Dr. Emoto's book is very interesting.  We got one from a friend in Hong Kong in
2000 before they were available here in the US.



We started our rather extensive study of the relationships 'twixt water & living
cells at the time we were introduced to Nikken's PiMag Living Water systems. 
The whole idea of energy fields of water (& of us) was a mind-blower for us. 
We'd been taught that water was just a couple molecules of hydrogen stuck to a
molecule of oxygen & that water was water.  All this stuff re water having a
memory, etc. was quite a stretch for us, but it's been documented by world-wide
research.



As a result of our studies, we've been drinking only PiMag Living Water from
www.Wellness-Forever.com since 2000 (& "Optimized" since 2002), 'tho Bob, being
an all-raw (& fellow SunGazer since 2005) fellow since 1990, gets nearly all his
water from uncooked fruits/veggies (& drank NO fluids from '90-'96).



We consider Aajonus to be a good friend & his book helped Bob to incorporate
uncooked dead animals into his food since '93 . however, carbonated crap is NOT
food for living things & predisposes, along with cooked animal stuff, to the
tendency toward osteoporosis, since its end-products suck minerals from the
bones & teeth (Bob's a Lake Tahoe dentist).  We share your lack of interest in
adding more plastic bottles to the land fill & wouldn't drink bottled anyhow,
since it's mostly just tap water laced with whatever it can imbibe from its
plastic prison.



The results of our studies have left us with the conclusion that the only
healthful water left on this polluted planet is stuff made at the point of use &
our conclusion as to the best way to do that is to "un-process" the water with
the PiMag Unit, returning the tap water to close to the pristine state in which
it fell to earth centuries ago, before pollution, thru pollution-free skies,
onto pollution-free earth, flowing down pollution-free creeks & streams into
pollution-free lakes.  So, that's what we drink, water whose molecular clusters
are mostly hexagonal, apparently the structure that living cells actively
transport thru their cell membranes, fully hydrating every cell in our bodies
(if you get a chance to check Dr. Batmanghelidj "Your Body's Many Cries for
Water" you'll learn that most low back problems, headaches, etc. are caused or
exacerbated by chronic dehydration, since most folks consider soda pop, coffee,
etc. sources of water).  The Living Water also has optimal levels of trace
minerals & replenished with the missing magnetic, pi & far-infrared energies.



And yes, due to our extensive study, we're impressed enough with Nikken's
integrity, research and vision of world peace thru world health, based on a
blanked life founded on the Five Pillars of Health (healthy mind, body,
finances, family & society) that we've been consultants for them since we were
introduced to their magnetic/far-infrared sleep systems in -97.







--lou & dr. bob wynman


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Posted by: "dellahart" dellahart@...   dellahart
Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:24 am (PST)


I have read one of the books about Dr. Emoto and the theory that you mention.
Apparently, there was a difference in the water when words were taped to the
outside of the water bottle. Apparently words like "Love" "Joy" "Happiness"
etc., created beautiful ice crystals, whereas words like "Hate" "Ugly" "War"
created awful, distorted, nasty looking ice crystals.

Silly as it sounds, I have been taking a sharpie and writing nice words on my
water bottles ever since I read this. I don't know if it works or not, but it
sure couldn't hurt.

della

--- In rawpaleodiet@yahoogroups.com, "ccbmamma" <caroleebol@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, I wanted to get your thoughts on "living" water. I've been
reading a bit about Dr. Emoto and his studies on water and emotions and the
structure of water crystals. There are some people who sell water systems that
can make the crystals "structured" (purportedly) thus (purportedly again)
healthy for our bodies. I know Aajonus suggests drinking carbonated mineral
water such as Perrier and getting most of our water from raw foods, but Perrier
is pricey for our family of four (and all those bottles don't sit well with me
even though we recycle) and my toddler sometimes just wants water instead of raw
milk or squeezed juices and doesn't like the bubbles. I can't however find any
recommendations from past posts here and am having a hard time online getting
reliable info from people who don't have something to sell!
>
> Thank you very much for your time in answering this post,
> Carolee

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE:  We respect your wishes to avoid unwanted clutter in your Inbox.  Please
reply with "Delete" in Subject or Message blanks if you'd prefer we don't send
email information to you!  & if you prefer only certain KINDS of info -- eg,
energy technologies for health (Nikken), Natural Hygiene, Instinctive Nutrition,
animals, religion, golf, SunGazing, war, Home-Schooling, Economics, Philosophy,
RV's, aviation, dentistry, kiteboarding, teaching, computers, Ayn Rand,
Volitional Science (Galambos), politically-incorrect pro-freedom propaganda,
Forex trading, chemtrails, Planet X ... as well as cutesy humor & "offensive"
humor.  We have separate groups for each of those categories.

Please lettuce no in which areas you might be interested, so that we don't
clutter your Inbox with unwanted junk.

'ealth & 'appiness to ya!

--bob & lou
www.wynman.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have read one of the books about Dr. Emoto and the theory that you mention.
Apparently, there was a difference in the water when words were taped to the
outside of the water bottle.  Apparently words like "Love" "Joy" "Happiness"
etc., created beautiful ice crystals, whereas words like "Hate" "Ugly" "War"
created awful, distorted, nasty looking ice crystals.

Silly as it sounds, I have been taking a sharpie and writing nice words on my
water bottles ever since I read this.  I don't know if it works or not, but it
sure couldn't hurt.

della

--- In rawpaleodiet@yahoogroups.com, "ccbmamma" <caroleebol@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, I wanted to get your thoughts on "living" water. I've been
reading a bit about Dr. Emoto and his studies on water and emotions and the
structure of water crystals. There are some people who sell water systems that
can make the crystals "structured" (purportedly) thus (purportedly again)
healthy for our bodies. I know Aajonus suggests drinking carbonated mineral
water such as Perrier and getting most of our water from raw foods, but Perrier
is pricey for our family of four (and all those bottles don't sit well with me
even though we recycle) and my toddler sometimes just wants water instead of raw
milk or squeezed juices and doesn't like the bubbles. I can't however find any
recommendations from past posts here and am having a hard time online getting
reliable info from people who don't have something to sell!
>
> Thank you very much for your time in answering this post,
> Carolee
>

--- In rawpaleodiet@yahoogroups.com, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@...> wrote:
>
> On 10/27/2009, rawtruth (garyva@...) wrote:
> > In developed countries, one environmental exposure that does come to
> > mind is the ubiquitous fortification of the food supply with Vitamin
D,
> > which is thought by Trevor Marshall to have played an important role
in
> > the increase of autoimmune disease in those countries.
>
> All of the Vitamin D that is used in the commercial food industry to
> 'fortify' other foods is D2, not D3. D2 is the bad kind, and the form
> that any of the studies promoting the fear of overdosing use to show
> toxicity.
>
> > Marshall's work, as well as the success of his protocol in
overcoming
> > chronic disease,
>
> Much room for debate on whether or not there are any long term
'success'
> cases. That, combined with the reports of a cult-like mentality ('You
> aren't doing it right', disappearing posts and banned user accounts)
> when it comes to anyone reporting problems - especially 'getting
worse'
> - on the official 'Study site', makes the entire protocol immediately
> suspect.
>
> http://stuff.mit.edu/people/london/universe.htm
>
>
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/marshall-protocol-and-other-fa\
iry-tales.html
>

Hello Charles,

Guess you haven't looked at any cartons of milk lately? I just had a
peek in my fridge, and the milk there (which my wife uses, not me)
clearly states Vitamin D3 as an ingredient. Ditto for the can of
evaporated milk that I found in the pantry.

Re Mark London's "critique" of Marshall, you might be interested in this
researcher's background if you're going to promote him as some kind of
health "expert:"
http://web.mit.edu/bin/cgicso?query=alias%3DM-london
<http://web.mit.edu/bin/cgicso?query=alias%3DM-london>

Yes, he works at MIT but in the capacity of a computer systems analyst.
His long, rambling, unnecessarily complex and rather incoherent essay
reveals his unfamiliarity with intracellular pleomorphic bacterial forms
as well as a complete absence of understanding of molecular modeling,
both of which are foundational to the Marshall pathogenesis.
Introduction to the Marshall pathogenesis
<http://mpkb.org/doku.php/home:patients:pathogenesis_overview>

As to your second citation referencing John Cannell, I already responded
to you on that score about a year ago, so if you've forgotton, you can
look it up in the archives. Suffice to say, Cannell and his "Vitamin D
Council" are essentially a front for Vitamin D supplement manufacturers
who stand to gain financially from the public perception of Vitamin D as
a "miracle nutrient."

Livin' on the raw grass fat of the land,
Gary



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 10/27/2009, rawtruth (garyva@...) wrote:
> In developed countries, one environmental exposure that does come to
> mind is the ubiquitous fortification of the food supply with Vitamin D,
> which is thought by Trevor Marshall to have played an important role in
> the increase of autoimmune disease in those countries.

All of the Vitamin D that is used in the commercial food industry to
'fortify' other foods is D2, not D3. D2 is the bad kind, and the form
that any of the studies promoting the fear of overdosing use to show
toxicity.

> Marshall's work, as well as the success of his protocol in overcoming
> chronic disease,

Much room for debate on whether or not there are any long term 'success'
cases. That, combined with the reports of a cult-like mentality ('You
aren't doing it right', disappearing posts and banned user accounts)
when it comes to anyone reporting problems - especially 'getting worse'
- on the official 'Study site', makes the entire protocol immediately
suspect.

http://stuff.mit.edu/people/london/universe.htm

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/marshall-protocol-and-other-fairy-tale\
s.html

Here's an interesting article on parasites and their function within the body:-

http://goingferal.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/parasites-those-who-inhabit-us/

http://tinyurl.com/y9do8wl

"Parasites: Those who Inhabit us
November 15, 2009 in Uncategorized

Parasites have been coming up a lot in my life recently. Almost every day I am
touching them, looking at them, talking to friends about them. Trying to
understand what their role is, in me. Much of it has to do with the salmon we
have been preserving; salmon are host to many parasites, but the one I have been
paying particularly close attention to is a parasitic nematode this world calls
Anasakis. They look like long, stringy white worms, I have seen them in the
flesh of almost every salmon I've ever butchered, usually still alive, wriggling
around. Humans are not hosts for them, they require a marine mammal's digestive
system to continue their life cycle. If a human eats the raw, fresh (drying
kills them, there are no eggs present in the flesh, just obvious, living worms)
meat of a host fish, they might not ever notice anything, or they might get
nauseious and even puke up a clump of these little fellas. In any case, our
bodies are not their chosen bodies. Salmon, of course, do carry other parasites
that can inhabit our bodies. Like, say, tapeworms.

Yesterday I was slicing up the meat of a deer for drying, and found a few
tapeworm cysts in it's flesh. One way tapeworms reproduce is by migrating out of
a hosts digestive system and into the muscle tissue, where they form cysts, a
kind of egg almost, the intention being that when a carnivore eats the hosts
flesh, the cysts are ingested and come alive in this new, carnivorous host,
where they live in the guts and shed eggs via feces. I once butchered a large
buck whose back muscles were completely infested with small, stringy white worms
– possibly juvenile tapeworms on their journey to encyst.

How does one react? These are all parasites infesting creatures I ate, and
continue to eat, raw. Is it disgusting? Stupid? I do sometimes freeze meat (14
days of freezing kills all parasites, says the USDA), or marinate it in salt
water or a weak vinegar marinade when it feels just too graphically obvious
there are parasites in it that will inhabit me, but this is mostly for
phsychological reasons. The times I don't freeze meat insure I am exposed to
these parasites, and, to a certain degree, some of them likely inhabit me.

As they have inhabited humans, always.

Why are we disgusted at parasites? Is it their creepy crawlyness, hiding out in
`our' bodies (not theirs), stealing our energy? Do we just not like the idea of
sharing our bodies? Or are there actual legitimate health problems that cause an
instinctive reaction towards them?

One thing I can't help but notice, and seems to be of huge relevance, is that
many, possibly most, probably all, of the wild animals I have butchered have
been inhabited by some kind of parasite. This leads me to believe that wild
animals pretty much just live with parasites, that is the way. The remarkable
thing is, all of these wild animals have been incredibly strong, beautiful,
sensual, well adapted, vibrant creatures, capable of living in balance. Salmon,
with anasakis larvae and tapeworm inhabiting their flesh, have a ridiculously
strong life force – their whole lives essentially result in creating more
fertility where they were born, bringing more beauty and aliveness to this
earth. Deer are graceful, quiet, aware, strong, well adapted – with horrific
tapeworms apparently robbing their bodies of energy.

Ten years ago, some white hunters in northern B.C. found the body of a native
man in a melting glacier while they were hunting mountain goats. Scientists
eventually analyzed everything they could about this person, who had died there
between 300-160 years ago – his stomach contents, his hair, skin. He was
traveling over a mountain range from the coast into the interior, barefoot,
wearing nothing but a ground squirrel skin parka and spruce root hat, carrying
some seal meat, crab, dried salmon, usnea, and a few tools. Drinking glacier
water, eating blueberries. Got caught in a storm. He had tapeworms, fish
tapeworms from eating salmon raw, dried or undercooked. What he didn't have were
any of the often severe nutrient deficiencies associated with tapeworm
infestations in modern humans. He was hiking across an incredibly rugged
mountain range, barefoot, after all.

Is it possible that in a healthy host, some parasites do not actually cause
harm? Is it possible that some could even benefit their host, helping it live in
a beautiful, sustainable way? It would, after all, be in their best interests to
have a host that lives a long, healthy life, wouldn't it? And what if we, the
hosts, need them, in complex, subtle ways, in order to live in balance?

A friend actually got tested for parasites recently, after eating raw meat quite
consistently for a couple years. Her doctor told her all she had was a very
common parasite, she forgot the name, which even western medicine considers
beneficial and essential to a healthy GI tract. There have been many studies
showing that certain parasites cause shifts in their host's immune system, make
them less prone to certain allergies, more resistant to certain viruses and
infections. It makes sense – it is the same force that drives salmon to enrich
their `host': the rivers, forests and oceans they inhabit and depend on for
their continuation.

I still have to admit, though, that having a 100 foot long tapeworm living in my
guts isn't appealing.

Presumably fish tapeworms were a near universal `affliction' for the indigenous
people living all along the northwest coast, wherever salmon was a major (or
minor) food, yet when researchers look, they find that the people living here
before civilization, as a whole, had little or no tooth decay, their skeletal
structure in general was ideal, most all of the chronic diseases and cancers of
modern society were absent (refer to `Price, nutrition & physical
degeneration'). They did not suffer from deficiencies, despite the parasites
inhabiting them. On top of that, they lived in balance with their land bases, as
part of them.

Now, when a modern industrial human gets fish tapeworms, they usually don't
notice them, but if they do, it's often because of severe nutrient deficiencies
( B12 deficiency, anemia etc.). I suspect that periodic cleansing, taking strong
anti-parasitic plants internally, and a diet free from processed foods, grains
and high amounts of sugars, allowed the indigenous people here to have fish
tapeworms inhabiting their bodies in a way that was not pathological, that was
balanced and symbiotic. If a modern diet has an unbalancing effect on our
bodies, it must follow that whatever parasites are inhabiting us would be
knocked out of balance also. So one way of `dealing' with parasites, and this is
the one I advocate, is eating traditional foods – excluding grains and large
amounts of sugars (that includes fruit sugars, honey, maple syrup etc.), foods
that knock our bodies out of balance, and are the foundation of this culture
that knocks everything alive out of balance.

Still, there are parasites that the indigenous people of this land would get
very sick from. Like, say, trichinosis – a parasite that inhabits the flesh
(skeletal muscle tissue, specifically) of omnivores (bear, raccoon, seal, cat
etc..), sometimes fatal to humans when ingested, hence warnings to always cook
the meat of such creatures very well, while the meat of herbivores is commonly
eaten rare or raw totally safely.

Many cultures had/have strict taboos against eating bear, likely related in part
to trichinosis. Others had taboos against eating bear flesh (where the parasites
are), but would still hunt bears for their fat, which would be rendered (cooked)
for storage anyways. Yet Bears, raccoons, cougars, wolves and sea lions,
incredible, powerful, amazing creatures, live amazing lives while inhabited by
trichinosis. Like us, they are omnivores, but something allows them to live
amazing lives with trichinosis while we, even if healthy, get sick or die….

Slicing up salmon to dry a couple weeks ago, pulling stringy anasakis worms out
of their flesh, still alive, a friend and I discussed what we should do about
all of these parasites in our food? Why not cook it all? Cause cooking meat (red
meat in particular) causes it to become carcinogenic, way less digestible – and
not as storeable. Eating cooked meat you are guaranteed to be ingesting
something that is in some way bad for you, whereas eating it raw, you are
guaranteed that you are eating something good for you, that humans have eaten
forever, that *may* give you parasites, which might not affect you in a bad way,
depending on the creature you are eating and your health in general. Freezing is
a good option if you really want to reduce you chances of infestation, that is
if it's below freezing outside, or you live with electricity. I don't, and,
eventually, humans won't, so it isn't a long term solution. I jokingly said to
my friend: `we could just microwave it all, I bet that would kill the
parasites!' And it's true, it would – in fact until all of this earth, and our
bodies, have been irradiated, parasites will continue inhabiting us – they are
everywhere – and we will continue seeing only a tiny glimpse of what they are,
as part of who we are."




Geoff

There's a newish forum for french-language-speaking rawpalaeodieters on this
site:-

http://paleocru.webatu.com/forum/

Geoff

I'm so glad that the US government was blocked from banning raw oysters. If it
had gone through, the very next step would have been legal moves to force
irradiated raw meat on us. Well, so far we've had 2 significant victories:- this
one and the failed attempt, a while back,  by the 5 biggest French producers of
cheese to allow high-quality-labelled cheeses to be sold in pasteurised form.



Geoff








To: rawpaleodiet@yahoogroups.com
From: tironanyc@...
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:54:47 -0800
Subject: Re: [rawpaleodiet] Very disturbing story! Update!





It was a business decision,based not on freedom of choice and the right to live
your life,but a victory(for now) nevertheless.
http://blog.al.com/live/2009/11/raw_oyster_ban_fda_backs_off_p.html(Updated) FDA
backs off raw oyster restrictions after coastal criticismBy The Associated
PressNovember 13, 2009, 1:36PMWASHINGTON -- Facing fierce resistance, the Obama
administration today backed off a plan to ban sales of raw oysters from the Gulf
of Mexico during warm weather.

In a statement, the Food and Drug Administration told lawmakers it will put the
proposal on hold while it studies ways to make consumption of raw oysters more
safe, according to several lawmakers.

The oyster industry -- as well as Democrats and Republicans across the Gulf --
blasted the plan as unnecessary government meddling. They said it could have
killed a $500 million industry and thousands of jobs.

"By reversing course, the FDA has acknowledged that its original plan was
unreasonable and that we need a commonsense approach to protecting the small
number of at-risk consumers," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who said FDA
Commissioner Peggy Hamburg informed her of the decision by telephone.

The move was also welcomed by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, and Rep. Jo
Bonner, R-Mobile. "Clearly, the FDA listened to lawmakers and the Gulf Coast
oyster community in their evaluation of whether or not to proceed with the
implementation of a drastic new requirement that would have had a devastating
impact on the local oyster industry," Bonner said in a statement this afternoon.

Shelby hopes that further study "will produce a result that better balances
illness reduction goals with the economic importance of the oyster community to
the Gulf Coast," a spokesman said in an e-mail.

But a leading food safety advocate saw political pressure at work to the
detriment of public health.

   "Every year that the current policy stays in place, it sentences more
consumers to die from these products," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of
food safety at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public
Interest, which has been lobbying the FDA for years to take a more aggressive
stance on Vibrio.

She noted, however, that the FDA's statement made no mention of rolling back the
schedule for implementing the added treatment requirements if the agency again
decides that is the right course. FDA spokeswoman Meghan Scott could not
immediately say this afternoon when a decision will come.

    About 15 people die each year in the United States from raw oysters infected
with Vibrio vulnificus, which typically is found in warm coastal waters between
April and October. Most of the deaths occur in people with weak immune systems
caused by health problems like liver or kidney disease, cancer, diabetes, or
AIDS.

The oyster industry has been working with regulators for years to improve its
safety performance by increasing refrigeration and trying to raise awareness of
the hazards to people with weak immune systems.

But the FDA says the results haven't changed much.

The FDA proposal -- which had been slated to go into effect in 2011 -- would
have prohibited sales of raw oysters from the Gulf for much of the year unless
the shellfish were treated to destroy bacteria.

The Gulf region supplies about two-thirds of U.S. oysters, and some people in
the industry argue that anti-bacterial procedures such as pasteurization and
irradiation are too costly. They also say the processes ruin the fresh taste and
texture of raw oysters, considered a delicacy by many.

(Press-Register Washington Bureau Reporter Sean Reilly contributed to this
report.
By The Associated PressNovember 13, 2009, 1:36PMWASHINGTON -- Facing fierce
resistance, the Obama administration today backed off a plan to ban sales of raw
oysters from the Gulf of Mexico during warm weather.

In a statement, the Food and Drug Administration told lawmakers it will put the
proposal on hold while it studies ways to make consumption of raw oysters more
safe, according to several lawmakers.

The oyster industry -- as well as Democrats and Republicans across the Gulf --
blasted the plan as unnecessary government meddling. They said it could have
killed a $500 million industry and thousands of jobs.

"By reversing course, the FDA has acknowledged that its original plan was
unreasonable and that we need a commonsense approach to protecting the small
number of at-risk consumers," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who said FDA
Commissioner Peggy Hamburg informed her of the decision by telephone.

The move was also welcomed by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, and Rep. Jo
Bonner, R-Mobile. "Clearly, the FDA listened to lawmakers and the Gulf Coast
oyster community in their evaluation of whether or not to proceed with the
implementation of a drastic new requirement that would have had a devastating
impact on the local oyster industry," Bonner said in a statement this afternoon.

Shelby hopes that further study "will produce a result that better balances
illness reduction goals with the economic importance of the oyster community to
the Gulf Coast," a spokesman said in an e-mail.

But a leading food safety advocate saw political pressure at work to the
detriment of public health.

   "Every year that the current policy stays in place, it sentences more
consumers to die from these products," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of
food safety at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public
Interest, which has been lobbying the FDA for years to take a more aggressive
stance on Vibrio.

She noted, however, that the FDA's statement made no mention of rolling back the
schedule for implementing the added treatment requirements if the agency again
decides that is the right course. FDA spokeswoman Meghan Scott could not
immediately say this afternoon when a decision will come.

    About 15 people die each year in the United States from raw oysters infected
with Vibrio vulnificus, which typically is found in warm coastal waters between
April and October. Most of the deaths occur in people with weak immune systems
caused by health problems like liver or kidney disease, cancer, diabetes, or
AIDS.

The oyster industry has been working with regulators for years to improve its
safety performance by increasing refrigeration and trying to raise awareness of
the hazards to people with weak immune systems.

But the FDA says the results haven't changed much.

The FDA proposal -- which had been slated to go into effect in 2011 -- would
have prohibited sales of raw oysters from the Gulf for much of the year unless
the shellfish were treated to destroy bacteria.

The Gulf region supplies about two-thirds of U.S. oysters, and some people in
the industry argue that anti-bacterial procedures such as pasteurization and
irradiation are too costly. They also say the processes ruin the fresh taste and
texture of raw oysters, considered a delicacy by many.

(Press-Register Washington Bureau Reporter Sean Reilly contributed to this
report.

--- On Mon, 11/9/09, geoffp0115 <geoffpurcell@...> wrote:

From: geoffp0115 <geoffpurcell@...>
Subject: [rawpaleodiet] Very disturbing story
To: rawpaleodiet@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, November 9, 2009, 9:31 AM



Here's an article, below, about the FDA trying to destroy the
raw-oyster-industry out of sheer stupidity, all in the name of the ghastly
health and safety.If you're in Florida, please, please send lobbying letters to
your local politicians and try to stop this nonsense. There is a mention of some
politicians looking to block this bill in some way.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





_________________________________________________________________
View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

hi/ i'm in this diet about couple of months now. i love this.



       New Email names for you!
Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.
Hurry before someone else does!
http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/aa/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It was a business decision,based not on freedom of choice and the right to live
your life,but a victory(for now)
nevertheless. http://blog.al.com/live/2009/11/raw_oyster_ban_fda_backs_off_p.htm\
l(Updated) FDA backs off raw oyster restrictions after coastal criticismBy The
Associated PressNovember 13, 2009, 1:36PMWASHINGTON -- Facing fierce resistance,
the Obama administration today backed off a plan to ban sales of raw oysters
from the Gulf of Mexico during warm weather.

In a statement, the Food and Drug Administration told lawmakers it will put the
proposal on hold while it studies ways to make consumption of raw oysters more
safe, according to several lawmakers.

The oyster industry -- as well as Democrats and Republicans across the Gulf --
blasted the plan as unnecessary government meddling. They said it could have
killed a $500 million industry and thousands of jobs.

"By reversing course, the FDA has acknowledged that its original plan was
unreasonable and that we need a commonsense approach to protecting the small
number of at-risk consumers," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who said FDA
Commissioner Peggy Hamburg informed her of the decision by telephone.

The move was also welcomed by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, and Rep. Jo
Bonner, R-Mobile. "Clearly, the FDA listened to lawmakers and the Gulf Coast
oyster community in their evaluation of whether or not to proceed with the
implementation of a drastic new requirement that would have had a devastating
impact on the local oyster industry," Bonner said in a statement this afternoon.

Shelby hopes that further study "will produce a result that better balances
illness reduction goals with the economic importance of the oyster community to
the Gulf Coast," a spokesman said in an e-mail.

But a leading food safety advocate saw political pressure at work to the
detriment of public health.

  "Every year that the current policy stays in place, it sentences more
consumers to die from these products," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of
food safety at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public
Interest, which has been lobbying the FDA for years to take a more aggressive
stance on Vibrio. 

She noted, however, that the FDA's statement made no mention of rolling back the
schedule for implementing the added treatment requirements if the agency again
decides that is the right course. FDA spokeswoman Meghan Scott could not
immediately say this afternoon when a decision will come.

   About 15 people die each year in the United States from raw oysters infected
with Vibrio vulnificus, which typically is found in warm coastal waters between
April and October. Most of the deaths occur in people with weak immune systems
caused by health problems like liver or kidney disease, cancer, diabetes, or
AIDS.

The oyster industry has been working with regulators for years to improve its
safety performance by increasing refrigeration and trying to raise awareness of
the hazards to people with weak immune systems.

But the FDA says the results haven't changed much.

The FDA proposal -- which had been slated to go into effect in 2011 -- would
have prohibited sales of raw oysters from the Gulf for much of the year unless
the shellfish were treated to destroy bacteria.

The Gulf region supplies about two-thirds of U.S. oysters, and some people in
the industry argue that anti-bacterial procedures such as pasteurization and
irradiation are too costly. They also say the processes ruin the fresh taste and
texture of raw oysters, considered a delicacy by many.

(Press-Register Washington Bureau Reporter Sean Reilly contributed to this
report.
By The Associated PressNovember 13, 2009, 1:36PMWASHINGTON -- Facing fierce
resistance, the Obama administration today backed off a plan to ban sales of raw
oysters from the Gulf of Mexico during warm weather.

In a statement, the Food and Drug Administration told lawmakers it will put the
proposal on hold while it studies ways to make consumption of raw oysters more
safe, according to several lawmakers.

The oyster industry -- as well as Democrats and Republicans across the Gulf --
blasted the plan as unnecessary government meddling. They said it could have
killed a $500 million industry and thousands of jobs.

"By reversing course, the FDA has acknowledged that its original plan was
unreasonable and that we need a commonsense approach to protecting the small
number of at-risk consumers," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who said FDA
Commissioner Peggy Hamburg informed her of the decision by telephone.

The move was also welcomed by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, and Rep. Jo
Bonner, R-Mobile. "Clearly, the FDA listened to lawmakers and the Gulf Coast
oyster community in their evaluation of whether or not to proceed with the
implementation of a drastic new requirement that would have had a devastating
impact on the local oyster industry," Bonner said in a statement this afternoon.

Shelby hopes that further study "will produce a result that better balances
illness reduction goals with the economic importance of the oyster community to
the Gulf Coast," a spokesman said in an e-mail.

But a leading food safety advocate saw political pressure at work to the
detriment of public health.

  "Every year that the current policy stays in place, it sentences more
consumers to die from these products," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of
food safety at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public
Interest, which has been lobbying the FDA for years to take a more aggressive
stance on Vibrio. 

She noted, however, that the FDA's statement made no mention of rolling back the
schedule for implementing the added treatment requirements if the agency again
decides that is the right course. FDA spokeswoman Meghan Scott could not
immediately say this afternoon when a decision will come.

   About 15 people die each year in the United States from raw oysters infected
with Vibrio vulnificus, which typically is found in warm coastal waters between
April and October. Most of the deaths occur in people with weak immune systems
caused by health problems like liver or kidney disease, cancer, diabetes, or
AIDS.

The oyster industry has been working with regulators for years to improve its
safety performance by increasing refrigeration and trying to raise awareness of
the hazards to people with weak immune systems.

But the FDA says the results haven't changed much.

The FDA proposal -- which had been slated to go into effect in 2011 -- would
have prohibited sales of raw oysters from the Gulf for much of the year unless
the shellfish were treated to destroy bacteria.

The Gulf region supplies about two-thirds of U.S. oysters, and some people in
the industry argue that anti-bacterial procedures such as pasteurization and
irradiation are too costly. They also say the processes ruin the fresh taste and
texture of raw oysters, considered a delicacy by many.

(Press-Register Washington Bureau Reporter Sean Reilly contributed to this
report.

--- On Mon, 11/9/09, geoffp0115 <geoffpurcell@...> wrote:

From: geoffp0115 <geoffpurcell@...>
Subject: [rawpaleodiet] Very disturbing story
To: rawpaleodiet@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, November 9, 2009, 9:31 AM
















 











Here's an article, below, about the FDA trying to destroy the
raw-oyster-industry out of sheer stupidity, all in the name of the ghastly
health and safety.If you're in Florida, please, please send lobbying letters to
your local politicians and try to stop this nonsense. There is a mention of some
politicians looking to block this bill in some way.





















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here's an article, below, about the FDA trying to destroy the
raw-oyster-industry out of sheer stupidity, all in the name of the ghastly
health and safety.If you're in Florida, please, please send lobbying letters to
your local politicians and try to stop this nonsense. There is a mention of some
politicians looking to block this bill in some way.

Anyway, it's a real warning-sign. Given the previous attempts to ban raw dairy
in some US states, I had real concern that they would start targetting other raw
animal foods.


"Florida oyster advocates fuming over FDA treatment
An upcoming government requirement that raw oysters be treated to eliminate a
potentially deadly bacteria has the industry protesting.
By Roger Bull Story updated at 1:04 AM on Sunday, Nov. 8, 2009

. The federal government has decided that starting in 2011, raw oysters coming
out of the Gulf of Mexico in warm-weather months must be treated before they can
be sold to consumers.

The FDA wants all raw oysters harvested from the Gulf of Mexico during
warm-weather months to be treated to kill bacteria.

Only oysters in the shell would be affected.

Half of all oysters sold are eaten raw.

Two-thirds of all oysters harvested in the U.S. come from the gulf.

About 40 percent of those are harvested during warm-weather months.

Franklin County produces 90 percent of Florida oysters and 5-10 percent of the
nation's.

Only two dealers in the state now treat raw oysters, and one of them said his
freezing method increases the price by 21/2 to 3 times.

Before hunting, there was gathering.

Like an orange hanging on the tree, a raw oyster is one of the most basic of
foods. Reach down and pull it out of the water, open it and eat it. OK, maybe
add a little lemon or hot sauce.

But it may soon not be that simple. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has
decided that starting in 2011, raw oysters coming out of the Gulf of Mexico
during warm-weather months must be treated before they can be sold to consumers.

They call it post-harvest-processing (PHP for short) and there are several
methods - freezing, pressure, radiation - to kill vibrio vulnificus, a bacteria
that occurs naturally in warm coastal waters and is more prevalent in the
summer. But it can be fatal to people with liver disease, diabetes or other
problems.

The bacteria causes about 30 people a year to get sick from eating raw gulf
oysters and half of those die. And it's the reason that warnings about eating
raw seafood are printed on menus everywhere.

The FDA's plan would apply only to oysters still in the shell because while
shucked oysters sold in pints and gallons are still raw, it's assumed they'll be
cooked before eaten. The FDA hasn't been specific about what it considers
warm-weather months, but discussions so far have indicated it would start in
April or May and end in October.

That would loosely correspond to the old, unofficial tenet to eat oysters only
in months with an "R." And though oyster sales are better in cool months, 40
percent of oysters harvested in the gulf are during warm months.

The FDA would not talk to the Times-Union despite repeated requests, but the
move has already drawn a storm of protest. Charles Bronson, Florida commissioner
of agriculture, wrote a letter to the FDA on Wednesday objecting. On Thursday,
Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., Mary Landrieu, D-La., and David Vitter, R-La.,
announced a bill to stop the FDA's plan.

But nowhere is the outrage greater than in Franklin County, the small Panhandle
county where 90 percent of the state's oysters are brought up by hand and tong
from the bottom of Apalachicola Bay. More than 20 percent of the county's 11,200
population work either in harvesting, shucking or shipping oysters.

"We're all upset about it," said Beverly Hewitt, owner of the Apalachicola
Seafood Grill, a gathering spot at the center of the historic small town. "We
had a emergency county commission meeting. This is going to kill Apalachicola."

Tommy Ward, who runs Buddy Ward and Sons Seafood, the company his father started
in Apalachicola in 1957, said it would cost him about $1 million to set up a PHP
plant.

"We have to shut down in the summer," he said. "It'd wipe out the whole county."

Besides not being able to afford $1 million, Ward said that treated oysters
simply don't sell very well.

"They're on the market now," he said. "But the customers don't accept them."

Ahead of the curve

Grady Leavins, who's been in the oyster business in Apalachicola for 38 years,
is one of the few seafood dealers in the state who already treats oysters. His
PHP plant freezes them at minus 130 degrees with liquid nitrogen and sells them
on the half shell.

Sales are good, he said, and increasing. But they're still only 5 to 7 percent
of his total oyster sales, which are running about 400,000 pounds a week right
now and will go up to 600,000 in another month.

Leavins sees himself as ahead of the curve.

"I knew that it was the thing that was going to be done," he said. "Are we
making money? Yes. Have we gotten our investment back? I don't know, but anytime
you do something like this, it's a long-term thing."

The treated oysters cost 2? to 3 times more than untreated and are sold to
oyster bars and restaurants.

"They're for the people who want a traditional oyster," he said, "but have a
compromised immune system."

And that's one of the things that bothers those in the oyster business the most:
People should know when they should avoid the oysters.

"The biggest thing is cirrhosis of the liver from alcoholism," Leavins said.
"I'm a high-risk person; I'm a diabetic. So I don't eat them in the summer."

Caught by surprise

Kevin Begos, executive director of the Franklin County Oyster & Seafood Task
Force, said that he and the rest of the industry had been working with the FDA
for two years on improved refrigeration controls. Two days before they were to
leave for a shellfish conference, they started hearing rumors about the more
severe restrictions.

"It was a tremendous surprise," he said. "They flew in one of their top
officials and said, 'We're going to do this.'

"They hadn't talked to anyone, they hadn't any economic impact studies. One of
the things that upsets us is that we think we've done a good job protecting our
resources here. Now the FDA is saying, 'We don't care what you've done.' "

"I think it's a darn shame," said Leavins, who's a member of the Gulf Oyster
Industry Council. "We were doing everything that we agreed to do, that they
asked us to do."

On the half shell

Late Thursday afternoon, as the sky was darkening and a cool wind came in from
the ocean, Victoria Franklin and her daughter Jacquelyn Ingram sat at Bukkets in
Jacksonville Beach, each with a dozen raw oysters sitting it front of them.

Franklin grew up in Pensacola, lives in Atlanta and has been eating raw oysters
all her life. A little bit of salt, horseradish, hot sauce and a cracker.

She said she's not much interested in anything frozen or radiated.

"They just need to be fresh," she said.

Leavins said his quick-freezing, liquid-nitrogen method has no effect on the
taste and little effect on the texture.

"I've had a panel of people who are supposed to be experts," he said. "I've put
the same oyster, treated and untreated, side by side and they couldn't tell the
difference."

Bonnie Belchoir, owner of Bukkets, said that she bought some frozen once - she
didn't know where they came from - but didn't like them.

"They had no taste," she said, "and we couldn't sell them."

Marci Juskowsi owns Oyster Co-op in Orange Park with her husband, Danny. They'll
sell about 1,800 bushels a week to seafood stores and restaurants in the area
this time of year. That's about 27,000 dozen oysters.

She's tried a couple of treated oysters, too. And she's not impressed.

"Pasteurized oysters have a nasty taste," she said. "Frozen oysters aren't bad;
they just have a different texture."

And back in Apalachicola, Hewitt is still mad.

"Even in July," she said, "I went through 150 pounds of oysters on the half
shell every day. And not one person got sick."

roger.bull@...,"

http://jacksonville.com/business/2009-11-08/story/florida_oyster_advocates_fumin\
g_over_fda_treatment_0

Geoff