(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