We're a certified organic company

Authentic Organics From Local Cottage Producers

You have no items in your shopping cart.
RSS

Blog

The reasons why the latest research supports that juicing is overratted?

Nourishing Our Children is a non-profit, educational initiative of the Weston A. Price Foundation established to address the dramatic deterioration in the health of our children. Sandra Perez has summarized the latest research on juicing.

Among some of the main points are that:

  • Juice is not a whole food and fruit comes in whole form for a range of reasons
  • Juice removes the important component of fibre and polyphenols which act as anti-oxidants and which are neccessary for good gut bacteria
  • Juicing fruit contains as much as 4 or 5 times more fructose sugar than eating one serving of a piece of fruit. The sugars are meant to be within the cells of the fruit and break down more slowing through natural digestion. Fruit should be eaten more sparingly with emphasis on vegetables.
  • Many vegetables are difficult and even harmful to digest in their raw state (especially high oxalate and goitragens in vegetables such as brocoli, spinach and green leafy vegetables) because they contain toxins that interfere with thyroid function and digestion and can be very harmful to health
  • Many of the vitamins and micronutrients in food are fat-soluble, which means they cannot be absorbed without the presence of adequate fat. That means that if you eat fruits or vegetables without fat, you’ll absorb only a fraction of the nutrients you would absorb if you ate them with fat.
  • “Digestion begins in the mouth when food is mixed with saliva, and some say it starts just from smelling/seeing food. Chewing cues stomach acid production and peristalsis. When someone is only having liquid food they may not send the right signals downstream to start digestion off right. If stomach acid is not released in sufficient amounts food will not get broken down and nutrients won’t be absorbed.”
  • There’s really no strong scientific evidence to support the idea that extracted juices are somehow better for you than eating the whole vegetable itself.
  • kidneys, skin, and urinary system already cleanse our bodies; long-term juicing, is extreme and dangerous, and leads to bad eating habits.“The best way to stay cleansed is to consistently eat organic greens and lots of other veggies, and carefully portioned organic fruit and healthy fats”
  • The softening and loss of tooth enamel caused by the acid in soft drinks leads to decay, fillings and crumbling molars. Frighteningly, Juice from fruits has a high acid content and can damage the enamel of your teeth in exactly the same way that a fizzy drink does.

This is a researched based article worth reading through and taking notice of. Here is the link to the full article.

Source:https://nourishingourchildren.org/2016/01/09/10-reasons-we-dont-recommend-juicing/?fbclid=IwAR0QeUtd1lxWAGmjZhGvwP9A1mRVP5uz21XcWLOXOVRiaHk3QS_NKl-4tmA ,sourced 11.11.2018

There might a 'free lunch', but Is there such a thing as 'FREE DELIVERY'?
You might get a free lunch somewhere from someone, but when you purchase anything online, you are paying for delivery one way or another - it is all in the market speak.Consumers are generally savvy when it comes to purchasing as far as utilizing the info they have available to them. But often the market speak used to get them to purchase or sign up is not the fact of what it claims. The offer of FREE DELIVERY is a little like the term 'ALL NATURAL'...
'All Natural' - it must be healthy? Just ask the false advertising industry!

"The False Advertising Industry" reveals the shocking truth about what is allowed in "Natural" food. Only authentic organic food contains no Genetically Modified Organisms, no toxic pesticides, and no growth hormones or antibiotics. Share the truth with your friends.

What does naturally really mean pic

New research on the 10 most nutritious foods and pork fat is one of them

Healthy eatingpork fat cooked

…in a study published by BBC recently, pork fat has been crowned the eighth most nutritious food on the planet! 

The study   “After analysing more than 1,000 raw foods, researchers ranked the ingredients that provide the best balance of your daily nutritional requirements – and they found a few surprises.”  

Needless to say, pork fat is one of the pleasant surprises as it is more unsaturated and healthier than lamb or beef fat.

Also, it is a good source of B vitamins and minerals, which are vital for our human body.

Read more at WOB: https://www.worldofbuzz.com/fatty-pork-announced-top-10-nutritious-food-world/ 

Here’s the BBC link  http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180126-the-100-most-nutritious-foods

SOURCES

Food selection, ranking and cost based on the scientific study “Uncovering the Nutritional Landscape of Food”, published in the journal PLoS ONE. (Download the dataset).  

Nutritional data based on The United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service’s National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 28.

Nutritional insights from The Encyclopaedia of Food and Health (2016), published by Elsevier Science.

The new food (chemical) economy

Chemical Food System Are we allergic to food or, are we allergic to what is being put in it? It's all about profitability... we don't have a food system in conventional food... we actually have a chemical system - what our grandparents called food, we are calling organic...

This video is a must see if you want to be informed with facts about our 'food (chemical) system' and the dominating artificial ingredients makers who are substituting real food for profits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsBvUF3-rdw

The myth of how the big supermarkets support local community

Woolies and Coles control around 68% of the Australian food chain. This means the profits end up not in local communities, small farming towns, or in local producers or manufacturers pockets. The hegemony these monopolies have on markets affect local communities in ways that attack the very fabic of them. Here are the benefits of Coles and Woolies in our communities:

  • the CEOs of Woolies and Coles for example are on salary bases exceeding $4.5m each
  • people go to the convenience of one place so small business suffers
  • small local businesses find they have to also buy from other larger suppliers, not small local suppliers in order to compete - this hurts other small businesses
  • many small local shops close within one year of a Coles or Woolies opening in their area
  • most remaining small buisiness lose half or more of their turnover not because of being more expensive, but because supermarkets offer the one-stop
  • false advertising and promolgation of non-Australian products becomes the norm whilst consumers are duped into thinking they are buying cheaper, when much of what they are buying is inferior and not what the label says or doesn't say it is
  • small businesses are forced to put off up to 90% of their local staff whilst Coles and Woolies promise local jobs
  • supermarkets create a false and umbalanced economy profit structure which damages and thins out supply choices, thus controls choices and pricing
  • in order to mass produce for a controlled market, foods and packaging required lots of chemicals and harmful inputs affecting ecology, people and communities
  • supermarkets service is so good that consumers get to pack their own bags for free and communicate with a POS unit with 'please scan your flybuys card'; banter

What are local communities really losing?

According to Tom Ballard these:

  1. lose- economic stablility
  2. lose - community integrity
  3. lose - singular identity of rural and regional towns

But the cities don't need to feel left out either becuase this all happens the same only on a much larger scale!

So by rejecting these monopolies and supporting lcoal cottage growers, you are supporting your community, and creating a sustainable and happier connected society, not the other way around as Coles and Woolies would have you think!

 

 

Some say 'Cacao' - some say 'Cocoa'.

Hey what is the difference between CACAO and COCOA? Well in true raw form? Nothing! by Terry Boyle (MA App Ling)

 raw cacao powderCacao beans drying on rooforganic raw cacao-cocoa beans

In language use: Hispanic speakers use CACAO and COCOA interchangably since 1700s because it derived from their native linguistic roots. CACAO is the right or at least, the 'original' spelling and use... Theobroma cacao is the botanical name of the plant. Until the raw food movement, in  English-speaking countries, since the late 1700s, all cacao powder on the market was referred to as cocoa powder. Essentially, it is the same product as the RAW product in keeping with the original usage. i.e. the RAW CACAO is the RAW COCOA and they were/are, so long as RAW, the same product! This is linguistic fact as many language experts explain, there was a transition in the term which was referring to the exact same thing viz, the stuff from the CACAO/COCOA TREE - actually, Johnson's dictionary published the word 'COCO' next to the word 'COCOA' in the 1788 and there has been confusion ever since. And with the introduction of the 'Coco' brand, the processed product, which is heated, more confusion has arisen. Hence a tree produces RAW COCOA or RAW CACAO whatever you wanted to call it be you an Englishman or a Native! But the product Coco, which is also spelt as COCOA is not RAW. It is processed. Are you getting it yet? That RAW COCOA is RAW CACAO, but just 'COCOA' is the processed stuff! The market-speak via the health industry has exploited the use of the more exotic-sounding form of original word CACAO...

...herein lies the beginning of the issue that has become confusing. It started with the introduction of a process to extract the fat from the bean nib to make CACAO/COCOA BUTTER. All cocoa/cacao powder was RAW until now (depending on which term was interchangibly used) when it became distinguished as either alkalized (Dutch-processed) or non-alkalized. The cacao solids (they now call cocoa that are left in the process of making cacao butter are critical in the making of fine chocolate) - basically, the cocoa is the de-fatted nib of the plant. Now, today this is what COCOA AKA COCO means. But this stuff is not RAW COCOA or RAW CACAO (which are the same thing) neither now or then has it ever been so. Of course, no puritan of linguistics could deny these transitions as anything unusual, because language is a living thing and changes, but the marketers are also experts and the new meaning turns out great if promoting the old exotic original word CACAO to sell stuff (you know the raw Cacao/Cocoa the unprocessed stuff from the same tree). It kind of all just worked together to undermine the word 'COCOA' and its association now not so much with a tree, but a processed product. Now it is no longer interchangeable as a term. But it don't change the fact that RAW COCOA IS RAW CACAO, or that COCOA (or COCO) is not RAW and is not either of those!

Manufacturers of health products have usurped the original spelling of the word i.e. 'CACAO', in an attempt to distinguish their products from products which use roasted cacao beans (i.e. cacao powder now called 'cocoa' because it is no longer raw, but processed, it is the stuff that makes chocolate and drinks etc). But the lines as explained above became blurry as the trends in dieting co-mingled with trends in marketing and trends in semantic meaning. And as COCOA is now associated with the processed rubbish, it is easy to see the change is here to stay. But you don't get the same money for RAW COCOA because the word 'COCOA' is used. Now, you get three times the dollars because of the terms 'CACAO' (which is RAW COCOA!) Get it yet?

So, it is all about money and marketing of the exotic! You get a lot more for CACAO than COCOA because of the exploitation of the name! The bottom line is that RAW CACAO and RAW COCOA are the same thing, originally, linguistically and semantically and were interchangably used by locals - they were just simply 'cacao' and 'cocoa' because Europeans pronounced this bean-producing tree itself differently. However, the product COCOA/COCO is not raw - it has been processed at a higher heat to remove the butter components as mentioned already, and is inferior in nutritional and antioxidant benefits to the bean in its RAW state from the CACAO/COCOA TREE!  I am happy to buy RAW COCOA then because it is RAW CACAO. But I ain't buying no COCO OR COCOA, cause that stuf ain't raw!

I am now not sure if this is worth knowing...