#INDIVISIBLE Answer to Starbucks call to Action

Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz, issued a national Call to Action for Americans with his letter, "An Open Letter: How Can America Win This Election?"  In it, he asks us to blog, video, tweet, FB or otherwise use the internet communication devices and services to express our individual view of how America could be, and how we can all put citizenship over partisanship.


I'd like add my voice now and say that we need to free our food from GMOs.  I think we, as a nation, are obese because our bodies are reacting to the foreign DNA in our foods.  Bodies can process normal food normally, but the extra strands enabled in food that is manufactured for money (genetically altered to resist dis-ease, insects, and spoiling so fast) are unknown substances.  The body has automatic defense mechanisms, developed over millenia, to wrap those foreign things up in a ball of fat to keep our organs safe.  


GMOs have nasty stuff like Round-up in them!  I did a post on Round-up and what it does to dogs, but it does the same thing to any living creature (including humans).

The symptoms:
 Losing control of bladder function
 Sleepiness (it could be fatigue)
 Forgetfulness
 Mood & depression
 Generalized anxiety


I've even got the MSDS sheet for it, to back up my claims.


Toxins in your body can make it very difficult to drop the weight.  Your body is protecting you by keeping those nasty thingies separate from you in that protective fat cell:

In a closed system where exposure to toxic substances is controlled, your body does indeed deal with most toxins very effectively (mostly processed in liver and excreted via kidney.)
HOWEVER... the amount of toxic exposure we're experiencing is unprecidented. It's not uncommon for the liver to become over-taxed to the point that it cannot keep up. When this happens, toxins absolutely are disseminated, primarily to adipose (fat) tissues. Evidence for this is abundant! And we're only beginning to understand the multitude of physiologic effects.
CDC’s Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals tested 212 chemicals and found ALL to be in blood and urine of most Americans (and 6 specific chemicals to be in the blood/urine of EVERY individual tested.) Heavy metals are part of the picture, but for most people the following are more relevant with respect to toxic exposure:- BTEX compounds (volatile organic compounds)- PCDD and PCBs (vinyl and plastic)- Dioxin- PFOA (found in non-stick cooking coatings and thermal printing papers)- PDEs (flame retardant on clothing)- Pthalates (plastics)- Acrylamide (created when cooking fatty foods at high temp. Think KFC.)- MTBE (gasoline additive that's been taken off the market, but *every* individual tested by the CDC still had measurable amounts of MTBE in urine and blood.)- Bisphenol A (found in plastics and can linings)
I'm fully anticipating to be "taken to task" on this one, but frankly suggesting that there's no toxic accumulation in humans is outrageous. So pre-emptively I'm providing just a few of the hundreds of articles published in major peer-reviewed journals...http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/e…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20045…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20951…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/84662…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16244…http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20188…

Another site says the toxins disturb the flow of homeostasis:

"Toxins disturb the natural flux and flow of homeostasis. The body's immune system must defend against these toxins. The battle waged by the immune system between toxins and homeostasis is expressed as disease. A strong immune system quickly identifies the enemy and works to destroy it, hence causing fast and possibly more severe symptoms that quickly abate. A weakened, worn out, overloaded immune system is slow to respond to the toxic invasion, or does not respond at all, and thereby does not cause much, if any, symptomatology. How many times have you known or heard of someone who was "so healthy" and who "never got sick", but ate very poorly and maybe even smoked cigarettes, that suddenly died of cancer "with no warning" at a relatively young age? What happened? Let us examine the body's normal, physiologically programmed methods of maintaining homeostasis, the key to health."

Still another, in a question and answer format, shows that our laws and governing bodies were developed long before science figured out what harmful effects there would be on all of us:

Q:  Don't government regulations protect my family and me?A:  Current regulations were developed well in advance of the new science that shows that small exposures to chemicals - once considered harmless - are indeed capable of subtle cellular changes. New evidence shows that these subtle changes can raise the risk for birth defects, cancer and other health problems. In addition, the regulations now in place are not designed to look at exposures in the context of the full burden of chemicals we carry. No one is looking at the health effects of the cumulative total.
U.S. regulations are the result of long, involved political processes in which special interests exert considerable influence. Industries with significant financial interest in the continued use of a particular product or chemical have historically been quite successful in limiting regulatory controls. More information about the chemical body burdens of individuals, particularly exposed communities, and national populations could help us make better decisions about which products we want to use, which food we want to consume and what laws need to be in place to protect us.

So, my version of what America could be is this:
Organic America.  All foods grown in America would be organic, on farms honoring the spirit behind the Seven Generations concept of the Iroquois Nation of American Indians in their Iroquois Constitution:

In every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations. - Iroquois proverb

The Iroquois nation, a confederation of Native American peoples, wrote in their constitution more than 500 years ago that leaders must “Look and listen for the welfare of the whole people and have always in view not only the present but also the coming generations” and that “the thickness of their skin shall be seven spans” to protect against “anger, offensive actions, and criticism” from affecting their making the best decisions.

These commitments of stewardship for future generations and moral toughness are a profound formula for ensuring intergenerational responsibility by considering the well-being of those who do not yet have a voice, but who may nonetheless be affected by our decisions today. As one commentator has observed, “The point [of considering seven generations] is to remove individual self-interests from public decision making. Seven generations is about the longest period of time that we can grasp subjectively. Some of us had great grandparents when we were born. We have known our grandparents, our parents, and ourselves. We may also know our children, our grandchildren, and possibly our great grandchildren. These seven generations are a yard stick of human experience.”

Americans would grow, harvest, & consume all organic foods.  This would open up new venues & opportunities for innovation in:

• Pest control methods
• Weed control methods
• Harvesting methods so the vine ripened foods would be in stores sooner
• Transportation methods
• Farming methods to keep the land healthy and full of nutrients
• Organic fertilizer creation
• Seasonal menus and eating habits
• Feeding methods & best practices for our animals (both domestic and farm animals)
• Health benefits of real, unadulterated food
• Packaging methods re-creation for canned, frozen and preserved foods
• Preserving methods revisited!

In my version of America, we'd be the healthiest nation around.  We could be the go-to center for the best methods available.  America would build their people back up with nutrition so that instead of a sick, old, and dying place, we were full of innovative concepts and LIFE.

Nasty thingies in our foods wouldn't be hidden and shrugged off as conspiracy theory any longer.  If the laws don't work, they are revoked and new ones put in place to support a safe future, seven generations into it.

Soapbox: Is BPA contaminating YOUR food?

This is a repost of an article from Dr. Mercola's site. Dr. Mercola is to health what Dr. Simeon was to obesity/diets, in my estimation. He's brilliant! I've been yammering about BPAs being bad for absolutely years now - my family is sick to death of hearing about it.

But you know what?

BPAs cause obesity, cancers (prostate and breast), early sexual development in girls - really early 5-6-7 and they've got female cycles, is linked to ADHD and lots of other things. That's enough of a reason for me to keep on keeping on. I do TONS of research about health and look for CURES to the things in those I love who have a dis-ease.

I even got rid of all plastic containers for my Doghters and insisted that everyone else in my family do the same.

150 years ago, humans were generally a healthy lot. Now we're generally not. Sure, there was The Plague caused by the rat fleas, but that's just one thing. Over all, historically, humans are healthy. So are our dogs.

Today? Yah... Not so much.

What changed? Our food. How we process it, where we get it, when we pick it, the soil it grows from, the pesticides, the "shelf life," genetical alteration, the list just goes on and on. But none of it changed until about 150 years ago. Up to that point, we had gardens in every yard, grass fed animals, clean water sources... You really have to stop and think about the correlation between our food stuffs and our health these days.

FDA Shifts Position—Now Has Concerns about BPA Risks

Posted by: Dr. Mercola
February 04 2010 | 7,190 views

In a shift of position, the U.S. FDA is expressing concerns about possible health risks from bisphenol A, or BPA, a widely used component of plastic bottles and food packaging. The agency declared BPA safe in 2008.

But the FDA now has “some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.”

The action is another example of the drug agency becoming far more aggressive in taking hard looks at what it sees as threats to public health over the past year. In recent months, the agency has stepped up its oversight of food safety and has promised to tighten approval standards for medical devices.

Concerns about BPA are based on studies that have found harmful effects in animals, and on the recognition that the chemical seeps into food and baby formula. Nearly everyone is exposed to BPA, starting in the womb.

Dr. Sharfstein said the drug agency was also re-evaluating the way it regulates BPA.

The substance is now classified as a food additive, a category that requires a cumbersome and time-consuming process to make regulatory changes. Dr. Sharfstein said he hoped its status could be changed to “food contact substance,” which would give the F.D.A. more regulatory power and let it act more quickly if it needed to do so.

Sources:

New York Times January 15, 2010

New York Times FDA Articles

New York Times May 14, 2009

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

You might be surprised to learn that "flexible packaging" -- the pouches and films your food comes in -- is big money, representing a $21.3 billion per year industry in the United States that is growing by 3.5 percent annually.[i]

And BPA is one of the biggest players in the wrapping industry.

Last year, more than 6 billion pounds of BPA was made, representing nearly $7 billion in sales[ii] . US companies that make BPA are Bayer Material Science, Dow Chemical Company, SABIC Innovative Plastics (formerly GE Plastics), Hexion Specialty Chemicals, and Sunoco Chemicals.

It’s no surprise that the chemical people would conspire with the food manufacturers to keep BPA facts under wraps.

You not only ingest the contents of your food but some of the contents of the packaging as well. Unfortunately, the chemicals you ingest as a result of your food containers have never been a high priority of the FDA.

FDA Officials Claim Their Hands are Tied

The FDA has admitted it needs to overhaul its regulatory framework because the structure limits its ability to regulate BPA production.

A quirk in the rules allows BPA makers to skirt federal legislation.

BPA, which was first manufactured way back in 1891, was later developed as a plasticizer in the early 1960s. It was classified in 1963 as an indirect food additive and is listed among the 3,000 or so chemicals categorized as GRAS ("generally regarded as safe").

This outdated GRAS designation is what exempts BPA from scrutiny.

According to the FDA’s regulations, a substance granted GRAS status is not subject to FDA review.

Sharfstein told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel2 that the agency can try to get companies to volunteer the information, but it’s probably going to require a change in the law.

The fact that BPA makers are on the "Honor System" about disclosing information doesn’t give me a warm and cozy feeling about its safety.

FDA officials, including Sharfstein, Lynn Goldmann (a consultant to the FDA), and acting chief scientist Jesse Goodman, all expressed how frustrated they are with the antiquated framework of the FDA’s regulatory process.

Perhaps some of the FDA officials are coming clean.

It remains to be seen whether these sentiments are genuine or simple attempts to tell journalists what they want to hear. Either way, the FDA is certainly not without blame.

The FDA explains these limitations via an "update" on its website[iii]:

"Current BPA food contact uses were approved under food additive regulations issued more than 40 years ago. This regulatory structure limits the oversight and flexibility of the FDA.

Once a food additive is approved, any manufacturer of food or food packaging may use the food additive in accordance with the regulation. There is no requirement to notify the FDA of that use.

For example, today there exist hundreds of different formulations for BPA-containing epoxy linings, which have varying characteristics. As currently regulated, manufacturers are not required to disclose to FDA the existence or nature of these formulations.

Furthermore, if the FDA were to decide to revoke one or more approved uses, the FDA would need to undertake what could be a lengthy process of rulemaking to accomplish this goal."

Fuel for a Legislative Fire

John Peterson Myers, the chief scientist for Environmental Health Sciences, told the Journal Sentinel that he believes the FDA’s admission of its inability to regulate BPA may fuel legislative efforts toward a ban.

Myers argues:

"Industry always uses the argument that the chemical is regulated. This shows that it is not. State and federal lawmakers need to consider that. They can't rely on this agency to regulate it if they don't have the tools to do so."

BPA in baby bottles has been banned by Minnesota, Connecticut, the City of Chicago and two counties in New York. Other measures are being considered in 30 states and municipalities.

Three cheers for our side!

A federal ban on BPA in all food contact has been proposed in Congress.

A few concerned members of Congress, who have demanded disclosures from the chemical industry, report being stonewalled by industry scientists who maintain that BPA is safe and that it’s important in preserving the integrity of canned food by allowing for high temperature sterilization, thereby preventing microbial contamination.

The American Chemistry Council, a lobby group for the chemical industry, issued a statement on January 15, 2010, denying the health hazards of BPA.

And North American Metal Packaging Alliance, a Washington-based trade group for can makers, said that there is no "readily available alternative to BPA."

It appears that the chemical industry is using tobacco industry shenanigans to hide the truth about what their products really do to you.

BPA Should Stand for "Beware -- Plastics Attack!"

The FDA has food labeling guidelines that dictate what must be listed on food packaging. That generally includes a listing of ingredients, nutrition analysis, "best if used by" dates, instructions for handling and preparation, and contact information for the company that packaged the food.

But there is no requirement that consumers are told about chemicals in the packaging itself that could be leaching into your food -- even though these are essentially inadvertent food additives!

In December of 2009, Consumer Reports reported testing 19 name brand canned foods, including:

• Soups

• Juices

• Tuna

• Green beans

The results were disappointing.

Nearly all of the tested canned foods were contaminated with BPA, including organic canned foods. BPA was even found in some cans labeled "BPA-free."

According to their estimates, just a couple of servings of canned food can exceed the daily safety limits for BPA exposure in children.

Even low-level exposure to BPA can be hazardous to your health -- the evidence has been accumulating for more than 10 years. There are more than 100 independent studies linking the chemical to serious health problems in humans, including:

• Prostate cancer and breast cancer

• Diabetes and obesity

• Altered immune function

• Early sexual development in girls and disrupted reproductive function

• Decreased sperm count and other fertility problems

• Learning and behavioral problems, including hyperactivity

• Abnormal heart rhythms and coronary artery disease

10 Tips to Help You Minimize Your BPA Exposure

Until there are regulations to protect you, here are a few things you can do to protect yourself and your family:

1. Boycott plastic shopping bags. Use reusable canvas or cloth varieties instead. (This also applies to the plastic produce bags in the grocery store.)

2. Store your food and beverages in glass containers, NOT plastic.

3. If you choose to use a microwave, don’t microwave food in plastic containers.

4. Stop buying and consuming canned foods and drinks (the can linings contain plastic chemicals.)

5. Avoid using plastic wrap altogether.

6. Replace your plastic dishes and cups with glass varieties. Never drink your coffee or tea from a plastic cup.

7. Avoid using plastic cups, utensils, dishes, and food storage containers. There are some containers being labeled "BPA-free," so keep an eye out for those if you choose to use plastic.

8. Avoid drinking bottled water. Instead, filter your own water and put it in a glass bottle.

9. Before allowing a dental sealant to be applied to you or your children, ask your dentist to verify that it does not contain BPA.

10. Use only glass baby bottles and dishes. Use cloth diapers instead of plastic. And give your baby non-plastic toys, like varieties that are made of fabric.

It is important to be a label-reader these days, and this is a perfect example of why.

The bottom of plastic containers are marked with a recycling label that includes a number. Polycarbonate plastics, which contain BPA, usually have a No. 7 on the bottom. However, not all plastics labeled with the number 7 contain BPA. For instance, corn PLA plastic and other biodegradable and renewable resource resins are classified under 7 as well.

So when seeking to avoid BPA, look for the type of plastic -- such as polycarbonate -- rather than the number.

As always, you’re far safer replacing your plastics with glass or ceramic whenever possible.

---

[i] "Understanding FDA food packaging regulations," White-paper by Rohm and Haas,

[ii] Kissinger M. "FDA says it’s unable to regulate BPA" (January 17, 2010) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

[iii] "Update on bisphenol A for use in food contact applications: January 2010" U.S. Food and Drug Administration