Monday, December 25, 2017

Hi and welcome to our blog! Please share your experiences or thoughts about natural cancer treatments here so others may learn from them. Looking forward to reading your courageous stories!

Click on the "comments" link in this box below to post your comments and read what others have written. Visit www.blacksalveinfo.com for more info and testimonials!

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Diabetes Ages Your Brain Five Years Faster Than Normal

By Dr. Mercola

In the United States, nearly 80 million people, or one in four, have diabetes or pre-diabetes. What’s worse, diabetes among children and teens has also skyrocketed.

The most recent data1,2 reveals that incidence of type 2 diabetes among children aged 10-19 rose by 30 percent between 2001 and 2009. The same situation exists in other developed nations.

In the UK, more than one-third of adults are now pre-diabetic,3 and British researchers warn that this will lead to a massive avalanche of type 2 diabetics in upcoming years, which will have serious consequences for health care and life expectancy.

Diabetes Linked to Faster Decline in Memory

One of many debilitating health problems associated with type 2 diabetes is a higher risk for dementia. According to one recent study,4,5,6 diabetes ages your brain about five years faster than normal.

People who are diagnosed with diabetes in their 50s are at a significantly heightened risk for mental decline by the time they’re 70.

Previous research7 has also shown that type 2 diabetics lose more brain volume with age than expected—particularly gray matter. This kind of brain atrophy is yet another contributing factor for dementia.

According to lead author Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, MPH, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health:8

“The lesson is that to have a healthy brain when you’re 70, you need to eat right and exercise when you’re 50.

There is a substantial cognitive decline associated with diabetes, pre-diabetes and poor glucose control in people with diabetes. And we know how to prevent or delay the diabetes associated with this decline...”

The Importance of Healthy Blood Vessels for Proper Brain Function

A number of different factors play a role in memory decline and dementia. One important factor is the health of your blood vessels, and I’ve previously discussed the links between heart disease and dementia. In fact, the test that predicts your future risk of heart disease is better at predicting your risk of dementia than a specific dementia-risk test.9

In the featured study, diabetics were found to suffer a 19 percent greater decline in mental acuity compared to non-diabetics over the course of 20 years. Those with pre-diabetes were also at a significantly increased risk for memory decline.

The researchers suggest the decline in memory associated with diabetes is due to damage to small blood vessels in the brain. According to co-author A. Richey Sharrett, MD, DrPH:

“There are many ways we can reduce the impact of cerebral blood vessel disease—by prevention or control of diabetes and hypertension, reduction in smoking, increase in exercise and improvements in diet.

Knowing that the risk for cognitive impairments begins with diabetes and other risk factors in mid-life can be a strong motivator for patients and their doctors to adopt and maintain long-term healthy practices.”

The best predictor of type 2 diabetes is being obese or overweight, and in the US one-third of children and teens (aged two to 19), and more than two-thirds of adults are either overweight or obese.

Obesity is usually the result of inappropriate lifestyle choices, such as eating too much processed foods (high in carbs and low in healthy fats), and not fasting enough.

It’s interesting to note that the poorest Americans have the highest obesity rate, and they also tend to eat a diet that is very high in processed foods. This is yet another indication that processed foods play a significant role in metabolic dysfunction, weight gain, and associated health problems like diabetes, heart disease, and dementia.

Diabetes Medication May Do More Harm Than Good 

Diabetes is a disease rooted in insulin resistance10 and perhaps more importantly, a malfunction of leptin signaling, caused by chronically elevated insulin and leptin levels.

This is why the medical community’s approach to its treatment is not getting anywhere. Contrary to popular belief, treating type 2 diabetes with insulin is actually one of the worst things you can do, as it only exacerbates the underlying problem.

One recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine11 concluded that insulin therapy in type 2 diabetic patients—especially older diabetics—may indeed do more harm than good. As reported by Medical News Today:12

“In the US, type 2 diabetes is diagnosed when hemoglobin A1c levels reach 6.5 percent or higher. The higher A1c levels are, the greater the risk of other health problems.

Sometimes the condition can be managed through changes in diet, but other patients with type 2 diabetes may need medication - such as insulin or metformin – to help lower their blood sugar levels, and ultimately, reduce the risk of diabetes complications.

But the researchers of this latest study... claim that the benefits of such treatment - particularly for people over the age of 50 – may not always outweigh the negatives.

‘In many cases, insulin treatment may not do anything to add to the person's quality life expectancy,’ says study co-author John S. Yudkin...

‘If people feel that insulin therapy reduces their quality of life by anything more than around 3-4 percent, this will outweigh any potential benefits gained by treatment in almost anyone with type 2 diabetes over around 50 years old.’ ...

For example, they estimate that a person with type 2 diabetes who begins insulin therapy at age 45 and lowers their hemoglobin A1c levels by 1 percent may experience an extra 10 months of healthy life. 

But for a patient who starts treatment for type 2 diabetes at age 75, they estimate the therapy may only gain them an additional 3 weeks of healthy life. The researchers say this prompts the question - is 10-15 years of pills or injections with possible side effects worth it?”

Lifestyle Changes Are as Effective as Medicine for Preventing Type 2 Diabetes

Just like obesity, type 2 diabetes is primarily controlled and prevented through diet and exercise. Avoiding sugar (and processed fructose in particular) is imperative for preventing insulin/leptin resistance. Exercise is also important for normalizing your insulin and leptin sensitivity.

I’ve often said that lifestyle changes can be just as, if not more, effective than drugs, and studies have repeatedly confirmed this view. Most recently, a meta-analysis published in Diabetologia13 found that diet and exercise lowers blood sugar levels and prevents diabetes in pre-diabetics as effectively as diabetic medications in both genders. As reported by MedicineNet.com:14

“The researchers reviewed data from more than 7,400 women and 5,500 men in 12 studies. Men and women with prediabetes who made lifestyle changes were 40 percent less likely to progress to diabetes after one year, and 37 percent less likely to progress after three years, compared to those who did not make lifestyle changes, the study found.

Men and women with prediabetes who made lifestyle changes also lost more weight and had greater reductions in blood sugar levels, the researchers said... ‘Clinically, these findings highlight an important issue.

Despite differences in age of onset, detection and burden of type 2 diabetes between men and women, the effectiveness of preventive interventions in people with prediabetes is not influenced by gender,’ the researchers explained...”

The Importance of Magnesium for Glucose and Insulin Balance

Magnesium deficiency is also worth mentioning, as it plays an important role in glucose and insulin homeostasis.15 Magnesium is also required to activate tyrosine kinase, an enzyme that functions as an “on” or “off” switch in many cellular functions and is required for the proper function of your insulin receptors. Studies,16,17,18 from around the world universally agree that  in order to optimize your metabolism and keep your risk for type 2 diabetes low, you need to consume adequate magnesium.

One 2013 study involving pre-diabetics found that most had inadequate magnesium intake, and those with the highest magnesium intake reduced their risk for blood sugar and metabolic problems by a whopping 71 percent.19 Current government guidelines for magnesium intake among adults call for 300 to 420 mg per day,7 but research suggests many would benefit from a much higher intake—about 700 mg per day or more.

Type 3 Diabetes, or ‘Brain Diabetes,’ May Be Responsible for Alzheimer’s Disease

A growing body of research suggests there’s a powerful connection between your diet and your risk of Alzheimer's disease20 via similar pathways that cause type 2 diabetes. Alzheimer's disease was tentatively dubbed "type 3 diabetes" in early 2005 when researchers learned that, in addition to the pancreas, your brain also produces insulin. This brain insulin is actually necessary for the survival of your brain cells.

A drop in insulin production in your brain may contribute to the degeneration of your brain cells, and studies have found that people with lower levels of insulin and insulin receptors in their brain often have Alzheimer's disease. Researchers have discovered that insulin actually does far more than regulate your blood sugar. It also helps with neuron glucose-uptake, and the regulation of neurotransmitters like acetylcholine, which are crucial for memory and learning. This is why reducing the level of insulin in your brain impairs your cognition.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the same pathological process that leads to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes may also hold true for your brain. As you over-indulge on sugar and grains, your brain becomes overwhelmed by the consistently high levels of glucose and insulin that blunts its insulin signaling, leading to impairments in your thinking and memory abilities, eventually causing permanent brain damage.

Additionally, when your liver is busy processing fructose (which your liver turns into fat), it severely hampers its ability to make cholesterol, an essential building block of your brain that is crucial for optimal brain function. Indeed, mounting evidence supports the notion that significantly reducing fructose consumption is a very important step you can take to prevent Alzheimer's disease.

Prevention and Treatment Guidelines

It’s becoming quite clear that to protect your brain and prevent cognitive decline, it’s important to address any underlying insulin/leptin resistance and/or type 2 diabetes. Fortunately, type 2 diabetes is curable, and in the vast majority of cases does not require any form of medication. The following nutrition and lifestyle modifications should be the foundation of your diabetes prevention and treatment plan. 

Also, make sure to monitor your FASTING insulin level. This is every bit as important as monitoring your fasting blood sugar. You'll want your fasting insulin level to be between 2 and 4. The higher your level, the greater your insulin resistance and the more aggressive you need to be in your treatment plan, especially when it comes to altering your diet.

  • Swap out processed foods, all forms of sugar—particularly fructose—as well as all grains, for whole, fresh food. A primary reason for the failure of conventional diabetes treatment over the last 50 years has to do with seriously flawed dietary recommendations. Refined fructose, grains, and other sugar forming starchy carbohydrates are largely responsible for your body's adverse insulin reactions, and all sugars and grains—even "healthful" grains such as whole, organic ones—need to be drastically reduced.
  • If you’re insulin/leptin resistant, have diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, or are overweight, you’d be wise to limit your total fructose intake to 15 grams per day until your insulin/leptin resistance has resolved. This includes about 80 percent of Americans. For all others, I recommend limiting your daily fructose consumption to 25 grams or less, to maintain optimal health.

    The easiest way to accomplish this is by swapping processed foods for whole, ideally organic foods. This means cooking from scratch with fresh ingredients. Processed foods are the main source of all the primary culprits, including high fructose corn syrup and other sugars, processed grains, trans fats, artificial sweeteners, and other synthetic additives that may aggravate metabolic dysfunction.

    Besides fructose, trans fat (NOT saturated fat) increases your risk for diabetes21 by interfering with your insulin receptors. Recent research22,23 also demonstrates that trans fat has a distinct adverse impact on memory, courtesy of the oxidative stress and brain inflammation these fats produce.

    Healthy saturated fats do not have any of these adverse effects on your health. Since you’re cutting out a lot of energy (carbs) from your diet when you reduce sugars and grains, you need to replace them with something. The ideal replacement is a combination of:

    • Low-to-moderate amount of high-quality protein. Substantial amounts of protein can be found in meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, legumes, and nuts. When selecting animal-based protein, be sure to opt for organically raised, grass-fed or pastured meats, eggs, and dairy, to avoid potential health complications caused by genetically engineered animal feed and pesticides.
    • Most Americans eat far too much protein, so be mindful of the amount. I believe it is the rare person who really needs more than one-half gram of protein per pound of lean body mass. Those that are aggressively exercising or competing and pregnant women should have about 25 percent more, but most people rarely need more than 40-70 grams of protein a day.

      To determine your lean body mass, find out your percent body fat and subtract from 100. This means that if you have 20 percent body fat, you have 80 percent lean body mass. Just multiply that by your current weight to get your lean body mass in pounds or kilos. To determine whether you’re getting too much protein, simply calculate your lean body mass as described above, then write down everything you’re eating for a few days, and calculate the amount of daily protein from all sources.

      Again, you’re aiming for one-half gram of protein per pound of lean body mass, which would place most people in the range of 40 to 70 grams of protein per day. If you’re currently averaging a lot more than that, adjust downward accordingly. You could use the chart below or simply Google the food you want to know and you will quickly find the grams of protein in the food.

      Red meat, pork, poultry, and seafood average 6-9 grams of protein per ounce.

      An ideal amount for most people would be a 3-ounce serving of meat or seafood (not 9- or 12-ounce steaks!), which will provide about 18-27 grams of protein
      Eggs contain about 6-8 grams of protein per egg. So an omelet made from two eggs would give you about 12-16 grams of protein.

      If you add cheese, you need to calculate that protein in as well (check the label of your cheese)
      Seeds and nuts contain on average 4-8 grams of protein per quarter cupCooked beans average about 7-8 grams per half cup
      Cooked grains average 5-7 grams per cupMost vegetables contain about 1-2 grams of protein per ounce
    • As much high-quality healthy fat as you want (saturated24 and monounsaturated). For optimal health, most people need upwards of 50-85 percent of their daily calories in the form of healthy fats. Good sources include coconut and coconut oil, avocados, butter, nuts, and animal fats. (Remember, fat is high in calories while being small in terms of volume. So when you look at your plate, the largest portion would be vegetables.)
    • As many non-starchy vegetables as you want
  • Exercise regularly and intensely. Studies have shown that exercise, even without weight loss, increases insulin sensitivity.25 High intensity interval training (HIIT), which is a central component of my Peak Fitness program, has been shown to improve insulin sensitivity by as much as 24 percent in just four weeks. Exercise also prompts nerve cells to release brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which triggers other chemicals that promote neural health, and directly benefits cognitive functions, including learning. A number of studies have also shown that exercise can promote growth of new brain cells, enlarge your memory center, improve IQ scores, and help prevent brain deterioration associated with aging.
  • Improve your omega-3 to omega-6 ratio. Today’s Western diet has far too many processed and damaged omega-6 fats, and is far too little omega-3 fats.26 The main sources of omega-6 fats are corn, soy, canola, safflower, peanut, and sunflower oil (the first two of which are typically genetically engineered as well, which further complicates matters). Our bodies evolved for an optimal of approximately 1:1 ratio of omega-6 to omega-3. 
  • However, our ratio has deteriorated to between 20:1 and 50:1 in favor of omega-6. This lopsided ratio has seriously adverse health consequences.  To remedy this, reduce your consumption of vegetable oils (this means not cooking with them, and avoiding processed foods), and increase your intake of animal-based omega-3, such as krill oil. Vegetable-based omega-3 is also found in flaxseed oil and walnut oil, and it’s good to include these in your diet as well. Just know they cannot take the place of animal-based omega-3s.

  • Maintain optimal vitamin D levels year-round. New evidence strongly supports the notion that vitamin D is highly beneficial for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Recent research has also confirmed the link between vitamin D deficiency and dementia. The ideal way to optimize your vitamin D level is by getting regular sun exposure, or by using a tanning bed. As a last resort, consider oral supplementation with regular vitamin D monitoring, to confirm that you are taking enough vitamin D to get your blood levels into the therapeutic range of 50-70 ng/ml. Also please note that if you take supplemental vitamin D, you create an increased demand for vitamin K2 and magnesium.
  • Get adequate high-quality sleep every night. Insufficient sleep appears to raise stress and blood sugar, encouraging insulin and leptin resistance and weight gain. In one 10-year-long study27 of 70,000 diabetes-free women, researchers found that women who slept less than five hours or more than nine hours each night were 34 percent more likely to develop diabetes symptoms than women who slept seven to eight hours each night.
  • Sleep loss has also been linked to severe brain damage. Sleep is actually necessary for maintaining metabolic homeostasis in your brain, and without sufficient sleep, neuron degeneration sets in. Sleep deprivation causes disruption of certain synaptic connections that can impair your brain's ability for learning, memory formation, and other cognitive functions. It also accelerates onset of Alzheimer's disease. If you are having problems with your sleep, try the suggestions in my article “33 Secrets to a Good Night’s Sleep.”

  • Maintain a healthy body weight. If you incorporate the diet and lifestyle changes suggested above you will greatly improve your insulin and leptin sensitivity, and a healthy body weight will follow in time. Determining your ideal body weight depends on a variety of factors, including frame size, age, activity level, and genetics. As a general guideline, you might find a hip-to-waist size index chart helpful. This is far better than BMI for evaluating whether or not you may have a weight problem, as BMI fails to factor in both how muscular you are, and your intra-abdominal fat mass (the dangerous visceral fat that accumulates around your inner organs), which is a potent indicator of leptin sensitivity and associated health problems.
  • Incorporate intermittent fasting. If you have carefully followed the diet and exercise guidelines and still aren’t making sufficient progress with your weight or overall health, I strongly recommend incorporating intermittent fasting. It’s by far the most effective way I know of to shed unwanted fat, resolve insulin resistance, and eliminate your sugar cravings. Intermittent fasting has also been identified as a potent ally for the prevention and perhaps even treatment of dementia. Ketones are released as a byproduct of burning fat, and ketones (not glucose) are actually the preferred fuel for your brain. Keep up your intermittent fasting schedule until your insulin/leptin resistance improves (or your weight, blood pressure, cholesterol ratios, or diabetes normalizes). After that, you only need to do it “as needed” to maintain your healthy state.
  • Optimize your gut health. Your gut is a living ecosystem, full of both good bacteria and bad. Multiple studies have shown that obese people have different intestinal bacteria than lean people. The more good bacteria you have, the stronger your immune system will be and the better your body will function overall. Gut bacteria has been found to affect your brain function, and play a role in the development of diabetes as well. Fortunately, optimizing your gut flora is relatively easy. You can reseed your body with good bacteria by regularly eating fermented foods (like natto, raw organic cheese, miso, and cultured vegetables) or by taking a high-quality probiotic supplement.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Dangerous Loophole in Law Permits Food Companies to Market Novel Chemicals Without Safety Disclosures

By Dr. Mercola

The fact that processed foods contain added ingredients that aren't necessarily food isn't secret knowledge. A simple read-through of just about any processed food label will tip you off to this fact with its listing of impossible-to-pronounce chemicals.

Many of these additives have questionable safety profiles, or none at all, since only a small percentage has ever been properly tested. This situation has become the norm courtesy of a regulatory system that favors industry profitability over public health and safety. This too is a well-known fact by many.

What may come as a complete shock, however, is that companies are allowed to add chemicals to their food without disclosing what they are to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or having to prove their safety before putting them into use.

All they have to do is have their expert evaluate it on their terms. There is no independent third party objective evaluation. This is reprehensibly irresponsible on the part of governmental agencies that are assigned the task of looking out for our health. According to EcoWatch:1

"As long as a company designates a chemical as being 'generally recognized as safe,' or GRAS in regulatory parlance, according to FDA's interpretation of the law, it has no responsibility to inform the agency. FDA doesn't know about the safety of an estimated 1,000 chemicals because they aren't disclosed."

GRAS: Generally Recognized as Secret

Crazy as it may seem, food additives are not automatically required to get premarket approval by the FDA.2 Certain items that fall under the "generally recognized as safe" or GRAS designation, are exempt from the approval process.

According to the GRAS Notification Program, substances that are "generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate their safety as having been adequately shown... to be safe under the conditions of their intended use," are excluded, and do not require FDA approval. 

When the 1958 Food Additives Amendment was enacted, the exclusion of GRAS items from the formal FDA approval process for food additives was meant to apply to common food ingredients such as vinegar, i.e. items known through their historical use as being safe. Nowadays, however, countless manufactured ingredients end up slipping through this loophole.

A company can simply hire an industry insider—a completely conflicted "expert"—to evaluate the chemical, and if that individual determines that the chemical meets federal safety standards, it can be deemed GRAS without any involvement from the FDA. As noted in the NRDC's report,3 "Generally Recognized as Secret: Chemicals Added to Food in the United States:"

"A chemical additive cannot be 'generally recognized as safe' if its identity, chemical composition, and safety determination are not publicly disclosed. If the FDA does not know the identity of these chemicals and does not have documentation showing that they are safe to use in food, it cannot do its job."

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)4 identified 56 food companies that rely on "undisclosed GRAS safety determinations" for 275 chemicals used in their products. Of these companies, 62 percent responded to the NRDC's request for information about the chemicals, but none of them shared their safety information.

The remainder did not respond at all.

Loopholes Turn Food Safety Into a House of Cards

In an effort to stay on top of the situation, the FDA has created a voluntary program that asks food companies to submit their safety assessments for FDA review. If the agency cannot find any major problems with the company's argument for GRAS status, a "no questions" letter is sent to the company.

However, if questions about safety are raised by FDA scientists, the company can simply withdraw its voluntary submission, and go on using the chemical as if nothing has happened.  

This legal loophole in the law allows food manufacturers to market novel chemicals in their products based on nothing but their own safety studies, and their own safety assessments—the results of which can be kept a secret.

The dangers inherent in such an "honor system" are obvious, as the food industry isn't well-recognized for placing consumers' long-term health above profits. As reported by the Washington Post:5

"The FDA said that although the law allows for food manufacturers to make their own safety determinations, the agency 'encourages companies to consult with the agency when developing new ingredients.' Ultimately, the FDA said, manufacturers 'are responsible for ensuring that their food products are safe and lawful.'

NRDC said that Food Additives Amendment of 1958 was enacted, the GRAS process was meant to apply to innocuous additives like vinegar. Instead, it is commonly used for chemicals that are potentially dangerous and have never before been in the American food supply.

For example, until recently, artificial trans fats were considered GRAS but the FDA has now deemed them dangerous, saying they cause as many as 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year."

Take Action: Tell the FDA to Put an End to Secret GRAS Determinations

The NRDC has created an action page,6 asking the FDA to take appropriate action to put an end to food companies' right to make chemicals' safety decisions in secret. I encourage you to sign the petition, which will be sent to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.

"It's up to the Food and Drug Administration to protect the public's health from unsafe chemicals added to food. But as long as companies are allowed to make chemicals' safety decisions in secret, the agency cannot ensure food is safe.

Letting industry decide for themselves that chemicals are 'generally recognized as safe' (GRAS) without notifying FDA or the public is unacceptable, especially for new additives," the NRDC writes."Consumers should demand that their grocery stores and their favorite brands sell only food products with ingredients that the FDA has found safe, and ask the FDA and Congress to make the necessary changes."

The Dangers of a Processed Food Diet Are Many

As discussed in the featured video above, the food industry has dramatically altered our diet, and these changes directly affect your weight and overall health. A large part of the problem stems from the processes used to manufacture the food, as food processing destroys valuable nutrients. It also removes much of the food's original flavor.

One example is pasteurization, which effectively sterilizes the food. Gone are all the beneficial microorganisms naturally found in raw milk, yoghurt, and cheese for example. Food irradiation is another example. Eating what amounts to a sterile diet has dramatic ramifications for your health as it alters your gut flora, allowing potentially pathogenic microorganisms to take over the terrain.

To counteract the problem of lost nutrients and flavor, synthetic nutrients and flavorings are added back into the processed food. In fact, popular junk foods owe their market shares to the complex flavor science used to optimize the addictive nature and "craveability" of these products.7 Few if any of these added chemicals serve any beneficial function in your body. On the contrary, they oftentimes tend to wreak metabolic havoc, as your body doesn't quite know what to do with them.

Another factor that makes processed foods the antithesis of a healthy diet is the excessive use of refined sugar and/or processed fructose from corn. If you become an avid label reader, you'll soon realize that virtually every processed food contains sugar—including commercial infant formula and baby food! One 2009 survey of more than 100 foods for babies and toddlers found examples that contained as much as 29 percent sugar! Others contained trans fat.

Obesity Sets the Stage for Chronic Poor Health

When your child is raised on sugar, harmful fats, and any number of synthetic chemicals, health problems are sure to follow. Obesity typically comes first, which then sets the stage for a wide variety of chronic diseases, including:

Diabetes, which can lead to a whole host of other medical issues Congestive heart failure, a condition in which your heart can't pump enough blood to your body's other organs
Pulmonary embolism, a potentially fatal blockage of an artery Fatty liver disease, in which large pockets of fat accumulate in your liver cells
Osteoarthritis Gout, caused by uric acid accumulation in your blood
Gallbladder disease, resulting from high blood cholesterol levels, which can cause gall stones Cancer, particularly estrogen-sensitive cancers like breast cancer

Americans also have to contend with the fact that a vast majority of corn-based fructose is genetically engineered and heavily contaminated with the toxic herbicide glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup). Experts like Dr. Don Huber strongly believe that glyphosate is actually more toxic than DDT. Compelling evidence now suggests that glyphosate residues, found in most commonly consumed foods in the Western diet courtesy of GE sugar, corn, and soy, enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease. Glyphosate also severely disrupts your gut flora, thereby further exacerbating metabolic havoc and poor health. 

Ditching Processed Foods Is the Answer

Eating fresh, whole foods is the "secret" to getting healthier, losing weight, and really enjoying your food, but many have fallen into the mistaken belief that it's next to impossible to create a meal without falling back on processed foods. Bruce Weinstein and Mark Scarbrough tackled this issue head-on in their book Real Food Has Curves: How to Get Off Processed Food, Lose Weight, and Love What You Eat.8 It's a great starting point to relearn the basics of how to prepare real food.

While you may need to invest in a good cookbook, once you get the hang of it, you'll find you can whip up a healthy meal from scratch in the same amount of time it would have taken you to drive down the street to pick up fast food. Sure, finding the time and the money to make healthy meals for your family can be challenging at first, but please don't use that as an excuse to exist on processed food.

Your health -- your energy levels, your appearance, your mood, and so many other factors -- will improve when you eat real food. Returning to a diet of locally grown, fresh whole foods is really the only way to reach optimal health. For a step-by-step guide to make this a reality in your own life, simply follow the advice in my optimized nutrition plan.

Remember, a processed food diet sets the stage for obesity and any number of chronic health issues, including asthma, allergies, and behavioral problems—from hyperactivity to aggression. In fact, many of the top diseases plaguing the United States are diet-related, including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. The answer to these health problems lies not in a pill, but in what you eat every day.

What’s the Real Cause of Heart Attacks?

By Thomas S. Cowan, MD

In a previous article in this journal ("What Causes Heart Attacks," Fall 2007), I presented the case that the spectrum of heart disease, which includes angina, unstable angina, and myocardial infarction (heart attack), is better understood from the perspective of events happening in the myocardium (heart) as opposed to events happening in the coronary arteries (the arteries that supply the heart).

As we all know, the conventional view holds that the central event of heart disease occurs in the arteries, with the buildup of blockage called plaque.

In this follow-up article I will go into more detail about the conventional theory and why it is largely misleading; then I will describe the precise and well documented events that do lead to MIs (myocardial infarctions or heart attacks).

This understanding is crucial since during the last fifty years, the pursuit of the coronary artery theory has cost this nation billions of dollars in unnecessary surgical costs, billions in medications that cause as much harm as allow for any positive benefits, and, most seriously, has led many to adopt a low-fat diet, which only worsens the problem.

Newer twists on this theory only serve to further obscure the real cause. In contrast, by understanding the real patho-physiological events behind the evolution of MIs, we will be led to a proper nourishing traditional style of eating, the use of the safe and inexpensive heart tonic called g-strophanthin.

Most importantly, we will be forced to look at how heart disease is a true manifestation of the stresses of modern civilized life on the core of the human being.

To overcome the epidemic of heart disease, we literally need a new medical paradigm, a new economic system, a new ecological consciousness; in short, a new way of life. The coronary theory misses all of this, just as it misinterprets the actual pathological events.

In writing this article, I am indebted to the work of Dr. Knut Sroka and his website heartattacknew.com. For all interested in this important subject it is advised to read the entire website and watch the video on the website. The video above shows how the collateral circulation nourishes the heart even with a severe blockage of a coronary artery.

For health professionals and researchers, your understanding of this subject is incomplete without reading and studying the two articles found in the print version of the website.

The first is by G. Baroldi, "The Etiopathologies of Coronary Heart Disease: A Heretical Theory Based on Morphology," and the second by K. Sroka, "On the Genesis of Myocardial Ischemia." Both articles are reprinted in full on the website.

Rebuttal of Conventional Theory

Until recently I believed, along with most physicians, that most heart attacks were caused by the progressive blockage caused by plaque buildup in the four major coronary arteries leading to the heart.

These plaques were thought to be composed of cholesterol that built up in the arterial lumen (inside of the vessel), which eventually cut off blood supply to a certain area of the heart, resulting in oxygen deficiency in that area, causing first pain (angina), then progressing to ischemia (heart attack).

The simple solution was to unblock the stenosis (the blockages) with either an angioplasty or stent, or, if that was not possible, then bypass this area with coronary bypass grafting (CABG). Simple problem, simple solution.

The problems with this approach became apparent to me through a number of avenues. The first emerged in a story related by the head of cardiology during a northern California heart symposium at which I was a speaker. He told us that during his residency he was part of a trial conducted in rural Alabama on black men.

In this trial, they did angiograms (injecting dye into the coronary arteries to detect blockages) on all the men presenting with chest pains. For the ones who had a single artery blocked, they did no interventions, only noting which part of the heart would have a subsequent heart attack if one occurred.

Of course, they all predicted it would be in the part of the heart supplied by that particular coronary artery. Then they waited. Eventually, many did return and did have heart attacks, but to the researchers' surprise less than ten percent had a heart attack in the area of the heart supplied by the original blocked artery.

This means, of course, that had they performed the usual angioplasty, stent, or bypass on that artery, the patient would have received no benefit. The second occurrence that helped change my mind was the publication in 2003 of a large study conducted by the Mayo Clinic on the efficacy of bypass surgeries, stents, and angioplasty.1

The study concluded that bypass surgery does relieve symptoms (chest pain); that bypass surgery does not prevent further heart attacks; and that only high risk patients benefit from bypass surgery with regard to a better chance of survival. In other words, the gold standard for treating arterial blockages provides at best only minimal benefits.

If you watch the video on www.heartattacknew.com and go to the FAQ called "The Riddle's Solution," it becomes clear why this is so. Large stable blockages, that is, sites that are over 90 percent blocked, in almost all cases compensate for the blockage by developing collateral or additional new blood vessels.

In fact, the view that the four coronary arteries supply all the blood to the heart is completely wrong. Starting soon after birth, the normal heart develops an extensive network of small blood vessels called collateral vessels that eventually compensate for the interruption of flow in any one (or more) of the major vessels.

As Sroka correctly points out in the above video, coronary angiograms fail to show the collateral circulation; furthermore the procedure creates spasms in the coronary arteries through the injection of heavy dye under high pressure. Thus, coronary angiograms are notoriously inaccurate at assessing the amount of stenosis in the vessels as well as the true blood flow in the heart.

To this day, most of the bypasses, stents, and angioplasties are performed on minimally symptomatic patients who show a greater than 90 percent blockage in one or more coronary artery. These arteries are almost always fully collateralized; it is not the surgery that restores blood flow, because the body has already done its own bypass.

If tests found a major coronary artery 90 percent blocked, with only 10 percent flow "squeezing through the bottleneck," how could you possibly still be alive if you did not have collateral blood vessels? And are we really to believe that the decisive thing that will cause the eventual heart attack is when the stenosis goes from 93 percent to 98 percent?

This is an insignificant difference, and the premise that this small increase will cause a heart attack is completely nonsensical. Yet this is what most of the procedures are meant to accomplish, to unblock the stenosis, which as the video on heartattacknew.com shows, does not actually improve blood flow.

It is no wonder that in study after study, these procedures fail to provide any significant benefit to the patients. For these reasons, conventional cardiology is abandoning the stable plaque model in favor of a different model for the etiology of heart attacks one that, as it turns out, is equally invalid.

Meet the Unstable Plaque

We can now all agree that the entire focus of cardiology—upon the stable, progressing calcified plaque: the thing we bypassed and stented for years, the thing we do CT scans of arteries for, the thing they told us is created from cholesterol buildup in arteries, the thing "alternative cardiology" like the Ornish program focused on eliminating—all this is not so important after all.

Don't worry, though, say the "experts," we know it must be the arteries, so let's introduce another concept—drum roll—that of unstable or friable plaque. This insidious scoundrel can attack at any time in any person, even when there is no large blockage. That's because these soft, "foamy" plaques can, under certain situations (we don't know which situations), rapidly evolve and abruptly close off the involved artery, creating an oxygen deficit downstream, with subsequent angina and then ischemia.

These soft plaques are thought to be the result of a combination of inflammatory "buildup" and LDL-cholesterol, the exact two components that are targeted by statin drugs. Therefore, since unstable plaque can come loose at any time, everyone should be on statin drugs to prevent this unfortunate occurrence. Some spokesmen have even suggested putting therapeutic doses of statins in the municipal water supplies.

Defendants of this theory point to angiogram studies that show the changes in these unstable plaques, claiming them as proof that unstable plaque is the true cause of the majority of MIs. As I will show, this acute thrombosis does happen in patients having heart attacks, but it is a consequence, not the cause of the MI. What can pathology reports—as opposed to angiography studies—tell us about the role of unstable plaque in heart attacks?

After all, pathology reports are the only accurate way of determining what actually happened during a heart attack, as opposed to angiograms, which are misleading and difficult to read. The first major autopsy study of patients dying of heart attack was carried out in Heidelberg in the 1970s.2 The study found that sufficient thrombosis to cause the heart attack was found in only twenty percent of cases.

The largest such study found sufficient thrombosis in only 41 percent of cases.3 The author, Baroldi, also found that the larger the area of the heart attack, the more often the pathology report found stenosis; in addition, the longer the time between heart attack and the death of the patient, the higher the percentage of stenosis. Some researchers have used these two facts to "cherry-pick" the numbers and make the stenosis rate seem high by studying only those with large MIs and those who live the longest after the heart attack event.

Another observation that puts into doubt the relevance of the coronary artery theory of heart attack is the fact that the proposed etiological mechanism of how thrombosed arteries cause ischemia is through cutting off the blood supply and thereby the oxygen supply to the tissues. To the enormous surprise of many investigators, the reality is that when careful measurements are done assessing the oxygen level of the myocardial cells, there is no oxygen deficit ever shown in an evolving heart attack I.4 The oxygen levels (measured as pO2) do not change at all throughout the entire event. I will come back to this fact later when I describe what does change in every evolving MI ever studied.

Again, the question must be asked: if this theory is predicated on the lowering of the oxygen levels in the myocardial cells when in fact the oxygen levels don't change, then what exactly does happen? The conclusion is that while thrombosis associated with MI is a real phenomenon, it does not occur in more than 50 percent of cases—which leads to the question: why do the other 50 percent, those without an occlusion in the coronary arteries, even have an heart attack?

Second, it is clear from all pathology studies that thromboses of significant degrees evolve after the heart attack occurs, again leading to the question: what causes the heart attack in the first place? The fact that thrombosis does occur after a heart attack also explains why emergency procedures—remember, the only patients who benefit from bypass and stents are critical, acute patients—can be helpful immediately post-heart attack I to restore flow in those patients who do not have adequate collateral circulation to that part of their heart. So again, all the existing theories as to the relevance of the coronary arteries in the evolution of the heart attack are fraught with inconsistencies. If this is so, what then does cause heart attacks?

The Etiology of Myocardial Ischemia

Any theory as to what causes myocardial ischemia must account for some consistent observations over the past fifty years. The most consistent risk factors for a person having heart disease are male sex, diabetes, cigarette use and psychological or emotional stress. Interestingly, in none of these is there a direct link to pathology of the coronary arteries—diabetes and cigarette use cause disease in the capillaries, not, as far as we know, in the large arteries. Also, we have learned over the past decades that the four main medicines of modern cardiology—beta-blockers, nitrates, aspirin, and statin drugs—all provide some benefits for heart patients (albeit all with serious drawbacks as well) and this observation must be accounted for in any comprehensive theory of myocardial ischemia.

Heart Rate Variability

The real revolution in the prevention and treatment of heart disease will come with increased understanding of the role played by the autonomic nervous system in the genesis of ischemia and its measurement through the tool of heart rate variability (HRV). We have two distinct nervous systems: the first, the central nervous system (CNS), controls conscious functions such as muscle and nerve function; the second nervous system, the autonomic (or unconscious) nervous system (ANS), controls the function of our internal organs.

The autonomic nervous system is divided into two branches, which in a healthy person are always in a balanced yet ready state. The sympathetic or "fight-or-flight" system is centered in our adrenal medulla; it uses the chemical adrenaline as its chemical transmission device and tells our bodies there is danger afoot; time to activate and run. It does so by activating a series of biochemical responses, the centerpiece of which are the glycolytic pathways, which accelerate the breakdown of glucose to be used as quick energy as we make our escape from the bear chasing us.

In contrast, the parasympathetic branch, centered in the adrenal cortex, uses the neurotransmitters acetylcholine (ACh), nitric oxide (NO), and cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) as its chemical mediators; this is the "rest-and-digest" arm of the autonomic nervous system. The particular nerve of the parasympathetic chain that supplies the heart with nervous activity is called the vagus nerve; it slows and relaxes the heart, whereas the sympathetic branches accelerate and constrict the heart. I believe it can be shown that an imbalance in these two branches is responsible for the vast majority of heart disease.

Using the techniques of heart rate variability (HRV) monitoring, which gives a real time accurate depiction of autonomic nervous system status, researchers have shown in multiple studies5 that patients with ischemic heart disease have on average a reduction of parasympathetic activity of over one-third. Typically, the worse the ischemia, the lower the parasympathetic activity.6 Furthermore about 80 percent of ischemic events are preceded by a significant, often drastic, reduction in parasympathetic activity.7

By contrast, those with normal parasympathetic activity, who experience an abrupt increase in sympathetic activity (such as physical activity or an emotional shock), never suffer from ischemia.

In other words, without a preceding decrease in parasympathetic activity, activation of the sympathetic nervous system does not lead to MI.8 Presumably we are meant to experience times of excess sympathetic activity; this is normal life, with its challenges and disappointments. These shocks only become dangerous to our health in the face of an ongoing, persistent decrease in our parasympathetic, or life-restoring, activity. The decrease in parasympathetic activity is mediated by the three chemical transmitters of the parasympathetic nervous system: acetylcholine, NO, and cGMP. It is fascinating to note that women have stronger vagal activity than men, probably accounting for the sex difference in the incidence of MI.9

Hypertension causes a decrease in vagal activity,10 smoking causes a decrease in vagal activity,11 diabetes causes a decrease in vagal activity,12 and physical and emotional stress cause a decrease in parasympathetic activity.13 Thus, all the significant risk factors suppress the regenerative nervous system activity in our heart. On the other hand, the main drugs used in cardiology upregulate the parasympathetic nervous system.

Nitrates stimulate NO production while aspirin and statin drugs also stimulate the production of ACh along with NO—that is, until they cause a rebound decrease in these substances which then makes the parasympathetic activity even worse. Beta-blockers work by blocking the activity of the sympathetic nervous system, the increase of which is a central factor in the etiology of MI. The bottom line: the risk factors for heart disease and the interventions used all affect the balance in our ANS; whatever effects they may have on plaque and stenosis is of minor relevance.

How Heart Attacks Occur

So what is the sequence of events that leads to a heart attack? First comes a decrease in the tonic, healing activity of the parasympathetic nervous system—in the vast majority of cases the pathology for heart attack will not proceed unless this condition is met. Think of the person who is always pushing himself, who never takes time out, who has no hobbies, who constantly stimulates the adrenal cortex with caffeine or sugar, who does not nourish himself with real food and good fats, and who does not incorporate a regular pattern of eating and sleeping into his daily life.

Then comes an increase in the sympathetic nervous system activity, usually a physical or emotional stressor. This increase in sympathetic activity cannot be balanced because of chronic parasympathetic suppression. The result is an uncontrolled increase of adrenaline, which directs the myocardial cells to break down glucose using aerobic glycolysis. Remember that in a heart attack, there is no change in blood flow as measured by the p02 in the cells. This step shunts the metabolism of the heart away from its preferred and most efficient fuel sources, which are ketones and fatty acids.

This explains why heart patients often feel tired before their events. This also explains why a diet liberal in fat and low in sugar is crucial for heart health. As a result of the sympathetic increase and resulting glycolysis, a dramatic increase in lactic acid production occurs in the myocardial cells; this happens in virtually one hundred percent of heart attacks, with no coronary artery mechanism required.14, 15 As a result of the increase in lactic acid in the myocardial cells, a localized acidosis occurs. This acidosis prevents calcium from entering the cells,16 making the cells less able to contract.

This inability to contract causes localized edema (swelling), dysfunction of the walls of the heart (hypokinesis, which is the hallmark of ischemic disease as seen on stress echoes and nuclear thallium stress tests), and eventually necrosis of the tissue—in other words, a heart attack. The localized tissue edema also alters the hemo-dynamics of the arteries embedded in that section of the heart, resulting in shear pressure, which causes the unstable plaques to rupture, further block the artery, and worsen the hemodynamics in that area of the heart.

Please note that this explanation alone explains why plaques rupture, what their role in the heart attack process is, and why they should indeed be addressed. Notice also that this explanation accounts for all the observable phenomena associated with heart disease and is substantiated by years of research. It could not be clearer as to the true origin of this epidemic of heart disease.

Nourishing the Parasympathetic Nervous System

If heart disease is fundamentally caused by a deficiency in the parasympathetic nervous system, then the solution is obviously to nurture and protect that system, which is the same as saying we should nurture and protect ourselves. Nourishing our parasympathetic nervous system is basically the same as dismantling a way of life for which humans are ill-suited. This means avoiding the excesses of industrial civilization. The known things that nourish our parasympathetic nervous system are contact with nature, loving relations, trust, economic security (a hallmark of indigenous peoples the world over) and sex—this is a whole new world of therapy for ailing hearts.

The medicine that supports all aspects of the parasympathetic nervous system is an extract from the strophanthus plant called ouabain or g-strophanthin. G-strophanthin is an endogenous (made within us) hormone manufactured in our adrenal cortex from cholesterol and therefore inhibited by statin drugs.

G-strophanthin does two things that are crucial in this process—two actions provided by no other known medicine. First, it stimulates the production and liberation of ACh, the main neurotransmitter of the parasympathetic nervous system; secondly, and crucially, it converts lactic acid—the main metabolic culprit in this process—into pyruvate, one of the main and preferred fuels of the myocardial cells. In other words, it converts the central poison in this process into a nutrient.

This may be what is meant in Chinese medicine when they say that the kidneys (that is, the adrenal glands, where ouabain is made) nourish the heart. In my many years of using ouabain, I have not had a single patient have an MI while taking it. It is truly a gift to the heart. Of course, I put all my patients on a WAPF-style heart-healthy diet, loaded with healthy fats and fat-soluble nutrients, and low in the processed carbs and sugars that are the hallmark of industrial, civilized life. There are homeopathic versions of strophanthus available, which could be used. Another option that is effective but not ideal is an extract of the plant. The drawback is that the amount of ouabain is unknown.

Reprinted with kind permission of the Townsend Letter, www.townsendletter.com.

About the Author

Dr. Cowan has served as vice president of the Physicians Association for Anthroposophical Medicine and is a founding board member of the Weston A. Price Foundation. He is the principal author of The Fourfold Path to Healing and is co-author of The Nourishing Traditions Book of Baby and Child Care. Dr. Cowan lectures throughout the United States and Canada. Dr. Cowan is completing a book on the human heart that will be published by Chelsea Green Publishing in 2015.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Prairies Vanishing in the US Amid Push for Corn Ethanol-Based Energy

By Dr. Mercola

The US boasted nearly 92 million acres of corn crops in 2014 – the fifth largest corn acreage in the US since 1944 (and 93 percent of it is genetically modified).1

For comparison, total acreage of lettuce planted in 2012 was 267,100 acres,2 broccoli was harvested from just 121,700 acres,3 and bell peppers were grown on about 55,500 acres.4

What could the US possibly do with that much corn? It’s far too much for making corn on the cob and popcorn, and even for feeding livestock (although the latter is still a major use for US-grown corn).

The number one use for corn from 2010-2012 was actually not for food at all, but rather for fuel. The US green energy policy requires oil companies to blend corn ethanol into their gasoline, which has driven up corn prices (until this year). An absolutely tragic environmental blunder.

Corn crops are already subsidized by the US government, so between subsidies and rising ethanol-driven prices, corn has become quite a cash crop for farmers. But this “green energy” program is backfiring, because there’s nothing “green” about planting an absolutely unnecessary surplus of corn, especially when natural prairies are being sacrificed.

Farmers Sacrifice Natural Prairies to Grown Corn for Ethanol

Since the US government began requiring its shortsighted, industry-influenced ethanol in fuel in 2007, more than 1.2 million acres of grassland have been lost to corn (and soy) crops. This includes:5

  • At least 830,000 acres of grassland in Nebraska
  • More than 370,000 acres of grassland in South Dakota

The ethanol fuel program was designed to reduce global warming but, ironically, the loss of grasslands is poised to do just the opposite. Plowing up native grasslands to plant vast expanses of corn and soy – the epitome of monoculture -- releases carbon dioxide into the environment while increasing erosion and the use of toxic fertilizers and other chemicals. It also destroys habitat for native plants and wildlife.

Monoculture also was largely responsible for creating the Dust Storm of the early 1900s, as wiping out the natural grasslands of the Plains to plant unprecedented amounts of wheat disrupted the entire ecosystem of the region, with disastrous consequences.

It seems we have learned little from our recent past, as today, soil is actually depleting 13% faster than it can be replaced, and we’ve lost 75% of the world's crop varieties in just the last 100 years.

Ethanol’s ‘Broken Promise’

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a report titled “Ethanol’s Broken Promise,” which shows quite clearly that corn ethanol might be worse for the environment than gasoline.6

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has actually proposed cutting the amount of corn ethanol blended into gasoline in 2014 by 1.39 billion gallons, a move EWG says would lower US greenhouse gas emissions by 3 million tons of carbon monoxide, an amount equivalent to taking 580,000 cars off the road for one year. According to EWG:7

“It is now clear that the federal corn ethanol mandate has driven up food prices, strained agricultural markets, increased competition for arable land and promoted conversion of uncultivated land to grow crops. In addition, previous estimates have dramatically underestimated corn ethanol’s greenhouse gas emissions by failing to account for changes in land use.”

4 Myths the Ethanol Industry Wants You to Believe

Myth 1: Ethanol Doesn’t Increase Corn Prices

Scientists from the National Academies revealed that using so much corn for ethanol increased the price of corn by 20 to 40 percent between 2007 and 2009 (which is partly why anti-hunger organizations are angry about corn ethanol).

Myth 2: Corn Increases Yields Infinitely

Corn cannot magically increase yields indefinitely, as Big Ethanol would like people to believe. In order to increase yields, farmers are plowing up native grasslands to make more room for corn. According to EWG, more than 8 million acres of grassland and wetlands have been converted to corn from 2008 to 2011, which released at least 80 million tons of carbon a year.

Myth 3: Corn Doesn’t Need Water

Estimates showing corn ethanol’s positive influence on the environment failed to take into account the water needed to grow the corn. According to agricultural economists from Purdue University, when corn plants’ water need is taken into account, corn ethanol is worse for the environment than gasoline.

Myth 4: The Global Population Eats Too Much

More than 800 million people around the world don’t have enough to eat, and when corn prices rise, it makes it difficult for even more people to feed their families. Nearly half of the corn grown in the US goes toward fuel, while people are starving around the world…

US Senator Dick Durbin Keeps Pushing Ethanol

US Senator Dick Durbin is a primary pusher of ethanol. In December 2013, he joined a group of Senators to protest the EPA’s proposal to reduce the corn ethanol added to fuel.

He has also been actively working with members of Illinois’ agricultural community and biofuels industry in attempts to promote “investments in the next generation biofuels and the infrastructure necessary to bring those fuels into the market.”8

Senator Durbin went so far as to state that the EPA’s proposed changes “seriously missed the mark,” when in all actuality the changes are necessary to prevent further environmental destruction. The Renewable Fuel Standard, as it stands, requires oil companies to increase ethanol in gasoline from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons in 2022. The amount of corn required to meet this mandate, and the natural habitats that will be further lost to support it, will devastate the environment.

Corn Price Crash Predicted for 2014: Taxpayers Will Pay the Difference

The corn rush may have peaked, as it’s predicted corn prices will drop by 20 percent by yearend.9 However, the 2014 farm bill included new subsidy programs to protect farmers from such drops. The past farm bill would pay out $5 billion a year to farmers, whether assistance was needed or not.

In 2014, agricultural economist Carl Zulauf from Ohio State University estimated that $9.6 billion could be paid out to corn, barley, soybean, rice, wheat, and sorghum producers – double what was paid in 2013 and 53 percent more than the Congressional Budget Office predicted.10 Ultimately, of course, it’s taxpayers who foot the bill.

Arizona Senator Jeff Flake said of the predictions:

“I’m not shocked. The people who should have known better did know better and still we went forward with this. Any dip [in crop prices] is going to mean massive payouts. I hope this shakes people up and hopefully then we can go back in and fix it. This is a bad deal for the taxpayer.”

What we have here is more taxpayer money subsidizing more Monsanto crops (Monsanto developed the GM corn that now dominates the market), which is only increasing now that so much corn is grown. To get an idea of the magnitude of how much money taxpayers are spending to grow corn, consider this from Watchdog.org:11

Since 1995, the government has spent $292.5 billion on agricultural subsidies, $19.2 billion of which have subsidized corn- and soy-hydrogenated oils. Taxpayers spent $84.4 billion on corn production, $8.1 billion of which funded production of corn starch and sweeteners.”

Farmers File Lawsuits as China Rejects GM Corn

One of the reasons why corn prices have plummeted this year has to do with China’s rejection of shipments containing traces of Syngenta’s genetically modified MIR162 corn. MIR162 is approved for use in the US, but China has not allowed it to be imported into the country. Now farmers from five corn-growing states have filed three class-action lawsuits against Syngenta, seeking damages of more than $1 billion. According to the Institute of Science in Society:12

“Syngenta is blamed for destroying the export of US corn to China, which led to depressed prices for domestic corn, according to Volnek Farms, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit filed in Omaha, Nebraska federal court. The two other suits were filed in Iowa and Illinois federal courts. None of the farmers involved in the lawsuits planted MIR162 seed in their fields in Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. But their harvested crop was contaminated with traces of the transgenic trait, and hence unsalable to the Chinese market.”

Of course, at the root of the problem is this: farmers wouldn’t grow these Monsanto crops if they weren’t subsidized, which would pave the way for truly sustainable methods of farming to flourish.

Return to Grasslands to Avoid Environmental Destruction (and Feed the World)

By plowing up grasslands to grow monocrops, we are contributing to environmental destruction and world hunger. One important factor that some experts believe is KEY for reversing environmental devastation is to return much of our land to grasslands and build a network of herbivore economics.

There is no better way to improve the conditions for animals, solve the carbon problem, bring more revenue to farmers, and improve our health by purchasing nutritious foods from properly pastured animals (versus the horrible CAFO model based on the monocultures of corn and soy fed to the animals).

By mimicking the natural behavior of migratory herds of wild grazing animals—meaning allowing livestock to graze freely, and moving the herd around in specific patterns—farmers can support nature's efforts to regenerate and thrive. This kind of land management system promotes the reduction of atmospheric CO2 by sequestering it back into the soil where it can do a lot of good.

Once in the earth, the CO2 can be safely stored for hundreds of years, and adds to the soil's fertility. Returning to more sustainable organic farming methods is also necessary in order to support the regeneration of soils, which, ultimately, dictates how nutritious the food grown in it will be. As noted by anti-poverty activist Alnoor Ladha:13

“We have industrial agriculture that uses 75 percent of the world's resources and only yields 25 percent of the world's food, versus organic farming which provides 75 percent of the world's food while using only 25 percent of the world's resources.”

In order to make food production sustainable, we have to join forces to keep genetically engineered monoculture and pesticide resistant or pesticide producing crops at bay. This is surely not an easy task in light of the financial (and hence political) clout wielded by the chemical technology industry. And yet we must embrace that challenge. The good news is that we don't need to invent yet another chemical or a new piece of farm equipment to solve this problem. We simply need to revert back to a system that works with nature rather than against it. And this involves grazing cattle. My previous article discussing the work of ecologist Allan Savory goes into this process in greater detail.

What Can You Do?

Rebuilding functional ecosystems from the ground up WILL restore them to their fullest potential, and this needs to be our overriding focus. Perhaps you can't do anything about how large-scale commercial farms are being run at the moment, but you can make a difference for yourself, for your family and community that might have residual effects. Buying organic, thereby avoiding any and all GM foods is, I believe, a crucial step. This includes buying grass-fed or pastured animal products, such as beef, chicken, milk, and eggs. Besides that, you can also:

  • Grow your own organic vegetables. Organic gardening isn't something extra you do – in fact it's quite the opposite. It's what you don't do that makes the difference: no chemicals, pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides on your plate! When you take control of what you eat, you'll naturally enjoy better health, ensure and protect future generations.
  • Composting is another way to make what you already have work for you in the future. Save those scraps, from egg shells to coffee filters, and use them to feed your vegetable garden.

When shopping for food, be informed regarding where that food was produced. A guide to help you can be found by clicking here. If you take advantage of the farm-fresh sustainability that's becoming more prevalent as people take control of what they're consuming, you'll realize many benefits. First, you'll know where the foods you and your family eat come from, ensure optimal nutrition, and protect the health of future generations.

I recently named the GMA “the most evil corporation on the planet,” considering the fact that it consists primarily of pesticide producers and junk food manufacturers who are going to great lengths to violate some of your most basic rights—just to ensure that subsidized, genetically engineered and chemical-dependent, highly processed junk food remains the status quo.

The insanity has gone far enough. It’s time to unite and fight back, which is why I encourage you to boycott every single product owned by members of the GMA, including natural and organic brands. To learn more about this boycott, and the traitor brands that are included, please visit TheBoycottList.org.

I also encourage you to donate to the Organic Consumers Fund. Your donation will help fight the GMA lawsuit in Vermont, and also help win the GMO labeling ballot initiative in Oregon in November.

Donate Today!

Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference. By boycotting GMA Member Traitor Brands, you can help level the playing field, and help take back control of our food supply. And as always, continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and share what you’ve learned with family and friends.

GMO’s and CAFO’s Drive Disease Statistics and Destroy Communities

By Dr. Mercola

Genetically engineered (GE) crops and confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) go hand-in-hand, and they are not only driving disease statistics into the stratosphere; they’re also destroying communities.

The promises to contain the waste, disease, and infections that these factory farms create are nothing but wishful thinking. In reality, the toxic waste cannot be contained.

In a very real sense, we’re committing suicide by way of our unsustainable, polluting, degenerative food and agriculture system—a system that is subsidized and paid for by US tax payers,1 through severely broken federal policies.

How CAFOs Destroy Communities

On November 25, the Associated Press2 reported that Missouri approved a new hog-breeding operation near Kingdom City in central Missouri. The farm will be permitted to raise as many as 10,000 hogs on 20 acres.

Neighbors and environmental activists have filed a petition to appeal the permit, on the grounds that inadequate waste management may affect property value3 and quality of life for residents in the surrounding area. According to the featured report:

“The opponents questioned the engineering and waste management plans... [Chief of the operating permits section of the state's Water Protection Program, Chris] Weiberg wrote the state's review could consider only whether a document was submitted that showed the project's design met state regulations.

Under existing regulations, ‘the Department does not examine the adequacy or efficiency of the structural, mechanical or electrical components of the manure system, only adherence to the regulation... [I]ssuance of a permit does not include approval of such features,’ Wieberg wrote.”

A Minnesota town, where residents have gone to great pains to clean up their lake—Lake Hendricks, which was severely polluted by phosphorus, a chemical in commercial fertilizer and animal waste—is also up in arms over the announcement of a new dairy CAFO.

Current plans situate the factory farm in such a way that waste run-off would likely destroy all their hard work. According to the Star Tribune:4

“[T]he operation will produce as much sewage as a city of 657,000 people and operate with less regulation than any similarly sized feedlot in Minnesota. The waste will be held in lagoons situated just 600 feet from Deer Creek, which flows directly into Lake Hendricks, just 4 miles away.

And while the owner plans to inject the effluent into surrounding cropland as fertilizer, similar livestock confinement operations in South Dakota have experienced spills and field runoff capable of polluting rivers and lakes.”

The disregard for human health, animal health, and the environment is part and parcel of what is so wrong with the present system, which focuses on efficiency and cost effectiveness at the expense of just about everything else.

A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words

A recent Business Insider5 article shows aerial photos of factory farms across the US, which reveal, in disgusting detail, how the American countryside is being destroyed by their presence.

At present, 99 percent of food animals in the US are raised in these large-scale feedlots, yet many Americans still do not realize exactly how their food is raised, and all the “hidden” costs associated with cheap food. As noted in the featured article:

“For the last several years, British artist Mishka Henner has collected images of the feedlots via satellite, to document a largely hidden phenomenon. Initially, he was searching satellite imagery to look for oil fields.

When he came across the feedlots, Henner was shocked he didn't know about such a central part of our food production. ‘The feedlots are a brilliant representation of how abstract our food industry has come,’ Henner told Business Insider.

‘It’s an efficient system for extracting the maximum yield from animals. That’s the world we live in now. We want to extract the maximum yield from everything, no matter what business you are in.’

...Thousands of cattle on a small parcel of land produce an exorbitant amount of waste with nitrogen and phosphorus that would render it useless as a fertilizer. With nowhere for the manure to go, farms must create ‘manure lagoons’ — ponds or reservoirs filled with toxic waste...”

Factory Farms Are Major Polluters

All of this toxic waste, which includes antibiotics, pesticides, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, migrates into surrounding lands and groundwater.

For example, in November, at the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, researchers reported6 that the 2013 flooding in Colorado resulted in massive waterway contamination, as antibiotics and microbial drug-resistant genes were flushed far and wide from CAFO waste pools.

In the Netherlands, animal health authorities recently discovered bird flu in samples taken from wild ducks.7 Chicken farms are suspected as the source of the disease and, so far, 300,000 birds at four CAFO locations have been culled to ensure the infection doesn’t spread. 

CAFO waste also contributes to air pollution, and CAFO workers and neighboring residents alike report higher incidence of asthma, headaches, eye irritation, and nausea. According to the Environmental Protection Agency8 (EPA), US states with high concentrations of CAFOs report 20-30 serious water quality problems annually.

One of the reasons so few Americans are aware of these issues is because of “ag-gag” laws, which legally prevents people from filming or photographing conditions on factory farms. Ag-gag laws are being heavily promoted by lobbyists for the meat, egg, and dairy industries to essentially prevent anyone from exposing animal cruelty and food-safety issues at CAFOs.

Industrial food producers are also encouraging their “farmers” to change the terms they use for their horrific practices to less-offensive sounding words, such as swapping “gestation crates” with “individual maternity pens.”

Five states have ag-gag laws already in place, and another 10 introduced anti-whistleblower laws last year. According to USA Today,9 ag-gag laws in Utah and Idaho are currently being challenged in federal court.

Industrial Farming Is Destroying Food Quality

Philip Lymbery, an animal-welfare activist and author of the book Farmageddon: The True Cost of Cheap Meat, notes that one of the techniques used to perpetuate factory farming is in fact secrecy, and there’s little doubt that that is why ag-gag laws were lobbied for in the first place.

If you don’t know there’s a problem, you won’t demand change. This is also why the food industry is fighting tooth and nail to prevent labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the US, as well as legislation that would prevent them from fraudulently labeling GMOs as “Natural.”

In the US, most all conventional meat and poultry (beef, pork, chicken, turkey, etc.) is raised in CAFOs. It’s a corporate-controlled system characterized by large-scale, centralized, low profit-margin production, processing, and distribution systems.

This is the cheapest way to raise meat, for the largest profits. But the ultimate price is high, as there's a complete disregard for human health, the environment, and ethical treatment of animals and plant workers alike.

This system depends on keeping consumers in the dark about how the food is produced, and what the hidden costs are, because the reality is unsavory enough that many, if not most, people would change their ways were they to find out the truth...

Increasing Number of Books Address the State of Our Food System

Information is power, and now more than ever before, there are plenty of resources for those who want to educate themselves. For example, a series of recent articles, listed on NewAmerica.org,10 delve into the various aspects of the monopoly that is America’s meat market. In one, titled The Meat Racket, Christopher Leonard reveals how the US meat industry has been seized by a mere handful of companies, and how this tightly controlled monopoly drives small livestock farmers out of business.

Other articles detail the drugs used in CAFO farming, and the risks this drug based farming poses to human health, such as creation of antibiotic-resistant superbugs, which I’ve addressed on numerous occasions. A recent book review in the Wall Street Journal11 also discusses a number of books on the state of our food system. Salon Magazine also recently ran an article12 on the subject of factory farming, penned by Lindsay Abrams, in which she discusses journalist Ted Genoways new book, The Chain—an expose of the American pork industry. She writes in part:

“What journalist Christopher Leonard recently did for Tyson and the chicken industry, Genoways... does for pork, recounting the history of Hormel Foods... as it evolved from humble beginnings to an industrial giant with a nearly myopic focus on expansion and acceleration, regardless of the costs.

And boy, are there costs... a mysterious neurological disorder linked to a machine that has workers breathing in a fine mist of pork brains... abuse suffered by the animals on whom workers’ frustrations are instead taken out; and a decline in food safety that, unbelievably, is set to become the new industry standard.”

Genoways book reveals how societal issues “fan out in all directions,” as he puts it, from the way our pork is produced. Not only are there many disturbing safety issues, but according to Genoways, these hazards also end up disproportionally affecting immigrant workers, who are already being exploited by the system.

We Can Change the System One Family at a Time...

Part of the problem is that the current farming model is focused on growth; not steady profit, and certainly not sustainability. I believe the movement toward sustainable food and ethical meat is very important, both in terms of human health and animal welfare.

Organic, grass-fed and finished meat is really the only type of meat that is healthy to eat, in my view. Fortunately, many grocery chains are now responding to customer demand, and will provide at least a small assortment of grass-fed meats. The least expensive way to obtain grass-fed beef and other locally produced organic foods is from your local farmer. The following organizations can help you locate farm-fresh foods in your local area that has been raised in a humane, sustainable manner:

  • Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
  • Eat Wild: With more than 1,400 pasture-based farms, Eat Wild's Directory of Farms is one of the most comprehensive sources for grass-fed meat and dairy products in the United States and Canada.
  • Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.
  • Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
  • FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes "Find Good Food" map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs, and markets near you.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

How to Regenerate Soil Using Cover Crops and Regenerative Land Management

By Dr. Mercola

High-quality soil is crucial to grow nutrient-dense plants. Tragically, most of our soil is being significantly damaged, thanks to modern farming methods. Gabe Brown is a true pioneer in teaching about regenerative land management, which helps restore soil health.

Gabe was originally trained as a traditional farmer of the conventional mindset, using heavy tilling, genetically engineered (GE) crops, and chemical principles in his challenging growing farm environment of North Dakota.

I actually had the opportunity to personally met Gabe last week when I was keynote speaker at the ACRES USA conference in Columbus. He is every bit as knowledgeable and inspiring as his interview suggests. I had a chance to listen to his full day seminar and learned loads of great info..

At this point, his operation is not certified organic, but he's implemented a number of land regenerative practices. He doesn't till his land anymore, does not use herbicides on crops that are growing. He's stopped using glyphosate altogether and has integrated cocktail cover crops and livestock rotational grazing.

In 1991, he and his wife purchased the family farm from her parents, and they began farming conventionally using heavy tillage, low crop diversity, and season-long livestock grazing.

"Not being from a farm or ranch, I always tended to question why we do certain things," he says. "I had listened and attended a class that Alan Savory put on, talking about rotational grazing.

I started doing some rotational grazing. I [also] had a friend in the northern part of North Dakota who was a no-tiller... In 1993, I went 100 percent no-till. Immediately, we started seeing some benefits... We were conserving moisture."

The Importance of No-Till for Soil Regeneration

This is a rather crucial point. Tilling is probably one of the most destructive aspects of modern-day industrial agriculture, as it disrupts and destroys soil biology.

"Tillage is the act of taking either a plow, a chisel plow, a field cultivator, or any type of steel or implement and destroying the soil's structure and turning the soil over.

By reducing the tillage, we leave those soil aggregates, those pore spaces intact, which improve water infiltration and also provide home for soil biology," Gabe explains.

Tilling is especially harmful for the mycorrhizal fungi—important soil fungi that attach to the roots of plants. Their thread-like filaments connect the plants together in an underground web that can stretch over long distances, forming a virtual "plant Internet," though which plant communication takes place.

When Gabe quit tilling in 1993, he was the lone no-tiller in Burleigh County, North Dakota, where about 60 percent of the land is farmland. Today, about 70 percent of the farmland in this county is no-till. The fact that no-till has really caught on in the Northern Plains is very encouraging.

Other important factors for soil health are crop diversification and cover cropping. Gabe learned the importance of this through a series of crop failures. Four years in a row, the farm lost most or all its crops to hail or drought. To keep his livestock fed, he grew various crop cover plants, and began noticing that his soil was slowly improving.

"We had four devastating years of crop failure in a row. I tell people that's the best thing that ever could have happened to me, because it taught me that I had to learn how to take care of the resource," he says.

When he first started, soil tests on his land revealed organic matter levels of 1.7 to 1.9 percent. According to National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA) scientists, organic matter levels in the area used to range around seven to eight percent some 200 years ago. So about 75 percent of the organic matter in the soil has been lost in just the last two centuries.

"One of the buzz words today is 'sustainable.' Everybody wants to be sustainable. My question is why in the world would we want to sustain a degraded resource? My operation today is still degraded. We need to be regenerative. We need to work on regenerating our soils, not just sustaining a degraded resource," Gabe says.

How No-Till Promotes Soil Health

Last summer, the organic matter on Gabe’s cropland ranged from 5.3 to 6.1 percent. So in just over 20 years of no-tilling and using regenerative land management principles, he’s been able to triple the amount of organic matter in the soil. Earthworms are another marker for soil health, and they too can be brought back when you abstain from tilling.

"There were no earthworms when we started. This past spring, my son did earthworm counts in our cropland. In a 12"x12"x2" slice of soil, we were averaging over 60. That's considerable when you start with zero. And that's just the earthworms. It doesn't count the myriad of other billions of soil organisms that are also in there," he notes.

"Earthworms, their castings and their secretions, are very nutrient-dense. When you grow a crop in a soil that's full of earthworms, those plants are going to follow the roots and are going to follow those channels that those earthworms make, and the nutrients will be supplied to the plant.

The other thing it does that we don't often talk about is improve water infiltration. When we took over this operation, we could only infiltrate a half of an inch of rainfall per hour. In other words, if we had a rainfall event of an inch, over half of it was going to run off.

When you're in a limited-moisture environment, you want all that rainfall to be captured and go into the soil. Well, in the last test we did, we can now infiltrate over eight inches of rainfall per hour, which is huge."

Vermicompost—the compost produced by earthworms—is really one of the best compost you could get. Some sell it for about $1,000 for a cubic yard or about 1,000 pounds.

The nice thing is that, once you have the kind of density of earthworms, Gabe describes, you're literally producing tens of tons of vermicompost per acre in your soil, and you don't even have to pay for it or move it. It's all done for free by the earthworms.

"As we move into these very diverse cropping systems and integrate cover crops into them, we actually plant cover crops to benefit soil life and to feed those earthworms. The cover crops become the compost that the earthworm cycle into usable plant nutrients," Gabe explains.

Improving Soil with Multispecies Cover Crop Cocktails

The cocktail of cover crops Gabe has incorporated into his land management system are a really important part of the equation. During those four years of hail and drought he grew mostly monoculture or two-species cover crops, such as triticale and hairy vetch, or sudan grass and cowpeas. Then, in 2006, after listening to Brazilian cover crop expert Dr. Ademir Calegari, he began using a multispecies combination.

"I was really upset with myself that I hadn't thought of it earlier. Because what I'm trying to do in my operation is mimic native range with the diversity of plant life and the diversity of wildlife, insects, etc. Well, that's what we're really doing with the cover crop cocktail, these multispecies mixes. Today, I plant up to 70 different species in a mix. What we're trying to do is mimic the diversity in nature.

Think of it this way. If you plant a monoculture crop, that soil life is only being fed one root exudate. But if I plant a multispecies with 20 different species in it, that soil life is being fed the root exudates from 20 different plants. In other words, I'm accelerating biological time. We're able to regenerate soils much, much faster than scientists used to think were possible."

Five Tenets of Soil Regeneration

Using the following five tenets of soil regeneration, you may be able to add an inch of topsoil in a five-year period:

  1. No-tillage. This prevents soil erosion and also allows soil microbes to thrive
  2. Plant diversity and rotation
  3. Multispecies cover-cropping. While home gardeners can add crop cover like mulch or wood chips, large scale operations can achieve the same results by planting cover crops. Gabe grows cover crops on every acre of crop land each year. The cover crops may be grown before a cash crop, along with a cash crop, or after. But it's the cover crops that provide the carbon that becomes that all-important "armor" on the soil surface. Cover crops also act as insulation, so the soil doesn't get as hot or cold as it would if bare. This allows microbes to thrive longer. Also, the soil biology heats up the soil, which can extend your overall growing season in colder areas
  4. Maintaining living roots in the soil year-round. It’s important to have living plant roots in the soil as long as possible throughout the year. To accomplish this, use cover crops when not growing a cash crop.
  5. Livestock integration and diversification

Farm Program in Need of Serious Revisions to Integrate Soil Regeneration Practices

Unfortunately, one major hurdle that needs to be overcome before US farmers can more readily switch over to these regenerative principles is the government farm program, which subsidizes the growing of certain crops. At present, the farm program is strictly geared to monoculture production.

"I've come to the realization that we need to educate the consumers and the consumers need to drive the change through their purchasing dollars," Gabe says. "Let me tell you of this movement... My son and I started [a grass-fed beef] business in March, and we have zero advertising dollars. We've just been going to local farmers' markets. We already have over 650 repeat customers. We can't keep up with the demand right now. That goes to show you that if that's happening in a rural state such as North Dakota, what's happening in more urban areas?"

...I tell the farmers and ranchers I talk to that carbon drives profitability of an operation. We have to start thinking of our farms and ranches as ecosystems and these ecosystems are driven by carbon. The more biomass you produce and the more diversity, the more carbon.

Obviously, trees are a little bit scarce here in the Northern Plains. But for the average gardener, there's usually some type of tree removal service that has wood chips available in most communities that you can get and add to that garden. If you're adding carbon, you're going to increase the fungal component and you're going to increase the mycorrhizal fungi [that] secrete glomalin, which starts the formation of soil particles."

...There's a great book by Dr. David Montgomery called Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations. Dr. Montgomery talks about how all the civilizations such as the Incas and the Romans, their rise and fall occurred because of the degradation of their soil resource. I had the opportunity to visit one on one with Dr. Montgomery this past year. I asked him, 'How long do we have as a nation before this occurs to us?' And without blinking an eye, he said, 'Less than 50 years.' He said, 'We cannot continue on this path of degrading our resources like we have.'... [N]o-till is a piece; cover-cropping is a piece; diversity is a piece; and livestock integration is a piece. We have to bring all of these things together."

Feeding the World's Population Requires Emphasis on Soil Regeneration and Regenerative Land Management

Even if you're not a farmer, you can still have an impact by implementing the regenerative aspects of no-till, plant diversity, and using ground cover such as wood chips into your own home garden. Along with that, plant some pollinator species to provide a habitat for pollinators. Monarch butterflies, for example, need milkweed to feed and reproduce. When purchasing bee-friendly plants, make sure they have not been pretreated with pesticides that are toxic to bees, as this could actually do the bee population more harm than good... Most importantly, as a consumer, use your dollars to drive change, and educate others as to the importance of nutrient-dense food.

"We're spending more money on healthcare than any other country, but look what it's gotten us," Gabe notes. "The United States of America is now the 42nd healthiest country in the world. We're first in cancer, autoimmune diseases, attention-deficit disorder (ADD), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and obesity. Why is that? We're degrading our resource so much that we no longer have the nutrient density in our foods in order for people to get healthy diets... We need to start thinking of food as health. Food is preventative medicine. The nutrient density of our foods has decreased anywhere from 15 to 65 percent for the last 40 years. That's uncalled for. It can't continue..."

Indeed, the answer to "how will we feed nine billion people by 2050?" is: by regenerating our soils so that it can support more ample and more nutritious crop growth. In order to do that, we must change our farming model, because chemical-based monoculture is leading us straight toward the drop-off at the end of a cliff...

"Look at our operation. We grow a diverse number of cash crops. We grow cover crops. We have beef, cattle, sheep, hogs, and chickens. I haven't even talked about how we allow beekeepers to come onto our land. There's a myriad of other potential income streams and enterprises that we can stack," Gabe says. "Feeding the world is absolutely no problem if we change the production model. For the small producers, it's simply a matter of stacking enterprises. Once you do that, you'll find that not only will you have more income streams to make your operation more viable, but you'll actually regenerate the soils much, much quicker."