Tony Pantalleresco Show of the Month October 19-2012

S

 

Coffee Drinkers Have Lower Risk of Death- Study Suggests

Potato Storage- Essential Oils as Antigerminants

Top 10 Foods Highest in Potassium

EFSA publishes initial review on GM maize and herbicide study

Claims on many supplements don’t comply with law, report says

**************************************************************************

Coffee Drinkers Have Lower Risk of Death- Study Suggests

A new study found that older adults who drank coffee — caffeinated or decaffeinated — had a lower risk of death overall than others who did not drink coffee.

ScienceDaily (May 19, 2012) — Older adults who drank coffee — caffeinated or decaffeinated — had a lower risk of death overall than others who did not drink coffee, according a study by researchers from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health, and AARP.—Coffee drinkers were less likely to die from heart disease, respiratory disease, stroke, injuries and accidents, diabetes, and infections, although the association was not seen for cancer. These results from a large study of older adults were observed after adjustment for the effects of other risk factors on mortality, such as smoking and alcohol consumption. Researchers caution, however, that they can’t be sure whether these associations mean that drinking coffee actually makes people live longer. The results of the study were published in the May 17, 2012 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine.—Neal Freedman, Ph.D., Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, NCI, and his colleagues examined the association between coffee drinking and risk of death in 400,000 U.S. men and women ages 50 to 71 who participated in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Information about coffee intake was collected once by questionnaire at study entry in 1995-1996. The participants were followed until the date they died or Dec. 31, 2008, whichever came first.—The researchers found that the association between coffee and reduction in risk of death increased with the amount of coffee consumed. Relative to men and women who did not drink coffee, those who consumed three or more cups of coffee per day had approximately a 10 percent lower risk of death. Coffee drinking was not associated with cancer mortality among women, but there was a slight and only marginally statistically significant association of heavier coffee intake with increased risk of cancer death among men.–“Coffee is one of the most widely consumed beverages in America, but the association between coffee consumption and risk of death has been unclear. We found coffee consumption to be associated with lower risk of death overall, and of death from a number of different causes,” said Freedman. “Although we cannot infer a causal relationship between coffee drinking and lower risk of death, we believe these results do provide some reassurance that coffee drinking does not adversely affect health.”—The investigators caution that coffee intake was assessed by self-report at a single time point and therefore might not reflect long-term patterns of intake. Also, information was not available on how the coffee was prepared (espresso, boiled, filtered, etc.); the researchers consider it possible that preparation methods may affect the levels of any protective components in coffee.—“The mechanism by which coffee protects against risk of death — if indeed the finding reflects a causal relationship — is not clear, because coffee contains more than 1,000 compounds that might potentially affect health,” said Freedman. “The most studied compound is caffeine, although our findings were similar in those who reported the majority of their coffee intake to be caffeinated or decaffeinated.”—Story Source-The above story is reprinted from materials provided byNational Institutes of Health. —Journal Reference-Neal D. Freedman, Yikyung Park, Christian C. Abnet, Albert R. Hollenbeck, Rashmi Sinha. Association of Coffee Drinking with Total and Cause-Specific Mortality. New England Journal of Medicine, 2012; 366 (20): 1891 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1112010

***********************************************************************************

Potato Storage- Essential Oils as Antigerminants

ScienceDaily (Oct. 5, 2012) — One of the critical moments in the final quality of the potato occurs during its storage, as there exists the risk of sprouting or rotting due to pathogenic agents such as bacteria and fungi. In order to avoid this, agricultural engineer David Gómez Castillo carried out research for his PhD on the possibility of substituting the current use of chemical products by treating the tuber with essential oils of mint, caraway, coriander, eucalyptus and clove, “which have proved to be great potential inhibitors in the main problems detected.”—The chemical product Clorprofam (CIPC) is the most commonly used as a sprout suppressant on stored potatoes. Nevertheless, possible reductions in permitted dosages, market and consumer pressures seeking healthier and, moreover, more environmentally-friendly products, have made it necessary to find alternatives to these synthetic products, with the market, culinary and technological quality of the potato remaining unaltered.—This is the context of the research by David Gómez Castillo, who has evaluated alternative treatment using essential oils of mint, caraway, coriander, eucalyptus and clove. In concrete, he studied the effect of applying these oils with table-stock varieties of the potato (Agata and Monalisa) and industrial ones (Agria and Kennebec), and compared the results thereof with those that had been treated chemically.

A good alternative—The research analysed two parameters: the commercial quality (germination, texture and colour of the tuber) and the culinary and technological quality (colour and texture of slices of the potato, dry material, total soluble solids, reductor sugars and sensorial analysis). Evaluations at 10, 25, 40, 55 and 70 days in storage were also undertaken, the antimicrobial effect of essential oils being assessed for the principal phytopathogens (fungi and bacteria).—According to Mr Gómez, “we found a high antigerminant capacity with treatment using the essential oil of coriander for industrial crops, and with the essential oil of mint for both industrial and table-stock cropsThese showed great inhibitory potential on the principal phytopathogenic problems studied and all this makes a good alternative to CPIC use for storage of potatoes.”—It was also shown that the essential oil of eucalyptus, for its high antigerminant capacity with table-stock potatoes, “could be another alternative for reducing post-harvest losses due to phytopathogenic problems, obtaining even better results if the treatment is accompanied by the essential oil of clove.”–In the opinion of this researcher, the use of treatment with essential oils in the storage of potatoes “can provide added value in the application of antigerminant treatment, due to its efficacy in controlling the progress of important phytopathogens.”—Story Source-The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Basque Research.

Recipe for AntiPhytopathegenic for Potato’s—take either a combination of peppermint  and coriander add 2 drops each to either a Sprayer with water—make sure the Essential oils are dispersed well in the water—blend in a blender for about 2 minutes to mix—once done then spray the potatoes being stored—or take a vaporiser and add the oils into the vaporiser  and allow it to mist the air as well—this will cause the components to be air borne and will reduce the break down—-this same principle can be done with other things as well or even utilize this principle to do a room or household to eliminate pathogens that might be airborne—keep the potatoes in a cool place for storage as well will reduce spoilage

************************************************************************

Top 10 Foods Highest in Potassium

Potassium is an essential nutrient used to maintain fluid and electrolyte balance in the body. A deficiency in potassium causes fatigue, irritability, and hypertension (increased blood pressure). Overdose of potassium from natural sources is nearly impossible, however, it is possible to consume too much potassium via potassium salts which can lead to nausea, vomiting, and even heart attack. Potassium from natural food sources, like the ones listed below, are considered safe and healthy. The current percent daily value for potassium is a whopping 3.5 grams, below is a list of high potassium foods. For more foods high in potassium please see the lists of potassium rich foodsfruits high in potassium, and vegetables high in potassium.


#1: Dried Herbs
Long used for medicinal purposes, herbs are packed with nutrients and potassium is no exception. Dried Chervil contains the most potassium with 4.7g (135% DV) per 100g serving, or 95mg (3% DV) per tablespoon. It is followed by Dried Coriander (3% DV) per tblsp, Dried Parsley (2% DV), Dried Basil, Dried Dill, Dried Tarragon, Ground Turmeric, Saffron, and finally Dried Oregano with 50mg (1% DV).
Click to see complete nutrition facts

#2: Avocados
Avocados are great when made into guacamole or in a salad. 100 grams will provide 485mg of potassium or 14% of the DV. That is 1.1g (32% DV) in one cup pureed, and 975mg (28% DV) in a single avocado (201 grams).
Click to see complete nutrition facts || More Fruits High in Potassium

#3: Paprika and Red Chili Powder
Either paprika or red chili powder add a nice kick to any dish, and with all the potassium they provide you have good reason to start adding them. Paprika provides the most potassium with 2.3g (67% DV) per 100 gram serving, or 164mg (5% DV) per tablespoon. Chili powder will provide 1.9g (55% DV) per 100 gram serving or 153mg (4% DV) per tablespoon. Click to see complete nutrition facts

#4: Cocoa Powder and Chocolate
Dark chocolate is an excellent source of iron and zinc in addition to potassium. Pure cocoa powder without any fat, milk, or sugar, provides the most potassium with 1.5 grams (44% DV) in a 100g serving, or 1.3g (37% DV) per cup, and 76mg (2% DV) per tablespoon. Unsweetened baking chocolate provides 830mg (24% DV) per 100 gram serving or 241mg (7% DV) per square. Most sweetened milk chocolates will provide around 272mg (11% DV) per 100 gram serving, and 164mg (5% DV) per bar (1.5oz). Click to see complete nutrition facts

#5: Dried Apricots, Prunes, Zante Currants, and Raisins
Most common as a snack, dried apricots and prunes can also be chopped and served in a salad. A good source of fiber and many other vitamins, apricots provide 1.9g (53%DV) of potassium per 100g serving (about 20 dried apricots). Prunes provide 1g (30% DV) per 100g serving, or 1.4g (40% DV) per cup. Zante currants are really a type of grape and taste very similar to raisins. Zante currants provide 892mg (25% DV) of potassium per 100g serving, or 1.3g (37% DV) per cup. Raisins provide almost the same amount with 825mg (24% DV) per 100 gram serving, or 1.2g (24% DV) per cup. Click to see complete nutrition facts

#6: Pistachios and Other Nuts
Pistachios are a delicious snack, and a great addition to salads. 100 grams (~3/4cup) will provide 1g (30% DV) of potassium. Other nuts high in potassium include Beechnuts (29% DV per 100g), Ginko nuts (29% DV), Chestnuts (28% DV), Almonds (21% DV), Hazelnuts (19% DV), Cashews (18% DV), Pine nuts (17% DV), Coconuts (16% DV), and Walnuts (15% DV).
Click to see complete nutrition facts

#7: Seeds (Pumpkin, Squash, Sunflower, and Flax)
A popular food in the Middle East and East Asia pumpkin and squash seeds contain about 919mg (26% DV) of potassium per 100g serving, 588mg (17% DV) per cup. If you can’t find these in your local supermarket you will surely find them in Middle Eastern or East Asian specialty stores. Alternatively, you can also save any pumpkin and squash seeds you have and roast them in your oven. The seeds are typically eaten by cracking the outer shell and eating the seed inside. Sunflower seeds are also a good source of potassium, providing 850mg (24% DV) per 100 gram serving, or 1.1g (31% DV) per cup. Flax seeds provide 813mg (23% DV) of potassium per 100 gram serving, or 1.4g (39% DV) per cup, and 81mg (2% DV) per tablespoon.
Click to see complete nutrition facts. Buy Pumpkin Seeds from Amazon.com

#8: Fish (Pompano, Salmon, Halibut, Tuna)
Fish has many health benefits and is a great source of potassium. Pompano provides the most with 636mg (18% DV) per 100 gram serving, or 540mg (15% DV) per fillet (3 ounces, 85 grams). It is followed by Salmon which provides 534mg (15% DV) per 3 ounce serving, Halibut, Yellow Fin Tuna, Lingcod, Mackerel, Anchovies, Herring, Cod, Snapper, Rockfish, Tilefish, Grouper, and finally Trout with 394mg (11% DV) in a 3 ounce serinvg. Cooking fish with dry heat is the best way to preseve the potassium content. Click to see complete nutrition facts

#9: Beans
White beans provide the most potassium with 561mg (16% DV) per 100 gram serving, 1g (29% DV) per cup cooked. White beans are followed by Adzuki Beans, Soy Beans, Lima Beans, Pinto Beans, Kidney Beans, Great Northern Beans, Navy Beans, Pigeon Peas, Cranberry (Roman) Beans, French Beans, Lentils, Split Peas, Black Beans, Hyancinth, and finally Yardlong Beans with 539mg (15% DV) per cup cooked.
Click to see complete nutrition facts

#10: Dates (Medjool)
Dates are great as a snack, as an addition to fruits salads, or even savory stews. Medjool dates provide 696mg (20% DV) per 100 gram serving, or 167mg (5% DV) in a single date.
Click to see complete nutrition facts

Read more at http://www.healthaliciousness.com/articles/food-sources-of-potassium.php#cTUeesXT5EcLhruM.99

 **************************************************************************

EFSA publishes initial review on GM maize and herbicide study

The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that a recent paper raising concerns about the potential toxicity of genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and of a herbicide containing glyphosate is of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment.—EFSA’s initial review found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate. To enable the fullest understanding of the study the Authority has invited authors Séraliniet al to share key additional information.–Such shortcomings mean that EFSA is presently unable to regard the authors’ conclusions as scientifically sound. The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested.—Therefore, based on the information published by the authors, EFSA does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate.—EFSA assessed the paper against recognised good scientific practices, such as internationally agreed study and reporting guidelines.—-Per Bergman, who led EFSA’s work, said: “Some may be surprised that EFSA’s statement focuses on the methodology of this study rather than its outcomes;however, this goes to the very heart of the matter. When conducting a study it is crucial to ensure a proper framework is in place. Having clear objectives and the correct design and methodology create a solid base from which accurate data and valid conclusions can follow. Without these elements a study is unlikely to be reliable and valid.”—The Director of Scientific Evaluation of Regulated Products added that the consideration of possible long-term effects of GMOs has been, and will continue to be, a key focus of EFSA’s work to protect animals, humans and the environment.—-EFSA’s preliminary review issued today is the first step in a two-stage process. A second analysis will be delivered by the end of October 2012.  This will take into account any additional information from the study authors, who will be given an opportunity to supply study documentation and procedures to the Authority to ensure the broadest possible understanding of their work. It will also include an overview of Member State assessments of the paper and an analysis from the German authorities responsible for the assessment of glyphosate.

Main findings of Initial Review—The task force, whose members were drawn from the Authority’s GMO, pesticide and scientific assessment units, has outlined a list of issues about the paper that would need to be resolved before it could be viewed as well-conducted and properly-reported study.

  • The strain of rat used in the two-year study is prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of approximately two years. This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors.
  • The authors split the rats into 10 treatment sets but established only one control group. This meant there was no appropriate control for four sets – some 40% of the animals – all of whom were fed GM maize treated or not treated with a herbicide containing glyphosate.
  • The paper has not complied with internationally-recognised standard methods – known as protocols – for setting up and carrying out experiments. Many of these procedures are developed by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).
  • For a study of this type, the relevant OECD guideline specifies the need for a minimum of 50 rats per treatment group. Séralini et al used only 10 rodents per treatment set. The low number of animals used is insufficient to distinguish between the incidence of tumours due to chance rather than specific treatment effects.
  • The authors have not stated any objectives, which are the questions a study is designed to answer. Research objectives define crucial factors such as the study design, correct sample size, and the statistical methods used to analyse data – all of which have a direct impact on the reliability of findings.
  • No information is given about the composition of the food given to the rats, how it was stored or details of harmful substances – such as mycotoxins – that it might have contained.
  • It is not possible to properly evaluate the exposure of the rats to the herbicide as intake is not clearly reported. The authors report only the application rate of the herbicide used to spray the plants and the concentration added to the rats’ drinking water but report no details about the volume of the feed or water consumed.
  • The paper does not employ a commonly-used statistical analysis method nor does it state if the method was specified prior to starting the study. The validity of the method used is queried and there are questions over the reporting of tumour incidence. Important data, such as a summary of drop outs and an estimation of unbiased treatment effects have not been included in the paper.
  • Many endpoints – what is measured in the study – have not been reported in the paper. This includes relevant information on lesions, other than tumours, that were observed. EFSA has called on the authors to report all endpoints in the name of openness and transparency.

Notes to editors:

EFSA set up a multi-disciplinary task force in response to an urgent request from the European Commission to evaluate a paper by Séralini et al to assess whether its findings could lead the Authority to reconsider its previous opinion on maize NK603. The two-year study, published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology on 19 September 2012, has suggested that consumption of the GM maize and a herbicide containing glyphosate at levels below officially-safe limits are linked to a reported increase in incidence of tumours in rats.

**************************************************************************

Claims on many supplements don't comply with law, report says
The structure function claims on many dietary supplement products do not comply with federal law,
 a government report released on WednesdayThe[U1]  report recommends greater regulatory 
powers for FDA to bring products into compliance[U2] .---Industry sources reacted negatively to the assertion
 that FDA needs new statutory powers, but were more accommodating on the report’s suggestions on how 
the claims notification process should be tightened up[U3] . The report, conducted by the Office of Inspector 
General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, looked at the claims on 127 dietary s
upplements in the weight loss and immune support The report looked at the label language and what kind 
of evidence was cited to back up the claims, to judge compliance with FDA-mandated notifications and disclaimers 
and to see how many claims trended over into prohibited disease claim territory. The report said that the
 popularity of structure function claims is on the rise, and maintains that problems with the use 
of these claims is on the rise, too. Report cites thin supporting evidence The report’s broad conclusions 
were these: Many claims were not backed by evidence from human studies[U4] . Of the human studies 
supplied by manufacturers in response to HHS requests, few appeared to satisfy FDA recommendations 
in every respect in terms of study design and relevance to the meaning of the claim[U5] . It also found 
that 20% of the supplements in the sample were making prohibited disease claims and that 7% lacked 
the disclaimer that is supposed to accompany every structure function claim. The report went on to 
recommend that FDA should seek additional statutory authority to regulate label claims to make sure 
that suitable evidence exists to back up the claim, to make sure that proper label notifications are
 in place and to make sure companies are not making illegal disease claims In[U6]  addition, it said FDA
 needs to clean up its tracking of who is making what claims, and who has complied with the requirement of a 30-day
 prior notification of the use of a claim on a product. Immediate reaction  Report overreaches Reaction from trade
 groups and industry observers was swift and decisive. The Office of Inspector General reviewed just 127 supplements 
out of an estimated 29,000 products on the market. This small sample of supplements shouldn’t smear the entire industry, 
said John Shaw, executive director and CEO of the Natural Products Foundation. The president and CEO of the
 organization, said, What’s most disappointing is that this was not a random sampling [of the industry].The vast majority
 of the industry, including our members, is doing the right thing. These reports give good companies a black eye, 
he said.The small sample size and big conclusions also was an issue for Marc Ullman, who has worked with the 
" Natural Products Foundation’s Truth in Advertising  industry self-regulation effort. They are recommended sweeping 
changes to the law, the imposition of vast new regulatory burdens on FDA based on the fact that (a small number)
 of dietary supplements didn’t pass substantiation. To me it seems quite a reach, Ullman, an attorney with the New
 York-based firm Ullman, Shapiro Ullman, told a reporter. I cannot fathom the kind of broad generalizations they 
made based on this kind of sample size. Nuanced response to report’s recommendations Regarding the recommendations, 
Mister said CRN was very supportive of FDA to do more, especially when it came keeping better 
track of health claim notifications, which companies are supposed to send in 30 days prior to a 
product hitting the  But the first recommendation, calling for FDA to ‘statutory authority to review
 substantiation for structure/function claims to determine whether they are truthful and not 
misleading[U7] ,’ is a non-starter, he said.This sounds like pre-market approval to us, Mister said. I do hope that 
FDA sees that some of this is targeted towards them, he added. The agency needs to manage the information they 
already have. Structure/function claims and registrations need to be catalogued to be accessible.The methodology
 of the report divided up the supplements more or less equally between the weight loss and immune sectors, and
 also about equally between supplements purchased in retail outlets on the Internet. This last detail interested Tony 
Young, legal counsel for the American Herbal Products Association, especially in relation to the finding that 20% of 
products were making disease claims. An interesting question would be whether those were products purchased off the 
Internet or in retail stores. We expect that there is a higher standard out there to get products on retail shelves and
 that most of the major retailers don’t carry products that make that kind of claim, he said. No public health risk At
 the end of the day, Young said, there is no imminent public health risk in the report’s findings. Whether FDA should 
expend substantial resources doing the kinds of things that were suggested is a decision that FDA would have to make
 with regard to all of the other public health priorities,” he said.The report might go overboard in its enforcement
 recommendations, Ullman said, but that doesn’t obviate legitimate questions about how some companies market their 
products As an industry we need to recognize—and we do recognize—that there is a problem, he said, going on to cite NPF’s 
Truth in Advertising effort and CRN’s cooperation with the "http://www.bbb.org/us/national-advertising-division/"
 National Advertising Division as appropriate ways to self-police label claims.Everybody in our industry argues that there
 should be more enforcement with respect to unlawful disease claims so there is pretty much unanimity on that, 
Young said[U8] .

TOP E


[U1]A new attack on supplements

 [U2]Drug Companies want to debilitate the industry further for easier acquisition of that health food industry market—where the owners will surrender there companies and sell out

[U3]This is the HFI-health food industry caving in  and surrendering—the industry should be looking after itself without gov’t interference—

 [U4]This is the EFSA—european food and safe authority nonsence—this is the FDA compliance  with the EFSA

[U5]Again EFSA

 [U6]Gov’t interference—again to debilitate the industry to a point where they either bail out or surrender—the health food industry as well a the consumers need to collaborate and get rid of  the common enemy Gov’t

[U7]Is this not the dumbest thing you ever heard? The wolf guarding the hen house—the industry is going to ask the gov’t to monitor the competition??? What a deception here

[U8]This is really disappointing—the big players what the FDA to do there dirty work for them so they can eliminate all competition and have it all under 1 umbrella this is what is really going on a destruction of a free enterprise effect and everyone has to comply  and the independent is going to either be absorbed or eliminated from the market


 [U1]Smart Meter-Cell Phone—HAARP -Microwaves

 [U2] A new attack on supplements

 [U3]Drug Companies want to debilitate the industry further for easier acquisition of that health food industry market—where the owners will surrender there companies and sell out

 [U4]This is the HFI-health food industry caving in  and surrendering—the industry should be looking after itself without gov’t interference—

 [U5]This is the EFSA—european food and safe authority nonsence—this is the FDA compliance  with the EFSA

 [U6]Again EFSA

 [U7]Gov’t interference—again to debilitate the industry to a point where they either bail out or surrender—the health food industry as well a the consumers need to collaborate and get rid of  the common enemy Gov’t

 [U8]Is this not the dumbest thing you ever heard? The wolf guarding the hen house—the industry is going to ask the gov’t to monitor the competition??? What a deception here

 [U9]This is really disappointing—the big players what the FDA to do there dirty work for them so they can eliminate all competition and have it all under 1 umbrella this is what is really going on a destruction of a free enterprise effect and everyone has to comply  and the independent is going to either be absorbed or eliminated from the market

About Health Axis

Searching for the truth in health and nutrition. Sharing information and ideas across the globe.
This entry was posted in Health Politics, Nutrition, Remedies, The Remedy Show notes, Tony Pantellresco's Articles. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s