Grains

"All disease is caused by autotoxication (self-poisoning) due to acid accumulation in the body."

"More recently, in his blockbuster book, Alkalize or Die , Dr. Thodore A. Baroody shook the scientific community, with proof that...

"The countless names of illnesses do not really matter. What does matter is that they all come from the same root cause... TOO MUCH ACID IN THE BODY!"

"...Over many years, this acid waste - plus additional acid that has entered your body through the environment - builds up inside your body, and your body's pH balance begins changing - from alkaline to acidic.

"That's when all heck breaks loose! That's because too much acid...

• "In your arteries - eats away at their linings and gives plaque a foothold - leaving you defenseless against cardiovascular problems or brain-destroying illnesses.
• "In your joints - erodes vital cartilage and leaves joints painfully inflamed.
• "In skin cells - causes premature wrinkling... dry, brittle nails and dull and lifeless hair!
• "...In your bloodstream - kills your body's defenses - leaving you with a compromised immune system, vulnerable to infection and worse.
• "In your body tissues - drains the storehouse in your bones - and causes crippling bone loss.
• "Slows Human Growth Hormone secretion... zaps your sex drive ... and makes it difficult to get a restful night's sleep .
• "Damages delicate enzymes that are essential for fighting germs... properly digesting foods... and even breathing!"

Source: True Health , P.O. Box 3703, Hueytown, Alabama 35023, 1-800-746-4513 - product Ultimate pH Balance, 12-month supply $239.40, Dr. Cutler, M.D.

What if I were to tell you that theres one simple cure you can use to beat osteoporosis... fatigue... joint pain ... muscle aches... brain fog... and allergies? You'd probably be skeptical. Yet it's true. It's the first thing I did to nurse myself back to health... and it's also worked on hundreds of my patients.

What is it? Simply to balance your acid and alkaline level.

You see, if you suffer from any of the ailments I mentioned above, the common cause is too much acidity in your body. Neutralize this acidity, and your problems often disappear. Here's why:

Almost all of the body's functions require a slightly alkaline state. This includes immunity, cardiovascular function, muscle function, brain function, tissue health, and energy output.

... But here's the problem: today's modern lifestyle creates a lot more acidity than your body can handle.

First off, the typical American diet is filled with acid-forming foods like wheat, dairy products, red meat, sugar, and coffee. In fact, the USDA did a study and found that the average American eats six times more acidic foods than alkaline ones!

... So what does your body do to make up for this? It starts taking calcium, magnesium, and other alkaline minerals from your bones! This happens day after day, year after year, until on day you have a bone density test and your doctor says "you have early osteoporosis."

And osteoporosis is just one of the problems caused by acidity. When your joints are acidic, you have joint pain. When your muscle tissues are acidic, you feel tired and achy. When the tissues of your brain are acidic, you feel mentally foggy. And when the tissues in your respiratory tract are acidic, the release histamine, causing sneezing, sniffly, and other allergy symptoms. "

Source: "Women's Wellness Today, Dr. Susan Lark's Guide to optimal Health & Balance", One Executive Way, Forrester Center, WV 25438 1-800-829-5876 8/2007

Why is Wheat Gluten Disorder on the Rise?

Sources:

Minneapolis Star Tribune July 1, 2009

Gastroenterology July 2009; 137(1):88-93

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

According to statistics from the University of Chicago Celiac Disease Center, an average of one out of every 133 otherwise healthy people in the United States suffers from the digestive disease known as celiac disease (CD).

Previous studies have found that this number may be as high as 1 in 33 in at-risk populations.

Unfortunately, despite its rapidly increasing prevalence, it still takes an average of four years to reach a diagnosis if you’re symptomatic. This delay in proper diagnosis can dramatically increase your risk of developing other diseases such as autoimmune disorders, neurological problems, osteoporosis, and even cancer.

For example, if you’re diagnosed with celiac disease after the age of 20, your chances of developing an autoimmune condition skyrocket from the average 3.5 percent to 34 percent. 

Additionally, according to this latest study, undiagnosed CD was associated with a nearly four-fold increased risk of premature death.

What Causes Celiac Disease?

Celiac disease, also more casually referred to as wheat- or gluten intolerance, occurs when your body cannot digest gluten, a protein most commonly found in wheat, rye and barley. However, it’s very important to realize that these are not the only culprits that can cause severe problems. Other grains such as oats and spelt also contain gluten, and gluten can be found in countless processed foods without being labeled as such.

"Gluten" comes from the Greek word for glue, and its adhesive properties hold bread and cake together. But those same properties interfere with the breakdown and absorption of nutrients, including the nutrients from other foods in the same meal.

The result is a glued-together constipating lump in your gut rather than a nutritious, easily digested meal.

The undigested gluten then triggers your immune system to attack the lining of your small intestine, which can cause symptoms like diarrhea or constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain.

In more recent years it’s been shown that the condition can also cause a much wider array of symptoms that are not gastrointestinal in nature, further complicating proper diagnosis.

Over time, your small intestine becomes increasingly damaged and less able to absorb nutrients such as iron and calcium. This in turn can lead to anemia, osteoporosis and other health problems. 

The rapid increase in celiac disease and milder forms of gluten intolerance is no surprise considering the modern Western diet, which consists in large part of grain carbohydrates.

Additionally, modern wheat is very different from the wheat your ancestors ate. The proportion of gluten protein in wheat has increased enormously as a result of hybridization.

Until the 19th century, wheat was also usually mixed with other grains, beans and nuts; pure wheat flour has been milled into refined white flour only during the last 200 years.

The resulting high-gluten, refined grain diet most of you have eaten since infancy was simply not part of the diet of previous generations.

The Many Symptoms of Gluten-Intolerance

In addition to nausea, diarrhea, constipation and abdominal pain, celiac disease may manifest clinically with an array of non-gastrointestinal symptoms, such as:

How to Treat Gluten Intolerance and Celiac Disease

The treatment for celiac disease or gluten intolerance is a gluten-free diet, which means abstaining from grains and any food that contains gluten. A blood test can verify whether or not you actually have the condition.

Typically, avoiding gluten for a week or two is enough to see significant improvement.

However, in my experience, about 75-80 percent of ALL people benefit from avoiding grains, even whole sprouted grains, whether you have a gluten intolerance or not. This is because, typically, grains rapidly break down to sugar, which causes rises in insulin that exacerbate health problems such as:

• Overweight
• High cholesterol
• High blood pressure
• Type 2 diabetes
• Cancer

The only consistent exceptions would be those whose nutritional type is a carb type and you don’t suffer symptoms of intolerance. However, it’s still important to realize that there is a major difference between vegetable carbs and grain carbs, even though they’re both referenced as "carbs." Unlike vegetables, grains convert to sugar, which is not something anyone needs in their diet in high amounts.

The rising prevalence of celiac disease is clear evidence that we’re simply not designed to consume such vast amounts of starch- and sugar-rich foods so many now indulge in.

In short, most people are consuming far too much bread, cereal, pasta, corn (a grain, not a vegetable), rice, potatoes and Little Debbie snack cakes, with very grave health consequences.

Yes, this even includes organic stone ground whole grains. Obviously these are healthier for you for a large number of reasons, but ultimately they cause the same problems through two mechanisms. Reaction to the protein gliadin in the wheat, and adverse impact on insulin metabolism. 

The fact is that two-thirds of the U.S. population is overweight or obese, and one in four Americans is diabetic or pre-diabetic. These are clear signs that our diets have strayed too far from the norm of what your body actually needs.

Fortunately there are communities in the US where overweight people are the minority. I spent ten days in Aspen, Colorado in early July and my guess is that less than 5 percent of the population is overweight.  Of course many European communities have levels this low, but it is very uncommon in the US.

Hidden Sources of Gluten

In order to combat gluten intolerance, it’s not enough to simply avoid grains. You must also pay attention to the quality of all the other foods you eat.

Remember, 90 percent of the money Americans spend on food is for processed foods. When you choose foods like this, not only are you bound to experience physical complications in one way or another, but if you have celiac disease it’s even more imperative you avoid processed foods due to hidden gluten.

Unfortunately, food manufacturers are not required by law to identify all possible sources of gluten on their product labels, so reading the label may not be enough.

Gluten may still be hiding in processed foods like ready-made soups, soy sauce, candies, cold cuts, and various low- and no-fat products, just to name a few, under labels such as:

• Malts
• Starches
• Hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP)
• Texturized vegetable protein (TVP)
• Natural flavoring

Celiac.com has a long list of label ingredients that typically contain hidden gluten.

For helpful tips and guidelines on how to approach food companies for more detailed information about their ingredients, see The Gluten Solution site. They also offer more detailed information about the current state of gluten-free labeling legislation.

That said, your best bet is to stick to a diet of fresh, whole foods (preferably organic whenever possible). Not only will you keep your celiac disease under control, but you will also experience numerous other benefits such as increased energy, enhanced mood, and a lower risk of chronic illness.

If you want more information about celiac disease, the following web sites are good places to start:

• www.celiaccenter.org
• www.celiac.com
• UK Web site for sufferers of celiac disease: www.coeliac.co.uk

THE PATHETIC STORY OF BLEACHED FLOUR

A further illustration of law enforcement negligence is found in the bleached flour case. On or about April 11, 1910, the Lexington Mill and Elevator Company shipped from Lexington, Nebraska to Castle, Missouri, a consignment of six hundred twenty-five sacks of flour, labeled "L 48-1 pounds Lexington Cream XXXXX Fancy Patent. This flour is made of the finest quality hard wheat. Lexington Cream--Lexington, Neb.--Lexington Mill & Elevator Co."

In due course libel was filed against the said 625 sacks of flour, charging that the product was adulterated and misbranded, and praying seizure and condemnation of said flour. In due course the case was called in the District Court of the United States in the Western Division of Missouri, by Arba S. Van Valkenburgh, District Attorney. Fortunately, the United States was able to secure as associate counsel for the prosecution of this case Mr. Pierce Butler, who assumed the principal rôle of the prosecuting officer, and is now an honored Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Extensive testimony was given by experts, millers, wheat-growers, wheat-buyers, and other competent parties, both for and against the process of bleaching. The Honorable Smith McPherson acted as judge in the case. Judge McPherson in instructing the jury, used in part the following language (Notice of Judgment No. 722, November 4, 1911):

"The flour seized in this case is an article of food within the meaning of the act of Congress. And if the treatment of the same by the Alsop process caused it to contain any added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredient of a kind or character which may render the same injurious to health, then it is adulterated and must be condemned. "It is admitted that this flour was treated by the Alsop process for the purpose of bleaching or whitening, and the evidence establishes that nitrogen-peroxide gas was employed for that purpose and further establishes that that gas, nitrous acid, nitric acid, and nitrites of the kind which may be produced by such treatment are poisonous and deleterious substances, and that these substances when taken in sufficient quantities will produce poisonous action or death.

"It appears from the evidence in this case that the bleaching process imparts and adds to flour substances referred to in the testimony as nitrites or nitrite-reacting material, and such substances were imparted to the flour seized in this case by the bleaching process. It further appears from the evidence that such substances so imparted or added to this flour are qualitatively both poisonous and deleterious, that is to say, that these substances are of a poisonous and deleterious character.

"It is well known that wheat flour is not eaten raw. There is evidence in this case that tends to show that during the process of making bread nitrites or nitrite-reacting material contained in the flour is lessened and may be eliminated under some circumstances, but it is also well known that wheat flour is used for the making of other articles of food--biscuits, dumplings, pastry, cake, crackers, gravy, and perhaps other articles of food--which may be consumed by all classes of persons--the young, the old, the sick, the well, the weak, the strong; and I charge you that it is right for you in reaching your verdict to take these facts into consideration together with all the other proven facts and circumstances in the case.

"The fact that the Patent Office at Washington issued a patent for the Alsop process has nothing to do with the question of branding correctly, or misbranding of flour. The fact that the Patent Office issued a patent for the Alsop process does not warrant nor authorize the adulteration of flour as made by the Alsop process if it is adulterated. All these things must be put to one side, and your verdict must be determined in accordance with the law and facts in the case. It is of no importance to, you, nor is it of importance to me, who will be pleased or displeased in this case, whether of counsel or of the parties, or of any other person. The only question is, "What is the right, and what is the wrong of this case?"

Thereafter the jury returned verdicts as follows: "We, the jury, find that the flour seized in this case is adulterated. (Signed, John W. Thomason, Foreman.) " "We, the jury, find that the flour seized in this case is misbranded. (Signed, John W. Thomason, Foreman.)"

An appeal was taken from the decision of the Court and the jury to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals of the Eighth District. On January 23, 1913, the case having come on for hearing before the Circuit Court of Appeals, the judgment of the Court below was reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial. In reversing this verdict the Circuit Court said:

"The Court charged the jury: 'It is clear that it was intended by Congress to prohibit the adding to the food of any quantity of the prohibited substance. The fact that poisonous substances are to be found in the bodies of human beings, in the air, in potable water, and in articles of food such as ham, bacon, fruits, certain vegetables and other articles does not justify the adding of the same or other poisonous substances to articles of food, such as flour, because the statute condemns the adding of poisonous substances. Therefore, the court chargeth you that the Government need not prove that this flour, or food stuffs made by the use of it, would injure the health of any consumer. It is the character, not the quantity of the added substance, if any, which is to determine this case.'

"The trial judge decided that if the added substance was qualitatively poisonous, although in fact added in such minute quantity as to be non-injurious to health, that it still fell under the ban of the statute; and the distinction is sought to be drawn between substances admittedly poisonous when administered in considerable quantities but which serve some beneficial purpose when administered in small amounts, and those substances which it is claimed never can benefit and which in large doses must injure. The distinction is refined. To apply it must presuppose that science has exhausted the entire field of investigation as to the effect upon the human body of these various substances . . . that nothing remains to be learned. Otherwise the court would be required to solemnly adjudge today that a certain substance is qualitatively poisonous because it can never serve a useful purpose in the human system only to have this conclusion made absurd by some new discovery.

There is no warrant in the statute for such a strained construction. The object of the law was evidently (1) to insure to the purchaser that the article purchased was what it purported to be, and (2) to safeguard the public health by prohibiting the inclusion of any foreign ingredient deleterious to health. Hall-Baker Grain Co. v. United States (198 Fed. 614). The statute is to be read in the light of these objects, and the words 'injurious to health' must be given their natural meaning. It will be observed that this paragraph of the statute does not end with the words 'added deleterious ingredient,' but as a precaution against the idea embodied in the instruction complained of, it says 'which may render such article injurious to health.' Without these latter words, it might, with more force, be argued that deleterious and beneficent ingredients are to be divided into two general classes independent of that particular effect in the actual quantities administered, but the possibility of injury to health due to the added ingredient and in the quantity in which it is added is plainly made an essential element of the prohibition. The investigation does not stop with the consideration of the poisonous nature of the added substance. It is added to the article of food and the statute only prohibits it if it may render such article--the article of food--injurious to health.

"The judgment below must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial, and it is so ordered."

(Notice of Judgment 2549, issued October 18, 1913.)

The Department of Justice immediately appealed from the decision of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States. The case was called by the Supreme Court on February 24, 1914. The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Circuit Court below and remanded the case to the original court for retrial. The decision of the Supreme Court was written by Mr. Justice Day, and was a unanimous decision. The Supreme Court made many luminous explanations in regard to the matter under consideration. The decision, among other things, states:

"The statute upon its face shows that the primary purpose of Congress was to prevent injury to the public health by 'the sale and transportation in interstate commerce of misbranded and adulterated foods. The legislation, as against misbranding, intended to make it possible that the consumer should know that an article purchased was what it purported to be; that it might be bought for what it really was and not upon misrepresentations as to character and quality. As against adulteration, the statute was intended to protect public health from possible injury by adding to articles of food consumption poisonous and deleterious substances which might render such article injurious to the health of consumers. If this purpose has been affected by claims and unambiguous language,, and the act is within the power of Congress, the only duty of the courts is to give it effect according to its terms. * * * Congress has here in this statute, with its penalties and forfeitures, definitely outlined its inhibition against a particular class of adulteration. * * *

"It is not required that the article of food containing added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredients must affect the public health, and it is not incumbent upon the Government, in order to make out a case, to establish that fact. The act has placed upon the Government the burden of establishing, in order to secure a verdict of condemnation under this statute, that the added poisonous or deleterious substances must be such as may render such article injurious to health. The word 'may' is here used in its ordinary and usual signification, there being nothing to show the intention of Congress to affix to it any other meaning. It is, says Webster, 'an auxiliary verb, qualifying the meaning of another verb by expressing ability, * * * contixgency or liability, or possibility or probability.' In thus describing the offense Congress doubtless took into consideration that flour may be used in many ways-in bread, cake, gravy, broth, etc. It may be consumed, when prepared as a food, by the strong and the weak, the old and the young, the well and the sick; and it is intended that if any flour, because of any added poisonous or other deleterious ingredient, may possibly injure the health of any of these, it shall come within the ban of the statute. (Notice of Judgment 3398.)

The above quotation, it will be observed, is largely based on the instructions given by the trial judge, the Honorable Smith McPherson, to a trial jury. The information, however, which it gives those who undertake to prove injury to health is of the highest significance. The Supreme Court of the United States says to those who enforce the law that it is not required "that the article of food containing added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredients must affect the public health, and it is not incumbent upon the Government, in order to make out a case, to establish that fact." This italicizing of this statement was not done by the Supreme Court, but by myself. I believe it is a very important statement made by the Supreme Court in regard to the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act. It was worth all the trouble and disappointment of having the decision of the bleached flour case reversed in order to secure such a luminous explanation as the result thereof.

When this case was decided the World War had already broken into flames over the whole continent of Europe. It was soon evident that the United States of America would eventually be drawn into this whirlpool of destruction. There is no wonder that all thought of bleached flour was forgotten in the excitement and activities which preceded our entrance into this great conflict. It was not until the contest was over and the victory had been won that any further procedure was taken. It was not until April 1, 1919, that counsel for the government of the United States called the attention of the District Court of the Western District of Missouri to the fact that the mandate of the Supreme Court had never been put into effect. Under the ruling of the Supreme Court the claimants for the 625 sacks of flour had had practically the whole foundation of their defense swept away. They were very glad, therefore, to make some arrangement with the District Attorney whereby they could retire, not without laurels, from any further contest of this case. To this end they proposed that if one section of the libel would be dropped they would enter a plea of nolle contendere to the other parts of the libel. Accordingly, Francis M. Wilson, United States District Attorney, withdrew section e of the libel which reads as follows:

" (c) In that, by the treatment as aforesaid, the said flour has been caused to contain added poisonous, or other added deleterious ingredients, to wit: nitrites or nitric reacting material, nitrogen peroxide, nitrous acid, nitric acid, and other poisonous and deleterious substances, which may render said flour injurious to health."

Accordingly, the Court entered the following verdict on the 9th day of, April, 1919:

"Now, therefore, it is ordered that the said amended libel be taken pro confesso; and the said cause coming on to be heard ex parte, and the court being fully advised, doth find all of the allegations of said amended libel herein are true.

"It is, therefore, ordered adjudged and decreed that the six hundred and twenty-five (625) sacks of flour, more or less, as aforesaid, be and the same are hereby condemned and forfeited to the United States, and the marshal of this court is hereby ordered and directed to proceed to confiscate and utterly destroy all of said property, and to report to this court how he executed this order and decree.

"It is further ordered adjudged and decreed that the taxed costs of the libelant herein, and the taxed costs of the claimant, be paid by the claimant, Lexington Mill and Elevator Company, said claimant in open court consenting thereto." (Notice of Judgment No. 6380.)

This famous case was ended April 9, 1919. No notice, however, was taken of this event by the executive officials of the Department of Agriculture, until July 31, 1920. On this date the following remarkable document was issued:

"Labeling Bleached Flour. Department of Agriculture Announces Ruling on Bleached Flour Under the Food and Drugs Act. Washington, D. C., July 30, 1920 -

Bleached Flour coming within the jurisdiction of the Federal Food and Drugs Act is adulterated if the bleaching has reduced the quality and strength of the flour or concealed damage or inferiority, according to a statement issued to-day by the Bureau of Chemistry, United States Department of Agriculture, in answer to a number of inquiries regarding the attitude of the department on the bleaching of flour. Bleached flour may be shipped within the jurisdiction of the law only under the condition that the bleaching has not concealed inferiority or impaired the quality or strength of the article, and then only on condition that it is branded plainly to indicate that it has undergone a process of bleaching. Failure to label the containers to show that such flour has been bleached will subject it to a charge of misbranding

"The United States Supreme Court has ruled with reference to the section of the law relating to the addition of a poisonous or deleterious ingredient that to constitute an offense an article of food sold must, by the addition of an ingredient, be rendered injurious to health, and, furthermore, that all the circumstances must be examined to determine whether the article of food has been rendered injurious. No action will be taken at the present time on the ground that bleaching introduces into the flour a substance which may be injurious to health, say the officials, provided as a result of bleaching there is not introduced into the flour such a quantity of the bleaching agent as may render it injurious as indicated in the decision of the Supreme Court. Should evidence later become available that the bleaching of flour introduces an ingredient in minute quantities which has the effect of rendering the article injurious to health, announcement of the fact will be made and appropriate action taken to prevent thereafter the shipment of bleached flour within the jurisdiction of the food and drugs act.

"Whether bleaching in any given shipment reduces the quality and strength of the flour or conceals damage or inferiority must be decided on the basis of the facts in each particular case. "

In regard to this document I may say that its purpose evidently was to open wide the opportunities for bleaching flour and the promise that no action would be taken looking to a restriction of this process. In point of fact no effort has ever been made directly or indirectly to take advantage of this victory before the court in considering bleached flour as both an adulterated and misbranded article. The result is that the millers who at first were unwilling to indulge in bleaching have been forced to bleach in order to maintain their trade. This proclamation was properly interpreted by the bleachers. They knew its exact intent, that it was an open statement to the millers and the public that no further steps toward the control of this injurious and highly undesirable practice would be taken in any way to restrict or hinder this practice. Nearly ten years have now elapsed since this proclamation was made, and so far as bleaching flour is concerned by any process whatever the Food and Drugs Act does not exist. It seems indeed incredible that a food enforcement bureau of any kind, would read into the opinion of the Supreme Court an entirely antagonistic statement respecting injury to health. The food enforcement officers said you must convict the adulterator of injuring health. The Supreme Court said it is not necessary on the part of the Government to bring any evidence looking to the actual establishment of injury and it is not incumbent upon the Government to do this. All the Government has to do is to show the possibility in the most extreme case of doubt that such injury may take place. Thus the very law which the Supreme Court has said was enacted chiefly to protect the public health has been turned into a measure to threaten public health and to defraud the purchasers of flour.

GOING BACK TO BUSINESS PRACTICES

A more pointed illustration of how the administration of the food law is gradually being transferred to manufacturers of food products is found in a circular issued by the Department of Agriculture of September 302 1927, in regard to the floating of oysters. The title of this remarkable contribution is "New Jersey Oyster Industry Adopts Plan to Improve Oysters." The "improvement" in oysters is to introduce into them certain quantities of water which the old regulations in regard to oysters forbade. It calls attention to the fact that the New Jersey shippers of oysters are dissatisfied with governmental rulings respecting excessive quantities of added water. Different regulations permitting the addition of water have been unanimously adopted by the New Jersey dealers. This action on the part of the New Jersey dealers was taken as a result of an old ruling of the Department of Agriculture for preventing shipment into interstate commerce of oysters floated in water less salty than that in which they were grown. The circular says: "It developed that the aims of the oystermen and of the department were in harmony, namely, the production of the best oysters possible for the market in accordance with good commercial practices, and in which are incorporated no greater quantities of added water than are necessary, it being recognized that in the commercial cleansing of oysters for the market a small amount of water is necessarily incorporated. * * * "The desire of the oystermen to place on the market only oysters of the highest grade is shown by their proposal to arrange for scientific investigations of the habits and characteristics of the oyster, with a view to obtaining the knowledge necessary to a final determination of the best procedure to insure the best oysters for the market, and desirable methods for obtaining the cleanest oysters with a minimum amount of added water." Here is a great industry which had been saved from practical destruction by the original ruling of the Department that no water of any kind should be added to oysters in shipment or otherwise, and that the ice which kept them cold in shipment should be placed on the outside of water-tight tin boxes in which the oysters were carried. It is not true that any washing of oysters is necessary in preparing them for market. The only purpose of the washing is to introduce additional quantities of water which will make the oysters swell and look bigger and fatter than they are. This is a complete surrendering to the industry of the task of making rules and regulations for conducting this industry, not in the interest of the consumer but in the interest of the producer. It marks an entire reversal in these matters. The Food and Drugs Act was based on commercial practices which were detrimental and injurious to the consuming public. If the oyster industry is permitted to make its own regulations and its own scientific investigations there is no reason to doubt that all other industries will in the near future be accorded the same privilege.

  A few years ago I was waiting to buy a ticket from New York to Boston. When the man in front of me bought his ticket and turned around, he recognized me and asked: "Are you Dr. Wiley?" I said I was. He said: "A few years ago I was the president of the Long Island Oyster Association. We regarded you as the arch-enemy of our industry when under your direction the ruling was issued that we should not add water to oysters that we shipped, nor place ice in contact with the oysters that we shipped. We considered you a devil incarnate. Now we know that decision was the salvation of our industry and I want to take your hand and congratulate you on doing the greatest service to the oyster industry that could possibly have been done. We are selling a dozen times as many oysters now in a perfect condition as they come from the water as we did at the time of your ruling.

ATTITUDE OF THE CHIEF OF THE FOOD, DRUGS AND INSECTICIDE, ADMINISTRATION Mr. W. G. Campbell, the new chief of the food enforcement unit, having succeeded the former Bureau of Chemistry, recently said: "Respect for the law can be maintained only when there is a full realization on the part of those who are regulated that disregard of its provisions will be promptly followed by legal action." This is a concise and perfect statement of the purpose of the Food Law. Not only is it the duty of the officials to enforce these provisions, but the law itself states there shall be no delay. It seems quite impossible to reconcile this statement of the Director of the Regulatory Service with the following one: "While the food and drugs act remains what it has always been, a statute of protection primarily in character, but corrective rather than punitive, a course established to meet the conditions of two decades ago will be inadequate as a present day plan." Here it is stated that a new "course" has been established, yet no change has been made in the punitive provisions of the old law. Only the enforcing bureau has been changed and a new bureau put in its place by legislation illegally engrafted on an appropriation bill. The only conclusion to be drawn from this statement is that a new law has been established by the enforcing officers without the aid of Congress and without any opportunity of discussing its principles. In further justification of this new law Mr. Campbell says: "With the change in the attitude of the industry, the Bureau of Chemistry had more and more as years passed by adopted 'an advisory before the act' attitude in dealing with individuals shipping commodities subject to the law, and that attitude will unquestionably continue to be the keynote of the Food, Drug and Insecticide Administration." This remarkable statement, coming from the chief of the new Regulatory Unit, proclaims to the world that the chief function hereafter will be the education of those who disobey the act in an effort voluntarily to get them to desist. In other words, the punitive features of the law, which are the only ones in the law, are to be neglected for the sake of the corrective activities established by the enforcing officers. Continuing the quotation, Mr. Campbell says: "At the time the agitation for the enactment of the Federal measure had its inception the number of food and drug manufacturers whose conception of business ethics was tersely. 'let the buyer beware' constituted at least a very imposing minority. Today enforcing officials will be unanimous in expressing the conviction that deliberate violations in the distribution of foods and drugs are extremely rare. This change in attitude of the industry during the past two decades has made it possible, therefore, in a large measure to recast the methods of law enforcement so as to emphasize the corrective features of the food and drugs act rather than the punitive side of the measure." This statement concisely expresses the complete paralysis of the food law. It is to be recast without appeal to Congress. There is nothing in the food law about corrective measures. These corrective measures have been at the instigation of the food officials without any warrant whatever from legislation. The food law is exclusively punitive, and this construction of it has been approved more than once by the Supreme Court of the United States. Why then should officials who have taken an oath to support the Constitution and the laws made thereunder, read into the law as its chief feature a meaning absolutely foreign to its purpose? The Bureau of Chemistry as constituted at the time of enforcement of the act was solely concerned in enforcing its punitive regulations. It did not consider it advisable to waste energy from its sworn duty in setting up a kindergarten or Sunday School to persuade violators of the law to desist. The law pointed out exactly what it should do, and for a short time only was this purpose of the law carried out. There is no wonder that the administration of the food law has so hopelessly broken down. It would be a matter of interest if those enforcing the food law would take a little time off and read the law carefully once more in order that they might see what their duties really are The Moss Committee, on page 5 of their report, after citing all the difficulties placed in the path of the Bureau of Chemistry in its efforts to execute the law, says:

"Thus the administration of the law began with a policy of negotiation and compromise between the Secretary and the purveyers of our national food supplies. * * *

"It was a matter for profound congratulation that the great body of American citizenship yielded prompt and willing obedience to the law, and to such it was only required that the terms of the law be fully explained. The necessary readjustment of their business required time, and it was good administration to grant reasonable opportunity for such a purpose." At the present time there is no manufacturer of foods in this country who does not understand that he is to tell the truth on his labels and to add no substances injurious to health to his food products. Although the use of various injurious agents has been permitted by the perversions of the law, practically the use of such preservatives as benzoate of soda and borax is today unknown. There is no need, therefore, of any further education or persuasion of food manufacturers to obey the law. What is needed now is to brush away all the illegal restrictions which were fastened round the Bureau of Chemistry, and to execute the law as it was written, and as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court The Supreme Court in the case of the United States vs. Morgan et al. in a decision handed down December ill 1911, made this pregnant remark "Repeals by implication are not favored, and there is certainly no presumption that a law passed in the interest of the public health was to hamper district attorneys, curtail the powers of grand juries or make them, with evidence in hand, halt in their investigation and await the action of the department. To graft such an exception upon the criminal law would require a clear and unambiguous expression of the legislative will." The above is a hard blow to a repeal by illegally abolishing the Bureau of Chemistry.

THE CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE MATTER An endeavor has been made in the preceding pages to set down the facts relating to the amazing crime of perverting the Food and Drugs Act of 1906 and destroying the Bureau of Chemistry. The leit motif has been only to tell the truth. Sometimes telling the truth is not wise. If, however, one tells anything it should be the truth. The common adage says that speech is silver and silence is gold. These efforts, therefore, may be considered as an essay on free silver. In these concluding pages the purpose is to summarize the main points, and to show the way to the new era.

ILLEGAL FOOD AND DRUG DECISION All of the decisions of the "Board of Food and Drug Inspection" were illegal. It was not provided for in the Act and the plain purpose of its organization was to prevent the Bureau of Chemistry from carrying out the provisions of the law. Theoretically all of the decisions should be repealed. Many of them were in strict accordance with the terms of the law, and therefore are not necessarily to be deleted. The following numbered decisions are in strict violation of the law, and the first step toward clearing the atmosphere and restoring the Food Law to its pristine form is the repeal of the following food inspection decisions. Some of these decisions were those of the Board of Food and Drug Inspection; others were signed by the members of the Cabinet directed by law to make rules and regulations for carrying the law into effect. Whenever the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor signed a Food Inspection Decision, it became a rule and regulation. Rules and regulations not for the purpose of carrying the law into effect were illegal. The three secretaries had no warrant of law to decide what was or was not adulterated or misbranded.

The numbers of these decisions which should immediately be repealed are as follows:

• No. 76. Pertaining to dyes, chemicals and preservatives in foods.

• No. 77 ;Certificate and control of dyes permissible for coloring foods and foodstuffs.

• No. 86. Original packages: Interpretation of regulation 2 of Rules and Regulations for. Enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act. No. 87. Labeling of "Corn Syrup."

• No. 89 Amendment to Food Inspection Decision

• No. 76, relating to use in Foods of Benzoate of Soda and Sulphur Dioxide.

• No. 92. The Use of Copper Salts in the Greening of ;Foods.

• No. 102. Entry of Vegetables Greened With Copper Salts.

• No. 104. Amendment to Food, Inspection Decision

• No. 76 and No. 89 Relating to Use in Foods of Benzoate of Soda.

• No. 107. Decision of the Attorney-General in Regard to the Referee Board.

• No. 108. Importation of Coffee.

• No. 113. Labeling of Whisky Mixtures and Imitations Thereof Under the Foodand Drugs Act of June 30, 1906.

• No. 117. The Use of Certified Colors.

• No. 118. Labeling of Whisky Compounds under F. I. D No. 113.

• No. 120. Labeling of Ohio and Missouri Wines.

• No. 121. Floating of Shellflsh. the United States.

• No. 125. Labeling of Cordials.

• No. 127 Decision of the Attorney-General in Regard to the Labeling of Whisky sold under Distinctive Names.

• No. 130. Amendment to Regulation No. 5.

• No. 131. The Composition of Evaporated Milk.

• No. 134. The Labeling of New Orleans Molasses.

• No. 135. Saccharin in Foods.

• No. 138. Saccharin in Foods.

• No. 142. Saccharin in Foods.

The abolition of the above Food Inspection Decisions will clear the way for the remaining steps The most important of these remaining steps is to repeal the permission given by the Remsen Board of Consulting Scientific Experts to add alum, benzoate of soda, saccharin and sulphur dioxide to our foods. From the earliest days of food regulation the use of alum in foods has been condemned. It is universally acknowledged as a poisonous and deleterious substance in all countries. The United States is the only country which permits, of course illegally, the addition of alum to our food supply.

The next most important step is to secure from the officials enforcing the Food and Drugs Act a recognition of the actions of the courts under the operation of the Food and Drugs Act in convicting the manufacturers of bleached flour and Coco-Cola. In all these cases judgments of the Court condemning the use of all these substances were secured, but in no case was any -effort ever made by the enforcing officers to follow up the, Court decision. By reason of this fact interstate commerce in foods containing bleached flour, benzoate of soda, sulphur dioxide and sulphites, together with soft drinks containing caffeine, such as Coca-Cola, go on unimpeded and unrestricted in all parts of the United States. The health of our people is constantly threatened by the use of these articles in our food.

The next step in the reform of the execution of the Food and Drugs Act is to follow out the provisions of the law absolutely. At the present time the officials in charge of the enforcement of the law boast of the fact that they are not following out the punitive sections of the law, but its corrective sections. Unfortunately for those who make this plea, the law contains no corrective measure except by punishment. It is a new law enacted by the officials themselves without authority of Congress which they are enforcing. The final step to complete the restoration of the law is the repeal of the provision in the appropriation bill abolishing the Bureau of Chemistry and the restoration of the execution of the law to the revivified Bureau. This is the only amend honorable that could possibly be made for the destruction of the Bureau of Chemistry and the transfer of its authority by an item engrafted, on an appropriation bill. It may be that the present arrangement is much better than that enacted by Congress. It would be entirely proper, therefore, after this restoration is made, to introduce a new bill into the Congress of the United States, providing for the destruction of the Bureau of Chemistry and the transfer of its authority to the present unit in the Secretary's office. No attack has been made upon the provisions of the law. They remain exactly as Congress enacted them. It is, therefore, the duty of the present administrative unit to urge the abolition of all these illegal restrictions on their authority and to proceed with all vigor to the execution of the provisions of the law as they were enacted on June 30, 1906.

EFFECT OF "THE JUNGLE" There is every reason to believe that Upton Sinclair's novel entitled "The Jungle," in which the deplorable conditions in the packing industry were dramatically portrayed, was one of the chief causes of the enactment of the meat inspection law which was approved the same day as the Food and Drugs Act. It may possibly happen that this history of a crime more revolting even than the horrors portrayed by Upton Sinclair may serve the purpose of causing popular indignation of a character that will secure the salvation of the Food and Drugs Act. If the Bureau of Chemistry had been permitted to enforce the law as it was written and as it tried to do, what would have been the condition, now? No food product in our country would have any trace of benzoic acid, sulphurous acid or sulphites, or any alum or saccharin, save for medicinal purposes. No soft drink would contain any caffeine, or theobromine. No bleached flour would enter interstate commerce. Our foods and drugs would be wholly without any form of adulteration and misbranding. The health of our people would be vastly improved and their life greatly extended. The manufacturers of our food supply, and especially the millers, would devote their energies to improving the public health and promoting happiness in every home by the production of whole ground, unbolted cereal flours and meals. The resistance of our people to infectious diseases would be greatly increased by a vastly improved and more wholesome diet. Our example would be followed by the civilized world and thus bring to the whole universe the benefits which our own people had received. We would have been spared the ignominy and disgrace of great scientific men bending their efforts to defeat the purpose of one of the greatest laws ever enacted for the protection of the public welfare. Eminent officials of our Government would have escaped the indignation of outraged public opinion because they. permitted and encouraged these frauds on the public. The cause of a wholesome diet would not have been put back for fifty or a hundred years. And last but least, this History of a Crime would never have been written.

http://www.doctoryourself.com/history10.html

Why Bleaching Makes White Flour Even Worse

It has been shown that alloxan is a byproduct of the flour bleaching process, the process they use to make flour look so “clean” and -- well, white. No, they are technically not adding alloxan to the flour -- although you will read this bit of misinformation on the Internet. But, they are doing chemical treatments to the grain that result in the formation of alloxan in the flour.

With so little food value already in a piece of white bread, now there is potentially a chemical poison lurking in there as well.

So what is so bad about alloxan?

Alloxan, or C₄ H₂O₄N_2, is a product of the decomposition of uric acid. It is a poison that is used to produce diabetes in healthy experimental animals (primarily rats and mice), so that researchers can then study diabetes “treatments” in the lab. Alloxan causes diabetes because it spins up enormous amounts of free radicals in pancreatic beta cells, thus destroying them.

Beta cells are the primary cell type in areas of your pancreas called islets of Langerhans, and they produce insulin; so if those are destroyed, you get diabetes.

There is no other commercial application for alloxan -- it is used exclusively in the medical research industry because it is so highly toxic.

Given the raging epidemic of diabetes and other chronic diseases in this country, can you afford to be complacent about a toxin such as this in your bread, even if it is present in small amounts?

Just How Much is Too Much?

Similar to disinfection byproducts (DBPs) in water, alloxan is formed when the chlorine reacts with certain proteins remaining in the white flour after the bran and germ have been removed. Protein makes up between 5 percent and 15 percent of white flour, depending on whether it’s cake flour, or high-gluten flour, such as what’s used for pizza crust or bagels.

So, this would suggest that perhaps 5 to 15 grams of protein per 100 grams of flour could be contaminated.

However, according to Professor Joe Schwarcz, Director of the McGill University Office of Science and Society, alloxan is the byproduct of xantophyll oxidation only. Xantophylls are yellow compounds in wheat that react with oxygen, causing flour to turn white.

According to Mr. Schwarcz:

“One of the possible minor side products of xantophyll oxidation is alloxan. It may therefore be found in small amounts in flour. There is no available research that shows trace amounts are a problem or that alloxan builds up in the body. The amounts, if present at all, must be small because xantophylls themselves only occur to the extent of 1 microgram per gram of flour.”

Alloxan has not been studied in terms of human exposure, particularly long-term. There is just so much we don’t know, and you know what assumptions will get you.

Alloxan in Rats vs Alloxan in Humans

Scientists have long known that alloxan produces selective destruction of the beta cells of the pancreas, causing hyperglycemia and ketoacidosis in laboratory animals. Alloxan is structurally similar to glucose, which might explain why the pancreatic beta cells selectively take it up.

According to Dr. Hari Sharma’s Freedom from Disease, alloxan causes free radical damage to DNA in the beta cells of the pancreas, causing them to malfunction and die. When they fail to function normally, they no longer produce enough insulin.

Even though the toxic effect of alloxan is common scientific knowledge in the research community, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still allows companies to use chemical processes in which the end result is toxic food. Until they unequivocally prove something is toxic by way of human deaths, severe side effects, or when the public screams loudly enough, the FDA is not likely to protect you.

Until then, it is you who must protect yourself.

If you have diabetes, or cancer, have a compromised immune system, or if you are in some other high-risk category as tens of millions of North Americans are, you need to know what foods contain hazardous ingredients so you can avoid them. But in the case of alloxan, there is no way to know, either by reading the ingredient list or by any other means, that it might be in your food!

History of Bleaching Flour -- Pillsbury and the FDA

An interesting sideline to this whole flour story lies in the origins of the FDA.

Bleaching and oxidizing agents weren’t developed to produce quick aging of wheat flour (within 48 hours) until the early 1900s. Prior to that, it required several months for oxygen to condition flour naturally.

When bleaching was introduced, it was vehemently opposed.

The first major consumer advocate was Harvey W. Wiley, MD, who eventually became known as the “Father of the Pure Food and Drugs Act” of 1906.  Mr. Wiley was head of the Bureau of Chemistry, which was the precursor to the FDA. Wiley crusaded against benzoic acid, sulfites, saccharin, and bleached flour, among other food additives and adulterants.

Dr. Wiley felt so strongly about preventing the bleaching of flour that he took it all the way to the Supreme Court. They ruled that flour could not be bleached or “adulterated” in any way. However, it was never enforced.

Wiley believed that foods posed a greater risk to the public than adulterated or misbranded drugs. He constantly butted heads with Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson and President Roosevelt over food regulation.

Soon, Wiley’s personal administrative authority was undercut when Wilson created the Board of Food and Drug Inspection in 1907 and the Referee Board of Consulting Scientific Experts in 1908, one of which was reportedly headed by someone who had been working at Pillsbury, although I have not been able to verify this addendum.

Finally, in 1912, Dr. Wiley quit as director out of frustration, although he continued as a vocal consumer advocate for many years.

The government replaced Dr. Wiley with Dr. Elmer Nelson. Dr. Nelson was the polar opposite to Wiley , and was quoted as saying:

”It is wholly unscientific to state that a well-fed body is more able to resist disease than a poorly fed body. My overall opinion is that there hasn’t been enough experimentation to prove that dietary deficiencies make one susceptible to disease.”

Therein lies the foundation of the FDA. Since Dr. Wiley resigned, the FDA has continued to shift its focus on drugs, since Wiley was never able to convince the government of the dangers from chemicals in our foods. He was truly a pioneer and a century ahead of his time!

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/26/The-Little-Known-Secrets-about-Bleached-Flour.aspx