After seven years of testing different oil varieties, McDonald’s – perhaps the largest fast food chain in the world – has finally began cooking french fries using oils free of trans fats in some restaurants.

Spokesperson Walt Riker says more than 1,200 McDonald’s restaurants in the United States have began using the new oil. He did specify which locations in particular or when the other 12,500 U.S. locations would introduce the oil.

Trans fats are artificially created fats that have no nutritional value. They have been shown to increase the risk of heart disease by raising the body’s ratio of “bad” (LDL) to “good” (HDL) cholesterol.

Seven years was spent testing over 50 blends of 18 different varieties of oil before finally settling on the current oil. Back in 2002, the restaurant said it would introduce a new oil but within a few months, that promise was retracted because a new oil’s possible taste effects raised some concerns. Riker now says those concerns have since been allayed.

“We’re very confident in our test and taste results,” he said.

A New York City ordinance that bans any use of trans fats in restaurants starting July 1 may have triggered this move.

In the past, McDonald’s has been criticized for procrastinating in changing its oil while other fast-food chains, such as Taco Bell and Wendy’s changed theirs.

Many people may be applauding McDonald’s for making the change. Those people however, are probably not aware that the company spent seven years stalling for as much time as they could.

They say they were concerned about the taste of a new oil. What about the concern of the people who’s money you’re taking every day? I wouldn’t eat McDonald’s if you paid me for every bite I took. You simply can’t put a price on your health, even though they did for seven years.

Your best bet is to completely avoid ALL fast food and start consuming organic foods instead, which will benefit your health instead of putting you at risk.

Concerns over weather or not the government in the United Kingdom will allow higher quantities of genetically modified (GM) ingredients into organic foods without labeling are rising.
 
If the proposal is accepted, up to 0.9 percent GM ingredients will be allowed in foods labeled “organic”. 0.9 percent is the current cutoff point that requires products to be labeled as containing GM ingredients as per the European Union’s rules. This rules however, prohibit the “organic” label to appear on foods containing any GM ingredients.
 
“There is overwhelming evidence that one of the main reasons that consumers buy organic is to avoid eating food containing any GM,” said Alex Smith, chair of the Organic Group of the Food and Drink Federation. “If the proposals set out by the government were implemented … organic businesses [would] face enhanced risks of GM contamination, product recall and loss of their most valuable asset, the consumer trust that underlies their brand value.”
 
According to the Soil Association, a nonprofit organization promoting organic farming, no organic businesses were consulted before coming up with the new proposed rules, yet direct meetings with a number of GM companies did take place.
 
“People who eat organic food will end up paying for a GM policy designed to benefit the GM companies,” said Policy Director Peter Melchett.
 
During a meeting at the House of Commons, the Organic Group and the Soil Association introduced a motion to change the acceptable amount of GM material from 0.9 percent to 0.1 percent, a move that Melchett said he “warmly welcomed.”
 
“Consumers have the right to choose non-GM foods,” the motion reads, “and … all foods containing GM material, or that come from livestock fed on GM should be clearly labeled as such.”
 
“We hope it is not too late for the government to change [its] pro-GM stance, which threatens public trust in organic farming and food,” Melchett said.
 
Folks, this whole “organic bandwagon” jumping is a joke. I mean let’s face it, these big companies are simply looking to cash in on the “organic” label without actually providing the customer with the organic level of the product.
 
Stunts like these should be a crime punishable by a hefty fine in my book. Where do we draw the line? Something is either organic or it’s not.

Following a year long investigation into the side effects of the controversial antibiotic Ketek, warnings on the drug have been increased by the FDA. The drug’s use for treatment of sinusitis and bronchitis has also now been banned.

“FDA has determined that the balance of benefits and risks for Ketek do not support continued approval of Ketek for these generally nonserious and often self-limited illnesses,” said Dr. John Jenkins, director of the agency’s Office of New Drugs.

The drug will still be permitted for the treatment of pneumonia Read my article on Overcoming a Life-Threatening Infection With The Help of Home Remedies.

After 5 Ketek patients died, a Senate Finance Committee investigated whether faulty data and fraud were a part of the FDA’s approval process for the drug.

Ketek will now carry a “black box” warning against its use by patients with the neuromuscular disorder myasthenia gravis under the FDA’s new rules. Because of it’s thick black border which makes it stand out, the “black box warning” is the strongest warning that the can be put on a drug by the FDA. Any further concern requires a ban on the drug.

Prior to the black box warning, Ketek already carried a bold warning about possible damage to the liver. Other possible side effects, including blurred vision and loss of consciousness have now been added to list.

At the head of the Senate’s investigation was Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa. The Senator has been less than satisfied with FDA’s approval of the drug but did express satisfaction with the new rules. “When the spotlight was turned on the questionable way in which Ketek got approved … the FDA was held accountable,” he said.

Big deal. A black box warning? This stuff puts people in black boxes. It should be thrown off the face of the earth, no less banned.

This is nothing more than a measure the FDA has taken to avoid banning the drug and taking money away from Big Pharma. It’s like a judge giving a murderer probation instead of imprisonment because the convict somehow earns money for him.

Folks, don’t be fooled into believing that prescription med’s are the only way to treat pneumonia. Click here to learn about natural remedies to treat pneumonia.

A recent study concluded that some cafeterias in the U.S. are not making the cut on safety.

High school cafeterias in 20 different jurisdictions across America were included in a study that discovered roaches, rats and outdated safety codes.

Researchers from The Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is a Washington-based non-profit organization evaluated the cafeterias on four criteria which included:

1. How optimal the food safety codes are
2. How often the facilities are inspected
3. How easy is to obtain public information about the cafeteria from the Internet
4. How safe the cafeterias themselves are

Not one school received a full 100 percent. The average ranged from the 60 to 70 percentile range. CSPI’s hometown of Washington and the lowest-ranked school system of Hartford, Connecticut both ranked lower than 50 percent.

School systems at the top of the list included Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, Houston, Texas, King County, Washington and Maricopa County, Arizona.

Certain criteria used which could affect the rating of a jurisdiction included whether the jurisdiction’s federal requirement of having biannual inspections was met and the number of health violations found during these inspections.

Another factor which negatively impacted many jurisdictions was the lack of information available on the internet about the safety of their cafeterias, a criterion set by the CPSI. While receiving between 60 to 90 percent on all other categories, many received a less than 30 percent rating in this category, dramatically lowering their overall rating.

Schools that deserve special applause include Maricopa County, Arizona. which exceeded the federal requirement of biannual inspections, and the city of Chicago which features an inspection rule that results in an automatic failure for any rodent droppings spotted.

Our children’s safety should be our number one priority. My recommendation is for parents to “brown bag” their kid’s lunch with organic, healthy and most of all clean foods. Doing it this way leaves little room for error. Aside from the terrible quality of the processed foods found in most schools, sanitary issues are now giving parents more of a reason to prepare the food themselves.

A survey by the AARP and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine found that Americans older than 50 are not telling their doctors about alternative medicines that they are using.

According to health experts, doctors should be informed of anything a patient puts in their body to prevent any unwanted complications of combining conventional and complimentary & alternative medicines (CAM).

The report said discussing everything with a doctor “allows patients and physicians the opportunity to identify CAM practices that might be beneficial and also minimizes risks to a patient from potential therapy interactions.”

The survey included 1,559 people age 50 and older, 63 percent of which have used a CAM.

69 percent of that group did not tell their doctors about their use of CAMs. Massage therapy or chiropractic manipulation, and herbal or dietary supplements were some of the most popular CAMs used among those surveyed.

When asked why they don’t disclose this information to their doctors, the common response was because doctors never ask. 30 percent of people said they weren’t aware that they should tell their doctor. Of that 30 percent, 17 percent felt their doctor wouldn’t be knowledgeable about the subject and 12 percent felt that the doctor may try to deter them from using CAMs.

These answers are actually pretty spot on. It is awkward for a doctor to ask about alternative therapy because in their world, it doesn’t exist. All they know is conventional medicine so the thought of using something natural to treat or prevent an ailment is out of their scope of reality. And yes, it is true that most medical doctors aren’t very knowledgeable about CAMs. What do you expect? Not one single course on nutrition is taught to them in medical school. Instead, they learn treatments using chemicals that in reality can be prescribed for anything as long as they are approved by the FDA. And yes, in most cases a doctor will try to discourage use of CAMs for two reasons. First, they are uneducated about them. And second, natural alternatives take money from Big Pharma.

Simply put, for profit businesses like pharmaceutical companies make money off of your sickness, using CAMs takes money out of their pockets.

Here’s my advice. If you feel you need to see a doctor, try a Naturopath. If you insist on seeing a medical doctor, always disclose in full which CAMs you are using but let no one try to discourage you from using them.

The crazed desire to lose weight and change appearances as easily & quickly as possible has people everywhere turning to cosmetic surgery, which is on the rise.

The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS) says in 2006, the use of liposuction in the U.K. increased by 90 percent. In general, cosmetic surgeries rose by 31 percent, to almost 29,000.

The Harley Medical Group however says these numbers are way off. They claim that the total number of operations actually exceeded 90,000.

For those of you who don’t know, liposuction is a cosmetic surgical procedure in which unwanted fat is sucked out of certain areas of the body where a person feels they are holding too much weight like the thighs or abdomen.

Douglas McGeorge, president of BAAPS says the rise in people’s choice to undergo liposuction is related to the fact that the procedure has become more socially acceptable. “People don’t feel as bad about having cosmetic surgery as they did. The techniques are tried and tested and the results are predictable” he said.

I think McGeorge was right on the money when he said “It is not an alternative to dieting,”. “It works best on someone who is happy with their tummy, say, but has … thighs which you can reshape. If someone is three stone (40 pounds) overweight and wants liposuction to deal with the problem, I tell them to go away.”

It saddens me to see people resorting to risky medical procedures to improve themselves. There are people being rushed to emergency rooms every second in need of surgical procedures that could save their lives. But these situations are often a matter of life & death. Why put yourself at risk of going through surgical complications as well as a painful recovery just to lose some weight?

It’s a waste of time and money anyway because even if the fat is removed in one area of the body, it will surface in another part. Then what do you do, head to the surgeon every time you gain few pounds?

The bottom line is this. Sometimes the best things in life don’t come easily, you have to work for them. Rather than resorting to the knife, try hitting the gym and a healthy diet. Not only will you see physical results, but you’ll improve your overall health. Plus, you’ll feel a sense of pride from your accomplishments. Oh and you’ll have that $10,000 you would have wasted on the surgery sitting in the bank!

An Albuquerque, N.M. senator has put the wheels in motion to pass a bill that would ban foods containing aspartame from being sold in the state by July.

Aspartame is an artificial sweetener or “fake sugar” as I like to call it that has been used by many all over the world as a substitute for sugar. People on an individual level use products with aspartame to sweeten their drinks while big companies use it for products like diet soda.

Sen. Gerald Ortiz y Pino, D-Albuquerque is the man sponsoring the ban. “It’s going to be an uphill battle.” he said.

If passed, the bill will ban any products that contain aspartame from being sold in, manufactured in or delivered to New Mexico until it can be proven by manufacturers that it is not a carcinogen. “Fake sugars” such as Equal and NutraSweet will also be included in the ban.

It’s nice to wake up and hear some positive news about drastic measures that some people are taking to actually benefit the lives of other people rather than to fatten their wallets.

Too many times we hear about people, corporations & organizations taking action that involves risking people’s health & lives to make money. In this case, the state of New Mexico is truly concerned about the lives of it’s residents. For that, they should be applauded.

The problem that raises a little concern is whether the state has the authority to override both the federal Food and Drug Administration, and laws on interstate commerce. For this reason, the bill has been delayed from being proposed earlier.

The state’s Environmental Improvement Board is now calling on the state attorney general for some answers.

Folks, let’s hope this bill actually gets passed. People need to realize that by putting this poison in their bodies, they are literally selling their health to a company concerned only with profits.

I highly suggest that you avoid “diet” sodas at all costs and instead look for products that contain Stevia, which is a healthy and natural alternative to this toxic sweetener.

Recently, two studies conducted at the University of San Diego concluded that increasing intake of vitamin D either through sunlight, diet or supplements may lower a person’s risk of contracting breast cancer by 50 percent. Vitamin D intake may also lower the risk of contracting colorectal cancer by more than 65 percent.

In an effort to increase precision and be able to draw conclusions not allowed by the original data, a meta-analysis was used in both studies to gather data from multiple previous studies. The studies involved two groups of subjects divided based on their blood levels of vitamin D. The incidence of cancer was then compared between the groups.
 
“The data were very clear, showing that individuals in the group with the lowest blood levels had the highest rates of breast cancer, and the breast cancer rates dropped as the blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D increased,” said Cedric Garland, co-author of one of the studies.

A mere 25 minutes in the sun for darker skinned people, or even 10 to 15 minutes for those with lighter skin is all it would take to reach the blood level associated with a 50 percent lower risk of breast cancer.

The other study showed risk of contracting colorectal cancer lowered by two-thirds with the same amount of sunlight.
 
The facts are here in black and white. The most recent issue of the “Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology ” showcases the breast cancer study online and the colorectal cancer study was published online in the February 6 issue of the “American Journal of Preventive Medicine.”
 
The benefits associated with natural sunlight can no longer be shunned. Studies ahve shown it to be safe ans effective in preventing numerous diseases including certain types of cancer, depression, osteoporosis, diabetes as well as heart disease.
 
So why are so many people afraid of the sun? Well for years, people bought into the nonsense being shoved down their throats by Big Pharma & the media in an effort to make drug companies and sun screen manufacturers richer.
 
Fairy tales of how the sun causes cancer and how sun screen was extremely important were nothing more than manufacturers & drug companies capitalizing off of the false fear that sunscreen is protection from the sun which causes cancer.
 
In reality however, the cycle is altogether backwards. It really works like this. Sunscreen (which contains octylmethoxycinnamate, benzophenone 3 and octocrylene) leaves the skin vulnerable to damage. Natural sunlight contains vitamin D which has been shown to reduce cancer stats. Cancer medications, are riddled with side effects. Simply put, sunlight is free. Med’s and suscreen are not.

Folks, now I have seen it all!

A California-based pharmaceutical company is currently developing smokeable drugs. In an effort to deliver fast results, they are producing drugs that that can be smoked like cigarettes.

Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, chairman of psychiatry at Columbia University, says:

“It’s a useful mode of delivery, though its desirability and frequency of prescription will depend on the disorder.”

The company responsible for the development of this “pharma-crack” as I like to call it is Alexza Pharmaceuticals Inc. Their agenda includes manufacturing drugs that can be inhaled for the treatment of pain, anxiety and schizophrenia-induced agitation. Inhalable drugs have been produced in the past from other companies but what separates these is that they are “smokeable”.

Because this type of medicine passes through the lungs and into the blood within seconds, drugs that can be inhaled act more rapidly than pills, which have to be digested and absorbed. The process by which Alexza will produce these drugs consist of heating liquid drugs to create a vapor. Another fact that makes this idea different is that the company plans on creating a portable device which will allow patients to carry their smokable med’s wherever they go. Right now, Alexza is testing a hip-flask-sized, battery-powered package.

The company is testing a smokeable version of nausea medicine called prochlorperazine. Thomas King, the company’s CEO says they also hope to announce the formation of a new partnership with a big pharmaceutical company to start developing another drug by years end.

This is pure insanity if you ask me. Aside from making billions off of chemicals in a bottle being sold to a fear driven market, Big Pharma is now putting the wheels in motion to produce smoke able chemicals.

I wonder where the FDA stands in all of this? They’re probably too busy trying to ban a natural supplement for false claims to worry about people lighting and smoking prescription chemicals. Why not just put this stuff on the street so people can get it as fast as possible without having to wait for a prescription from doctor?

On January 22, 2007 nearly 3,000 students were sent home from schools in Maryland for failing to get required vaccines. What’s even more disturbing is that to comply with state vaccination laws, officials are considering pursuing legal action against the parents’ of the children.

According to the law, January 2 was the deadline for all students through ninth grade to be vaccinated against hepatitis B and chickenpox. Approximately 12,000 students have failed to comply with the new rules according to Bill Reinhard, spokesman for the Maryland Department of Education. Of that group, the students who showed up for class on January 22 were suspended from school.

Carol Mowen of Washington County Public Schools, says once a noncompliant student has been absent for ten days, “it becomes an issue of truancy,” such a situation poses an issue of liability to the parents for breaking compulsory schooling laws.

So basically, at this point parents are considered to be breaking the law because they are protecting their children from possible side effects of vaccines.

Many vaccines contain toxic substances and are highly dangerous. The process of getting vaccinated should be a choice, not a requirement of the law as far as I’m concerned. After all, this is America, land of the free.

Washington County Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Instruction Donna Hanlin said that before taking such drastic measures as charging parents with truancy, officials are interested in discovering what could be preventing the parents from getting the children vaccinated.

What officials should do is a little bit of research and see for themselves how truly dangerous some vaccines are. The sad part is they may even already know.

Having an opinion on something is a right that everyone has no matter how ludicrous it may be.  But using methods of threat & force to get people to adhere to what you think is right is strong-arming in my opinion and should be outlawed itself.

Let’s face facts. These people aren’t engaging in criminal activity. They are simply protecting their child, which is something every parent has the right to do.