Natural Solutions Radio header image

Natural Solutions Radio #8<br>June 24,2000


This study was presented at a meeting of the American Urological Association. The researchers have surveyed almost 2,000 men aged 51 to 88 and found that 34% of them had moderate to severe erectile dysfunction (ED), which is defined as the inability to achieve or maintain an erection necessary for normal sexual intercourse.

The risk factors of ED included older age, high blood pressure, sedentary life style and being overweight. Men with a waistline or 42 inches were almost 2 times more likely to have ED than men whose waist was 32 inches. Men who exercised 30 minutes daily were much less likely to have ED than those who were not physically active.

Charcoal Feeds Several Needs Besides Barbecuing?

It's best known for feeding the flames - and appetites - of Memorial Day barbecues. But charcoal also has several medicinal purposes: Activated charcoal, an ingredient in many over-the-counter products, is pure carbon that can readily absorb and remove from the body various toxins. That's why it's used as a treatment for filter a treatment for foot excrete the toxins from insect relieve gas pains.


About 10,000 young men had their blood pressure checked as part of a large college study between 1948 and 1968. Thirty to 50 years later, many of these (no longer young) men have died from heart disease or stroke. The risk of dying was directly correlated to blood pressure during their college years. Men who had relatively higher blood pressure in their youth were much more likely to die from heart disease.

Another study of university alumni showed that even slightly elevated blood pressure in male students could accurately predict their risk of heart disease and stroke over the next 50 years. The authors feel that the risk of heart disease and stroke is "established long before middle age." This means that the earlier you start taking preventive measures and protecting yourself against heart disease, the better off you will be and the longer you will live.

SOURCE: The Lancet 2000;355:1430-1431.


When it comes to vitamins, most oncologist (cancer specialists) are adamantly against using them while undergoing cancer treatment. They mistakenly believe that anti-oxidants will protect the cancer cells and will render chemotherapy or radiation ineffective. According to this study, there is no reason to avoid antioxidants. In fact, they actually improve the effectiveness of the treatment and reduce the side effects.

Mice with colon cancer were treated with radioimmunotherapy, a form of treatment that uses specialized antibodies to deliver radioactive agents directly to the tumor cells. The goal is to kill the tumor by exposing it to high amounts of radiation without harming normal tissues. In addition to radiation, some mice also received either vitamins (C, E and A) or bone marrow transplant or both.

All the mice in the group that received radiation alone died. But there were many survivors in the vitamin group, even though the dose of radiation was the same. The authors mention previous studies in which vitamin E was shown to be deadly for malignant cells. They also note that no study has ever demonstrated that vitamins promote the formation of cancer.

SOURCE: International Journal of Cancer 2000;86:276-280.


Youngsters who eat foods with ample vitamins A, C and E are most likely to have healthy cholesterol levels. Children whose diets provide little or none of those antioxidants tend to have the highest levels of blood fats.

Food intake reports from parents were matched against laboratory test on the children's blood. The report on 13,376 youngsters ages 1 to 16 will be presented at a meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine in Nashville.

The more vitamin E in the diet, the lower the total cholesterol and triglycerides (another blood fat), and the higher the level of HDL (the good cholesterol).

Vitamin C intake correlated with lower total cholesterol and vitamin A with higher HDL.

Adults who eat diets rich in vitamin E have lower rates of heart disease. In families with a strong history of heart disease, it may be prudent to give children vitamin E supplements, unless they're getting a lot in their diets.

COMMENT: Key vitamin E sources are vegetable oils and nuts.

P.S This one is a little long yet it is important. Eliezer

Seeds of Destruction
by Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly

Every once in a while the NEW YORK TIMES knocks your socks off showing how the world got the way it is. This past Sunday the TIMES ran "Playing God in the Garden" by Michael Pollan --the cover story in the magazine section.[1] It explains why many of us are already eating genetically engineered foods like corn and potatoes without knowing it, and why there is a lot more genetically engineered food in our future whether we like it or not. It's the story of a powerful corporation on a dangerous mission and a huge government too feeble to intercede. The TIMES story makes these points:

** Genetically engineered food crops have been on the market in the U.S. for four years now. Some brands of corn, potatoes and soybeans are now genetically engineered.

** The nation's food safety authority --the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) --does not require genetically engineered food crops to be labeled as such, so none of us can know whether the food we are eating is genetically engineered or not. Chances are pretty good that if you eat french fries at McDonald's, or if you eat Frito-Lay potato chips, you've eaten a genetically-engineered potato patented by Monsanto, the St. Louis chemical giant. The TIMES story focuses on Monsanto's New Leaf Superior potato, a thin-skinned white spud found fresh in your supermarket.

** Monsanto's New Leaf Superior potato is, itself, legally registered as a pesticide with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] because it has been genetically engineered to poison any Colorado potato beetle that might eat even a tiny portion of it. Every cell of Monsanto's New Leaf Superior contains a gene snipped from a bacteria called BACILLUS THURIENGENSIS, or Bt for short, which produces a protein that is highly toxic to Colorado potato beetles. The Bt gene is present in every cell of a Monsanto New Leaf Superior, which is why the potato itself is registered as a pesticide.

** U.S. EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] has responsibility for licensing new pesticides. EPA pesticide officials believe that the New Leaf Superior potato is reasonably safe for humans. As a test, EPA fed pure Bt to mice without harming them. Because humans have eaten old-style New Leaf potatoes for a long time, and because mice are not visibly harmed by eating pure Bt, potatoes containing Bt genes must be safe for humans, EPA reasoned. The TIMES reported, "Some geneticists believe this reasoning is flawed" because inserting foreign genes into plants may cause subtle changes that are difficult to recognize. Only time will tell.

** The label on a bag of Monsanto's pesticidal potatoes in the supermarket lists all of the nutrients and micronutrients in the potato, but fails to mention that the potatoes have been genetically engineered or that they are legally a pesticide. Food labeling is ordinarily the responsibility of FDA.

** An FDA official told the NEW YORK TIMES that FDA does not regulate Monsanto's potato because FDA does not have the authority to regulate pesticides. That is EPA's job.

** EPA-approved pesticides normally carry an EPA-approved warning label. For example, a bottle of Bt bears a label that warns people to avoid inhaling Bt and to avoid getting Bt in an open wound. However, in the case of Monsanto's pesticidal potato, EPA says FDA has responsibility for requiring a label because the potato is a food. However, FDA told the TIMES that it only requires genetically-engineered foods to be labeled if they contain allergens or have been "materially changed" and FDA has determined that Monsanto did not "materially change" the New Leaf potato by turning it into a pesticide. Therefore no FDA label is required. Furthermore, the law that empowers the FDA (the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act) forbids FDA from including any information about pesticides on food labels. Pesticide labels are EPA's responsibility, says FDA, and we come full circle.

** Some genetically-engineered food crops are NOT registered as pesticides, and FDA DOES have the authority to regulate those. However, according to the TIMES, FDA maintains a list of foods that need no regulation because they are "generally recognized as safe" (or "GRAS"). Since 1992 FDA has allowed companies like Monsanto to decide for themselves whether their new genetically-engineered foods should be added to the GRAS list and thus escape regulation.

In other words, FDA regulation of genetically engineered foods is voluntary, not mandatory.

** A Monsanto official told the NEW YORK TIMES that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job," Angell said.

In sum, biotech is an industry in the grip of a frontier mentality. Anything goes. Government is a willing and servile participant. If it turns out worse than the chemical debacles of the last 50 years, will anyone be surprised?

** Monsanto's New Leaf Superior potatoes will have major effects on U.S. agriculture, regardless of their human health consequences (if any).

** Organic farmers --those who try to avoid synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers to the extent possible --apply powdered Bt sparingly to their crops from time to time, a natural pesticide of last resort. In this powdered form, Bt is neither present in high concentrations nor for very long because it degrades in sunlight. Therefore, insects have not developed "resistance" to Bt.

** But now that Bt is continuously present in whole fields of Monsanto potatoes, the insects in those field will be continuously exposed to Bt. Therefore it is only a matter of time before they develop "resistance" and become immune to Bt's toxic effects.

The mechanism of resistance is well understood because over 500 insects have become resistant to one pesticide or another since 1945. Not every potato beetle will be killed by eating Monsanto's pesticidal potatoes. A few hardy beetles will survive. When those few resistant beetles mate with other resistant beetles, a new variety of potato beetle will spring into being and it will thrive by eating Monsanto's potatoes. At that point, Bt will have lost its effectiveness as a pesticide. Then Monsanto will start marketing some new "silver bullet" to control the Colorado potato beetle. But what will the nation's organic farmers do? For private gain, Monsanto will have destroyed a public good --the natural pesticidal properties of Bt. Monsanto scientists acknowledged to the NEW YORK TIMES that the Bt-containing potato will create Bt-resistant potato beetles. They know exactly what they are trying to do. They are hoping to make a mint selling Bt-laced potatoes and, in the process, depriving their competitors (organic farmers) of an essential, time-honored tool. The strategy is brilliant, and utterly ruthless.

** For decades, Monsanto and other agrichemical companies have relentlessly promoted farming systems aimed at making farmers dependent on synthetic chemicals. With the enthusiastic support and complicity of USDA, the plan worked beautifully. In the U.S., the use of chemical pesticides grew 33-fold from 1945, peaking at 1.1 billion pounds (about 4.4 pounds per year for each man, woman and child) in 1995.1 Now with growing numbers of pesticide-resistant insects, and consumers better-informed about the dangers of pesticide residues on food, Monsanto acknowledges that "current agricultural technology is not sustainable," as their most recent annual report puts it. Now Monsanto is planning to shift American farmers from the pesticide treadmill to a biotech treadmill.

** For thousands of years, farmers have saved a portion of this year's crop to provide seeds for next year's crop. Monsanto intends to end that age-old practice by requiring farmers to come back to them each year to purchase new seeds. Potatoes are not grown from seeds --they are grown by planting "eyes" of other potatoes. Before you buy aag of Monsanto's pesticidal potatoes you must sign a contract promising that you will not retain any of your potatoes toward next year's crop. This will force you to purchase more potatoes from Monsanto next year. According to the TIMES, Monsanto is using informants and Pinkertons, and has brought legal action against hundre of farmers, to enforce its contract rights.

To tighten the noose on farmers, Monsanto has a new technology in the pipeline, called "the Terminator."[3] Terminator technology was developed with public funds by U.S. Department of Agricure (USDA) and a seed company that Monsanto is in the process of buying. The Terminator is a group of genes that can be spliced into any crop plant, sterilizing all of the plant's seeds. Once Terminator technology has been wideladopted, control of seed production will move from the farmer's field to corporate headquarters and farmers will become wholly dependent upon corporations for seeds. As the TIMES summarized it, "The Terminator will allow companies like Monsanto to privatize one of the last great commons in nature --the genetics of the crop plants that civilization has developed over the past 10,000 years." Brilliant and ruthless.

In a multi-million-dollar advertising campaign in Europe, Africa and the United States, Monsanto claims that its new emphasis on genetic engineering is aimed at feeding the world's hungry and saving the environment from pesticides of the kind it has produced in megaton quantities for the past 40 years.[2] However, the TIMES offered insights into genetic engineering tt make Monsanto's new path seem at least as destructive as its old path, and perhaps considerably worse.

** Monsanto says that its genetic manipulations are providing the "operating system" for running a new generation of plants. But the analogy breaks down quickly. A computer operati system, like DOS or Windows or Unix, is fully understandable by the programmers who wrote the code. On the other hand, the genetic code was written by the Creator and no human --or group of humans --understands even a small fraction of it. Putting genetically-engineered plants and animals into the natural environment is nothing more than a crap shoot --one with potential consequences fagreater than Monsanto's previous calamitous experiments, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and Agent Orange.[3]

** The TIMES says that, to create its New Leaf Superior pesticidal potatoes, Monsanto has had to introduce the Bt gene into thousands of potatoes to get it right because often the introduced gene ends up in an unexpected place in the potato's DNA, creating a plant that doesn't hae the right pesticidal properties, or one that is an outright freak. "There's still a lot we don't understand about ge expression," says David Stark, co-director of Naturemnto's potato subsidiary, in a monumental understatement.

** Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, told the NEW YORK TIMES that Monsanto's comparison of genetically engineered plants to an "operating system" isn't the right comparison. Instead, Lewontin said, the genetic code is more like an ecosystem. "You can always intervene and change something in it, but there's no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be or hoit might affect the environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another," Lewontin said. --Peter Montague (National Writers Union, W Local 1981/AFL-CIO)

[1] Michael Pollan, "Playing God in the Garden," NEW YORK TIMES October 25, 1998, pgs. 44-51, 62-63, 82, 92-93.

[2] David Pimentel and others, "Ecology of Increasing Disease," BIOSCIENCE Vol. 48, No. 10 (October 1998), pgs. 817-826.

[3] THE ECOLOGIST magazine devoted its most recent issue to Monsanto; see "The Monsanto FilesCan We Survive Genetic Engineering?" THE ECOLOGIST Vol. 28, No. 5 (Sept./Oct., 1998), pgs. 249-324. E-mail:


Any practices or advice given in this publication are not intended to replace the services of your physician, or to provide an alternative to professional medical treatment.

Copyright Issues?