Trashed drugs enter water

STUDY IN MAINE

Discarded drugs taint landfill water

By Clarke Canfield
ASSOCIATED PRESS

PORTLAND, Maine — The federal government advises throwing most unused or expired medications into the trash instead of down the drain, but they can end up in the water anyway, a study from Maine suggests.   Tiny amounts of discarded drugs have been found in water at three landfills in the state, confirming suspicions that pharmaceuticals thrown into household trash are ending up in water that drains through waste, according to a survey by the state’s environmental agency. It’s one of only a handful to have looked at the presence of drugs in landfills.

.
Landfill water, known as leachate, eventually ends up in rivers. Most of Maine doesn’t draw its drinking water from rivers where the leachate ends up, but in other states that do, water supplies that come from rivers could be contaminated.
Lawmakers in Maine are considering a bill, among the first of its kind in the country, that would require drug manufacturers to develop and pay for a program to collect unused prescription and over-the-counter drugs from residents and dispose of them.

.
Scientists and environmentalists have long known of the presence of minute concentrations of pharmaceuticals in drinking water. Research shows that pharmaceuticals sometimes harm aquatic species, and that human cells can fail to grow normally in the laboratory when exposed to trace concentrations of certain drugs.

.
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection found tiny amounts — measured in parts per trillion — of medications ranging from antidepressants and birth control pills to blood pressure and cholesterol prescriptions. The most prevalent drugs were over-thecounter pain relievers.   “People need a way to properly dispose of their drugs, and they’re not getting it right now,” said Mark Hyland, director of the state Department of Environmental Quality’s Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management.

(This is a nasty way to be dosed!)

Dead animals- what to do now?

RENDERING DEAD ANIMALS

Health concerns add to plants’ unpopularity

By Spencer Hunt
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

A South Side rendering plant was better known for the foul stench it often produced than the service it provided.  The Sanimax plant, which is closing, is one of the last sites in Ohio that render dead animals carted in by farmers, veterinarians and roadkill crews.   It’s not a topic that most people think about, but consider this: One dairy cow weighs 1,500 pounds, and chicken farms house millions of birds.   When they die, they have to go somewhere.

.
Rendering plants take all kinds of dead animals, slaughterhouse and meatpacking castoffs, and restaurant oils and grease. They reduce these materials into oils, fats and proteins used in cosmetics, paints, pet food and livestock feed. But the disposal of dead animals has become an increasingly thorny issue for businesses that work with them and the government agencies that regulate them. And the loss of the Sanimax plant, which was bought by Texas-based Darling International, illustrates how rendering is a disappearing option.

.
“There used to be a rendering plant in every other county in some highly populated states,” said Tom Cook, president of the National Renderers Association in Arlington, Va. Cook said he knows of two other working plants in Ohio: G.A. Wintzer and Son in Wapakoneta and Holmes By-Products in Millersburg. The number of plants in the country has been shrinking as big businesses centralize operations by buying out smaller ones. The U.S. has more than 200 working plants, 38 of which are owned by Darling. The company did not return phone calls seeking comment.

.
Cook said he expects Darling to truck materials from Columbus businesses to a plant in a nearby state.  Many rendering plants no longer take animals because of increasing restrictions from government and customers.  In October, the Food and Drug Administration banned the rendering of mature cows unless their brains and spinal cords are removed. The rule is intended as a safeguard against mad-cow disease.

.
Cook also said that disease fears have led many pet-food and livestock-feed manufacturers to reject proteins rendered from dead animals. That has pushed businesses and agencies that traffic in animals to find other solutions.

.
At its Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory in Reynoldsburg, the Ohio Department of Agriculture uses a device that resembles a giant pressure cooker to render dead animals tested for dangerous viruses.   It is not a commercial rendering plant.   The liquid is sent to the city sewer system. Brittle bone fragments go to the county landfill. Most large livestock farms in Ohio compost animals in pits, said Andy Ety, livestock environmental engineer at the Ohio Department of Agriculture.

.
What about roadkill? The state’s preference is to let animals decompose where they drop, said Nancy Burton, spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Transportation.    If a carcass is a traffic hazard, is in a stream or is on private property, the agency will take it to a landfill.    Columbus Public Service workers collect dead animals in city streets and rights of way and take them to the county landfill. They won’t collect dead pets left in trash cans.    “We recommend you take them to a veterinarian,” spokesman Rick Tilton said. Veterinarians can cremate the remains or send them elsewhere for disposal.

.
The Franklin County landfill considers dead animals no different from other garbage, said spokesman John Remy.
Remy said he’s not sure whether the rendering plant’s closing will bring the landfill more carcasses. “We don’t see a large number of them now,” he said.
shunt@dispatch.com

KYLE ROBERTSON DISPATCH
Department of Agriculture employee Christy Ammons checks animal carcasses in the alkaline hydrolysis unit.

Budget criticism – exaggerated

Budget problems blown out of proportion

Paul Krugman writes for The New York Times

PAUL KRUGMAN

These days it’s hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on a news program without encountering stern warnings about the federal budget deficit. The deficit threatens economic recovery, we’re told;  it puts American economic stability at risk; it will undermine our influence in the world. These claims are reported as if they were facts, plain and simple.  Yet they aren’t facts. Many economists take a much calmer view of budget deficits. Nor do investors seem unduly concerned: U.S. government bonds continue to find ready buyers, even at historically low interest rates. The long-run budget outlook is problematic, but short-term deficits aren’t — and even the long-term outlook is less frightening than the public is being led to believe.

.
So why the ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn’t being driven by any actual news. It has been obvious for at least a year that the U.S. government would face an extended period of large deficits, and projections of those deficits haven’t changed much since last summer. Yet the drumbeat of dire fiscal warnings has grown vastly louder.

.
To me — and I’m not alone in this — the outbreak of deficit hysteria brings back memories of the groupthink that took hold during the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative, no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background, are being marginalized.

.
And fear-mongering on the deficit may end up doing as much harm as the fear-mongering on weapons of mass destruction.

.
Let’s talk for a moment about budget reality. Contrary to what you often hear, the large deficit that the federal government is running right now isn’t the result of runaway spending growth. Instead, well more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis, which has led to a plunge in tax receipts, required federal bailouts of financial institutions, and been met — appropriately — with temporary measures to stimulate growth and support employment.

.
The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thingto do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs.

.
True, there is a longer-term budget problem. Even a full economic recovery wouldn’t balance the budget, and it probably wouldn’t even reduce the deficit to a sustainable level. So once the economic crisis is past, the U.S. government will have to increase its revenue and control its costs. And in the long run there’s no way to make the budget math work unless something is done about health-care costs.

.
But there’s no reason to panic about budget prospects for the next few years, or even for the next decade. Consider, for example, what the latest budget proposal from the Obama administration says about interest payments on federal debt; according to the projections, a decade from now they’ll have risen to 3.5 percent of GDP. How scary is that? It’s about the same as interest costs under the first President George Bush.

.
Why, then, all the hysteria? The answer is politics.

.
The main difference between last summer, when we were mostly (and appropriately) taking deficits in stride, and the current sense of panic is that deficit fear-mongering has become a key part of Republican political strategy, doing double duty: It damages President Barack Obama’s image even as it cripples his policy agenda. And if the hypocrisy is breathtaking — politicians who voted for budgetbusting tax cuts posing as apostles of fiscal rectitude, politicians demonizing attempts to rein in Medicare costs one day (death panels!), then denouncing excessive government spending the next — well, what else is new?

.
The trouble, however, is that it’s apparently hard for many people to tell the difference between cynical posturing and serious economic argument. And that is having tragic consequences.    For the fact is that thanks to deficit hysteria, Washington has its priorities all wrong: All the talk is about how to shave a few billion dollars off government spending, while there’s hardly any willingness to tackle mass unemployment. Policy is headed in the wrong direction — and millions of Americans will pay the price.

(I was so pleased to digest this article from Paul Krugman and feel that it is emphatically correct.  His points are well-taken that there is no new “reason” to become hysterical over the mounting budget deficits – - that our president explained this to us clearly last year about the time it would take for all this to right itself, but that there was much that needed to be done.

Most of us were ecstatic with his decision to bite off big hunks of the already huge list of things to do – unaccustomed as we were to have any president do the things we expected to set things right ‘for us’.  It has been the custom to serve corporate interests first and let it trickle down to us.  This man is different and we know it.  The only fault I have with him is his need to try to serve the interests of  “all the people” and therefore he has bent over backward to satisfy the Republican wing hoping for unity, but that isn’t going to happen.  All it has done is delay and distort the mission he came to achieve.

I am an advocate of  “single-payer” because it is the only hope we have of fixing our economy the way it needs to be fixed.  I am not wedded to the method be cause I like it any better than any other system; only because it is how the rest of the world has already proved it can work and care for all their people.  They are getting it done and far cheaper and better than we do. I believed that President Obama understood this and have been dismayed at his lack of leadership on this issue.  I’m sure he would have pursued it if it were remotely possible.  Maybe later.  But, at the very least, we MUST have the public option.

So I agree, it is the Republican desire to thwart this presidents efforts above the interest of giving the American people a fair shake – all the people.  It seriously makes me ashamed of the fact that I called myself a Republican for most of my life.   And one last thing,  I agree the Media, commentators etc get any issue and ride it to death.  Some are worse than others of course. I could never be a commentator,  I think you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Everybody has to make a living.

I wish this president would just do the right thing as he knows it, he had our hearts and trust – just do it!  Don’t worry about the press, the polls and all the crap out there, just get it done.  Toughen up,  try to get some harmony back into the Democratic party or none of us are going anywhere.      That’s about it I guess.         Jan)

Paleo Diet Concept, Part 2

The Paleo Diet Concept, Part 2

The basic concept behind the Paleo Diet is that the foods that best promote health and optimum functioning are the foods that we evolved to eat. Humans evolved over 2.5 million years as hunter-gatherers, and it is only in the last 6 – 10,000 years that we have been eating grains, dairy, sugar, vegetable oils, high fructose corn syrup, and other modern foods. Because evolution moves so very slowly, the standard American diet (and even so-called “healthy” diets) wreaks havoc with our Paleolithic constitutions. Last month we published the first half of an unpublished chapter from The Paleo Diet, in which we discussed the rise of farming and its influence upon diet, health, and well being. Picking up where we left off, here we discuss the last four universal characteristics of the hunter-gatherer diet. Universal Characteristic #4: A Moderate Fat Intake Dominated by Monounsaturated and Polyunsaturated Fats with Balanced Omega 3 and 6 Fats If you are like most people, the message you have been receiving loud and clear for decades from so called nutritional experts, physicians and even the government is to cut the fat in your diet. No matter how well intentioned is this message, it is flatly wrong – period! It is not the total amount of fat in your diet that raises your blood cholesterol levels, increases your risk for heart disease, cancer and type II diabetes, but rather the type of fat. The typical western diet is dominated by cholesterol raising, artery clogging saturated fat. Secondly, we consume too much omega 6 polyunsaturated fats at the expense of the healthful omega 3 polyunsaturated fats. Finally most of us still regularly consume cholesterol-raising, trans fats found in margarine, shortening and nearly all processed foods. These are the types of fat you want to cut from your diet – the saturated fats, the trans fats and the omega 6 polyunsaturated fats. You want to restore the healthful monounsaturated and omega 3 fats that were the mainstays of Stone Age diets. By doing so, you will lower your blood cholesterol levels, reduce your risk for heart disease, cancer and other chronic illnesses. How did the typical western diet wander so far from the healthful fats our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate? Fats in the Hunter-Gatherer Diet In order to know how we got lost, we need to know where we started. What exactly was the balance of fats in humanity’s original diet? From hundred’s of computerized dietary simulations of Stone Age diets, as well as from numerous ethnographic studies of hunter-gatherers, my research team and I have been able to answer this question. In the graph below, contrasting hunter-gatherer and western diets, you can see that the big difference was in the total amount of saturated fat. Despite eating diets that were dominated by animal foods, hunter-gatherers ate about half the saturated fat found in the average western diet. Wild game meat is very low in both total and saturated fat as you can see in the table below comparing wild and domesticated meats. From the graph you can also see that healthful, cholesterol lowering monounsaturated fats comprised more than half of all the fats in the diet. Although you can’t tell from the graph, there is one additional characteristic of the fats in hunter-gatherer diets that was extremely important to their health and yours as well. They ate a lot of omega 3 polyunsaturated fats. The balance of omega 6 to omega 3 fats in Stone Age diets was about 2 to 1. In the U.S. diet it is much too high at about 10 to 1. Excessive consumption of omega 6 fats at the expense of omega 3 fats will increase your risk for heart disease and certain forms of cancer while aggravating inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The lean meats, fish, fruits and vegetables and oils that you will be eating on The Paleo Diet will insure that you have not only the proper balance of omega 6 and omega 3 fats, but of all fats. Revolutionary Changes in Our Fat By now I’m sure that you have a pretty good idea that dietary changes triggered by both the agricultural and industrial revolutions were almost totally responsible for jumbling the types of fats we are genetically programmed to eat. At the very early stages of the agricultural revolution, the total amount of fat in the diet declined. This is because the cereal grains that displaced wild animal foods were extremely low in fat. In fact, they only average 3.6% fat in a 100 calorie serving. Ever so gradually, in the ensuing 10,000 years since the agricultural revolution, we have managed to restore the fat in our diet. Unwittingly, we restored the lost fat with types and balances of fats that were foreign to the ones we were genetically adapted to. And this blunder has resulted in much of the ill health and disease that burdens us today. Comparison of the total fat in domestic and wild meats Domestic Meat % Fat Grams Saturated Fat Pork Chop 51 4.8 T-Bone Beef Steak 66 9.08 Lamb Chop 75 9.95 Chicken Thigh 58 4.33 Average 62.5 7.04 Wild Meat % Fat Grams Saturated Fat Bison Roast 16 0.91 Antelope Roast 17 0.97 Moose Roast 7 0.29 Deer Roast 19 1.25 Average 14.8 0.86 Fatty Domestic Meats Even though cereal grains are quite low in fat, the little fat they have is unbalanced and completely at odds with the healthful mix of omega 6 and omega 3 fats found in Stone Age diets. The average omega 6 to omega 3 ratio in 8 of the world’s most commonly consumed cereals is a staggering 22 to 1, compared to the 2 or 3 to 1 ratio that is found in game meat and organs. Although cereals contributed very little total fat to the diet, they were directly responsible for the mess that was to ensue. Shortly, following on the footsteps of cereal domestication came the domestication of animals. At first, these animals were quite like their wild ancestors and very lean, but through millennia of selective breeding they got progressively fatter. Unfortunately the type of fat they built up was saturated fat, particularly when they were confined in corals and barnyards and fed grain. By the time the 20th century had rolled around, grain feeding had become standard practice to fatten livestock. These animals were not only loaded down with saturated fat, but the balance of fats in their meat took on the same high omega 6 to omega 3 ratio that was present in the grain they ate. Unknowingly, farmers had produced an unhealthful meat product that was about as different from wild game meat as could possibly be imagined. Milk is Not Good for Everybody Fatty meats were by no means the only foods that upset the balance and types of fats we were genetically programmed to eat. Dairy foods did a number on us as well. Starting about 5-6,000 years ago milk, cream, cheese, butter and fermented milk products (yogurt, kumis, and sour milk) became part of our diets. Later we invented ice cream and a glut of other processed dairy products. Unfortunately, these foods are the single richest source of saturated fats in the typical western diet. Butter (100% fat), cream (89% fat), cheeses (74% fat), and whole milk (49% fat) all contain about 60% of their total fat as saturated fats. Although many people think that “milk is good for everybody,quot; the truth of the matter is that whole milk and fatty milk products are one of the least healthful foods in our diets. Their saturated fats raise your blood cholesterol levels and increase your risk for coronary heart disease and an epidemic of other chronic diseases. They have done as much or more to upset the delicate balance of fats in humankind’s original diet as any of agriculture’s “new” foods. It’s best to stay away from these foods and stick to the lean meats, fruits and veggies that have formed the basis of our diets for more than 2 million years. Unbalanced Vegetable Oils The agricultural revolution may have brought us grains, fatty meats and dairy products, but it was the industrial revolution, by way of the food processing industry, that really upset the balance of fats in our diets with the introduction of hydraulically pressed vegetable oils. These foods are the single greatest contributor to unbalancing omega 6 and omega 3 polyunsaturated fats in our diets. In the table below, you can see exactly how bad many of these oils actually are. The food processing industry made no deliberate attempt to sabotage the proper fats in our diets. They simply were unaware of the potential harmful effects that excessive omega 6 fats might have. In the 1940s and 1950s, when most of the high omega 6 oils were introduced, no one knew that the correct balance of omega 6 and omega 3 fats had anything to do with health and well being. They only knew that polyunsaturated fats lowered cholesterol levels. And it was with this limited piece of the total picture that they happily gave us all kinds of cooking and salad oils that were highly polyunsaturated, but regrettably also extremely high in omega 6 fats. Hindsight is 20/20, and we now know that this was a huge mistake. However, the mistake is only now beginning to be corrected with the introduction of oils such as canola and flaxseed. Most people are totally unaware that a problem ever existed. Trans Fats: Another Bad Idea It’s not just cooking and salad oils that are to blame for giving us too much omega 6 fats. Virtually all processed foods (breads, cookies, cakes, crackers, chips, doughnuts, muffins, cereals, candies etc.) and all fast foods are prepared with one form or another of high omega 6 vegetable oils. And to add insult to injury most of these foods are made with hydrogenated vegetable oils that contain harmful trans fats. Trans fats raise blood cholesterol levels and consequently increase your risk for coronary heart disease. A recent study in the American Journal of Public Health concluded that consumption of trans fats by Americans was responsible for more than 30,000 deaths annually from coronary heart disease. Trans fats are the same fats that are found in margarine, shortening and most peanut butters. These foods were definitely not part of humanity’s original diet. In fact, hydrogenated fats containing trans fats were only invented in the latter part of the 19th century, and margarine and shortening did not become widely available until after World War II. Do yourself a favor and permanently banish these harmful, artificial fats from your diet. Omega 6 and omega 3 fat levels in vegetable oils (omega 6/omega 3) ratio omega 6 fats (grams) omega 3fats (grams) High (Undesirable) Ratios Safflower oil extremely high 77 < 1 Peanut oil extremely high 32 < 1 Cottonseed oil 258 51.5 0.2 Sunflower oil 200 39.8 0.2 Sesame oil 137 41.3 0.3 Corn oil 83 58 0.7 Intermediate Ratios Soybean oil 7.5 51 6.8 Walnut oil 5.1 52.9 10.4 Low (Desirable) Ratios Canola oil 2 22.2 11.1 Flaxseed oil 0.2 12.7 53.5 Universal Characteristic #5: A High Potassium Intake and Low Sodium Intake In almost all unprocessed, fresh foods such as meats, fish, fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds there is typically 5 to 10 times more potassium than sodium. Consequently, it is impossible to eat more sodium than potassium when you eat only fresh, unprocessed food. This general nutritional pattern in which potassium prevailed over sodium was the norm for all Stone Age people. Stone Age diets were exceptionally rich in potassium and low in sodium, and our Stone Age bodies were ideally adapted to this dietary scheme. However, as we made the transition from huntergatherer to early farmer and beyond, yet another fundamental characteristic of our former diets changed. Only when salt is added to food is it possible to get more sodium than potassium. We don’t precisely know when Neolithic farmers first began to include salt in their diet. However, salt would have been useful in preserving meats and other foods. Also, salt could be used to process foods like olives to make them edible and to add flavor to bland cereals and other foods. Archaeological evidence shows that salt was mined and traded in Europe by at least 3,400 years ago. Ever so gradually salt became a central part of the dietary staples of all “civilized” societies. Today, the average American consumes about twice as much sodium as potassium. This is in marked contrast to our Stone Age ancestors who would have consumed about 10 times as much potassium as sodium. Universal Characteristic #6: A Net Dietary Alkaline Load that Balances Dietary Acid If you are like most people you probably are completely unaware that the acid/base content of food had any effect whatsoever on your health. However, just like all of the previous universal characteristics of Stone Age diets, this one too was abruptly changed as humankind made the transition from hunter-gather to farmer and beyond. And this change, like all the others agriculture gave us, had a serious effect upon our health and well being. All foods, after they are digested, present either a net acid or alkaline load to the kidney. Acid producing foods are meats, fish, grains, legumes, dairy products and salt. Alkaline producing foods are fruits and vegetables. Fats are neutral. The average American diet almost always generates a net acid load to the kidney. One of the major contributors to this net acid load is salt which is composed of two elements: sodium and chloride. Chloride is responsible for giving salt its net acid load. Excessive consumption of acid foods at the expense of alkaline foods may result in bone and muscle loss with aging. Additionally, excessive dietary acid, particularly chloride, can elevate blood pressure, increase the risk for kidney stones and aggravate asthma and exercise induced asthma. Agriculture’s Legacy Although hunter-gatherer diets were dominated by meat and animal foods, 35 to 45% of their calories came from alkaline yielding fruits and vegetables. Consequently, the acid load generated by their high meat diets would have been buffered by fruits and vegetables. This was the dietary norm that almost all humans experienced until agriculture made its appearance. Early (9-10,000 years ago) agriculture gave us acid producing cereals and legumes. Later (5-6,000 years ago) came highly acidic cheeses and other dairy foods, and by about 3-4,000 years ago salt was regularly added to foods. Cereals, legumes and dairy products not only added acid to our diets, but they also displaced the alkaline yielding fruits and vegetables that had previously buffered the acid load in meat based hunter-gatherer diets. Enter the Food Processing Industry With the launch of the modern food processing industry in the last 75-100 years, things went from bad to worse. All types of synthesized, artificial food combinations with any and all possible textures, flavors, nutrient compositions and acid/base balances became available. A typical American dinner or lunch might be cheese and pepperoni pizza, a cola drink and a tiny salad with Caesar dressing. This combination of foods is a disaster for the body’s acid-base balance, and results in a net acid load. The pizza’s white flour crust, its melted cheeses and its salty pepperoni salami are all highly acidic. What little alkaline base is available in the tiny salad is neutralized by the vinegar, salt and cheese in the Caesar salad dressing. Finally, a sugar-laced cola beverage washes down a meal that never could have been available to hunter-gatherers. This meal not only typifies what’s wrong with the acid/base balance of the average American diet, but also is representative of all of the other dietary imbalances I have previously described: high sodium/low potassium, high omega 6/low omega 3 fats, high carbohydrate/low protein, high sugar/reduced fiber and high saturated fat/low monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat. Universal Characteristic #7: A High Intake of Plant Phytochemicals, Vitamins, Minerals and Antioxidants As Neolithic farmers in the Middle East settled into their first permanent towns and villages they began to rely heavily upon wheat, barley and legumes as their staple foods. At the same time, they also began to reduce the wild fruits, vegetables and game meat in their diet. This displacement of wild foods by starchy whole grains caused a sudden decline in the vitamin and mineral content of their diet. Although you may think of whole grains as a highly nutritious food, they can’t hold a candle to lean meats, fruits and veggies. Whole grains contain no vitamin C, vitamin A or vitamin B12, and except for corn, no cereal grains contain beta carotene, the metabolic precursor for vitamin A. Whole grains are not a good source of B vitamins when compared to lean meats, fruits and veggies, and many of the B vitamins are not well absorbed. Whole grains are poor sources of most minerals because they contain substances called antinutrients that impair absorption of minerals in the gut. Because of these nutrient deficiencies, excessive grain consumption by Neolithic farmers unbalanced their diets and caused multiple vitamin and mineral deficiency diseases. These same deficiency diseases still occur in many underdeveloped countries of the world where people rely heavily upon grains at the expense of meats, fruits and vegetables. Let’s take a closer look at how cereals cause all of these problems: Vitamins A, C and Beta Carotene Vitamin C deficiency causes scurvy, a disease that was unknown to hunter-gatherers and Stone Age people. Most Stone Age diets are extremely high in vitamin C (~500 mg per day) because they contain on average 35 to 45% of their calories as fresh fruits and veggies. Even Eskimos who eat virtually no plant food for most of the year do not get scurvy because raw fish, seal and caribou meat has just enough vitamin C to prevent this disease. As vitamin C-devoid cereal grains gradually pushed more and more fresh fruits and vegetables out of Neolithic diets, the vitamin C content of their diet declined. Needless to say, their health also went downhill. Vitamin C is one of the body’s most powerful antioxidants and can lower cholesterol levels, improve immune function, help us resist infections and colds and reduce our risk of heart disease and cancer. Vitamin A deficiency, like scurvy, could only have arisen after agriculture. Stone Age diets were always rich in fruits and vegetables. These foods are excellent sources of beta-carotene, a nutrient that can be converted to vitamin A by the liver. Additionally, hunter-gatherers ate the entire carcass of their prey animals, including the vitamin A rich liver. As was the case with scurvy, when cereals are eaten at the expense of fresh fruits and vegetables or organ meats, the vitamin A content of the diet declines. Vitamin A is required for proper functioning of all of the body’s mucous membranes, and deficiencies result in a condition called xerophthalmia (dry eyes) that can lead to blindness. Vitamin A deficiency also impairs the body’s ability to fight infection and disease. Little did Neolithic farmers realize that 10 millennia later their staple cereal foods would be directly responsible for the leading cause of worldwide childhood blindness. The take home message for Paleo Dieters is simple: follow the lead of your Stone Age ancestors and replace your cereal grains with vitamin C and beta carotene-rich fruits and vegetables. These antioxidants have numerous health giving properties that will go a long way in reducing your risk for heart disease and cancer. The B Vitamins If you are like most people, you may be under the impression that whole grain cereals are rich sources of B vitamins. Wrong! Cereals are lightweights when compared to lean meats, fruits and veggies, as the graph below clearly indicates. Whole grains not only are relatively poor sources of the B vitamins, but they also contain antinutrients that impair their absorption in the intestines. Almost all whole grains and legumes contain antinutrients called “pyridoxine glucosides” that may reduce the availability of vitamin B6 by 75 to 80%. In a study of vegetarian women from Nepal, Dr. Robert Reynolds from the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center demonstrated that the low vitamin B6 status of these women was attributable to the high levels of pyridoxine glucosides in their grain and legume diets. In contrast, the availability of vitamin B6 in lean meats is nearly 100%. Another B vitamin that is poorly assimilated from whole grains is biotin. Experiments by my colleague Dr. Bruce Watkins from Purdue University have shown that wheat and other whole grains impair the body’s utilization of biotin. Biotin deficiencies result in dry and brittle fingernails and hair. Studies done by Dr. Richard K. Scher and co-workers at Columbia University in New York have shown that biotin supplementation could reduce fingernail brittleness and vertical ridging. Just as was the case with vitamin B6, the availability of biotin from animal foods is almost 100%. Excessive consumption of grains at the expense of lean meats, fish and seafood lowers not just vitamin B6 and biotin, but all B vitamins. Cereal Grains and Pellagra and Beriberi Although you may have never heard about these next two diseases, they are two of the most devastating and widespread B vitamin deficiency diseases that have ever plagued humankind. And, they are exclusively caused by excessive consumption of cereals. Pellagra is an often times fatal disease that is caused by a lack of the B vitamin, niacin and the essential amino acid, tryptophan. In the U.S. between 1906 and 1940 there was an epidemic of pellagra in the southern states estimated at 3 million cases with at least 100,000 deaths. Similar outbreaks have occurred in Europe and India, and pellagra is still common in parts of Africa. Underlying every single world-wide pellagra epidemic was excessive consumption of corn. Corn has both low levels of niacin and tryptophan, and the niacin that is present is poorly absorbed. Pellagra could never have occurred in pre-agricultural times because lean meats are excellent sources of both niacin and tryptophan. Beriberi results from a deficiency of vitamin B1 (thiamine) and ultimately causes paralysis of the leg muscles. This disease was virtually unknown until the introduction of polished rice in the late 1800’s. In parts of Japan and Southeast Asia where rice was the staple food, beriberi became epidemic as people replaced their traditional brown rice with white rice. It was eventually discovered that removal of the thiamine containing bran during the polishing process was largely responsible for this disease. Beriberi has been mostly eliminated with the introduction of “enriched rice” to which vitamin B1 is added. However, the message here should be loud and clear: If we have to add a vitamin to a food to prevent it from causing ill health and disease, we shouldn’t be eating it in the first place. Cereals, B Vitamins and Your Health In all likelihood you will never have to worry about pellagra or beriberi. These diseases have been almost completely eradicated because our refined cereal grains are now enriched with vitamin B1 and niacin. However, within the last 10 years, a new and major risk factor for coronary heart disease has surfaced. It has been found that low dietary intakes of three B vitamins (vitamin B6, B12 and folate) increase your blood levels of the amino acid homocysteine. High blood levels of homocysteine, in turn, increase your risk for coronary heart disease. Whole grain cereals have no vitamin B12, and as I previously mentioned, their vitamin B6 is poorly absorbed. Additionally from the chart above, you can see that they are, at best, a meager source of folate. So, you can easily see that excessive consumption of whole grain cereals, in lieu of lean meats, fruits and vegetables, is a formula for disaster for your heart. In contrast, lean meats are rich sources of both vitamins B6 and B12, and fresh fruits and vegetables are our best food source of folate. By eating the foods Mother Nature intended, you will never have to worry about your B vitamin status, homocysteine, or heart disease. Since most Americans don’t eat enough fresh fruits and vegetables, our dietary intake of folate is often marginal or low. Folate not only protects us from coronary heart disease, but it also prevents spina bifida (a crippling birth defect), and reduces our risk for colon cancer. Because of these healthful effects, the government only recently decided to enrich our refined cereal grains with folic acid (a form of folate). So somewhat paradoxically, you can now eat white bread, doughnuts and cookies to increase your folic acid intake. But when you eat whole grains, you won’t get this benefit. No matter how you slice your bread (whole or refined), grains are not good for you. When you have the choice, always go for the traditional foods that our species has eaten from day one – lean meats, fruits and vegetables. The Minerals Whether we choose to take our grains whole or refined, our dietary vitamin intakes get clobbered every time. Unfortunately, the situation is not much better for minerals. On paper, whole grains appear to be a moderate to good source for many important minerals such as iron, zinc and copper. But if the truth be known, cereals are actually lousy sources of these nutritionally important minerals. All whole cereal grains are chalk full of antinutrients called “phytates.” Phytates bind the iron, zinc, copper and calcium within grains and thereby impair their absorption during digestion. Phytates do their job so well, that the worldwide epidemic of iron deficiency anemia that afflicts 1.2 billion people is universally attributed to the poor availability of iron in cereal and legume based diets. Iron deficiency anemia increases our incidence and severity of infection while also reducing our physical work capacity. It increases a mother’s risk of death during childbirth. And probably most serious of all, it may permanently impair a child’s learning ability. Iron deficiency anemia, like all of the other deficiency diseases caused by agriculture’s “new” foods would not have been possible on Stone Age diets. Lean meats and animal foods are rich sources of iron, but more importantly, the type of iron found in lean meats and animal foods is easily assimilated by the body. Whole grain cereals are also disastrous for our zinc nutrition. In certain countries in the Middle East, a whole wheat flat bread called tanok contributes more than 50% of the total daily calories. Studies done by Dr. John Reinhold and colleagues have shown that tanok causes a zinc deficiency that stunts growth and delays puberty in children. Both children and adults need zinc for fighting infection, and sustaining our strength and physical work capacity. As was the case with iron, lean meats are excellent sources of zinc. In fact, the bioavailability of zinc from meat is four times greater than from grains. It’s time to get lean meat back into your diet. Once you do, you’ll have more energy and you’ll reduce your chances of catching a cold. Calcium Many women and men today are concerned about calcium in their diets. If you are like most, you know that insufficient dietary calcium can eventually lead to bone loss and osteoporosis. But certain foods, such as cereal grains and legumes, are a total catastrophe for your bone health. Just like iron and zinc, the little calcium that is present in whole grains is bound to phytates making most of it unavailable for absorption. Cereals contain high levels of phosphorus giving them an unfavorable calcium/phosphorus ratio that can accelerate bone loss. Also, don’t forget that cereals produce a net acid load to the kidney that increases calcium loss in the urine. If all of this were not bad enough, whole grains are also known to disrupt vitamin D metabolism in your body. Vitamin D increases calcium absorption and prevents rickets, a disease that causes bone deformities. Rickets are routinely produced in laboratory animals by feeding them whole grains. In many of the world’s undeveloped countries, where whole grains and legumes are the main source of calories, rickets, osteoporosis and other bone mineral diseases are commonplace. From the fossil record we know that these same bone mineral problems experienced in underdeveloped countries were also common in Neolithic farmers as they first adopted agriculture. Not surprisingly, the hunter gatherers who preceded them had no such afflictions. Hunter-gatherers were people who never drank milk, and they also ate lots of meat. But also remember – they ate lots of fruits and vegetables. Fruits and veggies supplied them with sufficient calcium to build strong bones. Fruits and veggies also gave them an abundant source of alkaline base that prevented excessive losses of calcium in the urine. When you adopt The Paleo Diet, you will not have to worry about your calcium intake, you will get all you need from the fruits and vegetables. You will get more than 100% of the RDA for calcium, but more importantly, you will be in calcium balance by taking in more calcium than you lose. Summary By now you can see that the displacement of lean meats, fruits and veggies by the “new foods” of the agricultural revolution were disastrous for our health. They caused a domino-like effect that shaped the foods we currently eat. One simple dietary tradeoff begot another simple dietary tradeoff that in turn begot another and another and another. After 10,000 years of dietary tradeoffs, we have completely lost our way. We have forgotten the traditional foods that our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate; the timehonored foods provided to us by eons of evolutionary wisdom. Although it has been 10,000 years since the agricultural revolution, this seemingly unfathomable time span corresponds to only 500 human generations. We have changed little over 500 generations; our genetic constitutions are virtually identical to that of Stone Age hunter-gatherers. The contemporary western diet and lifestyle is totally out of sync with our Stone Age genes, and this discordance is responsible for much of the ill health and disease in our modern world. To restore our health and well being, we simply need to reconnect with the types of foods our Stone Age bodies are accustomed to. Supporting Science Acid-Producing Diets and Bone Health A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition earlier this year identified net acid producing diets as a possible risk factor for decreased bone density in women. A group of 14,563 British men and women participated in the study, which was geared toward identifying pre-osteoporotic populations and those at risk for fractures. Using food-frequency questionnaires, the mean potential renal acid load (PRAL) was calculated for each participant. The PRAL equation incorporates the intake of protein, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus, and calcium to determine mean acidity of the diet. Researchers used broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) technology to measure bone density, and found that PRAL and BUA were inversely related: diets that were more acidic (higher PRAL values) were significantly associated with lower calcaneal BUA values in women. Those women with higher PRAL values had greater intakes of cereal, cereal products, meat, fish, and eggs, and a lower intake of fruits, vegetables, tea, and coffee. Osteoporosis is a public health concern many countries are beginning to recognize and address. Especially relevant to women, this study identifies specific dietary patterns that are associated with decreased bone density. These data support the sixth universal characteristic of hunter-gatherer diets: a net alkaline load, plenty of fruits and vegetables, naturally balances dietary acid. Welch, A.A., Bingham, S.A., Reeve, J., Khaw, K.T. More acidic dietary acid-base load is associated with reduced calcaneal broadband ultrasound attenuation in women but not in men: results from the EPIC-Norfolk cohort study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2007; 85:1134-1141. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/4/1134 Sodium and Potassium In conjunction with the research discussed above, dietary salt also increases the PRAL and potentially influences bone density. Sodium chloride is an acid yielding substance when it reports to the kidney. If adequate alkaline substances are present in the diet (i.e., potassium, magnesium, phosphorus, and calcium), the acidic effect can be buffered. Otherwise, the body turns to its largest available source of alkaline buffering agents: calcium in the skeleton. In theory, continuous metabolic acidosis will result in increased rates of bone loss. An article published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism investigated the affect of dietary sodium on calcium excretion and bone loss. The study examined two variables: the change in urinary calcium excretion as salt intake was increased, and secondly, the change in calcium excretion when potassium citrate supplements were introduced into a high salt diet. In theory, potassium is a buffer of acidic agents in the diet, therefore, the body should rely less on calcium from bones to buffer the acid load of the salt; hence calcium excretion would decrease with potassium supplementation. Sixty postmenopausal women adhered to a low sodium diet for 3 weeks, followed by 4 weeks on a high sodium diet plus either potassium citrate supplements or a placebo. When participants switched from a low to high sodium diet, calcium concentrations in the urine increased significantly (33%). When potassium citrate supplements were introduced into the high sodium diet, urinary calcium excretion decreased by about 4 percent. In addition, when dietary sodium was increased, researchers noted an increase in the bone resorption (breakdown) marker NTX, and a concomitant decrease in the bone formation marker osteocalcin, which suggests there are skeletal responses to salt intake. The researchers added, “Increased intake of dietary sources of alkaline potassium salts, namely fruits and vegetables, may be beneficial for postmenopausal women at risk for osteoporosis, especially for those consuming a high salt diet.” In general, unprocessed foods have 5 to 10 times more potassium than sodium. There is plenty of potassium available to naturally buffer any acidproducing foods we may eat. By incorporating the fifth universal characteristic of hunter gatherer diets and consuming a high potassium and low sodium diet, we can help prevent our bones from being broken down to be used as an acid buffer. Sellmeyer, D.E., Schloetter, M., Sebastian, A. Potassium Citrate Prevents Increased Urine Calcium Excretion and Bone Resorption Induced by a High Sodium Chloride Diet. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2002 May; 87:2008-2012. http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/87/5/2008? Paleo Diet Improves Glucose Tolerance More than Mediterranean Diet Heart disease is the most common cause of death in most western countries. Type II diabetes and/or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) are common risk factors for heart disease, and in fact, the majority of heart disease patients have abnormal glucose tolerance. A large waist circumference is another warning sign and is a characteristic of the metabolic syndrome. Most of the time patients with these symptoms are advised to eat whole grains, low fat dairy products, fruits and vegetables, legumes, fish, and unsaturated fats. However, as a team of Swedish scientists recently demonstrated, there is a better diet to improve these disorders. Twenty-nine men with heart disease, type II diabetes or IGT, and waist circumference measurements of greater than 94 centimeters participated in a 12-week dietary intervention. They were assigned to either a Mediterranean diet group (including whole grains, low-fat dairy, legumes, potatoes, vegetables, and fatty fish) or a Paleolithic group (lean meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs, and nuts). A greater decrease in waist circumference was observed in the Paleo group than the Mediterranean group, but the most striking difference was the change in glucose tolerance. All subjects in the Paleo group had normal fasting glucose values after 12 weeks, while 7 of the 15 subjects in the Mediterranean group retained diabetic values. A 26 percent decrease in blood glucose concentration was observed in the Paleo group compared to only a 7 percent decrease in the Mediterranean group. In addition, participants in the Paleo group ate 25% less energy despite eating similar quantities of food (by weight). The authors summarize their findings by stating, “The study adds to the notion that healthy diets based on wholegrain cereals and low-fat dairy products are only the second best choice in the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes.” This study is important in that it isolates the Paleo diet and compares other diets against it. Widespread dietary intervention studies using the Paleo diet have not been conducted and this study optimistically brings attention to that need. Hopefully, this is a pre-cursor study to more detailed analyses of the Paleo diet and the affect on diseases of civilization. Lindeberg, S., Jönsson, T., Granfeldt, Y., Borgstrand, E., Soffman, J., Sjöström, K., Ahrén, B. A Palaeolithic diet improves glucose tolerance more than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischaemic heart disease. Diabetologia 2007 Jun. Link to abstract and downloadable PDF file of article. Questions & Feedback Low Energy Phase Dr. Cordain, I have a client who is lacking energy after having switched to the Paleo Diet. I have experienced this with clients in the first few weeks before but she has been on the diet for a little over a month and this has only just surfaced. Do you have any thoughts? Mark J. Smith, Ph.D. Hi Dr. Smith, Thank you for your question. This is a temporary occurrence for some people when they transition to the Paleo Diet. I believe the low energy stems from the combination of 2 factors: 1) A lifetime of metabolizing glucose and stored muscle glycogen. When you get your only carbs from fruits and veggies, the carbohydrate content of the diet is severely reduced, and thus may initially lead to low blood sugar and lethargy. 2) The inability of peripheral tissues (i.e. muscle) to effectively use beta oxidation of intramuscular triglyceride as a substrate because flux through these pathways has been neglected for a lifetime. Once dietary CHO is reduced, then muscle must rely upon lipolysis from adipocytes as the major energy source, along with esterification of these free fatty acids at the muscle/blood interface in order to increase the intramuscular triglyceride pool. This process takes about 1-2 months to occur in typical muscle glycogen compensated Westerners, and longer for women than men. Increasing the fat content of the diet and increasing fruit intake during the transitional phase will probably help with these energy issues. 30 Years of Acne – Gone Hi, My story about acne. For over thirty years I have suffered from spots on nose and scalp. I took Minocin for it but after adopting the Paleo Diet this May I stopped the medication. All the spots disappeared and for the first time in a long time I was both without Minocin and without spots. I was happy. Nor did I know about the acne theory when I took these steps and got the result. I just had a general hope that the Paleo Diet would do it for me. Then I was taken into hospital in Devon, England and there I am afraid I could not maintain my Paleo Diet. Principally I had wholemeal bread for breakfast and supper as one of the most healthy alternatives. After four days in hospital I was discharged and soon after the spots began until my nose became one complete area of infection, and embarrassingly bright red. In the end I lost my nerve, I felt the infection too serious to go untreated and got anti-biotics for it. I am not going back to the Minocin maintenance plan but will stick to the Paleo Diet and will avoid the bread and all grains etc. in future. I am hoping now that the Paleo Diet will help me overcome Candidiasis and Atrial Fibrillation. Already I am losing weight, forty pounds so far without that being the main aim of being on the Paleo Diet. I just see the diet as my best chance of long term health, the arguments are just too compelling. I read a lot of diet books before choosing Paleo as the obvious choice for me. Sincerely, Peter (Editors note: The Dietary Cure for Acne is available as a downloadable ebook at www.DietaryAcneCure.com.) Thanks for a job well done I always enjoy reading your newsletters. They are generally detailed, reasoned and well referenced to recognized journals. I particularly like these aspects. Thanks for a job well done. J.G.Nasser DDS, MD, MS, MRCD(C), FRCS(C) QE II Health Sciences Centre Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada References Anderson GH. Dietary patterns vs. dietary recommendations: identifying the gaps for complex carbohydrate. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 1994;5&6:435-40. Armelagos GJ. Human evolution and the evolution of disease. Ethn Dis 1991;1:21-5. Balam G, Gurri F. A physiological adaptation to undernutrition. Ann Hum Biol 1994;21:483-89. Blair R, Misir R: Biotin bioavailability from protein supplements and cereal grains for growing broiler chickens. Int J Vit Nutr Res 1989;59:55-58.Chambers JC, Obeid OA, Refsum H, Ueland P, Hackett D, Hooper J, Turner RM, Thompson SG, Kooner JS . Plasma homocysteine concentrations and risk of coronary heart disease in UK Indian Asian and European men. Lancet 2000;355:523-7. Cleave TL. The Saccharine Disease. Bristol, John Wright & Sons, Ltd., 1974. Cockburn A. Where did our infectious diseases come from? The evolution of infectious disease. Ciba Found Symp 1977;49:103-12. Cohen MN. The significance of long-term changes in human diet and food economy. In: Food and Evolution. Toward a Theory of Human Food Habits, Harris M, Ross EB (Eds.), Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1987,261-83. Cohen MN, Armelagos GJ. Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture, New York, Acacemic Press, 1984. Cordain L, et al. The fatty acid composition of muscle, brain, marrow and adipose tissue in elk: evolutionary implications for human dietary lipid requirements. The World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 1998;83:225. Cordain L, et al. Scant evidence of periodic starvation among huntergatherers. Diabetologia 1999;42:383-84. Cordain L. Cereal grains: humanity’s double edged sword. World Rev Nutr Diet 1999;84:19-73. Cordain L, et al. A detailed fatty acid analysis of selected tissues in elk, mule deer, and antelope. FASEB J;1999:13: A887. Cordain L, et al. Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets. Am J Clin Nutr 2000;71:682-92. Dagnelie PC, et al. Effects of macrobiotic diets on linear growth in infants and children until 10 years of age. Eur J Clin Nutr 1994;48 (supp 1):S103-S112. Denton D. The Hunger for Salt. New York, Springer-Verlag, 1984. Diamond J. The worst mistake in the history of the human race. Discover 1987 (May): 64-66. Dirlewanger M et al. Effects of fructose on hepatic glucose metabolism in humans. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2000;279:E907-E911. Duckett SK, et al. Effects of time on feed on beef nutrient composition. J Anim Sci 1993;71:2079-88. Eaton SB, Eaton SB III, Sinclair AJ, Cordain L, Mann NJ. Dietary intake of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids during the paleolithic. World Rev Nutr Diet 1998;83:12-23. Foster-Powell K, Brand Miller J. International tables of glycemic index. Am J Clin Nutr 1995;62:871s-93s. Gardner CD, Kraemer HC. Monounsaturated versus polyunsaturated dietary fat and serum lipids. A meta-analysis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1995;15:1917-27. Greenfield HJ. The origins of milk and wool production in the old world. Current Anthropol 1988;29:573-94. Giovannucci E, et al. Folate, methionine, and alcohol intake and risk of colorectal adenoma. J Natl Can Inst 1993;85:875-83. Guthrie JF et al. Food sources of added sweeteners in the diets of Americans. J Am diet Assoc 2000;100:43-51. Harlan JR. The plants and animals that nourish man. Sci Am 1976;235:89-97. Hochman LG, et al. Brittle nails: response to daily biotin supplementation. Cutis 1993;51:303-05. Howell JM. Early farming in northwestern Europe. Sci Am 1987;257:118-126. Kopinksi JS, et al. Biotin studies in pigs. Biotin availability in feedstuffs for pigs and chickens. Brit J Nutr 1989;62:773-80. Legge AJ, Rowley-Conway PA. Gazelle killing in stone age Syria. Sci Am 1988;257:88-95. Lewin R. A revolution of ideas in agricultural origins. Science 1988;240:984-86. Marmer WN, et al. Effects of dietary regimen and tissue site on bovine fatty acid profiles. J Anim Sci 1984;59:109-21. Mason SLR, et al. Preliminary investigation of the plant macro-remains from Dolni Vestonice II, and its implications for the role of plant foods in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe. Antiquity 1994;68:48-57. Meneely GR, Battarbee HD. High sodium-low potassium environment and hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1976;38:768-85. Miller GJ, et al. Lipids in wild ruminant animals and steers. J Food Qual 1986;9:331-43. Obeid OA, et al. Homocysteine and folate in healthy east London Bangladeshis. Lancet 1998;352:1829-30. Thresher JS, et al. Comparison of the effects of sucrose and fructose on insulin action and glucose tolerance. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2000; 279:R1334-40. Price TD, Petersen EB. A Mesolithic camp in Denmark. Sci Am 1987;256:113-121. Proud VK, et al. Fatty acid alterations and carboxylase deficiencies in the skin of biotin-deficient rats. Am J Clin Nutr 1990;51:853-58. Remer T, Manz F. Potential renal acid load of foods and its influence on urine ph. J Am Diet Assoc 1995;95:791-97. Reynolds RD. Bioavailability of vitamin B-6 from plant foods. Am J Clin Nutr 1988;48:863-67. Reinhold JG: High phytate content of rural Iranian bread: a possible cause of human zinc deficiency. Am J Clin Nutr 1971;24:1204-06. Roe DA. A Plague of Corn. Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY, 1973. Sanders TA. Growth and development of British vegan children. Am J Clin Nutr 1988;48:822-5. Simoons FJ. The geographic hypothesis and lactose malabsorption. A weighing of the evidence. Digestive Dis 1978;23:963-80. Sweeten MK, et al. Subcellular distribution and composition of lipids in muscle and adipose tissues. J Food Sci 1990;43-45. Sweeten MK, et al. Lean beef: impetus for lipid modifications. J Am Diet Assoc 1990;90:87-92. Testart A. The significance of food storage among hunter-gatherers: residence patterns, population densities, and social inequalities. Curr Anthropology 1982;23:523-37. Teuteberg HJ. Periods and turning-points in the history of european diet: a preliminary outline of problems and methods. In: Fenton A, Kisban E, eds. Food in Change. Eating Habits from the Middle Ages to the Present Day. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press Inc., 1986:11-23. Tobian L. Potassium and sodium in hypertension. J Hypertension 1988;6(suppl 4): S12-S24. Trowell H. Dietary fibre: a paradigm. In: Trowell H, Burkitt D, Heaton K, Doll R, eds. Dietary Fibre, Fibre-Depleted Foods and Disease. New York: Academic Press, 1985: 1-20. Turner JC. Adaptive strategies of selective fatty acid deposition in the bone marrow of desert bighorn sheep. Comp Biochem Physiol 1979;62A:599-604. United States Census Bureau. Historical Estimates of World Population, http://www.census.gov/ftp/pub/ipc/www/worldhis.html Watkins BA: Dietary biotin effects on desaturation and elongation of 14Clinoleic acid in the chicken. Nutr Res 1990;10:325-34. Webster D, Webster G. Optimal hunting and Pleistocene extinction. Human Ecology 1984;12:275-89. Willett WC, Ascherio A. Trans fatty acids: are the effects only marginal? Am J Pub Health 1994;84:722-24. Zvelebil M. Postglacial foraging in the forests of Europe. Sci Am 1986;254:104-115. Zohary D. The progenitors of wheat and barley in relation to domestication and agricultural dispersal in the Old World. In: The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, Ucko PJ, Dimbleby GW (Eds.), Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company, 1969, 45-65. Paleo Diet Enterprises LLC

Monsanto antitrust woes

This excellent article by Tom Philpott appeared in Grist in December.  You can access Grist yourself in case you would like to read the various references he cites:  http://www.grist.org             Jan

Monsanto stumbles into antitrust trouble

• 
  

  <!–Posted 10:00 AM on 16 Dec 2009
  –> 16 Dec 2009 10:00 AM
  by Tom Philpott

Even as it bombards the airwaves and magazine ad pages to tout its commitment to “sustainable agriculture,” GMO seed giant Monsanto has been having a rough go on the PR front of late.

First came a report (PDF) from the Organic Center showing that the company’s core Round Up Ready products have sparked a veritable monsoon of herbicide use. According to the report, since the introduction of “herbicide tolerant” corn, soy, and cotton in 1996, farmers have sprayed 382.6 million more pounds of herbicides than they otherwise would have—the overwhelming bulk of it Monsanto’s “Roundup” brand glyphosate.

And the gusher is only growing larger. As farmers have come to increasingly rely on Roundup applications, glyphosate-resistant superweeds are spreading—inspiring farmers to both spray more Roundup and add other toxic chemicals to create herbicide cocktails. “Herbicide use on [herbicide-tolerant] crops rose a remarkable 31.4% from 2007 to 2008,” the report states.

Now that’s sustainable agriculture!

Meanwhile, Monsanto’s dominance over the GMO seed market—and thus over U.S. corn, soy, and cotton production—has become so intense and obvious that “U.S. Department of Justice lawyers are seeking documents and interviewing company employees about its marketing practices,” AP reports.

The DOJ is also gearing up for a public workshop on competition in the seed industry, to be held in Iowa next March 10. The workshops, designed to hear farmer concerns over consolidation in the agriculture industry, will be co-directed by the Department of Agriculture. If U.S. authorities actually did crack down on companies that use their market power to squeeze farmers, it would would mark an epochal shift in antitrust policy, as Barry C. Lynn shows in this classic 2006 Harper’s essay.

Monsanto execs better hope that DOJ lawyers don’t get their paws on a devastating recent report (PDF) from the Farmer-to-Farmer Campaign of Genetic Engineering.

The report establishes two facts that would, under any reasonable criteria, force the DOJ to take antitrust action: 1) Monsanto utterly dominates the market for GM traits in corn, soy, and cotton;  and 2) it is using its market power to raise prices to farmers and limit their access to non-GM seeds.

To make a long story short,  Monsanto supplies proprietary traits to 85 percent of corn planted in the United States, and 92 percent of soy. Corn and soy are the lifeblood of the U.S. food system. If you eat a standard diet, you’re ingesting a Monsanto-originated product with just about every bite you take.

Nor is the company a benign monopolist, the report shows. GMO corn seeds have jumped from $110 per unit in 1999 to upwards of $190 by 2008; for soy, prices soared from less than $25 to more than $40. A huge portion of those jumps can be explained by the so-called “technology fee”—the price Monsanto charges for its proprietary traits. For Roundup Ready soy, the fee has tripled since 2000. As the report puts it:

This means a farmer who plants one bag of Roundup Ready soybeans per acre on 1,000 acres of soybeans has seen his production costs rise by $11,000 in five years due to the trait price increase alone.

Microsoft, in all of its ‘90s-era brazenness, never dreamt of such price hikes for operating system software.

The report brims with testimony from farmers and small seed-company owners bristling against Monsanto’s massive market power.  “I feel like a puppet in a string,” one seed owner says.

That sentiment is echoed in an excellent investigative report by Associated Press’ Christopher Leonard. The story’s opening paragraph says it all:

Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.‘s business practices reveal how the world’s biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found.

With all of this information on the table and circulating in the public record, DOJ lawyers will have a hard time avoiding a showdown with Monsanto over its practices.

Yet Monsanto is so powerful and well-connected that it just might skate free of antitrust trouble. To gauge whether a publicly traded company faces a real threat from outside forces like antitrust issues, I check in with how its stock is faring. Monsanto’s stock price (chart) is actually up about 10 percent over the last month—evidence that investors think that the DOJ investigators are pussycats and that the company can continue imposing higher prices on farmers.

Let’s hope the “smart money” is wrong. Monsanto itself seems to be taking the threat somewhat seriously. The Iowa Independent reported two weeks ago:

As the U.S. Departments of Justice and Agriculture gear up for an unprecedented series of investigative workshops on agricultural competition and regulatory issues, a Des Moines law firm with deep political ties has signed on to represent agribusiness giant Monsanto.

The Independent reports that the firm has signed a lobbying contract with Iowa lawyer and politico Jerry Crawford—a long-time friend and financial supporter of USDA chief and former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack:

In addition to supplying the Vilsack campaigns (1998 to 2002) and Heartland 527-PAC [Vilsack’s political-action committee] with more than $150,000 in donations, Crawford was listed as the Heartland PAC treasurer on documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service. He also served on the board of directors for the Democratic Governors Association, and has been called “one of the leading Democratic strategists in Iowa.” Crawford has been chairman of the Polk County Democratic Party, and has served as state chairman or legal counsel for presidential campaigns in Iowa for nearly as long as the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses have held influence.

Meanwhile, there also recently came a cold slap to one of Monsanto’s most hyped promises: that it will soon deliver genetically engineered corn, rice, and wheat strains that demand much less nitrogen fertilizer. Nitrogen fertilizer is a major ecological liability of industrial agriculture—synthetic nitrogen pollutes streams and blots out fish life, destroys soil organic matter, and enters the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon.

In a recent report (PDF), the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Doug Gurian-Sherman pointed out that thus far, the GM crop industry has had zero success at engineering crops with “complex traits” like improved nitrogen efficiency.

Splicing in a gene that makes corn tolerate a certain herbicide is one thing; improving a highly complex, multi-gene, not-completely-understood process like nitrogen efficiency is completely different. Despite all the hype around nitrogen-efficient GM corn, the GM seed giants are conducting relatively few trials to test crops in the field, Gurian-Sherman reports.

“Although a few genes that appear promising for improving NUE [nitrogen-use efficiency]  have been identified in the public literature, they have yet to demonstrate that they can improve consistently in various environments, and without significant undesirable side effects that could harm our agriculture, environment, or public health,” Gurian-Sherman writes. Meanwhile, other methods of reducing nitrogen use, like traditional breeding and ecosystem approaches, have proven track records.

Gurian-Sherman is also the author of another report this year that shattered one of Monsanto’s most cherished myths: that GM technology increases yields. Actually, it does nothing of the sort.

Aware in vegetative state

‘Vegetative state’ might be relative term

Study finds signs of awareness in some so labeled

By Rob Stein
THE WASHINGTON POST

Many of the patients were labeled with the same grim diagnosis: “vegetative state.” Their head injuries, teams of specialists had concluded, condemned them to a netherworld — alive yet utterly devoid of any awareness of the world around them.

.
But an international team of scientists decided to try a bold experiment to see whether they might be conscious.  One by one, the men and women were placed inside advanced brain scanners as technicians gave them careful instructions: Imagine you are playing tennis. Imagine you are exploring your home, room by room. For most, the scanner showed nothing.
But, shockingly, for one, then another and another, and yet two more, – - the scans flashed alive exactly as any healthy, conscious person’s would. These patients, the images clearly showed, were living silently in their bodies — their minds apparently active. One man could even flawlessly answer detailed yes-or-no questions about his life before his trauma.

.
“It was incredible,” said Adrian Owen, a neuroscientist at the University of Cambridge who led the groundbreaking research described in a paper published online yesterday by the New England Journal of Medicine. “These are patients who are totally unable to perform functions with their bodies — even blink an eye or move an eyebrow — but yet are entirely conscious. It’s quite distressing, really, to realize this.”

.
While stressing that much more research is needed to confirm findings and refine the technology, Owen and other experts said the findings could provide profound insights into human consciousness and lead to ways to better diagnose and treat brain injuries. The technology also offers the tantalizing possibility of being able to finally communicate with some patients and ask, at the very least, whether they are in pain.

.
“This should change the way we think about these patients,” said Nicholas Schiff, an associate professor of neurology and neuroscience at the Weill Cornell Medical College in New York. “I think it’s going to have very broad implications.”

.
As many as 20,000 Americans are in a vegetative state — alive and awake but without any sense of awareness. An additional100,000 to 300,000 are in a related condition known as a minimally conscious state, in which they exhibit impaired or intermittent awareness.

.
In 2006, Owen and his colleagues described the case of a young woman who had been determined to be in vegetative state. Her brain responded identically to a normal brain when placed inside a device known as a functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) scanner and asked to imagine herself playing tennis or exploring her home.   Flooded with requests from desperate families to assess their loved ones, Owen and colleagues at the University of Lihge in Belgium, ran more tests. In the new report, the researchers describe the results from the first 54, including 23 considered to be in a vegetative state and 31 in minimal consciousness. Five, including the first woman, were able to repeatedly fire their brains in the same way as hundreds of uninjured volunteers who were put in fMRIs and asked to imagine themselves hitting a tennis ball or wandering through their homes. Four of the five were considered in a vegetative state; one was thought to be only minimally conscious. Three showed signs of awareness during intensive standard bedside tests, but two did not.

.
The researchers then decided to see whether they could use the approach to communicate with a patient. They told a 29-year-old man in Belgium to think about tennis if he wanted his answers to be “yes” and imagine touring his home for “no.” They then asked him a series of questions about his life, such as whether his father’s name was Thomas and whether he had brothers or sisters. He got every question right by thinking about tennis or being home. “He could produce no communication with his body,” Owen said. “But he could systematically and repeatedly change his brain activity to indicate ‘yes’ or ‘no’ with 100 percent accuracy.”

Is FDA Ordained by God?

More Important than the Health-care Bill

Here we have a very important heads-up from the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH-usa) regarding our ability to make choices about our own ability to decide and buy the supplements we deem appropriate for our own bodies.  I have seen this happen repeatedly and it is always to our detriment.    It is obvious to almost anyone willing to look at it, the FDA is not working in the “best interest of the PEOPLE”  it is supposed to represent – the buying public.  Instead, they dance to the music of the BIG PhRMA band and never fail to do their bidding.  Its out there – plain as day!

Please read this article from ANH-usa, it describes the serious and far-reaching nature of what is involved.  We need to take action on this immediately, for your sake, for my sake and everybody we care even remotely about.  The FDA never gets anything right and we cannot afford the loss of this ability to buy simple vitamins and minerals and supplements based on foodstuff made by nature and bottled by properly licensed, legitimate manufacturers.  Read the article and you will see why they are pushing so hard to get this done. And look who has filed the bill – Senator McCain – the man who no longer seems to remember right from wrong or even which way is up.   I simply must put my muzzle on before I really get wound up.   Jan

Senator McCain Files New Bill That Attacks Your Access to Supplements and Repeals Key Sections of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act TAKE ACTION AND TELL YOUR SENATOR NOT TO CO-SPONSOR THIS BILL Senator McCain’s bill is called The Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA). It would repeal key sections of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). DSHEA protects supplements if 1) they are food products that have been in the food supply and not chemically altered or 2) if they were sold as supplements prior to 1994, the year that DSHEA was passed. If a supplement fits one of these two descriptions, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cannot arbitrarily ban it or reclassify it as a drug. These protections are far from perfect. They discourage companies from developing new forms of supplements. New supplements may be arbitrarily banned by the FDA or adopted by drug companies in a way that precludes their further sale as supplements. McCain’s bill would wipe out even the minimal protections contained in DSHEA. It would give the FDA full discretion and power to compile a discreet list of supplements allowed to remain on the market while banning all others. Everyone knows that the FDA is friendly to drug companies (which pay its bills and provide good revolving door jobs) and hostile to supplement companies. Under this bill, this same Agency could quite arbitrarily ban any supplement it wished or turn it over to drug companies to be developed as a drug and sold for multiples of its price as a supplement. The FDA will like this because it believes that it can more easily control a few industry giants. But isn’t it more likely that the industry giants will eventually gain control over the FDA? The FDA is already misusing the adverse event reporting process that exists. Drugs rack up thousands of adverse event reports without any action. Just recently, the FDA yanked from the market a supplement product based on just a couple of alleged adverse event reports without even allowing the company (an old and respected firm) to provide any counter-evidence or counter-argument. The bill also allows the FDA to yank a product (at the company’s expense) if there is a “reasonable probability” that it is “adulterated” or “misbranded”. Let’s remember that “adulterated” could mean there is a minor record keeping error on the producer’s part and “misbranded” can mean that the producer simply tells the truth about the product. An “adulterated” and “misbranded” supplement in Orwellian FDA speak may actually be both completely safe and effective. We must prevent this bill from gaining traction! Protect your access to supplements by contacting your senators today and asking them NOT to co-sponsor the Dietary Supplement Safety Act but rather to oppose it. TAKE ACTION McCain’s Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA) appears to be supported by the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) which is funded by major league sports teams including baseball, football and others. The recent suspensions of NFL and other professional sports figures is much in the news, and the goal of the sports industry appears to be to shift the spotlight from their players to the supplements industry. In his comments, Senator McCain cited six NFL players recently suspended for testing positive for banned substances and purportedly exposed to these substances through dietary supplements. The problem here of course is one of illegal sale and use of steroids. So why dismantle the supplement industry in order to control already illegal substances? The FDA currently has complete and total authority to stop illegal steroids and, more broadly, to regulate dietary supplements. If the agency were doing its job, it could and would have prevented the sale of illegal steroids. The answer to this problem is not to give FDA more power. The Agency simply needs to do it’s job. TAKE ACTION Why would a bill be offered to solve an illegal steroid problem that does not really address the steroid problem but instead gives the FDA complete and arbitrary control over all supplements? The answer is simple. There are a lot of vested interests which are threatened by supplements. Drug companies do not like them because they represent a low cost, safer, and often more effective alternative to drugs. The FDA does not like them because supplements do not come through the FDA approval process and therefore do not support the FDA budget. Why not simply require that supplements be brought through the FDA’s drug approval process? Wouldn’t that create a level playing field? That is probably the argument that Senator McCain has been sold. But it is a completely false argument. The FDA drug approval process costs as much as a billion dollars. It is not economically feasible to spend such vast sums on substances that are not protected by patent, and natural substances cannot legally be patented. This is the great “Catch 22” of American medicine. The FDA, which is supposed to guard and promote our health, is hostile to the kind of natural medicine—based on diet, supplements, and exercise—that represents the real future of healthcare. The Agency has either been captured by drug interests or is trapped in a catastrophically expensive, toxic, and ineffective patented-drug model. Senator McCain has no doubt offered this bill in good faith. But he has been sold a bill of goods by special interests. And he has been naïve enough not to know that he is being used. TAKE ACTION This exceptionally bad bill also requires the reporting of all minor adverse events related to supplements. This is in addition to the already existing requirement to report adverse events. This will further stack the deck against small supplement companies by creating new, unnecessary, even more cumbersome, and of course very expensive administrative hurdles. The result: the consolidation of the supplement industry into a few big companies.If passed, this bill will likely result in the disappearance from store shelves of many supplements currently on the market. In addition to fewer supplements, there would likely be much lower doses available. Unbridled authority would be handed to the FDA, an agency that needs a top to bottom overhaul, not ever more power over our lives. If McCain’s bill passes, we can look to Europe for a snapshot of what we may be in for: EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, has sharply reduced the list of available supplements and is in process of reducing potencies to ridiculous levels, such as less beta carotene than can be found in half of a large carrot. Europeans already look to the US to obtain their dietary supplements. If this bill passes, where will we obtain ours? What to do Please take action immediately. Tell your senators NOT to co- sponsor this legislation and to do everything in their power to defeat it. Then forward this to your friends and family and ask then to do the same! Gretchen DuBeau Legal Director, ANH Int. Executive Director, ANH-USA

Paleo Diet Concept

The Paleo Diet Concept

The Paleo Diet was published in 2002, and introduced thousands of people to the concept that the healthiest diet is one based on the foods we evolved to eat. Jennie Brand-Miller called the Paleo Diet “the most nutritious diet on the planet.” The book was (and remains) revolutionary, providing a cohesive explanation of which foods humans are best adapted to eat, and why this way of eating will improve health and lead to weight normalization. Unsurprisingly, the book’s publisher decided to market it primarily as a weight-loss diet. The result was that some of the most fascinating chapters were cut from the final version, so that more focus could be put on the “how-to” aspects of the diet. In this issue, we’ll excerpt the first half of the chapter explaining the rise of agriculture, and how this changed human diet and health. The Rise of Farming and Its Influence Upon Diet, Health, and Well-Being “The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race” –Jared Diamond If you are like most people, the agricultural revolution is some dim historical event that you haven’t given a second thought to since about 6th grade. It may seem to have little or no relevance to you in your busy work-a-day world. However, modern civilization as we know it with our cities, our cultures, our technological and medical achievements and our knowledge of the world and universe would never have arisen were it not for agriculture. On the other hand, we can give credit to the agricultural revolution for bringing us much of the chronic disease and obesity that are epidemic in our modern world. The foods that agriculture brought us (cereals, dairy products, fatty meats, salted foods, and refined sugars and oils) are disastrous for our Stone Age bodies – bodies that are ideally adapted to a fare of lean meats, fresh fruits and veggies. In this paper, I will show you how agriculture brought with it a boatload of nutritionally related diseases that were unknown to hunter-gatherers. I will also show you how agriculture’s new foods continue to wreak havoc in our Stone Age bodies and how these foods fundamentally vary from the healthful foods our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate. In the Beginning The agricultural revolution really did not start out as a “revolution” at all. No deliberate attempt was made by early farmers to “overthrow” hunter-gatherers. They only wanted to keep their bellies full in the face of rising human numbers and dwindling food resources. The agricultural revolution began about 10 to 12,000 years ago in the Middle East when a few huntergatherers first started to sow and harvest wild wheat seeds. A little bit later barley and a few legumes were added to their stock of domesticated plants, and by about 9,000 years ago sheep, goats and pigs had become part of their growing inventory. Wild fruits and vegetables were still gathered and eaten and wild game was occasionally hunted. To a casual observer, nothing much nutritionally had changed from preagricultural days – right? Wrong! The archaeological record clearly shows that whenever and wherever cereal based diets replaced the animal dominated diets of hunter-gatherers, characteristic health problems arose. Early farmers were shorter than their hunter-gatherer forebears. In Turkey and Greece, preagricultural men stood 5′9″ tall and women 5′5″. By 3,000 BC the average man had shrunk to 5′3″ and the average woman to 5′. But a reduction in height was the least of these early farmers’ health problems. Modern day analyses of their bones and teeth show these people were a mess. They had a greater incidence of infectious diseases, increased childhood mortality, and shorter life spans than the hunter-gatherer people that preceded them. Their cereal based diets increased the prevalence of osteoporosis, rickets and other bone mineral disorders. For the first time they were plagued with vitamin and mineral deficiency diseases such as scurvy, beriberi, pellagra, vitamin A and zinc deficiencies and iron deficiency anemia. The well formed and strong teeth of their hunter-gatherer ancestors were now filled with cavities and frequently overlapped one another in their jaws. The once elegant and square jaws that had easily accommodated all teeth had become misshaped during childhood growth. Putting the Wrong Fuels in Our Tanks What had gone wrong? How could agriculture with its seemingly boundless cornucopia of food have caused all of these health problems in early Neolithic farmers? After all, agriculture was an incredibly successful venture for the human species. Two thousand years before its inception, the world population stood at about 1-10 million. By the year 1 AD, our numbers had skyrocketed to 170 million. As you all know, numbers don’t tell the entire story. We now know that the quality and quantity of life had gone down for the average Neolithic person. Ironically, this decline was caused by the very same event (i.e. the agricultural revolution) that allowed their numbers to soar. Agriculture’s cereal and starch dominated diets gave them the calories they needed but didn’t give them the nutrients their genes dictated. Neolithic farmers, just like us were genetically programmed for a diet of lean meats, fruits and vegetables, but unfortunately they were overloading it with cereals and starch. The “new foods” of the agricultural revolution had suddenly become humanity’s staples, yet they were discordant with our genetic requirements. This discordance surfaced as ill health and disease. As time went by things didn’t get better, but rather worse. Salt gradually became standard fare in the diet as did fatty cheeses, and butter. We learned to ferment grains and make beer and eventually distilled spirits. Selective breeding, along with grain feeding, steadily produced fatter and fatter pigs, cows and sheep. Most of these meats were no longer eaten fresh but were pickled, salted or smoked. For most people fruits and vegetables were luxuries that were rare seasonal additions to their monotonous cereal and starch based diets. The industrial revolution of 200 years ago brought the average person table sugar (and lots of it), canned foods and refined white flour. By the time the early 20th century had rolled around, the food processing industry was upon us with the invention of trans fatty acids, margarine, shortening and almost every conceivable combination of these fats mixed with sugar, salt and some form of starch. The 1950’s and 60’s brought us more processed foods and high omega 6 vegetable oils. The 1970’s brought us high fructose corn syrup as our universal sweetener, an event whose health implications are only now being worked out. Along the way, we got additives, preservatives, emulsifiers, coloring agents, flowing agents, and God knows what else? The typical foods in the average western diet have strayed so far from Stone Age staples (lean meats, fresh fruit and veggies), that the average hunter-gatherer wouldn’t even recognize pizza as food. How could you possibly explain to a hunter-gatherer how a ding dong or a Twinkie came into being? Isn’t it high time that we return to our dietary roots? By eating the food you are genetically programmed to eat, you will automatically begin to lose weight, and your health and well being will soar, as well! The 7 Universal Characteristics of Hunter-Gatherer Diets Below, I’ve outlined the 7 basic characteristics that would have been present in virtually all hunter-gatherer diets. These are the fundamental dietary characteristics to which all of us are genetically adapted. When all 7 of these elements are present in your diet, you will optimize your health, minimize your risk of chronic disease, and will begin to lose weight. Agriculture’s “new foods” act either alone or in concert with other “new foods” to disrupt one or more of these 7 universal dietary characteristics. Let’s take a look at how modern diets have upset the dietary characteristics to which we are all genetically adapted. Universal Characteristic #1: A High Protein Intake Protein comprises 15% of the calories in the average western diet. This value is much lower than the average (19-35%) found in hunter-gatherer diets. Plain and simple, modern protein intakes don’t cut it. You’ve probably heard time and again, that the average American diet contains more than enough protein for adequate health. The key here is the word “adequate.” You don’t want “adequate” health; you want “optimal” health! The best way to achieve optimal health is by mimicking the diets of our Stone Age ancestors, and this means getting the protein back into your diet. As Neolithic farmers began to include more and more cereals into their diets, the cereals displaced much of the lean game meat that was the staple of their hunter-gatherer forefathers. Cereals average only 12% protein per 100 calories, while game meats average 83%. It doesn’t take rocket science to see that cereals caused an immediate decline in humanity’s protein intake. Legumes such as lentils, peas and beans average 27% protein and would have also displaced protein rich game meat. The domestication of animals shortly followed the domestication of grains and legumes, and dairying was upon us by 5-6,000 years ago. Milk contains 21% protein, cheese averages 28% protein and butter has zero protein. So the displacement of lean game meat by dairy foods also reduced humankind’s total protein intake. The staple fatty meats in the typical U.S. diet such as hot dogs (14% protein), bologna (15% protein) and hamburger (24% protein) also do a number on the high protein intakes dictated by our evolutionary heritage. The current U.S. diet contains 61% of its calories as cereals, dairy products, soft drinks, oils, dressings, candy and sugar. Is it any wonder that our current average protein intake (15% of calories) is about half of what we are genetically adapted to? The chart below shows that foods you may commonly assume to be high protein foods are actually low protein foods by Stone Age standards. HIGH PROTEIN FOODS LOW PROTEIN FOODS (% Protein/100 calories) (% Protein/100 calories) 1. Turkey breast (94 %) 1. Eggs (34 %) 2. Shrimp (90 %) 2. Cheeses (28 %) 3. Red Snapper (87 %) 3. Legumes (27%) 4. Crab (86 %) 4. Lamb chops 25%) 5. Game meat (83 %) 5. Hamburger (24 %) 6. Halibut (80 %) 6. Whole Milk (21 %) 7. Steamed clams (73 %) 7. Bologna (15 %) 8. Lean Pork (72 %) 8. Hot dogs (14%) 9. Beef Heart (69 %) 9. Cereal grains (12 %) Universal Characteristic #2: A Low Carbohydrate Intake and a Low Glycemic Index Carbohydrates are far and away the mainstays of all western diets. In fact, they comprise about 50% of the calories in the typical U.S. diet. This situation differs considerably from most hunter-gatherer diets in which carbohydrates range between 22-40% of the total daily calories. As was the case with protein, we need to take a pointer from our Stone Age ancestors and reduce the total carbohydrate in our diet. But more importantly, we need to mimic the types of carbohydrates that pre-agricultural people ate. They got the majority of their carbohydrate from wild fruits and vegetables. These were foods with low glycemic indexes that were slowly digested and absorbed. Just like the wild fruits and vegetables that hunter-gatherers ate, the non-starchy fruits and vegetables you will be eating on The Paleo Diet, won’t spike your blood sugar levels and will be slowly absorbed. When non-starchy fruits and vegetables are your main carbohydrate source, it’s difficult to eat more than about 35% of your calories as carbohydrate. Let me give you an example. The average tomato contains 26 calories. To get 35% of your daily calories as carbohydrate from tomatoes only, you’d have to eat 30 tomatoes (assuming a 2,200 daily caloric intake). So go ahead, indulge yourself – eat unlimited quantities of non-starchy fruits and vegetables on The Paleo Diet. You won’t have to ever worry about getting too much carbohydrate, nor will you have to worry about eating high glycemic carbohydrates that dangerously spike your blood sugar levels. Where Did We Go Astray? How did the average carbohydrate content of the western diet ever get so high in the first place? How did we stray so far from the types and quantities of carbohydrate that we were genetically programmed to eat? Simple – it was called the agricultural revolution. The average carbohydrate content of cereal grains is 72% per 100 grams, while it is only 13.6 % for fruits, only 4.1% for vegetables and 0 % for lean meats, fish and seafood. As Neolithic farmers increasingly replaced their staple game meat and wild fruits and vegetables with starchy cereals and legumes, the carbohydrate content of their diets skyrocketed. High carbohydrate, starchy cereals and legumes literally displaced our more healthful Stone Age staples. What’s Wrong with Carbohydrate? Most of the carbohydrate from early Neolithic Diets came from whole grains and legumes which are poor sources of vitamins and minerals on a calorie by calorie basis when compared to lean meats, fruits and vegetables. Excessive consumption of grains and legumes at the expense of lean meats, fruits and vegetables frequently leads to vitamin and mineral deficiencies. They also contain antinutrients that impair nutrient absorption and may damage the gastrointestinal and immune systems. Grains and legumes yield a net acid load to the kidney and therefore contribute to bone mineral and muscle loss with aging. As I previously mentioned, increased carbohydrate means that protein is lower. Protein is one of our best allies in the battle of the bulge. It reduces your appetite and increases your metabolism — bingo, faster weight loss! Protein lowers blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels while increasing the good (HDL) cholesterol and consequently reduces your risk for heart disease, hypertension, and stroke. It also increases survival time of women with breast cancer. Although you may have often heard that whole grains and legumes are healthful, if the truth be known, these foods are marginal at best. A better choice is lean meats, fish, fresh fruits and vegetables. These are humanity’s original staples – not the nutritionally inferior, starchy cereals and legumes. The Industrial Revolution: Making A Bad Situation Worse Prior to the Industrial Revolution of 200 years ago, almost all cereal grains were eaten whole or were so crudely milled that nearly the entire grain (bran, germ and fiber) remained intact after milling. Crude stone milling of wheat produced a flour with a large particle size. All of these characteristics (large particle size, increased bran, germ and fiber content) made for cracked wheat breads and baked goods with a moderate glycemic index that didn’t cause an excessive rise in blood sugar levels. Does this mean that whole grains are healthful foods? Absolutely not, it only means that an additional unhealthful characteristic (a high glycemic index) was not yet present in foods considered to be nothing more than “starvation fare” by most hunter-gatherers. All of this changed about 120 years ago with the widespread introduction of steel roller mills. This technological advance produced a fiber-depleted, white flour with a high glycemic index. Hence, almost all baked goods made with white flours cause the blood sugar to rise excessively. Even whole wheat bread made from flour ground by steel roller mills has a high glycemic index that is no different from white bread because the flour particle size is uniformly small. In the U.S. in 1995 80% of all the cereal products consumed were highly refined white flour with a high glycemic index. You can do yourself a big favor by eliminating not only high glycemic cereal grains, but all cereal grains. These foods are best left to the birds. How Sweet It Is Stone Age hunter-gatherers relished honey, and they would have eaten it at every possible opportunity. The only problem was that there were few opportunities to eat it because it was only available seasonally and in limited quantities. Other than an occasional honey treat, refined sugars simply were not part of humanity’s original dietary repertoire of carbohydrates. This state of affairs represented the status quo for all but the last 200 years of our 2.5 million year residence on the planet. Suddenly, in the mere blink of an eye (geologically speaking), the industrial revolution brought us all the refined sugar we could ever want. In England the per capita consumption of table sugar rose from 15 lbs in 1815 to 120 lbs by 1970. A similar situation occurred in the U.S. and in all other western nations. Like refined cereal grains, common table sugar is not good for us. Everyone knows that it causes cavities, but it is also becoming evident that it promotes insulin resistance and Syndrome X diseases just like high glycemic carbohydrates such as white and whole-wheat breads and potatoes. Table sugar (sucrose) has a moderate glycemic index, so it previously led many scientists to believe that it did not impair insulin metabolism. Wrong! When sucrose is digested, it is broken down into two simple sugars, glucose (with a high glycemic index) and fructose (with a low glycemic index). Fructose because of its low glycemic index gives table sugar its overall moderate glycemic rating. Recent experiments using laboratory animals by Dr. Mike Pagliassotti and co-workers at Arizona State University have surprisingly revealed that fructose is the main culprit within table sugar causing insulin resistance. Dr. Pagliassotti’s work was further bolstered by a study done at the University of Lausanne Medical School in Switzerland by Dr. Luc Tappy and colleagues showing that fructose caused insulin resistance in humans. Insulin resistance in turn promotes obesity and the chronic diseases (hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, and dyslipidemia) of Syndrome X. High Fructose Corn Syrup: A Really Bad Idea As if the steady increase in table sugar (sucrose) wasn’t a bad enough change in the carbohydrate content of our diet, things began to get even worse starting in about 1970. The food processing industry had figured out that high fructose corn syrup could save them a lot of money. Because fructose is so much sweeter than sucrose, it doesn’t take as much to sweeten any processed food. Fewer sweeteners added to a food represent a huge savings when we are talking about millions of tons of sugar saved per year. Slowly, but surely high fructose corn syrup crept into almost every conceivable processed food. A  fructo12 ounce can of pop contains about 10 teaspoons of high fructose corn syrup, and corn syrup is now the sweetener of choice for the food processing industry. In the U.S. corn syrup consumption increased from 13% of total sugars in the mid 1970’s to 56% by 1995. The average U.S. citizen now eats 83 lbs of corn syrup a year and 66 lbs of sucrose for a whooping total of 149 lbs of refined sugars! Needless to say, the effects on our health are devastating. Universal Characteristic #3: A High Fiber Intake Closely paralleling the increase in dietary carbohydrate that took place as early farming replaced our hunter-gatherer way of life, was a decline in the fiber content of our diets. Even though whole grains are promoted as wonderfully rich sources of fiber, they can’t hold a candle to fruits and vegetables on a calorie-by-calorie basis. When the first farmers added more and more whole grain cereals to their diets, they unknowingly displaced fruits and vegetables; much richer sources of fiber. Even though cereals doubled the total plant food content in the diets of Neolithic people, the total fiber content actually declined. The graph below shows that on a calorie by calorie basis fruits average almost twice as much fiber as whole grains. Non-starchy vegetables contain a whopping 8 times more fiber than whole grains. Adding insult to injury, the industrial revolution further depleted the fiber content of our diet with the widespread introduction of white flour. We can also thank the industrial revolution, by way of the food processing industry, for giving us 149 lbs of yearly refined sugars with utterly zero fiber. Dietary fiber is absolutely essential for good health. Without it we are at risk for scores of diseases and health problems. A comprehensive medical text, edited by Drs. Hugh Trowell, Denis Burkitt, and Kenneth Heaton, implicated low dietary fiber with the following diseases and health problems: constipation, diverticulitis, colon cancer, appendicitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel, duodenal ulcer, hiatal hernia, gastroesophageal reflux, obesity, type II diabetes, gallstones, high blood cholesterol, varicose veins, hemorrhoids, deep vein thrombosis and kidney stones. What a mess technology has made of the original diet Mother Nature intended for us all. But wait, there is more – refined grains, sugars and fiber depleted foods are only part of the story… [To be continued] We’ll present the second half of Dr. Cordain’s article, discussion of characteristics 4 through 7, in next month’s issue of The Paleo Diet Update.

Recent Science

Dietary Fiber and Colon Cancer Consumption of dietary fiber, defined as nondigestible, nonstarch plant materials, has been shown via numerous epidemiological studies to be a major factor in lowering colon cancer risk. Last year, a research team from the University of Texas Medical School published a series of experiments exploring the mechanism by which dietary fiber suppresses tumor growth in the gut. Highly fermentable fiber sources, such as those from fruits and vegetables, produce large amounts of short chain fatty acids, which have been shown experimentally to prevent colon cancer development. Using rat epithelial cells, the Texas research team confirmed their hypothesis that one specific fatty acid, butyrate, enhances the function of Transforming Growth Factor Beta (TGFB), an important tumor suppressor. This research sheds light on a specific mechanism by which fiber, specifically from fruit and vegetable sources, acts to protect against colon and intestinal cancers. In addition, these data support the third universal characteristic of hunter-gatherer diets: high fiber foods were consistently present in our ancestors’ diet. We evolved eating this way and genetically rely upon these foods for health and regularity. Nguyen, K.A., Cao, Y., Chen, J.R., Townsend, C.M., Ko, T.C. Dietary fiber enhances a tumor suppressor signaling pathway in the gut. Annals of Surgery 2006; 243:619-627. Link to paper. Low-Carb Diets Enhance Fat Metabolism An article in Science Daily this month summarized two recent studies on mechanisms of fat metabolism conducted by researchers at Harvard Medical School. Using animal models, the team was able to identify a specific liver hormone (FGF21) required to oxidize fatty acids. It is known that with extremely low intake of carbohydrates, the body is forced to rely on other sources of fuel rather than the preferred glucose. During long periods of fasting or starvation, the liver converts fatty acids to ketones, which can then fuel the muscle and nervous systems. For the past several years, the Harvard researchers have been conducting studies on mice and diet composition. They found that even when the mice are fed exactly the same amount of calories, the type of calories they are consuming is the factor that determines the location and amount of weight gained. In their most recent experiment, mice were fed a ketogenic diet high in saturated and unsaturated fat, and researchers detected a subsequent rise in concentrations of FGF21 in the liver. The team went on to show that FGF21 is essential for fatty acid oxidation and when inhibited, the mice developed a large accumulation of fat in the liver and an extreme increase in circulating lipids. The findings imply that the increase in FGF21 is a potential mechanism behind the beneficial properties of low carbohydrate diets in regard to lipid metabolism. The researchers add: diets that limit carbohydrates, eliminate transfats, and emphasize fiber and good fats, appear to be healthiest. Low-Carb Diet Finding: Study Identifies New Regulator Of Fat Metabolism. Science Daily, June 6 2007. Link to article. Adverse Effects of Dietary Fructose An in depth and comprehensive discussion of the potential health complications connected to consumption of high amounts of fructose was published in the Alternative Medicine Review journal. Fructose has been considered a safe sugar substitute by some nutritionists because of its relatively low glycemic index and because it does not require insulin for uptake into cells. However, there are several other side affects to consider which are potentially more harmful than the rise in blood sugar that occurs with sucrose and glucose. While excessive consumption of any refined sugar is undesirable, fructose is of specific concern because it enters the glycolytic pathway at a different point than other sugars. Because of its structure, fructose essentially bypasses the key rate-limiting step that controls how fast we convert sugars into energy. An unregulated, unnecessary supply of fuel to the Kreb’s Cycle translates to energy storage; the most efficient of which is in the form of saturated fat. Fructose is also a potent reducing sugar; like glucose and lactose, fructose reacts with proteins to form substituted amino sugars. This reaction, commonly called glycation or glycosylation, forms toxic advanced glycation end-products (AGEs), which appear to accelerate the aging process. Studies have also shown AGEs play a role in the pathogenesis of diabetes complications and the development of atherosclerosis. However, unlike other reducing sugars, fructose is 7.5 times more reactive than glucose in terms of participation in glycosylation reactions. In addition to these examples, the article sites research supporting the role of fructose in obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, hypertriglyceridemia, hyperuricemia, chronic diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome, and urticaria. Again, when we ignore one of the seven universal characteristics of traditional hunter-gatherer diets (i.e. a low carbohydrate intake and low glycemic index), our bodies let us know about it and we experience less than optimal health. Gaby, A.R. Adverse effects of dietary fructose. Alternative Medicine Review 2005 Dec; 10:294-306.

Eating the Paleo Way

Many people new to the Paleo Diet have a hard time figuring out what to eat. They often tend to eat the same thing they’ve always eaten, but just remove the grain. So instead of hamburger and fries, they may just have a hamburger patty. Instead of cereal and a banana, they’ll have just the banana. The result – hunger! Here are a few tips to make eating Paleo a routine part of your lifestyle: For breakfast, make an easy omelet. Quickly sauté onion, peppers, mushroom, broccoli, add eggs (keeping only one or two yolks), and leftover turkey or chicken breast for extra protein. Paleo lunches are easy: Make a large salad at the beginning of the week big enough to cover lunch each day. Include mixed greens, spinach, radishes, peppers, cucumber, carrots, avocado, walnuts/almonds, sliced apple/pear, etc and place in a large Tupperware container. Pack single servings each morning from the large batch; bring a can of tuna (or salmon, chicken/turkey breast, ground buffalo) to top. For dinner, try spaghetti squash as a substitute for any pasta recipe. Top with pesto, marinara and meatballs, or simply salt, pepper, and garlic. Roasted beets, and their greens, make a great side dish for pork. Asparagus, broccoli, and spinach can be steamed quickly. Salmon, halibut, or tilapia filets grill well with accompanying foil packs full of cut veggies with olive oil and garlic. Berries and other succulent fruits make a great dessert, and pre-cut carrot and celery sticks, sliced fruit, and pre-portioned raw nut/dried fruit mixes are easy to grab and pack for snacks.

Xylitol lethal for dogs

Sheepdog’s scare shows dangers of sugar-free gum

By Jane Hawes
FOR THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Lewis, a Polish lowland sheepdog, made his owners plenty nervous when he ate some sugar-free chewing gum and was poisoned by the sweetener xylitol. Lewis recuperated after prompt medical treatment.
GAVIN JACKSON DISPATCH

.

A pack of sugar-free gum normally retails for $1.19, but Taunya Whipple’s last pack cost about $700.  On Jan. 10, Whipple and her husband, Ian, headed outside to shovel snow. They left Lewis, their 2-yearold Polish lowland sheepdog, inside their Hilliard condominium, never suspecting he’d find a way into Mrs. Whipple’s purse and the gum inside.  “He’d chewed on things before, but never something like this,” said Mr. Whipple, a student at the Ohio State University College of Optometry.   The couple didn’t panic at first. Mrs. Whipple recalled that her childhood pet, a Yorkshire terrier, had occasionally eaten gum.

.
Just to be safe, Mrs. Whipple called her father, a veterinarian in Utah. While her husband searched the Internet for a list of the gum’s ingredients, she asked whether they needed to take Lewis to a vet.    “At first he said Lewis would be fine,” Mrs. Whipple said, “but then Ian told me to tell him that the gum was sugar-free and had xylitol in it. That’s when he told us we had to get him to emergency (treatment) right away.”

.
Xylitol is a highly concentrated and purified form of xylose, a naturally occurring sugar alcohol. Though used since the 1960s as a sugar substitute in Europe, its use in the United States has been on the rise only during the past decade. It’s found in gum, chewable vitamins, baked goods and other foods.   And, as the Whipples learned, xylitol is toxic to dogs.

.
According to a study published in 2006 by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, xylitol triggers an insulin response in dogs that can bring on hypoglycemia, liver failure and death.    The study estimated that 10 pieces of sugarfree gum can kill a 65-pound dog. Lewis, at about 35 pounds, had eaten nine, Mrs. Whipple said.    Dr. Sharon Gwaltney-Brant, medical director of the ASPCA’s Animal Poison Control Center in Urbana, Ill., said only dogs so far have been known to have problems with xylitol.

.

Xylitol poisoning was among the 17,453 calls received for “people food” poisonings in 2009, which included cases involving grapes and chocolate, the ASPCA reported.   In its natural form in foods such as strawberries, plums, endive and mushrooms, the level of xylose is small and should not cause problems in dogs, Gwaltney-Brant said.

.
Lewis, however, had eaten gum. For 24 hours, he was subjected to an array of treatments, first at the Capital Veterinary Referral & Emergency Center in Columbus, then at the Whipples’ veterinarian’s office in Hilliard. Though his blood-sugar levels dropped significantly, Lewis pulled through and is now back to his perky self. The bills for his treatment totaled nearly $700.

.
Now, the Whipples are hoping to educate other dog owners about the dangers of xylitol poisoning.  They also have contacted the gum’s manufacturer to consider placing a warning label on the gum’s packaging. “We had no idea it was that bad,” Mr. Whipple said. “He’s back to normal now, and we feel blessed, but if we can help avoid this happening to someone else, we’d like to try.”
janeehawes@verizon.net

Taunya and Ian Whipple of Hilliard want other dog owners to

be aware of Xylitol, the ingredient in sugar-free gum that

poisoned their inquisitive dog Lewis.

GAVIN JACKSON DISPATCH

Pet poisons

The top 10 pet poisons of 2009:

• Human medications

• Insecticides

• “People food,” including xylitol, grapes, raisins, avocados and chocolate

• Plants, including azalea, rhododendron and lilies

• Misused pet medications

• Rodent poisons

• Household cleaners

• Metals, including lead, zinc and mercury, often found in paint chips and linoleum

• Garden products, such as fertilizers

• Other chemicals, such as antifreeze, paint thinner, drain cleaners and pool/spa chemicals

WHAT TO DO IF YOUR PET HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO A POISON:

• If possible, collect a sample of what the animal has ingested.

• Also collect in a sealed plastic bag a sample of anything the animal has vomited or chewed.

• An animal may not show symptoms of poisoning right away, but you should contact either your local veterinarian or the ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center at 1-888-426-4435 (a $65 consultation fee may apply) for more information.

• If the animal is having seizures, losing consciousness or is having difficulty breathing, get it to emergency treatment immediately.

Source: American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

U.S. Gridlock

U.S. gridlock makes other countries nervous

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

As a political barometer, the Davos World Economic Forum usually offers up some revealing indicators of the global mood, and this year is no exception.  I heard of a phrase being bandied about here by non-Americans – about the United States – that I can honestly say I’ve never heard before:  political instability.

Political instability was a phrase normally reserved for countries like Russia or Iran or Honduras. But now, an American businessman here remarked to me, “people ask me about ‘political instability’ in the U.S. . We’ve become unpredictable to the world.”

Mind you, people at international conferences love to criticize, poke fun at and complain about America. It is the only global sport more popular than soccer. But in the past, it was always done knowing that America was this global bedrock that could always be counted upon to lead. But this year is different. This year, Asians and Europeans, in particular, pull you aside and ask you some version of, “Tell me, what’s going on in your country?”

You can understand why foreigners are uneasy. They see a president elected by a solid majority, coming into office riding a wave of optimism, controlling both the House and the Senate. Yet, a year later, he can’t win passage of his top legislative priority: health care.

“Our two-party political system is broken just when everything needs major repair, not minor repair,” said K.R. Sridhar, the founder of Bloom Energy, a fuel-cell company in Silicon Valley, who is attending the forum. “I am talking about health care, infrastructure, education, energy. We are the ones who need a Marshall Plan now.”

Indeed, speaking of phrases I’ve never heard here before, another goes like this: “Is the ‘Beijing Consensus’ replacing the ‘Washington Consensus?’ ” Washington Consensus is a term coined after the Cold War for the free-market, pro-trade and globalization policies promoted by America. As Katrin Bennhold reported in The International Herald Tribune this week, developing countries everywhere are looking “for a recipe for faster growth and greater stability than that offered by the now tattered ‘Washington Consensus’ of open markets, floating currencies and free elections.” And as they do, “there is growing talk about a ‘Beijing Consensus.’ ”

The Beijing Consensus, says Bennhold, is a “Confucian-Communist-Capitalist” hybrid under the umbrella of a one-party state, with a lot of government guidance, strictly controlled capital markets and an authoritarian decision-making process that is capable of making tough choices and long-term investments, without having to heed daily public polls.

Personally, I wouldn’t give up on the Washington Consensus so fast. The reason it is ailing is not because of its principles promoting economic openness and trade, many of which China is practicing better than we are lately. It is failing more because of, well, Washington.

It was hard to read President Barack Obama’s eloquent State of the Union address and not feel torn between his vision for the coming years and the awareness that the forces of inertia and special interests blocking him — not to mention the whole Republican Party — make the chances of his implementing that vision highly unlikely. That is the definition of stuck.

The sad and frustrating thing is, we are so close to being unstuck. If there were just six or eight Republican senators — a few more Judd Greggs and Lindsey Grahams — ready to meet Obama somewhere in the middle on deficit reduction, energy, health care and banking reform, I believe that in the wake of the Massachusetts wake-up call the president would indeed meet them in that middle ground to forge substantial compromises on these key issues. But so far, the Republicans are having a good year politically by just being the Party of No.

It is a shame because here we are as a country scrounging around for a few billion more dollars of stimulus to help our unemployed and small businesses — when the biggest stimulus of all is hiding in plain sight. And that is ending our political paralysis and the pall of uncertainty it is casting over everything from the cost of my health care to the cost of my energy to the way our biggest banks can do business.

If the two parties could get together and remove the clouds of uncertainty over those issues, remove the growing sense that our country is politically paralyzed, you would not need another dime of stimulus money. Investment and lending would take off on their own. If, however, the two parties continue with their duel-to-the-death paralysis, no amount of stimulus will give us the sustained growth and employment we need.

Thomas L. Friedman writes for The New York Times.