males soon to be on the endangered list?

Doctors and scientist fear common chemicals that are ubiquitous in our world are causing a drop off in the production of males. But good luck finding much more on this story because, as this article points out, it is not well publicized. Even the documentary has been pulled from CBC’s website.
 
The disappearing male: Studies show rise in birth defects, infertility among men

Sonja Puzic, Windsor Star
Thursday, November 06, 2008

Are males becoming an endangered species?

That’s the question scientists and researchers have been pondering since alarming trends in male fertility rates, birth defects and disorders began emerging around the world.

More and more boys are being born with genital defects and are suffering from learning disabilities, autism and Tourette’s syndrome, among other disorders.

Male infertility rates are on the rise and the quality of an average man’s sperm is declining, according to some studies.

But perhaps the most disconcerting of all trends is the growing gender imbalance in many parts of heavily industrialized nations, where the births of baby boys have been declining for many years.

What many scientists are calling the most important — and least publicized — issue surrounding the future of the human race will be highlighted in a CBC documentary that features two Windsor researchers who’ve studied the phenomenon.

Titled The Disappearing Male and premiering tonight at 9 on CBC-TV, the documentary includes interviews with Jim Brophy and Margaret Keith, adjunct sociology professors at the University of Windsor.

They have been studying the decline in the birth of male children in the Aamjiwnaang First Nation community located next to the infamous Chemical Valley, Canada’s largest concentration of petrochemical plants, near Sarnia.

A paper co-authored by Keith and published three years ago in the U.S. journal Environmental Health Perspectives suggests that exposure to various chemicals produced by industrial plants surrounding the Aamjiwnaang reserve land may be skewing the community’s sex ratio.

The researchers looked at the community’s birth records since 1984 and saw “a dramatic drop in the number of boys being born in the last 10 years, particularly in the five-year period between 1998 and 2003,” Brophy said.

Of 132 Aamjiwnaang babies born between 1999 and 2003, only 46 were boys. Typically, about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls in Canada.

High miscarriage rates and a unusually high number of children suffering from asthma were also noted by researchers.

Although the link between pollutants and human reproduction has not been firmly established, there is growing evidence that the birth sex ratio can be altered by exposure to certain chemicals, such as dioxin, PCBs and pesticides. Brophy said studies done in the United States, Japan and Europe seem to support the theory that the so-called endocrine disrupting chemicals have a particular effect on males.

Some of these chemicals are found in commonly used products such as baby bottles and cosmetics. They can also cause miscarriages and a “whole host” of disorders in a male child, Brophy said.

Brophy said soil and water contamination in and around the Aamjiwnaang reserve had been documented before, including in a University of Windsor study that found high levels of PCBs, lead, mercury and various chemicals in the area in the late 1990s. Accidental chemical spills in the area have not been uncommon.

GLOBAL AWARENESS

But it wasn’t until the Aamjiwnaang birth ratio study was published that the global science community really took notice.

“It triggered … calls from scientists and researchers from around the world who had been looking at this issue in Europe and the United States,” Brophy said. “Aamjiwnaang became almost the poster child.”

While Brophy has not seen The Disappearing Male documentary yet, he believes the story of the Aamjiwnaang community will be “the focal point.”

He said the documentary also includes interviews with “some of the foremost experts in the world” on environmental effects on reproductive health.

Brophy and Keith have also studied other occupational and environmental exposures to pollutants, including the link between breast cancer and certain types of jobs in the Windsor-Essex region.

© The Windsor Star 2008

Link.

us healthcare crisis

Here’s an informative bookmark/flyer from Healthcare-Now on our healthcare crisis.
 

harsh critics of vegetarianism in russia

Some wild claims about vegetarianism from these Pravda articles. The first article makes it sound like vegetarianism is a cult, brainwashing people about the “supposed” benefits of a vegetarian diet. The most laughable statement from this bunk article has to be:

After two months of no-meat diet, the quantity of protein in the cardiac muscle decreases four times, which triggers the development of heart failure. The work of all other organs worsens soon after. A vegetarian man or woman may find themselves on the brink of dystrophy.

The second article is a little more balanced but ends with an odd warning from vegetarians to others not to pursue veganism because it is harmful.
 
 
Vegetarianism proves to be perversion of nature
30.01.2008 Source: Pravda.Ru

Vegetarians can be referred to as true fanatics. On the other hand, they are seriously misled in their beliefs. Practically nobody argues with them, since it is really difficult to convince a vegetarian of his or her self-deception. May be that is the reason why the vegetarian movement develops so actively around the globe and continues to recruit many new members.

To produce a cell is not an easy process for the human body. Being a parent to all cells, a human being is supposed to be responsible for all of them. The human body is unable to generate all substances necessary for the production of cells. It has only 12 or 20 protein amino acids required for the process. The remaining chemicals are supposed to be delivered with food. Each and every human cell is supposed to be supplied with first class animal protein.

Some may say that there is enough protein in vegetables (beans, for example) True, but recent studies show that vegetable protein can be digested only with the help of its animal analogue.

The human body has its own preferences, by the way. Experts proved that our body requires and assimilates the following substances as construction materials:

Egg white – 100%
Soured milk – 90%
Fresh milk – 83%
Beef – 76%
Cottage cheese – 75%

Compare this data with that concerning vegetable protein:

Wheat bread – 52%

This is the main reason why dietitians recommend to consume 60 percent of animal protein and 40 percent of vegetable analogue from the daily ration.

No vitamins and mineral substances are of any use if our organism does not receive animal protein. Like vegetable protein, they can not be digested without animal protein.

Vegetarians, especially those of advanced age, usually face numerous health problems that are mainly caused with the shortage of animal protein. After two months of no-meat diet, the quantity of protein in the cardiac muscle decreases four times, which triggers the development of heart failure. The work of all other organs worsens soon after. A vegetarian man or woman may find themselves on the brink of dystrophy.

First signs of dystrophy are not that evident and burdensome, but the resulting effect may lead to lamentable consequences. Have you ever seen starving African children on TV? Then you must remember those thin legs and swelled bellies, which dystrophy causes.

If you are going to have children, do not be in a hurry to join vegetarians. Many people think that such lifestyle produces rejuvenating effect which showing a positive effect on the reproduction function. However, reproduction depends on animal protein to a large extend. If a man does not receive irreplaceable amino acids with food, he can become infertile in perspective.

Furthermore, cosmetologists say that a typical vegetarian has dry and fragile hair, dull eyes and unhealthy complexion. They can hardly stand criticism and have a low boiling point. They raise their voice, swing their arms and splutter when arguing. They are weak even in their logic. They exemplify their righteousness with the cow, a herbivorous animal, and say that nature originally made a human being as a vegetarian creature.

Experts have recently put forward a hypothesis that can justify vegetarians. Scientists assert that there are people with irregular metabolism. They do not need animal protein at all. However, such people can be described as a mistake of nature. There are many of them, but most vegetarians are mistaken in their devotion according to this theory.

Of course, meat is heavy food, but nobody says that you should eat plenty of it. A person can eat at least 100g of meat (which is the size of a matchbox) a day to feel healthy.

Link.
 
 
Herbivorous and carnivorous humans will never understand each other’s eating habits
31.07.2008 Source: Pravda.Ru

Vegetarianism has become extremely popular nowadays. This diet obviously has its advantages, although disadvantages are quite numerous too.

Scientists proved that vegetarians hardly ever suffer from obesity and increased cholesterol. In addition to that, vegans can boast of better state of health and longer lifespan.

However, it still unknown whether vegetarians live longer strictly because of their dietary regime. It is not ruled out that the number of smokers is smaller among those who prefer to stay away from meat dishes, which may explain a longer lifespan.

Adversaries of vegetarianism say that those, who do not eat meat, suffer from the shortage of zinc, iron, B12 vitamin, protein, iodine and calcium. The Food Research Institute of Slovakia found out that the children of vegan parents do experience a shortage of protein. Such children also have a lower level of iron in their blood.

Some believe that the human digestive system is not adjusted to the digestion of meat. Allen Carr, who is known for his Easyway To Stop Smoking Method, says that meat is a surrogate which does not have the required nutritive value. The human intestines are too long, whereas meat decomposes rather quickly. That is why, the specialist believes, meat becomes poison for a human body.

Adversaries of vegetarianism assert that human beings have been predatory for thousands of years. Scientists of the Catalonian Rovira i Virgili University discovered remnants of an ancient European male. The find was over one million years old. Primitive weapons and animal bones found near the body of the ancient human-like creature testified to the fact that our ancestors ate animal meat.

It is generally believed that only educated and socially responsible individuals can become vegetarians. Specialists of Britain’s University of Southampton concluded as a result of many years of research that children with higher IQ may become vegetarians more often as they grow than children with lower IQ.

It is an open secret that vegetarians replace meat with soy products. Specialists of the University of Oxford determined that this product, which serves as the source of amino acids for vegetarians, may produce a negative effect on memory. The specialists concluded that those eating a lot of pickled tofu have a lower brain activity.

Vegans believe that it is immoral and cruel to eat other creatures’ meat, especially when there is no vital necessity in it. Indeed, some people become herbivorous just because of this very assumption. Many say no to animal meat after they see what happens in slaughter houses.

Some believe that vegetarianism is a luxury lifestyle that can be affordable only in warmer countries. Needless to say that northern countries do not have the sufficient variety of fruit and vegetables for food, that is why it is merely impossible for people living in northern countries to become vegetarians.

Vegetarians say that one should not simply strike meat out of daily rations to become a vegan. The veggie diet can be only harmful in this case. A healthy and reasonable approach to one’s state of health and financial possibilities is extremely important for the right kind of diet. First and foremost, it is rather expensive to be a vegetarian in a country where winter is three times longer than summer. Secondly, a sudden and significant change in the diet can be very harmful healthwise.

Link.

the protein myth

I always laugh when people ask me about “getting enough protein” because I never knew it was a concern. I must have missed that day in school when that was drilled into students’ brains. I thought calcium was the one to worry about. Of course, that’s a myth, too. The typical American diet actually depletes the body of calcium because of the protein overload. That’s the real problem. Nor is cow’s milk the best source for calcium. Here’s an excellent site with calcium information. Thanks for the article, Dad.
 
 
Conscious Eating, Okay, But Where (On Earth) Do You Get Your Protein?
Kathy Freston
May 31, 2008

When I tell people that I’m a vegan, the most popular question, by far, inevitably follows: “But, how do you get enough protein?”

There it is again, I think, the meat industry’s most potent weapon against vegetarianism–the protein myth. And it is just that–a myth.

In fact, humans need only 10 percent of the calories we consume to be from protein. Athletes and pregnant women need a little more, but if you’re eating enough calories from a varied plant based diet, it’s close to impossible to not to get enough.

The way Americans obsess about protein, you’d think protein deficiency was the number one health problem in America. Of course it’s not–it’s not even on the list of the ailments that doctors are worried about in America or any other countries where basic caloric needs are being met.

What is on the list? Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity–diseases of affluence. Diseases linked to eating animal products. According to the American Dietetic Association, which looked at all of the science on vegetarian diets and found not just that they’re healthy, but that they “provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.”

They continue: “Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence… Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer.”

Dr. Dean Ornish writes of his Eat More, Weigh Less vegetarian diet–the one diet that has passed peer-review for taking weight off and keeping it off for more than 5 years–that in addition to being the one scientifically proven weight loss plan that works long-term, it “may help to prevent a wide variety of other illnesses including breast cancer in women, prostate cancer in men, colon cancer, lung cancer, lymphoma, osteoporosis, diabetes, hypertension, and so on….”

So when people ask me about protein, I explain that protein is not a problem on a vegan diet, that the real problems that are plaguing us in the West can be addressed in part with a vegetarian diet, and that I get my protein the same way everyone else does–I eat!

Beans, nuts, seeds, lentils, and whole grains are packed with protein. So are all vegetables as a caloric percentage, though they don’t have enough calories to sustain most people as a principal source of sustenance. And these protein sources have some excellent benefits that animal protein does not–they contain plenty of fiber and complex carbohydrates, where meat has none. That’s right: Meat has no complex carbs at all, and no fiber. Plant proteins are packed with these essential nutrients.

Plus, since plant-based protein sources don’t contain cholesterol or high amounts of saturated fat, they are much better for you than meat, eggs, and dairy products.

It is also worth noting the very strong link between animal protein and a few key diseases, including cancer and osteoporosis.

According to Dr. Ornish (this may be the most interesting link in this article, by the way–it’s worth reading the entire entry), “high-protein foods, particularly excessive animal protein, dramatically increase the risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, and many other illnesses. In the short run, they may also cause kidney problems, loss of calcium in the bones, and an unhealthy metabolic state called ketosis in many people.”

The cancer connection is spelled out at length in a fantastic book by Cornell scientist T. Colin Campbell, called The China Study. Basically, there is overwhelming scientific evidence to implicate that animal protein consumption causes cancer.

And just a few quick anecdotal points:

• Olympian Carl Lewis has said that his best year of track competition was the first year that he ate a vegan diet (he is still a strong proponent of vegan diets for athletes).

• Strength trainer Mike Mahler says, “Becoming a vegan had a profound effect on my training. … [M]y bench press excelled past 315 pounds, and I noticed that I recovered much faster. My body fat also went down, and I put on 10 pounds of lean muscle in a few months.”

• Bodybuilder Robert Cheeke advises, “The basics for nutrition are consuming large amounts of fresh green vegetables and a variety of fruits, to load yourself up with vibrant vitamins and minerals.”

A few other vegans, all of whom sing the praises of the diet for their athletic performance: Ultimate fighter Mac Danzig, ultramarathoner Scott Jurek, Minnesota Twins pitcher Pat Neshek, Atlanta Hawks Guard Salim Stoudamire, and Kansas City Chiefs tight-end Tony Gonzalez.

And let’s not forget about tennis star Martina Navratilova, six-time Ironman winner Dave Scott, four-time Mr. Universe Bill Pearl, or Stan Price, the world-record holder in bench press. They are just a few of the successful vegetarian athletes.

Basically, vegans and vegetarians needn’t fret about protein, but many Americans do need to worry about their weight, heart disease, cancer, and other ailments–many of which can be addressed by healthier eating, including a vegan or vegetarian diet.

Vegetarians and vegans get all the nutrients our bodies need from plants, and will thus, according to the science, be more likely to maintain a healthy weight and stave off a variety of ailments, from heart disease to cancer.

For answers to other popular questions about conscious eating, please check out my previous post on the topic here.

Happy eating!

Link.

next safety feature for cars: gas mask

Not like we didn’t know this already. Just a reminder.
 
Your commute could be killing you
03:48 PM PDT on Sunday, May 4, 2008
By JEAN ENERSEN / KING 5 News

Your risk on the road may not come from a crash.

“The air coming into your car is the worst air in the whole city,” said Scott Fruin, Assistant Professor of Environmental Health at USC Keck School of Medicine.

An electric car tracked just how much pollution drivers are exposed to. Los Angeles commuters spend an average of 90 minutes sucking in diesel fuel fumes and ultra fine particles or UFP every day. These particles, smaller than 1/1,000 the size of a human hair, can enter the bloodstream and disperse throughout the body. They have been linked to increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.

“They get deepest into your lungs. They get into your bloodstream, and those are particularly high on freeways and busy roads,” said Fruin.

The American Heart Association found high concentrations of diesel exhaust increases clot formation by almost 25 percent, which can lead to deadly cardiovascular problems.

The study from the university of southern California found the biggest concerns are fumes from diesel trucks and following cars that hit the gas pedal too hard – kicking up those deadly particles into the air and into your car.

“If you don’t smoke, it’s the next worse environment,” said Fruin.

So how can you make your commute safer? Drive with the windows up and set the air on re-circulate. But the best way to survive your commute is to cut your commute.

Studies have shown as little as two hours on the road a day can impact your heart health. Sounds like a lot, but that’s just an hour commute each way.

Air pollution poses a higher heart risk for women than men because women’s coronary arteries are smaller.

Link.

beware of tier 4

If you don’t know why the health plan of many Americans is ‘don’t get sick’, you may soon find out the hard way. Health insurance companies have a great new way of bleeding the patient called Tier 4. Instead of copayments of $5, $10, or $20 for prescription drugs, Tier 4 requires patients to pay a percentage, often 20-30%, of the medication’s cost. This doesn’t sound so bad for run of the mill prescriptions that cost under $100. But for life saving drugs treating cancer, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, etc., this can amount to hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars a month. And if you’re thinking you don’t have to worry about this atrocity because you work for a good company, think again. Even federal employees have been subjected to Tier 4. HR 676 anyone?
 
Co-Payments Soar for Drugs With High Prices
By GINA KOLATA, New York Times
April 14, 2008

Health insurance companies are rapidly adopting a new pricing system for very expensive drugs, asking patients to pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars for prescriptions for medications that may save their lives or slow the progress of serious diseases.

With the new pricing system, insurers abandoned the traditional arrangement that has patients pay a fixed amount, like $10, $20 or $30 for a prescription, no matter what the drug’s actual cost. Instead, they are charging patients a percentage of the cost of certain high-priced drugs, usually 20 to 33 percent, which can amount to thousands of dollars a month.

The system means that the burden of expensive health care can now affect insured people, too.

No one knows how many patients are affected, but hundreds of drugs are priced this new way. They are used to treat diseases that may be fairly common, including multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, hemophilia, hepatitis C and some cancers. There are no cheaper equivalents for these drugs, so patients are forced to pay the price or do without.

Insurers say the new system keeps everyone’s premiums down at a time when some of the most innovative and promising new treatments for conditions like cancer and rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis can cost $100,000 and more a year.

But the result is that patients may have to spend more for a drug than they pay for their mortgages, more, in some cases, than their monthly incomes.

The system, often called Tier 4, began in earnest with Medicare drug plans and spread rapidly. It is now incorporated into 86 percent of those plans. Some have even higher co-payments for certain drugs, a Tier 5.

Now Tier 4 is also showing up in insurance that people buy on their own or acquire through employers, said Dan Mendelson of Avalere Health, a research organization in Washington. It is the fastest-growing segment in private insurance, Mr. Mendelson said. Five years ago it was virtually nonexistent in private plans, he said. Now 10 percent of them have Tier 4 drug categories.

Private insurers began offering Tier 4 plans in response to employers who were looking for ways to keep costs down, said Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents most of the nation’s health insurers. When people who need Tier 4 drugs pay more for them, other subscribers in the plan pay less for their coverage.

But the new system sticks seriously ill people with huge bills, said James Robinson, a health economist at the University of California, Berkeley. “It is very unfortunate social policy,” Dr. Robinson said. “The more the sick person pays, the less the healthy person pays.”

Traditionally, the idea of insurance was to spread the costs of paying for the sick.

“This is an erosion of the traditional concept of insurance,” Mr. Mendelson said. “Those beneficiaries who bear the burden of illness are also bearing the burden of cost.”

And often, patients say, they had no idea that they would be faced with such a situation.

It happened to Robin Steinwand, 53, who has multiple sclerosis.

In January, shortly after Ms. Steinwand renewed her insurance policy with Kaiser Permanente, she went to refill her prescription for Copaxone. She had been insured with Kaiser for 17 years through her husband, a federal employee, and had had no complaints about the coverage.

She had been taking Copaxone since multiple sclerosis was diagnosed in 2000, buying a 30 days’ supply at a time. And even though the drug costs $1,900 a month, Kaiser required only a $20 co-payment.

Not this time. When Ms. Steinwand went to pick up her prescription at a pharmacy near her home in Silver Spring, Md., the pharmacist handed her a bill for $325.

There must be a mistake, Ms. Steinwand said. So the pharmacist checked with her supervisor. The new price was correct. Kaiser’s policy had changed. Now Kaiser was charging 25 percent of the cost of the drug up to a maximum of $325 per prescription. Her annual cost would be $3,900 and unless her insurance changed or the drug dropped in price, it would go on for the rest of her life.

“I charged it, then got into my car and burst into tears,” Ms. Steinwand said.

She needed the drug, she said, because it can slow the course of her disease. And she knew she would just have to pay for it, but it would not be easy.

“It’s a tough economic time for everyone,” she said. “My son will start college in a year and a half. We are asking ourselves, can we afford a vacation? Can we continue to save for retirement and college?”

Although Kaiser advised patients of the new plan in its brochure that it sent out in the open enrollment period late last year, Ms. Steinwand did not notice it. And private insurers, Mr. Mendelson said, can legally change their coverage to one in which some drugs are Tier 4 with no advance notice.

Medicare drug plans have to notify patients but, Mr. Mendelson said, “that doesn’t mean the person will hear about it.” He added, “You don’t read all your mail.”

Some patients said they had no idea whether their plan changed or whether it always had a Tier 4. The new system came as a surprise when they found out that they needed an expensive drug.

That’s what happened to Robert W. Banning of Arlington, Va., when his doctor prescribed Sprycel for his chronic myelogenous leukemia. The drug can block the growth of cancer cells, extending lives. It is a tablet to be taken twice a day – no need for chemotherapy infusions.

Mr. Banning, 81, a retired owner of car dealerships, thought he had good insurance through AARP. But Sprycel, which he will have to take for the rest of his life, costs more than $13,500 for a 90-day supply, and Mr. Banning soon discovered that the AARP plan required him to pay more than $4,000.

Mr. Banning and his son, Robert Banning Jr., have accepted the situation. “We’re not trying to make anybody the heavy,” the father said.

So far, they have not purchased the drug. But if they do, they know that the expense would go on and on, his son said. “Somehow or other, myself and my family will do whatever it takes. You don’t put your parent on a scale.”

But Ms. Steinwand was not so sanguine. She immediately asked Kaiser why it had changed its plan.

The answer came in a letter from the federal Office of Personnel Management, which negotiates with health insurers in the plan her husband has as a federal employee. Kaiser classifies drugs like Copaxone as specialty drugs. They, the letter said, “are high-cost drugs used to treat relatively few people suffering from complex conditions like anemia, cancer, hemophilia, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and human growth hormone deficiency.”

And Kaiser, the agency added, had made a convincing argument that charging a percentage of the cost of these drugs “helped lower the rates for federal employees.”

Ms. Steinwand can change plans at the end of the year, choosing one that allows her to pay $20 for the Copaxone, but she worries about whether that will help. “I am a little nervous,” she said. “Will the next company follow suit next year?”

But it turns out that she won’t have to worry, at least for the rest of this year.

A Kaiser spokeswoman, Sandra R. Gregg, said on Friday that Kaiser had decided to suspend the change for the program involving federal employees in the mid-Atlantic region while it reviewed the new policy. The suspension will last for the rest of the year, she said. Ms. Steinwand and others who paid the new price for their drugs will be repaid the difference between the new price and the old co-payment.

Ms. Gregg explained that Kaiser had been discussing the new pricing plan with the Office of Personnel Management over the previous few days because patients had been raising questions about it. That led to the decision to suspend the changed pricing system.

“Letters will go out next week,” Ms. Gregg said.

But some with the new plans say they have no way out.

Julie Bass, who lives near Orlando, Fla., has metastatic breast cancer, lives on Social Security disability payments, and because she is disabled, is covered by insurance through a Medicare H.M.O. Ms. Bass, 52, said she had no alternatives to her H.M.O. She said she could not afford a regular Medicare plan, which has co-payments of 20 percent for such things as emergency care, outpatient surgery and scans. That left her with a choice of two Medicare H.M.O’s that operate in her region. But of the two H.M.O’s, her doctors accept only Wellcare.

Now, she said, one drug her doctor may prescribe to control her cancer is Tykerb. But her insurer, Wellcare, classifies it as Tier 4, and she knows she cannot afford it.

Wellcare declined to say what Tykerb might cost, but its list price according to a standard source, Red Book, is $3,480 for 150 tablets, which may last a patient 21 days. Wellcare requires patients to pay a third of the cost of its Tier 4 drugs.

“For everybody in my position with metastatic breast cancer, there are times when you are stable and can go off treatment,” Ms. Bass said. “But if we are progressing, we have to be on treatment, or we will die.”

“People’s eyes need to be opened,” she said. “They need to understand that these drugs are very costly, and there are a lot of people out there who are struggling with these costs.”

Link.

salmon’s image tainted

I doubt the animal rights angle will convince many people of not eating meat if images of unwanted chicks being thrown into wood chippers or partially stunned cows hanging upside-down from hooks while workers repeatedly attempt to slash their throats haven’t already. But I think a lot of people will find the other items surprising since fish, especially salmon, is usually heralded as heart healthy and brain food.
 
 
Top 10 Reasons Not to Eat Salmon
With summer on the horizon, many people are thinking about health, fitness, and flaunting their firm forms while having fun in the sun. If you’re eating salmon because you think it’s good for your health-think again. Here are 10 “reel” reasons not to eat it:
 
1 Salmon Are Smart
Fish are smart. Oxford University scientist Dr. Theresa Burt de Perera recently discovered that fish learn even faster than dogs. Fish learn from each other, have long-term memories, and can recognize one another. They gather information by eavesdropping, and some species even use tools, which, until recently, was thought to be a uniquely human trait. Like the dogs and cats with whom we share our homes, they also like to play, investigate new things, and hang out with friends.
 
2 Arsenic and Old Waste
Mmmm, want a plate full of poison? Fish have extremely high levels of chemicals such as arsenic, mercury, PCBs, DDT, dioxins, and lead in their flesh and fat. You may even get industrial-strength fire retardant with that catch of the day. The chemical residue found in salmon flesh can be as much as 9 million times that of the water in which they live.
 
3 Harm at the Farm
Harm at the Farm Four-fifths of the United States’ most popular fish flesh, salmon, consumed in the U.S. is farm-raised. These fish, who are raised by the millions in cages made of nets in coastal waters, are killing off wild fish populations as well, since it takes 5 pounds of commercially caught fish (species not eaten by humans) to produce 1 pound of farmed fish.
 
4 Sea Lice Aren’t So Nice
No one wants to wear a “death crown,” but thanks to chronic sea lice, a parasite that eats down to the bones on a fish’s face, salmon commonly suffer this condition. Salmon also routinely go insane and sustain sores and other injuries from intense crowding, as they are made to live their entire lives with as many as 27 fish in a space the size of a bathtub.
 
5 Slammin’ Salmon
No, we’re not talking about a baseball player-but fish farmers do often use bats to beat large salmon to death. All methods used to slaughter fish are grotesque and cruel. Fish have their gills slit while they are still alive, and smaller salmon are often packed in ice and left to slowly suffocate or freeze to death.
 
6 Open Waters Are Open Sewers
Everybody loves the Big Apple, but would you eat something fished out of the city’s sewer system? According to the Norwegian government, the salmon and trout farms in Norway alone produce roughly the same amount of sewage as New York City. The massive amount of raw sewage, dead fish corpses, and antibiotic-laden fish food sludge settling below farmed salmon cages can actually cause the ocean floor to rot, destroying vital habitat for the already strained marine ecosystem and turning coastal waters into open sewers.
 
7 Breeding Brain Damage
Usually when Moms pass things on to their children, it’s a good thing-but when pregnant or nursing moms eat fish, they pass the toxins they consume on to their babies. Studies have also shown that children born to mothers who eat fish are slower to talk, walk, and develop fine motor skills and have weaker memories and shorter attention spans. Scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health have found that fish consumption can cause irreversible impairment to brain function in children, both in the womb and as they grow.
 
8 Don’t Forget About the PCBs
Feeling forgetful? There could be something fishy going on. Scientists have proved that people who eat only two servings of fish a month have difficulty recalling information that they learned just 30 minutes earlier. The culprit is high levels of mercury, lead, and PCBs in their blood. PCBs, synthetic chemicals polluting water and concentrated in fish flesh, act like hormones, wreaking havoc on the nervous system and contributing to a variety of illnesses beyond forgetfulness and vertigo, including cancer, infertility, and other sexual problems.
 
9 For Your Health
Would you like tartar sauce with those cancer-causing toxins? If you’re feeling green around the gills, salmon could be making you seriously ill. The Environmental Working Group estimates that 800,000 people in the U.S. face an excess lifetime cancer risk from eating farmed salmon. Plus, salmon flesh contains high amounts of artery-clogging cholesterol and fat.
 
10 Faux Fish
Fake it for salmon’s sake! Tempt your taste buds without tempting fate by trying faux fish. Your local Asian food mart or health-food store likely carries vegetarian mock seafood products that have all the flavor of the “real thing” without the contaminants or cholesterol.
 
If you’re “fishing” for a heart-smart diet that has been proved to actually reverse heart disease while also reducing the risk of cancer, diabetes, and obesity and that is good for the environment as well as fish-friendly-a vegetarian diet is the perfect catch.
 

Link

killer cell phones

Mobile Phones ‘More Dangerous Than Smoking’
Brain expert warns of huge rise in tumours and calls on industry to take immediate steps to reduce radiation

By Geoffrey Lean
Sunday, 30 March 2008

Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take “immediate steps” to reduce exposure to their radiation.

The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.

It draws on growing evidence – exclusively reported in the IoS in October – that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.

Earlier this year, the French government warned against the use of mobile phones, especially by children. Germany also advises its people to minimise handset use, and the European Environment Agency has called for exposures to be reduced.

Professor Khurana – a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers – reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.

He admits that mobiles can save lives in emergencies, but concludes that “there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours”. He believes this will be “definitively proven” in the next decade.

Noting that malignant brain tumours represent “a life-ending diagnosis”, he adds: “We are currently experiencing a reactively unchecked and dangerous situation.” He fears that “unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps”, the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too late to intervene medically.

“It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking,” says Professor Khurana, who told the IoS his assessment is partly based on the fact that three billion people now use the phones worldwide, three times as many as smoke. Smoking kills some five million worldwide each year, and exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many deaths in Britain as road accidents.

Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association dismissed Khurana’s study as “a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual”. It believes he “does not present a balanced analysis” of the published science, and “reaches opposite conclusions to the WHO and more than 30 other independent expert scientific reviews”.

Link

just when you thought it was safe to drink the water…

… a study is conducted which proves otherwise. “A vast array of pharmaceuticals – including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones – have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows”. Nobody knows precisely what this means for human health but “(r)ecent laboratory research has found that small amounts of medication have affected human embryonic kidney cells, human blood cells and human breast cancer cells. The cancer cells proliferated too quickly; the kidney cells grew too slowly; and the blood cells showed biological activity associated with inflammation”. On the bright side, you don’t have to worry the next time you forget to take your meds; the water company’s got you covered.
 
AP Probe Finds Drugs in Drinking Water

By JEFF DONN, MARTHA MENDOZA and JUSTIN PRITCHARD

A vast array of pharmaceuticals – including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones – have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.

To be sure, the concentrations of these pharmaceuticals are tiny, measured in quantities of parts per billion or trillion, far below the levels of a medical dose. Also, utilities insist their water is safe.

But the presence of so many prescription drugs – and over-the-counter medicines like acetaminophen and ibuprofen – in so much of our drinking water is heightening worries among scientists of long-term consequences to human health.

In the course of a five-month inquiry, the AP discovered that drugs have been detected in the drinking water supplies of 24 major metropolitan areas – from Southern California to Northern New Jersey, from Detroit to Louisville, Ky.

Water providers rarely disclose results of pharmaceutical screenings, unless pressed, the AP found. For example, the head of a group representing major California suppliers said the public “doesn’t know how to interpret the information” and might be unduly alarmed.

How do the drugs get into the water?

People take pills. Their bodies absorb some of the medication, but the rest of it passes through and is flushed down the toilet. The wastewater is treated before it is discharged into reservoirs, rivers or lakes. Then, some of the water is cleansed again at drinking water treatment plants and piped to consumers. But most treatments do not remove all drug residue.

And while researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals, recent studies – which have gone virtually unnoticed by the general public – have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife.

“We recognize it is a growing concern and we’re taking it very seriously,” said Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Members of the AP National Investigative Team reviewed hundreds of scientific reports, analyzed federal drinking water databases, visited environmental study sites and treatment plants and interviewed more than 230 officials, academics and scientists. They also surveyed the nation’s 50 largest cities and a dozen other major water providers, as well as smaller community water providers in all 50 states.

Here are some of the key test results obtained by the AP:

**Officials in Philadelphia said testing there discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts in treated drinking water, including medicines for pain, infection, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness and heart problems. Sixty-three pharmaceuticals or byproducts were found in the city’s watersheds.

**Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety medications were detected in a portion of the treated drinking water for 18.5 million people in Southern California.

**Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed a Passaic Valley Water Commission drinking water treatment plant, which serves 850,000 people in Northern New Jersey, and found a metabolized angina medicine and the mood-stabilizing carbamazepine in drinking water.

**A sex hormone was detected in San Francisco’s drinking water.

**The drinking water for Washington, D.C., and surrounding areas tested positive for six pharmaceuticals.

**Three medications, including an antibiotic, were found in drinking water supplied to Tucson, Ariz.

The situation is undoubtedly worse than suggested by the positive test results in the major population centers documented by the AP.

The federal government doesn’t require any testing and hasn’t set safety limits for drugs in water. Of the 62 major water providers contacted, the drinking water for only 28 was tested. Among the 34 that haven’t: Houston, Chicago, Miami, Baltimore, Phoenix, Boston and New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection, which delivers water to 9 million people.

Some providers screen only for one or two pharmaceuticals, leaving open the possibility that others are present.

The AP’s investigation also indicates that watersheds, the natural sources of most of the nation’s water supply, also are contaminated. Tests were conducted in the watersheds of 35 of the 62 major providers surveyed by the AP, and pharmaceuticals were detected in 28.

Yet officials in six of those 28 metropolitan areas said they did not go on to test their drinking water – Fairfax, Va.; Montgomery County in Maryland; Omaha, Neb.; Oklahoma City; Santa Clara, Calif., and New York City.

The New York state health department and the USGS tested the source of the city’s water, upstate. They found trace concentrations of heart medicine, infection fighters, estrogen, anti-convulsants, a mood stabilizer and a tranquilizer.

City water officials declined repeated requests for an interview. In a statement, they insisted that “New York City’s drinking water continues to meet all federal and state regulations regarding drinking water quality in the watershed and the distribution system” – regulations that do not address trace pharmaceuticals.

In several cases, officials at municipal or regional water providers told the AP that pharmaceuticals had not been detected, but the AP obtained the results of tests conducted by independent researchers that showed otherwise. For example, water department officials in New Orleans said their water had not been tested for pharmaceuticals, but a Tulane University researcher and his students have published a study that found the pain reliever naproxen, the sex hormone estrone and the anti-cholesterol drug byproduct clofibric acid in treated drinking water.

Of the 28 major metropolitan areas where tests were performed on drinking water supplies, only Albuquerque; Austin, Texas; and Virginia Beach, Va.; said tests were negative. The drinking water in Dallas has been tested, but officials are awaiting results. Arlington, Texas, acknowledged that traces of a pharmaceutical were detected in its drinking water but cited post-9/11 security concerns in refusing to identify the drug.

The AP also contacted 52 small water providers – one in each state, and two each in Missouri and Texas – that serve communities with populations around 25,000. All but one said their drinking water had not been screened for pharmaceuticals; officials in Emporia, Kan., refused to answer AP’s questions, also citing post-9/11 issues.

Rural consumers who draw water from their own wells aren’t in the clear either, experts say.

The Stroud Water Research Center, in Avondale, Pa., has measured water samples from New York City’s upstate watershed for caffeine, a common contaminant that scientists often look for as a possible signal for the presence of other pharmaceuticals. Though more caffeine was detected at suburban sites, researcher Anthony Aufdenkampe was struck by the relatively high levels even in less populated areas.

He suspects it escapes from failed septic tanks, maybe with other drugs. “Septic systems are essentially small treatment plants that are essentially unmanaged and therefore tend to fail,” Aufdenkampe said.

Even users of bottled water and home filtration systems don’t necessarily avoid exposure. Bottlers, some of which simply repackage tap water, do not typically treat or test for pharmaceuticals, according to the industry’s main trade group. The same goes for the makers of home filtration systems.

Contamination is not confined to the United States. More than 100 different pharmaceuticals have been detected in lakes, rivers, reservoirs and streams throughout the world. Studies have detected pharmaceuticals in waters throughout Asia, Australia, Canada and Europe – even in Swiss lakes and the North Sea.

For example, in Canada, a study of 20 Ontario drinking water treatment plants by a national research institute found nine different drugs in water samples. Japanese health officials in December called for human health impact studies after detecting prescription drugs in drinking water at seven different sites.

In the United States, the problem isn’t confined to surface waters. Pharmaceuticals also permeate aquifers deep underground, source of 40 percent of the nation’s water supply. Federal scientists who drew water in 24 states from aquifers near contaminant sources such as landfills and animal feed lots found minuscule levels of hormones, antibiotics and other drugs.

Perhaps it’s because Americans have been taking drugs – and flushing them unmetabolized or unused – in growing amounts. Over the past five years, the number of U.S. prescriptions rose 12 percent to a record 3.7 billion, while nonprescription drug purchases held steady around 3.3 billion, according to IMS Health and The Nielsen Co.

“People think that if they take a medication, their body absorbs it and it disappears, but of course that’s not the case,” said EPA scientist Christian Daughton, one of the first to draw attention to the issue of pharmaceuticals in water in the United States.

Some drugs, including widely used cholesterol fighters, tranquilizers and anti-epileptic medications, resist modern drinking water and wastewater treatment processes. Plus, the EPA says there are no sewage treatment systems specifically engineered to remove pharmaceuticals.

One technology, reverse osmosis, removes virtually all pharmaceutical contaminants but is very expensive for large-scale use and leaves several gallons of polluted water for every one that is made drinkable.

Another issue: There’s evidence that adding chlorine, a common process in conventional drinking water treatment plants, makes some pharmaceuticals more toxic.

Human waste isn’t the only source of contamination. Cattle, for example, are given ear implants that provide a slow release of trenbolone, an anabolic steroid used by some bodybuilders, which causes cattle to bulk up. But not all the trenbolone circulating in a steer is metabolized. A German study showed 10 percent of the steroid passed right through the animals.

Water sampled downstream of a Nebraska feedlot had steroid levels four times as high as the water taken upstream. Male fathead minnows living in that downstream area had low testosterone levels and small heads.

Other veterinary drugs also play a role. Pets are now treated for arthritis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, allergies, dementia, and even obesity – sometimes with the same drugs as humans. The inflation-adjusted value of veterinary drugs rose by 8 percent, to $5.2 billion, over the past five years, according to an analysis of data from the Animal Health Institute.

Ask the pharmaceutical industry whether the contamination of water supplies is a problem, and officials will tell you no. “Based on what we now know, I would say we find there’s little or no risk from pharmaceuticals in the environment to human health,” said microbiologist Thomas White, a consultant for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

But at a conference last summer, Mary Buzby – director of environmental technology for drug maker Merck & Co. Inc. – said: “There’s no doubt about it, pharmaceuticals are being detected in the environment and there is genuine concern that these compounds, in the small concentrations that they’re at, could be causing impacts to human health or to aquatic organisms.”

Recent laboratory research has found that small amounts of medication have affected human embryonic kidney cells, human blood cells and human breast cancer cells. The cancer cells proliferated too quickly; the kidney cells grew too slowly; and the blood cells showed biological activity associated with inflammation.

Also, pharmaceuticals in waterways are damaging wildlife across the nation and around the globe, research shows. Notably, male fish are being feminized, creating egg yolk proteins, a process usually restricted to females. Pharmaceuticals also are affecting sentinel species at the foundation of the pyramid of life – such as earth worms in the wild and zooplankton in the laboratory, studies show.

Some scientists stress that the research is extremely limited, and there are too many unknowns. They say, though, that the documented health problems in wildlife are disconcerting.

“It brings a question to people’s minds that if the fish were affected … might there be a potential problem for humans?” EPA research biologist Vickie Wilson told the AP. “It could be that the fish are just exquisitely sensitive because of their physiology or something. We haven’t gotten far enough along.”

With limited research funds, said Shane Snyder, research and development project manager at the Southern Nevada Water Authority, a greater emphasis should be put on studying the effects of drugs in water.

“I think it’s a shame that so much money is going into monitoring to figure out if these things are out there, and so little is being spent on human health,” said Snyder. “They need to just accept that these things are everywhere – every chemical and pharmaceutical could be there. It’s time for the EPA to step up to the plate and make a statement about the need to study effects, both human and environmental.”

To the degree that the EPA is focused on the issue, it appears to be looking at detection. Grumbles acknowledged that just late last year the agency developed three new methods to “detect and quantify pharmaceuticals” in wastewater. “We realize that we have a limited amount of data on the concentrations,” he said. “We’re going to be able to learn a lot more.”

While Grumbles said the EPA had analyzed 287 pharmaceuticals for possible inclusion on a draft list of candidates for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, he said only one, nitroglycerin, was on the list. Nitroglycerin can be used as a drug for heart problems, but the key reason it’s being considered is its widespread use in making explosives.

So much is unknown. Many independent scientists are skeptical that trace concentrations will ultimately prove to be harmful to humans. Confidence about human safety is based largely on studies that poison lab animals with much higher amounts.

There’s growing concern in the scientific community, meanwhile, that certain drugs – or combinations of drugs – may harm humans over decades because water, unlike most specific foods, is consumed in sizable amounts every day.

Our bodies may shrug off a relatively big one-time dose, yet suffer from a smaller amount delivered continuously over a half century, perhaps subtly stirring allergies or nerve damage. Pregnant women, the elderly and the very ill might be more sensitive.

Many concerns about chronic low-level exposure focus on certain drug classes: chemotherapy that can act as a powerful poison; hormones that can hamper reproduction or development; medicines for depression and epilepsy that can damage the brain or change behavior; antibiotics that can allow human germs to mutate into more dangerous forms; pain relievers and blood-pressure diuretics.

For several decades, federal environmental officials and nonprofit watchdog environmental groups have focused on regulated contaminants – pesticides, lead, PCBs – which are present in higher concentrations and clearly pose a health risk.

However, some experts say medications may pose a unique danger because, unlike most pollutants, they were crafted to act on the human body.

“These are chemicals that are designed to have very specific effects at very low concentrations. That’s what pharmaceuticals do. So when they get out to the environment, it should not be a shock to people that they have effects,” says zoologist John Sumpter at Brunel University in London, who has studied trace hormones, heart medicine and other drugs.

And while drugs are tested to be safe for humans, the timeframe is usually over a matter of months, not a lifetime. Pharmaceuticals also can produce side effects and interact with other drugs at normal medical doses. That’s why – aside from therapeutic doses of fluoride injected into potable water supplies – pharmaceuticals are prescribed to people who need them, not delivered to everyone in their drinking water.

“We know we are being exposed to other people’s drugs through our drinking water, and that can’t be good,” says Dr. David Carpenter, who directs the Institute for Health and the Environment of the State University of New York at Albany.

The AP National Investigative Team can be reached at investigate (at) ap.org

Link.

would you like mad cow with that burger?

Doesn’t matter. There’s a good chance you’re getting it anyway thanks to common practices at factory farms and the blind eye of the USDA.
 
USDA Refuses to Recall “Comingled” Meat That Contains Beef from Westland Plant Downer Cows
By Mike Adams
February 22 2008

(NaturalNews) Following the unprecedented recall of 143 million pounds of beef that was potentially contaminated with mad cow disease, the USDA has decided that it’s okay for children and consumer to eat that beef as long as it is comingled with beef from other cows. This startling decision appeared in a USDA memo reported in the Wall Street Journal, which stated:

“If a processor or grinder has records demonstrating that products were produced using less than 100% of recalled Westland meat for the meat component, then there is no need…to retrieve that ‘commingled’ product.”

This statement from the USDA reveals that the agency believes the recalled beef is so dangerous that nobody should eat it, but it’s safe enough to eat alongside beef from other cows. This is a curious — if not downright laughable — stance to take on public safety. If the meat is potentially contaminated with mad cow disease (which is the whole reason why it was recalled in the first place), then mixing mad cow disease-contaminated meat with non-contaminated meat does not reduce the potential danger of the “commingled” meat in any way whatsoever.

USDA nonsense and the betrayal of the public
How does adding another cow’s meat to the downer cow’s meat make the downer cow’s meat any safer? It doesn’t, of course, but the USDA isn’t really interested in consumer safety. That’s why they’ve issued this statement that means a meat packing company can use 99% of its beef from mad cow disease “downer” cows, and 1% of its beef from healthy cows, and it’s all declared “safe” by the USDA with no need to recall the beef!

Now you can see why I consider the USDA to be such a joke. Much like the FDA, the USDA is primarily focused on protecting the profits of the industry it claims to regulate. What’s important to the USDA is promoting beef, not protecting the public, and that’s exactly why you also see these intentional delays in the USDA issuing beef recalls. These delays are specifically designed to limit the financial losses associated with beef recalls by making sure most of the meat is already eaten by consumers before the recall is issued.

It’s yet another campaign of extreme incompetence — or perhaps fraud — by the USDA, an organization that believes too much in promoting milk and beef products that it has insisted for decades that all Americans eat more beef and drink more milk. That’s the whole point behind the USDA’s laughable food guide pyramid — a marketing document designed to fatten up the population by telling consumers to eat and drink more animal products, regardless of the health consequences. Read Food Politics by Marion Nestle to get the full story on the fraud behind the USDA’s food guide pyramid.

Better yet, download my free Honest Food Guide (www.honestfoodguide.org) – a replacement for the USDA’s ridiculous food guide pyramid. The Honest Food Guide has been downloaded over one million times, and it tells the truth about foods that enhance health vs. foods that destroy health. Beef, milk and other animal products are in the “destroys health” category, and that’s even when they aren’t contaminated!

America faces the facts on animal cruelty and the criminal beef industry
What’s especially notable in all this talk about beef slaughterhouses (which was only made possible by the Humane Society’s secret video, by the way) is that for the first time, Americans are having to face up to the fact that they’re eating meat that is cruelly extracted from the bodies of cows using torturous, criminal processes that expose these cows to excruciating pain.

For as long as I can remember, Americans have simply pretented to not know where their meat really came from. They would buy and eat meat products under the hallucination that somehow all this meat was extracted from cows without any sort of harm or pain. They were kidding themselves, of course, but through clever beef marketing and slaughterhouse secrecy, the industry was able to hide the truth about its criminal activities for many decades.

But now, all of a sudden the discussion about cruelty to cows and slaughterhouse practices is front page news. All of a sudden Americans are being forced to look in the mirror and realize what kind of industry they’re supporting. Of course, many consumers just blame the slaughterhouse. “It’s THEIR fault!” they say, as if their own purchasing of that very same beef had nothing to do with it. The disconnect works like this: “The slaughtering of cows is BAD, and it’s THEIR fault, but the eating of the beef we buy is just fine, no problem!” In this way, consumers fail to connect their own purchasing demand with the cruel treatment of cows in factory farms and slaughterhouses across America and around the world.

When it comes to food, Americans don’t really want to know where it comes from. They’d rather not think about or talk about it. They hold their noses when they swallow, and they talk about comedy TV, or politics or sports… anything to take their minds off the truth hidden in the steak they’re swallowing for dinner. Nobody dares acknowledge the truth about what they’re eating: Angry flesh torn from the bodies of screaming, suffering cows who are exploited and killed by profit-hungry slaughterhouse owners who care nothing about other living creatures.

The beef industry exemplifies everything that’s wrong with America today: Extreme greed, the exploitation of living beings for profit, a shocking lack of compassion, non-stop pollution, environmental destruction and the complete disregard of consumer safety.

Watch the video about factory farming and animal cruelty:

If you eat red meat from factory-farmed cows, you are part of the problem. You are directly supporting the destruction of the environment and the torture and killing of cows. If you eat meat from factory-farmed cows, you are willfully participating in a system of extreme evil that operates without ethics and without any concern for living creatures or the natural environment.

There is no such thing as “cruelty-free” meat. All meat is taken from the carcass of an animal that once breathed, lived, observed and experienced. When you consider your dietary choices, think carefully about what practices you wish to promote and what businesses you wish to see succeed.

The best way to end cruelty to cows is to stop buying beef. Eat no more red meat. That includes meat from cows and pigs. If you must eat animal meat, consider switching to chickens and fish. There is still cruelty in those industries, no doubt, but the experiences of fish are much lower in intelligence than those of a cow, which is an intelligent mammal.

Better yet, eat quinoa, which is a complete protein containing all eight essential amino acids. Or supplement your protein from free-range eggs, spirulina or broccoli juice. You can get all the protein you need from plants by juicing them and drinking the juice. (Cooking destroys about half the protein content of plants, so eat them raw to get your protein.) There is absolutely no requirement for meat in the human diet. Consumers only eat meat because they were trained to do so by their parents. In the long run, that practice is entirely unsustainable, and the future of humanity depends on switching to a primarily plant-based diet.

Remember: Boycott red meat and you’ll help end cruelty to cows. It’s as simple as this: If consumers stop buying red meat, slaughterhouses will stop killing cows!

Be part of the solution. End cruelty to cows. Stop eating red meat (and save yourself from mad cow disease at the same time).

Link.