Are Science and the Biotech Industry Sleeping in the Same Bed?
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception
One day in April 1998, Professor Phillip James walked into the office of Arpad
Pusztai and placed a large stack of documents on his desk . The documents were
submissions from biotech companies seeking approval of their GM soy, corn, and
tomatoes. He called in Arpad’s wife Susan from the adjoining office. James was
the director of the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, Europe’s leading
nutritional research facility.
He told the Pusztais, both senior scientists there, that the British
agriculture minister was meeting with European ministers in Brussels to vote
on genetically modified (GM) foods, and he wanted a scientific opinion on
them.
Arpad Pusztai looked at the stack-nearly 700 pages-then back at James. He was
confident that his director and the other eleven scientists on the committee
that approves GM foods for the UK were far too busy to actually read these
studies.
The Pusztais, however, had worked for more than two years on a UK government
grant, leading a 20-member research team to design the ideal testing protocol
for evaluating GM foods. They also conducted safety tests on a new variety of
GM potatoes intended for commercialization.
The Pusztais were therefore among the most qualified scientists in the world
to evaluate the papers James had just given them. Arpad asked how much time
they had. “Two and a half hours,” said James. They quickly got to work,
focusing on the design and the data.
Arpad was shocked at what he discovered. The research was incredibly poor. He
described it as superficial, flimsy, and just plain bad science. Reading those
studies was a turning point in the life of this very pro-biotech scientist.
Arpad was the leading researcher in his field, with more than 300 articles and
12 books to his credit. Based on his reputation and experience, the government
had awarded him the GM research grant over 27 competing applicants.
As a man of integrity, accustomed to thorough and rigorous science, Arpad
expected the same from others. But he realized that the approach taken by
biotech industry scientists was diametrically opposed to his own. “I was doing
safety studies,” he said. “They were doing as little as possible to get their
products to market as quickly as possible.”
Abominable Scientific Methods Ignored
Pusztai called the minister and told him that although he wasn’t expecting to
have such a strong opinion after only two and a half hours, there was
definitely not enough information to declare the foods safe for humans.
But the minister responded, “I don’t know why you are telling me this,
Professor James has already accepted it.” It had already been on the market
for two years.
Months later, Arpad had another shock. Young rats fed a genetically engineered
potato developed extensive health problems. Some had smaller, less developed
brains, livers, and testicles, and also partial atrophy of the liver. Some
suffered damaged immune systems and organ damage. And there was excessive cell
growth in the stomach and intestines.
The potato was engineered to produce its own insecticide, but the insecticide
itself was not the cause of these problems. In fact, other rats that had eaten
natural potatoes that were spiked with the insecticide fared much better.
Thus, since the insecticide was not the cause of the poor health of the GM-fed
rats, it was almost certainly the process of genetically modifying the
potatoes that was the culprit.
Arpad realized that if his potatoes had been subjected to the same superficial
industry studies he had reviewed, the potatoes would have been approved. The
organ damage, cell growth, immune functions, and so on, would be undetected.
More worrisome was the fact that the soy, corn, and tomatoes that were
approved were not tested for these potential problems. And they were created
with the same process that Arpad used to engineer his potatoes.
The Cost of Speaking Out
With permission from his director, Arpad accepted an invitation to be
interviewed on television and express his concerns about GM food. For two days
he was a hero at his institute.
Then, on a Tuesday afternoon, two phone calls from the prime minister’s office
were allegedly forwarded through the institute’s receptionist to the director.
On Wednesday morning, Phillip James fired Arpad after 35 years and silenced
him with threats of a lawsuit. His 20-member research team was dismantled and
the UK government abandoned its plans for long-term safety study requirements
for GM foods. The Rowett Institute then issued several statements trashing
Arpad and his research in an apparent attempt to protect the biotech
industry.
Eventually Arpad was invited to speak before Parliament, his gag order lifted,
and his research published in the prestigious Lancet.
Despite his work being cut off in the middle, his rat study remains the most
in-depth animal feeding safety study ever published on GM foods. Tragically,
no similar studies have yet been applied to the GM foods on the market. No one
is monitoring to see if the organs, immune system, and cells of humans eating
GM foods are being similarly influenced.
Arpad has since been commissioned to review all published animal feeding
studies on GM foods. There are only about a dozen. In his paper, published as
a chapter in the book Food Safety, he reported consistent shortcomings in
industry-sponsored research. Their poor designs allow significant problems to
go unnoticed. When problems were identified, they were not followed up.
Arpad and his wife have made presentations on GM foods around the world. In
2001, they appeared before New Zealand’s Royal Commission of Inquiry on
Genetic Modification, where the sentiments and experience of several other
presenters echoed their own.
Are Science and Commerce ‘Sleeping in the Same Bed’?
Parliament member Sue Kedgley testified: “Personally I have been contacted by
telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about
aspects of the research that is taking place… and the increasingly close
ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced
that if they express these fears publicly, even at such a Commission… or
even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out
of their institution.”
Mae-Wan Ho, a biophysicist and geneticist, told the Commission that the
scientific evidence on GM foods “simply did not support the claims… that the
technology is precise and safe.” Ho has endured numerous attacks for her
opinions, including being hounded out of her position at the UK’s Open
University.
Epidemiologist Judy Carman testified that the few animal feeding studies on GM
foods are too short to adequately test for cancer or for problems in
offspring. Further, they are not evaluating “biochemistry, immunology, tissue
pathology, gut function, liver function, and kidney function.” Carman, who has
investigated outbreaks of disease, said that health problems associated with
GM foods might be impossible to track in the human population, or take decades
to discover.
Carman is repeatedly attacked for her critical stance. One pro-GM scientist
threatened disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor. Another circulated
a defamatory letter to government and university officials in October 2004,
alleging that Carman was unethical and that her work was similar to
“inaccurate
anti-vaccine scaremongering [that] kills people.”
Geneticist Michael Antoniou, who works on human gene therapy, told the New
Zealand Commission, “genetic engineering technology, as it’s being applied in
agriculture now, [is] based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years
ago, about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each
other.” He explained that genes actually “work as an integrated whole of
families.”
Falling on (More) Deaf Ears in the UK and Around the World
In 2003, Antoniou represented non-governmental organizations on the UK’s
supposedly balanced GM Science Review Panel that was part of the nationwide
“GM Nation?” public debate. He was shocked to find scientists there still
supporting obsolete theories of gene independence. Some even claimed that the
order of genes in the DNA was entirely irrelevant. Antoniou was outnumbered by
eleven scientists representing either the biotech industry or appointed by the
pro-biotech UK government. His well-supported arguments fell on deaf ears.
Since the debate, new studies have further verified Antoniou’s position by
showing that genes are not randomly located along the DNA, but clustered into
groups with related functions.
Virologist Terje Traavik testified that GM crops “might be the basis for real
ecological and health catastrophes.” Three years later, in a February 2004
meeting with delegates to the UN biosafety protocol conference, Traavik
presented preliminary evidence from three studies which might fulfill his
earlier prediction.
a.. Philippinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms
while the corn was pollinating.
b.. Promoters-genetic material routinely inserted into GM crops-were found
to transfer to rat organs after a single transgenic meal. Key safety
assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into
question the safety of using these viruses as vaccines.
Traavik, naturally, was attacked.
Biologist Phil Regal told the Commission, “I think the people who boost
genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for
forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition; you know, ‘we made a
mistake, let’s start over.'”
Sue Kedgley had another idea. She said, “I would recommend that perhaps we
could set up human clinical trials using volunteers of genetically engineered
scientists and their families, because. they are so convinced of the safety of
the products that they are creating. they would very readily volunteer to
become part of a human clinical trial.”
(C) Jeffrey Smith, 2004
Not eager to eat GM foods? At least 70% of all prepared foods in the US have GM components. Organic foods, on the other hand, do not. Eat organic. It’s cheap compared to disease.
The Natural Solutions Foundation submitted comments to the United States Codex Office and the the FDA prior to the April 10, 2007 public meeting on US policy pertaining to the 2007 Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL). One of the important items on the CCFL agenda is the Draft revised Guideline for organic food standards.
These same comments have been presented to health friendly (and potentially health friendly) nations attending Codex as well as to the US. Documents like these do double duty: we have been told that they have been influential in shaping national positions both inside Codex and at home. The Natural Solutions Foundation comment document on Fluoride, for example, was not only very helpful to a number of countries in allowing them to take a stand directly opposite to that of the US during the 2006 Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) and bring about a ban on its use in formula for normal babies, but the information in that document was strong enough to spark national debate on a ban on fluoride in a number of countries following the meeting in Chiang Mai (Thailand).
During the first day of the CCFL Working Group meetings (April 28, 2007) prior to the meeting itself (April 30-May4, 2007) here in Ottawa several countries thanked us for our comments and stated that they were helpful to them in focusing their policy. This included some small countries new to the Codex process. The Working Group will meet today on this topic and its recommendations will be presented to the full CCFL during that committee’s meeting. Stay tuned to this blog for up to the minute information on Codex from inside one of its key meetings.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
NATURAL SOLUTIONS FOUNDATION
Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III, President
Rima E. Laibow, MD, Medical Director
April 8, 2007
Comments by the Natural Solutions Foundation on Codex Committee on Food Labeling Agenda Item 4(A) CX/FL 07/35/5, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labeling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods DRAFT REVISED ANNEX 2: TABLE 3 (PART 1 & 2)
(CL 2006/49-FL & CL 2006/12-FL, ALINORM 06/29/22 – APPENDIX III) and all subsequent Agenda sub items referring to Labeling of organically produced foods
The Natural Solutions Foundation strongly opposes the addition of sodium or potassium nitrates or nitrites in any food produce by organic means and labeled as “organic food” or “organically produced food” and urges the United States to oppose its use domestically and internationally. Permitting nitrates and nitrites, well-known and universally recognized carcinogens and co-carcinogens, to be added to organic food destroys any meaning the phrase might have and betrays consumers who trust the concept conveyed by certification of foods as organic. Allowing the addition of universally acknowledged toxins to organic foods betrays the consumer and constitutes false and misleading information which the FDA is tasked with eliminating in the food supply, not fostering.
Furthermore, the human and economic costs of preventable cancers induced by the introduction of unnecessary toxins into food which consumers pay a high premium for because they believe that such food is free from precisely those types of toxins is unacceptable.
Nitrates and nitrites are synthetic compounds added to meats, especially processed meats like bacon and sausages, for two purposes. These compounds aid in the maintenance of an attractive red color in processed meats like bacon, ham, sausage and similar products. This attractive color is associated by consumers with freshness and wholesomeness so this additive prolongs effective shelf life. In the absence of this additive, processed meat turns grey long before it decomposes or spoils. Since consumers are more willing to buy red meat than meat which has turned gray, the additives are extremely popular with producers.
The second purpose for which they are used is to retard the germination of botulinum spores to prevent the occurrence of botulism. However botulinum spores germinate very slowly. Refrigeration, proper hygiene and, if desired, the use of salt in the curing process, retard the growth of botulinum spores much more successfully than nitrates/nitrites and do so without their significant health hazards. Foods prepared in this way could fairly be labeled as organic (provided they met the other requirements of such labeling) while foods with nitrates and nitrates in no way meets any meaningful definition of that term.
Canada and the US regulatory agencies have both demonstrated their awareness of the dangers presented by nitrates/nitrites: both have lowered permissible levels for use in foods. However, since even miniscule doses of nitrites can form potent carcinogenic nitrosamines, lowering permissible levels is not an effective health measure. This problem poses a severe health hazard because nitrosamines are so powerfully carcinogenic at tiny doses.
Organic foods are, by their nature, free of synthetic and chemical additives. Consumers expect that organic foods have no non-food, chemical preservative, artificial coloring agents or similar additives which are not produced spontaneously through the natural process of preparation. When consumers spend premium prices because they want to consume foods which have not been altered or adulterated by industrial food sourcing or processing techniques, they believe that they can eat organic food without the impact of additives, synthetic colors, preservatives, hormones or other non-food components. Nitrates and nitrites are well known to consumers as chemicals which carry significant risks when consumed either before additional cooking or after it.
Consumers are well aware that baby food manufacturers have voluntarily withdrawn nitrates/nitrites in baby food following the 1995 statement at the 44th meeting of FAO/WHO that “nitrite should not be used… in foods for infants below the age of three months.” According to FAO/WHO, babies are especially venerable to methemoglobin. In addition, fetal hemoglobin is more easily changed to methemoglobin so consumption of nitrite by pregnant women can reasonably be expected to pose a danger to the fetus. Nitrates impair the oxygen carrying capacity of hemoglobin, turning it into methemoglobin which cannot carry oxygen. Nitrite in large doses has been fatal for adults. Consumers who are particularly sensitive to this transition, who have profound anemia or suffer from other conditions which impair oxygen transport and seek to avoid nitrites expect that they are doing just that by purchasing organic sausages and preserved meats.
Several other serious and potentially lethal problems attend the use of nitrates/nitrites. Nitrates are associated with increased miscarriages, fetal deaths and birth defects in laboratory animals. Consumers are looking for food without added hazards when they purchase organic food and have the right to expect it.
Parents may spend the extra money for “safe” bacon and sausage for their children since babies and children are especially vulnerable because of their lower blood volume and greater susceptibility to the conversion of hemoglobin to methemoglobin.
Consumers sensitive to, or aware of the dangers of, nitrites may make significant efforts to avoid it only to find their efforts thwarted by a counterintuitive inclusion of dangerous synthetic additives in supposedly organic foods.
Numerous studies show that nitrite alone can cause cancer. However, an even more serious cause for concern is the well documented potential for nitrates/nitrites to cause cancer through the formation of nitrosamines, especially quaternary nitrosamines, formed when nitrites react with secondary amines. These secondary amines occur naturally in protein-containing foods such as the meat of the sausage or bacon to which they have been added.
Nitrosamines are among the most powerful carcinogens known. Numerous studies confirm the strong relationship between nitrate and nitrite intake and cancer including colorectal adeno carcinoma, prostate and breast, stomach cancers in humans. Animal studies make it clear that even minute amounts of certain nitrosamines can produce cancers.
Studies have found a correlation between nitrosamine-contaminated foods and childrens’ leukemia and brain cancer According to Dr. William Lijinsky, former director of the Chemical Carcinogenesis Program at the Frederik Carcinogenesis Center (Maryland) said in his US Senate testimony, “There is evidence to show that nitrites in meat are the most dangerous food additives today and that they are major contributors to cancer… producing cancer in 24 species of animals tested at the Frederick Cancer Research Centre.” Dr. Lijinsky, an internationally recognized expert in the biological impact of nitrates and nitrites, went on to state, “Most of the deaths [from cancer] are due to the foods people ate thirty to forty years ago.”
Adding known carcinogens to organics food is deceptive and misleading and must be avoided by the US and by all members of Codex both on principle and for health reasons.
Consumers and their government representative in many countries recognize that nitrates and nitrites have no place in organic foods. For example, Costa Rica says (CL 2006/49-FL) in its written comments on this issue,
“We must take into consideration that, in addition to accepting the additive [nitrate/nitrite], its use must comply with the organic production guidelines criteria, meaning they must not violate the principles established in those Guidelines. Therefore, … In the case of additives for use in animal origin foods, and particularly in the case of Sodium Nitrite (INS Nº 250) and Potassium Nitrate (INS Nº 252), it is important to note that these substances are known to present a risk for human health as they generate nitrous N compound that have been shown to be carcinogenic in experimental animals, some of them being mutagenic and others teratogenic, as well as having high levels of their salts associated with a higher incidence of stomach and esophagus cancers. Due to the aforesaid, our position is that the use of these substances in organic foods of animal origin violates the principles of organic production and, therefore, our country does not accept their inclusion in this list.”
Norway bans all nitrates and nitrites in all foods, organic or not, noting that proper hygiene and handling eliminate the need for the substances in food altogether noting,
“[250] [Sodium nitrite] For food of animal origin: Not accepted especially for prod. Group 8.2.2. Heattreated [sic], 8.2.3, 8.3. and 9.2.4.1 Should not at all be used for colour [sic] retention. Could doubtfully be used as a preservative. It is possible to produce products without these additives. This requires good hygiene, and HACCP should be in place. There are health concerns about using this additive. The Norwegian consumers do not expect to find this additive in organic products.” [Emphasis added]
252 Potassium nitrate The above mentioned categories are not included for 252. See 250
301 Sodium ascorbate See comments to 250 and 252 The use of this additive is linked to the use of nitrate/nitrite and should therefore not be used.”
Similarly, Thailand states in its written comments, “It is acceptable for us to exclude the use of any kind of nitrate/nitrite from the organically produced food, especially food of animal origin such as sausages.”
Likewise, Germany has banned both substances in the foods.
The Natural Solutions Foundation believes that nitrates/nitrites have no appropriate place in the human food supply and that permitting their use in foods which are labeled “Organic” is totally unjustified and represents a profound betray of the trust placed in regulatory agencies by consumers. Hence, the Natural Solutions Foundation strongly urges the United States to instruct its Delegate to the Codex Committee on Food Labeling and all other Codex meetings and committees to vigorously oppose the use of nitrates and nitrites in human food under any circumstances and most especially, to preserve the meaning of organic food by using all means at its disposal to make sure these dangerous compounds are not permitted in organic foods.
Dated: April 8, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III (US Army, Ret.)
Rima Laibow MD
For: Natural Solutions Foundation
www.healthfreedomusa.org
On Saturday, November 19, 2005 I attended the Codex Working Group on Infant Formulas which operates as part of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Food for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU).
It was a fascinating day (if you like watching decision made which will potentially impact negatively on every single child on the planet who is not breast fed. This working group is setting standards which all manufacturers who ship formula internationally must follow AND which those countries unwise enough to pass these regulations as their own domestic laws on infant formula must follow, too.
Here is the highlight of the day:
Dr. Barbara Schneeman, Director of the Dietary Supplements Department of the FDA urged the Working Group to allow fructose in baby formula. Now that is quite fascinating, really, because our own FDA prohibited the use of fructose in the beverage supply of the US because it was high in empty calories, and likely to bring about preventable diabetes, obesity (and with it cancer and cardiovascular disease) and a host of other ill health effects, especially in children and adolescents. Manufacturers, whose bottom line is the bottom line, protested and forced the FDA to abandon its health-protective stance by allowing fructose (also known by names such as “high fructose corn syrup”) into the food supply BECAUSE CODEX ALLOWS FRUCTOSE.
So the FDA knows full well that fructose is associated with a decline in health associated with an increase in obesity and diabetes. Remember, the US is battling an epidemic of juvenile and adult obesity and another [related] one of juvenile and adult diabetes, both preventable disorders.
So why would Dr. Schneeman argue for the inclusion of this health-degrading substance in baby formula? Babies need about 670 calories per 100 grams of formula, according to the working group (older and younger babies do not seem to get special nutritional recognition: perhaps they figure that older babies will just tank up on more fluid in order to get more of what they need). How many of those calories should be from empty, dangerous, insulin-spiking sweeteners for which there is no nutritional requirement whatsoever?
And how many of those calories should be for something that teaches babies to demand sweet foods despite the fact that the perfect baby food, breast milk, does not have fructose in it?
Oh, yes, the fructose generally comes from corn. And, oh, yes, the corn is generally genetically modified (GM). And, oh, yes, the genetically modified corn and anything made from it does not have to be tested for safety before it is released into the food supply. Of course, the Working Group on Infant Formula has already approved GM soy for use in infant formula. The recent study Russian study showing that over 55% of rat pups whose mothers were fed GM soy died after failing to gain weight properly should suggest some caution to a truly “science based” process such as Codex claims to be.
Tragically, it would appear that the only science upon which Codex is based in the science of International Banking.
What can you do about it? Several things. Go to www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and take the following steps:
• Join the Citizen Petition (a legal challenge to the US government policy on Codex. (Do not be misled by those who mistakenly believe its purpose is to “persuade” government bureaucrats since whether they are persuaded or not is irrelevant to the legal process set in motion by the Citizen Petition. The more people who do so, the stronger our case before Congress.
• Tell Congress that you want a Congressional Briefing on Codex and tell them that you want Dr. Rima E. Laibow, MD, Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation, to help them organize the briefing.
• Write to Congress to support and oppose the bills that will determine your health freedom by using our email engine. Let Congress know that your health and health freedom is important to you!
• Use any (or all) of several methods to support the critical work of the Natural Solutions Foundation
o Do your personal and holiday shopping at www.EatSafeEatSmart.com, your source for GM-free, organic personal products, snacks, foods and products. Every purchase helps to support the Natural Solutions Foundation
o Send your unwanted treasures and collectables (each worth at least $30) to us at the Dump Fund: take the item(s) to any common carrier (Federal Express, UPS, DHL, etc.), (you can have them pack it or do it yourself) and ship it to the D.U.M.P. Fund, at: NSF, 297 Passaic Avenue, Fairfield, NJ 07004. Questions? Email us at infor@dumpfund.org. You will get a letter for the sale price of your tax deductible donation for your records.
o Make a donation to us by visiting www.HealthFreedomUSA.org/donate.shtml/.
You can be sure we will keep you posted during the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Food for Special Dietary Uses this next week. We’ll keep you posted on everything Dr. Grossklaus, the “Dr. Strangelove of Nutrition” does and says.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
Up for some good news? The Eat Safe, Eat Smart Buy-Cott (what to buy, not what not to buy!) is nearly ready. Your source of GMO-free, organic products with just a click is nearly hear. We have a great selection of products from chocolate to deodorant for you to chose from. This site is meant to please you so we are taking the unusual step of asking you to help us put the finishing touches on it.
Just go to www.EatSafeEatSmart.com and take a look at the site. Then tell me at info@healthfreedomusa.org what you like and what you don’t like about it. Let me know if there is something we forgot or a whole product line you love and feel should be there. Tell us if the format works for you and tell us what doesn’t work for you.
We’ll change it and make it right so you can have a site which offers you the best in Safe, Smart food and products!
Thanks in advance for your input!
Oh, yes. One other thing: Please go to our website and sign the Citizens Petition. Even if you signed before, since it has been revised and now contains the Revised Vitamin and Mineral Guideline, we invite you to sign again and get everyone you know on board. Thanks.
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Adaptation is the process by which a stressed system attempts to regulate itself in response to a new set of factors in order to achieve balance and harmony (often called “homeostasis”). Countries adapt, plants and animals adapt, social organizations (like cultures) adapt and so do we humans.
In fact, health promoting substances called “adaptagens” (which enhance regulation) are used in natural medicine because they help the body increase or decrease whatever is out of balance.
The good news, then, is that we are, individually and collectively, wondrously adaptable. Up to a point. Please prepare yourself and click here to see a graphic and heartbreaking example of what happens when we stretch the adaptive rubber band so far that it snaps. Because that is what we are doing with our bodies by exposing them to hundreds of thousands of toxins never encountered by any living thing prior to the last hundred years including deadly pesticides, radiation at levels unknown in nature, toxic, untested chemicals, new organisms and weird DNA.
How much can an organism, a child, a gene, an organ, a marriage, a brain or a society take before its adaptive abilities are overwhelmed and the stress is greater than the compensation for the stress that the system can manage. The result? Damage to the ability of the organism to function, self protect and self correct. If the stress is great enough to show, we call it by the name of some illness or another: cancer, social decay, infertility, depression, skin eruptions, rising crime rate, looting, suicide, drought, autism, monster storms. If the damage is greater still, the result is death of the society, the child, the mind, the heart, the planet. The disorder and dysfunction (and the diagnosis) depends on the system being stressed but the principle is the same.
What can you do about it? Reduce the load. Reduce the number of stressors that the system has to adapt to and give the adaptive systems help, support and nutrition. That means Read labels!
1. Eat organic food. Yes, it costs more. Think of what your will save on co-pays and hospital bills!
2. Eat non-GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) food. We are building our new website, www.EatSafeEatSmart.info so you can come to the site for healthy alternatives to familiar choices.
3. Avoid trans fats. Use pure, unrefined organic coconut oil or extra virgin organic olive oil) for cooking.
4. Take adequate amounts of high potency, pure vitamins and minerals. Cheap one a day nutrients are not worth much (and that’s what they cost, too, because they do not compare at all to the high quality, high potency nutrients you really need.
5. Use all natural, non-toxic cleaning products for your house, your clothes and yourself.
6. Quit smoking
7. Drink adequate water and avoid carbonated beverages. Fizzy drinks will make your body more acid, setting you up for toxic events.
8. Do a supervised detoxification program with nutrients, sauna (if possible) and herbs so that you can remove the built up toxins from your body. This is not a do it yourself procedure.
9. Do not drink liquid from a plastic bottle which is soft enough to change its shape when you squeeze it. That means that it has phthalates in it. Phthalates act like unopposed estrogen and wreak havoc with the entire body of both born and unborn people.
10. If you identify contaminants or dangers in your home, office, car, etc. please take the action necessary to remover it (or remove yourself if that is the only way to protect yourself).
11. No perfume, no fragrance no matter what. In aother blog I will discuss the importance of NOT using perfumes if you are trying to reduce the toxic load of your body to give it more adaptagenic potential than it has now because of the toxic load you are carrying.
In order to get and stay healthy, there is no doubt in my mind: we need to enhance our ability to adapt by removing the things that keep us from doing well adaptively.
Remember, property and habits are much less important than health and health freedom. You can replace the first, but you can never replace the second.
Yours in irreplaceable health and freedom,
Dr. Laibow