JoAnnFarb.com
  • Home
  • video
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • recipes
  • About
    • About/Podcasts and Videos
    • Contact
    • presentations
  • Resources
  • THW

The Danish Way of Parenting

10/2/2016

4 Comments

 
Picture
It's a bit funny that with the departure of my last child off to college, I found myself reading a parenting book for the first time in many years.  But this is no ordinary parenting book.  Initially, I picked it up only to give it a quick skim through.  The cover boasts that the Danes are some of the happiest people on earth -- and alleges this is due to how they parent their children.  

I have long believed that collectively, how a culture parents, does play a big role in how happy and healthy that generation will be on the whole -- when they become adults.  In my first book, Compassionate Souls -- Raising the Next Generation to Change the World, I explained my view that the revolution of the 1960's, and the good things it brought, happened in part, because that generation had been raised with a more compassionate approach to parenting -- due to the popularity of Dr. Spock and his book on baby and child care.  I further speculated that the  generation coming of age right now -- or at least those who were raised more compassionately than had been the custom--- due to the growing awareness of attachment parenting, on the whole, will push our culture to evolve even more on issues of social justice.  (Assuming we are able to prevent catastrophe due to our environmental problems -- combined with the fact, that many citizens have also been injured from NOT getting adequate parenting.)  So  I was curious to find out what these authors would say.  I was also skeptical. The cover seemed kind of cliched to me, and the  book is thin and at first glance appeared pretty simplistic -- using the acronym, "PARENT" to illustrate the six key points that make up the Danish Approach.  Yet I found myself quickly drawn into the ideas and agreeing with what they were saying.  The narrative uses short anecdotes to explain the ideas and then backs them up with  brief explanations of published science that corroborates and further explains the core principles.  This book effectively distills down a lot of very important ideas and concepts making them seem simple, and very doable. The chapter, "P is for play" -- succinctly reminded me of the big ideas from great books I read years ago -- like, Magical Child, The Plug in Drug, and Endangered Minds.

The chapter, "R is for "Reframing".  explained how and why parents can show children how to reframe challenges, failures, or losses in a way that facilitates emotional well-being.  This chapter gave me much to think about NOW, which I believe will have value for our family  -- even as the mother of adult children.

But my favorite chapter in this book is, "E is for empathy,"  because it solidly illuminates where American culture has fallen far short of our potential to build happy healthy resilient citizens and clearly explains how an over-focus on competition and winning can undermine the connection and cooperation that is critical to our emotional well-being.  That is where empathy comes in.  Not only does the book make a compelling case for how natural it is for humans and other species to be empathetic, but also for how critical empathy has been for our survival -- and then they even go into detail about how the Danish go about teaching empathy to their children and encouraging it in their culture. Teachers will find much here to inspire them!

The chapter "N is for No Ultimatums" also did a nice job of explaining why spanking is harmful, and how to parent with respect and avoid power struggles.  I have to say, I am smitten with this book, and while I will heartily recommend it to parents everywhere -- I believe the concepts have relevance to anyone who seeks optimal health and well-being -- you need not be raising children to find much here to inspire and inform.  The more people who read this book, the better off we will all be!
4 Comments

KCUR's Up To Date: "Children's Headaches"  Jumps Right Into Big Pharma's Lap....

9/21/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
I just had to comment upon KCUR's Up To Date Show that aired today (you can access the podcast HERE.)

The topic was children's headaches, and featured two MD's, who first shared facts about children's headaches, and then discussed how parents of children suffering from headaches might proceed.  Although I was surprised to learn just how common headaches are in children, the reason I felt compelled to write about this particular show, was that after explaining how rarely headaches are indicative of anything truly serious, they did mention that environmental triggers including specific things in the diet, can be a cause of headaches in children.   But then, the doctors went on to caution against parents trying too hard to actually figure out what their child's triggers might be, for example keeping a log of what their child may have been doing, exposed to, or eaten as a way of figuring out what their child's triggers might be.  They pointed out that doing this ran the risk of making the child see him or herself, as sickly and that would not be good for the child.   Since we have good treatments for headaches (drugs) and it can be hard to pinpoint the triggers,  many times it's better to just treat the headache (i.e. give your child drugs) so as to not pathologize the child by trying to figure out if anything that they have control over might prevent the headaches.

Really?  And being a regular user of pharmaceuticals would be less likely to cause a child to see themselves as sickly?

As I heard them saying this, I found myself thinking back to the days when I worked in the pharmaceutical industry. I remember how I was trained and how I was instructed to bring information (that supported sales of Merck's products) to doctors and to frame things in ways that connected making their job easier with revenue for my company.  I couldn't help but imagine these docs having been at some medical conference, where a charismatic, pharmaceutical sales person made the case to these docs about how harmful it could be to a child, for their parent to spend time and give them attention as they work together to take note of when headaches happen, and then record data about what they ate and did just before that -- while the alternative --giving a child a powerful pharmaceutical, would spare them this possible psychological trauma and so obviously be the better choice.

All drugs carry the possibility of side effects.  Aspirin can cause bleeding from the gut, and if taken when incubating specific illnesses, can be deadly.  Tylenol can impair kidney function -- and long before there is clear kidney disease, reduced kidney function may mean a person has increased exposure to environmental toxins that healthy kidneys would remove.  (Perhaps increasing risk long term from these other toxins) These are but two very simple examples.  But the other big issue for me -- regarding using drugs in children, is that it lays a foundation for children to use drugs -- it starts with a pill for every ill, but also makes the possibility of using drugs recreationally when they get older more of a possibility.    Of course if my child was in a lot of pain, I would do whatever I could to stop it...BUT I would first consider options that, "Do no harm."

Doctors who believe that giving a child a drug is better for them than helping them learn how to take charge of their own health and find and eliminate the cause of whatever is making them suffer have obviously drank the big-pharma Kool-aide.

Raising children to be wary of all drugs -- right from the start is one of the best things we can do  to protect their health.  Not just because even the most common and presumably "safe" drugs used correctly can still have adverse effects (with new dangers coming to light all the time) but also because this is one of the most important was for parents to lay a GENUINE foundation for drug resistance before they become teenagers.
0 Comments

September 03rd, 2016

9/3/2016

0 Comments

 
0 Comments

A Kid at the Carnival....Hollywood Casino has Vegan Handbags

7/23/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
For the record, I typically avoid casinos.  The gambling thing seems exploitative of those who can least afford to gamble and the noise, sounds and blinking lights of the slot machines jar my senses, plus I find the lack of windows oppressive.  But worst of all is the SMOKE!  Casinos are one of the few places left where people can legally burn tobacco in the faces of others indoors.

Yet in spite of all that, and in contrast to my usual behavior, yesterday I ventured inside of one.  My husband and I were passing by the Hollywood Casino on our way home from somewhere else, when he mentioned to me that he had a credit to spend at this one, that was not transferable to anywhere else and he had noticed that they had some ladies handbags in their gift shop...and wondered if I might need a new purse.  (And I DID.)

For a gift shop it was incredibly sparse.  The major items they had, were souvenir glasses, a few polo shirts and ladies handbags - lots of them.  I assumed that since it was a casino, the purses were probably all leather...but I started looking at them anyway, and now I am so glad that I did! About half the purses there had tags on them that declared them, "VEGAN." The clerk told me that this was because many of their customers are  looking for products containing fewer toxic compounds.  (Leather of course fails miserably in this regard.)  People in Casinos are looking for non-toxic goods...REALLY?  (I myself was looking for a breathing mask hooked up to an oxygen tank!) Anyway it was so exciting I bought myself TWO new purses.  I felt like a kid at the carnival redeeming my tickets for prizes!
Picture
Picture
0 Comments

More From Summerfest -- B 12 Update (Do YOU Know the Facts?)

7/14/2016

2 Comments

 
Picture
​In addition to everything else that I posted about Summerfest in my previous post, (right below this one -- if you are on my main blog page) there is yet something else that I LOVE about Summerfest. It's a great place to explore subjects the experts may not agree on.  This year I was happy to further my understanding on the B-12 issue.

For those who may be new to the topic of B-12, a quick recap first.  B-12 is a vitamin produced by bacteria. It is NOT made by animals or plants. In nature, animals obtain it by drinking microbial contaminated water, ingesting fecal contaminated matter, or eating plants with dirt and bacteria still attached.  Many foods are fortified with B-12 too -- like almond milk, nutritional yeast, and some breakfast cereals. Once B-12 is in an animal's body, it can pass into their milk, or will be present in bodily tissues (this is how it ends up in meat). Some of our gut bacteria may make B-12 -- but this is believed to happen too far downstream from where we absorb it, to reliably benefit us. A B-12 deficiency is VERY BAD -- and can sometimes have no obvious symptoms until it damages the heart or brain (leading to heart attacks or dementia)  it can also cause nerve damage, leading to numbness and tingling in parts of the body, blindness, or can even mimmic symptoms of MS. Some of these are not reversible -- so it's important to always get enough B-12.  We only need a very tiny amount and some people can store it in their bodies for years, however stored B-12 may not be available to the babies of pregnant and nursing women-- so it is critical that they have a reliable and regular source!  Also be forewarned -- many tests for B-12 levels have false negatives -- the Urinary MMA test is considered the most reliable.

Increasingly we are discovering many problems that can interfere with our ability to obtain B-12 from the foods (and swallowed vitamin pills) it may be in.  For example digestive issues can hinder separating it from the protein it may come bound to.  Low stomach acid, bowel diseases, lack of "intrinsic factor" and some autoimmune diseases can all render SWALLOWED B-12 unavailable, However sublingual B-12 (allowed to sit under the tongue) appears to bypass all of these problems and is thus the preferred way to get it, by being directly absorbed through the mucous membranes.

The two most common supplemental forms of B-12 are cyanocobalamin and methylcobalamin. Dr Michael Greger strongly recommends the cyano form.  Many other scientists however think methyl is better, because it does not contain a molecule of cyanide (a poison -- albeit in a very tiny amounts) and because growing evidence suggests many people have undiagnosed mutations in the genes that enable us to methylate B-12 -- a necessary step if we are to use it in our bodies. So for people with MTHFR mutations methylcobalamin may be the only one that they can use.

In the past when I had discussed this with Dr Greger, he cited a study that looked at the ability of methylcobalamin to reverse documented deficiency.  That study showed that 20% (1 in 5 participants) failed to improve on methylcobalamin.  Pretty convincing that cyano is much better....until I found out that that study had only five people in it.  But Dr Greger was steadfast in his view that we should always recommend cyanocobalamin because the only science we have (sparse as it is) shows it to be the better form.

In continuing to dialogue with Dr Greger this year, he informed me of an additional fact that I did find even more persuasive. Apparently the methyl form is very unstable.  This means that when we take a sublingual methylcobalamin, there may not be enough active B-12 present in it to do us any good.

Following that conversation, I went to a lecture by Dr. Kerrie Saunders. In contrast to Dr. Greger, Dr Saunders actually works in a clinical setting -- with patients and she recommended the methyl form -- for the very reason that I had mentioned earlier -- a growing awareness of MTHFR gene mutations and that these might play a role in B-12 utilization as well.

After Dr Saunder's lecture, I had  a chance to chat with Dr. Michael Klaper about all this and he told me that a person's view on which form of B-12 they think is better is likely to depend upon how much credence they give to the issue of MTHFR mutations.

So let me distill this down in a nutshell:

Methylcobalamin is a more usable form of B-12, and may be especially important for those with certain (probably common) genetic mutations, but it is unstable, so you may not be getting what you think when you take it.  Cyanocobalamin, is very stable and there is more science showing its benefit to those who are deficient, but it does contain a molecule of cyanide and there is a theoretical basis for believing it might not work, or could even be harmful for some individuals.

I plan to give my family BOTH of these  -- using each one a couple of times each week.  The most important thing to remember here however is that given the rampant gut problems today, the highly sanitized and chlorinated environment we live in, and how serious can be the problems if one does become B-12 deficient, I think it is prudent for ALL VEGANS and ALL THOSE WITH GUT ISSUES and ALL THOSE OVER AGE 50 to include sublingual B-12 on a regular basis.

Here are select pages from Dr. Greger's nutrition facts that may be of interest:

How Much B-12 Do we Need?

The Rest of Dr Gregers B-12 info 

Here is an excellent post on B-12 from Dr. Thomas Campbell as well
2 Comments

My  Concerns with Insecticidal GMO Corn

7/8/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
This post was inspired by Dr Michael Greger's recent article addressing the safety of Genetically Modified (Bt) corn. Normally I find Dr Greger's analysis compelling and thoughtful, but this time I think he is missing important aspects to consider.  I know he is all about the science, and loath to ever make a statement that can't be well supported by credible published studies, but in the absence of adequate (and unbiased!) studies showing the safety of GMO's in humans, and given a number of solid theoretical dangers, I think the burden of proof should be upon those attempting to foist the new technology upon the rest of us -- and not the other way around. (Also, this FABULOUS book is filled with essays that explain the egregious behavior of GMO-profitting companies which keeps good studies, that might show just how dangerous GMO's are, from ever being pubished!) However while Dr Greger does reference a new study that found significant levels of Bt toxin in the cord blood of newborn babies, he also suggests that because organic farmers are allowed to spray the common soil bacteria, Bacillus Thuringiensis  on organic food crops without it harming anyone, that genetically modifying corn to produce the same specific insecticidal toxin that this bacteria makes after infecting an insect, presents a similar risk (essentially none.)  But this leap in logic is without scientific merit.

It is a well-established principal of toxicology that often "the dose makes the poison."   When an organic farmer sprays Bt bacteria on food crops, the bacteria produce the Bt toxin.  The amount of the Bt toxin present is incredibly small, it is only on the surface of the plant, and it degrades in the presence of sunlight and water in about a day.  It is doubtful that anyone eating organic food sprayed with this bacteria would have detectable levels of the toxin this bacteria produces in their blood.  

Now compare how organic farmers use Bt to what happens with GMO Insecticidal corn.  With GM corn, the gene from the Bt bacteria that enables the bacteria to produce the toxin, has been inserted into the corn plant in such a manner that now every cell in the entire corn plant is continuously producing that toxin in amounts large enough to kill any caterpillar who attempts to eat any part of the plant. This means the toxin is now present in amounts many orders of magnitude higher than ever before, and being produced within the cells little if any would be degraded by sunlight and rain.  This is why we can now find this toxin in the bloodstream of pregnant women and in the cord blood of their babies. 

While some have speculated that the Bt toxin might also cause holes in the human gut, as it does in the insect gut, leading to leaky gut syndrome, allergies and more, I am not aware of any published studies that confirm this.  However a lot of insecticidal GMO corn, is also specifically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (Round-up).  This enables farmers who grow it to spray extremely large amounts of Round-up on the corn fields to kill all the weeds -- and not have it damage the corn crop.  While Monsanto argues that GM crops can reduce the use of herbicides, the fact is, Round-up sales and use has skyrocketed because of this technology, and likely anyone consuming GMO corn has also increased their exposure to Round-up.  Now we have evidence that Round-up itself may be a factor contributing to leaky gut in humans.  

Furthermore, I think there is an even bigger hypothetical risk --based upon one of my daughter's high school science fair projects (for which she was given an award by the EPA.)  My daughter was looking to see if antibiotic resistance could be passed from genetically modified corn to gut bacteria (a gene for antibiotic resistance is typically inserted in the corn gene as part of the GMO process).   Although she was not able to demonstrate such a transfer, her experiment did reveal a surprising phenomenon:  The longer GMO corn plants decomposed. the less likely e coli bacteria (a normal inhabitant of a healthy gut) were to live and grow at all after exposure to the remains of the corn.  Her data raised the possibility that eating GMO's could dramatically alter the gut microbiome -- which a growing body of research makes clear could have profound impacts on gut health, immune system functioning, general levels of inflammation in our bodies and even how our brain works and how likely we are to suffer with depression!

0 Comments

Make Your Breast Milk the Healthiest Possible (and Most Compassionate)

6/27/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
NEW -- I have a whole page on Mothering and Dairy HERE      
(Also -- Read my post about Protein HERE)

There is overwhelming evidence that a whole-foods vegan diet has many benefits throughout the lifespan.  One benefit in particular, is that eating lower on the food chain (ie just plants) reduces one's exposure to pesticide residues and toxic chemicals like mercury and DDT.  This is particularly important when it comes to pregnancy and lactation, since some environmental contaminants can impair neurological development, alter immune responses and even increase the risk of cancers.   I have been vegan since before conception of my two now grown-up life-long vegan daughters, both of whom are grateful that we raised them as vegans.   A diet emphasizing beans, and greens with fruit, other vegetables and small amounts of raw nuts and seeds is the basis for optimum health.  Pregnant and nursing mothers, eating a whole foods plant based diet, and taking sublingual B-12, vegan D3 (if they aren’t getting daily sun) and an algae based DHA/EPA supplement  give their breastfed babies superior nutrition, while minimizing exposure to pesticides, and heavy metals.  This will benefit brain function and reduce the likelihood that their children will ever develop many of our most common chronic diseases, like Diabetes, Asthma, Coronary Artery Disease, Kidney Disease and Breast and Prostate Cancer to name a few!
 
Although very little research has actually been published that compares levels of breast milk contaminants between long-term vegans and omnivores, in 1971 the New England Journal of Medicine published an account of a small study which did find the breast milk of vegans was lower than that of omnivores, and stated that in every single contaminant measured, the highest levels in the vegans was lower than the lowest level in the omnivores:  
Pollutants in breast milk of vegetarians.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7464895
 
It would make sense for this to be the case, since basic biological principals show that there is bio accumulation of environmental toxins as one moves up the food chain, and humans eating an omnivorous diet essentially sit at the top of the food chain – with their breast-fed babies being at the very top.  Together, the studies linked to below suggest that complete avoidance of meat, dairy, eggs and fish  -- especially the longer this can be done would likely contribute to having breast milk that is lower in most major environmental contaminants, since the  highest dietary sources of two of the more common and clearly harmful toxins, DDT and PCB’s are animal and fatty foods:     http://www.watoxics.org/chemicals-of-concern/pcbs-and-ddt
 
However the following study clarifies the issue a bit more as it suggests that fat from plant sources is NOT associated with breast milk contamination – unlike fats from  ANIMAL foods:
Relationship of dietary intake to DDE residues in breast milk of nursing mothers in Beirut.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10656056


A study that took place in Ireland looked at a specific class of toxic compounds, similar to dioxins, which appear to be ubiquitous in the environment.  They tested 100 different types of foods and reported that dairy products, fish, meat and eggs were the largest sources of dietary exposure to these toxic compounds:
Polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) in Irish foods: Occurrence and human dietary exposure
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21783225
 
Breast milk from The Netherlands was far more contaminated than breastmilk from Hong Kong – In spite of Hong Kong being more industrialized.  I would expect that this reflects differences in consumption  meat and dairy between the two populations.
Comparison of dioxin and PCB concentrations in human breast milk samples from Hong Kong and the Netherlands.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12519720
 
This study, sought to show that pesticide residues in organic goat milk was within safe ranges, but the more important point I see here is that the levels were as high as they were, given that the  animals were being fed only organic foods.  This demonstrates the idea of bioaccumulation.  When you eat animals you are eating their lifetime exposure environmental toxins, and some of those toxins are excreted into their milk.
Assessment of health risk from organochlorine xenobiotics in goat milk for consumers in Poland.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26829307
 
This study found positive associations between egg eating (in addition to meat and fish) and dioxin concentration in human breast milk.
Maternal risk factors associated with increased dioxin concentrations in breast milk in a hot spot of dioxin contamination in Vietnam
http://www.nature.com/jes/journal/v24/n5/full/jes201373a.html
 
And these may be of interest too:
Assessing infant exposure to persistent organic pollutants via dietary intake in Australia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26710981
 
Organochlorine pesticides residue in breast milk: a systematic review.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26478886
 
This study’s data suggests that  concentrations of pesticides in a breastfed baby may be even higher than what is found in mother.
A novel model to characterize postnatal exposure to lipophilic environmental toxicants and application in the study of hexachlorobenzene and infant growth.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26398043
 
At first glance, this study appears to suggest that fish consumption is the only dietary factor linked with increased contaminants in breast milk.  However, when you consider that this study had only 125 participants, and given the tendency for homogeneity of diets regionally in Japan, it is likely that there were few if any women in the study even eating a plant based diet for comparison  -- certainly not enough to allow for statistical significance if differences were found.  A classic example of the “sick population” bias rampant in many nutrition studies.
Maternal body burden of organochlorine pesticides and dioxins.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10367390
 
All the women in this study had multiply contaminated milk and all of them ate a similar omnivorous diet including meat, dairy and eggs.
Dioxins and furans in breast milk: a case study of mothers from southern Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/csp/v31n5/0102-311X-csp-31-5-1107.pdf
 
Here's a really great article seeking to explore risks vs benefits of breastfeeding vs formula in light of the fact that humans sit at the top of the food chain (but not vegans!) Lots of good information about benefits of breast milk!
Contaminants in Human Milk: Weighing the Risks against the Benefits of Breastfeeding
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2569122/
 
Dr Kradijan’s  “MILK LETTER” written to his patients is very good:
https://www.afpafitness.com/research-articles/the-milk-letter-a-message-to-my-patients

​Finally, I'd like to leave you with this to think about.  I still think of myself as a "nursing mother". The memory of the intense feelings of love and attachment that I felt as my babies nursed is still profound.   I realized then, that much of what I thought of as, "LOVE" for my children was very hormone driven.  Each time my milk flowed, I'd have an even more overwhelming desire to be with my babies. It would have been very upsetting if someone had tried to interfere in my ability to nurse and care for them -- and even worse if someone had actually taken them from me!   I know that I share that feeling with lactating females all over the world -- including those of non-human mothers.  When I see someone eating cheese or drinking cow's milk, I cannot help but feel sad for the cow mother who had her baby stolen from her so that humans could take the milk she made for her baby.  That is one of the most compelling reasons why I remain vegan.​
Picture
0 Comments

Vaxxed -- Watch it and Make Up Your Own Mind.

6/25/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
​
Vaxxed The Movie was recently previewed in Kansas City.  There was a lot of negative press about this movie, and I heard that Robert De Niro appeared to cave to pressure to pull it from his film festival.  In addition it was reported that at screenings around the  country mothers who had not even seen this movie were protesting outside of movie theaters objecting to it even being shown.  I was curious to know what specifically this documentary said that might elicit such responses...so I went to see for myself. 

I was shocked. 

​I'll be honest -- when I heard that Andrew Wakefield, a highly accomplished gastroenterologist/scientific researcher had directed it, I was skeptical at how good a movie it would be.  How good would a scientist/doctor be at film directing, when he had never done something like this before?  But the documentary turned out to be an engaging, professionally done, easy to follow and fast paced presentation that focused mainly upon one thing:   A CDC senior scientist had come forward alleging the CDC had deliberately destroyed data from a study suggesting that  African American boys given the MMR vaccine at 18 months DID show a highly significant increase in autism diagnosis, compared to those who received this vaccine after 3 years of age.  The documentary also featured a number of families with autistic children who shared their stories of watching their once perfect and healthy little toddlers regress into Autism after being given the MMR vaccine.    It was gut wrenching to think about what these parents had gone through, but it got even worse when you learned that after speaking out to try to prevent what happened to them from happening to others,  they have been attacked and even vilified.

​I thought this movie did an extraordinary job of presenting  evidence from multiple sources, including credible doctors and scientists to back up their assertion that the CDC failed in their duty to protect Americans.  They also suggested that the  American media's failure to investigate -- even after Congress was alerted, is evidence of the power and economic influence of big pharma. 

​After watching Vaxxed, and seeing that the movie was not even advocating that people not vaccinate -- (as one would have thought based upon those who opposed it being shown) I looked on-line to see what the movie's detractors were saying.  What could they possibly find so terrible -- had I been misled in some way that I did not notice?
​
​And that is what I found so shocking.   The criticisms did not point out any factual misstatements in the movie (leaving me to believe that they couldn't find any) instead all they did was attack the character of those in the movie -- in fact, one site began its review by first reminding readers that Andrew Wakefield had been professionally discredited and his paper on the MMR vaccine retracted.  For those who might have found such ad hominem attacks compelling, be sure to read this essay about Dr Wakefield, which will explain the parts of the story, the mainstream media has chosen to not share:

                                      Who is Dr Andrew Wakefield?

​Then I hope that you will watch Vaxxed the Movie, and make up your mind for yourself about what is really going on here.  If you know anything about science, then you know that a study that fails to find a link, can never be proof that a link does not exist – (which is what the media keeps alleging about the MMR vaccine and autism) but rather, it may in fact, just mean that THAT study was not designed in a way that could find a link!  (And I can tell you that when I worked in the pharmaceutical industry -- I was in meetings between the marketing department and scientific department, where the first actually told the second what sort of data they needed for marketing purposes and the latter then suggested a university that likely would do the study and set parameters exactly as we needed to create the desired data-- if we gave them a nice grant for a new autoclave!) Furthermore, if you have common sense and a healthy amount of skepticism, consider why so many entities don’t want you to even see this movie – when all it's doing is questioning what happened at the CDC, and sharing the perspective of a scientist who suggested that autism risk might be reduced if we replaced the MMR vaccine with THREE individual vaccines given at THREE different times.  What an outrageous and dangerous idea...right?
0 Comments

The REAL Paleo Diet:  It Just Might Help All of Us!

6/5/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
In my presentation titled: The Real Reason Paleo is so Popular -- Why the Issue of Gluten is so Important, I lay out evidence to suggest that far more people are adversely impacted by consumption of gluten than any of our current testing is capable of revealing.   For example, one study, looked at close to 100 people with refractory iron deficiency anemia (anemia so bad, that the only way that they could keep their iron levels up was to keep having blood transfusions) and tested these individuals for Celiac Disease using a variety of tests.  They  found that only 13% had flattened villi, only 5% were positive for Anti TGt2 antibodies (considered diagnostic for CD) and only 2/3 even had the genes considered necessary to have CD and/or gluten sensitivity -- yet 92% of these patients had a complete recovery from the anemia when they followed a strict gluten free diet long term.

​Given that so much science indicates that meat, via multiple different mechanisms, increases the level of inflammation in the body -- and the fact that inflammation plays a significant role in most chronic disease, studies like this one make an important contribution to our understanding of what is going on.  It is worth noting that although most of those embracing the current paleo craze shun beans, the two dietary factors that all the blue zones (the longest lived healthiest populations in the world) have in common is:
  1. They eat a low-protein diet with very little food of animal origin and
  2. They all consume legumes (beans, peas lentils).

I believe gluten explains why so many people believe that Paleo (which is mostly if not entirely gluten free in the way most people interpret it) is helping them to feel better in spite of overwhelming science suggesting that eating more meat and less beans adversely impacts health outcomes over the long term and probably shortens lifespan.  In addition many authors have pointed out that popular beliefs about what stone age humans ate falls short of common sense -- there was obviously enormous variability in the amount of plant-food vs animal food eaten in various regions -- with only perhaps humans living in extremely cold  environments eating anything close to the proportions suggested by most Paleo authors.  There was great variability by region as to what was eaten, and the archeological record suggests that very few of our Paleolithic ancestors regularly even had the option of eating the large amounts of animal protein that are being encouraged by current paleo devotees.

​Now a new video by Dr. Michael Greger explains some interesting research that sheds additional light on this subject.  He points out the fallacy of assuming we are most adapted to eat what our Paleolithic ancestors ate, since the Paleolithic Period accounts for only about 10 % of hominid evolution -- with the other 90% of our DNA having evolved during the Miocene Era.  Scientists agree that hominid diets in the Miocene were overwhelmingly plant based in all regions that our hominid ancestors inhabited.  Watch Dr. Greger's new video on the Miocene route -- or read the short transcript just below the video on that same page.​
0 Comments

Are Planned Home Births Really MORE Dangerous?

4/6/2016

2 Comments

 
Picture
A Dec 2015 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled, Planned Out of Hospital Birth and Birth Outcomes, has been cited as evidence that homebirths carry more risk. I have spoken with a number of MD's  over the years who believe homebirth is so dangerous that it should be made illegal.

Both of my children were planned homebirths, although with my first birth, after two nights of labor and no baby (probably because of prior tailbone injury)  I ended up transferring into the hospital.  The pitocin administered to try to get things moving after the epidural I was given  brought labor to a halt, caused my baby's heartbeat to fall. I was literally minutes away from an emergency C-section when my daughter surprised us all and her head popped out.  I am convinced, that had I NOT planned to have her at home, where I labored for two nights before going to the hospital, I would have ended up with a C- section.  Most medical settings would never have allowed me to labor that long -- which was apparently how long was needed in this case.  A C-section would have been devastating for me, not just because recovering from major surgery would have been an unpleasant way to begin motherhood, but also because I believed that C-sections carried long term risks for babies.  (And probably more of them than we now know about even now.)  For example passing through the birth canal helps the baby establish a healthy microbiome -- critical for proper immune function -- probably reducing the development of allergies.  The tight squeezing of the baby's body in a vaginal birth helps to remove amniotic fluid from their lungs and may be a factor in the lower rates of respiratory problems in babies born vaginally. 

Because I have met hundreds of homebirth families over the past two decades, who were thrilled with their choice to give birth at home with a lay midwife, and I have also heard some pretty disturbing stories of horrendous planned hospital births, (including one friend who believes her baby's death from a perforated colon was BECAUSE of the hospital's aggressive interventions)   I was curious to know more about this study that was being touted as proof that planned homebirth is much riskier, so I got a copy of this article and studied it.

Although I was happy with how medical staff treated me as a home-birther- transferring- into-the-hospital, my midwife told me that our having an MD with clout at the hospital (who had agreed ahead of time to provide our hospital back up) was critical to my positive experience.  I know from talking with many other mothers and several midwives, that this is often not the case.  Many home birth mothers who transfer into the hospital are treated disrespectfully by staff who believe attempting a home birth is irresponsible, and resent them wanting to have a say in what procedures are or are not used on them.  At the very least, such treatment is likely to increase tension, it may even increase the risk of adverse outcomes.  An adversarial relationship between patient and staff doesn't help anyone.

So keep all that in mind as I discuss this NEJM article.

The objective of this research was to correct for the bias of previous studies (which had often found homebirth outcomes to be as good or better than hospital.)   This study pointed out that previous US research comparing home birth to hospital birth, had compared based upon where the birth actually took place, rather than where it was PLANNED to take place.  In other words, if someone planned a birth at home, and then had to transfer to the hospital because things weren't going well -- in past studies that birth (and its possibly bad outcome) had been classified as a hospital birth, which these researchers felt was confounding the data.   Recent changes in Oregon in how birth records are entered however, now made it possible to see where births were planned to happen.  They looked at about 80,000 births in the state in 2012 and 2013 and compared outcomes based upon where the birth took place, and then reclassified them based upon where they were planned to take place, and once they did this, were able to show a slight increase in perinatal deaths.

However, even the study's authors said this, "Perinatal mortality was higher with planned out-of-hospital birth than with planned in-hospital birth, but the absolute risk of death was low in both settings."   This hardly seems like a basis for broad condemnation of home birth especially when you consider the rest of what I have to say.

Before reclassification, homebirths and birth clinic births were shown as separate categories, but after reclassification these were only shown as a combined stat ("out-of-hospital births") And in fact before reclassification, homebirth had significantly less deaths than did birth centers -- so this suggests that after reclassification the birth center stats made "out of hospital" look worse.  (see table from the study below.) Also the discussion in this paper explains that births that were planned for the hospital, but ended up happening at home were not included in this study.  At first this would seem to make sense to exclude these -- because the assumption is that these labors just happened too fast to get to the hospital, and so don't really reflect the risks of someone planning to birth at home.  But I know -- having been part of the homebirth community, that many families planning a homebirth, are unable to find a doctor willing to provide hospital back up.  So they PRETEND to go along with the system, and lead their doctor to believe that they plan to give birth in the hospital, so that if they do need to transfer into the hospital, hospital staff, have no idea that they were planning on birthing at home, and think they are just a regular planned hospital birth.  If their homebirth does go fine, they simply tell their doctor,  "It all happened too fast to get there."  We have no idea how many births might have fallen into this category -- but it seems very reasonable, that this exclusion alone could have significantly biased this study against homebirth.  Here is a table from the study showing outcomes -- (keep in mind planned homebirthers who pretended that they were planning a hospital birth are not represented here at all.)
Picture
Notice also, the rate of C-sections  AFTER reclassification -- was 25% of the planned hospital births, but only 5% of those planning a homebirth.  That means that thousands of families planning to have a baby in the hospital ended up having unnecessary C-sections.  We don't know how much this increased postpartum depression, or contributed to a new family  getting off to a shaky start, or contributed to breast-feeding failures, with long term negative consequences for the health of mother or baby.

There is another possible bias in this study.  The authors claim that they controlled for things like gestational diabetes and hypertension -- explaining that these things, separate from the planned place of birth, increase risk and they didn't want them confounding the results.   I don't know how they "controlled" for these (were some of these mothers excluded?) -- but I do know that the odds of a previously healthy woman developing hypertension or diabetes during her pregnancy ARE LESS with those planning a home birth, because midwives emphasize and support healthy diet far more than obstetricians, and proper diet can usually prevent these problems.  So if they excluded women who became diabetic or developed high blood pressure under the care of their OB -- and then had a bad outcome in part as a result of that condition -- those statistics SHOULD be considered in the equation seeking to understand the risks/benefits of planned home births.

I have always believed that a woman should give birth where ever she feels she is safest.  There is unavoidable risk in life and in birth. No one can guarantee a healthy birth outcome.  But having freedom means that we are free to chose which risks we would rather be exposed to.  I know of great outcomes in hospitals and some tragic ones too.  I also know several extraordinary lay-midwives, and have met hundreds of families who have had terrific birth experiences and healthy babies with lay midwives at home.  I do not want to criminalize lay midwifery or homebirth.  I also do not want to see it further regulated.  In the states that have done so, I think there have been negative impacts for women and babies -- because in order to keep their license, midwives become required to practice according conventional medical models -- which is exactly what has caused the home birth movement to grow -- many of us think that model has harms that are not quantified and have risks that we don't want to be forced to accept.  We should all be free to choose, and this study -- even taken at face value does not support the assertion that home birth entails significantly more risk over hospital birth.

2 Comments

Seven Reasons to Oppose Back Yard Chicken Farming

4/5/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
When I worked as a microbiologist for Merck and Co. Inc, I spent time in commercial hatcheries.  Although I could easily spot the cruelty in those places, for a long time after that I was still unable to spot the cruelty when I visited friends who were raising chicks in incubators to have backyard eggs.  I think it was because of my  education -- beginning with classroom chicken hatching projects -- that had taught me to NOT see the injustice we forced upon chickens, I literally, "Did not see," the injustice of depriving baby chicks of the experience of being raised by their own mother, just so humans could eat their eggs -- something we do not need to do, and which the science now clearly shows is actually causing harm to the humans who do this!  Below is my compilation of reasons why I now oppose backyard chicken farming.

1) It supports industrial animal agricultural operations. Most backyard chicken  farmers purchase baby chicks from commercial hatcheries.   There is much cruelty in commercial hatcheries.  For example chicks who get under the wheels of carts are left half-smashed and still alive for hours on the floor.  Others get their tender innervated beaks singed off with a hot iron.  They are slammed into stationary vaccination needles so rapidly that some get the shots in the eye or die from the roughness.

2) Most backyard farmer's chicks have been sent through the US Postal service.  This may take up to 72 hours during which time they have no food, no water, no warmth.   Not all of them survive this abuse -- and the hatcheries know this -- so they usually include a few extras to replace those killed in the transport process.

3) Most hatcheries suffocate or grind up alive the male chicks.   There is no market for them as they are the wrong breed to use for meat production. But some take a more humane approach and use the males as live, "packing material" in their shipments of female chicks to farmers -- letting their customers figure out what to do with these unwanted individuals.

4) Even if you can find backyard farmers who do not get their chicks from commercial hatcheries you are still perpetuating violence and exploitation of other beings.  Most cities only allow the keeping of hens, not roosters.  Since about half of eggs hatch into males, these birds are not wanted.  Even in places where keeping them is allowed, most urban egg farmers don't want them, as they are not useful for producing eggs, take up space and cost money to feed and house.  And they crow loudly.  So most males are either killed at birth, allowed to live for awhile and then killed and eaten, or set loose in areas that they are not adapted to survive in, or they end up at animal shelters.

5) Backyard poultry increase rodent populations in urban areas.  Even under the most well-maintained conditions, the straw and feed that is put out for the birds, is a huge draw for mice and rats.

6) The natural reservoir for influenza is birds.  All strains of human flu started out as bird flu.  Bringing human populations into close repeated contact with birds (chickens and ducks) exposed to wild bird populations increases the possibility of a new strain of influenza making the cross species jump.

7) Chickens and their feces often contain pathogenic organisms like Salmonella, and Campylobacter.  When it rains, runoff from a yard with chickens can find its way into neighboring yards spreading these bacteria.  Privacy fences do not prevent this, and children playing in other yards are more likely to be exposed via playing in the dirt or cuddling with cats and dogs who have also been exposed.

We not only don't need to raise and kill animals for our survival, doing so contributes to the major environmental problems plaguing humanity, is an inefficient use of limited resources, is exploitative of other beings and harms human health.  If you are reading this, please go vegan.  For more on this topic visit:

What's Wrong With Backyard Eggs?

0 Comments

Do You Want your Neighbors Killing Cats and Dogs in their Back Yard?

3/27/2016

3 Comments

 
Picture
How would you feel, if someone in your suburban neighborhood, frustrated with industrial agriculture and it's egregious crowding of animals, and use of antibiotics and hormones, decided to take matters into their own hands? How would you feel if they use their little subdivision yard to house, raise and then kill animals to eat the meat -- and maybe even sell a bit of it to others?  Supposing these neighbor's traditions included eating cats and dogs -- and they were killing these animals in their backyard too?  Would this bother you?  How would you feel if children in the neighborhood were to grow up learning to accept this sort of violence as normal and not be bothered by it -- would you consider that a good thing?  Would you like to see the routine killing of cats and dogs in back yards become completely acceptable in our community?

I just found out that the Lawrence Planning Commission Staff have recommended revising the current city code to legalize back yard slaughter of small animals as part of their plan to enable and embrace "urban agriculture" and I'd like to explain why I find this so incredibly disturbing.

I first began educating people about the health and environmental benefits of eating plant based nearly twenty-five years ago and pointing out, especially to young adults, the horrific and completely unnecessary violence required to turn feeling, thinking beings into meat.  Overwhelmingly, people would say to me, "If I had to kill an animal myself, I would never eat meat," demonstrating humanity and the natural aversion to violence against animals that most people have.  When I asked people to consider what was the moral difference that enabled them to support killing some animals (cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, fish) for the frivolous reason of taste or habit,  while opposing killing other animals (cats and dogs) whom they would sometimes welcome as part of their family, this would at the very least, cause most people to pause and consider the cognitive dissonance of this double standard. 

In the past ten years however, with the growth of the small local farm movement, I have witnessed a change in many young adults in our area in terms of how they react to my raising concerns about the violence required for producing meat.  Increasingly I am running into well-meaning college-aged men and women, who have developed relationships with small local farms.  These idealistic young people may have been motivated initially by their opposition to the violence of factory farms.  But after connecting with and volunteering on local farms they came to embrace certain types of violence.  While at first many found killing animals distasteful, after forming meaningful relationships with mentors (the farmers) who had already become desensitized to specific types of violence, these young people learned to accept it as well.  As evidence that this represents a spreading of "desensitization to violence,"  when I ask those who are volunteering on these farms what moral difference justifies killing a pig for food, but not killing a dog for the same reason -- they are very quick to assure me that there IS NO DIFFERENCE -- and in fact, they would now just as soon kill and eat a dog -- if that was our culture.

Now you may argue that the current regulations being considered would NOT legalize killing cats  or dogs in our city neighborhoods -- only traditionally eaten farm animals -- so my concern is misguided. However keep in mind -- increasingly our communities are multicultural -- and other cultures eat cats and dogs the way ours eat chickens and pigs.  Not only is there absolutely no morally relevant criteria by which you can justify killing one and not the other, but to allow the killing of chickens for food, while disallowing killing cats, is a type of racism -- favoring one culture's practices over another.  At some  point, likely such codes would be challenged on these grounds -- and if the legal killing of some animals had come to be accepted in our urban neighborhoods, it is more likely the resolution of this disparity would legalize killing cats and dogs -- rather than the abolishment of killing.  So if this disturbs you, the time to speak up is NOW.  

From a public health/safety standpoint, what the Lawrence City Commission is considering is also problematic.  The majority of infectious diseases plaguing humanity have come from our domestication and use of animals.  Bringing more animals into urban areas, only increases the chances that we will have animal diseases adapting to human populations -- this is in  fact THE cause of newly emerging strains of flu -- all flus were originally "bird flu."

I fully support urban agriculture using plants and allowing people to turn their lawns into food gardens, but I think making it easier for people to raise animals for food in urban areas is a dangerous backwards step.  I urge you to contact the Lawrence City Commission and our mayor and city manager (see contact info in red below) and do all that you can to keep this from happening.
Picture
Picture
As per David's recommendation ( in the comments below) here is who you can contact in the City of Lawrence to try to keep these new urban animal agriculture and slaughter provisions from going into effect....

Tom Markus (City Manager) 785-832-3400  [email protected]
Mike Amyx (Mayor) 785- 842-9425             [email protected]

Commissioners:

Stuart Boley  [email protected]
Lisa Larsen [email protected]
Matthew Herbert [email protected]  
3 Comments

Five Things You Might Not Know About the Masai -- BUT SHOULD

3/1/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
Proponents of the Paleo, Primal and Low-Carb lifestyles often like to cite the Maasai people  of Africa as evidence that a diet rich in meat and dairy won’t contribute to heart disease.  But most of those who are referencing the Masai don't know these important facts:
  1. Although early studies found no clinical evidence of heart disease in the Masai, they did not actually measure food intakes or frequency at that time.
  2. The Masai are extremely active people walking 12 more miles a day then the average American and much of the evidence suggests they were chronically calorie deficient  when studied (Caloric deficiency has been well documented as slowing down aging and decreasing degenerative disease) and they probably endured intermittent fasting, due to food scarcity. (Which is also likely to be cardioprotective!)
  3. The Masai populations referenced in the studies had few subjects over age 50 — when one is more likely to see clinical evidence of heart disease — and cardiovascular dis-ease is often decades in the making before clinical symptoms manifest.
  4. Even though clinical evidence of heart disease was absent, autopsies of 50 males did show extensive atherosclerosis — but with enlarged arteries (from their active lifestyle?) which may have mitigated the atherosclerosis.
  5. The animals consumed by the Massai likely were not injected with hormones and antibiotics, and likely were not grainfed making them more similar to the most expensive, classist meat and dairy sold in the US — rather then like what most Americans actually have access to (which may have additional health harms) and yet they still had atherosclerosis.)

Given that heart disease is the number one cause of premature death in the US, It is important that we balance romantic notions of "traditional" populations and mythology that encourages unhealthy approaches to weight-loss with reliable facts.  The lives of people we care about just may depend upon it.
　

Info taken from the article: Masai and Inuit: High Protein Diets a Closer Look.
0 Comments

Vegan Eggs are Here -- Better than Viagra!

2/26/2016

1 Comment

 
Picture
Follow Your Heart has come out with a vegan egg product that can be used to make realistic omelets.  It's not yet available in stores here -- but maybe if enough of us ask for it, we'll have it in Lawrence sooner rather than later. In the meantime, you can purchase it online (Follow Your Heart's site links to on-line retailers who are selling it.)

The photo on the left is from the folks at Vegan Street, and if you hop on over to their site, you can get their recipe for making this omelet and read their full review of the product.  This is actually a pretty exciting development.  Because in spite of egg industry shenanigans (backed by big money) the truth about just how unhealthy eggs are is starting to become known.  The egg industry has funded so much biased research -- carefully constructed to make eggs look safe.  But in fact, overwhelming science (not funded by the industry) suggests that even eating a single egg a week, may increase  one's risk of developing type two diabetes.  And that's not all, egg consumption increases the risk of heart disease - which by the way, one of the earlier warning symptoms in men is impotence.  So for men who want to stay really manly -- they just might want to switch out eating the cholesterol laden by-products of the chicken's menstrual cycle for this safer plant based alternative!  To learn more, check out:

        Who Says Eggs aren't Healthy or Safe?

            Eggs Choline and Cancer

            Eggs and  Diabetes

            Eggs and Arterial Function

Bon Appetite! 
1 Comment

Cured my sensitive Teeth -- and I'm Getting GREAT CHECK-UPS!

2/22/2016

7 Comments

 
Picture
As a small child, one of my more memorable traumas, was being smacked in the face by my dentist after I bit him.  So it's possible my childhood dental care was not the best.  By the time I made it to adulthood, I still had a lot of silver in my mouth -- even after losing many of my fillings with my baby teeth.  I tell you this to suggest that I was not one of those people genetically predisposed to a cavity-free life.  Then, as a young adult I was diagnosed with, "Deep pockets" and had to have some special procedures done to try to remedy this and improve the health of my gums.   However, in recent years I have been having great check-ups and my hygienists are always amazed at how long I go between teeth cleanings, and yet my gum pockets have not increased and I typically have very little tarter.  Would you believe, I've been going about 1-2 years between teeth cleanings for the past decade?  Not only that, I seldom replace my tooth brush -- using the same one for about a year or more before replacing it.  (But I do dip it in Hydrogen peroxide every few weeks!)

Maybe I've just been lucky.  Or maybe it's a combination of my diet and dental hygiene.  Some scientific research has suggested that our teeth and the health of our heart are linked.  For twenty five years I have eaten a diet entirely free of dietary cholesterol, (so no meat/fish dairy nor eggs) and for much of that time I have eaten mostly whole foods, and especially emphasized beans and greens, while increasingly eating less oil and sugar.  I've also completely eliminated gluten for close to ten years.   But I do eat a lot of dried fruit in my baking and desserts -- something that can make teeth more cavity prone.

But about three years ago, I have developed a little regimen for my teeth.  I stumbled upon this as I explored ways to deal with the issue of teeth sensitivity to cold/heat/sweets that I was developing.  I was wanting something non-toxic and cheep to deal with this issue.  Not only did I find something that completely eliminated my sensitivity, but my most recent check up was the best I've ever had.  Not only were there no cavities, but I was told my pockets were gone.  Here's what's really amazing -- It had been three years, since I even went to the dental hygienist -- and she barely had to scrape any of my teeth.

Most (but not all) evenings, after I brush my teeth with the lowest priced, non-fluoridated, vegan, gluten free toothpaste I can purchase, I then floss my teeth -- using a sawing motion as I raise and lower the floss on both sides of each tooth.  Next I take my damp toothbrush and place about 1/4 teaspoon of  calcium citrate powder on it and brush my teeth again.  Sometimes I even wait a few minutes before rinsing it while I do a few other things to get ready for bed.   I suspect that the calcium citrate not only fills in tiny openings in teeth that when open, may make the nerves more sensitive to chemicals and temperature changes, but that by doing this right after flossing, when gums sometimes bleed, it may also facilitate calcium getting into the tissue around the teeth, and perhaps serving some useful purpose there.

All I know, is that my teeth are no longer sensitive, and my dentist told me that teeth and gums look good. And I am saving money.  By the way, I drink unfluoridated  water, and never get fluoride treatments from the dentist.
7 Comments

Lettuce Lentil Pate Wraps

2/18/2016

2 Comments

 
Picture
These are a Farb family staple!  We take them to parties, on picnics, use them for car travel food and serve them as appetizers to dinner guests.  They have a high raw content, but are also deeply satisfying and satiating, without much fat.  You can incorporate HUGE amounts of lettuce into each wrap as well -- which is great for children who may have trouble eating large amounts of salad!  They do require rice paper wrappers -- which can be found for about two dollars at Asian markets. If you can find them, get the ones that are made from just rice, salt and water -- but increasingly all that is available are ones that also have tapioca flour in them (also called cassava root).  The addition of tapioca creates rice wrappers that never stop being sticky -- which is unfortunate, because if you pile them up on a plate as I have in this picture, the tapioca ones will stick to each other and be darn near impossible to gracefully separate.  (This has reduced my bringing these to parties as much!)  But they are still great if you individually wrap them in parchment paper as I do for taking them for lunch away from home.  Still they are absolutely delicious -- so don't let the rice paper wrapper issue, keep you from trying these out.

Ingredients:

2-3 large onions
1/2 cup water plus more as needed
1 cube Rapunzel Bouillon
3 1/2  cups cooked brown lentils (freshly cooked or use canned)
3/4 cups raw walnuts halves
2 heads of romaine or other leaf lettuce
1 package rice paper wrappers
1 cup chopped frozen green beans
salt and black pepper to taste

Directions:
  1. Place the water and bouillon cube into a large fry pan and turn burner to high.
  2. Slice the onions  about fairly thickly into 1/4 inch rounds and add them to the pan.  Allow to saute for about 40 minutes uncovered.   Watch them closely and each time the water is gone and they are just starting to stick (and brown!)  Drizzle in another 1/4 cup of water and stir them around.  Keep doing this until onions are super shriveled and dark, then turn off burner and allow to sit for a few minutes.
  3. While onions are cooking, wash the heads of lettuce and break off the leaves into large individual pieces, spin or pat them dry and set aside in a large bowl.  Set a pan or bowl large enough to dip individual rice wrappers in next to the bowl of lettuce and fill it with just enough water to easily submerge the rice wrappers in one at a time.
  4. Place the walnuts into a food processor and process with an "S" bland until walnuts are in crumbs.  Add the cooked lentils, and green beans and process again until green beans are completely chopped up, then add the onions and process until it is a thick brown homogenous mixture.  Add salt and pepper to taste while it is mixing.
  5. Now you are ready to assemble the wraps.  Take one rice wrapper and submerge it in the water for a moment, and then tap it on the container to remove excess water.  lay it flat on the counter in  front of you.  While you are waiting for it to soften, repeat this process with 3-5 more wrappers so that you will have an assembly line of them in front of you.  Now place a few lettuce leaves on the half of the wrapper closest to you. (arranged so that the leaves are longest from R to L) Do this for each wrapper.  Using a spoon, scoop up a few teaspoons of the lentil mixture and place it in a single line in the middle of each set of lettuce leaves.  Then fold the left and right ends of the rice wrapper over the leaves, and roll the wrappers up away from you, being careful to keep the lentil filling inside.  Roll as tightly as you can.

For lunches away from home, I leave them whole, but for serving as an appetizer, I cut them into thirds as they are in the picture.
2 Comments

Lawrence Area Best Food Buys

2/17/2016

0 Comments

 
If you came here to read my post, Is Free Speech Dead in Lawrence, Kansas, it is now the 8th post below this one -- scroll down to read it.
Picture
Years ago I diversified my grocery shopping.  It just didn't make sense to get everything at one place, because not only was this not possible given the wide variety of ingredients that I use in my food preparation, but also because I found such dramatic price variability on each item from one place to the next.    Occasionally I have even organized group buys on specific products, direct from the manufacturer, and though these are always a fabulous deal in terms of price, sometimes they entail a lot of work on my part....like the time I got a 1000 pounds of raw cashews and then had to divide them correctly between several dozen people.  (A bigger job than I had predicted!)  I've purchased bulk quinoa flakes direct from the Ancient Harvest company, bulk mirin from Eden Foods, and also joined in on similar group buys that others have organized from Green Smoothie Girl, Frontier Herbs, South River Miso Company, Rose Mountain Herbs, UNFI and Azure Standard.   What follows is the listing of my favorite places to get specific items.  I also buy some things via the internet now -- In many cases this not only saves me money, and hassle, but allows me to spend my dollars with companies who are not actively working to increase consumption of meat, dairy and eggs -- an important point if you care about slowing climate change or believe that when we have a choice, we should not deliberately cause harm to other animals.

Costco:  I am not a Costco member because the closest Costco is still an hour's drive for me, so I don't go there very often,  but I do like the company.  They seem to operate much more ethically than Sam's Club and Walmart.  They don't always have every item that I have bought there on previous trips -- it can be hit or miss, and I do need to pay attention to where items are from -- some of their organics are from China -- which I won't buy.  But every so often friends make it possible for me to shop there and then I stock up on the following:  

Organic Carrots, 10 lb bag is about 6 dollars
Frozen organic green beans 5 lb bag 6.69 dollars
Frozen organic sweet corn 5 lb bag about dollars
Frozen organic peas 5 lb bag is  6.39 dollars
Organic Chia Seeds  2 lb bag 8.79
Organic Short Grain Rice 12 lb bag 13.99
Raw Walnuts  3 lb bag 12.99
Organic Quinoa 4 lb bag 11.99
Organic Maple Syrup 1 quart about 13.00
Organic Lemon Juice 2 quart package 7.89
Green Tea from Japan  100 tea bags is 11.99
Namaste Gluten-free flour blend  5 lb bag  8.99

Checkers Grocery Store: This is a locally owned non-chain large grocery store.  They do an amazing job of selling foods from  smaller and sometimes local food producers, and often pass on great savings to their customers on fresh produce.  The great deals are always different.  A few days ago, they had incredibly sweet, large, red, juicy grapefruits for 25 cents each!  A few weeks ago, I got delicious Pink Lady Apples for a dollar a pound.  I usually find red cabbage for about 70 cents a pound too.

Natural Grocers: This is where I buy organic potatoes, lettuces and greens.  They typically have raw cashew peices for about 5-6 dollars a pound and this is also THE source for my very favorite tofu -- Wild Wood Organic Super Firm Tofu, which I prefer over other available tofu, ever since finding out that some tofu is manufactured in PLASTIC VESSELS.  (BPA/BPS anyone?) I called Wildwood and they told me that when the hot soy milk is being coagulated, this is done in STAINLESS STEEL containers.  It also is a GREAT price -- just 3.19 for a 20 oz block of the firmest tofu I have ever found.

Azure Standard out of Oregon (via a local buying group) does have tax and delivery charges on top of these prices, but it allows me to get:

tricolored organic popcorn 25 lb bag for 38.00
1 lb of onion powder for 5.30
5 lbs of cashew pieces for 22.00
5 lbs of whole raw golden flax seeds,  for 12.00
Mori Nu silken firm organic 12 x 12.3 oz for 17.00
15 pounds of pitted dates for 38.00

Dillions Grocery store on 6th and Lawrence Avenue. Has great tasting purified water (RO and UV treated) for 40 cents a gallon some well priced fresh organic produce and an amazing selection of packaged gluten-free vegan convenience items.

HyVee on 6th street is the only place in town that I know of that carries ALL FOUR varieties of Daiya Cheesecakes-- and right now they are on sale for under six dollars each -- if you are looking for something sweet and easy to take to an event -- this is what I recommend -- it really impresses people -- including those who think something dairy and gluten free couldn't possibly satisfy them.

There are a variety of internet options for buying things like sorghum flour, buckwheat flour, xanthan gum, guar gum, agar powder, organic corn starch, sea vegetables, vitamin B-12, and one pound bags of herbs and seasonings, and personal care items.   In general there is no shipping and no tax, when you order at least 50 dollars of stuff, but special deals and shipping times vary quite a bit.  Here are some to check out:

Swansons Vitamins
Vitacost
Thrive Market

Sprouts Farmers Market, Sometimes has terrific bargains on specific items (I once got the largest sweetest mangos I've ever tasted for 25 cents a pound!) but overall I find their prices higher than most other places and when I have requested that they get products I wanted, (like Daiya Cheesecakes) they were the least responsive retailer I have ever attempted to deal with, so I don't shop there too often.

If you know of some good deals that others might be interested in -- feel free to post them as comments here.
0 Comments

Unprocessed Black Bean Brownies

2/17/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
There are many black bean brownie recipes all over the internet, and I have tried a fair number of them too.  In general, these recipes use black beans in place of flour, to create a "grain-free" product.  There are many variations on this theme -- not all of them are vegan, and some use sugar and oils too.  Below is the recipe that I created. It is not the most decadent of those I have tried, but it is my favorite because it is made entirely from whole foods, with no added junk, yet gives me a nice chocolate "fix" without too much fat while being made entirely of unprocessed ingredients.   Be sure to use an, "All Fruit" fruit spread -- that is one that does not have added sugars in it.   Also -- I use Deglet dates for this, they are smaller, drier, and cost a lot less than Medjool dates.  The finished brownies store for at least a week in the refrigerator and also freeze very well.

Ingredients:

2 cups freshly cooked or canned black beans
25 Deglet dates, pits removed
1/4 cup raw almonds
1/4 cup strawberry fruit spread
1 TBS vanilla extract
7 TBS cacao powder or coco powder, (or carob powder for caffeine free treats!)


Directions:
  1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees.
  2. Place the beans in a large strainer and hold under running water to clean them off, then remove as much of the liquid as you can, by bouncing  the strainer a few times over the sink.  Transfer the beans to a powerful blender. 
  3. Add the dates (checking to make sure there are no pit piecies!), almonds, fruit spread and vanilla extract and blend on high for a few minutes until all is smooth.  You might need to stop and scrape the sides down a few times.
  4. Transfer the mixture to a bowl and using a fork, stir in the cacao or coco powder until well blended.
  5. Take a 7 x 7 inch glass or metal baking dish and press a 12 x12 inch piece of parchment paper into the bottom.  Carefully spoon the mixture into the parchment paper lining the pan and set another piece of parchment paper on top, and then use your hands to press the mixture into a perfectly level square in the pan -- about one half to three quarters of an inch deep, then remove the top layer of parchment once you get the brownies shaped properly.
  6. Bake brownies in center of oven for about 40 minutes, then remove from oven and allow to cool about 5 minutes before cutting.
0 Comments

This Information Could Save Your Life!

2/14/2016

1 Comment

 
Picture
Before I lost my job at The Merc, I was scheduled to teach a class in February titled, Compassion, Love and Health.   My class was to feature recipes consistent with the guidelines used in multiple studies showing arrest and reversal of coronary artery disease, the number one cause of death in this country.   Although there are many programs around town purporting to teach "heart healthy" cooking and eating, as far as I know, none of them actually advocate the only diet shown to stop our number one killer.

While modern cardiology has some spectacular high tech tools that can be lifesaving in emergencies, in general the field of cardiology is concerned with managing heart disease, not reversing, nor even just halting its onward march.  Angioplasties, stents, and bypass operations have never been shown to arrest or reverse the underlying progressive disease and often must be redone over time.  These procedures come with a high price tag and unintended consequences most patients are unaware of when they agree to have them done.  For example – bypass surgery requires the use of a heart-lung machine, which typically causes some degree of brain damage, and patients getting these procedures usually must stay on drugs that can damage muscles, the liver, or cause depression.   Because most cardiologists are only trained in the use of drugs and surgeries, few ever tell their patients there may be a safer, more effective option (an oil-free, whole-foods vegan diet) which just happens to have none of these side effects. (But does have the side effect of often reversing type two diabetes!)  The typical dietary measures that most cardiologists do recommend simply do not go far enough to halt disease progression, so most of them have never seen for themselves how effectively a proper diet can actually reverse this disease.    Much death and disability could be prevented if more people were aware of this information.

To those unfamiliar with the actual science on diet and heart disease, programs touting recipes sanctioned by cardiologists, might sound impressive, but how many cardiology patients have you heard of that avoided surgery, or got off many of their drugs, and five years later were feeling better than ever?  Yet this is a common occurrence for patients of Doctors Caldwell Esselstyn, John McDougall, Baxter Montgomery, Joel Fuhrman, Pam Popper, Joel Kahn, Michael Klaper, and Linda Carney none of whom tout the American Heart Association diet.  Their successful patients are eliminating all animal flesh including fish, and oils, because no scientific studies have demonstrated arrest and reversal of cardiovascular disease eating these foods.  The best one could say about the supposed “heart healthy” menus that most doctors still endorse, is that compared to the standard American diet, cardiovascular disease might progress a bit more slowly.   Given that we have good science showing we can actually REVERSE heart disease on a whole-foods, plant-based, oil-free diet, it’s unfortunate that more people aren’t aware of this information.

Picture
If you want to find good science on how to prevent or reverse heart disease, read this book and check out these websites:

http://www.dresselstyn.com/site/
https://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/HeartDisease.aspx
http://montgomeryheart.com/
http://www.healthpromoting.com/condition/heart-disease
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/advice-from-a-vegan-cardiologist/?_r=2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-kahn-md/3-nba-players-die-of-hear_b_8060014.html
For even more information, inspiration, favorite recipe sites and more, be sure to visit my resources page.
1 Comment

The Merc Makes another Move -- JoAnn Farb Responds:

2/6/2016

12 Comments

 
Picture
The Lawrence Community Mercantile has informed me that I will not be teaching cooking classes there again.  I attempted to shine a light on some things that I consider profoundly unjust, and now I have lost my job. There are no winners in this, only losers.  I feel pretty battered, and I know that some of the Merc’s employees do as well.  For this I am deeply sorry.  But the hurt human feelings are not the most important issue here. Let’s not lose sight of the real victims--the billions of non-human beings. Beings who have rich emotional lives similar to our own.  They are victims of a violent paradigm, what social psychologist Melanie Joy has called, “Carnism” the invisible belief system that enables and perpetuates eating meat and dairy when it is not necessary to our survival.  Carnism is a violent system and its continuation necessitates ongoing violence and exploitation from humans.   We have all been born into a violent paradigm that most don’t even realize exists.  We think it is just the way things always have been and everything about our culture attempts to keep us complicit and unquestioning.  This enables good people to turn a blind eye to the widespread systemic forced impregnation of females, the violent removal of sperm from males, the destruction of the mother-infant bond, ripping apart of families and social groups, the painful removal of body parts without anesthetic, and finally the ending of the victim’s life against their will.

I have lived with the knowledge of these horrific abuses for over 25 years.  For much of that time, I have worked hard to be a “nice” vegan.  I was like the lone non-homophobic person in a group conversation demeaning lesbians and gays who chooses to not challenge what is happening, so as to not make anyone uncomfortable.  Moving to Lawrence a decade ago shocked me because I met so many here who told me they had once been vegetarian, but more recently, with the growth of small farms purporting to be “humane,”  were eating meat again.   I also came to appreciate that overall, milk, cheese and eggs have even more violence in them than meat. Yet when I attempt, to raise these issues, I am vehemently attacked for being “unkind” to humans, branded as sensational, unwelcoming – even as an extremist.

I believe that the humans who feel most injured by the truthful things I have said, are experiencing my words as “injury” because deep in their hearts, they can feel the discord of their own choices.  They are either participating in carnism, defending carnism, or ignoring it.  To paraphrase Albert Einstein --The world is a dangerous place not because of those who do bad things, but because of those who look on and do nothing.  If those running The Merc and The Seed Fair truly believed my perspective had no validity, they would simply ignore me. But they can’t, because most of them are good, caring people, and I am raising awareness about how our widespread violence against other sentient beings is completely unnecessary here and now in Lawrence, Kansas, (and a factor contributing to many environmental problems, and the most common chronic diseases.)  My perspective challenges how they want to see themselves – as progressive, non-violent, tolerant and champions of free speech.

It is unfortunate that The Merc proceeded as they did.  They could have stayed “above the fray” by telling their meat vendors who objected to my teaching there, that The Merc represents a diverse community and they embrace free speech and the marketplace of ideas for their teachers, employees and member-owners, and taken no other action.  But instead, they disallowed my teaching there for the upcoming month.  They frame this as “They were just taking a break to let things calm down.”  But in fact this action deprived me of income for a month, in direct response to my whistle blowing, and their vendors being upset.

I chose to discuss all of this publicly as it unfolded, because even more important to me than the lost income was the opportunity for people to see for themselves, what is normally invisible but powerfully shapes the dissemination of information in our culture.  The public normally has no idea how decisions made out of their view determine what information they are (and are NOT) exposed to and may contribute to unnecessary exploitation of animals (and harms to humanity as a whole.)  This is what I discuss in my talk “What Really Matters,” where I suggest that all human-caused tragedies in history have been enabled to occur for exactly one reason: Because every culture teaches its people to “not see” specific injustices that privilege some at the expense of others.  For the record, the Merc employees I dealt with, I believe to be well-meaning people who have contributed much to make our community better in many ways. However I also believe that all of us, myself included, have the capacity to participate in injustice against others, that our own unique life experiences have contributed to us not recognizing what we are doing.  That is precisely why people willing to come forward and express unpopular ideas are so critical.  Do the people of Lawrence wish to end such willingness?  If you believe you have witnessed injustice – from an employer, a public policy or group supposedly acting in the public interest -- and you risked speaking up about it, how would you hope others in our community would respond?

Sadly, people have no idea how much this rampant, unquestioned support for carnism is preventing dissemination of the best science related to nutrition in med schools, or being represented in USDA nutrition guidelines and driving our public subsidies to farmers.  Collectively all these reduce exposure to information that might alter individuals’ dietary choices.  (Check out the book, Meatonomics for more on this.)  The science showing arrest and reversal of heart disease with a healthy vegan diet is compelling (and it’s a CHEAP option!) – and yet most cardiologists never even mention this is an option to their patients.
"If an oil-free, whole-foods vegan diet could arrest or
reverse my heart disease/diabetes/asthma/prostate cancer,
and get me off these expensive drugs with terrible side effects...
how come my doctor hasn't ever mentioned this to me before?"  
(What dozens of people have said to the author -- Now you know why.)

If you care about slowing climate change, reducing violence, solving the health care crisis, not exacerbating food insecurity for the global poor, one choice you make every single day connects all of these issues, and it’s what you choose to eat.  Please, if you are reading this, go to my resources page and start engaging the information there.  You will find out about free videos, mp3s, essays, library books and links to peer-reviewed literature on so many different but interrelated topics.  This information can improve your life and together we can change our world.

To read more about events leading up to what was discussed here be sure to read my other posts:
                          Is Free Speech Dead in Lawrence Kansas
                   Judge For Yourself -- This is What the Merc Board....
12 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>
    Picture
    Click to learn why people Fail on plant-based diets

    Categories

    All
    Environment
    Health
    Parenting
    Recipes
    Social Justice

    My Best Articles are HERE
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.