Looking for an Easy Way to Incorporate Nutrition into YOUR Practice?

As a doctor of chiropractic, you have been taught that there is a relationship, a “Chiropractic Connection”, between the spine and other body systems.

The three primary causes of vertebral subluxation complex are physical, chemical, and mental.  Adjustments treat the physical, proper nutrition treats the chemical, and feeling better can help treat the mental.

Now, here are three easy steps to combine Chiropractic with nutrition:

1)   After determining which vertebrae have problems, chiropractically treat as you normally would.

2)   Then, further help your patients by advising nutritional supplements for each problem vertebra.  Look at the Chiro Nutrition Chart™  (this link opens a window).  In general:

3)   Since most people take a synthetic multiple vitamin, it would be better for their health to take 100% Food Vita-Mineral directly from you – so consider recommending this unique 100% Food multi-vitamin.  Since it is 100% Food, Vita-Mineral does not contain toxins and unnatural compounds—is not that the type of product you should recommend?

Now, Inflam-Enzymes is the primary supplement used by many chiropractors.  It can be an excellent choice when inflammation and/or pain are present.  Inflam-Enzymes contains herbs like acerola cherry, bromelain, papain, serrapeptase, plus 100% Food manganese, magnesium, calcium, and vitamin C.

Magnesium Complex is a great choice when muscle tightness is involved.  Since it is 100% Food, it is better retained in the muscles and does not cause diarrhea like the commonly-used mineral salt forms of magnesium can.

Advance Joint Complex is the best knee and hip product we know of.  Unlike other formulas, it DOES NOT CONTAIN isolated chondroitin or glucosamine, nor does it contain any mineral salts.   Advance Joint Complex contains herbs, Food minerals, and glandulars which have been shown to be beneficial for joint and connective tissue health (including knees).

Doctors’ Research, Inc.

1248 E. Grand Avenue, Suite A

Arroyo Grande, CA 93420

WEB: www.doctorsresearch.com

FAX: 1-805-489-0334         Call 1-805-489-7185

Some of these studies (or citations) may not conform to peer review standards. Therefore, the results are not conclusive. Professionals can, and often do, come to different conclusions when reviewing scientific data. None of these statements have been reviewed by the FDA. All products distributed by Doctors’ Research, Inc. are nutritional and are not intended for the treatment or prevention of any medical condition.

Food Research; 100% Whole Food Supplements for Healthcare Professionals

Food Research International is Caribbean company dedicated to providing the highest quality nutritional supplements, in a form that is as close as possible to those naturally found in foods. It is well understood by nutrition researchers that we, as humans, should derive nutrition from food. It is our goal at Food Research to provide the best, scientifically researched, natural food supplements which meet the needs of those who live in our “modern” society. Food Research products are environmentally friendly. They are natural food complexes which have been shown to be better for the internal human environment.

Why are Food Research International products the best?

At least 98.97% of vitamins consumed are synthetic isolates, though they are often labeled as natural. Yet, there are no isolated USP nutrients that exist naturally. So, nearly all companies combine synthetic isolates with industrially-processed minerals in order to produce their vitamin-mineral formulas.

Food Research International is different.

None of our products contain any synthetic/isolated USP nutrients.

In order to obtain potencies that members of modern societies need, many of the nutrients in our products are hydroponically-grown to improve the concentration of nutrients in the specific raw foods that we use.

We essentially take advantage of a law of nature that a plant will absorb more of the nutrient when that nutrient is more available. Essentially, the plant is fed an enzyme-containing liquid that will be higher in one particular mineral. The plant will absorb more of that mineral, since more of it is present. The nutrient foods are grown in an FDA registered facility.

In reality we are duplicating the process of nature when we create food nutrients. Nature’s process takes inorganic, non-food substances from the soil and delivers them to the cells of the plant. This natural process is the merging of different elements into a union creating one. Creating a whole from different elements is nature in action. The best method of creating a union, like those created by nature, between inorganic fractions and the whole food matrix seems to be utilizing hydroponic technologies.

We wanted to supply the best possible form of nutrients so we looked into modern technologies that would be compatible with the natural life processes that nature uses to improve the nutrients in natural plants.

This led to the acquisition of foods combined with a natural cold fusion process. The definition of fusion is the merging of different elements into a union, creating an enhanced whole from different elements. A natural cold fusion process is used to produce superior nutrients that are always 100% food. Enhanced nutrients occur from the merging of specific elements through a living plant into a whole food matrix through low temperature hydroponic farming. The reason that the process is “cold” is in order to preserve the naturally-occurring enzymes and other beneficial substances in the foods. Many of the processes and equipment had to be custom-made or altered to accommodate our need to maintain the fresh frozen raw foods used to create the usable raw materials. Cold fusion processing was not an after thought. No expense was spared to create these cold fusion processes and the state of the art manufacturing plant needed to keep Food Research International products the best available on the planet.

Furthermore, this form of “cold fusion-hydroponic” farming is pesticide free, and hence the quality of the food nutrients produced this way can be considered superior to conventionally grown foods. After growing, the plant is then harvested and dried.

No Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMO) have ever been found in our nutrient foods upon average analysis (which means none have ever been detected any time that they have been tested for).

These superior foods are also free of artificial colors, preservatives, and similar chemicals. The grown nutrients are also HPLC (high performance liquid chromatography) validated. And the nutrient content of each batch is tested for potency.

Food Research International represents the best of all worlds: Real food nutrients, in real foods, with naturally occurring substances (such as enzymes, amino acids, lipids, and/or bioflavonoids) bottled and tested for potency.

100% food nutrients, 100% of the time.

Food Research International your best choice for 100% food nutrients. Additionally, you may view some of the specialized equipment from which Food Research International food nutrients are grown and processed.w

We also have the best known refractive drying process of any food nutrients. You may also view information about the drying process.

Who heads up the Food Research?
Food Research International Ltd. was intitially headed up by Clyde Skeete, of Barbados. Financial affairs handled by Canadian Barbara Gibbs.

The research group at Food Research consists of a variety of independent research scientists.

One researcher is Robert Thiel, Naturopath who also holds a Ph.D. in nutrition science. He has conducted, and had published, many scientific health studies. Thiel received the Leadership Award from the Orthomolecular Health Medicine Society. Thiel has been named Research Scientist of the Year, Physician of the Year, and Disability Researcher of the Year by the largest American naturopathic association. Doc. Thiel has had the only comprehensive paper published in a medical peer-reviewed journal (Medical Hypotheses) on the advantages of natural food vitamins over synthetic ‘nutrients’. He also specializes in nutritional interventions for fatigue, sports performance, and various genetic and non-genetic disabilities.

Another is Steve Xue Ph.D., who runs Natural Medicine Without Borders. Dr. Xue also teaches Alternative Medicine to senior students at Portland State University and aspects of Traditional Chinese Medicine at top TCM universities in China. Dr. Xue received the Best Teaching Award by the Center for Teaching Excellence of Ohio University and the Award for Excellence of Research by the College of Education of Arkansas State University. He has authored various papers and books. He also specializes in alternative interventions for communications disorders.

Another researcher is Dr. James Schutz who has a doctorate in nutrition. He works with Kay Minders who holds a B.S. in nutrition. Both Dr. Schutz and Ms. Minders are also a board certified holistic health practitioners. Dr. Schutz has been registered internationally as a specialist in fibromylagia, immune disorders, and nutrition. Ms. Minders also has been registered as a therapeutic specialist in nutrition and immune disorders. Both also work with genetic and non-genetic disabilities.

Input is also provided by health professionals throughout the world.

Why are Food Research nutrients better than isolated USP nutrients?
Human beings should get their nutrition from foods. “The body is designed to handle foods” [1]. It is important to realize “that in nature vitamins are never isolated. They are always present in the form of vitamin-complexes” [2-5]. Vitamins are natural complexes which produce a variety of actions in the body whereas some isolated USP vitamins are analogues of vitamins which appear to have at least some of these activities [5]. Food nutrients are complexed just as nutrients found in all foods, because they are food. USP vitamins are synthesized (according to strict federal standards), standardized chemical isolates (as listed in the United States Pharmacopoeia or the USAN and USP Dictionary of Drug Names) [6]; they are not food.

It is well known among nutrition researchers that most essential minerals are not well absorbed (some are less than 1%) [7]. “Bioavailability of orally administered vitamins, minerals, and trace elements is subject to a complex set of influences…In nutrition science the term ‘bioavailability’ encompasses the sum of impacts that may reduce or foster the metabolic utilization of a nutrient” [8]. Studies show that natural food complex nutrients are better than isolated USP vitamins or inorganic mineral salts or mineral chelates [e.g. 9-25].

Vegetarian FOOD NutrientCompared to USP/Mineral Salt
  
Vitamin AMore complete, as scientists teach that vitamin A is not an isolate [13]
Vitamin B-9More utilizable above 266mcg (Recommended Daily Intake is 400mcg) [14]
Vitamin COver 15.6 times antioxidant effect [15]
Vitamin D Over 10 times the antirachitic effect [16]
Vitamin EUp to 4.0 times the free radical scavenging strength [17]
Vitamin K Safer for children [18]
Calcium7 times as effective in raising serum ionic calcium levels [19]
ChromiumUp to 25 times more bioavailable [20]
IronNon-constipating, better absorbed [21]
MagnesiumBetter absorbed and retained [22]
SeleniumNearly 2 times better retained [23]
ZincBetter absorption, better form [24,25]

Numerous university studies have concluded that supplements containing food nutrients are better than USP isolates. Food nutrients are better because they contain important enzymes, peptides, and phytonutrients CRITICAL to the UTILIZATION of vitamins and minerals which are not present in isolated USP nutrients. Published research has concluded that food vitamins are superior synthetic/USP vitamins.

References:
[1] Whitney EN, Hamilton EMN. Understanding Nutrition, 4th ed. West Publishing, New York, 1987
[2] Airola P. How to Get Well. Health Plus, Sherwood (OR), 1989
[3] Olson JA. Vitamin A, retinoids, and carotenoids. In Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, 8th ed. Lea & Febiger, Phil.,1994:287-307
[4] Farrell PA, Roberts RJ. Vitamin E. In Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, 8th ed. Lea & Febiger, Phil.,1994:326-358
[5] DeCava JA. The Real Truth about Vitamins & Antioxidants. A Printery, Centerfield (MA), 1997
[6] The United States Pharmacopeial Convention. USAN and USP Dictionary of Drug Names. Mack Printing, Easton (PA),1986
[7] Turnland JR. Bioavailability of dietary minerals to humans: the stable isotope approach. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr,1991;30(4);387-396
[8] Schumann K, et al. Bioavailability of oral vitamins, minerals, and trace minerals in perspective. Arzneimittelforshcung,1997;47(4):369-380
[9] Ha SW. Rabbit study comparing yeast and isolated B vitamins (as described in Murray RP. Natural vs. Synthetic. Mark R. Anderson, 1995, p:A3). Ann Rev Physiol,1941; 3:259-282
[10] Thiel R. Natural vitamins may be superior to synthetic ones. Med Hypo.2000;55(6):461-469
[11] Thiel R.J, Fowkes S.W. Can cognitive deterioration associated with Down syndrome be reduced? Medical Hypotheses, 2005; 64(3):524-532
[12] Traber MG, Elsner A, Brigelius-Flohe R. Synthetic as compared with natural vitamin E is preferentially excreted as alpha-CEHC in human urine: studies using deuterated alpha-tocopherol acetates. FEBS Letters, 1998;437:145-148
[13] Ross A.C. Vitamin A and Carotenoids. In Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, 10th ed. Lippincott William & Wilkins, Phil, 2005: 351-375
[14] Lucock M. Is folic acid the ultimate functional food component for disease prevention? BMJ, 2004;328:211-214
[15] Williams D. ORAC values for fruits and vegetables. Alternatives, 1999;7(22):171
[16] Thiel R. Vitamin D, rickets, and mainstream experts. Int J Naturopathy, 2003; 2(1)
[17] Traber MG. Vitamin E. In Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, 9th ed. Williams & Wilkins, 1999:347-362
[18] Olson R.E. Vitamin K. In Modern Nutrition in Health and Nutrition, 9th ed. Williams & Wilkins, Balt., 1999: 363-380
[19] Hamet P, et al. The evaluation of the scientific evidence for a relationship between calcium and hypertension. J Nutr, 1995;125:311S-400S
[20] Ensminger AH, Ensminger ME, Konlade JE, Robson JRK. Food & Nutrition Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. CRC Press, New York, 1993
[21] Wood R.J., Ronnenberg A.G. Iron. In Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, 10th ed. Lippincott William & Wilkins, Phil, 2005: 248-270
[22] Rude R.K., Shils M.E. Magnesium. In Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, 10th ed. Lippincott William & Wilkins, Phil, 2005: 223-247
[23] Biotechnology in the Feed Industry. Nottingham Press, UK, 1995: 257-267
[24] Andlid TA, Veide J, Sandberg AS. Metabolism of extracellular inositol hexaphosphate (phytate) by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Int J. Food Microbiology. 2004;97(2):157-169
[25] King JC, Cousins RJ. Zinc. In Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, 10 th ed. Lipponcott Williams & Wilkins, Phil., 2005:271-285

Some of these studies (citations) may not conform to peer review standards. Therefore the results are not conclusive. Professionals can, and often do, come to different conclusions when reviewing scientific data (peer-reviewed or not).

This site provides information for doctors, wholesalers, and health care professionals and is not intended for use by consumer.

GMOs and Health: Any Risk?

What are GMOs? Are there any risks? If so, what are some of those risks?

This article will attempt to answer those and other questions.

What Are GMOs?

GMOs are Genetically-Modified Organisms. Basically scientists change the genetic code of a plant or animal, often by including part of the genetic code of a different species into it.

Here is one definition and comments:

What are GMOs?
GMOs, or “genetically modified organisms,” are plants or animals that have been genetically engineered with DNA from bacteria, viruses or other plants and animals. These experimental combinations of genes from different species cannot occur in nature or in traditional crossbreeding.

Virtually all commercial GMOs are engineered to withstand direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. Despite biotech industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit. http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/

GMOs (also referred to as genetically-engineered foods) are intended to increase crop yield and tend to support the profitability of a USA-based company called Monsanto (and another company, the Switzerland-based Syngenta).

Monsanto and USA government officials tends to insist that GMOs are safe.

Which Items in the Food Supply Have GMOs?

GMOs are sold in grocery and other food stores.

More and more foods and products are being genetically engineered or contain genetically engineered ingredients. Here are eight of the most common to look out for. If a product contains these ingredients and is not labeled non-GMO Verified or Organic Certified, there’s a good chance  it contains GMOs:

  1. Alfalfa
  2. Canola
  3. Corn
  4. Cotton
  5. Papaya
  6. Soy
  7. Sugar Beets
  8. Zucchini and Yellow Summer Squash

ALSO high-risk: animal products (milk, meat, eggs, honey, etc.) because of contamination in feed…

What product ingredients commonly contain genetically engineered crops?

Amino Acids, Aspartame, Ascorbic Acid, Sodium Ascorbate, Vitamin C, Citric Acid, Sodium Citrate, Ethanol, Flavorings (“natural” and “artificial”), High-Fructose Corn Syrup, Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein, Lactic Acid, Maltodextrins, Molasses, Monosodium Glutamate, Sucrose, Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP), Xanthan Gum (http://action.greenamerica.org/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=7626&gclid=CMTz9bigzbcCFWIV7Aod2V0AEw)

The first GMO in the food supply was the “Flavor Savr” tomato in 1994, but it was not a particular commercial success, and left the food supply in 1997. The company that introduced it, Calgene, was later acquired by Monsanto. Genetically modified (GM) items are all around in the USA.

Notice that synthetic vitamin ingredients, such as Ascorbic Acid, which most companies tend to call Vitamin C, are often GMO (probably because they tend to come from GM-corn.

Frankenstein and GMOs

It is not just plants that are affected by the GMO world.

In Canada, they display some “spider goats”:

Two genetically engineered (also called genetically modified or GM, transgenic) goats are now on display at the Canada Agriculture Museum, Central Experimental Farm in Ottawa. The goats were engineered with genetic material from spiders to create spider silk from their milk, for making military grade textiles. (http://foodfreedomgroup.com/2012/04/01/canada-promotes-transgenic-goats-at-ag-museum/ viewed 06/05/13)

Mixing arachnids with goats seems naturally crazy. Health Canada is also considering approving some type of GMO pig so it will have less phosphorus in its feces.

There have also been GMO experiments to put human genes into cows to make a different type of baby formula, sponge genes into potatoes so that the top portion will wilt to alert farmers when they need to irrigate, mixing mouse genes with cows, etc.

GMOs may be able to destroy the natural environment and produce odd type of plants, and possibly people. Notice the following from Harvard and the World Health Organization (WHO):

Modified organisms can, in addition, escape from greenhouses and fields and aquaculture cages into natural, or quasi-natural, ecosystems, and disrupt their biodiversity. 

GM foods may also damage biodiversity, for example, by promoting greater use of certain pesticides associated with GM crops that are particularly toxic to many species, and by introducing exotic genes and organisms into the environment that may disrupt natural plant communities and other ecosystems. (Harvard. Genetically Modified Foods. ©2012 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College. Published by the Center for Health and the Global Environment. http://chge.med.harvard.edu/topic/genetically-modified-foods viewed 06/05/13)

Gene transfer. Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred. …the probability of transfer is low

Outcrossing. The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with those grown using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products for human consumption in the United States of America…

Issues of concern include: the capability of the GMO to escape and potentially introduce the engineered genes into wild populations; the persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested; the susceptibility of non-target organisms (e.g. insects which are not pests) to the gene product; the stability of the gene; the reduction in the spectrum of other plants including loss of biodiversity; and increased use of chemicals in agriculture. The environmental safety aspects of GM crops vary considerably according to local conditions. (WHO. 20 questions on genetically modified foods. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/ viewed 06/05/13)

Also, GMOs may contaminate the natural environment, produce unnatural plants, cause humans to get genetically affected, and are a risk to food security.

Bees and GMOs

There have been massive drops in the honey bee population. So much so, some have suggested that the food supply of the USA, for example, is at risk (see Nearly One Third of American Bees Died: Is Famine Coming to the USA?).

It is such a concern overseas that the Europeans have banned certain pesticides for three years to see if that may help their population recover. But it is not just Americans and Europeans that have concerns. Russia is very concerned as the following shows:

The shocking minutes relating to President Putin’s meeting this past week with US Secretary of State John Kerry reveal the Russian leaders “extreme outrage” over the Obama regimes continued protection of global seed and plant bio-genetic giants Syngenta and Monsanto in the face of a growing “bee apocalypse” that the Kremlin warns “will most certainly” lead to world war.

According to these minutes, released in the Kremlin today by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation (MNRE), Putin was so incensed over the Obama regimes refusal to discuss this grave matter that he refused for three hours to even meet with Kerry, who had traveled to Moscow on a scheduled diplomatic mission, but then relented so as to not cause an even greater rift between these two nations.

At the center of this dispute between Russia and the US, this MNRE report says, is the “undisputed evidence” that a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically related to nicotine, known as neonicotinoids, are destroying our planets bee population, and which if left unchecked could destroy our world’s ability to grow enough food to feed its population.

So grave has this situation become, the MNRE reports, the full European Commission (EC) this past week instituted a two-year precautionary ban (set to begin on 1 December 2013) on these “bee killing” pesticides following the lead of Switzerland, France, Italy, Russia, Slovenia and Ukraine, all of whom had previously banned these most dangerous of genetically altered organisms from being used on the continent.
http://www.eutimes.net/2013/05/russia-warns-obama-global-war-over-bee-apocalypse-coming-soon/

Bees are needed to pollinate many foods. Losses of bees truly put the human food supply at risk. Syngenta recognizes a problem with bees, but does not seem to believe that its products are part of the problem:

There is a lot of publicity throughout Europe blaming pesticides called neonicotinoids for the decline in honey bees and other pollinators…It is clear that the honey bee, which is vital to farming and food production, is beset by a range of different and complicated health threats. (Plight of the Bees. http://www.syngenta.com/eame/plightofthebees/en/Pages/home.aspx viewed 06/05/13)

The interaction between agriculture and bees is a sensitive one. The balance is very precise, as is the ecology…In the past few years, Europe has experienced a decline in the health of managed honey bees which has resulted in damage to colonies and populations. Many different possible causes have been suggested and promoted. But the overall scientific consensus is that the health decline is caused by many different factors acting together, and principal among them are the parasitic mite Varroa, viruses carried by mites, Nosema ceranae, and the loss of suitable habitats and nutrition. The declines in Europe and the USA are not replicated in other regions. (Plight of the Bees. http://www.syngenta.com/eame/plightofthebees/en/causes/Pages/causes.aspxviewed 06/05/12)

At least Syngenta recognizes that the ecological balance needs to be precise. Yet, adding GMOs into the mix affects the ecological balance.

An Improper Defense of GMOs

Some contend that GMOs are essentially identical to real food, thus are not a threat. Do they have a point?

Notice the following improper defense of GMOs:

June 5, 2103

Perhaps the most difficult thing about being a science journalist is combating and extinguishing malevolent myths, which always seem to spread faster and further than the actual truth. The largest falsehood currently in circulation is that GMOs represent a threat – to our health, to our environment and to our food supply. But nothing could be further from the truth.

GMOs are nutritionally indistinguishable from their non-GMO counterparts…Like agriculture or hunting-and-gathering, GMOs leave an impact on the environment. Some of it is bad, like when farmers overuse the herbicide glyphosate, which in turn may speed the evolution of “superweeds.”…

But the science consistently shows that GMOs pose no threat to our health. Therefore, it would make about as much sense to put a warning label on GMO corn as it would to place a warning label on corn grown in Nebraska. In summary, GMOs really aren’t controversial in the scientific community.  http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-consumers-be-worried-about-genetically-modified-food/the-pervasive-myth-that-gmos-pose-a-threat

While GMOs may not be controversial to the parts of the “scientific community” that does not look into it in depth, as well as scientists affiliated with certain corporations and government entities, the reality is that they are controversial and are not “nutritionally indistinguisable” to there non-GMO counterparts.

The fact is that GMO “foods” are not chemically-identical to non-GMO foods. One reason, for example, is that many produced by Monsanto are designed to be resistant to their trademarked herbicide called Round-Up. Round-Up kills most non-GMO plants, but not the ones that Monsanto sells that are “Round-Up” resistant.

Thus, they cannot be nutritionally-identical because they are not chemically-identical.

Everything with GMOs is Not Good

Some cracks in the vulnerability of GMOs have been discovered.

For example, a type of corn humanly engineered to thwart a certain bug now has resistance to what was supposed to kill it:

Monsanto Corn Plant Losing Bug Resistance
Wall Street Journal – Aug 29, 2011

Widely grown corn plants that Monsanto Co. genetically modified to thwart a voracious bug are falling prey to that very pest in a few Iowa fields, the first time a major Midwest scourge has developed resistance to a genetically modified crop.

The discovery raises concerns that the way some farmers are using biotech crops could spawn superbugs.

Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann’s discovery that western corn rootworms in four northeast Iowa fields have evolved to resist the natural pesticide made by Monsanto’s corn plant…http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904009304576532742267732046.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

This news item provides further secular proof that my long-held beliefs concerning the risks of genetically-modified foods are getting more current scientific validation. Corn, more properly known as maize, is a very important food crop in the USA.  Furthermore, as Wikipedia reports, 85% of the US maize crop was genetically modified in 2009.  This increased dependance upon genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) for the American food supply is putting the USA at tremendous risk

Superweeds pose GM-resistant challenge for farmers

BBC – Sept 18, 2012
US farmers are facing a growing challenge from weeds resistant to chemical sprays, and enduring millions of dollars in losses as a result. The so-called “superweeds” have arisen because of the success of genetically modified crops, which now account for the vast majority of US corn, soya and cotton.
Genetically engineered (GE) crops are often discussed as the way to feed the world’s growing populations and to mitigate the affects of climate change. But the spreading of those same genetically engineered traits to weeds is now well documented. Invasive plants become “super weeds” and insects develop resistance to the trait, making them even tougher to fight than they were before the use of GE crops.

How Genetically Modified Corn Is Creating Super Worms

There’s “mounting evidence” that Monsanto Co. (MON) corn that’s genetically modified to control insects is losing its effectiveness in the Midwest, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said.

Monsanto’s worst resistance problem is with crops engineered to tolerate its Roundup herbicide. “Superweeds” that Roundup no longer kills have invaded as many as 20 million acres (8.1 million hectares) of corn and soybeans, according to a Dow study. As many as 28 million acres of cotton, soybean and corn may host Roundup-resistant weeds by 2015, according to Basel, Switzerland-based Syngenta.

Corn fields in four states — Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska — were overrun by rootworm last year, prompting the EPA to say in a November memo that Monsanto’s bug-killing corn may be losing its effectiveness. The agency also said at the time that Monsanto’s program for monitoring suspected cases of resistance was “inadequate.”http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-04/-mounting-evidence-of-bug-resistant-corn-seen-by-epa.html

I have been warning about GMOs for some time. Back in 1999, I started to get published for my positions against genetically-modified foods (Thiel R.  Labeling of genetically modified foods should be a fundamental consumer right.  HealthKeepers, 2000; 2 (3):16-19; Thiel R. ANMA’s official position on genetically-modified foods.  ANMA Monitor, 1999;3(4)5-8). 

GMOs Present Health Risks

Are GMOs safe. Notice the following:

Are GMOs safe?
Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Increasingly, Americans are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO experiment…

In the U.S., GMOs are in as much as 80% of conventional processed food. Click here for a current list of GMO risk crops.

http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/

Some have claimed that rats fed GMO corn developed tumors and organ damage:

Rats fed a lifetime diet of Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn or exposed to the company’s popular Roundup herbicide developed tumors and suffered severe organ damage, according to a French study…The study links varying levels of both the Roundup herbicide and the transgenes in Monsanto’s patented NK603 corn to mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage.

The rats were either fed the NK603 corn alone, corn treated with agricultural levels of Roundup, or given water treated with Roundup at low levels commonly found in contaminated drinking water and used in agriculture in the United States. In each group, there were two to three more deaths among female rats compared to control groups, and the rats on the Monsanto diet tended to die more quickly. (Ludwig M. French Study Finds Tumors and Organ Damage in Rats Fed Monsanto Corn. September 19, 2012. http://truth-out.org/news/item/11639-french-study-finds-tumors-and-organ-damage-in-rats-fed-monsanto-corn viewed 06/05/13)

While some have dismissed the above study, the reality is that it is giving humans an indication that GMOs do present health risks. Notice also:

A delegation of politicians and community activists gathered on August 7 in La Leonesa, a small farm town in Argentina, to hear Dr. Andres Carrasco speak about a study linking a popular herbicide to birth defects in Argentina’s agricultural areas.

But the presentation never happened. A mob of about 100 people attacked the delegation before they could reach the local school where the talk was to be held…Carrasco is a lead embryologist at the University of Buenos Aires Medical School and the Argentinean national research council. His study, first released in 2009 and published in the United States this past summer, shows that glyphosate-based herbicides like Monsanto’s popular Roundup formula caused deformations in chicken embryos that resembled the kind of birth defects being reported in areas like La Leonesa, where big agribusinesses depend on glyphosate to treat genetically engineered crops.

The deformations resulted from much lower doses of herbicide than those commonly found on crops, according to the study.

Biotech chemical giant Monsanto patented glyphosate under the trade name Roundup in the 1970’s. (Ludwig M. War Over Monsanto Gets Ugly. November 9, 2010. http://archive.truthout.org/war-over-genetically-modified-crops-gets-ugly-birth-defects-superweeds-and-science-intimidation64915 viewed 06/05/13)

Notice also the following:

“Is Genetically Modified Food Killing Us?” Alex Daley asks in today’s Daily Reckoning. “Probably not,” he confidently responds to his own question. But the worldwide scientific community is slightly less confident. The long-term effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are simply unknowable…

No, the problem with GMOs is not that they might kill us; the problem is that we have no idea how they might kill us. We have no idea if they might harm us quickly, or slowly…or not at all.

More importantly, we have no idea if — down the road — they might catastrophically alter the genetic traits of various organisms — in particular, the human organism. Therefore, the entire GMO experiment promises feast or famine…literally. (Eric Fry)

The new wheat is in early-stage field trials (i.e., it’s been planted to grow somewhere, but has not yet been tested for human consumption), part of a multi-year process on its way to potential approval and not unlike the rigorous process many drugs go through. The researchers conducting this trial are using RNAi to turn down the production of glycogen. They are targeting the production of the wheat branching enzyme which, if suppressed, would result in a much lower starch level for the wheat. The result would be a grain with a lower glycemic index — i.e., healthier wheat.

This is a noble goal. However, Professors Heinemann and Carman warn, there’s a risk that the gene-silencing done to these plants might make its way into humans and wreak havoc on our bodies. In their press conference and subsequent papers, they describe the possibility that the siRNA molecules — which are pretty hardy little chemicals and not easily gotten rid of — could wind up interacting with our RNA.

If their theories prove true, the results might be as bad as mimicking glycogen storage disease IV, a super-rare genetic disorder which almost always leads to early childhood death…the wheat might cause very severe adverse reactions in humans. (Alex Daley) (Daily Reckoning. November 28, 2012)

Here is a report from Harvard:

The decrease in glutelin levels in rice, for example, was associated with an unintended increase in levels of compounds called prolamines, which can affect the nutritional quality of rice and increase its potential to induce an allergic response. (Harvard. Genetically Modified Foods. ©2012 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College. Published by the Center for Health and the Global Environment. http://chge.med.harvard.edu/topic/genetically-modified-foods viewed 06/05/13)

The fact is that GMOs are not natural foods and pose a lot of health risks. Despite what various science and health professionals wish to imply, the plain truth is much about nutrition is simply not known. What is known is that humans survived on non-GMO foods for millenia. GMOs simply have not been tested enough to insure that they will not cause problems.

Monsanto Has Special Legal Protection

As happens in politics in the USA, a bill that was supposed to do one thing, had an attachment to do something not related to the intent of the bill:

Critics slam Obama for “protecting” Monsanto

There’s no love lost between Washington and the American public, it seems, five days after Congress for the first time in years managed to handle a budget-related issue without reaching the brink of crisis.

Protesters have descended on Pennsylvania Avenue outside the White House this week, enraged at a potentially health-hazardous provision they allege lawmakers inserted surreptitiously into a continuing resolution (CR) that will fund the government through the remainder of the fiscal year. The bill sailed through the Capitol on Friday; President Obama signed it into law on Tuesday.

Opponents have termed the language in question the “Monsanto Protection Act,” a nod to the major agricultural biotech corporation and other like firms geared at producing genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds and crops. The provision protects genetically modified seeds from litigation suits over health risks posed by the crops’ consumption.   http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57576835/critics-slam-obama-for-protecting-monsanto/

Obama signs ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ written by Monsanto-sponsored senator

United States President Barack Obama has signed a bill into law that was written in part by the very billion-dollar corporation that will benefit directly from the legislation.

On Tuesday, Pres. Obama inked his name to H.R. 933, a continuing resolution spending bill approved in Congress days earlier. Buried 78 pages within the bill exists a provision that grossly protects biotech corporations such as the California-based Monsanto Company from litigation.

With the president’s signature, agriculture giants that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds are given the go-ahead to continue to plant and sell man-made crops, even as questions remain largely unanswered about the health risks these types of products pose to consumers.  http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/

Overseas, this is not making the USA popular.

Around the world, thousands marched against the Missouri-headquartered multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation called Monsanto:

May 26, 2013…

Organizers said “March Against Monsanto” protests were held in 52 countries and 436 cities, including Los Angeles where demonstrators waved signs that read “Real Food 4 Real People” and “Label GMOs, It’s Our Right to Know.”

Genetically modified plants are grown from seeds that are engineered to resist insecticides and herbicides, add nutritional benefits or otherwise improve crop yields and increase the global food supply. Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States today have been genetically modified. But critics say genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment. The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention in recent years, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products…

Protesters in Buenos Aires and other cities in Argentina, where Monsanto’s genetically modified soy and grains now command nearly 100% of the market, and the company’s Roundup-Ready chemicals are sprayed throughout the year on fields where cows once grazed. They carried signs saying “Monsanto-Get out of Latin America”

In Portland, thousands of protesters took to Oregon streets. Police estimate about 6,000 protesters took part in Portland’s peaceful march, and about 300 attended the rally in Bend. Other marches were scheduled in Baker City, Coos Bay, Eugene, Grants Pass, Medford, Portland, Prineville and Redmond.

Across the country in Orlando, about 800 people gathered with signs, pamphlets and speeches in front of City Hall. Maryann Wilson of Clermont, Fla., said she learned about Monsanto and genetically modified food by watching documentaries on YouTube.

“Scientists are saying that because they create their own seeds, they are harming the bees,” Wilson told the Orlando Sentinel. “That is about as personal as it gets for me.”  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/25/global-protests-monsanto/2361007/

In order to take full control of the global food chain the world’s largest owner of patents on seeds Monsanto is lobbying, bribing, suing small farmers out of business and altering scientific research, geopolitical analyst F. William Engdahl told RT.

Hundreds of thousands around the world gathered on Saturday in a global move dubbed ‘March Against Monsanto’.

Protesters all across the US joined the march calling for a boycott of Monsanto products, following the Senate’s decision to turn down a bill which requires the labeling of GM food.

RT: What’s wrong with GM food?

William Engdahl: The fundamental problem with GM food that it’s genetically and biologically unstable. There’s no genetic modification known to science and this I have from some of top scientists in the world on this question that’s stable – it’s always mutating. And No.2, all the GM products that are in the human and animal food chain over the last 20 years are modified primarily to do one thing – 80 per cent of all the GM is modified to accept chemicals, the pesticides. Monsanto Roundup being the most prominent of them, which are highly, highly toxic and they’re modified to be resistant to that deadly chemical so that it kills everything inside, except the Monsanto corn or the Monsanto soy beans or what will you. All those chemicals are equally as dangerous to the human food chain as the GMO seeds themselves.  http://rt.com/op-edge/monsato-manipulation-food-chain-799/

There are many, many risks with GMO crops.

As far as bees go, their population keeps dropping (see Nearly One Third of American Bees Died: Is Famine Coming to the USA?).  Furthermore, there are a lot of unanticipated problems from GMOs.  For example, because of the use of GMO corn, the amount of milkweeds have diminished–hence the herbicide intent of GMOs  has negative side effect.  This in turn has diminished the amount of monarch butterflies as they benefit from milkweed.  Additionally, scientists are combining a variety of animal genes as well as creatures like spiders.  This is not going to end well.  As far as nutritional benefits of GMOs, many of those ‘benefits’ are based upon a lot of assumptions that I do not believe hold up well in the real world and will leave at that for now.

While the supposed intent of GMOs is to increase the food supply and provide crops that are resistant to pesticides, the reality is that the GMO thrust is essentially based upon lust for profits. Notice also the following:

GMOs didn’t come to dominate our agricultural system simply because they’re awesome, and they’re not struggling for acceptance because the public is fearful and/or misinformed. Corporations made billions on GMOs and all we got was ethanol and an unsustainable diet. (Laskawy T. Frankenfoods: Good for Big Business, bad for the rest of us. May 2013 http://grist.org/food/frankenfoods-good-for-big-business-bad-for-the-rest-of-us/ viewed 06/05/13)

The production of GMO crops places massive amounts of the food supply at risk for destruction.  While in nature, there is variety of crops, with GMO-crops there is a uniformity that is unnatural.  This uniformity puts the entire crop at risk as if one plant succumbs to a pesticide, the entire crop is susceptible as well–this can lead to famines. 

While multiple thousands have protested in the USA and internationally, the GMO industry pushes forward.

GMOs Have “Unexpected” Results

Many things associated with GMOs are unknown, and most of what has gone wrong so far was “unexpected” by Monsanto and the government.

In the last few years, however, there have been unsettling “incidents”: a shipment of organic corn from Texas was rejected by France (GMO foods are banned in Europe, Japan, Brazil, and other nations) because it contained the altered genes, apparently the result of pollen drifting from farms growing altered corn onto the fields of the organic farmers; a load of GMO corn not approved for human consumption ended up unannounced in Taco Bell’s corn products; scientists found that Monarch butterflies were sickened and dying from exposure in the Midwest to GMO grain; Mexico, which does not allow GMO corn it its country, has found native varieties deep in the country’s interior to be tainted by Monsanto’s corn pollen, which had drifted hundreds of miles, much farther and in a much quicker time than the industry and our government thought possible. (Hightower J. Frankenfood Corporate bioengineers tinker merrily and dangerously with the DNA of food bioengineers tinker merrily and dangerously with the DNA of food. Utne, June 2004. http://www.utne.com/2004-06-01/frankenfood.aspx#axzz2VMR0LulS viewed 06/05/13)

Although ‘experts’ have claimed that there is no GMO wheat in the food supply, the USA government now has reason to doubt that (note bolding below is from me):

WASHINGTON — A strain of genetically engineered wheat never approved for sale or consumption by authorities was found sprouting on a farm in Oregon, the U.S. Agriculture Department said on Wednesday.

The wheat was developed years ago by biotechnology company Monsanto Co. but never put into use because of worldwide opposition to genetically engineered wheat…

Roughly half of the U.S. wheat crop is exported and most of the crop is used in making food such as breads, pastries, cookies and noodles. USDA officials said the Food and Drug Administration determined years ago there is no health risk to humans from the strain, though.

“Hopefully, our trading partners will be very understanding,” Michael Scuse, the acting U.S. deputy agriculture secretary, said at a briefing with reporters.

Scuse said trading partners and major customers for U.S. wheat had been informed of the discovery over the past day.

Genetically modified crops cannot be grown legally in the United States unless the government approves them after a review to ensure they pose no threat to the environment or to people.

Monsanto entered four strains of glyphosate-resistant wheat for U.S. approval in the 1990s but there was no final decision by regulators because the company decided there was no market.

The genetically modified wheat sprouted this spring on an Oregon farm, in a field that grew winter wheat in 2012.

When the farmer sprayed the so-called “volunteer” plants with a glyphosate herbicide, some of them unexpectedly survived. Samples were then sent to Oregon State University and to USDA for analysis…

Scuse and Michael Firko, who oversees USDA’s biotechnology approval process, said USDA was investigating how the strain appeared on the farm when no seeds should have been available for several years.

“I think it will have a significant impact,” said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association, which battled to keep genetically modified wheat out of the marketplace years ago.

The U.S. Senate last week rejected by a wide margin a measure to allow states to order labeling of food made with genetically engineered, or GE, crops. Cummins said the discovery of the rogue plants in Oregon would accelerate efforts to require GE food labels. (US Finds Unapproved Genetically Modified Wheat in Oregon. Reuters. May 29, 2013. http://www.voanews.com/content/us-unapproved-genetically-modified-wheat-oregon/1670962.html viewed 05/29/13)

There are many, many risks with GMO crops.  Notice that this crop allegedly occurred because “some of them unexpectedly survived.”

No matter what the USA government or other officials claim, there is no humanly possible way to guarantee that genetically-modified organisms ” no threat to the environment or to people.”

The fact that this GMO strain of wheat survived when presumably USA government and/or Monsanto scientists did not think that it could is further proof (there have been other “unexpected” incidents as well).

Some of the results are affecting the USA economically:

It has already begun: Japan has just cancelled a large contract to purchase U.S. wheat. “We will refrain from buying western white and feed wheat effective today,” Toru Hisadome, a Japanese farm ministry official in charge of wheat trading, told Reuters…Now we’re already seeing the result: the ditching of U.S. wheat by world nations that want nothing to do with GMOs.

Monsanto is a ticking time bomb for U.S. agriculture

This proves, without any question, that Monsanto’s genetic experiments which “escaped” into commercial wheat fields are now going to devastate U.S. wheat farmers. Expect the floor to drop out on wheat prices, and watch for a huge backlash against the USDA by U.S. farmers who stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars on this.

As the USDA has now admitted, Monsanto’s GMO experiments from 1998 – 2005 were held in open wheat fields. The genetically engineered wheat escaped and found its way into commercial wheat fields in Oregon (and possibly 15 other states), causing self-replicating genetic pollution that now taints the entire U.S. wheat industry.

“Asian consumers are keenly sensitive to gene-altered food, with few countries allowing imports of such cereals for human consumption,” writes Reuters. It continues:

Asia imports more than 40 million tonnes of wheat annually, almost a third of the global trade of 140-150 million tonnes. The bulk of the region’s supplies come from the United States, the world’s biggest exporter, and Australia, the No. 2 supplier.  Another incredible Monsanto achievement: the genetic contamination of the U.S. wheat supply

Nice job, Monsanto. You’ve managed to spew your genetic pollution across the fields of innocent U.S. farmers who are now going to lose huge sums of money due to the reject of U.S. wheat by all the other world nations that refuse to feed their populations GMO…

Genetically modified wheat is only the beginning. Monsanto has no doubt unleashed genetic pollution across many other crops as well. We’re now living in an age where Monsanto is essentially ejaculating its patented seed across all the farms of America, then claiming to “own” the contaminated crops. (Adams M. Monsanto is a Ticking Time Bomb for U.S. Agriculture: Japan halts Imports of U.S. Wheat after USDA’s Finding of Genetic Pollution from GMOs. Natural News, June 2, 2013.  http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-is-a-ticking-time-bomb-for-u-s-agriculture-japan-halts-imports-of-u-s-wheat-after-usdas-finding-of-genetic-pollution-from-gmos/5337283 viewed 06/02/13).

There are many risks of GMOs. And what may happen to the USA because of them will also be considered as “unexpected” by most government officials.

Are GMOs Putting the USA at Risk for Famine?

Notice also:

Now it appears that GMO crop failures are growing. Do we face the risk of famine as well?

In 2009 the South African Corn Crop Failure was linked to GMO seeds(1). “On January 17 [2010], internationally recognized plant pathologist Dr. Don Huber, wrote a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack warning of the discovery of a new pathogen and a possible link between Roundup Ready® (GMO) corn and soybeans and severe reproductive problems in livestock as well as widespread crop failure.”(2)This past March, scientists with the Natural Society called for immediate action to stop the GMO crop failure threat(3).

The USDA did nothing…

The Biotech system, that provides through “user fees” most of the FDA and USDA budget, can never be questioned.

Could it be, though, that GMO cloned monoculture itself is to blame? Are these chimeric species failing when they face stressed conditions?…

GMOs literally invade natural species and infect them with “alien” DNA. We need to rid the planet of these dangerous species that could lead to famine if not checked. (Bert G. Famine in America. July 11, 2012. http://drrimatruthreports.com/gmo-corn-crops-failing-in-the-usa-famine-to-follow/ viewed 06/05/13)

As the above suggests, the reality is that hunger is not just something that will affect children and poor outside the USA.

Concluding Comments

GMOs are not real food. Humans are supposed to eat real foods.

The increasing reliance on genetically-engineered “foods” is putting the USA’s food supply at risk.

The consumption of synthetic vitamins is one way that many in the USA consume GMOs.

Do you avoid GMOs? Something to think about.

Folic Acid is Hazardous to Your Health

Folic acid gets a lot of press coverage.  There are many reports that folic acid should be taken by pregnant women and may prevent birth defects.  Folic acid has also been claimed to help prevent cardio- and cerebral-vascular diseases.  Yet few reports have mentioned that folic acid is unnatural, folic acid is synthetic, and that the body cannot properly convert much folic acid into a usable folate form.  Furthermore, concerns about folic acid feeding cancer are now a real concern in the 21st Century—too much folic acid may kill you.

“Folic acid is a synthetic folate form” [1] and was not developed until the 20th Century [2].  Folic acid is chemically known as pteroylglutamic acid (PGA) and is a crystalline substance (no food vitamins are naturally crystalline in structure) [2,3].  Folate, once also known as vitamin B9, exists in foods, yet crystalline folic acid does not [1-4].  Folates also differ from folic acid “in the extent of the reduction state of the pteroyl group, the nature of the substituents on the pteridine ring and the number of glutamyl residues attached to the pteroyl group” [1].

An Irish study found that the body has trouble converting more than 266 mcg of folic acid per day [2]. “(C)onsumption of more than 266 mcg of synthetic folic acid (PGA) results in absorption of unreduced PGA, which may interfere with folate metabolism for a period of years” [2].  A 2004 paper from the British Medical Journal confirmed what many natural health professional have known all along: since folic acid is unnatural and the body cannot fully convert large amounts of it into usable folate, this artificial substance can be absorbed and may have unknown negative consequences in the human body [4].  One of the biggest scientific concerns about folic acid is that even in amounts close to official daily recommendations, some of it is absorbed in unreduced form into the bloodstream with potentially dangerous results [2,4].  Also, “(i)n vitro studies do show that PGA derivatives act to inhibit certain enzymes, including those associated with nucleotide biosynthesis” [4].  In spite of this, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has required that uncooked cereal grains and flour products be fortified with folic acid [1].

A JAMA study recently concluded that “studies have suggested that folate intake decreases risk of cardiovascular diseases. However…[f]olic acid supplementation has not been shown to reduce risk of cardiovascular diseases” [5].  This is because studies using folate (the natural form) show it works, yet folic acid (the synthetic form) does not.  Food folate is clearly superior.

Since food folate is natural and is absorbed through a different pathway than folic acid [2], long-term consumption of folate does not result in an accumulation of a foreign substance in the body, but instead has many benefits. 

Initially, food folate was given for people with a pregnancy-related anemia in the form of autolyzed yeast; later the synthetic form, folic acid, was developed [2].  Folic acid, as it exists in most supplements, is not found in foods, folates are [2].  USDA reports show that broccoli and alfalfa sprouts contain food folate [6,7] and they are considered to be the best food supplement source by some.  Furthermore, “folates are ubiquitous in nature, being present in nearly all natural foods…50 to 95% of folate in food may be destroyed by protracted cooking or other processing” [2].  Yeast, dark green leafy vegetables, and oranges have the highest folate content [1,2].

Folate is an important nutrient for healthy blood; the absence of any of it can trigger various forms of anemia (especially pernicious anemia) [2,8].  Subclinical deficiencies of folate may impair cognitive function [9].  Folate deficiency is the most important determinant in high homocysteine levels [9], and supplemental folate is effective in reducing homocysteine [10,11].  (Homocysteine is highly implicated in vascular diseases such as cardiovascular and other vascular disorders.)  “The major forms of folates found in food are methylTHF and formylTHF” [12]. 

While insufficient folate can result in fatigue, depression, confusion, anemia, reduced immune function, loss of intestinal villi, and an increase in infections [1,2,8], it is not totally clear what dangers long-term consumption of folic acid will cause [2,4].  Certain scientists believe that excessive consumption of folic acid may actually interfere with folate metabolism [2]—this could be expected to worsen conditions that would have otherwise benefited from real food folate.  Furthermore, “(v)ery large amounts of folic acid in its pharmacological oxidized (PGA) form may be noxious to the nervous system…and have provoked seizures in patients otherwise under control on anticonvulsant therapy” [2].

Excessive Folic Acid is Becoming a Health Concern

A 2010 report states, “”The more we learn about folic acid, the more it’s clear that giving it to everyone has very real risks,” says folic acid researcher David Smith, PhD, a professor of pharmacology at the University of Oxford in England…The risk experts worry about most: colon cancer. Last year, health officials in Chile reported that hospitalization rates for colon cancer among men and women age 45 and older more than doubled in their country since fortification was introduced in 2000. In 2007, Joel Mason, MD, director of the Vitamins and Carcinogenesis Laboratory at the Tufts University School of Medicine, described a study of the United States and Canada suggesting that rates of colon cancer rose — following years of steady decline — in the late 1990s (around the time our food was being fortified)” [13].

The same report also states, “Other research links high doses to lung and prostate cancers. In one study conducted in Norway, which doesn’t fortify foods, supplementation with 800 mcg of folic acid (plus B12 and B6) daily for more than 3 years raised the risk of developing lung cancer by 21 percent. Another, in which men took either folic acid or a placebo, showed those consuming 1,000 mcg of folic acid daily had more than twice the risk of prostate cancer. And a new worry recently came to light when scientists discovered the liver has limited ability to metabolize folic acid into folate — which means any excess continues circulating in the bloodstream. “Unlike folate, folic acid isn’t found in nature, so we don’t know the effect of the excess,” says Smith. Indeed, many scientists have grown increasingly concerned about mounting research — including a study published last winter in the Journal of the American Medical Association — suggesting that all the extra folic acid might increase your odds of developing cancer” [13].

Even foods “fortified” with folic acid may cause serious neurological problems in patients deficient in vitamin B12 [12].  Furthermore, “no folic acid dose can be considered as truly safe in the presence of untreated cobalamin deficiency” [12].

Laura Bell correctly reported, “We all need the natural folate found in leafy greens, orange juice, and other foods, and diets high in these foods are perfectly healthy; many researchers, though, believe that folic acid may be both friend and foe. When cells in the body are healthy, folate helps shepherd along the normal replication of DNA. But when cells are malignant or in danger of becoming so — and as many as half of adults older than 60 could already have precancerous colon polyps, while most middle-aged men have precancerous cells in their prostates — animal studies suggest excess folate in the form of folic acid may act like gas on the fire… lowering your intake to 400 mcg won’t hurt — and might help save your life” [13].

It is clear that since folic acid is unnatural, is synthetic, is chemically different, is structurally different, and is not absorbed in the same pathways as folate, long-term folic acid consumption may be hazardous to human health.  Folate in foods is what is safe and is the preferred form of folate for human consumption. Excessive folic acid may make cancer worse. And unlike folic acid, humans have been safely consuming food folate for thousands of years. 

I have been warning people against folic acid for many years [3,14].  Now it is becoming clearer and clearer that those warnings should have been heeded by more people.  Everyone should be concerned about taking synthetic/isolated USP vitamins like those containing folic acid.

References
[1] Hendler SS, Rorvik D, eds.  PDR for Nutritional Supplements.  Medical Economics, Montvale (NJ), 2001
[2] Shils ME, Olson JA, Shike M.  Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, 9th ed.  Williams & Wilkins, Balt., 1999
[3] Thiel R.  Natural vitamins may be superior to synthetic ones.  Med Hypo, 2000;55(6):461-469
[4] Lucock M.  Is folic acid the ultimate functional food component for disease prevention?  BMJ, 2004;328:211-214
[5] Bazzano LA, Reynolds K, Holder KN, He J.  Effect of folic acid supplementation on risk of cardiovascular diseases: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.  JAMA. 2006;296(22):2720-2726
[6] Broccoli, raw. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 18 (2005)
[7] Alfalfa seeds, sprouted raw.  USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 16-1, 2004
[8] Whitney EN, Hamilton EMN.  Understanding Nutrition, 4th ed.  West Publishing, NY, 1987
[9] Gonzalez-Gross M, Marcos A, Pietrzik K.  Nutrition and cognitive impairment in the elderly.  Br J Nutr 2001;86:313-321
[10] Verhoef P.  Homocysteine metabolism and risk of myocardial infarction: Relation with vitamin B6, B12, and Folate.  Am J Epidemiol 1996;143(9):845-859
[11] Brattstrom L.  Vitamins as homocysteine-lowering agents: A mini review.  Presentation at The Experimental Biology 1995 AIN Colloquium, April 13, 1995, Atlanta Georgia
[12] Carmel R.  Folic Acid.  In Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, 10th ed.  Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 2006:470-481
[13] Bell L. Is your breakfast giving you cancer? Research links too much folic acid to certain cancers.  Prevention. March. 29, 2010.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35874922/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition// 
[14] Thiel R. Is Folic Acid Hazardous to Your Health?  The Original Internist, 2004;11(2):39-40

Above article is expected to be published as Thiel R.  Is Folic Acid is Hazardous to Your Health.  What About Food Folate?  The Original Internist, June 2010.
Some of these studies (or citations) may not conform to peer review standards, therefore, the results are not conclusive.  Professionals can, and often do, come to different conclusions when reviewing scientific data.  None of these statements have been reviewed by the FDA. 

Doctors’ Research, Inc.  ”Nutrition from food, what a concept!”
1248 E. Grand Avenue, Suite A, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 WEB: www.doctorsresearch.com   FAX: 1-805-489-0334

Call 1-805-489-7185

For folate supplementation try Vitamin B6, B12 & Folate; Vitamin-Mineral; and Vitamin-Mineral Shake.   

Some of these studies (or citations) may not conform to peer review standards. Therefore, the results are not conclusive. Professionals can, and often do, come to different conclusions when reviewing scientific data. None of these statements have been reviewed by the FDA. All products distributed by Doctors’ Research, Inc. are nutritional and are not intended for the treatment or prevention of any medical condition