Coffee protein mimics effects of morphine

coffee that mimics effects of morphine

coffee that mimics effects of morphine

Brazilian scientists have discovered a protein in coffee that has effects similar to pain reliever morphine, researchers at the state University of Brasilia (UnB) and state-owned Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation Embrapa said Saturday.

Embrapa said its genetics and biotech division, teaming up with UnB scientists, had discovered “previously unknown protein fragments” with morphine-like effects in that they possess “analgesic and mildly tranquilizing” qualities.

The company added tests on laboratory mice showed that the opioid peptides, which are naturally occurring biological molecules, appeared to have a longer-lasting effect on the mice than morphine itself.

Embrapa said the discovery has “biotechnological potential” for the health foods industry and could also help to alleviate stress in animals bound for the slaughterhouse.

In 2004, Embrapa managed to sequence coffee’s functional genome, a major step towards efforts by the firm and UnB to combine coffee genes with a view to improving grain quality.

Sugar kills good cholesterol,

sugar

sugar

Scientists at the University of Warwick have discovered that ‘good’ cholesterol is turned ‘bad’ by a sugar-derived substance.

The substance, methylglyoxal – MG, was found to damage ‘good’ HDL cholesterol, which removes excess levels of bad cholesterol from the body.

Low levels of HDL, High Density Lipoprotein, are closely linked to heart disease, with increased levels of MG being common in the elderly and those with diabetes or kidney problems.

Supported by funding from the British Heart Foundation (BHF) and published in Nutrition and Diabetes, the researchers discovered that MG destabilises HDL and causes it to lose the properties which protect against heart disease.

HDL damaged by MG is rapidly cleared from the blood, reducing its HDL content, or remains in plasma having lost its beneficial function.

Lead researcher Dr Naila Rabbani, of the Warwick Medical School, says that: “MG damage to HDL is a new and likely important cause of low and dysfunctional HDL, and could count for up to a 10% risk of heart disease”.

There are currently no drugs that can reverse low levels of HDL, but the Warwick researchers argue that by discovering how MG damages HDL has provided new potential strategies for reducing MG levels.

Commenting on the research’s implications Dr Rabbani said:

“By understanding how MG damages HDL we can now focus on developing drugs that reduce the concentration of MG in the blood, but it not only be drugs that can help.

“We could now develop new food supplements that decrease MG by increasing the amount of a protein called glyoxalase 1, or Glo 1, which converts MG to harmless substances.

“This means that in future we have both new drugs and new foods that can help prevent and correct low HDL, all through the control of MG.”

A potentially damaging substance, MG is formed from glucose in the body. It is 40,000 times more reactive than glucose it damages arginine residue (amino acid) in HDL at functionally important site causing the particle to become unstable.

Glo1 converts MG to harmless substances and protects us. MG levels are normally kept low in the body to maintain good health but they slowly increase with ageing as Glo1 slowly becomes worn out and is only slowly replaced.

Dr Rabbani says: “We call abnormally high levels of MG ‘dicarbonyl stress’. This occurs in some diseases – particularly diabetes, kidney dialysis, heart disease and obesity. We need sufficient Glo1 to keep MG low and keep us in good health.”

Source:   eurekalert.org

Gluten Causes Weight Gain

The case against gluten seems to have been closed with recent research from a Brazilian research team that published a report in the January 2013 Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry. It seems to have put an exclamation point on the wheat belly controversy.

The Study


Lacking scientific data confirming the mechanics of how gluten may or may not affect obesity, the study was set up to examine the differences in specific genetic and biochemical markers between rats fed gluten and rats that were kept gluten free.

The “wheat belly” syndrome and how it leads to other health issues was the purpose of their research. The research team chose biological markers that could indicate the onset of obesity and metabolic syndrome, precursors to diabetes and cardiac issues.

Both groups of rats were fed high fat diets. But one group was gluten free and the other group’s diet was 4.5 percent gluten. Even without tracing their predetermined markers, it was obvious the gluten free mice exhibited weight loss without any trace of lipid (fat) excretion.

An Analysis Of The Study


Sayer Ji of GreenmedInfo.com proposed this analysis: “… the weight gain associated with wheat consumption has little to do with caloric content per se; rather, the gluten proteins … disrupt endocrine and exocrine processes within the body, as well as directly modulating nuclear gene expression … to alter mamalian metabolism in the direction of weight gain.”

This study report, according to Sayer Ji proves that the major factor of obesity is gluten, not calories. Considering that both groups of mice were fed high fat diets and the gluten free mice lost weight without excreting lipids also implies that fat free diets for losing weight are bogus. This has been suspected by other nutritional experts who’ve abandoned matrix thinking.

Sayer Ji recommends that those who are overweight, pre-diabetic, experiencing metabolic syndrome, or suffering from irritable bowel syndrome try avoiding gluten grains, especially wheat, to determine from experience if gluten is the underlying cause.

There is evidence that gluten can be a factor in gut and psychology syndrome (GAPS) and even autism. (http://www.naturalnews.com/033094_gut_health_brain.html)

So How Did Wheat, “The Staff of Life,” Become A Weed of Disease?


Wheat is not the same today. It has been agriculturally hybrid, not genetically lab engineered over some decades to resist fungus, grow more quickly, and be more pliable for industrial bread baking. As a consequence, 50-60 years ago wheat containing only five percent gluten has become 50 percent gluten today.

Agricultural resources used the hybrid process for wheat to accommodate the baking industry’s mechanical requirements of pliable proteins, leading to the 10-fold increase of wheat’s gluten.

The processed food industry’s concern for production efficiency and perception of consumer demands has focused on the bottom line with the usual disregard to negative health consequences.

Slightly different high speed methods of baking evolved over time. By artificially bleaching flour and adding “improvers” with often toxic additives and mixing the dough violently, loaves of bread could be baked, cooled, and packaged within a few, short hours. Cheap, unhealthy foods for many with massive profits for a few.

This is beginning to change with measures that seem to offset gluten’s damage for some. For example, Whole Foods has their own bakery providing fresh breads daily without bromides, which can displace the thyroid gland’s iodine contents and create hypothyroidism.

Other local bakeries may provide sprouted grain and real sourdough breads, which even some celiac sufferers manage to consume without adverse reactions.

 

Source:  hungryforchange.tv

Brainless Chickens

 

A thought-provoking new model suggests the best way to avoid hurting chickens is to take away their ability to feel:
 A thought-provoking new model suggests the best way to avoid hurting chickens is to take away their ability to feel.


A thought-provoking new model suggests the best way to avoid hurting chickens is to take away their ability to feel.

Cramped cages. Extreme temperatures. Filthy surroundings. No doubt about it: Our industrial food system treats animal welfare as an afterthought. As a commentary on today’s “modern” farming, a London architecture student has created a thought-provoking design for a chicken farm that strips the birds of their mobility—and their brains. Royal College of Art student André Ford created the installation, dubbed The Centre for Unconscious Farming. It’s a pretty grim affair, made of a massive steel frame that would contain up to 1,000 birds. In it the chickens are completely immobilized—their feet are removed (to save space), and the birds receive food, water and oxygen through an intricate network of tubes. In order to eliminate the suffering that chickens would face under such conditions, Ford proposes that the birds’ cerebral cortex be removed, leaving the brain stem (and key homeostatic functions) intact. The chickens would continue to grow, but would basically spend their lives in a coma. Ford asserts his concept isn’t just a bid for attention: “In the past six years we have witnessed an unprecedented increase in the demand for meat. Higher welfare systems are available, but this project looks at addressing the inherent problems with the dominant system that produces the majority of our meat—the system that will be increasingly relied upon… We do not, and cannot, provide adequate welfare for those agricultural products and therefore welfare should be removed entirely.” Currently, about 95 percent of broiler chickens produced in the U.S.—about 8.44 billion birds annually—are raised in commercial farms, which frequently consist of dark sheds where thousands of animals are packed together ingesting ammonia fumes in extreme temperatures. The animals are bred to grow quickly, which often leads to heart and lung troubles, as well as crippling leg deformities. Compassion in World Farming estimates that tens of millions of birds die before slaughter from heart failure, disease, or injury during transport. Ford is not the first to propose extreme measures in light of our unrelenting demand. Agribusiness “philosopher” Paul Thompson has suggested breeding blind broilers, since studies show that they respond better to the stress of packed sheds. “There are numerous differences between the current dominant production systems and the one I am proposing,” Ford told Wired UK,“but the fundamental difference is the removal of suffering. Whether what I am proposing is an appropriate means to achieve the removal of suffering is open to interpretation.”

Wasteful Austria

Pre-Peeled, Re-Wrapped Bananas Are the Most Wasteful Sign of the Apocalypse Yet:

 

Pre-Peeled, Re-Wrapped Bananas Sign of the Apocalypse

Pre-Peeled, Re-Wrapped Bananas Sign of the Apocalypse

In what has to be the worst case of wasteful packaging in the history of modern conveniece, a grocery store in Austria is actually selling pre-peeled bananasthat have then been re-packaged in cellophane-covered foam trays. One of the reasons bananas have been billed as the world’s most perfect food is that they come with their own biodegradable packaging straight off the tree. And it’s not like you need a knife or some wacky kitchen contraption to peel them—the skin practically falls off on its own. Not surprisingly most customers are up in arms over the ridiculous repackaging stunt, except for the chain’s animated clientele who are optimistic the banished peels will dramatically reduce the risk of countless cartoon slipups. What’s even more maddening is that the supermarket chain’s slogan urges customers to use more common sense when shopping. “Paper, plastic, or ironic, sir?”

 

FDA says you have No Rights

 

The FDA Says You Have No Right To Freedom Of Food:

The FDA Says You Have No Right To Freedom Of Food

The FDA Says You Have No Right To Freedom Of Food

You thought you had the right to choose what you eat? The FDA says you don’t. They claim that there is no fundamental right to choose your food or freedom to contract for it. Responding to a Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund lawsuit, the FDA clearly states that you do not have the right to freedom of choice in your diet. Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) Lawsuit Against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FTCLDF is a 501(c)(4) organization, which means that it exists to promote the social welfare of its members and community. They define their reason for being in one sentence:

Sustainable farming and direct farm-to-consumer transactions further the common good and general welfare of all Americans.

Their Mission Statement says, in whole:

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is a 501 (c) (4) non-profit organization made up of farmers and consumers joining together and pooling resources to:

  • Protect the constitutional right of the nation’s family farms to provide processed and unprocessed farm foods directly to consumers through any legal means.
  • Protect the constitutional right of consumers to obtain unprocessed and processed farm foods directly from family farms.
  • Protect the nation’s family farms from harassment by federal, state, and local government interference with food production and on-farm food processing.

On behalf of its members and for all family farms in the US, the FTCLDF filed a lawsuit against the FDA, claiming “that the federal regulations (21 CFR 1240.61 and 21 CFR 131.110) banning raw milk for human consumption in interstate commerce are unconstitutional and outside of FDA’s statutory authority as applied to FTCLDF’s members and the named individual plaintiffs in the suit.” The FDA responded by claiming a number of things, including the absurd idea that the FTCLDF has no standing to file the case! That is, they’re claiming that the organization that represents the people who have been harmed by the FDA’s actions does not actually represent them. They claim that no harm has been shown, in spite of the fact that the FDA’s actions have prevented farmers from producing and selling raw milk and their customers have lost the ability to obtain it. The FDA’s Response and Claims. The FDA makes several statements in response to the lawsuit. The implications for personal freedoms are frightening. No Fundamental Right to Raw Milk. The FDA claims that “…plaintiffs’ assertion of a new ‘fundamental right’ under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law.” This implies that no rights exist unless they have been specifically granted. This concept runs completely counter to the basic concepts of the nation. The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

A basic notion in the founding of the nation is that rights do not have to be delineated. The rights identified in the Declaration of Independence clearly stated that they are merely “among” the obvious rights of people. How could anyone suggest that obtaining one’s food of choice is not an inherent right? FDA Has the Right to Set the Rules for How They May Be Controlled. The FDA claims that, before filing a lawsuit, the FTCLDF should have filed a petition with the FDA. In other words, they’re claiming that they have the right to set the rules by which they may be accessed and controlled. If the FDA has such a right, then it is unaccountable to the people. No Historical Tradition of Access to Food of Choice. The FDA states that “there is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to food of all kinds.” This implies that one does not have the right to a vegetable garden containing one’s choice of foods, or that choosing organic over petroleum-based fertilizer is not a right, or that one has no right to choose to eat a vegetarian diet. “There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health.” This title quotes the title of a section of the FDA’s response to the lawsuit. If that doesn’t terrify you, then nothing can. The FDA is, literally, claiming that they have the right to take a person’s health if it suits them. The section uses specious logic, claiming that there is no right to bodily and physical health because, according to them, there is no right to food choice, which is a claim that only the FDA could make. It’s interesting that the FDA is implicitly acknowledging that there is a connection between food and health, though they deny that one has a right to either freedom of food or pursuance of bodily and physical health. “There is No Fundamental Right to Freedom of Contract.” Another section of the FDA’s response is the above title claiming that individuals do not have the right to engage in contracts as they choose. This flies in the face of the basic right implied in the Constitution and strengthened by the 5th and 14th amendments. Limitations have been placed when contractual rights conflict with personal rights. However, the inherent right to freedom of contract has not been abrogated, in spite of the FDA’s claims. Their reference to it as “anachronistic” says more about the FDA’s attitude towards the people than it does about the intent of the law. “FDA’s Regulations Rationally Advance the Agency’s Public Health Mission.” This statement by the FDA—again, the title of a section of its response—is made without a shred of documentation in support. It is nothing more than a self-congratulatory statement of opinion, one that a large section of the American public does not accept. Indeed, the illogic and arrogance of the FDA’s entire response to the FTCLDF lawsuit tends to deny their claim to rationality. The logic the FDA is using seems to be: If it isn’t specifically named in the Constitution, then there is no such right. The absurdity of that logic is revealed by suggesting that you don’t have the right to breathe because it wasn’t specifically granted by the Constitution. What could be more basic to life and the right to live than the right to eat as we wish and obtain the food we wish to eat? We have the right to free speech and assembly. In light of that, how can the FDA claim that we don’t, by definition, have the right to eat what we choose? Could the Founding Fathers have possibly envisioned a government that would infringe on an individual’s right to choice in food? Nonetheless, we need to understand that, in one sense, the FDA is right. Unless we act to stop their intrusions into our rights, then their claims will, effectively, become law. They’ve almost accomplished it now. Consider that the FDA’s claim that you have no right to choose what you eat isn’t front page news. The battle is almost lost already. It’s time…no, it’s past time to take action. “But I Don’t Believe in Raw Milk” Some readers may believe that pasteurized milk is better. That’s your right. However, does that give the FDA the right to enforce pasteurized milk on everyone? At what point will the FDA be infringing on your rights to food and health? Many people have found that switching to raw milk has improved, and even cured, serious health problems. In light of the fact that the FDA has stated that you have no right to health, at what point will something you require be made illegal or difficult to obtain? Do you find that taking Vitamin C helps prevent colds? Are you aware that the FDA is planning to infringe on your right to take it? What about Vitamin D? Many people are finding that it improves their health, yet the FDA disagrees and wants to regulate it. Do you want the right to eat organic food? That may be abridged, too, as the FDA is grabbing the right to define what organic means. What about genetically modified foods? Studies are showing that they cause tremendous harm, yet the FDA doesn’t even want you to know when foods have been created through GM processes. The list can go on. If you’ve found that a certain food provides a particular health benefit, but someone has made a health claim for it, did you know that you can be denied access to it—simply because of that health claim? This is not about raw milk. This is about your right to pursue health and the food of your choice. Please, don’t ignore this plea. Whatever your views on any particular food, it should be self-evident that each person should have the right to obtain it. The FDA’s intrusions on our lives are egregious, fundamentally evil, and outrageous.

 

Trans fat causes aggression

More trans fat consumption linked to greater aggression:

Trans fat cooker

Trans fat cooker

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine have shown – by each of a range of measures, in men and women of all ages, in Caucasians and minorities – that consumption of dietary trans fatty acids (dTFAs) is associated with irritability and aggression.  The study of nearly 1,000 men and women provides the first evidence linking dTFAs with adverse behaviors that impacted others, ranging from impatience to overt aggression. The research, led by Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, associate professor in the UC San Diego Department of Medicine, has been published online by PLoS ONE.  Dietary trans fatty acids are primarily products of hydrogenation, which makes unsaturated oils solid at room temperature. They are present at high levels in margarines, shortenings and prepared foods. Adverse health effects of dTFAs have been identified in lipid levels, metabolic function, insulin resistance, oxidation, inflammation, and cardiac health.  The UC San Diego team used baseline dietary information and behavioral assessments of 945 adult men and women to analyze the relationship between dTFAs and aggression or irritability. The survey measured such factors as a life history of aggression, conflict tactics and self-rated impatience and irritability, as well as an “overt aggression” scale that tallies recent aggressive behaviors. Analyses were adjusted for sex, age, education, and use of alcohol or tobacco products.  “We found that greater trans fatty acids were significantly associated with greater aggression, and were more consistently predictive of aggression and irritability, across the measures tested, than the other known aggression predictors that were assessed,” said Golomb. “If the association between trans fats and aggressive behavior proves to be causal, this adds further rationale to recommendations to avoid eating trans fats, or including them in foods provided at institutions like schools and prisons, since the detrimental effects of trans fats may extend beyond the person who consumes them to affect others.”