Guarding against Gardasil

Okay, I know I might be opening a can of worms....

I know Gardasil has become a debate in some circles. 

Personally, we had never planned on giving mija the Gardasil vaccination.  We hadn't considered health reason in this choice, but moral reasons.  Pardon my bluntness, but teaching my daughter to keep her knees together before marriage will deter a lot more problems in her life than Gardasil would.

To me, insisting that young girls need the vaccine because of viruses encountered through promiscuity means the teaching of purity and obedience to God's word on the matter of intimacy has just thrown in the towel, sent up the white flag, surrendered.

Then there is the whole health side of the issue.

Dr. Mecola had an article on Tuesday that included several videos and much commentary on the health risks involved.
Just CLICK HERE to go to the page.

Guarding against Gardasil

Last week, Michelle Bachmann made the news with her comments about the Gardasil vaccine. 

Gardasil is also a big issue in California right now as the state has passed a bill allowing minors to be vaccinated without parental notification.

This is wrong on so many levels in my opinion.  The possible dangers of the vaccine.  The state parenting my child.  Using a vaccine to potentially skirt disease in place of teaching purity.  Shall I go on?

Dr. Mercola had a whole article on this issue last week as well.  I'll post the video, and then please go read the rest of the information HERE.

Don't Give This to Your Daughter - Despite What Your Doctor Says

An article from Dr. Mecola about Gardasil.  I'm glad the truth is finally getting out there about the "vaccination"


It's been four years since Gardasil debuted as a blockbuster vaccine with sales that rocketed to over $1.1 billion in its first nine months.


Touted as a wonder vaccine that would end cervical cancer, it was supposed to be the savior of both mankind and Merck's Vioxx-damaged bottom line. But now, according to CNN Money, it's a dud.

It just posted $219 million in sales. But in the pharma world, that's a paltry pittance, nothing short of an in-flight explosion that's caused Merck stock to drop 3 percent, with analysts and investors scrambling to figure out what went wrong.

So what happened?

How did a vaccine that was supposed to be Merck's beacon for higher profits in the 21st Century go from flagship to flop?

The Science Speaks for Itself

CNN Money calls Gardasil's crash a "design flaw" and faults the economy, puritanical parents, bad press, and Merck itself for contributing to the fallout.

The article ends with the hypothesis: "Or, maybe people just aren't ready for a cancer vaccine when it's for a sexually transmitted disease."

I think they're way off the mark.

The real reason Gardasil is a flop is that people have become educated about this vaccine.

They've looked at the science and weighed the risks vs. the supposed benefits, and have made a choice not to get it for themselves or their children.

The word is out: despite what the CDC would have you believe, Gardasil's safety record is in serious question. As of September 28, 2010, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has more than 18,000 Gardasil-related adverse events listed in it, including at least 65 deaths.

As a vaccine used in the developed world, the science speaks for itself: Gardasil can't – and never will -- replace Pap smears, which are the reason that the incidence of cervical cancer is so low in the United States after decades of including pap smears in routine medical care for women.

Today, cervical cancer is not even in the top 10 cancers that kill American women every year.

As a vaccine for children, it doesn't make sense to vaccinate to try to prevent an infection that is cleared from your body without any negative effects within two years in most healthy persons, and is not transmitted in a school setting like other airborne diseases that are easily transmitted in crowded conditions.

Gardasil is designed to prevent only two of at least 15 strains of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer in those who do not clear the virus from their body within two years and become chronically infected.

There is also some evidence that Gardasil-induced immunity may wane after about five years. Pre-licensure clinical trials did not follow young girls or women for decades to find out if the vaccine does, in fact, prevent cervical cancer.

What went wrong with Gardasil is that this may be a vaccine that set many more health care consumers on a course of self-education that helped them make an informed decision about whether or not to take it – and there are several good reasons why many are deciding NOT to take it.
Science vs. Politics

First, the science: Peer-reviewed journal articles widely available on the Internet show that Gardasil is not what it was made out to be in the "one-less" TV commercials that jumped into people's living rooms a few years ago.

Consumers now know that:

• Gardasil is NOT a cancer vaccine. It is simply a vaccine for two strains of human papillomaviruses (HPVs) that in some instances can lead to cancer in some women (Gardasil's other two HPV strains are for genital warts, which don't cause cancer).

• Since there are at least 15 HPV strains that can lead to cancer, Gardasil-vaccinated girls can still get cervical cancer from other 13 HPV strains not contained in the vaccine.

• The vaccine doesn't work if you've already been infected with the HPV strains in the vaccine.

But the politics of this information is that you won't hear it or read it in the mainstream press. Instead, what you get is a repetition of the politically charged mantra that parents don't want their young daughters or sons to get a vaccine associated with sexual behaviors, and complaints about the vaccine's high cost.

However, the real truth is that Gardasil's downfall has nothing to do with sex or money.
The Truth about HPV and Cancer

It is important to distinguish between HPV and cancer: Just because you currently have HPV, or may have had the infection in the past, does NOT mean you have cancer or will get cancer.

HPV is NOT cancer. It is a viral infection that can lead to cancer in some people if the virus does not naturally clear from your body, as it does for most people within two years.

Some high risk factors for developing chronic HPV infection are:

• Smoking
• Co-infection with herpes, Chlamydia or HIV
• Long term birth control use
• Multiple births

In the US, infection with HPV is very common, and it is estimated that about 20 million Americans have an HPV infection at any given time. In fact, HPV is so common that most sexually active people will get it at some time in their lives.

The important thing to know about HPV is that in almost all cases, it clears up on its own without any adverse health effects within two years in most healthy people.

Genital HPV infection that is persistent, and more likely to lead to cancer, is most common in men and women who have had multiple sex partners. According to the CDC, other contributing risk factors to HPV infection that leads to cervical cancer includes smoking, having herpes, Chlamydia or HIV (the virus associated with AIDS), or another health problem that makes it hard for your body to deal with infections.

Using birth control pills for a long time (five or more years) or having given birth to three or more children is also a risk factor.

Also, certain populations in the US are more prone to getting cervical cancer. According to CervicalCancerCampaign.org:

"Cervical cancer occurs most often in certain groups of women in the United States including African-American women, Hispanic women, white (non-Hispanic) women living in rural New York State and northern New England, American Indian women, and Vietnamese-American women.

Hispanic women have twice the rate of cervical cancer compared to non-Hispanic white women. African-American women develop this cancer about 50 percent more than non-Hispanic white women".

These disparities are due, in part, from poor access to health care. The women who are most at risk for the disease are women who do not have regular check-ups that include pap tests.

Official reports from the CDC and WHO estimate that between 11,000 and 12,000 women in the US are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, and 3,800 to 4,100 die from it.

About half of these women had never had a pap smear before they discovered they had cervical cancer. The majority of the others had not had a pap smear within the previous five years.

According to the CDC's report on HPV to Congress in 2004:


"Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV infection in women, especially if they are screened for cancer regularly with pap tests and have appropriate follow-up of abnormalities.


The purpose of screening with the pap test is to detect cervical abnormalities that can be treated, thereby preventing progression to invasive cervical cancer, and also to detect invasive cervical cancer at a very early stage. If detected early and managed promptly, survival rates for cervical cancer are over 90 percent."

A study published in 2000 in the Archives of Family Medicine also showed that in the US, women who are elderly, unmarried, and uninsured are more likely to be diagnosed at a late stage of cervical cancer.

The Truth About Gardasil

According to a 2006 report to the international group Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), Gardasil and Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline's two-strain HPV vaccine) are only effective in young women and men (boys are now approved to receive HPV vaccine) who have never been infected with HPV.

According to Merck's package insert on Gardasil, the end-point in its clinical trials for the vaccine's efficacy, or effectiveness, was NOT cancer, but instead was the presence, or non-presence, of vaccine-relevant pre-cancerous lesions (CIN 2/3).

There is absolutely no proof, and no clinical trials that show Gardasil protects against cancer in the long-term.

In fact, in clinical trials, Gardasil's protection against cell dysplasia leveled off at four years, and clinical trial participants were given a fourth dose to boost the number of antibodies measured in the blood (immunogenicity) of those who got the vaccine. This is the efficacy being reported by Merck, even though the vaccine series is marketed as three shots, not four.

And, according to Dr. Diane Harper, a lead researcher for Gardasil, its efficacy against genital warts is only two years.

Additionally, according to the manufacturer's package insert:

• Gardasil does not eliminate the necessity for pap screening

• It does not treat active infections, lesions or cancers

• And it may not result in protection for all vaccinees

An outstanding question is whether the mass use of Gardasil (and Cervarix) by all girls and boys will put pressure on other HPV strains not contained in the vaccines to become more dominant and perhaps more virulent in causing cervical cancer.

The "replacement" effect has happened with other infectious organisms that have developed resistance to vaccines used on a mass basis, such as pertussis (whooping cough) and pneumococcal vaccines.

The Truth about Gardasil's Clinical Trials

Only 27 percent of girls who have received the Gardasil vaccine have gotten all three shots in the vaccine's series. Merck blames it on forgetfulness, and has launched a "reminder" program that contacts vaccinees, and urges them to complete the series.

CNN Money suggests that it has to do with the vaccine's high cost – just under $400 for a three-shot series, although some private doctors charge up to $875 for a three-shot series.

But neither has considered the third possibility – that the reported reactions girls are suffering after getting one or two shots of Gardasil are so severe that they decide not to go back for more.

In any drug trial, whether it's for a vaccine or not, safety should be the top priority – and Gardasil's safety should have been thoroughly investigated before it was licensed and put on the market and recommended by public health doctors for ALL young girls to use.

But Merck used bad methodology in its pre-licensure safety studies that did NOT contain a true placebo. In reporting systemic adverse reactions to the vaccine, instead of using a true placebo that is not reactive on its own, Merck used a vaccine component (aluminum) in what they called the "placebo."

Aluminum can cause inflammation in the body and can make your blood brain barrier more permeable, allowing toxins to pass into your brain and cause damage. It is definitely not appropriate to use an aluminum-containing "placebo" to measure the reactivity of an experimental vaccine like Gardasil that will be given to children.

Researchers did use a saline placebo in one clinical trial, but only reported it in reference to injection site reactions. In those comparisons, the saline placebo had significantly fewer reactions than either the vaccine or the aluminum-containing placebo.

When it came to reporting the actual adverse, systemic events with the vaccine, Merck combined the aluminum and saline placebos, thus making the "placebo" results nearly the same as the vaccine's – and impossible to objectively judge true safety comparisons.

This encouraged the perception that the vaccine is "safe" because the adverse events associated with it were nearly the same as the aluminum containing " placebo."

Another important outcome of the clinical trials that was not properly investigated before licensure was the potential association between the deaths that occurred in the clinical trials and the Gardasil vaccine.

A number of the girls who died during the trials were killed in car crashes. Yet, Merck did not report whether the girls were the drivers or passengers at the time of the accidents.

This could be critical information in determining the vaccine's true safety, since one of the most common post-marketing adverse events is syncope (sudden fainting) as well as dizziness, seizures, and neurological events that could have contributed to a car accident if the person had just received a Gardasil shot and was driving at the time of the accident.

The Truth about Gardasil and its Thousands of Injuries and Deaths


The federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has been in place since 1986, but many experts believe that only 1 to 10 percent of all serious health problems that occur after vaccination, including hospitalizations, injuries and deaths, ever make it into the VAERS database.

Most doctors and other vaccine providers do not report vaccine-related adverse events to VAERS even though it is a requirement under federal law since 1986 with the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

Gardasil was a "fast tracked" vaccine and with so little active reporting of Gardasil-related health problems to VAERS, this means that Gardasil should be on the red-alert list for agencies like the CDC, the FDA, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Yet these three federal health agencies and medical organizations urging doctors to give Gardasil to children and young women have joined Merck in insisting that Gardasil is safe, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

Gardasil victims and their parents have been posting their heart breaking stories on websites.

These tragic entries posted by Gardasil casualties is stark testify to the fact that something isn't right with this vaccine – and what isn't right is that the list of Gardasil victims just keeps growing.

The unfortunate fact is Merck only studied the vaccine in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16, and most of the serious health problems and deaths in the pre-licensure clinical trials were written off as a "coincidence."

And now, since those adverse reactions aren't listed as possible warning signs that the vaccine can cause harm, health officials are still ignoring them, even while girls die and others suffer ongoing, and often permanent, injuries and disabilities from it.

For example, a rough comparison of Gardasil and Menactra (a vaccine against meningitis) adverse event reports to VAERS through November 30, 2008 revealed that:

• Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least twice as many emergency room visit reports; 4 times more death reports; 5 times more "did not recover" reports; and 7 times more "disabled" reports.

• Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with all of the reports of blood clots. All 23 reports of blood clots following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone without any other vaccines.

• Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 4 times as many cardiac arrest reports. All 9 reports of cardiac arrest following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone without any other vaccines.

• Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 6 times as many fainting reports and at least 3 times as many syncope reports.

• Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 4 times as many lupus reports. 27 reports of lupus following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.

• Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 15 times as many stroke reports. 16 reports of stroke following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.

• Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 3 times as many syncope reports.

• Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 33 times as many thrombosis reports. 34 reports of thrombosis following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.

• Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 5 times as many sasculitis reports. 11 reports of vasculitis following Gardasil occurred when Gardasiil was given alone.

• Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 30 times as many rechallenge reports, which involve a worsening of symptoms experienced after previous receipt of Gardasil.

What's disturbing about this is that these reports in all likelihood are just the tip of the iceberg because most physicians are making their reports to Merck, rather than to VAERS, and Merck is forwarding such poor quality information to VAERS that the CDC and FDA can't follow up on the majority of reports that Merck makes.

As reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in August 2009, Merck made 68 percent of the reports to VAERS and 89 percent of them had information that was too insufficient to review!

Is This a Vaccine that You Would Want?

An editorial in the August 19, 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) commented specifically on the risks and benefits of vaccinating with Gardasil, Merck's marketing of it, and the safety issues that are so obvious with this drug:

"When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit," the JAMA author said.

"Patients and the public logically expect that only medical and scientific evidence is put on the balance. If other matters weigh in, such as profit for a company or financial or professional gains for physicians or groups of physicians, the balance is easily skewed.

"The balance will also tilt if the adverse events are not calculated correctly."

The commentary is so poignant that it's a wonder that the mainstream media still hasn't' picked up on the impact of what this author is trying to say – that maybe, just maybe, people shouldn't be so quick to jump on the Gardasil bandwagon.

The JAMA commentary goes on to say that one of the core questions of all medical decisions should be: When is the available information about harmful adverse effects sufficient to conclude that the risks outweigh the potential benefits?

It's apparent that that question is in the minds of anyone who has really taken the time to study this vaccine.

What happened to Gardasil is that consumers looked at the science and lots of them made a choice to not use this vaccine.

And that, CNN Money, is why Gardasil is a flop.

One of the Worst Parenting Mistakes You Can Make

This article is from Mercola.com .

No matter how physically active a child is, time spent in front of the computer or television screen is associated with psychological problems.



In other words, children can't make up for TV time by spending extra hours exercising.


The findings also suggest that the way children spend their sedentary time, in addition to how much time they spend being sedentary in the first place, matters for their mental health.


According to Live Science:

"... [R]esearchers asked 1,013 British 10- and 11-year-olds how much time each day they spent in front of a computer or TV. The children also wore accelerometers around their waists for a week to track their physical activity and sedentary time ...

The study found that ... more than two hours a day in front of a TV or computer was associated with more emotional and behavioral difficulties."

SOURCES:
Live Science Oct 11, 2010
Pediatrics October 11, 2010 [Epub ahead of print]

Dr. Mecola's Comments:

I've written about the wide variety of health benefits that exercise provides, one of which is treating depression and boosting mental health. These benefits apply to children as well as adults, and, in fact, the younger you start, the greater the long-term benefits.



However, there's nary a household in the US that doesn't have at least one TV, and/or a computer, and for all their potential benefits, TV-watching and computer use also has a long list of drawbacks, especially where children are concerned.

Most troubling is the finding that you may not be able to compensate for time spent in front of the TV or the computer screen. Because regardless of your child's overall level of physical activity, spending more than two hours a day on these digital displays may be all it takes to impact their mental and emotional health...


Kids Spend an Astounding Amount of Time Watching TV or Using Computer


Today, less than one-third of kids aged 6 to 17 get at least 20 minutes of vigorous exercise a day.

Compare that to the TV-watching statistics below, and you'll realize just how troublesome the above findings may be. It may even be a crucial part of the equation that might explain why so many children are now using anti-anxiety and antidepressant drugs.


The average American watches nearly FIVE HOURS of TV a day


More than half of American children have a television in their bedroom; one study put the number at 70 percent


Twice as many adolescents with a television in their bedroom watch more than five hours of TV a day compared with youths without a TV in their bedroom


90 percent of American toddlers, under the age of 2, watch TV, videos and DVD's regularly


About 40 percent of babies, under 3 months of age, watch TV, videos and DVD's regularly


Based on a 2007 survey of families in two states, kids at 3 months watched less than an hour of TV daily, and that viewing time climbed to 90 minutes as children reached the toddler stage


Visual digital media such as television programming and educational DVD's are being increasingly introduced to an ever younger audience.

Unfortunately, contrary to what you've been told, this type of educational material may actually retard language development rather than speed it up!


British psychologist Aric Sigman writes in his 2008 paper titled, DOES NOT COMPUTE, Screen Technology in Early Years Education:


"… [T]he scientists found that for every hour per day spent watching specially developed baby DVDs and videos such as Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby, children under 16 months understood an average of six to eight fewer words than children who did not watch them.


One of the authors stated," The evidence is mounting that they are of no value and may in fact be harmful.


Given what we now know, I believe the onus is on the manufacturers to prove their claims that watching these programs can positively impact children's cognitive development. The bottom line is the more a child watches baby DVDs and videos the bigger the effect. The amount of viewing does matter."


Wow!


So much for Baby Einstein and teaching your child to use a computer as soon as they're able to press a button, with the hopes of boosting their development...
The Steep Price of Letting Your Child have a TV in Their Bedroom


Keeping a TV in your child's bedroom is not a wise parenting decision, based on the evidence available.


A growing body of research shows strong links between a TV in the bedroom and numerous health and educational problems.


Children with TVs in their bedroom:


Score lower on school tests


Are more likely to have sleep problems


Are more likely to be overweight


May have an increased risk of smoking


Tend to consume more unhealthy foods


Exercising More May Not Be Enough, Unless You Also Shut Off the TV...


Clearly, the vast majority of kids and teens are in dire need of more exercise. However, based on the findings reported in the journal Pediatrics this month, exercising more may not be enough to compensate for the detrimental impact of TV and computer use.


The other side of the equation is shutting off your TV and computer more often...


As reported by Live Science:


"The study found that regardless of age, gender, socioeconomic status, or whether a child had hit puberty, more than two hours a day in front of a TV or computer was associated with more emotional and behavioral difficulties.


Most importantly, the connection between screen time and psychological problems held regardless of how much overall physical activity the kids engaged in."


What that means is that it's not a sedentary lifestyle that poses the greatest risk to your child's mental health, but rather the activities your child engages in while being sedentary.


Other sedentary activities, such as reading or doing homework, had no detrimental impact on the children's mental health.

Another interesting fact was that the total amount of time spent on sedentary activities in general also did not have a negative impact on mental health – only the amount of time spent watching TV or in front of the computer impacted their psychology and behavior.

The researchers found that:


Children who spent more than two hours a day watching TV or using a computer were 61 and 59 percent more likely to experience high levels of psychological difficulties, respectively


Children who spent more than two hours a day watching TV, and also failed to meet physical activity guidelines, were 70 percent more likely to experience high levels of psychological difficulties


This risk increased to 81 percent for children who used a computer for more than two hours a day while also failing to meet recommended exercise guidelines


Watching TV Changes Your Brain Chemistry


While much of the TV debate focuses on advertising messages and the impact of violent or sexually explicit programming on young minds, there's an even more disturbing aspect to television.


As it turns out, TV may be harmful no matter what programs your kids are watching or what ads they're exposed to!


Yes, television in and of itself is one of the most powerful brainwashing devices there is.


According to research by Dr. Aric Sigman, a British psychologist, watching TV actually causes physiological changes – mainly changes in your brain chemistry – and there's nothing beneficial about them.


These changes have little to do with the content you're watching, but rather the fact that when you're watching a TV or computer screen, you're in essence entraining your brain to function and process information differently.


Watching a TV (or computer screen) produces an almost narcotic effect on your brain, actually numbing areas that would be stimulated by other activities, like reading.


And, the longer you watch, the easier your brain slips into a receptive, passive mode, meaning that messages are streamed into your brain without any participation from you. This of course is every advertiser's dream, and accounts for much of the success companies achieve by putting ads on TV.


Watching TV also disrupts the production of the hormone melatonin, according to Dr. Sigman, which could be playing a role in sleep disturbances and even causing early puberty in adolescents.


The 15 Potential Side Effects of Watching TV


Through his research, Dr. Sigman has identified 15 negative effects that he believes can be associated with watching television:


Obesity


Trouble healing


Heart trouble


Decreased metabolism


Eyesight damage


Alzheimer's disease


Decreased attention span


Hormone disturbances


Cancer


Early puberty


Autism


Sleep difficulties


Increased appetite


Limited brain growth


Diabetes


How to Get Your Kids Moving


I think there's no doubt that it is imperative to limit your child's TV, computer, and video game time, in addition to encouraging your child to spend more time doing some form of physical activity.


Overweight and obese children will need at least 30 minutes of exercise each day, and may benefit from closer to 60 minutes. But even if your child is not overweight, you should encourage him or her to take part in physically engaging activities after school and on the weekends – the benefits are just too plenty and too varied to be ignored, including boosting mental health.


Encourage your child to engage in activities that are naturally interesting to them, such as playing on the monkey bars, rollerblading, skateboarding, dancing or playing basketball with friends. Allow your kids to exercise in bursts throughout the day -- a game of tag here, a bike ride there -- so they don't feel pressured or like they're being "punished."


Like adults, kids need variety to their exercise routines, so be sure your child is getting in aerobic, interval training, weight-training, stretching and core-building activities. This may sound daunting, but if your child participates in a gymnastics class, sprints around the backyard after the dog often and rides his bike after school, you'll be covered.


Interestingly, burst-type interval exercises are typically what most children will do spontaneously, and even young children can begin implementing Peak 8 exercises. This type of high-intensity exertion is what most people are missing from their exercise program.


Last but not least, remember that you act as a role model by staying active yourself.


If your kids see you embracing exercise in a positive way, they will naturally follow suit. Plus, it's easy to plan active activities that involve the whole family and double up as fun ways to spend time together. Hiking, bike riding, canoeing, swimming and sports are all great options.


Think of it this way … by taking the time to get your kids interested in exercise now, you're giving them a gift that will keep them healthy and happy for the rest of their lives. Combine that with reduced TV and computer use, and you're giving your child the best platform possible for a healthy, long life – physically, mentally and emotionally.

How Schools Unwittingly Promote Learning Disabilities

I received this from Dr. Mercola's email.  It can be seen at How Schools Unwittingly Promote Learning Disabilities.

I think this woman makes a lot of excellent points concerning feeding our children.  Of course, I feel teaching our children these points are the parents job, however, not the school!

Here is Dr. Mecola's comments:

It is a well-known fact that many of the top diseases plaguing the United States are diet-related, including obesity, heart disease, diabetes and even cancer. The National Institutes of Health even states that four of the six leading causes of death in the U.S. are linked to unhealthy diets.

This is one of the primary reasons that has lead to the startling fact that the current generation is the first one in recorded history in which their lifespan will actually be shorter than their parents. This is primarily due to chronic degenerative diseases that result from insulin and leptin resistance.

School Lunch Programs Get a Failing Grade

Processed foods are the norm at most school cafeterias, where under $1 a day is spent to feed your children.

To be fair, schools are on tight budgets, and though they may have good intentions, they are often challenged to introduce healthier foods, particularly when kids prefer the junk-food versions, or have not been introduced to healthier foods.

This is where Chef Ann Cooper’s program is such a bright star, as she’s not only incorporating healthier foods into the cafeteria, she’s heading up cooking and gardening classes that teach kids the roots of where their food comes from, along with the reasons why eating healthy is such a smart choice.

This lays the foundation for a lifetime of healthy eating choices.

Here is just a sampling of some of the accomplishments that have been made at Ann Cooper’s Berkeley Unified School District:

1. Made delicious, nutritious, seasonal and sustainable food a priority
2. Elimination of trans-fats and high-fructose corn syrup as well as reduced and or eliminated where possible refined sugars and refined flours
3. Cooking non-processed foods from scratch while, eliminating all highly processed menu items
4. Salad bars with a majority of fresh items in every school
5. Universal breakfast at every school
6. Fresh fruits and vegetables served every day
7. Antibiotic- and hormone-free or organic milk served daily
8. All hamburgers and hotdogs are hormone- and antibiotic-free as well as grass finished
9. Purchasing with a high priority on local, regional and organic foods, as well as foods purchased from small local companies.

These changes are what’s needed on a nationwide basis, not only at schools but also at home. The simplest way back toward health, for children and adults alike, is to focus on WHOLE foods -- foods that have not been processed or altered from their original state. Food that has been grown or raised as nature intended, without the use of chemical additives, pesticides and fertilizers.

 As Michael Pollan, author of In Defense of Food and The Omnivore's Dilemma, said:

“Let's look at the school lunch program. This is where we're feeding a big part of our population. We are essentially feeding them fast food and teaching them how to eat it quickly.

If we could spend a dollar or more per day per child and work on the nutritional quality of that food – and require that a certain percentage of that school lunch fund in every school district has to be spent within 100 miles to revive local agriculture, to create more jobs on farms, to rural redevelopment – you will achieve a great many goals through doing that.

You will have a healthier population of kids who will perform better in the afternoon after that lunch. You will have the shot in the arm to local economies through helping local agriculture. And you will teach this generation habits that will last a lifetime about eating.”

Schools with Healthier Lunches Reap Major Benefits

Altering school lunches CAN help diminish illness and increase learning. In one Swedish study, when they eliminated all sweet buns, sweet drinks, and candy from school premises, they saw a 6 percent drop in obesity in four years.

Behavioral problems have also been remedied by giving kids healthier lunches at school.

For instance, in 1997 one Wisconsin high school instituted a healthy lunch program. No longer were the cafeterias filled with fast-food nachos and French fries; instead they were filled with fresh salads, meats, whole-grain bread and fruit. At the same time, vending machines were removed and good drinking water added.

The program is based on work done some 30 years ago by Dr. Feingold. He recommended that eliminating synthetic colors, synthetic flavors, and the preservatives BHA, BHT, and TBHQ would be beneficial to health, learning and behavior problems in children. However, his findings were not accepted by most medical professionals at that time.

 When the healthier diet had been in effect for close to five years, the school showed amazing results. In annual state reports, the school’s incidence of dropouts, expulsion, drug use, weapons and suicide was zero. On top of this, reports said that grades improved. This from a school that previously reported having discipline problems and students carrying weapons.

 Barriers to Healthier School Lunches, and What You Can Do

When it really comes down to it, it is not just the schools' burden here. It is everyone's job to change the eating habits of our young.

 Food is a part of the lifestyle choices first learned at home, and then massive media brainwashing enters the picture, not only at schools (who often sell fast-food meals right in their cafeteria) but also via TV ads, video games and the Internet.

In fact, a new study from the UCLA School of Public Health found that the more junk-food commercials children see, the more likely they are to be overweight or obese. This is because clever marketing will cause them to annoy their parents until they purchase foods that are loaded with fructose.

During Saturday morning cartoons alone, your child will see a food ad once every five minutes, and it will most likely be for a junk food like soda, candy, snacks, or fast food. The food industry spends billions of dollars seeking to influence your children's food choices, so you have a major battle to defeat these unhealthy marketing messages.

You need to educate yourself about proper nutrition and the dangers of junk food and processed foods in order to change the food culture of your entire family.

Once you take charge, then, perhaps, we might see a trend reversal in obesity, diabetes, and a whole host of other preventable diseases that plague the United States right now.

Children will not know which foods are healthy unless you, as a parent, teach it to them. Poor eating habits at home, combined with poor food choices at school, may set your child up for long-term physical and behavioral problems.

Making the whole situation even more difficult is the massive amount of soda and vending machines that give students easy access to these health-harming foods throughout the day (while schools get kickbacks from the junk food sales). Soda machines ARE being phased out of U.S. schools, but it is a slow process.

 So when it comes time to make a choice between fast food or real food -- do your kids a favor and teach them how to make the best choice, right from the very beginning.

 In the meantime, you can join Chef Ann Cooper’s National School Food Challenge, and make the pledge to provide fresh, local and healthy food to your children both at school and at home.

If there were more people like “Renegade lunch lady” Ann Cooper heading up the cafeterias at U.S. schools, America would be a healthier place. Actually that is what I hope to do, as I am in communication with her team and we are seeking to work together to spread her program to school districts across the country.

Interestingly, when I spoke with Ann -- who is obviously a major advocate of healthy food -- she was aware that high fructose corn syrup was not good. However, she did not appreciate that it was not so much HFCS that was the issue but fructose in general. Foods like Agave, which are 80% fructose, are actually far worse than HFCS.