Please read: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx Is Aspartame a Poison? Aspartame is, by Far, the Most Dangerous Substance on the Market that is Added To Foods You may know it under its new name, AminoSweet, or NutraSweet. It is everywhere, in chewing gum, yogurt, cereals, and of course in soda drinks and ice cream. Aspartame is a sweetener made from amino acids that can change levels of chemicals in the brain that affect your behavior. Scientific testing to establish aspartame's safety prior to FDA approval resulted in: • depression • menstrual irregularities • constipation • headaches • tiredness • general swelling • brain tumors and grand mal seizures • multiple sclerosis When exposed to heat, aspartame breaks down into toxic methyl alcohol. This may occur even at temperatures reached by diet sodas during regular storage.

Aspartame can be found on the ingredients list in the following products: Soft drinks, over-the-counter drugs & prescription drugs (very common and listed under "inactive ingredients"), vitamin & herb supplements, yogurt, candy, breath mints, cereals, sugar-free chewing gum, cocoa mixes, coffee beverages, instant breakfasts, gelatin desserts, frozen desserts, juice beverages, laxatives, milk drinks, shake mixes, tabletop sweeteners, tea beverages, instant teas and coffees, topping mixes, wine coolers, etc. Please check labels carefully. Many people make the mistake of not checking labels carefully and continue to poison themselves. In addition, many people do not realize that their children may be given aspartame or other artificial sweetener-containing foods or drugs at school, without their knowledge. Talk to the school staff to assure that this does not happen. In some countries such as Australia, the word "aspartame" may not appear on the label, but the phrase "Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine" appears instead. Many people find it much easier to avoid toxic sweeteners by shopping at the local, large health food store when possible. Many health food stores have banned artificial sweeteners (especially aspartame) for obvious reasons. But it is still important to check labels as some health food stores are unknowingly selling aspartame, acesulfame-k, and sucralose! Take the 60 day aspartame test. Give up all aspartame for 60 days and note the changes in your health. I expect that you will be pleasantly surprised. To your health! Martin Pytela Life Enthusiast Co-op http://www.life-enthusiast.com P.S. Concept fifty three: there is no such thing as good sugar. The worst of it are the artificial sweeteners, but the HFCS - high fructose corn syrup is quite damaging as well. Even refined beet or cane sugar is no friend. There have been some attempts to make the more natural sugars seem "healthy", and they are in comparison. They include turbinado cane sugar as well as maple and agave syrups - they are nicer, because they can be slow cooked to evaporate most of the liquid. And then there is stevia, either in concentrate, or the whole leaves. All of the above are either toxic, or high glycemic index foods that should be used very sparingly as condiments. Not 9 teaspoons at a time as found in a can of cola. Here is a neat alternative: fructo-oligo-saccharides known as inulin that you can add to cereals or drinks. Agave Powder is a natural sweetener (with a low glycemic index), a source of Inulin. It is the leftover from the manufacture of Tequila. This "Super Fiber" has a neutral, clean flavor and many nutritional properties to add to your diet. It's used increasingly in foods, because it has unusual nutritional characteristics.

Centrum vitamins are owned by Pfizer-Addicitive for More Revenue ?

Centrum vitamins are owned by Pfizer

Addicitive for More Revenue.Sales ? July 13, 2012 by: Willow Tohi (NaturalNews) Feeling a little run down? Are you stressed? Someone in the house ill, and you don't want to get it? In situations like these, many reach for vitamins. By definition vitamins are "organic components in food that are needed.... for maintaining good health." But do you know how to read the ingredient label on your vitamins? Do you know what those words mean, where the ingredients come from? Who makes them? Most people don't. What's in a brand? To make sure the money you spend on vitamins is worth it, a good place to start is researching the brand you buy. What is the name of the company that owns and makes your preferred brand? One of the most popular vitamins on the market today is Centrum. Turns out, Centrum is made by Pfizer, the world's largest pharmaceutical company. Why does this matter? Well for starters, a company that makes billions of dollars in revenue each year on prescription drugs, vaccines, cancer drugs, cardiovascular and metabolic disease treatments, pain, etc. may have a conflict of interest in your having good health. Pfizer was founded as a "manufacturer of fine chemicals." Chemicals, especially man-made ones (that can be patented for profit), are isolated substances and are processed by the human body as toxins. This is not how vitamins should be made; vitamins made that way cannot be used by the body. Furthermore, Pfizer has a history of health care fraud and illegal marketing of its products.

The old adage "you get what you pay for" is true when it comes to vitamins. You can find inexpensive vitamins in pharmacies, grocery stores, and other big box stores. However, not only are they not good for you, they may be harmful to your health. Purchasing vitamins made with synthetic ingredients is essentially you paying corporations to take their toxic waste off their hands for them. They are made with things such as coal tar, waste and fecal matter, petroleum by-products, stones, metal, animal by-products, etc. Vitamins worth buying are made from whole foods, by companies that make vitamins, not pharmaceuticals. You should be able to look them up, and call and ask what sources their ingredients come from, should you be so inclined. Beware of marketing Not to sound jaded but beware of marketed vitamins. If you have to be bombarded to buy, is it really that good? It also takes tons of money to market that way, which raises questions about their bottom line, their ethics toward their customers and the quality of their products. Centrum is the number one selling multivitamin, not because it works but because of its multi-billion dollar ad campaign. Part of the huge ad campaign includes trumped up claims. Just last week Pfizer faced allegations of deceptive advertising on its Centrum vitamins from a consumer watchdog group. The nonprofit group, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) threatened to sue Pfizer over deceptive claims regarding "breast health," "heart health," "colon health," "bone health," and "energy and immunity." Watchdog groups such as CSPI have been taking the lead in policing health claims on supplements since the FDA doesn't do enough to help consumers in this area.

Just as with "real" food, "real" vitamins don't need to be marketed on t.v. during prime time. Products that work keep customers coming back and get increased sales through word of mouth. Currently there is not a whole lot of regulation of supplements. This is a good thing in that the pharmaceutical companies are so big and have so much money that were legislation to make it through, their lobbyists would warp and restrict the supplement industry in a way that would be very bad for consumers, good health, and makers of true vitamins. The down side is that you as a consumer have to take the responsibility for educating yourself as to what you put in your body. Vote with your dollars, and keep good quality supplements on the market.

Sources for this article include: http://www.reuters.com http://www.naturalnews.com/021653.html http://www.thedoctorwithin.com http://www.foodkills.org/synthetics.html http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vitamins Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036459_Centrum_vitamins_Pfizer.html#ixzz20ax53l2i

Is white sugar the gateway drug to alcoholism and obesity?

Is white sugar the gateway drug to alcoholism and obesity? July 12, 2012 by: D Holt

(NaturalNews) As a species, we consume almost 2,204 pounds of white sugar each year, this equates to an average of approximately 81.4 pounds per person. Many health professionals have noted the negative health effects of sugar, from excessive weight gain to diabetes. It has also been reported that children who have a tendency towards eating large amounts of sugar, are more likely to have alcohol dependency issues later in life.

Gateway drugs are substances that create an initial dependency, and are usually commonly found, legal or socially accepted. These types of drugs often give the user a boost in levels of serotonin, this makes the user feel good. Sugar boosts levels of energy and serotonin, and so enhances mood, but it wears off quickly as the body regulates the blood sugar level with insulin. Sugar begins the addictive cycle

The user then seeks more sugar as cravings take hold, and as the levels of serotonin drop so does the mood which can lead to depression. The user becomes less sensitive to the effects of sugar over time, due to increased insulin levels. When a sugar addict drinks alcohol, it similarly boosts their serotonin levels and gives a "high." Sugar and alcohol are interchangeable, calorific addictive substances. They are also similar in that they both cause liver damage, diabetes, dependency, tooth decay and depression.

It has been discussed that it is not marijuana, but alcohol that is the first gateway drug to get people into an addictive cycle. With the consumption of sugar being at such high levels, and considering the effects of sugar on the levels of serotonin, it must be argued that it is sugar that is the gateway drug. Once the cycle of artificially boosting mood, feeling low and needing a boost is established, it is easy for a potential addict to find chemicals to lift their mood.

Sugar is a highly processed substance, not a "natural" food as packaging suggests Although it can be said that addiction is normally routed within emotional weakness, it can also be said that without sugar training the young into addictive behavior, the addict would not have the experience to lead them in the direction of seeking mood enhancing substances to feel better. Sometimes the addict stays addicted to the sugar, overeats and becomes obese. In other circumstances the addict moves on to bigger "highs." Either way, the cycle begins with eating enough sugar to cause a high and a low. The use of aspartame in diet drinks does not help those addicted to sugar, as the effect of aspartame is to lower serotonin levels, making the addict feel low, whilst also increasing appetite.

The addictive effects of sugar can last for up to four weeks, coupled with its inclusion in so many products from breads to canned vegetables, it is a difficult substance to get out of your system. It is not natural to take a substance from a plant, process it to such an extent that it is unrecognizable, and then consume it. To label sugar as natural and therefore healthy, is just the same as processing poppies into heroine and saying it is good for you because it comes from a plant. Because we are so used to sugar as an everyday substance, we assume it is safe, when it could be responsible for the ill health of millions of people.

Sources for this article include: http://www.suedzucker.de/en/Zucker/Zahlen-zum-Zucker/Welt/ http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-symptoms-of-sugar-withdrawal.htm

About the author: D Holt is currently involved in research in the UK into the mechanisms involved in healing due to meditation, hypnosis and other ''spiritual'' healers and techniques. Previous work has included investigations into effects of meditation on addiction, the effects of sulfites on the digestive system and the use of tartrazine and other additives in the restaurant industry. new blog is now available at http://tinyurl.com/sacredmeditation or follow on twitter @sacredmeditate

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036444_white_sugar_gateway_drug_alcoholism.html#ixzz20VcdjJuK Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036444_white_sugar_gateway_drug_alcoholism.html#ixzz20VcN4GYK

"Why your hamburger hates America"

The Washington Post published a provocative essay on Sunday that makes the case that hamburgers are the least patriotic food you could eat on the 4th of July.

"Why your hamburger hates America" looks at the unsavory reality behind the production of hamburger meat and buns, as well as traditional burger garnishes--tomatoes, onions and lettuce. When it comes to the beef itself, author Tracie McMillan points out that just four corporations control more than 85 percent of the meatpacking business. That means it's more likely that cattle are treated inhumanely, workers are treated inhumanely, food safety is given short shrift, and small ranchers are being driven out of business. It's not a pretty picture, but it's even worse than that. McMillan left out two other major downsides to eating burgers: They're a threat to public health and the future of the planet.

A report released last week by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), "Grade A Choice: Solutions for Deforestation-Free Meat," found that Americans would improve their health and protect the climate if they replaced beef with poultry or pork--or just ate less meat altogether. "We have a big beef with beef," says Doug Boucher, director of UCS's Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative and a co-author of the report. "The more beef Americans eat, the worse global warming gets." By now, most Americans are aware of the health risks posed by eating beef. It's been linked to a number of potentially life-threatening problems, including coronary heart disease and breast, colon and prostate cancer. But most hamburger, steak and brisket lovers are likely unaware of the environmental problems caused by beef production.

Beef is what scientists would call an "inefficient protein," Boucher explains. It requires substantial resources to produce compared with what it contributes to the human diet. The report found that beef production uses about 60 percent of the world's agricultural land, for example, but produces less than 5 percent of the protein and less than 2 percent of the calories that feed the global population. Cattle ranching requires huge tracts of land. In Brazil--the biggest net exporter of meat in the world--and other Latin American countries, ranchers clear-cut tropical forests to provide pasture land for their herds. This contributes to global warming in two ways. First, when ranchers cut down trees, much of the carbon they store goes into the atmosphere. Second, grazing cattle produce methane--a powerful gas that has nearly 25 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide--which is released from their stomachs and manure. Tropical deforestation is responsible for about 15 percent of the world's heat-trapping emissions--more carbon pollution than the emissions from every car, truck, plane, ship and train around the world. As demand for beef goes up worldwide, so too does deforestation. There are no tropical forests here in the United States, but we can play a role to protect them. If Americans curbed their beef consumption, it would help cut global demand. That, in turn, would lower beef prices, reducing the incentives to cut down forests for cattle pasture land. Lowering demand also could help cut production here at home, where beef cattle--which are mainly fattened in feedlots--account for more than a third of all U.S. agricultural heat-trapping emissions. "There are a lot of tasty alternatives to beef hamburgers, not only on the Fourth of July, but all year 'round," says Boucher. "Why not try spare ribs, pulled pork sandwiches, turkey burgers or chicken kebabs?" Although it may seem more Italian than American, pasta would be an even better choice, according to "Cooler Smarter: Practical Steps for Low-Carbon Living," a book published by UCS earlier this year. The book found that producing one pound of beef emits as much global warming pollution as producing 18 pounds of pasta.

Given that every American eats on average some 270 pounds of meat a year--nearly four times the global average--any reduction in U.S. meat consumption would be helpful--and more healthful. "If we want fewer cancers, less heart disease, more forests, and less global warming," says Boucher, "we should eat less beef." Elliott Negin is the director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists

"Why your hamburger hates America"

The Washington Post published a provocative essay on Sunday that makes the case that hamburgers are the least patriotic food you could eat on the 4th of July.

"Why your hamburger hates America" looks at the unsavory reality behind the production of hamburger meat and buns, as well as traditional burger garnishes--tomatoes, onions and lettuce. When it comes to the beef itself, author Tracie McMillan points out that just four corporations control more than 85 percent of the meatpacking business. That means it's more likely that cattle are treated inhumanely, workers are treated inhumanely, food safety is given short shrift, and small ranchers are being driven out of business. It's not a pretty picture, but it's even worse than that. McMillan left out two other major downsides to eating burgers: They're a threat to public health and the future of the planet.

A report released last week by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), "Grade A Choice: Solutions for Deforestation-Free Meat," found that Americans would improve their health and protect the climate if they replaced beef with poultry or pork--or just ate less meat altogether. "We have a big beef with beef," says Doug Boucher, director of UCS's Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative and a co-author of the report. "The more beef Americans eat, the worse global warming gets." By now, most Americans are aware of the health risks posed by eating beef. It's been linked to a number of potentially life-threatening problems, including coronary heart disease and breast, colon and prostate cancer. But most hamburger, steak and brisket lovers are likely unaware of the environmental problems caused by beef production.

Beef is what scientists would call an "inefficient protein," Boucher explains. It requires substantial resources to produce compared with what it contributes to the human diet. The report found that beef production uses about 60 percent of the world's agricultural land, for example, but produces less than 5 percent of the protein and less than 2 percent of the calories that feed the global population. Cattle ranching requires huge tracts of land. In Brazil--the biggest net exporter of meat in the world--and other Latin American countries, ranchers clear-cut tropical forests to provide pasture land for their herds. This contributes to global warming in two ways. First, when ranchers cut down trees, much of the carbon they store goes into the atmosphere. Second, grazing cattle produce methane--a powerful gas that has nearly 25 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide--which is released from their stomachs and manure. Tropical deforestation is responsible for about 15 percent of the world's heat-trapping emissions--more carbon pollution than the emissions from every car, truck, plane, ship and train around the world. As demand for beef goes up worldwide, so too does deforestation. There are no tropical forests here in the United States, but we can play a role to protect them. If Americans curbed their beef consumption, it would help cut global demand. That, in turn, would lower beef prices, reducing the incentives to cut down forests for cattle pasture land. Lowering demand also could help cut production here at home, where beef cattle--which are mainly fattened in feedlots--account for more than a third of all U.S. agricultural heat-trapping emissions. "There are a lot of tasty alternatives to beef hamburgers, not only on the Fourth of July, but all year 'round," says Boucher. "Why not try spare ribs, pulled pork sandwiches, turkey burgers or chicken kebabs?" Although it may seem more Italian than American, pasta would be an even better choice, according to "Cooler Smarter: Practical Steps for Low-Carbon Living," a book published by UCS earlier this year. The book found that producing one pound of beef emits as much global warming pollution as producing 18 pounds of pasta.

Given that every American eats on average some 270 pounds of meat a year--nearly four times the global average--any reduction in U.S. meat consumption would be helpful--and more healthful. "If we want fewer cancers, less heart disease, more forests, and less global warming," says Boucher, "we should eat less beef." Elliott Negin is the director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists