|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Today's
Food
by Dr. Asad Shahsavari
Today’s Food and its
Industry
When looking at the human
diet today, it is important to keep in mind that our grandparents never
ate as we eat now. Simply because food was different back then.
Pesticides were not on crops until after World War II, consequently,
everyone ate organic food. Likewise, poultry and livestock were not
given antibiotics since they were not available until after World War
II. Without "modernization" foods were not processed and
tropical fruit stayed in the tropics. The average meal generally
consisted of whatever was in season and grown locally.
In contrast, the overwhelming majority of food found in supermarkets
today is processed, and therefore contains artificial flavorings,
colors, and a long list of ingredients, of which most consumers have no
idea how to pronounce, let alone whether or not they might have an
adverse effect on their health.
The most pressing question about today’s human diet is the long-term
effects this diet has on our health and that of our children. Clearly,
no one is dropping dead after eating one burger from a fast food
restaurant or one non-organic carrot. The problems associated with what
we eat are not generally ones of immediate cause and effect.
Unfortunately, this may make it easier for people to ignore the many
problems associated with the human diet.
In addition, the food industry makes it easy to believe that our diet is
fine. This industry spends an incredible amount of time and energy on
media campaigns designed to reassure consumers and make them feel good
about what they are eating. The industry’s campaigns are obviously
effective since supermarkets typically have long lines of customers who
feel confident that they are buying good, healthy food. The confidence,
though, might begin to waiver if people were actually aware of some
basic facts about the food industry.
Following is some general information about the gigantic food industry.
Impressive sources are always quoted to refute any questions over food
safety. However, background information about the source is generally
omitted. One very prestigious sounding source, the National Academy of
Science Food Protection Committee, is actually independently financed by
grants from commercial laboratories, chemical companies, and packaging
companies. The Nutrition Foundation, Inc., another official sounding
organization, has board members from such companies as the American
Sugar Co., Coca-Cola, Beechnut, Campbell Soup, and General Mills.
The immense food industry has some other very influential members, The
American Meat Institute, The National Livestock and Meat Board, The
American Dairy Association, The National Dairy Council, The Cereal
Institute and The Sugar Research Foundation, Inc. All of these are
national groups with ample amounts of money and lobbying power. Their
official-sounding titles are self-given.
Most people do not know that the concept of the Four Basic Food Groups
taught to every elementary school child was, in fact, started as a
promotion sponsored by The National Egg Board, The National Dairy
Council, and The National Livestock and Meat Board. These boards and
councils were the same people who would profit when these foods were
sold.
Undeniably, the primary goal of the food industry has always been profit
- not good nutrition for consumers. In fact 6 cents of every dollar
spent on processed food goes to buy advertisement for large companies,
such as General Foods, which spend approximately 340 million dollars a
year on advertising. Moreover, the top fifty food firms control 90
percent of all advertisement on television; almost half are commercials
for cereal, candy, and gum! Can you imagine an organic farmer competing
for airtime for a commercial about unprocessed, natural, organic foods?
In February 1982 Dr. Sanez published her explanation for an outbreak of
precocious puberty in The Journal of The Puerto Rico Medical
Association. She stated that any neurological or adrenal disorders had
been ruled out as possible explanation for the children’s symptoms.
Dr. Sanez stated that she believed the premature puberty was the result
of consuming local milk, poultry, and beef. Their symptoms were caused
by the growth hormones administered to the animals either directly or
through the food.
This study is just one among many examples of how your diet affects your
health and well-being, and that the food industries’ main interest is
unfortunately not necessarily safe food but profit.
Production and Processing of Today’s Food
The old worn out advice to eat wholesome foods does not always work. For
example the commercial “whole wheat” bread is just as bad as the
paper tasting white loaf. In order for you to improve your condition,
you must pursue definite actions restraining your eating pattern. You
must follow the new suggestions steadfastly. This can be accomplished by
faith. Faith can only be acquired by being convinced about the necessity
to gather the facts. You must learn how to acquire such unbiased
information in order to obtain the truth.
Most likely by now, you have become aware that lies, partially or
totally employed, have often been utilized in political or economical
involvement. This is particularly true where food is of concern. In 1960
members of the National Academy of Sciences and the Rockefeller
Foundation stated: “Americans today are better fed than at any time in
history. The integrated contributions of the engineering, agricultural
and chemical sciences have resulted in increasing quantities of
uniformly high quality and pure foods, which have contributed
demonstrably to the physical well-being of the nation.” Alike
statements are also heard from the food industry, as in: “We are the
healthiest and best fed people of the world.”
Similar evaluations are expressed by the United States Government and
medical fraternity, which consistently resist any suggestion that there
could be a connection between diet and disease.
In May 1970, Today’s Health published by the AMA, Philip L. White
sates: “Scientists agree that the usual American diet is adequate for
health.”
Now comes the respectable Harvard University with its Department of
Nutrition financed by the food industry. As the mouthpiece for the
Manufacturing Chemist Association, Dr. State Bluntly asserts: “Don’t
let any food fobbist or organic gardener tell you there is any
difference between vitamin C in an orange and vitamin C made in a
chemical factory to be added to grape or apple juice.“
As you will agree, there are usually two sides to any argument, their
side and ours. “They” are represented by a consortium of highly
successful manufacturers who happen to deal with the processing of
foods. “They” also includes members of the scientific community
entrenched in research and government who, due to remunerative
compensations, must tailor their tourings to the dictates of the bosses.
That leaves “us”, the unwilling public, between the devil and deep
blue sea. We have little, if any, choice to protect ourselves from the
unholy onslaught of refining and poisoning. What are the facts? Let the
chips fall where they may.
It is fortunate that not everything is lost. We have here, and in other
countries, a number of fine, courageous and respected scientists who
value the truth more than earthly glitter. Some of these stalwarts have
had to pay dearly for their insistence on scientific objectivity.
The dental profession has quickly sensed the connection of poor diet
with dental decay. According to Edward J. Ryan, editor of Dental Digest:
“Every time a natural substance is removed from a food, every time an
adulterant is added to a food, the balance in nature is disturbed.”
The chemical and cellular processes within the body cells cannot react
to the passing whims of chemicals without disturbance in function. It
took thousands of years for the body to adjust itself to changing
environmental conditions. When these conditions are suddenly altered by
the actions of men, the cells cannot make the adjustment – disease is
the result.
In one of the most comprehensive works on this subject by Gene Marine
and Judith Van Allen, entitled Food Pollution, it is cleverly stated:
“They and the people paid by them will defend themselves.” To this,
Dr. Ryan added: “Anyone who speaks up against food adulteration in any
of the many forms is subject to name calling; the most common epithets
are ‘food fobbist’ or ‘food fakir.’ If you object to any of the
things you will read about in the article, you are offending some of our
most influential people on public health.”
Carcinogens in Today’s Food
“Everyday foods cause cancer” claims Dr. Ames, chairman of
Biochemistry at the University of California. We get 10,000 time more
natural carcinogens than man-made pesticides. The old idea that
carcinogens are only a few man-made substances is just not true.
Scientists have found hundreds of cancer causing chemicals in the human
diet, all of them from natural sources. The cancer causing implications
of natural foods as found by biochemists raise more questions than they
answer.
This description of natural food pertains to produce, obtained from
soils “enriched” with synthetic pesticides. It appears that the good
doctor never tested real natural food; food created by true natural
processes through the organic method.
How can it be explained, that there is little known about carcinogens in
Hunza, a small country with total commitment to the organic food
production? As a matter of fact, cancer is practically unknown
there.
As to incriminations in the production of carcinogens from cooking,
there is no question about potential cancer possibilities due to the
destruction of enzymes. However, a far more “deadly” change is
produced from overheated fat or oil, as is presented by the time honored
practice of barbecuing animal flesh. Similar carcinogens are activated
by the fast food chain with their containers of “eternal” oil or
grease, heated above safe biological limits.
Through many years of research, Maureen Salaman, an award winning writer
and president of the National Health Federation, offers proof that
cancer can be prevented and controlled. The information comes from a
number of top research scientists, corroborated by the prestigious
National academy of Science.
As to nutritional implications in the cause of cancer, Dr. Fredrick
Hoffman had observed, as early as 1915, a connection between nutrition
and cancer, which he described in his book, The Mortality From Cancer.
In 1913, Dr. Albert Schweitzer had already stated upon his arrival in
Gabon that he was astonished that he had not encountered any cancer
cases, which he attributed to the natural diet of the natives.
In the October 1983 issue of Prevention it was reported that Kedar
Prasad Ph.D. of the University of Colorado obtained compelling evidence
that nutrition could forestall the onset of cancer. Also mentioned in
the article on the control of cancer was F.W. Meyskens, professor at the
University of Arizona in Tucson. Tested was the anticancer power of
vitamin A; the vitamin actually caused tumor shrinkage.
Lawrence Helson, M.D. of the Memorial Hospital in New York City gave
vitamin E intravenously to 13 patients with various nerve cancers.
Previously, all of the patients had failed to respond to conventional
cancer therapies. The results were phenomenal. In six of the patients,
tumors either stopped growing or diminished in size.
In another area of nutrition therapy, some eye-opening data was obtained
on dietary fiber and fat. As a rule, researchers have linked colon
cancer with both low fiber and high fat diets. According to doctors,
eating a lot of fat and very little fiber increases the amount of bile
acids, which then promotes tumors.
As a test, Dr. Reddy first fed two groups of rats a common carcinogen.
Then in addition, one of the groups received large doses of bile acids.
After a few weeks, 40 percent of the rats getting the carcinogens only,
had tumors. The other group, which had received bile acids also, had a
tumor rate, which was 80 percent higher.
After the animal study, researchers wanted to see how bile acids
correlated with colon cancer in humans. Several ethnic groups were
investigated, revealing similar connections between bile acid levels and
diet. It was found that high bile acid concentrations were associated
with the highest level of fat and the lowest amount of fiber in the
diet. Dr. Albert Schweitzer reported that not a single case of cancer
came to his attention in his clinic where thousands of natives were
treated over a period of several years. The indications are that a low
fat, high fiber diet was the reason for the nonexistence of colon
difficulties.
Most likely, the present day scientific corroboration of the
relationship between nutrition and cancer will make little impact on the
powerful medical industrial government axis. This is due to the fact
that the prevention, or the total solution of diseases, would be
unprofitable and ruinous to the vested interests.
With Americans dying from cancer at the rate of 400,000 a year, it
should be unthinkable to delay the use of this proven nutritional
therapy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Asad Shahsavari, NMD, PhD, MD(MA) is Director of BIOMED Holistic Health
Centers of Northern California and President of the Universal Life
Studies Institute. He is a board certified naturopathic physician, and
holds doctorates in both holistic nutrition and naturopathy, as well as
a degree as medical doctor of alternative medicine. He serves as an
international ambassador with the American Naturopathic Medical
Association and is a commissioner with the Federal Intermediary Council
on Alternative Medicine. Dr. Shahsavari serves as adjunct professor with
Westbrook University, University of Natural Medicine and Gateway College
of Naturopathy. Contributing Editor to THE on-line newsletter,
www.medical-esthetics.com.
Email: docashah@yahoo.com. Web site:
www.urt.org.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Other
Articles
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
