This Just In – Study Proves that 9 out of 10 Studies Mean Nothing!

In case you haven’t noticed, or this is the first OLM article you’ve read this month, this issue is primarily about studies. Many people rely on studies to tell them what they should and shouldn’t eat, drink, smoke, and purchase. People aren’t in tune with their bodies. People aren’t listening. They seem to have lost their common sense.

Do you need a study to tell you that it’s not good for you to drink a whole bottle of wine? Hopefully not. What about one glass? If you truly listen to your body, you’ll know if and how much that glass affected you. The signs are usually subtle, but they are there. We’ve spent so long ignoring our bodies that we are dependent on “experts” to tell us what we should already know—just by paying attention.

The following pages take a look at the studies involving milk, chocolate, red wine, and coffee, four foods the media now tells us are health foods. We, at OLM, do not consider them to be healthy, though our editor-in-chief admits he’s a “chocoholic,” and he also enjoys a glass of red wine every now and then.

The proceeding articles were not written to “convince” you to give up chocolate, milk, alcohol, or coffee. That’s up to you. We’re just looking at the so-called “expert studies” in a discerning manner and stating our opinions. Your opinion is your own, but we hope you will see the fallacy in relying on “experts” and their studies to tell you how to live.

Is Milk Good For You?

For the purposes of this article, unless otherwise stated, when we say milk we mean pasteurized, homogenized, conventional cow’s milk.

While I have yet to see an actual study that proves milk is good for you, there are countless studies out there that state that calcium is good for you and you can get it by drinking milk. This is true. Statements such as this sum it up perfectly: “Indeed, it is impossible in a diet based on conventional foods to obtain adequate intakes of calcium if milk and dairy products are not consumed.”1

They’re correct. But consider a conventional diet: microwaved dinners, cereal, and frozen vegetables at best. Maybe a salad made with pre-packaged iceberg lettuce, a few pieces of romaine lettuce, some shredded carrots and Hidden Valley ranch salad dressing when it’s supper time. With the soda most Americans drink, which leaches minerals including calcium from the body in order to keep the blood’s PH at 7.4, it’s no wonder milk can do a body good. So does this mean milk is good for you?

Most alternative health care practitioners and a growing number of conventional doctors say “no”. They know milk is a major source of allergen in people, especially children. Okay, so maybe a more realistic statement would be, “Milk is good for you, unless you are one of the millions who are allergic or intolerant.” On the other hand, milk allergy or not, on the holistic side of health, it’s not uncommon to have relief from other allergies when one stops consuming milk. In fact, most alternative health care practitioners will tell you before you do anything else, “Stop consuming dairy and refined sugars!”

There are so many studies. Some say milk may make you fat2, while others claim milk helps you lose weight. Some studies state that milk can help prevent heart disease3 while others claim the opposite is true4.

Many people advocate drinking raw milk, which is unpasteurized and non-homogenized. We at OLM are not fans of pasteurization or homogenization at all. And milk does contain a wide variety of vitamins and minerals and very easily assimilable protein. Some argue that it is not at all easy for humans to absorb the calcium from cow’s milk, but others say that you can if it’s raw.

So what’s our take on the milk issue? Cows have four stomachs. Humans have one. Raw cow’s milk from a healthy cow is a much better choice than the homogenized and pasteurized varieties, but there is still some minor risk of food poisoning (though if the cow and the human ingesting the milk are healthy, the risk is extremely low). This is what confuses many. “Healthy” and “Safe” are not the same things. Raw milk, provided it is not tainted with e-coli, is healthier than pasteurized milk. But the pasteurization of milk does make it safer to consume. For health, raw sheep’s milk is a better choice, and raw human milk is the best. Isn’t it silly that the idea of human milk is disgusting to many people, yet cow’s milk is the norm? Come on, guys, would you rather suck on a cow’s udder, or… Well, you know.

So how do you get enough calcium? You may have heard us say this before: At least 80% of your diet should be raw fresh fruits and vegetables, mostly vegetables. And if you want to get more vitamin D, we recommend sunlight.

If you are an animal lover, there is also the animal cruelty issue to consider when evaluating milk as a part of your diet. The intensive dairy practices for milking cows for any type of milk significantly reduce the animal’s lifespan. If you’re considering giving up cow’s milk all together and need a little extra push, check out the video on the right and this website for some more information.

Organic or not, a dairy cow’s life is not a pretty picture.

Editor’s Note:

As a child I was sick regularly. I had many allergies and other health issues. Eliminating milk made a huge difference in my quality of life. The last time I drank a glass of milk, years ago, it immediately made me feel terrible.

Is Chocolate Good For You?

Almost all of the recent studies on the health benefits of chocolate that we came across were positive. Findings ranged from improved function of cells to lower blood pressure.¹ Chocolate is touted as a superfood by some, but this doesn’t mean you should go out and buy Hershey’s chocolate by the box. First and foremost, all of the studies we found suggesting health benefits from consuming chocolate were related to dark chocolate1 ², not milk chocolate. Also, flavanols are the antioxidant that many researchers believe are responsible for much of chocolate’s health benefits, and it should be noted that manufacturers often remove the healthy element – the flavanols – because of their bitter taste.³

An addition, the sugar in chocolate is cause for concern. The study,Can a daily bar of chocolate cause brittle-bone disease?, states the following: “The researchers believe the findings may be because chocolate contains oxalate, which can reduce calcium absorption, and sugar, which is linked to calcium excretion.” ³

Editor’s Note

I must admit, I love chocolate. I eat chocolate on a regular basis. But I always make sure it’s fair trade, organic chocolate and I prefer to find it sweetened with a healthier sweetener like sugar cane juice, or maltitol. I would not venture to say that chocolate is good for you. I know it has some health benefits, but overall, it is not something that makes me feel healthier after I consume it. But if it’s organic, sweetened in a healthier way, and not consumed too often, I don’t think it’s a cause for concern.

Is Red Wine Good For You?

Resveratrol is a natural antioxidant found in the skin of red grapes. Many studies suggest that resveratrol is the reason for the French paradox, the observation that the French suffer considerably low incidence of heart disease, while enjoying a diet rich in of saturated fats. While we at OLM have our own theory as to why the French do not suffer from high incidence of heart disease, that’s another article.

There are two common types of studies supporting red wine consumption. One kind is where animals and/or humans are given resveratrol, not actual red wine. Red wine consumption is said to “possibly” reduce chances of coronary heart disease,1 fight diabetes,2 aid in weight loss,3 prevent prostate cancer,4 kill pancreatic cancer,5 increase one’s lifespan,6 and more. But with the many studies claiming resveratrol has these benefits, note the usual little bit of “fine print” that reads something to the effect, “Researchers warn that you would have to drink three liters of red wine a day in order to receive the benefits of…” (this is not an actual quote, but the messages are similar).

The other kind of studies that lead us to believe red wine may be good for us are statistical correlation studies, or epidemiology. These studies will say things such as, “Among men who consumed four or more 4-ounce glasses of red wine per week, we saw about a 60 percent lower incidence of the more aggressive types of prostate cancer.”7 Consider the problems with such studies, specifically in the case of red wine. A person who drinks one to two glasses of red wine a day, typically no more, no less, is an individual who generally shows restraint, has refined taste, and is likely to be more affluent than the average person. This individual could be healthier than the average person who doesn’t drink alcohol at all due to multiple factors. I would venture to guess that the average single malt scotch drinker is healthier than the average Budweiser drinker. Does this mean that Scotch is healthier? Maybe, maybe not. Does this mean that Scotch is healthy? Certainly not.

And then there are other studies that suggest red wine is not all it’s touted to be.8 It’s interesting to note that some research indicates one or two glasses of red wine a day may prevent cancer, other research tells us the opposite is likely true.9

So is red wine good for you? OLM believes that alcohol is not good for you, period. In some cases the ends justify the means, such as the alcohol content in tinctures, which are used as herbal remedies, but we do not recommend consuming red wine. If resveratrol and/ or other antioxidants are what you seek, seek elsewhere. There are better and more natural ways of getting them—like eating grapes.

That said, if you want to enjoy an alcoholic beverage every now and then, provided you do not suffer from Candida, and your health is better than most people’s overall, red wine may be the best choice.

Editor’s Note

I love a good red wine. While I’m picky about the quality, I am not stuck on any one kind, such as cabernet or merlot. I’ve tried many different varieties; I once fancied myself a bit of a connoisseur. But while I still love a nice red on occasion, it has become rarer for me. Why? I am simply too in tune with my body to enjoy things that do not make me feel good. Every now and then, with the right social circumstances, I can turn off that warning in my head, but it’s rare. And even after only one glass, I tend to ask myself, “Was that really worth it?” It just plain doesn’t make me feel good. Well, mentally, yeah, it feels great, at the time of consumption. But physically and mentally, hours later or a day later, even one glass feels makes me feel as though I just abused my body.

Is Coffee Good For You?

One popular study suggests moderate coffee consumption (three to five cups a day) diminishes risks for dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.¹ Another study states coffee has several metabolic effects that could reduce the risk of gallstone formation.² Many coffee advocates speak of enhanced brain function and athletic performance. And perhaps the most common argument for consuming the substance more people are addicted to than any other is its antioxidant content. But not all studies on coffee are positive. There is a study that links coffee consumption to reduced incidents of breast cancer, but also states it may result in shrinking women’s breasts and enlarging men’s breasts if three or more cups are consumed per day.³ While some studies would disagree, many studies suggest diminishing health benefits and increased risk with greater consumption.^4,5 At OLM, we believe there are much better ways to prevent and cure Alzheimer’s disease and dementia than drinking coffee. A healthy diet will prevent these age-related diseases, and chelation therapy can cure them. Gallstones are also a sign of overall poor health and poor diet. Enhanced brain function and athletic performance can be attributed to caffeine intake, but its effects are fleeting. Like any drug, caffeine works great at first, but sooner or later more and more caffeine is required for you to function at the same level. As with any stimulant, you are better off in the long run without it. As far as antioxidants are concerned, if cocaine were high in antioxidants, that wouldn’t make it healthy. While coffee is high in antioxidants,⁶ there are plenty of other ways to get antioxidants. And while studies have suggested that coffee consumption may reduce the risk of heart disease due to the antioxidants, another study suggests that coffee leads to heart disease.⁷ So, is coffee healthy, or unhealthy? One concern we at OLM have is the pH. Coffee is low-acid, with a pH between 4.5 and 6. While citrus juices are significantly more acidic, alternative health practitioners usually tell you coffee has more of an acidifying affect on the body than any fruits or fruit juices. Regardless of the pH level, the most significant concern we have with coffee is the sugar and/or fake sugar, and the cream and/or fake creamer people put into their coffee. There also may be a significant difference between fresh ground bean coffee and instant coffee. While we did not find studies comparing the two and their health benefits, we typically don’t trust refined processed and/or packaged foods.

References:

Editor’s Note

When I drink coffee, I get a headache in the back of my head near my neck and my kidneys hurt almost immediately. I never developed much of a taste for coffee, but I know for a fact that it is not good for me. I also believe that coffee can be very hard on the kidneys causing diarrhea, kidney stones, and urinary tract infections. It’s also bad for your central nervous system (that’s why some people get those headaches). When advising people on their health, I always recommend cutting out coffee. But if you do choose to drink coffee, avoid the junk most people put into it. Drink it black or sweetened with raw sugar.

Monsanto Company Profile part III of IV

Ten to twelve thousand years ago, fertile ground led to the rise of our first civilizations as mankind began the slow shift from full dependence on hunting and gathering food to planting and growing crops. Seed was saved and sowed from year to year. Wild plants become domesticated. We learned to irrigate fields, to maximize production, to feed nations.

In time, we learned to use selective breeding. Selective breeding produced desired traits such as taste, size, drought resistance, and yields. Experience brought us wisdom. We learned the benefits of crop rotation. Knowing rich soil grew healthy, disease resistant crops, we found natural ways to replenish the land.

But famine has always plagued mankind. Famine is caused by many factors—war; over-population; climate shifts including drought, over abundant rainfall, temperature shifts, decreased sunlight; and so on. Though many would argue we have enough food to feed the world, famines continue. A quick look at the history of famine, and the famine conditions that exist today, explains much about the search for solutions.

Beginning in the 1940s, the agricultural technology of industrialized nations – utilizing fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation techniques, and high yield cultivars (new varieties of

grains developed through selective breeding) – was brought to developing nations. Dubbed the “Green Revolution”, these projects created remarkable increases in yields but they also changed the face of traditional farming.

Indian Farmer Suicides

Search anywhere on the net, and you will find story after story blaming Monsanto for alarming suicide rates among poor rural farmers—200,000 or more farmers in India since 1997. The stories claim poor farmers incur debt to purchase Monsanto seeds at 1000 times the conventional price, believing Monsanto’s exorbitant claims that GMO seeds will require little to no pesticide and yield abundant crops, bounties never before seen. These stories also claim GMO seeds require twice the amount of water as conventional seeds. Sold in areas of persistent drought, the crops fail. Farmers, with land now indebted to pay for their inputs of seed, fertilizer, and pesticide, are committing suicide by the thousands, many of them by drinking Monsanto insecticide before they lie down in their fields to die an agonizing death.

Brad Mitchell, Monsanto’s Director of Public Affairs, denies the claim that their seeds are priced at 1000 times the cost of conventional seeds, but admits their cost is higher. “Monsanto’s seeds are based on value,” he says, directing us to information on the company website that explains higher yields and lower inputs justify a higher price tag on GMO seeds. Mitchell also denies the claim that Bt cotton seeds require more water.

Monsanto’s website states, “Bt cotton has been given an unfair reputation when the true culprit is a smorgasbord of repairable socio-economic problems in India. A variety of third-party studies have proven that personal debt is the historical reason behind an Indian farmer’s decision to commit suicide, notbiotech seed. Think about it this way: if Bt cotton were the root cause of suicidal tendencies, then why is it that Indian farmers represent the fastest-growing users of biotech crops in the world? Between 2005 and 2006, India’s adoption of Bt cotton nearly tripled to 9.5 million acres! Today, Bt cotton is currently used in nine states in India on 14.4 million or 63 percent of India’s total cotton acres. So, if the studies don’t disprove the myths relating Bt cotton to Indian farmer suicide, then perhaps the sales figures will.” ¹

Brad Mitchell encouraged us to read an independent study by The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Bt Cotton

and Farmer Suicides in India, Reviewing The Evidence.

The study reaches the conclusion that on a national level there is no “resurgence” of farmer suicide and no correlation to Bt cotton and farmer suicide rates. Overall, national cotton production “appears” to have a positive correlation to Bt cotton; pesticide use is down.

The study reports farmer suicides at the rate of 14,000 to 18,000 per year representing 14-16 percent of India’s total suicides, since 1997. It concludes, “Based on the observed national trend from 1997 to 2006, one can clearly reject the assertion that the growth in suicides has accelerated in the last five years or so. The number of farmer suicides is significant and tends to be growing over time, but so is the total number of suicides in the general population…” They also state, “Yes, farmer suicide is an important and tragic phenomenon, but it still only represents three-quarters of the total number of suicides due to pesticide ingestion in India and less than a fifth of total suicides in India. Moreover, even if there has been an increasing trend in total suicides, the reported share of farmer suicides has in fact been decreasing. Of course, all these conclusions are based on available estimates, which may be underestimated, but without better data, onecannot deny that claim.”

The study also reveals that national trends and regional trends on suicide differ as do reports of success with Bt cotton. At the time of the International Food Policy Research Institute report, Bt cotton was cultivated in more than 10 states across India. Bt seed sold at prices up to 400% higher than conventional seed (down from its original price of 500 times the price of conventional seed), and it promised higher yields with fewer inputs (less need to spray with pesticide). “…Bt cotton is a costly technology compared with non-Bt cotton because of the highly priced seeds. At the same time, some farmers seem to have spent significant amounts on other inputs (fertilizers and so forth) with the planting of Bt cotton, based on the belief that this new technology would result in an extraordinary level of yields in all conditions (even with drought) or on the false perception that high pesticide use was still required. Other farmers seem to have purchased high-cost spurious seeds, thinking the seeds were Bt seeds, but they were duped. Lastly, and more generally, a number of farmers bought Bt seeds without considering the type of Bt variety they were purchasing; therefore they blamed the Bt technology itself, when actually the variety they purchased was inadequate for their conditions.” ²

India’s first Bt cotton was illegally planted. The seed company held responsible, Navbharat, claimed they collected seed from a number of fields to produce a new hybrid seed, not knowing the seed carried Bt genes. Whether Navbharat told the truth and Monsanto’s seeds were already sown across the countryside or the company was lying and knowingly sold Bt cotton seeds to farmers, the fact remains that Monsanto’s Bt cotton entered India illegally, bypassing safety testing protocols and endangering non-GMO crops with contamination. At roughly the same time, a Monsanto subsidiary in Indonesia bribed an Indonesian official to repeal or modify a law that prevented the introduction of Bt cotton without a legally required environmental impact study.

Indian cotton farmers have “adopted the methods at higher rates than anywhere else on the planet with any other technology ever introduced into agriculture,” says Brad Mitchell.

Monsanto is certainly perpetuating the second wave of the “Green Revolution” model which began in the last century, a movement that encourages farmers to adopt non-sustainable agriculture and results in a dependence on companies such as Monsanto for seed and other inputs. More >and more small Indian farmers have moved into non-sustainable cash crop farming, planting one crop instead of many, and relying on that one cash crop to make a profit that will pay for all the family’s needs. As a result, small rural farms in India are on the decline, an all too familiar scenario.

Seed Monopoly

Monsanto, now the largest seed company in the world, has bought out many seed companies across the nation. Critics are crying foul, with fears that Monsanto is gaining a monopoly on the world’s seed supply. Brad Mitchell says, “At present, if we dominate—if you want to use the word dominate – we dominate through innovative not through unfair business practices. People buy our product because they like it, and because they find value in it, not because they have to. I ask every farmer I meet, ‘Do you have choices?’ and he’ll say. ‘Hell yes.’ So that’s out there. I’ve been looking for statistics on this, but my understanding, and I can’t cite it, but the best understanding I can come up with from personal sources is that about 80% of the world’s seed remain open source; that they’re not patented, they’re not hybrid.”

Anti-GMO critics aren’t the only sources concerned that Monsanto now holds a monopoly on the seed supply. Monsanto’s GMO competitor, DuPont, has gone public with the same concerns about a monopoly, though DuPont’s concern is a monopoly within the bio-tech seed industry. ³

Monsanto’s latest seed company acquisitions to make the headlines are two of the largest seed companies in the world. While purchasing an overseas company is not addressed under U.S. anti-trust laws, the greater concern now becomes global dominance.

On March 31, 2008, Monsanto announced its agreement to acquire DeRuiter Seeds, a Dutch company, one of the world’s leading vegetable seed companies. This action followed the acquisition of Seminis in 2007 for 1.4 billion in cash plus assumed debt. Seminis was the world’s largest seed company. Monsanto’s news release stated, “Seminis is the global leader in the vegetable and fruit seed industry and their brands are among the most recognized in the vegetable-and-fruit segment of agriculture. Seminis supplies more than 3,500 seed varieties to commercial fruit and vegetable growers, dealers, distributors and wholesalers in more than 150 countries around the world.” The Organic Seed Alliance reports Seminis controlled 40% of the U.S. vegetable seed market and 20 % of the world market. ⁵

Again, we asked Mr. Mitchell for clarification on the monopoly issue, this time in writing. “What percentage of the world’s marketable seeds is owned by Monsanto (not counting seeds saved by farmers from their own crops)?”

He responded, “Monsanto’s share of the total worldwide seed market is very small. Of the global seed market, it is estimated that greater than 80 percent is ‘open source’ farmer saved seed. So, the commercial seed market is less than 20 percent and Monsanto’s is a fraction of that 20 percent.”

That “fraction” equals 23% of the global proprietary seed market. In 2007, their sales totaled $4,964 million dollars.5

Monsanto is wildly criticized for the fact that farmers are not allowed to save seeds for the next crop. Farmers who purchase GMO seeds enter a contract, fully aware that they will have to buy new seed next season. Yet critics abound, saying this goes against nature, that farmers have always saved seed.

Brad Mitchell reminds us that this is not always true. “You can’t save hybrids. I’m a little perplexed, frankly, by this whole thing about not being able to save seeds, because it’s nothing new. Beyond that, I guess I look out in the marketplace and I’m a home gardener and I have friends who are organic farmers. I’ve yet to hear one of them who can’t get the heirloom seeds they want. I look at catalogs like Johnny Seeds and it doesn’t look to me like all those seed varieties are going away. In fact it seems like Johnny Seeds is growing every year. So I don’t see the evidence of us losing these open source varieties of seed.”

Mr. Mitchell tells us farmers would never save and plant hybrid seeds for a second season as they don’t do well for second generation planting—the farmer doesn’t know what he’s getting.

Hybrid seed is not new to India. The traditional relationship between the famer and his seeds has already been disrupted by the “Green Revolution” and the acceptance of hybrid seeds.

The abundance first realized through petroleum-based fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides has taken its toll on the land itself. “The foundation of all agricultural production is quality soil,” says K. Rashid Nuri, of Truly Living Well Natural Urban Farms. “Conventional agriculture uses soil as simply a receptacle for the roots, and then attempts to add chemical nutrients that plant and soil scientists feel are necessary. These chemicals actually degrade and pollute the environment and do not provide or create life-giving food.”

Lessons we have learned over thousands of years of agriculture are being ignored. Short term gains are realized at the expense of long-term results. It is only through honoring the land itself that we will reap benefits in the long run.

“Farmers who understand agricultural practices holistically,” says Nuri, “realize that all life begins and ends in the soil. Thus, the proper agricultural focus is on building quality soil through application and incorporation of copious amounts of compost and other organic materials. This material feeds the soil and the life found in it. Plants grown in healthy soil that is full of earthworms, fungi and other micro-flora and fauna create an environment that produces healthy, disease resistant plants full of vital nutrients requisite to human health.”

Isn’t it high time we support traditional farming?

Monsanto Part IV (click to read) addresses RoundUp safety and GMOs in Europe as well as other safety issues regarding GMOs

Sources:

Spinach

Spinach is one of the greatest super foods. It is a rich source of Vitamins A, B2, B6, C, E and K; magnesium; manganese; folate; iron; calcium; potassium; folic acid; copper; phosphorous; zinc; niacin; selenium; and omega-3 fatty acids. It contains good levels of protein, is packed with phytonutrients (potent substances that have been shown to fight cancer), and contains lutein, which studies have shown protects against macular degeneration and cataracts. It also contains a carotenoid called neoxanthin, which has been shown to lower incidence of breast cancer in women, and prostate cancer in men. The folate content in spinach is beneficial for protection against heart disease. High levels of folate help neutralize the harmful effects of homocysteine, which raises the risks of both heart disease and stroke. The high levels of calcium and vitamin K can reduce the risk of osteoporosis in women. Spinach is so packed with nutrients, it is highly recommended for pregnant women. It is also a powerful anti-inflammatory, so it is excellent for arthritis sufferers. Though spinach is also a good source of iron, it is nowhere near as good as most people think. This is due to an error made by Dr. E. von Wolf, who originally classified the nutrient value of spinach in 1870. Unfortunately, in his notes he misplaced a decimal point and thus spinach was thought to have 10 times its actual iron content. The mistake wasn’t discovered for 70 odd years. However, iron aside, not many foods can pack all that punch. Spinach is related to chard, beets and sorrel, and comes in many different varieties. If you are lucky enough to live near an Asian supermarket, you should try swamp spinach (also known as kangkong). This variety is just as beneficial as the conventional supermarket ones, but is quite a lot cheaper since it does not need to be cultivated. It comes in big bunches and looks a little like long, thin pak choi. It is eaten all over Asia. The more common varieties you will find in the supermarkets are:

Smooth Flat Leaf

This variety usually comes washed and ready to eat. It is excellent eaten raw in salads and wilted to serve as a garnish.

Semi-Savoy

Crinkly edged yet similar to a light cabbage leaf, this variety lends itself to being used as a side of green vegetables with a meal or tossed into a stir fry at the very last minute for a few seconds.

Savoy

This variety is the hardiest and is best suited for shredding and adding to bold soups such as Ribollita or Pistou. It needs a good washing as the wrinkles in the leaves gather a lot of grit and soil. Whichever type of spinach you use or whatever the dish for which you use it, there is one fundamental basic to using spinach. If you are cooking with it, you must not cook it longer than 20-30 seconds. In restaurants, this is known as “al minuto”, which means “to the minute”. If you don’t exceed this then you will have bright, vibrant, tasty spinach with lots of colour and texture. However, if you cook it for too long you will end up with mushy, bitter-tasting brown sludge that will have all the appeal of tinned spinach! The first recorded instances of spinach being consumed as a vegetable date back to 7th century China, long before it became popular in the courts of Europe. It was particularly popular amongst the Italian aristocracy, Catherine de Medici (the Medicis were a very powerful medieval family in Florence in the Middle Ages) was so fond of spinach that when she married the king of France, she brought her own chefs to cook it the way she liked it. Since then dishes served on a bed of spinach have been known as “a la Florentine.” As far as vegetables go, nutritionally speaking, spinach is hard to beat. Wilted in a wok, in a little olive oil or butter, with black pepper and a little grated nutmeg… what’s not to like?

This Just In – Study Proves that 9 out of 10 Studies Mean Nothing!

Is Milk Good For You?

Editor’s Note:

Is Chocolate Good For You?

Editor’s Note

Is Red Wine Good For You?

Editor’s Note

Is Coffee Good For You?

References:

Editor’s Note

Monsanto Company Profile part III of IV

Indian Farmer Suicides

Seed Monopoly

Recommended Reading:

Sources:

Spinach

Smooth Flat Leaf

Semi-Savoy

Savoy