Archive for the ‘Food and Health’ Category

 

by JB Bardot, NaturalNews

Gout and arthritis have two things in common. Each condition makes the body hurt, and they respond to the powerful nutrients found in cherries that eliminate pain. Cherries contain high levels of antioxidants and anthocyanins, nutrients known to relieve pain, inflammation and stiffness. Cherries belong to an esteemed group of super fruits including blueberries, acai, pomegranate, yumberries, cranberries and goji berries — all providing exceptionally high amounts of these pain-killing compounds. Cherries are rich in polynutrients and anthocyanins, which give the fruit its rich, reddish-purple color — the deeper the color, the higher the level of antioxidants.

Raw or Cooked

Whether they’re raw or cooked, cherries in any form contain the same anti-inflammatory substances, according to the University of Michigan Health System. They reported that people consuming about 1/2 pound of cherries daily over a period of four weeks noticed significant joint pain relief. To be sure of getting the most from cooked cherries, include the cooking juices.

Canned

Count canned cherries in when including cherries in a regime of pain-relieving foods. The University of Michigan also included canned cherries in its review for helping to relieve aches and pains associated with musculoskeletal conditions. Keeping a couple of cans of tart cherries in the pantry ensures there will always be something in the house in the event supplies of other cherry products run low. This does not include maraschino, whose natural chemical makeup has been altered by preserving and adding sugar.

Juice

Some people swear by the healing effects of drinking tart cherry juice. Tart cherries are thought by some to have the greatest pain-killing power, and Montmorency cherries are considered the most popular sour cherry. Tart cherries are also rich in potassium, which may help the body create an alkaline-forming state, and protect against acidosis, which is a breeding ground for the formation of disease. Drinking six ounces of tart cherry juice daily is the approximate equivalent to 1/2 pound of raw or cooked cherries. Cherry juice can be diluted with water. Mixing black cherry juice and tart cherry juice provides sweetness, making the drink more palatable for some people.

Powder

Taking cherry powder provides a quick, portable, easy way to utilize the benefits of cherries. An animal study funded by the Cherry Marketing Institute in 2008 indicated that rats receiving dried cherry powder had greatly reduced levels of inflammation in their bodies. Additionally, when the cherry powder was fed mixed with a high-fat diet, the rats didn’t build body fat or gain weight at the same rate as control animals.

Concentrate

Cherry concentrate is simply cherry juice with the excess water removed. It provides a super-punch of pain-relieving nutrients. As little as two ounces a day diluted with water may offer relief for aching joints and muscles and relieve the agonizing pain of gout. Look for organic cherry concentrate to ensure the absence of pesticides and other chemicals.

Supplements

A variety of supplements contain cherries including capsules, liquid extracts, and snack bars. Cherry supplements may not cure arthritis and gout, but like fresh and cooked cherries and cherry juice, they too offer another way to consume the important chemicals that provide relief for those suffering in pain. Some supplements contain high levels of quercetin and vitamin C as well as antioxidants and anthocyanins. A common daily dose of cherry extract is 2,000 mg divided into four doses throughout the day; however, it’s best to consult a health practitioner before taking unfamiliar supplements.

Sources for this article include:

University of Michigan Health System: Gout
http://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/hn-1023001

Wikipedia.org: Cherry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry

The People’s Pharmacy Guide to Home and Herbal Remedies; Joe Graedon, et.al; 2002

NYU Langone Medical Center: Cherries
http://www.med.nyu.edu/content?ChunkIID=134666

University of Maryland Medical Center: Gout
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/gout-000070.htm

University of Michigan Health System: Gout
http://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/hn-1023001

Wikipedia.org: Cherry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry

The People’s Pharmacy Guide to Home and Herbal Remedies; Joe Graedon, et.al; 2002

NYU Langone Medical Center: Cherries
http://www.med.nyu.edu/content?ChunkIID=134666

University of Maryland Medical Center: Gout
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/gout-000070.htm

Produce Oasis: Montmorency Cherry
http://www.produceoasis.com/Items_folder/Fruits/montmorency-cherry.asp

About the author:
JB Bardot is trained in herbal medicine and homeopathy, and has a post graduate degree in holistic nutrition. Bardot cares for both people and animals, using alternative approaches to health care and lifestyle.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/034479_cherries_gout_arthritis.html#ixzz1lxkjzXrr

Insecticidal Bt toxins such as those produced in genetically engineered plants can be detrimental to human cells. This is a result of recent research led by researchers at the University of Caen (France).

Their experiments showed that toxins produced in, for example, the genetically engineered maize MON810, can significantly impact the viability of human cells. The effects were observed with relatively high concentrations of the toxins, nevertheless there is cause for concern.

According to companies like Monsanto, which produces genetically engineered maize with these toxins, the toxins are supposed to be active only against particular insects and should have no effect on mammals and humans at all.

For the first time, experiments have now shown that they can have an effect on human cells. These kinds of investigations are not a requirement for risk assessment in Europe or in any other region.

Another finding of the researchers concerns a herbicide formulation sold under the brand name Roundup. Massive amounts of this herbicide are sprayed on genetically engineered soybean crops and its residues can be found in food and feed.

According to the new publication, even extremely low dosages of Roundup (glyphosate formulations) can damage human cells. These findings are in accordance with several other investigations highlighting unexpected health risks associated with glyphosate preparations.

“We were very much surprised by our findings. Until now, it has been thought almost impossible for Bt proteins to be toxic to human cells. Now further investigations have to be conducted to find out how these toxins impact the cells and if combinatorial effects with other compounds in the food and feed chain have to be taken into account,” says Gilles-Eric Séralini from the University of Caen, who supervised the experiments. “In conclusion, these experiments show that the risks of Bt toxins and of Roundup have been underestimated.”

Bt toxins and tolerance to herbicides are broadly used in genetically engineered plants. Bt proteins only naturally occur in soil bacteria. By introducing the modified toxin gene into the plants, the structure of the toxins is modified and may thereby cause selectivity to be changed. The content of the proteins within the plants is highly variable.

Many genetically engineered plants contain several Bt toxins at the same time. For example, SmartStax produces six different Bt toxins and therefore has a higher overall content of the proteins. In addition, it was made tolerant to herbicides.

So far, there has been no investigation of the combinatorial effects of these toxins and residues from spraying, or their potential risks for human health, which was considered unlikely. The researchers have now shown that interactivity does occur. Under the specific conditions of their experiment, the modified Bt toxin lowered the toxicity of Roundup.

Further investigations are necessary to examine other potential combinatorial effects under varying conditions.

“These results are pretty worrying. Risk assessment requirements for genetically engineered plants and pesticides need to be rigidly enforced. In the light of these findings, we think that the commercialization of these plants is not in accordance with EU regulations”, says Christoph Then at Testbiotech.

Testbiotech is closely following risk assessment at the European Food Safety Authority EFSA and has repeatedly brought attention to gaps in risk assessment.

The research was supported by GEKKO foundation (Germany).  The Committee for Research and Independent Investigation on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) Association (France) and Testbiotech (Germany) were involved in planning the experiments and the discussion of results. Findings were published after peer review process.

by S.D. Wells, NaturalNews

Molecular engineers working in laboratories for Monsanto, the giant American biotech company, aregene-splicing vegetable seedlings with poisonous pesticides and herbicidesso the plants are inherently protected from the insects and worms that might damage them.The majority of products Americans eat daily contain some form of GMO soy, corn, canola (rapeseed) oil or cotton seed oil. Research shows that consuming the popular herbicide/pesticideRoundupleads to themutation of cellsin the human body, in turn fueling the development of malignant tumors and other various forms of cancer.

In other words, as the plants grow up from the ground, they already contain genes from toxic concoctions, therefore helping corporations and their “cooperating” farmers maximize profits. Some countries are terrified and outraged, knowing there arenot sufficient studies on the long term effectsfrom this bio-engineering “guessing game,” and are boycotting American exports of major vegetables, dairy, and meat products for this specific reason, including Germany.

Consider this: What if over half of all the food being sold in grocery stores contained pesticides that you couldn’t taste or smell, withno warnings on the labels, and then you got cancer from eating them after ten years? Or, what if a pregnant mother could get her baby vaccinated in the womb with an insecticide, so that no insects would ever bite the child after it was born? Would anyone be crazy enough to do it, especially if it was FDA approved?

More than 85% of all corn, soy and canola oil are GMO

The bad news is in, and it may not be changing for quite awhile. GMO vegetables and all of their by-products are not labeled as GMO in the United States.Currently, 93% of soy, canola and cottonseed oil, 86% of corn, 95% of sugar beets, 13% of squash, and rice is on the cutting board now. As much as 77% of the world’s soy is GMO also. Think for a moment about all of the popular products that have some kind of processed soy or corn in them; it would take an entire book to list them all. GM potatoes and tomatoes have been taken off the market.

To appreciate the size of thishealth and environmental disaster, one should understand the 96% rule. For the first time ever, science has created models that combine the clinical and genetic similarities of rodents, great apes and humans for determining the odds of acquiring cancer.

A comparison of genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96% of our DNA (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3…). Before now, scientists had hypothesized that it was only about 35%. The FDA and CDC quite often denounce research regarding popular cancer causing foods, additives, and artificial sweeteners because tests are only run on rats and mice, but not humans. Now we know we are affected by toxins, just like the other animals.

To pour salt in the wound, GMO pesticides not onlykill most of the nutrients in foods,but most GMO plants die after one year and new seeds must be purchased from Monsanto. It’s all part of the money making scheme (http://paraschopra.com/publications…).

What’s the cure? Eat only organic food from local farmers markets and health-food grocery stores. And if you say it’s more expensive, you’re wrong. Surgery and chemotherapy for stomach, kidney and colon cancer far exceed the price of non-GMO foods, drinks, candy and gum (and that’s with health insurance). Also, let your voice be heard about GMO labeling. (MillionsagainstMonsanto.com)

Sources for this article include:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Biotec…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3…

http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/…

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/…

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/…

http://paraschopra.com/publications…

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/…

http://www.organicconsumers.org/mon…

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate…

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate…

http://www.ghorganics.com/GM%20food…

http://www.naturalnews.com/033504_G…

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/cott…

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/034209_GMOs_questions.html#ixzz1eReqB3Nu

by Mike Adams, NaturalNews

TIME, USA Today, MSNBC, NPR, CTV, the LA Times and numerous other mainstream media outlets have all been running a juvenile hoax over the last week. Through various misleading headlines, they’re all claiming thatvitamins might kill you. Here are some of the headlines:

Study links vitamins to higher death rates in women- CTV

Study: Vitamins may increase death risk in older women- USA Today

We’ve Been Wasting a Ton of Money on Vitamins and Dietary Supplements- TIME

Some common vitamin supplements could increase death risk- MSNBC

Dietary supplements risky for older women, study finds- LA Times

Supplements Look Risky In Study Of Older Women- NPR

Vitamins do more harm than good, new suggest says- News.com.au

Women Who Take Vitamin Supplements May Have Increased Death Risk- Huffington Post

There are literally hundreds of headlines from mainstream news sources that essentially say the same thing.

There’s only one problem with all this:The whole thing is a HOAX!And NaturalNews is stepping forward to expose this hoax using data from the published study itself.

Exposed: A total mainstream media hoax

Caught yet again, the mainstream media has been exposed pulling off a juvenile, simplistic hoax that attempts to scare people away from good nutrition. To accomplish this hoax, they took a poorly-constructed “scientific” study published in theArchives of Internal Medicinewhich was itself based onerroneous conclusions(see below) and thenblatantly misreported what the study data actually showed.

This journal is owned, not surprisingly, by the American Medical Association, which has a long and sordid history of openly attacking vitamins and nutrition, even to the point of committing crimes that violate federal law. Remember, the AMA has been found guilty ofconspiracyin federal courts:http://www.naturalnews.com/008845.html

All this is yet another case of quack journalism on the part of the mainstream media, which is largely funded by pharmaceutical interests, of course. They never miss an opportunity to try to attack vitamins and dietary supplements, even if it means revealing they aretotal Big Pharma “presstitutes”who pretend to be real journalists.

But don’t take my word for it: Let’s do something the mainstream media presstitutes never do and actuallylook at the study datafor a change!

What the study actually reveals

The study is entitled“Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women”-Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(18):1625-1633

The study claims to have reviewed the vitamin and mineral supplement use in 38,772 older women by mailing them3 surveys over 18 years, asking them to recall what vitamins and minerals they were taking.

So hold the presses. This is a “survey study” — or what’s commonly called an “observational study” — which are notoriously inaccurate to begin with. As Dr. David Brownstein told me in a groundbreakingInfoWars Nightly Newsinterview, “This study says absolutely nothing about vitamins,” Dr. Brownstein said. “If this study was done in reverse, where vitamins were shown to be effective, no journal would have printed this study because it was so poorly done.”

Watch the interview yourself at:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=ED23B…

(The part with Dr. Brownstein begins at roughly 6:00.)

Study data were ALTERED!

One of the most glaring total fabrications in this particular study is thealteration of the raw datausing statistical voodoo. If you go to table 2 of the study (page 4 of the study PDF, which we can’t post here because it’s not a public document), it shows a “Hazard Ratio” number associated with each of the nutrients covered in the study, such as vitamin D, vitamin D, calcium, copper, iron, and so on. There’s also a number associated with “multivitamin.”

With these numbers, a 1.0 means “neutral” or “no increase in mortality.” A number below 1.0 — such as 0.92 — means areductionin mortality. For example, 0.92 would mean an8% reduction in mortalityassociated with that particular vitamin.

A numberhigherthan 1.0 means an “increase” in mortality. So something like 1.15 would mean a 15% increase in total mortality.

So what do these numbers really say?

• Vitamin B complex was associated witha 7% reduction in mortality

• Vitamin C was associated witha 4% reduction in mortality

• Vitamin D was associated withan 8% reduction in mortality

• Magnesium was associated witha 3% reduction in mortality

• Selenium was associated witha 3% reduction in mortality

• Zinc was associated witha 3% reduction in mortality

I bet you didn’t read that in the mainstream media, huh? That’s becausethey never reported these numbers!Once again, they just cherry picked whatever scary data they wanted to show you while ignoring the rest.

On the negative side of the findings:

• Folic acid was associated witha 9% increase in mortality

• Copper was associated witha 31% increase in mortality

“Multivitamins,” which the mainstream media viciously attacked with their lying whore headlines, were associated with — guess what? — only atwo percent increasein mortality.

Voodoo statistics used to alter the outcome

But wait! In this study, they didn’t use the actual survey results as their concluding data. Nope, they began tomassage the datausing a voodoo formula that they came up withafter the factin an effort to make the data “fit the curve” they wanted.

By their own admission, they first adjusted all the numbers for“age, educational level, place of residence, diabetes mellitus, high blood pressure, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), waist to hip ratio, hormone replacement therapy, physical activity, smoking status, and intake of energy.”

But hold on a second: They’re saying that a person with diabetes has a higher risk of death, so if that person died, they wouldn’t “count it” as much as a healthy person dying, right? But they utterly failed to take into account the fact thatnutrients can reverse diabetesand make diabetes symptoms completely disappear. Those would be nutrients like vitamin D, magnesium and vitamin C, all of which were covered in the study. So if a woman in the study started out as diabetic, and then she took nutrients that helped her reverse diabetes, and then she later died as a non-diabetic but still earlier than a person who had been healthy her whole life, thenthis would count as a more strongly weighted “penalty” against vitaminsin the data!

The same is true with high blood pressure. You see, the statistical voodoo that took place in this study was based on the completely false belief by western research quacks thatvitamins do not prevent, cure or reverse disease. So they failed to account for that action in their own data.

Thus, just on that point alone,this study is a complete, juvenile joke!It wouldn’t even earn a “C” on a high school science project, and yet it seems like it was good enough for theArchives of Internal Medicine, which receives millions of dollars in advertising from drug companies.

But wait… there’s more!

The data were altered a second time!

Not content to massage the data just once, these study authors went even further and actuallychanged all the results a second time!This was done through yet another “multivariable adjustment” in which the authors:

“…adjusted for age; educational level; place of residence; diabetes mellitus; high blood pressure; body mass index; waist to hip ratio; hormone replacement therapy; physical activity; smoking status; and intake of energy, alcohol, saturated fatty acids, whole grain products, fruits, and vegetables.”

Okay, wow, so they adjusted for intake of fruits and vegetables, too? This means a person who ate more fruits and vegetables was assumed to be more healthy, and therefore whatever age they died at was weighed toward (blamed on) other factorssuch as the vitamins they were taking!

The fact is, the weight factors in all these voodoo adjustments weretotally made up by the study authors. I have no doubt they sat there with a large Excel spreadsheet and just ran thousands of different combinations of assumptions and weights — fudging their data — until they managed to produce the results they wanted.

And what results were that? Oh my goodness, can you believe it? Vitamins might kill you!

Yep, by massaging the data, factoring in their own made-up assumptions, fudging the weights and ignoring correlations between nutrition and disease prevention, these researchers managed to eliminate all thereduction of mortality riskthat was demonstrated by nutrients like vitamin D, while simultaneously making nutrients like copper look like they were the next worst thing to poison (a 45% increased risk in mortality).

All this really amounts to little more thanmental masturbationby a circle jerk of scientists who set out to “prove” vitamins were bad from the get-go. They actually had toalter the data TWICEto get the results they wanted.

And then, just to throw some icing on the cake, they wrap all this scientific fraud in their language of statistical significance, “multivariable adjusted models” and other technical jargon that they hope will sufficiently shroud the reality thatthis study is complete scientific fraud.

If Dr. Andrew Wakefield had used this massaging of the data to show that vaccines caused autism, he would have beenlaughed off the stage, stripped of his medical license, persecuted by the media and declared a quack by the rest of the medical community. But of course, when a bunch of doctors writing for the AMA use this obvious scientific fraud to conclude that “vitamins might kill you,” suddenly it’s perfectly okay with the entire scientific community, the whore media, the corrupt medical journals and of course all the idiotic doctors who still ridiculously believe that supplemental nutrition has no role to play in human health.

Massive conflicts of interest – but they’re never disclosed or reported

As Dr. Brownstein explained earlier, if this study had shown vitamins to be effective at reducing mortality, doctors and critics would have bashed it as being total “quack science.” But because they could use the study to try to discredit vitamins, mainstream media presstitutes have decided it’s good enough to quote in their newspapers, magazines and news programs.

The second huge point in all this that nobody bothered to mention is thatthe Archives of Internal Medicine is funded by drug company advertising, creating animmediate and obvious conflict of interestwhich was never disclosed in the publication of the study. Gee, do ya think a drug company rag that makes its money from pharmaceutical advertisements might have a financial incentive to destroy the reputation of the vitamins that often compete with pharmaceuticals? Really? Ya think so?

TIME didn’t bother to mention this to their readers. Neither did USA Today, or MSNBC, or anyone in the mainstream who reported on this. Of course, if a study touting thebenefitsof vitamins had appeared in a journal funded by vitamin companies, they would have attacked the whole thing as an outrageous conflict of interest! (You gotta love the selective logic of thesepresstituteswho only cherry pick the selected tidbits they want you to read…)

No differentiation between synthetic versus natural vitamins

Further discrediting the conclusions of this study,it did not differentiate between synthetic vitamins and natural vitamins. So for all we know, these older women in the study could be taking bottom-of-the-barrel vitamins found at common retailers like Wal-Mart and grocery stores. These are cheap multivitamin brands made with synthetic chemicals that claim to be vitamins but really aren’t. Most of those vitamins are made by pharmaceutical companies! And I would have to agree that takingsynthetic vitamin Eis very, very bad for your health, just like taking synthetic medications is bad, too.

By avoiding any distinction betweensyntheticversusnaturalvitamins, the study authors knew that any negative results would immediately be used todiscredit ALL vitamins. This, of course, was done by design. Virtually all the conventional medical studies that look at vitamins use this same tactic, refusing to make any distinction between natural nutrition versus synthetic vitamins, which arereally just DRUGSgiven vitamin “names.”

In other words, if you believe this study found something negative about vitamins, the reality of the situation is that most of these women were probably takingdrugs given the names of vitaminsand then packaged into “one-a-day” multivitamin formats that, are toxic to the human body in the first place.

You see, in western quack science, there is no distinction between a nutrient created in the lab versus a nutrient that comes from nature. But in nature,nutrients are different!Vitamin C, for example, doesn’t exist in isolation in nature; it’s always found with other supporting antioxidants and phytonutrients. So taking vitamin C from a plant-based source (camu camu, for example) is qualitatively different from taking vitamin C created in a lab (ascorbic acid). Today’s conventional quack scientists and doctors are too ignorant about nutrition to know the difference (that’s a fact), so they make no distinction in their research studies, either.

Heck, today’s quack medical researchers and doctors don’t even recognize any difference betweenliving foodsanddead foods!To them, it’s all the same: A dead food has the same minerals and calories and vitamins as a living food, they claim. They’re dead wrong about that, of course — which is why so many doctors are just plain DEAD in the first place — asliving foodshave a quality that goes beyond the detection of their crude laboratory tests.

This story continues in part two, available at this link:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033893_m…

Also check out this rebuttal against the vitamin scare hoax as published by the Life Extension Foundation:

http://www.lef.org/featured-article…

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/033883_vitamins_mortality_risk.html#ixzz1b7hrK2Xv

by Alex Formuzis, EWG

Chemical agriculture’s defense of pesticides conjures up the image of the chain-smoking industry attorney Nathan Thurm slithering through a minefield of facts and figures about the causes of global warming in this classic skit from Saturday Night Live.

Stacks of scientific studies have documented serious health risks to humans from pesticide exposure, but pesticide makers and sprayers, like the fictional Mr. Thurm, ignore the research and stick with talking points or their ownquestionable “science” in their efforts to muddy the waters, create confusion and delay government action to protect the public. Meanwhile, we eaters are left to consume pesticides along with conventionally grown produce.

Pesticides are engineered to kill living organisms in a number of ways, including destroying the nervous system of the insects they target. They can’t be good for human health, either.

The most worrisome pesticides in wide use today are organophosphates, OPs for short. Earlier this year, three separate studies published at the same time reached very similar, and very disturbing, conclusions: Children exposed to organophosphates while in the mother’s womb had lower IQs when they reached school age than unexposed children.

Other health problems that have been linked to low-dose exposure to OPs include disruption of the endocrine (hormonal) system, lower levels of testosterone and other hormones, leukemia, lymphoma and Parkinson’s disease.

Here’s a rogue’s gallery of the most worrisome pesticides:

1. Chlorpyrifos:

One of the OP pesticides most widely used by chemical agriculture is chlorpyrifos, also known by the brand names Dursban and Lorsban. It’s applied in large quantities to a number of crops, including corn, oranges and apples. It was once heavily used as an in-home insecticide, but the Environmental Protection Agency banned it for home use in 2001 because of the risk to children’s health.

Most recently, chlorpyrifos was back in the headlines when it was linked to the deaths of several tourists in Thailand, who were apparently killed by a chlorpyrifos-based fumigant used to eradicate bedbugs from hotel rooms.

None of this seems to matter to sprayers and manufacturers, though. In the face of this and plenty of other evidence that chlorpyrifos exposure can cause serious and permanent health problems in humans, the statements of leading agribusiness representatives reveal their true colors:

“CAFA (California Alfalfa and Forage Association) has been working hard to oppose some people in the environmental movement who are trying to basically take all the organophosphates away from us, but in particular, chlorpyrifos.” - Philip Bowles, CAFA board member and president of Bowles Farming in Los Banos, Calif. Western Farm Press, January 17, 2009“Chlorpyrifos has become a major target of environmental groups who are trying to take it off the market. Fortunately, Dow AgroSciences has stated its determination to defend the insecticide.”- Aaron Keiss, Feb.18, 2010 column in Western Farm Press

When environmental and community groups pressed EPA in 2010 to restrict Lorsban, one of Dow AgroSciences’ popular products, the company ran this (scare-tactic) ad depicting a world without fruits and vegetables.

The environmental group EarthJustice responded on July 22, 2010, with the story of what happened to the family of Luis Medellin, a resident of California’s Central Valley, when chlorpyrifos was sprayed on orange groves near their home:

“Medellin lives with his parents and three little sisters in the agricultural town of Lindsay, California, where chlorpyrifos is sprayed routinely on the orange groves surrounding his home. During the growing season, the family is awakened several times a week by the sickly smell of nighttime pesticide spraying. What follows is worse: searing headaches, nausea, vomiting.”

Tests showed that Medellin had five times more chlorpyrifos in his body than the average American, based on research conducted by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In turn, a July 23, 2010, article in the San Francisco Chronicle, quoted Cynthia Cory, director of environmental affairs for the California Farm Bureau Federation, as having this to say about chlorpyrifos and the situation the Medellin family faced:

“We have to continually evaluate chemicals and make sure they are used in the safest way – but I do believe that has been done with this chemical. It’s a widely used chemical in California and across the United States, and it’s used on a wide range of insects. There’s no alternative that’s going to replace it tomorrow, but we try to continue to reduce its use.” (Emphasis added)

Think about it. If chlorpyrifos is so safe, why does chemical agriculture strive to reduce its use?

2. Parathion: 
One of the most notorious members of the organophosphate family is the pesticide parathion, which made hundreds, if not thousands, of farm workers sick and was responsible for nearly 100 deaths before it was banned in the U.S. in 2003. More than a decade earlier, public health officials and agribusiness executives had been debating its risks to human health.

“It is a chemical that is very acutely toxic, and as an agency we need to decide what we are going to do on it quickly.” – Linda J. Fisher, then EPA’s assistant administrator in charge of pesticides, in March 1991.

But according to a story by Maura Dolan in The Los Angeles Times, the toxicity of parathion was hardly atop the list of concerns for Bob Krauter of the California Farm Bureau at the time.

“Bob Krauter, spokesman for the California Farm Bureau, said the loss of the pesticide, manufactured by Cheminova A/S, a Danish company, would be especially hard for almond growers, the farmers most dependent upon it in California. Substitutes tend to be less effective and more expensive,” he said.

Krauter’s bottom line: Nuts come before the public’s health.

3. Aldicarb
This pesticide was responsible for the worst outbreak of pesticide poisoning in U.S. history.

“At least 2,000 people fell ill from eating California watermelons illegally contaminated with aldicarb on the Fourth of July in 1985,” wrote Environmental Health News’ Marla Cone on Aug. 18, 2010.

Four years later, the EPA began it push to restrict the use of aldicarb, as The New York Times reported on March 21, 1989:

“The Environmental Protection Agency’s pesticide division has recommended barring the use of an acutely toxic insecticide on potatoes and imported bananas. The staff report says the chemical presents an unreasonable risk to infants and children.“One drop of aldicarb absorbed through the skin can kill an adult, toxicologists say.

“A spokesman for Rhone-Poulenc (manufacturer of aldicarb), Mary Anne Ford, said today that aldicarb is not a hazard on food crops.

”That data does not reflect any risk to any group including infants and children,” said Ms. Ford. ”I’m concerned for parents who hear such unrealistic numbers.”

Thanks for your concern, Ms. Ford.

Aldicarb is still being used today on a number of fruits and vegetables. Its U.S. manufacturer, Bayer CropScience, has agreed to phase it out by 2015, but despite all the misery it has caused farmers and consumers for decades, the company still more or less sticks to the original talking points, as reflected in this August 2010 press release:

“Although the company does not fully agree with this new risk assessment approach, Bayer CropScience respects the oversight authority of the EPA and is cooperating with them. This decision does not mean that aldicarb poses a food safety concern.” ‘For nearly 40 years, Temik (aldicarb) has provided farmers with unsurpassed control of destructive pests, without compromising human health or environmental safety,’ said Bill Buckner, president and CEO of Bayer CropScience.

” ‘We recognize the significant impact this decision will have on growers and the food industry, and will do everything possible to address their concerns during this transition,’ added Buckner.”

What about the impact this pesticide has had on the public’s health for more than four decades, Mr. Buckner?

The Public Votes at the Grocery Store

While chemical agriculture clings to its arsenal of pesticides, the American public has become increasingly concerned – and rightly so – about their presence in food. A recent NPR/Thomson-Reuters poll found that nearly 60 percent of Americans prefer organic produceto conventional alternatives, a third them primarily concerned about pesticides.

The reactions of pesticide users and producers I’ve highlighted is just a snapshot of the industry’s typical response in the face of research and federal action stressing the negative impacts that pesticides have had on human health.

Its leaders never acknowledge possible risks to people, especially children. Time and again, their only concern is for losing a tool from the pesticide toolbox. That should tell consumers something about where U.S. agribusiness stands on the use toxic chemicals in growing its fruits and vegetables.

by Stefano R. Mugnaini, Mises

Any conversation about the superfluity of the federal government or her legion of agencies will invariably turn to this question: “Who will keep our food safe?” It is as sure as Godwin’s law — except in this case, the fascists have, inexplicably, become the good guys.

Apparently, the FDA and the USDA have a stellar and unblemished track record of keeping the populace safe from tainted foodand dangerous medicines. It is a measure of the success of state propaganda that such a glaring untruth is so commonly seen as axiomatic and beyond question.

One of the great challenges for advocates of a truly free society is to present their vision of how certain functions of government would be replaced by the free market and voluntary cooperation. We are no less presumptuous than advocates of central planning if we dogmatically claim a comprehensive vision of how things will be in our “libertopia.”

As Murray Rothbard pointed out, the libertarian’s primary task is to

offer a few guidelines on how markets might develop where they are now prevented or restricted from developing; but he can do little more than point the way toward freedom, to call for government to get out of the way of the productive and ever-inventive energies of the public as expressed in voluntary market activity.

While we cannot be about the business of substituting one group of central planners for “our sort” of central planners, the nature of our argument behooves us to offer a vision of freedom — not what it must be, but what it could be.

As it pertains to the role of agencies like the FDA and USDA, we need look no further than the sustainable- and organic-food movement to see how the free market makes up for government failures; and it is no great leap to imagine the same market forces supplanting the public option altogether.

Perhaps ironically, it is luminaries of the modern movement toward “sustainable” food, generally confirmed statists, who furnish the crux of our argument.

There is a general consensus among those who are deeply devoted to such things that the USDA Certified Organic sticker is, at best, a limited indicator of the agricultural practices involved in the production of various foodstuffs. The USDA program is, like any government agency, bloated, inefficient, and inconsistent. It is rife with corruption and requires expenditures of time and money that preclude many small farmers from participating.

As a result, many small producers are eschewing the USDA label as simply not worth it. Michael Pollan, an icon in the sustainable-food movement, consistently encourages people to forgo Certified Organic produce for local, reasoning that

It often is organic, even if not certified, and you can always ask the farmer. The cost of organic certification can also become burdensome for a small grower.

The farm that runs the CSA (community-supported agriculture) to which I belong is explicit in their disclosure of their growing methods, all the while explaining that they have not received “official” organic certification. In short, there seems to be a general consensus among advocates of organic and sustainable agriculture that the government seal of approval is limited in its value.

But simply buying everything from a local producer is a difficult proposition for the majority of us; time and geographic concerns preclude this as a viable option. How, then, can the average consumer be assured that they are buying food products that have been produced in a manner that is consistent with their ideals? In the face of the failure of the government’s program, as usual, the free market has provided a solution. And it is in this free-market solution that we see the germ of an idea that could totally supplant the government’s role in the inspection and regulation of agriculture and medicine — and do it more cheaply, efficiently, and with far greater accountability.

In the absence of a reliable government organic-food regulatory agency, the market has provided several voluntary options. The Certified Naturally Grown program offers “a non-profit organization offering certification tailored for small-scale, direct-market farmers and beekeepers using natural methods.” They rely on voluntary participation and a peer-review system that is less expensive, less paperwork intensive, and more efficient than the USDA program.

Whole Foods Market has developed their own alternative for certifying certain production techniques for livestock and poultry, through a partnership with an animal-welfare nonprofit.

These are two options, but there are several others. All share a focus on voluntary cooperation between food producers and certifiers, and greater accountability to the consumer, as they can’t hide their flaws behind the veil of government immunity. These programs, and others like them, are infinitely scalable, completely voluntary, and represent a real challenge to the notion that “only the government can …”

The same organizational structure that has rendered the Certified Organic label obsolete could immediately step in to fill the void left by the absence of the FDA and USDA. Private, third-party certifiers could inspect livestock and produce and affix their seal of approval only when certain standards are met. That the reputations of the inspectors and the farmers are truly on the line would preclude much of the graft and inefficiency that is a constant feature of the current system. Certified, inspected produce would compete with uninspected produce for shelf space and consumer demand. I’ve focused on the grocery side of the equation, but the same general principles would apply to drug development and regulation.

As Rothbard continues,

No one can predict the number of firms, the size of each firm, the pricing policies, etc., of any future market in any service or commodity. We just know — by economic theory and by historical insight — that such a free market will do the job infinitely better than the compulsory monopoly of bureaucratic government.

by PF Louis, NaturalNews

There are many interlocking financial conflicts of interest between Big Pharma and medical institutions. Many members of major medical groups, universities, and medical journals also have financial ties with pharmaceutical companies.

These Big Pharma connections push dangerous drugs into the collective consciousness while keeping safe and inexpensive non-drug health solutions out of public awareness.

Medical Journals and Big Pharma

Dr. Marcia Angell, author ofThe Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It,issued this statement after her tenure withThe New England Journal of Medicineas Editor in Chief: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published.”

Pharmaceutical companies even hire ghost writers to concoct favorable product reports. Then those companies pay corrupt doctors or researchers to sign those biased reports that are then published in medical journals.

There have been occasions of medical journal reports claiming successful medical drug trials, but no one tried the drugs! These were totally faked trial reports. Yet they were published in medical journals and quoted by medical practitioners who prescribed them.

This sort of dishonesty was part of selling Vioxx, the heart medicine that killed more than it cured for a few years before finally being withdrawn from the market.

Funding Medical Societies

The AMA (American Medical Society) is not the only medical society. It’s the largest and most encompassing one. But there are as many medical societies as medical specialists. Medical equipment and drug manufacturers infiltrate those specific specialty groups to sell their wares.

An interesting recent expose on one such group, The Heart Rhythm Society with its 5000 plus mostly cardiologist membership, received half of last year’s $16 million budget from companies that make drugs and devices to treat arrhythmia.

Adding to this influence, those same companies had 12 of the 18 Heart Rythm society’s board members on their payroll as consultants and lecturers. Do you see the revolving doors and dual membership conflicts of interest?

They are not rare. They are business as usual and common with Big Pharma and government agencies as well.

The Cancer and Vaccine Industries

According to Reshma Jagsi, M.D., D.Phil., assistant professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan Medical School, almost one-third of cancer research reports surveyed in the major medical journals hadobvious conflicts of interests. Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/026314_c…

The vaccine industry may be the most corrupt and influential aspect of Big Pharma yet. Health Ranger Mike Adams recently revealed a network involving the vaccine industry, the military, and the IOM (Institute of Medicine), a strange alliance at first glance.

But the more one knows of the dark side of vaccinations, the more it makes sense for those demanding covert depopulation efforts under the cover of humanitarian aid.

The IOM is as influential as it gets. Whatever they say goes with the mainstream media and authority figures in all levels of government. If the IOM says a vaccine is safe and effective, there is no further discussion. Read more at:http://www.naturalnews.com/033455_I…

Money Talks Way Too Much

We all need to make a living. But when money pervasively trumps truth and disregards health, there is no protection from the harm it causes.

Sincere health practitioners and MDs who step out the Big Pharma box are persecuted and prosecuted for healing without harm. Their lives are often ruined. The liars who falsely promote dangerous drugs make plea bargains or pay affordable fines, if caught, after many are harmed.

Sources for more information:

Jon Rappoport quotes Dr. Marcia Angell and elaborateshttp://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2…

Medical societies maintain secret financial ties to drug companies
http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/sto…

Big Pharma medical journal ghost writers write and doctors signhttp://www.naturalnews.com/029945_H…

http://www.naturalnews.com/033455_I…

http://www.naturalnews.com/026314_c…

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/033583_financial_ties_medical_societies.html#ixzz1YGGur3XS

by Michele Simon, Food Safety News

If you use Wesson brand cooking oils, you may be able to join a class action against food giant ConAgra for deceptively marketing the products as natural.

These days it’s hard to walk down a supermarket aisle without bumping into a food product that claims to be “all-natural.” If you’ve ever wondered how even some junk food products can claim this moniker (witness:Cheetos Natural Puff White Cheddar Cheese Flavored Snacks – doesn’t that sound like it came straight from your garden?) the answer is simple if illogical: the Food and Drug Administration has not defined the term natural.

So food marketers, knowing that many shoppers are increasingly concerned about healthful eating, figured: why not just slap the natural label on anything we can get away with? That wishful thinking may soon be coming to an end if a few clever consumer lawyers have anything to say about it.

While various lawsuits have been filed in recent years claiming that food companies using the term natural are engaging in deceptive marketing, a suit filed in June in California against ConAgra could make the entire industrial food complex shake in its boots.

The plaintiff claims he relied on Wesson oils “100% natural” label, when the products are actually made from genetically modified organisms.

GMOs Not Exactly Natural, So Says Monsanto

Ironically, the complaint cites a definition of GMOs by none other thanMonsanto, the company most notorious for its promotion of the technology. According to Monsanto, GMOs are: “Plants or animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs.”

The complaint also quotes a GMO definition from the World Health Organization: “Organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally.”

Four Wesson varieties are implicated in the case: Canola Oil, Vegetable Oil, Corn Oil, and Best Blend. And it’s not just on the label that ConAgra is using the natural claim, but also online and in print advertisements.

(Additional silly health claims on the website include “cholesterol free”–vegetable oils couldn’t possibly contain cholesterol anyway.)

The complaint describes the extent of ConAgra’s deception, alleging the “labels are intended to evoke a natural, wholesome product.” And further:

The “100% Natural” statement is, like much of the label on Wesson Oils, displayed in vibrant green. The “Wesson” name is haloed by the image of the sun, and the Canola Oil features a picture of a green heart.

A green heart — you just can’t get any healthier than that. However, as registered dietitian Andy Bellatti told me: “These oils are high in omega 6 fatty acids, which in excessive amounts are actually bad for your heart.” Guess they left that part out of the green heart icon.

Supermarkets Chock-full of GMOs

But what makes this lawsuit especially intriguing is its potentially far-ranging impact. According to the Center for Food Safety: “upwards of 70 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves — from soda to soup, crackers to condiments — contain genetically-engineered ingredients.” While it’s unclear how many of these products also claim to be natural, given all the greenwashing going on these days, it’s likely to number in the thousands.

Specifically, up to 85 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as are 91 percent of soybeans, both extremely common ingredients in processed foods. Numerous groups including the Center for Food Safety have been calling attention to the potential hazards of GMOs for years. From their website:

“A number of studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment. Human health effects can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer.”

Not exactly the stuff that green hearts are made of. The legal complaint also notes that on its corporate website(“but not on the Wesson site that consumers are more likely to visit”), ConAgra implies that its oils are genetically engineered. The company concludes:

“Ultimately, consumers will decide what is acceptable in the marketplace based on the best science and public information available.”

But by being told the oils are “100% natural,” consumers can no longer make an informed decision as they are being misled.

Which reminds me of a great quote from Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser: “If they have to put the word ‘natural’ on a box to convince you, it probably isn’t.”

Michele Simon is a public health lawyer specializing in industry marketing and lobbying tactics. She is the author of Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back, and research and policy director at Marin Institute, an alcohol industry watchdog group.

by Christina Luisa, NaturalNews

Among all the raw milk madness happening right now, NaturalNews recently covered the biased information coming from government sources and how it makes dispelling the myths and regulations surrounding raw milk difficult.

The government’s continual condemnation of raw milk’s safety and presentation of false statistics meant to frighten the public have begun a fierce campaign against this wholesome and nutritious food. Yet more and more people are being made aware of the truth about raw milk’s ability to improve nutrition and enhance health.

Althoughthe FDAand CDC manipulatestatisticsand lie about rawmilk, concealing the frightening truth aboutpasteurized milkin the process, there are endless REAL statistics available to attest to thehealth benefitsof raw milk.

Read more about the true differences of unpasteurized and raw milk (http://www.naturalnews.com/033242_C…).

Some of the following statistics on thehealthbenefits and safety ofraw milkare listed below (http://www.realmilk.com/rawmilkover…).

• Claims that raw milk is unsafe are based on 40-year-old science and century-old experiences fromdairy“factory farms” in nineteenth century America.

• Compared to 30-50 years ago, dairy farmers today can take advantage of many advancements that contribute to a dramatically safer product including pasture grazing, herdtesting, effective cleaning systems, refrigeration, significantly less expensive, more accessible and more sophisticated milk and herddiseasetesting techniques.

• Raw milk is the ONLYfoodthat has extensive built-insafetymechanisms and numerous components to create a healthy immune system.

• In earlystudiesinvolving humans, raw milk was shown to be superior topasteurizedin protecting againstinfection, diarrhea, rickets, tooth decay and TB; and children receiving had better growth than those receiving pasteurized milk.

• Although raw milk, like any food, can become contaminated and cause illness, thedangersof raw milk are greatly exaggerated. In an analysis of reports on 70outbreaksattributed to raw milk, many examples were found of reportingbias, errors and poor analysis resulting in most outbreaks having either no valid positive milk sample or no valid statistical association. (ResponsetoMarlerListofStudies.pdf)

• In early animal studies,animalsfed raw milk had better growth, denser bones, greater integrity of internal organs, less anemia, fewer signs of anxiety and stress, and fewer signs of nutrient deficiency than animals fed pasteurized milk.

• Three recent studies in Europe found thatdrinkingraw milk protected against asthma andallergies. (Lancet. 2001 Oct 6;358(9288):1129-33; J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006 Jun;117(6):1374-8; Clinical & Experimental Allergy. 2007 May; 37(5) 627-630).

• In the early 1900s, the Mayo Clinic administered the “Milk Cure,” which consisted in drinking 4-5 quarts of raw milk per day, obtaining favorableresultsfor a range of illnesses including cancer, weight loss, kidney disease, allergies, skin problems, urinary tract problems, prostate problems and chronic fatigue; these results are not obtained using pasteurized milk.

• Many studies have linked consumption of pasteurized milk with lactose intolerance, allergies,asthma, frequent ear infections, gastro-Intestinal problems, diabetes, auto-Immune disease, attention deficit disorder and constipation. During a period of rapid population growth, the market for fluid pasteurized milk has declined at 1% per year for the past 20 years because fewer and fewer consumers can tolerate pasteurized (and ultrapasteurized) milk (Don’t Drink Your Milk, Frank Oski, MD, 1983).

• In a survey of raw milk drinkers in the state of Michigan, over 80% of those advised by a healthcare professional that they were lactose intolerant were able to consume raw milk without problem. (LactoseIntoleranceSurvey.doc)

• Compared to raw milk there are 515 times more illnesses from L-mono due to deli meats and 29 times moreillnessfrom L-mono due to pasteurized milk. On a PER-SERVING BASIS, deli meats were TEN times more likely than raw milk to cause illness. (Based on data in a 2003 USDA/FDA report)

• Due to high-volume distribution and its comparative lack of anti-microbial components, contaminated pasteurized milk has caused numerous widespread and serious outbreaks of illness, including a 1984-5outbreakafflicting almost 200,000 people. In 2007, three people died in Massachusetts from illness caused by contaminated pasteurized milk.

All kinds of things are far more dangerous than raw milk

Regardless of the endless proof that drinking raw milk from puresourcesis extremely safe, thegovernmentcontinues to push its agenda and raw milk bias by portraying raw milk as an incredibly hazardous substance.

Yet the government openly regulates and approves of tons of dangerousproductsand activities on a regular basis (and most all of them are certainly more dangerous than drinking raw milk!) Here are just a few examples to start with:

• Riding in a grocery shopping cart

• Smoking cigarettes and cigars

• Chewing tobacco

• Signing up for military combat

• Consuming alcohol

• Chemotherapy

• Vaccines

• Mammograms

• CT scans

• Taking FDA-approved pharmaceuticals

• Downhill skiing

• Water sports

• Gymnastics

• Driving in automobiles

• Mercury fillings andmercuryin tuna fish

• Skateboarding

• Rock-climbing, mountain climbing, mountain biking

• Using hair dyes

• Peanut and gluten products (potentially lethal or damaging allergens to many)

• Eating fast food and processedfoodsregularly

• Driving while texting/talking on the phone

• Fireworks

• Cough syrups with hydrocodone

• Working in construction

• Consuming fluoride

And this is just a fairly short list to start. There are plenty more examples where these came from – I’m sure you could even come up with some of your own.

This is another clear example of how present-day events and conditions have increasingly been leading America toward becoming a state in which government leaders control our lives rather than allowing us to decide things for ourselves.

You may not care for drinking raw milk, but this issue is evidence to all of our government’s agenda to cultivate a culture of lies. Although they are aware that raw milk (when acquired from clean, grass-fed cows) is endlessly more nutritious than pasteurized milk, they continue to present dishonestinformationabout it and to conceal the hard facts about much more clear and present dangers throughout the rest of the food supply, including the more popular pasteurized milk.

TheFDAand CDC are purposely doing their part in the enactment of a society that is riddled with increasing cases of sickness and death. This barbaric deception does not only apply to raw milk, but to any number of healthful, raw whole foods and nutritional supplements, and it is this sort of behavior that is contributing to our country’s declining health and freedom.

WAPF has put together a comprehensive report about the anti-raw milk conspiracy where you can find much more detailed cases and information than what has been covered in this article (http://westonaprice.org/press/fda-a…).

Sources used:

http://www.westonaprice.org/
http://westonaprice.org/press/fda-a…
http://www.naturalnews.com/033242_C…

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/033348_raw_milk_public_safety.html#ixzz1VkM9LrB9