by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) There's nothing more refreshing than standing in a cool, summertime rain shower. Or bathing in the warm sunlight on a crisp spring day. Or inhaling the cool autumn air, fresh with the scent of turning leaves and pine needles. These things — rainwater, sunlight, air — have long been assumed to be not only free, but un-claimable. You can't claim to own the sunlight that falls on my front yard, for example. A corporation can't claim intellectual property ownership over the air that you breathe and demand you pay a royalty for inhaling.

But these days, Jackson County, Oregon says it owns YOUR rainwater, and the county has sentenced a man to 30 days in jail and fined him over $1500, for the supposed "crime" of collecting rainwater on his own property.

The man's name is Gary Harrington, and he owns over 170 acres of land in Jackson County. On that land, he has three ponds, and those ponds collect rainwater that falls on his land. Common sense would say Gary has every right to have ponds with water on his 170 acres of land, but common sense has been all but abandoned in the state of Oregon.

Much like California, Oregon is increasingly becoming a collectivist state. You didn't build that! The government built that! You don't own that! The government owns that! That rainwater that just fell on your land? That's the government's rainwater, and you're going to jail if you try to steal from the government!

That's the explanation from Jackson County officials, who initially granted Harrington "permits" to build ponds back in 2003. Yes, in Oregon you actually need to beg for permission from the government just to have a pond on your own land. But the state of Oregon revoked his permits a few years later, after he had already created the ponds, thus putting Harrington in the position of being a "water criminal" who was "stealing" rainwater from the state.

Tom Paul, administrator of the Oregon Water Resources Department, is an obedient water Nazi. He insists, "Oregon law that says all of the water in the state of Oregon is public water and if you want to use that water, either to divert it or to store it, you have to acquire a water right from the state of Oregon before doing that activity."

What he means, of course, is not that the water is "public" water, but that it's government water. The government owns it, and if you "steal" from the government by, for example, damming up rainwater runoff from your own land, you will go to jail.

Thus, even when rainwater falls on your own property, you don't own it! The government owns it. You didn't build that! The government built that. That's not YOUR land, you only lease it from the King, and by the way, your property tax is due again…

Paul continues, "If you build a dam, an earthen dam, and interrupt the flow of water off of [YOUR OWN] property, and store that water that is an activity that would require a water right permit from us." (http://www.nwpr.org/post/southern-oregon-man-sentenced-jail-time-ille…)

You don't own the rain that falls on your own yard, Oregon insists
The state of Oregon openly admits, on its website, that you don't own the rain water that falls on your land! As stated on Oregon.gov:

Under Oregon law, all water is publicly owned. With some exceptions, cities, farmers, factory owners, and other water users must obtain a permit or water right from the Water Resources Department to use water from ANY source… (http://cms.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/pubs/aquabook_laws.aspx)

That page describes an exception to allow rainwater collection from rooftops, but not from a yard or natural landscape: "Exempt uses of surface water include …collection and use of rainwater from an artificial impervious surface (like a parking lot or a building's roof)…"

So, in other words, if Harrington had paved his fields with asphalt, then collected the rainwater would have been legal in Oregon! But because his fields were natural grasses, shrubs and trees, the rainwater collection was deemed illegal.

Harrington said that he will never stop fighting the government on this issue. As reported in CNS News: "When something is wrong, you just, as an American citizen, you have to put your foot down and say, This is wrong; you just can't take away anymore of my rights and from here on in, I'm going to fight it." (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-sentenced-30-days-jail-col…)

If states claim they own the rain, they may soon claim to own the sunlight, too
Rainwater, it turns out, isn't the only thing that falls on your land. Sunlight also falls on your land. Air resides above it, and minerals below it.

If the state of Oregon already claims to own all the water that falls on your land, what's to stop them from claiming ownership over all the sunlight, too? Imagine a day when the state erects solar panels on your land, but the electricity isn't yours to keep. You still have to pay for it, because the sunlight belongs to the state, get it?

If you erect your own solar panels on your own land, the state could then arrest you and charge you with "stealing" state property. All those photons, you see, belong to the state. Once the state declares sunlight to be "community property," you instantly become a criminal for having solar panels on your house.

State of Oregon declares war on permaculture and sustainable living
Collecting rainwater — and sunlight — are practices taught in sustainable living, permaculture and throughout the green movement. Rainwater capture using ponds and swales is one of the most important strategies for restoring a local landscape. See a good video overview of this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keXhHMmA2Xk

These rainwater capture practices help trees grow more quickly and accelerate the return of animal life to any region. They can even be used to restore a desert to a lush, food-producing forest. Watch these remarkable videos with Geoff Lawton:

http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=C8103CF932330F50C3517F90AD81CBAB
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=566CDDCCEAB4F13F84BD671136D07F10
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=9F5EE67E76B9EEF613327E144B1B9973
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=E6AA432FA7063A24C998BC96C1363A72

See more permaculture videos on the permaculture channel at TV.naturalnews.com:
http://tv.naturalnews.com/Browse.asp?memberid=18014

Capturing rainwater also reduces the burden on groundwater supplies and municipal water systems. Capturing rainwater actually protect aquifers and raises the value of land, which results in higher property tax revenues for the county.

That Jackson County officials actually criminalize permaculture practices is abhorrent to not only the green movement on the left, but also the Libertarians and Constitutionalists on the right. Much like in California, Oregon County officials are lying, power-hungry tyrants who falsely accuse Harrington of "diverting" stream water when, in reality, he was only capturing water that normally flows off his own property and later joins the stream.

"Water law is water law, whether you agree with it or not," said Jackson County Water Master Larry Menteer. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/16/man-disputes-oregon-convictions-…)

In other words, the power of the state is absolute, even if the state departs from the realm of sanity. Importantly, if the state of Oregon can claim ownership over rainwater, what's to stop the state from claiming ownership over the AIR, too?

To clarify: Oregon state bureaucrats are claiming they own the RUNOFF water from rainwater that falls on your own land! Some of the communist-minded critics who are defending state officials in this case are lying and trying to claim this man "dammed a stream," implying it was a stream that ran through his property. That's a lie. All this man did was dam up his own runoff which later dumps into a stream. Thus, he only captures his own rainwater. He takes no water from anywhere else. And when his own ponds are filled, that rainwater overflows directly into the stream where it used to flow before he built his dams.

This practice of capturing rainwater has been used throughout the history of civilization to restore landscapes, preserve soils, grow food and live more sustainably. Do not fall for the disinformation campaigns being waged on this issue by the Oregon communists and socialists who believe no individual has any right to anything.

People who live in cities tend to be collectivists, and collectivists almost universally do not understand the real world, the natural world, the countryside where food is produced. In the country, rainwater capture is a conservation technique. In states like Texas, it is openly encouraged by county and state officials. Counties actually give ranchers tax credits to build large dams that capture rainwater runoff from their own properties.

In Texas, the ponds created from this practice are called "tanks," and these tanks are crucial watering holes for livestock and wildlife alike. When the horrendous fires of 2011 swept through many areas of central Texas, it was these man-made ponds and "tanks" that served as refuge areas for dozens of bird species which fled the fires. So the very same water conservation technique that is encouraged in Texas is criminalized in Oregon, where the mindset there is so deeply infected with the delusions of socialism and even communism that the individual's ownership of his own rainwater isn't even recognized!

What if Oregon claims ownership over the air you breathe?
If the state of Oregon can claim it owns the water that falls on your land, then it can also just as easily claim ownership over the sunlight that falls on your land. But it doesn't stop there: What about the air you breathe?

There is absolutely nothing stopping Oregon — or any other state — from proclaiming air is "state property." If you breathe it, you owe the state money.

The fees will be small at first — perhaps $10 / month — but over time they will be raised to exorbitant levels. It's a state-run shakedown, after all, and once the People become apathetic enough to allow the state to expand its power beyond all reason, there is no limit to the state's desire for total control over everything under the sun… even including the sun and the air!

This is not a difficult matter for the state to achieve. Oregon could simply pass a new law declaring all air that exists within state boundaries to be state property. Those who "divert" air by engaging in activities such as inflating balloons or compressing air and storing it in air tanks would be given stiff jail sentences.

Think this couldn't happen? Think it's too stupid? It's no more stupid than what has already happened — the criminalization of capturing rainwater, a common permaculture practice for sustainable living.

California criminalizes fresh milk; Michigan criminalizes small local ranching; Oregon criminalizes permaculture
Do you see a pattern in all this? As NaturalNews has reported in just the last 18 months:

• California has declared war on small, local fresh milk farmers and distributors (http://www.naturalnews.com/036614_James_Stewart_Ventura_county_raw_mi…).

• Michigan has criminalized small, local ranchers and animal operations (http://www.naturalnews.com/035585_Michigan_farms_raids.html).

• A city in Michigan has also tried to criminalize home gardens (http://www.naturalnews.com/032960_Julie_Bass_home_gardening.html).

• The city of Tulsa, Oklahoma sent out a "destruction crew" to chop down a woman's edible landscaping garden of over 100 varieties of foods and medicinal herbs (http://www.naturalnews.com/036234_edible_landscaping_medicinal_plants…).

• Oregon has criminalized one of the most important practices of permaculture, capturing rainwater to restore life to a local landscape.

What's the pattern here? Total state domination over all resources — land, water, food, medicine and more. This is part of the ongoing effort to crush self reliance in America and turn everybody into a mindless, hopeless slave of the state, living on USDA food stamps and eating corporate-engineered GMO.

Freedom means being able to speak your mind, capture your rainwater, bask in the sun, grow trees, raise backyard chickens, home school your children, say NO to vaccines, defend your life and property against looters and violent crime. Freedom is what once made America great, and it is the crushing of freedom which is now destroying America.

Collectivism is the enemy of freedom
In Oregon, California, Michigan, Washington D.C. and everywhere around the world where evil bureaucrats seek total power over all of humanity, our natural, divine rights are being viciously stripped away. Our money supply is being eroded at an accelerating rate. Our right to due process has been nullified by our own President (http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_NDAA_Bill_of_Rights_Obama.html). Our right to free speech is being increasingly censored and stifled. Our right to grow our own home gardens is under constant assault. (http://www.naturalnews.com/036234_edible_landscaping_medicinal_plants…)

The common cause behind all these attacks on freedom is "collectivism" — the idea that individuals have no value and that only the state can provide life, food and an economy. This is accomplished through endless permit requirements that now make running something like an organic farm a paperwork nightmare. It is encapsulated in the recently-publicized idea that "You didn't build that! The government built that!" which ridiculously imagines that only government creates prosperity, not individual innovators and people who believe in hard work.

Similarly, the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act late last year (http://www.naturalnews.com/030986_food_safety_farmers.html) will absolutely devastate small, local farms once it fully kicks in (see video below).

We are all becoming indentured servants
With every new regulation, inspection, permit and government burden placed upon farms and land owners, we are increasingly destroying our own futures by placing more power in the hands of tyrannical government. We are all becoming indentured servants to the state. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant)

Think you OWN your land? Try not paying property tax for a year. You'll find out very quickly that you don't own anything. The state owns it. You are just paying rent.

Here we are thirty years later and obesity and heart disease rates have gone up instead of down. Now some (not enough) researchers are saying the low-fat idea was a big mistake.

In typical fashion, the Mayo Clinic makes this statement on its website: "[T]here is a dark side to fat. The concern with some types of dietary fat (and their cousin cholesterol) is that they are thought to play a role in cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Dietary fat also may have a role in other diseases, including obesity and cancer."

Is this true, or is it simply an assumption that has been proven wrong? Or is it the kind of misinformation you'd expect from drug companies that manufacture cholesterol-lowering drugs and food giants who make billions selling low-fat, non-fat processed cereal, yogurt, drinks, pizzas, cookies and ice cream?
We need fats in our diets. It's a matter of biology

Fats are essential to human health. The Weston A Price Foundation tells us, "Fats from animal and vegetable sources provide a concentrated source of energy in the diet; they also provide the building blocks for cell membranes and a variety of hormones and hormone-like substances. Fats as part of a meal slow down absorption so that we can go longer without feeling hungry. In addition, they act as carriers for important fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. Dietary fats are needed for the conversion of carotene to vitamin A, for mineral absorption and for a host of other processes." (westonaprice.org)

So how can we eat fat and avoid fat at the same time? Food manufacturers came up with the idea of altering fats. And this has led to all sorts of health problems, an outcome not altogether unexpected when scientists try to improve on nature. The worst of the creations was trans fats, which are now even recognized by the mainstream medical profession as unhealthful.
Our diets are not natural

Most diets today are not natural. They contain mostly cooked, processed, artificial and altered substances. And far too many refined sugars. Can anything but sickness be expected when ideal diets contain anything but whole, unaltered, unsprayed vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds and meats? Of course not. If you believe the cereal ads you'll think the stuff in the box with the cute cartoon character is real food. It's not. It's dead and bad even if the American Heart Association endorses it, and even though it contains zero fat and a plethora of isolated laboratory-made vitamins.
Low-fat, fake-fat is good for food manufacturers only

Public relations has much to do with every movement — whether buying more economical cars, recycling or switching over to a low-fat diet. When it comes to the topic of health, a steady stream of information (even if not particularly accurate) makes for big profits. A population that's scared out of its wits over eating fat will fill their shopping carts with low-fat yogurt, skim milk and tubs of margarine. But statistics show that this has had no role in lowering heart disease, preventing diabetes or reducing weight.

What's good for business can be bad for health.
Gary Taubes stirs the fat

If you haven't read Gary Taubes' books, now is the time. His thorough research and logical thinking defies the idea that fats are bad for your health or that they are as evil as they've been made out to be. His book Good Calories, Bad Calories is a lesson on how carbohydrates are behind many of our modern diseases. And his book Why We Get Fat and What to do About It takes the issue a step further, positing the idea that good science has been ignored and we've been heading down the wrong road by vilifying dietary fats and claiming they are behind obesity.

I asked Gary for his opinion on a few key points in this discussion. Here's our exchange:
Vic: Even doctors with a more moderate view of fats still tell people to avoid saturated fats. Is this advice founded in science?

Gary: Well, it's founded in bad science, as I've described in my books and articles on this. The most compelling research arguing against it are the randomized controlled trials that compare Atkins-like, high-fat, low-carbohydrate diets to effectively any other diet — whether the AHA [American Heart Association] step-one, low-fat, calorie-restricted diet or a very low fat Ornish diet or a Mediterranean diet. In these experiments, the high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet invariably leads to at least as much weight loss — despite the fact that the subjects on these diets can consume as many calories as they want — and an overall improvement in heart disease risk factors.
Vic: Why do you think fat takes the blame for obesity?

Gary: [Sugars] influence how much fat is oxidized and how much is stored. So the more carbohydrates we eat, the more fat we end up storing — particularly refined grains and sugars, which seem to have the greatest influence on the hormone insulin that regulates fat storage. As to why fat takes the blame, I'd say there are two reasons: one is this remarkably naive idea that we are what we eat, so if we are fat this must be due to the fat we eat, and 2). as I describe in my books, once we decided dietary fat caused heart disease, that meant the way to avoid heart disease was eat low-fat, carbohydrate-rich diets. But now we had to deal with the observation that the obese are at higher risk of heart disease than lean people. So carbohydrates couldn't be fattening, right, because then the same diet that prevented heart disease would be a diet that made us fat? So to reconcile this problem, our nutritional authorities decided that it must be fat that makes us fat and now they could recommend low-fat high carbohydrate diets as weight loss diets, too. Their intentions were pure, but the results have been a disaster.
Vic: Do you think the denial of carbohydrate's role in obesity, diabetes and other diseases is based on food politics, lack of education or blind faith that keeps researchers from revisiting the real cause of these diseases?

Gary: A little of all three. They also tend to fall back on simplistic ways of thinking: Southeast Asians, for instance, have low rates of diabetes, heart disease and obesity and they ate carb-rich diets, therefore all carb-rich diets must be healthful. The idea that the nature of the carbohydrates can make a difference — refined instead of unrefined, sugar(s) vs. grains and starches  — can make a huge difference seems to be a level of complication that these people find too much to handle.
Vic: Dean Ornish, MD, claims great success reversing heart disease while using a low fat diet. How has he managed to do this by restricting fats?

Gary: Dr. Ornish's diet restricts refined grains and sugars for the same reason I suggest they're bad — because they raise blood sugar and ultimately raise insulin levels. So it's quite possible that any benefit Dr. Ornish sees in his studies can be explained by that alone and that his subjects and patients would do even better if they were eating a high fat diet. We don't know if that's true, and Dr. Ornish can't prove it's fat because his studies change so many variables that virtually anything is possible. Again, it's one of the reasons I've been arguing for better science to be done in this field, so that questions like that can be answered unequivocally.
This isn't to say that a high fat diet is the answer either

As of late many people are giving high fat dieting a try. Is this a good idea? Instead of answering this directly, it's better to compare apples to apples, or in this case, fats to other fats. If you are modeling your high fat diet on an African tribe or indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest, or even early humans, you have to look at more than just the fat they ate, but also the type of fat, it's source and the other nutrients that came along with the high fat diet.

While a few doctors are saying that you can replicate the healthfulness of the indigenous high-fat diet by eating more coconut butter, butter, cream, cheese, avocados and bacon, think again. These may all be good fats but they do not contain the same nutrient profile of organ meats, cow's blood or whale fat. This leads to a whole new discussion, perhaps fodder for a subsequent article, but suffice it to say that even progressive thinking natural health advocates frequently suffer from the same fault as modern medical practitioners and researchers: It's not helpful to focus so closely on one aspect of the diet without considering it in context. All fat foods are not the same.

I was a member of the WHO committee and disagreed with the primary case definition because it was clear at that time that this definition would eliminate a substantial number of cases and therefore inflate reported efficacy values.4–11 Nevertheless, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the Food and Drug Administration accepted this definition, and package inserts of the US-licensed DTaP vaccines reflect this.

There are a variety of herbs and supplements that can help people stop smoking. Some herbs to consider include lobelia for cigarette cravings, ginger root for nausea, St. John's Wort for depression, passion flower for irritability, and rhodiola for energy.

Rhodiola extract in the mornings can increase dopamine receptors. Dopamine is a hormone associated with mood. Too little dopamine can lead to anxiety and depression. Increasing dopamine receptors and uptake can make people feel happier, more energetic and less like smoking a cigarette.

People often feel nauseated when they are in withdrawal from nicotine. Ginger root may reduce nausea. Lobelia can be toxic so caution is needed when using.

Oats
Oats are a heart healthy food that is high in fiber, omega-3 fatty acids, potassium, and folate. Eating oats can help lower levels of bad cholesterol and keep arteries clear, which helps to lower risk of heart disease. They also contain chemicals called avenathramides that can reduce stress, strengthen the nervous system, fight free radials, and combat high blood pressure. All of these benefits can be crucial for smokers who are at a higher risk for heart disease.

Oats can also directly help smokers quit. An extract derived from green oats can ease withdrawal symptoms and help to decrease cigarette cravings.

Herbal cigarettes
Herbal cigarettes can replace regular cigarettes and help break the addiction. Smokers become used to reaching for a cigarette in certain situations and at specific times during the day. Sometimes a cigarette is about familiarity or comfort more than nicotine. Herbal cigarettes contain fewer chemicals and carcinogens in regular cigarettes. People can substitute herbal cigarettes to meet their psychological need for a smoke without compromising their health.

The main benefits of herbal cigarettes are that they are not additive. These cigarettes contain zero nicotine. They are made with herbs such as mint, cinnamon, clover, cornsilk, licorice or lemongrass. They also have some carcinogens so they should only be used as a short-term aide to break the nicotine habit and not long-term.

Free support
The American Lung Association has a free online program called Freedom from Smoking Online that offers assistance to people looking to quit smoking. People can also call 1-800-QUIT-NOW or go to Nicotine Anonymous meetings for support and information.

A team from the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center Boston Children's Hospital investigated the impacts of the dietary choices of 21 individuals, for three months. The study's participants were required to drop 10 to 15 percent of their body weight prior to the study, and have their new weight stabilized. For each of the three months, the study's participants were placed on a different diet. One was low fat, while the others were low glycemic and low carbohydrate, respectively. Each of the diets, despite their preference of calorie sources, provided the necessary 10 to 35 percent of their intake from protein, as is considered healthy.

Less pain, more gain
The low carbohydrate diet made the largest impact on bodily metabolism rates, but it also came with a significant drawback. The diet also resulted in raised cortisol levels, which have been linked to both lost sensitivity to insulin, and cardiovascular disease. Low fat diets, which are often recommended by the American Heart Association, resulted in insulin resistance and a lower energy use. The best response came from when the participants were placed on the low glycemic diet, which doesn't eliminate whole classes of nutrients, and as a result, both put less of a strain on the body, and is more easily adapted to individual lifestyles.

Mechanism of change …or a barrier to progress?
Where a food is placed on the glycemic index is an indicator of how rapidly the food can be metabolized into blood glucose. Foods that are made up of simple carbohydrates and sugars are converted more quickly, and can cause blood sugar to spike. High blood sugar is often associated with diabetes. However, in diabetes, the problem is an inability to remove sugar from the blood that is more chronic. High blood sugar brought on by high glycemic foods is conversely followed by a blood sugar crash, much in the same way the absence of the extreme highs of a drug addiction can pave the way for harsh withdrawals.

Unfortunately, in contemporary culture, the consumption of high glycemic foods tends to be a long-term, dietary style rather than a single poor food choice. The habit, much like drug addiction, is self-reinforcing. When an individual's blood sugar drops, hypoglycemia – low blood sugar – typically results in agitation, headaches, anxiety, confusion and urgent demands from the body to rectify the sugar loss. Because the body is experiencing an acute threat, it responds as if it's being attacked, releasing elevated levels of ephedrine, a hormone commonly referred to as adrenaline. To reverse these symptoms, the individual again raises their blood sugar, starting the cycle over again. This pattern puts an incredible amount of strain on the body.

Diets that are high in simple carbohydrates increase both blood sugar and blood fat levels, and may reduce the amount of good HDL cholesterol that is circulating in the body. Glycemic "load" is a measurement of the glycemic impact and the total amount of carbohydrates in the food. Complex carbohydrates still contribute to the blood sugar, but the changes in blood sugar levels that result are very gradual, and aren't associated with an increased risk of heart disease.

New consumer research shows that while some grocery spending has fallen in recent months, shoppers are increasing their spending on organic meat and poultry has increased for the first time in years.

The report, called "2012 Power of Meat," is the seventh annual study of consumption trends conducted by the American Meat Institute, Food Marketing Institute and Sealed Air's Cryovac Food Packaging Division. The report explores consumer perceptions and buying habits, attitudes and behaviors regarding fresh meat and poultry.

Cooking habits improving; sales are up

For this year, the industry groups surveyed 1,340 people in November 2011. A number of topics were explored, including consumption and purchasing patterns, nutrition, marketing techniques, consumer interest in organic and natural meat, packaging and labeling.

Among the group's findings, Americans are buying fewer groceries as a way to reduce overall spending. The annual study found that of the shoppers who spent less for groceries last year, 45 percent reduced spending by just buying fewer items. That is nearly the same as the share of people who reduced their spending by using coupons, lists and buying private-label products.

Also, the report found natural and organic meat and poultry purchases increased for the first time in many years. In fact, natural and organic poultry markets managed to attract new customers after several years of flat sales. The report said 24 percent of shoppers said they bought natural and/or organic meat and poultry in the three months preceding the study, an increase of 20 percent from the previous year.

Consumers are also improving their cooking habits. The report said consumers were frying less food and slow-cooking more (which, by the way, is also a calorie reducer). Over the past half-decade, the trend of frying less has steadily increased; there has been a 22 percent decline in frying as a way to prepare meals. Meanwhile, the use of slow cookers/crock pots and ovens in meal preparation has spiked 12 percent over the same time frame.

Price, country of origin and content mattering more

Following the recession of 2008-2010 and the resultant stagnant economy, household income has definitely influenced the purchase of meat and poultry. The report noted that household income, in fact, directly influenced the frequency by which meat and poultry was consumed. As you might imagine, shoppers who had a drop in income tended to eat less meat and poultry (an average of 3.8 meals per week versus four times per week in households that experienced no loss of income).

The report said slightly more than half – 51 percent – of shoppers checked processed meat ingredients for sodium content, which was the first time the level exceeded 50 percent, indicating shoppers may be starting to show more concern for their own health, a good sign considering America's expanding waistlines and higher-than-normal levels of heart disease.

Some 28 percent of shoppers said they would buy more meat and poultry if it were packaged in environmentally friendly wraps and containers, even if it increased the cost of the product somewhat. 49 percent said they would only do so if there was no price difference.

The report also noted that Awareness of Country of Origin Labeling rose by nearly 40 percent, up from 33 percent in 2011, but that had little reported influence on whether or not consumers decided to purchase those items if U.S. meat or poultry was higher.

For his study, Dr. Timothy Wilt of the University of Minnesota (UM) School of Medicine evaluated 731 men diagnosed with prostate cancer, some of whom were told to have their prostates removed, and some of whom were told to simply undergo routine observation by their doctors. All the men were tracked and monitored in the years following their initial diagnosis.

10 years after their tumors were first discovered, 5.8 percent of the men who underwent prostate surgery ended up dying, while 8.4 percent of the men who were monitored apart from surgery ended up dying. According to the data, 47 percent of the men who underwent surgery died during the actual study, while 50 percent of the men who were monitored apart from surgery died during the study.

After accounting for a margin of statistical error, the findings reveal that, regardless of whether or not a man diagnosed with prostate cancer undergoes surgery, his chances of dying are roughly the same as if he does nothing. But men who choose to forgo surgery are half as likely to suffer from urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction.

"We think our results apply to the vast majority of men diagnosed with prostate cancer today," said Dr. Wilt to the Chicago Tribune. He and others in the field of oncology are realizing that most men who receive prostate cancer surgery do not need it, and that undergoing this treatment could lead to other, often permanent, side effects and complications.

Since the risk of dying from prostate cancer among those diagnosed with the condition is a mere three percent, opting for surgery, as many men do, is more often than not a mistake. Worse, many detected prostate tumors are not even malignant, a fact that, if more widely known, would probably deter many men from choosing invasive surgery.

Prevailing thoughts about cancer; however, seem to often override logical consideration and decision-making, as many men rush in to "do something" without fully evaluating the risks and benefits. This is also true in regards to the prostate cancer screenings, which have similarly been shown to be unreliable, and to often result in needless surgery and other treatments.

For their study, which was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Ekaterina Maslova and her colleagues from the Centre for Fetal Programming at the Statens Serum Institut in Copenhagen evaluated nearly 62,000 Danish moms via a survey who gave birth between 1996 and 2002. The researchers also evaluated the medical records of the mothers' children from 18 months through seven years of age.

After comparing nut consumption patterns among mothers to allergy rates in their children, Maslova and her team discovered that nut consumption rates correspond with allergy rates, and mothers who eat more nuts have children that are less prone to allergies. After accounting for various outside factors, the team determined that children born to mothers who eat nuts are 21 percent less likely to develop asthma — and when children reach seven years of age, the decrease in allergy likelihood drops to 34 percent.

Mothers who ate tree nuts more than once a week also bore 18-month-olds that were 25 percent less likely to have asthma or to experience wheezing compared to other children. Overall, allergy rates were noticeably lower among children whose mothers at nuts, compared to children whose mothers either ate fewer nuts, or completely abstained from eating nuts, during their pregnancies.

"There's some mixed data out there and this current study is showing that maybe there might be a benefit to your child in having less asthma later on if you continue to just eat the way you're still eating and not avoid (nuts)," says Dr. Todd Mahr, a pediatric allergist from Gundersen Lutheran Medical Center in La Crosse, Wisc., who was not involved in the study.

The findings contradict an earlier study presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology in New Orleans that appeared to show link between nut consumption and higher allergy rates. That particularly study; however, included nuts, eggs, and milk in its analysis, a research flaw that appears to have inaccurately pinned nuts as the culprit without assessing their effect on allergies separately from eggs and milk. (http://news.health.com/2010/02/28/pregnancy-allergies-asthma/)