Are YOU what you eat?

Sometimes woo sites do encourage you to do stuff that is good for you, but they encourage you in the wrong way. An example of this would be this pic from Raw for Beauty:

While in a technical sense this is true because your cells are made from what you eat, but this is done through a complex chemical process where chemical components are broken down in your digestive system and then used by your body's cells. By the time these chemical components reaches your cells they no longer resemble anything that you've eaten and whatever is left is discarded in your poop and pee.

So, does this mean you can eat whatever you want? No.

Eating fatty and greasy foods is not good for you, nor is not exercising, which is what the picture is trying to convey, but it's overshadowed by the woo above, but the what the second sentence says is correct because if all you eat is junk food then all you'll have is a junk body.

67 claims about Coconut Oil: Which ones are true, and which ones are BS?

Recently I came across this picture that were making all of these claims about coconut oil (67 claims to be exact).

Now normal when I see something like this and it has the word "Proven" in the title, I automatically assume that most or all of it is just a bunch of BS.

But I decided to give these claims the benefit of the doubt and examine all of them to see if there is any truth behind them.

1. To cook with instead of vegetable or seed oils.

This one is true. You can cook with it, but it's advised by many health organizations not to, or not to use to much due to it's high amount of saturated fat.

2. In your coffee/tea instead of creamer.

Sure. Infact non-dairy creamers are often made out of coconut oil.

3. To wash your face with instead of soap.

Yes, this is true. Also most hard soaps are made with coconut oils.

4. To brush your teeth with.

You could. There's nothing dangerous about coconut oil (except maybe increasing your chance of having a heart attack if you eat to much of it) but I would stick with good old fashion (and proven) toothpaste.

My advice is that you should ask your dentist first before using coconut oil toothpaste and see what they have to say.

5. For oil pulling.

Yes, you can use coconut oil for this, although oil pulling itself hardly does anything and only really decreases the amount of tooth decaying bacteria in your mouth. Mouthwash is far more effective to use, and takes less time. Vodka also works to, and unlike mouthwash, you can actually swallow it!

6. As a body moisturizer.

Yes, this is true.

7. As a sun-screen.

Lets go back to #1 on the list, shall we. It's used as a cooking oil. What do you think it's going to do to you?

For those who answered incorrectly, it's going to cook you!

8. As a hair conditioner.

It does reduce protein loss in hair, so yes you could use it as a hair conditioner.

9. As a supplement.

For what? That's kind of vague. Plus considering how high coconut oil is in saturated fat, I wouldn't use it as a food supplement.

10. As a massage oil.

You can use it for that.

11. To reduce scars.

It helps with dry skin, and it might help acne scars, but scars from a cut it's not going to help.

12. To treat for lice.

Yes, you can, but you have to use a lot of it to work, and you have to leave on for 12 to 18 hours, and it probably won't kill the eggs.

13. To soften cracked heels.

Yes, you can use it for this.

14. As a hair serum.

Yes, this is another thing you can use it for.

15. As a buttery spread.

Sure you can... if you don't mind increasing your risk of having a heart attack in a few years.

16. To treat fungal infections.

No, you use use anti-fungal medication to treat fungal infections. Coconut oil might help with the dry skin, but that's it.

17. As a glaze for cold desserts.

Yes you can, but again most health experts would not recommend it.

18. To season cast iron pans.

Yes, but it's better to use healthier types of oils.

19. To improve Parkinson's disease.

There are a lot of claims going around the internet about coconut oil and Parkinson's disease, and there really hasn't been a lot of research into this, but so far it's believed that the "successes" you hear about is really just a bunch of anecdotal evidence, and there is not enough information to confirm if coconut oil can help with Parkinson's. Regardless of this more research is said to be needed.

20. To condition wood cutting boards.

You could, but considering how slick the stuff is, I wouldn't.

21. To bake in place of butter.

You could, but it's actually probably better to use butter.

22. As an ingredient for making coconut butter.

Yes, because coconut butter IS coconut oil!

23. As eye make-up remover.

Since coconut oil is used in soaps, it could probably be used as an eye make-up remover. It probably depends on what type of make-up you use with how effective it will be.

24. As a natural remedy for diaper rash.

Probably not, since diaper rash is a result of moisture, and coconut oil is used to treat dry skin.

25. To add to your protein shake.

See #1.

26. To relieve itching from bug bites.

If the bug bite causes dryness of the skin it might help, but other than that it will just be a placebo.

27. To help lower blood pressure.

NO!!! It will do the opposite.

28. To lessen the damaging effects of dementia.

Much like with Parkinson's disease there are claim that coconut oil helps with dementia, but that those claims appear to be anecdotal evidence rather than real evidence, but research into these claims are still needed.

29. To heal wounds.

Nope.

30. To reduce puffiness around the eyes.

Probably not. The best way to reduce puffiness is a change in diet.

31. As a lip balm.

You can if you want to...

32. To enhance nutrient absorption.

No, it does not do this.

33. To improve osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis is a bone disease, and coconut oil does nothing for your bones. Infact considering how much saturated fat is in coconut oil it's probably better not to consume the stuff if you have osteoporosis.

34. To relieve sun-burn.

No, it won't help. The best thing to do is to either take lots of cold showers, or use lotions with aloe vera, or wait it out.

35. To improve your memory.

If it does, or you think it does, then it's probably the result of whats called the "placebo effect" and has nothing to do with the coconut oil.

36. To make lotion bars.

Yes. Infact most lotion bars are made out of a certain amount of coconut oil.

37.  To make soap.

Most hard soaps are already made out of coconut oil. It's a key ingredient in the manufacturing of hard soaps.

38. To make laundry detergent.

You could probably try it. The worst thing that could happen is that your clothes don't come out clean.

39. To get hemorrhoid relief.

I'll forgo the gross details about what hemorrhoids are and just tell you that it won't.

40. As a hair gel.

You could use it for that. I'm not sure how good it would work, but you could use it.

41. To remove stretch marks.

All studies into this have found no evidence that any oils or creams can reduce or remove stretch marks.

42. As a shaving cream.

You could, but I would go with good old fashion shaving cream.

43. To make a nourishing hair mask.

Yes, you can use it for that.

44. To make a after-shave cream.

Yeah, it can be used for that

45. To make a nourishing lotion for your skin.

Yes, again you can use it for that.

46. To make a salt scrub.

I don't see why you can't.

47. In a cough syrup.

No, coconut oil does not help coughs.

48. In a sore throat cure.

It can't cure sore throats either. It's better to just eat ice cream, and probably healthier too.

49. In a homemade natural deodorant.

You could try it if you want, but it's probably not going to work since coconut oil doesn't actually absorb sweat. Infact it might actually make it worst, or at the very least leave you smelling like stink and coconuts.

50. To promoth hair regrowth.

I'm assuming the person who wrote this actually meant to say "promote", and no it doesn't, otherwise it would be the main ingredient in Rogaine.

51. To make your own cuticle oil.

You could try it. Even if it doesn't do any good the only harm you did was waste your money.

52. To stop nose bleeds.

No, tissues or bags of ice do that.

53. To prevent nose bleeds.

No, no picking your nose all the time and not getting your nose broken does that.

54. To fuel your workouts.

Considering it's full of saturated fat it will probably do the opposite, and maybe give you a heart attack while you're working out.

55. To build more muscles.

Protein and exercise does that, not something with lots of saturated fat.

56. As a testosterone booster.

No, and any type of natural product that claims to do this is BS.

57. As first aid.

For what? Dry skin. That's pretty much all it's good for for the human body.

58. To kill off candida yeast growth.

No, a yeast growth is a fungal infection and you need anti-fungal medicine to treat that.

59. To help cure Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO).

No, you need antibiotics to treat that.

60. To decrease an insulin spike.

Probably better not to. The best thing to do is to drink juice and eat dried fruits.

61. To stimulate your thyroid.

No, it doesn't.

62. To remove chewing gum from hair.

Pretty much the only way to remove chewing gum from hair is to cut it out, but go ahead and try it if you want to.

63. To burn fat around your stomach.

Considering coconut oil is mostly saturated fat, it's probably going to add to the fat around your stomach.

64. To clean and restore leather.

Leather oil would work better, but you could always try it.

65. To season stoneware.

You can, but it's not recommended, see #1 for the reason why.

66. To make good healthy mayo.

There's lots of ways to make good healthy mayo. Using coconut oil is not one of them.

67. In a natural vapor rub.

You could try it, but at best it would probably just be placebo effect.

***

In the end I have to conclude that is just classic food woo and alternative medicine BS. While some of what is claimed will work and is actually good for you, the rest is just stuff that either won't work but is harmless, or is actually bad for your health, and in a few claims can give false hope in improving your health, especially with certain serious medical conditions.

When you see stuff like this on the internet it's best just to ignore it.

Instead of GMO labeling laws, perhaps what we need is...

There has been a lot of debate recently over whether or not food companies should legally be required to label their foods as being either GMOs (Genetically Modified Organism) or not if they happen to actually be GMOs.

Supporters of these laws claim that this would give consumers the ability to know what they are buying, and whether or not they are actually buying something that is organic or not.

Critics on the other hand claim that such laws are unnecessary and even excessive, since it is well established that most foods are in fact either considered GMOs (technically speaking all foods are actually GMOs in one way or another) or at least would not be considered organic by many people in the organic food community, and that many people who do produce organic foods already label their products as being organic.

While this labeling law debate is sure to not go away any time soon, I do wonder if perhaps the anti-GMO crowd is going about this the wrong way. Perhaps instead of there being GMO labeling laws, there should be  organic food labeling laws instead.

While the GMO food industry is heavily regulated by the Food & Drug Administration (despite what many people in the anti-GMO crowd believes) there is actually very little regulation for the organic food industry.

In the United States there are no laws that says what foods are considered organic, and what foods are not considered organic. In fact anyone can actually claim that the food that they are producing is organic, when in fact what the food that is being produced is not considered organic by anyone's standards...

While the United States Department of Agriculture does have a organic foods certification program that is regulated, there is no legal requirement in the U.S. that says a company has to go through this certification program before they start to claim their food product is organic, and no one can do anything about because there are no laws that says you can't do that.

It's even possible that some food producers will claim that their food is organic when it really isn't simply as a selling point, and so that they have an excuse to sell their product at a higher cost than what it really should be selling for in order to make a larger profit...

Also, the fact that there is no legal requirement for what can and can not be labeled organic foods might cause people not to wash off fruits and vegetables because they might not think it's necessary if they believe it's organic (this should be done anyways regardless if it really is organic or not as the USDA actually allows the use of pesticides for it's organic food certification program, and it's just common sense to do that anyways).

What really is needed is not GMO labeling laws, but organic food labeling laws, because not only would it be far easier and cheaper to implement (simply put, if someone doesn't believe that their product will receive a legal certification of being organic, they're probably not going to waste the time and money to try to get their product legally certified as organic in the first place when they can go on and sell it as it is, and they most likely won't claim that their product is organic because they won't want to face the legal circumstances if they do and they are not suppose to) and it would also allow consumers who choose to buy organic foods to know whether or not the food they are buying is in fact truly organic, and not just something some company claims.

At the very least it would help prevent companies from making fraudulent claims about their products...

Debunking the Anti-Monsanto/Anti-GMO claims

On May 25, a local group held a protest near where I live to protest Monsanto and GMO foods.

The protest itself, while larger than what I actually expected, wasn't as large as what it could have been, with maybe only about 50 to 60 people attending.

Now about a week before this protest occurred someone was going the area and putting up some posters on lamp post and electric post not only advertising the protest, but also making several claims against both Monsanto and GMO foods.

I've looked into these claims that were made, and this is what I have found:

1. Monsanto fights labeling laws.

This is true [read here] but only to a certain extent, and there are a lot of other companies and groups (including scientists) that oppose these laws because many of them consider them to be unfair, and/or leaves to many loop holes, and many opponents also claim that these laws are really attempts to out right ban GMO foods.

Also, when the people of California were given a chance to vote into law Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GMO foods, the voters rejected it, so really you can't actually blame Monsanto about that, because when given the chance, the people rejected such laws.

2. Monsanto's propriety and legal actions harm small farmers.

Monsanto has, since the mid-1990's, filled 145 suits against individual US farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed, and while this may sound like a lot, this is actually a very small number in comparison to thousands of individual, independent farmers in the US.

Also, only 11 of these suits actually went to trial, all of which Monsanto won.

3. Scientists' studies show severe damage to GMO-feed animals.

There was a study in 2012 by Gilles-Eric Seralini that claimed to show that rats feed GMO corn increased cancer rates in these rats compared to rats that were not feed GMO corn. This study has been highly criticized for certain unscientific methods (such as the failure to record the amounts of food the rats were feed and their growth rates) and has pretty much been debunked. [read here, here, and here]

4. Monsanto's Agent Orange and DDT contaminate food crops and villagers abroad.

Agent Orange was only used between 1965 to 1970 by the US military in Vietnam (before then they used a herbicide called Agent Blue). Even though this was true, you really can't blame Monsanto because they are not the ones who actually used it. It was various governments around the world who used it. Monsanto (along with Dow Chemical) just made the stuff.

As for DDT, most countries have been banning the stuff since the 1960's for agricultural use, and again, Monsanto is not the only company that made DDT, and it doesn't even make it anymore because of the 1972 US ban.

5. Monsanto falsely advertised it's Roundup as "biodegradable."

In 2007 Monsanto was convicted in France for false advertisement of it's product Roundup as being biodegradable. France is of course the only country that has done this, and some people might even claim that this is the result of France's environmental laws, rather than reality as Glyphosate (the technical name for Roundup) does not bioaccumulate and breaks down rapidly in the environment.

Whether Roundup should be considered biodegradable or not seems to be more of a matter of opinion then fact.

6. Monsanto blocks regulations. It's CEOs are in a revolving door from Monsanto to FDA (ex: Micheal Taylor, current Food Safety Czar).

This is completely false. Micheal Taylor (whomever he is) was never the Food Safety Czar. There has only been one Food Safety Czar, and that was Dr. David Acheson, and he only had that position from 2007 to 2008.

Monsanto can not actually block regulations, all it can do is lobby against laws and regulations that could affect it's business, and there is no "revolving door", so to speak, between Monsanto and the FDA.

7. Consumers rejected Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone in milk.

The rejection of BGH in milk is a matter of consumer opinion, and has nothing to do with facts.

8. 400 scientists and 58 countries conclude that organic farming trumps GMO for sustainable, environmental,  and healthy agriculture. GM crops do not offer increased yields.

While studies have shown that organic farming, if done correctly, can be sustainable and environmentally friendly. If done incorrectly however the impact on the environment will actually be negative, and organic farming still requires more land than conventional farming.

Also, a crop's yield has nothing to do with whether or not it's a GMO, and has everything to do with the farming techniques used, and studies have shown that organic farming yields are actually less than those of conventional farming yields [read here].

9. Monsanto's control of the soy market results in 90% of soy market being GMO.

If Monsanto actually had control of the soy market then 100% of all soy beans would be GMO, not 90% as being claimed. Plus if farmers did not want to use Monsanto's soy bean seeds, then they don't have to, as there are other companies that sell soy bean seeds.

10. Allergies skyrocketed as GMO soy entered the system.

While food allergies have increased, and soy allergies are one of the more common food allergies, there is no scientific evidence that links GMO crops with the increase in food allergies.

11. Massive aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia is being used by the U.S. and the Colombian government as a counter-insurgency tactic, contaminating food crops and poisoning villagers.

There has been large aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia by the Colombian government (although there is no evidence that the U.S. actually is doing this to, and only gives support and training), the main purpose of which is to destroy coca plants (the plant which cocaine is extracted from).

While this has come under scrutiny for damaging legal crops and adverse health effects, the main criticism about the program (called Plan Colombia) has been about the cost and effectiveness.

Despite the fact that Roundup is used in this campaign, it doesn't mean that Monsanto is to blame for any damage done, as they are not the ones' spraying Roundup on these places.

Local Earth Day festival: Oh the Woo!

On April 20 my home town held it's annual Earth Day festival.

I walked down to it (since it is near my house, and I walk down to the area where it was held everyday anyways, so that's no problem) and took a look around to see what was going.

There was of course a lot of people selling stuff (clothes, hand made jewelry, etc.), there was activities for kids, and there was the selling and promoting of woo and pseudoscience...

Now there was a lot of promoting of organic foods (which doesn't bother me that much, it's just that there are some things that are claimed about it that are simply not true) and new age stuff, but there was also the promoting of things there that honestly should not have been there.

There was of course first this:

I have no idea what this has to do with Earth Day or conservation. All I know is that you are basically wasting $10 on something that is vague and won't really tell you anything.

Next I saw this:




















It's bad enough that adults go to these fake doctors, but kids???

If your child has any of these problems, don't take them to a chiropractor, take them to a REAL doctor.

Besides, what does any of these things have to with the spine in the first place???

Finally there was this:

Yep, it's the blatant promotion of anti-GMO foods (and the basic promotion Monsanto conspiracy theories, and also thus the promoting of GMO conspiracy theories).

This of course wasn't the only things that promoted woo and pseudoscience (and in my opinion should not have been there) but these three things should never have been allowed to be there at all, because they have nothing to do with either Earth Day, nor the environment, and not only promoted stuff that not only wastes money, but also may be harmful.

There were a few booths there that really were promoting conservation and environmentalism, but they were just drowned out by the people promoting stuff that really had nothing to do with conservation and environmentalism.

Over all the whole event left me with a feeling that it was more about the promoting and selling (quite literally at that) of woo and pseudoscience, and that much of what was there should not have been there, and that the whole event was more of a promoting of the New Age movement, rather than conservation or the environment.

5 Things I've noticed about... Organic Food

There's a lot of things I've notice organic foods and the claims about it, and of all the things I've noticed about organic foods, there are five things about it that really stand out for me.

So here are five things I've noticed about organic food:

5. It's expensive.

Organic food cost an awful lot, and in some cases twice as much as non-organic foods, and unless you are very well off, it can get expensive real quick and make a real hit on a households budget.

Even if organic food were to cost only 10% more than conventional food, the expense can still add pretty quickly, even if not all the food you buy is organic, just some of your food.

4. It's not as environmentally friendly as one might think.

Due to the sheer fact that organic farming doesn't produce as high of a yield of crops per acre as with regular farming, if organic farming was done nation wide (or world wide for that matter) over regular farming, then a lot more land would be needed to grow crops in order to feed everyone, thus things like deforestation would increase in order to make open land to grow crops on, and to raise animals for meat on.

3. There's no set guide lines for what's considered organic.

There is really no set of criteria or laws and regulations for what can be considered and labeled organic food, and also what is considered to be organic to one person might not be considered organic to another person.

Also, because there is no set criteria or guide lines for what is considered organic, a farmer could claim what they are growing is organic, but in reality is not by most anyone's standards, and could be claimed to be organic to only be used as a selling point to get people to buy their product.

2. The benefits don't outweigh the costs.

Studies have shown that organic foods is no more healthier or nutritious than conventional, non-organic foods.

In fact the only real benefits organic foods have over conventional foods is that sometimes organic foods tastes better, and that organically raised meat animals do have a much lower chance of getting certain types diseases that results from eating food made with animal by products, but it doesn't prevent animals from getting certain types of diseases that could be prevented through the use of antibiotics. Some people could even argue that not giving an animal antibiotics is a form of animal cruelty.

1. It's not really organic.

Most people who prefer organic foods over conventional foods will tell you that organic foods must be free of genetic modifications, but the thing about that is that most of our basic foods have been genetically modified at one point in time or another, either through crossbreeding, cross pollination, or just simple crop and animal selection.

Most of our modern basic foods are the result of some type of man-made genetic modifications. The only real difference is that it wasn't done in a laboratory using modern scientific equipment.