Welcome to Tony Pantalleresco ‘The Remedy’ Radio Show of March 8th 2014

Tony Pantallaresco

Welcome to Welcome to Tony Pantalleresco ‘The Remedy’ Radio Show of March 8th 2014

In this show Tony covers the following topics :

The Power of Local Unity: Small US Town Enacts Free Food Trade
Scientists find genetic mechanism linking aging to specific diets

The Photoprotective and antioxidative properties of luteolin are synergistically augmented by tocopherol and ubiquinone

Damiana – Turnera diffusa

Noah’s Ark
Monsanto “Goes Organic” and Wins “Sustainability Award”

The Power of Local Unity: Small US Town Enacts Free Food Trade
Sunday, February 2nd, 2014. Filed under: Activism
Sedgwick, Maine, the first town in the US to legalize any kind of food transaction as free and legal in order to keep the right to produce raw milk, organic produce, free-range eggs, and more, is revolutionizing the way America keeps its food rights – including saying no to GMOs. In other words, it is the first town to declare food sovereignty while opposing both state and federal laws.

The town has passed an ordinance that protects citizens’ rights to “produce, sell, purchase, and consume any food of their choosing.” The ordinance laughs in the face of FDA regulations and their hodge-podge way of giving food a rubber stamp of approval, especially GMO. Three additional towns in Maine are expected to pass similar ordinances as well.

The move is somewhat similar to a move one England town made, where the citizens transformed their entire town’s landscape into a giant food-producing garden. Both are great examples of moving toward food sovereignty.

It isn’t just a declaration on the whim of a few city council members. There is a warrant added: “It shall be unlawful for any law or regulation adopted by the state or federal government to interfere with the rights recognized by this Ordinance.” This means that federal interference is prohibited in our food supply – at least in Maine. If you can’t get Monsanto out of the government, take the government out of your food. It’s a brilliant way around the convoluted system now in place that almost gave Monsanto the right to be exempt from federal prosecution for its poison food and which tries to hoist it upon the whole Nation without consent.–David Gumpert reports-“What about potential legal liability and state or federal inspections? It’s all up to the seller and buyer to negotiate. “Patrons purchasing food for home consumption may enter into private agreements with those producers or processors of local foods to waive any liability for the consumption of that food. Producers or processors of local foods shall be exempt from licensure and inspection requirements for that food as long as those agreements are in effect.” Imagine that–buyer and seller can agree to cut out the lawyers. That’s almost un-American, isn’t it?”—A simple seller and buyer agreement is entered into where federal regulations can be bypassed by the seller agreeing to consume food grown by their neighbors organically in their garden or by the farm up the street with their own hormone-free dairy cows that customers have known for decades. It takes the feds and their dirty Monsanto money right out of the game. It is commercially grown food that is killing us all, after all – not locally grown food.–For those with their heads in a noodle about bypassing federal laws, the citizens of Maine have stated, “We the radicals who concocted this mutinous act of infamy believe that according to the Home Rule provisions of our State Constitution, the citizens of Sedgwick have the right to enact an ordinance that is “local and municipal in character.”–n Maine, citizens can take advantage of local bounty, seasonal organic crops, and the good-old-fashioned way we used to produce food without Big Ag and commercial interference. Rural America is putting the big city budget of Monsanto to shame with this innovative way of taking down the monopolizing food giant. It’s about time ‘radicals’ in every small town across this nation did the same.

Additional Sources:

SedgwickMaine

+++

ZenGardner.com

– See more at: http://www.zengardner.com/power-local-unity-small-us-town-enacts-free-food-trade/#sthash.cBE3ISuO.dpuf

***************************************************************************
Scientists find genetic mechanism linking aging to specific diets

Sean Curran and Shanshan Pang studied C. elegans, a one-millimeter-long worm that scientists have used as a model organism since the 1970s.Your best friend swears by the Paleo Diet. Your boss loves Atkins. Your sister is gluten-free, and your roommate is an acolyte of Michael Pollan. So who’s right? Maybe they all are.-In new research published this month in Cell Metabolism, USC scientists Sean Curran and Shanshan Pang identify a collection of genes that allow an organism to adapt to different diets and show that without them, even minor tweaks to diet can cause premature aging and death.-Finding a genetic basis for an organism’s dietary needs suggests that different individuals may be genetically predisposed to thrive on different diets — and that now, in the age of commercial gene sequencing, people might be able to identify which diet would work best for them through a simple blood test. “These studies have revealed that single gene mutations can alter the ability of an organism to utilize a specific diet. In humans, small differences in a person’s genetic makeup that change how well these genes function, could explain why certain diets work for some but not others[F4],” said Curran, corresponding author of the study and assistant professor with joint appointments in the USC Davis School of Gerontology, the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, and the Keck School of Medicine of USC.-Curran and Pang studied Caenorhabditis elegans, a one-milimeter-long worm that scientists have used as a model organism since the ’70s. Decades of tests have shown that genes in C. elegans are likely to be mirrored in humans while its short lifespan allows scientists to do aging studies on it.-In this study, Curran and Pang identified a gene called alh-6, which delayed the effects of aging depending on what type of diet the worm was fed by protecting it against diet-induced mitochondrial defects. [F5]”This gene is remarkably well-conserved from single celled yeast all the way up to mammals, which suggests that what we have learned in the worm could translate to a better understanding of the factors that alter diet success in humans,” Curran said. Future work will focus on identifying what contributes to dietary success or failure, and whether these factors explain why specific diets don’t work for everyone. This could be the start of personalized dieting based on an individual’s genetic makeup, according to Curran. “We hope to uncover ways to enhance the use of any dietary program and perhaps even figure out ways of overriding the system(s) that prevent the use of one diet in certain individuals,” he said.–Story Source–The above story is based on materials provided by University of Southern California. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. -Journal Reference-Shanshan Pang, Sean P. Curran. Adaptive Capacity to Bacterial Diet Modulates Aging in C. elegans. Cell Metabolism, 2014; DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.2013.12.005
*************************************************************************
Damiana – Turnera diffusa.

J Ethnopharmacol. 2014 Jan 24;

Authors: Szewczyk K, Zidorn C

Abstract
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: Half a dozen of the currently accepted 135 Turnera species are used in traditional medicine, most notably Turnera diffusa Willd. ex Schult. which is one of the most highly appreciated plant aphrodisiacs. Other traditional uses of Turnera L. species include the treatment of anaemia, bronchitis, cough, diabetes, fever, fungal disease, gastrointestinal complaints, pain, pulmonary and respiratory diseases, skin disorders, and women’s health problems. Additionally, Turnera species are used as abortives, expectorants, and laxatives.
PHYTOCHEMISTRY: Flavonoids (22 different compounds), maltol glucoside, phenolics, cyanogenic glycosides (7 different compounds), monoterpenoids, sesquiterpenoids, triterpenoids, the polyterpene ficaprenol-11, fatty acids, and caffeine have been found in the genus Turnera.
BIOACTIVITY: Bioactivities experimentally proven for members of the genus Turnera encompass antianxiety, antiaromatase, antibacterial including antimycobacterial, antidiabetic, antioxidant, adapatogenic, antiobesity, antispasmodic, cytotoxic, gastroprotective, hepatoprotective, and aphrodisiac activities. Most of these activities have so far been investigated only in chemical, cell based, or animal assays. In contrast, the antiobesity activity was also investigated in a study on healthy human subjects and with a herbal preparation containing among other ingredients T. diffusa leaves. Moreover, the enhancement of female sexual function was assessed in humans; again the product contained besides T. diffusa other potentially bioactive ingredients. However, with only few exceptions, most of the traditional uses and the experimentally verified bioactivities can currently not be related to a particular compound or compound class. A notable exception is the flavonoid apigenin, which was identified animal experiments as the antinociceptive (An antinociceptive factor reduced the sensitivity to a painful stimuli for the individual.”) principle of T. diffusa. CONCLUSION: In this review, the current knowledge on ethnobotanical uses of members of the genus Turnera, the secondary metabolites reported from Turnera, and experimentally documented bioactivities from Turnera extracts and pure compounds derived from Turnera extracts are compiled. Moreover, some of the most interesting avenues for future research projects are being discussed briefly. These include in particular the aphrodisiac activity of T. diffusa and the antibiotic activity potentiating effect of T. ulmifolia L. against aminoglycoside resistant bacteria.–PMID: 24468305 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

*************************************************************************
Noah’s Ark
Everything I need to know, I learned from Noah’s Ark .

ONE: Don’t miss the boat.
TWO: Remember that we are all in the same boat!
THREE: Plan ahead. It wasn’t raining when Noah built the Ark.
FOUR: Stay fit. When you’re 60 years old, someone may ask you to do something really big.
FIVE: Don’t listen to critics; just get on with the job that needs to be done.
SIX: Build your future on high ground.
SEVEN: For safety’s sake, travel in pairs.
EIGHT: Speed isn’t always an advantage. The snails were on board with the cheetahs.
NINE: When you’re stressed, float awhile.
TEN: Remember, the Ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic by professionals.
ELEVEN: No matter the storm, when you are with God, there’s always a rainbow waiting.
****************************************************************************
Monsanto “Goes Organic” and Wins “Sustainability Award”

Posted By ANH-USA On February 18, 2014 @ 3:00 pm In Real, Not Phony Food Safety, Say No to GMO |

This isn’t a spoof. In addition to this story, we’ll provide you with a round-up of GMO-related news, including why your neighbor may shortly be planting GMO grass right next to you. Action Alerts! –We won’t spend time in this article reiterating past research on why genetically modified organisms [1] (GMOs) are dangerous—you probably already know that they can randomly produce toxic effects [2]; introduce alarming levels of chemicals [3] into our ecosystems and diet; and have been shown to cause [4] serious health problems—but there have been some recent developments in GMO politics, science, and regulation that we want to share with you.

Here are the news items we’ll cover:

Monsanto Wins Award for…“Sustainability”? [5]
GMOs Aren’t Enough—Monsanto Wants to Monopolize Conventional and Organic Crops, Too. Action Alert! [6]
Is Someone Growing Unregulated GMO Grass Right Next to You? Action Alert! [7]
All Eyes on New Global Precedent for GMO Contamination [8]
Industrial Herbicides Are Even More Toxic Than We Thought [9]
Is Industry Persuading Scientists to Quash Chilling Scientific Findings? [10]
Monsanto Wins Award for…“Sustainability”?

When most of us think of sustainability, we think of environmental practices that will allow current and future generations to enjoy nutritious, locally farmed foods, clean water, pure air, and a non-toxic, natural world. As the concept has developed, it’s also become applicable to other realms, including economics and healthcare. For example, ANH-USA advocates for [11] sustainable healthcare—practices that allow you to naturally maintain your health and extend your lifespan.

To the EPA, [12] sustainability “creates and maintains the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony,[F7] that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations.”–Taking these definitions into account, it may surprise you to learn that last month, Monsanto—yes, the same Monsanto whose expensive seeds caused an estimated 125,000 Indian farmers [13] to commit suicide—was recognized [14] as one of 2014’s Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World.[F8]–Monsanto was ranked 37th on overall sustainability, 5th among American companies, and 5th globally in the materials industry by an organization called Corporate Knights [15] (CK), a media and investment advisory company whose flagship magazine has one of the world’s largest circulations and is published quarterly as inserts in the Washington Post and the Globe and Mail (UK).

Ubiquitous as CK is, we find their criteria for “sustainability” [16]—also called their “key performance indicators”—more than a little absurd:

Energy productivity
Carbon productivity
Water productivity
Waste productivity
Innovation capacity
Percent tax paid
CEO to Average Employee Pay
Pension fund status
Safety performance
Employee turnover
Leadership diversity
“Clean capitalism” pay link (rewards “companies that have set up mechanisms to link the remuneration of senior executives with the achievement of clean capitalism goals or targets”)
As one University of Toronto business ethics professor noted, [17] “Only the first four actually have something to do with what most of us mean by ‘sustainability.’ The rest are…not relevant to the question of sustainable use of resources, or to the notion of sustainable economic growth that is compatible with environmental conservation.”–And even the first four have nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with profits. After all, the award-givers define “energy productivity” as how much revenue companies can squeeze out of one unit of energy. The health of the environment literally has nothing to do with it.–For the countless natural health practitioners, organic farmers, consumers, and activists who unceasingly fight and sacrifice to “walk the walk” of sustainability, the bastardization of this important term is not a joke. It is offensive.–Perhaps “excellence in sustainability” is CK’s code for “excellence in propaganda.” As we’ve consistently reported, there is nothing sustainable about Monsanto and their GMO seeds. For example, GMOs do not increase crop yields [18]. A 2009 Union of Concerned Scientists report [19] found that GMO soybeans do not produce increased yields, that GMO corn only marginally increases yields, and that no GMO crop has even been found to have intrinsic yield (meaning, yield in “real life,” and not laboratory, conditions).—We’re not quite sure who CK thinks they’re fooling, or what they get out of this nonsense. A more interesting question is why Monsanto is trying so hard to “greenwash” its image. –Meanwhile the Geneva-based Covalence group placed Monsanto dead last on a list of 581 global companies ranked by their reputation for ethics. For more on this, see chapter 11 of Crony Capitalism in America 2008–12 [20], a book recently published by ANH-USA’s board president, Hunter Lewis.

GMOs Aren’t Enough—Monsanto Wants to Monopolize Conventional and Organic Crops, Too. Action Alert!

Since it purchased the company in 2008 [21], Monsanto has been quietly cultivating its Seminis brand, as well as several other semi-anonymous brands, to breed and sell seeds that aren’t GMO. –To create these seeds, Monsanto and its minions are claiming to use nothing more than traditional crossbreeding [22] (where plants with desirable qualities are laboriously “mated” until they yield progeny with the targeted traits). This process takes quite a bit of “time, land, and patience [23].”–Don’t be fooled: Monsanto isn’t using your grandparents’ crossbreeding. They’re engaging in a highly technical process that appears to takes place in a lab, not a field, and also appears to involve manipulation on the genetic level [24].Worse yet, they don’t seem to want to make foods healthier. For example, Monsanto is attempting to breed fruits and vegetables that taste sweeter than their traditional counterparts [25]. Read: they’re engineering a way to add more sugar than nature intended. The last thing that most people need is more sugar or fructose in their diet.–Is this a blatant attempt to win back the “hearts and minds” of consumers? According to one Monsanto official, “There isn’t a reputation silver bullet, but it helps.”–There is another important question to ask here: If Monsanto truly believes that GMOs are the future, why are they investing in conventional crops?–There’s no way to know for sure, but it’s possible that Monsanto doesn’t have faith in its own product: the company is already facing consumer pressure and emerging long-term health problems associated with GMOs.–For this reason, they could simply be hedging their bets. What if, in the future, the scientific consensus is that GMOs are harmful, or there’s a GMO-sparked environmental disaster, or the government decides to intervene? They may think they have to prepare for the possibility that GMOs may eventually fail. Seminis and its sister subsidies are Monsanto’s “insurance:” if GMOs crash and burn, they have a conventional cash cow to fall back on.[F9]

Is Someone Growing Unregulated GMO Grass Right Next to You? Action Alert!

In July 2011 [27], the USDA—often characterized as a power-hungry agency [28]—gave GMOs a regulatory hall pass. The agency determined that, thanks to a tiny technical loophole [29], they had no oversight over GMO Kentucky bluegrass [30]. This meant that the grass—and any GMOs created via the same GMO technique [31]—could be planted anywhere, at anytime, with zero government oversight.–The public backlash was immediate, though we knew at the time that the true extent of this disastrous decision wouldn’t be felt for years to come. Unfortunately, we were right.–Late last month, Scott’s Miracle-Gro quietly announced [32] that their employees will “test” the Roundup-resistant GMO grass by planting it in their home lawns in Marysville, Ohio. Scott’s hopes to have thousands more consumers planting their GMO grass by 2016—and thanks to the USDA, there’s no framework in place to keep this from happening.

Alarmingly, if your neighbor plants GMO grass, your lawn may become full GMOs, too. Cross-contamination of non-GMO crops is already a reality. Pollen can travel anywhere from the length of three football fields to thousands of miles away [33]. Given this, and the fact there’s little to no space between suburban lawns—it’s completely unrealistic to assume GMO grass will stay where it’s planted.–It will be interesting to see whether GMO lawn grass producers sue you for having their grass when it spreads into your lawn. That is what Monsanto has done for years to innocent neighboring farmers. Since suing each suburban neighborhood is presumably not a workable model, what new one will devised?–The truth is that we are at a now-or-never moment with respect to GMOs in America[F10]. The more these seeds are released into the air, neighboring farms, and now suburban lawns, the harder it will be to stop them–Write to the USDA[F11] immediately and tell the agency to stop protecting the biotech industry at the public’s expense! GMO Kentucky bluegrass shouldn’t be allowed due to a technical loophole—otherwise, GMOs created via the same GMO technique as this grass could be planted anywhere, at anytime, with zero government oversight.

All Eyes on New Global Precedent for GMO Contamination

GMO crops have been known to contaminate organic crops, bringing severe economic damage to small farmers. The problem has gotten so pervasive that the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association has had to publish a seventy-page booklet [35] on how to avoid (and test for) GMO contamination.–For example, one organic corn grower [36] whose crops were contaminated was forced to sell her corn for $1.67 a bushel—far below the $4 market price for organic corn.–All eyes are now on an Australian court case [37], wherein one farmer is suing Monsanto for the GMO contamination of his organic wheat and oat crop. The episode resulted in the farmer losing his organic certification and export license (Australia has a zero tolerance policy for GMO material in organic products)—the keys to his very livelihood.–The outcome of this case could set a global precedent, and seriously affect the regulation of organics to protect the interests of GMO growers and producers (sad to say, it will almost certainly not be vice versa). We’ll continue to watch it very closely.–Meanwhile, a recent Supreme Court ruling confirmed that Monsanto can sue farmers [38] whose crops are contaminated—even if it’s not their fault, because Monsanto has promised to behave better and not take advantage of innocent farmers!

Industrial Herbicides Are Even More Toxic Than We Thought

The uncontrolled GMO grass “experiment” is even more alarming in light of the growing body of evidence that glyphosate [39], a main chemical component in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, is a major health threat.–Keep in mind that GMO Kentucky bluegrass, like some brands of [40] Monsanto’s GMO corn, cotton, and soy seeds, is engineered to be Roundup-resistant. This means that growers can apply as much Roundup as they’d like to kill the weeds they don’t want, while leaving their plants intact. The GMO seed and the herbicide enter the environment together.–Also remember that many weeds are now learning [41] to be Roundup-resistant. To compensate, growers are forced to spray more and more Roundup [42]—which that means more glyphosate in our foods, ecosystems, and bodies, or use even more dangerous chemicals.–Despite assurances by Monsanto and the EPA [43], glyphosate is a hazard to humans, animals, plants, and organic and conventional agriculture. New research published in the International Journal of Toxicology [45] found that commercial glyphosate-based herbicides—at levels far below the normal agricultural applications—are extremely toxic to human many cells, and are lethal to human liver cells.–This research confirms Dr. Charles Benbrook’s [46] and ANH-USA’s investigation into the environmental, economic, and human health effects of glyphosate. Our research found, for example, that glyphosate is toxic to fish and essentially all plant life (if you haven’t read this comprehensive case study, you can download the PDF here [1]).-We should be focusing on reducing our addiction to chemical farming, not coming up with new ways to expose ourselves to more and more toxins. We have the opportunity to solve this problem before the disastrous health effects become widespread and irreversible. Future generations will not get the same chance.

Is Industry Persuading Scientists to Quash Chilling Scientific Findings?

Another recent study [47], authored by French researcher Gilles-Eric Séralini and published in BioMed Research International, confirms the International Journal of Toxicity study. It too found that herbicides and pesticides—notably those that are glyphosate-based—are far more toxic than industry and the EPA would lead you to believe. Séralini found that formulations like Roundup were “several times more toxic” than their main ingredient alone (i.e., glyphosate), and that “Roundup was by far the most toxic” of the chemical formulations tested.–Just hours after the study’s publication, Dr. Ralf Reski, a BioMed editor, immediately resigned [48], stating, “I do not want to be connected to a journal that provides [Séralini] a forum for such kind of agitation.”–We wonder: is Dr. Reski really concerned about scientific sensationalism? According to his own résumé [49], his “independent” research is 53% funded by industry. Did Dr. Reski proactively protect his source of funding? Did industry threaten him?–In September 2012, Séralini published a study [50] suggesting that a long-term diet of GMO corn can cause health problems—including breast cancer and severe organ damage—in animals. After a year of artificial controversy, the paper was retracted [51], much to the dismay and protest [52] of a significant part of the scientific community.—Séralini’s peers felt the retraction was made on invalid grounds [53]. It was withdrawn for being poorly designed, despite the fact that it followed almost exactly the same protocol [54] of a trial conducted by Monsanto and published in the same journal. Moreover, they saw in the retraction evidence of undue industry influence on the scientific community: a few months before the study was retracted, a former Monsanto scientist was appointed to the journal in a newly created editorial position [55].–To be published in journals like BioMed, studies go through a thorough editor and peer-review process. BioMed requires [56] an initial review by the editorial office; approval from an editor knowledgeable about the subject in question; and a peer review by between two and five outside evaluators. That’s three layers of intense scrutiny before a study can even be published.–It now seems that Séralini, despite of the integrity of his work, has been blacklisted—a clear warning to other objective, independent researchers.