All Posts Tagged With: "dairy"

Dairy and wheat

Linda’s comment’s:  Don’t you just love reporters who don’t have a clue??!!  This Gina Kolata has obviously NOT done her homework, but then again we have to look at who she works for.  Her comment that there are “Many who think they have food allergies actually do not”…. she doesn’t mention anything about “food sensitivities”?? My question IS?  Who paid for this article??  Would you think that the food industry had anything to do with this BS article?  I don’t know about you, but I take it as a grain of salt and investigate further what the NY Times puts in print. 
Eliminating dairy and wheat makes a proven difference in many illnesses so NY Times headline by Gina Kolata suggesting food allergies are rare will confuse our patients. Maybe we all need to clean up our language and tell people we are concerned about possible food intolerances.

People will only see this headline and their compliance with restricting foods will plummet. You need to know your patients will not have time to read the entire article where food intolerances are explained and where the technical fact that food allergy involves IMMUNE mediated reactions.

This is a disservice to our efforts to help our patient’s health using my FIGHT program. I repeat that patients can do everything, drink best food, raise organic food picked ripe from balanced soil, exercise, detox, etc, and yet sabotage their results by ignoring the need to avoid certain foods. I admit that it is difficult to identify all food intolerances and no test is perfect. But, irresponsible reporting to sell newspapers where the full story is not told does serious disservice to the millions whose health is being adversely impacted by a food they lack the enzymes to metabolize, like lactose intolerance, which admittedly is not a food allergy but clearly is adversely affected the health of millions.

Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institute
www.gordonresearch.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/health/research/12allergies

May 11, 2010
Doubt Is Cast on Many Reports of Food Allergies
By GINA KOLATA

Many who think they have food allergies actually do not.

A new report, commissioned by the federal government, finds the field is rife with poorly done studies, misdiagnoses and tests that can give misleading results.

While there is no doubt that people can be allergic to certain foods, with reproducible responses ranging from a rash to a severe life-threatening reaction, the true incidence of food allergies is only about 8 percent for children and less than 5 percent for adults, said Dr. Marc Riedl, an author of the new paper and an allergist and immunologist at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Yet about 30 percent of the population believe they have food allergies. And, Dr. Riedl said, about half the patients coming to his clinic because they had been told they had a food allergy did not really have one.

Dr. Riedl does not dismiss the seriousness of some people’s responses to foods. But, he says, “That accounts for a small percentage of what people term ‘food allergies.’ ”
Even people who had food allergies as children may not have them as adults. People often shed allergies, though no one knows why. And sometimes people develop food allergies as adults, again for unknown reasons.

For their report, Dr. Riedl and his colleagues reviewed all the papers they could find on food allergies published between January 1988 and September 2009 — more than 12,000 articles. In the end, only 72 met their criteria, which included having sufficient data for analysis and using more rigorous tests for allergic responses.

“Everyone has a different definition” of a food allergy, said Dr. Jennifer J. Schneider Chafen of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Palo Alto Health Care System in California and Stanford’s Center for Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, who was the lead author of the new report. People who receive a diagnosis after one of the two tests most often used — pricking the skin and injecting a tiny amount of the suspect food and looking in blood for IgE antibodies, the type associated with allergies — have less than a 50 percent chance of actually having a food allergy, the investigators found.

One way to see such a reaction is with what is called a food challenge, giving people a suspect food disguised so they do not know if they are eating it or a placebo food. If the disguised food causes a reaction, the person has an allergy.

But in practice, most doctors are reluctant to use food challenges, Dr. Riedl said. They believe the test to be time consuming, and worry about asking people to consume a food, like peanuts, that can elicit a frightening response.

The paper, to be published Wednesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is part of a large project organized by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to try to impose order on the chaos of food allergy testing. An expert panel will provide guidelines defining food allergies and giving criteria to diagnose and manage patients. They hope to have a final draft by the end of June.

“We were approached as in a sense the honest broker who could get parties together to look at this question,” said Dr. Matthew J. Fenton, who oversees the guidelines project for the allergy institute.

Authors of the new report — and experts on the guidelines panel — say even accepted dogma, like the idea that breast-fed babies have fewer allergies or that babies should not eat certain foods like eggs for the first year of life, have little evidence behind them.
Part of the confusion is over what is a food allergy and what is a food intolerance, Dr. Fenton said. Allergies involve the immune system, while intolerances generally do not. For example, a headache from sulfites in wine is not a food allergy. It is an intolerance. The same is true for lactose intolerance, caused by the lack of an enzyme needed to digest sugar in milk.

And other medical conditions can make people think they have food allergies, Dr. Fenton said. For example, people sometimes interpret acid reflux symptoms after eating a particular food as an allergy.

The chairman of the guidelines project, Dr. Joshua Boyce, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard and an allergist and pediatric pulmonologist, said one of the biggest misconceptions some doctors and patients have is that a positive test for IgE antibodies to a food means a person is allergic to that food. It is not necessarily so, he said.

During development, he said, the immune system tends to react to certain food proteins, producing IgE antibodies. But, Dr. Boyce said, “these antibodies can be transient and even inconsequential.”

“There are plenty of individuals with IgE antibodies to various foods who don’t react to those foods at all,” Dr. Boyce said.

The higher the levels of IgE antibodies to a particular food, the greater the likelihood the person will react in an allergic way. But even then, the antibodies do not necessarily portend a severe reaction, Dr. Boyce said. Antibodies to some foods, like peanuts, are much more likely to produce a reaction than ones to other foods, like wheat or corn or rice. No one understands why.

The guidelines panel hopes its report will lead to new research as well as clarify the definition and testing for food allergies.

But for now, Dr. Fenton said, doctors should not use either the skin-prick test or the antibody test as the sole reason for thinking their patients have a food allergy.
“By themselves they are not sufficient,” Dr. Fenton said.

Organic produce is nutritionally superior to so-called “conventional” produce

 Linda’s comments:  This is a great article on how to purchase organic produce and why it is important to do your best to eat organic.  I’m sure you have seen these BIG wooden tubs that folks use to plant flowers in?  These are perfect for your patio to plant your own organic produce, plus it isn’t on the ground to break your back bending over weeding, and feeding your plants…..I use chicken wire to protect it from rabbits, etc.  Zip ties are great for hooking it around the planter….Find your local organic farmers.  They are popping up all over Arizona, plus the Farmers Markets are growing like wild fire….

Full article: http://www.naturalnews.com/027854_organic_food_nutrition.html

Excerpt:

NaturalNews) Organic produce is nutritionally superior to so-called “conventional” produce, according to a comprehensive review conducted by researchers from the University of Aix-Marseille for the French food agency (AFSSA) and published in the journal Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

“This critical literature review indicates that organic agriculture, as developed until now, has the potential to produce high-quality products with some relevant improvements in terms of anti-oxidant phytomicronutrients, nitrate accumulation in vegetables and toxic residue levels,” the researchers wrote.

To be recognized as “organic,” a food product must be produced without the use of genetic modification or chemical fertilizers or pesticides, and must promote sustainable cropping methods. In the United States, organically produced meat and dairy must be raised without the use of synthetic growth hormones or antibiotics. Hormones and antibiotics are banned in animal production across the board in the European Union.

Genetically Modified Ingredients Overview

Here is a summary of what crops, foods and food ingredients have been genetically modified as of July, 2007:

Currently Commercialized GM Crops in the U.S.:
(Number in parentheses represents the estimated percent that is genetically modified.)

Soy (91%)
Cotton (88%)
Canola (80-85%)
Corn (85%)
Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%)
Alfalfa, zucchini and yellow squash (small amount)
Tobacco (Quest® brand) Continued