Mankind's Self-inflicted Peril

There was a time when our individual survival was threatened by the likes of saber-toothed tigers and many other natural phenomena, but we've overcome much with our cleverness.  However, in our expanding attempts to suppress undesirable aspects of the natural world, and without sufficient understanding of and respect for such, as widely evidenced we're now seriously threatening our own longer term survival.

There are many ways we're detrimentally affecting our natural world (i.e. accelerating change in the natural order), but arguably at least one of the most immediate and most important, is how we're seemingly hell-bent on destroying our own physical and mental health.  An overview of this issue is included in the following attributed book, but for those that aren't interested in reading the book such is reprinted here.  We see numerous seemingly isolated reports, but how many have gotten their mind around the whole issue as this overview does in presenting a well rounded empirical (i.e. evidence based) hypothesis. 

————————————————————————
The following is copied directly from the book
"Ol’ Shep’s Well-being: A Natural Perspective"
by Euan Fingal,  Second revised edition,
licensing CC (Attr.;NC;SA 3.0),
from "The Human Aspect" subsection
(footnote and reference numbers unchanged).
————————————————————————

It would seem, from a cursory view, that we’ve made great advances in caring for ourselves.  Advancing civilization has increased our longevity, largely through better science and technology, improved sanitation, and not having to spend all our waking hours hunting and gathering with crude instruments. 

Yet some annoying realities keep cropping up, such as the ever increasing epidemic of chronic illnesses.  If we’re taking care of ourselves so well, then why are we suffering so much more chronic illness throughout our increased longevity?  The degree of this increasing disparity is only partly attributable to increased longevity and a greater number of elderly, first because it’s manifest even in our formative years, and second because chronic illnesses have increased substantially more than population and longevity, especially in the last half century.  This alarming situation should prod us to ask more searching questions than our institutions and industry seem prepared to answer forthrightly, and reflects poorly on personal responsibility.

Around 1 in 2 Americans have a chronic condition, and the number is increasing by more than one percent per year.  Sixty percent are between the ages of 18 and 64, and four in five health care dollars are expended for chronic conditions.  Health care expenditures are growing at slightly more than twice the GDP. Diabetes continues to be the leading cause of kidney failure, nontraumatic lower-extremity amputations, and blindness among adults, aged 20-74.  Diabetes cases alone are projected to double in the next 25 years, and treatment costs are projected to triple.

Actually, there's no mystery here, which makes the situation all the more paradoxical.  It's been known for almost a century that wherever people gave up their traditional diets for our Western (i.e. industrial) diet, the predictable chronic Western diseases followed, including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer. The precise causal mechanisms are yet poorly understood, but the common etiology is undeniably the Western diet[111]. 

This seems like a simple crucial fact about the unhealthiness of our diet, but why then don’t at least a majority of us recognize the glaring big picture?  Could it be pervasive influences of our economic model that are adversely affecting our diet?  Such is certainly a major contributer to the problem, with its emphasis on profit streams as opposed to long-term natural health.

Let's begin with industrial agriculture which is predominately based on many unhealthy and unsustainable practices.  Some of the more detrimental practices are monocropping, mostly of a very few more productive and highly hybridized crops; depletion of nutrients in the soil; synthetic fertilizers and control chemicals that are damaging the ecosphere; inappropriate animal diets and treatment; uncontrolled genetic technology; and questionable government subsidization [also see Economix] to facilitate these practices.  There are volumes written about the shortcomings of industrial agriculture, so we'll just touch on a few points to whet your interest.

Regarding fertilizers, global agriculture, led by the United States, has come to rely increasingly on a cheap synthetic form of nitrogen.  This synthetic fertilizer creates many problems, like aquatic dead zones, resource depletion, and blue-baby syndrome, which along with other issues are exasperated by its overuse. Additionally scientists have found that much of the hydrogen in commercial fertilizers is not processed or absorbed by plants or soil, leading to the acidification of the soil. This reduces/prevents growth of acid-disliking plants.  A related issue deserving your investigation is the prolific use of detrimental control chemicals (e.g. insecticides and herbicides).

Another issue deserving your investigation is the commercial power play of uncontrolled genetic technology that is reshaping global agriculture (and the natural world) for the worse (e.g. GM Soy, Nature, New York Times).  Basically, in our ignorance we are playing god with devastating consequences looming.  One place to begin to learn more about GMO issues is The Ethicurean article “The Failure of Science”: New paper makes a damning case against genetically modified food crops [last accessed 2/23/2010].  Another starting point might be the Perspicacious Eye article "GMOs: Frankenstein in a business suit?" [last accessed 2/23/2010].  Beyond the articles there are a number of books like "Genetic Roulette The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods" by Jeffrey M. Smith.

One very misunderstood issue of industrial agriculture is inappropriate diets for livestock.  Likely this seems innocuous to many, but then many don't recognize the unhealthiness of their own diets.  This issue encompasses even  organic diets when such are not naturally evolved species appropriate diets.  Our livestock, though morphologically changed through intensive selective breeding programs,  evolved physiologically and biochemically on natural diets over many hundreds of thousands of years or more—not the ten to twenty thousand years of our agrarian lifestyle.  Keep in mind here that while microbes can adapt biochemically, and can experiment with their chemical processes and how they use their amino acids, the way that the cells in higher life forms work together makes fundamental biochemical changes too disruptive to be practical.  The biochemistry of our livestock isn't adapted to the inappropriate diets we're feeding them, and thus, among other issues, they are not the naturally healthy animals they once were. Just a couple confirming issues are all the medications we have to give them to get them to market on their feet, and their unhealthy omega 6 to omega 3 ratios‡1.  You are what they eat. 

An example of the medications issue is the 20 to 30 million pounds of antimicrobials for nontherapeutic purposes that livestock producers in the U.S. use annually (according to a Union of Concerned Scientists study last accessed 2/28/2010).  First, all higher life forms are dependent not just on microbes, but the proper balance of microbial forms which we're seriously upsetting. Second, as more virulent microbes evolve resistance to our antimicrobials through overuse, we substantially reduce the efficacy of the human antimicrobial arsenal (e.g. CBS, ABC and AAAS articles last accessed 03/05/2010).  Resistance to change is primarily from the pharmaceutical industry (potential profit streams loss) and industrial agriculture (alternatives are more expensive).  Another example of such industry abuse can be seen in the AlterNet article "Why Has the FDA Allowed a Drug Marked 'Not Safe for Use in Humans' to Be Fed to Livestock Right Before Slaughter?" (last accessed 03/06/2010). 

"It is one of the miracles of science and hygiene that the germs that used to be in our food have been replaced by poisons" ~ Wendell Berry

With increasing awareness of global climate change accelerated by man, another aspect of livestock diets is the relative carbon footprint.  What we hear from industry and their supporters is that feedlot grain-fed beef produce less methane than pastured grass-fed cattle, because digesting grass produces more than cereals.  In isolation this is true, but it obscures the overall relative carbon footprint.  Much of the carbon footprint of industry's feedlot beef comes from growing the grains to feed the animals (the primary feed grains are annuals requiring more mechanized farming), whereas the net emissions of pastured grass-fed beef are lower because in improving the healthiness of the soil they help the soil naturally sequester carbon.  An example of the math goes something like this (e.g. Math on the Range and this Time article both last accessed 2/28/2010).  Grain-fed beef, with no end product transportation involved, results in about 1.6 pounds of C02 emissions per 12-ounce steak.  On the other hand, pastured grass-fed beef with the end product shipped halfway across the U.S. results in about 0.3 pounds of C02 emissions per 12-ounce steak, which is considerably less despite the transportation.  Industry likes grains because they are cheap (not to mention subsidized by tax dollars) and are more efficient in producing the excess of fats that we love to gorge on.  Land for sufficient pasturing is expensive, the livestock are leaner, and livestock management is not as efficient. Other related environmental issues include the serious pollution problems with CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations)‡2. 

 

To those that begin to understand the shortcomings of industrial agriculture it might seem bewildering that there isn't more general understanding and change for the better, or at least more unbiased study and publishing of the issues to ascertain the need for change. After all, we humans are known for our level of intelligence, and industrial agriculture is a key pillar of our economy and supposed well-being.  It's actually not very bewildering at all if one considers human nature and our advanced materialistic society influences—e.g. think about how a person whose livelihood depends on a fast-food establishment might react to the fast-food negative health evidence.  All industry is big money that trickles down to a lot of people, and those that stand to gain or lose the greater share of the profit streams generally react the strongest (and all too commonly with the least ethics).

To understand how far industry will go to protect their interests, one might begin with how pasteurized milk won out over certified raw milk in the 1940s (e.g. "Is Soda Pop or Milk Healthier?" last accessed 03/06/2010).  Another example is the agricultural chemical industry's fierce opposition to Rachel Carson's groundbreaking 1962 book "Silent Spring" (last accessed 03/06/2010) which backfired.  Industry learned a lesson from this and afterwards pursued more subtle channels like preemptive marketing, ghostwriting pseudoscientific misinformation for publication by so-called experts, substantially increased government lobbying, and investing heavily in universities and research institutions for influence.  Just one small example of the latter is the LA Times article "California agribusiness pressures school to nix Michael Pollan lecture" [last accessed 03/06/2010]. 

Industrial agriculture does however greatly benefit the processed food industry, where with subsidized artificial growth increasing availability and substantially lowering costs of raw materials, they can produce more overly processed and questionably altered foods at lower direct costs—all of which are highly promoted to entice us.  Even most of their processing by-products are utilized, and what they can't get away with including in our foods, they use in animal feeds. 

Here again we’re further reducing the healthiness of our diet, but why is there still little objective understanding?   For at least a half century now the food processing industry has embraced a basic ideology of nutritionism (isolated nutrients count, not whole foodstuffs).  Basically, nutritionism with its reductionist-only approach is a flawed/incomplete science that has demonstrated over the years it knows much less than it cares to admit.  It tinkers with isolated components of foodstuffs‡3, adjusting various nutrients and enriching/fortifying processed foods in lieu of questioning overall value.  In failing to understand the synergies of whole natural foods, and beneficial eating habits, it has served us very poorly, but it has served the food processing industry very well in the ongoing discovery and benefit analysis of isolated nutrients that their lacking food products can be enriched/fortified with, mostly synthetically.  The proof in the pudding is that this nutritionism ideology has not made us healthier, but has actually made us demonstrably less healthy and in many cases considerably fatter.  Unnatural diets foster unhealthy bodies (chronic illnesses)  and minds (behavioral issues) throughout the food chain. 

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." ~ Thomas Pynchon

Relative to the natural, whole, mostly raw, foods we evolved on as an optimal nutritional source, on the whole industry is serving up unhealthy and polluted plants and livestock, and adulterated byproducts of processing such.  Then industry, in its commercial wisdom, attempts to recreate nutritious food by enriching and fortifying this garbage, commonly with inferior synthetic nutrients—their processing destroys most nutrients and at least the biochemical synergies (e.g. naturally occurring enzymes and other nutrients) that facilitate bioavailability.  Since our overall health keeps deteriorating at an accelerated pace, it should be obvious that industry's artificial nature is severely lacking—not surprising considering how little we really understand the innumerable natural processes, and the commercial bent of research.  Anyway, one aspect of our advanced economic model is that the shortcomings of any activity are quickly seized upon, albeit in an equally lacking commercial vain.  Thus we also have a thriving dietary supplements industry that is rife with unsubstantiated claims and outright fraud.  The natural, whole, mostly raw, foods we evolved on are our optimal nutritional source because all the vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, enzymes, etc. (in their unadulterated form and proper combinations) are together in packages, working synergistically to give our bodies the nutrition it requires for optimal health.  With all the focus on getting enough of isolated essential nutrients, many of us have been fooled into thinking we can artificially supplement our way to good health, using enriched/fortified foods and supplements as an easy way out of having to make healthy dietary choices. 

Credit: Marc R. aka Mental Masala  Permission necessary for reuse.

As an illustration of the "nutritionism" philosophy that is the foundation of many Americans’ culinary consciousness: Some chicken wings for an appetizer, a cheese-steak sandwich for the main course, and a few of the supplements hyped in mainstream media to keep us healthy.  No doubt there's a Dunkin’ Donuts close by for the sweet tooth. 

Lest you think it an oversight, there is also the issue of all the other additives and processing chemicals for pathogen control, processing facilitators, shelf life, appearance, and taste.  You'll of  course find considerable material supporting industry's use of such, but you should also investigate opposing material (e.g. CSPI, Sustainable Table, AltMedAngel, New York Times, etc. about additives alone, all last accessed 03/08/2010).  It takes a long stretch of the imagination to consider such healthy food. 

"If a food label says 'Tastes great, less filling!', such should be interpreted as 'More fattening, less nutritious!', and if a food product makes health claims, it's best to avoid it." ~  Michael Pollan [paraphrased] 

As an example of industry impetus, one significant commercial advancement for the food processing industry began in the late 1950s with "The Lipid Hypothesis" big lie.  This major dietary transition demonized natural fats and promoted highly processed vegetable oils in many forms.  The so called scientific studies intending to validate such have even been mostly paid for with our tax dollars, but no scientific study has ever validated the lipid hypothesis.  The whole charade was an economic success, benefiting mostly the food and medical industries, but significantly helped escalate the obesity and diabetes epidemics we see today. Industry and their lackeys in government have only one real interest and that is profit streams, not our natural well-being.  New research (e.g. Reuters and Science News) shows "alarming levels" of obesity and the deadly toll it takes on us.  Major media promotes these types of studies because their big industry financial support benefits from the "alarm" in offering yet more detrimental products.  What is always lacking is an unbiased assessment of how the "problems" evolved from the very same source. 

The long and short of it is that the food industry, using their nutritionism pseudoscience, has muddied up the waters with hogwash to increase profits, at the expense of our health.  The more lower quality food we have to consume for satiety and nutrients, the greater their sales (and the fatter and unhealthier we get).  The well funded food-marketing machine that thrives on change for its own sake, facilitated by the shifting sands of nutritionism pseudoscience, is the driving force behind our diet confusion. Regardless of the contents of a food container, if there are words suggesting it’s healthy, and an appealing picture, we’ll eat it or feed it to our domestic animals.  With increasing health problems we’re becoming obsessed with healthy diets, and yet accepting claims of the likes of soda pop, fast food, dairy products, packaged meals, and pet food producers, that their products are healthy, despite general awareness of the falsehoods of their previous claims. We’re not dealing with rocket science here—whatever happened to personal responsibility and the common sense of whole, natural, unadulterated foods? 

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" ~ T. S. Eliot, The Rock, 1934

Major media marketing‡4 of processed foods is certainly a serious contributing factor in the obesity epidemic, but it's only half the story.  To really be successful they must induce repeat customers which buy and eat increasing amounts of their products. To accomplish this, processed foods are typically pumped full of unnatural amounts of sugars, salt, MSG, gluten, etc., and/or unnatural artificial sweeteners and biochemical taste enhancers. The impetus being to increase the appeal to our taste buds, and to override our body’s signals that would otherwise tell us it’s time to stop eating.  Our body's taste receptors evolved in ancestral times when our diet was very low in sugars and for the most part meats were leaner.  Our bodies have not adapted to current day high-sugar‡5 and high-fats consumption, which abnormally stimulates our taste receptors and generates excessive reward signals in our brains.  It's not just added sugars/sweeteners either, as carbohydrates from highly processed modern grains present in many processed foods add to the issues.  With the processed foods industry success in altering our diet, whole natural foods seem to lack flavor.  The consequence is that when we eat a processed food diet, it leads to an avalanche of negative changes in our bodies–just one of which is elevated insulin levels, and ultimately insulin resistance.   Ironically, when we try to lose weight with a processed food dieting regime we generally fail because we're starved, and even if we don't fail we further reduce our natural healthiness. 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~ George Orwell. 

Not recognizing any of the above, most people want cheap, convenient food and plenty of it.  Well, the processed food industry is certainly serving up all the cheap flavored junk people seem to want, and people are paying disproportionately more to the medical industry.  On average, about one fourth of what people eat in the U.S. keeps them alive, and the other three fourths of what they eat keeps the chronic illness industries alive and rolling in profits.  The healthcare industry is one of the world's largest and fastest-growing industries (15.3% of U.S. GDP in 2003 and expected to reach 19.6% by 2016).  We maintain our lives–and even our obesity–by eating enormous quantities, but what we eat is so nutritionally bankrupt that even then we're only barely getting the basic requirements for survival.  In an economy where the majority of people demanded healthy natural whole foods they would pay more for such (more labor intensive), but they would pay considerably less for medical attention, especially without all the damage of inappropriate diets that manifest in the chronic illnesses that are spiraling out of control. 

This state of affairs has an obvious parallel in the animal feeds segment with the additional issue that it’s allowed to operate in a much more laissez-faire environment.  When it comes to more specialized animal diets we’re adding animal derived components and inappropriate plant matter to herbivore diets, plant derived components and inappropriate animal matter to carnivore diets, and unnatural chemicals to all such diets.  To counteract public perception of the contrast with animals in their natural environment, marketing blatantly blurs the lines of species appropriate diets, and obscures the issue with their reductionist nutritionism mumbo-jumbo. The cheaper the ingredients and the more industry byproducts (i.e. waste) that can be used, the greater the profit.  Simply put, the animal feeds industry is the garbage dump of the food processing industry.  

In turn all this obviously benefits the healthcare industry, which profits from and exacerbates the chronic illness issues.  So to round out this intertwined model, we'll touch on how conventional medicine is unduly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, and the detrimental effects of these unnatural profit driven concoctions.

A good place to start is to get an idea of the economic clout of the pharmaceutical industry.  Prescription medications represent the fastest-rising component of healthcare costs.  Spending for such increased nearly 440% from 1990 ($40.3 billion) to 2006 ($216.7 billion), and the HHS projects US prescription drug spending to increase to $515.7 billion by 2017.  This is roughly in line with a 377% increase in direct to consumer drug advertising from 1996 ($985 million) to 2008 ($4.7 billion out of reportedly $20.5 billion overall promotional spending).  Actual promotional spending is almost twice that allocated to research [according to a 2008 study last accessed 03/24/2010] which is an indication of priorities.  All these promotional costs have been effective, as in 2007 the pharmaceutical industry had profits (as a percent of revenues) of 15.8% compared to 5.7% for all Fortune 500 firms.  ‡6 

These expanding product profit streams begin with "favorable" research, and an example of the influence here is the increase in pharmaceutical industry gifts to colleges and universities for research, amounting to nearly 620% between 1981 ($292 million) and 1991 ($2.1 billion).  ‡7 

A 2003 survey found that about two thirds of academic medical centers hold equity interest in companies that sponsor research within the same institution[108], and a 2007 study of medical school department chairs found that two thirds received departmental income from drug companies and three fifths received personal income[109].  Medical schools are hardly in a moral position to object to their faculty behaving in a like manner, and with equity interests depending on research aren't likely to seriously address the issues—what a tangled web our economic model weaves. 

Some of the other ways drug companies influence medical practice are their marketing representatives routinely visiting doctor's offices; helping with the costs of doctors attending continuing education programs and conferences, and/or financially supporting education programs and conferences; and providing billions of dollars worth of pharmaceutical samples.  Of course all this promotion and influence peddling dovetails with the increasing epidemic of chronic illnesses (a coincidence?). 

The whole purpose of influence peddling is its commingling with development, marketing, and sales.  Beginning with the development of a new drug, its manufacturer must sponsor clinical trials to show the FDA (many of whose key people are commonly recruited from and return to the drug industry) that the drug is safe and effective.  Medical schools (which the drug industry commonly provides financial support to) with key opinion leaders‡8 are often preferred for these clinical trials. 

In any case, drug companies insist as a condition of providing funding that they be intimately involved in all aspects of the research they sponsor.  The results of these trials are submitted to the FDA, and if a few of these trials are positive (i.e. show effectiveness without serious risk) the drug is usually approved. Institutional and individual financial influence, along with a drug company's intimate involvement in all aspects of research they sponsor, provides a fertile base for pre and post clinical trials being biased to varying degrees through designs for research that potentially yield more favorable results.  It's a known fact that unfavorable trials have been hidden by drug companies‡9, which is a good indicator of  Machiavellian behavior in the industry. 

When a drug is first approved, it is for a specified use and it's illegal for the manufacturer to promote the drug for any other use. However, physicians may prescribe approved drugs "off label" (i.e. without regard to the specified use) and perhaps as many as half of all prescriptions are written for off-label purposes.  After  a drug is on the market, drug companies commonly continue to sponsor additional clinical trials (aptly called "seeding" studies) for various reasons, potentially including veiled excuses to get physicians to prescribe such drugs for off label uses.  Another way that off label use is promoted is studies published in medical journals‡10—a significant number of which are ghost written‡11 by industry, or by financially enticed key opinion leaders.  Basically this is a market expansion phase. 

In recent years, drug companies have perfected a new and highly effective method to expand their markets. Instead of promoting drugs to treat diseases, they have begun to promote diseases to fit their drugs‡12. The strategy is to convince as many people as possible (along with their doctors, of course) that they have medical conditions that require long-term drug treatment.  To promote new or exaggerated conditions, companies give them serious-sounding names along with abbreviations. Thus, heartburn is now "gastro-esophageal reflux disease" or GERD; impotence is "erectile dysfunction" or ED; premenstrual tension is "premenstrual dysphoric disorder" or PMDD; and shyness is "social anxiety disorder" (no abbreviation yet).  This might be thought of as a strategy of drug marketers to convince Americans that there are only two kinds of people: those with medical conditions that require drug treatment and those who don't know it yet.  While the strategy originated in the industry, it could not be implemented without the complicity of the medical profession. ‡13

There are numerous publicized instances of drug companies getting caught at breaking the rules, such as they are, and having to pay fines in the millions of dollars.  Relating such to the many billions of dollars in profits derived though, these fines are arguably acceptable as just another cost of business in increasing profits. Following the ongoing incidence of these hand slaps, it's seems that they do very little to stem the tide of business as usual.  The drug companies are even mostly protected from the liability of so-called adverse effects, between the "fine-print" label warnings and protections our lawmakers have afforded the industry.  These‡14, and other issues‡15, generally become more apparent some years after a drug's introduction, when the drug's market has expanded significantly.  What seldom if ever sees the light of day is the incremental long term physiological damage of these unnatural pharmaceutical concoctions, because of plausible deniability with the dearth of long term studies investigating such (studies industry and their lackeys in government aren't about to support). 

In the animal medicine segment the chicanery is even more extensive because they're allowed to operate in a much more laissez-faire environment—something we'll explore further later in this book.  

When the body detects these unnatural substances, a healthy immune system is commonly activated, and either by design or a side effect, at a minimum many of these substances depress/overwhelm the immune system (e.g. statins[110]).  A reduced immune system increases the risk of chronic and infectious diseases, as well as incremental physiological damage (e.g. autoimmune issues), and augments the effects of our inappropriate diet.  If these are really "wonder drugs" then why all the influence peddling and research taking a back seat to promotion–wouldn't their merit stand on its own without all the manipulation?  Also, with the accumulating evidence, why isn't there more unbiased long term research into the overall effects on our natural physiology?  If there are short term adverse effects, there are bound to be long term adverse effects.  Our natural immune system is what ultimately protects us, yet there is growing evidence that the pharmaceutical industry's unnatural concoctions have varying degrees of detrimental effects on such. One small example is that pharmaceutical corticosteroids, such as prednisone, inhibit the body's immune system, whereas corticosteroids produced naturally in the body don't have this same immunosuppressive effect [see MSU study last accessed 04/09/2010]. 

Of course, the pharmaceutical industry's unnatural concoctions also have a myriad of other detrimental effects‡16.  For example, for type 2 diabetes the only known way to reestablish proper leptin and insulin signaling is through a proper diet and exercise–there is no drug that can accomplish this–which makes the current disease paradigm even more tragic.  Evidence is accumulating that diabetics may not benefit, and may even be worse off, when they're treated with a number of diabetes medications‡17. 

It's easy to fault drug companies for all these stretches of ethics [to put it mildly], but the pharmaceutical industry—like the agricultural and food processing industries—is merely trying by whatever means available to do its primary job, which is to further the interests of its investors.  Physicians, veterinarians, medical schools, and respective professional organizations have no such excuse, since their only fiduciary responsibility is to patients.  Drug companies are not charities; they expect something in return for the money they spend, and they evidently get it or they wouldn't keep paying. ‡18   

Basically the pharmaceutical industry centers around the commercially proprietary concoction of isolated compounds to treat/mask mainly symptoms (rather than a proactive holistic approach to our natural physiologic support)—with the profit streams from such justifying their corporate existence.  This similar reductionist approach has many adverse effects that seem to be taken for granted, rather than being seriously questioned by the mainstream medical establishment and thoroughly researched in long term studies.  Is treatment more profitable than prevention? 

Reductionism in understanding food and medicinal compounds is a necessary first step, but the practice of reducing such to their salient chemical compositions as a means to reconstructing them into unnatural proprietary products is at a minimum exacerbating chronic health problems.  This practice highlights a profound ignorance of natural world synergies, and the extent to which these detrimental industrial foods and wonder drugs are hyped illustrates the manipulative nature of our economic model‡19. 

Our "advanced" economic model has long since far exceeded producing products we need, so need must be contrived for all the additional products produced for more profit streams.  It’s obvious industry has done a bang-up job in doing so, and the reason hinges on our being so tractable.  Do you have a better explanation? 

Of course, despite all the accumulating evidence, this perspective of our modern industrial model isn't generally acknowledged, in part because major media doesn't bite the hand that feeds it.  Even so, these overly predatory economic practices wouldn’t proliferate without the fertile base of so many delegating their responsibilities, and a prevailing materialistic bent—which is the point herein.  While this disproportionate increase in declining health facilitates our shortsighted economic model, it constitutes a very pressing problem for both humans and animals.  Let's face it, while good health makes a lot of sense, it takes effort, and it doesn't make a lot of money. 

"Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself." ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein

As an idea of the economic costs of our industrial lifestyle, a 2010 CNNMoney.com article [last accessed 03/25/2010] notes that, according to Fidelity Investments, an average couple retiring at age 65 this year will need $250,000 to cover their medical expenses during retirement (over approximately 25 years, presuming they qualify for Medicare and do not have an employer-sponsored plan).  That's up around 4% over last year and a 56% spike compared to 2002.  Of course most people are not "average", and many people don't have a prayer of setting aside such an amount beyond basic living expenses–which shifts the medical costs to other family members and/or the economy in general. Obviously, for today's 18 to 58 year olds medical expenses will be considerably more by the time they're 65.  No doubt, one impetus of this "alarm" article is to prompt people to save and invest more, and another is to try to get people to lead somewhat "healthier" lifestyles (to reduce the burgeoning strain on our unsustainable economy).  What the article doesn't do is question the unhealthiness of our industrial foods (including their so-called health foods) and healthcare industry (e.g. unnatural pharmaceutical concoctions).

The other side of the coin is that there is overwhelming (albeit generally obscured) evidence that we would be much healthier on average if we consumed real food (a variety of minimally processed, mostly raw, whole natural foods closer to what we evolved on), avoided potentially harmful chemicals (e.g. yard and household chemicals, medicinal drugs, etc.), exerted ourselves sufficiently (to achieve enough good exercise routinely), ensured that we got sufficient quality sleep (to allow our bodies adequate time for physiological maintenance), and worked hard at maintaining a positive state of mind (promotes positive physiological empowerment). 

If we really care about our natural well-being we should be asking why, despite relatively common exposure, some people seem so naturally healthy while most others are more susceptible to illnesses—especially escalating chronic illnesses.  The foregoing detail in this introduction has been trying to outline the empirical (i.e. evidence based) hypothesis that incrementally over time, and in excess of natural aging, the majority weaken their physiological state—especially their immune systems—primarily with inappropriate and nutritionally bankrupt diets, then compound their problems with unnatural pharmaceuticals (e.g. vaccines causing autoimmune and toxicity issues).  Other issues like inappropriate lifestyles and environmental pollution often play a complementary role.  The problem is not the viruses and bacteria—they're everywhere despite our best efforts to avoid them—it's the mostly self inflicted reduced state of our immune systems.  Being an integral part of this state of affairs, we're not taking good care of ourselves, and through mostly ignorance, helped along by greed, are even more seriously deteriorating our domestic animals' natural well-being.  

This book isn't questioning the value of responsible scientific research , but rather it's highlighting the consequences of the commercialization of science in an economic model based on short term materialistic gain.  In the former, potential longer term physiological effects would be investigated in a controlled environment, but in the latter resources are instead channeled to product promotion for quicker profits without responsible longer term study, and the public is left to play Russian roulette based on little more than a bean counter's assessment of potential liability. Industry, fostered by our society's economic model, asserts the moral high ground of the greater good at the potential expense of a few, yet this expense is arbitrarily confined to shorter term undeniable adverse effects.  Evidence of more widespread longer term adverse physiological consequences that continues to surface is ignored, and longer term investigation of such is even commonly thwarted by the status quo's economic clout.  The science that industry is more interested in is learning all the right buttons to push to convince consumers to buy their products (e.g. see Neuromarketers last accessed 04/27/2010).  This misguided quick fix mentality, and materialistic bent, of the status quo may acquiesce sacrifice of fellow human's well-being (they are capable of choice) in lieu of better understanding, but the sacrifice of other life forms, especially our domestic animals, in this setting seems even more morally lacking. 

On the whole it's pretty obvious that we're our own worst enemies.  These chronic illness industries only exist to provide what we emotionally "believe" we want, as opposed to choices based on thoroughly investigating any relevant unbiased factual basis.  If enough people really understood the harm in this unsustainable predatory economic model, our well-being might change for the better.  Unfortunately, given human nature and other serious issues influencing such, significant change probably isn't a good bet anytime soon.  We humans are, for the most part, capable of understanding our missteps, usually long after the fact, but as individuals recognizing ongoing problems we often feel overwhelmed and impotent.  However, taking personal responsibility seriously does facilitate wiser personal choices, tempered with what we can reasonably accomplish individually. Our domestic animals, being subjected to our choices, don't really have this luxury though.  As individuals we can examine and promote relevant unbiased science, and thus foster more respect for, and understanding of, the other higher life forms that add substance to our lives, and begin to improve their well-being.  It's a step in the right direction, and if you understand the societal connections, a precursor to our own well-being. 

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." ~ Albert Einstein

Footnotes

‡1 Omega 3 fatty acid is a key component of our cells and we're not getting the proper balance from industrial meats.  It is essential for the proper function of every cell in our body, and just some of the issues resulting from an improper balance are depression, attention/concentration[158-168] and memory loss, blood clotting, heart malfunction, high blood pressure, skin problems, and more.  Learning this, many people turn to fish oil supplements, but here again industry is duping us with overly processed, inferior, and polluted products.  Just one small example is the lawsuit over PCBs in fish oil supplements--see the San Francisco Chronicle March 3, 2010 article [last accessed 03/11/2010].

   One specific omega 3 deficiency issue is that excess sugars and too much omega 6 relative to omega 3 in our diets have been associated with discouraging proper “expression” of key genes involved in conversion of dietary sugars to fat stored in the liver.   An evidence review study in Scotland[104] links omega-3s to reduced risk of a syndrome associated with being overweight and with excess alcohol or soda intake, while an Israeli study[105] links sweet beverages to increased risk.  

   Another specific omega 3 deficiency issue is that Australian researchers who examined patients’ brains using MRI machines reported that supplements of omega-3 EPA from fish oil produced significant, beneficial changes in the brain cells of young people who’d recently had their first episode of psychosis[106].  Prior research shows that first-episode psychosis patients have significantly lower levels of omega-3 DHA in their brain cell membranes, compared with healthy people[107].

‡2 Decomposing manure from factory farms is the U.S.'s fastest growing source of methane, while the nitrogen it contains is partly responsible for creating 230 "dead zones" along the U.S. coast (there were only 16 in the 1950s).  See "Manure becomes pollutant as its volume grows unmanageable" (last accessed 3/2/2010).  Also see the Factory Farms Time article  last accessed 05/13/2010. 

‡3 For example, Dr. Peter H. Gann, professor and director of research in the department of pathology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, noted for an article in The New York Times "There may not be a single component of broccoli or green leafy vegetables that is responsible for the health benefits. Why are we taking a reductionist approach and plucking out one or two chemicals given in isolation?". 

‡4 For the effect on our children see the Science Daily articles "TV Bombards Children With Commercials For High-Fat And High-Sugar Foods", "Childhood Obesity: It's Not the Amount of TV, It's the Number of Junk Food Commercials", and "Advertising And Childhood Obesity: Food Companies Changing Little, Study Finds". 

‡5 Where in 1700 the average person consumed about 4 pounds of sugars per year, in 2009 average consumption has risen to about 170 pounds per year[113].  Sugars are one of the most common ingredients in processed foods, and sugars and artificial sweeteners have been proven to be more addictive than cocaine[112].  In addition to sugars throwing off your body's homeostasis and wreaking havoc on your metabolic processes, there is overwhelming evidence of many additional detrimental physiological effects[e.g.114-157]. 

‡6 Data sources: Congressional Budget Office, Kaiser Family Foundation, and the New England Journal of Medicine.

‡7 Source: "Tainted Truth : The Manipulation of Fact in America" 1996 by Cynthia Crossen a WSJ staffer.

‡8 Key opinion leaders are the people who write textbooks and medical journal papers, issue practice guidelines, sit on FDA and other governmental advisory panels, head professional societies, and speak at the innumerable meetings to teach clinicians about prescription drugs. 

 ‡9 As just one of the numerous examples of how much the pharmaceutical industry misleads the public, in 2008 former FDA psychiatrist Erick H. Turner, M.D. discovered that 94 percent of anti-depressant trials with positive outcomes (i.e. effects superior to placebo pills) had been published, versus disclosure of only 14 percent of trials with unclear or negative results.  And according to the FDA’s own study reviewers, the results of many of the “positive” studies were not as good as their authors claimed.  After including the clinical trials hidden by drug makers (obtained through Freedom of Information requests), British researchers at the University of Hull found that for most depression patients, Prozac-type anti-depressants produce no significant benefits, when compared with the effects of placebo pills.  On the other hand it has been found that omega 3s can be beneficial (without all the side effects), except in the most serious cases, as they stimulate growth of new brain cells in the hippocampus region—shrinkage of which correlates closely with the depth and length of a patient's depression—so they may therefore at least prevent further progression of the disease.  In fact omega-3s are essential to the proper function of brain-cell membranes, and 1998 studies led by NIH clinical researcher Joseph Hibbeln, M.D., suggest that dietary omega-3s raise brain levels of the mood-elevating neurotransmitter called serotonin. 

‡10 As former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine , Dr. Marcia Angell struggled to bring greater attention to the problem of commercializing scientific research. In her outgoing editorial entitled “ Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” [N Engl J Med . 2000 May 18;342(20):1516-8] Angell said that growing conflicts of interest are tainting science and called for stronger restrictions on pharmaceutical stock ownership and other financial incentives for researchers: “When the boundaries between industry and academic medicine become as blurred as they are now, the business goals of industry influence the mission of medical schools in multiple ways.” She did not discount the benefits of research but said a Faustian bargain now existed between medical schools and the pharmaceutical industry. 

‡11 e.g. see the New York Times article "Medical Papers by Ghostwriters Pushed Therapy"  last accessed 03/25/2010

‡12 Sometimes called "disease-mongering", this is a focus of two books: Melody Petersen's "Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs" and Christopher Lane's "Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness". 

‡13  Paraphrased from The New York Review of Books article "Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption"  last accessed 03/20/2010. Along this line, another article is "Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven’t Been Told About Popular Cholesterol-Lowering Medicines" by Sally Fallon et al. of The Weston A. Price Foundation last accessed 06/13/2010. 

‡14  For a small sampling of issues see: NVIC, Washington Examiner, CNNMoney, and NPR each last accessed 04/27/2010; and especially CNN Health  last accessed 04/20/2010.

‡15 A thorn in the side of drug makers is that as more disregarded trials and studies are "coming to light", and new ones are initiated, the placebo effect is gaining more prominence [e.g. see Forbes, Scientific American, and Wired articles last accessed 04/24/2010].  While a key responsive strategy of the pharmaceutical industry has been to try to dominate the central nervous system with their drugs, the broader issue here is our negligible understanding of the mind-body connection [discussed further later in this book] relative to inherent physiological repair capabilities.  The industry sponsored research of  such thus far seems focused on control to facilitate profit streams, as opposed to better understanding of the state-of-mind aspect of proactive natural health as a means to avoiding/reducing health issues in the first place.  We already know there are serious risks associated with medicinal drugs, and that the industry's profit driven expansion exacerbates such, but the emerging placebo issue begs the question of whether on the whole drug benefits really outweigh the risks by a moral certainty.  Yes, the natural world has its risks also, but man's materialistic artificial nature is an inferior and detrimental substitute. 

‡16 Vaccine safety information especially is fraught with misinformation from pro to con extremes.  In an objective search for balanced information, one might include the National Vaccine Information Center.

‡17 See the NEJM studies:  Effects of Intensive Blood-Pressure Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus; Effect of Nateglinide on the Incidence of Diabetes and Cardiovascular Events; Effect of Valsartan on the Incidence of Diabetes and Cardiovascular Events; Effects of Combination Lipid Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus last accessed 04/09/2010]. 

‡18  See Jerome P. Kassirer's book "On the Take: How Medicine's Complicity With Big Business Can Endanger Your Health", Oxford University Press, 2005. 

‡19 That is, a materialistic model rooted in taking advantage of each other, rather than a fair and ethical exchange of goods and services.

References

[104] Masterton GS, Plevris JN, Hayes PC. 2009. Review article: omega-3 fatty acids - a promising novel therapy for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Dec 30. [Epub ahead of print]

[105] Abid A, Taha O, Nseir W, Farah R, Grosovski M, Assy N. 2009. Soft drink consumption is associated with fatty liver disease independent of metabolic syndrome. J Hepatol. 2009 Nov;51(5):918-24. Epub 2009 Aug 21.

[106] Berger GE, Wood SJ, Wellard RM, Proffitt TM, McConchie M, Amminger GP, Jackson GD, Velakoulis D, Pantelis C, McGorry PD. 2008. Ethyl-eicosapentaenoic acid in first-episode psychosis. A 1H-MRS study. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008 Sep;33(10):2467-73. Epub 2008 Jan 16. Erratum in: Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009 Jan;34(2):535.

[107] Khan MM, Evans DR, Gunna V, et al. 2002. Reduced erythrocyte membrane essential fatty acids and increased lipid peroxides in schizophrenia at the never-medicated first-episode of psychosis and after years of treatment with antipsychotics. Schizophr Res 2002;58(1):1-10.

[108] Bekelman, Justin E., et al., "Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review," The Journal of the American Medical Association, January 22, 2003.

[109] Campbell, Eric G., et al., "Institutional Academic–Industry Relationships," The Journal of the American Medical Association, October 17, 2007.

[110] Leung, BP et al. J Immunol. Feb 2003 170(3);1524-30; Palinski W. Nature Medicine Dec 2000 6;1311-1312

[111] Cordain, L., S. B. Eaton, A. Sebastian, N. Mann, S. Lindeberg, B. A. Watkins, J. H. O’Keefe and J, Brand-Miller. Feb. 2005. Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 81, No. 2, 341-354.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/81/2/341

[112] Lenoir M, Serre F, Cantin L, Ahmed SH (2007) Intense Sweetness Surpasses Cocaine Reward. PLoS ONE 2(8): e698. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000698
[http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000698 last accessed 04/20/2010]

[113] Johnson RJ and Gower T. (2009) The Sugar Fix: The High-Fructose Fallout That is Making You Sick and Fat, Pocket, 416 pp 

[114]  Sanchez, A., et al. Role of Sugars in Human Neutrophilic Phagocytosis, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Nov 1973;261:1180-1184

[115] Bernstein, J., al. Depression of Lymphocyte Transformation Following Oral Glucose Ingestion. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.1997;30:613

[116] Ringsdorf, W., Cheraskin, E. and Ramsay R. Sucrose, Neutrophilic Phagocytosis and Resistance to Disease, Dental Survey. 1976;52(12):46-48

[117] Couzy, F., et al. "Nutritional Implications of the Interaction Minerals," Progressive Food and Nutrition Science 17;1933:65-87

[118] Kozlovsky, A., et al. Effects of Diets High in Simple Sugars on Urinary Chromium Losses. Metabolism. June 1986;35:515-518

[119] Fields, M., et al. Effect of Copper Deficiency on Metabolism and Mortality in Rats Fed Sucrose or Starch Diets, Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1983;113:1335-1345

[120] Lemann, J. Evidence that Glucose Ingestion Inhibits Net Renal Tubular Reabsorption of Calcium and Magnesium. Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1976 ;70:236-245

[121] Goldman, J., et al. Behavioral Effects of Sucrose on Preschool Children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.1986;14(4):565-577

[122] Jones, T. W., et al. Enhanced Adrenomedullary Response and Increased Susceptibility to Neuroglygopenia: Mechanisms Underlying the Adverse Effect of Sugar Ingestion in Children. Journal of Pediatrics. Feb 1995;126:171-7

[123] Scanto, S. and Yudkin, J. The Effect of Dietary Sucrose on Blood Lipids, Serum Insulin, Platelet Adhesiveness and Body Weight in Human Volunteers, Postgraduate Medicine Journal. 1969;45:602-607

[124] Albrink, M. and Ullrich I. H. Interaction of Dietary Sucrose and Fiber on Serum Lipids in Healthy Young Men Fed High Carbohydrate Diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1986;43:419-428

[125] Reiser, S. Effects of Dietary Sugars on Metabolic Risk Factors Associated with Heart Disease. Nutritional Health. 1985;203-216

[126] Reiser, S., et al. Effects of Sugars on Indices on Glucose Tolerance in Humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1986;43:151-159

[127] Lewis, G. F. and Steiner, G. Acute Effects of Insulin in the Control of Vldl Production in Humans. Implications for The insulin-resistant State. Diabetes Care. 1996 Apr;19(4):390-3

[128] Lee, A. T. and Cerami, A. The Role of Glycation in Aging. Annals of the New York Academy of Science; 663:63-70

[129] Lee, A. T. and Cerami, A. Modifications of Proteins and Nucleic Acids by Reducing Sugars: Possible Role in Aging. Handbook of the Biology of Aging. (New York: Academic Press, 1990)

[130] Quillin, Patrick, Cancer's Sweet Tooth, Nutrition Science News. Ap 2000 Rothkopf, M.. Nutrition. July/Aug 1990;6(4)

[131] Michaud, D. Dietary Sugar, Glycemic Load, and Pancreatic Cancer Risk in a Prospective Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. Sep 4, 2002 ; 94(17):1293-300

[132] Moerman, C. J., et al. Dietary Sugar Intake in the Etiology of Biliary Tract Cancer. International Journal of Epidemiology. Ap 1993.2(2):207-214

[133] De Stefani, E."Dietary Sugar and Lung Cancer: a Case control Study in Uruguay." Nutrition and Cancer. 1998;31(2):132-7

[134] Cornee, J., et al. A Case-control Study of Gastric Cancer and Nutritional Factors in Marseille, France. European Journal of Epidemiology 11 (1995):55-65

[135] Thomas, B. J., et al. Relation of Habitual Diet to Fasting Plasma Insulin Concentration and the Insulin Response to Oral Glucose, Human Nutrition Clinical Nutrition. 1983; 36C(1):49-51

[136] Keen, H., et al. Nutrient Intake, Adiposity, and Diabetes. British Medical Journal. 1989; 1:00 655-658

[137] Darlington, L., Ramsey, N. W. and Mansfield, J. R. Placebo Controlled, Blind Study of Dietary Manipulation Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Lancet. Feb 1986;8475(1):236-238

[138] Heaton, K. The Sweet Road to Gallstones. British Medical Journal. Apr 14, 1984; 288:00:00 1103-1104

[139] Behall, K. Influence of Estrogen Content of Oral Contraceptives and Consumption of Sucrose on Blood Parameters. Disease Abstracts International. 1982;431-437

[140] Tjäderhane, L. and Larmas, M. A High Sucrose Diet Decreases the Mechanical Strength of Bones in Growing Rats. Journal of Nutrition. 1998:128:1807-1810

[141] Hodges, R., and Rebello, T. Carbohydrates and Blood Pressure. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1983:98:838-841

[142] Vaccaro O., Ruth, K. J. and Stamler J. Relationship of Postload Plasma Glucose to Mortality with 19 yr Follow up. Diabetes Care. Oct 15,1992;10:328-334

[143] Tominaga, M., et al, Impaired Glucose Tolerance Is a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Disease, but Not Fasting Glucose. Diabetes Care. 1999:2(6):920-924

[144] Monnier, V. M. Nonenzymatic Glycosylation, the Maillard Reaction and the Aging Process. Journal of Gerontology 1990:45(4):105-110

[145] Dyer, D. G., et al. Accumulation of Maillard Reaction Products in Skin Collagen in Diabetes and Aging. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 1993:93(6):421-22

[146] Veromann, S.et al."Dietary Sugar and Salt Represent Real Risk Factors for Cataract Development." Ophthalmologica. 2003 Jul-Aug;217(4):302-307

[147] Ceriello, A. Oxidative Stress and Glycemic Regulation. Metabolism. Feb 2000;49(2 Suppl 1):27-29

[148] Yudkin, J., Kang, S. and Bruckdorfer, K. Effects of High Dietary Sugar. British Journal of Medicine. Nov 22, 1980;1396

[149] Molteni, R, et al. A High-fat, Refined Sugar Diet Reduces Hippocampal Brain-derived Neurotrophic Factor, Neuronal Plasticity, and Learning. NeuroScience. 2002;112(4):803-814

[150] Frey, J. Is There Sugar in the Alzheimer's Disease? Annales De Biologie Clinique. 2001; 59 (3):253-257

[151] Yudkin, J. Metabolic Changes Induced by Sugar in Relation to Coronary Heart Disease and Diabetes. Nutrition and Health. 1987;5(1-2):5-8

[152] Gardner, L. and Reiser, S. Effects of Dietary Carbohydrate on Fasting Levels of Human Growth Hormone and Cortisol. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. 1982;169:36-40

[153] Christensen L., et al. Impact of A Dietary Change on Emotional Distress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1985;94(4):565-79

[154] Ludwig, D. S., et al. High Glycemic Index Foods, Overeating and Obesity. Pediatrics. March 1999;103(3):26-32

[155] Berdonces, J. L. Attention Deficit and Infantile Hyperactivity. Rev Enferm. Jan 2001;4(1)11-4

[156] Lechin, F., et al. Effects of an Oral Glucose Load on Plasma Neurotransmitters in Humans. Neurophychobiology. 1992;26(1-2):4-11

[157] Donnini, D. et al. Glucose May Induce Cell Death through a Free Radical-mediated Mechanism. Biochem Biohhys Res Commun. Feb 15, 1996:219(2):412-417

[158] Stevens, L. J., et al. Essential fatty acid metabolism in boys with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 62, No. 4, October 1995, pp. 761-68

[159] Stordy, B. Jacqueline. Dark adaptation, motor skills, docosahexaenoic acid, and dyslexia. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 71 (suppl), January 2000, pp. 323S-26S

[160] Burgess, J. R., et al. Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 71 (suppl), January 2000, pp. 327S-30S

[161] Arnold, L. Eugene. Alternative treatments for adults with ADHD. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 931, June 2001, pp. 310-41

[162] Richardson, A.J. and Montgomery, P. The Oxford-Durham study: a randomized, controlled trial of dietary supplementation with fatty acids in children with developmental coordination disorder. Pediatrics, Vol. 115, May 2005, pp. 1360-66

[163] Schachter, HM, et al. How efficacious and safe is short-acting methylphenidate for the treatment of attention-deficit disorder in children and adolescents? Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 165, November 27, 2001, pp. 1475-88

[164] Sinn, N. and Bryan, J. Effect of supplementation with polyunsaturated fatty acids and micronutrients on learning and behavior problems associated with child ADHD. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, Vol. 28, April 2007, pp. 82-91

[165] Sorgi, PJ, et al. Effects of an open-label pilot study with high-dose EPA/DHA concentrates on plasma phospholipids and behavior in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Nutrition Journal, Vol. 6, 2007, pp. 16-23

[166] Germano, M, et al. Plasma, red blood cells phospholipids and clinical evaluation after long chain omega-3 supplementation in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Nutritional Neuroscience, Vol. 10, February/April 2007, pp. 1-9

[167] McNamara R.K., et al. Docosahexaenoic acid supplementation increases prefrontal cortex activation during sustained attention in healthy boys: a placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Apr;91(4):1060-7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20130094

[168] Vaisman N, et al. Correlation between changes in blood fatty acid composition and visual sustained attention performance in children with inattention: effect of dietary n-3 fatty acids containing phospholipids. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 May;87(5):1170-80.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18469236