You are here: Nature's Prime Organic Foods, Inc. »

Author : admin

Warming Up Without Turning up the Heat

Sanctuary
Written by Kimberley Stakal

warm candles

Maybe you’re trying to cut back on your energy usage to save the planet, or maybe you’re just trying to chip away at your absurd PG&E bill. Either way, you don’t have to sit around home wrapped in blankets and mittens to save money and be eco. There are some pretty cheap (and green) ways to heat your house that you may not have thought of, and they’re a bit more comfortable than walking around like a mummified snowman all day.

Put plastic over the windows. Yup, it’s an old trick my dad always did in our house growing up, and you know what, it works. Cover all windows with plastic wrap (you can buy large rolls at the hardware store), and seal it over the window edges with a blow dryer. Keeps the cold air out of those leaky window cracks.

Close the doors of any rooms you’re not using. Smaller spaces lose less heat, and shutting off unused rooms reduces chilly drafts from circulating around. Even keeping your bathroom door closed can help when you’re not using it.

Switch in heavy curtains. Sub out your cutesy pink lace curtains for practical heavy winter curtains — they keep warm air in and cold air out. Get dark curtains for extra heating — they’ll absorb the heat from the sun and hold it inside the house.

Buy door draft stoppers. You’d be surprised how much cold air comes in from under the front door or garage door. Etsy and other online crafters sell some amazingly adorable draft stoppers for under 20 bucks, so now you have a decorating tool that’s also practical.

Light some candles. You may not have a fireplace in your studio apartment, but that doesn’t mean you can’t have fire. Light up a few large candles and place them around each room for a few degrees of cozy heat au natural.

Image: Finding Josephine

Please leave all comments on www.organicauthority.com.  Thank you.

More Calls to Overhaul Deceptive Front-of-Package Labeling

By Meredith Melnick Thursday, January 20, 2011

Courtesy of Prevention Institute

Courtesy of Prevention Institute

Food manufacturers have long used so-called front-of-package labeling — those carefully worded health and nutrition claims like “High in fiber!” or “All natural!” splashed on the front of processed food packages — to catch heedless grocery store shoppers’ eyes. Problem is, of course, these labels are more marketing ploy than legitimate information, designed to mislead, confuse and distract consumers, according to nutritionists and obesity researchers. In fact, many products’ labeling efforts actually flout government regulations. (More on Time.com: See packaged food labeling systems from around the world.)

Now, a new survey of kids’ food products with front-of-package health claims finds that most products don’t even meet basic nutritional standards as set by the government.

“Parents drawn to products that seem healthier for their children based on the packaging are being deceived,” wrote the study’s authors. “Currently, the front-of-package labeling system is not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — and each company sets its own standards for front-of-package labeling. Different criteria and different labels from each company only add to the confusion, and certainly don’t provide the whole nutritional story of the contents within.”

Researchers at the nonprofit Prevention Institute picked a representative sample of products from a list created by the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. Of the 58 products examined, 84% did not meet basic nutritional criteria, contrary to what their package-front labels promised. The study found:

57% of packaged foods qualified as high sugar
95% of products contained added sugar
53% were low fiber
53% contained no fruits or vegetables
24% of the products were high in saturated fats
36% were high in sodium
17% of the packaged foods lacked a single whole food ingredient

Blind food-buying habits are likely contributing to the fact that 40% of the calories American children consume are “empty” — derived from added sugar or unhealthy fat — as recent research suggests. Currently, 23 million U.S. children are overweight or obese.

To reduce consumer confusion and encourage smarter shopping, Prevention Institute advocates for the creation of a uniform front-of-package labeling system that presents necessary nutrition information clearly, and leaves out extraneous data. (More on Time.com: See how to build a better food label.)

“Key nutrition information, including calories, saturated fat (and trans fat), added sugar and sodium should be listed in easy-to-read type, on the front of packaging,” recommended the study authors. “Nutrients associated with health, including vitamins A, C, D, calcium and fiber, should not be included since they have the potential to mislead shoppers into believing that foods with a poor overall nutritional profile” — foods that are high in fiber can also be high in added sugar, for instance — “are healthful.”

It’s an overhaul that the FDA is already pursuing. As Time.com reported last spring:

As part of its effort to improve labeling practices, on [April 29] the FDA began asking for public comment on “ways to enhance the usefulness to consumers of…information on the principal display panel of food products (‘front-of-pack’ labeling) or on shelf tags in retail stores.” In particular, the agency wants to know how consumers read and use such nutritional information, and whether there’s a way to standardize its presentation to help people make better choices. Some observers say the FDA is readying what will be the most extensive food-labeling reform since 1990.

Too Much Lead Prompts Recall Of ‘Toxic Waste Nuclear Sludge’ Candy Bars

Turns out the marketer of some candy bars sold under the Toxic Waste brand wasn’t joking.

The Food and Drug Administration says Candy Dynamics of Indianapolis is recalling all flavors of its Toxic Waste Nuclear Sludge Chew Bars after way too much lead turned up in some cherry-flavored bars in California.

The company, citing “an abundance of caution,” is pulling all flavors of the bars ever produced. Those would be the sour apple, blue raspberry and cherry chew bars. All of them are imported from Pakistan.

The problem was discovered by the Californian Department of Public Health, found 0.24 parts per million of lead in a batch of cherry-flavored bars. The FDA doesn’t allow more than 0.1 parts per million because even a little too much lead can cause health problems for little kids, infants and pregnant women.

The company says its other Toxic Waste candies, marketed on its website as “hazardously sour,” are OK and are unaffected by the recall. The potentially lead-laden bars were distributed to stores nationwide and also were sold by mail.

If you’ve got some of the bad bars, the company says to call (317-228-5012) for instructions on how to dispose of them.

Previously in candy recalls you can’t make up: A retailer in Maine pulled bags of  “Lobster Poo,” a souvenir candy popular with tourists, last September because they contained undeclared peanuts, which could cause problems for people allergic to them

Facebook Referral Contest Winners!

WINNERS

GRAND PRIZE

Jeremy Konecny

$1200 worth of USDA Certified Organic food delivered to your home for free. *($100/every calendar month)

2nd Place

Khristine R.


Executive Surf & Turf Pack: (2 ct. Lobster Tails, 2 ct. USDA Certified Organic Grass Fed Filet Mignon (8 oz. ea.), 2 ct. Grass Fed USDA Certified Organic Rib Eyes (12 oz. ea.)

3rd Place

Amelia Elbert


Surf & Turf for 2:
(2 ct. Lobster Tails, 2 ct. USDA Certified Organic Grass Fed Filet Mignon)

4th – 10th Place

Notified Via E-mail


Chef Niemer’s Sausage Sampler: (1 pkg. Bratwurst, 1 pkg. Andouille, 1 pkg. Polish, 1 pkg. Andouille)

Thank you to everyone who participated! The next Nature’s Prime Organic Foods, Inc. referral contest will be arriving shortly.  Check back on Facebook often for details.


Monsanto’s Roundup Triggers Over 40 Plant Diseases and Endangers Human and Animal Health

By: Jeffrey Smith The world’s leading consumer advocate promoting healthier, non-GMO choices Posted on 6:00 pm January 14, 2011

The following article reveals the devastating and unprecedented impact that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide is having on the health of our soil, plants, animals, and human population. On top of this perfect storm, the USDA now wants to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, which will exacerbate this calamity. Please tell USDA Secretary Vilsack not to approve Monsanto’s alfalfa today. [Note: typos corrected from Jan 16th, see details]

While visiting a seed corn dealer’s demonstration plots in Iowa last fall, Dr. Don Huber walked passed a soybean field and noticed a distinct line separating severely diseased yellowing soybeans on the right from healthy green plants on the left (see photo). The yellow section was suffering from Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease that ravaged the Midwest in 2009 and ’10, driving down yields and profits. Something had caused that area of soybeans to be highly susceptible and Don had a good idea what it was.

The diseased field on the right had glyphosate applied the previous season. Photo by Don Huber

Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot about what causes green plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. He asked the seed dealer why the SDS was so severe in the one area of the field and not the other. “Did you plant something there last year that wasn’t planted in the rest of the field?” he asked. Sure enough, precisely where the severe SDS was, the dealer had grown alfalfa, which he later killed off at the end of the season by spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide (such as Roundup). The healthy part of the field, on the other hand, had been planted to sweet corn and hadn’t received glyphosate.

This was yet another confirmation that Roundup was triggering SDS. In many fields, the evidence is even more obvious. The disease was most severe at the ends of rows where the herbicide applicator looped back to make another pass (see photo). That’s where extra Roundup was applied.

Don’s a scientist; it takes more than a few photos for him to draw conclusions. But Don’s got more—lots more. For over 20 years, Don studied Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate. He’s one of the world’s experts. And he can rattle off study after study that eliminate any doubt that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but to the outbreak of numerous other diseases. (See selected reading list.)

Sudden Death Syndrome is more severe at the ends of rows, where Roundup dose is strongest. Photo by Amy Bandy.

Roundup: The perfect storm for plant disease

More than 30% of all herbicides sprayed anywhere contain glyphosate—the world’s bestselling weed killer. It was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced “Roundup Ready” crops starting in 1996. These genetically modified (GM) plants, which now include soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have inserted genetic material from viruses and bacteria that allows the crops to withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.

(Monsanto requires farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to only use the company’s Roundup brand of glyphosate. This has extended the company’s grip on the glyphosate market, even after its patent expired in 2000.)

The herbicide doesn’t destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited.

  1. The glyphosate molecule grabs vital nutrients and doesn’t let them go. This process is called chelation and was actually the original property for which glyphosate was patented in 1964. It was only 10 years later that it was patented as an herbicide. When applied to crops, it deprives them of vital minerals necessary for healthy plant function—especially for resisting serious soilborne diseases. The importance of minerals for protecting against disease is well established. In fact, mineral availability was the single most important measurement used by several famous plant breeders to identify disease-resistant varieties.
  1. Glyphosate annihilates beneficial soil organisms, such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus bacteria that live around the roots. Since they facilitate the uptake of plant nutrients and suppress disease-causing organisms, their untimely deaths means the plant gets even weaker and the pathogens even stronger.
  1. The herbicide can interfere with photosynthesis, reduce water use efficiency, lower lignin , damage and shorten root systems, cause plants to release important sugars, and change soil pH—all of which can negatively affect crop health.
  1. Glyphosate itself is slightly toxic to plants. It also breaks down slowly in soil to form another chemical called AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is also toxic. But even the combined toxic effects of glyphosate and AMPA are not sufficient on their own to kill plants. It has been demonstrated numerous times since 1984
    Glyphosate with sterile soil (A) only stunts plant growth. In normal soil (B), pathogens kill the plant. Control (C) shows normal growth.

    that when glyphosate is applied in sterile soil, the plant may be slightly stunted, but it isn’t killed (see photo).

  1. The actual plant assassins, according to Purdue weed scientists and others, are severe disease-causing organisms present in almost all soils. Glyphosate dramatically promotes these, which in turn overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.

“This is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate,” says Don. “It increases susceptibility to disease, suppresses natural disease controls such as beneficial organisms, and promotes virulence of soilborne pathogens at the same time.” In fact, he points out that “If you apply certain fungicides to weeds, it destroys the herbicidal activity of glyphosate!”

By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don, “There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease.”

Roundup promotes human and animal toxins

Photo by Robert Kremer

Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that can end up in food and feed. Sudden Death Syndrome, for example, is caused by the Fusarium fungus. USDA scientist Robert Kremer found a 500% increase in Fusarium root infection of Roundup Ready soybeans when glyphosate is applied (see photos and chart). Corn, wheat, and many other plants can also suffer from serious Fusarium-based diseases.

But Fusarium’s wrath is not limited to plants. According to a report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, toxins from Fusarium on various types of food crops have been associated with disease outbreaks throughout history. They’ve “been linked to the plague epidemics” of medieval Europe, “large-scale human toxicosis in Eastern Europe,” oesophageal cancer in southern Africa and parts of China, joint diseases in Asia and southern Africa, and a blood disorder in Russia. Fusarium toxins have also been shown to cause animal diseases and induce infertility.

As Roundup use rises, plant disease skyrockets

When Roundup Ready crops were introduced in 1996, Monsanto boldly claimed that herbicide use would drop as a result. It did—slightly—for three years. But over the next 10 years, it grew considerably. Total herbicide use in the US jumped by a whopping 383 million pounds in the 13 years after GMOs came on the scene. The greatest contributor is Roundup.

Over time, many types of weeds that would once keel over with just a tiny dose of Roundup now require heavier and heavier applications. Some are nearly invincible. In reality, these super-weeds are resistant not to the glyphosate itself, but to the soilborne pathogens that normally do the killing in Roundup sprayed fields.

Having hundreds of thousands of acres infested with weeds that resist plant disease and weed killer has been devastating to many US farmers, whose first response is to pour on more and more Roundup. Its use is now accelerating. Nearly half of the huge 13-year increase in herbicide use took place in just the last 2 years. This has serious implications.

As US farmers drench more than 135 million acres of Roundup Ready crops with Roundup, plant diseases are enjoying an unprecedented explosion across America’s most productive crop lands. Don rattles off a lengthy list of diseases that were once under effective management and control, but are now creating severe hardship. (The list includes SDS and Corynespora root rot of soybeans, citrus variegated chlorosis (CVC), Fusarium wilt of cotton, Verticillium wilt of potato, take-all root, crown, and stem blight of cereals, Fusarium root and crown rot, Fusarium head blight, Pythium root rot and damping off, Goss’ wilt of corn, and many more.)

In Brazil, the new “Mad Soy Disease” is ravaging huge tracts of soybean acreage. Although scientists have not yet determined its cause, Don points out that various symptoms resemble a rice disease (bakanae) which is caused by Fusarium.

Corn dies young

In recent years, corn plants and entire fields in the Midwest have been dying earlier and earlier due to various diseases. Seasoned and observant farmers say they’re never seen anything like it.

“A decade ago, corn plants remained green and healthy well into September,” says Bob Streit, an agronomist in Iowa. “But over the last three years, diseases have turned the plants yellow, then brown, about 8 to 10 days earlier each season. In 2010, yellowing started around July 7th and yield losses were devastating for many growers.”

Bob and other crop experts believe that the increased use of glyphosate is the primary contributor to this disease trend. It has already reduced corn yields significantly. “If the corn dies much earlier,” says Bob, “it might collapse the corn harvest in the US, and threaten the food chain that it supports.”

A question of bugs

In addition to promoting plant diseases, which is well-established, spraying Roundup might also promote insects. That’s because many bugs seek sick plants. Scientists point out that healthy plants produce nutrients in a form that many insects cannot assimilate. Thus, farmers around the world report less insect problems among high quality, nutrient-dense crops. Weaker plants, on the other hand, create insect smorgasbords. This suggests that plants ravaged with diseases promoted by glyphosate may also attract more insects, which in turn will increase the use of toxic pesticides. More study is needed to confirm this.

Roundup persists in the environment

Monsanto used to boast that Roundup is biodegradable, claiming that it breaks down quickly in the soil. But courts in the US and Europe disagreed and found them guilty of false advertising. In fact, Monsanto’s own test data revealed that only 2% of the product broke down after 28 days.

Whether glyphosate degrades in weeks, months, or years varies widely due to factors in the soil, including pH, clay , types of minerals, residues from Roundup Ready crops, and the presence of the specialized enzymes needed to break down the herbicide molecule. In some conditions, glyphosate can grab hold of soil nutrients and remain stable for long periods. One study showed that it took up to 22 years for glyphosate to degrade only half its volume! So much for trusting Monsanto’s product claims.


Glyphosate can attack from above and below. It can drift over from a neighbors farm and wreak havoc. And it can even be released from dying weeds, travel through the soil, and then be taken up by healthy crops.

The amount of glyphosate that can cause damage is tiny. European scientists demonstrated that less than half an ounce per acre inhibits the ability of plants to take up and transport essential micronutrients (see chart).

As a result, more and more farmers are finding that crops planted in years after Roundup is applied suffer from weakened defenses and increased soilborne diseases. The situation is getting worse for many reasons.

  1. The glyphosate concentration in the soil builds up season after season with each subsequent application.
  2. Glyphosate can also accumulate for 6-8 years inside perennial plants like alfalfa, which get sprayed over and over.
  3. Long-term Field 2.jpg
    Wheat affected after 10 years of glyphosate field applications.

    Glyphosate residues in the soil that become bound and immobilized can be reactivated by the application of phosphate fertilizers or through other methods. Potato growers in the West and Midwest, for example, have experienced severe losses from glyphosate that has been reactivated.

  4. Glyphosate can find its way onto farmland accidentally, through drifting spray, in contaminated water, and even through chicken manure!

Imagine the shock of farmers who spread chicken manure in their fields to add nutrients, but instead found that the glyphosate in the manure tied up nutrients in the soil, promoted plant disease, and killed off weeds or crops. Test results of the manure showed glyphosate/AMPA concentrations at a whopping 0.36-0.75 parts per million (ppm). The normal herbicidal rate of glyphosate is about 0.5 ppm/acre.

Manure from other animals may also be spreading the herbicide, since US livestock consume copious amounts of glyphosate—which accumulates in corn kernels and soybeans. If it isn’t found in livestock manure (or urine), that may be even worse. If glyphosate is not exiting the animal, it must be accumulating with every meal, ending up in our meat and possibly milk.

Add this threat to the already high glyphosate residues inside our own diets due to corn and soybeans, and we have yet another serious problem threatening our health. Glyphosate has been linked to sterility, hormone disruption, abnormal and lower sperm counts, miscarriages, placental cell death, birth defects, and cancer, to name a few. (See resource list on glyphosate health effects.)

Nutrient loss in humans and animals

The same nutrients that glyphosate chelates and deprives plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron, and others. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases.

Alzheimer’s, for example, is linked with reduced copper and magnesium. Don Huber points out that this disease has jumped 9000% since 1990.

Manganese, zinc, and copper are also vital for proper functioning of the SOD (superoxide dismustase) cycle. This is key for stemming inflammation and is an important component in detoxifying unwanted chemical compounds in humans and animals.

Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated. Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable.

Glyphosate can tie up minerals for years and years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans. If we combine the more than 135 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides applied in the US in 2010 with total applications over the past 30 years, we may have already eliminated millions of pounds of nutrients from our food supply.

This loss is something we simply can’t afford. We’re already suffering from progressive nutrient deprivation even without Roundup. In a UK study, for example, they found between 16-76% less nutrients in 1991, compared to levels in the same foods in 1940.

Livestock disease and mineral deficiency

Roundup Ready crops dominate US livestock feed. Soy and corn are most prevalent—93% of US soy and nearly 70% of corn are Roundup Ready. Animals are also fed derivatives of the other three Roundup Ready crops: canola, sugar beets, and cottonseed. Nutrient loss from glyphosate can therefore be severe.

This is especially true for manganese (Mn), which is not only chelated by glyphosate, but also reduced in Roundup Ready plants (see photo). One veterinarian finds low manganese in every livestock liver he measures. Another vet sent the liver of a stillborn calf out for testing. The lab report stated: No Detectible Levels of Manganese—in spite of the fact that the mineral was in adequate concentrations in his region. When that vet started adding manganese to the feed of a herd, disease rates dropped from a staggering 20% to less than ½%.

Veterinarians who started their practice after GMOs were introduced in 1996 might assume that many chronic or acute animal disorders are common and to be expected. But several older vets have stated flat out that animals have gotten much sicker since GMOs came on the scene. And when they switch livestock from GMO to non-GMO feed, the improvement in health is dramatic. Unfortunately, no one is tracking this, nor is anyone looking at the impacts of consuming milk and meat from GM-fed animals.

Alfalfa madness, brought to you by Monsanto and the USDA

As we continue to drench our fields with Roundup, the perfect storm gets bigger and bigger. Don asks the sobering question: “How much of the hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate that have been applied to our most productive farm soils over the past 30 years is still available to damage subsequent crops through its effects on nutrient availability, increased disease, or reduced nutrient of our food and feed?”

Instead of taking urgent steps to protect our land and food, the USDA just made plans to make things worse. In December they released their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Roundup Ready alfalfa, which Monsanto hopes to reintroduce to the market.

Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop in the US, grown on 22 million acres. It is used primarily as a high protein source to feed dairy cattle and other ruminant animals. At present, weeds are not a big deal for alfalfa. Only 7% of alfalfa acreage is ever sprayed with an herbicide of any kind. If Roundup Ready alfalfa is approved, however, herbicide use would jump to unprecedented levels, and the weed killer of choice would of course be Roundup.

Even without the application of glyphosate, the nutritional quality of Roundup Ready alfalfa will be less, since Roundup Ready crops, by their nature, have reduced mineral . When glyphosate is applied, nutrient quality suffers even more (see chart).

The chance that Roundup would increase soilborne diseases in alfalfa fields is a near certainty. In fact, Alfalfa may suffer more than other Roundup Ready crops. As a perennial, it can accumulate Roundup year after year. It is a deep-rooted plant, and glyphosate leaches into sub soils. And “Fusarium is a very serious pathogen of alfalfa,” says Don. “So too are Phytophthora and Pythium,” both of which are promoted by glyphosate. “Why would you even consider jeopardizing the productivity and nutrient quality of the third most valuable crop in the US?” he asks in frustration, “especially since we have no way of removing the gene once it is spread throughout the alfalfa gene pool.”

It’s already spreading. Monsanto had marketed Roundup Ready alfalfa for a year, until a federal court declared its approval to be illegal in 2007. They demanded that the USDA produce an EIS in order to account for possible environmental damage. But even with the seeds taken off the market, the RR alfalfa that had already been planted has been contaminating non-GMO varieties. Cal/West Seeds, for example, discovered that more than 12% of their seed lots tested positive for contamination in 2009, up from 3% in 2008.

In their EIS, the USDA does acknowledge that genetically modified alfalfa can contaminate organic and non-GMO alfalfa, and that this could create economic hardship. They are even considering the unprecedented step of placing restrictions on RR alfalfa seed fields, requiring isolation distances. Experience suggests that this will slow down, but not eliminate GMO contamination. Furthermore, studies confirm that genes do transfer from GM crops into soil and soil organisms, and can jump into fungus through cuts on the surface of GM plants. But the EIS does not adequately address these threats and their implications.

Instead, the USDA largely marches lock-step with the biotech industry and turns a blind eye to the widespread harm that Roundup is already inflicting. If they decide to approve Monsanto’s alfalfa, the USDA may ultimately be blamed for a catastrophe of epic proportions.

Please send a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, urging him not to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, and to fully investigate the damage that Roundup and GMOs are already inflicting.

New rules for school lunches aim to combat childhood obesity

By JESSICA MEYERS / The Dallas Morning News
jmeyers@dallasnews.com / The Dallas Morning News
Sam Hodges contributed to this report.

Lunchroom classics like Tater Tots and chocolate milk may fall victim to whole-wheat pasta and leafy greens under proposed changes released Thursday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

New federal standards would apply to school lunches subsidized by the federal government and provide the most dramatic re-envisioning of school meals in 15 years.

The guidelines aim to reduce the country’s excessive childhood obesity rate and teach kids healthy eating habits. They would establish calorie limits on school meals for the first time, gradually reduce sodium in food, reduce trans fats, boost whole grains, and increase servings of fruits and vegetables. The proposed regulations come on the heels of a child nutrition act signed into law in December to help schools pay for more nutritious meals.

And at least this time, Texas may wind up ahead at the curve.

“In some instances, we are already there,” said Reba Baker of the Texas Association for School Nutrition. Texas nixed deep-fat frying two years ago and bans students from buying soda and candy during the school day. The state requires daily servings of fruits and vegetables and limits trans fats.

Dallas schools offer hummus and black-bean burgers. Frisco ISD bakes whole-grain bread and hands out sunflower seed spread and jelly sandwiches. The Richardson school district dishes out yogurt parfaits and all things whole-grain, including macaroni and cheese.

“We have been proactive rather than reactive,” said Donna Thomas, Duncanville ISD’s food service director, whose district makes most of its food from scratch.

But the proposed changes go a step further, requiring only 1 percent or skim milk in lunch lines and establishing more quantifiable benchmarks for ingredients like sodium. And the biggest challenges still remain – convincing kids that brown rice is supposed to be brown and that broccoli can taste good without cheese.

“We tried vegetarian chili; that was a no-go,” said Rose Ann Martin , Richardson ISD’s food services/child nutrition director. But for the most part, she said, students are responding positively to more wholesome items, such as whole-grain pizza and whole-wheat spaghetti. The secret, she said, is simple.

“You don’t tell them. If you put spaghetti sauce on it, they can’t tell.”

Quality will cost

Martin anticipates similar receptiveness to the changes and said administrators will benefit from the more detailed guidelines. The potential rules come from 2009 recommendations by the Institute of Medicine.

The Agriculture Department will seek input through mid-April. When the regulations take effect, schools will need to comply in order to receive reimbursement for meals.

Quality comes at a cost, which means districts may need to fork over more money for healthier options. Schools that meet the new standards will receive an extra 6 cents a meal for every child on the free and reduced-price lunch program. But the cost of regular school meals could increase. Schools must also train cooks to prepare portioned, nutrient-rich dishes.

With almost a third of the nation’s children overweight or obese, many administrators find the need warrants the costs.

“You have to make internal changes to be able to be more efficient,” said Dora Rivas, who heads the food and child nutrition services department at Dallas ISD. She streamlined staff and saved $1 million by opting for plastic sporks, the fork and spoon hybrid.

‘It’s a battle out there’

Experts fear the long-term effects of these regulations will remain minimal unless parents reinforce a similar philosophy at home.

Kids come to school with bad eating habits and are reluctant to change, lamented Cindy Hodnett, child nutrition director for Anna ISD in northern Collin County. “I stood by my trash cans and watched kids dump their lunch trays,” she said about a recent school day. “The majority are dumping their fruits and vegetables.”

The district will offer whole grains every school day next year and plans to phase out Tater Tots. That doesn’t mean they’ll eat these healthier substitutes, said Hodnett, noting her own 3-year-old great-nephew “eats ranch dressing on everything.”

“It’s a battle out there,” she said.

Staff writer Sam Hodges contributed to this report.

Best and worst bottled water brands

partner

By Lori Bongiorno

(Photo: B2M Productions / Getty Images)(Photo: B2M Productions / Getty Images)

How much do you know about the bottled water you drink? Not nearly enough, according to a new report released today from Environmental Working Group (EWG). “Bottled water companies try hard to hide information you might find troubling,” says Jane Houlihan, senior vice president of research for the Washington D.C.-based research and advocacy group.

[Read more: Cities with the best (and worst) tap water]

EWG analyzed the labels of 173 unique bottled water products and company websites to determine if companies disclose information on where water comes from, how or if their water is treated, and whether the results of purity testing are revealed. The nonprofit also looked at how effective (and advanced) any water treatment methods are. Researchers followed up by calling dozens of bottled water companies to find out which ones willingly tell consumers what’s in their bottles.

The Environmental Protection Agency says on its website that consumers have the right to know where their water comes from and what’s in it so they can “make informed choices that affect the health of themselves and their families.” Tap water is regularly tested and consumers can find their local water info online. That’s not necessarily the case with bottled water, which is not required to disclose that information to consumers. “Bottled water is a food product and every one of these companies is complying with federal law,” says Tom Lauria, of the International Bottled Water Association.

[Video: The story of bottled water]

More than half of the bottled water products surveyed failed EWG’s transparency test –18 percent didn’t say where their water comes from, and another 32 percent did not disclose any information on treatment or purity of water.

Only three brands earned the highest possible marks for disclosing information and using the most advanced treatment methods available – Gerber Pure Purified Water, Nestle Pure Life Purified Water, and Penta Ultra-Purified Water.

On the other end of the spectrum, these six brands got the worst marks in EWG’s report because they don’t provide consumers with the three basic facts about water on product labels or their company website – Whole Foods Italian Still Mineral Water, Vintage Natural Spring Water, Sahara Premium Drinking Water, O Water Sport Electrolyte Enhanced Purified Drinking Water, Market Basket Natural Spring Water, and Cumby’s Spring Water.

How does your bottled water brand stack up? Here’s a look at the 10 top-selling* U.S. brands:

1.     Pure Life Purified Water (Nestle), EWG grade = B

2.     Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water (Nestle), EWG grade = C

3.     Aquafina Purified Drinking Water (Pepsi), EWG grade = D

4.     Dasani Purified Water (Coca-Cola), EWG grade = D

5.     Deer Park Natural Spring Water (Nestle), EWG grade = D

6.     Ice Mountain Natural Spring Water (Nestle), EWG grade = D

7.     Ozarka Natural Spring Water (Nestle), EWG grade = D

8.     Poland Spring Natural Spring Water (Nestle), EWG grade = D

9.     Zephyrhills Natural Spring Water (Nestle), EWG grade = D

10.  Crystal Geyser Natural Alpine Spring Water (CG Roxane), EWG grade =  F

Filtered tap water received the best grade (an A) from EWG because if you change your filter regularly, EWG says it is purer than bottled water, plus it saves money (bottled water can cost up to 1,900 times more than what flows from your tap). Drinking tap water also takes less of a toll on the planet. EWG offers plenty of tips for filtering your tap water so that you can drink the healthiest water possible.

[Related: Giving up bottled water saves a shocking amount of money]

What should you do when bottled water is your only option? “While our top choice is filtered tap water, when you do need to choose bottled water, we recommend brands that tell you what’s in the water and that use advanced treatment technologies like reverse osmosis and micro-filtration,” says Houlihan. Advanced treatment technologies remove pollutants that other methods don’t. You should look for bottled water products that tell you where the water is coming from and how pure it is.

Here are the results for all 173 bottled water brands included in the report. You’ll find that some less popular brands rank even lower than our list of top-sellers.

The advice to drink filtered tap water can seem confusing when there are often reports about the contaminants found in municipal water supplies. Just last month, for example, EWG announced that cancer causing hexavalent chromium (chromium-6) is in 31 cities’ tap water. Houlihan says chromium-6 is as likely to be in your bottled water as it is in your tap water and we need action from the federal government on this. She points out that a reverse osmosis filter can remove the worrisome contaminant. You can guarantee its removal in your home supply, but in many cases you don’t know what’s in the bottle you’re drinking from.

*Sales rankings from the Beverage Marketing Corporation.

Environmental journalist Lori Bongiorno shares green-living tips and product reviews with Yahoo! Green’s users. Send Lori a question or suggestion for potential use in a future column. Her book, Green Greener Greenest: A Practical Guide to Making Eco-smart Choices a Part of Your Life is available on Yahoo! Shopping and Amazon.com.

Bird deaths: timeline of the mysterious bird death

From dead crabs washed up on Kent’s coast to birds falling from the sky in the US and Sweden.

From dead crabs washed up on Kent's coast to birds falling from the sky in the US and Sweden.

10,000 red drum fish washed-up in Chesapeake Bay in Queen Anne’s County
By Claire Cruickshank 5:26PM GMT 06 Jan 2011

December 2010: thousands of dead crabs washed up along Kent coast

30 December: up to 100,000 dead drum fish over a 20-mile stretch of the Arkansas River, 200km northwest of Little Rock discovered

31 December 2010: 3,000 of red-winged blackbirds rained from sky in Arkansas town of Bebe.

3 January 2011: 500 dead and dying red-winged-blackbirds fell into Louisiana highway in Pointe Coupee Parish

40,000 dead ‘devil crabs’ washed up on Thanet beaches in Kent

4 January: 100 jackdaw birds found lying dead on the road in Falkoping, Southeastern Sweden.

4 January 2011: hundreds of dead eyeless snapper washed up on numerous Coromandel Peninsula beaches

5 January: several hundred birds found dead in Western Kentucky

200 birds found dead on highway bridge in Texas

Past cases…

1973: Stuttgart, Arkansas. Hail knocked thousands of birds from the sky.

1976: Maryland: 15 million spot fish died early 1976 and a smaller number in 1980.

2001: Arkansas. Lightning killed dozens of mallards at Hot Springs.

Corn Fed Cattle: Bigger Cows, Bigger E. coli Threat, More Foodborne Illness

By Richard J. Arsenault in Food & Culture, Food Poisoning Info
Posted on July 27th, 2009

Cows

With the recent outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 attributed to contaminated beef, questions often come up about what cattle ranchers and agro processors can do to curb this terrible bacteria from ever entering our food supply. The simplest solution seems to be the prevention of the bacteria from infecting the cow in the first place. But since E. coli O157:H7 can exist inside a cow without the cow exhibiting any signs of illness, as cows are immune to E. coli O157:H7’s damaging effects, how does one prevent what they may not even know is there? One simple solution, we should intelligently debate reducing or discontinuing the practice of fattening beef with corn feed before slaughter .

Prior to World War II, most beef was “grass finished”, meaning that from start to finish of the cows life, grass was the feed of choice for ranchers. In grass finished beef, before the cow is sent to slaughter, grass is the only food used to sustain the cow. Grass feeding is an effective way to nourish cows as grass is their natural food. The end result is a leaner but more natural beef.

But after the war, a new practice began to gain prevalence among ranchers, the “corn finished” cow. For anywhere from 60 days to 120 days before slaughter, cattle are feed and almost exclusive diet of corn. The corn rich diet fattens the cattle faster and allows for year round beef production in colder climates. The fatter corn fed cows have a more marbled meat than grass fed cows and this is what the consumer in today’s beef market has come to know as the standard.

Though “corn finishing” produces bigger, fatter cows in less time, corn is not a natural diet for a cow. Because of this unnatural corn rich diet, some unhealthy side effects take place. Most notably, a higher incidence of E. coli O157:H7 occurs in corn fed beef than in grass fed beef. In 1998, a Cornell University study revealed that cows fed on a natural grass diet had at least 80% less E. coli O157:H7 than grain fed cows.

The problem is that the corn heavy diet acidifies the cow’s digestive tract. Under normal circumstances E. coli O157:H7 is killed by stomach acids. But the increased acidity in the cow’s stomachs allows for the more acid resistant E. coli bacteria to survive and replicate. When these acid resistant E. coli enter the food supply, it is especially dangerous because a person’s primary defense against E. coli, stomach acid, is now useless.

E. coli O157:H7 is responsible for the majority of hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) cases in the U.S. and hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) is not something to scoff at; it is a very real threat and it can be devastating. When I see how the disease affects families and especially children, it just makes sense to carefully consider all reasonable precautions designed to reduce E. coli contamination.

Families That Dine Together, Stay Together

Written by Shilo Urban

kid's dinner

A new ten-year study from The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University shows that children who eat meals with their families frequently (five times per week or more) are half as likely to try marijuana or smoke cigarettes as their friends who rarely get to sit down and dine with the fam.

While this seems like common sense, it may be a much-needed wake up call for parents with busy lives who have not made family mealtime a priority. Only half of Americans say that they eat meals with their families at all; for adults the impact is minimized but children desperately need the routine and structure which not only feeds the body, but the mind and soul as well.

Family meals have many other benefits besides keeping kids on the straight and narrow:

  • Dining together helps to develop language and social skills. Children learn how to interact politely and discuss a range of issues during family conversation.
  • Children involved in family mealtime will learn how to cook and clean up after themselves, a skill set that many adults today do not have – which leads them to depend on fatty and unhealthy takeout food for their sustenance.
  • Eating meals together strengthens the family unit. Families are a micro-culture unto themselves, and the communal experience of mealtime helps to generate a feeling of belonging to the group. This feeling is crucial for children and gives the whole family an opportunity to better share their lives with one another.
  • Other studies have also shown a correlation between eating with the family and better performance at school as well as a reduced likelihood of unhealthy weight control practices such as anorexia and bulimia.

Most of all, providing healthy meals together on a regular basis shows children that they are cared for on one of the most basic levels: sustenance. If children are routinely served non-nutritious junk food in the car, bowls of cereal alone by the TV or worse – nothing at all – they will begin to feel that no one really cares about them (who could blame them?). Childhood obesity can also result, which eventually translates into a host of adult health problems.

How many meals must a family spend together to reap the positive effects as shown in the study? At least five times per week. Once the family dinner frequency drops to less than three times per week, researchers saw a huge spike in risky behavior of the children.

Providing a healthy meal at least five times a week has never been easy, but with the advent of modern work schedules and two-income households, making time for the family dinner is more difficult than ever. However, it is also more important than ever, for your children’s future health might depend on it. Eating meals together is a great way to stop behavior problems before they start.

Good families don’t just happen – they are cultivated, like a garden. Just like a garden, your family needs regular food, water and emotional sunshine, and family dinners help to provide all three. Here are some tips to get on family meal track:

  • Plan your meals out at the beginning of the week to decrease the effort, energy and time required to cook. Sunday’s chili can become Tuesday’s burritos and then can top off the hotdogs (or Smartdogs) on Thursday night, making for easy family recipes.
  • A crock-pot can be an immense help to a busy family – throw in your melange of veggies and protein in the morning, and they will be done by dinnertime. Plus the crock-pot makes it easy to skim unwanted grease off the top of the dish making for a healthier meal.
  • If you simply don’t have the time, take advantage of pre-made items. Pre-sliced vegetables, deli salads and rotisseries chickens cost a little more, but if a few extra dollars amounts to a meal together with your family, it’s worth it.
  • Ask for help when you need it. Don’t get sucked into the martyr syndrome and insist on doing everything yourself. If you are married, get your partner to help out, and the kids can get in on it too!
  • Order takeout. While usually not the healthiest option, takeout foods can provide a quick and easy meal together when all other options fail.
  • Set a weekly night based around a food that your family loves: Tuesday taco night, Saturday spaghetti dinner or Friday night pizza. Make it a fun, relaxing night that the whole family can look forward to.

Family dinnertime is not about elaborate meals, but rather about spending some time together and reconnecting lives. Make mealtime a priority with your family and you will give your children the structure, community, life skills and feeling of belonging that they need to thrive.

sources:

http://www.casacolumbia.org/templates/NewsRoom.aspx?articleid=604&zoneid=51

http://www.healthnews.com/family-health/daily-diet-family-dinners-decreases-risky-behavior-in-children-4473.html

image: hlkljgk

Featuring Recent Posts Wordpress Widget development by YD