Search Term: " bans "

	The Controversial Future of Lab-Grown Meat	Darrell Miller	6/7/24
	Possible new head of the FDA is a supporter of medical marijuana … Could Trump's FDA finally stop suppressing cannabis?	Darrell Miller	2/4/17
	Re: Kiss Herbal Supplements Goodbye .... Oppose the passage of HR 3156	Darrell Miller	8/30/05
	THE FDA AND STEVIA	Darrell Miller	7/15/05
	REFERENCES	Darrell Miller	6/25/05

Date: June 07, 2024 12:10 PM
Author: Darrell Miller (support@vitanetonline.com)
Subject: The Controversial Future of Lab-Grown Meat

The Controversial Future of Lab-Grown Meat

Lab-grown meat, also called cultured or cell-based meat, is a new tech stirring hope and controversy in food. This method produces animal meat without slaughtering, offering an alternative to livestock farming. It could revolutionize protein thinking by reducing environmental impact and addressing ethical concerns. However, as with any new technology, there are significant debates surrounding its safety, health implications, and overall viability.

How Lab-Grown Meat is Produced

The process of producing lab-grown meat begins by taking a small sample of animal cells, often through a harmless biopsy. These cells, typically muscle cells, are then placed in a nutrient-rich culture medium that mimics the environment within an animal's body. The culture medium contains essential nutrients like amino acids, sugars, and growth factors that encourage the cells to divide and grow. Over time, these cells multiply, differentiating into muscle tissue, which can then be harvested, processed, and formed into meat products.

This process, often taking place in bioreactors, aims to replicate the natural muscle growth seen in animals. By controlling the environment meticulously, scientists can produce meat that is structurally and nutritionally similar to conventionally farmed meat. Despite the technological advancements and potential benefits, there is still a wave of skepticism and resistance against lab-grown meat, primarily centered on health risks and the idea of naturalness.

Health Risks: The Skeptics' Viewpoint

Critics of lab-grown meat often argue that these products are unnatural and potentially harmful. They highlight the use of a synthetic culture medium and artificial scaffolding materials to structure the tissue as primary concerns. One common criticism is that the long-term health effects of consuming lab-grown meat are unknown. Since this technology is still relatively new, there hasn't been enough time to study the impact it may have on human health comprehensively.

Another significant concern revolves around the additives and growth factors used in the culture medium. Skeptics claim that consuming these substances, some derived from non-food-grade sources, could lead to unintended side effects over time. Moreover, contaminants introduced during the production process may pose risks absent in naturally grown meat.

Some also point to the lack of regulatory standards and oversight for lab-grown meat as a potential risk. Since this is a new industry, the guidelines for safety, production, and labeling are still evolving. This uncertainty contributes to the fear and resistance among certain consumer groups and policymakers.

Regulatory Response: States Banning Lab-Grown Meat

In light of these concerns, some states have taken a firm stance against lab-grown meat. Florida and Arizona, for example, have enacted bans prohibiting the sale of cultured meat products. These states argue that there is insufficient evidence to guarantee the safety and health benefits of lab-grown meat. They also see these bans as a way to protect consumers and promote traditional agriculture practices.

Florida's legislative body expressed concerns about the potential economic impact on the state's agriculture sector, which relies heavily on cattle farming. By banning lab-grown meat, they aim to safeguard the livelihoods of local farmers and ensure the sustainability of rural communities. Similarly, in Arizona, legislators emphasized the naturalness and cultural significance of traditionally farmed meat, viewing lab-grown alternatives as a threat to their state's heritage.

These bans have sparked debates on innovation in our food system and if regulators overlook new technologies too hastily. Lab-grown meat supporters argue that these bans impede progress and limit consumer choice for ethical, eco-friendly products.

Why Naturally Grown Meat is Better and Healthier

Despite the potential benefits of lab-grown meat, many still advocate for naturally grown meat as the superior option. First and foremost, naturally grown meat has a long history of consumption, providing a well-documented track record of its health effects. Unlike lab-grown meat, which relies on new and untested methods, natural meat comes from animals that have been bred and raised for generations.

One of the key arguments in favor of naturally grown meat is the lack of artificial additives and synthetic processes. Animals on well-managed farms have open pastures, a varied diet, and humane living conditions, resulting in meat free from artificial additives. Natural meat can be organic and free-range, meeting consumers' health and ethical standards.

Nutritionally, naturally grown meat offers high levels of essential nutrients, including vitamins, minerals, and healthy fats. Grass-fed and pasture-raised animals, especially known for producing meat with higher omega-3 fatty acids and lower saturated fat content, have well-documented nutritional benefits supported by extensive research, giving health-conscious consumers peace of mind.

Another argument for naturally grown meat is its cultural and environmental significance. Traditional farming practices contribute to biodiversity, support local economies, and maintain rural landscapes. Lab-grown meat, on the other hand, often involves centralized production that may not offer the same level of environmental benefits.

In The Future

The future of lab-grown meat remains a contentious topic, with passionate arguments on both sides of the debate. This innovative technology shows promise for changing our food system, tackling ethical issues, and lessening environmental impact. However, it sparks questions about health risks, regulations, and long-term sustainability. With some states considering bans on cultured meat, the dialogue on food values evolves. Choosing between lab-grown and naturally raised meat will hinge on personal preferences, values, and emerging scientific evidence.

(https://vitanetonline.com:443/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=6614)

Date: February 04, 2017 12:59 PM
Author: Darrell Miller (support@vitanetonline.com)
Subject: Possible new head of the FDA is a supporter of medical marijuana … Could Trump's FDA finally stop suppressing cannabis?

(https://vitanetonline.com:443/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=3882)

Date: August 30, 2005 01:22 PM
Author: Darrell Miller (dm@vitanetonline.com)

Kiss Herbal Supplements Goodbye

Healthful herbal therapies face a new attack in Congress.

If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. – Thomas Jefferson

Our third president recognized the devastating health and liberty implications of allowing governments to dictate what people eat. One can only imagine the disgust with which Jefferson would regard elected officials who are currently betraying core American freedoms by working to revoke our rights to choose what foods we put in our bodies.

In 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) estabilished that dietary supplements are foods. Its passage was a shinning moment of democracy that resonated with Jefferson’s beliefs on health freedom, as millions of Americans raised their voices to preserve our right to safe, natural supplements.

DSHEA Under Attack

But now, as countless people use supplements to enhance their health, some officials are tampering with the DSHEA. HR 3156, the dietary supplement access & awareness act introduced by representative Susan Davis (D-CA), is designed to deny Americans access to the supplements they rely upon for good health. Should HR3156 pass, herbal supplements will be subject to risk benefits analysis, under which adverse event reporting will empower the FDA to ban herbal supplement sales.

Inexplicably, the bill pays no heed to the amount of herbal supplement associated with an adverse event. In other words, if someone ingests an unreasonably excessive amount of a herbal remedy, and as result experiences an adverse event, that would be enough for the FDA to ban that supplement—even if the overwhelming majority of consumers experienced positive benefits by using the supplement properly. This caveat, in addition to the relative ease with which an adverse event could falsely be linked to herbal supplements, has the potential to enable widespread, groundless bans of these health-enhancing, time-tested therapies.

Fight Back, Right Now!

We must act now to prevent the passage of HR 3156. For America’s sake, we must fight the forces in Congress that wish to ban our access to herbal supplements. In the name of democracy we must ensure that our elected officials are representing our interests and not furthering their own agendas. Without your immediate support, America’s health will be compromised as herbal supplements, one by one are banned under false pretenses.

To Quote Jefferson once again, “Never put off ‘till tomorrow what you can do today.” The need for your support is urgent, so please fax your representatives in congress today and urge them to oppose that passage of HR 3156. Contacting elected officials is fast and easy; visit www.NHA2005.com and use revolutionary technology that helps you compose faxes to congress. Become a good health ambassador; educate your friends on this gross impingement on our health freedom and encourage them to join the fight against health tyranny!

Fax the architects of HR 3156, Susan Davis (Fax: 202-225-2948), John Dingell (Fax: 202-226-0371) and Henry Waxman (Fax: 202-225-4099), and let them know that if they revoke your health freedom, you’ll vote for your health-care interests in the next election! It is only with your help that we can win the fight to keep safe, healthy supplements in our lives. For health, Freedom and liberty, visit www.NHA2005.com and Join the NHA Today.

--
Vitanet ®

(https://vitanetonline.com:443/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=749)

Date: July 15, 2005 12:45 PM
Author: Darrell Miller (dm@vitanetonline.com)
Subject: THE FDA AND STEVIA

THE FDA AND STEVIA

While stevia in no way qualifies as an “artificial sweetener,” it has been subject to rigorous inquiry and unprecedented restraints. In 1986, FDA officials began to investigate herb companies selling stevia and suddenly banned its sale, calling it “an unapproved food additive.” Then in 1991, the FDA unexpectedly announced that all importation of stevia leaves and products must cease, with the exception of certain liquid extracts which are designed for skin care only. They also issued formal warnings to companies and claimed that the herb was illegal. The FDA was unusually aggressive in its goal to eliminate stevia from American markets, utilizing search and seizure tactics, embargoes and import bans. Speculation as to why the FDA intervened in stevia commerce points to the politics of influential sugar marketers and the artificial-sweetener industry.

During the same year, the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) began their defense of the herb with the goal of convincing the FDA that stevia is completely safe. They gathered documented literature and research on both stevia and other non-caloric sweeteners. The overwhelming consensus was that stevia is indeed safe, and the AHPA petitioned the FDA to exempt stevia from food additive regulations.

Food Additive vs. Dietary Supplement

FDA regulations of stevia were based on its designation as a food additive. The claim was that scientific study on stevia as a food additive was inadequate. Ironically, extensive Japanese testing of stevia was disregarde—regardless of the fact that this body of documented evidence more than sufficiently supported its safe use. Many experts who have studied stevia and its FDA requirements have commented that the FDA wants far more proof that stevia is safe than they would demand from chemical additives like aspartame.

Stevia advocates point out that stevia not a food additive, but rather, a food. Apparently, foods that have traditionally been consumed do not require laborious and expensive testing for safety under FDA regulations. The fact that so many toxicology studies have been conducted in Japan, coupled with the herb’s long history of safe consumption, makes a strong case for stevia being accepted by the FDA as a safe dietary substance. Still, it was denied the official GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status and designated a food additive by the FDA.

The FDA Reverses Its Position

As a result of the Health Freedom Act passed in September of 1995, stevia leaves, stevia extract, and stevioside can be imported to the United States. However, ingredient labels of products that contain stevia must qualify as dietary supplements.

Stevia had been redesignated as a dietary supplement by the FDA and consequently can be legally sold in the United States solely as a supplement. Its addition to teas or other packaged foods is still banned. Moreover, stevia cannot, under any circumstances, be marketed as a sweetener or flavor enhancer.

SUGAR, SUGAR EVERYWHERE

Ralph Nader once said, “If God meant us to eat sugar, he wouldn’t have invented dentists.” The average American eats over 125 pounds of white sugar every year. It has been estimated that sugar makes up 25 percent of our daily caloric intake, with soda pop supplying the majority of our sugar ingestion. Desserts and sugar-laden snacks continually tempt us, resulting in an escalated taste for sweets.

The amount of sugar we consume has a profound effect on both our physical and mental well-being. Sugar is a powerful substance which can have drug-like effects and is considered addictive by some nutritional experts. William Duffy, the author of Sugar Blues, states,“The difference between sugar addiction and narcotic addition is largely one of degree.” In excess, sugar can be toxic. Sufficient amounts of B-vitamins are actually required to metabolize and detoxify sugar in our bodies. When the body experiences a sugar overload, the assimilation of nutrients from other foods can be inhibited. In other words, our bodies were not designed to cope with the enormous quantity of sugar we routinely ingest. Eating too much sugar can generate a type of nutrient malnutrition, not to mention its contribution to obesity, diabetes, hyperactivity, and other disorders. Sugar can also predispose the body to yeast infections, aggravate some types of arthritis and asthma, cause tooth decay, and may even elevate our blood lipid levels. Eating excess sugar can also contribute to amino acid depletion, which has been linked with depression and other mood disorders. To make matters worse, eating too much sugar can actually compromise our immune systems by lowering white blood cells counts. This makes us more susceptible to colds and other infections. Sugar consumption has also been linked to PMS, osteoporosis and coronary heart disease.

Why Do We Crave Sweets?

Considering the sobering effects of a high sugar diet, why do we eat so much of it? One reason is that sugar gives us a quick infusion of energy. It can also help to raise the level of certain brain neurotransmitters which may temporarily elevate our mood. Sugar cravings stem from a complex mix of physiological and psychological components. Even the most brilliant scientists fail to totally comprehend this intriguing chemical dependence which, for the most part, hurts our overall health.

What we do know is that when sugary foods are consumed, the pancreas must secrete insulin, a hormone which serves to bring blood glucose levels down. This allows sugar to enter our cells where it is either burned off or stored. The constant ups and downs of blood sugar levels can become exaggerated in some individuals and cause all kinds of health problems. Have you ever been around someone who is prone to sudden mood swings characterized by violent verbal attacks or irritability? This type of volatile behavior is typical of people who crave sugar, eat it and then experience sugar highs and lows. Erratic mood swings can be linked to dramatic drops in blood sugar levels.

Hypoglycemia: Sign of Hard Times?

It is rather disturbing to learn that statisticians estimate that almost 20 million Americans suffer from some type of faulty glucose tolerance. Hypoglycemia and diabetes are the two major forms of blood sugar disorders and can deservedly be called modern day plagues. Hypoglycemia is an actual disorder that can cause of number of seemingly unrelated symptoms. More and more studies are pointing to physiological as well as psychological disorders linked to disturbed glucose utilization in brain cells. One study, in particular, showed that depressed people have overall lower glucose metabolism (Slagle, 22). Hypoglycemia occurs when too much insulin is secreted in order to compensate for high blood sugar levels resulting from eating sugary or high carbohydrate foods. To deal with the excess insulin, glucagon, cortisol and adrenalin pour into the system to help raise the blood sugar back to acceptable levels. This can inadvertently result in the secretion of more insulin and the vicious cycle repeats itself.

A hypoglycemic reaction can cause mood swings, fatigue, drowsiness, tremors, headaches, dizziness, panic attacks, indigestion, cold sweats, and fainting. When blood sugar drops too low, an overwhelming craving for carbohydrates results. To satisfy the craving and compensate for feelings of weakness and abnormal hunger, sugary foods are once again consumed in excess.

Unfortunately, great numbers of people suffer from hypoglycemic symptoms. Ironically, a simple switch from a high sugar diet to one that emphasizes protein can help. In addition, because sugar cravings are so hard to control, a product like stevia can be of enormous value in preventing roller coaster blood sugar levels. One Colorado internist states: People who are chronically stressed and are on a roller coaster of blood sugar going up and down are especially prone to dips in energy at certain times of day. Their adrenals are not functioning optimally, and when they hit a real low point, they want sugar. It usually happens in mid-afternoon when the adrenal glands are at their lowest level of functioning. (Janiger, 71) Our craving for sweets in not intrinsically a bad thing; however, what we reach for to satisfy that craving can dramatically determine how we feel. Stevia can help to satisfy the urge to eat something sweet without changing blood sugar levels in a perfectly natural way and without any of the risks associated with other non-nutritive sweeteners.

Diabetes: Pancreas Overload?

Diabetes is a disease typical of western cultures and is evidence of the influence that diet has on the human body. Perhaps more than any other disease, diabetes shuts down the mechanisms which permit proper carbohydrate/sugar metabolism. When the pancreas no longer secretes adequate amounts of insulin to metabolize sugar, that sugar continues to circulate in the bloodstream causing all kinds of health problems. The type of diabetes that comes in later years is almost always related to obesity and involves the inability of sugar to enter cells, even when insulin is present. Diabetes can cause blindness, atherosclerosis, kidney disease, the loss of nerve function, recurring infections, and the inability to heal. Heredity plays a profound role in the incidence of diabetes, but a diet high in white sugar and empty carbohydrates unquestionably contributes to the onset of the disease. It is estimated that over five million Americans are currently undergoing medical treatment for diabetes and studies suggest that there are at least four million Americans with undetected forms of adult onset diabetes. Diabetes is the third cause of death in this country and reflects the devastating results of a diet low in fiber and high in simple carbohydrates. Most of us start our children on diets filled with candy, pop, chips, cookies, doughnuts, sugary juice, etc. Studies have found that diabetes is a disease which usually plagues societies that eat highly refined foods. Because we live in a culture that worships sweets, the availability of a safe sweetener like stevia, which does not cause stress on the pancreas is extremely valuable. If sugar consumption was cut in half by using stevia to

(https://vitanetonline.com:443/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=642)

Date: June 25, 2005 10:35 AM
Author: Darrell Miller (dm@vitanetonline.com)
Subject: REFERENCES

REFERENCES

1Daniel B. Mowrey. The Scientific Validation of Herbal Medicine. (New Canaan, Connecticut: Keats Publishing, 1986), 122. 2Ibid. 3Earl Mindell. Garlic, The Miracle Nutrient. (New Canaan, C o n n e c t i c u t : Keats Publishing, 1994), 7. 4Ibid., 59. 5Ibid., 71. 6Korotkov, V.M., “The Action of Garlic Juice on Blood Pressure,” Vrachebnoe Deloebnoe, 6, 123, 1966. See also: “The Study of the Hypotensive Action of Garlic Extract in Experimental Animals,” in the Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 32 (10), 237-239, 1982. 7A. Bordia and H.C. bansal. “Essential Oil of Garlic in Pre vention of Atherosclerosis.” Lancet, ii, 1491, 1973. 8Mindell, 58. See The Journal of Nutrition for entries under the subject of garlic. 9Ibid., 59. 10Ibid., 62. See also Nutrition Research for an article published by Doctor Benjamin Lau of Loma Linda University School of Medicine in California. 11Robert H, Garrison Jr., Ma., R.Ph. and Elizabeth Somer, M.A., R.D., The Nutrition Desk Reference. (New Canaan, Connecticut: Keats Publishing, 1990), 193. 12Ibid., 192. 13G. Piotrowski. “L’ail en thrapeutique.” Praxis 37, 488-492, 1948. 14Ibid. 15Mindell, 66. 16D.Y. Norwell and R.S. Tarr. “Garlic, Vampires and CHD,” Osteopath Ann. 1984, 12, 276-80. See also A.K. Bordia, H.K. Josh and Y. K. Sa n a d h y a , “Effect of Garlic OIl on Fibrinolytic Activity in patient with CHD.” Atherosclerosis, 1977, 28. 155-59. 17Mindell, 68. 18Garrison, 193. 19Mindell, 70. 20Ibid., 39. 21Ibid. 22Ibid., 49. 23Morton Walker, D.P.M., The Healing Powers of Garlic. (Stanford, Connecticut: A New Way of Life, 1988), 19. 24Ibid. 25Paavo Airola, Ph.D., The Miracle of Garlic. (Phoenix, Arizona: Health Pl u s Publishers, 1978), 20. 26M.N. Fortunatov. “Experimental Use of Phytoncides for Therapeutic and Prophylactic Purpose.” Voprosy pediatri i Okhrany materinstva: Detstva, 20 (2), 1952, 55-58. 27Mindell, 93. 28Louise Tenney. The Encyclopedia of Natural Remedies. (Pleasant Grove, Ut a h : Woodland Publishing, 1995), 57. 29Murray, 258. 30Andrew Weil, M.D., Natural Health, Natural Medicine. (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1990), 237. 31Mindell, 97. 32Mowrey, 122. 33Walker, 49.

(https://vitanetonline.com:443/forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=1&Message_ID=444)