"Free and critical minds can emerge only by a return to the source-the primary sources. A free and critical mind takes nothing for granted and is not intimidated by "authorities" who frequently may be more confused than the general public. Free and critical minds seek truth without chauvinism or shame." - Dr. Asa G. Hilliard III (1)



Continuously nutrition pieces of your minds and health must follow.


“One single bit of information, if missing, incomplete, out of order or just plain wrong, has the potential to significantly alter thought processes, conclusions, decisions and behaviors, even when that one single logic entry exists in a sea of accuracy.”

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Living Instinctively, Pollination, Nectar, Pollen

Food Fight #39

Plant pollination is not the objective of insects. Bees and other pollen aiders visit flowers because they need food – pollen, nectar, water droplets and for some, other organisms. Insects do not visit flowers to admire them, smell them, pollinate them or sunbathe. Pollination by insects is a beneficial byproduct of insects living instinctively. Instincts aid the organism, its species and the concentric circles of ecosystems it is a part of. Instincts ensure reciprocity to self and to the system.

The food of living things is also its everyday medicine. Pollen and nectar are no different. All food for a living organism is designed for its prosperity because food contains nutrients to nourish cells.

If a plant produces nutrients in its roots, sprouts, stems, leaves, petals, fruit and seeds different from another plant, then wouldn't the nectar vary from plant to plant? Wouldn't the pollen vary?

This means nectar is more than sugar water and pollen is more than a protein source. Nectar and pollen contain a mix of nutrients. Just as humans need to eat a variety of foods, nectar drinkers and pollen eaters must visit a variety of plants in order to maintain optimal health.

When honey is taken in excessive amounts, bees are fed sugar water or high fructose corn syrup water. This is malnutrition and toxic.

When bee pollen is taken, substitutes are fed to the bees. One such recipe contains 24% sugar [likely high fructose] , 12% water, 12% white granulated table sugar, 24% soy flour, 24% yeast and 4% pollen. This is malnutrition and toxic.

What do you think is happening to the health of bees who are eating sugar water and pollen substitutes? The same things that are happening to us as we continue to eat things that are tainted and not nutrient rich. It weakens their systems and genetics. Children, who then inherit weaker genetics, unfortunately encounter the same malnutrition and toxins when they eat. Weaker and weaker generations suffer from “unexplainable” disease, maladies and dysfunctions just as humans with ongoing malnutrition and toxicity in the diet of their family tree.

Humans are the only organism where large numbers override their instincts. Where is the benefit to ourselves and other forms of life that depend on the beneficial byproducts of living instinctively?

Related:
Herbivores, Pollen & Complete Protein: Omnivore & Carnivore Behavior Not Required
Bees & Colony Collapse Disorder: CCD Revisited
Natural World Observations: Going Wild Like A Flower In Spring Breaking Free

Friday, June 22, 2012

Superpower Spirit

Spirit, more than anything else, is individuality – not physicality, mind or vocation. The reasons I was granted this passage make me unique. My spirit has supreme parents, therefore supreme genetics. This is superpower.


This morning, I emerged from behind the sheer curtain with freshened thought. Shortly afterwords, complementary energy came via “Living Smart” featuring Karen Walrond, author of "The Beauty of Different."

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Why Do Relationships Have To Be So Complicated?

Inquiry: Why do relationships have to be so complicated? I believe most relationships encounter those sinkholes and because of certain limitations in our lives, we sorta sink up.*

Response: Interesting, "sink up" compared to "link up" and "limitations" compared to "improvements." [We sink up when we hook up with an incompatible belief or incompatible individual.]

[Why do relationships have to be so complicated?] They are not supposed to be BUT the further we move away from our natural selves it becomes harder to blend in healthy ways into a sustainable relationship (romantic, "friend," family, children, work, the environment).

The more we operate using unnatural thinking, ideas, beliefs, philosophies, values, social customs, gender roles, popular notions, traditions, practices, [chauvinisms], etc., the harder it is to come together to create something that is natural, feels natural and supports both spirits to their fullest degree of expression.

It only takes one belief or weakness to impede, which is why we must examine and question ourselves.

See Right By Default of My Own

By the way, your question and reflection is the type of ongoing inquiry that opens us to possibilities and discoveries.

*From comments on 36 Facts About Manipulators & Manipulation

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Nutrition Labeling Inconsistencies, FDA & USDA Breaking The Law Consistently

Food Fight #38

HHS-FDA & Nutrition Labeling

Although the FDA uses the word “nutrition” liberally, we now know the words “nutrition” and “nutrients” are absent in its definition of food. It makes governmental sense for the FDA to regulate nutrition labeling. The general public relies on these package labels to make healthier food choices. The FDA is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

One of the main pieces of information on nutrition labels is the Percent Daily Value (%DV). The %DV is based on the Daily Value of “vitamins and minerals which are essential in human nutrition.” The FDA still uses 1968 nutrition values for the Daily Values.

The FDA issued a notice in 2007 soliciting comments from industry and the public as to whether it should use updated nutrient values. Still no resolution four years later just more notices to collect information and public comment. See Food Labeling: Revision of Reference Values and Mandatory Nutrients

On February 13, 2012, HHS-FDA issued this update:
“FDA is proposing to amend labeling regulations for conventional foods and dietary supplements to provide updated nutrition information on the label... ...the Agency intends to: (1) Provide updated Daily Reference values (DRVs) and Reference Daily Intake values (RDIs) that are based on the latest scientific evidence from consensus reports, such as the Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes [DRIs]...”
This sounds good but the history of proposals and the several year delay in initiating the Proposed Rule doesn't bode well for a speedy resolution.

USDA-FSIS & Nutrition Labeling

Though the FDA oversees nutrition labeling for most foods, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates meat, meat substitutes, products with certain levels of meat and egg products (not eggs in the shell). FSIS is an agency of the the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

USDA still uses 1968 nutrition values since according to them on June 11, 2012:
DRI’s are not being used and are not being considered. The nutrition regulations use RDI’s and there are no current plans to change the regulations.
As one agency within USDA ignores the new DRIs, another agency within USDA, the Food and Nutrition Service will be using DRIs in administering the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program beginning with the 2012-2013 school year as follows: "The primary benefit of this rule is to align the regulations with the requirements placed on schools under NSLA [National School Lunch Act] to ensure that meals are consistent with the goals of the most recent Dietary Guidelines and the Dietary Reference Intakes."

It has only been since March 1, 2012 that the USDA-FSIS started requiring nutrition labels on certain raw meats. Most nutrition labeling was required in the early nineties for the FDA.

Bottom Line - Nutrition Facts Are Not Fact-Based

“Any Federal agency that proposes to issue any dietary guidance for the general population or identified population subgroups shall submit the text of such guidance to the Secretaries[USDA and HHS acting jointly] for a sixty-day review period.”

Based on this requirement, USDA, HHS and their agencies are supposed to know what the other is doing in terms of dietary guidance but this is not evident in their policymaking.

Furthermore, “the Secretaries shall review and approve or disapprove such guidance to assure that the guidance either is consistent with the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans” or that the guidance is based on medical or new scientific knowledge which is determined to be valid by the Secretaries.”

It is not possible for RDIs to be valid if DRIs are based on the most current scientific research. Technically USDA and HHS could claim they are not “proposing to issue guidance” just simply implementing what was finalized years ago. If so, this is like stuffing their core mission in the tiniest of unintended loopholes from over 30 years ago. It is like saying we go by the letter of the law not the spirit or intent.

The nutrient values the FDA and FSIS use are out of sync with the 2005 and 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans which are jointly issued by HHS and USDA, their own Departments.

According to Dr. Robert Post of the USDA Center For Nutrition Policy And Promotion, The 2010 Dietary Guidelines establish the scientific and policy basis for all Federal nutrition programs...including labeling.
“All federally-issued dietary guidance for the general public is required by law to be consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.”
HHS-FDA and USDA-FSIS are breaking the law by continuing to use nutrient values on nutrition labeling inconsistent with the Dietary Guidelines. The FDA is also inconsistent with its own mission to “help the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to maintain and improve their health.” The FDA is inconsistent with the mission of HHS, “the principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans.” The USDA is inconsistent with its own mission to provide leadership on food...based on...the best available science... The FDA and USDA are inconsistent with the mission of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) of which both are components.

USPHS mission is supposed to be:
a. Rapid and effective response to public health needs
b. Leadership and excellence in public health practices
c. Advancement of public health science
Adding To The Bottom Line - More Inconsistencies

In addition to the above inadequacies of nutrition labeling, a March 2010 report by the Center For Science In The Public Interest identified these issues (paraphrased):
Serving sizes are based on data 20-30 years old. We eat bigger portions than those on labels.
Claims such ast “0 g trans fat” sometimes might instead be high in saturated fat and/or cholesterol.
Made with whole wheat or other grain might not be 100% whole wheat or grain.
Amount of caffeine is not required to be disclosed.
Amount of added sugars per serving is not disclosed.
Not all foods claiming fiber contain the kind of fiber that produces health benefits.
Fat free or low fat might not be low in sugar.
The American Heart Association “heart-check” symbol on products doesn't guarantee it's low in sugar. Aw sugar!
I further suggest changing nutrition labeling regulations to require notifying consumers if food contains items that have been genetically modified (GMO). Consumers should also be notified if the food or seeds used to grow the food has come in contact with toxins.

By law:
“...nutrition labeling regulations promulgated by the FDA in 1973 required that both positive and negative aspects of the nutrient content of food appear on the label.”

“The current Nutrition Facts box that appears on food labels was conceived as an important public health tool to reduce diet-related disease.” Turns out, it is not as factual as it should be or legally supposed to be.
Rather than read about what's good on nutrition labels and worry about its accuracy, it seems much easier to just eat the goodness that is fresh whole foods and keep “labels off the table.”

Saturday, June 9, 2012

Know Thy Self Poem/Proverb

Know Thy Self*

A person who knows not
And knows not that they know not
Is foolish – disregard them

A person who knows not
And knows that they know not
Is simple – teach them

A person who knows not
And believes that they know
Is dangerous – avoid them

A person who knows
And knows not that they know
Is asleep – awaken them

A person who knows
And knows that they know
Is wise – follow them

All of these persons reside in you
Know Thy Self
And to Maat be true

*A modern adaptation of an ancient proverb (From “Nile Valley Contributions To Civilization, Exploding The Myth, Vol. 1” by Anthony T. Browder, p. opposite Contents.)

Related:
“Man in the full knowledge of himself is a superb and supreme creature of creation. When man becomes possessor of the knowledge of himself, he becomes master of his environment, the captain of his own ship, the director of his own destiny, the accomplisher of his own ends. Man should understand himself because man is full of knowledge and this knowledge is a gift of nature. When Mother Nature created man, she deprived him of nothing. He was given the faculty of understanding all things around him. This faculty for understanding has not been taken away from him. None of his senses have been taken away from him.” (From, Marcus Garvey Interview )

Beyond Curious To Know Thy Self To Seriously Doing Something About It

Know Yourself Briefly To The Extent | Poem

Essential Understandings Of Human Beginnings

Know Thy Self & Pitfalls of The Mind

Knowledge Is Salvation

7 Proverbs You Haven't Heard
Quotes & Proverbs To Live By
Day 8: Human History Is Revealing & Healing
77 Mini Self-Assessments For Better Nutrition & Health
Valentine's Day Card Addressed To Self.
Family Planning Developments, Self-Esteem And Abuse & Neglect Context And So Continues The Meaning Of Life & Existence (Part 7c) Food Fight #50
Health Information Simplification, Nutrition, Sunlight, Iron Deficiency & Comprehensive Approach Context And So Continues The Meaning Of Life & Existence (Part 7b)
Starting With Seeds Of Resources And Becoming A Positive Force That Directs Change
Definitions: Communing, Sustainability, Descendent, Family Values & Spiritual Genetics Context And So Continues The Meaning Of Life & Existence (Part 7d)
Day 1: Mind-Centered Living & Disability
”All Ways To Communicate Begin With Definition & Context And So Begins The Meaning Of Life & Existence (Part 1)”
Definition: Human Genetics' Changing Influences & Responses Context And So Continues The Meaning Of Life & Existence (Part 7f)

”This is why “Man Know Thyself” was often spoken and always written over the entryway of the schools of Kemet, in pyramids, tombs and on papyri.” From, Inherited Self-Esteem Hand-Me-Downs, Habits & Peer Pressure Context And So Continues The Meaning Of Life & Existence (Part 7e)

History Poem | Education Rights To An Honorary Doctorate Edumacation

Definition | Health Is Knowledge of Self

Know Thyself, Self-Esteem, Health & Truth

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Food Definition: FDA, Nutrition, Alcohol, Wrigley's Chewing Gum

Food Fight #37

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates food (except meat) but does not include nutrition in its definition of food. I guess they must spend their time drinking alcohol and chewing gum. Both of these items are food according to the FDA.

Food Definition from FDA Food Code 2009:

“Food means raw, cooked, or processed edible substance, ice, beverage, chewing gum, or ingredient used or intended for use or for sale in whole or in part for human consumption.”

A beverage is “a liquid for drinking, including water.” This means food can be a soft drink or alcohol.

These definitions apply to retail food and foodservice industries. [grocery stores and eat away from home places]

Food Definition per Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act):

“The term "food" means (1) articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, (2) chewing gum, and (3) articles used for components of any such article.”

Neither the FDA Food Code 2009 or FD&C Act mention nutrition. There are two exceptions:
1. The FD&C Act defines “animal feed” as an article which is intended for use for food for animals other than man and which is intended for use as a substantial source of nutrients in the diet of the animal, and is not limited to a mixture intended to be the sole ration of the animal.

2. Infant formula is required to have “some” nutrients. The Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services has the authority to change this.

Infant formula is defined as a food which purports [claims] to be or is represented for special dietary use solely as a food for infants by reason of its simulation of human milk or its suitability as a complete or partial substitute for human milk.

The FD&C Act is silent when it comes to other baby food products; therefore baby food must fall under their nutrition deficient general definition of food.
Chew Your Food But Don't Swallow

Why does chewing gum get special mention in food definitions?

According to Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company in a letter to the FDA, “Chewing gum is a unique type of food in several respects. It is chewed for an extended period of time but not swallowed.”

Wrigley further states: “Sugar-free chewing gum is generally formulated with intense sweeteners such as aspartame, sucralose, and acesulfame-K, and also sugar alcohols, such as sorbitol, xylitol and isomalt.”

Clearly chewing gum gets special mention in food definitions because it isn't food; yet it was allowed “Wrigley room.”

Clear as Mud

When definitions require definitions, something's wrong. Perhaps the best way for Americans to get the law on their side in terms of nutrition is, when asked to provide any type of demographic information, include somewhere, “I'm an animal.”

Saturday, June 2, 2012

Mayan Calendar Prediction: Another Y2K or End of The World?

If the computer-related Y2K was enough to scare us, because of potential machine failure, what about the “end of the world?” Based on a “Mayan” calendar, many believe December 21, 2012, will be the end of the world caused by a Planet X (Nibiru) crashing into Earth.

The end of the world belief is strong enough for NASA to issue a statement six months ago to refute the possibility of a related apocalyptic event occurring in 2012, a supernova explosion. (In order to believe NASA we must believe NASA understands celestial bodies to that extent. Then we must believe it is in the government's nature to tell citizens the truth. Then we must check history for verification.)

Leading up to Y2K 12 years ago, we thought telecommunications, utilities, elevators and air traffic control systems would fail; logistics would come to a standstill (no gas, no groceries); and nuclear power plants and hospital systems would malfunction. We withdrew cash because bank accounts would lose money into a dark hole. Businesses bought insurance policies. We bought more guns (also after Obama was elected). We bought bottled water, non-perishable things to eat and supplies. Disaster/survival books were written and revived. Movies were made along with TV programs and computer games (huh?).

What will happen as 122112 gets closer? There have already been numerous books, websites and articles. People are building blast/bomb shelters and stocking them with everything. Songs and movies have been made. Time and effort by The History Channel, The Discovery Channel and The National Geographic Channel have been spent on documentaries and series.

Five Basic Questions After Viewing The Newest Discovered Mayan Calendar

1. Isn't the timing of this discovery, with the exact information needed to refute 122112 end of the world rather convenient? Just in time to allow us to exhale. We now have 1,600 more years to live.
2. Why is a scientist giving a report to refute "pop culture" as he calls it instead of a scientist just reporting a discovery? (Same is true of NASA's report)
3-4. Why would NASA and other “reputable” sources spend time refuting pure foolishness? What is the harm?
5. Just like the doomsday believers, isn't this scientist also putting the same kind of wholesale faith in the Mayan calendar?

Clearly, when it comes to the end of the world, the standard approach is to say it ain't so. Either way you look good.

One thing is certain. More of us are starting to question and lean away from wholesale belief in major life-affecting philosophies, especially those learned at an early age. Among other things is the way individuals are changing their approach to food and embracing more environmental, sustainable, natural, organic, green, original, healthy, intelligent, spiritual, sensible and harmonious things. These changes can lead to the “end of the world” and create a return to a better world for every creature.

By the way, there are underground doomsday apartments in Kansas. Interested buyers have included an NFL player, a racing car driver, a movie producer and famous politicians. There is a waiting list. The buyers worry about events ranging from solar flares, economic collapse, pandemics, terrorism and food shortages. (Most likely, planet collisions would also qualify.)