Daily news sites

Dogs and humans have been BFFs for a very long time -- at least 10,000 years.

No surprise there.

But have you ever wondered just how dogs and other animals got domesticated, and why? And how today's domesticated animals differ from their wild predecessors? The story is even more complicated than you might imagine.

To learn more about how man's best friend came to be -- and how dogs changed the course of human history -- check out the video above, and/or read the transcript below.

Don't forget to leave your thoughts in the comments. Talk nerdy to me!

CLICK HERE FOR FULL TRANSCRIPT

Gluten. I can think of no other protein that has gotten so much bad press in the last decade. Justified or not? Read on, and let me know what you think.

Celebrity authors and credible authorities alike have increasingly taken a stand against gluten. The result is a nationwide anti-gluten movement, in which gluten-free (GF) products are flying off supermarket shelves at record -- perhaps in some experts' eyes consumers are overreacting -- to these claims.

An estimated 100 million Americans consume GF products in a year, meaning about one in three are trying GF products in the U.S. This drives the $2 billion annual market for these products.¹

The GF craze is so profound it's easy to believe gluten may indeed be the lynchpin in our chronic illness epidemic. The message seems to be: Just remove gluten and your symptoms will vanish along with your excess pounds overnight.

But does science truly support this idea? Is gluten really the problem? And does removing it from the diet work for everyone and guarantee good health?

To find the answer, let's turn to recent research on this controversial protein.

I think the truth will surprise you.

How Is Wheat Intolerance Different From Celiac Disease?

Celiac disease (CD) is an autoimmune disease whereby gluten protein peptides trigger an immune response that injures the small intestinal lining and has dozens of adverse effects throughout the body. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS), CD and wheat allergy (immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated) have similar symptomatology, however wheat allergy (WA) and CD are mediated by the immune system and diagnosed by blood testing and intestinal biopsy.¹

In contrast, the currently accepted criteria for a diagnosis of NCGS requires reproducible symptoms when gluten is consumed and improvement upon abstinence.¹ The typical presentation of NCGS is a combination of gut symptoms (diarrhea, abdominal pain), and systemic features such as headache, arthralgias, numbness, chronic fatigue, eczema, anemia, and can sometimes include behavior disturbances and depression.¹ These symptoms of NCGS typical appear hours to days after ingestion whereas WA is more immediate -- beginning within minutes and up to two hours after ingestion.

Patients with NCGS typically lack the classic CD serological and biopsy findings. However, there is growing evidence that they may suffer from derangements in gut permeability, inflammation and immune reactivity to gluten.²

How Common is NCGS?

First let's examine how the prevalence of CD has shifted. Although experts agree that the prevalence of CD is 1:133 in the U.S., the prevalence of CD appears to have risen. The prevalence of CD in those over the age of 50 appears to have doubled since 1998 and a study that examined stored blood samples from 9,133 U.S. Air Force recruits (1948-1954) revealed that undiagnosed CD was four times less common in those recruits than it is today.³ Before we speculate why CD is rapidly on the rise let's examine what is known about NCGS epidemiology.

NCGS is most commonly seen in middle-aged females and its prevalence ranges from 0.63-6.0 percent of the U.S. population.¹

Why Is Intolerance to the Golden Grain on the Rise?

As Dr. William Davis brilliantly describes in his book Wheat Belly the source, digestibility, gluten content and processing of wheat has radically shifted over the years, likely leading to intolerance.⁴

One of the most popular theories is that the chemical glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide, Roundup, may be an important factor in this epidemic. Fish who are exposed to glyphosate develop a CD-like illness disrupts the gut microbial balance in animals favoring the growth of disease-inducing pathogens.⁵

Another possible contributor to NCGS are amylase trypsin inhibitors (ATIs), which are plant-derived proteins that protect the wheat plant against infection by parasitic microbes. ATIs comprise 2-4 percent of wheat protein, their activity is seven-fold higher in modern hexaploid wheat and feeding at levels consumed by humans provokes autoimmunity in mice.¹

Finally, gluten-rich grains are highly fermentable and can cause gut distress in those with gut bacterial imbalances.

Collectively, CD, WA, NCGS are not uncommon, but that doesn't mean they affect everyone. So should everyone on the planet go GF? Aside from cost are there other downsides to going GF?

There is growing evidence that getting rid of wheat and gluten from the diet lowers bifidobacteria, which play a critical role in gut immune function and weight regulation.¹

Thus, you may want to enrich your diet with foods that bolster your friendly gut flora if you eat GF.
There is on final point I'd like to make about GF living: It isn't inherently healthier. Eating GF cookies, crackers, and cakes that contain little fiber and are packed with sugar is unlikely to help you achieve your health and weight goals. Take a skeptical eye to them.

But, of course, not all grains contain gluten. So what about the rest of the whole grain family? These too have come under increasing scrutiny of late. Do any whole grains have a place in the human diet?

I'll take this issue up in my next blog and explore whether or not whole grains are all they are cracked up to be.

Israel's 2015 elections will surely be extensively studied and dissected to detect trends, statistics and voter preferences. But most of all, they serve as the starting point of the Israeli left's soul-searching marathon titled "where did we go wrong."

The perhaps idealist bubble of Tel Aviv was shattered into pieces when official results rolled out and it was obvious that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had gained a crushing landslide victory. Not only was his Likud party spectacularly successful, but he himself had proven that King Bibi was capable of resurrecting himself from scathing financial reports detailing his and his wife's excessive spending, shaky -- if not collapsed -- ties with Israel's closest allies, and the remains of a summer war which left a country no less under threat, and in mourning.

Immediately, fingers were pointed to the liberal, "La La Land" media, to those lefties who only speak amongst themselves and have never met the other "tribes" of Israeli society. The disappointed, if not shattered, left-wing camp jabbed back with calls of leaving the country, horrified by a "broken people" and their democratic choice, and just plain depressed. Some even ridiculously called to replace the nation.

Here's the thing. Change can't happen in three months. Ask America, which went through eight years of a Bush administration before being able to elect Obama into the White House. If the 2008 transformative Obama campaign is any indication, change requires the rules of old politics to be rewritten: in organizing support, shaping pubic opinion, playing the political cards with your opponents and most of all, physically and emotionally, reaching all voters. Change requires research and stamina -- understand what is hurting society most, and providing the hope in rhetoric and action -- that you can change that.

To be fair, the Isaac Herzog-led Zionist Union did not completely fail. It aroused sleepy or indifferent voters and performed well relative to elections in the past decade. But it failed to convince the unconvinced, and stuck to singing to the choir. It struggled to keep the valid cost of living issue at the top of its agenda, as Netanyahu retorted with the Iranian nuclear threat and the "world is against us" rhetoric. The left-wing camp spoke of social justice, about reforms in health and education, but it mainly focused on ousting Netanyahu. "Anyone but Netanyahu," the grassroots organizations rallied. Netanyahu, clinging to his security mantra while riding on fear mongering wave, only jumped ship when he realized that was in danger of losing. Only then did he speak to the Israeli media and provide answers on the economy.

But Netanyahu knows the ropes all too well. As it has historically been in Israel, security trumps economy. With that in mind, and seeing as this was the second round of elections since the social justice protests that did not make a dent in his policy, Netanyahu showcased what he does best: speak. In a 5-day rhetorical blitz, he spoke to the legitimate security concerns of many Israelis, even if these concerns come at the expense of their financial prosperity.

These elections may have been a slap in the face for the left out in left field, but it was certainly a wake up call at the least. It's not the economy, stupid -- it's security. Israelis want to first and foremost feel safe. Address these concerns, don't belittle them. Undoubtedly, social justice reforms need to be implemented, and the majority favors a realpolitik stance to be taken diplomatically.

There's no need for the long face. This is a turning point for the left. The next leader -- who will replace Netanyahu -- has a lot of homework to do in the months ahead, in building the infrastructure and network, but also understanding that change is a process. After all, we are the change that we seek.

The writer is a speechwriter and communications consultant for senior Israeli political and business leaders, and hosts various news shows on TLV1 Radio (tlv1.fm) and television channel i24news.

Cheers! Kampai! L'Chaim!

No matter how you say it, the clink of glasses brimming with beer can bring universal joy to humans. But the preferred choice of amber nectar differs vastly by country.

Vinepair, a site focused on wine and booze, mapped out the world's favorite beers by cross-referencing corporate earnings and research reports. Countries where data were unavailable, such as Papua New Guinea, Angola and Mongolia, were excluded.

Americans love Bud Light. The Japanese drink a lot of Asahi. Israelis go for Goldstar.

Here's a map showing each country's favorite beer:

What if there was a preventative measure that could slash your risk of developing Alzheimer's disease by up to half?

Some nutritionists may have found it, in the form of a Mediterranean-based diet that's high in nutrients and low in sugar and unhealthy fats.

The brain-healthy (and fittingly named) MIND diet -- which stands for "Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay" -- is effective even if it is not followed rigorously, according to a new study from Rush University. Researchers found that people who followed the diet closely had a 53 percent lower chance of developing Alzheimer's, and those who only moderately adhered to the diet still lowered their risk of developing the devastating brain disease by 35 percent.

The MIND Diet incorporates elements of the Mediterranean diet -- which is high in fish, healthy fats, vegetables and whole grains and has been found to reduce the risk of heart disease and cancer -- and the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet -- which is heavy in fruits, vegetables and low-fat dairy and has been found to reduce the risk of hypertension, heart attack and stroke.

The researchers said in a press release that the MIND diet is easier to follow than the full Mediterranean diet, which requires daily fish consumption and multiple servings of fruits and vegetables.

Here's a look at a typical day on the MIND diet:

• 3 servings of whole grains


• A salad plus one other vegetable


• A glass of wine


• Nuts as a snack


• Blueberries or strawberries


• Chicken or fish


• Beans (every other day)

In addition to eating these healthy foods, the MIND protocol requires avoiding foods like butter and cheese, red meat, pastries, sweets and fried or processed foods.

Overall, the diet "emphasizes natural plant-based foods and limited intakes of animal and high saturated fat foods but uniquely specifies the consumption of berries and green leafy vegetables," the study says.

In order to assess the protective effects of the diet, the researchers looked at nutritional intake data from over 900 older Americans who were already participating in the ongoing Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP), which studies common conditions of aging and began in 1997. Rather than asking study volunteers to follow the MIND diet, they analyzed data spanning a decade from participants who were already eating in a way that followed the basic MIND diet principles, as well as those who were eating in line with the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet.

Over a five-year period, the team collected data on incidences of Alzheimer's. The study controlled for a number of other factors known to influence the development of Alzheimer's, including education, physical activity, smoking and cardiovascular conditions.

The team found that the MIND diet lowered Alzheimer's risk by 53 percent, while the Mediterranean diet lowered it by 54 percent and the DASH diet lowered it by 39 percent. However, even when the MIND diet was only moderately followed, it still reduced the risk of Alzheimer's by 35 percent, while moderate adherence to the other two diets seemed to have only negligible protective benefits.

"It was surprising that even those individuals who had moderate adherence to the MIND diet had reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease," Dr. Martha Morris, the study's lead author, told The Huffington Post in an email. "This was not the case for either the DASH or Mediterranean diets for which only the highest adherence conferred protective benefits."

This is likely the case because the MIND diet was specifically designed to reflect the latest research on nutrition and the brain, Morris explained. If followed for many years, the diet holds even greater promise as an Alzheimer's prevention measure.

"People who eat this diet consistently over the years get the best protection," Morris said in a statement.

While a number of diverse factors -- including genetics, environment and lifestyle -- may contribute to the development of Alzheimer's, the research suggests that diet is certainly among these factors. As such, targeting nutrition may be an effective prevention measure.

The findings were published in the March issue of the Journal of the Alzheimer's Association.

LONDON (AP) — One of the world's most popular weed-killers — and the most widely used kind in the U.S. — has been labeled a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

The decision was made by IARC, the France-based cancer research arm of the World Health Organization, which considered the status of five insect and weed killers including glyphosate, which is used globally in industrial farming.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which makes its own determinations, said it would consider the French agency's evaluation.

The French agency has four levels of risks for possible cancer-causing agents: known carcinogens, probable or possible carcinogens, not classifiable and probably not carcinogenic. Glyphosate now falls in the second level of concern.

The new classification is aimed mainly at industrial use of glyphosate. Its use by home gardeners is not considered a risk. Glyphosate is in the same category of risk as things like anabolic steroids and shift work. The decision was published online Thursday in the journal, Lancet Oncology.

According to the French agency, glyphosate is used in more than 750 different herbicide products and its use has been detected in the air during spraying, in water and in food. Experts said there was "limited evidence" in humans that the herbicide can cause non-Hodgkins lymphoma and there is convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause other forms of cancer in rats and mice. IARC's panel said glyphosate has been found in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, showing the chemical has been absorbed by the body.

Monsanto and other producers of glyphosate-containing herbicides, strongly disagreed with the decision. "All labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health," said Monsanto's Phil Miller, global head of regulatory and government affairs, in a statement.

The EPA's 2012 assessment of glyphosate concluded that it met the statutory safety standards and that the chemical could "continue to be used without unreasonable risks to people or the environment."

The French agency's experts said the cancer risks of the weed killer were mostly from occupational exposure.

"I don't think home use is the issue," said Kate Guyton of IARC. "It's agricultural use that will have the biggest impact. For the moment, it's just something for people to be conscious of."

NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. must release photographs showing abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, a federal judge has ruled in a long-running clash over letting the world see potentially disturbing images of how the military treated prisoners.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein's ruling Friday gives the government, which has fought the case for over a decade, two months to decide whether to appeal before the photos could be released.

The American Civil Liberties Union has been seeking to make the photos, including images from the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, public in the name of holding government accountable.

"The photos are crucial to the public record," said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director. "They're the best evidence of what took place in the military's detention centers."

The Defense Department is studying the ruling and will make any further responses in court, spokesman Lt. Col. Myles Caggins III said.

The fight over the photographs reaches back to the early years of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it invokes the images of abuse at Abu Ghraib that sparked international outrage after they emerged in 2004 and 2006. Early in the 2004 lawsuit, the ACLU pointed to the Abu Ghraib photos as priority examples of records the organization was seeking on the treatment of detainees.

It's unclear how many more photographs may exist. The government has said it has 29 relevant pictures from at least seven different sites in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it's believed to have perhaps hundreds or thousands more, Hellerstein said in a ruling in August. He said some photos he had seen "are relatively innocuous while others need more serious consideration," and he has ruled that any images that would be released would be redacted to protect the identities of people in them.

Some photographs, taken by service members in Iraq and Afghanistan, were part of criminal investigations of alleged abuse. Some images show "soldiers pointing pistols or rifles at the heads of hooded and handcuffed detainees," then-Solicitor General — now Supreme Court Justice — Elena Kagan wrote in an appeal to the high court earlier in the case, which has taken a long road through the courts and Congress.

The government has long argued that releasing the photographs could incite attacks against U.S. forces and government personnel abroad, and officials have said that risk hasn't abated as the U.S. military role in Iraq and Afghanistan lessened.

Indeed, "the danger associated with release of these photographs is heightened now," amid the rise of the Islamic State militant group, Navy Rear Adm. Sinclair Harris, the vice director for operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a December court filing. Islamic State, he said "would use these photographs to further encourage its supporters and followers to attack U.S. military and government personnel."

The ACLU said it was inappropriate to give the government that kind of censorial power.

"To allow the government to suppress any image that might provoke someone, somewhere, to violence would be to give the government sweeping power to suppress evidence of its own agents' misconduct," Jaffer said.

Amid the lawsuit, Congress passed a 2009 law allowing the government to keep the photos secret if the secretary of defense certified that unveiling them would endanger U.S. citizens or government or military personnel.

Defense secretaries have since done so, but Hellerstein said the government hasn't been specific enough.

___

BLT sandwiches may need to add an A to the acronym -- for antibiotics.

Soaring demand for meat across the world has caused a major uptick in the amount of antimicrobial drugs in pork, beef and poultry, according to a new study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

But as bacon sales sizzle and China -- where pork is the favored meat -- becomes wealthier, pig farmers around the world are meeting demand by using about four times as much antibiotics per pound of meat as cattle ranchers. Poultry is a close second.

This charts shows that pigs, for the most part, consume the highest density and amount of antibiotics.

The antibiotics serve two purposes. First, they help fatten up livestock at a faster rate. Second, they keep animals healthy despite being raised in overcrowded, filthy conditions where disease spreads easily.

In 2010, farmers around the world used more than 63,000 tons of antibiotics to raise livestock. By 2030, the researchers expect that number to rise to more than 105,000 tons.

"People are getting richer and want to eat more meat," Thomas Van Boeckel, an epidemiologist at Princeton University and an author of the study, told The Huffington Post by phone. "Antibiotics help to provide a lot of meat for people who can afford it."

Consumption of antibiotic-fed meat poses a major threat to humanity. Exposure to human antibiotics through meat has given rise to antibiotic-resistant "superbugs," which some researchers suggest could kill up to 10 million people worldwide by 2050 if left unchecked.

As awareness of this threat grows, some companies have removed antibiotics from their meat supply. Earlier this month, McDonald's vowed to remove human antibiotics from its chicken supply, though animal antibiotics would continue to be used and the human drugs would remain in beef and pork products. Chicken chain Chick-fil-A removed all antibiotics from its chicken last year.

But Chipotle remains the food industry's poster child for antibiotic-free meat. The burrito chain showed its commitment earlier this year when it suffered a pork shortage after discovering issues with its supplier.

Still, the industry seems unlikely to change unless more consumers demand antibiotic-free meat. Legislation has done little to stymie the growth of the use of antibiotics in the United States. In China, no such legislation exists.

"If things change at all, it'll be because customers demand better products, like organic bacon," Van Boeckel said. "But, of course, not everyone can afford that."

OMRANE SUPERIEUR, TUNISIA, March 20 (Reuters) - Shortly before he and a friend gunned down 20 foreign tourists at Tunisia's Bardo museum, Yassine al-Abidi sat down to a breakfast of olive oil and dates with his family and left for work at his travel agency as usual.
His relatives, mourning his death in a hail of police bullets in the midst of the attack, said they could not understand how a lively, popular young man with a taste for the latest imported clothes could have done such a thing.
They said he was typical of the young men of Tunis' Omrane Superieur suburb. He graduated in French, held down a job and showed no sign of the hardline Islamist ideology that would drive him to commit the worst militant attack in a decade.
But relatives said last year he had begun to spend more and more time at a local mosque, following a pattern of radicialisation of Tunisian young men who then find themselves fighting in Syria, Iraq and Libya.
"I am sad for Yassine, but even sadder for the victims that Yassine killed. They were innocent, why did they have to pay the price of a false understanding of Islam," said his uncle Mohamed Abidi. "They are the victims of terrorism. We are the victims of a demagogic network that wants only death."
Yassine's family had set up a traditional mourning tent outside their home, a well-made orange duplex standing in contrast to the more rundown residences nearby.
Chairs sat empty inside, with only ten family members present. Nearby his mother wept constantly.
Four years after a popular revolt toppled autocrat Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali, Tunisia has had free elections, a new constitution and compromise politics.
But the new government is also caught up in a low-level war with militants who have taken advantage of the new freedoms.
More than 3,000 Tunisians have left to fight in Syria and Iraq and the government estimates around 500 have since returned, fueling fears of further attacks on Tunisia's fragile new democratic state.

'COULDN'T HURT A BIRD'
Abidi and his fellow gunman were trained at a jihadist camp in Libya before the Bardo attack, the Tunisian government has said. Officials said the two men had been recruited at mosques in Tunisia and traveled to Libya in September.
Islamic State, which has declared a caliphate in large parts of Iraq and Syria and is active in Tunisia's chaotic neighbor Libya, praised the two attackers in an audio recording as "knights of the Islamic State" armed with machineguns and bombs.
Family members said Abidi had left home for two months, saying he would be working in the commercial city Sfax on Tunisia's coast. But he did not display any of the conservative beliefs of hardline Islamists, never, for instance, complaining about alcohol being consumed at his uncle's house.
"He was always fun, we danced together at family weddings. He wasn't like hardline Salafists," said his cousin Hanen.
"On the last day he had breakfast of dates and olive oil and went to work. At 10 am he asked for a break and went and did what he did."
Last year, he had started visiting a local mosque where ultraconservative Salafists gave talks on jihad in Syria and Libya, relatives said.
But even when Abidi spent lots of time there, he acted normally with his family, unlike the Islamist hardliners who frown on popular music and entertainment.
"He never told us not to watch television for example," Hanen said.
Since its revolution, Tunisia has seen the emergence of several hardline Islamist groups, including Ansar al-Sharia, which the United States blames for storming its embassy in Tunis in 2012 and lists as a terrorist organization.
In the early days after the revolution, hardline imams took over mosques, profiting from the new freedoms to preach their extremist vision of Islam and encourage young men to leave to fight in foreign wars.
The Tunisian authorities have began taking back control of most of those mosques. But young men are still leaving. Some are students, unemployed and middle class, rather than poor. Some lived in marginalized rural communities, and most were simply taken in by extremist recruiters.
"The son I knew could never do what was done," Abidi's mother Zakia said, weeping. "He could not even harm a bird." (Writing by Patrick Markey; editing by Philippa Fletcher)