The quality of what enters the mouth determines how well the organs and cells in the body function. You may have heard the old computer saying, ‘garbage in, garbage out.’ This is also true about what we put into our bodies, and how it determines whether we live in health or disease.
Eat good, living food and you will promote health. Eat dead food and you will make it more difficult for your body to overcome acidosis, bacteria, viruses etc. What will it be?
I can hear the screams now. How am I supposed to get calcium for my bones?
Do not fear, the calcium in milk is not bio-available; it is hooked to a substance that keeps it from being absorbed by the body. To break this free from the carrier we need eight stomachs. Since we are not cows we do not have the ability to do this. We are the only mammals on earth that drink the milk of another mammal. You may say but what about kittens? Ask a vet and they will be the first to tell you that cow’s milk is bad for cats. It makes them vomit, that’s why they actually have kitten milk. You see Cow’s milk is designed to take a 80lb calf and grow it into a cow in a few short months. When we introduce this to a human it causes all kinds of problems. For instance, in kids it is linked to type one diabetes, allergies, asthma, obesity and bed wetting. As far as maintaining bone density it has little to no available calcium, besides the fact that it is very acidic by nature. When a substance that is acidic, is put into our body, the body has to find away to balance its PH. The most efficient way for the body to do this is to actually leach calcium out if the bones. Eek…. Dairy is really bad for us besides the lack of nutrition it is full of hormones that are at concentrations and strengths far beyond what any human should have not to mention the antibiotics. A couple good alternatives are almond and coconut milks. They have close to the same nutritional and caloric values with none of the other junk. Stay away from Soy milk.
ANDI stands for "Aggregate Nutrient Density Index." An ANDI score shows the nutrient density of a food on a scale from 1 to 1000 based on nutrient content. ANDI scores are calculated by evaluating an extensive range of micronutrients, including vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals and antioxidant capacities. The Aggregate Nutrient Density Index was developed and patented by our Health Starts Here affiliate, Eat Right America.
| Vegetable | ANDI Score |
|---|---|
| 1. Mustard/Turnip/Collard Greens | 1000 |
| 2. Kale | 1000 |
| 3. Watercress | 1000 |
| 4. Bok Choy/Baby Bok Choy | 824 |
| 5. Spinach | 739 |
| 6. Broccoli Rabe | 715 |
| 7. Chinese/Napa Cabbage | 704 |
| 8. Brussels Sprouts | 672 |
| 9. Swiss Chard | 670 |
| 10. Arugula | 559 |
| Vegetable | ANDI Score |
|---|---|
| 1. Radish | 554 |
| 2. Bean Sprouts | 444 |
| 3. Red Pepper | 366 |
| 4. Radicchio | 359 |
| 5. Turnip | 337 |
| 6. Carrot | 336 |
| 7. Cauliflower | 295 |
| 8. Artichoke | 244 |
| 9. Tomato | 190 |
| 10. Butternut Squash | 156 |
| Fruit | ANDI Score |
|---|---|
| 1. Strawberries | 212 |
| 2. Blackberries | 178 |
| 3. Plum | 157 |
| 4. Raspberries | 145 |
| 5. Blueberries | 130 |
| 6. Papaya | 118 |
| 7. Orange | 109 |
| 8. Cantalope | 100 |
| 9. Kiwi | 97 |
| 10. Watermelon | 91 |
| 11. Peach | 73 |
| 12. Apple | 72 |
| 13. Cherries | 68 |
| 14. Pineapple | 64 |
| 15. Apricot | 60 |
| Vegetable | ANDI Score |
|---|---|
| 1. Lentils | 104 |
| 2. Red Kidney Beans | 100 |
| 3. Great Northern Beans | 94 |
| 4. Adzuki Beans | 84 |
| 5. Black Beans | 83 |
| 6. Black-Eyed Peas | 82 |
| 7. Pinto Beans | 61 |
| 8. Edamame | 58 |
| 9. Split Peas | 58 |
| 10. Chickpeas (Garbanzos) | 57 |
| Nuts & Seeds | ANDI Score |
|---|---|
| 1. Sunflower Seeds | 78 |
| 2. Sesame Seeds | 65 |
| 3. Flax Seeds | 65 |
| 4. Pumpkin Seeds | 52 |
| 5. Pistachios | 48 |
| 6. Pecans | 41 |
| 7. Almonds | 38 |
| 8. Walnuts | 34 |
| 9. Hazelnuts | 32 |
| 10. Cashews | 27 |
| Whole Grains | ANDI Score |
|---|---|
| 1. Oats, old-fashioned | 53 |
| 2. Barley, whole grain | 43 |
| 3. Wild Brown Rice | 43 |
| 4. Brown Rice | 41 |
| 5. Barley, pearled | 32 |
| 6. Wheat berries | 25 |
| 7. Cornmeal, whole grain | 22 |
| 8. Quinoa | 21 |
| 9. Millet | 19 |
| 10. Bulgar | 17 |
| Meat | ANDI Score |
|---|---|
| 1. Bison, top sirloin | 39 |
| 2. Bison, chuck roast | 36 |
| 3. Pork Tenderloin | 34 |
| 4. Flank Steak | 27 |
| 5. Chicken Breast | 27 |
| 6. Turkey, light meat | 25 |
| 7. Turkey, dark meat | 24 |
| 8. Pork Chops | 24 |
| 9. Ground Beef, 85% - 90% lean | 20-23 |
| 10. Beef, top round | 22 |
| Fish | ANDI Score |
|---|---|
| 1. Tuna* | 46 |
| 2. Flounder | 41 |
| 3. Sole | 41 |
| 4. Salmon | 39 |
| 5. Mahi Mahi | 39 |
| 6. Shrimp | 38 |
| 7. Swordfish* | 38 |
| 8. Trout | 36 |
| 9. Snapper | 35 |
| 10. Haddock | 35 |
*May contain high levels of mercury.
| Cheese | ANDI Score |
|---|---|
| 1. Feta | 21 |
| 2. Cottage Cheese, low fat | 18 |
| 3. Mozzarella, part skim | 16 |
| 4. Ricotta, part skim | 16 |
| 5. Swiss | 15 |
| 6. Parmesan | 15 |
| 7. Mozzarella, whole milk | 14 |
| 8. Gouda | 13 |
| 9. Provolone | 13 |
| 10. Gruyere | 13 |
| Refrigerated Dairy Case | ANDI Score |
|---|---|
| 1. Tofu | 37 |
| 2. Nonfat Skim Milk | 36 |
| 3. Soy Milk | 33 |
| 4. Plain Nonfat Yogurt | 30 |
| 5. Egg Substitute | 30 |
| 6. Egg White | 29 |
| 7. Low-fat 1% Milk | 28 |
| 8. Egg | 27 |
| 9. Hemp Milk | 27 |
| 10. Tempeh | 26 |
We now know how many people have the problem most often cited as the reason for last years’ health overhaul legislation. Answer: 8,000
No, that’s not a misprint. Out of 310 million Americans, only 8,000 people have the problem given as the principal reason for spending almost $1 trillion, creating more than 150 regulatory agencies and causing perhaps 150 million or more people to change the coverage they now have.
Alert readers will remember the White House summer of 2009 invitation to all Americans to send in their horror stories describing health insurance industry abuses. Although the complaints were many, the vast majority were about pre-existing condition limitations. Then, on the eve of the ObamaCare vote, every member of Congress who appeared on television to defend the legislation was able to cite by name an individual or family in his or her state or Congressional district with a heart wrenching story.
Gone was any interest in “universal coverage” or “insuring the uninsured” or “helping poor people get health care.” The case for change was focused almost exclusively on protecting the middle class from miserly insurance companies.
According to the World Health Organization, Genetically Modified Organisms(GMOs) are "organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in such a way that does not occur naturally."1 This technology is also referred to as "genetic engineering", "biotechnology" or "recombinant DNA technology" and consists of randomly inserting genetic fragments of DNA from one organism to another, usually from a different species. For example, an artificial combination of genes that includes a gene to produce the pesticide Cry1Ab protein (commonly known as Bt toxin), originally found in Bacillus thuringiensis, is inserted in to the DNA of corn randomly. Both the location of the transferred gene sequence in the corn DNA and the consequences of the insertion differ with each insertion. The plant cells that have taken up the inserted gene are then grown in a lab using tissue culture and/or nutrient medium that allows them to develop into plants that are used to grow GM food crops.2
Natural breeding processes have been safely utilized for the past several thousand years. In contrast, "GE crop technology abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years."3
Despite these differences, safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food."4 However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.
There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.5 The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.2,6,7,8,9,10,11
Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. 6,11 Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). 7,8,10 Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. 6,8,10 A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn.8 This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth9 and disruption of the intestinal immune system.6
Regarding biological gradient, one study, done by Kroghsbo, et al., has shown that rats fed transgenic Bt rice trended to a dose related response for Bt specific IgA. 11
Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.
In spite of this risk, the biotechnology industry claims that GM foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. However, a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists reviewed 12 academic studies and indicates otherwise: "The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn."12 However, it was further stated that this increase is largely due to traditional breeding improvements.
Therefore, because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements.13 The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."13
Another often used definition originated from an environmental meeting in the United States in 1998 stating: "When an activity raises threats to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof (of the safety of the activity)."13
With the precautionary principle in mind, because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm, the AAEM asks:
(This statement was reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine on May 8, 2009.)
Submitted by Amy Dean, D.O. and Jennifer Armstrong, M.D.
