General Mills’ Ken Powell Maintains Opposition to Labeling GMOs

Ken Powell, chairman and CEO of General Mills Inc., restated his opposition to mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms, commonly called GMOs, at a conference in California.

The conference, called Brainstorm Green, was put on by Fortune. In an uneditedtranscript posted by the magazine, Powell said GMOs are safe and they're part of a solution to feeding the world's growing population.

Powell said he didn't have a problem with specialty retailer Whole Foods' recent announcement it would require GMO information on labels.

He said he's not opposed to Whole Foods' policy because General Mills' organic brands -- such as Muir Glenn, Cascadian Farms, Larabar and Food Should Taste Good -- that it sells to Whole Foods are GMO free.

Powell said virtually every product in the grocery store contains GMOs, and he doesn't think it's a good idea to label those as having GMOs.

 

General Mills spent about $1 million lobbying with other food manufacturers to defeat a measure in California that would have required GMOs to be disclosed on food labels, according to the story.

If such a rule was implemented on a state-by-state basis, it would cost consumers more because manufactures would have change how they manage their supply chains, Powell said.

He added that there wouldn't be room to include GMO information on product labels.

 

"Consumers tell us, and I think they're right, that they want to know about the ingredients, they want to know the nutrition information of that product, they want to know if there's a safety thing, if there's peanuts in there or something like that. They need to know these things. But we should restrict the use of that label for this important information, and limit it to that. If we broaden it to other things that could be anything, I mean it could be anything, causes that we have, things that we believe in, we'll need to add pages to the label, and we simply don't think we should do that."

Source:

www.bizjournals.com

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want to help these blog , like and share the facebook page :

http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

Foods that Protect Skin from the Sun‏

Aside from slathering on sunblock and opting to sit in the shade, your diet can also play an important role in protecting your skin from the sun's harmful rays. So read on and stock your kitchen with these!

New research suggests some foods have the power to guard skin from the damage caused by the sun's UV radiation. While a salad is no substitute for sunblock, these healthy foods could add inner protection against sunburn and wrinkles at the cellular level.

Broccoli

This super-food, along with cabbage and brussel sprouts, contains isothiocyanates, enzymes that have been shown to be anti-carcinogenic. They are also believed to boost the production of protective enzymes that defend cells against UV damage. Win win!

 

Tomatoes

"Lycopene, a potent antioxidant found in tomatoes, has many sun-protecting benefits," explains Los Angeles-based dermatologist, Dr. Annie Chiu. A German study recently examined the benefits of store-bought tomato paste. After only 10 weeks, subjects who ingested the paste experienced significantly less redness from the sun compared to those who did not.

Coconut Oil

We've all heard about beauty products with coconut oil in them, but did you know that if you eat this must-try miracle food it can nourish your skin from the inside out? "Coconuts contains lauric acid, which has antimicrobial properties, and the saturated fat in coconut oil also protects the skin from UV damage from the sun," says Dr. Lipman.

Goji Berries

Animal studies suggest that these berries "may provide significant protection against oxidative stress induced by UVA radiation and may reduce sunburn-induced inflammation and swelling.

Green Tea

Instead of coffee, opt for this antioxidant-rich beverage. "Green tea contains polyphenol antioxidants, which are UV protective," says Dr. Chiu. A double-blind, placebo controlled study demonstrated that consumption of green tea over 12 weeks significantly decreased sun-induced redness in the skin.

Oranges

Need another reason to stalk up on citrus? "Vitamin C abundant produce protects against UV light exposure and can reduce inflammation associated with sunburns," explains Dr. Chiu. It is also known to decrease the activity of enzymes activated by UV exposure. Meaning: your skin's collagen will stay strong and firm looking.

 

Mushrooms

Fungai is abundant in beta-glucan, which may provide photoprotective qualities by decreasing UV-induced oxidative stress, explains Dr. Chiu.

Dark Chocolate

Satisfy your sweet tooth with dark chocolate or cocoa, both of which are rich in flavonoids. "Flavonoids have powerful antioxidant activity that can help inhibit harmful UV-triggered chemical pathways that may lead to skin cancer," says Dr. Chiu.

Collared Greens Salmons

Chow down on leafy greens! According to Dr. Frank Lipman, an expert in integrative medicine, they contain beta-carotenes, which contribute to the growth and repair of body tissues and may also protect your skin against sun damage.

Salmon

“Foods that are rich in omega-3 fatty acids are known to reduce inflammation,” says New York-based dermatologist, Dr. Dennis Gross. This is particularly helpful for those who suffer from chronic skin conditions like eczema, as the omega-3s help to maintain a healthy cell membrane and hold in moisture.

 

Carrots

Carrots—or any other red, yellow, and orange fruits and vegetables—are packed with carotenoids, and studies show they reduce sunburn intensity.

Walnuts

Like salmon, walnuts are high is essential fatty acids that could guard against sunburn.

Source:

Rd.com

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want to help these blog , like and share the facebook page :

http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

 

 

The Data is Very Strong: Marijuana Plant Extract Stops Cancers From Spreading

The data is very strong and there's no toxicity associated with a compound found in cannabis could halt the spread of many forms of aggressive cancer, scientists say.

The first research to show marijuana's anti-tumor properties was presented at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Los Angeles in 2007 demonstrating that THC may activate biological pathways that halt cancer cell division or block development of blood vessels that feed tumors.

It then became a target of synthetic research into THC for drugs such as ImClone System Inc.'s Erbitux and Amgen Inc.'s Vectibix.

Researchers have now found that the compound, called cannabidiol, had the ability to ‘switch off’ the gene responsible for metastasis in an aggressive form of breast cancer. Importantly, this substance does not produce the psychoactive properties of the cannabis plant.

The team from the California Pacific Medical Center, in San Francisco, first spotted its potential five years ago, after it stopped the proliferation of human breast cancer cells in the lab.

Last year they published a study that found a similar effect in mice. Now they say they are on the verge of publishing further animal study results that expand these results further.

Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. CBD (Cannabidiol), one of the main constituents of the cannabis plant has been proven medically to relieve many diseases including the inhibition of cancer cell growth.

Recent studies have shown it to be an effective atypical anti-psychotic in treating schizophrenia. CBD also interferes with the amount of THC your brain processes, balancing the psychotropic effect of marijuana. That is precisely why the power of raw cannabis is turning heads.

Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle, study co-leader Dr Sean McAllister, said: ‘The preclinical trial data is very strong, and there’s no toxicity. There’s really a lot or research to move ahead with and to get people excited.’

While he, along with colleague Dr Pierre Desprez acknowledge that they are some way off from turning their finding into a pill, they are already developing human trial models. They hope to eventually test the drug in combination with current chemotherapies.

Professor Desprez had previously found that a protein called ID-1 seemed to play a role in causing breast cancer to spread. Meanwhile Dr McAllister had discovered the cannabidiol had anti-cancer potential.

The pair teamed up to see if they could treat a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer called ‘triple negative.’ This form, which affects 15 per cent of patients, doesn’t have three hormone receptors that the most successful therapies target. Cells from this cancer have high levels of ID-1.

When they exposed cells from this cancer to cannabidiol they were shocked to find the cells not only stopped acting ‘crazy’ but also returned to a healthy normal state.

They discovered that the compound had turned off the overexpression of ID-1, stopping them from travelling to distant tissues.

Other potentially treatable cancers are forms of leukaemia, lung, ovarian and brain cancers, which also have high levels of ID-1.

Dr Desprez has a particular reason for wanting to create a treatment as quickly as possible – his sister was recently diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer at the age of 41.

Her condition is currently receptive to hormone therapies but Professor Desprez fears it could recur in a form that lacks hormone receptors.

He said: ‘I want to be ready for that. There is a deadline.’

Cannabis is a Class B drug that is illegal to have, give away or sell. “If cannabis were discovered in an Amazon rainforests today, people would be clambering to make as much use as they could out of the potential benefits of the plant,” said Donald L. Abrams, MD, Chief of Hematology and Oncology at San Francisco General Hospital and Professor of Medicine at the University California.

Dr. Abrams is widely known for his research on medical cannabis applications. “Unfortunately, it carries with it a long and not so long history of being a persecuted plant,” he added.

Source:

Prevent Disease

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want to help these blog , like and share the facebook page :

http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

Bhutan – The World’s First 100% Organic Nation

The tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan drew international attention a few years back for saying gross national happiness should trump gross domestic product when measuring a nation's progress.

If you're going to prioritize happiness, the Bhutanese thinking goes, you'd better include the environment and spiritual and mental well-being in your calculations. (Not everyone in Bhutan is happy, and many leave as refugees, as Human Rights Watch and others have noted.)

But Bhutan, which has only 700,000 people — most of whom are farmers — has another shot at international fame if it can make good on a recent pledge to become the first country in the world to convert to a 100 percent organic agricultural system.

Last month at the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development, Prime Minister Jigmi Thinley said his government is developing a National Organic Policy because the country's farmers are increasingly convinced that "by working in harmony with nature, they can help sustain the flow of nature's bounties."

Going all-out organic is a lofty goal for any country given that many farmers — and poor farmers in particular — covet chemical fertilizers and pesticides to enrich their soil, boost production and keep diseases and pests at bay.

But Andre Leu, an Australian adviser to the Bhutanese government and the president of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, says it's very doable.

"I don't think it's going to be that difficult given that the majority of the agricultural land is already organic by default," Leu tells The Salt.

Indeed, the synthetic chemicals and fertilizers that are used so widely in countries like the U.S. are only available and affordable to a few of Bhutan's farmers who are widely dispersed across the rugged and mountainous terrain sandwiched between India and China. But very few of the organic-by-default farmers have been certified as such by third-party institutions. (Certified organic food, by the way, makes up less than 1 percent of the world's calories, and is mostly available to wealthy consumers.)

According to the World Food Program, Bhutanese farmers mainly grow rice and corn, as well as some fruits and vegetables, including potatoes and oranges.

But as demand for food has grown in recent years, the country has been forced to import rice and other foods from India, and today Bhutan is a net food importer.

One of the few products Bhutan exports to the U.S. is red rice; Lotus Foods sells it to chains like Whole Foods. Bhutanese red rice is more nutritious and tastes nuttier than white rice, its boosters say, and is well-suited to pilaf, as Monica Bhide reported for NPR's Kitchen Window earlier this year. The rice does not have organic certification, but Lotus Foods says it been grown without the use of pesticides or other chemical inputs for centuries.

The Ministry of Agriculture says the organic program, launched in 2007, is not just about protecting the environment. It will also train farmers in new methods that will help them grow more food and move the country closer to self-sufficiency.

The ministry is now training extension workers in organic methods and giving farmers who go organic priority for government assistance.

Not everyone is so sure that a 100 percent organic Bhutan is a great idea. Leu says he's found some resistance among researchers at the Ministry of Agriculture who've been trained in conventional farming techniques abroad.

And an article last year in the Bhutan Observer notes that many farmers who grow export crops like apple, Mandarin orange, and potato already rely heavily on chemical fertilizers and could be reluctant to give them up.

Still, Leu is optimistic that Bhutan's burgeoning organic agriculture research centers will eventually be able to come up with organic methods to boost yields and manage the problems of these crops.

"All these problems are solvable, they just need a few more years of research to come up with some more effective solutions," Leu says.

Source:

NBR

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want to help these blog , like and share the facebook page :

http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

Bee Harming Pesticides Banned in Europe

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

Bee-harming pesticides banned in Europe

Europe will enforce the world's first continent-wide ban on widely used insecticides alleged to cause serious harm to bees, after a European commission vote on Monday.

The suspension is a landmark victory for millions of environmental campaigners, backed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), concerned about a dramatic decline in the bee population. The vote also represents a serious setback for the chemical producers who make billions each year from the products and also UK ministers, who voted against the ban. Both had argued the ban would harm food production.

Although the vote by the 27 EU member states on whether to suspend the insect nerve agents was supported by 15 nations, but did not reach the required majority under voting rules. The hung vote hands the final decision to the European commission, which will implement the ban.

Tonio Borg, health and consumer commissioner, said: "Our proposal is based on a number of risks to bee health identified by the EFSA, [so] the European commission will go ahead with its plan in coming weeks."

Friends of the Earth's head of campaigns, Andrew Pendleton, said: "This decision is a significant victory for common sense and our beleaguered bee populations. Restricting the use of these pesticides could be an historic milestone on the road to recovery for these crucial pollinators."

The UK, which abstained in a previous vote, was heavily criticized for switching to a "no" vote on Monday.

Joan Walley MP, chair of parliament's green watchdog, the environmental audit committee, whose investigation had backed a ban and accused ministers of "extraordinary complacency", said the vote was a real step in the right direction, but added: "A full Commons debate where ministers can be held to account is more pressing than ever."

Greenpeace's chief scientist, Doug Parr, said: "By not supporting the ban, environment secretary, Owen Paterson, has exposed the UK government as being in the pocket of big chemical companies and the industrial farming lobby."

On Sunday, the Observer revealed the intense secret lobbying by Paterson and Syngenta.

The environment minister, Lord de Mauley, countered, saying: "Having a healthy bee population is a top priority for us but we did not support the proposal because our scientific evidence doesn't support it. We will now work with farmers to cope with the consequences as a ban will carry significant costs for them."

Syngenta, which makes one of the three neonicotinoids that have been suspended, said: "The proposal ignores a wealth of evidence from the field that these pesticides do not damage the health of bees. The EC should [instead] address the real reasons for bee health decline: disease, viruses and loss of habitat."

Bees and other insects are vital for global food production as they pollinate three-quarters of all crops. The plummeting numbers of pollinators in recent years has been blamed on disease, loss of habitat and, increasingly, the near ubiquitous use of neonicotinoid pesticides.

A series of high-profile scientific studies has linked neonicotinoids – the world's most widely used insecticides – to huge losses in the number of queen bees produced and big rises in the numbers of "disappeared" bees – those that fail to return from foraging trips.

The commission proposed the suspension after the EFSA concluded in January that three neonicotinoids – thiamethoxam, clothianidin and imidacloprid – posed an unnacceptable risk to bees. The three will be banned from use for two years on flowering crops such as corn, oilseed rape and sunflowers, upon which bees feed.

A spokesman for Bayer Cropscience said: "Bayer remains convinced neonicotinoids are safe for bees, when used responsibly and properly … clear scientific evidence has taken a back-seat in the decision-making process."

Prof Simon Potts, a bee expert at the University of Reading, said: "The ban is excellent news for pollinators. The weight of evidence from researchers clearly points to the need to have a phased ban of neonicotinoids. There are several alternatives to using neonicotinoids and farmers will benefit from healthy pollinator populations as they provide substantial economic benefits to crop pollination."

Neonicotinoids have been widely used for more than decade and are less harmful than some of the sprays they replaced, but scientific studies have increasingly linked them to poor bee health.

Many observers, including the National Farmers' Union, accept that EU regulation is inadequate, as it only tests on honeybees and not the wild pollinators that service 90% of plants. The regulatory testing also only considers short-term effects and does not consider the combined effects of multiple pesticides. The chemical industry has warned that a ban on neonicotinoids would lead to the return of older, more harmful pesticides and crop losses but campaigners point out this has not happened during temporary suspensions in France, Italy and Germany and that the use of natural pest predators and crop rotation can tackle problems.

"It is imperative that any alternative chemicals to be used in their place must first pass the same tests failed by the neonicotinoids," said Dr Christopher Connolly, a bee expert at the University of Dundee. "The recent findings have highlighted an urgent need for more rigorous safety testing protocols."

In Brussels, the countries that voted against the ban were: the UK, Czech Republic, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Austria and Portugal. Ireland, Lithuania, Finland and Greece abstained. Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Cyprus, Germany, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden voted in favour.

Source:

www.guardian.co.uk

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want this blog to get up with great information: 
Share & Follow us on facebook and be 

updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

Roundup, Could Be Linked To Parkinson’s, Cancer And Other Health Issues

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

Heavy use of the world's most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson's, infertility and cancers, according to a new study.

The peer-reviewed report, published last week in the scientific journal Entropy, said evidence indicates that residues of "glyphosate," the chief ingredient in Roundup weed killer, which is sprayed over millions of acres of crops, has been found in food.

Those residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc. Samsel is a former private environmental government contractor as well as a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body," the study says.

We "have hit upon something very important that needs to be taken seriously and further investigated," Seneff said.

Environmentalists, consumer groups and plant scientists from several countries have warned that heavy use of glyphosate is causing problems for plants, people and animals.

The EPA is conducting a standard registration review of glyphosate and has set a deadline of 2015 for determining if glyphosate use should be limited. The study is among many comments submitted to the agency.

Monsanto is the developer of both Roundup herbicide and a suite of crops that are genetically altered to withstand being sprayed with the Roundup weed killer.

These biotech crops, including corn, soybeans, canola and sugarbeets, are planted on millions of acres in the United States annually. Farmers like them because they can spray Roundup weed killer directly on the crops to kill weeds in the fields without harming the crops.

Roundup is also popularly used on lawns, gardens and golf courses.

Monsanto and other leading industry experts have said for years that glyphosate is proven safe, and has a less damaging impact on the environment than other commonly used chemicals.

Jerry Steiner, Monsanto's executive vice president of sustainability, reiterated that in a recent interview when questioned about the study.

"We are very confident in the long track record that glyphosate has. It has been very, very extensively studied," he said.

Of the more than two dozen top herbicides on the market, glyphosate is the most popular. In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used six years ago, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.

Source:

www.huffingtonpost.com

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

6 super-foods that fight cancer and prevent cancer

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

 

Prevention is key with natural health solutions, although we firmly believe that anyone can beat cancer with nutrition. It is said that at least half of all cancer cases can be prevented through lifestyle changes such as diet, which also just so happens to be one of the best methods in protecting yourself against cancer. Given the genetic evidence that antioxidants help treat and prevent cancer, it’s never too early to add these antioxidant superfoods and other foods that fight cancer into your daily diet.
Without further ado, here are 6 foods that fight cancer and prevent cancer.

1. Foods that Fight Cancer – Chocolate

Is chocolate good for you? Here’s one pleasure you don’t have to feel so guilty about—as long as you eat the right kind. Cocoa is full of antioxidants that fight free radicals, with unsweetened baking cocoa powder boasting an ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity) value of 50,000 units per 100 grams. Your best bet is to go with moderate amounts of dark chocolate or homemade varieties. Making homemade chocolate is easier than you think.  Just add:

The Vaccine Police State is Knocking

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

There are six vaccine bills in each of 30+ states that now either require more vaccines for more people or further restrict our right to refuse them.

The National Vaccine Information Center's Advocacy Portal (http://www.nvicadvocacy.org) lists current vaccine bills throughout the U.S. Right now, it lists from one to six vaccine bills in each of 30+ states. Most of these bills, if passed into law, would further expand an already out-of-control pharmaceutical vaccine agenda that seeks to require more vaccines for more people while further restricting our right to refuse them. Join the Portal NOW to help defend vaccine freedom of choice!

Here's a quick look at the authoritarian agendas being promoted by current bills around the U.S.:

Why Gluten is Bad For you and your Children

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

If you have not read my previous article titled "200 Clinically Confirmed Reasons Not To Eat It"  you can click and read it.

Gluten is a protein molecule commonly found in grains like rye, wheat, and barley. It is found in almost every variety of bread, cereal, or grain. Most types of bread contain this protein. People who prefer to avoid gluten fall in two categories–either they’re allergic (this is known as Celiac disease) or because they believe it will lead to health problems. Problem is that so many people are allergic against gluten and they don´t even know it!
This is why we as The Rawfoodfamily have excluded gluten from our diet all together.
The easiest way to avoid the protein is to not eat foods that contain it, or to eat very little of them.

Health Benefits of Juicing Raw Marijuana Leaves

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

Contrary to popular belief, the marijuana plant is a whole lot more than just a psychoactive drug that “stoners” use to get high.

In raw form, marijuana leaves and buds are actually loaded with a non-psychoactive, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-cancer nutrient compound known as cannabidiol (CBD) that is proving to be a miracle “superfood” capable of preventing and reversing a host of chronic illnesses.

Though you may not have heard much about it, the CBD found in the marijuana plant — marijuana is technically just a vegetable, by the way — is a highly medicinal substance with unique immune-regulating capabilities. Since the human body already contains a built-in endogenous cannabinoid system, complete with cannabinoid receptors, inputting CBD from marijuana can help normalize the body’s functional systems, including cell communication and proper immune function.

The way CBDs work is that they bridge the gap of neurotransmission in the central nervous system, including in the brain, by providing a two-way system of communication that completes a positive “feedback loop,” according to Dr. William Courtney, a medical marijuana expert and founder of Cannabis International. As opposed to a one-way transmission, which can promote chronic inflammation of healthy tissue, the unique two-way transmission system engaged by marijuana CBDs mimics the body’s own natural two-way communications system.

So individuals whose systems are compromised by autoimmune disorders, cellular dysfunction, chronic inflammation, cancer cells, and various other illnesses can derive a wide range of health-promoting benefits simply by consuming CBDs. And one of the best ways to obtain CBDs is to juice raw marijuana leaves and buds, according to Dr. Courtney, who currently runs a clinic in Luxembourg that provides raw cannabis medicinal services to patients in need.

“CBD works on receptors, and as it turns out, we have cannabinoids in our bodies, endogenous cannabinoids, that turn out to be very effective at regulating immune functions, nerve functions, bone functions,” says Dr. Ethan Russo, a Seattle, Wash.-area physician who is also a senior advisor to GW Pharmaceuticals, a British drug company that is utilizing CBDs in a new marijuana mouth spray known as Sativex.

“There’s a tendency to discount claims when something appears to be good for everything, but there’s a reason this is the case. The endogenous cannabinoid system acts as a modulator in fine-tuning a lot of these systems, and if something is deranged biochemically in a person’s body, it may well be that a cannabinoid system can bring things back into balance.”

Be sure to check out these amazing videos from Cannabis International that explain more about how raw cannabis, and specifically the CBDs found inside the plant, work to promote health and reverse disease:

While some U.S. states like California and Colorado are beginning to recognize and accept that marijuana has legitimate therapeutic value, the federal government continues to classify marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug with “no currently accepted medical use.” And as long as it remains classified in this way, most Americans will never have the opportunity to experience the healing potential of this vital superfood. But Cannabis International and other groups are continuing to educate the public about why marijuana is a food essential, and how legalizing it could change the world. To learn more, be sure to visit: cannabisinternational.org  Sources:

By Ethan A. Huff

 NaturalNews.com

washingtonpost.com http://worldtruth.tv  

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

Nestlé Denies that Water is a Fundamental Human Right & Accused Of Exploiting Water Supplies

The current Chairman and former CEO of Nestlé, the largest producer of food products in the world, believes that the answer to global water issues is privatization. This statement is on record from the wonderful company that has peddled junk food in the Amazon, has invested money to thwart the labeling of GMO-filled products, has a disturbing health and ethics record for its infant formula, and has deployed a cyber army to monitor Internet criticism and shape discussions in social media.

In the small Pakistani community of Bhati Dilwan, a former village councilor says children are being sickened by filthy water. Who's to blame? He says it's bottled water-maker Nestlé, which dug a deep well that is depriving locals of potable water. “The water is not only very dirty, but the water level sank from 100 to 300 to 400 feet,” Dilwan says.

This is apparently the company we should trust to manage our water, despite the record of large bottling companies like Nestlé having a track record of creating shortages.

Large multinational beverage companies are usually given water-well privileges (and even tax breaks) over citizens because they create jobs, which is apparently more important to the local governments than water rights to other taxpaying citizens. These companies such as Coca Cola and Nestlé (which bottles suburban Michigan well-water and calls it Poland Spring) suck up millions of gallons of water, leaving the public to suffer with any shortages.

The testimony that was made of a former village councilor of Bhati Dilwan is a key moment in the new documentary film “Bottled Life” by Swiss filmmaker Urs Schnell and journalist Res Gehriger. The village councilor interviewed in the film says Nestlé refused the village’s request for clean water to be piped in.

The notoriously bad drinking water in Pakistan and elsewhere is the reason for the success of the Pure Life brand. A good 10 years ago, the Swiss food company began adding minerals to ground water and bottling it. Today, Pure Life Purified Water Enhanced With Minerals is the largest water brand in the world – “a jewel in our portfolio,” according to John Harris, head of Nestlé Waters.

But Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, believes that “access to water is not a public right.” Nor is it a human right. So if privatization is the answer, is this the company in which the public should place its trust?

Here is just one example, among many, of his company’s concern for the public thus far:

In view of the fact that every day more children die from drinking dirty water than AIDS, war, traffic accidents and malaria put together, Maude Barlow, a former UN chief adviser for water issues, states: “When a company like Nestlé comes along and says, Pure Life is the answer, we’re selling you your own ground water while nothing comes out of your faucets anymore or if it does it’s undrinkable – that’s more than irresponsible, that’s practically a criminal act.”

In response to questions put to it by Tages Anzeiger, Nestlé communicated in writing that it had built two water filtering facilities that were providing over 10,000 people in Pakistan’s Sheikhupura with clean drinking water. Construction of a further facility was planned for 2012. The company said they had also built two schools in Sheikhupura.

Nestlé is not the only company to create a huge business with big profit potential by bottling ground water -- Danone and Coca-Cola do it too. However, the way Nestlé goes about it, as depicted in the film, is in stark contrast to the image the company seeks to project. Nestlé likes to see itself as a global problem solver out not only for profits but to “create shared values.” In 2007, when Schnell and Gehriger began working on the movie, then Nestlé spokesman François-Xavier Perroud called it "the wrong film at the wrong time." Several times between 2007 and 2009 the company denined requests for interviews with company managers. It also refused to allow visits to bottling facilities.

The company’s present spokesperson, Melanie Kohli, told the Tages Anzeiger that Nestlé had reached the conclusion that the project would reflect a one-sided and unfair view of company activity and those who worked for Nestlé. “Consequently, we declined to work with the filmmakers. Our carefully considered decision was the right one at the time.”

racking the company's record, from Ethiopia to Nigeria

Undeterred, journalist Gehriger visited a refugee camp in Ethiopia where, in 2003, Nestlé had installed a water treatment facility for $750,000. Two years later, the company pulled out. Since then the facility has not been functioning properly, and water shortages have returned.

In Lagos, Nigeria, Gehriger discovered that families have to spend up to half their household budget on water in canisters, and that only those who can afford it drink Pure Life. Then there are the communities in the U.S. state of Maine who are fighting Nestlé because it pumps ground water and spring water in huge quantities – which it can do legally: whoever owns land can pump as much water as they like.

Nestlé pumps several million cubic meters annually and transports the water in tanker trucks to bottling plants. “They’re using our water to make profits, a liter doesn't even cost them a cent,” one woman complains. “They’re selling the water we use to flush toilets and wash our hands as expensive spring water,” says another. But since Nestlé brings the communities tax dollars, officials welcome the company, which is supported by an armada of lawyers and PR people.

Why? Because if the community had fresh water piped in, it would deprive Nestlé of its lucrative market in water bottled under the Pure Life brand.

Source:

worldcrunch.com

www.globalresearch.ca

http://worldtruth.tv

Nestlé is Trying to Patent the Fennel Flower

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

 

Nigella sativa — more commonly known as fennel flower — has been used as a cure-all remedy for over a thousand years. It treats everything from vomiting to fevers to skin diseases, and has been widely available in impoverished communities across the Middle East and Asia.

Swiss food company Nestle is seeking a patent on the use of the seed (botanical name) Nigella sativa to prevent food allergies, claiming the plant seed and extract when they are used as a food ingredient or drug.

After the patent fight over turmeric and basmati, it is black cumin, known as kala jeera or kalaunji, and widely used in traditional Ayurvedic medicines, that is now the subject of a patent application that may concern India.

Commonly known as habbat al-barakah in Arabic, and frequently called "black seed&", "black cumin&" or "fennel flower&" in English, Nigella sativa is an ancient food and medicinal crop. It is part of the five grains that are collectively called panch phoren and used widely in Bengal cuisine as well as in many Ayurvedic medicines.

The patent application of the Swiss company on the use of the seeds, traditional uses of Nigella sativa is pending in the European patent Office in US, Japan and China since 2009, according to Nestle SA a subsidiary of the company.

In a paper published in 2012, Nestlé scientists claimed to “discover” what much of the world has known for millennia: that Nigella sativa extract could be used for “nutritional interventions in humans with food allergy”.

The company's patent claim is based on a study conducted and published by it in PLOS July 2012, called "Nigella Sativa seed extract alleviates symptoms of allergic diarrhea in mice involving opioid receptors". The authors are from the Nestle Research center in Lausanne Switzerland. It says that the objective of the study on mice was to tackle "food related allergic reactions" which "represent a significant burden for patients and their families and cause considerable health care costs."

 The study finds the black caraway seed extracts effective but does not acknowledge traditional knowledge about them.

 The corporate spokesperson for Nestle SA Philippe Aeschlimann wrote to Business Standard that the patent application was filed in 2009 at the European Patent Office, in the US, Japan and China. ''It claims the use of an opioid receptor stimulating compound for the preparation of a composition to treat or prevent food allergy,'' he said."The compound can be a thymoquinone containing extract, such as an extract from Nigella sativa (black cumin), or from other plants such as Eupatorium ayapana (now Ayapana triplinervis, or water hemp, an American plant from the daisy family), Satureja montana (winter savory, a European plant from the mints family), or the Thymus genus (plants from the mints family, found in Europe, North Africa and Asia)."

Instead of creating an artificial substitute, or fighting to make sure the remedy was widely available, Nestlé is attempting to create a nigella sativa monopoly and gain the ability to sue anyone using it without Nestlé’s permission. Nestlé has filed patent applications — which are currently pending — around the world.

Prior to Nestlé’s outlandish patent claim, researchers in developing nations such as Egypt and Pakistan had already published studies on the same curative powers Nestlé is claiming as its own. And Nestlé has done this before — in 2011, it tried to claim credit for using cow’s milk as a laxative, despite the fact that such knowledge had been in Indian medical texts for a thousand years.

We know Nestlé  doesn't care about ethics. After all, this is the corporation that poisoned its milk with melamine, purchases cocoa from plantations that use child slave labor, and launched a breast milk substitute campaign in the 1970s that contributed to the suffering and deaths of thousands of babies from poor communities.

But we also know that Nestlé is sensitive to public outcry, and that it’s been beaten at the patent game before. If we act fast, we can put enough pressure on Nestlé to get it to drop its patent plans before they harm anyone — but if we want any chance at affecting Nestlé’s decision, we have to speak out now!

The research on Nigella Sativa was not inspired by any kind of traditional knowledge but focused on the compound which is found in this plant and other plants.

 When asked if it did not go against the prevailing knowledge of such used traditionally in India and elsewhere, Nestle    said:

"Nestle recognizes the importance of biodiversity, and respects the sovereign rights of nations over their natural resources, including genetic (biological) resources. We fully support the principle of fair access and benefit-sharing as described in the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992 and the more recent Nagoya Protocol of 2010."

Tell Nestlé: Stop trying to patent a natural cure

Source:

globalresearch.ca

business-standard.com

http://worldtruth.tv

If you want this blog to get up with great information:
Share & Follow us on facebook and be updated! http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

10 Cannabis Studies the Government Wished it Had Never Funded

10) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY: A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.

9) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON’T RUIN YOUR LIFE: Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept. 1997

8) THE “GATEWAY EFFECT” MAY BE A MIRAGE: Marijuana is often called a “gateway drug” by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical “associations” indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana – implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained “without requiring a gateway effect.” More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what’s most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.

7) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART I): The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, “the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement.” And what data exist show “little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use.” In other words, there is no proof that prohibition – the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century – reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.

6) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART II): DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE “GATEWAY EFFECT”?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its “tolerant” marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.

 

5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I): Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice’s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.

4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II): In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, “in a dose-dependent manner” (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, “Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,” AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.

3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III): Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.

2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV): Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.

1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE: In response to passage of California’s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana’s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, “Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana.” While noting potential risks of smoking, the report acknowledged there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting. The government’s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government loves to ignore our report; they would rather it never happened. (Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006)

 

Source:

libertycrier.com

worldtruth.tv



Follow us on facebook and be updated!

http://www.facebook.com/shortcuttingblog

USDA Approves 3 Dangerous Food Preservatives for Meat and Poultry

 

Three food preservatives that have previously been prohibited for use in meat and poultry will be approved effective May 6, 2013.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA’s FSIS) says it has determined that sodium benzoate, sodium propionate and benzoic acid are “safe and suitable for use as antimicrobial agents in certain [ready-to-eat} RTE meat and poultry products,” according to announcement in the Federal Register. The additives are already approved for use in other food items such as salad dressings, carbonated beverages and fruit juice and condiments.

The change came about after Kraft Foods Global, Inc. petitioned FSIS in 2006 to allow the use of the preservatives for use as antimicrobial agents to inhibit the growth of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat and poultry products. Four years later, Kemin Food Technologies petitioned FSIS to permit the use of liquid sodium propionate and liquid sodium benzoate as acceptable antimicrobial agents in meat and poultry products.

FSIS evaluated the requests, confirmed with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that it had no safety objections to the preservatives and reviewed the supporting data supplied by Kraft and Kemin. Although FSIS concluded that the petitioners had established the preservatives were safe, it wanted more data. It granted the companies waivers to conduct trials on the efficacy of the additives as antimicrobial agents.

“Kraft submitted data collected from its in-plant-trials and from scientific studies that show that these substances do not conceal damage or inferiority or make products appear better or of greater value than they are under the proposed conditions of use. Kraft submitted research findings to demonstrate that its proposed use of sodium benzoate and sodium propionate is effective in controlling the growth of [Listeria] in RTE meat and poultry products. Kemin also submitted findings supporting the use of its sodium propionate and propionic acid formulations,” according to the Federal Register.

Industrial agriculture is a filthy business, especially when animals are involved. Rather than have access to pasture and the outdoors, cows and chickens from factory farms live most, if not all, of their lives in confinement, where they wallow in their own feces, and sometimes even in the rotting carcasses of other dead animals. As a result, such animals become ill, and their systems infected with harmful pathogens that must be eliminated before human consumption.

The reason companies like Kraft and Kemin exist and thrive is because high-profit factory farms exist and thrive. And the only way these food corporations can "safely" sell their factory-farm food products to the public is to kill it, sanitize it, and smother it in antimicrobial agents like sodium benzoate, sodium propionate and benzoic acid.

So to claim that their goal in seeking approval for the three chemicals is not to conceal second-rate meat products is simply a lie. Low-grade meat products from squalid factory farms have to be disguised, otherwise the public would never purchase them.

Beyond this, the chemical substances in question are not even safe. Sodium propionate has been linked to causing gastrointestinal upset and respiratory problems, while sodium benzoate can cause DNA damage and promote the formation of cancer cells. And benzoic acid, which is often added to processed foods, can promote the development of asthma and hyperactivity, particularly in children.

"The continued ingestion of certain chemicals has been linked to cancer, fatigue, memory-impairment, imbalanced motor-function, diabetes, thyroid problems, confusion and far more," says Creative Bioscience about food preservatives and additives. "Such food additives can stunt or stall weight loss and even cause more pounds to add on."

Source:

foodpoisoningbulletin.com

naturalnews.com

http://worldtruth.tv

Genetically Modified Corn contains practically no nutrients but is loaded with Chemical Poisons

A breakthrough report on the nutritional density of genetically-modified (GM) corn crops demolishes all existing claims that GMOs are "substantially equivalent" to non-GMOs. Entitled 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, the paper reveals not only that GMO corn is greatly lacking in vitamins and minerals compared to non-GMO corn, but also that it is highly toxic and filled with deadly crop chemicals like glyphosate (Roundup).

The owners of the blog 'MomsAcrossAmerica.com' say the report was shared with them by De Dell Seed Company, Canada's only non-GMO corn seed supplier, which obtained it from a Minnesota-based agricultural company called ProfitPro. Overall, the paper found that non-GMO corn is 20 times richer in nutrition, energy and protein compared to GMO corn.

Concerning energy content, as measured in terms of ERGS, non-GMO corn was found in tests to give off 3,400 times more energy per gram, per second compared to GMO corn, an astounding variance. And as far as its overall percentage of organic matter is concerned, non-GMO corn was determined to have nearly twice as much of this vital component compared to GMO corn.

Non-GMO corn contains substantially more potassium, magnesium, calcium, sulfur and manganese

The field comparison also evaluated individual nutrient deviations, which revealed some shocking facts. Potassium, which is necessary for energy production and proper cellular function, is barely even present in GMO corn, having clocked in at 0.7 parts per million (ppm). In non-GMO corn, however, potassium levels were more than 13 times higher, testing at 9.2 ppm.

The disparity was even worse for magnesium, which tested at a mere 0.2 ppm in GMO corn. In non-GMO corn, however, magnesium levels were found to be 46 times higher than in non-GMO corn. Similar variances were observed for calcium, sulfur and manganese as well, with the contents of each being 12.4, 14, and seven times higher, respectively.

On the other hand, non-GMO corn was found to be free of chlorides, formaldehyde, glyphosate, and other harmful chemicals, while in GMO corn they were identified in dangerously high levels. According to an analysis of the report by MomsAcrossAmerica.com, GMO corn contains about 19 times more glyphosate than is permitted as a maximum in drinking water by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 130 times more glyphosate than has been found in tests to cause organ damage in animals.

Similarly, GMO corn contains dangerously high levels of formaldehyde, according to the report. A previous study conducted by Dr. Don Huber on GMOs revealed that .97 ppm of formaldehyde is toxic if ingested by animals. As it turns out, GMO corn contains 200 times more formaldehyde than this maximum safety threshold.

Monsanto engaged in massive fraud with claims that GMOs are 'substantially equivalent' to non-GMOs

These shock findings are at great odds with the claims continually being made by agri-genocide giant Monsanto. On its corporate website, Monsanto claims that approved genetically-modified (GM) crops are "substantially equivalent" to non-GMOs, meaning they are not nutritionally different from non-GMO crops. But as this study shows, these claims are patently false, and indicate that Monsanto is engaged in a global agricultural scam based on complete lies.

"Glyphosate is a strong organic phosphate chelator that immobilizes positively charged minerals such as manganese, cobalt, iron, zinc, copper, etc. that are essential for normal physiological functions in soils, plants and animals," explains Dr. Huber about how GMO crop chemicals literally destroy the nutrient content of GMO crops.

To learn more about how to avoid GMOs in the food supply, visit:
http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-foods/how-to-avoid-gmos

Sources for this article include:

www.gmwatch.org

www.naturalnews.com

www.momsacrossamerica.com

http://worldtruth.tv

The Healthiest People on Earth: What’s Their Secret?

 

If you live in Japan you're probably feeling pretty good. The quality of health there is ranked number one in the world If you live in the U.S. it's a different story, and not one to feel good about.

America's health score ranks close to the bottom. Where the nation soars to the top is in money spent on health care—billions of dollars more than any other country.

Readers of the global study will naturally want to know the secret of Japan's success. The spoiler is that no one knows exactly. Some experts go as far as to say that it's a combination of factors, but that's about as certain as it gets.

Being someone who's interested health care trends throughout the world Russ Gerber wanted to learn more myself, so he decided to take his own informal survey.

While in Tokyo on business recently Russ asked several Japanese acquaintances about their health care practices and lifestyles to see if he could get some hint as to what's behind the extraordinary ranking.

With one exception their responses were all over the map. They credited everything from strict dietary practices, to the safety net people feel having strong family and social support in their lives, to being part of a culture that stays close to tradition and is selective about what it accepts of Western values and medicine.

But there was a common response that took me by surprise.

They were all quite matter of fact about the superior health ranking. It was puzzling to them that such a routine lifestyle as theirs would be viewed by anyone as extraordinary. The consensus was that good health is normal, not exceptional, so what's the big deal?

It may be this: that by contrast the rest of us struggle to think of health as normal.

Sound minds and bodies aren't talked about a lot in the U.S. One reason is the medicalization of society, according to Dr. Arthur J. Barsky, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. In his book 'Worried Sick' he says: "We seem unable to enjoy our good health, to translate it into feelings of well-being and physical security. Rather, there is a sense of disease in the air."

If all the talk about ailments, being at risk, fear and danger were just that — talk — it might be stretching it to say this is a serious matter. The fact is that excessive fear and a preoccupation with ill health is not inconsequential. Chronic worrying is unhealthy.

What we're seeing today in the U.S. is a pervasive pattern of shorter lives and poorer health, reports a panel of experts convened by The National Research Council. That pattern is not what anyone wants to call normal, but are we starting to think that it is?

Some of Russ's acquaintances in Japan brought up the point that spiritual pursuits were a normal part of their otherwise busy lives, and shouldn't be marginalized as a contributing factor. One person he spoke with was the CEO of an international company, another was a strategic planner, and another was an active mom. Their schedules were full, but they said they routinely devoted part of their day to prayer and spiritual study. They strive to be kind and forgiving, calm and patient. One woman spoke candidly about rebelling against the fear of illness and how the symptoms of illness had quickly diminished and her health was restored as a result.

To someone listening in who lives in the U.S., the conversation with this group might have been noteworthy more for what was missing than for what was said. They weren't captivated by a disease model of life. Instead, they quite naturally embraced health and spirituality and seemed at peace about it all.

Just how much that group's viewpoint is typical of Japanese society Russ Gerber can't say. What he saw happening in their lives suggests that it feels good to live a life free from an ailment-and-anxiety state of mind, as if aliments and anxiety were unavoidable mindsets. Take it from them, they're not. Far from it.

So, their secret? It's not one, really. A healthy state of mind is not only good for mind and body, it should be normal for body, it should be normal for both.

Healthy life expectancy is the number of years that a person can expect to live in good health.  It takes into account number of deaths as well as years of health lost to disability.

The United States tied Norway for 29^th place in male healthy life expectancy and tied Estonia for 33^rdplace in highest female healthy life expectancy.

Japan is the healthiest nation for men and women, a title it was first given by same study in 1990.  For men, Singapore, Switzerland, and Spain ranked second, third, and fourth.  South Korea, Spain, and Singapore ranked highest for women.

Highest Male Healthy Life Expectancy:

1. Japan
2. Singapore
3. Switzerland
4. Spain
5. Italy
6. Australia
7. Canada
8. Andorra
9. Israel
10. South Korea

Highest Female Healthy Life Expectancy:

1. Japan
2. South Korea
3. Spain
4. Singapore
5. Taiwan
6. Switzerland
7. Andorra
8. Italy
9. Australia
10. France

Source :  spot55.com

worldtruth.tv