Amaranth Popcorn- A Healthy Alternative
Fri, Sep 14 2007 06:17
| How to stay healthy?, General Health, Healthy products, recipes
| Permalink
There is a healthy, delicious alternative to the traditional popcorn eaten by many people-amaranth popcorn. Amaranth can be found in health food stores as a grain and in a variety of products ranging from flour, bread crumbs, starch, powder, snacks etc. People who eat a gluten-free, wheat-free, diary-free diets, or are just looking for a great way to create a well-rounded, nutritious diet should give amaranth a try. It is very high in dietary fiber, protein, iron, calcium, and has a large amount of the amino acid lysine.
Amaranth Popcorn:
From Seeds of Change: The Living Treasure
Heat a cast-iron skillet or wok for a couple of minutes. Pour in enough amaranth to cover the bottom of the skillet no more than 1/8 inch deep. Cover the pot, and within 10 seconds amaranth will start to pop. Move the pan to shake the grain, and stir to keep it from burning. Within a minute, all the amaranth should be popped. Quickly pour it off and repeat the process. If you should end up with any unpopped seeds, you can pour the whole mix through a strainer, and the unpopped seeds will fall through. You can then add butter and salt to taste if desired.
This is a wonderful nutty and nutritional breakfast food, excellent for camping or traveling. In South America, it is often mixed with molasses or honey and pressed to form a candy.
Popped Amaranth mixed into organic yogurt is one of the most simple but also very tasty recipis.For more information on amaranth, it's detailed history and nutrition information, check the link below:
http://waltonfeed.com/self/amaranth.html
This company sells a wide variety of amaranth products:
http://www.nuworldamaranth.com/default.asp
Comments
Gray Matter by Joe Berlinger (2004)
Sat, Jan 14 2006 08:08
| General Health
| Permalink
 | This elegiac documentary follows Berlinger as he attempts to learn why Gross was permitted to continue his vile experiments long after World War II ended. |
Need to laugh
Mon, Dec 5 2005 06:58
| General Health
| Permalink
Study cites risks of eating farmed salmon (Candice Choi, Associated Press Writer, 11/30/2005)
Thu, Dec 1 2005 03:47
| General Health
| Permalink
It turns out where the salmon comes from -- and what they are fed -- determine whether the health risks will outweigh the benefits, according to the study recently published in the Journal of Nutrition.
Researchers found that the contaminant levels in farmed salmon from certain regions of the world increased the risk of cancer enough to outweigh the heart health benefits of salmon.
The toxin levels were so high in some farmed salmon from Europe that people should only eat a single serving once every five months, the study found.
"That's pretty horrendous," said David Carpenter, lead author of the study and director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the state University at Albany's School of Public Health.
While the toxin levels in wild salmon weren't high enough to exceed the health benefits, the same wasn't true for farmed salmon, which are raised on a diet of fish oil.
The level of contaminants in fish oil -- often derived from local fish -- vary depending on the region of the world.
"What (the salmon) are fed turns out to be a huge part of the story," said Steven Schwager, an author of the report and researcher at Cornell University.
Farmed salmon from South America had the lowest level of pollutants followed by farmed salmon from North America. Salmon from Europe had the highest level of pollutants, according to the study.
"We think it's because that area's been industrialized much longer," Carpenter said.
Prompted by other studies indicating that fish oil increases the levels of toxins in farm-raised salmon, some fish farmers in recent years have switched to using vegetable oil pellets.
But a study last year found the heart health benefits from fish like salmon were weakened when they were fed vegetable oil instead of fish oil.
To determine whether the heart health benefits of farmed salmon were worth the risk, researchers used advisories developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for cancer effects and the fish consumption advisory issued by the American Heart Association.
"In farmed salmon, the cancer risk dominated the health benefits," Carpenter said.
That's not a call for people to shun farmed salmon, however.
Salmon and other fatty fishes like mackerel and sardines are rich in omega-3 fatty acids, the healthy fat that scientists say raises the "good" HDL cholesterol and lowers the "bad" tryglicerides. The AHA recommends people eat fish -- particularly fatty fishes -- at least twice a week.
"None of us argue that benefits are real. But the dirty little secret is that there are risks," Schwager said.
Even taking into account the risks, however, the benefits of salmon are worthwhile for some groups, including older people who may be recovering from coronary problems, Schwager said.
"But for young people worried about a lifetime accumulation of pollutants, the risks far outweigh the benefits," he said.
Recent studies from Scotland have reported that feeding salmon vegetable oils except in the final stages of farming resulted in salmon with significantly lower levels of contaminants but with most of the omega-3 fatty acids obtained from the standard diet.
"We're not opposed to farmed salmon, just how it's farmed. The industry can reduce the level of toxins by changing how they feed (the salmon)," Carpenter said.
Comment: An other solution is to not eat salmon and to grind up a tea spoon of fax seed every day and eat it with your oatmeal every morning. The flax seed needs to be less then 3 month old and should be keept in a cool place.
Researchers found that the contaminant levels in farmed salmon from certain regions of the world increased the risk of cancer enough to outweigh the heart health benefits of salmon.
The toxin levels were so high in some farmed salmon from Europe that people should only eat a single serving once every five months, the study found.
"That's pretty horrendous," said David Carpenter, lead author of the study and director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the state University at Albany's School of Public Health.
While the toxin levels in wild salmon weren't high enough to exceed the health benefits, the same wasn't true for farmed salmon, which are raised on a diet of fish oil.
The level of contaminants in fish oil -- often derived from local fish -- vary depending on the region of the world.
"What (the salmon) are fed turns out to be a huge part of the story," said Steven Schwager, an author of the report and researcher at Cornell University.
Farmed salmon from South America had the lowest level of pollutants followed by farmed salmon from North America. Salmon from Europe had the highest level of pollutants, according to the study.
"We think it's because that area's been industrialized much longer," Carpenter said.
Prompted by other studies indicating that fish oil increases the levels of toxins in farm-raised salmon, some fish farmers in recent years have switched to using vegetable oil pellets.
But a study last year found the heart health benefits from fish like salmon were weakened when they were fed vegetable oil instead of fish oil.
To determine whether the heart health benefits of farmed salmon were worth the risk, researchers used advisories developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for cancer effects and the fish consumption advisory issued by the American Heart Association.
"In farmed salmon, the cancer risk dominated the health benefits," Carpenter said.
That's not a call for people to shun farmed salmon, however.
Salmon and other fatty fishes like mackerel and sardines are rich in omega-3 fatty acids, the healthy fat that scientists say raises the "good" HDL cholesterol and lowers the "bad" tryglicerides. The AHA recommends people eat fish -- particularly fatty fishes -- at least twice a week.
"None of us argue that benefits are real. But the dirty little secret is that there are risks," Schwager said.
Even taking into account the risks, however, the benefits of salmon are worthwhile for some groups, including older people who may be recovering from coronary problems, Schwager said.
"But for young people worried about a lifetime accumulation of pollutants, the risks far outweigh the benefits," he said.
Recent studies from Scotland have reported that feeding salmon vegetable oils except in the final stages of farming resulted in salmon with significantly lower levels of contaminants but with most of the omega-3 fatty acids obtained from the standard diet.
"We're not opposed to farmed salmon, just how it's farmed. The industry can reduce the level of toxins by changing how they feed (the salmon)," Carpenter said.
Comment: An other solution is to not eat salmon and to grind up a tea spoon of fax seed every day and eat it with your oatmeal every morning. The flax seed needs to be less then 3 month old and should be keept in a cool place.
Help stop the Congress and the Bush administration from seriously degrading organic standards.
Tue, Sep 20 2005 06:24
| General Health
| Permalink
After 35 years of hard work, the U.S. organic community has built up a multi-billion dollar alternative to industrial agriculture, based upon strict organic standards and organic community control over modification to these standards.
Now, large corporations such as Kraft, Wal-Mart, & Dean Foods--aided and abetted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are moving to lower organic standards by allowing a Bush appointee to create a list of synthetic ingredients that would be allowed organic production. Even worse these proposed regulatory changes will reduce future public discussion and input and take away the National Organic Standards Board's (NOSB) traditional lead jurisdiction in setting standards. What this means, in blunt terms. is that USDA bureaucrats and industry lobbyists, not consumers, will now have more control over what can go into organic foods and products. (Send a quick letter to your Congressperson online here: www.organicconsumers.org/sos.cfm
Tomorrow, Tuesday, Sept. 20, acting in haste and near-total secrecy, the U.S. Senate will vote on a "rider" to the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Bill that will reduce control over organic standards from the National Standards Board and put this control in the hands of federal bureaucrats in the USDA (remember the USDA proposal in 1997-98 that said that genetic engineering, toxic sludge, and food irradiation would be OK on organic farms, or USDA suggestions in 2004 that heretofore banned pesticides, hormones, tainted feeds, and animal drugs would be OK?).
For the past week in Washington, OCA has been urging members of the Senate not to reopen and subvert the federal statute that governs U.S. Organic standards (the Organic Food Production Act-OFPA), but rather to let the organic community and the National Organic Standards resolve our differences over issues like synthetics and animal feed internally, and then proceed to a open public comment period. Unfortunately most Senators seem to be listening to industry lobbyists more closely than to us. We need to raise our voices. (Send a quick letter to your Congressperson online here: www.organicconsumers.org/sos.cfm
In the past, grassroots mobilization and mass pressure by organic consumers have been able to stop the USDA and Congress from degrading organic standards. This time Washington insiders tell us that the "fix is already in." So we must take decisive action now. We need you to call your U.S. Senators today. We need you to sign the following petition and send it to everyone you know. We also desperately need funds to head off this attack in the weeks and months to come. Thank you for your support. Together we will take back citizen control over organic standards and preserve organic integrity.
Now, large corporations such as Kraft, Wal-Mart, & Dean Foods--aided and abetted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are moving to lower organic standards by allowing a Bush appointee to create a list of synthetic ingredients that would be allowed organic production. Even worse these proposed regulatory changes will reduce future public discussion and input and take away the National Organic Standards Board's (NOSB) traditional lead jurisdiction in setting standards. What this means, in blunt terms. is that USDA bureaucrats and industry lobbyists, not consumers, will now have more control over what can go into organic foods and products. (Send a quick letter to your Congressperson online here: www.organicconsumers.org/sos.cfm
Tomorrow, Tuesday, Sept. 20, acting in haste and near-total secrecy, the U.S. Senate will vote on a "rider" to the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Bill that will reduce control over organic standards from the National Standards Board and put this control in the hands of federal bureaucrats in the USDA (remember the USDA proposal in 1997-98 that said that genetic engineering, toxic sludge, and food irradiation would be OK on organic farms, or USDA suggestions in 2004 that heretofore banned pesticides, hormones, tainted feeds, and animal drugs would be OK?).
For the past week in Washington, OCA has been urging members of the Senate not to reopen and subvert the federal statute that governs U.S. Organic standards (the Organic Food Production Act-OFPA), but rather to let the organic community and the National Organic Standards resolve our differences over issues like synthetics and animal feed internally, and then proceed to a open public comment period. Unfortunately most Senators seem to be listening to industry lobbyists more closely than to us. We need to raise our voices. (Send a quick letter to your Congressperson online here: www.organicconsumers.org/sos.cfm
In the past, grassroots mobilization and mass pressure by organic consumers have been able to stop the USDA and Congress from degrading organic standards. This time Washington insiders tell us that the "fix is already in." So we must take decisive action now. We need you to call your U.S. Senators today. We need you to sign the following petition and send it to everyone you know. We also desperately need funds to head off this attack in the weeks and months to come. Thank you for your support. Together we will take back citizen control over organic standards and preserve organic integrity.
Pregnancy Warning on Antidepressants (ASSOCIATED PRESS, May 18, 2005)
Sun, Sep 18 2005 07:56
| General Health
| Permalink
Babies born to women taking antidepressants in the last three months of pregnancy were three times more likely to develop drug-related symptoms than those born to women who did not use the drugs or took them only in early pregnancy, according to a University of Pittsburgh study that pooled previous research.
The study was published in Wednesday's issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association.
Most of the symptoms were mild and usually disappeared after about two weeks, but some required hospitalization in intensive care, the researchers said.
The drugs involved include Prozac, Paxil and other antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRI's, and also serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, which include Effexor.
Each year, at least 80,000 American women take the drugs during pregnancy, the researchers estimated.
Serious respiratory problems develop in perhaps one out of 100 infants born to these women, said Dr. Eydie Moses-Kolko, a psychiatrist who led the study.
The study was published in Wednesday's issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association.
Most of the symptoms were mild and usually disappeared after about two weeks, but some required hospitalization in intensive care, the researchers said.
The drugs involved include Prozac, Paxil and other antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRI's, and also serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, which include Effexor.
Each year, at least 80,000 American women take the drugs during pregnancy, the researchers estimated.
Serious respiratory problems develop in perhaps one out of 100 infants born to these women, said Dr. Eydie Moses-Kolko, a psychiatrist who led the study.
