There are some forty-five thousand items in the average American supermarket and more than a quarter of them now contain corn. This corn according to Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, accounts for most of the surplus calories we are growing and most of the surplus calories we are eating. Excess corn consumption has been linked to the extreme rise in Americans with obesity, diabetes and other preventable diseases of our modern age. Because of the increase in these diseases, today’s children may turn out to be the first generation of Americans whose life expectancy will actually be shorter than that of their parents.

How did corn become a threat to our health? We will have to go back to the 1970s when Japanese researchers developed high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a highly processed food, as a cheap substitute for cane and beet sugar.

HFCS is made by processing corn starch to yield glucose and then processing the glucose to produce a high percentage of fructose. First, cornstarch is treated with alpha-amylase to produce shorter chains of sugars called polysaccharides. Next, an enzyme called glucoamylase breaks the sugar chains down even further to yield the simple sugar glucose.

The third enzyme, glucose-isomerase, converts glucose to a mixture of about 42 percent fructose and 50-52 percent glucose with some other sugars mixed in. While alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are added directly to the slurry, glucose-isomerase is packed into columns and the sugar mixture is then passed over it. (Alpha-amylase and glucose-isomerase are genetically modified to make them more stable.) This 42-43% fructose glucose mixture is then subjected to a liquid chromatography step where the fructose is enriched to approximately 90%. The 90% fructose is then back-blended with 42% fructose to achieve a 55% fructose final product.

In spite of all the special enzymes required, HFCS is actually cheaper than sugar. It is also very easy to transport - it’s just piped into tanker trucks. This translates into lower costs and higher profits for food producers.

Now that you have some information about how HFCS is produced, here are some facts about HFCS:

1. Fructose has no enzymes, vitamins, and minerals and robs the body of its micronutrient treasures in order to assimilate itself for physiological use.

2. In research studies fructose caused a general increase in both the total serum cholesterol and in the low density lipoproteins (LDL) in most of the subjects.

3. There is a significant increase in the concentration of uric acid that is dependent on amount of fructose digested. An increase in uric acid can be an indicator of heart disease.

4. Fructose interacts with oral contraceptives and elevates insulin levels in women on “the pill.”

5. A study of 25 patients with functional bowel disease showed that pronounced gastrointestinal distress may be provoked by malabsorption of small amounts of fructose.

6. Because fructose must be metabolized in the liver, it converts to fat more than any other sugar. This may be one of the reasons Americans continue to get fatter.

7. There is as much sugar in a glass of orange juice as there is in a candy bar and most of it is fructose.

8. HFCS is the primary sweetener used in soft drinks. Teenagers and children are among the largest consumers of soft drinks. In the past

ten years, soft drink consumption among children has almost doubled in the United States.

9. Currently HFCS remains an almost uniquely American phenomenon, although not actually banned in Europe (and other markets), generally negative consumer attitudes it has made it uneconomical to produce it there. Also, American-produced HFCS cannot be exported to Europe because of the European Community’s ban on genetically modified food.

10. Fructose reduces the affinity of insulin for its receptor, which is the hallmark of type-2 diabetes.

Researchers, led by Dr. Meira Field, wanted to know whether it was glucose or fructose in sucrose that could cause health problems in rats deficient in certain nutrients such as copper. The group of rats given glucose were unaffected but the fructose group had disastrous results. The male rats did not reach adulthood. They had anemia, high cholesterol and heart hypertrophy (their hearts enlarged until they exploded). The fructose seemed to interfere with copper metabolism to such an extent that collagen and elastin could not form in the growing animals. The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic. The female rats were not as affected but they were unable to produce live young.

Today HFCS can be found in almost every processed food. It is not only found in soft drinks and snack foods, but in ketchup, mustard, the breads and cereals, the relishes and crackers, and the hot dogs and hams. It is also found in foods considered to be “health foods” like protein bars and “natural” sodas.

As one chiropractor observed, “the bodies of the children I see today are mush.” The culprit is the modern diet high in fructose and low in copper containing foods, resulting in inadequate formation of elastin and collagen, the proteins that help hold our bodies together.

References:

Fructose is No Answer for a Sweetener by Nancy Appleton, Ph.D.

High Fructose Corn Syrup from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig, Ph.D.

The Double Danger of High Fructose Corn Syrup by Bill Sanda, BS, MBA

The Murky World of High Fructose Corn Syrup by Linda Joyce Forristal, CCP, MTA

The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan

No plastics in microwave. No water bottles in freezer. No plastic wrap in microwave. Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in their newsletters. This information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Dioxin Carcinogens cause cancer, especially breast cancer. Don't freeze your plastic water bottles with water as this also releases dioxins in the plastic. Dr. Edward Fujimoto from Castle hospital was on a TV program explaining this health hazard (he is the manager of the Wellness Program at the hospital). He was talking about dioxins and how bad they are for us. He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers. This applies to foods that contain fat. He said that the combination of fat, high heat and plastics releases dioxins into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body. Dioxins are carcinogens and highly toxic to the cells of our bodies. Instead, he recommends using glass, Corning Ware, or ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results, without the dioxins. So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else. Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. It's safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc. He said we might remember when some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons. To add to this, Saran Wrap placed over foods as they are nuked, with the high heat, actually drips poisonous toxins into the food. Use paper towels or you can put a regular plate upside down over it.

Genetically engineered trees could mean forest-full of problems As if genetic engineers haven't wreaked enough environmental havoc with Roundup-Ready soybeans, pesticidal potatoes and Monarch butterfly-threatening biotech corn, now they're looking to create forests full of genetically engineered trees. It's time to start pressuring Congress and U.S. regulatory agencies to place a moratorium on genetically engineered trees until all possible ecological ramifications are clearly understood. Visit The Campaign's web site for letters you can send to the U.S. government expressing your opinion on this critical issue. Some things to know about genetically engineered trees:

*Already, more than 100 genetically engineered tree test plots have been planted in the United States and 16 other countries. Two dozen tree species are being tested, including eucalyptus, poplar, pine and sweetgum trees, as well as a variety of fruit trees. Timber companies hope to plant genetically engineered trees commercially, and on a large scale, within five years. Engineers already have added the genes of humans, chickens and bacteria to trees.

*Four companies - Monsanto, International Paper, Westvaco Corporation and Fletcher Challenge Forests - have teamed up to create a forestry biotechnology joint venture. They will spend $50 million over five years to produce and market biotech trees. Overall, wood products represent a $400 billion industry, so stakes are high.

*Under development are aspen and cottonwood trees engineered to produce less lignin (the tough cellulose that holds a tree together). Timber companies say this will make processing the pulp easier.

*Genetic engineers also are developing trees that are tolerant of pesticides, a twist on the Roundup-Ready soybeans Monsanto produces. This will allow timber companies to spray higher quantities of pesticides on their trees, wiping out increasing amounts of wildlife.

*Also in the works are bioengineered trees that do not reproduce. Engineers say that turning off a tree's reproductive capacity channels additional energy to development and growth, leading to larger trees.

*Then there are trees that are engineered to contain pesticides in every cell. These trees would kill pest insects on contact. The impact this would have on large ecosystems is unknown.

*Fruit tree growers are looking into cherry trees that produce cherries of new and fashionable colors, as well as peaches that ripen more slowly. USDA scientists have created self-vaccinating plums by inserting viral DNA. The government has approved field trials of more than 50 biotech varieties of fruits, including apples, grapefruits, pears, persimmons and walnuts.

*The Washington Post, in a front-page story last August, points out that trees can live hundreds of times longer than biotech food crops already on the market. This makes it especially difficult to determine the long-term impacts genetically engineered trees may have "on the countless species that depend on them, including the soil-dwelling fungi and microbes that are the foundation of the planet's terrestrial food chain."

*Even on the small scale that the current test plots represent, genetic contamination of non-GE trees seems inevitable. If the trees are planted commercially, environmentalists fear a number of problems will result from widespread contamination. Genetic drift is a threat to biodiversity, since genetically mutated trees may out-compete native tree populations.

*So-called "buffer zones," which genetic engineers say would shield non-biotech trees from genetic drift, may actually be ineffective. These buffer zones would be about 50 meters wide. But Rebecca Goldburg, a senior scientist with Environmental Defense, says pollen from some pine trees has been known to travel hundreds of miles.

*The Native Forest Network, a Vermont-based advocacy group, says that "escape of low-lignin genes into the wild is a significant worry, and could have devastating consequences on native forests." Lowering lignin could harm a tree's ability to withstand heavy winds, for example. Trees with less lignin also may be more susceptible to damage from insects.

*Some observers worry that genetically altered trees may cause allergies in people not usually affected by tree pollen.

*The U.S. Department of Agriculture oversees genetically engineered trees. But many people say the U.S. government isn't doing enough to protect the environment from these mutant trees. "The current rules are not very stringent and are not well policed, and there are a lot of different risk issues that ought to be addressed thoroughly before these trees get commercialized," says Jane Rissler of Union of Concerned Scientists.

*Timber companies say that genetically engineered trees are necessary to meet growing worldwide demand for paper products. But sustainable sources such as hemp and bamboo make much better ecological sense.

http://www.americanlands.org/forestweb/getrees.htm

http://www.globaljusticeecology.org/index.php?page=getrees

http://www.gmwatch.org

lyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide which s used in combination with Monsanto's herbicide-resistant GM crops.

ROUNDUP RESISTANCE 1

"Tropical spiderwort, Commelina benghalensis, is now the most troublesome weed in Georgia cotton and the second most problematic weed in peanut. The weed competes with crops for water and nutrients, and smothers the crops at the same time. One reason for the surge in the weed's growth is its resistance to the commonly used herbicide glyphosate."

ROUNDUP RESISTANCE 2

"Mare's tail, a familiar nemesis for Missouri farmers, has reappeared with a new resistance to glyphosate-based herbicides, a University of Missouri weed scientist said. Mare's tail, also known as horseweed in the Delta region, 'isn't a new problem, but until recently, glyphosate controlled it' said Andy Kendig, weed science specialist at MU Delta Research Center in Portageville. 'Now, we see fields where everything is burnt down except horseweed. It's really erupted over the past two years.'"

ROUNDUP RESISTANCE 3

"For some 30 years... the herbicide glyphosate has kept morning glories quite effectively out of farm fields. Now, for the first time, however, researchers at the University of Georgia have identified morning glory families that are tolerant to glyphosate – noxious vines that could cause problems for the country's farmers.

"'This finding, along with an analysis suggesting a critical evolutionary threshold has been crossed, will be of broad interest to scientists and policymakers... The new evidence for genetic variation of tolerance in morning glories, however, points toward a potential problem with no easy solutions.'"

1.Little-known weed causing big trouble in Southeast

2.Glyphosate-resistant mare's tail infests Southeast Missouri fields

3.Morning glories creeping their way around popular herbicide, new UGA research reports

---

1..Little-known weed causing big trouble in Southeast August 24, 2004. ARS News Service, Agricultural Research Service, USDA [ARS is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief scientific research agency]

Like the plant in "Little Shop of Horrors" a little-known weed is growing fast. Tropical spiderwort, inconsequential for seven decades, has recently spread in alarming proportions in fields in Georgia, Florida and North Carolina.

First detected in the United States in the 1930s, the weed has made major gains in Georgia, according to Agricultural Research Service agronomist Theodore Webster of the Crop Protection and Management Research Unit in Tifton, Ga. Webster and his colleagues--Michael Burton and Alan York of North Carolina State University, and Stanley Culpepper and Eric Prostko of the University of Georgia--are monitoring the weed's advances.

In 1999, it was found in five counties in southern Georgia. By 2002, 41 Georgian counties reported tropical spiderwort was present, and 17 listed it as moderate to severe.

A 2003 survey revealed that tropical spiderwort was entrenched in Georgia, affecting 52 counties, with 29 counties listing the weed as moderate to severe. More than 195,000 acres in Georgia are infested. It's now widespread in Florida, and has been discovered on about 100 acres in Goldsboro, N.C.

Tropical spiderwort, Commelina benghalensis, is now the most troublesome weed in Georgia cotton and the second most problematic weed in peanut. The weed competes with crops for water and nutrients, and smothers the crops at the same time. One reason for the surge in the weed's growth is its resistance to the commonly used herbicide glyphosate. Conservation tillage [undertaken in conjunction with the use of GM glyphosate-resistant crops] and reduced use of soil-applied herbicides may also be contributing to the problem.

According to Webster and his colleagues, tropical spiderwort spread has coincided with resurgent cotton production in Georgia. Cotton acreage in the state increased from about 260,000 acres in 1989 to nearly 1.5 million acres in 1995, in part due to the success of the boll weevil eradication program.

Most cotton grown in Georgia is tolerant to glyphosate, allowing growers to spray the chemical on cotton crops to control weeds. Webster and his colleagues are studying the biology and management of tropical spiderwort and will continue to monitor its presence in the Southeast.

ARS is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief scientific research agency.

--- 2.Glyphosate-resistant mare's tail infests Southeast Missouri fields

University of Missouri http://agebb.missouri.edu/news/queries/showcur.idc?story_num=2895&iln=696 Forrest Rose, Information Specialist (573) 882-6843 RoseF@missouri.edu Aug. 4, 2004

PORTAGEVILLE, Mo. - Mare's tail, a familiar nemesis for Missouri farmers, has reappeared with a new resistance to glyphosate-based herbicides, a University of Missouri weed scientist said. Mare's tail, also known as horseweed in the Delta region, "isn't a new problem, but until recently, glyphosate controlled it," said Andy Kendig, weed science specialist at MU Delta Research Center in Portageville. "Now, we see fields where everything is burnt down except horseweed. It's really erupted over the past two years."

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup and other herbicides, upon which some farmers rely almost exclusively. "Some of the mare's tail problem is due to glyphosate-only burndown treatments," Kendig said. "The good news is that we have a couple of very good treatment options. The bad news is that it doesn't always get done."

MU researchers recommend a March application of an herbicide such as 2,4-D or Clarity, he said. "These two herbicides are essential to control mare's tail - or primrose or several other troublesome weeds. Even if there are a few late-germinating horseweeds that escape, this application is still needed."

Without the pre-plant burndown application, he said, "you have to go with mediocre cleanup options. There are only a few choices," including "old-fashioned tillage."

Source: Andy Kendig (573) 379-5431

[Also reported at http://deltafarmpress.com/news/080504-marestail-missouri/

http://www.agriculture.com/default.sph/AgNews.class?FNC=goDetail__ANewsindex html___52305___1 ]

See also additional story: "Weed control could be circle of truths"

http://deltafarmpress.com/news/072904-weed-control-technology/

---

3.Morning glories creeping their way around popular herbicide, new UGA research reports

Public release date: 24-Aug-2004

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-08/uog-mgc082404.php

Contact: Kim Carlyle kcarlyle@uga.edu 706-583-0913 University of Georgia

Morning glories are beloved mailbox flowers all over rural America, but to farmers, they are something else: a noxious weed that can lower yields and choke harvesting combines. For some 30 years, however, the herbicide glyphosate has kept morning glories quite effectively out of farm fields.

Now, for the first time, however, researchers at the University of Georgia have identified morning glory families that are tolerant to glyphosate – noxious vines that could cause problems for the country's farmers.

"Our study suggests that serious and immediate consideration should be given to developing regional strategies for managing the evolution of tolerance in morning glories," said Regina Baucom, a doctoral student at UGA who directed the research.

Baucom and UGA assistant professor of genetics Rodney Mauricio co-authored the study, which is being published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation and a research grant from Sigma Xi.

The tolerance of some morning glories to glyphosate is a naturally occurring trait, not something caused by the application of RoundUp®, and other herbicides that contain the chemical, which is used on millions of home lawns and gardens as well as farm crops. The problem is that the chemical does kill most morning glories quite effectively so that the tolerant ones could be the "last weed standing" and leave farmers without an effective means of control.

The current study does not address the practical concerns of agriculture however. Rather, it examines genetically how morning glories – both those that are not killed by glyphosate and those that are – lose or maintain the ability to produce offspring for future generations.

The issues are complex. The use of herbicides and pesticides has allowed dramatic increases in food production in the past century, but, as the paper in PNAS points out, the repeated use of herbicides exerting strong selection pressure on crop weeds has led to more than 250 documented cases of herbicide resistance, and "this process is likely to accelerate with increased reliance on herbicides."

Glyphosate has been available since 1974, but to date only six cases of glyphosate resistance in plants have been reported out of the 250 documented cases of herbicide resistance. The makers of the best-known glyphosate herbicide developed RoundUp-Ready® canola, corn, cotton, soybeans and sugar beets – crop varieties that aren't harmed by glyphosate, which means it can be used to kill weeds and increase yields.

"Our interviews with farmers in the Southeast suggest that morning glories can tolerate applications of glyphosate," said Baucom, "and, in some cases, increasing concentrations of the herbicide have been required to control it."

Such an increase in tolerance to the chemical gives researchers a unique opportunity to study the evolutionary genetics of a novel trait and may help them and others slow the rate of evolution of tolerance in morning glories.

What Baucom and Mauricio found was that, in at least one natural population of morning glories they studied, there is a substantial genetic variation for tolerance, meaning that the "evolutionary door" is wide open. For evolution by natural selection to succeed, there must be genetic variation with a population and a significant selective force. This study is a case-in-point of evolution by selection – human-mediated evolution, similar to the evolution of bacteria resistant to antibiotics.

"Given the continued presence of glyphosate, the number of tolerant individuals should increase within the population over time," the scientists reported, "as might the overall level of tolerance of the population." The fact that glyphosate is a relatively recent tool in the fight against weeds led the scientists to conclude that the tolerance trait in this wild population was naturally occurring – not caused by use of the herbicide.

The presence of genetic variation, however, does not in itself guarantee that tolerance to glyphosate will evolve. The requirement also exists of "net selection" for tolerance, and it is acted upon by two components: fitness costs and benefits. The "benefit" of being tolerant must outweigh any sort of "cost" of being tolerant, much akin to the theory of economic cost/benefit models.

In the ecological realm, however, the production of offspring can be compared to making money. For example, in the face of glyphosate application, if the benefits of being able to tolerate the chemical outweigh the costs, then the tolerant individuals will produce offspring for future generations and the susceptible individuals will not. Costs are thought to be caused by diverting important nutrients and resources away from reproduction into the trait(s) conferring the ability to be tolerant.

Costs are evident only in an environment in which the benefit of tolerance is not needed, that is, in an environment without glyphosate. Thus, if the benefits of tolerance outweigh the costs, then glyphosate-tolerant plants can increase in the population by the action of selection.

In fact, this research has shown that there is positive directional selection for tolerance to glyphosate, meaning that by applying glyphosate, those that are tolerant to the herbicide produce more seeds than those that are susceptible (given that susceptible individuals either die or produce almost no seed). Perhaps more key for the farmer, however, is the finding that in an environment devoid of glyphosate, tolerant families produce many fewer seeds or offspring than susceptible families. This is evidence of a fitness cost of tolerance, and this information can be used in managing or controlling the further evolution of tolerance in morning glories by arguing for not spraying RoundUp® in certain years. Since the issues are so complex, new strategies will have to be considered to control increasing numbers of glyphosate-tolerant varieties.

"Hers [Baucom's] is the first demonstration of a fitness cost of tolerance >>> >to glyphosate," said Mauricio. "This finding, along with an analysis suggesting a critical evolutionary threshold has been crossed, will be of broad interest to scientists and policymakers."

Morning glories are not at the level of such nuisance weeds as musk thistles in crops, but they are still a widespread problem for farmers. The new evidence for genetic variation of tolerance in morning glories, however, points toward a potential problem with no easy solutions.

"For glyphosate, such strategies could involve something as simple as periodically spraying with alternate herbicides, as long as there is little cross-tolerance with glyphosate," said the authors. "If, however, there is cross-tolerance with other causes of plant damage, such as hail, herbivores or pathogens, alternative spraying regimes may not be a viable mechanism for controlling the evolution of glyphosate tolerance."

1. No other dietary staple has so many antinutrient drawbacks as soy.

2. Analysis of ancient Chinese texts reveals that the soy bean was originally cultivated for its nitrogen-fixing qualities and not as a food source.

3. Soy was first used as a food during the late Chou dynasty (1134-246 BC), only after the Chinese learned to ferment soy beans to make foods like miso, tempeh, natto and tamari.

4. Fermentation increases soy’s mineral availability by destroying soy’s anti-nutritional factors. The only fermented forms of soy are the ones previously mentioned. All the other soy products including tofu are not fermented.

5. Soy beans unlike most other beans retain their anti-nutritional factors even after soaking and cooking. The phytates and trypsin inhibitors found in soy beans interfere with our ability to utilize or create key nutrients such as calcium, zinc, vitamin B-12, and thyroid hormone. Consuming soy on a regular basis actually increases the body’s requirement for B-12.

6. When unfermented soy is eaten frequently in a diet low or lacking in animal protein, the anti-nutritional factors can create havoc: brittle bones, thyroid problems, memory loss, vision impairment, irregular heartbeat, depression, and vulnerability to infections.

7. Unfermented soy is high in hemoglutin, which causes clumping of red blood cells and may increase risk of stroke. It is also rich in aluminum (up to 100 times more than is found in the same amount of regular milk), which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys.

8. Excess soy can cause liver damage and is said to feminize men. (Japanese wives feed tofu to their husbands frequently when they want to reduce his virility.)

9. Soy may be difficult to digest and may cause allergic reactions. Soy beans contain potent enzyme inhibitors that can cause intestinal problems, cancer and growth retardation.

10. Various phytoestrogens such as genistein, diadzin and isoflavones, which occur in high quantities in modern cultivars of soybeans are currently promoted as panaceas for heart disease, cancer and osteoporosis. Analysis shows that they are goitrogens - substances that depress thyroid function.

11. Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.

12. Isolated protein powders made from soy, whey, casein and egg whites are currently used as basic ingredients in diet beverages and many so-called health food products. These proteins are usually obtained by a high-temperature process that over-denatures the proteins to such an extent that they become virtually useless while increasing nitrates and other carcinogens.

13. Consumption of protein powders can lead to depletion of vitamin A and D reserves. Soy protein isolates are high in mineral-blocking phytates, thyroid depressing phytoestrogens and potent enzyme inhibitors that depress growth and cause cancer.

14. When soy, which contains a high omega-3 content, is made into flour, it quickly goes rancid.

15. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.

16. The most serious problem with soy formula is high levels of isoflavones. In Japan, soy foods contribute about 25-28 mg of isoflavones per day, or just less than one-half mg per kilogram per body weight. In American women, 45 mg of isoflavones or three-quarters mg per kilogram of body weight per day caused endocrine disruption after just one month. Babies fed exclusively on soy-based formula receive a dose that is four to eleven times higher, based on body weight. A recent study found that babies fed soy-based formula had 13,000 to 22,000 times more isoflavones in their blood than babies fed milk-based formula. Dr. Mike Fitzpatrick, a New Zealand toxicologist estimates that an infant exclusively fed soy formula receives the estrogenic equivalent of at least five birth control pills per day.

17. Dr. Fitzpatrick believes that soy feeding accounts for the alarming levels of premature maturation in girls. This was the same conclusion reached in 1986 by investigators in Puerto Rico, where early maturation is commonplace. The researchers expected to find a correlation with consumption of milk and meat and were surprised to discover that the strongest correlation was with soy infant feeding. Girls who had consumed large amounts of cow’s milk as children actually had lower rates of early development.

18. Other problems that have been anecdotally associated with children of both sexes who were fed soy-based formula include extreme emotional behavior, depression, asthma, immune system problems, pituitary insufficiency, thyroid disorders and irritable bowel syndrome.

19. Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and additional amounts are added to many soy foods.

20. Most soy beans grown in the US are genetically engineered to allow farmers to use large amounts of herbicides.

21. In third world countries, soybeans replace traditional crops and transfer the value-added of processing from local population to multinational corporations.

References:

Sally Fallon and Mary Enig, PhD, Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats

Susun S. Weed, New Menopausal Years: The Wise Woman Way

Weston A. Price Foundation Articles, www.westonaprice.org

by Brandon Finucan & Charlotte Gerson

While even in 1966 there was considerable research on the harmful substances within soybeans, you'll be hard pressed to find articles today that claim soy is anything short of a miracle-food. As soy gains more and more popularity through industry advertising, we are moved once again to raise our voice of concern.

The Soybean Industry in America

In 1924 soybean production in the U.S. was only at 1.8 million acres harvested, but by 1954, the harvested acres grew to 18.9 million. Today, the soybean is America's third largest crop (harvesting 72 million acres in 1998), supplying more than 50 percent of the world's soybean demand.

Most of these beans are made into animal feed and are manufactured into soy oil for use as vegetable oil, margarine and shortening. Of the traditional uses for soy as a food, only soy sauce enjoys widespread consumption in the American diet. Tofu, measuring 90 percent of Asia's use of the soybean, has gained more popularity in the U.S., but soy is still nowhere near a measurable component of the average American diet - or is it?

For more than 20 years now, the soy industry has concentrated on finding alternative uses and new markets for soybeans and soy byproducts. At your local supermarket, soy can now be found disguised as everything from soy cheese, milk, burgers and hot dogs, to ice cream, yogurt, vegetable oil, baby formula and flour (to name just a few). These are often marketed as low-fat, dairy-free, or as a high-protein, meat substitute for vegetarians. But soy isnít always mentioned on the box cover. Today, an alarming 60% of the food on America's supermarket shelves contain soy derivatives (i.e. soy flour, textured vegetable protein, partially hydrogenated soy bean oil, soy protein isolate). When you look at the ingredients list, and really look at the contents of the "Average American Diet," from snack foods and fast foods to prepackaged frozen meals, soy plays a major role.

Where the soybean goes wrong?

Here at the Gerson Institute, we feel the positive aspects of the soybean are overshadowed by their potential for harm. Soybeans in fact contain a large number of dangerous substances. One among them is phytic acid, also called phytates. This organic acid is present in the bran or hulls of all seeds and legumes, but none have the high level of phytates that soybeans do. These acids block the bodyís uptake of essential minerals like calcium, magnesium, iron and especially zinc. Adding to the high-phytate problem, soybeans are very resistant to phytate reducing techniques, such as long, slow cooking.

Soybeans also contain potent enzyme inhibitors. These inhibitors block uptake of trypsin and other enzymes that the body needs for protein digestion. Normal cooking does not deactivate these harmful "antinutrients," that can cause serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and can lead to chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake.

Beyond these, soybeans also contain hemagglutinin, a clot promoting substance that causes red blood cells to clump together. These clustered blood cells are unable to properly absorb oxygen for distribution to the body's tissues, and cannot help in maintaining good cardiac health. Hemagglutinin and trypsin inhibitors are both "growth depressant" substances. Although the act of fermenting soybeans does deactivate both trypsin inhibitors and hemagglutinin, precipitation and cooking do not. Even though these enzyme inhibitors are reduced in levels within precipitated soy products like tofu, they are not altogether eliminated.

Only after a long period of fermentation (as in the creation of miso or tempeh) are the phytate and "antinutrient" levels of soybeans reduced, making their nourishment available to the human digestive system. The high levels of harmful substances remaining in precipitated soy products leave their nutritional value questionable at best, and in the least, potentially harmful.

What About the Studies?

In recent years, several studies have been made regarding the soybeanís effect on human health. The results of those studies, largely underwritten by various factions of the soy industry, were of course overwhelmingly in favor of soy. The primary claims about soy's health benefits are based purely on bad science. Although primary arguments for cancer patients to use soy focus on statistics showing low rates of breast, colon and prostate cancer among Asian people, there are obvious facts being utterly ignored. While the studies boast that Asian women suffer far fewer cases of breast cancer than American women do, the hype neglects to point out that these Asian women eat a diet that is dramatically different than their American counterparts.

The standard Asian diet consists of more natural products, far less fatty meat, greater amounts of vegetables and more fish. Their diets are also lower in chemicals and toxins, as they eat far fewer processed (canned, jarred, pickled, frozen) foods. It is likely these studies are influenced by the fact that cancer rates rise among Asian people who move to the U.S. and adopt American-ized diets. Of course, this change of diet goes hand-in-hand with a dramatic shift in lifestyle. Ignoring the remarkable diet and lifestyle changes, to assume only that reduced levels of soy in these Americanized Asian diets is a primary factor in greater cancer rates is poor judgment, and as stated above, bad science. The changes of diet and lifestyle must be considered to reach the correct conclusion.

A widely circulated article, written by Jane E. Allen, AP Science Writer, titled, "Scientists Suggest More Soy in Diet", cites in the course of a symposium, numerous speakers discussing the probable advantages of soy under the title, "Health Impact of Soy Protein." However, the article states that the $50,000 symposium "was underwritten by Protein Technologies International of St. Louis, a DuPont subsidiary that makes soy protein!" In the course of the same symposium, Thomas Clarkson, professor of comparative medicine at Wake Forest University, states "Current hormone replacement therapy has been a dismal failure from a public health point of view," not because PremarinÆ is known to cause uterine or other female organ cancers, but "because only 20 percent of the women who could benefit from it are taking it."

Other popular arguments in support of soy state that fermented products, like tempeh or natto, contain high levels of vitamin B-12. However, these supportive arguments fail to mention that soy's B-12 is an inactive B-12 analog, not utilized as a vitamin in the human body. Some researchers speculate this analog may actually serve to block the body's B-12 absorption. It has also been found that allergic reactions to soybeans are far more common than to all other legumes. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics admits that early exposure to soy through commercial infant formulas, may be a leading cause of soy allergies among older children and adults.

In his classic book, A Cancer Therapy - Results of 50 Cases (p. 237), Dr. Gerson put "Soy and Soy Products" on the "FORBIDDEN" list of foods for Gerson Therapy patients. At the time, his greatest concerns were two items: the high oil content of soy and soy products, and the rather high rate of allergic reactions to soy. Soybeans can add as much as 9 grams of fat per serving, typically adding an average of 5 grams of fat per serving when part of an average American diet.

The Extraction Process

The processes which render the soybean "edible" are also the processes which render it "inedible." In fermenting soybeans, the process entails that the beans be purÈed and soaked in an alkaline solution. The purÈed mixture is then heated to about 115ƒC (239ƒF) inside a pressure cooker. This heating and soaking process destroys most, but not all, of the anti-nutrients. At the same time, it has the unwelcome effect of denaturing the proteins of the beans so they become very difficult to digest and greatly reduced in effectiveness. Unfortunately, the alkaline solution also produces a carcinogen, lysinealine, while it reduces the already low cystine content within the soybean. Cystine plays an essential role in liver detoxification, allowing our bodies to filter and eliminate toxins. Without proper amounts of cystine, the protein complex of the soybean becomes useless, unless the diet is fortified with cystine-rich meat, egg, or dairy products - not an option for Gerson patients.

To the soybeanís credit, they do contain large amounts of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids, but these are particularly susceptible to rancidity when subjected to high pressures and temperatures. Unfortunately, high pressure and temperature are required to remove soybean oil from the soybean.

Before soybeans are sent to your table, they undergo a rigorous process to strip them of their oil. Hexane or other solvents are first applied to help separate the oil from the beans, leaving trace amounts of these toxins in the commercial product. Hexane by definition is; "any of five colorless, volatile, liquid hydrocarbons C6H14 of the paraffin series," and cannot be the least bit beneficial in anyoneís diet. After the oil is extracted, the defatted flakes are used to form the three basic soy protein products. With the exception of full-fat soy flour, all soybean products contain trace amounts of carcinogenic solvents.

Personal Experiences

The following letter was received in November 1998: "I have used soy milk for 12 years with no problems. About 9 months ago, I started to have heart palpitations. I thought maybe that I was in menopause, but I wasnít. I added more potassium to my diet and magnesium and vitamin E. No change. I am already decaffeinated but I also took all sugar out of my diet. I lost 25 pounds and felt great except for the palpitations. I tried hawthorn and garlic but nothing was helping. Recently I came down with acute bronchitis and could only drink water because even the soy milk made me have horrendous bouts of coughing. I realized that after a few days my heart palpitations had stopped. I didn't think anything of it because it never occurred to me that soy was the culprit. As soon as I started drinking it again, my heart went crazy. I went off it for a week and then changed brands. Within 30 minutes of drinking only 4 ounces [of soy milk], my heart was all over the place. I've noticed that it takes about 24 to 36 hours for my heart to settle down. I wondered if your research turned up anything like this in regard to soy. I know it is not within the definition of an allergy, but something is definitely going on. I called the manufacturer of the soy milk, but they were of no help. I am very upset because I only drink soy milk and water. I also use the soy milk to make protein shakes (with what elseÖbut soy protein)."

In our November/December 1996 issue of the Gerson Healing Newsletter we described another case: a pregnant lady who looked very ill and was terribly deficient! She also described her son, age five, who had many allergies and infections - both were using a good deal of soy in their diet. I recommended that they discontinue the use of all soy products. At the time, I had only just run across this situation. However, a year later, I was in the same area for a lecture, and the lady invited me to dinner. She had cut out all soy products: her skin was now rosy, her face filled out, her sunken eyes normal, her black circles gone and her little boy, now six, was in greatly improved health.

Just last week, another interesting story came to our attention. A patient at the Gerson Certified Hospital in Mexico told us of her son, now 25, who has total lack of hair (Alopecia) with the exception of eyebrows and eyelashes. She added that this started when he was just three years old. Since the mother asked me about this situation, I considered the problem for a moment. Then, looking at the parents who both have normal hair, I figured that the boy's problem was most probably not genetic. So, I asked the mother if he used a lot of soy. She said, no. But then, after thinking about the question for a moment, she said that at about one year of age, the boy had many allergies, so she regularly fed him soy milk! I explained to her that the enzyme and nutrient blocking ability of soy and the likelihood of the soy milk being the cause of his condition starting at age three. Since we had just witnessed the case of a patient whose hair grew back on his bald pate, (See "Practitioner Training" article in this issue) after being bald for some 20 years, I cautiously suggested that a complete change of diet accompanied by intensive detoxification, may be able to overcome the problem.

Gerson Institute Newsletter Volume 14 #3

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/

Soybean Products: A Recipe for Disaster?î Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Apr-May 1997), http://www.icom.net/ ~nexus/soya.html

Soy Protein Council, http://www.spcouncil.org

Jeopardizing the Future? Genetic Engineering, Food and the Environmentî, by Dr. Michael Hanson and Jean Halloran, http://www.pmac.net/

Monsanto Genetically Engineered Soya has Elevated Hormone Levels: Public Health Threatî (Oct. 1997), http://www.holisticmed.com/

Monsantoís Toxic Roundupî (Nov. 1996),http://www.holisticmed.com/

Toxicity from Genetically-Engineered Foods, http://www.holisticmed.com/

Eat the State!, ìNature & Politicsî by Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn (Feb. 1999),

'Concerns Regarding Soybeansî, http://www.rheumatic.org/soy.htm

COMMENT: This is an excellent summary of some of the major reasons why soy is not the health food that you think it is. There are literally billions of dollars of influence in the edible oil industry that is promoting soy's use in natural medical circles so it's use can be then promoted in the general medical public. They are even able to fool otherwise knowledgeable natural medical physicians. I am a monthly columnist in the Townsend Letters and another columnist, Dr. Hudson, who was voted Naturopathic doctor of the year, has an article this month extolling soy's values. Needless to say I quickly wrote a letter to Townsend asking them to print the other side of the soy story. In the meantime, you can save you and your family some potential problems by limiting any soy use to fermented products only, like tempeh or miso.

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

More reasons why soy is not the major health food that many crack it up to be.

http://www.mercola.com/2001/feb/7/soy_heart_disease.htm

In a major ongoing study involving 3,734 elderly Japanese-American men, those who ate the most tofu during mid-life had up to 2.4 times the risk of later developing Alzheimer’s disease. Men who consumed tofu at least twice weekly had more cognitive impairment than those who rarely or never ate tofu.

Higher mid-life tofu consumption was also associated with low brain weight. Brain atrophy was assessed in 574 men using MRI results and in 290 men using autopsy information. Shrinkage occurs naturally with age, but for the men who had consumed more tofu Dr. Lon R. White from the Hawaii Center for Health Research said “their brains seemed to be showing an exaggeration of the usual patterns we see in aging.”

In a 1999 letter to the FDA, toxicologists Daniel Sheenan, Ph.D and Daniel Doerge, Ph.D from the National Center for Toxicological Research expressed opposition to the soy industry’s health claims for soy. They said that White’s study “provides evidence that soy (tofu) phytoestrogens cause vascular dementia”.

Thyroid alterations are among the most frequently encountered autoimmune conditions in children. Researchers at Cornell University medical College showed that the “frequency of feedings with soy-based milk formulas in early life was significantly higher in children with autoimmune thyroid disease”. In a previous study, they found that twice as many diabetic children had received soy formula in infancy as compared to non-diabetic children.

According to unpublished documents, researchers testing soy formula found that it caused negative zinc balance in every infant to whom it was given, even if the diets were additionally supplemented with zinc. In children, insufficient levels of zinc have been associated with lowered learning ability, apathy, lethargy, and mental retardation.

Soybeans grown in the United States contain residues of the pesticide dieldrin, an organochlorine similar to DDT. Although dieldrin was banned in the 1970s, it still persists in soils and is absorbed through the roots. Today it is the most toxic residue found on domestic soybeans. In addition to disrupting hormones, it can have long delayed neurological effects, ranging from loss of memory to mania.

In studies, rats fed the isoflavone genistein exhibited pathological changes in the colon and rats fed soy-based chow had reduced growth and increase in gastrointestinal problems. Another study on rats found that soy had adverse effects on animal reproduction. Feeding soy to rats caused the differences in males and females to be less pronounced than normal.

Soybean lecithin comes from sludge left after crude soy oil goes through a “degumming” process. It is a waste product containing solvents and pesticides and has a consistency ranging from a gummy fluid to a plastic solid. Lecithin is bleached to a more appealing light yellow, the original color ranges from a dirty tan to reddish brown. Before lecithin was recovered from waste products in the 1930s, eggs were the primary source of commercial lecithin. In the 1960s and 1970s, lecithin became popular through authors such as Adelle Davis, Linda Clark, and Mary Ann Crenshaw as a “health food”. Soy lecithin is most commonly used today as an emulsifier to keep water and fats from separating in foods such as margarine, peanut butter, chocolate candies, ice cream, coffee creamers, and infant formulas.

The soy industry needs a market for its surplus of soy protein isolate (SPI), which is a by-product of the soy industry. Industry food technicians have spent the last 40 years developing palatable products from the sludge left after soy oil is squeezed out of the beans.

It is the demand for vegetable oils used in convenience foods that has stroked the rapid growth of soy production, from 18.9 million acres in 1954 to 72 million acres in 1998, not any grass roots demand for soy foods. Today soy protein isolate forms the basis of $1.6 billion market of imitation foods from tofu burgers to soy milk.

Perhaps it’s time we go back to a more natural and healthy approach to nourishing ourselves and our families and support the farmers who grow and raise food organically. We can do this by using fresh organic fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, and free range organically feed poultry and meat and avoid processed foods that contain waste products of the billion dollar soy industry. As world renowned herbalist, teacher, and author Susun Weed exclaimed, “If it has ingredients, don’t buy it”.

Resources:

Weston A. Price Foundation Articles (www.westonaprice.org.): Soy and the Brain, John MacArthur Soy Lecithin - Fron Sludge to Profit, Kaayla T. Daniel, Ph.D, C.C.N. The Soy Controversy, Mary G. Enig, Ph.D

-- Company Slated to Cut 1.5 Million Acres of California Forest--

The Nevada County Forest Coalition (NCFC) has obtained and analyzed documents that reveal that Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) -- among the largest private landowners in the United States, including 1.5 million acres in California alone -- is gearing up for a massive clearcut of forests in the Yuba River watershed, due northwest of Donner Pass and Lake Tahoe.

The findings come only a year after a California Department of Forestry (CDF) report confirmed that the number of acres of private land clearcut by SPI increased by 2,426% between 1992 and 1999. The company has a 100-year logging plan to institute plantation forestry of even-aged tree farms for its entire ownership.

Working with information obtained from local offices of the CDF and other public sources, the Coalition of local environmental groups has developed a map of SPI's active logging plans and extensive land holdings in the Yuba River watershed and surrounding counties.

The analysis shows the company owns approximately 100,000 acres of land in the Yuba Watershed. Above 5,000 feet, roughly 50 percent of the land between the North and South Yuba River is controlled by SPI. Fourteen SPI Timber Harvest Plans (THPs) covering 17,636 acres are currently active in the Yuba watershed. These plans include 1,920 acres (11%) of clearcutting. In total, more than 20 percent of the acreage in active plans is slated for conversion from forests to industrial tree farms.

Current plans are not covered by SPI's statement of April 19, 2001, which claims that the company will reduce its clearcut acreage by 70%. The statement provides little basis for believing future plans will be substantively different. There is no claim more trees will be retained as compared to current plans. Traditional clearcuts will now be called 'variable retention harvests'. SPI's ownership in the Sierra Nevada will be converted to tree farms.

"The local figures are extremely alarming and make explicit a larger pattern by SPI," said NCFC spokesperson Carolyn Hinshaw chairperson of the Sierra Nevada Group of the Sierra Club. "Our goal is to mobilize public support to fight SPI's massive cutting plans."

Massive concentrations of corporate land ownership, wealth and power were not foreseen when the Forest Practice Act of 1973, the law which still governs forestry in California, was enacted. The Forest Practice Act does not address these issues and the Coalition feels it must be seriously revised to address corporate forestry in the Sierra.

"If allowed to be carried out, such plans will affect the health and biodiversity of the existing forestlands and waters not only of the Yuba River watershed, but of the Sierra Nevada as a whole," said Hinshaw. "As Californians we depend on these lands for water storage, pollution reduction and wildlife havens."

In 2000 alone, SPI submitted four new timber harvest plans within the watershed. Each has been approved by the Department of Forestry. They call for logging 6,651 acres of land. The plans include extensive helicopter logging of unentered ancient forest on steep slopes of the river canyons. New timber harvest plans are developed and submitted on a continuous basis. Thousands of additional acres of forest have already been cut in plans the Department of Forestry lists as expired.

Sierra Pacific Industries acquired much of its land in the Yuba watershed in the late 1980's. In the early 1990's large tracts of SPI landholdings above New Bullards Bar Reservoir on the North Fork of the Yuba River were logged. In these and other locations logging is now generally complete - for the time being. Over the last five years, SPI's timber harvesting plan submissions have moved from west to east in the watershed. Plans submitted to CDF in 1996 were generally in the Hwy. 49 corridor. Plans submitted in 2000 are clustered around Grouse Ridge, Bowman Lake and Jackson Meadows, and move into the eastside of the Sierra crest.

These areas are the most popular recreational lands in the I-80 corridor. They are in relatively high elevations, from 4,000 to 7,700 feet. Forests in the harsh high elevation alpine conditions above 5,500 feet are known for slow growth and difficulty of successful replanting, with increased uncertainty of regeneration.

The Coalition is particularly concerned about the impact of large-scale or industrial logging on at-risk species in the Sierra. Bald Eagle and Northern Goshawk are known to nest in the vicinity of particular logging areas. Of the fourteen SPI timber harvest plans in the Yuba River watershed, California Spotted Owls are known to inhabit the same territory or land section as twelve of the plans. In all, 37 owl nest sites are known close to or directly within the sections to be logged.

Additional concerns include impairment of critical habitat and fragmentation of migration corridors for important furbearer species such as pacific fisher and the pine marten. Two timber harvest plans have streams running through them that are home to Lahontan Cutthroat Trout, federally listed as threatened by extinction.

The checkerboard of land ownership patterns within the boundaries of the Tahoe National Forest, with public ownership alternating with square mile sections owned by Sierra Pacific, makes planning for resources, recreation and wildlife concerns difficult. Cumulative impacts to habitat continuity and species viability occur when clearcuts alternate with protected areas.

The Yuba River watershed is a beloved jewel of the Sierra Nevada. A decision to convert the forested slopes of the Sierra Nevada mountain range - the Range of Light, as John Muir called these mountains - to tree farms cannot go unchallenged.

To protect the public trust, citizens must fight SPI's timber harvest plans.

At the dawn of the 20th century, St. Mark's Square - the lowest point in Venice - flooded about seven times a year. Now, it floods as many as 100 times a year, and scientists say climate change will cause the Mediterranean to rise eight inches during the next half century, leaving Venice under water for half

"At first I thought those walkways were to keep people from doing further damage to the crumbling buildings, but when we stepped out of the basilica and saw the water beginning to rise, I realized what they were for," says Jean Quine of Chevy Chase, Md., who vacationed with her family in Venice last October.

Her husband, Steve, recalls a Venetian traffic cop directing pedestrians on the wooden planks.

"He would allow so many people through on one side and then blow his whistle to stop them. Then he'd allow so many people through on the other side and blow his whistle again. It was the most chaotic thing," he says. "Finally I got fed up and jumped off."

The acqua alta simply adds more character.

Floating around the city in a gondola as women hang wash from windows and bright flowers drape cracked-plaster walls, it's easy to see why so much attention is being paid to the preservation of Venice.

Ten million tourists come each year to see the city's masterpieces. So far, none of the architectural or artistic wonders has been lost to the rising water. And while St. Mark's basilica leans a bit to the left because of the unstable earth and corrosive salt water, many visitors don't seem to mind.

Papua New Guinean authorities are trying to convince thousands of Polynesians to abandon their homes on two atolls that appear to be sinking into the Pacific Ocean.

Emergency food supplies are to be sent later this week amid conflicting reports on the plight of the 2,000 people living on the Tulun (or Carteret) Islands, and the 400 on Takuu (or Mortlock) Islands, northeast of Bougainville Island. The atolls appear to be sinking, although the reason is not clear.

"The crops are being affected by the salt water," said Rauka Eric Ani, director of the National Disaster Management Office in Port Moresby. "We have to do something drastic to make the people aware that it is no longer okay to live there, regardless of how long they have lived there. They must move for humanitarian reasons."

He denied local reports of starvation on the islands, which have no regular communications links with the outside world. "It is not comfortable for them," he said. "They have lived on coconuts and fish."

Papua New Guinea wants the Polynesians who live on the atolls - never more than 5 m, and usually much less, above sea-level - to move to Bougainville, a rugged volcanic island of 175,000 Melanesians. A decade long civil war on the 10,660 square km island ended three years ago.

Ani said it would be hard to get the people to move. "The people are Polynesian," he said. "Bougainvillians on the main island are Melanesian.

"We will have to send a technical team to make an assessment of the island and perhaps to [generate] some awareness and advocacy to make the people aware that they must leave the place and go somewhere else," he said.

Cultural extinction

Associate Professor Richard Moyle, an ethnomusicologist at the University of Auckland who is writing the first ethnology of the people of Takuu, believes their unique culture - which may have been intact contunuously for as long as 3,000 years - is on the verge of extinction.

The community have over 1,000 songs they can sing from memory, and there are fears its choral tradition will go with the rising waters.

Takuu is an extraordinary Pacific story: geographically it is in Melanesia, but its people are Polynesians. An epidemic hit it in the 1870s and just 13 people survived.

In 1896 a Samoan-American woman, known locally as 'Queen' Emma Coe, bought the island for four axes and 4.5 kg of tobacco. Under Imperial German protection, she had all the trees chopped down and replaced with coconuts, and she imported Papua New Guineans from New Ireland to work the plantations.

Ani said the ocean was not physically overwhelming people of the atolls yet: "The Carteret Island is a low atoll island and the strong winds and the salt water have washed and saturated the ground and they are not able to grow any crops."

Attempts had been made in the past to move people, and some had gone to Bougainville, only to return to their atolls. He said the Papua New Guinea government needed to do some advocacy to "get the people used to the idea that they have to move."

The problems had been growing for some time, and Ani said he did not have the scientific background to explain why the atolls were sinking. "It probably is because of the effects of the greenhouse [effect]. There is talk of islands sinking everywhere in the world. We would not be isolated."

Australia's National Tidal Facility, a specialist centre based in Adelaide, has for the past decade monitored sea-level changes across the Pacific, but sayd it does not have enough long range data to explain what might be occuring with certainty.

Their tide-measuring station on Papua New Guinea's Manus Island, 1,100 km west of the atolls, has measured an annual 8.2 mm rise in sea-levels over the past seven years.

The Solomon Islands station, 750 km to the south, has recorded an annual 6.2 mm rise over the past eight years. Nauru, 1200 km northeast, has recorded 5.6 mm per year over nine years.

The area is at a junction of the Australasian-Indian tectonic plates, which produce a large number of major earthquakes. Some experts believe the quakes are responsible for the sinking of some islands and the rising of others.

More Info?

Salty Mediterranean could lead to ice age, News in Science 30 Oct 2002 More evidence for global flooding threat, News in Science 23 Nov 2000 Greenhouse sea levels exaggerated, News in Science 11 Feb 2000 Asia-Pacific and global warming in focus, News in Science 5 Jul 1999