An article I came across yesterday says natural pet food is not always best. I find two things odd about this article right off the bat:

1. No author is listed. Makes you wonder if the person writing it had an agenda.
2. Only one source—a veterinarian—is quoted. This is very poor journalism. One source doesn’t make a story.

Now let’s look at the content itself:
1.  ”A natural dog food may provide antioxidants through fruits and vegetables, but it may be deficient in other nutrients the dog needs.” Of course any food, even one labeled natural, may be deficient. It’s hardly a basis for a major warning or a story. And since the precaution applies to all dog foods, why single out natural ones?
2. Similarly, the rest of the article makes statements that, like the above, would apply to any type of pet food, not  just natural ones. For instance, “Cats and dogs should not eat onions or garlic. ” If any pet food company is going to use ingredients known to be toxic to pets, they won’t be in business very long.

The only statement that makes any sense to me is, “Consumers should be wary of any pet food company that claims to have organic or holistic food because they don’t exist by the association’s definition.” It’s true that no definitions exist in the pet-food world. However, “natural” pet food is defined, as pointed out in the article:  ”The [Association of American Feed Control Officials] defines natural products as those that don’t contain any chemically synthesized ingredients except vitamins or minerals.”

Overall, there is very little information in the pet-food article that could not apply to any type of food, natural or not. And there is really nothing that ties in with the “Natural Pet Food Is Not Always Best” headline.

I’ll take natural brands over supermarket brands any day. Here are the ingredients of Holistic Select’s Radiant Adult Health Chicken and Rice formula, which I am currently feeding my dog: Chicken Meal, Ground Brown Rice, Ground White Rice, Oatmeal, Chicken Fat (Preserved with Natural Mixed Tocopherols), Pork Meal, Dried Beet Pulp, Anchovy & Sardine Meal, Flaxseed, Dried Egg Product, Menhaden Fish Oil, Tomato Pomace, Carrots, Peas, Sun-Cured Alfalfa, Potassium Chloride, Organic Quinoa, Blueberries, Apples, Cranberries, Dried Kelp, Yucca Schidigera Extract, DL-Methionine, Vitamins [Beta-Carotene, Vitamin A Supplement, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Vitamin E Supplement, Riboflavin Supplement, Vitamin B12 Supplement, d-Calcium Pantothenate, Niacin Supplement, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Thiamine Mononitrate, Folic Acid, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Biotin], Minerals [Polysaccharide Complexes of Zinc, Iron, Manganese and Copper, Cobalt Carbonate, Potassium Iodate, Sodium Selenite], Choline Chloride, Lecithin, Rosemary Extract, Glucosamine Hydrochloride, Inulin, Dried Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, Enterococcus faecium, Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus licheniformis, Aspergillus oryzae and Aspergillus niger Fermentation Products, Mixed Tocopherols (a natural preservative).

All of the above items are identifiable. Food items, vitamins, minerals, probiotics. The only item I had to look up is pyridoxine hydrochloride, which is another name for vitamin B6.

Chicken meal is defined is a combination of clean meat and skin, with or without bone (which is good for dogs), and not containing feathers, heads, feet and entrails. 

Now look at the ingredients for a conventional dog food, which I am not going to name in case they decide to sue me:

Chicken, water sufficient for processing, meat by-products, liver, rice, guar gum, potassium chloride, added color, natural and artificial flavors, choline chloride, calcium carbonate, zinc sulfate, calcium phosphate, Vitamin E supplement, ferrous sulfate, niacin, thiamine mononitrate, copper sulfate, calcium pantothenate, manganese sulfate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, Vitamin B-12 supplement, riboflavin supplement, Vitamin A supplement, folic acid, biotin, Vitamin D-3 supplement, potassium iodide, sodium selenite.

It has lots of vitamins and minerals, which is good; I’ve seen ingredient lists that were a lot worse. But it also has by-products, which can include parts such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs, heads, intestines and chicken feathers. These are not all necessarily bad—organ meats, for instance, are a good source of nutrients for canines—but many people don’t like serving heads and feet to their pets. There are also artificial color and artificial flavorings in the above item.

Also, water is listed as the second ingredient. There are two potential problems with this: One, you don’t know what type of water they are using. If an ingredient list doesn’t say “filtered water” or “distilled water” or something along those lines, they are most likely not using purified water. If you don’t want to ingest non-purified water, why would you want your dog to drink it? Two, the higher-quality brands of food use real broth (e.g., chicken broth) instead of water.

Whether a food has byproducts or meal, there is no way to know just from reading the label whether the ingredients came from healthy animals. The only way to know that is to look at the company’s Website and read what it says about their quality control. If it doesn’t say anything (a bad sign), call and ask.

Holistic Select, my current pick, says on its Website that it requires its suppliers to use the “HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) program, adhering to even more stringent food safety criteria than required for pet food.” So the standards are higher than those of AAFCO. 

You may have also noticed that corn is often the first ingredient listed in regular pet food, but it is not the first one listed in higher-quality pet chow (and in many cases, it is not used at all). Many dogs and cats have difficulty digesting corn and/or have allergies to it. Nutritionally, it doesn’t have much value.

I also feed my dog raw food. She gets the kibble in the morning, and the raw in the evening. Right now I’m feeding her unprocessed raw food because it’s a lot cheaper than buying packaged raw food (although the packaged food has nutritious veggies mixed in). We get raw chicken necks and backs from an organic farmer (Pollo Real) at the Santa Fe Farmer’s Market; our dog goes nuts when she sees them! She gets raw chopped beef too. 

To read the article mentioned above, click here.

Usually, the general press does not take a favorable view of alternative treatment methods. But overall, these stories were well-balanced and fair, except for a few snarky comments here and there.

Many of us who follow holistic health protocols have known for years about behavioral optometry, the sunshine-Vitamin D link, and the possibility of cell-phone radiation. But the general public tends to dismiss those ideas when they appear in nontraditional media or are espoused by someone who is not an accepted member of the medical establishment. When the same ideas appear in a mainstream publication, people are more likely to pay attention, even if the story isn’t entirely positive. The behavioral optometry article was very clear in stating that many physicians think the theory is bunk. But I’d bet that some parents with learning-disabled kids will read it and decide to try it because nothing else is working.

Although it’s annoying that we have to wait for a mass-market magazine or newspaper to validate something we already know, it’s still an encouraging sign that these publications are finally starting to recognize some of the issues in the holistic arena. I hope these aren’t isolated incidents and that we’ll see a lot more health coverage that challenges the conventional “wisdom.”

Several states now have legislation pending to mandate this vaccine, Gardasil. It actually became law in Texas, but thankfully was overwritten by another bill. However, now another bill in the Texas legislature would allow the state Commissioner of Health and Human Services to make the vaccine a condition of going to school. (By the way, Merck, Gardasil’s manufacturer, was a contributor to Governor Rick Perry’s campaign. What a surprise.)

Statistics show that contracting HPV increases one’s chances of developing cervical cancer. But how long does this vaccine last? The Centers for Disease Control’s Website actually gives this vague answer: “a long time.” What does that mean? Ten years? Twenty years?  There is currently no booster, so if the vaccine lasts 10 years, and the average girl gets the vaccine at age 11, she’ll need to get it again at 21. A booster will be developed if research shows it’s needed, but that will just mean exposing women to yet more vaccines.

For the vaccine (which does not protect from all forms of cervical cancer) to be effective, it must be given before a female becomes sexually active. While more girls are having sex at younger ages than in the past, there are still many girls who remain virgins. In many cultures, such as Muslims and Orthodox Jews, premarital sex is forbidden. It still happens, of course, but it is much less common. Mandating a vaccine for an entire population because some girls are sexually active is beyond ludicrous. Parents should be the ones who decide whether and when their daughters receive it. While generally there is a religious exemption (which many people take whether or not they are religious), I wonder how long it will be before exemptions are no longer allowed.

While cervical cancer is certainly a serious matter, in the United States, most of the approximately 11,000 cervical cancers found annually occur in women who have never had a pap smear or who have not had one in five years. That tells us cervical cancer can be prevented by getting regular pap smears.

Adverse reactions to Gardasil have included vomiting, fainting, pain in different areas of the body, seizures, rashes, hives, lumps under the skin, and even death. These are documented in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which receives its data from the CDC, yet the CDC’s Website claims the vaccine is safe. The CDC is denying the existence of its own data.

I don’t have children, but if I did, there is no way I would give my daughter this vaccine.

I am involved with my local chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation because I believe in the overall soundness of its nutritional principles. However, I eat very little animal protein because that diet works better for me personally. Therefore, I don’t side with either Whole Foods or WAPF because I don’t believe there is one way of eating that is correct for every person on the planet.

My diet is of the “a little from Column A and a little from Column B” variety—I combine principles from several different nutritional plans, including pH Miracle (alkalizing foods), raw, and WAPF. About half my diet is plant-based, and some of that is raw. A typical dinner is a large salad with a small amount of animal protein (usually a hard-boiled egg and/or some canned wild salmon). For healthy fats, I make my own salad dressing with hemp and flax oils, use coconut oil on my toast, and eat yogurt and cheese a few times a week. I eat meat or chicken whenever I crave it, which is generally a few times a month. When I eat at a restaurant, I usually order fish. The only thing I want to add to my menu is more whole grains, which I don’t cook as much as I should out of sheer laziness.

I feel good on this diet—better than I felt when I was eating more meat and chicken and fewer plant foods. Animal protein often makes me feel tired and sluggish, while veggies energize my body.

The bottom line is that some people thrive on a vegetarian diet, and some do not. I know plenty of people who simply don’t feel good on a mostly vegetarian diet and need to eat animal protein.

As far as health benefits go, they extend to both types of diets. I would wager that for every argument in favor of a vegetarian diet, there is a counterargument in favor of meat, and vice versa. There is no “one size fits all” approach to eating.

For Whole Foods’ nutritional advice, click here.
For WAPF’s response, click here.

Natural News, one of my favorite Websites for alternative-health information, features some excellent points in today’s post on this topic. Editor Mike Adams notes that the drug companies “don’t want people to know about natural remedies, nutritional cures or healing foods.” Sadly, I agree. Obviously, the pharmaceutical companies’ job is to sell drugs. Which is fine. If a company wants to sell drugs, and people want to use them, I don’t have a problem with the free market. I do have a problem with the active suppression of alternative information, which has been going on for years. And the free market isn’t really free if people are not given information to help them make choices. 

The journal article will be read by thousands of American doctors, so it is a small step in the right direction. But the use of drugs is so entrenched in our society that it will take a lot more than a study to change the status quo.

Click here to read the Natural News article.  
To read a summary of the psychiatry journal’s study, click here.

What is really odd about the story is that practitioners contradicted their own statements. One psychologist said that patients have to address the physical sources of the disorder, and then went on to say they need a psychiatrist to “prescribe the right drugs.” A psychiatrist said that light therapy can be as effective as Prozac, but still said she would prescribe antidepressants for SAD! 

It is insane to take medicine for a problem that is specifically caused by light deprivation, and thus can be helped with light. But one can’t blame the pharmaceutical bias solely on doctors. According to the article, “many patients opt for antidepressants without light therapy because the light therapy requires about an hour of patients’ time every day.” So if the typical patient can choose between sitting in front of a light every day (which really doesn’t require “an hour of time” because all you have to do is place it next to your desk while you’re working) or taking a drug, apparently they would prefer the drug even if it has side effects. 

So the cycle perpetuates itself…doctors give us drugs and we take them without questioning whether there might be something else we can try first. When we actually have an opportunity to do something else, we don’t want to take it because it’s too much trouble, and it’s easier to just pop a pill. 

Click here to read the article. (You might have to sign up for a free trial in order to read it; the Journal does not give automatic access to nonsubscribers.)

Currently, the burden of proof is on manufacturers. If they make any claims about a supplement treating or preventing a disease, they must be able to prove it. Sounds fair on the face of it, but the only proof the government accepts is official double-blind research studies (in which neither the participants nor the researchers know who is getting the supplement and who is getting the placebo), which are prohibitively expensive for most supplement companies. Less formal studies don’t count.

Two pieces of legislation would shift the burden of proof to the government. HR 3394 (the “Freedom of Health Speech Act”) would amend the Federal Trade Commission Act by requiring the FTC to prove that a supplement claim is false. A similar bill, HR 3395 (the “Health Freedom Act”) would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to stop the Food and Drug Administration from banning supplement claims unless they can prove the claims are false. 

Another important aspect of this legislation is that it would change the way the government defines a drug. Currently, the FDA tends to view any product that is claimed to treat or cure any disease as a drug, even if it isn’t. (You may recall the fuss the agency made last year over Cheerios; the FDA actually said that the cereal was like a drug because General Mills was making health claims.) HR 3395 would amend the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to say, “A food or dietary supplement for which a claim is made in accordance with section 403(r)(1)(B) is not a drug solely because of such claim.” If the FDA can call anything a drug, that could eventually lead to reduced access to supplements.

Here is a recent example of government’s extreme hostility to supplements. In 2008, the FDA told a company that makes a resveratrol supplement (found in grapevine and extracted during the winemaking process) to stop making claims about the product. One of those claims was that the product helped regulate insulin in diabetics.  (The company, Natural Biology, still sells the product but no longer mentions diabetes.) That very same year, a drug company said early trials of a new drug helped lower diabetics’ blood sugar. The main ingredient? You guessed it—resveratrol. (The drug is still being tested.)

What will happen if this drug comes to market? Will the supplement makers be prohibited from saying the same things the drug company says? You can bet on it—because the drug has been tested and the supplement hasn’t. Resveratrol also is believed to have other effects that have nothing to do with diabetes, including anti-aging and lowering cholesterol. Some companies are staying away from these statements, but others are making them and hoping the FDA won’t notice.

What happened to Natural Biology would be less likely to happen if the government were forced to prove that a supplement’s claims are false. Unfortunately, there will always be unscrupulous companies who claim their products cure every disease under the sun. And perhaps these bills will make it easier for such companies to spread false information. But that is a chance I think we should be willing to take. First of all, for every unscrupulous company there are lots of gullible consumers. It is our responsibility to check out claims by doing our own research, reading health magazines, talking to our naturopaths and finding out whatever we can about a product and whether its claims have any validity. (Legislation isn’t going to help anyone who believes that a pill is going to increase their “size” or help them lose 30 pounds without dieting.) Secondly, the government’s anti-supplement bias is so strong that its power needs to be reined in before further damage is done; the only way to do that is through legislation. 

If you support these bills, let your representatives know how you feel. To read the amendments, click here for HR 3394 and HR 3395.

I took one of those “How green are you?” tests and scored a miserable 56. Ouch! Although the Website, gogreenscore.org, tried to spare my feelings by saying a 51-60 score is “looking good,” when you compare it to 100…not so good.

While I scored well in certain areas, such as “How many days per week do you go without eating meat?” (I rarely eat it) and “Do you use all natural, non-toxic cleaning products in your home?” (almost always), in others I didn’t even come close (“Do you use public transportation/walk/ride your bike at least twice a week to reach necessary destinations?” (more like twice a year) and “Do you set your air conditioning at 78° or higher and your heat at 64° or lower?” (if the heat isn’t at 68, my lips turn blue).

While there are some items on the list that would be difficult for me to put into practice (for instance, the schedule and routes of Santa Fe’s bus system make it impractical for me to use on a regular basis), I could implement some of the suggestions, such as using my clothes dryer less often and buying drying racks to use instead.

I thought I’d share some of the things I am currently doing to be more ecologically friendly. They are all easy to do.

1. Reuse as many materials as possible.
I save everything! Remember how your grandmother had a huge stack of plastic bags in her pantry, and you thought she was crazy? Well, that’s me. I use them for picking up after my dog, as well as for customers who come into our showroom and need a bag for their purchases. I know what you’re thinking…why am I even using plastic? Of course, I know I should use my tote bags when I shop, but I have a bad habit of leaving them in the car’s trunk instead of on the seat, so I often forget to bring them into the store. (That’s a question on the Go Green Score test.) But at least I can find a use for the bags I end up with. I also save the bags that my newspaper comes in and use them for my dog.

At our business, we reuse almost everything that comes through the door. We order products, so we always have a ready supply of boxes. As long as the boxes are in good condition and don’t have another company’s name plastered all over them, we use them to ship our orders. Even boxes that do have names can be repurposed by using light-brown spray paint over the words. I don’t like the spray because it’s a chemical and has a horrible odor, but we are going to try leaving the newly sprayed boxes outside for a while to see if the smell outgases. If that doesn’t work, I’d rather throw them out than feel sick.

We save packing paper, styrofoam, bubble wrap, Ziploc bags and other materials to use in orders. Newspapers that are not put out for recycling are used for packing. We even save gift boxes, bows and ribbons, both for personal use and for customers who want gift wrapping.

2. Print on the blank side of paper you don’t need.
Although computers were supposed to reduce paper, it hasn’t happened. The volume of paper that comes through our office is staggering. About two years ago, we started reusing unneeded paper. Obviously we can’t do this for things like customer invoices or business letters, but if we need to have a hard copy of something just for our files or for personal use, it doesn’t matter what’s printed on the other side. We use it for scrap paper too.

3. Turn off lights when not in use.
This one is obvious and everyone knows about it, but so many people don’t remember to actually do it. After paying attention to it for a while, it has become automatic for me—when I leave a room, I turn off the light. The same goes for computers, TVs and other electronics when they are not in use.

4. Don’t leave water running unnecessarily.
Saving water is particularly important in our hometown of Santa Fe, where we are in a perpetual drought. We also pay for water, which will change behavior pretty quickly. But even if you don’t pay for it, why waste it?

Most people put toothpaste on their brush, wet the brush, and leave the water running while they brush their teeth. But you don’t need to leave the water on while you’re brushing. I’ve trained myself to turn it off.

Use the same method for washing dishes. Most people wash their dishes with the water running. We scrub them first with a wet, soapy sponge; then we turn on the water and rinse. Some people like to stack the dishes in a bin of soapy water before they scrub, but I don’t find that necessary (although I do sometimes have to soak individual items, like pots). Others like to use a bin of water for rinsing instead of running the water. This obviously conserves water, but if you have a lot of dishes, the ones on the bottom won’t get clean as the water gets dirtier.

We don’t have kids, so I rarely use the dishwasher. I tried stacking plates for a few days and then running a full load, but after sitting there for so long, the dishes didn’t come out clean. I also take short showers and use a water filter instead of bottled water.

5. Shop green.
I buy local produce whenever possible, eat organic food almost exclusively, and shop in thrift and secondhand stores (though not only because it’s green—I save money and it’s just plain fun to shop there).

There is still a lot more I can do, and some of them are not on the Go Green Score test. I have resisted installing a low-flow showerhead because I love strong showers. But I know that at the very least, I should try it and see. I haven’t installed a low-flow toilet, and I don’t compost—a project I might tackle this spring.

Take the test and see how you do!

Although I am now a blogger, I don’t review products because our company sells products. However, we do have user testimonials on our site. We get these testimonials from the products’ manufacturers, and we think they add a personal touch to the product description, as well as spur customers to try the product. Now, the FTC might tell us to remove them.

The guides specify that testimonials that discuss specific results in ads and reviews should either “be representative of what consumers will generally achieve,” or, if they are not representative, should “clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected performance.” Advertisers can no longer use the disclaimer ”results may vary” or “results not typical.” So, in one of the FTC’s examples, a testimonial that says “I lost 50 pounds in 6 months with WeightAway” would not be acceptable unless that experience is typical of most users. The wording would have to express the norm, as in, “Most women who use WeightAway for 6 months lose at least 15 pounds.”

This guideline uses flawed logic. A testimonial is exactly that: a particular person’s experience. It does not necessarily reflect the experience that everyone will have, nor should it have to. Everyone’s body chemistry is different; what works for one person might not work for another. So saying that a testimonial should reflect “typical results” is really an oxymoron.

Furthermore, if a large number of customers have similar experiences with a product, does the FTC consider that “typical?” My guess would be “no,” as evidenced by the following statement: “The advertiser may be able to limit the scope of the disclosure by limiting the circumstances depicted in the advertisement. For example, if all the testimonials used in an ad are clearly identified as persons who have been members of a weight loss clinic for at least one year, the disclosure can be based on the performance data of that group.”

In that last sentence, what the FTC is really talking about is basing a claim on a research study or a detailed tracking of data. The Catch-22 is that many manufacturers of non-pharmaceuticals do not have the funds to conduct these studies, or the time to track data. So they rely on testimonials instead. This guideline is going to make it almost impossible to print testimonials at all.

Finally, by saying that the “results may vary” disclaimer is not good enough, the FTC is also saying that the American public is too dumb to understand what that means.

Another change is that “endorsers may be subject to liability for their statements.” While I don’t think anybody should endorse a product unless they use it and know it works, opening up the possibility of litigation will not only scare away endorsers, it also will bring out the vultures who are just looking to make money even though they haven’t actually been harmed. Are we going to see Catherine Zeta-Jones get sued because someone doesn’t like his T-Mobile service?

Because blogs didn’t exist when FTC wrote its original guidelines, other updates include the “suggestion” (because after all these are just guides, not laws…but tell that to yourself if you get investigated by the FTC) that bloggers disclose whether they are paid for reviewing a product, particularly if they have an ongoing relationship with the vendor or if they routinely review products for pay. I don’t have a problem with this concept; bloggers should be honest about whether they are receiving compensation. I just don’t like the government getting involved; they are involved in too much already. Consumers should do their own research before believing what one person says. With one phone call, a journalist can find out if a company pays bloggers for reviewing products. Why do we need more enforcement and more laws?

The FTC claims it will make its decisions on a case-by-case basis. The agency also says it will look at the “net impression consumers take away from the ad as a whole.” Could that sentence possibly be more vague? It reminds me of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s now-infamous definition of obscenity in 1964: “I know it when I see it.” If one focuses on the “overall impression” of the ad rather than on the details, doesn’t that contradict all the other key areas in which the FTC does talk about specifics?

To download a copy of the FTC endorsement guidelines update, click here.

I am a big believer in the Law of Attraction (LOA). If you haven’t heard about it, it is, in a nutshell, the theory that your beliefs dictate your life. Positive thoughts yield positive results; negative thoughts yield negative results.

However, the site’s January 17th blog post was astounding in its lack of sensitivity to the people of Haiti. Here’s what it said: “Did the people of Haiti attract the earthquake? Not consciously. Did the people of the world attract the earthquake? Not consciously.” Excuse me?? So is this blog saying that the Haitian people attracted this earthquake unconsciously?

I am sure that if I asked the Manifest Mastermind people that question, they would claim that is not what they meant. But those words are right there on the blog, and there is simply no other way to interpret them.

The post also says that rather than ask why it happened, “We are better served by accepting what is as actually part of the perfect order of how things work on the physical plane and then take action to help as best we can.” So, does that mean that the earthquake was part of the “perfect order of how things work?”

Quite frankly, this is BS. This disaster happened because there’s a fault line and because buildings in Haiti are so poorly constructed that they can’t withstand a quake. That’s it.

I have removed myself from the Manifest Mastermind e-mail list. Read the post and decide for yourself.