Cornell University PLANT BASED NUTRITION CLASS
Congratulations and Goodbye
Thank you for participating in the Degree Program in Plant Based Nutrition. On behalf of the T. Colin Campbell Center for Nutrition Studies ), I congratulate you on this accomplishment. With our fast pace course program, we are proud to announce YOU MADE IT!
The world of Plant-Based Nutrition is a very dynamic world, since what is happening can have some profound influence on our health and the health of our planet. Please stay in touch. Please visit our new website and sign up for our monthly newsletter. http://nutritionstudies.org/
Here are the instructions for downloading your letter of completion:
It has been an information-packed 2 weeks! I have enjoyed learning and connecting with all of you! I hope you have enjoyed your experience as well.
Dr. T Colin Campbell.
(Forks Over Knives, China Study, Whole)
Public Service Announcement On Environment
written by G. Eric Plott
Food shortages could force world into vegetarianism, warn scientists
Dr. Pimentel suggests that Americans reduce their consumption of total food calories, junk foods, and processed/packaged foods. He also advocates switching over to organic agriculture. These actions, he says, would improve our health, but this is not the sole (or even the primary) reason he makes these recommendations. He mentions it, because we are trying reduce our overall energy consumption.
In the U.S. and worldwide, we get 99.7% of our food from the land. Many of the food shortages we face worldwide are due to loss of cropland. We are losing this land because of Salinization (or the accumulation of salt in our croplands), Population growth , and Soil erosion.
Growing crops and raising livestock requires a lot of energy. It takes 250 gallons of water to produce a one-pound loaf of bread vs. 5000 gallons of water for one pound of beef
Organic agriculture improves soil quality and reduces energy consumption, because the "organic matter" in the soil provides nutrients and stores water.
Another way to conserve energy is to use animal manure to fertilize crops. The animal manure produced in the United States each year contains 45 million tons of nitrogen, half the total we apply to our crops. But we are currently wasting this manure. Mainly due to the dreary fact that
Farmers are subsidized to grow single crops, so they give up their livestock and animals are raised in feedlots, where their manure remains.
A "dead zone" is an area of the ocean in which fish and other organisms cannot live. A dead zone develops when excess nitrogen-based fertilizer washes off the land and into streams, eventually reaching the ocean , where it stimulates excessive algae growth. When the algae dies, it sinks into coastal waters where it is consumed by bacteria, along with most or all of the oxygen in the water.
The following statements represent evidence that we are fishing the ocean at unsustainable levels:
The catch per 100 hooks has decreased, The total number of fish caught per year has leveled out since the early 90s, and Fisheries have switched to fish lower on the food chain.
Humans, Swordfish, and Steller sea lions have had their food supply reduced by our fishing practices alone.
The problems with fish farming as an alternative to commercial is that fish farms breed disease, which escaping fish then take into the wild and excess fish food, which contains lots of nitrogen, runs off into the ocean to cause dead zones.
#Go Vegan - Eat Meat Is Not Green.
•†∆• Who Is This Guy? CLICK HERE•†∆•
•†∆• RAW PLOTT •†∆•
•†∆• COCONUT CLARE CONSCIOUS COOKING RAW VEGAN TV •†∆•
•†∆• PLOTTS HEALTH CHANNEL•†∆•
•†∆• ERIC PLOTT MOVIE CHANNEL•†∆•
•†∆• TROPICAL CHANNEL 573 research n fun•†∆•
•†∆• STAY CONNECTED AND SAVE MONEY- DOWNLOAD OUR FREE MIRACLE TREE AP Right Here.•†∆•
•†∆• LATEST SNOOPS •†∆•
WEBSITE : ∆∆∆∆
††† HELP SITE LINKE †††
† Eric, Great piece to conclude with. It is true that most people do not want to look at what they have been doing wrong, it's hard to face, and too much effort to make the necessary changes. Most people are blindly caught up in their lives and doing what the doctor says relieve any personal responsibility. Again, I believe the key here is the level of personal responsibility that most people are willing to assume.
Thanks so much for participating here in this class and congratulations on completing the course.
~Dr.T. Colin Campbell.
•SCORED 100%'s On Every Single Assignment, Quiz, And Test...Now You Know What Is Next?...You Shall See...Stay Connected...The Best Is Yet To Come...Read Below Some More Stuff I Learned If You Are Truly Curious.
There Are All Kinds Of Good People God Has Made...
I wonder How Many Of Them Will Obey The Creator.
First A Word From The Sponsors...ME>
Read That ^ That Is Our Mission...To Save The World...It Is Now Possible With This Plant.
∆ And There Is NO GREATER Life Then Living Your Dream And At The Same Moment Helping Save Lives ... And Together...WE Are Helping Humanity, Not Just I. But Instead WE. † We Aren't Necessarily About Being The BIGGEST Business In The World, But The BEST Business For The World...I Am No Salesman...The Moringa Sells Itself...GO GROW THIS TREE TODAY! Put Me Out Of Business. That Way EVERYBODY CAN BE HEALTHY
Eric Plott Eric Plott http://plottpalmtree.miiduu.com/curesall
Don't you dare give up! Your Ocean full of dreams and miracles is right in front of you!
• You can learn more about Moringa containing b12 HERE:http://plottpalmtree.miiduu.com/b12-controversy-unveiled-for-vegans-and-quotmeat-eaters-alikequot
•The actual Study is taken from John Hopkins University:http://www.scribd.com/doc/113381570/Moringa-oleifera-A-Review-of-the-Medical-Evidence-for-Its-Nutritional-Therapeutic-and-Prophylactic-Properties-Part-1-PLOTTPALMTREES-COM
•Moringa Cures Lyme DIsease: http://www.scribd.com/doc/184581874/∆-Moringa-and-Lyme-Disease-†-PLOTTPALMTREES-COM
STAY CONNECTED AND SAVE MONEY- DOWNLOAD OUR FREE MIRACLE TREE AP Right Here.
• READ DESCRIPTION ONCE- THEN SCROLL THROUGH ALBUM PER TOPIC SUBJECT CHAPTERS: CLICK HERE
√√√ According to Dr. Campbell's second principle of food and health, vitamins and supplements are not a panacea for good health. In The China Study (page 228) he writes: As I have watched the interest in nutrient supplements explode over the past twenty to thirty years, it has become abundantly clear why such a huge nutrient supplement industry has emerged. Huge profits are an excellent incentive, and new government regulations have paved the way for an expanded market. Furthermore, consumers want to continue eating their customary foods, and popping a few supplements makes people feel better about the potentially adverse health effects caused by their diet. Embracing supplements means the media can tell people what they want to hear and doctors have something to offer their patients. As a result, a multibillion-dollar supplement industry is now part of our nutritional landscape, and the majority of consumers have been duped into believing that they are buying health.
†††READ MORE ABOUT b12:
∆∆ Many people believe they need to take supplements to guard against nutrient deficiencies. When people do get sick they are getting too much fat and protein, and not enough whole foods, from the typical American diet
Nutrient-depleted soil does not necessarily mean nutrient supplementation is required, because we typically eat much more than the RDAs for many nutrients , we can only absorb a fraction of the vitamin and mineral content of our food at any given time (based on shifting physiological needs and other factors), and we eat foods from all over the world, so the nutrients present in soil from one area make up for the deficiencies of soil from other areas
It is difficult to determine the optimal intake of a given micronutrient, because we don't actually know how much each person needs and Adequate levels of certain micronutrients affect the body’s ability to absorb other micronutrients more efficiently, allowing us to thrive on less of those other nutrients.
If you have a lower-than-average level of a particular nutrient
compared to others who take the test, your number is lower than average
Vitamin D deficiency most commonly indicates a deficiency in
When vitamin D is low, supplementation may still not be the answer
because we cannot say for sure that raising vitamin D levels with supplements will bring the same level of health as raising levels with sunlight.
If you would like to build your vitamin D levels safely through sun exposure, it is important to remember to get adequate sun exposure based on the UV index and your skin type
and Excessive sun exposure may promote cancer.
Vitamin B12, which plays a role in synthesizing DNA, forming red blood cells, and maintaining brain and neurological function, is manufactured by Bacteria!
The RDA for B12 is 2.4 micrograms/day for adults over the age of 14. When it comes to supplementation, Dr. Lederman recommends
using the lowest amount required to maintain adequate levels
and getting levels checked.
†††READ MORE ABOUT MORINGA AND b12 And Vitamin D CLICK HERE:
Please take a look at the United States FDA site which asks: Who is responsible for ensuring the safety and efficacy of dietary supplements?http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/UsingDietarySupplements/ucm110567.htm
For some additional information from the American Cancer Society, here is a link to The American Cancer Society article Dietary Supplements: How to Know What Is Safe :
However, the science-and nutrition-related messages we get from the media often focus on study conclusions or recommendations without giving us much information about who arrived at these conclusions, or how. As a result, we seem to be bombarded with contradictory assertions that usually lead to confusion. How can we become more confident, critical consumers of the messages we receive
Three Articles to Read on Supplementation
READ MORE ABOUT VIT D On My Scribd:
Evaluating the Need for Supplementation (by T. Colin Campbell)
Answer to a Reader's Question:
It is important not to be too certain, not to the point of nihilism but at least to an awareness, that today's 'truths' are often tomorrow's shortcomings.
My views, of course, are based not on clinical practice but on the scientific literature, both that from my own lab and that from others. I also have watched quite closely the emergence of the supplement industry almost since its birth during the 1960s-1970s. For 3 years during the 1980s at a critical time for the industry, I was asked by the National Academy of Sciences to represent them at Federal Trade Commission administrative law proceedings to help the Judge interpret the sudden tsunami of commercial health claims for their authenticity. These claims had arisen because of the NAS report on Diet, Nutrition and Cancer that I co-authored. That experience really opened my eyes to the emerging world of nutrient supplement commerce.
Clinical observations, for me, are very difficult to evaluate except to be automatically skeptical, for a number of reasons.
Probably my main reason is that I worry about the simplicity of diagnosing a condition that we can only hope will be resolved by using a single chemical--nutrient, drug or even a single food. I do not say that such agents are without effect but often these effects, if they exist, cover up a much larger sin that needs to be addressed. Even in those cases that apparent benefits are achieved, they often are short term (even in vivo), in vitro, based on unreliable and biased reference standards and/or are shown to exist under quite narrow conditions. Furthermore, estimating nutritional status by single biomarkers without taking into consideration the contribution/interaction of related biomarkers is a recipe for mistakes. Here are a couple examples.
The ratio of total/HDL cholesterol captures more outcome variance than total cholesterol alone. Moreover, this ratio will capture even more variance when the oxidized components of cholesterol and its metabolites are better understood. Measuring total cholesterol is the first approximation of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, a relationship that has been used for many years. Measuring the ratio of total cholesterol / HDL cholesterol is a somewhat more refined approximation of risk. But in more recent years, we have learned about oxidized and unoxidized cholesterol and when this information becomes better established and validated, it will provide an ever better estimation of CHD risk attributed to the effects of blood cholesterol.
Plasma tocopherol (vit E) levels have long been misinterpreted by ignoring the role of lipoproteins (LP) in transporting this antioxidant. Plasma E levels are strongly related to the level of lipoprotein and most analysts still today do not make the appropriate estimate of Vitamin E dependent effects, which limits their interpretations of these effects.
Like the cholesterol example above, this is an example of refining the estimate of disease risk attributed to Vitamin E. I am quite familiar with research that gives apparently impressive findings but so often (almost always) these findings eventually become too reductionist. From my point of view, such philosophy that focuses on the effects of single biomarkers is the antithesis of nutrition which demands more importantly that we know the unusually dynamic context. By focusing on such detailed information -- and publicizing and marketing it - we lead most consumers to believe that this is the best way to achieve good health. I have tried to be open-minded about the possibility that long term health might be achieved -- at least supported -- by patchwork approaches, and on more than a few occasions have pointed out the apparent successes of iodine, selenium (to reverse Keshan disease in China), vitamin E, possibly vitamin C, and folic acid to do good things. But as I have watched these 'successes' unfold, I also have watched the emergence of some fairly serious challenges.
As I was writing this comment, I saw a article "Micronutrients: Dietary Intake v. Supplement Use" which is a summary of the history of supplement use during the past 20-30 years. This is not the first article making this point but it is certainly apropos here. (Am. Internal Med, 139, 51-55, 2003; JAMA 290, 476-485, 2003)Here are some quotes:
"With the exception of folic acid to prevent neural tube defects....the numerous supplementation trials have yielded rather disappointing or conflicting results for most of the nutrients evaluated [this was a lead-in sentence]."
"...trials have consistently shown that commonly-used antioxidant regimens (vitamins E and C and Ÿ-carotene, single or in combination) do not markedly reduce overall cardiovascular events or cancer...This lack of effect of vitamin E supplementation has been confirmed by meta-analysis...The recent Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation--The Ongoing Outcomes extended follow-up of the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Trial has even suggested an increased [my emphasis] risk of heart failure in the vitamin E-supplemented group...a recent meta-analysis has found a significant dose-dependent adverse [my emphasis] mortality effect of vitamin E when taken at 400 mg daily..."
Then there are the now-numerous studies showing an adverse effect of ÃŸ-carotene on lung cancer and all-cause mortality, first reported over 10 years ago. This same review also points out the lack of effect of these more popular vitamins on diabetes, macular degeneration, infections in the elderly, strokes and total mortality. They conclude that "classic micronutrient-supplementation randomized controlled intervention trials have largely failed to show an effect on chronic degenerative disease risk."
After following rather closely this field for more than 30 years, it is my view that it has been vastly oversold and that there is a huge price being paid. More than a billion dollars has been spent on trials to test nutrient supplement effects--now shown to have, at best very limited short term effects. And billions of dollars of money has been spent by consumers in the hope that nutrient supplements will bring them health.
In addition to bilking the public of their money, this field also has had a very negative and diversionary effect on public acceptance and adoption of the health-promoting evidence on whole plant-based foods. Almost everyone wants a magic bullet solution while they continue to deny the evidence that is most profound and widely applicable.
Many years ago, I was also somewhat enamored with single chemical medicine and focused much of our early research on the principal enzyme involved in drug disposition and metabolite synthesis (e.g. as with steroid hormones and cholesterol), the mixed function oxidase. I had become quite involved in that community, in fact I wrote the first major review article on nutrition and drug metabolism (Campbell, T.C. and Hayes, J.R. Role of nutrition in the drug metabolizing enzyme system. Pharm. Revs. 26:171-197, 1974), and our work was being promoted by the drug industry.
Roche sent unsolicited funding for our research until I publicly doubted the direction of the nutrient supplement field in a Roche sponsored symposium in New York in 1975. Eventually, I became much more enamored with the possibilities for food (not drugs) and health, based on these same reductionist research findings. When considering the larger context it was a matter of using this early research as trees in the forest landscape. (Now, rather ironically, I have even spoken at a plenary talk to an annual conference hosted by Jeffrey Bland, one of the long-time gurus of the nutrient supplement industry, to explain how and why I strayed so far from my molecular medicine work in my early career. Dr. Bland, an outstanding researcher, was curious why I had left a field that seemed to hold so much promise so many years ago. That industry still publicizes and promises great things if we could just focus on the effects of individual agents on complex biological events. They don't say it quite this way but this is nonetheless the mission of molecular medicine. What is my view of this field of nutrient supplementation and other pharmacological approaches? It's mostly an opportunity to make wealth for the few at the expense of health for the many.
To come full circle, I have long heard the claims and the fancy molecular explanations on nutrient supplements coming from the clinical field but I have yet to be convinced. I remain entirely open to the claims but, given my background, I am going to continue to want to see long term results before becoming much of a convert. I am confident that there will be occasions when meaningful benefits will be shown for some individuals, but when this does occur, I will be persuaded only if there is long term evidence that vitamin supplementation really changes disease risk.
B12 Breakthrough - Missing Nutrient Found in Plants (by T. Colin Campbell)
Of all the nutritional concerns that can plague vegetarians - and especially complete vegetarians or vegans - I doubt any is more daunting than the specter of vitamin B12 deficiency. This is especially so because conventional wisdom has it that this essential vitamin is virtually unavailable from plant foods.
Because I have often wondered how valid this thinking is, I've asked myself why, if the health benefits of a plant-based diet are as comprehensive as contemporary research suggests - meaning that Nature did the packaging for us during our evolution and that a plant-based diet is our natural diet - then why did she leave out this one very important piece of the puzzle? Having paid attention to the research literature and having questioned clinicians who treat vegan patients, I've reached the following somewhat unorthodox conclusions and observations:1. Contrary to the most recent U.S. Dietary Guidelines, B12 can be found in plants.2. Organically grown plants contain higher levels of B12 than plants grown non-organically with chemical fertilizers.3. Plant roots are able to absorb certain vitamins produced by soil microorganisms, thus suggesting that plants grown in healthy soil, full of microflora and microfauna, are more nutritious.4. Vegans - and anyone else - should be able to obtain B12 by consuming organically grown produce.5. Evidence that plants obtain vitamins from the soil has been available for several decades.
To understand what has brought me to these conclusions, let's ask three essential questions: (1) Are vegans really at greater risk of B12 deficiency? (2) Does a vegan diet provide all the B12 that we need? (3) Assuming that there is at least a good chance that we evolved on this type of diet, how did we get our B12?
Are vegans really at greater risk of B12 deficiency? Some evidence says yes; some invites skepticism. Clearly, vegans do generally have lower blood concentrations of B12. A number of studies have shown this. But these low concentrations mean little unless there is a higher incidence of the accompanying blood (megaloblastic anemia) and nerve (parathesia) disorders, for which there seems to be little or no evidence. What should be acknowledged is that the concentrations of other blood factors, such as cholesterol, also are very different among vegans, and for very good health reasons at that. Why should we expect the lower B12 levels to be an exception?
A look at the B12 Biases I must say that I feel some of the confusion surrounding this issue is due to the biases of the early B12 researchers who, over the years, made their beliefs very clear that vegetarianism and any other alternative approach to good ol' Western nutrition and medicine bordered on health fraud. Yet one of the more renowned of these investigators, Victor Herbert, reported that "inadequate absorption [in the digestive tract] accounts for more than 95% of the vitamin B12 deficiency cases seen in the United States." 1 The strong implication here is that the real problem in these cases is not due to an insufficient intake of B12 brought on by a vegan diet but that something is wrong with the so-called "intrinsic factor" which is secreted in the stomach and which is required for B12 absorption.
Acknowledging this possibility, let's move on to our second question: Does a vegan diet provide all the B12 that we need? To consider this question, we must keep in mind the prevailing view that B12 is only found in animal-based foods. It's worth noting this point has been so prominent that the latest USDA dietary guidelines, while allowing for the possibility that vegetarian diets may be reasonably healthful, nonetheless admonish vegans to "supplement their diets with a source of this vitamin." According to the Victor Herbert position, "There is no active vitamin B12 in anything that grows out of the ground; storage is found only in animal products where it is ubiquitous and where it is ultimately derived from bacteria." 2 He also states that vegans thus can get adequate B12 from their food only if it is fertilized with human waste, or if they "ingest some of their own feces" or fail to observe hygienic practices.3 What a prospect Herbert and the USDA folks have given to the poor vegans!
I find this view to be highly constrained and, indeed, illogical, especially if one assumes the strong possibility that humans survived on a plant-based diet in our evolutionary past. I do believe there is overwhelming evidence that this is so even though it has not yet been scientifically proven. Please understand that I say this approach is no better or worse than that of Herbert and the USDA, I'm simply saying it's worth serious consideration.The B12 BreakthroughSo, on to my third question, based on the assumption that we did evolve on a plant-based diet, and then asking, how did we get our B12? To begin, let's examine an exciting new research paper from Switzerland that was recently brought to my attention by my colleague, Dr. Jeffrey Gates.4 (Please see related story). Dr. Mozafar, the investigator, wanted to know if plants fertilized with organic matter (cow dung in this case) rather than those grown in control soils might acquire higher levels of B12. He was relying on a considerable amount of older research going back to 1926. Plants grown in soil fertilized with organic matter contained more of some B vitamins than plants grown in chemically fertilized soil, thus yielding plant products better able to sustain growth in experimental animals. Mozafar hypothesized that B12 produced by soil microorganisms might be absorbed through the roots into the plant itself.
He investigated the question in a couple of ways. First, he showed for soybeans, barley and spinach - his three test plants - that those grown on soil fertilized with cow dung showed substantially higher levels of B12 than those grown without cow dung, the increases for barley and spinach being statistically significant. Then he examined the B12 content of soils that had been routinely fertilized over the previous 16 years either with inorganic or with a mixture of organic plus inorganic fertilizers, and found that those receiving organic fertilizer had significantly higher levels of B12.
Putting the Nail in the Coffin These results not only confirm earlier results concerning other B vitamins, but they seem to put the nail in the coffin of the Herbert-USDA hypothesis, namely that plants do not contain B12. They certainly do contain B12, even more of it when they are grown organically. Having said all this, I am still left with two questions: (1) Would other chemicals capable of killing soil microflora (pesticides, herbicides) have an effect similar to chemical fertilizers? and (2) How long will it take for our society to acknowledge the overall health value of plant-based diets, thus altering the cultural bias that leads Herbert and the USDA to "discover" problems such as that of B12 deficiency? I can say with some confidence that time will tell quite a different story than the one we've been hearing.
References1 Herbert, V. Recommended dietary intakes (RDI) of vitamin B12 in humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 45:671Âº678, 1987.2 United States Department of Agriculture, and United States Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Fourth Edition, p. 43. Washington, D.C.:1995.3 Herbert, V. Vitamin B12 : plant sources, requirements, and assay. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48:852Âº858, 1988.4 Mozafar, A. Enrichment of some B-vitamins in plants with application of organic fertilizers. Plant and Soil, 167:305Âº311, 1994
This was written in 1996. Now, 12 years later, I still don't know that this view whether this view is right. However, in the meanwhile, I have been influenced by two of my clinician colleagues, Dr. Michael Greger and Dr. Alan Goldhamer, that their understanding of the literature and their experience in the clinic suggest that B12 deficiency may be seen in vegans, thus advocate B12 supplementation. I defer to their view.
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D
Joint consensus statement (on Vitamin D) from the British Association of Dermatologists, Cancer Research UK, Diabetes UK, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the National Heart Forum, the National Osteoporosis Society and the Primary Care Dermatology Society (click herePreview the documentView in a new window to download a PDF version). Here are some important points from the paper:
Finds the evidence suggesting that vitamin D might protect against #cancer,#heart #disease, #diabetes, #multiple #sclerosis, and other #chronic#diseases is still inconclusive.
#Concludes there is not enough evidence to support a recommendation for food fortification or widespread vit
†††READ MORE ABOUT b12:
†††READ MORE ABOUT MORINGA AND b12 And Vitamin D CLICK HERE:
Critical Questions for Analyzing Nutrition Messages
The science- and nutrition-related messages we get from the media often focus on study conclusions or recommendations without giving us much information about who arrived at these conclusions, or how. As a result, we seem to be bombarded with contradictory assertions that usually lead to confusion. How can we become more confident, critical consumers of the messages we receive? Here are some questions we can ask ourselves to critique what we hear and identify areas we might need more information.
Article or other media piece:
1. What is the message recommending or promoting?
2. What problem is this recommendation intended to solve? Is it, in your opinion, an important problem?
3. What questions are being asked about this problem (by the author, or in the research cited)? What questions are not being asked?
4. What kinds of evidence are being used to answer these questions? How does it relate to other evidence on this topic, if you know?
5. What kinds of assumptions are being made about the problem? (An assumption is a belief that may be unstated or taken for granted without evidence.)
6. What can you tell about the author’s approach to nutrition science? What might be missing?
7. Are the conclusions well reasoned and warranted by the evidence? Explain.
8. What might be some important consequences of accepting these conclusions (for
society, the environment, etc.)?
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Ref: The Environmental Impacts of What We Eat
Dear Mr. President,
I am writing to you today, because I wanted to bring up the basic, inevitable, and seemingly disastrous environmental crises that is dreadfully effecting the ocean, atmosphere, and humanity. This is solely the fault of industrialized subsidies which are self-inflicting on the people globally.
We must work to find a common ground to fight back together to change this known catastrophe! We now have a place where 75% of the top trophic fish are overfished and most fish from being fed to the top trophic fish, are the smaller trophic fish, which are coming from a mercury induced environment. The runoff from the nitrogen fertilizer is running into our oceans and creating an algae that is eating up all the oxygen in the water, creating dead zones which is killing many of the important marine animals such as phytoplankton and all other life in that area.
I believe the main topic of concern though, is that large Big Agri Businesses are taking in about 75% of the money found from subsidies and they are not being charged for taking away from our beautiful land and environment, which I personally never approved of. The Remaining 25% can go to smaller family run businesses, but they are still getting the rough end of the deal. We need to work on reducing the consumption of excessive amounts of food, eliminate out the junk foods, work on more sustainable ways of production, processing, and packaging; as well as transporting these goods. It would be a solution in and of itself if we could acquire at least being more energy efficient as a first step and maybe promote people of the world going on a Whole Food Plant Based Diet, or at least initiate the education or thought of one. Promoting books such as The China Study, Whole, or the many great books out there that promote a Vegan lifestyle.
It is looking brighter and brighter for the Vegan tribe, because the more these individuals learn about this fascinating and more natural diet, the more of a solution we live with each and every day. In fact being a Vegan, has been really a neat experience, because it is like waking up and having your very choice of non indulging that is actually saving the world. Simply put, if you are a Vegan you are among the most life changing people just by the realization and identification you have with your surrounding environment, animals, and with basic nutrition and health. You are the world, you are the future, What will you do today?
Lets take back our Land, Our Skies, Our Atmosphere, And Oceans; Lets Save The Animals, By Simply Being The Example For The Future To Mold Into...It Looks Like So Much More Than Being Nailed Into A Coffin Early With Untimely & Warned Expectation.
When talking about public policy, I have learned to opt myself out of any Orwellian style forms of compartmentalized governances, meaning when the media or propaganda tells me one thing, I have taught myself from past disappointments to stay true to my own connections of evidence and observation; as well as others. I feel people like Dr.Colin Campbell and all the Raw Vegan community members, have been really sound and clear to concisely show me the strong connection to a plant based diet and our actual physiology and biology. The more you look at it from a realist point of view, the more comfortable you are with say that all humans are truly HERBIVORES and only intended on eating meat, never.
I find it very sad how the "current" health model paradigm shows how the structure is based on very little evidence, but more so ulterior motives and agendas to solely profit and not with the consumers health necessarily. I know this mentality well, when they tend to focus on single nutrient drugs or the health supplementation, they are only looking to patent and make profits by hyping it up to unbelievable levels, with film flam marketers and MLM giant corporate industries that spray their products and have little to no research on what their product really is or even if it is bioavailable; yet the Doctor tells us we are lacking in vitamin E, well we better go buy the vitamin E caps and don't even let the thought of fruits, veggies, or nuts cross your mind as a possibility.
It is still a dog eat dog world out there today, especially now when you can create entities that are at a corporate monster level and no one, not even a human being with rights has any say against the complete litigation of the outstanding subsidies and profits that are being pull out from under the feet of the working class man or woman who barely have enough time to catch the news, which these same entities control. If you were to get the real news, science, and "proof" on topics such as this, we would find ourselves in a uproar revolution and people marching in madness on the streets, but you don't see that, because we are too busy having to make it to the 9 to 5 job and prepare our meals for ourself and loved ones. The last thing we would need is some 40 year scientific study to show us we have been doing it all wrong, all this time.
GO VEGAN AND NEVER WORRY AGAIN. LIFE WILL GET BETTER AND YOUR PROBLEMS WILL RETREAT, Even If Your Enemies Haven't.
REPLY TO THIS:
Manage Discussion Entry
Eric, I agree that eating a whole food plant based diet (whole food vegan), is a powerful gateway to waking up to the world around us. It is inevitable that as we make those changes we become more aware of the impact of our food choices on the environment. Once our awareness is awoken, the choices that lead to best care of our world are naturally chosen.
Just this week, Al Gore's announcement of going vegan has raised a lot of interest. So, now naturally our (as a culture) awareness will get another small dose of "wake up" and see the impacts.
Please take a few moments to scroll through and read each segment of Dr. Campbell's lifework through the year 2008 as illustrated in this timeline:http://www.tcolincampbell.org/courses-resources/about/
Then please read Dr. Campbell's personal response to the PBS documentary you watched in the Module 5, Food for 9 Billion: Satisfying China's Growing Demand for Meat (in case you want to review it again, here is the link)
This (PBS documentary) really shows how societies respond when they get access to more capital.
I was deeply involved in considering this issue with Chinese and other officials (e.g., World Bank, UN) at least 20 years ago--giving lectures, for example, at the Bank, writing 'white papers' for government agencies, and giving lectures in China. We were succeeding for a while (e.g., getting the World Bank to withdraw a $190+ million loan to a China province north of Beijing but then losing about a year later when about half of the money was restored ($90+ million loan). I still have my first paper given to the World Bank (and to conferences at Harvard and Johns Hopkins concerned with international development).
The initial World Bank loan was justified as a means to help pull people up from poverty by giving each family the resources to have a family animal, for draft purposes or for meat consumption. However, I then learned somewhat later that, in reality, it was intended for supporting the development of business producing meat in huge feedlot operations in China. The factory farm concept used here in the West was appealing to the Chinese.
I saw this video as it was first shown on TV and I found it frustratingly superficial, appearing only as an interesting media showpiece for an uninformed public. It DID NOT address, even slightly, the health and environmental consequences of livestock production. This is only one example of the kind of activities that I have learned and seen first-hand in the policy arena where big business and political power do whatever they want--all behind the scenes, then to get the media to market their ideas.
This also is the reason that I have chosen to follow a different path, bottom up, not top down. Our on-line course program is one such project that has so much potential.
Tasted Even Better Than Perfect Too- No Milk No EGGS? No Way...Are You Serious....Can There Be Another Life?...Another Road.....Hmmm
Can One Truly Ignore Or Hate Another, If They Have Never Experienced ...Or Yet To See?
So To Be Ignore-ant is to simply IGNORE not only "unaware"...But They are The Opposite Of An Activist...An Activist is one who ACTIVE-LY - LIVES. Someone who is active vs someone who IGNORES.
#So Glad I Was Paying Attention.
I THINK I JUST ACED MY ENTIRE CLASS!!! No Way...Yea, I Did IT....So Happy For Myself...What Shall I Do To Celebrate?...Gosh, The Last Class I Think I Got Over A 100% On Was Health Class Again ...A Remarkable Day!
Cornell University - Plant Based nutrition-
The majority of research funding in the United States (at least 2/3) is funded by US taxpayer money, and comes from one organization held in high esteem throughout the world and that organization is
The National Institutes of Health
Grant funding and publication are very competitive processes for researchers. About what percentage of grant applications ultimately receive funding, and about 15% of grant applications and 1-2% of manuscripts are accepted into the “top-flight” science journals.
Grant applications are reviewed and scored by panels of 15-20 highly qualified peers, and manuscripts are evaluated for publication by 2-3 peers. Results can be discussed and flaws discovered, Researchers gain credibility in the scientific community,
Scientists’ results are documented publicly, and Scientists are held accountable for their claims.
The vast majority of the authors of popular diet books are not trained in nutrition or experimental research. Their books may not even cite references as to where their claims are coming from. The problem with this system is that these authors’ claims do not undergo compulsory screening (as peer reviewed literature does), so they are not being formally held accountable for what they say.
There are now so many studies done and so many papers published that most of the evidence we accumulate is never read again. However, some data do end up widely publicized. Dr. Campbell suggest are most likely to achieve notoriety, by producing evidence that is most marketable, and can be used for creating products like drugs and nutrient supplements.
Dr. Campbell mentions four industries that typically have an impact on how scientific research is conducted. They of course are Food, Drugs, Medical practice, and Dietary supplements.
The primary vehicle by which industry influences scientific research is Lobbying Congress during budgetary hearings regarding the allocation of resources for different types of research.
The industry has influenced study design due to Randomized placebo-controlled trials are now considered the “gold standard”—at the expense of considering other kinds of evidence.
The emphasis on testing individual chemicals has had a profound impact on the way studies tend to be conducted--even observational studies have been affected. As a result, all studies now tend to look for chemical causes of disease as opposed to environmental or dietary causes and try to distinguish the effect of individual inputs, screening out the effects of other factors.
Public policy is important because it dictates, Public information about what is healthy to eat, The foods that can be provided via government programs, The kinds of claims that may/may not be made by industry.
Dr. Campbell shows that public policy regarding nutrition has NOT changed substantially over the last 40 years.
In 1982, Dr. Campbell was one of 13 people who helped to produce the National Academy of Sciences’ Diet and Nutrition and Cancer Report. The report issued three key statements:
People should include fruits, vegetables, and whole-grain cereal products in their daily diets because of their nutrient contents (but not take nutrient supplements), People should reduce their intake of dietary fat to 30%, and It was unclear that dietary fiber was associated with a lower risk of colon cancer.
The following statements reflect the consequences of the NAS recommendations: The Kellogg Company began to advertise the dietary fiber added to their products,
There was an explosion in the nutrient health supplement industry People consumed foods that were lower in fat
(e.g., skim milk and low-fat animal foods)
and The National Cancer Institute increased expenditures on testing nutrient supplements.
The Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is responsible for Determining RDAs (based on a review of the scientific literature),
The FNB also works with the USDA Dietary Guidelines Committee to provide information that shapes government programs.
Dr. Campbell names three of these programs; they are school lunch program, the hospital food program, and the women's , infants and children's program.
Both the Dietary Guidelines Committee (run by the USDA) and the 2000 Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) have been shown to have close ties with industry. For instance:
The 2002 Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) received 49% of their funding from the private sector 6 other members of the Dietary Guidelines Committee were also found to have ties to the dairy industry and The chairman of both organizations was connected with the dairy industry.
In 2002, the FNB issued recommendations about minimizing risks for chronic diseases. Their recommendations stated that 35% of calories could come from protein, 35% of calories could come from fat, and 25% of calories could come from refined carbohydrates like candies and pastries.
The public often remains confused about the relationship between diet and health. The reasons for this are that a small handful of people in powerful legislative & regulatory positions have associations with the food and drug industries, research findings have great market value (it can be used to develop supplements, specialized foods, drugs, etc), and research tends to be biased towards a focus on the activities of individual chemicals.
•NUMBER 1 HEALTH PROVIDER IN MISSOURI IS ERIC PLOTT:
•I Passed The Entire Class…I Haven't Done That In A Long Time
Not Like That
Feeling Kinda Special And Kinda Smart At The MOment
Just Wishing This Brown Recluse Bite Would Heal Up
I Would Really Like That, Because I Have About 17 More Trees To Wrap Up And Cover With Burlap And Then Wrap Lights Around Them To Make Them Look Kinda Like Giant Candy Canes…I Am Not For The Pagan Holiday Known As Christmas
But I Will Say That If I Could Have Any Answered Prayer From God Right NOW It Would Be To Continue To Allow This Moringa Cream And Powder And Moringa Oil To Heal My Bad Bite. It Feels Like Each Nerve Ending Is Metallic So Each Time I Bend My Arm, It Feels As Though My Skin Is Actually Ripping Through My Bones And My Veins And arteries Are Attached
And Constricted To My Muscles
But I Will Be Alright AND NO I REFUSE TO GO TO THE DOCTOR…Why Would I Need One?