Colloidal Silver vs. Ionic Silver And Why It Matters

Click here to view the original post.

Colloidal silver is often confused with ionic silver, and although both are very similar, their differences should be noted especially when considering whether or not colloidal silver is a supplement that’s right for you or your family. Many products claiming to be colloidal silver or angstrom size silver particle colloids are in fact mostly ionic silver solutions.

This article will help you to understand the differences and labeling so that informed decisions can be made about colloidal silver. Most don’t know that ionic silver is also often sold as colloidal silver, however, the differences between the two should be noted and for very important reasons.

What It Is

Colloidal silver is simply water with small nanoparticles of metallic silver in it.  The silver particles are complete and do not combine with other elements.  The same can not be said for ionic silver.  If you’re more scientifically savvy than the average person, you’ve probably already guessed that ionic silver is an atom of silver that is missing an electron. The outermost electrons of an atom determine the physical properties of the matter. When one electron is taken away from a silver atom and you are left with a silver ion. Ionic silver is not the same as metallic silversilver particles or colloidal silver.

Additionally, when that one electron is missing meaning the silver is in its ionic form, it is highly reactive with other elements, and will readily combine to form compounds. Pure silver particles, on the other hand, are made up of clusters of silver atoms and do not combine with other atoms of other elements, as their electron count is already “full.”

This is perhaps the most important fact to be kept in mind when reading claims that silver ions are particles. If a silver ion were a particle, it would not combine with chloride. Colloidal silver does have some ionic silver in it, however, because as the metallic silver goes through the process to become a colloid, some ions inevitably get in there.

This is noteworthy because silver ions and chloride ions have such a strong attraction for each other that it is virtually impossible to keep them apart. Once in contact with chloride ions, they will bond forming silver chloride. Silver chloride is an insoluble compound which means once it is formed in the human body, it does not dissolve.  All ionic silver will eventually turn into silver chloride once inside the human body because of the readily available supply of chloride ions in many different forms.  Silver chloride is an insoluble salt which is eliminated by the kidneys and expelled in the urine but it’s mostly useless as a supplement, making ionic silver much less desirable. Typical ionic silver products contain between 3 and 20 ppm of ionic silver which would not cause argyria (colloidal silver’s only known side effect).

Despite the fact that labels and advertising often never mention the words “ionic silver” or specify what percentage of the total silver in their product is made up of silver ions vs. silver particles, many different terms are being used to describe ionic silver products in an attempt to obfuscate the truth. The following terms are currently most often used: monatomic silver, silver hydrosol, and covalent silver.

Monatomic silver: simply an advertising term commonly used to describe ionic silver solutions. Claims for monatomic silver products describe their particles as single atoms of silver. Single-atom particles cannot exist due to the van der Waal’s force of mutual attraction which would cause single atoms to be drawn to each other to form particles consisting of clusters of atoms. For more in-depth details, please click here to read The Myth of Monatomic Colloidal Silver.

Silver Hydrosol: this is yet another term being used to sell ionic silver products. The definition of hydrosol is a colloidal suspension in water. Therefore, the term silver hydrosol is describing colloidal silver. However, products advertised as silver hydrosol are actually ads for ionic silver products that are typically 95% or more ionic silver.

Covalent silver: the most recent in the ionic name game. When you read the detailed description for covalent silver you will eventually find that the term is simply referring to silver ions.

Promotional claims made for some ionic silver products describe it as having “high bioavailability.” But that’s quite misleading. The Merck Manual is clear that bioavailability is the amount of unchanged drug that reaches the systemic circulation. To be bioavailable the substance being ingested must attain systemic circulation unchanged in form. Because silver ions are highly reactive they quickly form compounds in the body and therefore cannot remain unchanged. While it is the highly reactive nature of silver ions that provides its antimicrobial properties, it also causes the rapid formation of compounds and prevents the continued existence of silver ions inside the human body. Because silver ions cannot exist inside the human body the bioavailability is virtually nonexistent. Silver compounds such as silver chloride in the bloodstream provide no meaningful antimicrobial properties.

Only silver nanoparticles (colloids) can survive inside the body. Metallic silver particles are unaffected by hydrochloric stomach acid and chloride ions and will circulate in the bloodstream. The particles will slowly be eliminated from the body and do not build up. Since it is the particles of metallic silver that provide the real benefit, it is important to know how much of any colloidal silver product is in the form of particles.

Making a true silver colloid is a complicated, complex, and costly process. It’s no mystery why most producers choose to make ionic silver instead and simply call it colloidal silver. Thankfully, more consumers are educating themselves about this deception, and more are learning about this simple test: If it looks like water, it is ionic silver, not a true silver colloid.

There are many myths and some truths floating around about the side effects of colloidal silver as a supplement as well.  Please go here to read about how to prevent the one known side effect of colloidal silver and what causes it to occur.



This information has been made available by Ready Nutrition

BREAKING: Supporters Of GMO Labeling Just Defeated Monsanto In The U.S. Senate

Click here to view the original post.

Supporters Of GMO Labeling Just Defeated Monsanto In The U.S. Senate

Foes of GMO foods won a huge victory this week when the US Senate blocked legislation that would have prevented states from requiring labeling on GMO products.

The Biotech Labeling Solutions Act, better known by opponents as the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, failed to obtain the 60 votes needed to “invoke cloture” and force a debate and final vote. The vote was 48 votes in favor of cloture, 49 against.

The bill would have overturned a GMO labeling law in Vermont that takes effect July 1.

“It’s not only a states’ rights issue but I think the American people ought to know what’s in their food,” US Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) said. “We’re not banning food in Vermont. All we’re saying is if you’re going to buy food know what’s in it.”

Need Non-GMO Heirloom Seeds For Your Spring Garden? The Best Deals Are Right Here!

After the vote, the act’s sponsor, Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), withdrew the legislation and vowed to keep fighting for its passage.

Big Food Spent $100 million on Fight

“That’s a great sign for Vermont and we should work together to make sure that they’re not back at this again next week,” Vermont’s Democratic Governor, Peter Shumlin, told National Public Radio.

Shumlin and other supporters of GMO labeling have their work cut for them. The Environmental Working Group reported that food and biotech companies spent $100 million on efforts to kill GMO labeling in the past year. Corporations fighting against GMO labeling include Kellogg, PepsiCo Inc., Monsanto and Dow Chemical Co.

The Center for Food Safety said the vote effectively defeated the bill. The group opposes the bill.

“The defeat of the DARK Act is a major victory for the food movement and America’s right to know,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety. “It also is an important victory for Democracy over the attempt of corporate interests to keep Americans in the Dark about the foods they buy and feed their families.”

The bill is Senate Bill 764.

Do you support or oppose the bill? Share your thoughts in the section below:

Every Spring, Gardeners Make This Avoidable Mistake — But You Don’t Have To. Read More Here.

Big Food Makes Big Move On GMO Labeling, But Is It Enough?

Click here to view the original post.
Image source:

Image source:

Big Food is finally giving in to consumers on GMO labeling — sort of. By the end of 2017 a new app will tell you if up to 30,000 products from some of the world’s biggest food and beverage brands contain genetically modified ingredients, commonly knowns as GMOs.

Consumers would us a smartphone to scan a QR code, which would provide detailed nutritional information about the food, Time reported. The app then would tell the consumer if the food is non-GMO.

Additionally, that information will also be available on the web, a SmartLabel fact sheet indicates. Information will also be displayed at and from customer service desks.

SmartLabel’s website is still under construction. According to the site and a press release, SmartLabel will offer the following information:

  • Nutrition
  • Allergens
  • Advisories
  • Brand information
  • Ingredients including GMO.

Significantly, the labels themselves will not disclose GMO information.

Not Yet Available

Time reported that the following companies have agreed to participate in the SmartLabel effort, although the list is growing

  • Pepsi, which also owns Frito-Lay.
  • ConAgra Foods
  • Hormel
  • Campbell Soup
  • Land O’Lakes
  • Coca-Cola.
  • Nestle
  • Hershey
  • General Foods

Major grocers are also participating in SmartLabel, which is sponsored by the trade group Grocery Manufacturers Association.

The Best Deals On Non-GMO Heirloom Seeds Are Right Here!

Supporters of GMO labeling were skeptical about the app, which they fear could be an effort to block labeling law. Scott Faber, the executive director of a group called Just Label It, said the information about GMO could be hidden in the app.

Story continues below video

“There’s no wording to tell you to scan this for GMO information, and the information will not be easily available to consumers without a smartphone,” Faber complained.

“This is not a proposal about giving consumers information,” Faber told Time. “This is about providing cover to preempt mandatory labeling.”

Such information should be listed on the container itself, said Greg Jaffe, the director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Where You Can Find GMO Information Right Now

Currently, those who want to know if products contain GMOs often visit the website of the Non-GMO Project, a non-profit organization that has verified thousands of products as non-GMO. But those products actually are labeled in the store with a “Non-GMO” ID so that consumers can easily find them.

Unlike SmartLabel, the Non-GMO Project is not associated with trade organizations, although it does work with a number of large companies, including Pepsi and some of its brands. The project’s website contains a guide to Non-GMO products with a long list of brands.

The Non-GMO Project has also created its own shopping app.

What do you think? Does the SmartLabel idea by companies meet your needs, or should the products themselves be labeled? Share your thoughts in the section below:

Learn Dozens Of All-Natural Gardening Secrets. Read More Here.

Senate Close To Protecting Monsanto, Banning GMO Labeling

Click here to view the original post.

Senate Close To Passing Bill Banning GMO Labeling, Protecting MonsantoThe United States Senate may go against the wishes of 93 percent of Americans and ban labelling that tells customers if foods contain GMO (genetically modified organism) ingredients.

The Senate’s Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry heard testimony on a bill this week that would bar states from requiring GMO labelling.

The US House of Representatives passed similar legislation in July, and critics labeled that law the “Deny Americans the Right to Know” or DARK Act. Among other things, the legislation would overturn state laws mandating GMO labelling. (Listen to Off The Grid Radio’s in-depth report on the bill here.)

Farm-state senators – both Republican and Democrats — want such a law passed by the end of the year, Politico reported.

“I share the concern about the difficulty in doing business across our country if 50 different states have 50 different standards and requirements and frankly, it won’t work,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat from Michigan who backs the bill.

Looking For The Best Source Of Non-GMO Seeds?

Said Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat from North Dakota, “I believe the science is so strong in this area — that these are products that will not have an adverse effect in any way on health, in fact can improve health by making food more available worldwide.

It is not know if President Obama would sign the bill, although he has sided with Monsanto and biotech companies in the past.

Opponents of the bill said passage would infringe on consumer rights.

vermont gmo labeling“Our position is simple: consumers have the right to know what is in their food and how it is grown — the same right held by citizens in 64 nations,” Gary Hirshberg, the chairman of organic company Stonyfield Farm, told the committee.

Hirshberg’s company supports Just Label It, a coalition opposed to the legislation.

Big Food Supports the Bill

Corporate interests, including the trade group Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), support the bill.

New “Survival Herb Bank” Gives You Access to God’s Amazing Medicine Chest

“We are confident that Congress will act on this issue this year given that members of both Houses and both parties have repeatedly told us that a 50-state patchwork of laws is not sustainable,” GMA spokesman Brian Kennedy said in a press release.

One reason why manufacturers support the law is that it would nullify Vermont’s GMO labeling requirements and prevent other states from enacting such laws. Food companies do not want the hassle of making special labels for different states.

The vast majority of Americans favor GMO labelling on food. A 2013 New York Times poll found that 93 percent of Americans surveyed supported the concept. The same survey discovered that three-quarters of Americans are suspicious of genetically engineered ingredients in food.

“Recent polling and consumer data tell us that nine out of ten Americans – regardless of age, income, race or party affiliation – want the right to know whether the food they eat and purchase for their families contains GMOs,” Hirshberg told the committee.

Hirshberg, a 32-year veteran of the food industry, also took issue with the idea that labeling would hurt food sales. He disputed claims that GMO labeling would increase food prices.

“Actual experience shows that food prices have not increased in the 64 countries that have adopted GMO labels, nor do consumers in these countries view GMO disclosures as warnings,” Hirshberg said. “At the same time that GMO disclosures have been adopted around the globe, GMO crop acreage has steadily increased – from 27 million acres in 1997, when the first GMO label was introduced, to 448 million acres in 2014.”

Do you support or oppose the law? Why? Share your thoughts on it in the section below:

Tired Of Losing Freedoms — And Looking For Another Country? Read More Here.