Seasonal Therapeutics is the first program of its kind in the integrative health care industry, blending cutting edge science and integrative medicine together with the need of the changing seasons. Seasonal Therapeutics will provide you an evidence-based, nature-oriented approach, using diet, nutrients and herbs in combination with mind/body therapeutics.

This seasonal approach will shift the patient care paradigm from one "annual visit" to "seasonal visits", wherein you will have the opportunity to see your patients more and apply the Seasonal Therapeutics concepts, empowering your patients to thrive throughout the year.

Each season is covered in-depth during a one day live event. These full day live events delve into clinical considerations applicable to the season and outlines an integrative approach that can be easily implemented into your practice. 8 CEU credits are available for DCs and NDs for this live event.

Want to learn more about...
 - Implementing seasonal strategies in you practice?
- What you will experience and learn at a one day event?

Join us for this webinar presented by Tieraona Low Dog M.D. on Tuesday, February 12 at 1:00pm.  Dr Low Dog will introduce the concepts of the Spring Seasonal Therapeutics Seminar.  Register now! 

Labels: low dog, seasonal therapeutics, spring, tieraona, webinar

A few of our employees got the chance to go see Joel Salatin a few days ago!  A prolific writer and public speaker, Joel Salatin's main gig is as a family farmer at Polyface Farm. He has taken part in various documentaries like Food Inc and Farmageddon.

He explained that organizing a compost pickup and then using it in your town for growing gardens is only halfway there. Skip the pickup truck! Compost at  your own house!  And what to do with all those food scraps? Feed them to your chickens. He said there was a reason that every house used to have chickens once upon a time. Feed your food scraps to the chickens, and they turn it into eggs and fertilizer for your gardens, thus helping you have fertile ground to grow your own food. Joel said that if every household had their own chickens, there would be no factory farmed egg industry, which would save tons of money and resources.

Joel was nearby our offices in Concord MA to speak at the Fenn School as a part of the Concord Museum's Agriculture Exhibition. It was a fantastic talk, just as lively and challenging as you've come to expect. He opened out minds about what it means to be truly and explained how his "beyond organic" farm works. It was inspirational! Here are a few pictures from the night.

Labels: agriculture, folks this ain't normal, gardening, joel salatin, local

Mark Lynas is a British activist known for being a founding father of the anti-GMO movement in the UK. He built his career writing convincing pieces on GMOs, nuclear technology and global warming; an ambassador for environmentalists. He also has a history of being very well respected by both sides of these important issues.

You may have seen the piece in the NewYorker revealing that he has has completely reversed his opinion on GMOs and went even further in a speech to the Oxford Farming Conference, to apologize for starting the GM movement and any subsequent damage he has done to the pro-GM movement. This news, of course, has shaken the movement spawning comments and critiques from both sides of the fence.

Doug Gurian-Sherman is a plant pathologist and a senior editor at the Union of Concerned Scientists. He has responded to the apology and announcement from Mark Lynas and in-so-doing, sparked quite a debate. Lynas actually responded to his blog post, to which Gurian-Sherman then replied (which can be seen at the bottom of the page linked to above).

Lynas stated that he changed his mind because he "discovered science". The consensus among activists and some environmental scientists is that he still has quite a bit of science for which to answer.  John Vandermeer, professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Michigan, posted at FoodFirst.org. He muses about how, as a science teacher, despite being excited when people "discover science", the issue is not so simple. And further exploration and education will surely reveal the vast complexities of the issue, issues which its possible that Lynas hasn't even begun to grasp, never mind make definitive statements about.

"He has discovered high school biology. Now its time to go to college."

There are a slew of different websites reporting on this story, mostly blogs. The opinions have been all over the place. Some bring concerning scientific studies to the table for discussion, some whisper of conspiracy.

The most troubling statement he made, in our humble opinion is the following summary: "So my conclusion here today is very clear: the GM debate is over. It is finished. We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe..." Any true scientist knows that this statement is weak enough to discredit the rest of what he has to say. Even on-board GM scientists agree that currently available research is limited and that ongoing studies are needed. People seem to speak in general, broad statements about whether GM crops are safe or not, like its so simple. Thats like saying "drugs are safe" without talking about a specific drug. Its not that simple. Every drug is different and needs to be individually evaluated, same goes for GMOs.

The specifics are important, and need to continue to be researched, especially as new GMs are created. In the absence of adequate evidence, Innate Response chooses not to include GMO ingredients in our products. But as far as board statements go, we'd like to make one of our own. Everything that has evolved is a part of the natural ecosystem. Within an ecosystem, everything fits within a specific place. Nature has been around on this planet a lot longer than meddling humans. And when you change the natural order of things, you run the risk of nature self-correcting the problem. The human race would be wise to avoid playing mother nature and becoming that problem.

Labels: genetically, GMOs, lynas, mark, modified, organisms

There has been quite a bit of information in the media surrounding GMOs. Some people champion them as a way to end world hunger and a necessity for modern agriculture. Some, (like us) aren't so sure.  Naysayers fight for labeling, boycotts and in-depth safety research.

This interesting article from Slate raises a different type of concern altogether. Frederick Kaufman urges us to forget about labeling and focus our efforts on what he considers to be the more important matter at hand.

In his sub-title, he tells us: "If the food movement really wants to improve the food supply, it needs to follow the money instead of wasting its time on labels."  Kaufman, the author of "Bet the Farm: How Food Stopped Being Food", tells us his tale of woe from the inside of the genetic modification industry.

He tells us:

"GM foods' effect on health is uncertain, but their effect on farmers, scientists and the marketplace is clear. Some GM foods may be healthy, others not; every genetic modification is different. But every GM food becames dangerous- not to health, but to society- when it can be patented. Right now, the driving force behind the development of new genetic crop modification is the fact that they possess the potential to be enormously profitable... Thats the gist of early American patent law...and the reason why molecular biologists are spiking grapes with jellyfish genes and pulling all-nighters in pursuit of the square tomato." (full article)

He goes on to summarize how patent law and Monsanto's utilization of it, putting pressure on American farmers and ruining the food system.

"The impact of these laws has been enormous.  In essence, plant patent laws created the industrialized food system that the modern food movement rightly decries."

Kaufman tells the story of interesting (potentially beneficial?) GM research that is being done and patented on rice by researchers at UC-Davis, but not being pursued by Monsanto because its not as profitable. Now, arguments like this are difficult because of course, Monsanto, like most companies is for-profit. Why would they pursue potentially less profitable GM options? However, the reason this argument remains compelling is that they are constantly chirping about how GM foods will stop hunger and save lives, just like this rice has the actual potential to do (if deemed safe). 

He summarizes the thrust of the piece in the closing:

"If the goal of the American food movement is to offer an alternative to Big Food, if the goal is to foster small farmers worldwide, to develop better connections between rural and urban environments, and to support sustainable farming techniques- then labeling GM foods, as California's Proposition 37 would have done, will not come anywhere close to doing the job. In order to overhaul the food system, the food movement must think strategically. To the Monsantos of the world, food has become a source of wild profit and a legal construct to be defended at all costs in court. That means the time has come for the food movement to take on patient laws. Instead of tilting at the windmill of food labels, food nonprofits should hire a fleet of I.P. lawyers and send them to Washington to demand reform of the Plant Patent Act. When there's less profit in genetic modification, things will get better for consumers, farmers, and scientist-pretty much everyone except corporate executives."

The article makes for an interesting read. What do you think? Should the food movement focus on GMO labeling so we can make informed decisions or is that the least of our problems? Does Plant Patent Law worry you more?

Labels: farmers, food movement, GMO, monsanto, non-GMO

Turn on the TV and you'll be warned to stay away from everything from sharks to black ice. Anyone else feel like pesticide risks seem to get swept under the rug?  This story, for instance from over a year ago went unnoticed by our staff despite its horrific nature. The report details how 3 women who lived in the same neighborhood gave birth to 3 children, all within a few weeks of each other, all with severe birth defects. What else did these women have in common? They lived near and worked on tomato fields in Florida owned by Ag-Mart Produce, where they were exposed to common pesticides.

One child was born without arms or legs, one with a jaw that wouldn't stay attached to his skull and the last with only one ear, one kidney, no nose, no anus and other issues, who unfortunately died only three days after birth.

Dozens of highly toxic chemicals were sprayed onto the fields where they worked, "... and at least three, the herbicide metribuzin, the fungicide mancozeb, and the insecticide avermectin, are know to be 'developmental and reproductive toxins,' according to the Pesticide Action Network. They are teratogenic, meaning they can cause birth defects." (source)

So the real question is, if these are so toxic to be around, why are we putting them on our food? The tomatoes in question are actually marketed to children.

For safety information on how to handle pesticides when you are pregnant, you can see this page from the American Pregnancy Organization.

Do you feel informed about the risks of herbicides and pesticides?

Labels: chemicals, herbicides, pesticides, pregnancy, tomatoes, toxic