Pages

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Amid Health Concerns, Nonprofit Urges EPA To Halt Apple Pesticide That's Already Banned In Europe

Reposted from Reuters | Posted: Updated: 


By Carey Gillam


APPLES
BRIAN YARVIN VIA GETTY IMAGES | Brian Yarvin via Getty Images

April 24 (Reuters) - U.S.-grown apples are widely coated with a pesticide that has been newly banned in the European Union amid health concerns, and the United States is at least a year behind in a required scientific assessment of the pesticide, an environmental group said on Thursday.

The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit health and environmental advocacy group, sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency asking for the agency to halt the use of diphenylamine, also called DPA, until a new analysis shows DPA levels on food are safe, the group said.

DPA, which is sprayed on apples after they are harvested to help prevent browning, was first registered as a pesticide in the United States in 1947, according to the EPA.

But recent concerns about the pesticide's potential links to cancer led the European Union to ban fruits containing more than 0.1 part per million of DPA. That regulation took effect in March.

The EWG said consumers in the United States have reason to be concerned about their own consumption of DPA. The United States allows 10 parts per million of DPA residues in food. A 2010 USDA analysis of raw apples found DPA on 80 percent of the apples tested, EWG said.

"Apples, apple juice and applesauce are staples in the diets of millions of children, so if there are potential risks to kids from DPA, we need to know now," EWG senior scientist Sonya Lunder said in a statement.

U.S. Apple Association spokeswoman Wendy Brannen said DPA is safely used in U.S. apple production, and the residue levels on apples are well below tolerance levels set by the government.

"There is no cause for concern and certainly not a safety issue pertaining to DPA use here in the United States," said Brannen.

The EPA is required under the federal Food Quality Protection Act to conduct a scientific assessment of pesticides every 15 years. But the Environmental Protection Agency has not looked at DPA since the late 1990s.

In its last report, the EPA said DPA was "not likely" to be carcinogenic, but said diphenylnitrosamine - an impurity of technical grade diphenylamine - was classified as a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of bladder tumors in rats. The agency also expressed concern about the "structural relationship to carcinogenic nitrosamines."

The EPA said in a statement that its evaluation in 1997 found "reasonable certainty of no harm" and added that if new evidence challenges the safety of DPA, it will take action. (Reporting by Carey Gillam in Kansas City; Editing by Dan Grebler)





This month's featured product, Metal Detox 




In Health, 
The Naturally Botanicals Team






Monday, June 16, 2014

This Week's Most Popular Product, Intra-Mag 500

This Week's Most Popular Product  
Intra-Mag 500 by DNA Labs (Dynamic Nutritional Associates). 




Nutritional Support for the Heart, Blood Vessels and Muscles.
Support the Heart Naturally 

Intra-Mag 500 is a clear winner with out customers. Customer's simply love this product. They order it time and time again.

Contains no sugar, starch, soy, yeast, corn or any other known allergens. Free of preservatives, artificial coloring and flavoring. Click here for more information


In Health,
Team Naturally Botanicals
www.naturallybotanicals.com


The Afternoon Snack That Can Help You Live Longer

2012-10-11-omaglogo.jpg
Reposted  |  By Jessica Girdwain  |  
Posted: Updated: 
As one of the cornerstones of a Mediterranean diet, nuts make an excellent addition to just about any meal. And now a study in The New England Journal of Medicine has found that eating roughly a handful of them daily is associated with a 20 percent lower risk of death. But while all nuts are healthy, each variety has its own unique benefits. We spotlight the standouts.
  • Macadamias
    Getty Images
    Though these nuts pack roughly 21 grams of fat per serving, most of it is the unsaturated kind—so you can nosh guilt free. Macadamias are an excellent source of two nutrients vital for healthy brain and nerve function: manganese (one serving delivers 66 percent of what you need daily) and the B vitamin thiamine (30 percent of your recommended dietary allowance).
    Serving size: 10 to 12 nuts, 204 calories
  • Brazil Nuts
    John E. Kelly via Getty Images
    The bad news: You can't eat a lot of them. Each of these Amazonian nuts contains about 33 calories—the equivalent of nearly 10 M&M's. The good news: You needn't go overboard to reap their health benefits. Just two nuts per day for 12 weeks can increase blood levels of the mineral selenium by 64 percent. Selenium is essential for proper immune function, as it helps build germ-fighting white blood cells.
    Serving size: 6 nuts, 186 calories
  • Almonds
    Robert Decelis Ltd via Getty Images
    Call them the skinny nuts. In a 2013 study in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, people who ate about one and a half servings of almonds with breakfast felt a 35 percent decrease in appetite an hour later. When the nuts were consumed as an afternoon snack, they quashed appetites by about two and a half times that, helping the subjects naturally eat less for the rest of the day.
    Serving size: 23 nuts, 164 calories
  • Pecans
    Paul Poplis via Getty Images
    A small study in The Journal of Nutrition found that people who consumed about three servings of pecans experienced as much as a 33 percent drop in oxidized LDL cholesterol (the kind that causes artery-clogging plaque to form). The pecan's power may lie in its high levels of heart-protecting antioxidants.
    Serving size: 9 halves, 196 calories
  • Pistachios
    Tom Grill via Getty Images
    Not only are pistachios the lowest-calorie nut of the bunch, but they're also rich in healthy unsaturated fatty acids. In a new study, a group that consumed 20 percent of their daily calories from pistachios for nearly six months had lower blood sugar and cholesterol levels—two risk factors for heart disease—and trimmed their waistlines more than those who ate a wholesome but pistachio-free diet.
    Serving size: 49 nuts, 159 calories

Thursday, June 12, 2014

What Happens to Your Brain When You Eat Junk Food (And Why We Crave It)

Reposted from The Huffington Post 6/12/2014 | Posted: 11/15/2013 8:21 am 
Most of us know that junk food is unhealthy. We know that poor nutrition is related to heart problems, high blood pressure, and a host of other health ailments. You might even know that studies show that eating junk food has been linked to increases in depression. 

But if it's so bad for us, why do we keep doing it? 
There is an answer. And the science behind it will surprise you. 

Why We Crave Junk Food 
Steven Witherly is a food scientist who has spent the last 20 years studying what makes certain foods more addictive (and tasty) than others. Much of the science that follows is from his excellent report, "Why Humans Like Junk Food." 


According to Witherly, when you eat tasty food, there are two factors that make the experience pleasurable.

First, there is the sensation of eating the food. This includes what it tastes like (salty, sweet, umami, etc.), what it smells like, and how it feels in your mouth. This last quality -- known as "orosensation" -- can be particularly important. Food companies will spend millions of dollars to discover the most satisfying level of crunch in a potato chip. Their scientists will test for the perfect amount of fizzle in a soda. These factors all combine to create the sensation that your brain associates with a particular food or drink.
The second factor is the actual macronutrient makeup of the food -- the blend of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates that it contains. In the case of junk food, food manufacturers are looking for a perfect combination of salt, sugar, and fat that excites your brain and gets you coming back for more.
Here's how they do it...
How Science Creates Cravings
There are a range of factors that scientists and food manufacturers use to make food more addictive.
Dynamic contrast. Dynamic contrast refers to a combination of different sensations in the same food. In the words of Witherly, foods with dynamic contrast have:
... an edible shell that goes crunch followed by something soft or creamy and full of taste-active compounds. This rule applies to a variety of our favorite food structures -- the caramelized top of a creme brulee, a slice of pizza, or an Oreo cookie -- the brain finds crunching through something like this very novel and thrilling.
Salivary response. Salivation is part of the experience of eating food, and the more that a food causes you to salivate, the more it will swim throughout your mouth and cover your taste buds. For example, emulsified foods like butter, chocolate, salad dressing, ice cream, and mayonnaise promote a salivary response that helps to lather your taste buds with goodness. This is one reason why many people enjoy foods that have sauces or glazes on them. The result is that foods that promote salivation do a happy little tap dance on your brain and taste better than ones that don't.
Rapid food meltdown and vanishing caloric density. Foods that rapidly vanish or "melt in your mouth" signal to your brain that you're not eating as much as you actually are. In other words, these foods literally tell your brain that you're not full, even though you're eating a lot of calories.
The result: You tend to overeat.
In his best-selling book Salt Sugar Fat, author Michael Moss describes a conversation with Witherly that explains vanishing caloric density perfectly...
I brought him two shopping bags filled with a variety of chips to taste. He zeroed right in on the Cheetos. "This," Witherly said, "is one of the most marvelously constructed foods on the planet, in terms of pure pleasure." He ticked off a dozen attributes of the Cheetos that make the brain say more. But the one he focused on most was the puff's uncanny ability to melt in the mouth. "It's called vanishing caloric density," Witherly said. "If something melts down quickly, your brain thinks that there's no calories in it ... you can just keep eating it forever."

Sensory specific response. Your brain likes variety. When it comes to food, if you experience the same taste over and over again, then you start to get less pleasure from it. In other words, the sensitivity of that specific sensor will decrease over time. This can happen in just minutes.
Junk foods, however, are designed to avoid this sensory specific response. They provide enough taste to be interesting (your brain doesn't get tired of eating them), but it's not so stimulating that your sensory response is dulled. This is why you can swallow an entire bag of potato chips and still be ready to eat another. To your brain, the crunch and sensation of eating Doritos is novel and interesting every time.
Calorie density. Junk foods are designed to convince your brain that it is getting nutrition, but to not fill you up. Receptors in your mouth and stomach tell your brain about the mixture of proteins, fats, carbohydrates in a particular food, and how filling that food is for your body. Junk food provides just enough calories that your brain says, "Yes, this will give you some energy," but not so many calories that you think, "That's enough, I'm full." The result is that you crave the food to begin with, but it takes quite some time to feel full from it.
Memories of past eating experiences. This is where the psychobiology of junk food really works against you. When you eat something tasty (say, a bag of potato chips), your brain registers that feeling. The next time you see that food, smell that food, or even read about that food, your brain starts to trigger the memories and responses that came when you ate it. These memories can actually cause physical responses like salivation and create the "mouth-watering" craving that you get when thinking about your favorite foods.
All of this brings us to the most important question of all.
Food companies are spending millions of dollars to design foods with addictive sensations. What can you and I do about it? Is there any way to counteract the money, the science, and the advertising behind the junk food industry?
How to Kick the Junk Food Habit and Eat Healthy
The good news is that the research shows that the less junk food you eat, the less you crave it. My own experiences have mirrored this. As I've slowly begun to eat healthier, I've noticed myself wanting pizza and candy and ice cream less and less. Some people refer to this transition period as "gene reprogramming."
Whatever you want to call it, the lesson is the same: If you can find ways to gradually eat healthier, you'll start to experience the cravings of junk food less and less. I've never claimed to have all the answers (or any, really), but here are three strategies that might help.
1. Use the "outer ring" strategy and the "5 ingredient rule" to buy healthier food.
The best course of action is to avoid buying processed and packaged foods. If you don't own it, you can't eat it. Furthermore, if you don't think about it, you can't be lured by it.
We've talked about the power of junk food to pull you in and how memories of tasty food in the past can cause you to crave more of it in the future. Obviously, you can't prevent yourself from ever thinking about junk food, but there are ways to reduce your cravings.
First, you can use my "outer ring" strategy to avoid processed and packaged foods at the grocery store. If you limit yourself to purchasing foods that are on the outer ring of the store, then you will generally buy whole foods (fruits, vegetables, meat, eggs, etc.). Not everything on the outer ring is healthy, but you will avoid a lot of unhealthy foods.
You can also follow the "5 ingredient rule" when buying foods at the store. If something has more than 5 ingredients in it, don't buy it. Odds are, it has been designed to fool you into eating more of it. Avoid those products and stick with the more natural options.
2. Eat a variety of foods.
As we covered earlier, the brain craves novelty.
While you may not be able to replicate the crunchy/creamy contrast of an Oreo, you can vary your diet enough to keep things interesting. For example, you could dip a carrot (crunchy) in some hummus (creamy) and get a novel sensation. Similarly, finding ways to add new spices and flavors to your dishes can make eating healthy foods a more desirable experience.
Moral of the story: Eating healthy doesn't have to be bland. Mix up your foods to get different sensations and you may find it easier than eating the same foods over and over again. (At some point, however, you may have to fall in love with boredom.)
3. Find a better way to deal with your stress.
There's a reason why many people eat as a way to cope with stress. Stress causes certain regions of the brain to release chemicals (specifically, opiates and neuropeptide Y). These chemicals can trigger mechanisms that are similar to the cravings you get from fat and sugar. In other words, when you get stressed, your brain feels the addictive call of fat and sugar and you're pulled back to junk food.
We all have stressful situations that arise in our lives. Learning to deal with stress in a different way can help you overcome the addictive pull of junk food. This could include simple breathing techniques or a short guided meditation. Or something more physical like exercise or making art.
With that said, if you're looking for a better written and more detailed analysis of the science of junk food, I recommend reading the #1 New York Times best-seller Salt Sugar Fat.

James Clear






Books mentioned in this article:
    


In Heatlth,
The Naturally Botanicals Team
www.naturallybotanicals.com

Monday, June 9, 2014

GMO Labeling Legislation Blossoming this Spring

Repost from Natural Products Insider | June 2 2014 | by Lindsay Carlson, Drew Paris and Sheila Shah

Legislation that would require food manufacturers and retailers to label products made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is gaining traction throughout the country. Polls have shown widespread public support for GMO labeling laws. As of the date of this article, Vermont, Connecticut and Maine have already enacted GMO labeling laws, and bills have been introduced in at least 22 other state legislatures. Meanwhile, Congress is considering the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (HR 4432), which would mandate that FDA set standards for labeling food products as it pertains to the presence or absence of GMO ingredients, and take a voluntary approach whereby industry players are allowed to choose whether to label their products as containing GMOs.

Impact on Food Litigation
The increase in proposed GMO labeling laws dovetails with an uptick in food labeling litigation. In recent years, food labeling litigation has primarily consisted of class actions involving food products that claim to be “natural." Generally, these cases are brought under state consumer protection laws, and allege that consumers are being misled by food products that are labeled as “natural," but actually contain synthetic ingredients or GMOs. Since a 2009 appellate ruling that a natural foods claim involving high-fructose corn syrup was not pre-empted by FDA, plaintiffs’ attorneys have targeted food manufacturers and retailers in similar litigation, including Kraft, ConAgra Foods, Dole, General Mills, Frito Lay, Snapple and Whole Foods Market.

The proliferation of state GMO labeling laws will likely intensify the litigation risk for food companies. Some 80 percent of foods found in grocery stores contain ingredients made from genetically modified crops. Under proposed GMO labeling laws, food manufacturers, retailers and suppliers may be subjected to new “omission" actions for failure to strictly comply with labeling requirements. GMO laws may provide an additional hook for the “natural" food litigation described above. Finally, GMO laws may be interpreted as endorsing a state policy position that a GMO ingredient is materially different from a non-GMO ingredient, and that GMO ingredients are unnatural and potentially unsafe.

Food labeling litigation has been further complicated by FDA’s silence on the issue. FDA has declined to provide guidance on these issues beyond a 1992 policy stating that GMOs do not “present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding." Although FDA has jurisdiction, it has declined to provide a rule regarding the use of the term “natural." This regulatory ambiguity has let food companies with no choice but to make their own determinations as to whether their products may be called “natural." The proliferation of GMO labeling laws may finally force FDA’s hand.

Lessons from California
One out of every eight Americans is a Californian. Due to the size and reach of California’s economy, many companies adopt California’s standards for nationwide application. Industry insiders should therefore pay special attention to efforts to pass GMO labelling legislation in California. Though the bill was narrowly defeated on May 29, 2014, proponents have vowed to continue their fight.

Much of the proposed GMO labeling legislation is similar to California’s Proposition 65, a 1986 law designed to protect Californians from chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm. Prop 65 requires businesses and landlords to warn consumers if products or environments may result in exposure to certain chemicals above designated thresholds. With 800 chemicals within its purview, Prop 65 has touched a staggering number of products and environments in the California economy. It seems every building is equipped with a Prop 65 warning sign, and they are so ubiquitous that consumers generally ignore them.

GMO labeling laws would reach an enormous number of products. Farms are expanding the use of genetically engineered crops that are used in processed foods. The Grocery Manufacturers Association estimated 80 percent of conventional processed foods contain GMOs. Under the proposed laws, all such foods would likely be subject to labeling requirements. Prop 65 led to financial incentives for litigation, burdening businesses with cumbersome cases and extensive costs of defense. One would expect similar from GMO labelling laws becomes law.

Despite the complexity of these issues, one thing is clear: laws on this issue are rapidly evolving, and the food industry should take care to monitor these developments and prepare for potential changes in their labeling practices.

Lindsay Carlson and Drew Paris are partners, and Sheila Shahis an associate in the Los Angeles office of Alston & Bird, a national law firm of more than 800 attorneys.






This month's featured product, Metal Detox 




In Health, 
The Naturally Botanicals Team






Friday, June 6, 2014

How Sugar Went From a Condiment to a Diet Staple

Reposted | Time | Opinion Health | Robert Lustig June 3, 2014
More and more Americans' meals resemble dessert, and Congress is to blame for our collective national stomachache.

Jessica Key—Getty Images
School cafeterias have been under siege for three decades, ever since Ronald Reagan declared ketchup to be a vegetable. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act passed by Congress in 2010 raised the national per-pupil lunch expenditure from $2.80 to $2.86. But this increase wasn’t enough to allow school cafeterias to subsist on their own—much less cover the cost of a carrot. Instead of upping the amount, last week Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) and the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations decided to gut their own the ridiculously low bar by allowing schools to “opt-out” of the federal nutrition standards. This will no doubt start to roll back the nutrition standards for all schools, which Congress expects will culminate in the No Hungry Kids Act, currently winding its way through the House. We might as well call this the “Dessert for Lunch Act.”

Why did Congress engage in this schizophrenic exercise? Because the American Legislative and Exchange Council, a lobbying group for the food and drug industries, makes campaign contributions to 338 of 535 members of Congress. The documentary movie Fed Up (full disclosure: I’m in it) is an exposé of how the food industry has undermined the American diet to foment a pandemic of obesity and diabetes, all in the name of profit—and how the U.S. Congress has aided and abetted the industry at every turn. As an example, Congress one-upped Reagan by declaring that pizza is now a vegetable.

But dessert for lunch (and breakfast) has ramifications. We’ve already witnessed the medical devastation driven by our current sugar glut. In 1977, the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, led by Senator George McGovern, issued the first dietary recommendations for Americans, which espoused the low-fat hypothesis. But the food tasted like cardboard; so the low-fat diet inadvertently begat a high-sugar diet. Since then, childhood obesity rates have increased from 5% to 30%, children developed type 2 diabetes (never seen before) and doctors discovered a new entity, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, now prevalent in one-seventh of all American children. At the same time, academic test scores fell, behavior problems and the need for medication increased, and spending on health care rose from 9.0% of our GDP in 1980 to 17.2% today. More people are shuttled through the medical system every day, and 75% percent of healthcare dollars are spent on preventable diseases that are either caused by or related to sugar consumption. If we don’t acknowledge and aggressively address the inherent connection between “all dessert, all the time” and the medical, social and economic devolution we currently face, America will find itself fat, stupid, and broke.

Don’t get me wrong. We all love dessert. How could you not? Dessert is the reward we look forward to for finishing our lima beans. Liking sweet on our tongue is programmed into our DNA. Sweet was the signal to our ancestors that a foodstuff was safe to eat, because there are no foods that are both sweet and acutely poisonous.

Sugar used to be a condiment, but now it’s a diet staple. Soda, juice, sweetened coconut water, sweetened teas, Frappuccinos—these are all desserts. Foods with added sugar are dessert if any form of sugar is one of the first three ingredients. Granola is dessert. Fruit-flavored yogurt is dessert. Chinese chicken salad is dessert. The American Heart Association limits kids to 4 teaspoons, and adults to 6-9 teaspoons, of added sugar per day. Yet a typical school breakfast consists of a bowl of Froot Loops and a glass of orange juice. That’s 11 teaspoons of added sugar! The program also serves 1% chocolate milk, which has 4 teaspoons of added sugar, a child’s entire limit for the day. Thirty-nine percent of our children eat school lunch every day, and 25% eat school breakfast, as part of the National School Lunch Program. Should kids really be eating dessert for breakfast?

While dessert captivates our brain’s reward center, our taste for it is leading to a tidal wave of chronic diseases – diseases so nefarious and insidious that our healthcare system isn’t prepared for the flood of children with type 2 diabetes and liver disease who will be sick for decades and are already clogging up our healthcare system. And we know that sugar stimulates the reward center of the brain, similar to drugs, which of course is why the food industry puts it in virtually all processed foods—to get you to buy more.
I like dessert—for dessert. Dessert should be safe, and rare. But just like on Halloween, overdoing it has predictable consequences: a huge tummy ache. The same goes for the food industry overdoing it with lobbying money in Congress: that’s why we’ve got one hell of a national tummy ache.

Robert H. Lustig, M.D., M.S.L. is Professor of Pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, and the President of the Institute for Responsible Nutrition, a nonprofit dedicated to improving the global food supply, and eradicating type 2 diabetes in children. He is the author of Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease, Sugar Has 56 Names: A Shoppers Guide, and The Fat Chance Cookbook.


In Heath,
The Naturally Botanicals Team
www.naturallybotanicals.com


Friday, May 30, 2014

Why You Should Never Eat High Fructose Corn Syrup

Is high fructose corn syrup really bad for you?

Reposted from Huff Post Food for Thought | Posted: 11/12/2013 12:30 pm




Renaissance physician Paracelsus famously said, "The dose makes the poison," meaning that even harmless substances can become toxic if you eat enough of them. Many people ask me, "Is high fructose syrup really that bad for you?" And my answer to this question is "Yes," mainly for this very reason.
In America today, we are eating huge doses of sugar, especially high fructose corn syrup. It is sweeter and cheaper than regular sugar and is in every processed food and sugar-sweetened drink. Purging it from your diet is the single best thing you can do for your health!
In recent history, we've gone from 20 teaspoons of sugar per person per year to about 150 pounds of sugar per person per year. That's a half pound a day for every man, woman, and child in America. The average 20-ounce soda contains 15 teaspoons of sugar, all of it high fructose corn syrup. And when you eat sugar in those doses, it becomes a toxin.
As part of the chemical process used to make high fructose corn syrup, the glucose and fructose -- which are naturally bound together -- become separated. This allows the fructose to mainline directly into your liver, which turns on a factory of fat production in your liver called lipogenesis.
This leads to fatty liver, the most common disease in America today, affecting 90 million Americans. This, in turn, leads to diabesity -- pre-diabetes and Type 2 diabetes. So, high fructose corn syrup is the real driver of the current epidemic of heart attacks, strokes, cancer, dementia, and of course, Type 2 diabetes.
HFCS contains dangerous chemicals and contaminants
Beside the ginormous load of pure fructose and sugar found in HCFS, as an added bonus, it contains other chemical toxins.  Chemical contaminants used during manufacturing end up in the HFCS and in our food.  What we know, for example, is that chloralkali is used in making high fructose corn syrup. Chloralkai contains mercury. And there are trace amounts of mercury found in high fructose corn syrup-containing beverages. Now, it may not be a problem if we eat this occasionally, but the average person in the country consumes more than 20 teaspoons a day of high fructose corn syrup and the average teenager has 34 teaspoons a day. Over time, these heavy metals can accumulate in the body, causing health problems.
Additionally, when we look at the chemical components of high fructose corn syrup on a spectrograph, we can see that it contains many weird chemicals that we know nothing about. That's why I say better safe than sorry.
Look out for the red flag
The main reason you should give up high fructose corn syrup is that it's a big red flag for very poor quality food. If you see this ingredient on a label, I guarantee you the food is processed junk. So, if high fructose corn syrup is anywhere on the label, put it back on the shelf. You should never eat this food.
If you want to stay healthy, lose weight easily, get rid of chronic disease, and help reduce the obesity epidemic, the single most important thing you can do is eliminate high fructose corn syrup from your diet and from your children's diet. Just banish it from your house.
Purge your kitchen
I challenge you to go into your kitchen right now, go in the cupboard and refrigerator, and look at every single label. And I want you to count how many products you have right now in your house that contain high fructose corn syrup. Then, I want you to get a big garbage bag and throw them out and find replacements that are free of it.
If you want to have some sugar, that's fine. Have a little sugar, but add it to your food yourself. Don't eat food made with added sugar. Cut the high fructose corn syrup from your life forever. You'll be healthier. Our planet will be healthier. And we'll have a healthier generation of children.
Wishing you health and happiness,
Mark Hyman, M.D.
Mark Hyman, MD



Practicing physician

Mark Hyman, MD is a practicing physician, founder of The UltraWellness Center, a six-time New York Times bestselling author, and an international leader in the field of Functional Medicine. You can follow him on Twitter, connect with him on LinkedIn, watch his videos on YouTube, become a fan on Facebook, and subscribe to his newsletter. 





This month's featured product, Metal Detox 




In Health, 
The Naturally Botanicals Team