Vol. 15 No. 5 EarthSave promotes a shift toward a healthy plant-based diet. Fall 2004

INSIDE

EarthSaveEarthSaveNEWS

Non-profitUS Postage

PAIDNo. 178

Pasadena, CA

Bushdeclares war

on Iraqifarmers

P. 8

Inspired by the phenome-nal success of activist organi-zations like MoveOn.org - agroup that used the web tobuild a powerful infrastructurebringing together millions ofpeople from around the coun-try -- EarthSave International(ESI) is taking a giant leapinto the 21st Century!

ESI is pleased to announcethat we have entered into arelationship with Kintera, Inc.,the industry leader in special-ized Internet technology fornonprofit organizations. WithKintera's software, we aremoving online to simplifyoperations and communica-tions throughout our organiza-tion and to better reach every-one on the Internet. LocalEarthSave Chapters, as well asour national organization, willbe able to use Kintera's excit-ing new technology to reachmembers and to increaseeffectiveness.

To get started, we want allour members to go to our web-site (www.earthsave.org) andlogin to register. You'll be ableto update your mailing addressinformation, renew your mem-bership online, subscribe toour electronic mailing lists,sign up and pay for localevents, buy merchandise andmake donations. By focusingon our website and electroniccommunication, we will beable to efficiently interact withour membership and expandthe reach of our educationefforts, to help people move tomore plant-based food choic-es.

Local chapter leaders willbe able to access our coredatabase technology for theirmembers to promote localactivities and events, and tokeep their local communitiesalive and thriving.Collectively, the efficiency ofa central technology databasewill free up valuable timefrom our staff and volunteers,

MOVin’ON UP!

so our organization will have moreactual time to help people make bet-ter food choices, to help Save theEarth.

But that's just the beginning!Some of our Internet campaigns havegenerated hundreds of thousands ofhits and tens of thousands of newregistrants. This is a large force ofpeople, who have been inspired byJohn Robbins' books, and with whomwe can change the world. With ournew technology, we will be able toengage and mobilize this force likenever before, to energize our excitingnew projects, to make a difference.And unlike campaigns based on mail

and newsletters, this technology willhelp us to get people truly involved.And that's where change really hap-pens, with the people, one at a time.

So, get ready for the 21st Century.Watch your email for updates in thecoming weeks, send us your ideas,mobilize your energy, and help us toSave the Earth. It's been nearly 20years since the first release of Dietfor a New America, and to this day itcontinues to inspire people to think,and to change. Help us to spread themessage even further, and to inspire anew generation.

The EarthSave community isgoing online!

Log on and joinEarthSave’s webrevolution!

US Gov’t Panel: Eatmore whole grains,exercise more

Not any bread will do, a panel of doctors and sci-entists has told the U.S. government in September inissuing its final recommendations about what adviceshould go into the federal food pyramid.

People should eat at least three one-ounce servingsof whole grains each day, preferably in place ofrefined grains, or white bread, the proposals for thefive-year update of the government's nutrition advicesay.

The advisers and the government want Americansto balance the calories they get from food with thecalories they burn in physical activity. But with almosttwo-thirds of Americans overweight or obese, officialsrealize they have an uphill fight.

"We have to have a good behavior change imple-mentation to address this serious problem of obesityand overweight," said Eric Hentges, executive directorof the Agriculture Department's Center for NutritionPolicy and Promotion, which will use the guidelines asit revamps the pyramid.

The committee also called for Americans to con-trol their weight by being physically active. And therecommendations could keep people very busy.

To prevent weight gain, many people should do upto 60 minutes a day of moderate to vigorous activity,and those who have lost weight and want to keep it offmay have to do up to 90 minutes, the report said.

Unlike the current guidelines, issued in 2000, thenew recommendations do not specifically tell peopleto be moderate in their use of added sugars, such asregular sodas. Sugar provides energy, the report noted.

But the scientists and doctors are not lettingAmericans off the hook. They say people still have tobe careful in their intake as a way to keep their weightunder control.

The recommendations go to federal officials whowill prepare reports for the secretaries of Agricultureand of Health and Human Services, who must approvethe findings before they can be issued.

Officials expect the final nutrition report, and anupdated version of the food pyramid, to come out earlynext year.

On whole grains, the panel said people should eatmore as a way to get more fiber. Fiber has been shownto reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes, thereport said.

However, the panel still allowed room for refinedgrains.

"This is an issue of balance," Hentges said. "Weare kind of out of balance now. We need more fiber.It's getting a balance of enriched grains and wholegrains."

The advisers also introduced a new concept for theguidelines -- discretionary calories.

Those are calories needed just for energy, afterpeople have eaten foods rich in nutrients and therebymet their requirements for vitamins, minerals andother necessities for health. Discretionary caloriescould be considered treats calories, because they don'thave to be from nutrient-rich foods.

Discretionary calories are the reward for livingright. And Americans who are overweight or obesedon't have discretionary calories, Hentges said. "Theyused them up a long time ago," he said. To get themback, they will have to burn more calories by beingmore active, he said.

Vegan dietturned

around myhealth & life

P. 2

Panel issues final recommendations forfood pyramid

Mad cow; it’salready here

and calledAlzheimer’s

P. 5

Prisonersof the

drugindustry

P. 6

2 Fall 2004 Perspectives EarthSave News

Letter from the ChairAt first glance, this issue of EarthSave News appears to be all

doom and gloom:Drinking milk and sodas can contribute to prostate cancer and

diabetes/obesity, respectively (pages 3 & 12). Our government isforcing Iraqi farmers to become dependent upon Monsanto andother US seed manufacturers (page 8). Many cases of Alzheimer'smight in fact be misdiagnosed cases of mad cow disease (page 5).Fraud in the information provided to the FDA by pharmaceuticalcompanies is rampant (page 6). And now the World HealthOrganization has been accused of burying a report which recom-mended curbs on junk food ads as a part of global food standards(page 8).

Yikes! Where does all this frightening information lead us? Itcan lead to a feeling of overwhelm, where we are tempted to throwup our hands and stop trying to fight these forces. Or, it can lead usto a more life-sustaining, empowering decision to take charge of ourown health. Let's face it: we can't count on our government, our cor-porations or even our doctors to protect our health. We have to do itourselves.

On a personal level, I'm learning this first hand at home rightnow. Both of my wife's parents have had cancer. My father-in-law,Bill, passed away eight years ago. We didn't have a lot of time andhadn't done our homework enough toknow then that we had to take control ofthe situation. We trusted our doctorsand "the system" to take care of things,and we were let down in a big way.

Armed with what we had learnedthrough Bill's death, we've done theopposite with his wife, Wilma's, care. Inaddition to an oncologist, we got herinto the hands of an integrative therapydoctor (Keith Block, MD in Evanston,Illinois). We read extensively aboutwhat lifestyle changes would be mostbeneficial in fighting cancer. At Dr. Block's recommendation,Wilma adopted a whole foods, low-fat, vegan diet. She relied uponher faith in God as a tool for healing. And we learned to ask lots ofquestions of Wilma's care providers. And thank God we did,because on several occasions we chose paths different than what wewere given as the first option because they didn't make sense to us.(In one extreme example, asking questions and getting a sixth-yes,sixth-opinion literally saved Wilma's life when we discovered thatthey had misdiagnosed the type of cancer.) In short, Wilma's qual-ity and quantity of life have been greatly improved by taking chargeof the situation.

I don't for a second think that all doctors are bad, that all chemi-cal companies are evil and that the government is out to get us.There's really not any room for such cynical thinking these days.But I do know that we have to take charge of our own health and ofthe health of our loved ones. Primarily, we can take charge of theone thing we do three times a day-eat. Eating a whole foods, plant-based diet can save us (and our planet) from most of our ailments.At EarthSave, we're here to help you take control of your life. Andwith our new deal with Kintera (see page 1), we'll be able to do thatmuch more efficiently these days. Together, for the benefit of our-selves and our planet, we can positively take charge!

Yours in good health,John D. Borders, Jr., JDChair, EarthSave Board of Directors

John Borders and family

LettersAppreciation

Dear Mr. Robbins,I'm sure you get letter like

this every day but I wanted toshare my story with you.

About three years ago I feltlike my health was in decline. Iwas a 28 year old girl who, foryears, had followed every faddiet on the market. I had fluctu-ated between the Zone diet andAtkins diet for most of mytwenties, eating processedmeats and eggs several times aday. I ate red meat at least 5-6times a week. By the time I was28, I was suffering from a myr-iad of problems, but mostnotably severe IBS. I went todoctor after doctor and evenparticipated in a medical study.Not one doctor ever questionedthat my diet may have been theproblem. Instead, they wouldhand me a bottle of laxitivesand send me home.

I had chest pains and anxi-ety. I developed chronic acne. Ifelt sluggish and depressed.One day, at the book store, Ibought your book, FoodRevolution, never understand-ing the impact that it wouldhave on my life. From the firstpage, I couldn't put it down. Itmade me laugh and, at severalpoints, cry. It made me unbelie-veably angry that for years I,along with so many others, hadbeen lied to by the Americanfood marketing machine aboutso many of the foods that I wascomsuming on a regular basis. Iread the entire book in two daysand, since that time, have notconsumed any meat, fish ordairy products.

The change in my healthover the last two years has beenastounding. Almost immediate-ly my IBS disappeared, never toreturn. My skin cleared up. Ihad more energy than I everhad. My mood improved and Ilost 10 pounds. My workoutshave never been better.Ironically, I have more muscle

mass now than I did when I atemeat. Recently I went to thedoctor for a full physical. Mycholestorol ratio is nearly a per-fect 1:1. My blood pressure islow. At the age of 32, my "realage" basis all of my tests is 25.I have half the risk of a heartattack as other people in my agegroup.

People ask me whether I feeldeprived and they say that theyadmire my willpower. I tellthem that this is the easist thingI've ever done. I've never need-ed willpower because in myheart I could never imagine eat-ing any differently now. Thethought of eating meat makesme physically ill and I cannotimagine how I did it for so long.I never feel deprived becausethis way of eating has openedup so many food possibilitiesfor me. I eat a greater variety offoods now than I ever didbefore.

I feel a change in my mindas well. I have noticed that I feelmore peaceful and compassion-ate. I meditate and pray now ona regular basis. I feel so muchmore connected and in tunewith the world around me.

Words cannot expressenough gratitude for your book.You have truly changed my lifeforever in such a positive way.

Thank you. Thank you.Thank you.

Laura RhoadsManakin Sabot, VA

Hypocrites!The lead story in your last

newsletter (vol.15 no.3) is enti-tled “Sugar Wars.” Then on onpage five you are pushing"vegan marshmallows,” whoseingredientsl are listed as:

Sugar (non-bone charrefined), water, light cornsyrup, vegan jel(carageenan, locust beangum & malto-dextrin),vanilla extract, corn starch,sea salt.

What sort of hypocritical BSis this? You have *no* credibil-ity when you engage in this sortof two-faced preaching.

--Bruce HamiltonRedondo Beach, CA

The Editor RespondsLast issue’s cover article

exposed the soda industry’spractice of bribing schools toforce sugary drinks on our kids,day in and day out. In anotherarticle, we reviewed a vegan

marshmallow product. We weren’t advocating our

readers eat vegan marshmal-lows daily. Neither were we“preaching” at people to neverlet sugar touch their lips.

As our current page one arti-cle on the US Food PyramidPanel recommendations notes,there is such a thing as “discre-tionary calories” (except forthose with health issues).

Many people can eat a veganmarshmallow now and again.They’re delicious! JohnRobbins put it most elegantly inhis watershed book, Diet for aNew America:

“Beer and franks withcheer and thanksbeats sprouts andbread with fear anddread.”

Think About It...DIET AND OSTEOPOROSIS

Countries with the highest consumption of dairy products: Finland, Sweden,United States, England

Countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis: Finland, Sweden, UnitedStates, England

Daily calcium intake for African Americans: More than 1,000 mg

Daily calcium intake for black South Africans: 196 mg

Hip fracture rate for African Americans compared to black South Africans: 9times greaterCalcium intake in rural China: One-half that of people in the United States

Bone fracture rate in rural China: One-fifth that of people in the UnitedStates

Foods that when eaten produce the most calcium loss through urinaryexcretion: Animal protein and coffee

Amount of calcium lost in the urine of a woman after eating a hamburger:28 milligrams

Amount of calcium lost in the urine of a woman after drinking a cup of cof-fee: 2 milligrams

Average daily calcium intake of vegans: 437mg-1,100 mgFrom John Robbins’ The Food Revolution

One of the easiest ways tobecome an activistis to join EarthSave,or make a donation.www.EarthSave.org

Visit the EarthSavewebsite today! Sign up

to receive special bulletins, discounts,and news & actionitems! Renew your

membership online!

On Friday, December 10th, 12-year-old New Yorker Wolfe Margoliesheld a fundraiser for EarthSave, entitled A Hair for a Hare. For a pledgeof $2, kids and adults were able to personally cut off one of Wolfe'scherished dreadlocks. Wolf raised $250 for EarthSave, and even con-vinced several people to sign up to take the VegPledge. Woof, Wolfe!

Creativefundraising!

Above, Wolfe pre-fundraiser.Above right, Wolfe afterfundraiser (in white t-shirt), sur-rounded by friends.

EarthSave News Health News Fall 2004 3

Dr. Greger’s health updatesProstate Cancer and Milk

Prostate cancer is now the single most commoncancer among men in the United States and is onthe rise in almost every country in the world asthey adopt a more meat and dairy centered diet.[4]Does drinking cow milk really increase a man'srisk for developing this killer cancer, though? Yes,according to a meta-analysis of 11 independentstudies published this summer. Milk-drinking menseem to have about a 70% greater chance of devel-oping cancer of the prostate. In fact the caseagainst milk is so strong and consistent that even if50 new studies came out all failing to show anylink between milk and prostate cancer, the balanceof evidence would still indict milk as a significantcancer risk factor.[1]

Although the butterfat in dairy may play a role,the researchers blame the hormones in milk as thelikely culprit. "Because commercial milk is mainlyproduced by pregnant cows in developed coun-tries," the researchers claim, "it contains consider-able amounts of estrogen." Combined with othergrowth hormones in the milk designed to make acalf gain 100 pounds in 50 days,[2] cow milk maypromote the growth of hormone-sensitive cancers.

Milk is for babies.

Reversing Arteriosclerosis withPomegranate Juice

Folk medicine has been extolling the medicinalqualities of pomegranates for thousands of years.Modern science has been a bit slow catching up,but with the fruit's intense ruby red color, it shouldcome as no surprise it has topped the antioxidantcharts, blowing blueberries right out of the water.But Israeli researchers have just permanentlyplaced pomegranates on the map with a landmarkstudy published this summer in the journal ClinicalNutrition.[3]

The researchers took a group of people cominginto a vascular surgery clinic with severe carotidartery blockage--the arteries in their neck provid-ing blood flow to their brain were 70-90%obstructed. Half of the patients were then instruct-ed to drink a little less than a quarter cup of pome-granate juice every day for a year.

At the end of the year, the arte-riosclerotic plaques in the arteries ofthose who did nothing predictablyworsened, thickening 9%, closingtheir arteries off even further. But inthe pomegranate juice group, afterjust 3 months the plaques in theirarteries shrank 13%. By 9 monthsthe plaque was down 26%. And afterone year of drinking less than aquarter cup of pomegranate juice aday, the arteriosclerotic lesions were35% reversed. The investigatorsattribute the anti-arterioscleroticproperties of pomegranates to theantioxidant polyphenols (which Italk about in my new Stopping CancerDVD -- see my website drgreger.org for more info).

So should we start forking out $4 a bottle forthat "Pom Wonderful" juice that started popping upin grocery stores? Well, you can get cheaper (andorganic!) pomegranate juice in your natural foodstore, but the whole fruit is always preferable tojuice--you get the additional benefits of the fiberand other nutrition discarded during processing.

Endometriosis and Diet Up to 50% of menstruating women have

endometriosis,[4] a condition that can result inexcruciating chronic pain and infertility. The onlycure is radical surgery. And no one even knowsexactly what causes it, or even clearly what the riskfactors are.[5] A new study just published, though,offers some insight into the development of this

disease.Studying hundreds of women with confirmed

endometriosis, Italian researchers found that thoseeating just one daily serving of meat (beef or pork--poultry was not studied) seemed to double theirrisk of developing endometriosis. Eating freshfruit, on the other hand, seemed to drop their risk20% and, based on this research, eating just a sin-gle serving of green vegetables every day may cutyour risk of developing endometriosis in half!

So to help prevent this painful condition,women may want to eat more greens and lessbeings.

Vegans Need to Eat More Greens, Beansand NutsLow fat vegetarian and vegan diets have provenremarkably successful in the treatment of heartdisease,[6] diabetes,[7] and high blood pres-sure.[8] Many practitioners are hesitant, though,to put people on such diets fearing their nutrition-al adequacy. This is ironic, given that when peo-ple switch from an omnivorous diet their intake ofmany nutrients greatly improves. They tend to eatless saturated fat and cholesterol, of course, butalso experience favorable increases in antioxi-dants like B carotene and vitamin C, B vitaminslike thiamin and folate, and minerals like magne-sium and potassium.[9]

The Physician's Committee for ResponsibleMedicine recently published a dietary analysis of afew dozen women transitioned to a self-selectedlow fat vegan diet. Although the intakes of mostvitamins and minerals improved or stayed thesame, the consumption of some nutrients dropped.They conclude: "To increase intakes of these nutri-ents, people following a low-fat vegan diet shouldemphasize legumes [beans, lentils] and wholegrains for protein; supplemental sources of vitaminD and B12, such as fortified cereals and soymilk toincrease vitamin D and B12 intakes; leafy greens,beans, and fortified soymilks and juices to increasecalcium intake; and whole, unrefined grains, nutsand seeds to increase phosphorus, selenium andzinc intakes." [9]

There are so many wonderful vegan conve-nience foods out there now, but thehealthiest (not to mention oftencheapest and more environmentallyfriendly) foods are still those thatgrow out of the ground.

Raw versus Cooked Vegetablesfor Cancer Prevention

We know that vegetables in gen-eral prevent cancer, but a researcherat the Columbia University School ofPublic Health recently attempted todetermine whether they are moreprotective raw or cooked.Unfortunately, we have no studiesdirectly comparing raw versuscooked veggies, so researchers had to

review the totality of available research (publishedover the last decade) in an attempt to tease out thedifference.

Cooking destroys some cancer-fighting nutri-ents, yet enhances the absorption of others. Forexample, by cooking your dark green leafy vegeta-bles, studies show you may be destroying half ofthe antioxidant carotenoids.[10] At the same time,cooking may double carotenoid bioavailability,such that in the end your body might wind up withthe same amount.[11]

Cooking vegetables increases the content ofone type of fiber (soluble), which may help preventcancer by decreasing insulin levels, but cookingdecreases the content of another type (insoluble),

Michael Greger, M.D.

by John McDougall, MD

Tea is the most popular bev-erage in many parts of the worldand levels of consumption areincreasing. Historical recordsshow that the enjoyment of teagoes as far back as 5000 yearsago in China. This stimulatingbeverage remained an importantpart of the cultures of China andJapan for thousands of years, andwas finally imported to Europein the 1500s. Not until the early1600s, however, did tea drinkingbecome popular in England andAmerica.

There are four common cate-gories of tea made from the sametea plant species (Camelliasinensis). The difference in the

varieties is the result of the meth-ods of processing. White tea issimply steamed leaves. Oolongtea is partially fermented andgreen tea is steamed to stop theoxidation. Black tea undergoesseveral hours of oxidation duringpreparation (accelerated by heatand humidity). The degree ofprocessing after harvest changesthe relative amounts and kinds ofchemicals found in the final bev-erage

White Tea = boiled anddried.

Green Tea = withered byexposure to the air, steamed,rolled, and dried.

Oolong Tea = withered,shaken, fermented briefly, anddried.

Black Tea = withered, rolled,fully fermented, and dried.

Tea May Help You LoseExcess Weight

In experimental animal stud-ies, tea results in a significantreduction of "high-fat diet-induced" body weight gain, andreduces the accumulation of fatin the abdomen and liver, andprevents the development ofhyperinsulinemia (elevatedinsulin levels associated withweight gain).1 Research pub-lished in the American Journal ofClinical Nutrition suggests thatan extract from green tea mayhelp with weight loss by speed-ing up fat oxidation.2 Relative to

a placebo, treatment with thegreen tea extract resulted in asignificant increase in 24-hourenergy expenditure. Treatmentwith caffeine in amounts equiva-lent to those found in the greentea extract had no effect on ener-gy expenditure. Thus, tea mayhave specific benefits for losingexcess body fat -- and should bean easy addition to the daily rou-tine for anyone interested inbecoming trimmer.

Oolong Tea Helps DiabeticsIn a recent study published in

the journal Diabetes Care,oolong tea was found to be veryeffective at lowering the bloodsugar of diabetics on medica-tions. Compared to water, this

variety of tea decreased bloodsugars from an average of 229mg/dl to 162.2 mg/dl. Thisdecrease was not due to anyweight loss by the diabetics, butrather was a direct effect of thetea. The mechanism by which tealowers blood sugars is not knownbut it may be due to the insulin-like activity of compounds(polyphenols) found in teas, andthe delay of glucose absorptionthrough the intestine.

Synergetic Actions of TeasPrevent, and Maybe Treat,Cancers

Non-toxic approaches for theprevention and treatment of can-cers are very important becauseof the relative ineffectiveness ofdrug therapy - little benefit hasbeen realized for the patient'ssurvival of most cancers.Anticancer drugs are also verytoxic and costly. Therefore, thelikely possibility that green teacould improve the quality of yourlife is valuable information.

Heavy consumption of tea,especially green teas in Japan,has been associated with adecreased risk of cancer andartery disease (atherosclerosis).In particular, people who drinkgreen tea have been reported tohave lower incidences of cancerof the esophagus and breast.Most promising are the consis-tent findings in animal models

Tea time increaseslife time

GREGER/PAGE 11

"How do you build up your bankaccount? By putting something in it

every day. Your health account is nodifferent. What I do today, I am

wearing tomorrow. If I put inferiorfoods in my body today, I'm going tobe inferior tomorrow. It's that simple."

Jack LaLanne90-year-old health enthusiast, who says he eats atleast 5 or 6 fruits and at least 10 raw vegetables

every day.TEA/PAGE 11

4 Fall 2004 Books EarthSave News

CARYN HARTGLASSSECRETARY

MARK EPSTEINTREASURER

JULES OAKLANDER, D.O.ANIL SUBRAMANI

SANDY LAURIE

Legal AdvisorMORGANWARD

STITES & HARBISON • LOUISVILLE, KY

Executive DirectorCARYN HARTGLASS

Newsletter ContributorsDAN BALOGH , J OHN D.BORDERS,JR.,J.D.,

MICHAEL GREGER MD, BRUCE HAMILTON, COLMKELLEHER PHD, JOHN MCDOUGALL MD, JEFF

NELSON, LAURA RHOADS, RICHARD STEINER PHD,JO STEPANIAK

Editorial BoardJOHN BORDERS, JEFF ANDSABRINA NELSON,

CYNTHIA VOTH

Graphic Design & ProductionGREG LEMIRE

MOVING? Please make sure theaddress on your mailing label is cur-

rent. Please contact us withupdates.

MEMBERSHIP DATEPlease check your membership

date on your address label -- it maybe time to renew! EarthSave

Magazine is published quarterly by

EarthSave InternationalP.O. Box 96

New York, NY 10108Tel: 800-362-3648Fax: 718-228-2491

information@earthsave.org

More than 35 chapters and branch-es -see page 12

EarthSave News is distributed as amembership benefit to EarthSavemembers. Basic annual member-

ship in is $35 (tax-deductible).

COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONSWe welcome your feedback and

ideas. Please write or email us.

Contributors The deadline for articles, letters andphotos for the next issue is Jan 30,

2005, for consideration in the nextissue. Fax, mail, or e-mail submissions

to the Editor at the office, or toinformation@earthsave.org.

The editor reserves the right to rejector edit all submissions. Opinions

expressed by contributors are notnecessarily those of EarthSave

International.

EarthSave educates, inspires andempowers people to shift toward adiet centered on fruits, vegetables,grains and legumes -- food choicesthat are healthy for people and for

the planet. Our influence and effec-tiveness is dependent upon our

members, donors, and benefactors.

©2004 EarthSave InternationalImage copyrights held by the artists.

Our MissionEarthSave educates people

about the powerful effects ourfood choices have on the

environment, our health and alllife on Earth, and encourages a

shift toward a healthy,plant-based diet.

JOHN ROBBINSFOUNDER, BOARD CHAIR EMERITUS

Board of DirectorsJOHN D. BORDERS, JR., J.D.

CHAIRJEFF NELSON

VICE-CHAIR

NEWSEarthSaveEarthSave

By Josephine BellaccomoReviewed by Caryn Hartglass

Move the Message is an absolute must-read for allactivists of any degree. THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE BOOK!It is phenomenally well-written, thoughtfully organized andthoroughly complete down to the simplest details.Bellaccommo provides step-by-step procedures for effec-tive presentations, letter writing, press releases, rallying,protesting, etc. Her approach is extremely sensible and pos-itive.

I recommend reading the entire book and then using itas a reference for specific activities. Even the most sea-soned presenter will find new, valuable ideas that will bringhis or her effectiveness to a higher level. If you are a hard-working activist feeling the burnout and frustration ofputting in lots of energy with little apparent payoff, thisbook is for you. You will find ways to freshen and focusyour approach with rewarding results. If you are moved tomake a difference but are fearful of being in front of peopleand negotiating with the opposing side, this book is for you

as well because the method to prepare yourself is so easy tofollow, with very small, manageable steps.

Move the Message does not eliminate the work that youneed to do but it provides ameticulous format to guideyou all the way to success.There are numerous examplesof actual events thatBellaccomo uses to illustrateher points. Not only are theyuseful, but they are interest-ing as well as informative.Many provide inspiration,showing how a well-plannedactivity can demonstrate thedesired result.

There are numerous tipson how to deal with themedia, the police, the crowd,team members and those sheterms the "power holders."She gives advice on what to

do and not do if you are arrested. The book provides instruc-tions on how to use your eyes, hands and feet with explana-tions why and what the affects will be in different situations.

Some of the information may seem obvious but wemay not have given much thought to its impact.Bellaccomo makes crystal clear the importance ofyour appearance.The author actually follows her own recommenda-tions and is an excellent speaker, communicator andtrainer. Inviting Josephine Bellaccomo to give a talkor workshop on effective activism would be a worth-while venture.If all of us followed the procedures outlined in Movethe Message I truly believe we could move moun-tains, making a powerful difference to change theworld for the better.

For more information, visit:www.movethemessage.comwww.josephinebellaccomo.com

By Rex BowlbyReviewed by Dan Balogh

To be honest, when I first starting flipping throughthis book I was skeptical. I wondered why we needed yetanother book on the merits of veganism. I wonderedwhether the cheesy clip art at the beginning of each sec-tion would try my patience and inhibit my ability to getthrough all 500 pages. A web search on Rex Bowlbyfound one previous book by him - dealing with how tokeep kids entertained without spending loads of money.What does this guy know about veganism, I thought?

Gosh was I wrong! Now, after having read the book,

and finding it quite easy to do so, I believe it is one of themost important contributions to vegan literature in sometime. Yes, there are plenty of good books on veganism outthere, as well as journal and magazine articles - but thevalue that Bowlby adds with "Plant Roots" is very impor-tant. After climbing that mountain of existing informa-tion, and absorbing it all, he does an amazing job of iso-lating the most compelling facts and distilling them intobite-sized portions for us. One can think of "Plant Roots"as the Cliff Notes version of the vegan literature - onlythis Cliff Notes is 500 pages long!

"Plant Roots" covers every possible angle from healthto the environment, from animal rights to religion. Thebreadth of material covered is astonishing. The 101 "rea-sons" of the book's subtitle actually refers to its 101 chap-ters, each of which offers dozens of reasons why vegan-ism is our natural diet. To prove that he's climbed the

mountain, Bowlby lists loads of footnotes and rigorouslytraces them back to one or more of the 1,001 sources list-ed in the bibliography. When was the last time you saw abibliography with 1,001 sources?

A 500-page Cliff Notes? That can't be entertaining,can it? Think again. Bowlby jumps hoops to make theinformation as accessible and entertaining as possible,concocting fictional radio interviews, movie plots, gamesand other devices to keep the reader entertained. In mostcases it works, at other times it distracts from the mainpoints. Bowlby is at his best, however, when he's beingdead serious, formulating his unique insights into somevery memorable analogies.

For example, Bowlby's observation regarding theAmerican obsession with eating chicken eggs (which isto chickens as the human placenta is to humans) is stark- "Most likely after witnessing a human birth, and seeingthe placenta expelled, our thoughts did not include thedesire to cook up an omelet." Later on, when describingthe deplorable conditions that broiler chickens are forcedto endure during their mercifully short lives Bowlbynotes, "Broilers will live their lives crammed four to fivein a 16-by-18 inch cage. Imagine living our total life inan elevator with 20 other people." He continues "Toreduce the damage, chickens' beaks are partiallyremoved. Imagine having our fingernails torn off."

At other times the book is very funny. In describinghow we eat animals to get vitamins, instead of just direct-ly eating the plants that the animals eat, Bowlby says,"This might be compared to chewing someone else'salready-chewed gum." Taking vitamin supplements tocombat our lousy eating habits is like "putting out athree-alarm fire with a water pistol."

In the chapter on manipulation, Bowlby takes on thefood pyramid. Defenders of the food pyramid, which isfar from satisfactory, claim that it's a good compromisebetween what is realistic and what is optimal - after all,folks are going to eat eggs and bacon anyway, so theyshould be told to merely limit their intake. Bowlby pon-ders how this reasoning would work when it comes toparenting - "We know our kids are going to run into traf-fic anyway, so we should advise them not to do so morethan two or three times a week."

At other times Bowlby's observations are simply bril-liant. In the section on pork, after describing the manysimilarities between pigs and humans, and explaininghow pig hearts are now being used as human transplants,he observes, "If the absurdity of replacing our heart, withthe heart of the animal we consumed that ruined our heartisn't evident, then we should fear for the future of our

species."As if his amazing distillation of the mountain of

information into the first 400 pages wasn't enough,Bowlby closes the book with a 32-page summary of whatcame before, listing nearly 300 facts and observations. Inessence, he first reduces the mountain into chewablebites and then chews those bites for us in the last 32pages. This alone is worth the price of the book.

So if you're interested in learning more about vegan-ism, you have a couple of choices. You can begin climb-ing the mountain yourself (reading all the existing booksand articles), or you can read Rex Bowlby's amazing tripreport. Ironically, in this case it seems preferable to chewsomeone else's already-chewed bubble gum!

Plant Roots: 101 Reasons Why the Human Diet is Rooted Exclusively in Plants

Move the Message: Your Guide to making a Difference and Challenging the World

Q

Author Rex Bowlby

EarthSave News Books Fall 2004 5

Reviewed by Dan Balogh

I propose a few rules concern-ing books on vegetarian nutrition.First, if a book is written byVesanto Melina, co-author of suchwell-regarded classics as“Becoming Vegan” and“Becoming Vegetarian”, it’s worthgetting. Second, if a book is writ-ten by Jo Stepaniak, author ofundisputed gems like “The VeganSourcebook”, “Being Vegan”, aswell as a slew of wonderful vegancookbooks, it’s worth getting.Finally, if a book is written by bothof them, a review like this is notnecessary. Just get the book!

Melina and Stepaniak team uponce again (their last efforttogether was the book “RaisingVegetarian Children”) to createwhat might be the most compre-hensive layman’s guide for under-standing and dealing with foodsensitivities and allergies on themarket. This time they’re joinedby nutritionist Dina Aronson, co-author of “Minerals from PlantFoods: Strategies for MaximizingNutrition”.

It’s really two books in one.The first 160 pages methodicallyexplain the science behind foodsensitivities and allergies; how todetermine if you have them (youexperience symptoms likeheadaches orhives, forinstance); andhow to determine

what specificfoods are the cul-prits. In this lastdiscussion you’llfind, for instance,a description ofthe do-it-yourselfelimination diet,where individualfoods or groups offoods are eliminat-ed from one’s dietuntil it’s clearwhich is theoffender.

Most otherbooks stop rightthere, leaving the reader with somefamiliarity as to what foods shouldbe removed from his diet, but withan otherwise dearth of ideas onhow to manage this feat for the restof his life. Since Stepaniak is a co-author, that isn’t the case here. Thenext 200 pages (that’s not a typo)present a mountain of recipes forthose with food allergies. Thegreat thing about this section isthat every single recipe is free ofall the major food allergens thatwere previously discussed. Everyrecipe is free of dairy, eggs, fish,shellfish, wheat, gluten, soy,peanuts, kiwi fruit, baker’s yeast,brewer’s yeast, and nutritional

yeast. There’s no need to flipthrough the pages to find the onesthat avoid an individual allergen.All 200 pages are safe.

Even vegans may be scratchingtheir heads at this point ... what, nosoy? No wheat? What’s left?Plenty! Here you’ll find recipesfor pizza, bread, crepes, pies, cere-al, pancakes, salads, dressings,soups, chili, stews, tacos, loafs,curries, quiche, and the list goeson. When you start thinking out-side the box, your eyes open tohow many wonderful nutritiousfoods are out there.

And the book goes further thanjust providing recipes. It actuallyhas a primer in the chapter entitled“Kitchen Basics and CookingFundamentals“ that explains howto cook with non-allergen foods,addressing the principles of beans,pressure cooking, gluten-freeflours, grains and other topics.You’ll also find the fundamentalsof baking, including how to frost acake! Those who don’t need thisinformation can just skip it. Othersmay find it very helpful. Face it –if you have food allergies, the bestway to have total control over theingredients in your meals is to pre-pare the meals yourself. Folks whoaren’t used to that aren’t left hang-ing.

So if you think you may havefood allergiesand want tolearn moreabout them, andperhaps eveni n v e s t i g a t ethem safely onyour own, thisbook is anindispensableand compre-hensive addi-tion to what’scurrently outthere. Evenfolks who don’thave allergiesmight want tohave this one ontheir shelf – justfor the recipes.

Why? With so many folks strickenwith food allergies these days, thismay be one of the few recipebooks that you can safely usewhen you’re preparing food forfriends. It’s just one more type ofheadache this book will help youeliminate!

Dan Balogh is a frequent con-tributor to VegSource.com and amember of EarthSave® New YorkCity. He works as a systems engi-neer in the telecommunicationsindustry. He and his wife havebeen vegans for several years;their kitty Lulu happily approves.

Food AllergySurvival Guide by Vesanto Melina, RMS, RD,Jo Stepaniak, MSEd, and Dina Aronson, MS, RD

Brain Trust: The HiddenConnection Between MadCow Disease andMisdiagnosed Alzheimer’s

by Colm A. Kelleher PhD

My book Brain Trust arguesthat that this is definitely anAmerican problem. Not only dowe have evidence that mad cowdisease has been in the UnitedStates for over 20 years, but wealso have an epidemic of deerand elk disease that has spreadlike wildfire through nearly 20states. The Europeans have onlyto deal with mad cow disease.We have both mad cow anddeer/elk disease. With elevenmillion hunters beginning hunt-ing season as we speak, it is amatter of some urgency thatthey be warned about possibledangers of field dressingdeer/elk or eating venison.Cooking mad cow or mad deermeat does not make it safer toeat. You have to carbonize meatat 600C to make it safe. By thetime it is safe it is a black lumpof charcoal.

Mad cow disease is causedby an infectious protein called aprion. A prion is not a virus andit is not a bacterium. It is simplya different shape of a protein.Normal prions play a helpful rolein the cell, but when they changeshape, they can become lethal.They then kill brain cells by thebillions.

Prion diseases kill humans(CJD), cows (BSE aka mad cowdisease), sheep (scrapie),deer/elk (Chronic WastingDisease: CWD) and an assort-ment of other animal speciesincluding mink, squirrels, cats,ostriches etc. More worryingly,prions can jump species. Thislead to questions for hunters like:can prions jump from deer/elk tohumans? Or can prions jumpfrom deer/elk to cattle?

In the United Kingdom in the1980s and 1990s, hundreds ofthousands of cows died frommad cow disease. For years,health authorities issued pressreleases telling the anxiousBritish public that eating beefwas perfectly safe. It was routinefor officials to go on television toassure the public there was noth-ing to worry about. And then theunthinkable happened.Beginning in the 1990s, scores ofteenagers and young people intheir twenties began to die fromeating tainted beef.

Can the same thing happen inthe United States?

We will not know until it istoo late unless the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture(USDA) actually begins to testthe beef being sold to consumers.Currently, there are 35 millioncattle slaughtered in the UnitedStates, and under pressure, the

USDA has agreed to begin test-ing about 200,000 animals peryear for mad cow disease. Thehuge majority of cattle that reachour dinner tables are never testedfor mad cow disease. In Japan

and in Ireland, every cow that iseaten gets tested and in Europeover 30% are tested. In the US,even with “expanded” testing,less than 1% of animals are test-ed. What’s wrong with that pic-ture?

Consumer groups have longcriticized the USDA for lookingout for big cattle interests rather

than looking out for the con-sumer. Their obstinate refusal totest more cattle in the US formad cow disease is simplybecause the cattle industry hasdeemed it unnecessary. USDAscientists argue that more testingis “unscientific”, but ProfessorStanley Prusiner, who won theNobel Prize in 1997 for his dis-covery of prions, recently statedthat the level of testing for madcow disease in the USA is gross-ly inadequate. Should we believea Nobel Prize winning scientist,or should we believe a USDA

spokesperson? And whenCreekstone Farms in Arkansasdecided to test all the cattle intheir plants for mad cow disease,the USDA stepped in and, invok-ing an obscure 1913 law, prohib-

ited the company from testingtheir cattle!! It is this surreal sit-uation that led to charges by con-sumers that the USDA does nothave the interests of Americanconsumers in mind.

Prions diseases, whether inhumans (CJD) in cows (BSE) orin deer/elk (CWD) are 100%fatal. And prions are almostindestructible. They contaminatesurgical instruments, even onesthat are sterilized. They remainlethally infectious after two yearsin a pasture. Most viruses or bac-teria die within days. Not prions.

And new evidence shows thatprions are passed via blood trans-fusion. Both blood donors andacceptors have died in the UKand in France. A looming ques-tion for the health authorities inthe United States is: how safe isthe American blood supply?

So what is the connectionbetween the human prion disease(CJD) and Alzheimer’s Disease(AD)? Firstly, the astoundingrecent increase in AD in theUnited States has not been suffi-ciently highlighted by the media.In 1979, only 653 people died ofAD. In 2002, that number hadincreased to reach 50,000 deaths.A 9000% increase in deaths forany disease in a mere 25 yearsshould be cause for a nationalemergency. Instead, old peoplenow are almost expected to dieof AD. This was not the case afew generations ago. AD was arare disease in the 1960s.

AD is quite difficult to diag-nose. Mood swings, psychiatricproblems, sleep problems, eyeproblems, memory problems areall loosely associated withdementia. There are some over-

Brain Trust summarizes a possible looming public health emer-gency in the United States. Health and Agriculture authoritiesin the United States and in Canada like to play down any sug-gestion that the food chain is unsafe, particularly when itcomes to the dreaded mad cow disease that has killed over150 people in the UK and Europe. Authorities assure us thatthere is nothing to worry about over here. Mad cow disease ispredominantly a European problem, they say.

laps between symptoms of CJDand AD making them difficult todistinguish during the earlystages. CJD kills within a fewmonths of diagnosis, while ADvictims take years to die. In bothcases, the victims die a horribledeath. The gold standard fordiagnosing CJD is via autopsyfollowed by pathology of thebrain.

Two shocking studies, one

from Yale University and the sec-ond from University ofPittsburgh really opened my eyeswhen I first saw them. Whenresearchers studied the brains ofdead Alzheimer’s diseasepatients, they found that between5-13% had actually been wrong-ly diagnosed. These people hadreally died of CJD. Now, whatdoes this say regarding the sup-

BRAINTRUST/PAGE 10

6 Fall 2004 “Health” American-Style EarthSave News

by John McDougall, MD

The goal of every doctor should be to helpmake his or her patients drug-free by teach-ing them to become healthy. Unfortunately,most doctors know only drug-therapy forpatients’ problems and the result is fat andsick people carrying around bags full of pre-scriptions – and they are not one speckhealthier or happier. (And you wonder why somany doctors complain about the practice ofmedicine these days. How would you feel ifall of your projects ended in failure?)

To make matters worse, well-intentioneddoctors are making their prescription deci-sions based upon fraudulent and incompleteinformation paid for by pharmaceutical com-panies – blind to the suffering of their cus -tomers; these businesses manipulate theresearch studies in order to boost sales. Youshould not be surprised by this, after all,pharmaceutical companies are in the business

of profiting from your sickness and, as aresult of their efforts, they are consideredamong the most successful of all businessesworldwide.

Drug companies spend billions of dollarsand employ thousands of people to try todemonstrate the slightest benefits from theirproducts. From the beginning, the “investiga-tions” used to sell their products are designedso that the results will turn out favorable –why not? They are paying for the project.And if the results do not turn out as expected,then these companies bury any research find-ings that weigh negatively upon their prod-ucts.1 The US government turns a blind eyeto these shenanigans. According to topresearchers, we can no longer rely upon theFood and Drug Administration (FDA) forprotection from useless and dangerous drugs,since this organization acts essentially as atool for the pharmaceutical industries.2

All this dishonesty is very profitable;$154.4 billion dollars was spent by con-sumers in one year (2001) on medicationsthat in many cases do more harm than good –and prescription drug spending rises 15% to18% per year.3 All the while, hopefulpatients are lulled into believing they will besaved by these miracle potions. If the truthwere to be known, more of these same ill peo-ple would take matters into their own handsand save themselves with a healthy diet, someexercise, and clean habits, rather than waitingto be saved by “technological break-throughs.” When was the last miracle druginvented? Penicillin discovered in 1928 byAlexander Fleming? Viagra discovered in1991 by Nicholas Terrett? Most new drugsreleased to the marketplace are simply copiesof older drugs with minor variations to allowa new patent.

Most Drugs on the Market AreUseless and Harmful

People running the drug companies areaware of the fraudulent nature of their busi-ness. According to Allen Roses, VicePresident of GlaxoSmithKline, one of theworld’s leading pharmaceutical companies,“Vast majority of drugs only work in 30 or50% of people.”4 When he says “work,” Iassume he is giving credit for even the slight-est positive change, and not talking about

resolving the patients’ illnesses – becauseessentially 100% of the drugs used to treatchronic diseases fail to cure the patient. Yet,the language used by pharmaceutical compa-nies to promote their products might causeyou to think otherwise. They refer to theirdrugs in ways that suggest their inventionscommonly cure chronic diseases, by callingtheir products, “antihypertensive” and“antidiabetic” – as if these chemicals woulderadicate hypertension (high blood pressure)and diabetes – maybe something like antibi-otics kill bacteria and cure infections. Thetruth is, no doctor has ever seen a patientcured of high blood pressure or diabetes witheither class of medication, no matter howmuch they might wish it to be otherwise. Byand large, drugs do little, if anything, toimprove the well-being and/or longevity ofpeople suffering with chronic diseases, butare undeniably a direct source of death, dis-ability and suffering.

Approximately 2 to 7 % of all hospitaladmissions are caused by medications pre-scribed to patients, and approximately 70%of these incidences are judged as pre-ventable.5,6 Approximately 28% of all emer-gency department visits are a result of takingprescription drugs.7 The drugs most com-monly implicated are: NSAIDs, antiplatelets,seizure medications, antidiabetic drugs, anti-hypertensives (diuretics and beta-blockers),inhaled corticosteroids, and cardiac drugs.

FDA Official Warns Us about FiveMedications

On Thursday, November 19, 2004, DavidGraham, associate science director of theOffice of Drug Safety, told a US Senate hear-ing that FDA agency officials "ostracized"him and subjected him to "veiled threats"when he tried to have his study cleared forpublication on the hazards of Vioxx.8 Basedon the results of Merck's own clinical trials,Graham said “between 88,000 and 139,000Americans had probably had heart attacks orstrokes as a result of taking Vioxx, and that30 to 40 percent had probably died.” Hedescribed the FDA as incapable of stoppingdangerous drugs from coming to and stayingon the market and that the FDA's role inreviewing and approving new drugs some-times conflicted with its duty to address safe-

ty issues. He told the Senate that five other widely

used drugs should be either withdrawn or

sharply restricted because they have danger-ous side effects.

McDougall’s “Five DangerousCategories of Drugs”

Totaling more than $30 Billion in AnnualSales

Note: All five of the following medica-tions increase the risk of dying from heartdisease and many of my patients have takenall five at the same time in the past.

As a board-certified internist for morethan 30 years, taking care of mostly adultswith chronic diseases, I realize that medica-tions can be useful, and occasionally lifesav-ing. My decisions that lead to prescribing arebased on the scientific research published inthe medical journals. As I explained above,this information has been so severely com-promised by the pharmaceutical companiesthat I look upon any research that appearsfavorable to high-profit drugs with skepti-cism. However, when research repeatedlycriticizes any of the “billion-dollar-medica-tions,” then I know the condemning evidencemust be overwhelming. Based on what I havelearned, there are five categories of medica-tion I never prescribe. (If you are taking anyof these medications, I encourage you to talkto your doctor about stopping them and/orsubstituting with a safer choice.)

Sulfonylureas for Type-2 Diabetics:Sulfonylureas are used for type-2 diabetes

because they lower the blood sugar level bystimulating insulin secretion by the pancreas.Insulin is a hormone which lowers the bloodsugar level.

Why I will not prescribe them:Since 1972 the Physicians’ Desk

Reference (PDR) has warned that these drugswill increase your risk of dying from heartdisease by 2 ½ times over taking no medica-tion at all. The mechanisms for causing thisharm are well-known.9 In a recent study,these “antidiabetic agents” have been shownto more than double the risk of heart attacksand almost triple the risk of early death inpatients after an angioplasty.10 They causean average weight gain of 8 to 20 poundswhen the drugs are started. 11 Most impor-tantly, they do not make patients live longeror healthier.

Examples of Commonly PrescribedMedications: Amaryl, DiaBeta, Diabinese,Glucotrol, Glucovance, and Metaglip.

Calcium Channel Blockers forHypertension:

Calcium channel blockers are also called“calcium antagonists” and “calcium block-ers.” They may decrease the heart's pumpingstrength and relax blood vessels, and arecommonly used to treat high blood pressure,angina (chest pain), and some arrhythmias(abnormal heart rhythms).

Why I will not prescribe them:They increase the risk of dying from heart

disease, cancer (and especially breast can-cer), and suicide.12-16 They can causeexcessive bleeding.17 Simpler, safer, andcheaper medications, such as diuretics andbeta blockers are available.18,19 Like otherblood pressure-lowering medications, theyhave done very little, if anything, to reducethe risk of heart attacks, and far too little toreduce the risk of strokes.

Examples of Commonly Prescribed

Medications: Adalat, Cardene, Cardizem,Covera-HS, DynaCirc, Isoptin, Nimotop,Norvasc, Plendil, Procardia, Sular, Tiazac,Verelan.

Medroxyprogesterone forMenopause:

Medroxyprogesterone is a progestin,which means it acts like the female hormoneprogesterone, but it is synthetic, and therefore, able to be patented. Most commonly thishormone is used in the treatment ofmenopausal symptoms.

Why I will not prescribe them:These medications increase the risk of

heart attacks, stroke, breast cancer, pulmonary emboli, and blood clots.20 Naturalprogesterone works as well without anincreased risk of heart attacks, strokes orbreast cancer.

Examples of Commonly PrescribedMedications: Amen, Cycrin, Premphase,Prempro, Provera.

Cox-2 Inhibitors for Arthritis Pain:COX-2 inhibitors are newly developed

drugs for inflammation and pain, such as arefound with arthritis. They selectively blockthe COX-2 enzyme, thus reducing the production of small hormones, calledprostaglandins. Because they selectivelyblock the COX-2 enzyme and not the COX-1enzyme, these drugs are uniquely differentfrom traditional NSAIDs (like Motrin andAdvil), which block both kinds of enzymes.By not blocking Cox-1, damage to the esophagus and stomach is reduced.

Why I will not prescribe them:Cox-2 inhibitor NSAIDs have been

shown to increase the chances of having aheart attack by 2 to 5 times.21 They are nomore effective at relieving pain than aspirinor regular NSAIDs (like Motrin or Advil).The manufacturer of Celebrex remains steadfast that its medication is innocent of thisdeadly side effect.

Examples of Commonly PrescribedMedications: Celebrex, Betrax, and Vioxx.Vioxx was recently withdrawn from the market.

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers forHypertension or Heart Disease:

Angiotensin is a hormone found in thebody that causes blood vessels to constrict,resulting in high blood pressure and extrawork on the heart. Angiotensin ReceptorBlockers (ARBs), also called Angiotensin IIReceptor Antagonists, prevent angiotensinfrom binding to its receptor in the walls of theblood vessels. This results in a lower bloodpressure. These medications are often prescribed because they are less likely to cause achronic cough than medications calledangiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors,which also work on the “angiotensin system”to control high blood pressure.

Why I will not prescribe them:Careful evaluation of the current evidence

shows that angiotensin receptor blockers(unlike angiotensin converting enzymeinhibitors) increase the rates of myocardialinfarction (heart attacks) despite their beneficial effects on reducing blood pressure.22

Examples of Commonly PrescribedMedications: Cozaar, Benicar, Diovan,

Sick People Take Medications – Healthy People Are Drug-FreeSick People Take Medications – Healthy People Are Drug-Free

Graham's "FiveDangerous Drugs"

Totalling about $2 Billion inAnnual Sales

AccutaneUse: Acne drugAnnual sales: $383 milionRisks: Birth defects and fetaldeath when used during pregnan-cy

BextraUse: Painkiller and arthritist med-icationAnnual sales: $687 million Risks: Doubles the risk of heartattack and strokes

CrestorUse: Cholesterol-lowering drugAnnual sales: $129Risks: Rhabdomyolysis (severemuscle damage) and kidney fail-ure

MeridiaUse: Weight loss drugAnnual sales: $72 millionRisks: Of little use, but causesstrokes and heart attacks. Forpregnant women: stillbirths, mis-carriages and birth defects

ServentUse: Asthma TreatmentAnnual sales: $708 millionRisks: Deaths due to asthma

John McDougall, M.D.

McDougall's FiveDangerous Drugs

(Categories)

Sulfonylureas

Calcium Channel Blockers

Medroxyprogesterone

Cox-2 Inhibitors

Angiotensin ReceptorBlockers

EarthSave News Fall 2004 7

Avapro, Micardis, Teveten, Hyzaar, andAtacand.

Drugs I Occasionally PrescribeI am a real medical doctor with a pre-

cription pad and my obligation to each of myatients is to provide them the best that med-cal science has to offer. In actual practice, forvery new drug I prescribe, I stop, on aver-ge, ten medications. The three reasons I takeeople off their medications are:

1) They never needed them in the firstlace. The medication is doing nothing forhe benefit of the patient. For example, manyeople have been prescribed blood pressure

medications for blood pressure readings tooow to show any real benefits (below 160/100

mm Hg), and thus, there is no indication toreat them based on the research.23

2) The medication is doing more harmhan good. For example, most diabetic pillsor type-2 diabetics.

3) After a change in diet, some addition-l exercise, and cleaner habits, the indicationor the medication has been eliminated. (Seehe extensive list of “easily treated diseases”elow.)

Cholesterol-Lowering Medications:I use “statins” often because they are

well-tolerated, and somewhat effective. I pre-er Pravachol (pravastatin) because of itsafety record – it is not known to cause mus -le damage. Plus, there is good evidence thathis medication is much more effective at pre-enting heart attacks than the other statins.24

These benefits may be due to the physicalroperties of this medication which prevent itrom entering the cells – its action is all out-ide of the body’s cells. I do, however, pre-cribe most of the other statins, like Lipitor,

Mevacor, Zocor, etc. – usually because this ishe one the patient’s insurance company paysor.

I also use niacin (usually as an extendedelease form, like Niaspan); often along withgents that bind cholesterol in the intestinend cause it to leave the body. These arealled cholestyramine (Questran) andolestipol (Colestid). (See my February 2003ewsletter article: “Niacin - A Time Honored

Treatment for Cholesterol andTriglycerides.”)

My goal is to use sufficient medication toower the cholesterol below 150 mg/dl (andhe LDL-cholesterol below 80 mg/dl). Learn

more about this treatment from my June 2003ewsletter article, “Cleaning Out Your

Arteries.”

Prevention of a Second Heart Attack:

One baby aspirin (81 mg) daily offersmore benefits than risks in people with a his-tory of serious heart disease (bypass surgery,angioplasty, or heart attack).25 Those with-out this history of heart disease may suffer farmore harm (bleeding) than benefit from tak-ing aspirin. More than 81 mg of aspirin is lesseffective and has more side effects. I also usebaby aspirin for people with a high rsk ofstroke.

Blood Pressure LoweringMedications:

I use beta blockers and/or diuretics,because they are as effective as any otherkind of medication used to lower blood pres-sure.18,19 Mostly importantly, the slightreduction in the risk of strokes achieved bylowering blood pressure is as good with thesesimple drugs as that seen with the newer,more expensive, medications. Diuretics andbeta-blockers cost pennies to buy (as opposedto dollars for one dose for the others) andbecause they have been used for more than 40years, their side effects are very well-known.I use sufficient medication to keep the dias-tolic BP between 85 and 100 mmHg. BP low-ered below 85 mmHg with medicationincreases the risk of heart attacks and strokes.(See my July 2004 newsletter article: “Over-treat Your Blood Pressure and You Could DieSooner.”)

Blood sugar-lowering medications:For type-1 diabetics I use only insulin. For type-2 diabetics I use enough insulin

to keep them from losing too much weightand to control symptoms of frequent urina-tion and excessive thirst. With some reluc-tance I will use Glucophage. The evidence onthe results of treating blood sugars for type-2diabetics with medications shows much harmand little good is done. The risk of dying fromheart disease appears to be increased andthere is no convincing evidence that blind-ness and kidney disease are reduced.Furthermore, most treatments cause thepatient to gain weight, which may aggravatetheir diabetes. (See my February 2004newsletter article: “Type-2 Diabetes – theExpected Adaptation to Overnutrition.”)

Pain Medications:I like aspirin and Tylenol. However, inex-

pensive over-the-counter NSAIDs, likeMotrin and Advil, are also fine for occasion-al use. For severe pain, narcotics are useful,but addicting, over the long term.

Relief of indigestion (Gastritis)Wafer antacids (like Tums) or liquids. Use

of simple, over-the-counter antacid pills, like

Tagamet or Zantac – used only as needed, notdaily. Changing to a healthy diet and raisingthe head of the bed are of the most help. (Seemy February and March 2002 lead newsletterarticles on my websitewww.drmcdougall.com.)

Colds and Flu:Pains and fever: aspirin (not for children)

and Tylenol.Cough: Syrups with dextromethorphan

(DM).Nasal congestion: Nasalcrom spray,

Afrin nasal spray, and Sudafed tablets.(See my October 2003 newsletter article:

“Surviving the Cold Season.”)

Chronic allergies and asthma:Inhaled steroids and bronchodilators.

Raising the head of the bed and a diet changeare very helpful. (See my February 2002newsletter article: “My Stomach's on Fireand I Can't Put It Out.”)

Menopausal Symptoms and for rever-sal of bone loss:

Estradiol and/or natural progesteronemixed in creams and applied to the skin. Mygoals are relief of symptoms and stabilizationof the bones. (See the “McDougall Programfor Women” book.)

Infections:Topical and systemic antibiotics along

with proper wound care.There are many other medications I am

called upon to prescribe or renew, but theserepresent very special indications and applyto very few of my patients.

References:1) Antes G, Chalmers I. Under-reporting of clinical

trials is unethical. Lancet. 2003 Mar 22;361(9362):978-9.2) Psaty B, Furberg C, Ray W, Weiss N, MD, Potential

for Conflict of Interest in the Evaluation of SuspectedAdverse Drug Reactions. Use of Cerivastatin and Risk ofRhabdomyolysis JAMA. 2004;292. :(DOI10.1001/jama.292.21.2622).

3) NIHCM Foundation. Another Year of EscalatingCosts. Revised 5-6-2002: http://www.nihcm.org/spend-ing2001.pdf

4) Dyer O. City reacts negatively as GlaxoSmithKline

announces plans for new drugs. BMJ 2003;327:1366.5) Roughead EE, Gilbert AL, Primrose JG, Sansom

LN. Drug-related hospital admissions: a review ofAustralian studies published 1988-1996. Med J Aust. 1998Apr 20;168(8):405-8.

6) Howard RL, Avery AJ, Howard PD, Partridge M.Investigation into the reasons for preventable drug relatedadmissions to a medical admissions unit: observationalstudy. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Aug;12(4):280-5.

7) Patel P, Zed PJ. Drug-related visits to the emergencydepartment: how big is the problem? Pharmacotherapy.2002 Jul;22(7):915-23.

8) Kaufman M. 5 widely used drugs called unsafeFDA officer says conflicts of interest compromise

agency.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chron-

icle/archive/2004/11/19/MNGSB9UAM41.DTL9) Engler RL, Yellon DM. Sulfonylurea KATP block-

ade in type II diabetes and preconditioning in cardiovascu-lar disease. Time for reconsideration. Circulation. 1996 Nov1;94(9):2297-301.

10) Garratt KN, Brady PA, Hassinger NL, Grill DE,Terzic A, Holmes DR Jr. Sulfonylurea drugs increase earlymortality in patients with diabetes mellitus after directangioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am CollCardiol. 1999 Jan;33(1):119-24.

11) Fonseca V. Effect of thiazolidinediones on bodyweight in patients with diabetes mellitus. Am J Med. 2003Dec 8;115 Suppl 8A:42S-48S.

12) Psaty BM, Heckbert SR, Koepsell TD, SiscovickDS, Raghunathan TE, Weiss NS, Rosendaal FR, LemaitreRN, Smith NL, Wahl PW, et al. The risk of myocardialinfarction associated with antihypertensive drug therapies.JAMA. 1995 Aug 23-30;274(8):620-5.

13) Beiderbeck-Noll AB, Sturkenboom MC, van derLinden PD, Herings RM, Hofman A, Coebergh JW,Leufkens HG, Stricker BH. Verapamil is associated with anincreased risk of cancer in the elderly: the Rotterdam study.Eur J Cancer. 2003 Jan;39(1):98-105.

14) Fitzpatrick AL, Daling JR, Furberg CD, KronmalRA, Weissfeld JL. Use of calcium channel blockers andbreast carcinoma risk in postmenopausal women. Cancer.1997 Oct 15;80(8):1438-47.

15) Pahor M, Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Corti MC,Salive ME, Cerhan JR, Wallace RB, Havlik RJ. Calcium-channel blockade and incidence of cancer in aged popula-tions. Lancet. 1996 Aug 24;348(9026):493-7.

16) Lindberg G, Bingefors K, Ranstam J, Rastam L,Melander A. Use of calcium channel blockers and risk ofsuicide: ecological findings confirmed in population basedcohort study. BMJ. 1998 Mar 7;316(7133):741-5.

17) Pahor M, Guralnik JM, Furberg CD, Carbonin P,Havlik R. Risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage with calci-um antagonists in hypertensive persons over 67 years old.Lancet. 1996 Apr 20;347(9008):1061-5.

18) Carlberg B, Samuelsson O, Lindholm LH.Atenolol in hypertension: is it a wise choice? Lancet. 2004Nov 6;364(9446):1684-9.

19) Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patientsrandomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor orcalcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensiveand Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial(ALLHAT). JAMA. 2002 Dec 18;288(23):2981-97.

20) Warren MP. A comparative review of the risks andbenefits of hormone replacement therapy regimens. Am JObstet Gynecol. 2004 Apr;190(4):1141-67.

21) Topol EJ, Falk GW. A coxib a day won't keep thedoctor away. Lancet. 2004 Aug 21;364(9435):639-40.

22) Verma S, Strauss M. Angiotensin receptor block-ers and myocardial infarction. These drugs may increasemyocardial infarction – and patients may need to be told.BMJ 2004 Nov 27;329:1248-9.

23) Williams B, Poulter NR, Brown MJ, Davis M,McInnes GT, Potter JF, Sever PS, Thom SM; BHS guide-lines working party, for the British Hypertension Society.British Hypertension Society guidelines for hypertensionmanagement 2004 (BHS-IV): summary. BMJ. 2004 Mar13;328(7440):634-40.

24) Ichihara K, Satoh K. Disparity between angio-graphic regression and clinical event rates with hydropho-bic statins. Lancet. 2002 Jun 22;359(9324):2195-8.

25) Lip GY, Felmeden DC. Antiplatelet agents andanticoagulants for hypertension. Cochrane Database SystRev. 2004;(3):CD003186

– Healthy People Are Drug-Free– Healthy People Are Drug-Free

Diseases Easily Cured*with Diet and Exercise

Medications are reduced or dis-continued under a qualified doc-tor's supervision

ObesityHypertensionType-2 DiabetesAtherosclerosisHigh cholesterolHigh triglyceridesHigh uric acidNonspecific and migraineheadachesSinusitisAsthmaIndigestion (GERD, hiatal hernia)Abdominal painsCholecystitisConstipationColitis (Ulcerative, Crohn's IBS)Chronic diarrheaDiverticular diseaseInflammatory arthritis (rheuma-toid, Lupus, psoriatic, AS, nonspe-cific)Generalized arthritisGoutMultiple SclerosisAllergiesKidney failure (early disease)NephritisHormone imbalancesBody oderOily skin and acne

* Progress of the disease is arrest-ed, and in many cases reversal ofillness is experienced, with relief of

signs and symptoms; however,residual damage is many times leftfrom years of chronic injury caused

by the disease processes.

Subscribe to Dr.McDougall’s

Free Newsletter!Go online today to

www.DrMcDougall.com

and click to sign up for Dr.McDougall’s newsletter

email.

Each month you’ll receivegreat articles like this one,

bringing you the latestupdates about health, sci-

ence and the politics of foodand medicine.

Get a copy of his new DVDseries at his online store!

www.DrMcDougall.com

Q

WHO “buried” report to please food industry

The World Health Organisation was accused inOctober of burying a report recommending thatcurbs on junk food advertising be incorporated intoglobal food standards.

Activists say hiding the report, which also callsfor tough limits on sugar, salt and fat, comes afterpressure from the food industry and its US backers.

The report, commissioned from outside consul-tants, was completed in the summer but has not seenthe light of day. It recommends that the CodexAlimentarius - the global food standards code set upby the WHO and Food and Agriculture Organisation- should contain not just safety and quality informa-tion, but nutritional guidance as well.

The code is not binding on governments, but isinfluential with those who set their own standards,like the UK, and has particular significance fordeveloping countries that do not.

The report changes to the code as part of the fightagainst the global obesity epidemic. It was commis-sioned during the tussle over the WHO's global strat-egy on diet, physical activity and health, which pro-posed limits on the consumption of fats, sugars andsalt and was fiercely opposed by some in the food

industry. The strategy was finally passed by theWorld Health Assembly in May.

Officials at the WHO say the report was notintended to be published. But Bruce Silverglade, ofthe US-based Center for Science in the PublicInterest, believes that the report, FoodStandardisation to Support the Reduction of ChronicDiseases, may have been buried as part of a deal toget the strategy approved by those who did not wantlimits on fat, sugar and salt in the diet.

"It appears that its suppression may have been aquid pro quo for the support of the US governmentand others who had initially opposed adoption of theWHO's anti-obesity strategy," he said. "The docu-ment is a key element in the implementation of theWHO's global strategy - it gives it teeth. The foodindustry would not want to see this document cometo light. Developing countries are directly influenced[by the code] and they provide the food industry withits biggest emerging markets."

The report says that the Codex AlimentariusCommission should support the global strategy in thefight against obesity-related diseases by formulatingguidelines on the labelling, presentation and promo-tion of food to the consumer. "These guidelines andcodes of practices should address the promotion offoods directed at children, food promotion activities

Food Giants pressure World HealthOrganization to downplay junk food hazards

A change in diets may be nec-essary to enable developingcountries to feed their people,say scientists.

Governments may have to per-suade people to eat less meatbecause of increasing demands onwater supplies, according to agri-cultural scientists investigatinghow the world can best feed itself.

They say countries with littlewater may choose not to growcrops but trade in "virtual water",importing food from countrieswhich have large amounts of waterto save their supplies for domesticor high-value uses.

With about 840 million peoplein the world undernourished, and afurther 2 billion expected to beborn within 20 years, findingwater to grow food will be one ofthe greatest challenges facing gov-ernments.

Currently up to 90% of allmanaged water is used to growfood.

"There will be enough food foreveryone on average in 20 years'time, but unless we change theway that we grow it, there will bea lot more malnourished people,"said Dr David Molden, principalscientist with the InternationalWater Management Institute(IWMI), which is funded by theBritish and Sweedish governmentsand is investigating global optionsfor feeding growing populations.

"The bottom line is thatgroundwater levels are plummet-ing and our rivers are already over-stressed, yet there is a lot of com-placency about the future," theIWMI report says.

"Western diets, which dependlargely on meat, are alreadyputting great pressures on theenvironment. Meat-eaters con-sume the equivalent of about 5,000litres [1,100 gallons] of water aday compared to the 1,000-2,000litres (220 to 440 gallons) used bypeople on vegetarian diets indeveloping countries. All thatwater has to come from some-where."

The consensus emergingamong scientists is that it will bealmost impossible to feed futuregenerations the typical diet eatenin western Europe and NorthAmerica without destroying theenvironment.

A meat and vegetable diet,which most people move to wheneconomically possible, requiresfar more water than crops such aswheat and maize, according to thereport.

In its report, the IWMI says itit unlikely people will change theireating habits because of concernsabout water supplies. "And inmany sub-Saharan countries,where the pressure on water willincrease most rapidly in the next20 years, people actually need tobe eating more, not less," the

report says. Anders Berntell, the director

of the International WaterInstitute, based in Stockholm,said: "The world's future watersupply is a problem that's . . .greater than we've begun torealise.

"We've got to reduce theamount of water we devote togrowing food. The world is simplyrunning out of water."

Research suggests that up to24% more water will be needed togrow the world's food in 20 years,but many of the fastest-growingcountries are unable to devotemore water to agriculture withoutsacrificing ecosystems which maybe important for providing wateror fish.

The option of increased worldtrade in virtual water seems logi-cal, the scientists say, but theyrecognise that it depends on coun-tries having the money to importtheir food. "The question remainswhether the countries that will behardest hit by water scarcity willbe able to afford virtual water," thereport says.

The best options for feedingthe world, it says, are a combina-tion of hi-tech and traditionalwater conservation methods.Improved crop varieties, bettertillage methods and more preciseirrigation could reduce water con-sumption and improve yields.

Drought-resistant seeds, waterharvesting schemes and small-plottechnologies such as treadlepumps [simple foot pumps] allhave the potential to boost yieldsby 100%, the report says.

Another option considered isthat of farmers using more urbanwaste water for irrigation. It isestimated that up to 10% of theworld's population now eat foodproduced using waste water fromtowns and cities.

Cities are predicted to use150% more water within 20 years,which will be both a problem andan opportunity.

"This means more waste waterbut also less fresh water availablefor agriculture. In the future, usingwaste water may not be a choicebut a necessity", the report says.

The authors say western gov-ernments need to change theirpolicies: "Agricultural subsidieskeep world commodity prices lowin poor countries and discouragefarmers from investing [in water-saving technologies] because theywill not get a return on theirinvestments.

"Land and water rights are alsoneeded so people will invest inlong-term improvements."

Governments encouraging asignificant shift in their populationtoward a diet based on plant-basedfoods would provide the greatestimmediate impact on feedingmore people, the report shows.

Meat-eaters soak up theworld's water

8 Fall 2004 World Food Issues EarthSave News

When the Food and Agriculture Organisation(FAO) celebrated biodiversity on World Food Day onOctober 16, Iraqi farmers were mourning its loss.

A new report [1] by GRAIN and Focus on theGlobal South has found that new legislation in Iraqhas been carefully put in place by the US that pre-vents farmers from saving their seeds and effectivelyhands over the seed market to transnational corpora-

tions. This is a disastrous turn of events for Iraqifarmers, biodiversity and the country's food security.While political sovereignty remains an illusion, foodsovereignty for the Iraqi people has been made nearimpossible by these new regulations.

"The US has been imposing patents on life aroundthe world through trade deals. In this case, they invad-ed the country first, then imposed their patents. Thisis both immoral and unacceptable", said ShaliniBhutani, one of the report's authors.

The new law in question [2] heralds the entry intoIraqi law of patents on life forms - this first oneaffecting plants and seeds. This law fits in neatly intothe US vision of Iraqi agriculture in the future - thatof an industrial agricultural system dependent onlarge corporations providing inputs and seeds.

In 2002, FAO estimated that 97 percent of Iraqifarmers used saved seed from their own stocks fromlast year's harvest or purchased from local markets.When the new law - on plant variety protection (PVP)- is put into effect, seed saving will be illegal and themarket will only offer proprietary "PVP-protected"planting material "invented" by transnationalagribusiness corporations. The new law totallyignores all the contributions Iraqi farmers have madeto development of important crops like wheat, barley,

date and pulses. Its consequences are the loss of farm-ers' freedoms and a grave threat to food sovereignty inIraq. In this way, the US has declared a new waragainst the Iraqi farmer.

"If the FAO is celebrating 'Biodiversity for FoodSecurity' this year, it needs to demonstrate some realcommitment", says Henk Hobbelink of GRAIN,pointing out that the FAO has recently been cosying

up with industry and offering support for geneticengineering [3]. "Most importantly, the FAO mustrecognise that biodiversity-rich farming and industry-led agriculture are worlds apart, and that industrialagriculture is one of the leading causes of the cata-strophic decline in agricultural biodiversity that wehave witnessed in recent decades. The FAO cannothope to embrace biodiversity while holding industry'shand", he added.

NOTES[1] Visit http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=6.

GRAIN and Focus' report is entitled "Iraq's newpatent law: a declaration of war against farmers".Against the grain is a series of short opinion pieces onrecent trends and developments in the issues thatGRAIN works on. This one has been produced col-laboratively with Focus on the Global South.

[2] Patent, Industrial Design, UndisclosedInformation, Integrated Circuits and Plant VarietyLaw of 2004, CPA Order No. 81, 26 April 2004,h t t p : / / w w w . i r a q c o a l i t i o n . o r g / r e g u l a -tions/20040426_CPAORD_81_Patents_Law.pdf

[3] GRAIN, "FAO declares war on farmers, nothunger", New from Grain, 16 June 2004,http://www.grain.org/front/?id=24

Iraqi Farmers Didn’tCelebrate World Food Day

in schools, activities of the foodindustry, the catering organisa-tions and the retail sector," it says.

It says that the Codex can andshould recommend foods with lowenergy density - such as unsaturat-ed rather than saturated fats andthe substitution of sugars by non-nutritive sweeteners. It also sug-gests that limits be imposed onsalt.

The global strategy that wasagreed in May calls on govern-ments to take measures to curbunhealthy eating, promote exer-cise and look at food labelling and

advertising. But governments likethe US which have a strong sugarindustry maintained that theyshould not have to restrict trade inthe process and that they could settheir own national nutritionalguidelines. Robert Beaglehole,head of the department of chronicdisease prevention and health pro-motion at the WHO, said thatnegotiating changes to the Codexwould be a long and difficultprocess. "It is not a huge priority."He said there was no reason whythe report had not been published.

EarthSave News Priorities Fall 2004 9

By Professor Richard Steiner

History has shown that human societiesoften misjudge risk, and that is the casetoday. With world attention focused almostexclusively on terrorism and Iraq, another,

even more serious security threat deepens -- the global environmental/humanitariancrisis.

While we remain virtually hypnotizedby terrorism, humanity is quietly destroy-ing the biosphere in which we live, our-selves and our future along with it. Justsince 9/11, 25 million children died frompreventable causes, the world's populationgrew by 200 million people and thousandsof species went extinct. Also, 250,000square miles of forest were lost, 50,000square miles of arable land turned todesert, 8 billion tons of carbon were addedto the atmosphere and air pollution

claimed more than4 million lives.Our boat is sink-ing, we know thecauses and conse-quences, and weknow how to solvethe problem. Yetp o l i c y - m a k e r skeep rearrangingthe deck chairs.Left unattended,this broad envi-ronmental/human-

itarian crisis will foreclose any hope forsecurity in the world. Certainly we mustaddress terrorism, but just as certainly wemust ensure our planet's sustainability.

Some of the key indicators of our cur-rent condition help put these relative risksin perspective.

PopulationWorld population stands at 6.4 billion,

more than four times its number at the startof the 20th century. Although some nationshave reached population stability, many ofthe poorest, developing nations are farfrom it. The population -- growing by 74million a year -- is projected to reach 9 bil-lion by 2050, the additional billions com-ing almost exclusively in the poorest coun-tries.

The largest generation of young peopleever, some 1.7 billion ages 10 to 24, is justnow reaching reproductive age. Where fer-tility remains high there is widespreadpoverty, discrimination against women,high infant mortality and lack of access tofamily planning, health care and education.More than 350 million women lack anyaccess to family planning. Some religionsoppose contraception, and female infanti-cide has become epidemic. Programs tostabilize population need about $20 billiona year (about one week's worth of worldmilitary expenditures) but now receiveabout $3 billion a year.

ConsumptionConspicuous consumption has become

a homogenizing force across the developedworld. Just since 1950, we have consumedmore goods and services than all previousgenerations combined. The consumptionof energy, steel and timber more than dou-

bled; fossil fuel use and car ownershipincreased four-fold; meat production andfish catch increased five-fold; paper useincreased six-fold, and air travel increased100-fold.

In the United States, where malls are

more prevalent than high schools, shop-ping has become the primary culturalactivity. Although world economic outputcontinues to increase, when real costs arecalculated, sustainable economic welfarehas been in decline since the '70s. Onemeasure of resource consumption ofhumanity -- our "ecological footprint" --surpassed sustainable levels in the late'70s, and for an average American is now20 times that of a person in some develop-ing countries.

Studies estimate that, if the developingworld were to consume at our rate, anotherfive or six planets would be needed to sus-tain this level of consumption. The UnitedNations says that a 10-fold reduction inresource consumption (or a 10-foldincrease in energy/material efficiency) inindustrialized countries will be needed foradequate resources to be available fordeveloping countries.

Rich-poor divideThe unequal distribution of consump-

tion adds to environmental, social and eco-nomic damage as well. The gap in per-capita income between rich and poornations has doubled in the past 40 years.The upper 20 percent in economic class --Europe, Japan, North America -- accountfor more than 80 percent of the materialand energy consumed globally while thepoorest 20 percent account for just 1 per-cent of consumption. The world's 350 bil-lionaires have a combined net worthexceeding that of the poorest 2.5 billionpeople. Those poor live on less than $2 aday and lack basic sanitation, health care,clean water and adequate food.

Despite unprecedented economicexpansion of the '90s, today some 900 mil-lion adults are illiterate and 30,000 kids dieevery day from preventable causes. Poorcountries pay more than $350 billion a yearjust to service the interest on their debt todeveloped countries (a total of $2.4 tril-lion) and often try to raise this moneythrough environmentally destructive activ-ities. Some countries spend more to ser-vice their foreign debt than on educationand health care combined.

BiodiversityEcologists fear we are losing between

50 and 150 species each day, a rate thou-sands of times higher than the evolutionarybackground extinction rate of about onespecies a year. Some estimate that we havelost perhaps 600,000 species since the"biotic holocaust" began around 1950; ifpresent trends continue, half of all specieson Earth would be extinct in the next 50years. Overhunting, invasive species, pol-lution and climate change are factors inthis sixth mass extinction event, but by farthe greatest cause is habitat loss. The lostecological services could be devastating. Itmay take 5 million to 10 million years forbiological diversity to recover.

ForestsHalf of Earth's original forest cover is

gone, and an additional 30 percent isdegraded or fragmented. Only 20 percentof the original forest on Earth remainstoday as large, relatively undisturbed

"frontier forests." And half of this frontierforest is threatened by human activity,mostly by logging. Another 100,000 squaremiles of forest is lost each year, mostly inthe tropics, and only a very small amountof this forest loss is offset by regrowth.

Since 1960, about 30 percent of theEarth's tropical forests have disappearedand with them, thousands of species.Between 50 percent and 90 percent of theterrestrial species inhabit and depend uponthe forests, and more than half of thethreatened vertebrate species on Earth areforest animals. The link is clear: loseforests -- lose species.

FoodToday about 1 billion people are under-

nourished and 600 million are overnour-ished. The United Nations lists 86 coun-tries that can't grow or buy enough foodand predicts that by 2010 global food sup-ply will begin to fall short of demand.

More than 6 million people a year,mostly children, die from malnutrition.Grain production is declining and environ-mentally damaging meat production con-tinues to increase. The 1.3 billion cattle(weighing more than all of humanity) havedegraded a quarter of the planet's land sur-face.

More than 10 percent of world farm-land and 70 percent of the world rangelandis degraded, and poor agricultural practicesresult in the loss of more than 20 billiontons of topsoil a year.

WaterFresh water may well be the most pre-

cious substance on Earth. People use abouthalf of all available fresh water, causingaquifers to shrink around the world.

Some 70 percent of all water used byhumans goes to irrigation; most simplyleaks and evaporates from inefficient irri-gation systems. Some water tables, such asthe north China plain, drop by more than ameter a year. Two billion people have nochoice but to drink water contaminatedwith human and animal waste and chemi-cal pollution.

The World Health Organization esti-mates there are 1.5 billion cases of diar-rhea a year in children from contaminatedwater, causing 3 million deaths.

Today, water supplies in 36 nations inAfrica, Asia and the Middle East are notsufficient to meet grain production needs.In China, 400 cities suffer from acutewater shortage and half of the nation'srivers are polluted. The world lost half ofits wetlands in the past century, and morethan 22,000 square miles of arable landturns into desert each year. It's projectedthat in 20 years, the demand for water willincrease by 50 percent and two-thirds ofthe world population will be water-stressed.

AtmosphereAir pollution exceeds health limits

daily in many cities in the world. Some5,000 people a day die from air pollution,and kids in some cities inhale the equiva-lent of two packs of cigarettes every dayjust by breathing the air.

Carbon emissions from burning fossil

fuel now stand at 6.5 billion tons a year(four times 1950 levels), resulting inatmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations33 percent greater than pre-industrial lev-els.

Global warming is no longer seriouslydoubted, and nine of the hottest years onrecord have occurred since 1990. Thewarming has accelerated the melting ofpolar ice caps and mountain glaciers; a ris-ing sea level has inundated some Pacificislands, and more frequent and severedroughts, storms and floods cost more than$50 billion and 20,000 lives a year. TheIntergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange concluded most of the warmingover past 50 years was human-induced.

OceansOnce thought to be inexhaustible, the

Earth's oceans are more polluted and over-exploited than at any other time in history.Seventy percent of world fish populationsare either overfished or nearly so. Marinepollution has increased dramatically, andwarming ocean temperatures have killedmore than a fourth of the world's coralreefs. The 1998 coral "bleaching" eventkilled almost half of all Indian Oceancorals in just a few months, and Australia'sGreat Barrier Reef is threatened with com-plete collapse by the end of the century ifwarming continues.

If we connect these dots, the picture isclear: We are approaching a breaking pointon the home planet.

The fate of the Earth may well bedecided in our lifetime, and we all shouldbegin behaving as though we are livingtogether on one small, precious, life-sus-taining spaceship, which indeed we are.

The solution is straightforward -- stabi-lize population, reduce consumption andshare wealth. We know exactly how to dothis; we just need to pay for it.

The United Nations says $40 billion ayear -- about what consumers spend oncosmetics -- would provide everyone onEarth with clean water, sanitation, healthcare, adequate nutrition and education.

The secretary general of the 1992 EarthSummit cautioned, "no place on the planetcan remain an island of affluence in a seaof misery ... we're either going to save thewhole world or no one will be saved."

Without urgent attention, the globalecosystem will continue to unravel andwe'll consign future generations to a night-mare of deprivation, insecurity and con-flict.

It's time to broaden our understandingof security beyond just that of terrorism tosecuring a sustainable future for spaceshipEarth.

Richard Steiner is a professor and aconservation specialist with the Universityof Alaska Marine Advisory Program inAnchorage, Alaska. He is well known forhis work on the Exxon Valdez oil spill cleanup.

While we're off fighting terror, the planet's crumbling

Richard Steiner, PhD.

10 Fall 2004 Ask Jo EarthSave News

Jo Stepaniak, MSEd, is anauthor and educator who has beeninvolved with vegetarian- andvegan-related issues for nearlyfour decades. She holds a masterof science degree in education andan undergraduate degree in sociol-ogy and anthropology. Jo is thecoauthor (along with VesantoMelina, MS, RD) of RaisingVegetarian Children, a compre-hensive guide for bringing uphealthy vegetarian children andmaintaining family harmony,author of Compassionate Livingfor Healing, Wholeness &Harmony, an invaluable guide-book for restoring inner and outerpeace and inspiring kinship andharmony with all life, The VeganSourcebook , the definitiveresource for compassionate veganliving, and Being Vegan, a ques-tion-and-answer guide to theessentials of vegan philosophy andethics, with practical, down-to-earth advice on how to incorporate

these principles into everyday life.She also is the author and coauthorof over a dozen additional booksand has been a contributing authorto many other books, pamphlets,national publications, and maga-zines. Visit her online atwww.vegsource.com/jo

Ask Jo StepaniakDo you have questions about being vegegetarian or vegan? Sendthem to us at AskJo@earthsave.org and we’ll forward them to best-selling author, Jo Stepaniak. Jo can address individual concerns aswell as general inquiries about vegan ethics, vegetarian philosophy,practical applications, and living compassionately.

Jo Stepaniak, MSEd

Dear Jo: My bestfriend and I decided to go to avegetarian convention about amonth ago to see what the fusswas about. After seeing all thereasons for becoming a vegan, Idecided to adopt the lifestyle.However, my friend is stilladamant in his meat-eating ways.He strongly believes in karmaand thinks that all the sufferingbrought upon the animals is justa part of the cycle. In his view,these beings must have donesomething really awful in theirpast lives and are just now reap-ing what they have sewn. I don'tknow how to respond to that.Suppose there is really no suchthing as reincarnation? Even ifthere is, how can he just stand byand eat that steak while knowinghow it arrived on his plate? Whatabout compassion and forgive-ness? How do I handle the situa-tion?

Jo responds:Those who believe in karma

as part of their spiritual beliefsknow that it refers to the conse-quences of our actions and doesnot solely or necessarily dealwith reincarnation. How wechoose to interpret karma from

the standpoint of our religious orspiritual beliefs can directlyaffect how we treat others. Wecan use karma as a way to bolsterour own egos, justify the abuseof others, or inspire us to morecompassion and kindness.Karma from a practical perspec-tive is not about an afterlife orour next incarnation; it very real-istically determines the heavenor hell we create here on earthduring this lifetime.

Even if we were to believethat certain individuals or groupssuffer because of their actions orinactions in past lives, ourunwillingness to help relievetheir suffering when an opportu-nity is presented only createsnegative karma for ourselves inour own present and future life-times. The sword cuts both ways.Using karma as a "reason" fordisregarding or participating inabuse is merely a pretext for jus-tifying behaviors we wish toignore or don't want to change.Attempting to hide behind a veilof "karma," once the curtain hasbeen pulled back, reveals a clearmisunderstanding of the termand is a convenient and self-serv-ing way to rationalize the suffer-ing and killing of others--bothhuman and nonhuman.

Animal Suffering: IsThere a KarmaConnection?

Dear Jo: I have beenvegetarian for almost seven yearsand I was vegan for two of thoseyears. I have been struggling withan ethical dilemma. After spend-ing several months working over-seas in Guatemala, I felt that veg-anism was not for me. Aside fromthe dietary struggles facing avegan in the poorer countries ofthe world, I faced some value con-flicts. After seeing the extremepoverty and suffering of manyGuatemalans, the plight of animalsjust seemed less important. Also,as a guest in the homes of myGuatemalan coworkers, I wasgiven meat during mealtime, evenafter explaining that I didn't eatmeat. At the risk of appearing rudeand ungrateful (meat is reservedfor special guests and celebrationsin Guatemala), I ate the meal theyoffered to me, trying to hide mydisgust and dislike.

It seems that regardless of ouractions in this modern era, there issuffering involved, even for thoseof us who are trying to live a com-passionate life. From driving a carto eating vegetables picked byexploited immigrant labor, we aresurrounded by suffering. Not tosay that the plight of animalsshould be ignored, but shouldn'tthe human condition come first?Even in this country there are peo-ple who suffer from hunger andmalnutrition, a problem thought tobelong only to the Third World. Inthis context, it is hard for me toempathize with animals. It seemslike a logical step that when thehuman condition all over the worldimproves, that the plight of ani-mals will follow. But the reversemay not hold true. All creaturesdeserve compassion, but it seemsnecessary to prioritize at times,doesn't it? This is quite an internalstruggle that I am facing and Iimagine there are others who arefacing a similar one.

Jo responds:There has always been suffer-

ing in the world, and there willlikely always be suffering in one

form or another. For those whochoose to deliberately devote theirlives to creating a more compas-sionate world, the amount of suf-fering that exists can seem over-whelming. How do we determinethe issues that are most important,and how do we prioritize whichgroups are most deserving of ourattention? If our primary consider-ation is the sheer number of livesaffected by exploitation, torture,and death, animals raised andslaughtered for food would surelywin hands down.

Suffering is suffering, regard-less of who is experiencing it. Wehumans tend to have the greatestempathy for our own species,much like other animals. We canrelate to what other people gothrough because we know that theevents of our lives, our emotions,and our hopes and dreams are sim-ilar. We naturally want to helpother people, and we can under-stand and appreciate their trialsand tribulations.

It is a greater challenge toidentify with other animals who donot communicate in a languagethat even remotely replicates ourown and whose physical character-istics and emotional frameworkare vastly different from thehuman body and psyche. At timesit may take a leap of faith tobelieve that other animals sufferthe same as we do. In large partthis is due to our lack of regularinteraction with animals. While wecan witness the behavior of ourdog or cat, most species do notexhibit pain as blatantly as people;we usually need to study their cuesthat signal discomfort, distress, ormore serious afflictions. Withouttraining and ongoing exposure, itis easy for us to overlook the sub-tle indications of suffering that arerampant among other species, andwhich are most frequently causedby human neglect or intentionalharm.

While it is true that there arepeople who are hungry and home-less throughout North America, interms of individuals, cats and dogswho are hungry and without

homes greatly outnumber theirhuman counterparts. If we takeinto account the vast numbers ofanimals abused in sports, vivisec-tion, entertainment, and hunting,the figures are staggering.

Being compassionate peopleentails making compassionatechoices every moment of our lives.At times these choices will beclear-cut and easy; at other times,we may be confused and stymied.Caring for one group of livingbeings does not preclude us fromcaring for another group.Although we may not have themoney or time necessary to helpall the groups that need anddeserve our assistance, we canensure that the personal choiceswe make, no matter how small andseemingly insignificant, con-tribute to the greater good for all.We cannot save all the starvingpeople in Third World countries,but we can smile at our neighbors.We cannot rescue all the homelesspeople in our own country, but wecan volunteer to help at a foodpantry, mission, or shelter. Wecannot single-handedly stop thebrutal wars around the globe, butwe can participate in peacefulprotests and learn how to trans -form the anger and violence in ourown hearts and relationships. Wecannot take in all the abandonedchildren of the world, but we canmentor a child in our community.We cannot save all the billions ofanimals that are tortured, eutha-nized, and slaughtered each year,but we can adopt a dog, cat, or rab-bit from a shelter or donate finan-cially to a farmed animal sanctu-ary.

To support all of these con-cerns, we can also practice a veganlifestyle. Even if it is not ideal orperfectly consistent, or even prac-tical in every situation, we can doour best. That is all any of us cando at any given time. We can makethe most compassionate choicesgiven the limitations of our ownhumanity, and we can do so with-out ignoring the plight of onegroup in order to help another.

Should we prioritize our compassion?

posed rarity of CJD in the USA?We are routinely told that

CJD is so rare, only 1 in a millionpeople get it. But with 4-5 mil-lion Alzheimer’s Disease patientsputting an enormous strain onthe US healthcare system, if evena small percentage of these peo-ple actually have CJD, not AD,then CJD is much more commonthan we have been told. Thesefigures imply thousands of CJDcases in the US that are goingundetected because of a lack ofautopsies. Recent reports indi-cate that most pathologists do notwant to conduct autopsies onCJD patients for fear of contam-inating their facilities with theindestructible prions. And tomake matters even worse, CJD isnot even a mandatory reportable

disease in about half the states inthe USA. That means authoritieshave no real idea of how manyCJD cases actually exist.

Recently (October 2004),a suspected cluster of CJD wasspotted in Ulster County NewYork. Several months ago(March 2004), another cluster ofCJD was noticed in New Jersey.Clusters are worrying becausethey may point to an infectiousentity. In both New York andNew Jersey clusters, the healthauthorities assured the publicthat these were “sporadic CJD”and hence there was nothing toworry about. Sporadic CJD hasno known cause, the healthauthorities tell us. Both USDAand CDC tell us that sporadicCJD arises randomly and hasnothing to do with eating taintedbeef. According to health offi-

cials, only variant CJD or vCJD,is caused by eating tainted beef.We are also told that there hasnever been a case of human madcow disease in the US.

But is that really true scientif-ically?

New research from ProfessorJohn Collinge in London sug-gests that some cases of sporadicCJD may also be caused by BSE.This research was conducted intransgenic mice with human pri-ons, so critics have arguedmaybe the same does not applyto humans. But, if ProfessorCollinge’s data are indeed true,then it is much more likely thatpeople in the US have died ofCJD from eating tainted beef (orvenison). We will never knowuntil we (a) dramatically increasethe number of autopsies of peo-ple dying from “dementia”, AD

and CJD and (b) dramaticallyincrease testing for mad cow dis-ease in the US.

If we look at the current lowlevel of testing for mad cow dis-ease in the US and we combine itwith the current epidemic ofdeer/elk disease in this countryand with the lack of autopsies todetermine how many people inthe US are actually dying ofCJD, we may be facing a grimreality. When the Europeans,who have just gone through tenyears of devastating disease andhave lost billions of dollars, lookacross at the United States, theyshake their heads in disbelief.

Surely, we can learn from themistakes made in Europe?

Colm A Kelleher PhD, is aresearch scientist. Currently inthe biotechnology sector, Dr.

Kelleher is a biochemist with afifteen-year research career incell and molecular biology.Following his Ph.D. in biochem-istry from the University ofDublin, Trinity College in 1983,Dr. Kelleher worked at theOntario Cancer Institute, theTerry Fox Cancer ResearchLaboratory, and the NationalJewish Center for Immunologyand Respiratory Medicine.Before moving to the biotechnol-ogy sector as a senior researchscientist, Dr Kelleher worked asproject manager and team leaderat a private research institute,from 1996-2004, using forensicscience methodology to unravelscientific anomalies.

For more info, visit:www.colmkelleher.com

Brain Trust/FROM PAGE 5

EarthSave News Fall 2004 11

that tea will reduce the develop-ment of skin, lung, colon, liverand pancreatic cancer.3

Even small concentrations oftea's active ingredient (epigallo-catechin-3-gallate) in the bloodcan stop the progression ofgrowth of cancer cells by any orall of the above mechanisms.Effective levels can be reachedwith as little as 2 to 4 cups aday.4 There may even be a bene-fit for people after they havedeveloped cancer. Green tea con-sumption of three or more cupsdaily has been found to delay therecurrence of breast cancer byabout one-third.5

Protection from High BloodPressure and Heart Disease

Tea may raise blood pressureright after drinking, but the long-term effects in daily users mayactually be a lower blood pres-sure and tea may offer protectionagainst the development ofhypertension.6,7 In addition,other studies have shown tea tohave anti-inflammatory,antithrombotic, and cholesterol-lowering effects - all important inpreventing the atherosclerosisthat leads to heart attacks andstrokes. Tea may further preventartery disease by inhibiting theoxidation of cholesterol into amore artery-toxic, "oxidized,"form.8,9

Other Health BenefitsTea may protect against brain

degeneration disorders, such asParkinson's and Alzheimer's dis-eases.10 Green tea seems to bekind to the stomach - as opposedto coffee and "decaf", whichcause stomach inflammation -and tea prevents chronic gastri-tis.11 Tea has also been shownto have antiviral and antibacteri-al properties.

Tea has a pleasant taste,which people quickly learn toenjoy. One of the attractive qual-ities of tea, even green tea, is thatit contains a desirable stimulant,caffeine, which relieves sleepi-ness and fatigue in most people.

Overall, research has foundthat tea drinkers live longer andhealthier.12 Add this battle tac-tic of daily tea drinking to thewell-established benefits of anabundance of natural plantchemicals found in a healthy,

low-fat, plant-food based diet,and you will have the bestdefense now known to science tokeep disease away from yourbody.

References:1) Murase T, Nagasawa A, Suzuki J,

Hase T, Tokimitsu I. Beneficial effectsof tea catechins on diet-induced obesity:stimulation of lipid catabolism in theliver. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord.2002 Nov;26(11):1459-64.

2) Dulloo AG, Duret C, Rohrer D,Girardier L, Mensi N, Fathi M, ChantreP, Vandermander J. Efficacy of a greentea extract rich in catechin polyphenolsand caffeine in increasing 24-h energyexpenditure and fat oxidation inhumans.

Am J Clin Nutr. 1999Dec;70(6):1040-5.

3) Frei B, Higdon JV. Antioxidantactivity of tea polyphenols in vivo: evi-dence from animal studies. J Nutr. 2003Oct;133(10):3275S-84S.

4) Lee YK, Bone ND, Strege AK,Shanafelt TD, Jelinek DF, Kay NE.VEGF receptor phosphorylation statusand apoptosis is modulated by a greentea component, epigallocatechin-3-gal-late (EGCG), in B-cell chronic lympho-cytic leukemia.

Blood. 2004 Aug 1;104(3):788-94.5) Inoue M, Tajima K, Mizutani M,

Iwata H, Iwase T, Miura S, Hirose K,Hamajima N, Tominaga S. Regular con-sumption of green tea and the risk ofbreast cancer recurrence: follow-upstudy from the Hospital-basedEpidemiologic Research Program atAichi Cancer Center (HERPACC),Japan. Cancer Lett. 2001 Jun26;167(2):175-82.

6) Yang YC, Lu FH, Wu JS, Wu CH,Chang CJ. The protective effect of habit-ual tea consumption on hypertension.Arch Intern Med. 2004 Jul26;164(14):1534-40.

7) Hodgson JM, Puddey IB. Acuteeffects of tea on fasting and post mealblood pressure. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr.2004;13(Suppl):S71.

8) Osada K, Takahashi M, HoshinaS, Nakamura M, Nakamura S, SuganoM. Tea catechins inhibit cholesterol oxi-dation accompanying oxidation of lowdensity lipoprotein in vitro. CompBiochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol.2001 Feb;128(2):153-64.

9) Kurihara H, Fukami H, ToyodaY, Kageyama N, Tsuruoka N, Shibata H,Kiso Y, Tanaka T. Inhibitory effect ofoolong tea on the oxidative state of lowdensity lipoprotein (LDL). Biol PharmBull. 2003 May;26(5):739-42.

10) Weinreb O, Mandel S, Amit T,Youdim MB. Neurological mechanismsof green tea polyphenols in Alzheimer'sand Parkinson's diseases. J NutrBiochem. 2004 Sep;15(9):506-16.

11) Shibata K, Moriyama M,Fukushima T, Kaetsu A, Miyazaki M,Une H. Green tea consumption andchronic atrophic gastritis: a cross-sec-tional study in a green tea productionvillage. J Epidemiol. 2000Sep;10(5):310-6.

12) Nakachi K, Eguchi H, Imai K.Can teatime increase one's lifetime?Ageing Res Rev. 2003 Jan;2(1):1-10.

TEA/FROM PAGE 3which may help prevent cancerin a different way (by bindingand excreting carcinogens).[12]

Cooking may reduce cancerrisk by destroying some of thepesticides present in non-organicproduce,[13] but cooking alsodestroys enzymes that may havebeneficial effects. Wait, though,the American DieteticAssociation just reviewed rawfoods diets (October 2004) andconcluded that one's stomachacid destroys the plant enzymesanyway so it doesn't matter ifcooking destroys them first.[14]Yes, but digestion starts in themouth, not in the stomach.

Raw garlic (in homemadesalsa, guacamole, pesto, etc.)may be healthier than cookedbecause of an enzyme called alli-inase, which produces a DNA-protecting compound calledallicin when chewed in yourmouth. One minute worth ofmicrowaving, though, complete-ly inactivates this enzyme, suchthat when you then chew it youabsorb little or none of the pro-tective allicin compound.[15]

The same thing happens inbroccoli. There's an enzyme(called myrosinase) that pro-duces special compounds when-ever the plant's cell walls are rup-tured (i.e. when you chew) thatrev up your own liver's ability todetoxify carcinogens. But cook-ing inactivates the enzyme, suchthat people chomping down onsteamed broccoli only seem toget about a third as much ofthese special cancer-fightingcompounds.[16] At the sametime, cooking one's broccoliseems to increase the bioavail-ability of other cancer-fighters(called indoles) which help yourbody control hormone levels.Bottom-line, we should eat acombination of both cookedAND raw vegetables, which isexactly what the Columbiaresearcher found:

"It is clear from this reviewthat both raw and cooked vegeta-bles are inversely related to [inother words protective against]several... cancers. Although moreof the studies showed a statisti-cally significant inverse [protec-tive] relationship between rawvegetables and cancer than eithercooked or total vegetables, theliterature is too varied to com-pare definitively... In the mean-while the public should beencouraged to increase their veg-etable intake and to consider eat-ing some of them raw."[17]

Cancer-Fighting Cranberries Cranberries, one of only three

commonly-eaten fruits native toNorth America, have been shownto exert a wide variety of healthbenefits including the preventionof urinary tract infections.[18] In2002, researchers dripped anumber of fruit extracts onhuman liver cancer cells in aPetri dish to see if any of themwould slow down tumor growth.Out of the near dozen commonfruits they tried, the most potentinhibitor of cancer growth wascranberries.[19] So in 2003,researchers pitted cranberriesagainst three other types of

human cancers--breast,cervical and prostate--

and the cranberries won again,significantly restraining cancercell proliferation.[20] NowUCLA researchers are back, thistime testing cranberries against awhole panel of 9 different humancancer cell lines.

Sprinkling just a few mil-lionths of a gram of powderedcranberries on human oral, colonand prostate cancer cells broughttheir growth to a screeching halt,inhibiting their proliferation asmuch as 99.6%. The researchersconcluded "The observedantiproliferative activities ofcranberry phytochemicalsagainst tumor cells provide somebasic evidence for the potentialanticancer effects of cranberrypolyphenols and suggest thatstudies of cranberry extractsshould be carried out... ultimate-ly in human cancer preventiontrials."[21]

Antibiotics and Meat The emergence of antibiotic

resistant bacteria is an ever-increasing global threat.According to the World HealthOrganization's Director-General,the spread of these antibioticresistant "super bugs" is literallythreatening "to send the worldback to a pre-antibiotic age."[22]

Farmed animals are raised insuch intensive confinement andstress that literally the majorityof antibiotics produced in theUnited States are fed to pigs,cows and chickens to preventdisease and promote growth.Farmers in the United States con-tinue to feed animals 13 millionpounds of medically importantantibiotics every year to promoteweight gain,[21] a use that wasbanned in Europe because ofhuman health concerns[24] andcontinues to violate decade-oldWorld Health Organization rec-ommendations.[25] TheAmerican MedicalAssociation[26] and theAmerican Public HealthAssociation[27] are also both onrecord opposing the nonthera-peutic use of antibiotics inhealthy farm animals.

Recently the congressionalU.S. General Accounting Officereleased their report on the use ofantibiotics in farmed animals. Itis available online at:http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04490.pdf

The GAO found in theirreview that "Many studies havefound that the use of antibioticsin animals poses significant risksfor human health..."[23] Notablythey did not, however, recom-mend we follow Europe's exam-ple and ban the practice. A banon the use of antibiotics asgrowth promoters, the GAOexplains, could result in a"reduction of profits" for theindustry. Even a partial banwould "increase costs to produc-ers, decrease production, andincrease retail prices to con-sumers." The National Academyof Sciences estimates that a totalban on the widespread feeding ofantibiotics to farmed animalswould raise the price of poultryanywhere from 1 to 2 cents perpound and the price of pork or

beef maybe even 3 to 6 cents apound, costing the average meat-eating American consumer up to$9.72 a year.[24] Meanwhile,antibiotic resistant infectionsevery year cost our society anestimated $30 billion[25] and, inthe U.S. alone, kill 60,000 peo-ple.[26]

References:[1] Nutrition and Cancer

48(2004):22 [2] NorthEast DairyBusiness

August 2002:24[3] Clinical Nutrition 23(2004):423[4] American Journal of Obstetrics

and Gynecology 129(1977):245 [5] Postgraduate Medicine

107(2000)[6] Journal of the American Medical

Association 280(1998):2001. [7] Preventive Medicine

29(1999):87. [8] Journal of the American College

of Nutrition 14(1995):491. [9] Nutrition 20(2004):738.[10] Journal of the National Cancer

Institute 82(1990):282. [11] Journal of Nutrition

128(1998):913. [12] Plant Foods in Human

Nutrition 55(2000):207. [13] Journal of AOAC International

79(1996)::1447. [14] Journal of the American

Dietetic Association 104(2004):1623. [15] Journal of Nutrition

131(2001):1054. [16] Nutrition and Cancer

38(2000):168. [17] Cancer Epidemiology,

Biomarkers and Prevention13(2004):1422.

[18] New England Journal ofMedicine 339(1998):1085.

[19] Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry 50(2002):7449.

[20] Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry 51(2003):3541.

[21] Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry 52(2004):2512.

[17] CNN 12 June 2000. [18] Union of Concerned Scientists.

"Hogging It: Estimates of AntimicrobialAbuse in Livestock", January 2001.

[19] BBC News 14 December 1998. [20] http://www.who.int/emc/dis-

eases/zoo/zoo97_4.html [21] American Medical Association

House of Delegates Annual Meeting.Resolution 508 - Antimicrobial Use andResistance. 2001.

[22] American Public HealthAssociation. Policy Number 99081.1999.

[23] see:http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04490.pdf

[24] National Research Council,"Costs of Eliminating SubtherapeuticUse of Antibiotics," Chapter 7, in TheUse of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefitsand Risk, National Academy Press,Washington, D.C., 1999, 179.

[25] Senator Bill Frist in a hearingof the Subcommittee on Public Health toexamine the problem of and potentialsolutions for the problem of antimicro-bial resistance. February 1999.

[26] http://www.niaid.nih.gov/fact-sheets/antimicro.htm

GREGOR/FROM PAGE 3

Subscribe toDr. Greger’s

FreeNewsletter!

Order hisDVDs and

Videosonline at

DrGreger.org

Support EarthSaveSupport EarthSaveDonate today

EarthSave.org

Save the planet!Save the planet!

Learn more atwww.DrMcDougall.com

Low-carb diet craze got you confused? Want to learn moreabout the problems and dangers of Atkins high-protein

style diets?Visit www.AtkinsExposed.org

12 Fall 2004 The Back Page EarthSave News

12 Month Membership NAME:_________________________________________________________________ADDRESS:______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________CITY:______________________________________ STATE:_____ ZIP:______________

DAY PHONE:________________________________EVE PHONE:________________________________E-MAIL:______________________________________________

MC/VISA/AMEX ______ ______________________________________EXP:_______

SIGNATURE______________________________ DATE:__________

Make checks payable in U.S.funds to EarthSave Internationaland return completed form to:

EarthSave International, PO Box 96 New York, NY 10108

$ Clip & send

Yes! I want to support EarthSave! Enclosed is my tax-deductible donation.

Pledge: $___________________/per monthI authorize monthly charges to my credit card (use signature line atright).Send me an authorization for automatic payments from my check-ing account.I'll ask my place of work to match my gift.Contact me with info about volunteer opportunities in my area.

qq

q

qq

q $20 Student/Senior q $35 Individualq $50 Family q $100 Patronq $500 Sustainer q $1,000 Lifetime Membershipq Other: $______________

Monthly Giving

Help us Save the Earth one bite at a time.

Join EarthSave today! With more than 35 local chapters and branches, there’s a groupof friendly people out there hoping to hear from you. For a complete list of our

local chapters, contact our home office at 800-362-3648or check us out on the web at http://www.EarthSave.org

Women who drink non-diet soda or fruit punch everyday gain weight quickly and face a sharply elevated risk ofdiabetes, according to a major study released yesterday.

The study of more than 50,000 U.S. nurses found thatthose who drank just one serving of soda or fruit punch aday tended to gain much more weight than those who drankless than one a month, and had more than an 80 percentincreased risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, the most com-mon form of the disease. The risk pertained to drinks sweet-ened with either sugar or high-fructose corn syrup.

Although previous studies have linked such drinks toobesity and diabetes, the association has been the subject ofintense debate as health activists have fought to ban sodavending machines from schools and the sugar industry haslobbied against dietary guidelines that discourage sugarconsumption by children and adults. The new study is by farthe largest and best-designed and one of the first to exam-ine the issue in adults.

"The message is: Anyone who cares about their health orthe health of their family would not consume these bever -ages," said Walter C. Willett of the Harvard School ofPublic Health, who helped conduct the study. "Parents whocare about their children's health should not keep them athome."

Neither diet soda nor unsweetened fruit juices appear tocarry the same risks, the researchers found. Although thestudy involved only women, the researchers believed thatthe risks also hold for men.

Other experts agreed, saying the study represented amilestone in the debate over soft drink consumption, whichhas skyrocketed in the past 20 years with the rising obesityepidemic.

"While it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that sodacauses weight gain because it's high in calories, these find-ings are very significant. I think they are really a wake-upcall to the consumer of soft drink beverages, to the govern-ment, to the community, to primary care providers," saidCaroline M. Apovian of the Boston University School ofMedicine, who wrote an editorial accompanying the find-ings in today's Journal of the American Medical

Association.Nutrition experts hailed the research."This is a strong study, which joins a number of

others in showing that soft drink consumption isrelated to poor diet and obesity, yet the soft drinkindustry says the opposite," said Kelly Brownell,who is director of the Yale University Center forEating and Weight Disorders. "They lose credibili-ty by the day. Reducing soft drink consumptionmay be a powerful means of addressing the obesitycrisis."

In the study, Willett and his colleagues analyzeddata collected from Nurses' Health Study II, anongoing project involving 91,249 women designedto examine an abundance of health issues by regu-larly questioning the women in depth over manyyears.

Data collected from 51,603 women over anaverage of four years found that the women whogained the most weight were those who increasedtheir consumption of non-diet drinks from one orfewer per week to one or more per day, theresearchers found. Such women gained an averageof 10.3 pounds, compared with an average ofslightly less than three pounds for those who con-sumed one drink or less per week.

In addition, those who had one or more drinkscontaining sugar or corn syrup per day were 83percent more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes than thosewho drank less than one such drink per month. Diabetes, achronic blood sugar disorder that puts victims at risk for avariety of serious complications, is becoming increasinglycommon in the United States.

High sugar intake may increase the risk for diabetes bytaxing the pancreas, Willett said in a telephone interview."It's probably that high amounts of sugar in the bloodstreamput an increased demand for insulin on the pancreas," hesaid.

"Putting down all that sugar is not a healthy thing to do,"Willett said. "That's the bottom line."

He said the findings held true even after the researchersadjusted for a variety of factors that could explain the find-ings, such as how much exercise the women were gettingand how well they ate overall.

The findings suggest that there is something especiallyunhealthy about calories consumed in liquid form, Apoviansaid.

"It seems that when you drink your calories as opposedto eating them, your body may not sense that you've justtaken in those calories and your appetite doesn't seem tocompensate," Apovian said. "The appetite circuit might notbe programmed to register liquid calories."

Study: A soda a day is one-way ticket to obesity and diabetes

Political and social change oftencomes down to a war of words. Andaccording to a prominent cognitive lin-guist from California, anti-environmen-tal forces have been winning that warbecause progressives don't know how totalk about issues.

In his new book Don't Think of anElephant, University of California atBerkeley professor George Lakoff showshow people think in terms of frames andmetaphors, which guide their thinking onissues.

One example is talking about taxcuts. Conservatives talk about "taxrelief" instead of "tax cuts," reinforcingthe idea that heroic conservatives are res-cuing people from the affliction of taxes.

Another example came in the State ofthe Union speech last January, whenPresident Bush said, "We do not need apermission slip to defend America." Thelanguage suggests an underage Americaasking permission of an adult teacher to

leave the room. Another example: howconservatives shifted the language from"estate taxes" to "death taxes."

Conservatives and liberals have afundamentally different view of theworld, says Lakoff. Using the family as ametaphor for the nation, conservativessee the world through a "strict father"lens. Through discipline and punish-ment, the strict father urges his childrento know right from wrong, which willincrease their chances for success in adangerous world.

Liberals, on the other hand, use the"nurturant parent" model, which encour-ages children to become happy and ful-filled adults through trust, honesty, andopen communication. These two world-views, says Lakoff, explain the strikingsplit in today's politics and the mutualhostility between the two political par-ties.

According to Lakoff, conservativeshave become far shrewder at using lan-

guage to win converts. When it comes totalking about the environment, conserva-tives refer to a collection of languageguidelines by Republican pollster FrankLuntz, who has long recognized thatRepublicans have become vulnerable onenvironmental protection. The book ismust reading for conservative politicalcandidates, judges, public speakers andeven high school students who want tobecome conservative leaders.

Luntz urges his readers to use wordslike "clean," "safe," and "healthy," evenwhen talking about logging forests orpolluting the air by burning coal. Luntz'sinfluence can be seen in such Orwellianprogram names as the administration's"Healthy Forests Initiative" and "ClearSkies Initiative."

A now-infamous Luntz memoobtained by an environmental groupserves as a primer for conservativeswhen talking about the environment. Inthe memo, Luntz urges conservatives to

say "climate change" instead of "globalwarming," because "while global warm-ing has catastrophic connotationsattached to it, climate change suggests amore controllable and less emotionalchallenge."

The Luntz memo also urges conserv-atives to call themselves "conservation-ists" instead of "environmentalists,"because "conservationist" conveys a"moderate, reasoned, common senseposition between replenishing the earth'snatural resources and the human need tomake use of those resources."

According to Lakoff, conservativeshave invested billions over the past 30years in think tanks, book publishing,magazines, and media consultants. Thishas given them a huge head start overenvironmentalists in using the most per-suasive language for political change.Says Lakoff, "Playing catch-up won't beeasy, but it is necessary."

Environmentalists Losing War of Words, Says Berkeley Linguist