US Sugar Tariffs Led to Ubiquitous Use of High Fructose Corn Syrup

The Great Sugar Shaft
by James Bovard, April 1998
The U.S. government has devotedly jacked up American sugar prices far above world market prices since the close of the War of 1812. The sugar industry is one of America's oldest infant industries — yet it dodders with the same uncompetitiveness that it showed during the second term of James Madison. Few cases better illustrate how trade policy can be completely immune to economic sense.

The U.S. imposed high tariffs on sugar in 1816 in order to placate the growers in the newly acquired Louisiana territory. In the 1820s, sugar plantation owners complained that growing sugar in the United States was "warring with nature" because the U.S. climate was unsuited to sugar production. Naturally, the plantation owners believed that all Americans should be conscripted into the "war." Protectionists warned that if sugar tariffs were lifted, then the value of slaves working on the sugar plantations would collapse — thus causing a general fall in slave values throughout the South.

In 1934, the U.S. government imposed sugar import quotas to complement high sugar tariffs and direct government subsidies to sugar growers. By the 1950s, the U.S. sugar program was renown for its byzantine, impenetrable regulations. Like most arcane systems, the sugar program vested vast power in the few people who understood and controlled the system. As author Douglas Cater observed in 1964, "In reviewing the sugar quotas, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Cooley has had the habit of receiving the [foreign representatives interested in acquiring sugar quotas] one by one to make their presentations, then summoning each afterward to announce his verdict. By all accounts, he has a zest for this princely power and enjoys the frequent meetings with foreign ambassadors to confer on matters of sugar and state."

Sugar quotas have also provided a safety net for former congressmen, many of whom have been hired as lobbyists for foreign sugar producers.

Since 1980, the sugar program has cost consumers and taxpayers the equivalent of more than $3 million for each American sugar grower. Some people win the lottery; other people grow sugar. Congressmen justify the sugar program as protecting Americans from the "roller-coaster of international sugar prices," as Rep. Byron Dorgan (D.-N.D.) declared. Unfortunately, Congress protects consumers from the roller-coaster by pegging American sugar prices on a level with the Goodyear blimp floating far above the amusement park. U.S. sugar prices have been as high as or higher than world prices for 44 of the last 45 years.

Sugar sold for 21 cents a pound in the United States when the world sugar price was less than 3 cents a pound. Each 1-cent increase in the price of sugar adds between $250 million and $300 million to consumers' food bills. A Commerce Department study estimated that the sugar program was costing American consumers more than $3 billion a year.

Congress, in a moment of economic sobriety, abolished sugar quotas in June 1974. But, on May 5, 1982, President Reagan reimposed import quotas. The quotas sought to create an artificial shortage of sugar that would drive up U.S. prices and force consumers to unknowingly support American sugar growers. And by keeping the subsidies covert and off-budget, quotas did not interfere with Reagan's bragging about how he was cutting wasteful government spending.

Between May 1982 and November 1984, the U.S. government reduced the sugar import quotas six times as the USDA desperately tried to balance foreign and domestic sugar supplies with domestic demand.

While USDA bureaucrats worked overtime to minutely regulate the quantity of sugar allowed into the United States, a bomb went off that destroyed their best-laid plans. On November 6, 1984, both Coca Cola and Pepsi announced plans to stop using sugar in soft drinks, replacing it with high-fructose corn syrup. At the drop of two press releases, U.S. sugar consumption decreased by more than 500,000 tons a year — equal to the entire quotas of 25 of the 42 nations allowed to sell sugar to the United States. The quota program drove sugar prices so high that it wrecked the market for sugar — and thereby destroyed the government's ability to control sugar supply and demand. On January 16, 1985, Agriculture Secretary John Block announced an effective 20 percent cut in the quota for all exporting countries.

Sugar quotas made it very profitable to import products with high amounts of sugar. As a USDA report noted, "The incentive to circumvent restrictions had led to creation of new products which had never been traded in the United States and which were designed specifically for the U.S. market." On June 28, 1983, Reagan declared an embargo on imports of certain blends and mixtures of sugar and other ingredients in bulk containers. Naturally, businesses began importing some of the same products in smaller containers. The Economic Report of the President noted, "Entrepreneurs were importing high-sugar content products, such as iced-tea mix, and then sifting their sugar content from them and selling the sugar at the high domestic price." On November 7, 1984, the Customs Service announced new restrictions on sugar- and sweetener-blend imports.

Federal restrictions made sugar smuggling immensely profitable. The Justice Department caught 30 companies in a major sting operation named Operation Bittersweet. Federal prosecutors were proud that the crackdown netted $16 million in fines for the government — less than one-tenth of 1 percent of what the sugar program cost American consumers during the 1980s. The Justice Department was more worried about businessmen's bringing in cheap foreign sugar than about the sugar lobby's bribing of congressmen to extort billions of dollars from consumers. (Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, a Washington, D.C., consumer lobby, reported that the sugar lobby donated more than $3 million to congressmen between 1984 and 1989.)

A few thousand sugar growers became the tail that wagged the dog of American foreign policy. Early in 1982, Reagan announced the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) to aid Caribbean nations by giving them expanded access to the U.S. market. In his May 5, 1982, announcement, Reagan promised, "The interests of foreign suppliers are also protected, since this system provides such suppliers reasonable access to a stable, higher-priced U.S. market. In arriving at this decision, we have taken fully into account the CBI." But between 1981 and 1988, USDA slashed the amount of sugar that Caribbean nations could ship to the United States by 74 percent. The State Department estimated that the reductions in sugar-import quotas cost Third World nations $800 million a year. The sugar program has indirectly become a full-employment program for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, as many poor Third World farmers who previously grew sugar cane are now harvesting marijuana.

The Reagan administration responded to sugar-import cutbacks by creating a new foreign-aid program — the Quota Offset Program — to give free food to countries hurt by reductions. In 1986, the United States. dumped almost $200 million of free food on Caribbean nations and the Philippines. As the Wall Street Journal reported, "By flooding local markets and driving commodity prices down, the U.S. is making it more difficult for local farmers to replace sugar with other crops." Richard Holwill, deputy assistant secretary of state, observed, "It makes us look like damn fools when we go down there and preach free enterprise."

The U.S. government's generosity to sugar farmers victimizes other American businesses. Brazil retaliated against the United States for cutting its sugar quota by reducing its purchases of American grain. In the Dominican Republic, former sugar growers are now producing wheat and corn, thereby providing more competition for American farmers. American candy producers are at a disadvantage because foreign companies can buy their sugar at much lower prices. Since 1982, dextrose and confectionery coating imports have risen tenfold and chocolate imports are up fivefold.

The sugar program has also decreased soybean exports. In the Red River valley of Minnesota, heavily subsidized sugar growers have bid up the rents on farmland by more than 50 percent. As a result, relatively unsubsidized soybean farmers can no longer find sufficient land to grow soybeans, America's premier export crop. This illustrates how restrictions on imports become restrictions on exports.

The sugar program is corporate welfare in its most overt form. The General Accounting Office estimated that only 17 of the nation's largest sugar cane farmers received more than half of all the benefits provided by the sugar cane subsidies. GAO also estimated that the 28 largest Florida sugar cane producers received almost 90 percent of all the benefits enjoyed by Florida sugar producers from federal programs.

The number of American jobs destroyed by sugar quotas since 1980 exceeds the total number of sugar farmers in the United States. The Commerce Department estimates that the high price of sugar has destroyed almost 9,000 U.S. jobs in food manufacturing since 1981. In early 1990, the Brach Candy Company announced plans to close its Chicago candy factory and relocate 3,000 jobs to Canada because of the high cost of sugar in the United States. Thanks to the cutback in sugar imports, 10 sugar refineries have closed in recent years and 7,000 refinery jobs have been lost. The United States has only 13,000 sugar farmers.

Many observers expected that, with the Republican Revolution in Congress, the sugar program would be abolished when the new farm bill was written in 1996. Instead, the sugar program's survival became one of the starkest symbols of that revolution's collapse. Two-hundred and twenty-three House members cosponsored a bill to get rid of the sugar program; but, when push came to shove, the sugar lobby persuaded several sponsors of the bill (including freshman conservative stalwarts Rep. Steve Stockman [R.-Tex.] and Rep. Sue Myrick [R.-N.C.]) to switch sides. The House voted 217-208 to continue the program.

Environmentalists were anxious about the adverse effects of Florida sugar cane production on the Everglades. Congress did not choose the obvious solution — ending subsides that irrationally encourage sugar production in a fragile area — but instead voted $200 million to clean up the Everglades by buying some of the sugar cane fields from farmers.

There is no reason why the United States must produce its own sugar cane. Sugar is cheaper in Canada primarily because Canada has almost no sugar growers — and thus no trade restrictions or government support programs. Paying lavish subsidies to produce sugar in Florida makes as much sense as creating a federal subsidy program to grow bananas in Massachusetts. The only thing that could make American sugar cane farmers world-class competitive would be massive global warming.

Mr. Bovard is the author of Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (St. Martin's Press, 1994) and Shakedown (Viking-Penguin Press, 1995).

Gut healing, Intestinal Permeability, Biofilm

Beyond Probiotics
Hidden Causes of GI Dysfunction
By Chris D. Meletis, ND
Often, in the absence of overt disease, the extent of an individual’s colon-supporting supplement regimen consists exclusively of consuming a good probiotic. Yet, in order for the good bacteria found in probiotics to flourish in the colonic environment, there are other steps we need to take to ensure our gut is hospitable to the friendly bacteria our bodies need to thrive—regardless of whether an individual is healthy or whether that individual suffers from irritable bowel syndrome or another gastrointestinal disease. The colon is essentially our body’s compost pile, used to nurture our garden of friendly flora.

There are two often-overlooked aspects of gut health that are essential to keeping our colon healthy and to ensure it remains a hospitable environment where good bacteria can thrive. First, gut health is linked to a substance called butyrate. If the intestine isn’t working at its optimal best, levels of butyrate can undergo a decline, putting individuals at risk for colon cancer. Butyrate levels are closely tied to the health of the intestine and to levels of friendly flora found in the gut.

A second aspect of gut health is known as intestinal permeability. This can be a huge factor, even in seemingly healthy individuals. Intestinal permeability refers to the potential for nutrients and bacteria to escape through a weakened intestinal wall. When intestinal permeability is increased, food and nutrient absorption is impaired. Dysfunction in intestinal permeability can result in leaky gut syndrome, where larger molecules in the intestines pass through into the blood. This can trigger immediate damage and immune system reactions since these large molecules are perceived as foreign. Progressive damage occurs to the intestinal lining, eventually allowing disease-causing bacteria, undigested food particles, and toxins to pass directly into the bloodstream.

Dysfunctions in intestinal permeability are associated not only with intestinal diseases such as ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel syndrome and Crohn’s disease, but also with chronic fatigue syndrome, psoriasis, food allergies, autoimmune disease and arthritis. Impaired intestinal permeability also occurs in patients undergoing chemotherapy and in heart disease patients.

I briefly discussed intestinal permeability in my last article on GI health. In this article, I will go into further detail about this damaging aspect of intestinal health and explain how increasing butyrate can be a powerful tool in not only restoring ideal colon function but also improving energy levels and the overall health of the body.

Building Butyrate for Colonic Health

Butyrate, a major short-chain fatty acid produced in the human gut by bacterial fermentation of dietary fiber, exhibits strong tumor suppressing activity. Butyrate is an important energy source for cells lining the intestine and plays a role in the maintenance of colonic balance. Butyrate exerts potent effects on a variety of colonic mucosal functions such as inhibition of inflammation and carcinogenesis. Butyrate also reinforces various components that play a role in the colonic defense barrier and decrease oxidative stress. In addition, butyrate may promote satiety.1

Low levels of butyrate are linked to increased risk of colon cancer. A loss of balance in the colon caused by either genetic mutations or environmental factors such as dietary habits can increase the risk for the formation of aberrant crypt foci (the earliest identifiable cancerous lesions in the colon) and ultimately the development of colon cancer. Evidence exists that butyrate reduces the number and the size of aberrant crypt foci in the colon.2

Butyrate’s inhibition of colon cancer is thought to arise from its ability to act as a natural histone deacetylase inhibitor, which results in activation of certain genes known to induce apoptosis (cell death) in cancer cells.2

Low butyrate levels occur in healthy humans prior to the onset of disease, often in response to a poor diet high in sugar and low in fiber. Low butyrate levels also are found in disease states such as ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, especially in patients with moderate to severe mucosal inflammation.3 The monocarboxylate transporter helps colon cells uptake butyrate and during inflammatory bowel disease the monocarboxylate transporter is impaired, preventing the butyrate from getting to the cells.4

The Colonic Barrier and Overall Health

Abnormal intestinal permeability, like low butyrate levels, is another concern that can serve as a hidden reason why we might not be feeling our optimal best. A dysfunction can present in intestinal permeability when an individual is consuming a less than optimal diet or due to other factors such as psychological stress.5

Intestinal permeability, in fact, may be the main cause behind why the body becomes sensitive to a particular type of food. One group of researchers evaluated the intestinal permeability in subjects with adverse reactions to food. Twenty-one subjects with a food allergy and 20 with food hypersensitivity who were on allergen-free diets were enrolled and divided into four groups according to the seriousness of their referred clinical symptoms. The study authors found statistically significant differences in intestinal permeability in subjects with food allergy or hypersensitivity compared to control patients. The worse the intestinal permeability, the more serious the clinical symptoms in patients with food allergy and hypersensitivity.6

According to the researchers, “The present data demonstrate that impaired intestinal permeability, measured in our conditions, is present in all subjects with adverse reactions to food. In addition, for the first time, we report a statistically significant association between the severity of referred clinical symptoms and the increasing of Intestinal Permeability Index. These data reveal that intestinal permeability is not strictly dependent on IgE-mediated processes but could better be related to other mechanisms involved in early food sensitization, as breast-feeding, or microbial environment that influence the development of oral tolerance in early infancy.”

Impaired intestinal permeability is often linked with GI diseases such as ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s. However, new research is unearthing a surprising link between malfunctions in the colonic barrier and a number of non-gastrointestinal conditions such as heart disease.

In a recent study, scientists evaluated the function of the gut in 22 patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and 22 control subjects. Chronic heart failure patients, compared with control patients, had a 35 percent increase of small intestinal permeability and a 210 percent increase of large intestinal permeability. Additionally, higher concentrations of adherent bacteria were found within mucus of CHF patients compared to control subjects.7

The researchers determined, “Chronic heart failure is a multisystem disorder in which intestinal morphology, permeability, and absorption are modified. Increased intestinal permeability and an augmented bacterial biofilm may contribute to the origin of both chronic inflammation and malnutrition.”

Strengthening the Colon

Raising butyrate levels and reducing the permeability of the intestinal barrier can have far reaching consequences for our health that extend beyond the gastrointestinal tract. Consequently, nutritional support is key.

Increasing fiber intake through consumption of a fiber supplement is one of the easiest ways to increase butyrate levels in the body. Fiber is well known for its ability to protect against colon cancer and its ability to raise butyrate levels is thought to be one of the main ways in which it protects the colon. The benefits of dietary fiber on inflammatory bowel disease may also be related to the production of butyrate that occurs when fiber is fermented in the colon. Butyrate appears to decrease the inflammatory response.8

Combining fiber and a good probiotic with specific botanicals, amino acids and fatty acids known to reduce intestinal permeability can provide additional support for the colon. Phosphatidylcholine, for example, can enhance butyrate’s ability to inhibit colon cancer cells, and therefore works well with fiber to strengthen the intestinal environment.9

The amino acid glutamine is one of the most powerful tools for reducing intestinal permeability, thereby protecting the body against the negative consequences of a leaky gut. In a recent review, researchers studied the medical literature to determine if glutamine was effective in reducing intestinal permeability in critically ill patients. In this group of patients, intestinal permeability can have particularly lethal consequences, causing bacteremia, sepsis, and multiple organ failure syndrome. After studying the medical literature, the scientists concluded that glutamine administration by the intravenous or oral route has a protective effect that prevents or reduces the intensity of the increase in intestinal permeability. Glutamine also reduces the frequency of systemic infections.10

Another group of researchers drew a similar conclusion after studying chemotherapy patients with gastrointestinal cancer. In this group of subjects, oral glutamine decreased intestinal permeability and maintained the intestinal barrier.11

Berberine is another substance that can help reduce intestinal permeability and stop beneficial nutrients from escaping through the intestinal wall.12 Berberine also is highly effective at inhibiting the growth of pathogens that invade the colon.

In my clinical practice, I have found that the best way to improve butyrate levels and reduce intestinal permeability is to combine a good fiber supplement with a supplement that contains phosphatidylcholine, L-glutamine, berberine, deglycyrrhizinated licorice (DGL), N-acetyl glucosamine, marshmallow (Althaea officinalis) root, cabbage powder, slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) bark, and gamma oryzanol. This often results in an increased level of friendly flora in the gut and maximizes the effectiveness of any probiotic supplement consumed. After undertaking this approach, patients often report improvement in their gastrointestinal tract and increased overall health and energy.

Conclusion

The gut uses a disproportionate amount of energy (about 25 percent of total oxygen consumption) for the size of the tissue (about 6 percent of body weight).13 Consequently, it’s especially important to provide this part of the body with as much support as possible. Fiber, probiotics, the amino acid L-glutamine, the fatty acid phosphatidylcholine, N-acetyl glucosamine, deglycyrrhizinated licorice and select botanicals such as marshmallow, berberine, cabbage powder and slippery elm can help raise levels of butyrate and reduce intestinal permeability. This approach can result in a healthier colon, improved energy and enhanced overall health.

References


1. Hamer HM, Jonkers D, Venema K, Vanhoutvin S, Troost FJ, Brummer RJ. Review article: the role of butyrate on colonic function. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Jan 15;27(2):104-19.
2. Kim YS, Milner JA. Dietary modulation of colon cancer risk. J Nutr. 2007 Nov;137(11 Suppl):2576S-2579S.
3. Duffy MM, Regan MC, Ravichandran P, O’Keane C, Harrington MG, Fitzpatrick JM, O’Connell PR. Mucosal metabolism in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998 Nov;41(11):1399-405.
4. Thibault R, De Coppet P, Daly K, Bourreille A, Cuff M, Bonnet C, Mosnier JF, Galmiche JP, Shirazi-Beechey S, Segain JP. Down-regulation of the monocarboxylate transporter 1 is involved in butyrate deficiency during intestinal inflammation. Gastroenterology. 2007 Dec;133(6):1916-27.
5. Zareie M, Johnson-Henry K, Jury J, Yang PC, Ngan BY, McKay DM, Soderholm JD, Perdue MH, Sherman PM. Probiotics prevent bacterial translocation and improve intestinal barrier function in rats following chronic psychological stress. Gut. 2006 Nov;55(11):1553-60. Epub 2006 Apr 25.
6. Ventura MT, Polimeno L, Amoruso AC, Gatti F, Annoscia E, Marinaro M, Di Leo E, Matino MG, Buquicchio R, Bonini S, Tursi A, Francavilla A. Intestinal permeability in patients with adverse reactions to food. Dig Liver Dis. 2006 Oct;38(10):732-6.
7. Sandek A, Bauditz J, Swidsinski A, Buhner S, Weber-Eibel J, von Haehling S, Schroedl W, Karhausen T, Doehner W, Rauchhaus M, Poole-Wilson P, Volk HD, Lochs H, Anker SD. Altered intestinal function in patients with chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Oct 16;50(16):1561-9.
8. Rose DJ, DeMeo MT, Keshavarzian A, Hamaker BR. Influence of dietary fiber on inflammatory bowel disease and colon cancer: importance of fermentation pattern. Nutr Rev. 2007 Feb;65(2):51-62.
9. Hossain Z, Konishi M, Hosokawa M, Takahashi K. Effect of polyunsaturated fatty acid-enriched phosphatidylcholine and phosphatidylserine on butyrate-induced growth inhibition, differentiation and apoptosis in Caco-2 cells. Cell Biochem Funct. 2006 Mar-Apr;24(2):159-65.
10. De-Souza DA, Greene LJ. Intestinal permeability and systemic infections in critically ill patients: effect of glutamine. Crit Care Med. 2005 May;33(5):1175-8.
11. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2006 Jan;9(1):59-61. [Protective effect of glutamine on intestinal barrier function in patients receiving chemotherapy] [Article in Chinese]. Jiang HP, Liu CA.
12. Taylor CT, Winter DC, Skelly MM, O’Donoghue DP, O’Sullivan GC, Harvey BJ, Baird AW. Berberine inhibits ion transport in human colonic epithelia. Eur J Pharmacol. 1999 Feb 26;368(1):111-8.
13. Britton R, Krehbiel C. Nutrient metabolism by gut tissues. J Dairy Sci. 1993 Jul;76(7):2125-31.

Homeopathic Treatment for Adoption Trauma

Remedies

Anacardium - Adoption is a split, both emotionally and genetically. The child is split from the original family and identity and graphed onto a new family and identity. The Anacardium child has a divided will, not sure if they are a devil or an angel. The Anacardium state can be caused by isolation and separation at birth, or after, leading to an extreme lack of confidence and a feeling of powerlessness. To compensate for this feeling, the person becomes aggressive and cruel. A keynote of the Anacardium state is a cold, hardhearted stare, which can be quite disconcerting to parents. The child's behavior may appear very normal except in their drawings, which may have violent themes, and they may be attracted to playing with matches. The child's dreams may also be violent, but they will rarely share their dreams with others.

Gallic acid - The Gallic acid state can be caused by the shock of a sudden separation from a primary caretaker. From that time onward, the child does everything possible to prevent being left alone. This child feels abandoned and reacts with manipulation and even violence in seeking protection from further abandonment. The child insists on being watched constantly and wakes up frequently at night to check that the parents are still nearby. This child won't stay alone for even a minute and is rude and abusive to those around them, even to friends. The child can be extremely jealous and threatening to siblings. Gallic acid children are often hyperactive and cannot focus on their tasks, or schoolwork.

Hura - Hura treats the condition of feeling unwanted and abandoned by one's nearest relatives, or friends. The child will feel that she doesn't belong, doesn't fit in. In addition, Hura children feel that they are disgusting as though they have leprosy and are, therefore, outcasts. Some Hura children will compensate for the feeling of being despised by showing contempt for others. The child will often have a skin disorder, such as eczema, or joint problems such as juvenile rheumatoid arthritis.

Lac humanum - Lac humanum is a remedy made from human breast milk. The child who needs it will feel completely alone, as if nobody is there for them. This is the experience of many adopted children who never receive bonding from the birthmother and who were never breastfed. The child feels a sense of isolation, even a sense of not inhabiting her own body. Others easily take advantage of her because she tends to their needs before her own.

Magnesium carbonicum - J. T. Kent wrote in his Lectures on Homeopathic Materia Medica: “I once had in charge an orphanage, where we had sixty to one hundred babies on hand all the time. The puzzle of my life was to find remedies for the cases that were going into marasmus (wasting away). A large number of them were clandestine babies. It was sort of Sheltering Arms for these little ones. The whole year elapsed, and we were losing babies every week from this gradual decline, until I saw the image of these babies in Magnesia carbonicum and after that many of them were cured.” Because of Kent's work, this is usually the first remedy thought of for adoptive children, or orphans.

Magnesium muriaticum - The Magnesium muriaticum child is a peacemaker. It's a good remedy for children whose parents are arguing or divorcing, or whose family members are engaged in conflict. The Magnesium muriaticum child wants everyone to be happy and harmonious. An adopted child who needs Magnesium muriaticum will be frightened whenever her parents argue, fearing that they will break-up and she will be abandoned, just as her birthmother had abandoned her.

Natrum muriaticum - Like the Anacardium state, the Natrum muriaticum state can be caused by isolation and separation at birth. It is a well-known remedy for babies who have been taken from their mothers and placed in an incubator at birth. The Natrum muriaticum child is easily hurt and protects herself with emotional reserve. There is an inner grief due to being left alone without adequate nurturing. These children are so closed it's hard to get to know them. They say little and reveal nothing about what is really going on in their lives. They are easily offended, and remember any insult for a long time - sometimes forever.

Pulsatilla - The Pulsatilla state can be caused by rejection of the child by the mother, or separation from the mother at an early age. The child feels unloved and unwanted. In her struggle to get enough love, the child will be clingy, weepy and manipulative. She has an insatiable desire for attention and reassurance, often asking, “Do you love me?”

Saccharum officianale - A remedy for those who did not receive enough love, or nurturing, in their early life. The child will usually have an extreme craving for sweets and may have a sugar imbalance problem such as hypoglycemia. She may also have extreme thirst. The child will compensate for lack of nurturing with two types of behaviors: firstly, she may constantly seek closeness with the parents, especially the mother, always wanting cuddles and wanting to sleep in the parent's bed. And secondly, the child may have behavior problems such as kicking and hitting other children, sibling jealousy, defiant behavior, or hyperactivity. Some children will compensate for a lack of nurturing by refusing any form of affection. These children have the same desperate need for love, but will refuse contact with the parents.

Not every adopted child will need one of these remedies. We always recommend remedies based on the totality of the whole person, not just one factor such as adoption. Any troubled child, whether adopted or not, will benefit from professional homeopathic care. The homeopath may consider the wounds of adoption as a possible etiology, and will determine if any of these remedies fit the picture.