to scale sustainable and organic agriculture.

Unfortunately, Beachy has already started work at the USDA, but the next nominee—Islam Siddiqui—still must be confirmed by the U.S.Senate. Siddiqui, the Vice President of Science and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife America, was recently nominated to be the Chief Agricultural Negotiator at the Office of the US Trade Representative.⁴ Amazingly, when Michele Obama planted her “organic” garden on the White House lawn, Siddiqui’s CropLife MidAmerica sent the First Lady a letter saying that it made them “shudder”.⁵

During his career, Siddiqui spent over 3 years as a pesticide lobbyist, an Undersecretary at the USDA and a VP at CropLife. In defending Siddiqui, the White House has stated that he played a key role in helping establish the country’s first organic standards.⁶ What they neglect to mention, though, is that those original organic standards would have allowed irradiation, sewage sludge and GMOs to undermine organic integrity! The standards were so watered down that 230,000 people signed a petition for them to be changed, which they eventually were.⁷

Fortunately, the organic community stopped Siddiqui and his cronies then, and we need your help now to do it again. If Siddiqui’s nomination is allowed to go through, then agribusiness will continue to control the seeds, the science, and the distribution of global food and agriculture.

Please join Food Democracy Now! and a broad coalition of other groups, in calling on President Obama to keep his campaign promise of closing the revolving door between agribusiness and his administration.  

Please click here to add your voice.  

http://fdn.actionkit.com/go/65?akid=35.63486.sfhQtX&t=1

Thanks for standing with us and our coalition partners from across the country, including: The Pesticide Action Network (PAN), National Family Farm Coalition, Food & Water Watch, Farmworker’s Association of Florida, Institute of Agriculture & Trade Policy, Greenpeace and the Center for Food Safety in calling for President Obama to live up to his promises to put people’s interests ahead of special interests

Sustainably Yours,

Dave, Lisa and the Food Democracy Now! Team.

If you’d like to see Food Democracy Now!’s grassroots work continue, please consider donating. Your donation of $5 or more will help us continue our work. We appreciate your support! http://fdn.actionkit.com/go/25?akid=35.63486.sfhQtX&t=1

Sources:

1. Obama slams corporate agriculture, two Illinois firms, The Chicago Tribune, November 10, 2007
http://fdn.actionkit.com/go/58?akid=35.63486.sfhQtX&t=1

2. Another Monsanto man in a key USDA post?, Grist, September 24, 2009
http://fdn.actionkit.com/go/59?akid=35.63486.sfhQtX&t=1

3. A New Direction on Research at the USDA? The Experts Weigh In, The Huffington Post, October 15, 2009
http://fdn.actionkit.com/go/60?akid=35.63486.sfhQtX&t=1

4. Obama’s attempt to tap an agrichemical-industry flack runs into trouble, Grist, October 10, 2009
http://fdn.actionkit.com/go/61?akid=35.63486.sfhQtX&t=1

5. Michelle’s green garden upsets pesticide makers, The First Post, April 23, 2009
http://fdn.actionkit.com/go/62?akid=35.63486.sfhQtX&t=1

6. Agriculture nomination steams greens, Politico, October 10, 2009
http://fdn.actionkit.com/go/63?akid=35.63486.sfhQtX&t=1

7. USDA Enters Debate on Organic Label Law, The New York Times, February 23, 2003 http://fdn.actionkit.com/go/72?akid=35.63486.sfhQtX&t=1

Child Receiving Flu Shot

Many patients are expressing concern over the Swine Flu, and asking whether or not to get vaccinated.  My recommendation is to avoid vaccination, due to a lack of certainty as to the new vaccine’s effectiveness, and more importantly, the short and long term risks associated with the vaccine.  It has not been sufficiently tested, and there is well justified concern as to its safety in humans.  In the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, Homeopathic medicine became the treatment of choice for many physicians, as it proved to be highly effective, with little to no incidence of death among those patients treated with homeopathic medicines as compared to pharmaceutical preparations. In 1921 the American Institute of Homeopathy documented the effects of homeopathic medicine on treating the Spanish flu, which killed over 40 million people worldwide.  In that study, the death rate among 24,000 flu cases treated through conventional medicine was 28.2 percent while the death rate among 26,000 flu cases treated exclusively using homeopathic medicine was 1.05 percent. Among the most effective homeopathic remedies at the time, and throughout history, for treating the flu have been Gelsemium, Influenzinum (which is best used as a preventive medicine- one dose per week for four weeks beginning in October), and Oscillococcinum.  In practice, Engystol and Gripp Heel by the German homeopathic medical company BHI/HEEL are also clinically effective for flu prevention and treatment.

In addition to homeopathic medicine, I recommend the following:

• Get your Vitamin D3 levels tested through blood work and take enough Vitamin D3 to keep your levels around 60 ng/mL
• Take probiotics. I recommend lab testing to determine which probiotic strains will work best for your system.
• Avoid sugar, fried foods, hydrogenated oils, and all processed food.  Stick with whole, fresh organic produce and lean protein sources.
• Avoid all sodas, and make water your drink of choice. 
• Ideally chose a high pH source of charged water such as Kangen/Enagic 9.5pH water.  We use this water filtration system at LTP Natural Medical Center and for those of you who are local, you can stop by to test it out. You can use Distributor # 7193577 if you chose to purchase a unit online for your home or office.
• Keep moving- make sure you are getting exercise at least 4-5 times per week for at least 30 minutes.

An article was just published in the San Fransisco Chronicle that goes into more detail on the treatment and prevention of the Flu using Naturopathic Medicine. Click here to read the article.

In health,

Dr. Gina

A recent review by the UK Foods Standards Agency came out claiming that organic foods are no better than the less expensive conventionally grown foods.   A closer look at that review reveals some truths underlying the growing media attention and debate over whether or not organic foods are worth the extra buck. I am re-printing an excellent post on this topic  by Tom Philpott who farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina.

One of the key messages I received while researching this topic is that organic foods consistently contain a higher level of tertiary, phytochemicals then conventionally grown foods. These phytochemicals (e.g. resveratrol, chlorophyll, glucosinolates) hold as much, if not more promise for preventing and treating disease then the basic nutritional compounds that are used to test the benefit of one food over another.

In health,

Dr. Gina

—

A bit of nitrogen with those veggies?

Tom Philpott

A recent literature review by the U.K. Food Standards Agency concluded that organic foods offer no nutritional advantages to ones grown with conventional chemical agriculture.   The report quickly bounced around the media and the internet and has congealed into received wisdom. For example, in a recent chat with readers, Washington Post food politics columnist (and general policy writer) Ezra Klein engaged in the following exchange:

Santa Fe, N.M.: I saw a report today on a study finding that organic food isn’t any healthier than conventional food. Is buying organic a waste of money, in your opinion?

Ezra Klein: Honestly? Yes. It’s definitely not healthier, at least not according to any study I’ve seen. There’s some argument that it’s more environmentally friendly. But it’s not something that I’m convinced is worth a premium. I’d rather buy from a local farm that uses some pesticides than a major producers who has gone organic.

Whoa – lots going on there. Let’s stick to the “definitely not healthier” bit for now. (As for the idea that there’s just “some argument” for the environmental benefits of not dousing fields of food with synthetic poisons and greenhouse-gas-spewing fertilizer, I’m not sure what to say.)

Well, Ezra, here is a study, released last year by the U.S.-based Organic Center, that comes to a conclusion quite different from the U.K. agency’s findings. It’s called “New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods.” The Organic Center recently released a cogent rebuttal to the U.K. findings as well.  True, the Organic Center is funded by Big Organic companies like Dean Foods (owner of Horizon Dairy) and Whole Foods, which have an interest in promoting organics as healthier. But I’ve never seen the Center’s scholarship successfully challenged.

Moreover, as Paula Crossfield’s excellent recent post on Civil Eats shows, the U.K. Food Standards Agency itself, despite its governmental status, can hardly be seen as a neutral adjudicator. Like our own FDA, the FSA is shot through with once and future food-industry execs and flacks. (Paula also points us to another study finding nutritional advantages to organic food – this one commissioned by the European Union.)

The Organic Center claims that the FAS study neglected to consider total antioxidant content – which seems a pretty gaping oversight, giving that antioxidants are emerging as a key micronutrient for fighting cancer and other maladies. (The Center’s own study found significantly more total antioxidants in organic food than conventional.) The Center also makes a convincing case that the FAS researchers botched the measurement of another key micronutrient, polyphenols.

But what I find most immediately significant is this: Both studies found that conventionally grown produce has substantially higher levels of nitrates than organic – most likely from widespread use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer on conventional farms. This consensus around a nitrogen gap suggests a non-trivial advantage for organic food: A growing body of literature indicts heightened levels of nitrates in the U.S. diet as a significant health menace. For a while, we’ve known that nitrates are a powerful carcinogen.  The latest: a rather stunning recent report from the Journal of Alzheimer Disease (press release here) linking nitrates in food to “increased deaths from diseases, including Alzheimer’s, diabetes mellitus and Parkinson’s.”

The study’s lead author, Suzanne de la Monte of Rhode Island Hospital and Brown University, declares that we have become a “nitrosamine generation,” exposed to increasing levels of nitrogen-derived compounds that pose a threat at even in low doses. She indicts nitrate-preserved foods like bacon – but also conventional agriculture.  According to de la Monte, “We receive increased exposure through the abundant use of nitrate-containing fertilizers for agriculture,” which are both taken up in food crops and also seep into drinking water.

De la Monte reports that incidence of the diseases in question – Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and type 2 diabetes – have “all increased radically over the past several decades and show no sign of plateau.” According to de la Monte: Because there has been a relatively short time interval associated with the dramatic shift in disease incidence and prevalence rates, we believe this is due to exposure-related rather than genetic etiologies. The press release adds: The findings indicate that while nitrogen-containing fertilizer consumption increased by 230 percent between 1955 and 2005, its usage doubled between 1960 and 1980, which just precedes the insulin-resistant epidemics the researchers found. They also found that sales from the fast food chain and the meat processing [industry] increased more than 8-fold from 1970 to 2005, and grain consumption increased 5-fold.

To me, the study stands as a pretty damning indictment of industrial agriculture – and in particular efforts to extend its alleged benefits to the global South. Hey, grow more food with our agrichemicals – and melt your brains and become dependent on pharmaceutical insulin in the process!  It bears remembering, too, that industrial agriculture’s reliance on synthetic fertilizer contributes significantly to climate change and coastal dead zones.

Organic agriculture, meanwhile, relies on slow-release fertilizers that don’t get taken up as readily by plants, leaving lower residue levels in food. And because organic agriculture builds carbon in soil, it also tends to hold nitrogen better, not letting it leach into soil or air nearly as much.

Resveratrol is a naturally occurring chemical found in the skins and seeds of red grapes, peanuts and in Polygonum, a popular and well respected herbal medicine from the Far East.  Currently, the research on Resveratrol is promising as a protective chemical against the damaging effects of toxins, synthetic estrogen and xenoestrogens, inflammation, and the process of aging.  It has specific actions on the brain, immune system, and heart.

In my practice I will use between 200 and 500 mg per day of Resveratrol as part of a treatment protocol. This typically is added to a protocol after a patient has been tested to determine if he or she has a deficiency of antioxidants or an imbalance of free radicals relative to antioxidants in the body.  All too often patients come into my practice with a huge bag of supplements, with no idea of what is working, what is not working and still battling the same symptoms that led him or her down the path of supplementation.

You know your body better then anyone else… you have been living in it your entire life!  You may have a sense of what is causing your symptoms and you also may have a sense for what medicines are helping or harming you.  To help confirm that sense, and develop a balanced approach to solving your health challenge, I encourage getting lab testing completed through a qualified Naturopathic Medical Doctor who has access and has experience with taking objective measured to get to an underlying biochemical cause for your symptoms.  And at that point, adding a powerful antioxidant such as Resveratrol to your protocol, and then re-testing after 3-6 months, this will let you know for certain if what you are taking is actually helping to balance your body!

In health,

-Dr. Gina

A new research study, published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, points to the combination of Vitamin D3 and curcumin (derived from the common spice turmeric) to protect the brain against beta amyloid deposits. Beta amlyoid deposits can build up to form plaque.  This plaque is associated with an increase in brain cell damage and a significant increase in Alzheimer’s disease, which affects over 13 million people worldwide.

The combination of Vitamin D3 and curcumin help boost the immune system to the point of neutralizing and/or preventing the formation of these amlyoid deposits. The deposits are caused by excessive free radical production in the brain.  Other well researched foods that help to neutralize free radical production in the brain are spinach and raspberries.   Unfortunately, they are also at the top of the list of foods that have a higher content of pesticides, which increase free radical production and DNA damage. I recommend consuming these foods if they are locally grown and organic.

There are several genetic forms of Alzheimer’s.  The research shows that while one form responds well to curcumin, the other form does not.  However, when you combine the curcumin with Vitamin D3, it supports the immune system’s ability to eliminate the beta amyloid deposits from two different mechanisms, so that it also impacts patients with the genetic form of Alzheimer’s that does not respond to curcumin alone.

I am always in awe of the medicines offered in nature that impact even the most troublesome of health challenges.

In health,

Dr. Gina

Food Democracy Now and Organic Valley Family of Farms just released a call for help to rescind an anti-labeling law and prevent further regulations in Ohio that will restrict organic dairy farmers from labeling their products as free from the synthetic hormone rGBH.

According to Food Democracy Now, there was a small group of corporations that pushed a law through last year making it illegal for organic farmers, such as Organic Valley Family of Farms, to label their products as free from artificial hormones.  On July 23rd the International Dairy Foods Association and Organic Trade Association will have a joint mediation with the Ohio Department of Agriculture to decide whether this rule go into effect.

To take action, call Ohio Governor Strickland and ask him to rescind Executive Order 2008-03S. Phone calls make the most impact so call today if it is important to you to know what is in the food you consume. His office # is: 614-466-3555.

I just saw the movie Food Inc. which is a revealing look into the reality behind how the food you consume and feed your loved ones is produced.  It is worth the time and energy, and offers hope and action steps you can take to improve the quality of our food supply.

This post is timely, as discussions are in full gear regarding healthcare reform in California and in the country.  Let’s focus on the cause of most chronic illness (which incidentally costs our government the most amount of money to manage), rather then masking the symptom by ensuring that all citizens receive the same level of healthcare which has failed miserably at treating chronic illness.  The foods we eat play the largest role in preventing and treating chronic illnesses such as heart disease and obesity.  Removing hydrogenated oils, refined sugar, high fructose corn syrup, genetically modified foods, and plant and animal proteins laden with synthetic hormones, antibiotics and pesticides from our food supply is an intelligible place to start. And by all means support companies such as Organic Valley Family of Farms that are willing to take the high road and produce quality products free from these disease-causing ingredients.

In health,

Dr. Gina

I am always amazed when I read the fine print on the ingredient labels of cosmetics, even some of the natural ones.  The skin is our largest detoxification organ and what we put on it affects how well our body is able to remove the burden of exposure to chemicals in the environment. In that spirit, I am including an article below written about this topic that offers resources on where to go to find out what chemicals are in your cosmetics and where to turn for cosmetics that are safe and nourishing to your skin.

In health,

Dr. G

—
Chemicals in your Cosmetics
by Dr. Gina Nick

It’s 7 AM, and time to get ready for your workday. First, touch up your nails with ethyl methacrylate and then line your lids with chromium hydroxide green. Brush some titanium dioxide across your cheekbones, pizzazz your pucker with some D&C Red No. 27 (the pearly effect courtesy of bismuth oxychloride) and you’re good to go!

Or are you? While your appearance may be great, behind the scenes there is a chemical war being waged on your body, courtesy of all the health and beauty aids you sprayed, rubbed, brushed and rolled on. Choosing makeup involves more than selecting the right shade and formulations for your skin color and type. You also want cosmetics that won’t have a negative impact on your body.

What’s in your makeup?
According to the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), (established in 1976 by the Cosmetic, Toiletry & Fragrance Association with support of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and the Consumer Federation of America.), chemicals used in cosmetics fall into four main categories[i]: ingredients found safe , ingredients found safe with qualifications, ingredients for which there are insufficient data and ingredients found unsafe.

However, critics of the findings have pointed out that there may be flaws in some of the research. For example, the decision to categorize phthalates (which, according to research mimics estrogen in the body-which is implicated in hormone-specific cancers and conditions such as PMS, premature menopause and infertility) as safe for cosmetic formulations overlooks information gaps, according to the Environmental Working Group. These include[ii]:

• The failure to establish a NOEL [No Observed Effects Level] for the male-specific reproductive side effects of the phthalate DBP.

• The failure to determine the amounts of DBP that are absorbed in people’s bodies from cosmetics.

• The failure to determine the full range of products that include DBP (among them, deodorant, hair spray, and fragrances)

Phthalates aren’t the only chemicals that are under fire. Breast tumor tissue has shown estrogenic industrial chemicals called parabens, and, noted the Environmental Working Group (EWG), even the hormone systems in wildlife have been disrupted thanks to common water pollutants such as personal care products that enter the water system by way of your bathroom drain.[iii]

Surprising enough, except for cosmetics containing color additives, cosmetic manufacturers do not need to gain FDA premarket approval before putting their product on the shelves. Instead, they are expected to authenticate “the safety of their products and ingredients before marketing,” says Safe Cosmetics[v] — rather like asking the fox to check the performance of the lock on the hen house door.

With at least 25 percent of women and one out of every 100 men using at least 15 products daily (according to the EWG 2004 product use survey), this adds up to quite a lot of chemicals being applied to our skin (and possibly ingested into our body) in a 24-hour time period![vi]

What you can do
So what is the solution? Do you cross your fingers and hope for the best each time you apply blush or nail polish, roll on deodorant, highlight your hair or chemically de-fuzz your legs? Or do you avoid the risk and go au naturel?
Strike a balance between the two extremes by following these tips:

1. Read the labels. While the multi-syllabic chemical recipe might look overwhelming at first glance, reviewing the components at a database such as http://www.deancoleman.com/cosmetics.htm or http://www.smartskincare.com/ingredients/glossary is the first stage of your “Cosmetic Chemical Class.” Also check for a “Warning Label” that would indicate any health hazards associated with the product.[vii] The label (or packaging) will also alert you to products that are “past their prime.” At Aubrey Organics you can find a list of 10 synthetic cosmetic ingredients to avoid. Your local health food store is another great place to check out labels of “better for you” cosmetics and body products.

2. Review product ratings. Don’t buy products based on advertisements, recommendations or out of habit. Sites such as The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics’ Skin Deep (a searchable product guide covering 14,838 products and the 7,084 ingredients that form them) will help you choose safer products for you and your family. [viii]

3. Understand “Cosmeceuticals.” Multi-tasking has entered the cosmetics industry with a myriad of products that purportedly not only make you look better but actually improve your skin by virtue of addition of active ingredients such as alpha hydroxy acids and vitamins. Some research, particularly on topical vitamin C, certainly demonstrates benefit with regard to cell regeneration and cancer prevention. However, some experts have voiced concern that there has been a lack of clinical trials measuring their effectiveness and overall safety. [ix]

4. Support your body’s natural detoxification mechanisms. On a daily basis, your system is exposed to a variety of toxins and environmental attacks. Give it a boost by eating broccoli, radishes, and green vegetables and drinking fresh vegetable juice or wheatgrass juice. Focus on exercises that encourage deep breathing (such as yoga) and consider a trip to an infrared sauna to “sweat out” the toxins.

Here are a list of companies that offer safer options for your skin:

Product Recommendations

Aubrey Organics (http://www.aubrey-organics.com/)

Aztec Secret

Certain Dri

Chandrika

Crystal Body Deodorant

Jurlique (http://www.jurlique.com)

Longview Farms

Natra Bio

Simplers Botanical Company

Valhalla Essences

Weleda (a personal favorite)

References:

[i] http://www.cir-safety.org/findings.shtml

[ii] http://www.ewg.org/issues/cosmetics/20021119_panelmtg.php

[iii] http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep2/info_why.php

[v] http://www.safecosmetics.org/about/policies.cfm

[vi] http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep2/info_why.php

[vii] http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Elrd/cfr740.html

[viii] http://www.safecosmetics.org/your_health/skindeep.cfm

[ix] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmeceutical

Safe Alternative to Statin Medications

CNN just reported on a new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, supporting previous research that red yeast rice extract paired with a healthy lifestyle is a safe and effective alternative to popular statin medication therapy (e.g. Crestor,Lipitor and Zocor), particularly in patients who suffer from muscle pain as a result of taking this class of cholesterol lowering drugs.  Red yeast rice contains a naturally occurring lovastatin called monacolin K, however it is only one of a plethora of compounds found within this natural medicine, that work in harmony to lower the production of cholesterol in the liver.  As with most natural medicines, you cannot isolate a single compound and attain the full spectrum of healing that is part and parcel to administering natural substances in their whole, unadulterated form.  There is a whole that is greater then the sum of its parts. 

In any case, it is nice to see research being published, albeit not perfect (the study was small and of short duration), to support what licensed Naturopathic Medical Doctors see clinically in their practice everyday.  The study author Dr. David Becker MD cautions against running out to buy a red yeast rice extract at your local health food store.  He advises working with a doctor if you are trying to lower your cholesterol and are seeking an alternative to statin medications. There are effective natural therapies for lowering cholesterol, and licensed Naturopathic Medical Doctors are trained to customize their treatment protocols to the individual patient for safe and optimal results.

In health,

-Dr. G

Dr. Gina Featured on PBS Wednesday, June 17th at 7:30 PM

On Wednesday, June 17th at 7:30 PM, PBS will be airing the sixth part of a seven-part series on Naturopathic Medicine, featuring Dr. Gina Nick. She, along with one of her patients, will be interviewed about effectively treating chronic pain, from a Naturopathic Medical perspective. It is sure to be an educational and informative look at how Naturopathic Medicine works to treat one of the most difficult health challenges we are faced with. You can catch the episode on KOCE. Enjoy the show!

USA Today just published an article on a new ruling by a Minnesota judge stating that Daniel Hauser, a 13-year-old boy with cancer, is required to seek conventional medical care (chemotherapy and radiation), against his parents’ wishes.  Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg says that this child has been “medically neglected.”

This is an unfortunate and alarming ruling that threatens the freedom Americans once had in making decisions about their own healthcare and the healthcare of their children.  Is the government qualified to make such decisions? Should government have the power to do so, even if it were qualified?

There are other ways to address health challenges such as cancer and our knowledge of how best to treat this dis-ease is not complete.  The concern is not whether conventional medical care is or is not the best treatment for this child. The question is whether or not the government has over stepped its boundaries in forcing a child to receive a specific medical treatment against both his and his parents’ desires.

-Dr. Gina