Author – Glen B. Stewart

Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 5

Only a decade ago, many states prohibited X-raying a person for anything other than a medical exam. Even after 9/11, such non-medical X-raying remains taboo in most of the industrialized world. In July, the European Parliament passed a resolution that security “scanners using ionizing radiation should be prohibited” because of health risks. Although the United Kingdom uses the X-ray machine for limited purposes, such as when passengers trigger the metal detector, most developed countries have decided to forgo body scanners altogether or use only the millimeter-wave machines.

While the research on medical X-rays could fill many bookcases, the studies that have been done on the airport X-ray scanners, known as backscatters, fill a file no more than a few inches thick. None of the main studies cited by the TSA has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the gold standard for scientific research.

Those tests show that the Secure 1000 delivers an extremely low dose of radiation, less than 10 microrems. The dose is roughly one-thousandth of a chest X-ray and equivalent to the cosmic radiation received in a few minutes of flying at typical cruising altitude. The TSA has used those measurements to say the machines are “safe.”

Most of what researchers know about the long-term health effects of low levels of radiation comes from studies of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By charting exposure levels and cancer cases, researchers established a linear link that shows the higher the exposure, the greater risk of cancer.

Some scientists argue the danger is exaggerated. They claim low levels stimulate the repair mechanism in cells, meaning that a little radiation might actually be good for the body.

But in the authoritative report on low doses of ionizing radiation, published in 2006, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the research and concluded that the preponderance of research supported the linear link. It found “no compelling evidence” that there is any level of radiation at which the risk of cancer is zero.

Radiation experts say the dose from the backscatter is negligible when compared to naturally occurring background radiation. Speaking to the 1998 FDA panel, Smith, the inventor, compared the increased risk to choosing to visit Denver instead of San Diego or the decision to wear a sweater versus a sport coat.

Using the linear model, even such trivial amounts increase the number of cancer cases. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a radiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, estimated that the backscatters would lead to only six cancers over the course of a lifetime among the approximately 100 million people who fly every year. David Brenner, director of Columbia University’s Center for Radiological Research, reached a higher number — potentially 100 additional cancers every year.

“Why would we want to put ourselves in this uncertain situation where potentially we’re going to have some cancer cases?” Brenner asked. “It makes me think, really, why don’t we use millimeter waves when we don’t have so much uncertainty?”

But even without the machines, Smith-Bindman said, the same 100 million people would develop 40 million cancers over the course of their lifetimes. In this sea of cancer cases, it would be impossible to identify the patients whose cancer is linked to the backscatter machines.

How the scanners avoided strict oversight

Although they deliberately expose humans to radiation, the airport X-ray scanners are not medical devices, so they are not subject to the stringent regulations required for diagnostic X-ray machines.Â

If they were, the manufacturer would have to submit clinical data showing safety and effectiveness and be approved through a rigorous process by the FDA. If the machines contained radioactive material, they would have to report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

But because it didn’t fit into either category, the Secure 1000 was classified as an electronic product. The FDA does not review or approve the safety of such products. However, manufacturers must provide a brief radiation safety report explaining the dose and notify the agency if any overexposure is discovered. According to the FDA, no such incidents have been reported.

Under its limited oversight of electronic products, the FDA could issue mandatory safety regulations. But it didn’t do so, a decision that flows from its history of supervising electronics.

Regulation of electronic products in the United States began after a series of scandals. From the 1930s to the 1950s, it was common for a child to go to a shoe store and stand underneath an X-ray machine known as a fluoroscope to check whether a shoe was the right fit. But after cases arose of a shoe model’s leg being amputated and store clerks developing dermatitis from putting their hands in the beam to adjust the shoe, the practice ended.

In 1967, General Electric recalled 90,000 color televisions that had been sold without the proper shielding, potentially exposing viewers to dangerous levels of radiation. The scandal prompted the creation of the federal Bureau of Radiological Health.

“That ultimately led to a lot more aggressive program,” said John Villforth, who was the director of the bureau. Over the next decade, the bureau created federal safety standards for televisions, medical X-rays, microwaves, tanning beds, even laser light shows.

But in 1982, the FDA merged the radiological health bureau into its medical-device unit.

“I was concerned that if they were to combine the two centers into one, it would probably mean the ending of the radiation program because the demands for medical-device regulation were becoming increasingly great,” said Villforth, who was put in charge of the new Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “As I sort of guessed, the radiation program took a big hit.”

The new unit became stretched for scarce resources as it tried to deal with everything from tongue depressors to industrial lasers. The government used to have 500 people examining the safety of electronic products emitting radiation. It now has about 20 people. In fact, the FDA has not set a mandatory safety standard for an electronic product since 1985.

As a result, there is an FDA safety regulation for X-rays scanning baggage — but none for X-rays scanning people at airports.

Meanwhile, scientists began developing backscatter X-rays, in which the waves are reflected off an object to a detector, for the security industry.

Read Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 6 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 9

The Secure 1000 people scanner was invented by Smith in 1991 and later sold to Rapiscan, then a small security firm based in southern California. The first major customer was the California prison system, which began scanning visitors to prevent drugs and weapons from getting in. But the state pulled the devices in 2001 after a group of inmates’ wives filed a class-action lawsuit accusing the prisons of violating their civil liberties.

The U.S. Customs Service deployed backscatter machines for several years but in limited fashion and with strict supervision. Travelers suspected of carrying contraband had to sign a consent form, and Customs policy prohibited the scanning of pregnant women. The agency abandoned them in 2006, not for safety reasons but because smugglers had learned where the machines were installed and adapted their methods to avoid them, said Rick Whitman, the radiation safety officer for Customs until 2008.

Yet, even this limited application of X-ray scanning for security dismayed radiation safety experts. In 1999, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, a nongovernmental organization, passed a resolution recommending that such screening be stopped immediately.

The backscatter machines had also caught the attention of the 1998 FDA advisory panel, which recommended that the FDA establish government safety regulations for people scanners. Instead, the FDA decided to go with a voluntary standard set by a trade group largely comprising manufacturers and government agencies that wanted to use the machines.

“Establishing a mandatory standard takes an enormous amount of resources and could take a decade to publish,” said Dan Kassiday, a longtime radiation safety engineer at the FDA.

In addition, since the mid-1990s, Congress has directed federal safety agencies to use industry standards wherever possible instead of creating their own.

The FDA delegated the task of establishing the voluntary standards to the American National Standards Institute. A private nonprofit that sets standards for many industries, ANSI convened a committee of the Health Physics Society, a trade group of radiation safety specialists. It was made up of 15 people, including six representatives of manufacturers of X-ray body scanners and five from U.S. Customs and the California prison system. There were few government regulators and no independent scientists.

In contrast, the FDA advisory panel was also made up of 15 people — five representatives from government regulatory agencies, four outside medical experts, one labor representative and five experts from the electronic products industry, but none from the scanner manufacturers themselves.

“I am more comfortable with having a regulatory agency — either federal or the states — develop the standards and enforce them,” Kaufman said. Such regulators, she added, “have only one priority, and that’s public health.”

A representative of the Health Physics Society committee said that was its main priority as well. Most of the committee’s evaluation was completed before 9/11. The standard was published in 2002 and updated with minor changes in 2009.

Ed Bailey, chief of California’s radiological health branch at the time, said he was the lone voice opposing the use of the machines. But after 9/11, his views changed about what was acceptable in pursuit of security.

“The whole climate of their use has changed,” Bailey said. “The consequence of something being smuggled on an airplane is far more serious than somebody getting drugs into a prison.”

Are Inspections Independent?

While the TSA doesn’t regulate the machines, it must seek public input before making major changes to security procedures. In July, a federal appeals court ruled that the agency failed to follow rule-making procedures and solicit public comment before installing body scanners at airports across the country. TSA spokesman Michael McCarthy said the agency couldn’t comment on ongoing litigation.

The TSA asserts there is no need to take additional precautions for sensitive populations, even pregnant women, following the guidance of the congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements.

Read Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 7 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 7

But other authorities have come to the opposite conclusion. A report by France’s radiation safety agency specifically warned against screening pregnant women with the X-ray devices. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration’s medical institute has advised pregnant pilots and flight attendants that the machine, coupled with their time in the air, could put them over their occupational limit for radiation exposure and that they might want to adjust their work schedules accordingly.

No similar warning has been issued for pregnant frequent fliers.

Even as people scanners became more widespread, government oversight actually weakened in some cases.

Inspections of X-ray equipment in hospitals and industry are the responsibility of state regulators — and before 9/11, many states also had the authority to randomly inspect machines in airports. But that ended when the TSA took over security checkpoints from the airlines.

Instead, annual inspections are done by Rapiscan, the scanners’ manufacturer.

“As a regulator, I think there’s a conflict of interest in having the manufacturer and the facility inspect themselves,” Kaufman said.

Last year, in reaction to public anger from members of Congress, passengers and advocates, the TSA contracted with the Army Public Health Command to do independent radiation surveys. But email messages obtained in a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group, raise questions about the independence of the Army surveys.

One email sent by TSA health and safety director Jill Segraves shows that local TSA officials were given advance notice and allowed to “pick and choose” which systems the Army could check.

That email also suggests that Segraves considered the Army inspectors a valuable public-relations asset: “They are our radiation myth busters,” she wrote to a local security director.

Some TSA screeners are concerned about their own radiation exposure from the backscatters, but the TSA has not allowed them to wear badges that could measure it, said Milly Rodriguez, health and safety specialist for the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents TSA officers.

“We have heard from members that sometimes the technicians tell them that the machines are emitting more radiation than is allowed,” she said.

McCarthy, the TSA spokesman, said the machines are physically incapable of producing radiation above the industry standard. On the email, he said, the inspections allow screeners to ask questions about radiation and address concerns about specific machines.

The company’s lobbying campaign

While the TSA maintains that the body scanners are essential to preventing attacks on airplanes, it only began rolling them out nine years after 9/11.

After the attempted shoe-bombing in December 2001, the federal government conducted a trial of a Rapiscan backscatter at the Orlando International Airport. But the revealing images drew protests that the machines amounted to a virtual strip search.

The TSA considered the scanners again after two Chechen women blew up Russian airliners in 2004. Facing a continued outcry over privacy, the TSA instead moved forward with a machine known as a “puffer” because it released several bursts of air on the passengers’ clothes and analyzed the dislodged particles for explosives. But after discovering the machines were ineffective in the field and difficult to maintain, the TSA canceled the program in 2006.

Around that time, Rapiscan began to beef up its lobbying on Capitol Hill. It opened a Washington, D.C., office and, according to required disclosures, more than tripled its lobbying expenditures in two years, from less than $130,000 in 2006 to nearly $420,000 in 2008. It hired former legislative aides to Rep. David Price, D-N.C., then chairman of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee, and to Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.

It started a political action committee and began contributing heavily to Price; Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., then head of the homeland security committee; Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., also on that committee; and Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., the top Republican on the Senate appropriations committee.

In addition, it opened a new North Carolina plant in Price’s district and expanded its operations in Ocean Springs, Miss., and at its headquarters in Torrance, Calif., in Harman’s district.

Read Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 8 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 8

“Less than a month after U.S. Senator Trent Lott and other local leaders helped officially open Rapiscan Systems’ new Ocean Springs factory,” Lott’s office announced in a news release in late 2006, “the company has won a $9.1 million Department of Defense contract.”

But Rapiscan still hadn’t landed a major contract to roll out its X-ray body scanners in commercial airports. Indeed, in 2007, with new privacy filters in place, the TSA began a trial of millimeter-wave and backscatter machines at several major airports, after which the agency opted to go with the millimeter-wave machines. The agency said health concerns weren’t a factor.

But with the 2009 federal stimulus package, which provided $300 million for checkpoint security machines, the TSA began deploying backscatters as well. Rapiscan won a $173 million, multiyear contract for the backscatters, with an initial $25 million order for 150 systems to be made in Mississippi.

Three other companies — American Science & Engineering, Tek84 Engineering Group and Valley Forge Composite Technologies — make X-ray scanners, but none are used by the TSA.Peter Kant, executive vice president for Rapiscan, said the company expanded its lobbying because its business was increasingly affected by the government.

“There’s a lot of misinformation about the technology; there’s a lot of questions about how various inspection technologies work,” he said. “And we needed a way to be able to provide that information and explain the technology and how it works, and that’s what lobbying is.”

The lawmakers either declined to comment or said the lobbying, campaign contributions and local connections had nothing to do with the TSA’s decision to purchase Rapiscan machines. The TSA said the contract was bid competitively and that the winning machines had to undergo comprehensive research and testing phases before being deployed.

While the scanners were appearing in more and more airports, few passengers went through them, because they were used mostly for random screening or to resolve alarms from the metal detector.

That changed on Christmas Day 2009, when a Nigerian man flying to Detroit tried to ignite a pouch of explosives hidden in his underwear.

Following the foiled “Great Balls of Fire” suicide bombing, as the New York Postdubbed it, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ramped up plans to roll out body scanners nationwide. Members of Congress and aviation security experts also pushed heavily for the TSA to install more machines that could detect explosives on passengers.

Harman sent a letter to Napolitano, noting that Rapiscan was in her district.

“I urge you to expedite installation of scanning machines in key airports,” Harman wrote in the letter, which was first reported by the website CounterPunch. “If you need additional funds, I am ready to help.”

Michael Chertoff, who had supported body scanners while secretary of Homeland Security, appeared frequently on TV advocating their use. In one interview, he disclosed that his consulting firm, Chertoff Group, had done work for Rapiscan, sparking accusations that he was trying to profit from his time as a government servant.

Despite the criticism, little has been revealed about the relationship. Rapiscan dismissed it, asserting that the consulting work had to do with international cargo and port security issues — not aviation.

“There was nothing that was not above board,” Kant said. “His comments about passenger screening and these machines were simply his own and was nothing that we had engaged the Chertoff Group for.”

In a statement, the Chertoff Group said it “played no role in the sale of whole body imaging technology to TSA” and that Chertoff “was in no way compensated for his public statements.”

A public records request by ProPublica turned up empty: The Department of Homeland Security said it could not find any correspondence to or from Chertoff related to body scanners. DHS also said Chertoff did not use email.

The TSA plans to deploy 1,275 backscatter and millimeter-wave scanners covering more than half its security lanes by the end of 2012 and 1,800 covering nearly all the lanes by 2014.

According to annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, OSI Systems, the parent company of Rapiscan, has seen revenue from its security division more than double since 2006 to nearly $300 million in fiscal year 2011.

Read Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 9 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 9

Now that you realize there are many Cancer Causing culprits surrounding us on a daily basis. Next let’s discuss what happens if you decide to get conventional medical assistance for cancer therapy.

The Harsh Reality of Conventional Treatments 

“The greatest mistake in the treatment of diseases is that there are physicians for the body and physicians for the soul, although the two cannot be separated.”  ~ Plato

When you or someone you love is diagnosed with cancer you enter a world of overwhelming facts and realisations.

You will be presented with the most difficult decisions you have ever needed to make ~ whether to have chemotherapy, radiation therapy or surgery amongst others.

The specialist will discuss the options, give you the facts and await your decision.  The reality is not always as it may appear however.

In fact according to Dr Mercola’s article introducing Dr Ralph Moss:

Most Chemotherapists would not Take Chemotherapy themselves

“Chemotherapists acknowledge that the treatment is the most toxic substance ever put deliberately into the human body and furthermore, they are known and designed poisons”.

The Man Who Questions Chemotherapy: Dr. Ralph Moss

Dr Moss questions chemotherapy closely and has written 8 books on the subject of cancer.  He reveals some astounding facts on:

“The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy in treating most types of cancer and the fact that it fails to eliminate the disease in 96%-98% of cancers.

Further, chemotherapy usually doesn’t cure cancer or extend life and really doesn’t improve the quality of life either although Doctors advise otherwise”.

Dr Moss reviewed thousands of studies for his book and not one study supports the claim that chemotherapy works but does highlight the devastating side effects.

Surviving Cancer ~ The Devastating Side Effects of Chemotherapy

Chronic fatigue, bowel problems, anaemia, weight loss, vomiting are a few of the recognised side effects of chemotherapy reported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

More Than 80% of U.S. Cancer Doctors would NOT have Chemotherapy

CANCER active, a cancer charity based in England advise of a survey undertaken where 128 U.S. Cancer doctors stated if they contracted cancer more than 80% of them would NOT have chemotherapy.

The Doctors advised that “the risks and side effects far outweighed the likely benefits and although chemotherapy can be very effective, the success rate varies and in certain cancers can be as low as one per cent”.

Surviving Cancer ~ Surgery  “A Tumour Is No Clearer In Hindsight”

“Was Steve Jobs a smart guy who made a stupid decision when it came to his health”?  

The New York Times asked recently

The world is still mourning the inspirational Apple CEO, Steve Jobs and The New York Times looks at the choices he made through his journey with pancreatic cancer.

In particular “regarding surgery and conventional treatment when he was first diagnosed with a cancerous tumour in his pancreas following a CT scan in 2003.

Doctors urged him to have an operation to remove the tumour but Mr Jobs put it off to seek other opinions.   Nine months later the tumour had grown and he then agreed to surgery during which the doctors found it had spread to his liver.

Numerous articles based on 20/20 hindsight, speculating if Mr Jobs had had surgery straight away the doctors could have saved him.

“His Decision not to have surgery may not have been as ill considered as it seems”

Given the type of tumour Steve Jobs had and the way it was found his decision not to have surgery straight away may not have been ill considered”.

Surgery in Surviving Cancer Carries High Risks

The American Cancer Society states that: 

Surgery in cases of cancer carries high risks and that possible complications may be caused by the surgery itself.

Drugs used (anaesthesia), underlying disease, the health & weight of the patient.  The more complex the surgery the greater the risk.   Bleeding during surgery may cause the need for blood transfusions and these carry their own risks many of them serious.

Damage may also be caused to internal organs and blood vessels.

Surviving Cancer ~ The Truth About Radiation Therapy

´Patients should be made aware of possible side effects (of radiation therapy) as ´these are not insignificant´ ~ The Lancet Medical Journal

Studies by the NCI (National Cancer Institute) show that over 50% of cancer patients will receive radiation therapy during their cancer treatment.

Once again as with chemotherapy, the side effects of radiation therapy have to be compared against the risks.

Recent reports show secondary cancers appearing years after radiation therapy.  There is proven damage on the heart and lungs especially in breast cancer patients and damage to bones in womb or pelvis cases.

Of concern is the fact that radiation therapy can go on working for up to four to six weeks after the treatment has stopped.

There are Alternatives To Conventional Medicine – Great News

With so many varied statistics and heavy evidence against the effects of chemotherapy and radiation therapy you might be wondering what your next step may be.

The great news is there are many alternatives to the devastation of chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

Your journey of Alternative Healing for Fighting Cancer discovery starts here…

Read Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 10 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Cancer Survival – What You Do Not Know About A Deadly Cancer Causing Lifestyle Can Kill You part 10

Back in 2009 I wrote this now prophetic article on Cancer Survival:

“Preventing cancer – cancer can threaten anyone regardless of race or even wealth, are you next?”

Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy to treat Cancer has been a tragic nightmare for countless millions of people globally. And throwing more money at these treatments as many famous people have, is not the answer.

As I am writing this I feel sad emptiness in my heart. Legendary Hollywood actor Dennis Hopper passed away yesterday in his loss to deadly prostate cancer. Dennis was an enormously popular film star with a character that typically had a zeal for life.

He will be well missed for that life-giving zeal in his work.

The past year has unfortunately claimed numerous celebrity lives due to their fight with cancer.

We lost glamour girl and actress Farrah Fawcett. Farah was combating colorectal cancer. At first when she was diagnosed, Farrah chose to receive alternative medicine from Europe. This showed signs of hope and put the deadly cancer into remission.

Unfortunately Farrah’s cancer had come back undetected and was into the advanced stages by time it was noticed. This was due to Farrah returning to her former non holistic based lifestyle. This time she chose to undergo conventional allopathic therapies such as chemotherapy.

This sadly was the knockout punch that prevented her body from recovering from the deadly cancer.

Patrick Swayze also left us early due to his deadly fight with pancreatic cancer. Patrick also chose to receive chemotherapy treatments for his deadly pancreatic cancer. Like Farrah Fawcett, Patrick could not recover from the twofold devastation of deadly cancer and highly toxic chemotherapy.

As is the case with most Hollywood actors and personalities, the world was simply not aware until it was too late to make any meaningful difference.

Which meaningful difference and cancer prevention advantage is that?

In the alternative healing world there are many excellent choices for both preventing cancer and surviving cancer.

1) There are the Cancer Fighting Super Foods.

These Cancer Survival Super Foods  vary from spinach, cauliflower, broccoli and brussels sprouts to tomatoes and blueberries.

2) There are the cancer prevention and cancer fighting nutritional supplements.

The sheer variety in the cancer fighting nutritional supplement category is astonishing.

There is one useful standard to measure the anti-oxidant amounts within a given superfood or cancer fighting supplement. This is called the ORAC value.

This was because research has shown the high antioxidant levels and other cancer survival nutritional factors in these super foods have shown to enable the human body to fight cancer effectively.

3) There are numerous Energy Healing therapies in addition for assisting in the healing of cancer.

These energy healing therapies are extraordinary for optimizing the body in a role of cancer prevention as well.

Typically a natural-based complementary cancer fighting therapy can be used for both prevention and to heal an existing cancer condition.

This super nutritional cancer fighting approach is indeed one of alternative medicine’s greatest strengths in fighting cancer.

Energy healing has been around for many thousands of years.

The roots of energy healing are found on all continents. Recently energy healing has enjoyed a resurgence. Actually this resurgence started in the 1800s in Japan.

This form of Japanese influenced energy healing was known as Reiki healing. Reiki healing expanded into numerous styles of the healing practice over the centuries.

While many of the core concepts are the same amongst the difference styles certain Reiki Masters chose to incorporate additional approaches.

The Japanese culture also had Ki energy training amongst its traditional martial arts styles.

Energy healing also expressed itself as Qi Gong energy healing in China centuries ago.

The Chinese martial art Kung fu, actually a family of self-defense styles – expresses itself through internal Ki training.

In addition there are several ways to empower the mind to assist in healing the body.

This style of energy healing manifests itself as focused willpower of a positive desired outcome.

Finally there are many lifestyle changes that support cancer prevention and surviving cancer.

Through so many cancer prevention lifestyle changes available that I dedicate an entire series to surviving cancer next month.

So far I touched on the highly toxic reality that exists throughout our lifestyles. Next I shared the equally frightening facts that we face with conventional medicine’s Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy to treat Cancer. Lastly, I revealed the tip of the iceberg with the promise of alternative healing and cancer survival.

This cancer survival article series cannot possibly cover in depth all of the Cancer Fighting possibilities that do exist. As a result from my readership at Healer 2.0 I felt compelled to offer an Intensive online workshop into Cancer Survival. I am offering a content rich Free online seminar sharing the value of this potentially Life Saving Training to all of my readership. If you know the critical importance of getting Cancer Survival training, Click on the link below and then enter your email address where I can send your personal invitation for the next online Cancer Survival 101 Seminar Event.

Get Notified Of the Next Free Cancer Survival 101 – Online Seminar Event Here

- Glen

Glen B. Stewart - Master Trainer

 Author – Glen B. Stewart

 Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 4

So, are eating foods organically grown and sustainably raised the very best foods you can consume?

The short answer is yes, but let me tell you a dirty little secret: there are loopholes in organic rules that you can drive a Mack truck through. An example would be organic eggs. Do chickens have to spend time outdoors, or can they be kept cooped up in an enclosure? Can they eat a high percentage of their diet as organic grain, or must they hunt and peck for their food in a pasture in order to be called organic?

The guidelines can be murky—and subject to change. Here’s a case in point. In 2010, the USDA announced a new rule on access to pasture for organic ruminant animals (cows, sheep and goats). Called an “enhancement” to the National Organic Standards, the new rules laid out these additional requirements:

• Animals must graze in pasture during the grazing season, which must be at least 120 days per year.

• Animals must obtain a minimum of 30 percent dry matter intake from grazing pasture during the grazing season.

• Livestock are exempt from the 30 percent dry matter intake requirement during the finish feed period, not to exceed 120 days. Livestock must have access to pasture during the finishing phase. Notice the wording “access to pasture.”

Let me translate this last bullet point for you. The rule allows cattle to be taken from a pasture and taken to a livestock yard to “finish”—a euphemism for fattening them up prior to going to the slaughterhouse. During this period, which can be as long as 120 days or four months, the cattle can be fed just about anything—“as long as it’s organic”—since they are exempt from the 30 percent “dry matter,” which is another way of saying the grasses and forage they find in pasture fields.

When the rule also states that livestock must have access to pasture during the finishing phase, this can be broadly interpreted. Cowpokes could let the cattle out into a fenced-off “pasture” next to the stockyard for ten minutes and still be in compliance with the National Organic Standards.

You can finish your cattle on an almost entirely grain-based ration “as long as the grain is organic,” just as the conventional feedlots do, and you can still label your steaks and hamburger meat “organic.” But that “organic” cow could be fattened on grains or feasted on corn-based feed just like conventionally raised cows only without the hormones and antibiotics which is certainly an improvement. That’s why I tell people, “When it comes to beef, it’s not so much how they start, it’s how they finish.”

In my opinion, the USDA Organic standards can be limiting in scope and potentially misleading to consumers, especially if they think organic is the ultimate standard for what is healthy.

The USDA then established three descriptions that can be put on food products:

• 100 percent Organic. This food must be all organic or contain only organically produced ingredients before it can receive this green-and- white USDA seal.

• Organic. The food must be at least 95 percent organic before it can receive this blue seal.

• Made with Organic Ingredients. The food must contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients. The remaining 30 percent cannot include any genetically modified ingredients.

 Read Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 5 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 5 

The next Generation of eating: 

Organic standards are not perfect, but choosing to eat organic foods is an excellent and necessary step in the journey of reestablishing health and sustainability. While organic is far better than natural and leaps and bounds ahead of conventionally grown foods, I believe we can do better. I do not seek to tarnish or invalidate the USDA organic standards, but I desire to elevate the level of awareness and knowledge of true health and wellness as it applies to humans and our planet.

Our Ten Point Organic Livestock Standards Can Be Summed up In This Fashion:

1) Never use GMO feed or plants in the field. genetically modified organisms are widespread in conventional agriculture, but have no place at Organic ranches and farms.

2) Animals should be GreenFed and GreenFinished. This means our dairy cattle intensely graze on grasses and a “salad bar” of forbs, herbs, and legumes—with no grains and our beef cattle partake in our greenFinishing program that includes a bovine detoxification program and a diet of fresh organic pasture supplemented in the winter with green foods such as alfalfa and certified organic hay with no grain.

3) Use Olde World production methods. We want to revive the ancient methods of producing foods and beverages that enhance, not destroy, their health benefits.

4) Use “fair made” ethical business practices. We will treat others as we would want to be treated, guided by principles of financial stewardship, economic self-sufficiency, and environmental integrity. We will pay fair wages to our employees and seek higher social standards.

5) Use Olde World based processing methods. Our beef and poultry animals must be slaughtered in accordance with Olde World principals. This method of slaughter is widely recognized as the most humane method possible. We will not process animals that have died of natural causes or have been killed by other animals, and we will make best efforts to thoroughly drain the blood.

6) Our grazing lands are free of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and chemical fertilizers. This is a cornerstone of who we are.

7) We will not treat our cattle with antibiotics, hormones, or vaccines. The conventional cattle-raising business relies on chemical medicines to treat their sickly animals, but on organic ranches and farms, we do not.

We will treat our animals with respect and kindness. god made everything that lives on the earth, including the animals, and he commands us to be respectful and kind to the animals under our care. A righteous man takes care of his animals, yet another reminder that god has called us to be stewards of his creation.

9) We will follow sustainable land and soil management practices. It behooves us to be responsible for the way we treat the land by not polluting it and by managing it well for future years starting with the micro and macro organisms that improve the health of our soil.

10) We pursue quality and safety for our finished products. We combine the best of ancient wisdom and modern science to ensure that our foods and beverages deliver maximum health benefits and minimal toxicity. We use probiotics in our processing and finished products to ensure safety and efficacy at every step.

The Organic Movement started as an attempt to “know your farmer and know your food.” At its inception, the term organic usually referred to the food coming from small, family farms that were only available locally.

As the demand for organic grew, official standards were applied to the term. Organic was defined to mean, among other things, free of artificial food additives and produced without the use of synthetic pesticides. The combination of an increased market and defined standards enticed large companies to enter the organic market.

Today unfortunately, organic has gone mainstream, as the chart below shows. In fact, companies like Pepsi, CocaCola, Nestle, Kellogg, Heinz, Cargill, Dean, Kraft, Hershey, Cadbury, M&M Mars, ConAgra and General Mills “own” organic.

This chart may be a little tough to read, but if you want more details to see “Who Owns Organic” up close and personal, visit www.cornucopia.org for a more complete view.

That’s not to say that organic is bad. it’s not, but it has become industrialized big business and is owned by companies that aren’t typically known for their health emphasis.

You might call it “industrial organic.”

If your know the life transforming value of discovering the next generation of healthy eating with Organic Foods – Go to the acclaimed “Fat Loss Gourmet” and Get on the Notification List for the next FREE Online Seminar Event Today

- Glen

Glen B. Stewart

Master Trainer

Author – Glen B. Stewart  

Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 3

What does it mean to live “Organic?”

“Many people are intimated by technology. I happen to be one of those people. Whether it is computers or smart phones, TVs or VCRs (they still make VCRS, right?), something about technology throws me off. It seems that just as many people, if not more, are confused when it comes to health.”

What is the deal with Organic?

How is it different from Natural?

What are GMOs? How do I avoid them?

Should I get farm-raised, pasture-fed or corn-fed?

These are questions I have heard countless times at lectures and events all across this great nation of ours. And it underscores an issue when it comes to standards and institutions. essentially, most people’s questions boil down to:

Who can I trust?

Am I getting the right information to make informed decisions?

“I have dedicated my life to helping people take control of their own health by empowering them with knowledge and developing solutions in the field of human health and nutrition. One of the reasons I support Organic Foods was to create a platform of education—in addition to the foods and beverages—that would allow people to turn to a source they can trust for their information.”

Why Live Organic?

The following are highlights from my latest book, Live Beyond organic, where i attempt to help the reader navigate the oft-confusing world of health.

No Meaning Any More: natural Food

When I was young, if asked, I told people that I ate “natural foods.”

Back then, natural meant something—a food that didn’t contain any artificial ingredients, no chemical preservatives, or, in the case of meat and poultry, was minimally processed. But over the years, conventional food companies and processors chipped away at these standards to the point where “natural” has no meaning these days. In fact, there is no legal U.S. definition for natural foods at the present time, and because of this, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) discourages companies from labeling their foods “all natural” or “natural.”

Since federal authorities have chosen not to define how the word “natural” can be used, we’re left with all sorts of shenanigans. You can find the adjective “Natural!” slapped on just about anything in a supermarket. For instance, food bars give you a “natural energy boost”— whatever that means. You can start your day with “natural fiber” in your breakfast cereal, which may or not be made from genetically modified grains. Potato chips are labeled “natural” because one of the “natural” ingredients is salt.

The USDA requires natural meat and poultry to be free of artificial colors, flavors, sweeteners, and preservatives, but some poultry producers inject their chickens with saline solution, claiming it adds flavor—after all, salt is “natural”—but that practice conveniently adds 25 percent extra weight to the bird, which is sold by the pound.

So, with the meaning of natural obliterated, the only good news to report is that natural does not mean organic, but there again, the public is confused about what organic really means.

Getting More Popular but not Perfect: Organic Food

Organic agriculture has been around since Adam and Eve were forced from the Garden and had to grow their own food. Farming and raising livestock didn’t change much for centuries. As recently as 1900, half of the U.S. labor force were farmers or working a ranch, but as mechanization and technology made huge leaps in the 20th century, that number has shrunk to just 2 percent today— and 60 percent of those hard-working folks are part-time farmers.

I’ve already described how modern agriculture has morphed into an agribusiness that feeds the world, but the price has been horribly steep. Voices in the wilderness like J.I. Rodale and others like Paul Bragg and Ann Wigmore gave the organic movement a voice in the pivotal 1970s and 1980s, but even then, few knew exactly what “organic” meant as the movement picked up steam.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture stepped in and began working on standards during the 1990s, but I can only imagine the lobbying efforts and political pressures that came to bear on this federal agency. After years of bureaucratic infighting, the USDA established guidelines in 2002 that outline what steps farmers, ranchers, dairies, and other food producers must follow in order to be certified organic by the U.S. government.

The USDA regulations on what can and can’t be called “organic” is as thick as a Manhattan phone book. The super-digest version is that organic meats must come from animals that eat 100 percent organic feed without any animal byproducts; for dairy cows, the whole herd must have eaten organic feed for the previous twelve months. Organic produce cannot be grown with chemical pesticides or most synthetic fertilizers, and animals cannot be fed or injected with antibiotics and growth hormones. Organic farms undergo a rigorous certification process and are inspected for compliance by an independent agent.

This would be a good place to define the term “sustainably,” which is often spoken in the same sentence as “organic practices.” Sustainability refers to a system of farming that maintains and replenishes soil fertility without the use of toxic and persistent pesticides and fertilizers. Livestock are pasture-raised, and fish are not pulled from the ocean faster than they can reproduce or caught in ways that destroy other sea life or undersea habitat.

 Read Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 4 Here

Author – Glen B. Stewart

Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 2

So is it Healthier to Eat Meat?

From a clinical standpoint, I do believe virtually everyone benefits from some animal protein. However, this doesn’t have to be meat, as there are other healthy animal proteins like raw organic dairy and organic pastured eggs. The evidence suggests that raw organic milk is actually one of the healthiest options as it has the highest biologic value and utilization of any protein. The only caution is that it is loaded with lactose, which can disrupt insulin sensitivity, so I would advise to consume it cultured in yogurt or kefir where the bacteria will predigest the lactose and also help optimize your gut flora.

If you are sincerely objective and honest in seeking to understand what diet is best for you it will be important to trust your body to guide you. It is my recommendation to abandon any previously held convictions you might have about food and instead carefully listen to your body as you experiment with different food ratios and including or excluding animal foods.

So let me make it clear that I’m not advocating that everyone should, or even needs to, eat meat. However, there are health consequences of abstaining from animal protein entirely.

Further, if you do eat meat one of the primary questions you need to ask is how was it raised? This makes all the difference in the world when it comes to nutritional content and the health benefits of meat.

There’s no question in my mind that we should all avoid factory-farmed meat from CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations), as the harm likely outweighs the benefit for most. Factory farming is not only inhumane in the extreme, but it also produces inferior meat. Organically raised, grass-fed and free-range meats are a whole other animal. Nutritionally, they’re just not the same. And you certainly cannot compare the stress- and disease levels between a pastured cow and one stuck in a feedlot.

So, when eating meat the following three factors need to be considered:

How it’s raised, i.e. factory farmed or raised organically. Conventional meat is loaded with pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and other chemicals and should be avoided.
Whether or not it’s grass-fed. This is an essential requirement of healthy meat.
Whether or not it contains nitrates, preservatives linked to cancer. Processed meats are not a healthful choice for anyone and should be avoided entirely, according to a review of more than 7,000 clinical studies examining the connection between diet and cancer.
Next, how you cook the meat will also influence its health benefits because any time you cook meat at high temperatures, dangerous chemicals are created, including:

Heterocyclic Amines (HCAs): These form when food is cooked at high temperatures, and they’re linked to cancer. In terms of HCA, the worst part of the meat is the blackened section, which is why you should always avoid charring your meat, and never eat blackened sections.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): When fat drips onto the heat source, causing excess smoke, and the smoke surrounds your food, it can transfer cancer-causing PAHs to the meat.
Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs): When food is cooked at high temperatures (including when it is pasteurized or sterilized), it increases the formation of AGEs in your food. When you eat the food, it transfers the AGEs into your body. AGEs build up in your body over time leading to oxidative stress, inflammation and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and kidney disease.
To sum up, eating factory farmed, grain-fed beef that’s been charred to a crisp will NOT improve your health.In order for meat to be its healthiest, it should be organic and grass-fed, and it should be cooked as little as possible. You can, for example, quickly sear the meat on both sides, leaving the inside quite rare. This gives the illusion that you’re eating cooked meat, while still getting many of the benefits of raw.

Can You Get Enough Dietary Sulfur if You Don’t Eat Animal Protein?

It’s important for your heart health to have adequate dietary sulfur, and this comes almost exclusively from dietary protein. As such, high-quality (organic and/or grass-fed/pastured) beef and poultry are ideal complete sources, but if you don’t eat meat you can also get sulfur from coconut oil and olive oil. Other dietary sources that contain small amounts of sulfur IF the food was grown in soil that contains adequate amounts of sulfur, include:

Organic pastured eggs
Legumes
Garlic
Onion
Brussel sprouts
Asparagus
Kale

 Read Organic Foods – What are the Critical Differences Between Organic Foods and Commercially Grown Foods part 3 Here