(Thomas Dishaw) Fluoride, a toxic staple of most municipal water supplies , was first integrated for public consumption in 1945 in Grand Rapids Michigan. Since then 75% of the cities across the US have followed, dumping this toxic poison into the water for you and your family to consume.
According to the CDC, Fluoridation of the water supply has been hailed as one of ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. That is interesting considering recent studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ, literally dumbing Americans down one drink at a time. Unfortunately 70% of Americans still believe the fluoride myth, even as shocking new studies by Harvard have concluded that fluoride’s effect on the young brain should now be a “high research” priority.
Thankfully some parts of the world have completely abandoned the thought of fluoridation . Leading the fight is Western Europe which is 97% non fluoridated, and includes the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, and approximately 90% of both the United Kingdom and Spain according to Fluoride Action Network.
Since high levels of fluoride have creeped their way into the food and water chain there are a few ways to combat this toxic time bomb. The first and most important is invest in a water filter that will remove fluoride. Over the years I have progressed from an uneducated consumer who used to purchase PUR water filters at the grocery store to actually owning a Berkey water purification system that removes the fluoride from the water. This is one of the most important purchases you will make in your life. Second, we need to vote with our dollars and continue to support companies that produce fluoride free products and demand they make more. And finally we need to take our cities back by demanding they remove this toxic sludge from our tap. Many areas of the country have already had great success, with an extensive list here.
Below is a comprehensive list of states with the highest fluoride rates to share with friends & family.
State Fluoridation Percentage Calculations and States Ranked by Fluoridation Percentage
|State||%||Persons receiving fluoridated water||Persons served by CWS||State||Rank|
|District of Columbia||100.0||595,000||595,000||Iowa||10|
|New Mexico||77.0||1,210,777||1,571,600||Arkansas||Tied for
|New Yorke||74.7||14,468,141||19,378,102||Oklahoma||Tied for
|South Carolina||87.1||3,434,565||3,944,594||New Hampshire||42|
Sign Up For Our Weekly Email Alerts, Information is 100% Secure, Not Like The Govt
Become A Fan On The Social Media Plantation And Help Us Spread The Word
(Thomas Dishaw) If you are anything like me you probably enjoy waking up to a cold glass of orange juice in the morning with your bacon and eggs (ala Edward Bernays). In a perfect world this orange juice would of course be GMO free, organic and preferably from a local farm, but unfortunately most of the time it’s not.
Over the years I have gradually progressed into a dangerous consumer (educated). Making healthier purchases has become an obsession as I continue to vote with my dollars and do my best not to support unhealthy labels that seem to flood the marketplace.
Over the years I have been disappointed with the selection of orange juice in the grocery stores, having to choose from various watered down jugs that smell like orange perfume but is supposedly full of vitamin C and, according to new studies, help play a role in reducing the risk of heart disease and diabetes in people who eat an unhealthy diet.
Like most people you have a carton of orange juice in your refrigerator, hopefully after reading this article it will give you a few reasons to dump it down the drain, vote with your dollars and support a healthier alternative.
- But did you really know that the orange juice you buy, conventional or organic, is basically a waste of money and here is why: 98% of the orange juice in North America is pasteurized or flash pasteurized. If you’re unfamiliar with this practice it’s the process of heating a liquid at an extremely high temperature for a few seconds and up to a half of minute, essentially destroying any nutrients that were left in the juice, leaving you with essentially sugar water. The CDC, better known as the Center for Disease Creation, recommends all juices for consumption be pasteurized, essentially eliminating the threat of disease from the food supply, arguing pasteurization is needed to kill two particular pathogens: E.coli O157:H7 (which is found naturally in the intestins of cows) and salmonella, raising the question why would there be salmonella or O157:H7 on oranges?
- When you purchase a product from the grocery store you consider it to be fresh and of the utmost quality. Well big name orange juice is far from it. According to expert and author of the book Squeezed, Aliissa Hamilton reveals that orange juice is stripped of oxygen, flavor and stored for up to a year in tanks (an industry process called deaeration) then re-flavored before it is packaged and sold to consumers, Hamilton also states that if one were to taste the juice coming out of these tanks, it would taste like pure sugar water, not orange juice. I don’t know about you but this practice sounds absolutely disgusting. I understand big business and supply chain but there has to be a better way than this. Millions of gallons of slop being stored for up to a year and then add on the 30-60 day sell by date and essentially the product could be 14 months old before you ingest it.
- Did you know that fragrance companies like Dior and Calvin Klein are hired to produce flavor packets that enhance the juices taste after it has been stripped of oxygen and flavor providing chemicals. With an obvious loophole in the corrupt labeling system these flavor packs aren’t listed as an ingredient on the label because technically they are derived from orange essence and oil. According to civilets.com the packs added to juice earmarked for the North American market tend to contain high amounts of ethyl butyrate, a chemical in the fragrance of fresh squeezed orange juice that juice companies have discovered Americans favor. Mexicans and Brazilians have a different palate. Flavor packs fabricated for juice geared to these markets therefore highlight different chemicals, the decanals say, or terpene compounds such as valencine .
- One of the more obscure claims made by the orange juice mafia is that every glass is 100% pure Florida orange juice. I guess we didn’t get the same definition of pure because according to the dictionary it defines pure as not mixed with anything else. How can you make the claim your product is pure when you add flavor packs to your juice, even if it’s conveniently excluded from the label. I guess these guys didn’t get the memo that their orange juice is far from pure and could possibly be involved in a class action lawsuit along the lines of Pepsi’s Naked Juice which was forced to pay out 9 million dollars for using the word natural on their packaging.
As millions of Americans are tricked into thinking grocery store orange juice is a healthy beverage, it is nice to know there are a few great healthy alternatives out there. Since I’m an orange juice connoisseur I usually make my way to the local Wegmans where they have one gallon jugs of fresh squeezed unpasteurized organic orange juice for $15.00 a gallon. Although many may argue the price is steep, I guarantee you if you do a side-by-side taste test you will never drink any of the popular brands on the market again. And if you were drinking the orange juice for the vitamin c content you can do much better by incorporating these veggies into your everyday diet: Broccoli, Red Bell Peppers and Kale.
Last Friday, the city council of Berkeley, California, voted to keep mercury hidden in dental fillings, keeping consumers in the dark on the fact that they are all being poisoned with a deadly neurotoxin that causes permanent brain damage. This decision to keep consumers in the dark was, of course, supported by dentists and doctors — both of which have a long history of covertly poisoning their own patients while refusing to disclose the damaging effects of the deadly chemicals or toxic heavy metals they routinely (and profitably) use.
It turns out that “amalgam fillings” are intentionally and deliberately misnamed for the express purpose of misleading consumers. Those fillings are actually more than 50 percent mercury, and once installed in mouths, they off-gas mercury vapor which is then inhaled by the patient, entering their bloodstream and causing permanent cellular damage to heart, kidneys, liver and brain. Click here to see a video of mercury fillings off-gassing deadly mercury vapor.
There’s also a stunning video from the University of Calgary that provides visual proof of mercury damaging brain neurons. If you’ve never seen this video, click here to watch it now.
Here’s why so many dentists are clinically insane
The dentistry industry knows that mercury is extremely toxic. It’s one of the reasons why so many dentists are clinically insane. They’ve come into contact with so much mercury of the years that they, themselves, are victims of it. That’s why so many retired dentists are stark raving mad. The “mad hatter” effect is what happens when you touch, absorb or inhale too much mercury over the years.
So instead of trying to remove mercury from fillings — which would be the obvious solution here — the dental industry has, for decades, engaged in a delusional campaign of denial, pretending that mercury fillings are somehow not toxic. Could this be because the dental industry organizations also happen to own patents on mercury fillings and earn huge revenues every time one is purchased for use on a child?
Yet even in their absurd denial of the toxicity of mercury, mainstream dentists and poison pushers forget yet another critical aspect of all this: the environmental damage caused by mercury used in dentistry.
Mercury-based dentistry is destroying our world
Thanks to modern dentistry, mercury is “the poison that keeps on giving.” Even after poisoning the patient, that same mercury goes on to poison the world. How?
When people who have mercury fillings die, many are cremated. This causes the mercury in their mouths to be “cooked off” and turned into a deadly gas that gets blown right into the atmosphere. Mainstream environmentalists are quite familiar with the idea of mercury being released by coal power plants, but almost nobody talks about mercury being released from the cremation of patients who have been implanted with mercury fillings.
This mercury gets blown by trade winds and eventually settles on crop lands all across America. From there, it enters the food, causing trace levels of mercury to be found across the food supply. This is just one of the many ways in which modern dentistry is poisoning our world.
Mercury used in fertilizers for food
Believe it or not, mercury is also found in biosludge (human waste) fertilizers that are routinely spread on crops grown in the USA and elsewhere. This is a common but little-known practice in the food production industry.
The EPA openly confirms this, by the way, stating, “if mercury-contaminated sludge is used as an agricultural fertilizer, some of the mercury used as fertilizer may also evaporate to the atmosphere. Through precipitation, this airborne mercury eventually gets deposited onto water bodies, land and vegetation.”
Just how big of a problem is this? According to the EPA, over 30 tons of mercury were used in dental fillings in 2004. Dental offices are also polluting the world with mercury through improper disposal of mercury-contaminated devices and supplies. As the EPA states on its dental amalgam page:
If the amalgam waste is sent to a landfill, the mercury may be released into the groundwater or air. If the mercury is incinerated, mercury may be emitted to the air from the incinerator stacks. And finally, if mercury-contaminated sludge is used as an agricultural fertilizer, some of the mercury used as fertilizer may also evaporate to the atmosphere.
Through precipitation, this airborne mercury eventually gets deposited onto water bodies, land and vegetation. Some dentists throw their excess amalgam into special medical waste (“red bag”) containers, believing this to be an environmentally safe disposal practice. If waste amalgam solids are improperly disposed in medical red bags, however, the amalgam waste may be incinerated and mercury may be emitted to the air from the incinerator stacks. This airborne mercury is eventually deposited into water bodies and onto land.
Mercury amalgam also accumulates on dental supplies, such as cotton swabs and gauze, and these materials are usually deposited in the regular trash. In local areas where trash is incinerated, the mercury in this trash can be released via air emissions.
Mercury denialists, poison pushers and destroyers of life
The mercury denialists are all the usual suspects. They are the very same destroyers of life who are also pushing GMOs, vaccines, psychiatric drugs and other poisons that are destroying our world. These very same people insist that mercury is somehow not toxic to humans, nor to the environment, nor to any life on our planet.
Of course, they know they’re lying about mercury, just as they’re lying about GMOs, vaccines, psychiatric drugs, glyphosate, triclosan, aspartame and all the other poisons now devastating our world.
It’s time to stop the dentistry holocaust and outlaw the use of mercury in both dentistry and medicine. Mercury has no place whatsoever in the dental practices of a civilized society. We have suffering mercury poisoning for too many generations, and We the People will no longer tolerate the denials of a corrupt, profiteering industry that earns money by installing neurotoxic substances into the mouths of children.
What you can do to stop the dentistry holocaust
Join Natural News in halting this modern-day holocaust:
#1) Demand mercury-free dentistry for yourself and your family members. If your current dentist still uses mercury, switch dentists.
#2) Demand that your representatives in government support legislative bans on mercury in dentistry and vaccines.
#3) If you currently have mercury in your mouth, have it removed by a competent holistic dentist. Please note that you will need to consume extra nutritional supplements before and after any mercury removal procedure to protect your body from absorbing the mercury. Most importantly, you will need an oxygen respirator during the procedure to avoid inhaling mercury vapor as the fillings are being drilled out! If your dentist does not give you a respirator during this procedure, refuse to work with that dentist, period! (Removing mercury fillings exposes you to very high levels of mercury vapor during the removal.)
#4) Share this story and keep reading Natural News for the truth about mercury, dentistry, vaccines, GMOs and other topics that the mainstream media flat-out refuses to cover.
P.S. There is no “safe” form of mercury, as is sometimes claimed by the poison pushers. Mercury is toxic in all its forms and isotopes. You can speciate mercury all day long, but you’ll never find a form that’s a nutrient. Every form of mercury is poison to life on our planet, without exception!
This story was first seen on Natural News
(Natasha Longo) USDA Organic” is simply a marketing term those who take government ethics at face value. The goal has always been to increase agricultural sales, not promote organic farming. The public seems to confide in this label through sheer ignorance.
The National Organic Program (NOP) which governs the “USDA Organic” label has no interest in organic farming, improving soil, quality of the produce, or factors that pollute the environment. In another blow to their organics program that will further downgrade consumer confidence, the USDA announced this week that the agency has changed the process for exempting otherwise prohibited substances (such as synthetics) in food that carries the “organic or “made with organic” label.
This decision makes it easier to continue use of artificial ingredients and substances, undermining integrity of the organic label.
According to the National Organic Program, the organic label indicates that the food or other agricultural product has been produced through methods that integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used…until now.
Under the federal organic law and prior to the announcement, there was a controlled process for allowing the use of substances not normally permitted in organic production because of extenuating circumstances. Under the Organic Foods Production Act 7 USC 6517 (e) Sunset Provision, “No exemption or prohibition contained in the National List shall be valid unless the National Organic Standards Board has reviewed such exemption or prohibition as provided in this section within 5 years of such exemption or prohibition being adopted or reviewed and the Secretary has renewed such exemption or prohibition.”
Under the law, these exemptions are authorized for a five-year period, in order to encourage the development of natural (or organic) alternatives. The exemptions are required by law to expire, known as “sunset,” unless they were reinstated by a two-thirds “decisive” majority vote of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and include a public review. While this is the law, USDA has said it willÂ no longer operate the program in this manner.
USDA organics has been hijacked by big agriculture and their food scientists for some time. Senior food scientist Toby McDonald insists that the only way to protect the population is through current and modified sterilization techniques that will make food safe for all. “Current and modified practices including irradiation and pasteurization are extremely effective in reducing harmful bacteria and pathogens in the food supply,” he proclaimed. MacDonald says that as food demand reaches its climax, proper sterilization will be necessary at all levels.” An increase of 50 percent in food demand by 2030 will require more funding into food monitoring infrastructures so that all food with the potential to produce outbreaks can be properly sterilized to prevent those outbreaks,” he added.
The USDA’s recent decision now puts the burden of identifying exempted materials for removal largely onto environmentalists and consumers.Â It largely suggests that the alternative media will now have to step up their efforts to identify all genetically modified and toxic sources which the USDA will eventually label as organic.
Under the new policy, an exempt material could be permitted indefinitely unless a two-thirds majority of the NOSB votes to remove an exempted (synthetic) substance from the list.Â The new policy allows USDA to relist exemptions for synthetic materials without the recommendation of the independent board and outside of public view, as required by current law.
This isn’t the only strike on the USDA’s public record. Just a few years ago, The Cornucopia Institute released an independent report that focused on the widespread abuses in organic egg production, primarily by large industrial agribusinesses. The study profiled the exemplary management practices employed by many family-scale organic farmers engaged in egg production, while spotlighting abuses at so-called factory farms, some confining hundreds of thousands of chickens in industrial facilities, and representing these eggs to consumers as “organic.”
As I have been vocally stating for years now, the public perception that USDA Organic label is “truly organic” is a falsity. The USDA has repeatedly permitted certifications of organizations known to not meet the legal requirement for said certification. Two examples are CCFO and Oregon Tilth.
So What Should Organic Farming Entail?
– Free of synthetic chemicals of any kind
– Free of genetically modified organisms
– Free of irradiation, pasteurization or sterlization
– Produced in soils of enhanced biological activity
– Produced via reputable farming strategies such as on crop rotations, crop residues, animal manures, mechanical cultivation, approved mineral-bearing rocks and aspects of biological pest control to maintain soil productivity, to supply plant nutrients and to control insects, weeds and other pests.
The USDA’s recent decision means there is no guarantee on any of the above. In a joint statement issued by Beyond Pesticides, Consumers Union, Center for Food Safety, and Food and Water Watch, they stated:
“The USDA’s decision minimizes all incentives for creating organic, natural alternative ingredients and lowers the standard for what consumers can expect behind the organic label. Allowing the USDA to automatically relist materials without the recommendation of the NOSB erodes the Board’s legal authority over materials decisions, a key to consumer trust in the organic label. The fact that the agency made this decision without any public input only adds to the violation felt by watchdog groups and consumers alike,”
“Potentially allowing an indefinite listing of non-natural ingredients and requiring a super-majority vote to retire a substance after five years undermines the spirit of the law for how materials head into “sunset” or retirement. It is unfair to producers trying to produce a truly organic product and it is unfair to consumers trying to make meaningful purchasing decisions. Simply put, this lowers the bar for much of the organic market. We believe USDA must reverse course and we intend to mount a fierce campaign to hold the agency accountable to the millions of Americans who expect more from the government–and the organic label.”
Organic agriculture embodies an ecological approach to farming that focuses on feeding the soil and growing naturally healthy crops, whereas chemical-intensive agriculture depends on toxic chemicals and inputs which poison the soil, as well as air, water, farmworkers and consumers. In conventional chemical agriculture there are tens of thousands of synthetic materials, including over 200 registered pesticide active ingredients used regularly
Expanding organics is literally a matter of life or death for public health, climate, and the environment. None of the largest food suppliers of our world are leading the charge to double or triple organic food and farming sales by exposing the myth of organic foods because it is not in their best interest. The industry giants will never get serious about making a societal transition to organic food and farming.
The reason for this is simple: it is far easier and profitable for these conglomerates to sell conventional or even so-called natural foods at a premium price, than it is to pay a premium price for organics and educate consumers as to why “cheap” conventional and deceptive “natural food” is really more expensive than organic, given the astronomical hidden costs (health, pollution, climate destabilization) of conventional agriculture and food processing.
This article first appeared @ Waking Times
(Steve & Becky Holman) Did you know that once you hit 40 years of age, whether you’re a man or a women, your body starts aging FASTER than normal? Studies have shown that without the proper nutrients and exercise, your body will age about 6 months EXTRA for every year that passes. Think about that! If you are 40, that means by the time you hit 44 you will LOOK and FEEL 48. And by the time you reach 60, you will LOOK and FEEL 70 YEARS OLD! We see this every day… just look around you.
Did you know that 90% of people over the age of 35 lose enough muscle every year to burn off an additional 4 pounds of body fat? That means you not only lose the only thing on your body that creates shape, tone, and strength—you also gain more fat every year, even if your calories stay the same.
Did you know that all of this is reversible at any age? That there are specific ways to move, eat, and think that tell your brain to STOP this rapid aging process… and even SLOW IT DOWN to the point where you’re aging less than a year for every year? That means you can look younger at 40 than you do at 35… or if you’re like Becky and I, younger at 50+ than we did at 40!
This is not fantasy talk. This does not require a boatload of anti-aging drugs, supplements, or gimmicks. And, this works for anyone, male or female, and works at any age. 35, 45, 55, 65, 75… you name it. The biology is exactly the same.
My years as editor-in-chief at Iron Man Magazine have allowed me to peer into the secret routines of the anti-aging experts. Over the years, both Becky and I have picked up SO many tips, tricks, and strategies that have allowed us to literally reverse the aging process, at least from a cellular level. That means our body’s look, feel, and MOVE younger than our chronological age.
We’ve taught this System to countless men and women over the years, and it always begins with these 5 key principles you must apply in order to STOP the rapid onset of aging that’s going on right now, reverse it, and begin “aging backwards” by restoring your body’s natural youth hormones.
That said, we have to warn you: What you are about to hear may go against all the conventional diet and exercise advice you’ve been hearing. That’s because the world has, to be utterly frank, gone soft! “Core training”, hot yoga, spin classes, tai chí all of these are just fine, but they won’t slow your aging, and they certainly will never shape your muscles or burn off stubborn body fat. No way!
These 5 steps reveal the things you absolutely MUST AVOID if you want to slow the aging process, reclaim your health, and achieve your ideal body.
What you need is a splash of cold water, a touch of Old School, and the honest truth. Sound good? Let’s dive in!
Step 1: Forget Low-Fat Diets
Low fat everything has been the craze now for decades and look around. What has that wonderful bit of advice done for the bodies you see? We’re fatter, sicker, and more addicted to sugar and carbs than any other time in history. And, we’re passing these habits to our kids.
Fats are not to be feared – they’re to be embraced. They do not make you fat; rather, they help your body regenerate your power hormones. Testosterone, the ‘strength’ hormone, for example, is the direct result ofcholesterol and dietary fat intake. That’s right: “Cholesterol” isn’t a dirty word! Your body needs dietary fat and cholesterol in order to produce ANY AND ALL vital hormones.
People on low fat diets look drawn, gaunt, and weak. They are often sick, sometimes to the point of literally breaking down. And, they can never just enjoy eating out. Every meal and every gram must be accounted for. Do you really think this will make you younger? Of course not… it will worry you to death if it doesn’t kill you first!
Step 2: Stop Running in Circles
Gym classes can be fun, if you like sitting in one place and torturing yourself. But have you noticed how little people change their bodies in these classes? Sure, it’s good “cardio”, but cardiovascular conditioning can be gained with far less time and effort.
Treadmills, and any form of endurance training (especially running) does very little to help the age reversal process. Many times, these long-duration exercise bouts accelerate the aging process by increasing free radicals. These free radicals are scavengers that prey on your body’s essential nutrients and tissues.
There’s a smart way to exercise… we’ll cover that in a minute. And, what’s wonderful is that it takes you about ¼ the time of traditional workouts. We’ll cover more details on the next page.
Step 3: Stop Blaming Everything On How Old You Are
The guys to the left are not fat because they are old—they’re fat becausethey eat, think, and move like a fat, old, dying person! Becky and I are both in our 50s—older than the guys in this photo—and I still sport a nice six-pack, and Becky transformed her body from the typical “middle age mom” to a slim, toned, and super-sexy woman who looks 10 years younger. (See the next page for photos!)
Listen: Your body doesn’t own a clock. Studies have shown that men and women in their 90s were able to gain muscle tone in just a matter of weeks of simple weight training. I’ve personally seen men and women transform their physiques at literally all ages—25 to 95!
If you’re around those naysayers who are constantly talking about growing old, all their aches and pains, and how life is just down hill after 40—LEAVE! Surround yourself with positive thinkers who absolutely crave a challenge. A challenge is what keeps you YOUNG, and the best challenge there is happens to be taking control of your health and body.
Step 4: Avoid Chronic Dehydration
Water isn’t just “good for you” — water burns fat. Water suppresses hunger. Water renews your skin. Just drinking 12 ounces of pure water every day can take a few years off your face in a matter of weeks. You’ll also drop fat, have more energy, and save your kidneys and liver from chronic overwork.
When your kidneys are taxed from too little water, your liver has to take over. Now, get this: Your liver is your number one fat-burning organ. Do you REALLY want it processing liquids and toxins rather than BURNING FAT? No way, right? Well, grab a glass of water, and watch the mirror. Within a few weeks, the change to your face and body will be noticeable.
Step 5: Work Out LESS (Yes, Less)
If you don’t work out at all, you’re going to lose muscle tissue every year. That means you’ll get fatter and flabbier each and every year with less shape and more sag. Is this what you desire? No way, right?
Well, the answer is old school resistance training. Here’s the secret: hardly anyone is doing it right!
Get more tips on how to look 10 years younger at Old School New Body
(Mike Adams) A new video from the group calling itself “Organic Spies” is once again rocking the organic food industry. In the video, a woman who identifies herself as a former employee of Whole Foods Market (WFM) testifies that she and other employees were deliberately trained by Whole Foods Market management to lie to store customers about whether the stores carry foods made with genetically engineered ingredients (GMOs).
According to this female whistleblower, whose identity is concealed for her protection, Whole Foods Market employees were deliberately instructed to lie to customers as part of their employee training. The denial of GMOs being sold in Whole Foods stores was an integral part of the training of employees, she explains:
When we first started, we had a “Day One and a Day Two, and they teach us about the core values of Whole Foods Market, the core values of nothing’s artificial, everything’s natural… When I first started at Whole Foods, I didn’t know what a GMO was. I had no idea what it was. They taught us what it was, and how Whole Foods Market did not carry GMOs.
So if a customer would have came up to me and said, do you guys have anything with GMOs? Does this product contain GMOs? [I would have said] absolutely not. Does not contain GMOs. Because we were taught that we don’t carry anything with GMOs, only natural, nothing artificial.
Click here to watch this whistleblower video, exclusively at TV.naturalnews.com, entitled Organic Spies – Whistleblowers expose Whole Foods Market organic fraud machine
Whistleblower confirmed as former Whole Foods employee
According to Organic Spies, Whole Foods Market deliberately taught employees to lie to customers about GMOs for a five-year period, spanning 2007 – 2011.
The Organic Spies group claims to have evidence of this from multiple Whole Foods Market stores in several major cities across the United States.
Organic Spies further claims that Whole Foods top executives were fully aware that low-level employees were being deliberately trained to lie to customers about GMOs. This claim is denied by Whole Foods Market (see below).
As part of the due diligence conducted by Natural News, I personally saw documents that appear to confirm this whistleblower was a former employee of Whole Foods. I also spoke with her by phone and was able to confirm that she speaks with what appears to be specialized knowledge that would not normally be known by someone who had not been an actual employee of Whole Foods.
I was shocked to find out that Whole Foods did carry products containing GMOs. I feel like a fool, you know, if a pregnant woman came up to me, or somebody with serious medical issues asked me that, I would tell them no, we do not carry anything with GMOs… firmly believing that we didn’t carry anything with GMOs.
In my training, the ASTL did Day One, Day Two. They’re like the second person in charge of the store. And on top of them is the store team leader, who’s in charge of the whole store. I believe that whoever was teaching the class, the ASTL, also believed that there was no GMOs in the store, and everybody who worked in the store, I really believe thought that there was no GMOs. Who’s telling the ASTLs that train us that there are no GMOs?
As this whistleblower explains, there does seem to be quite a lot of “corporate indoctrination” taking place with new employees on their “Day One” (code word for their first day of work). Natural News found this comment from a person describing themselves as a Whole Foods Market employee on Indeed.com which appears to further support this idea:
From username “Zerohito”
My aversion began on my Day One – this is code for your first day at work, it’s a day of training, seeing where everything is at, watching videos of john mackey who reminds me a lot of some kind of seventies new age amway / est communist guru and various nationwide team members brainwashing the new team member of the various ways that whole foods market is superior to the bunch. and then they test you on the ways in which its great and unique several times throughout the day. and then make you sign it. it was so weird i actually wanted to walk out. but i didn’t because the money’s pretty good and the economy is poor…
This indoctrination effort appears to be very effective. Employees tend to believe what they are told by corporate training videos. As this Organic Spies whistleblower went on to explain:
When Organic Spies came out and they had on film team members saying we don’t carry GMOs, I know they whole-heartedly believed that Whole Foods didn’t carry GMOs. That’s what we were taught. They didn’t carry GMOs. So when the Organic Spies came out, I called my friends who used to work at Whole Foods. I said, did you know that Whole Foods carried GMOs? No! They do? Yeah! They do!
Organic Spies strikes again
This new video is the second major release from the group calling itself “Organic Spies,” which made headlines last year by catching dozens Whole Foods employees on video giving out false and misleading information about GMOs sold in their stores.
The first Organic Spies video, available here on TV.naturalnews.com, received hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube before it was suddenly censored by YouTube, most likely under pressure from Whole Foods Market. It featured over a dozen Whole Foods employees lying to customers and stating that Whole Foods did not carry or sell any genetically modified foods.
As a statement of fact, Whole Foods carries all sorts of foods containing GMOs, and after this Organic Spies video hit the ‘net, Whole Foods was forced into a public relations position where they needed to issue a public denial, claiming they did not intentionally train their employees that the stores do not carry GMOs.
Whole Foods carries so many different GMOs that they don’t even know how many GMO products they carry. As stated by a Whole Foods employee in a public relations video, “Does Whole Foods Market have GMOs in our stores? Yes, we probably do have lots and lots of products that contain GMO ingredients in our stores. How many? We don’t know… and neither does any other grocer in the United States.”
View the Full story on Natural News
(Wake Up Call) Hamburger chef Jamie Oliver has won his long-fought battle against one of the largest fast food chains in the world – McDonalds. After Oliver showed how McDonald’s hamburgers are made, the franchise finally announced that it will change its recipe.
Oliver repeatedly explained to the public, over several years – in documentaries, television shows and interviews – that the fatty parts of beef are “washed” in ammonium hydroxide and used in the filling of the burger. Before this process, according to the presenter, the food is deemed unfit for human consumption.
According to the chef and hamburger enthusiast, Jamie Oliver, who has undertaken a war against the fast food industry, “Basically, we’re taking a product that would be sold in the cheapest way for dogs, and after this process, is being given to human beings.”
Besides the low quality of the meat, the ammonium hydroxide is harmful to health. Oliver famously coined this the “the pink slime process.”
“Why would any sensible human being put meat filled with ammonia in the mouths of their children?” Oliver asked.
In one of his colorful demonstrations, Oliver demonstrates to children how nuggets are made. After selecting the best parts of the chicken, the remains (fat, skin and internal organs) are processed for these fried foods.
In reply to all of the bad press this process has received from Oliver, the company Arcos Dorados, the franchise manager for McDonalds in Latin America, said such a procedure is not practiced in their region. The same, it should be noted, applies to the product in Ireland and the UK, where they use meat from local suppliers.
In the United States, however, Burger King and Taco Bell had already abandoned the use of ammonia in their products. The food industry uses ammonium hydroxide as an anti-microbial agent in meats, which has allowed McDonald’s to use otherwise “inedible meat.”
Most disturbing of all is the horrifying fact that because ammonium hydroxide is considered part of the “component in a production procedure” by the USDA, consumers may not know when the chemical is in their food.
On the official website of McDonald’s, the company claims that their meat is cheap because, while serving many people every day, they are able to buy from their suppliers at a lower price, and offer the best quality products. But if “pink slime” was really the “best quality” that McDonalds can muster in the US, then why were they able do better in Latin America and Europe? More to the point, why can they apparently do better now in the United States?
These questions remains unanswered by the franchise which has denied that the decision to change the recipe is related to Jamie Oliver’s campaign. On the site, McDonald’s has admitted that they have abandoned the beef filler from its burger patties.
(Arjun Walia) If you really take the time to look into it, it can be extremely overwhelming to find out just how many ingredients in cosmetic and personal care products shouldn’t be in there. We have surrounded ourselves with an extremely toxic environment, with approximately one in every eight of the 82,000 ingredients used in cosmetic and personal care products being hazardous toxic industrial chemicals.
This means that 10,500 industrial toxic chemicals are used as cosmetic ingredients, many of which are carcinogens, pesticides, reproductive toxins, endocrine disruptors and more. It doesn’t take long for your bloodstream to absorb whatever toxic chemicals you decide to put on your body. So why do we continue to use these products given the fact that they pose such a high risk to human health?
Despite the fact that new research indicates that Aluminum has cancer-causing properties, it’s still considered by most health authorities as perfectly acceptable to eat, inject into your body as a vaccine adjuvant and to wear as an antiperspirant. This is clearly a problem, and it’s hard to understand how and why they are so heavily mass marketed. At the end of the day, you still have a choice. The days in which the human mind is so susceptible to programming from major corporations that do not have our best interests at hand are slipping away.
A recent study published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry found increased levels of aluminum in non-invasively collected nipple aspirate fluids from 19 breast cancer patients(1). These patients were compared with 16 healthy control subjects.
In addition to emerging evidence, our results support the possible involvement of aluminum ions in oxidative and inflammatory status perturbations of breast cancer microenvironment, suggesting aluminum accumulation in breast microenvironment as a possible risk factor for oxidative/inflammatory phenotype of breast cells (1).
The study also found that Aluminium content and carbonyl levels showed a significant positive linear correlation(1). Studies have already confirmed that plasma levels of protein carbonyls greatly increase the risk of breast cancer (2). It doesn’t stop there, the study also found a significantly increased level of pro-inflammatory cytokines(1), many studies have also confirmed that this type of inflammation correlates with increased invasiveness and poor prognosis in many types of cancer, including breast cancer (3).
In 12 invasive cancer nipple aspirate fluid samples we found a significant positive linear correlation among aluminum, carbonyls and pro-inflammatory monocyte chemoattractant cytokine(1).
The main point to take away from this research is the fact that common food ingestion (food additive), injection (as a vaccine adjuvant) and topical application (antiperspirant) and other forms of aluminum intake may be contributing to the increased cancer epidemic in the exposed population on the planet today. It doesn’t sound right does it? Most peoples intuition, heart and soul will not resonate with aluminum intake into their bodies, regardless if any studies have been done or not.
Another recent study conducted last year determined that aluminum salts used as antiperspirants have been incriminated as contributing to breast cancer incidence in Western societies (4). Another study conducted the year before that outlined how aluminum is not a physiological component of the breast but has been measured recently in human breast tissues and breast cyst fluids at levels above those found in blood serum or milk (5).
I could go on and continue citing study after study on the damaging affects of antiperspirants, if you’re interested you can find more studies here. I think most who read this will not need a study to know that aluminum can be very hazardous to human health, it’s one of those things our intuition knows immediately, but it’s always good to get the information out there.
You might also be interested to know that a new study released by the University of California, Berkeley (UBC) School of Public Health has found many conventional lipstick products to contain dangerously high levels of aluminum, cadmium, lead and other toxins. Researchers tested over 30 popular lipstick products and found this to be the case. The study was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Even women using minimal amounts of product still increase their risk of developing harmful health conditions like nerve damage and cancer by an alarming amount. It is important to note that there is no oversight or limit on chemical additives into cosmetic care products.
What Can You Do?
I am a big believer that consciousness plays a large role in cancer and other ailments. I believe we can alter our biological environment by using our heart and mind, and science is slowly catching on to these facts. At the same time, that does not mean completely ignoring the chemical environment that surrounds daily. It’s nothing to be fearful of at all, but it is nice to be aware so that you can make the best possible choice for yourself and your health. At the end of the day, the choice is yours. Cancer and increasing cancer rates is not a mystery like we are told it is, the cause is known and it is heavily linked to a toxic environment that includes a multitude of products we choose to use. You can look for antiperspirants that are Paraben (more specifically aluminum) free. You could also do your research on natural antiperspirants, there are a number of alternative options out there, you could even make your own. Unfortunately you never hear about them, most mainstream cosmetic products are heavily marketed and advertised. It’s time to start questioning things!
Click here to find a list of hazardous chemicals to avoid in cosmetic and personal care products.
(The Lip TV) Beer ingredients are being looked at for GMO and animal products, though beer continues to be unlabeled on the market.
Why is there no oversight for labeling? We look at the broken food regulation system on the Lip News with Lissette Padilla and Mark Sovel.
(Ethan A. Huff) Following the release of a groundbreaking U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) report back in 2011 indicting roxarsone, the infamous Pfizer-produced arsenical drug, as a high-level contaminant in conventional chicken meat, the drug’s manufacturer voluntarily agreed to pull it off the market, leading many health-conscious individuals to breathe a collective sigh of relief.
But a new study recently published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) reveals that inorganic arsenic is still prevalent in virtually all conventional chicken meat, as an arsenical drug similar in composition to roxarsone is still being widely used and fed to conventional chickens.
Entitled “Arsenical Association: Inorganic Arsenic May Accumulate in the Meat of Treated Chickens,” the new study explains how inorganic arsenic (iAs), a known human carcinogen, accumulates in the muscle tissue of chickens treated with arsenical drugs like roxarsone, the official brand name of which is 3-Nitro. The previous assumption was that these organic arsenic compounds pass through chickens unchanged and thus do not pose a considerable threat to human health. But the FDA study revealed quite the opposite when it found that roxarsone is capable of transforming into iAs upon ingestion, where it then accumulates in the edible parts of chickens.
Since roxarsone is no longer on the market, many people think that iAs is no longer a major threat in conventional chicken meat. But another lesser-known arsenical drug, nitarsone, is still quietly being used in conventional chicken production in the U.S., as explained in a May 11, 2013, piece published by The New York Times, which means that the threat is still present. For whatever reason, health officials have been slow to take a closer look at nitarsone, which exhibits virtually the same effects as roxarsone in treated chickens.
Like roxarsone, nitarsone is given to conventional chickens to help them grow faster and to treat intestinal parasites — conventional chicken farms are quite filthy places, after all. The chemical also gives conventional chicken meat a more appealing pink color, rather than the unappetizing gray hue it would otherwise have if left untreated. But just like roxarsone, nitarsone can contribute to elevated levels of iAs in chickens that eat it, which in turn can lead to eventual arsenic poisoning in humans.
For their research, the authors of the new EHP study evaluated conventional, conventional but antibiotic-free, and certified organic chicken meat for iAs. They found that cooked conventional chicken meat had the highest levels of iAs, averaging 1.8 micrograms per kilogram, while cooked organic chicken meat had the lowest levels of iAs, averaging 0.6 micrograms per kilogram. Worse, chicken meat with detectable levels of actual roxarsone had higher levels. As overall compared to chicken meat without detectable levels of roxarsone.
“Our study gives the FDA a clear rationale for withdrawing its approval for roxarsone and potentially other arsenic-based drugs in animal agriculture,” wrote Keeve Nachman, lead author of the study and director of the Farming for the Future program at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.
If nitarsone is essentially the same as roxarsone in how it affects chickens, then it too should be pulled from the market for public safety. At this time, however, nitarsone is still available for use in conventional agriculture, which means it is highly likely that most or all conventional chicken meat is still being intentionally contaminated with arsenic. And the FDA has yet to officially ban either roxarsone or nitarsone, even though roxarsone is no longer being produced.
“[This study] provides FDA with good data about whether it should formally withdraw the use of arsenicals from chicken production in the U.S.,” adds Amy Sapkota, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland School of Public health who was not involved in the study.
This article first appeared at Natural News
(Mike Adams) In yet another extraordinary exemption for the very vaccine companies that continue to poison our children, the Minnesota legislature has passed a law banning formaldehyde in all children’s products except for pharmaceuticals, vaccines or foods.
For the record, even the CDC admits that vaccines still contain formaldehyde, a highly toxic chemical typically used to “deactivate” the many viruses used in vaccines.
The new law, House Bill 458, is entitled, “Formaldehyde banned in children’s products.” It was signed into law by the Governor of Minnesota on May 13, 2013.
On the surface, it sounds great. Who wouldn’t want formaldehyde banned from children’s products? Formaldehyde, after all, is highly toxic to the nervous system. Protecting children from dangerous chemicals is a noble cause.
But there’s just one problem with this law: it exempts one of the worst sources of formaldehyde exposure in children: VACCINES.
As the text of the law readily says, “excluding a food, beverage, dietary supplement, pharmaceutical product or biologic [vaccines].” (see full text and links below)
Why are vaccines exempted when they are a primary source of formaldehyde in children?
Vaccines inject formaldehyde directly into the blood stream, bypassing all the usual protections of skin, lungs and digestive tract. This makes the formaldehyde in vaccines order of magnitude more toxic because it is 100% assimilated directly into the body. So even though the actual amount of formaldehyde used in vaccines may sound small, its toxicity is greatly multiplied by the fact that it is injected into children rather than merely swallowed, for example.
“Formaldehyde is used to inactivate bacterial products for toxoid vaccines,” admits the CDC on its own website. “It is also used to kill unwanted viruses and bacteria that might contaminate the vaccine during production.” (This is an open admission that vaccines are contaminated with viruses, by the way…)
Yet many doctors today continue to insist that formaldehyde is never used in vaccines. As is obvious to anyone paying attention, these doctors are woefully ignorant of the actual ingredients still used in vaccines — ingredients that would be labeled “neurotoxic” in any other context.
See Also: NSA Banned This Video-See Why
Even worse, the formaldehyde in vaccines is often combined with mercury, aluminum, MSG, antibiotics and other common vaccine ingredients, further multiplying the toxicity of the vaccine.
So why didn’t Minnesota lawmakers ban formaldehyde from vaccines used on children? Because the vaccine lobby controls the politicians, of course. And these chemicals like mercury and formaldehyde — which would be illegal to administer to children in any other context — are once again granted complete immunity under Minnesota state law.
Vaccine companies are also granted total immunity against civil lawsuits by the federal government, by the way. Watch this important video explaining why:
Aspartame also granted immunity
It is well documented that the chemical sweetener aspartame breaks down into several chemical components over time, including formaldehyde and methanol.
One study conducted at the Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, sought to explore formaldehyde poisoning in more detail. The abstract of this study, found at SCIENCE.naturalnews.com, reveals the following:
Upon ingestion, Aspartame is broken, converted, and oxidized into Formaldehyde in various tissues. We present the first case series of aspartame-associated migraines related to clinically relevant positive reactions to formaldehyde on patch testing.
No rational scientist would argue that formaldehyde is safe to inject into a child. The scientific literature is overflowing with studies demonstrating the toxicity of this substance, and there is no scientific evidence showing formaldehyde to be safe to inject into infants and children. See studies at SCIENCE.naturalnews.com on:
formaldehyde and cytotoxicity (cell damage)
formaldehyde and genotoxicity (DNA damage, often causing cancer)
Based on this evidence, you have to wonder why Minnesota lawmakers would allow formaldehyde in vaccines (which are injected) while banning formaldehyde in children’s toys (which are merely touched, not injected).
If formaldehyde is dangerous for children to touch, it’s sure as heck dangerous for children to have injected into their tissues.
One day, our society is going to have to come to terms with the chemical holocaust of vaccines and the multiple generations of damage that have been inflicted on humankind.
Vaccines, as administered today, are tools of biological destruction which are intentionally formulated with multiple neurotoxic, cytotoxic, genotoxic, mutagenic and hepatotoxic (liver damaging) chemicals.
This is not a mistake. This is deliberate. This is done on purpose by vaccine manufacturers and it is endorsed by the CDC and the FDA, both of which pander to the interests of drug companies and have helped proliferate this chemical holocaust against our children.
It makes you wonder: Why don’t vaccine companies make “clean vaccines” without mercury and all the other chemicals?
The answer is because then vaccines wouldn’t serve their primary purpose, which is to damage children and create a huge future industry for cancer drugs, kidney dialysis, liver transplants and other high-profit medical needs. If you don’t believe me, watch this astonishing video where a high-level Merck scientist openly admits that vaccines contain hidden cancer viruses:
The text of the formaldehyde bill
Read the text of the bill yourself at:
Section 1. [325F.174] DEFINITIONS.
1.6(a) For the purposes of sections 325F.174 to 325F.176, the following terms have the meanings given them.
1.8(b) “Child” means a person under eight years of age.
1.9(c) “Children’s product” means a product primarily designed or intended by a manufacturer to be physically applied to or introduced into a child’s body, including any article used as a component of such a product and excluding a food, beverage, dietary supplement, pharmaceutical product or biologic [vaccines], children’s toys that are covered by the ASTM International F963 standard for Toy Safety, or a medical device as defined in the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, United States Code, title 21, section 321(h), as amended through February 15, 2013.
1.16 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.
1.17 Sec. 2. [325F.175] FORMALDEHYDE IN CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS; BAN.
1.18(a) Beginning August 1, 2014, no manufacturer or wholesaler may sell or offer for sale in this state a children’s product that intentionally contains:
1.20(1) formaldehyde, including formaldehyde contained in a solution; or
1.21(2) ingredients that chemically degrade under normal conditions of temperature and
1.22pressure to release formaldehyde.
2.1(b) Beginning August 1, 2015, no retailer may sell or offer for sale in this state a children’s product that intentionally contains:
2.3(1) formaldehyde, including formaldehyde contained in a solution; or
2.4(2) ingredients that chemically degrade under normal conditions of temperature and pressure to release formaldehyde.
This article first appeared @ Natural News
(Mark Prigg) A radical ‘artificial egg’ backed by Paypal billionaire Peter Thiel and Bill Gates goes on sale in US supermarkets for the first time today.
Made from plants, it can replace eggs in everything from cakes to mayonnaise – without a chicken ever coming close to the production process.
The team today started selling their ‘plant egg’, called Beyond Eggs, in Whole Foods in California – and say it could soon be available in supermarkets worldwide.
This, he believes will allow the firm to produce its substitute for mass market foods – and to allow developing worlds to grow their own versions with added nutrients.
‘Eggs are functionally incredible, they do everything from hold oil and water in mayo to making the muffin rise and holding scrambled eggs together,’ he said ‘I started to think what if we can find plants that can do this. We have about 12 plants pre-selected, including a pea already widely grown in Canada. There’s also a bean in South Asia that is incredible in scrambled eggs.’
Continue reading @ The Daily Mail
(Mike Adams) Today we announce the first investigation conducted at the Natural News Forensic Food Laboratory, the new science-based research branch of Natural News where we put foods under the microscope and find out what’s really there.
Earlier today I purchased a 10-piece Chicken McNuggets from a McDonald’s restaurant in Austin, Texas. Under carefully controlled conditions, I then examined the Chicken McNuggets under a high-powered digital microscope, expecting to see only processed chicken bits and a fried outer coating.
But what I found instead shocked even me. I’ve seen a lot of weird stuff in my decade of investigating foods and nutrition, but I never expected to find this…
Update: Natural News has now released a second round of “mysterious fiber” photos of Chicken McNuggets, in addition to the photos you see below.
Strange fibers found embedded inside Chicken McNuggets
As the following photos show, the Chicken McNuggets were found to contain strange fibers that some people might say even resemble so-called “Morgellon’s.”
We found dark black hair-like structures sticking out of the nugget mass, as well as light blue egg-shaped structures with attached tail-like hairs or fibers.
These are shown in extreme detail in the photos below, taken on August 15, 2013 at the Natural News Forensic Food Lab. The actual Chicken McNugget samples used in these photos have been frozen for storage of forensic evidence.
We also found odd red coloring splotches in several locations, as well as a spherical green object that resembles algae.
We are not claiming or implying that these objects in any way make McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets unsafe to consume. We do, however, believe that this visual evidence may warrant an FDA investigation into the ingredient composition of Chicken McNuggets.
In particular, where are the hair-like structures coming from? This is especially important to answer, given that chickens do not have hair. Is there cross-species contamination in the processing of Chicken McNuggets? This question needs to be answered.
Share this story with everyone you know.
See my video at:
Or if YouTube censors the video, watch it at our free-speech video site, TV.naturalnews.com:
Microscopic photos reveal an alien-like landscape with weird shapes and fibers
Here are the some of the photos from the Natural News Forensic Food Lab:
Natural News Forensic Food Lab has now released a second round of “mysterious fiber” photos of Chicken McNuggets, in addition to the photos you see above.
(Eric Zielinksi) The future of orange crops are at risk and pig genes may be considered part of the solution. (I’m not kidding)
On July 27, the New York Times (NYT) officially staked its flag into Big Ag’s garden and into the soil of the GMO camp with its wildly controversial piece, “A Race to Save the Orange by Altering Its DNA.”
The feature highlights the story of a highly influential orange grower and his undying quest to stave off Asian jumping lice and the bacteria that they carry, which has been devastating Florida’s orange crop since 2005.
Committed to engineering the world’s first genetically modified orange tree, the article centers on Ricke Kress, the president of Southern Gardens Citrus who is in charge of two and a half million orange trees and a factory that squeezes juice for Tropicana and Florida’s Best. According to NYT, Kress’s GMO savior would fight C. liberibacter and citrus psyllids through whatever means science determines necessary. As for public acceptance, Kress told his industry colleagues, “We can’t think about that right now.”
Rick Kress’ mission to save oranges by whatever means necessary
Kress’ crusade has led him along a path, the past several years, widely out of public view. His work has tested potential DNA donors from two vegetables, a virus, a pig, and a synthetic gene manufactured in a laboratory. Unbeknownst to the world, the NYT reports that later this summer Kress “will plant several hundred more young trees with the spinach gene, in a new house.
In two years, if he wins regulatory approval, they will be ready to go into the ground. The trees could be the first to produce juice for sale in five years or so.”
According to the NYT, whether it is his transgenic tree or someone else’s, Kress insists, “Florida growers will soon have trees that could produce juice without fear of its being sour, or in short supply.”
What is the danger of the “Greening” disease?
C. liberibacter, the bacterium that has all but annihilated Florida’s citrus crop, chokes off the flow of nutrients and are spread by Asian citrus psyllids that can carry the germ a mile without stopping, and the females can lay up to 800 eggs in their one-month life. It was first detected more than a century ago in China and has earned a place, along with anthrax and the Ebola virus, on the Agriculture Department’s list of potential agents of bioterrorism.
When it first hit, Florida growers attempted to subdue the contagion known as “Greening” by chopping down hundreds of thousands of infected trees and by spraying a broad spectrum of pesticides on the lice that carries it. However, the disease could not be contained. It has thus been determined by University of Florida agricultural analysts that the Asian bug and bacteria has cost Florida $4.5 billion and 8,000 jobs between 2006 and 2012.
Presently, there is no known cure for Greening disease. “In all of cultivated citrus, there is no evidence of immunity,” the plant pathologist heading a National Research Council task force on the disease said.
Does the New York Times really care about the health of its readers?
Although our hearts break for the thousands of people who have lost their jobs and for the unknown impact this orange crop devastation will have on the world as it continues to spread, our tempers boil against the New York Times for their highly biased representation of GMOs to their readers, of whom many are ignorant to the harmful realities related to GMOs.
Astoundingly, the NYT attempts to compare genetically modifying oranges to ancient breeding practices, something that they call “genetic merging.”
Because oranges themselves are hybrids and most seeds are clones of the mother, new varieties cannot easily be produced by crossbreeding – unlike, say, apples, which breeders have remixed into favorites like Fuji and Gala. But the vast majority of oranges in commercial groves are the product of a type of genetic merging that predates the Romans, in which a slender shoot of a favored fruit variety is grafted onto the sturdier roots of other species: lemon, for instance, or sour orange. And a seedless midseason orange recently adopted by Florida growers emerged after breeders bombarded a seedy variety with radiation to disrupt its DNA, a technique for accelerating evolution that has yielded new varieties in dozens of crops, including barley and rice.
Completely ignoring the inherent dangers of GMOs and confusing the process with conventional crossbreeding, the NYT states,
Even in the heyday of frozen concentrate, the popularity of orange juice rested largely on its image as the ultimate natural beverage, fresh-squeezed from a primordial fruit. But the reality is that human intervention has modified the orange for millenniums, as it has almost everything people eat.
In addition, the NYT times argues that, “Even conventional crossbreeding has occasionally produced toxic varieties of some vegetables.” The famed news source even insists that,
Oranges are not the only crop that might benefit from genetically engineered resistance to diseases for which standard treatments have proven elusive. And advocates of the technology say it could also help provide food for a fast-growing population on a warming planet by endowing crops with more nutrients, or the ability to thrive in drought, or to resist pests. Leading scientific organizations have concluded that shuttling DNA between species carries no intrinsic risk to human health or the environment, and that such alterations can be reliably tested.
A nation divided
Supposedly, the scientific consensus holds that genetic engineering is the only solution to defeating Greening. “People are either going to drink transgenic orange juice or they’re going to drink apple juice,” one University of Florida scientist told Kress.
“And,” according to the NYT, “If the presence of a new gene in citrus trees prevented juice from becoming scarcer and more expensive, Kress believed, the American public would embrace it. ‘The consumer will support us if it’s the only way,’ Kress assured his boss.”
However is this true? Will the American consumer embrace the GM orange and feed GM juice to their children in the quantities that they are now?
According to the NYT,
If various polls were to be believed, a third to half of Americans would refuse to eat any transgenic crop. One study’s respondents would accept only certain types: two-thirds said they would eat a fruit modified with another plant gene, but few would accept one with DNA from an animal. Fewer still would knowingly eat produce that contained a gene from a virus.
Orange growers are still divided
Kress’s boss worried about damaging the image of juice long promoted as “100 percent natural.” “Do we really want to do this?” he demanded in a 2008 meeting at the company’s headquarters on the northern rim of the Everglades.
“The public will never drink G.M.O. orange juice,” one grower said at a contentious 2008 meeting. “It’s a waste of our money.”
“The public is already eating tons of G.M.O.’s,” countered Peter McClure, a big grower.
“This isn’t like a bag of Doritos,” snapped another. “We’re talking about a raw product, the essence of orange.”
(Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D.) Obamacare is a hodgepodge of new regulations, requirements, and penalties. I’d like to start by defining three terms, which, while obscure today, should begin to enter our everyday vocabulary as Obamacare continues to take effect:
Health insurance exchanges are the basket of qualified insurance policies that meet the new healthcare law requirements for expanded coverage. These may be set up by the states (many are refusing to do so, due to high cost and fear of bankrupting the state) or the federal government. The Exchanges are supposed to be fully operational by October 1, 2013, but it is questionable whether they will actually be in place by that deadline.
The individual mandate requires that individuals purchase health insurance that meets the new, expanded federal requirements. Individuals who do not comply face a financial penalty. Individuals who fall below minimum income levels will be eligible for taxpayer-funded subsidies to buy health insurance.
The employer mandate requires that businesses with more than 50 full-time employees must provide health insurance for all employees, and that insurance must meet the new standards set forth in the new law. Businesses that do not comply must pay a financial penalty for each employee, which for large companies can run into the millions of dollars annually. This is the piece of Obamacare that has been delayed by one year.
Why delay one component of Obamacare and not the others? More specifically, why delay the employer mandate but not the individual mandate?
To answer that question, we must first understand this fact: Obama wants a single-payer healthcare system in the US.
This is not a secret:
Barack Obama, 2003: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer healthcare system for America, but as all of you know, we may not get there immediately.”
Barack Obama, 2007: “But I don’t think we will be able to eliminate employer-based coverage immediately. There is potentially going to be some transition time.”
These quotes are not taken out of context. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that transitioning to a single-payer system has been Obama’s and his cohorts’ ultimate goal all along:
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), 2009: “Next to me was a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public option. He said it would not let private insurance companies compete. A public option would put the private insurance companies out of business and lead to single-payer. My single-payer friends, he was right. The man was right!”
Here, Rep. Schakowsky is suggesting that the “public option” will lead to their desired goal of a single-payer healthcare system. Single-payer proponents no longer use this term, since the public has clearly and consistently opposed it.
The “public option” has been renamed “Medicaid expansion,” which serves the public-relations purpose of confusing the public and avoiding calling taxpayer-funded healthcare “single payer.”
Jacob S. Hacker (Yale Professor), 2008: “Someone once said to me this is a Trojan Horse for single payer. It’s not a Trojan Horse, right? It’s right there! I am telling you. We are going to get there. Over time. Slowly. But we are going to move away from reliance on employer-based health insurance, as we should, but we will do it in a way that we are not going to frighten people into thinking they are going to lose their private insurance. We will give them a choice of public or private insurance when they are in the pool. We are going to let them keep their private insurance as long as their employer continues to provide it.”
Hacker nicely sums up the underlying goals of Obamacare: not to increase competition or patient choice, but to drive people out of private insurance as a stepping stone to a government-run, single-payer system.
Stepping Stone to Single-Payer
Knowing Obama and his cohorts’ goals, the purpose behind the delay of the employer mandate seems clearer: to hurry the “transition time” away from employer-based health insurance and to a single-payer system.
By forcing individuals to purchase compliant healthcare plans but not forcing employers to provide those plans, Obama is creating a swell of 10-13 million workers that mustenroll in health insurance, but cannot obtain it from their employers. These workers thus have no choice but to use the government-controlled health insurance exchanges, or else pay a financial penalty.
This represents a doubling of the number of workers forced to get health insurance on the exchanges.
Importantly, the IRS has ruled that if workers have access to affordable health insurance through their employer, their dependents are not eligible for taxpayer-funded subsidies on the Obamacare health insurance exchanges.
Now that businesses will not be required to offer health insurance until 2015, workersand their dependents will be eligible for taxpayer-funded subsidies to purchase health insurance on the exchanges.
This will cost taxpayers an estimated $60 billion dollars in 2014 alone to cover the increased costs of subsidies—and the loss of revenue from employer penalties.
This $60 billion figure is before we take into account the “liar subsidies” that will invariably occur now that the administration has quietly removed eligibility verification for taxpayer-funded subsidies.
Community organizers are already being hired around the country to sign people up for the health exchanges. There are no penalties for failing to verify eligibility, and no penalties for signing up people who cannot afford to pay the monthly insurance premiums.
It is set up for disaster, much like the “liar loans” that helped topple the mortgage industry when people were not required to verify their income to qualify for a mortgage.
Remember, by enacting the dual mandates, Obamacare ostensibly was designed to ensure that its costs were borne by businesses, not taxpayers. But when the president decided to enforce only certain portions of the healthcare law and delay others, he shifted the cost of health insurance onto the backs of taxpayers.
This is all on top of the burdensome costs Obamacare has already created. Various studies have projected that private insurance premiums will rise between 20 to 60% in 2014, and some as much as 100%.
How long will the private-insurance market survive with such exploding costs? People will not be able to afford such massive premium increases. That seems to be the point: drive up costs and drive everyone into the arms of government-controlled medical care.
Jeff Smith from Seattle summed it up nicely in a Wall Street Journal letter on June 12:
“I was going to leave my job… to start a business until I shopped around for a healthcare plan: At Group Health, a health-maintenance organization in Seattle, I was given a quote of $842 per month for me and my family. But that would increase to $2,320 starting in January 2014 when Obamacare kicks in—a 276% increase. Why? Because I would be forced to carry coverage I don’t want and don’t need, such as maternity care. Welcome to the world of socialized medicine, courtesy of the Un-Affordable Care Act.”
How Obamacare Affects You and Your Medical Care
The delay in the employer mandate is but one of dozens of negative impacts Obamacare will have on your medical services. As an independent physician, I’ve been discussing these issues with my patients for the past few years, helping them to prepare for what’s ahead.
Here are the ten most important points that I tell my patients:
- Your private insurance premiums will cost more and more each year.
- You will lose the choices and flexibility in health insurance policies that we have had available up until now.
- As reimbursements continue to drop, fewer and fewer doctors will take Medicare (for those 65 and older) or Medicaid (people younger than 65).
- Fewer doctors accepting Medicare and Medicaid causes an increase in wait times for appointments and a decrease in the numbers and types of specialists available on these plans. Consumers would be wise to line up their doctors now.
- Studies from various organizations and states have consistently shown thatMedicaid recipients have longer waits for medical care, fewer options for specialists, poorer medical outcomes, and die sooner after surgeries than people with no health insurance at all. Yet an increasing number of Americans will be forced into this second-class medical care.
- As more people enter the taxpayer-funded plans (Medicare and Medicaid) instead of paying for private insurance, the costs to provide this increased medical care and medications will escalate, leading to higher taxes.
- With no eligibility verifications in place, millions of people who are in the US illegally will be able to access taxpayer-funded medical services, making longer lines, longer wait times, and less money available for medical care for American citizens… unless taxes are increased even more.
- Higher expenditures to provide medical services lead to rationing of medical care and treatment options to reduce costs. This is the mandated function of the Independent Payment Advisory Board: to cut costs by deciding which types of medical services to allow… or disallow.If you are denied treatment, you have no appeal of IPAB decisions; you are simply out of luck, and possibly out of life. This is a radical departure from the appeals process required for all private health insurance plans. Further, the IPAB is accountable only to President Obama, and cannot be overridden by Congress or the courts. IPAB is designed to have the final word on your health.
- Under current regulations, if medical care is denied by Medicare, then a patient isnot allowed to pay cash to a Medicare-contracted physician or hospital or other health professional. Patients who need medical care that is denied under Medicare or Medicaid will find themselves having to either: 1) look for an independent physician or hospital (quite rare these days); or 2) go outside the USA for treatment.
- Expect a loss of medical privacy. Beginning in 2014, if you participate in government health insurance, your health records will be sent to a centralized federal database, with or without your consent.
The bottom line is that Americans are losing more and more of their medical freedom. By 2015, so many workers will be trapped in the government-run health insurance exchanges that there will be no going back to the private plans we have today. At this rate, single-payer proponents will drive private insurance companies out of business, which has been their intention all along.
Americans need to become far more proactive about taking charge of their health. The healthier you are, the less vulnerable you are to our degrading healthcare system. It’s also wise to consider proactively planning for medical treatment options outside the US.
Dr. Vliet will share her thoughts on what Obamacare will do to medical freedom and privacy—and the steps Americans can take now to preserve both—at the upcoming Casey Research Summit 3 Days with Casey, October 4-6 in Tucson, Arizona.
Aside from Dr. Vliet, our blue-ribbon faculty includes keynote speaker Dr. Ron Paul, economic and investment experts Catherine Austin Fitts, Lacy Hunt, James Rickards, John Mauldin, Rick Rule, Chris Martenson, and many more. Most of the speakers have agreed to attend the conference for the entire three days and mingle with the participants.
This is one conference you don’t want to miss, but seats are filling up fast. Get all the details now—if you sign up today, you can still get our $100 first-come, first-save discount.
(Christina Sarich) For many cultures, eating bugs is only natural, but did you know that one of the most trusted yogurt companies, Dannon, has been coloring their yogurts not with fruit, but with crushed cochineal beetles?
Sure you didn’t, because the FDA considers insects a natural color additive and exempts it from stringent certifications. The color-additive is called carmine, and it is used in Activia Brand, Oiko’s Greek Yogurt, Danimals and other yogurt products which Dannon makes.
The Center for Science and Public Interest (CSPI) is pretty sure you weren’t aware that Dannon was using carmine to color their foods. They have been targeting companies like Dannon, and Coca-Cola for making exaggerated, false or misleading claims about the food they produce, like Coca-Cola’s inflated claims about Vitamin Water, for example.
For people who are vegetarians or others with food restrictions, this can be especially problematic. Imagine a Buddhist Monk scooping up a seemingly benign spoonful of yogurt, only to find out he has been eating crushed insects. These people are so full of compassion they have been known to scoop drowning mosquitoes from a water bowl.
Even for those who aren’t eating insects for spiritual reasons, there could be numerous allergies associated to Dannon products which contain carmine. The bottom line though, is that consumers have a right to know what is in their food.
Related Read: Researchers Propose Eating Insects Instead of Meat
Dannon’s senior director of public relations, Michael J. Neuwirth doesn’t seem to have a problem with the public not knowing about insect-ingredients in their products, “Any of our products that contain carmine clearly list it as an ingredient,” he said. “Anyone who wishes to avoid it can.” Those with dietary restrictions and allergies are accustomed to reading ingredient lists, he added.
CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson asked why the company didn’t just use fruit or vegetable food colors [like beets], and rightfully scolded Dannon in a press release. “Why risk offending vegetarians and grossing out your other customers?” They also have pictures of fruits on their yogurt labels. This is seen as very misleading when there are no fruits in the yogurt at all.
You can tell Dannon to get insects out of your yogurt here and add your opinion as well.
This article first appeared @ Natural Society
(Daisy Luther) When you’re sick, little is more comforting than holding a steaming mug of fragrant tea in both hands, warming your face with the hot steam. Somehow, no matter how rotten you felt before, you instantly feel just a tiny bit better.
Whether you are lucky enough to grow your own tea herbs, you purchase loose teas, or you use tea bags, your cabinet is not complete without the following ingredients. These teas are delicious and beneficial, with many different healing qualities. Considering that we most often turn to herbal teas for healing purposes, it’s especially important to purchase or grow organic herbs for this purpose. If your leaves are bathed in pesticide and then you add them to boiling water, instead of healing goodness, you are steeping toxins.
When making tea for medicinal purposes, be sure to steep the tea in a teapot with a lid, or to cover your mug while the herbs are steeping. This helps to make a more potent brew by keeping all of the healing oils in the tea, instead of allowing them to drift into the room. Most herbs should be steeped for about 10 minutes for maximum results.
There are many different herbs from around the world that have wonderful healing properties. I’ve concentrated this list on ones that can either be easily acquired and stored, or ones that can be easily grown in a backyard garden or a sunny window. Just like band-aids, antibiotic cream, or aspirin, these items are vital additions to your pantry, allowing you to dispense a hot, steaming, fragrant cup of nurturing in as little time as it takes you to boil water. Be prepared by keeping the following ingredients close at hand, and be self-sufficient by producing for yourself as many as possible (always the best way to make sure that the items were grown using safe, organic methods).
In no particular order…
Mint tea is the classic herbal tea. Mint is an ingredient in many different commercial tea blends and is much-loved for its refreshing fragrance.
Mint is an herb that doesn’t just grow easily – it can quickly overtake your garden! For this reason, it is recommended to grow mint in either a container or its own bed. There are many varieties of mint and the healing properties are similar. Whether you grow peppermint or spearmint, the active component is menthol.
If you suffer from acid reflux, mint tea may worsen your symptoms. Mint has antispasmodic properties.
Mint tea can be used to:
- Reduce congestion in a cold or flu sufferer
- Reduce pain and bloating from gas
- Reduce cramping from diarrhea
- Act as a mild expectorant for a chest cold or bronchitis
- Induce sweating, the body’s natural cooling mechanism. This is a natural way to reduce a fever
- Relieve nausea without vomiting
This homely root is an ingredient in many natural cough, cold, and nausea treatments. Instead of giving your child gingerale when they are suffering from an upset stomach (and all of the HFCS and artificial flavors that come in it) brew up a nice cup of ginger tea sweetened with honey for a real dose of soothing ginger!
Ginger is a tropical plant that is apparently not difficult to grow indoors. It requires excellent soil, warmth, humidity, and filtered sunlight.
You can learn how to grow ginger HERE.
It’s not recommended to exceed 4 grams of ginger per day – components in the herb can cause irritation of the mouth, heartburn and diarrhea if taken in excess.
Click HERE to find a recipe for a delicious honey-ginger cough syrup that can also be the basis for a night-time hot toddy.
Ginger tea can be used to:
- Reduce nausea
- Prevent or treat motion sickness
- Warm the body of someone suffering from chills
- Induce sweating to break a fever
- Soothe a sore throat
Chamomile tea should be steeped a little longer than other herbal teas in order to get all of the medicinal benefits. This soothing, slightly apple-flavored tea has mild sedative properties. The petals of the tiny flowers are where the medicinal values lie.
Chamomile is easy to grow from seeds. Start them in the late winter and transfer outdoors when the risk of frost has passed. Once the plants are well established, chamomile can thrive with little water during hot weather. When buying your seeds, note that German chamomile is an annual and Roman chamomile is a perennial.
Chamomile tea should be avoided by people who take blood thinners. As well, those who suffer from ragweed allergies may also have an allergic reaction to chamomile, as the two plants are related.
Chamomile tea can be used to:
- Relieve anxiety
- Induce sleep
- Soothe mild nausea and indigestion
- Relieve a cough from throat irritation
Cinnamon doesn’t just smell like a holiday in a cup, it is anti-bacterial, antiviral, and antifungal, making it an excellent all-around remedy for whatever ails you. Cinnamon is a wonderful source of immune-boosting antioxidants.
Cinnamon is the fragrant bark of a tropical evergreen tree. This article from Mother Earth Living says that the trees are surprisingly easy to grow indoors in large pots.
Try this delicious winter beverage:
- 1-1/2 tsp of cinnamon powder or a cinnamon stick
- 1 tea bag
- honey to taste
- Milk to taste
Stir cinnamon powder well into boiling water and steep for 8 minutes. Add a tea bag and steep for 2 more minutes. Stir in honey and warm milk.
Cinnamon tea can be used to:
- Increase blood flow and improve circulation
- Reduce nausea
- Ease stomach discomfort, bloating, gas and indigestion
- Warm the body of someone suffering from chills
- Soothe a sore throat
- Reduce cold symptoms
Lemongrass is another herb that is loaded with healing properties. The spiky, easy-to-grow plant has antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, anti-parasitic, and antifungal properties, making it helpful in treating a plethora of ailments.
You can actually root the lemongrass that you buy at the grocery store to start your own patio lemongrass farm. It grows beautifully in a large pot, making it a good herb for the apartment windowsill farmer to cultivate. It can be grown year-round indoors. Check out this article for more information.
Lemongrass tea can help to:
- aid in digestion
- calm nervous disorders and anxiety
- aid in the treatment of high blood pressure if a daily cup is enjoyed
- dilate blood vessels and improve circulation
- act as a mild diuretic to reduce fluid retention
This lovely flowering plant is probably the pinnacle of herbal preventatives. Echinacea is not only anti-bacterial – but it stimulates the body’s immune system to fight off bacterial and viral attacks. The medicinal properties are in the leaves and the purple flowers.
Echinacea is also known as the “purple coneflower”. The plant has deep taproots and is somewhat drought resistant. It is a perennial. Sow seeds outdoors in the early spring before the last frost. These plants like full sun and they don’t like too much moisture.
Echinacea tea can help to:
- enhance the immune system
- relieve pain
- reduce inflammation
- provide antioxidant effects
- shorten illness time for sufferers of the common cold
Rosehips make a tart, tangy pink-colored tea. They are the seed-filled pod at the base of a rose blossom, giving you a practical reason to have more rose bushes in your garden. It mixes well and enhances the flavor of any berry or fruit-flavored tea.
Rosehip tea can help to:
- provide a nutritional supplement of Vitamin C
- improve adrenal function
- boost the immune system
- provide minerals such as calcium, iron, silicon, selenium, natural sodium, magnesium, manganese, potassium, phosphorus and zinc
- increase energy
- heal tissues and cells
8. Blackberry leaf
Dried blackberry leaves give a luscious fruity flavor when steeped in boiling water. Not only are they the basis of many delicious teas, they are loaded with a beneficial component called tannins. (Bonus tip: add a blackberry leaf to a jar of pickles when canning – the tannin helps to keep the pickles crisp.)
Excess consumption of blackberry leaves (or anything containing tannins) can cause liver damage.
Blackberry leaf tea can help to:
- provide vitamin C
- treat diarrhea
- reduce pain and inflammation from sore throats
- provide an antibacterial effect against H pylori, the bacteria that causes stomach ulcers
- provide immune-boosting antioxidants
- provide high levels of salicylic acid, which gives them similar properties to aspirin, such as pain relief and fever relief
- reduce inflammation of the gums
Cloves are a wonderful addition to herbal tea just for the taste. Not only is the flavor delicious, but cloves have been used for centuries to treat a variety of ailments. The multipurpose little seed packs a mighty punch with its antiviral, antifungal, antimicrobial, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties.
Cloves are the dried buds of a flowering evergreen tree that is native to Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, and Madagascar. They are generally imported and, unfortunately, are not easy to cultivate in other climates or greenhouse atmospheres.
In high amounts cloves can cause liver damage, blood in the urine, diarrhea, nausea, and dizziness.
Clove tea can help to:
- provide pain relief – it is a powerful analgesic
- break up mucous and work as an expectorant
- provide a fragrant decongestant in a steaming cup of tea
- treat strep throat or tonsillitis – it relieves pain and provides a wash of antiviral and antibacterial components
10. Lemon Balm
Lemon balm, also known as Bee Balm, was first recorded to have been used by the ancient Greeks as an overall tonic for good health. It is an ingredient in the old world Carmelite water, a recipe created by Carmelite nuns in the early 1600s to treat headaches. (The traditional mixture also contained coriander, lemon-peel, nutmeg, and angelica root.)
Lemon balm is easy to grow and produces throughout the summer. The more you harvest, the more it produces. It is perennial in warmer climates. Lemon balm like rich moist soil with organic compost and partial shade in the hottest part of the day. It is another one of those herbs that can take over a garden, so plant it in a confined area.
Lemon balm tea can help to:
- fight off viruses – it was used historically against shingles, mumps, and cold sores
- calm anxiety and nervousness
- aid in sleep
- aid the digestive system by reducing spasms and quelling heartburn
- reduce nausea
What do you keep in your herbal medicine cabinet? Why is it an important natural remedy for you? Please share in the comments section below!
– See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-top-10-teas-for-your-herbal-medicine-cabinet-3_072013#sthash.pC9QWs86.dpuf
(Real Farmacy) The CDC has quickly removed a page from their website, which is now cached here, admitting that more than 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine within an 8-year span when a proportion of the vaccine was contaminated with a cancer causing polyomavirus called SV40.
It has been estimated that 10-30 million Americans could have received an SV40 contaminated dose of the vaccine.
V40 is an abbreviation for Simian vacuolating virus 40 or Simian virus 40, a polyomavirus that is found in both monkeys and humans. Like other polyomaviruses, SV40 is a DNA virus that has been found to cause tumors and cancer.
SV40 is believed to suppress the transcriptional properties of the tumor-suppressing genes in humans through the SV40 Large T-antigen and SV40 Small T-antigen. Mutated genes may contribute to uncontrolled cellular proliferation, leading to cancer.
Michele Carbone, Assistant Professor of Pathology at Loyola University in Chicago, has recently isolated fragments of the SV-40 virus in human bone cancers and in a lethal form of lung cancer called mesothelioma. He found SV-40 in 33% of the osteosarcoma bone cancers studied, in 40% of other bone cancers, and in 60% of the mesotheliomas lung cancers, writes Geraldo Fuentes.
Dr. Michele Carbone openly acknowledged HIV/AIDS was spread by the hepatitis B vaccine produced by Merck & Co. during the early 1970s. It was the first time since the initial transmissions took place in 1972-74, that a leading expert in the field of vaccine manufacturing and testing has openly admitted the Merck & Co. liability for AIDS.
The matter-of-fact disclosure came during discussions of polio vaccines contaminated with SV40 virus which caused cancer in nearly every species infected by injection. Many authorities now admit much, possibly most, of the world’s cancers came from the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines, and hepatitis B vaccines, produced in monkeys and chimps.
It is said mesothelioma is a result of asbestos exposure, but research reveals that 50% of the current mesotheliomas being treated no longer occurs due to asbestos but rather the SV-40 virus contained in the polio vaccination. In addition, according to researchers from the Institute of Histology and General Embryology of the University of Ferrara, SV-40 has turned up in a variety other tumors. By the end of 1996, dozens of scientists reported finding SV40 in a variety of bone cancers and a wide range of brain cancers, which had risen 30 percent over the previous 20 years.
Soon after its discovery, SV40 was identified in the oral form of the polio vaccine produced between 1955 and 1961 produced by American Home Products (dba Lederle).
Both the oral, live virus and injectable inactive virus were affected. It was found later that the technique used to inactivate the polio virus in the injectable vaccine, by means of formaldehyde, did not reliably kill SV40.
Just two years ago, the U.S. government finally added formaldehyde to a list of known carcinogens and and admitted that the chemical styrene might cause cancer. Yet, the substance is still found in almost every vaccine.
According to the Australian National Research Council, fewer than 20% but perhaps more than 10% of the general population may be susceptible to formaldehyde and may react acutely at any exposure level. More hazardous than most chemicals in 5 out of 12 ranking systems, on at least 8 federal regulatory lists, it is ranked as one of the most hazardous compounds (worst 10%) to ecosystems and human health (Environmental Defense Fund).
In the body, formaldehyde can cause proteins to irreversibly bind to DNA. Laboratory animals exposed to doses of inhaled formaldehyde over their lifetimes have developed more cancers of the nose and throat than are usual.
Facts Listed on The CDC Website about SV40
-SV40 is a virus found in some species of monkey.
-SV40 was discovered in 1960. Soon afterward, the virus was found in polio vaccine.
-SV40 virus has been found in certain types of cancer in humans.
-In the 1950s, rhesus monkey kidney cells, which contain SV40 if the animal is infected, were used in preparing polio vaccines.
-Not all doses of IPV were contaminated. It has been estimated that 10-30 million people actually received a vaccine that contained SV40.
-Some evidence suggests that receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine may increase risk of cancer.
A Greater Perspective on Aerial Spraying and SV40
The Defense Sciences Office of the Pathogen Countermeasures Program, in September 23, 1998 funded the University of Michigan’s principal investigator, Dr. James Baker, Jr. Dr. Baker, Director of Michigan Nanotechnology Institute for Medicine and Biological Sciences under several DARPA grants. Dr. Baker developed and focused on preventing pathogens from entering the human body, which is a major goal in the development of counter measures to Biological Warfare. This research project sought to develop a composite material that will serve as a pathogen avoidance barrier and post-exposure therapeutic agent to be applied in a topical manner to the skin and mucous membranes. The composite is modeled after the immune system in that it involves redundant, non-specific and specific forms of pathogen defense and inactivation. This composite material is now utilized in many nasal vaccines and vector control through the use of hydro-gel, nanosilicon gels and actuator materials in vaccines.
Through Dr. Baker’s research at the University of Michigan; he developed dendritic polymers and their application to medical and biological science. He co-developed a new vector system for gene transfer using synthetic polymers. These studies have produced striking results and have the potential to change the basis of gene transfer therapy. Dendrimers are nanometer-sized water soluble polymers that can conjugate to peptides or arbohydrates to act as decoy molecules to inhibit the binding of toxins and viruses to cells. They can act also as complex and stabilize genetic material for prolonged periods of time, as in a “time released or delayed gene transfer”. Through Dr. Baker’s ground breaking research many pharmaceutical and biological pesticide manufacturers can use these principles in DNA vaccines specific applications that incorporate the Simian Monkey Virus SV40.
WEST NILE VIRUS SPRAYING
In 2006 Michael Greenwood wrote an article for the Yale School of Public Health entitled, “Aerial Spraying Effectively Reduces Incidence of West Nile Virus (WNV) in Humans.” The article stated that the incidence of human West Nile virus cases can be significantly reduced through large scale aerial spraying that targets adult mosquitoes, according to research by the Yale School of Public Health and the California Department of Public Health.
Under the mandate for aerial spraying for specific vectors that pose a threat to human health, aerial vaccines known as DNA Vaccine Enhancements and Recombinant Vaccine against WNV may be tested or used to “protect” the people from vector infection exposures. DNA vaccine enhancements specifically use Epstein-Barr viral capside’s with multi human complement class II activators to neutralize antibodies. The recombinant vaccines against WNV use Rabbit Beta-globulin or the poly (A) signal of the SV40 virus. In early studies of DNA vaccines it was found that the negative result studies would go into the category of future developmental research projects in gene therapy. During the studies of poly (A) signaling of the SV40 for WNV vaccines, it was observed that WNV will lie dormant in individuals who were exposed to chicken pox, thus upon exposure to WNV aerial vaccines the potential for the release of chicken pox virus would cause a greater risk to having adult onset Shingles.
CALIFORNIA AERIAL SPRAYING for WNV and SV40
In February 2009 to present date, aerial spraying for the WNV occurred in major cities within the State of California. During spraying of Anaheim, CA a Caucasian female (age 50) was exposed to heavy spraying, while doing her daily exercise of walking several miles. Heavy helicopter activity occurred for several days in this area. After spraying, she experienced light headedness, nausea, muscle aches and increased low back pain. She was evaluated for toxicological mechanisms that were associated with pesticide exposure due to aerial spraying utilizing advanced biological monitoring testing. The test results which included protein band testing utilizing Protein Coupled Response (PCR) methods were positive for KD-45. KD-45 is the protein band for SV-40 Simian Green Monkey virus. Additional tests were performed for Epstein-Barr virus capside and Cytomeglia virus which are used in bioengineering for gene delivery systems through viral protein envelope and adenoviral protein envelope technology. The individual was positive for both; indicating a highly probable exposure to a DNA vaccination delivery system through nasal inhalation.
The question of the century is how many other viruses and toxins are within current day vaccines that we’ll only find out about in a few decades?
Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.
Source: Prevent Disease
This EO will “coordinate Federal efforts in response to recent advances regarding how to prevent and treat HIV infection. The Initiative will support further integration of HIV prevention and care efforts; promote expansion of successful HIV testing and service delivery models; encourage innovative approaches to addressing barriers to accessing testing and treatment; and ensure that Federal resources are appropriately focused on implementing evidence-based interventions that improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum.”
Enforcement of mandatory HIV testing for “all individuals ages 15 to 65 years” will be overseen by the US Preventative Services Task Force, in coordination with the Department of health and Human Services (DHHS).
Michael Weinstein, president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), remarked: “Actions speak louder than words. We have had other grand announcements from the White House on AIDS that turned out to be empty words. If indeed the President has finally understood the importance of this issue and will proactively address our concerns, then we will applaud that effort, but not until then. We have wasted 4 1/2 years trying to educate this president about the tragedy that is AIDS in the world. The war against AIDS has not been won – keep your promise. Mr. President play a real leadership role here and abroad – your legacy depends on it.”
In 2010, the National HIV/AIDS Strategy For the United States (NHAS) was released with the goal of:
• Reducing HIV incidence
• Increasing access to care and optimizing health outcomes
• Reducing HIV-related health disparities
The Obama administration has taken pharmaceutical corporations and investors contributions as defining factors to create a “broad range of perspectives” on policy as directed from the Office of National AIDS Policy (ONAP).
ONAP is tasked with creating “a national strategy is a concise plan” that will become “a document that provides a roadmap for policymakers and the general public.”
ONAP has taken steps within the public sector to facilitate “community discussions” in cities across the nation to formulate needs of those afflicted with HIV/AIDS; such as medical care and housing.
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary for the DHHS, and Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor to Obama, have issued a statement claiming that “scientific developments have advanced our understanding of how to best fight HIV” and “recent research also shows that an important benefit of earlier treatment is that it dramatically reduces the risk of HIV transmission to partners. Furthermore, HIV testing technology is faster, and more accurate than ever before, and HIV drug treatment is less toxic, and easier to administer.”
Former Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, announced last year that there was a blueprint to reign in the war against AIDS called President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Clinton explained that “HIV may well be with us into the future, but [AIDS] need not be.”
The US State Department is focused on an “AIDS-free generation” with a strong emphasis on testing and treatment. Clinton would like to see transmission brought to a minimum to ensure that with the proper measures taken, children will no longer be born with AIDS.
Scientists at the Imperial College at London have developed a nanotechnology that can be utilized in an HIV test for “better diagnosis and treatment in the developing world.”
Molly Stevens, lead researcher explains that this type of test analyzes saliva; however the acute sensitivity of this particular test will “be able to detect infection even in those cases where previous methods, such as the saliva test, were rendering a ‘false negative’ because the viral load was too low to be detected.”
This test identifies the HIV biomarker called p24; which if present will cause microscopic gold nanoparticles to clump together and turn a shade of blue. In contrast, a negative result will cause generate a red color.
Back in July, at the International AIDS Conference (IAC), there was a call for a coalition of international scientists working under the direction of UNAIDS to develop preventative measures, identifying human immune-responsive drugs and get them onto the market as quickly as possible.
Dr. Steven Deeks of the AIDS Research Institute, believes “that at best [its] 50-50 that we’re gonna get a cure” so preventative medicine is a better focal point.
By studying the “elite controllers” (people who are carriers, but do not display symptoms of HIV) scientists can decipher how the human immune system works and develop pharmaceuticals to administer to the public.
Trials conducted by Merck in 2007 actually made those who took the vaccine more susceptible to the disease. Then in 2009, human experiments in Thailand pointed to drug corporations toward a powerful vaccine that utilized immune system generated anti-bodies as the answer to their dilemma.
Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Gilead Sciences’ Truvada, the first pharmaceutical drug to prevent the virus that causes AIDS.
Marketed as a preventative for people who at high risk of contracting HIV through sexual activies, Turvada is supported by public health advocates that believe this pill will slow down the spread of HIV. In America it is estimated that 1.2 million people have HIV. With this new antiviral drug, it is proposed that 240,000 HIV carriers will not be able to continue to spread the disease.
Gilead Sciences combined two separate drugs to create Truvada. The genetically engineering of the preventative is praised by the FDA to answer the assumption that condoms are not effective.
New vaccines focus on tricking the human body to reject the HIV/AIDS virus by manipulating the immune system. This mutation is suspected to be able to assist the human body in identifying and neutralizing the virus.
Scientific teams from various institutions like the Scripps Research Institute, the Rockefeller University, NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center and Duke University are closely following how they can use the human body’s immune system against the array of HIV strains that keep popping up.
US government intervention with the National Institutes of Health in 2005 identified the human immunodeficiency virus as the cause of AIDS. Dr. Barton Haynes, of Duke University and director of the Center for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Immunology (CHAVI) asserted that: “We know the face of the enemy.”
Colonel Nelson Michael, director of the US Military HIV Research Program at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, who led the government experimentation of the RV144 trial, commented that since Merck’s vaccine trials “had chilling effect” that uncircumcised males at increased risk for infection prior to exposure to the vaccine. The WRAIR went into Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania to conduct human experimentation of compromising the human immune system under the cover of HIV/AIDS research for vaccination purposes.
Hayes’ research showed that vaccinated men and women developed antibodies in the region of the virus’s outer coat; which suggests that this element should be further studied.
According to an annual volume of the Special Cancer Virus Program, human experimentation with cancer-causing and immunosuppressive viruses was essential. With the “gay plague” and “gay cancer’, such experiments were no longer necessary. The deaths of thousands of gay men proved with these viruses caused cancer, immunosuppression, and were sexually-transmissible between people.
Somehow, the eugenics aspect of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, which directly correlates to its origin and would be useful in finding its cure is completely ignored by mainstream media, medical communities and even some members of the alternative media. In July 2008, the mainstream propaganda released an article admitting that, strangely enough, “people of African descent are much more likely to have a genetic trait that makes them more susceptible to infection with the HIV virus.”
In 1962, the US Senate received a report concerning chemical and biological warfare. This is the government contract where HIV-like and Ebola-like viruses were bio-engineered by the US military and the bioweapons contracting lab Biomedics. They were producing viral cancer in monkeys that could then be used through genetic engineering to infect humans.
Robert Gallo, working with the National Cancer Institute, was part of this project. Millions of people are dying from this US sponsored government project to depopulate certain groups of people because of their ethnic heritage; and the US Congress knew about it, and endorsed its use.
These biological agents are classified as “non-lethal warfare” because the morality is not instantaneous. Rockefeller and Stanford globalist think-tanks came up with the concept of ethnic cleansing by way of prolonged infection so that the target and cause could not be correlated. Biologicals and chemicals provide this covert mass extermination. According to the global Elite, this form of depopulation is economically sound as a stand form of military “soft kill.”
Use of bioweapons and suppressive-immunological viruses like HIV are introduced into the general public, without possibility of traceable detection and effectively reduce the population.Studies into immune suppression, as a treatment for cancer are not only conducted with the expressed purpose of analyzing infectious viruses, but also developing antiviral potentials that can target specific aspects of the human body by genetic amplification.
HIV/AIDS has been developed as a bio-weapon of mass depopulation capabilities, but now the global Elite are stepping up their intention with their research into the abilities of the human immune system. Specifics could result in a “vaccine” that would cause the human immune system to become ineffective. By claiming there is a pandemic, the global Elite could justify the need for mass immunizations. This would leave every person inoculated under threat of becoming deathly ill from even simple exposure to the common cold.
This article first appeared @ Occupy Corporatism
(Carolanne Wright) Agent Orange, the herbicide sprayed in Vietnam linked with devastating birth defects, cancer and Parkinson’s disease?
Dow AgroSciences would like to feed this toxic chemical to the American population via a new breed of genetically modified corn. If the corporation has its way, “Agent Orange corn” will arrive on dinner plates across the U.S. as early as 2014.
Poisonous history of Agent Orange
Da Thi Kieu experienced the deadly effects of Agent Orange first hand. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military sprayed her fields with the herbicide. Likewise, her husband was exposed when he fought in the army and died an early death due to cancers associated with the toxin. Of their eight children, seven were born with birth defects and only two survived.
Sadly, Kieu’s story is not an unfamiliar one. Countless others throughout Vietnam and America have suffered at the hands of Agent Orange. Parkinson’s, Hodgkin’s disease, Bcell leukemias and multiple myeloma are all linked with exposure to the herbicide. And the poisons don’t just magically disappear — decades later, traces are still found in the soil. Additionally, many view Agent Orange as chemical warfare. According to Global Research:
“In US Senate Congressional Records dated August 11, 1969, a table presented to senators showed that congress clearly classified 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T (main components of Agent Orange) in the Chemical and Biological Warfare category.”
If Agent Orange is so toxic, why does Dow AgroSciences want to introduce more of it into our food supply?
Follow the money
As with all genetically modified crops, the reason comes down to one point: corporate profit. It is not about feeding the hungry masses or improving the lives of millions. The main motivating force is always money, plain and simple. This is why whenever a new GM crop is on the ticket for approval, food activist groups like the Organic Consumers Association go on high alert. They realize mega corporations such as Monsanto and Dow are up to something — and it’s most likely harmful.
New “Frankencorn” crop
Enlist brand GM corn is Dow AgroSciences latest mutant baby. It’s a crop developed to withstand extreme amounts of 2,4-D — an ingredient found in Agent Orange that severely jeopardizes the health of the environment as well as that of humans and wildlife. Round Up Ready resistant ‘superweeds’ apparently need something stronger. Enter Agent Orange.
As accurately observed by conventional soybean and corn farmer George Naylor, “Farmers are on the front lines of this potential chemical disaster,” and adds, “I’m also very concerned about the further pollution of the air and water in my community.” Scientists and more than 140 advocacy groups have flooded U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s inbox with letters protesting Dow’s regulatory application for the Enlist crop. But further pressure is needed to stop the approval. To take action against this toxic new breed of corn, click here.
Sources for this article include:
(Dave Bohon) A pro-life leader has won a victory in her efforts to convince soft-drink manufacturer PepsiCo to stop the use of aborted fetal cells in its research for enhancing the flavors of its products.
Debi Vinnedge, executive director of Children of God for Life (COGFL), announced that in late April she had received a letter from Paul Boykas, PepsiCo’s vice president for Global Public Policy, confirming that the company will not allow the use of HEK-293 — a cell line derived from human embryonic kidney — in its partnership with Senomyx, the company with which it had inked a four-year, $30 million contract for flavor research.
As reported last November by The New American, a PepsiCo shareholder had filed a resolution with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an effort halt the company from contracting with Senomyx, which, according to documents collected by Vinnedge, used cell lines derived from aborted babies in its process of producing artificial flavor enhancers.
According to a report by LifeNews.com at the time, Pepsi had “ignored concerns and criticism from dozens of pro-life groups and tens of thousands of pro-life people who voiced their opposition to PepsiCo contracting with biotech company Senomyx even after it was found to be testing their food additives using fetal cells from abortions.”
But after a nearly year-long campaign led by COGFL that included a nationwide boycott of PepsiCo products, in late April Boykas sent a letter to Vinnedge assuring her that PepsiCo would not “conduct or fund research including research performed by third parties — that utilizes any human tissue or cell lines derived from embryos or fetuses.” Boykas also assured Vinnedge that “Senomyx does not use HEK cells or any other tissues or cell lines derived from human embryos or fetuses for research performed on behalf of PepsiCo.”
In response to the letter, Vinnedge said that she was “absolutely thrilled with PepsiCo’s decision. They have listened to their customers and have made both a wise and profound statement of corporate integrity that deserves the utmost respect, admiration, and support of the public.”
(Dr. Mercola) Make no mistake, there is a well orchestrated campaign underway to take away your rights and access to vitamins and supplements.
You have likely witnessed the recent flurry of articles from doctors with scary headlines like “Don’t Take Your Vitamins” written by Paul Offit. Senator Dick Durbin has taken a leading role as well.
Senator Durbin was also a sponsor for the SOPA / PIPA act, which would give the government even more power to censor and control the internet. You would think it would be impossible at this point to have MORE control, considering the recent leaks regarding the NSA.
There is no satiating the hunger for more power in our federal government. Politicians will scare you about sugary beverages loaded with caffeine as examples of the dangerous and ‘unregulated’ supplement industry.
Meanwhile, consumers load up at Starbucks and other coffee shops – where they can easily down cups and cups of this ‘dangerous’ substance. You don’t see Durbin beating down the door of Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts, even though coffee is the primary source where most people get their caffeine fix.
When you notice this type of hypocrisy, you can usually bet there is a serious industry influence behind the scenes. There is a campaign push assaulting the supplement industry by those hoping to gain control of it. Essentially, if supplements become regulated like drugs – only the drug companies will be manufacturing them.
By setting new regulations and gaining control of the industry, big pharma can charge higher prices and make higher profits.
Surprisingly, a newly released GAO Dietary Supplements report has recently shown just how safedietary supplements really are. There are always bad products in every industry, but overall, supplements appear to be one of the safest of all consumable products.
Senator Durbin has been on a mission that appears, at least superficially, to stem from concern over “your health.” However, when scrutinized more closely, Durbin’s proposed legislation would have precisely the opposite effect.
If Senator Durbin is genuinely concerned about “your health,” then his focus should be on making drugs and vaccines safer, which are the real danger — not dietary supplements.
Why Should Supplement Regulation Be More Stringent Than That for Drugs?
Durbin first introduced the Dietary Supplement Labeling Act (S 1310) in 2011, a bill that threatens the supplement industry by granting FDA more power to regulate supplements as if they were drugs, potentially putting supplement companies out of business.
In fact, under this bill, supplement regulation would be even more stringent than for pharmaceutical drugs! The bill specifies the following:1
- Requires regulators to compile a list of dietary supplement ingredients and proprietary blends of ingredients that are judged capable of causing serious adverse reactions
- Mandates manufacturers to submit a list of all the products they make at a given facility and their ingredients; new products or reformulations would require new registrations
Despite resorting to sneaky tactics and dispersing blatant misinformation to his legislative colleagues in attempts to garner support, Senator Durbin has had a difficult time obtaining any support for his bill.
Therefore, in May 2012, Durbin tried to slide his amendment (No. 2127) through by piggybacking it onto a senate bill that was slated for a vote the very next day (S 3187, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act).
Because the natural health community so quickly and effectively sprung into action, Durbin’s amendment failed. Although his efforts to pass this ridiculous legislation have been unsuccessful thus far, his determination has not waned, misguided though it is. We must continue our efforts to thwart this bill, which if passed into law, could spell disastrous consequences for your health.
The Danger of Food Supplements Is VASTLY Overstated
Durbin and others would have you believe supplements are dangerous and need further regulation. But the truth is that supplements are already FDA-regulated and produce far fewer adverse reactions than either drugs or vaccines. The March 2013 GAO Dietary Supplements report,2 which Durbin hoped would paint supplements as dangerous, actually showed how incredibly safe they really are—particularly when compared to drugs and vaccines.
Since 2008, the supplement industry has been required to report adverse events to the FDA’s AER system, pursuant to the 2006 Act. Consider the following statistics comparing dietary supplement AERs with drug AERs (from the 2013 GAO report):
- From 2008 to 2011, FDA received 6,307 AERs for dietary supplements, not including 1,000 AERs that were submitted to poison control centers, rather than the FDA3
- In 2008, 1,080 dietary supplement AERs were reported to FDA
- In 2008, 526,527 prescription drug AERs were reported
- In 2008, 26,517 vaccine AERs were reported
When you do the math, there were 488 times as many adverse events reported from prescription drugs as from dietary supplements!
Supplement AERs increased from 400 in 2007 to 1,080 in 2008, but as the Alliance for Natural Health points out, that stems from an increase in the number of supplements on the market and more careful reporting of AERs to the FDA, especially since the implementation of required good manufacturing protocols. The number of AERs is miniscule compared to the hundreds of millions of supplement servings consumed.4 According to a 2007 National Health Interview Survey,5 more than half of Americans (157 million individuals) take nutritional supplements.
Senator Durbin and company are trying to claim AERs are underreported. However, according to the 2013 GAO report, there were only 20 AER compliance problems identified during supplement company inspections, suggesting most of these companies are compliant with mandatory AER guidelines. Adverse reactions aren’t being underreported—there just aren’t that many reactions to report. Even the GAO report itself states:
The greatest challenge for identifying potential safety concerns from AERs is the small number of AERs that FDA receives related to dietary supplements.
Poison Control Data Supports the Safety of Nutritional Supplements
Data from the U.S. National Poison Data System’s annual report, which tracked data from 57 U.S. poison centers, showed vitamin and mineral supplements caused zero deaths in 2010, whereas pharmaceuticals caused more than 1,100 of the total 1,366 reported fatalities. FDA-approved drugs cause 80 percent of poison control fatalities each year.6 Poison control centers report 100,000 calls, 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations and nearly 500 deaths each year from acetaminophen (Tylenol) alone.
Data from the European Union indicate that pharmaceutical drugs are 62,000 times as likely to kill you as dietary supplements. You’re actually more likely to be struck dead by lightning or drown in your bathtub than have a lethal reaction to a dietary supplement. These figures make it quite clear where the danger lies. If Senator Durbin really cared about your health, his efforts would be centered on doing something to make drugs safer, as they obviously pose a FAR greater risk to your health.
Laws Regulating Supplements Are Already in Place
According to the GAO report:
FDA officials told us that the current regulatory framework is sufficient to identify and act on safety concerns regarding foods with added dietary ingredients.
They are referring to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).7 The only deficiency, to the extent it exists, lies in the enforcement of the current law, in terms of ensuring good manufacturing practices and mandatory reporting of adverse events by supplement companies. If the FDA is already well-equipped with legislative authority to do its job, then what is Senator Durbin really trying to accomplish?
The only answer that makes sense is that the ultimate goal of Durbin’s bill is to make sure every supplement is approved by the FDA before it is sold.
The hidden problem with this is that the FDA is heavily biased in favor of drugs, as the agency is primarily funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The FDA sees supplements as competition for drugs, so not many will be approved. Durbin’s bill attempts to get supplements into the clutches of our completely dysfunctional drug approval regime, where they can be subjected to every possible legal obstacle that will keep them off store shelves. Less competition from supplements would also soften the impact of decreased revenues from expiring drug patents.
Forcing Supplement Companies Out of Business Will Not Improve Your Health
If Durbin’s bill were to pass, the FDA would demand very expensive (on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars) supplement trials just like drug trials which would eliminate the vast majority of recent supplements as most manufacturers have revenues that are only a tiny fraction of drug companies and can’t afford these expenses. More importantly, they are simply unnecessary as they provide virtually no benefit to the consumer. The current reported adverse effects are simply too low to justify this unnecessary safety requirement from a nonexistent danger. Remember, supplements don’t kill tens to hundreds of thousands of people every year; drugs do. Supplements don’t kill anyone.
Unlike drugs, supplements generally cannot be patented, so manufacturers will never see the return on investment that pharmaceutical companies see. The cost of complying with the pre-approval process will likely put many supplement companies out of business, and those who survive may do so only by drastically increasing the price of their products, making them cost prohibitive for many… particularly low-income families who need them the most. Durbin’s bill would also impose a significant burden on federal regulators, diverting these resources away from where they should be focused—i.e., on the drug industry.8
Crafty Reclassification of Products Allows Manufacturers to Dodge Regulations
There is an additional problem that appears to be completely ignored by Senator Durbin. Dietary supplements are already more rigorously regulated than food products. Taking full advantage of this, some manufacturers are migrating products previously listed as “supplements” over to the “food products” category in order to sidestep regulation. Energy drinks are a prime example. Loren Israelson, executive director of the United Natural Products Alliance, is quoted as saying:
I think he [Senator Durbin] misunderstands the dynamics of the energy drinks market. There has been a significant shift of brands going from dietary supplement labeling to food labeling. His bill would not capture some of the products he’s concerned about.
Caffeine—A Ridiculous Case of Selective Regulation
In related news, the FDA is now going after caffeine to protect your and your children’s health, in response to Senator Durbin’s fervent outcries. Back in November 2012, Senators Durbin and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) sent a series of letters to the FDA9 asking for energy drinks to be reviewed and potentially regulated.
While caffeine can indeed have detrimental health effects, the irony of the situation is that no attention is going toward actual coffee, which clearly would impact major multinational corporations like Starbucks. No, they’re only concerned with supplement, food and beverage makers using caffeine in their products, while the primary source of caffeine is not even part of the discussion. Supplements are just a tiny portion of caffeine consumption, so why not go after coffee?
As reported by Forbes:10, 11
FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods Michael Taylor spoke out against what he called the ‘unfortunate’ trend [of adding caffeine to processed foods]… Taylor specifically called out gum maker Wrigley on a new product, and stated that while formal regulation might be forthcoming, ‘we hope this can be a turning point for all to prevent the irresponsible addition of caffeine to food and beverages. Together, we should be immediately looking at what voluntary restraint can be used by industry.
..Mr. Taylor expressed concern over the ‘cumulative amount’ of caffeine available, particularly for children.
…[A]s long as FDA’s actions aren’t tethered to standards or science, they threaten to sweep in products that don’t merit any concern or scrutiny. During FDA’s successful effort to drive some caffeine-infused alcoholic beverages, like Four Loko, off the market, it also sent warning letters to brewers whose product line featured beers brewed with coffee. The amount of caffeine in and serving sizes of the beer paled in comparison to Four Loko, which led the head of a craft-brewing association to feel such letters were ‘inadvertent.’ He did add, however, ‘brewers should be concerned. This could lead the FDA to question beverages that get their caffeine from natural products like coffee, chocolate or tea. Who’s to say where this will end?’
Call to Action
Dick Durbin will be up for re-election in 2014. You can bet we will be focusing very specifically on this career politician. Durbin and others would have you believe supplements are dangerous and need further regulation. However, supplements have far fewer reported adverse reactions than either drugs or vaccines and are already FDA regulated.
Durbin is reintroducing his supplement bill in hopes of forcing dietary supplement manufacturers to pass regulations that are even stricter than those governing pharmaceutical drugs. Legislative tactics such as this represent part of a master plan by the drug industry, in partnership with its best friend FDA, to eliminate the competition by taking control of the supplement industry.
Durbin’s bill has failed miserably in the past due to lack of support and strong opposition by health-conscious consumers. We can do that again, but your help is needed. Please contact your representatives and urge them to vote NO on S 1310, Dietary Supplement Labeling Act. You can do this by signing the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) petition.
If you live in Illinois, as I do, I would encourage you to contact Senator Durbin directly. Tell him (or whomever your representative is) to stop this overreach of power, and that the proposed guidelines fly in the face of the congressional intent of DSHEA. Congress never intended for the FDA to control supplements, and giving them this control jeopardizes your access to the dietary supplements you rely on, as well as further damaging the US economy. Please be courteous and respectful, and thank them for their time.
( Heidi Stevenson) Agribusiness is in a mad rush to take over the earth, and seems willing to stop at nothing.
Coming soon is cabbage with scorpion poison engineered in every cell.
Of course, they claim it’s safe and will result in less pesticide use, but history and logic say otherwise. Who will wake from the insane mating between Agribiz and GMOs?
Get ready for genetically engineered cabbages that come complete with their own scorpion poison, just for you to eat. It’s touted as requiring less pesticide use and being, of course, completely safe. Close investigation, though, indicates that neither claim is likely true.
A pesticide made with scorpion poison genetically engineered into a virus was first tested back in 1994. Interestingly, the scientists who sprayed the test field wore full body suits to protect them from this “harmless” poison. One must wonder at just how safe it could be when the developers themselves don’t trust it more than that! Of course, the head of the trial, Professor David Bishop, insisted that the trial was safe—though he himself opted to take a vacation, rather than be there for it.
In the newer incarnation of scorpion poison genetic engineering, genes from the scorpion, Androctonus australus hector, for production of poison are being genetically engineered into cabbages. The goal is to produce them for public consumption. With the FDA’s history of rubberstamp approvals for genetically modified crops, it seems unlikely that anything will interfere with their production and entry into a supermarket near you.
Let’s examine the justifications given for this never-to-be-found-in-nature cabbage-scorpion chimera:
1. It will result in the use of less pesticide.
At first blush, this seems to make sense. But it’s specious reasoning. The reality is that, instead of spraying pesticides onto the plants, the plants will contain them in every single cell. The result is that the pesticide will end up in the bodies of people who eat the cabbage. Thus, human beings will become the unofficial pesticide sinks, instead of the environment. I suppose there’s a plus in that, but I do not personally intend to be one of those pesticide sinks. Do you?
2. It’s completely safe.
Where have we heard that before? In this instance it stems from two things:
- The scorpion venom has been modified so that it won’t hurt humans: This isn’t quite true. What they’ve done is select a section of the genome that codes for a toxin, called AAiT, which is known to be poisonous to insects.
- A study that purports to show that it does no harm to humans: Well … not exactly. The human testing was not performed on live people, nor was it performed on normal healthy cells. It was tested on MCF-7 breast cancer cells—not exactly normal human cells. Do you find that comforting? I certainly don’t.
Will Frankencabbages Be Effective At Stopping Pests?
This is, of course, the real issue, because it’s why
farmers Agribusiness would want it. That could prove to be a problem. According to the study on AAiT’s toxicity against insect cells, the toxicity is greatly limited by ingestion. The authors wrote:
[L]ow toxicity with an LC50 of 18.4 μM was recorded in artificial diet incorporation assay in which the toxin was consumed by the testing insect through feeding. We suggested that this might be a result of toxin degradation by digestion.
The LD50—the point at which 50% of the insects die—was recorded at only 0.13 μM when AAiT was applied directly. They found a difference of “2 orders of magnitude” when the toxin was directly applied instead of ingested. That’s a huge difference—and would tend to suggest that the scorpion toxin won’t be all that effective in the plants, since it must be ingested by insects. So, in all likelihood, sprays will still be used.
Will this matter to the buyers of Frankencabbage seeds? It’s hard to say, but the history of these products would tend to indicate a remarkable gullibility. Consider that production has never been much better in genetically engineered seeds, and when it has, it’s tended to deteriorate over time. The legacy of Roundup Ready, glyphosate-resistant, crops has been superweeds that not only are resistant to glyphosate, but grow much bigger and faster than the original weeds.
Keep in mind, also, that the use of genetically modified seeds tends to come with codicils that lock the buyer, and even subsequent users of the land, into buying nothing else.
Perhaps, ultimately, it will be the Frankenseeds themselves that destroy Agribusiness! They’re locked into a system that is proving not to work. The real question, then, is whether they’ll destroy the earth—and us—before they’ve destroyed themselves.
The concern posited by the image at the top of the page is serious: Once Agribusiness got into bed with recombinant DNA produce, they made a bargain with the devil. Ultimately, it seems unlikely that even Agribusiness will wake up from their attempt to take over the earth.
- Scorpion pesticide test goes ahead: Scientists undeterred by fresh evidence about potency of virus
- Recombinant scorpion insectotoxin AaIT kills specifically insect cells but not human cells
- Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest
(Donna Gates) Okay, they taste good… and they’re easy.
In fact, they’re everywhere you look. Processed foods seem like the answer to today’s busy lives.
And new fads and fancy advertisements make promises that keep us coming back for more.
But before you hit the vending machine or the fast food window, find out what the processed food industry doesn’t want you to know.
1. Processed foods are addictive and can cause you to over-eat.
Whole foods are made up of carbohydrates, proteins, fats, fiber and water. When foods are processed the components of these foods are modified (for example, fiber, water and nutrients are removed) and in other cases, components are concentrated. In each case, processing changes the way they are digested and assimilated in your body.
Eating highly processed or highly concentrated foods can artificially stimulate dopamine (the pleasure neurotransmitter), which plays a role in addiction. In this way, you are eating foods that lack nutrients and fiber, but create a pleasurable feeling.
A food addiction starts because you feel good when you are eating these foods and they make you think they taste better. You crave that pleasurable feeling again and again and viola… this is what starts a food addiction.
2. Processed foods are linked to obesity.
Additives in processed foods, like high fructose corn syrup, sugar and MSG have been linked to weight gain and obesity.
Dr. Mercola recently reported about a new study that showed childhood obesity could be reduced by 18 percent, simply by cutting out fast food advertisements during children’s programming. The Australian government is clearly more concerned about their children’s health as television advertisements to children were banned several years ago.
3. Processed foods often contain ingredients that do not follow the principle of food combining, which can lead to low energy, poor digestion, illness, acidic blood and weight gain.
An example would be a frozen meat and cheese pizza. Cheese (a dairy product), meat (an animal protein) and pizza crust (a grain product) make a terrible food combination that can wreak havoc on your digestive health.
4. Processed foods contribute to an imbalanced inner ecosystem, which can lead to digestive problems, cravings, illness and disease. Beneficial microflora cannot survive in your digestive tract when you are poisoning them. Like us they thrive on foods that are made by nature not by man.
5. A diet high in processed foods can lead to depression, memory issues and mood swings.
Ingredients in processed foods are often the lowest cost and sub-par, nutritionally. For example, the fats and oils used in processed foods are refined, which means they are stripped of the essential fatty acids necessary for healthy blood sugar levels, moods and memory. Your heart, hormones and brain suffer when you choose to eat these fats and oils. Instead choose the organic, unrefined or “virgin” fats and oils that are recommended on The Body Ecology Diet.
6. Processed foods often go hand in hand with “eating on the run” or multitasking.
Most people will choose convenience if they are on the run and in today’s busy lives, who of us isn’t? Unfortunately, multitasking while eating causes people to lose touch with their natural appetite, often leading to weight gain. Additionally, multitasking sends the wrong signals to your digestive system, which needs to be in a restful mode to digest properly.
7. Nutrition labels on processed foods are often misleading and have harmful health effects.
Many labels say “sugar free,” but contain other sweeteners like agave, which is like high fructose corn syrup. Additionally, product labeling may hide ingredients like GM (genetically modified) foods and harmful additives like MSG. These are hidden behind words on the label like “natural flavorings” or “approved spices”.
8. Diets high in processed meats (like hot dogs and deli meats) have been linked to various forms of cancer, such as pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer and stomach cancer.
9. Eating too many processed foods can lead to infertility and malnutrition.
Processed foods, like cereal, are stripped of important vitamins and nutrients that your body truly needs. You could be eating a large amount of calories and still be malnourished if your diet is high in processed foods. Animal studies have shown that over three generations, a deficient diet causes reproduction to cease. Today, infertility is on the rise, affecting 7.3 million people in America alone.
10. Processed foods are made for long shelf-life, not long human life!
Chemicals, additives and preservatives are added to processed foods so that they will last for a long time without going rancid or affecting the taste of the food. Food manufacturers spend time, money and research on beautiful packaging and strategies to lengthen shelf-life, with little attention on how the foods will lengthen your life or create lasting health.
Honor Your Body With Body Ecology
Eating processed foods is a vicious cycle. They are convenient, they taste good, we get quick energy and pleasure… then comes the slump. We rebound from this slump by eating even more processed food and the vicious cycle continues. Over time, your energy drops. Perhaps you notice weight gain or other signs of aging.
So how do you break the vicious cycle?
By following the 7 healthy eating principles of the Body Ecology program and choosing our delicious, properly prepared “real” foods. Body Ecology is a whole foods diet that can create new health in your digestive system, and your immune system and also restore your youthful vitality.
One simple, convenient change can boost your health and immunity!
If you are living life on the go, how about adding at least 2-4 ounces of probiotic-rich Coco-Biotic to your daily routine? Fast, easy AND super healthy, Coco-Biotic aids your digestion, boosts your energy and is a best-kept beauty secret for beautiful skin and hair. Forgo those so-called energy drinks and choose Coco-Biotic for long lasting health and beauty!
If you are not ready to change your diet completely, here are two quick, easy steps that pack a huge punch in health benefits:
1. Add fermented foods and drinks to your diet.
Fermented foods and drinks, like cultured vegetables and probiotic liquids are key to aiding your digestion, boosting your immunity and providing lasting energy. Start today by committing to a shot of probiotic-rich Coco-Biotic before breakfast and again for a mid-afternoon pick me up. Quick and convenient, it’s a much more potent treat or “pleasure-booster” to give your body during your busy day.
2. Ditch your sugar and substitute with all-natural Lakanto.
Zero-calorie, zero-gylcemic index and safe for diabetics, Lakanto is the best way to break your sugar addiction. We have received e-mails each week from people who tell us that by discovering Lakanto they now can avoid sugar. They feel great, have lost a lot of weight and couldn’t have broken their sugar addiction without it. It’s natural to want to satisfy your sweet tooth, but you deserve to be healthy too! Simply replace your sugar with Lakanto, which looks, tastes and bakes like sugar – and you’ll be on your way to delicious health!
These two steps alone may have you feeling so energized that you are ready to tackle the Body Ecology program for even better health!
Honor your body, your taste buds AND your health with the 7 principles of Body Ecology. Changing a few habits today can lead to a lifetime of good health!
- Goldhammer, Alan, D.C., Dietary Addictions: Why eating healthfully is so difficult. National Health Association. http://www.healthscience.org
- Tsang, Gloria, R.D. and Girdler, Lauren. MSG and Your Weight. September 2008. Health Castle. http://www.healthcastle.com/msg
- Mercola, Joe, O.D. Simple Change Could Reduce Obesity in U.S. by 20 Percent. Mercola.com.
Krebs, Al. New Poll – 94% of Americans Want Labels on GE Foods. Organic Consumers.
- Tsang, Gloria, R.D., Processed Meat and Cancer. August 2006. Health Castle.
- Fallon, Sally. Dirty Secrets of the Food Processing Industry. Weston A. Price Foundation.
- Davis, Jordan K., M.D. Shelf Life is Not Your Life. Total Health Communications.
- Vangsness, R.D., L.D.N., C.N.S.D. Mastering the Mindful Meal. Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
(Jeromie Williams) If you live on the west coast of Canada or the United States, you’re pretty much already screwed at this point thanks to the Japanese earthquake and tsunami of 2011.
Radiation levels are already increasing in the food and water, babies born with thyroid issues linked to radiation are rising quickly and governments in Canada and the United States are raising the “acceptable levels” of certain toxic substances in the food being shipped in from Japan.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory, this is happening and it’s happening right now.
The fancy little picture at the top of the article isn’t showing you the flow of happy fun time thoughts from Japan back in March of 2012, it’s showing you the flow of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant after the devastating earthquake and tsunami of 2011. Yes, that sharp pain you just felt in your chest is the sudden realization that the image shows the radiation reaching almost past Hawaii more than a year ago.
Do the math – If that radiation screamed across the Pacific Ocean that far in one year, just how far do you think it has gotten since then? Look at what World Truth TV is saying and then you decide.
Samples of milk taken across the United States have shown radiation at levels 2000 percent higher than EPA maximums. The reason that milk is so significant is that it is representative of the entire food supply. According to an article published on Natural News, “Cows consume grass and are exposed to the same elements as food crops and water supplies. In other words, when cows’ milk starts testing positive for high levels of radioactive elements, this is indicative of radioactive contamination of the entire food supply.”
The Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Deception Protection Agency, instead of refusing to prohibit the sale of tainted foods and mandatory testing of foods produced and harvested from the Pacific Coast, have simply raised the “acceptable levels” of radioactive material in foods.
If that doesn’t scare the ever-living crap out of you, then take a look at the list of foods you are now supposed to be wary of, you know, for only the next 30,000 years.
How can we protect ourselves? First, be aware of what items are likely to be highly tainted.
1.) SEAFOOD: Question the origin of ALL seafood. Fish and crustaceans from the Pacific Ocean should all be considered to be poisoned with radiation.
2.) WATER: The rainfall and snowfall are all radiated. Do not drink any water that has not been filtered. The tap water that flows from your faucet has NOT been treated to rid it of radioactive particles. A recent report from the NY Times stated, “A rooftop water monitoring program managed by UC Berkeley’s Department of Nuclear Engineering detected substantial spikes in rain-borne iodine-131 during torrential downpours …
3.) DAIRY PRODUCTS: Milk and milk products from the West Coast states currently have the highest levels of radiation in North America.
4.) PRODUCE: Leafy Vegetables, Wines, Tomatoes, Strawberries….all produce from California or any other West Coast State are also likely to be tainted.
5.) MEAT: If an animal eats any leafy vegetable all along the West Coast, that animal has consumed radiation, and is poisoned. This is any animal from cows, pigs, goats, sheep to wild deer and other game.
If you eat the above foods from areas with high radiation levels, you are eating radiation and feeding it to your children. Slowly the radiation levels within your body will build up. This is PERMANENT.
Infant mortality rates across the United States have increased by more than 35% since the nuclear disaster, according to a court statement by Dr. Sherman with independent scientist Leuren Moret, MA, PhD. A study published in The International Journal of Medicine indicates that more than 20,000 deaths right here in North America can be directly attributed to the release of radioactive material from Fukushima.
Radioactive isotopes of the type released from Fukushima have a half-life of 30,000 years. This means that we must permanently change the way we prepare our food.
- Wash your food with soap and rinse it in filtered water.
- Be aware of the origins of your vegetables, fish, game and seafood.
- Keep abreast of radiation levels to help monitor where your food is acquired.
- Use only filtered water for drinking, cooking and ice.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but that one way trip to colonize Mars is looking pretty damn attractiveright now.
(Mark Dunlea) The agriculture section of the Ecology Branch of the Green Shadow Cabinet opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as the latest Free Trade Agreement (FTA) assault against food sovereignty, where the profits of multinational companies are placed ahead of the food security needs of individual nations.
The TPP seeks to revive the stalled expansion of the World Trade Organization
The TPP is a trade agreement under secret negotiation by by Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. Japan will join at the next meeting).
Access to food is a basic human right. Instead, TPP expands the notion that food is just another commodity subject to economic speculation and exploitation solely to increase the profits of multinational corporations. TPP promotes export-oriented food production, its passage will increase global hunger and malnutrition, alienate millions from their productive assets and resources; land, water, fish, seeds, technology and generations of cultural knowledge.
In order to guarantee the independence and food sovereignty of all of the world’s peoples, it is essential that food is produced though diversified, community based production systems. Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to control their own food and agriculture; to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade in order to achieve sustainable development objectives; to determine the extent to which they want to be self reliant; to restrict the dumping of agricultural products in their markets, and; to guarantee local fisheries-based communities the right to manage their aquatic resources.
A TPP trade agreement will impact all levels of the food system, from the growers, to the markets distributing the food; from the quality of the food available to consumers, to the ability of governments to protect and be held accountable to their people. The TPP is designed to help agribusiness get bigger and more powerful in their drive to consolidate ownership of the food system — from seed to shelf. The TPP will speed up the global race to the bottom in terms of farm prices, workers’ wages, environmental standards and human rights.
TPP will empower agribusiness to sue countries for trying to limit the kinds of food they import. Domestic food safety standards can also be challenged / weakened as barriers to trade. The TPP will increase risks to food safety in the U.S, as similar “equivalence rules” in prior agreements have forced the U.S. to, for example, permit the import of sub-standard meat product.
Public Citizen, a non-governmental organization, points out that there are over $13 billion in pending corporate “investor-state” trade pact attacks on domestic environmental, public health and transportation policy. Mere threats of such cases have repeatedly resulted in countries dropping important public interest protections, exposing their populations to harm that could have been avoided. The use of international tribunals to overturn regulations has increased dramatically in the past decade. Tobacco firms are using the regime to challenge tobacco control policies.
Yet while TPP countries have agreed to provide foreign investors an array of extraordinary new privileges, the TPP countries have not required investors to agreed to health, labor or environmental obligations.
Like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which displaced millions of Mexican corn farmers, the TPP is expected to flood markets with cheap products, increasing pressures on small farmers to grow cash crops, rather than traditional food crops. And, like NAFTA, TPP will force small farmers off the land forcing them to migrate to cities, and cross borders hoping to survive. FTAs have undercut the right of local producers to receive a fair, locally determined price for their products by forcing farmers to compete in the global food market.
As a result of FTAs, agricultural production has increased the use of fossil fuels for production and transportation, thereby increasing pollution; increased the use of chemical inputs; expanded the health and environmental risks associated with genetically modified material; and reduced biodiversity by favoring mono-cropping.
Many environmental, farm and fair trade groups are concerned about the negative impact the TPP could have on where and how dairy products are produced and processed. The U.S. dairy industry generates $140 billion in economic activity and employs an estimated 900,000 workers, while providing nourishment to millions more. The nation cannot afford to compete with dairy imports produced under unfair conditions.
Rather than adopt the TPP, governments must uphold the rights of all peoples to food sovereignty and security, and adopt and implement policies that promote sustainable, family-based production rather than industry- led, high- input export oriented production.
The Green Shadow Cabinet supports agroecological trade policies that:
- Ensure adequate remunerative prices for all farmers and fishers;
- Exercise the rights to protect domestic markets from imports at low prices;
- Abolish all direct and indirect export supports;
- End domestic production subsidies that promote unsustainable agriculture, inequitable land tenure patterns and destructive fishing practices;
- Protect fish resources from both land -based and sea-based threats, such as pollution from dumping, coastal and off-shore mining, degradation of river mouths and estuaries and harmful industrial aquaculture practices that use antibiotics and hormones;
- Establish national and local mechanisms for quality control of all food products so that they comply with high environmental, social and health quality standards;
- Recognize and enforce communities’ legal and customary rights to make decisions concerning their local, traditional resources;
- Ensure equitable access to land, seeds, water, credit and other productive resources;
- Prohibit all forms of patenting of life or any of its components, and the appropriation of knowledge associated with food and agriculture through intellectual property rights regimes and
- Protect farmers’, indigenous peoples’ and local community rights over plant genetic resources and associated knowledge — including farmers’ rights to exchange and save seeds.
- Ban the production of, and trade in genetically modified (GM) seeds, foods, animal feeds and related products;
- Encourage and promote traditional agriculture and organic farming, based on indigenous knowledge and sustainable agriculture practices.
~ Jim Goodman serves as Secretary of Agriculture, Mark Dunlea as Director of the White House Office of Climate and Agriculture, and Brian Tokar as Director of the Office of Technology Assessment in the Ecology Branch of the Green Shadow Cabinet. This statement is one of over a dozen issued in support of the Green Shadow
(Andrew Pollack) For the first time in its 27-year history, a prestigious award for enhancing the global food supply has gone to a creator of genetically modified crops, a top scientist at Monsanto.
The choice is likely to add more heat to an intense debate about the role biotechnology can play in combating world hunger.
Robert T. Fraley, Monsanto’s executive vice president and chief technology officer, will share the $250,000 World Food Prize with two other scientists who helped devise how to insert foreign genes into plants: Marc Van Montagu of Belgium and Mary-Dell Chilton of the United States.
The announcement was made in Washington on Wednesday, accompanied by a speech from Secretary of State John Kerry.
The prize was started in 1987 by Norman E. Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for bringing about the Green Revolution, which vastly increased grain output, and who thought there should be a Nobel Prize for agriculture. The award is given to those who improve the “quality, quantity or availability” of food in the world.
The prize has some public relations value for Monsanto, potentially buttressing the case for bioengineered food, which has met with some resistance around the world.
The World Food Prize Foundation said the work of the three scientists led to the development of crops that can resist insects, disease and extremes of climate, and are higher-yielding.
Genetically engineered crops, which for the most part contain genes from bacteria, now account for roughly 90 percent of the corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the United States. Globally, genetically modified crops are grown on 420 million acres by 17.3 million farmers, over 90 percent of them small farmers in developing countries, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, an organization that promotes use of biotechnology.
But the crops are shunned in many countries and by many consumers, who say the health and environmental effects of the crops have not been adequately studied. And the role the crops can play in increasing yields and helping farming adapt to climate change is still subject to some debate. One study organized by the World Bank and United Nations concluded in 2008 that genetically modified crops would play only a small role in fighting world hunger.
“I’m sure there will be some controversy about it,” Kenneth M. Quinn, the president of the World Food Prize Foundation, said in an interview before the winners were announced. “At the same time the view of our organization and our committee is that in the face of controversy, you shouldn’t back away from your precepts. If you do so, you are diminishing the prize.’’
Mr. Quinn, a former United States ambassador to Cambodia, said crop biotechnology had “met the test of demonstrating it would impact millions of people and enhance their lives.’’
Mr. Quinn is not a member of the committee that selects the prize winners. That committee is led by M. S. Swaminathan, an Indian geneticist and the winner of the first World Food Prize in 1987. The names of the other committee members are kept secret to shield them from lobbying.
The winners of the 2013 prize were part of teams that independently developed methods three decades ago for putting foreign genes into the DNA of plants.
The key was a soil microbe called Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which can inject its own DNA into plants, causing a tumorlike growth called crown gall disease. The researchers disabled the tumor-causing part of the bacterium and inserted the gene that they wanted to be carried into the plant’s DNA.
This article first appeared @ NYT
(Ethan A. Huff) There appears to be no limit to how far the processed food industry will go to maximize its profits, even if it means reprocessing animal meat waste and adding it to completely unrelated foods like ice cream.
This is the latest endeavor by industrial food researchers in Italy, Belgium, and elsewhere, who are right now developing novel methods to turn meat industry leftovers into protein-rich powders and slurry for the factory food industry.
As disgusting as it sounds, unused muscle tissue, tendons, bones, and other animal byproducts are loaded with proteins and fats that typically end up in landfills. According to FoodProcessing.com, up to 50 percent of the animal weight processed by the meat industry is composted, discarded, or incinerated. But modern science is hoping to basically recycle this waste and turn it back into food.
But this so-called food will not be recognizable as its own entity, at least not in the traditional sense. All those bones, meat trimmings, and poultry leftovers can effectively be converted into what the food industry has dubbed “animal protein hydrolysates.” These hydrolysates are basically liquified or powdered protein and fat blends that can be added to all sorts of other processed foods to boost their overall nutritional content.
‘Pink slime’-type animal gruel to be added to processed foods
Sure, various types of hydrolysates are already added to some processed foods currently on the market. But these hydrolysates are typically made from plants or milk, while the new animal protein hydrolysates are derived from actual animal flesh and bone, which puts them in a whole different league. Hydrolyzed whey protein, for instance, is merely derived from the whey of animal milk. But animal protein hydrolysates are essentially ground up and enzymatically processed animal flesh – recall an image of the infamous “pink slime” and you will get an accurate idea of what we are talking about here.
“It appears that the lipid-rich bonanza of ‘disused’ reject animal bits can easily be turned into a nutritious gunge, paste or gel of some type, apparently ideal for pumping by the [hecatombe] into processed foods such as ice cream,” writes Lewis Page facetiously for The Register about the concept.
“Despite the heroic efforts of the meat biz, in which every particle of jelly and gristle may be jetwashed out of the spinal column of a dead animal for later consumption – perhaps in sausage, pie or meat-paste format – and (as we have lately learned) the odd shortcut may be taken with respect to any dead horses that might be lying about, nonetheless huge tonnages of less-attractive meaty nourishment such as guts, eyes, tendons, cartilage, other connective tissue of various kinds, brains, hooves, genitals, etc. etc. all tend to go to waste.”
Industrial food processors claim reusing animal waste is ‘adding value’ to food
To the food industry, though, turning animal waste into food will add value to foods that might be lacking in nutrition. Belgium-based Proliver, for example, already manufactures a lined of chicken- and turkey-based “protein powders” that can apparently be injected into other meat products and used to thicken or enrich other foods:
A Russian company has openly admitted that it plans to use animal protein hydrolysates to “enrich” ice cream. According to reports, the company, known as Mobitek-M, has already constructed a manufacturing plant in the Belgorod region of Russia that is capable of processing one hundred tons of “functional animal protein” per day.
Sources for this article include:
This article first appeared @ Natural News
(Mike Adams) If you have stomach problems or gastrointestinal problems, a new study led by Dr. Judy Carman may help explain why: pigs fed a diet of genetically engineered soy and corn showed a 267% increase in severe stomach inflammation compared to those fed non-GMO diets.
In males, the difference was even more pronounced: a 400% increase. (For the record, most autistic children are males, and nearly all of them have severe intestinal inflammation.)
The study was conducted on 168 young pigs on an authentic farm environment and was carried out over a 23-week period by eight researchers across Australia and the USA. The lead researcher, Dr. Judy Carman, is from the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Kensington Park, Australia. The study has now been published in the Journal of Organic Systems, a peer-reviewed science journal.
The study is the first to show what appears to be a direct connection between the ingestion of GMO animal feed and measurable damage to the stomachs of those animals. Tests also showed abnormally high uterine weights of animals fed the GMO diets, raising further questions about the possibility of GMOs causing reproductive organ damage.
Proponents of corporate-dominated GMO plant science quickly attacked the study, announcing that in their own minds, there is no such thing as any evidence linking GMOs to biological harm in any animals whatsoever. And they are determined to continue to believe that, even if it means selectively ignoring the increasingly profound and undeniable tidal wave of scientific studies that repeatedly show GMOs to be linked with severe organ damage, cancer tumors and premature death.
“Adverse effects… toxic effects… clear evidence”
Lead author of the study Dr. Judy Carman stated, “We found these adverse effects when we fed the animals a mixture of crops containing three GM genes and the GM proteins that these genes produce. Yet no food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Our results provide clear evidence that regulators need to safety assess GM crops containing mixtures of GM genes, regardless of whether those genes occur in the one GM plant or in a mixture of GM plants eaten in the same meal, even if regulators have already assessed GM plants containing single GM genes in the mixture.”
The following photo shows one of the pig intestines fed a non-GMO diet vs. a pig intestine fed a GMO diet. As you can see from the photo, the pig fed the GMO diet suffered severe inflammation of the stomach:
Yet more evidence that GMOs damage mammals
The study adds to the weight of scientific evidence from others studies which show that rats fed a diet of GMOs grow horrifying cancer tumors and suffer premature death.
A scientific study published last year concluded that eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide was linked with rats developing shockingly large tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death.
That study was also criticized by corporate GMO trolls who argued that scientists should not show pictures of rats with large cancer tumors caused by GMOs because the pictures scare consumers into being afraid of GMOs.
Here are some of the pictures they don’t want you to see, taken right from the public announcement of the study:
That study also found that rats fed GM corn suffered severe kidney damage as well as shockingly high rates of premature death.
Why weren’t these studies done before GMOs were unleashed into the global food supply?
The GMO biotech industry was able to escape any meaningful regulation of GMOs in the United States by (ridiculously) claiming GMOs were substantially no different from non-genetically engineered crops. “They’re all the same!” we were told. And the USDA bought it.
So how did Monsanto patent its GM corn, then? You’re not supposed to be able to patent something unless it’s uniquely different. Thus, the very fact that Monsanto has acquired patents on its GMO crop varieties is proof that the company itself believes its seeds are different.
And what’s different about Monsanto’s GM corn? It produces a deadly insecticide grown right into every kernel. That insecticide, of course, is what kills insects that try to eat the crop. And how does it kill those insects? It fatally damages their digestive systems. That same insecticide stays inside the corn even as the crop is turned into animal feed… or corn chip snacks… or flaked corn breakfast cereal.
GMOs are unfit for human consumption
This pig stomach inflammation study suddenly provides yet more credible evidence that GMOs are unfit for human consumption and may be causing severe damage to the digestive systems of both humans and mammals.
Naturally, the GMO industry and all its paid online trolls, on-the-take “scientists” and multi-million dollar P.R. machine will try to viciously attack this study from every angle. They absolutely hate real science when that science calls into question their poisonous, deadly seeds and genetic pollution.
That’s why you won’t read this news anywhere in the mainstream media — the same media that utterly discredited itself a few weeks ago when it pretended the hugely successful global March Against Monsanto never even took place.
NOTE TO THE SELLOUT CORPORATE MEDIA: You have zero credibility remaining. Virtually no one believes what you print. Everyone knows you have sold out your editorial agenda to Big Pharma, Monsanto, weapons manufacturers and the surveillance state. The reason why alternative media like GM Watch and Natural News is rising while your own numbers keep plummeting is because we print the real news that really matters on liberty, food freedom, farm freedom, health freedom and self-reliance. Maybe if you stopped intentionally lying to your readers on a daily basis while censoring important news on grassroots liberty, you might see some readers return to your publication..
This article first appeared @ Natural News
(Leslie Manookian) In recent years, vaccine exemption laws have been under attack in a variety of states while vaccine registries have been on the rise.
Vaccine exemptions have been restricted in California, Washington, and Vermont and attempts to restrict them have been seen in other states like Colorado, Texas, Oregon, and New Mexico.
Over the same period, legislation has been introduced in many of these states to extend vaccine registries from only children to everyone in a state, or to make it more difficult to stay out of the registry if so desired.
At first blush, this type of information gathering might seem relatively benign, but is it so in practice? Is there not genuine potential for abuse? What are the ramifications if we allow this type of information gathering? It is not clear what is driving all this legislative activity or what might have spurred a rethink of existing state laws, especially as these vaccine exemption laws have been on the books for many, many years, if not decades. It is noteworthy that all these states have something in common: they either lead the nation in rates of vaccine exemptions or they lead the nation for having experienced the largest increase in rates of vaccine exemptions in recent years.
Two CDC reports shed some light on the situation. On January 25th, 2013, CDC issued “Progress in Immunization Information Systems”1. According to the report, Immunization Information Systems gather information from the states about vaccination records to “provide important tools for designing and sustaining effective immunization strategies”. The objective is to get 95% of children less than 6 years of age into the system.
Why would CDC care so much about that? Surely, if vaccines are as safe and effective as they are purported to be, then people must be more more than willing to get themselves and their children vaccinated, right? And if vaccines are as safe and effective as they are purported to be then surely the vaccine industry doesn’t need the government to help promote vaccines, do they? Nor do they need systems to track people’s behavior, right?
Perhaps the answer to those questions lies in a report issued by CDC in August of 2012. This report, “Vaccination Coverage Among Children in Kindergarten”, states their goal: “To identify areas of undervaccination for measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases, state and local health departments monitor compliance with school immunization requirements using annual school vaccination assessment reports, supported as a CDC immunization funding objective”.2 So not only does CDC want to identify areas of “undervaccination”, it is funding state programs to do so.
And what kind of information has all this monitoring uncovered? The CDC report issued in August found that a whopping 35 of 50 states saw an increase in vaccine exemptions over the most recent two-year period. In states like Texas, New Mexico, and Idaho, exemptions jumped by over 1%, well above the national median increase of 0.2%.
How does the CDC program work? States are “grantees” of the program. State and local health departments monitor local vaccine uptake to identify “compliance” with school immunization requirements.
Compliance: “the act or process of complying to a desire, demand, proposal, or regimen or to coercion”.
This information begs several questions:
- Why is the Federal government involving itself with something that falls under state jurisdiction?
- Is the Federal government behind all these bills?
- Exactly what information are the states giving the Federal government?
- What are the states receiving in exchange for this information?
It is also worth noting that Federal public health policy makers, vaccine makers, and vaccine proponents have openly expressed their desire to reduce or remove exemptions to vaccines, which casts this proposed legislation in an even more worrying light.
As an aside, although CDC references 222 cases of measles in unvaccinated persons in 2011 as justification for this “monitoring”, CDC fails to mention the tens of thousands of pertussis (whooping cough) and mumps cases in fully vaccinated people in recent years. One must question CDC’s motives when they focus on 222 measles cases in the face of tens of thousands of cases of what medical literature has described as vaccine failure in pertussis and mumps.3 The very clear failures of pertussis and mumps vaccines in recent years cast genuine doubt on the science and justification for our vaccine policies—even without considering the side effects of the vaccines.
Use of Vaccine Registry Information
So how does CDC plan to use the information it gathers through vaccine registries? CDC says it uses the information for “identifying and addressing areas of undervaccination”. That makes it pretty clear: individuals in states make choices for themselves that run counter to the official dictates of Federal health authorities, in this case by choosing not to vaccinate. So Federal health authorities at CDC fund programs to identify those individuals and communities to “address” their independent choices. It is hard to conclude anything other than that CDC wants to track vaccine uptake in order to target areas of noncompliance, so that these areas may be brought into line.
The problem for Federal health authorities is that vaccine laws are state laws, which means CDC must work behind the scenes to ensure compliance with Federal health guidelines.
But why should we care about a little monitoring? Because this is exactly the kind of information that has been used to take children away from parents for alleged medical neglect, to summon children to school nurses offices and vaccinate them against parental wishes, to fire health care workers who refuse a vaccine, and most importantly because it is private medical information.
While information may seem benign on the surface, it ultimately transfers power to others who just may think they know better than you. Information, like knowledge, is power and in the case of vaccine registries, it is being gathered with the ultimate goal of ensuring “compliance”.
Compliance means encouraging, bullying or coercing you, to put something into your body that you don’t want. There is nothing benign about that. Just a little food for thought.