Meat Kills....

Eating Meat Kills More People Than Previously Thought

(NaturalNews) There is no more denying it. Meat contains highly toxic substances that are responsible for many deaths and diseases. Heavy meat consumption increases your risk of dying from all causes, including heart disease and cancer, according to a federal study conducted by the National Cancer Institute and featured in Arcives of Internal Medicine, in early 2009.

The study looked at the records of more than half a million men and women ages 50 to 71, following their diet and other health habits for 10 years. Between 1995 and 2005 47,976 men and 23,276 women died.

Women who ate large amounts of red meat had a 20% higher risk of dying of cancer and a 50% higher risk of dying of heart disease than women who ate less. Men had a 22% higher risk of dying of cancer and 27% higher risk of dying of heart disease. The researchers noted that meat contains several cancer-causing chemicals, as well as the unhealthiest forms of fat.

It should be noted, that if eating meat can kill a large number of people, it can make an even larger number of people seriously ill.

These findings support a previous study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, which showed that eating meat boosts risk of prostate cancer by 40%. Another study in early 2009 showed that children had a 60% increased risk of developing leukemia if they consumed meat products, such as ham, sausages and hamburgers.

Vegetarians Live Longer and Healthier Lives

More recently, medical research has found that a properly balanced vegetarian diet may, in fact, be the healthiest diet. This was demonstrated by the over 11,000 volunteers who participated in the Oxford Vegetarian Study. For a period of 15 years, researchers analyzed the effects a vegetarian diet had on longevity, heart disease, cancer and verious other diseases.

The results of the study stunned the vegetarian community as much as it did the meat-producing industry: "Meat eaters are twice as likely to die from heart disease, have a 60% greater risk of dying from cancer and a 30% higher risk of death from other causes."

In addition, the incidence of obesity, which is a major risk factor for many diseases, including gallbladder disease, hypertension and adult onset diabetes, is much lower in those following a vegetarian diet. According to a Johns Hopkins University research report on 20 different published studies and national surveys about weight and eating behavior, Americans across all age groups, genders and races are getting fatter. If the trend continues, 75% of U.S. adults will be overweight by the year 2015.

It is now almost considered the norm to be overweight or obese, Already more than 80% of African-American women over the age of 40 are overweight, with 50% falling into the obese catagory. This puts them at great risk for heart disease, diabetes and various cancers. A balanced vegetarian diet may be the answer to the current obesity pandemic in the U.S. as well as many other countries.

Those who include less meat in their diet also have fewer problems with cholesterol. The American National Institute of Health, in a study of 50,000 vegetarians, found that the vegetarians live longer and also have an impressively lower incidence of heart disease and a significantly lower rate of cancer than meat-eating Americans. And in 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that a vegetarian diet could prevent 90-97% of heart diseases.

(Continues in next posting)
Suzanne

Meat Kills...(con't)

What we eat is very important for our health. According to the American Cancer Society, up to 35% of the 900,000 new cases of cancer each year in the U.S. could be prevented by folllwing proper dietary recommendations. Researcher Rollo Russell writes, "I have found of 25 nations eating flesh largely, 19 had a high cancer rate and only one had a low rate, and that of 35 nations eating little or no flesh, none of these had a high rate."

Could cancer lose its grip on modern societies if they turned to a balanced vegetarian diet? The answer is "yes," according to two major reports, one by the World Cancer Research Fund and the other by the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy in the United Kingdom. The reports conclude that a diet rich in plant foods and the maintenance of a healthy body weight could annually prevent 4 million cases of cancer worldwide. Both reports stress the need for increasing the daily intake of plant fiber, fruits and vegetables and reducing red and processed meat consumption.

Death in the Meat

Research has shown that all meat eaters have worms and a high incidence of parasites in their intestines. This is hardly surprising given the fact that dead flesh (cadaver) is a favorite target for microorganisms of all sorts. One study by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) showed that nearly 80% of ground beef is contaminated with disease-causing microbes. The primary source of these bugs is feces. A study conducted by the University of Arizona found there are more fecal bacteria in the average kitchen sink than in the average toilet bowl. The source of this biohazard at home is the meat you buy at the typical grocery store.

The germs and parasites found in meat weaken the immune system and are the source of many diseases. Indeed, most food poisonings today are related to meat-eating. More than a half-million Amaricans, most of them children, have been sickened by mutant fecal bacteria (E. coli) in meat. These germs are the leading cause of kidney failure among children in the U.S. This fact alone should prompt every responsible parents to prevent their children from eating flesh foods.

Not all parasites act so swiftly as E. coli. Most of them have long-term effets that are noticed only after many years of eating meat. The government and the food industry are trying to divert attention from the escalating problem of meat contamination by telling the consumer it is his own fault that these incidents happen. It is very obvious that they want to avoid hefty lawsuits, and bad-mouthing of the meat industry. They insist that dangerous bacterial outbreaks occur because the consumer does not cook the family's meat long enough. It is now considered a crime to serve a rare hamburger. Even if you have not committed this "crime," any infection will be attributed to not washing your hands every time you touch a raw chicken or to letting the chicken touch your kitchen counter or any other food. The meat itself, they claim, is totally safe and meets the standard safety requirements imposed by the government; of couse, this holds true only as long as you keep disinfecting your hands and your kitchen countertop. It evades all good reasoning to propose such a "solution" to 76 million cases of meat-borne illnesses a year, except to safeguard the vested interests of the government and the meat industry. If a particular imported food produced in China is found to be contaminated, even if it hasn't actually killed anyone, it is immediately taken off the shelves of grocery stores. Yet, with all the research proving that meat-consumption harms and kills millions of people each year, meat continues to be sold in all grocery stores.

The new mutant bugs found in today's meat are extremely deadly. For you to come down with salmonella poisoning, you have to consume at least a million of these germs. But to become infected with one of the new mutant bugs, you need to ingest a measly 5 of them. In other words, a tiny particle of uncooked hamburger, making it from kitchen utensil to your plate, is enough to kill you. Scientists have now identified more than a dozen food-borne pathogens with such deadly effects. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention admits that they don't even know the bugs behind most food-related illnesses and deaths.

Much of the germ-infestation of meat is caused by feeding farm animals foods that are unnatural to them. Cattle are now fed corn, which they are unable to properly digest, but it makes them fat very quickly. Cattle feed also contains chicken feces. The millions of pounds of chicken litter (feces, feathers and all) scraped off the floors of chicken houses are recycled as cattle feed. The cattle industy considetrs this "good protein." The other ingredients of cattle feed consist of ground-up parts of animals, such as deceased chickens, pigs and horses. According to the industry, giving the cattle natural, healthy feeds would be far too costly and so unnecessary. Who really cares what the meat is made of, as long as it looks like meat?

Combined with hefty doses of growth hormones, a diet of corn and special feeds shortens the duration of fattening up a steer for market from a normal time period of 4 to 5 years to a mere 16 months. Of course, the unnatural diet makes the cows sick. Like the human consumers, they suffer from heartburn, liver disease, ulcers, diarrhea, pneumonia and other infections. To keep the cattle alive until the deadline for slaugher at the "ripe old age" of 16 months, the cows need to be fed enormous doses of antibiotics. In the meantime, the microbes that respond to the massive biochemical assault of antibiotics, find ways to become immune to these drugs by mutating into resistant new strains.

Those unfortunate cows that don't drop dead prematurely due to all the poisons fed to them during their short earthly existence, experience an undignified and gruesome end of life in the slaughterhouse or meat-packing plant. From there, the diseased, germ-infested meat ends up in your local grocery store, and on to your dinner plate. --Author: Andreas Moritz - NaturalNews.com.

Suzanne

This is serious brothers and sisters! Here is more info from Inspiration:

* "Because those who partake of animal food do not immediately feel its effects, is no evidence that it does not injure them. It may be doing its work surely upon the system, and yet the persons for the time being realize nothing of it."

* "The liability to take disease is increased tenfold by meat eating."

* "The practise of eating largely of meat is causing diseases of all kinds,--cancers, tumors, scrofula, tuberculosis, and other like affections."

* The mortality caused by meat eating is not discerned. If it were, we should hear no arguments and excuses in favor of the indulgence of the appetite for dead flesh."

* "Cancers, tumors, and various other inflammatory diseases are largely caused by meat eating."

* "From the light which God has given me, the prevalence of cancers and tumors is largely due to gross living on dead flesh."

* "The meat diet is a serious question. Shall human beings live on the flesh of dead animals? The answer, from the light that God has given, is, No, decidedly no. Our health institutions should educate on this question....They should point out the increase of disease in the animal kingdom. The testimony of examiners is that very few animals are free from disease."

* Disease of every type is afflicting the human family, and it is largely the result of subsisting on the diseased flesh of dead animals."

These statements are from Healthful Living, by Ellen White, pp. 100-102.

Comment: I take all of this information seriously and and am praying that our people will prayerfully and carefully consider the subject.

Suzanne

Yes, eating the meat from a diseased animal can and does cause people to suffer and die. However, the same thing is true of any food. Fruits and vegetables can be contaminated and cause suffering and death. People need to be wise and careful about the food they eat. But simply what one eats is not all there is to it. The natural laws of health and happiness take in the whole person and their lifestyle choices. When we eat, how much we eat, how thoroughly we chew before we swallow, the frame of mind we're in as we eat, how much fluids we drink while we are eating, how much exercise we get right after we eat, etc, etc, etc, all play an important part. People who eat safe meat AND practice all the other healthy habits are likely to live as long as vegans or vegetarians.

Don't misunderstand my point. I'm a vegan. However, more than that I also strive in Christ to practice all the diet reforms so that my walk in Christ is as sweet and satisfying as possible. Thank you, Jesus!

Right you are, Mountain Man! Our health message is complete and covers all the bases. Indeed, it is the privilege of every SDA to understand as much as we can the gospel, as well as the health message. Let us not forget the biblical injunctions that remind us of the importance of minding our health:

1 Cor. 6:19, 20 - What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

The Spirit of Prophecy, too has valuable information:

"Pure air, sunlight, abstemiousness, rest, exercise, proper diet, the use of water, trust in divine power--these are the true remedies.

"The things of nature are God's blessings, provided to give health to body, mind, and soul. They are given to the well to keep them well and to the sick to make them well....

"Nature is God's physician. The pure air, the glad sunshine, the beautiful flowers and trees, the orchards and vineyards, and outdoor exercise amid these surroundings are health giving--the elixir of life.

"Nothing so tends to restore health and happiness as living amid attractive country surroundings.

"Live in the open air is good for body and mind. It is God's medicine for the restoration of health.

"True religion and the laws of health go hand in hand." --Ellen White, My Life Today, 135.

"Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." 3 John 2.

Comment: We indeed have an obligation to understand how the body functions and how best to take care of our body temples.

Suzanne

Amen! And don't forget - Meat kills!

Not God?

During the final judgment?

Barry Black Spoke at Our Church Recently

Yes, Pastor Black (chaplain of the U.S. Senate), preached a powerful sermon at our church in May of this year (2010). He was the speaker for a program honoring those who had served our country in the various branches of the military. He covered various pertinent points challenging us to remember our roots and the distinctive message we have to offer the world. While he himself received various accolades in the meeting, in his sermon he reminded us that the highest honors come from the Lord who reads the heart. We should be ever mindful of this and strive to please the One who really matters.

He also brought out an interesting point about Kentucky Fried Chicken which he noted was NOT clean meat since the birds are not killed according to Bible standards which forbids the eating of blood. The New Testament repeats this proscription. Something to thing about!!!

Barry Black is indeed a powerful speaker who gave us much to think about and ponder and he lifted up the Lord Jesus Christ who is our only hope. To Him be honor and glory now and forever!

Suzanne

Eating animal protein raises risk of IBD

by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) A diet high in protein increases women's risk of the cluster of conditions known collectively as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to a study conducted by researchers from the Center Hospitalier Universitaire de Bicetre in Paris an published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

IBD is characterized by severe inflammation of the digestive tract, and includes conditions such as Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

"Our results may help better understand the role of diet in IBD risk," the researchers wrote. "If confirmed, they can lead to protective strategies, especially in families at risk of IBD, and possibly to advice for preventing relapse."

The researchers followed more than 67,000 women between the ages of 40 and 65 for an average of 10 years, during which time 77 participants developed IBD. The researchers then analyzed all participants' dietary patterns for a potential link with the disease.

They found that women who consumed the highest amount of protein had were more three times as likely to developing IBD as other women. When the researchers further analyzed this risk by protein type, they found that animal flesh, including fish, was responsible for the greatest risk increase. Although the study was not designed to explain this association, the researchers hypothesized that meat consumption may produce toxic "end products" that can damage the digestive tract, such as ammonia or hydrogen sulfide. Another possibility is that a diet high in protein may alter the natural balance of beneficial bacteria in the colon.

Prior studies have linked an increased risk of IBD to high consumption of certain fats and sugars, but the current study is the first to make a link to meat consumption. Another recent study found that a diet high in omega-6 fatty acids was associated with a higher risk of the disease, while a diet high in omega-3s was associated with a lower risk.

Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS....

Suzanne

Dancer Left Paralyzed by Contaminated Hamburger

by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) A onetime professional dancer is suing food giant Cargill, Inc., claiming that she was paralyzed by a contaminated hamburger produced by the company.

Twenty-two-year-old Stephanie Smith first became sick three years ago, after eating a hamburger contaminated with E. coli. Her illness progressed from simple food poisoning into constant seizures, and doctors were forced to put her into an induced coma for three months. She had suffered so much brain and kidney damage that she had to be kept alive on a ventilator and dialysis.

Smith stayed in the hospital for nine months and has undergone two years of rehabilitative therapy since then. Even so, she still requires constant care and can only move around by wheelchair.

"I have handled food borne illness cases since the Jack in the Box outbreak nearly seventeen years ago, and I have never seen someone so severely injured survive," Smith's attorney Bill Marler said. "She has lost the ability to walk, to dance, to have a family, to work or care for herself. I don't think it's possible to adequately convey in a sentence or two the massive challenges Stephanie has faced and continues to face."

Smith's medical bills to date add up to more than $2 million. When the hamburger that made her ill was traced back to Cargill, she approached the company for financial assistance. A Cargill representative claims that the company has "advanced" her funds, but Smith and the company have been unable to reach a mediated settlement to her claim.

A front-page New York Times story about Smith in October sparked U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLaura, chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, to demand that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) make big slaughterhouses more accountable for the safety of their meat.

"I am writing to strongly urge the [USDA] and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to investigate the disturbing allegations that were revealed in [the] New York Times article about the beef inspection process," she wrote in a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. (Originally published June 12, 2010).

Sources for this story include: www.foodsafetynews.com.

Suzanne

The high cost of cheap meat

by Sherry L. Ackerman, Ph.D.

(NaturalNews) When interviewed, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore responded to a question about whether every American was entitled to healthcare. His reply was, "We have to decide what kind of people we are." He was referring to our national character. Who are we? What kind of society do we want to become? Are we interested in creating a world that works for everyone . . . or one that only works for an elite few?

Americans' love affair with cheap stuff - all the way to education and airfares - has been one of the biggest roadblocks standing in the way of sustainability. In the same way that consumer culture has moved toward valuing profit over people, it has put profit before nature. The U.S. agricultural industry, for example, can now produce unlimited quantities of meat and grains at remarkably cheap prices. But it does so at a high cost to the environment, animals, and humans. Though Americans might like to imagine their food being produced the way their grandfathers did it, it's more likely that their burger began where 1,000 or more head of livestock were kept in overcrowded, unventilated, infected, and infested indoor feedlots, where they were fattened up for slaughter as fast as possible. Today's factory farms are large industrial facilities, a far cry from the green pastures and red barns that most Americans imagine. The animals in these facilities are not considered animals at all; they are food-producing machines. The problem is that animals aren't widgets with legs. They are living creatures and there are consequences to packing them in prison-like conditions.

Doesn't anyone ever wonder where all of that manure goes? To survive and grow in that much sludge, factory-farmed animals need antibiotics - which then leads, inevitably, to antibiotic resistant bacteria. "These antibiotics are not given to sick animals," says Representative Louise Slaughter, who is sponsoring a bill to limit antibiotic use on CAFOs. "It's a preventative measure because they are kept in pretty unspeakable conditions."

Something has gone terribly wrong with the relationship between human beings and the animals they rely upon for food. And whatever is wrong is wrong on a huge scale, as traditional animal husbandry has given way to industrialization. But Americans want cheap burgers, and Big Agriculture is good at hushing up what they do to keep the costs down. As one commentator stated in Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture, an agribusiness textbook: "One of the best things agriculture has going for it is that most people in the developed countries . . . haven't a clue how animals are raised and processed. For modern animal agriculture, the less the consumer knows, the better."

And consumers don't know. There's a lot of distance between the CAFO and their dinner table. They buy beef all neatly arranged on a styrofoam tray, shrink wrapped in plastic, from a squeaky clean refrigerator case. It's a commodity, not an animal. And they are certainly not aware that it was an animal that was badly treated - objectified - like a mere cog in the industrial wheel. Is this the best that humans are capable of?

Suzanne

Processed red meat consumption doubles the risk of developing diabetes

by John Phillip

(NaturalNews) Health-minded adults have been wary of excessive red meat consumption, and most avoid any type of processed meats due to the highly carcinogenic nitrite content. Additives used to add taste, cure and prolong shelf life of classic foods such as hot dogs, bologna and sausage not only cause cancer, but are also now shown to more than double the risk of developing diabetes. Publishing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers found that a 50 gram daily serving of processed meat (equivalent to one hot dog or two strips of bacon) was associated with doubled risk of developing diabetes. They also found that protein from other sources such as nuts, seeds and whole grains will have the reverse effect.

Researchers followed 37,083 men in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, 79,570 women in the Nurses` Health Study, and 87,504 women in the Nurses` Health Study II. Diet was assessed by validated food-frequency questionnaires, and data were updated every four years. Type II diabetes diagnosis was confirmed by a validated supplementary questionnaire. In addition the study included data from a total cohort of more than 442,000 participants to make this the largest study to examine the effect of specific food types on diabetes development and progression.

After all collected data was analyzed with adjustments for age, body mass index (BMI), and other lifestyle and dietary risk factors, researchers found that consumption of 100 grams of unprocessed red meat (about the size of a deck of cards) increased the risk of developing Type II diabetes by 19%. A diet that included only half that amount of processed meats was associated with a 51% increase in diabetes incidence.

Most health professionals believe that diabetes risk is linked to increased intake of refined carbohydrates and sugars. While this may be true, it is important to understand that red and processed meats play a significant role in development of the metabolic disorder, likely due to the increased digestive load placed on the pancreas.

Study authors also found that troubling risk factors can be neutralized or even reversed by substituting healthy protein from nuts, seeds, fish and beans for red and processed meats. Senior research author Dr. An Pan found that "for an individual who eats one daily serving of red meat, substituting one serving of nuts per day was associated with a 21% lower risk of type 2 diabetes; substituting low-fat dairy, a 17% lower risk; and substituting whole grains, a 23% lower risk."

Many health-minded individuals already limit consumption of red and processed meats. The conclusion of this meta-study drives home the importance of severely restricting red meat and totally eliminating processed meats in favor of healthy proteins to lower diabetes risk factors.

Article References:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...


Suzanne

I always learn a lot by reading these posts. Thank you again, Suzanne.

I also appreciate her contribution here at Maritime.

All Red Meat is Risky

Eating any amount or type increased the chances of early death among adults tracked more than 20 years.

Eating red meat--any amount and any type--appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death, according to a long-range study that examined the eating habits and health of more than 105,000 adults for more than 20 years.

Adding just one 3-ounce serving of unprocessed red meat--[picture a piece of steak no bigger than a deck of cards--to one's daily diet was associated with a 13% greater chance of dying during the course of the study.

Even worse, adding an extra daily serving of processed red meat, such as a hot dog or two slices of bacon, was linked to a 20% higher risk of death during the study.

Any red meat you eat contributes to the risk," said An Pan, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and lead author of the study, published online March 12, 2012 in the Archives of Internal Medicihne.

Gathering data from thousands of questionnaires that asked people how frequently they ate a variety of foods, the researchers also discovered that replacing red meat with other foods seemed to reduce mortality risk for study participants.

Eating a serving of nuts instead of beef or pork was associated with a 19% lower risk of dying during the study. The team said choosing poultry or whole grains as a substitute was linked with a 14% reductionh in mortality risk; low-fat dairy or legumes, 10%, and fish, 7%.

Previous studies had associated red meat consumption with diabetes, heart disease and cancer, all of which can be fatal. Scientists are not sure exactly what makes red meat so dangerous, but the suspects include the iron and saturated fat in beef, pork and lamb, the nitrates used to preserve them, and the chemicals created by high-temperature cooking.

The Harvard researchers hypothesized that eating red meat would also be linked to an overall risk of death from any cause, Pan noted. And the results suggest they were right: Among the over 37,000 men and 83,000 women who were tracked, as meat consumption increased so did mortality risk.

In separate analyses of processed and unprocessed meats, the group found that both types appear to hasten death. Pan said that at the outset, he and his colleagues had thought it likely that only processed meat posed a health danger.

Pan noted that the bottom line is that there was no amount of red meat that's good for you.

UC San Francisco researcher and vegetarian diet advocate Dr. Dean Ornish said he gleaned a hopeful message from the study.

"Something as simple as a meatless Monday can help," he said. "Even small changes can make a difference."

Additionally, Ornish said, "What's good for you is also good for the planet." In an editorial that accompanied the study, Ornish wrote that a plant-based diet could help cut annual healthcare costs from chronic diseases in the U.S., which exceed $1 trillion. Shrinking the livestock industry could also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and halt destruction of forests for pastures, he wrote. --Los Angeles Times, March 13, 2012.

Suzanne

'Pink Slime' (beef parts paste with ammonia) good for kids, says Beef Products, Inc

by Scott Morefield

(NaturalNews) In perhaps the most amazing display of unmitigated gall since the Journal of Pediatrics declared mercury 'good for kids,' (1) Beef Products Inc. (BPI) told The Daily that its "lean finely textured beef," treated with ammonia, is good for America's schoolchildren. Last week The Daily broke the news that the federal government plans to buy beef containing over 7 million pounds of 'pink slime' over the next year.

"Including LFTB in the national school lunch program's beef products accomplishes three important goals on behalf of 32 million kids," BPI spokesman Rich Jochum told The Daily. "It 1) improves the nutritional profile, 2) increases the safety of the products and 3) meets the budget parameters that allow the school lunch program to feed kids nationwide every day." (2)

So what's the real reason?

With their first and second stated reasons being patently absurd, it really just comes down to the third, the almighty dollar. By adding the beef fat and trimmings, known to contain higher levels of E. Coli, salmonella, and other pathogens, then adding ammonia to kill said pathogens, they are able to save 3 cents off the cost of making a pound of beef. (2)

So by adding ammonia to a product that was previously only sold to dog food and cooking oil suppliers, (3) BPI is able to decrease their costs by mixing it with beef and feeding it to children.

Want to vote with your wallet and forgo the 'pink slime' infested meat? It might be difficult. Janet Riley, senior vice president of public affairs for the American Meat Institute recently made her case against labeling, telling ABC News, "What you are asking me to put on the label, its beef, it's on the label, it's a beef product, it's says beef so we are declaring ... it's beef." (3)

By Ms. Riley's logic, dog food is 'beef' too. Perhaps she is using the same standards McDonalds uses when it calls its chicken nuggets 'chicken.' (4)

Consumers do have a choice!

ABC recently did a report on, "Where you can get 'pink-slime' free beef." In it, Costco, Publix, H-E-B, Kroger, Whole Foods, and Tops Markets all adamantly stated they do not use beef laced with 'pink slime,' while several major national chains just as adamantly defended it. (3) Former USDA scientist and current whistleblower Gerald Zirnstein, the man who coined the phrase 'pink slime,' recently told ABC News that 70% of ground beef sold at supermarkets contains the filler. (5)

What can we do? The best way to know for sure that your meat is 'slime-free' is to buy fresh, locally grown meat from someone you know or buy meat that is certified 'USDA Organic.' Consumers should absolutely vote with their feet and their wallets. A grocery store that wants to defend the practice of calling dog food laced with ammonia 'good for kids' is certainly not worthy of trust or patronage. Additionally, parents should contact the administrator of their child's school lunch program to make them aware, if they are not already, of this outrage. Meanwhile, a sack-lunch is always a good idea!

Sign the petition, "Tell USDA to STOP Using Pink Slime in School Food!"
http://www.change.org#

Sources for this article include:
1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSGT24sY2yM
2 http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/03/12/031212-news-pink-slime-1-2/
3 http://abcnews.go.com
4 http://www.dailymail.co.uk
5 http://supermarketnews.com

Comment: All the more reason to follow our health message!

Suzanne

USDA plans to keep feeding 'pink slime' to your kids

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) After garnering nationwide attention for being secretly added to processed hamburgers and beef products, including those served in school lunchrooms, "lean finely textured beef," aka "pink slime," is reportedly on its way out from the menu offerings of McDonald's, Taco Bell, and Burger King. But according to Mother Jones, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) plans to keep ordering this imitation, ammonia-laced product for use in its National School Lunch Program (NSLP), a taxpayer-funded government food program that serves low-income students.

Pink slime gained much notoriety after being featured in the acclaimed 2008 documentary Food Inc.. Robert Kenner, the film's director, revealed an inside look into Beef Products International (BPI), a South Sioux City, Neb.-based processing plant that produces most of the nation's supply of pink slime. The product, which is composed of bovine connective tissue and random beef scraps doused in ammonia and formed into a paste, is commonly used as a beef filler because it is low-cost and supposedly less risky compared to conventional ground beef.

You can watch a disturbing clip from Food Inc. featuring footage from the BPI plant and commentary by BPI founder Eldon Roth at the following link:
http://youtu.be/RHQHPNoyO7c

FDA, USDA say ammonia-laced 'pink slime' is safe for children

Though BPI claims that pink slime is safer than conventional ground beef because of the ammonia treatment, tests conducted by NSLP between 2005 and 2009 have revealed that the meat-like matter routinely tests positive for salmonella at four times the rate of conventional beef. Ammonia is also a highly-corrosive poison that is known to cause respiratory illness and lung damage, liver problems, and cancer. The Chemical Encyclopedia says ammonia is "highly toxic" if swallowed (http://healthychild.org/issues/chemical-pop/ammonia/).

And yet both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the USDA insist that pink slime is safe, even though there is absolutely no evidence to prove this. And now the USDA's NSLP is reportedly ordering seven million pounds of pink slime to serve to students, a shocking move that even the nation's most notoriously unhealthy fast-food chains are unwilling to make.

Reports indicate that top USDA officials have routinely ignored all data showing that pink slime is a "high risk product," and have instead continued to endorse the product as safe for human consumption. And the worst part about the situation is that, just like with genetically-modified (GM) products, pink slime is secretly added into raw ground beef without being properly labeled.

"They've taken a processed product (ammonia), without labeling it, and added it to raw ground beef," said microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein recently to The Daily. "Science is the truth, and pink slime at this point in time is a fraudulent lie" (http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/03/05/pink-slime-still-menu).

Sources for this article include:

http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/03/pink-slime-school-lunch

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/035241_pink_slime_beef_ammonia.html

Suzanne

Glad to see Suzanne picked it up. I had thought I posted a link, but don't see it. Kind of reminds me of feeding ground up cows to cows, but in this case, it's to people!

Just make sure if you are going to eat meat, to get the high quality stuff and from a rancher and cow you know personally.

Red meat and processed meat raise colon cancer risk, while fiber lowers it

by Mary West

(NaturalNews) An international research team has issued a report stating there is convincing evidence that consuming too much red meat and processed meat can dramatically increase colorectal cancer risk, while consuming lots of fiber from plant-based foods can lower it. Researchers from Imperial College London proclaim the review to be the most authoritative and thorough information on this disease risk published to date: Medical News Today notes.

Elisa Bandera, MD, PhD, author of the treatise, states the review of scientific studies proves that colorectal cancer is one of the most preventable varieties of cancer. The report estimates that approximately 45% of cases of this disease could be prevented by following the recommended dietary and lifestyle practices. These advisories consist of eating plenty of high-fiber plant foods, eating less meat, drinking less alcohol, exercising and staying slender.

Researchers evaluated the influence of diet, physical activity and body weight on colorectal cancer incidence. They added 263 new research papers to the 749 that were analyzed in the previous 2007 report. The authors determined that the evidence linking red meat consumption with a greater colorectal cancer risk is compelling. They recommended limiting meat consumption to 18 oz per week and completely avoiding processed meat consumption. Processed meat was found to increase the risk twice as much as red meat.

In addition to the findings regarding meat, researches found equally compelling determinations concerning the benefit of fiber. The new evidence showed fiber to be more protective against colorectal cancer than was previously surmised. While the 2007 report found fiber's protective property to be probable, today's treatise determined it to be convincing.

Red meats refer to beef, lamb and pork, while processed meats refer to ham, bacon, sausages, frankfurters and cold cuts, which contain smoke and curing agents. Food sources of fiber include fruit, vegetables, whole-grain products, nuts and beans.

These dietary guidelines found to affect risk were based on strong evidence. In addition to these recommendations, according to the Washington Post, garlic will likely lower colorectal cancer risk.

Aside from dietary considerations, researchers discovered certain lifestyle practices play a prominent role. Maintaining a healthy weight and participating in regular exercise proved to be protective against the disease. Drinking alcohol was found to increase colorectal cancer incidence in both men and women.

Dr. Alan Jackson, chair of the research panel, emphasizes that the review determined many cases of colorectal cancer are not inevitable, and that dietary and lifestyle alterations can markedly lower the risk. Much debate has transpired over the past few years about the possible increased risk associated with red and processed meat. Dr. Jackson hopes that this report will dissipate confusion and provide clarity, based on the strength of the evidence.

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/2/Cancer/red_meat_processed_meat_...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/226217.php

http://www.thespec.com/news/world/article/536158--red-meat-raises-fib...

Suzanne

Pink slime factories shuttered after massive public backlash

by Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) For several decades now, the conventional beef industry has secretly been lacing ground beef products with an industrial, ammonia-laced byproduct known as "pink slime," a disturbing fact that recently came to the forefront of national attention after Food Network chef Jamie Oliver first drew attention to its existence. And consumer backlash has been so strong ever since that a number of supermarket chains, restaurants, and even schools have decided to stop supplying it, which has caused its primary producer, Beef Products Inc. (BPI), to close three of its four manufacturing plants.

USA Today and others are reporting that Dakota Dunes, South Dakota-based BPI is temporarily closing its Waterloo, Iowa; Garden City, Kansas; and Amarillo, Texas plants for an indefinite period of time as a result of widespread consumer rejection of pink slime products. Workers at these plants will continue to receive pay and benefits for the next 60 days, but it is unclear what will happen after these next two months expire, should the plants continue to remain closed.

Meanwhile, BPI is launching an aggressive public relations campaign to fight back against its critics, which includes claiming that pink slime is "100 percent beef," and that it is a highly-nutritious and safe product. And many in the media are jumping onboard this propaganda bandwagon by spinning the situation back against consumers, who are technically victims that have been been duped all these years into buying ground beef products that were secretly adulterated with pink slime.

In case you missed the original story, pink slime, which is officially known as "lean finely textured beef," is basically a low-cost ground beef filler composed of beef scraps that are mashed, processed with a chemical ammonia solution, and turned into an unappetizing pink paste, the pictures of which have circulated the internet in recent months (http://www.naturalnews.com/035255_pink_slime_USDA_school_lunches.html).

This pink slime has been added to roughly 70 percent of all ground beef products since the 1990s, but few were aware of it. Pink slime is obviously not labeled on ground beef packages, and the only way consumers can know for sure that they are not consuming it is to buy local or organic ground beef, or to watch the beef being ground fresh before buying it.

BPI, mainstream media launch attack on consumers for rejecting pink slime

It is abundantly clear that the vast majority of American consumers are not interested in feeding their children a highly-processed additive that has been treated with toxic ammonia, which is why the product is being pulled from grocery store shelves, restaurant menus, and schools all across the country. But BPI is not going down without a fight, as it is launching a campaign that basically insults the intelligence of Americans by claiming that pink slime is no different from real beef.

But according to former U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientist Gerald Zirnstein, pink slime is not actually meat, nor is it as nutritious as meat, a sentiment to which his former colleague Carl Custer also agrees. And Kit Foshee, a former executive at BPI, appears to hold the same view, having told ABC News that pink slime is processed from fat and cuts that would otherwise not ever be used as food.

"Microbiologically safe and nutritionally complete are two different issues," said Custer to ABC News, referring to BPI's claim that pink slime contains little fat and is pathogen-free. "It may be pink [but], nutritionally, it is not equivalent to whole-muscle tissue" (http://abcnews.go.com).

Sources for this article include:

http://www.guardian.co.uk

http://yourlife.usatoday.com

Suzanne

Mad cow disease detected in U.S. dairy cow; South Korea halts all US beef sales

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) It's baaack! Mad cow disease, our favorite prion from planet Bovinopolis, has once again reared its ugly folded protein head in a California dairy cow. It was detected there just a few days ago, but have no fear, courageous American beef eaters: U.S. "authorities" have declared it to be a "random mutation," meaning that mad cow disease prions spontaneously appeared without cause in that cow, and it most certainly absolutely assuredly and definitely was not due to anything in the cow feed, they say.

That's a relief, eh? Because if we can explain mad cow disease by simply invoking MAGIC (spontaneous generation, etc.), then who needs to look further into what these dairy cows are being fed?

It used to be that cows in the USA were fed the ground up parts of other cows, including spinal cord and brain material. Yummm... kinda makes your burger just a bit more juicy, doesn't it? But that practice was stopped -- at least they SAY it was stopped -- after the last mad cow scare in 2006. But who knows whether or not the occasional cow head gets tossed into the feed grinder, eh?

So now, whenever there's a mad cow scare, agricultural authorities (who are so deeply in bed with the cow industry that their mattresses actually have hoof prints on them) simply announce the disease happened by magic! "Random mutation" is the scientific version of "it magically appeared," of course, just to make it sound like it's based in science.

Beef sales halted in Korea

In response to this latest case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the USA, South Korea has banned all sales of U.S. beef. This is almost certainly a wild overreaction, given that U.S. beef sold every single day in South Korea is contaminated with antibiotics, growth hormones, and GMO artifacts from the cows eating genetically modified soy.

But that doesn't seem to bother anyone. It's the mad cow disease that freaks them out -- even though this dairy cow wasn't even slaughtered and put into the food supply!

Japan said it would keep US beef sales flowing, and Taiwan shelved its regulatory discussion of the issue to wait and see what happens.

What happens if you EAT mad cow beef?

Here's the best part about mad cow disease: If you eat a piece of meat infected with it, the folded prion proteins in the tissue go into your body, make their way into your brain, and then they turn your brain into gray goo!

Seriously, mad cow disease literally turns you into a brain-dead zombie. And if other people eat your brain (for whatever weird reason), then THEY become zombies, too.

And cooking the meat doesn't help because mad cow prions aren't even alive. So they can't be killed! Meaning that any piece of meat infected with these prions can potentially infect a consumer who eats it, turning them into a zombie.

(I'm not making this up. This is really how prions work.)

So what happens after your brain turns into gray goo from eating prions? Then you become what I called "zombified." As the prions start to eat your brain, you begin to exhibit bizarre behavioral and psychiatric dysfunction. You also start to lose rational cognitive function and end up eating Pop-Tarts and voting for globalist infiltrators for President.

In other words, you become a typical American! In fact, there is a theory floating around that American consumers are already heavily prion-damaged which is why people seem so bizarrely uninformed and incapable of rational thought. Is it possible they are simply one burger over the prion limit for healthy brains?

Maybe we should have a rule at the voting booth next time: If your brain has turned into grey prion goo, you don't get to vote!

Sources include:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/25/health/california-mad-cow/?hpt=hp_c2
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9UBQGL00.htm

Suzanne

Excessive red meat consumption found to increase risk of stroke

by John Phillip

(NaturalNews) Very few dietary topics spark more controversy than consumption of red meat and risk of diseases ranging from cancer to heart disease and diabetes. Most nutrition scientists indicate a high protein diet is essential to promote vibrant health, aid in weight management and lower the risk from metabolic dysfunction. A rapidly mounting body of research now shows that the type and quantity of protein consumed can raise the risk of stroke in a serving-dependent manner.

Researchers conducting a meta-analysis of six large studies conducted in the US, Japan and Sweden over the past decade published the results of their work in Stroke, the Journal of the American Heart Association. Consumption of red meat, including beef, pork, lamb, ham, hot dogs, sausage, and bacon spike the risk of ischemic stroke, the most common type of stroke event.

Dr. Joanna Kaluza of the Warsaw University of Life Sciences in Poland noted the findings are "of great public health importance because of the widespread consumption of red meat and the high morbidity and mortality associated with stroke." The authors explain that eating red meat did not increase the risk of hemorrhagic stroke.

Processed and factory farmed red meats dramatically raise stroke risk

The meta-analysis included a total of 329,495 participants and resulted in 10,630 cases of stroke. All of the studies statistically adjusted for age, body mass index, and alcohol consumption, as well as smoking, physical activity, diabetes, hypertension, energy intake, and fruit and vegetable consumption. Each daily serving of fresh, red meat increased stroke risk by 11 percent. Similarly, processed meats increased risk by 13 percent. All meat consumption combined increased stroke risk by 12 percent.

In an effort to explain the results, the researchers suggested a few possible mechanisms to explain the findings, including consumption of high levels of saturated fats, which could lead to a greater risk of stroke from higher levels of total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides. The authors also note that red meat contains a high level of heme iron and theorize that "high doses of iron may lead to oxidative stress, a state with increased peroxidation of lipids, protein modification, and DNA damage."

Excessive consumption of foods high in heme iron lead to the development of many diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerosis, neurological disorders, and chronic inflammation. Many research studies fail to account for the type of red meat consumed though, making the false assumption that animals fed fattening grains and injected with growth hormones and antibiotics have the same effect when consumed on human health as grass fed, free range cattle.

Most holistic nutritionists agree that consumption of moderate amounts of red meat fed from certified organic pastures is important for human health. The results of this meta-study confirm that processed meats and factory farmed beef significantly increase risk of stroke in a serving-dependent fashion.

Sources for this article include:

http://stroke.ahajournals.org
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22851546
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Strokes/34072

Suzanne

Bears repeating: Red Meat Increases STROKE RISK

Warning! Suffering the most common type of stroke (ischemic) becomes more likely with each daily serving of fresh or processed red meat.

After reviewing multiple studies from different countries, researchers from Warsaw University in Poland concluded that a daily serving of red meat including beef, pork, lamb or ham boosts the risk of a clot-induced stroke by 11%.

Even worse, processed meats elevated the risk to an alarming 13%.

Suzanne

RED MEAT

Researchers who looked at the results of 3 large studies found that those who ate the most red meat were more likely to develop type 2 diabetes. Indeed, for each additional daily serving of red meat, a person's risk of developing the disorder increased 14%. --Reader's Digest, Dec. 2011/Jan. 2012.

Suzanne

I work in a teaching hospital. Today I attended an academic lecture given by Dr. Deb Bennett-Woods, from Regis University Center for Ethics in the Health Professions, on the ethical implications of technological advance in medical practice.

In this lecture, she stated that the cells of our bodies are programmed for humans to live for 120 years, but that it is life-style issues that cause us to die at an earlier age. She went on to state that she expects within the next 20 years technology will have reached the point where our cells could give humans a life-span of 150 years.

While some would likely argue with her statement about 120 and 150 years, it clearly has implications as to life style that should interest Adventists.

Antibiotics infused into processed meats promotes growth of deadly bacteria

by John Phillip

(NaturalNews) Health conscious individuals know that processed meats in the form of sausage, bologna and pepperoni contain chemical preservatives called nitrites that have been shown to promote cancer growth, and avoid these manufactured foods entirely. Unfortunately, millions of unsuspecting children and adults eat an estimated 50 pounds of processed meats each year, significantly raising the risk of many forms of cancer and bacterial infection as well.

Researchers from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark have published the result of a study in mBio, the journal of the American Society for Microbiology that explains how antibiotic residues in uncured pepperoni or salami meat are potent enough to weaken helpful bacteria that processors add to acidify the sausage and make it safe for consumption. Processed meat manufacturers commonly infuse meats such as sausage with lactic-acid producing bacteria to control fermentation and increase acid content of the meat.

In an effort to control bacteria that may have existed in the original raw meat, manufacturers also kill any beneficial bacteria, allowing pathogenic bacteria strains to proliferate. Consumption of these processed meats can significantly increase the risk of bacterial infection, especially in the young and elderly populations, as well as those individuals with compromised immune systems.

Consumption of processed meats greatly increases risk of bacterial infection

The study authors commented "We can have a situation where residual antibiotics in the meat can prevent or reduce fermentation by the lactic acid bacteria, but these concentrations do not effect survival or even multiplication of pathogens." Antibiotics used to promote growth or to treat disease in livestock can eventually end up in processed meats and ultimately pass to humans where they wreak metabolic havoc and promote the overgrowth of bacterial strains in the digestive tract.

To validate their theory, researchers added two commonly used antibiotics to meat inoculated with lactic-acid-producing bacteria and several strains of pathogens frequently encountered in the unprocessed meat. They followed the progress of the fermentation and tracked the survival of the pathogens. The scientists determined that several different starter cultures of lactic-acid-producing bacteria were sensitive to these antibiotics and did not acidify the sausage meat effectively. They noted the results could explain why people sometimes get sick from eating fermented sausage.

The study team concluded their results show antibiotics can potentially have a "paradoxical effect that would increase the risk of food borne illness: antibiotic residues reduce the effectiveness of bacteria that should make the sausages safe but don't affect the bacteria that can cause illness." This research provides sufficient evidence that processed meats must be avoided entirely to avoid significantly increased risk of digestive cancers and bacterial infection.

Sources for this article include:

http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/5/e00190-12
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-08/asfm-ari082412.php
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120828093244.htm

Suzanne

Don't want to die before your time? Stop eating processed meat

by Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor

(NaturalNews) A new study just published in Biomed Central's journal, BMC Medicine, has found a strong association between eating processed meat and developing heart disease and cancer. While other studies have found health risks from processed meats before, the new research is remarkable because it involved a huge number of research subjects -- about half a million men and women.

Why does this large number make the finding so important? Researchers have previously had trouble measuring the effect of eating meat on health because of what is called a "confounding effect" of the lifestyles of many people who don't eat meat. Vegetarians tend to have healthier lifestyles in general. And because non-meat eaters are less likely to smoke, are less overweight and are more likely to exercise, it's been hard to see if it is the fact they don't eat meat or these their other healthy behaviors that make vegetarians often healthier than meat eaters. It takes a very large study that controls for confounding effects in order to pinpoint specific consequences of eating meat and processed meat and to make sure the findings are isolated from other lifestyle choices.

In all, the EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition) study involved 10 countries and 23 centers in Europe. The researchers found that a diet high in processed meat was linked to other unhealthy lifestyle choices. For example, people who ate the most processed meat ate less fruit and vegetables and were more likely to smoke. Men who ate a lot of meat also tended to drink more alcohol.

The study's results showed that a person's risk of dying prematurely from any cause went up with the amount of processed meat eaten. This held true after correcting for confounding variables. "Risks of dying earlier from cancer and cardiovascular disease also increased with the amount of processed meat eaten," Professor Sabine Rohrmann of the University of Zurich, who led this analysis, said in a media statement. "Overall, we estimate that three percent of premature deaths each year could be prevented if people ate less than 20g processed meat per day."

Another new study, recently published in the journal Nutrition and Cancer, by Paige E. Miller, PhD of the National Cancer Institute and colleagues also brings up concerns about processed meats. The scientists concluded that their research supports the idea that increased exposure to chemicals in processed meats including nitrites and nitrates, ".. is a plausible mechanism by which red and processed meat may increase colorectal cancer risk."

Sources:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmed/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584417/
http://www.naturalnews.com/processed_meat.html

Suzanne

Mystery meat in 'lamb' curry may have been cat, dog: report

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) If you thought the possibility of horse meat in your fast food hamburger was bad, then you will be utterly horrified at what was recently discovered as part of an in-depth BBC investigation into fast food. As reported by the U.K.'s Mirror recently, samples of "lamb" meat taken from several Indian, Asian, and other take-out restaurants in London may have been composed entirely of either cat or dog, or both.

But since investigators have yet to actually identify the meat -- beef, chicken, pork, goat, horse, and even human flesh were all ruled out -- it is difficult to say what the restaurants in question are actually serving. And more disturbing is the implication that foreign meat substances posing as beef, chicken, and lamb may be widespread throughout not only England, but the rest of Europe and the Western world.

"Just when we though things couldn't get any worse, the results came in for an Indian lamb curry," said a spokesman for the BBC3 documentary The Horsemeat Banquet about the findings. "It did contain meat -- but it was not lamb, not pork, nor was it chicken or beef. Not horse, and not goat either. At this moment, the lab is unable to identify exactly which animal this meat came from."

This recent discovery comes after samples of frozen meals and other fast food collected throughout the U.K. tested positive for horse meat. Though clearly labeled as beef, chicken, and other popular meats, many of the dishes tested were found to have been contaminated with horse scraps, which were later identified as having come from Romania and other eastern-European countries (http://www.naturalnews.com).

"It's absolutely terrifying because if it isn't any of the meats we know, well what is it?" asked nutritionist Surinder Phull during the show, as quoted by the Mirror. "Where has it come from? Where was it slaughtered? Was it hygienic? Was it covered in bacteria?"

Similar tests conducted on a Chinese black bean sauce dish revealed that the alleged "beef" used in the meal was actually just chicken blood mixed with various other chicken "scraps." And a burger patty taken from a hamburger was tested and found to contain no actually beef, although it did contain some blood and heart material.

The only fast food that tested positively for what it was actually advertised as was lamb doner kebab, a Turkish dish that is popular throughout Europe, and widely available at small shops and street vendors in many major cities. According to the Mirror, the lamb doner kebab tested contained only lamb, and no other stray meats.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dog-cat-curry-fears-over-1789118

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk

Suzanne

Russia refuses to import any more U.S. meat due to safety concerns over ractopamine

by Eric L. Zielinski

(NaturalNews) On December 7, 2012, in a move that will jeopardize more than $500 million a year in exports of U.S. beef and pork to Russia, all American meat supplies to Russia have been banned. Russia claims that the reason for the ban was the presence of the drug ractopamine in meats imported from the U.S. Whereas, the U.S. insists that Russia's actions were a response to the Senate including a measure to "name and shame" human rights violators as part of a bill expanding trade with Russia. Insistent that ractopamine is harmless, U.S. trade authorities have taken a stand against Russia's sudden decision to require that meat imports be documented as free of the harmful drug and have urged Russia to suspend such measures.

Ractopamine concerns

Ractopamine is fed to animals to accelerate growth and make their meat leaner, yet this drug is banned for use in 160 countries, including all the countries in the EU, India, and China. It is allowed in 24 countries, including the U.S. and Canada. Fed to roughly 60 to 80 percent of pigs in the United States, it has resulted in more reports of sickened or dead pigs than any other livestock drug on the market. In July 2012, Codex Alimentarius of the World Health Organization, the world's global food standards body, met in Rome by representatives of 186 countries and decided to permit the use of ractopamine in meat.

In a recent attempt to combat the July 2012 decision and to capitalize on Russia's American meat boycott, food safety and animal welfare groups petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on December 20, 2012 seeking limits on the use of ractopamine. In their petition to the FDA, the Center for Food Safety and the Animal Legal Defense Fund called for an immediate reduction in the allowable levels of ractopamine and asked FDA to study the long-term effects of human consumption and the impacts on animals associated with ractopamine. Because ractopamine operates within animal tissues, it is believed to be a permanent component of the treated meat. Thus, it is transferred to the consumer when consumed. It has been reported by activist groups that ractopamine effects may include toxicity and other exposure risks such as behavioral changes and cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, reproductive, and endocrine problems. Residue tests for ractopamine are limited.

The U.S. Meat Export Federation estimates that exports of beef and pork are on track to hit $5 billion each for the first time in history of free trade. Although reaching the $5 billion landmark may be exciting for the U.S, it must be remembered that the use of ractopamine has cost us billions of dollars as countries like China, Taiwan, India, and the entire EU still refuse our meat. Pork exports to China, for example, quadrupled from 2005 to 2010 to $463 million but are still only two to three percent of the entire market share. Moreover, China and the EU requires U.S. exporters to certify their meat is ractopamine-free.

Sources for this article include

http://english.pravda.ru
http://news.yahoo.com
http://www.nbcnews.com

Suzanne

Know the true cost of your beef

by Cindy Jones-Shoeman

(NaturalNews) Many people delight when they go to the meat department of their local grocery store and find that the ground beef they plan to buy is under $3.00 a pound, and if their premium-cut steaks are less than $10.00 a pound, they are also thrilled. That's why those same people might be surprised to find that beef costs a lot more than the price on the tag - not only literally but also in its cost to one's health and the environment.

What that beef really costs: While many consumers just don't know it, most American farmers are subsidized by the government. In fact, more than half of an American farmer's earnings come from the United States government: 62 percent to be exact. Suddenly, a consumer might realize that the $10 per pound steak should more accurately be well over $20 a pound, and that's just actual, tangible costs. What other hidden costs are there?

Water subsidies are one. Again, more than half of the water in the United States is used in the production of beef, and if this water wasn't subsidized with taxpayer dollars, the cost of beef would rise astronomically. It would be unaffordable to all but the wealthiest Americans.

Cost to the environment and society: The environmental cost of eating meat (beef in particular) has been well documented over the years. Not only does producing meat drain vital resources (grains, water, and petroleum), but it also contributes to global warming (in the form of methane created by waste) and deforestation.

But there are other costs, and those are to people. For instance, Raj Patel, author of The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society and Redefine Democracy argues that the cost to society is high as well because workers behind the food industry aren't paid what they're worth. And what of the global food shortage? Experts say that the earth could easily support billions more people if they led vegetarian or vegan lifestyles. In fact, there's no reason why the world's hungry couldn't be fully fed today.

Cost to health: T. Colin Campbell, co-author of The China Study, urges readers to make the switch to a vegan diet. Why? Because decades of his research led him to believe that animal-based diets lead to so-called diseases of affluence: heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, to name a few. Many would agree that good health is priceless. Eating meat, though, can likely decrease quality and quantity of life.

Patel has said that the real cost of a hamburger should be about $200. When the costs to the environment and one's health are also considered, how much would a person be willing to pay for that hamburger? And - no matter the cost - could it ever be worth it?

Sources:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab...
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0629-06.htm
http://www.vegsoc.org/page.aspx?pid=774
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/12/raj_patel_on_the_value_of
http://www.salagram.net/Cost-of-meat-page.htm
http://www.vegansociety.com/resources/food-security/uk-food-security....
http://www.thechinastudy.com/

Suzanne

White Meat, The Other Red Meat That Taxes Your Entire Digestive System

by S. D. Wells

(NaturalNews) You've heard it before, "eat less red meat" if you want to be healthier, and more white meat, but could it all just be a trick to keep you eating something that your body doesn't want, need or even have the "desire" to break down? What is it that your organs are really after anyway? Isn't it just the protein, or is it the amino acids? You better check.
(http://www.foodsafetynews.com)

Tasking the digestive tract with toxins

Most MDs and heart surgeons will tell you the exact same thing: "You should eat less red meat! It's easier on the heart." Or they'll tell you to cook it well, because that cooks out impurities and kills any bacteria, viruses, etc. They don't know. MDs in America don't know enough about nutrition to make any wise call about eating or NOT eating any meat, even organic. Some organic meats still tax the system, and the USDA-certified organic seal doesn't mean that they were ever tested for ANY levels of toxic heavy metals. Does your "other white meat" contain arsenic? Did your white bird lead a CAFO life -- a nightmarishly short life in contaminated quarters being injected with hormones and antibiotics to stave off infections? Maybe "less red meat" should be rephrased to "no meat, not even white."

Besides gluten, guess which food is the most difficult to digest. Does your meat have its own infections, before it ever enters your body? If so, it won't matter a bit which color it is, or which animal it came from, or which doctor told you to eat "less of it" instead of really informing you of your beneficial health choices.
(http://www.naturalnews.com)

More fungal infections in poultry uncovered here:
PoultryPedia.com.

Massive beef recall hits the mainstream news 2014:
NBCNews.com.

Cause and effect: What are polyps and IBS really from?

Your cleansing organs, like your kidneys, liver and pancreas, become overwhelmed with pesticides and GMO feed, like alfalfa and corn sugar, that the animals consumed their whole lives in their confined animal "feeding operations." And now you may need an "operation" to get the animal fat out from your veins and arteries, from your colon. Do you have polyps, IBS, colitis, ulcers, diverticulitis, acid reflux, Crohn's "disease" or all of the above? What about fibromyalgia? Guess what may be the problem? What did your gastroenterologist tell you? Are gastric juices running amuck inside you and causing health detriment? Why? Maybe it's the farm-raised shrimp? Let's take a look: TheGuardian.com.

For starters, you can't just "cook out" the chemicals and carcinogens in conventional meat, so if the animal lived in a CAFO and recieved artificial hormone injections, antibiotics to stave off E. coli or Salmonella, ate genetically modified feed, was depressed it's whole short life and was abused and possibly tortured before its death, then it really doesn't matter if it's red or white meat -- it's all one digestive nightmare. Plus, while your body is working SO HARD to get to those amino acids, your immune system is being tasked and taxed.

White meat, the other "red" meat

Humans were never meant to consume chemical food agents, fertilizers, pesticides or fungicides. We weren't meant to eat arsenic, mercury or insect DNA. The more pesticide we create in our gut, the less good flora we have, and the less enzymes "turn on" and do their job protecting our health. Conventional white meat and red meat and farm-raised fish contain pathogens, pesticides and medications. Don't be fooled by the "close by choice" swindle. Lay off the CAFO, GMO turkeys, cows, chickens, pigs and the "farm-raised" fish.

Finally, find organic food and get your proteins from a plant-based diet. Never believe the protein myth -- that you have to have MEAT to get your proper protein. Compare that protein to amounts in kale, spinach and quinoa, and never look back again. Remember, rotate your greens!

Sources for this article include:

http://msucares.com

http://www.theguardian.com

http://authoritynutrition.com

http://www.dailystrength.org

https://www.youtube.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

Suzanne

Diarrhea predominant and alternating IBS is caused by inflammation. Research shows that inflammatory chemicals cause the tight junctions in the lining of the gut to open up, and this allows chemicals from the food that you eat to get directly behind the lining and then the immune system is directly exposed to these chemicals from the food, which then sets up a low level inflammatory reaction (hey, those chemicals are NOT supposed to be there!) which causes mast cells to move in and park themselves around nerve cell endings. Once there, then they are also stimulated by the food products that should not be there behind the lining of the gut, and consequently they put out chemicals that affect the nervous system, causing the gut to react in an attempt to get rid of whatever is causing the problem, thus leading to diarrhea and tremendous pain.

Meat can be a cause of this, but it can happen on a vegetarian diet as well. Also, studies have been done on people who develop what is called postinfectious IBS, which occurs after they have some kind of gastrointestinal infection which sets up an inflammatory reaction that in turn causes the tight junctions to loosen up, thus setting you up for IBS. If I recall the research correctly, this is the most common cause of IBS.

Doctors often say that IBS is caused by stress, but this is a catch-all phrase for, "we don't know what causes what you have!" I have looked at the research on the relationship between IBS and stress, and while scientists can set up laboratory conditions that can cause IBS using stress, the inflammation research shows that its usually due to that condition rather than stress. The postinfectious IBS reserch verifies that to be the case. I know of people who have IBS and reduced their stress, and though it reduced the IBS a little, it did nothing to stop it. Stress is more like the straw that breaks the camel's back in that it may tip the balance between those who develop IBS and those who don't under identical conditions, but its not the cause itself in most cases. Unfortunately, by the time you have it, its too late to tip the balance in the other direction. So, the stress research generally does little good for you.

What Scientists Say About the Cancer Risk of Processed Meats

This is an excerpt from The Los Angeles Times, dated Oct. 27, 2015, by Melissa Healy:

The World Health Organization has confirmed some dietary advice that's unlikely to go down easy with most people. Bacon, hot dogs and other processed meats can increase your risk of cancer. Not only that , fresh cuts of red meat probably cause cancer too.

Doctors have long warned that steak and sausages can be hazardous to our health. But the new assessment from the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer officially classifies processed meats as "carcinogenic to humans" putting them in the same category as asbestos, tobacco smoke and formaldehyde.

A group of 22 scientists came to that conclusion after evaluating over 800 studies from countries--and cuisines--around the world. The results of their investigation were published October 26, 2015 in the journal Lancet Oncology.

The experts defined processed meats as those that have been salted, cured, smoked or otherwise transformed to enhance their flavor or keep them from going bad. Although most processed meats are derived from beef and pork, they can also be made from other kinds of red meat, poultry or organ meats like liver or sweetbreads.

The scientific panel also classified red meat as "probably carcinogenic." That puts it in the same category as lead compounds and the insecticide malathion.

In addition to pork and beef, red meat includes veal, lamb, mutton, horse and goat, the report said.

Clues that those consuming large amounts of processed and red meats were more likely to develop certain types of cancers began emerging in the 1990s. Evidence supporting the link has mounted steadily ever since.

By 2013 the WHO's cancer experts had made the study of meat a high priority. They evaluated the risk of 16 types of cancer and found the strongest link for colorectal cancer, the third most common type of cancer among American adults. Here is what meat eaters need to know:

Are the experts convinced that processed meats cause cancer?

Yes. The scientists said the strongest evidence supported a causal link between consumption of these meats and the risk of cancer. This link is unlikely to be the result of chance, bias or other confounding factors, they noted.

Does that mean eating beef jerky is as dangerous as smoking?
No. In labeling processed meats a "Group 1" carcinogen, the WHO researchers did not say that both vices are equally bad--only that the evidence showing they increased one's risk of cancer was equally strong.

The American Institute for Cancer Research noted that compared to those who don't eat meat, those who do are roughly twice as likely to get cancer. For the sake of comparison, smokers are about 20 times more likely than nonsmokers to be diagnosed with cancer.

What about red meat?

The causal link between cooked red meat and cancer is slightly less strong, the panel said. That's why they designated it a "probable carcinogen."

Of 125 rigorous studies looking at red meat consumption and colorectal cancer, seven found a positive association between the two.

Why are they so sure?

With both red meat and processed meat, the panel saw a "dose response" relationship: the more one eats, the greater the risk of cancer increases...

Will this report actually convince people to give up their bacon-wrapped hot dogs and filet mignon?

Over time, perhaps, but public health authorities certainly have their work cut out for them. Anyone who watches television can see that the bacon cheese-burger has become a powerful symbol of Americans' right to eat what we want, when we want it regardless of the consequences.

Are there ways to offset the effects of being a carnivore?

The main advice from experts is to eat less red meat and to minimize consumption of processed meats as much as possible. The American Institute for Cancer Research, for instance, has long advised people to eat no more than 18 ounces of red meat per week and to stop eating processed meat altogether.

Doing so would reduce one's exposure to the N-nitroso compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, that result from the processing of meats. It would also cut out the heterocyclic aromatic amines and PAHs that form when red meat is cooked at high temperatures. To varying degrees , these chemicals have been shown to prompt cancer-causing genetic mutations in the colon. And three studies have shown that consumption of red or processed meats raises levels of oxidative stress, a contributor to genetic instability.

Can I reduce my cancer risk by eating meat that's raised organically?

No. The panel left no reason to conclude that food raised without added hormones or antibiotics would change its biochemistry to make it safer.

What should I eat instead?

Having less meat on your plate might make extra room for [b]vegetables, fruts, whole grains and legumes--all of which reduce saturated fat, increase fiber and deliver antioxidant vitamins.

"Fiber makes food with toxins transit the digestive system faster, and also gets in some micronutrients," said Dr. Marleen Meyers, an oncologist at New York University's Perimutter Cancer Center. That may help undo some of the damage wrought by eating too much meat, she said.

Suzanne

I'm sure the meat industry will try to counteract this!

Sounds like cooking is the problem. Maybe it's better if the meat eaters eat it raw on the hoof!

Cooking is only one problem, there are many more. A couple of examples: Google "Neu5Gc" for a "xeno-autoantigen". Google "mTOR" for the "engine of aging" and what dietary factors drive it.

I had forgotten about that!

Recently published data show that the strongest signal associated with breast cancer may be BLV - bovine leukemia virus - google it. Ellen White is right - again.

People are continually eating flesh that is filled with tuberculous and cancerous germs. Tuberculosis, cancer, and other fatal diseases are thus communicated. {MH 313.2}

Most Processed Meat Is Cured With Toxic Chemicals Known As Nitrites And Nitrates, Which Give Them Their Distinctive Red Color

by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The distinctive red color of hot dogs, bacon and some sausages may appear to be the healthy flush of just-slaughtered meat, but of course any processed meat being sold in a store was slaughtered long, long ago.

That pink color actually comes from additives called nitrites and nitrates, which are toxic preservatives that kill off bacteria and other living things and thereby increase the shelf life of processed meats.

Indeed, sodium nitrite is so toxic to the human liver and kidneys that the FDA unsuccessfully tried to ban it in the 1970s.

Nitrites are potent preservatives and also give food a distinctive flavor, so food producers have been reluctant to phase them out.

Consumer pressure is finally starting to yield results in this regard, however. "Nitrite-free" sausage can now be purchased in the refrigerated section of grocery stores, often colored with annatto or other plant-derived dyes.

Even nitrite-free processed meats are not particularly healthy, however, and should not be consumed regularly.

Sources:

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.totalhealthbreakthroughs.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

-Suzanne-

Chemical Added To Hot Dogs, Sausage And Bacon Now Being Developed By USDA As Deadly Bait That Poisons Wild Hogs To Death... And You're EATING It For Breakfast!

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) A preservative chemical that's routinely added to hot dogs, beef jerky, bacon and breakfast sausage is now being deployed by government researchers as a fatal bait to poison wild hogs to death. Development of the deadly hog poison is being pursued by none other than the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the same agency that legalizes the same toxic chemical to be used in processed meat products approved for human consumption.

The chemical, known as sodium nitrite, is a cancer-causing "color fixer" and meat preservative added to processed meat products to give them a pink hue that consumers mistake for being "fresh." When sodium nitrite combines with the hydrochloric acid (HCl) found in stomach acid, it forms cancer-causing nitrosamines. These nitrosamines go on to directly promote pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, leukemia, brain tumors and other cancers throughout the body -- facts that I have been warning readers about for over a decade. Sodium nitrite is the reason why processed meats drastically raise the risks of cancer, heart disease and diabetes.

Eating sodium nitrite, in other words, is a lot like eating a slow death in the form of cancer. But in feral pigs, the same chemical kills quite rapidly. A paper posted online by the USDA states, " The toxin, sodium nitrite, a common meat preservative that prevents botulism, had previously been shown to be a quick-acting and low-residue toxicant for feral pigs in Australia and has since been patented."

Why poison hogs to death? Because they are multiplying more rapidly than humans

"USDA is seeking to reduce the wild pig population that roams in at least 35 states," confirms Chemical & Engineering News (October 13, 2014). "In January, it launched a national initiative that will attempt to stamp out the pervasive pigs by slipping them bait laced with a fatal dose of sodium nitrite."

Feral pigs are widely believed to be a costly pest across Australia and many parts of the Southern United States. They are incredible survivors with extraordinary adaptation skills. Intelligent and resourceful, they can live almost entirely off wild subsoil onion bulbs and other small roots. (Which, for the record, makes them a whole lot smarter than most humans who would die in no time if their local grocery store stopped stocking Pop-Tarts and Oreos.) Present-day eradication techniques tend to focus on trapping and shooting the wild hogs, which is why sodium nitrite bait is typically described by USDA scientists as a "humane" option for causing rapid death without all the blood, violence and screaming.

(I see feral swine almost daily on my ranch in central Texas. At times, I'll see swarms of 100 or more, running across a path in front of me, with dozens of squealing babies scurrying to keep up with the adults. Their fur is black, by the way. They aren't pink like you see in commercial hogs. In their wake, you'll find "plowed" swaths of fields, where they've uprooted wild onions and other plants. Because I'm not a farmer, they've never been much of a direct nuisance to me, so I leave them to their own business and move along. They've never threatened me or my animals, so I don't mind their presence much. I feel far more threatened by the highways full of dangerous, clueless Californians driving around Austin while texting on their mobile devices... I can deal with hogs. But I can't deal with motor vehicle morons...)

Over the last few decades, feral swine have "spread from 9 states 30 years ago to 44 states today (Figure 2), and unless strict confinement and eradication measures are enacted it is anticipated that they will be in every state within the next few years," says the USDA. See this map:


Perhaps not coincidentally, human depopulation proponents often use similar language to describe the "population problem" of humans, decrying how humans have multiplied rapidly to over 7 billion in global numbers, purportedly causing extreme damage to the environment in the process. Not coincidentally, feral swine are being slaughtered by invoking almost identical reasoning. This explanation from the USDA sounds almost exactly like a talk from Bill Gates on why there are too many humans on the planet:

Feral pigs cause at least $100M per annum economic impact to agricultural (McLeod 2006), which is likely an underestimate, and untold damage to the environment. They are recognized as a key threatening process to threatened species and ecological communities due to their predation, habitat degradation, competition, and disease transmission.

... sound like anyone else you know?

Population control through food chemicals

It is noteworthy that the method now being sought to kill off feral swine is to introduce a deadly chemical into their food (i.e. bait). That same exact chemical -- sodium nitrite -- has been known to be a potent cancer-causing agent since at least the 1970s, but the USDA has insisted on keeping it legal in the human food supply in order to appease the interests of powerful food corporations.

It's worth noting that if the sodium nitrite hog bait is ultimately approved by U.S. regulators for killing wild hogs, the chemical would be registered as "a pesticide with the Environmental Protection Agency for controlling wild swine," reports ACS.org. This "pesticide," by the way, is one of the primary business recruitment tools of the for-profit cancer industry.

Much of today's cancer industry, it turns out, thrives on the steady supply of cancer patients produced by sodium nitrite in processed meat products. The FDA, which receives large payments of money from drug companies seeking FDA approval for cancer treatment drugs, also refuses to ban sodium nitrite from the food supply, even as a mountain of irrefutable scientific evidence links the chemical to cancers in humans. Interestingly, sodium nitrite is one of the key chemicals used by animal researchers to give animals cancer so they can study various treatments. Search science.naturalnews.com for "sodium nitrite" to see a selection of some of the research that's already been published. Or click here to search GoodGopher.com for sodium nitrite.

Sodium nitrite already called a "vertebrate pesticide"

In the feral swine analysis published by the USDA, sodium nitrite is already labeled a "vertebrate pesticide" and its toxicological effects are described by the USDA as follows:

In brief, [sodium] nitrite causes methemoglobinemia, which results in rapid depletion of oxygen to the brain and vital organs. Pigs are highly susceptible to this mode of action because they lack methemoglobin reductase, the naturally occurring enzyme required to reverse the toxicosis. Nitrite causes a rapid death in domestic pigs in approximately 1 hour (IMVS 2010) and in feral pigs in 1.5 hours (Cowled et al. 2008a), with symptoms (detailed above) lasting less than 30 minutes (IMVS 2010). Nitrite toxicosis through methemoglobinemia has been independently assessed as humane (IMVS 2010).

USDA to hunters: It's safe to eat the wild hogs we've poisoned to death

The big idea in all this, of course, is to spread sodium nitrite-laced hog bait all across the United States, waiting for wild pigs to eat the bait and die from chemical poisoning. (If that doesn't work, they can always try hog vaccines to reduce the population, right?)

Once wild hogs are poisoned to death with sodium nitrite, they are totally safe for humans to consume, the USDA tells us. This must be very comforting to hunters to know that their federal government says it's okay to eat animals killed with a deadly poison that's been circulating through their blood and organs.

"To clarify, hunters or wildlife would not be at risk from consuming sub-lethally or lethally poisoned feral pigs, as confirmed by residue testing on pen and field-poisoned feral pigs," says their report.

The agency does acknowledge, however, that "Nitrite is toxic to aquatic organisms." It explains, "As such, nitrite levels are currently being assessed in three water bodies of different sizes following a worst-case scenario contamination incident (40 baits)."

This means that in order to attempt to eradicate feral swine from the Southern USA, the USDA might be poisoning aquatic ecosystems even more than they are already. We may be facing a future where "sodium nitrite runoff" is added to the already catastrophic levels of atrazine, glyphosate and other agricultural chemicals that are destroying amphibians and devastating aquatic ecosystems.

Bottom line: Sodium nitrite is a deadly pesticide... so why are you eating it for breakfast?

The upshot of all this is that the USDA already admits sodium nitrite -- the same chemical added to bacon, breakfast sausage, lunchmeat and pepperoni pizza -- is a "pesticide" capable of killing certain mammals.

Is it possible that some humans are genetically predisposed to being harmed by sodium nitrite in the food supply? Why are we feeding this deadly hog killing chemical to our schoolchildren in school lunches?

In a world where the food supply is already toxic and dangerous for human consumption, the routine use of a cancer-causing chemical known to be fatal to other mammals seems insanely stupid.

Food Forensics: The new food science book from the Health Ranger

Over two years in the making, Food Forensics publishes the heavy metals testing results from over 800 foods, supplements, spices and superfoods. Available now for pre-order on Amazon and Barnes & Noble, click here for the Food Forensics website and book preorder links.

"An amazing job on so many levels and an absolute must read." - Michael T. Murray, author of The Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine

"Mike Adams new book, Food Forensics, should be required reading for all the Big Food, Big Biotech apologists who continue to poison and mislead us." - Ronnie Cummins, Organic Consumers Association

Food Forensics is an essential reality guide to food and water in the 21st century." - Robert Scott Bell

"Food Forensics is an incredible, ground-breaking book." - Ty Bollinger, The Truth About Cancer

Click here to preorder your copy now.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.naturalnews.com/022288_sodium_nit...

http://www.naturalnews.com/028824_processed_...

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nw...

http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/i41/Counterat...

http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vaccines_B...

-Suzanne-

I agree that we should all eliminate flesh food from our diets.