the holistic radical

March 27, 2008

Good article on what’s wrong with health these days

Filed under: alternative health news, big agriculture, big medicine, big pharma — Tags: , , — sesame seed @ 9:54 pm

This is a good primer for people who want to know why there’s so much illness these days, and what they can do in their lives to stop it. Then  go inform others.

The Four Horsemen of the Health Apocalypse

by Tony Isaacs (see all articles by this author)

(NaturalNews) A dark plague has crept across the land, operating largely in shadow for generations and set upon us by an evil master whose footsteps have fouled the earth for as long as man has walked upon it. Led by four evil horsemen who have been corrupted and enslaved by the master, the plague has cast its shadowy tentacles from sea to sea through towns and cities large and small, sparing no one. Almost no location has proven remote enough to escape its reach and it has visited death, illness and suffering on young and old alike.

The plague is Bad Health. Its master is Greed. And the Four Horsemen who have been corrupted and perverted into servants of greed who spread the plague are our Food, our Medicine, our Industry and our Government. The effects of this evil plague can be measured in terms of the dollars and the lives it cruelly affects – billions of dollars annually in ill gained profit at the expense of deaths that run into the hundreds of thousand and suffering that affects millions.

Throughout history, men have existed whose greed and lust for wealth and power has driven them to put their own selfish interests above those of humanity itself. Such greed has been behind most of the evils in the history of mankind and caused untold human suffering. Today the very health of modern man itself is under attack by the greedy elite who willingly trade profits for the ability of their fellow men and women to enjoy good health and live long enjoyable lives.

Through a process that began in the late 1800’s, those who place personal gain and wealth above health and humanity have corrupted the four most important cornerstones that should be our shining benefactors and guarantors of providing mankind with good, nutritious food to drink, air to breath and water to drink: our food supply, our medicines, our industry, and our government. Today, instead of marshalling their efforts to benefit humanity, these cornerstones we depend on have been corrupted to benefit an elite few, turning them instead into just the opposite of what they should be – darkly corrupted purveyors of illness which rob us of our health and our wealth, take years off our life spans, and force us into a lifetime of managed illness and poor nutrition. If allowed to continue, the downward spiral in health may ultimately threaten the ability of mankind to even continue as a species.

Here then are the four fallen cornerstones of health and a brief overview of how greed has turned them from providers and protectors of our health into vassals that provide profits at the expense of health and humanity:

Food

Our soils have been depleted, our food crops have been genetically engineered to produce higher yields and more bulk with less nutrition and to withstand more pesticides, herbicides and artificial fertilizers that ensure higher profits at the cost of multitudes of health problems for those who consume them. Furthermore, the food on our grocer’s shelves has had the nutrition processed out, with harmful additives processed in to enhance shelf life, color, taste and texture, with the same result. The advent of large scale industrial farms favored with government subsidies has changed the emphasis from good nutrition coming from a local human face to good production and poor, contaminated nutrition from faceless industries. Thanks to over-farming and the advent of chemical fertilizers, our soils are rapidly being stripped of valuable minerals, including trace minerals. Only the three primary minerals plants need to grow are being replaced – from artificial chemical fertilizers, but not the 60 or more they need to have optimum nutrition.

Medicine

For 6000 years, mankind used nature as the primary means of preventing and controlling illness. In the early 1900’s, there were more natural health and homeopathic practitioners, and as many alternate medical schools as there were “germ theory” doctors and universities. But the natural and homeopathic practitioners and schools were persecuted and prosecuted into virtual extinction after the rich and powerful Rockefellers and Carnegies teamed up with the American Medical Society to make germ theory medicine the ONLY acceptable form of medicine and increase profits by weeding out competition by means fair or foul. Such actions continue to this very day, but nowhere in history was the abuse of power and persecution more criminally blatant than during the reign of terror and personal enrichment of Morris Fishbein, who persecuted such leading alternative giants as Royal Raymond Rife and Harry Hoxsey.

More information on the misdeeds of Morris Fishbein can be found in this informative and factual article: (http://www.rense.com/general19/enemy.htm) .

About the same time the AMA was conspiring to eliminate competition, the world pharmaceutical giants, then located in Germany, were conspiring to replace all natural remedies and healing plants with drugs made in their labs. In the early 1900’s, these companies formed the I. G. Farben cartel, with the express purpose of seizing control of the world’s medical drug trade, and their plans have been successful beyond even their own wildest dreams of greed. For generations now, we have been inundated with a never ending avalanche of propaganda telling us to “ask our doctors” about the benefits of drugs while warning us away from natural alternatives that are safer, more effective and far less expensive.

For generations, our doctors have been taught at medical schools whose largest source of funding by far is the world pharmaceutical empire. They have been taught precious little about the role diet, nutrition, exercise, lifestyle and natural plants have to play in prevention and healing. Instead, they have been taught that the way to treat illness and disease is to prescribe medications – medications that just happen to be made by the same people who fund their education. As a result, safe, effective and less expensive natural healing methods, with hundreds and even thousands of years of proven success, has been chastised and made illegal and has been replaced by patentable and hugely profitable synthetics and isolates. An even darker result is the millions of lives and billions of dollars that could be saved if alternative and natural treatments were allowed for cancer, heart disease, liver disease, diabetes and a host of other conditions that mainstream “approved” medicine has been unable or unwilling to cure.

From the very first, these lab created drugs have had significant and often life-threatening side effects, and, when effective at all, have mostly managed symptoms instead of effected cures. Often, their prolonged use leads to new illnesses and more medications in a never ending cycle so that by the time a man reaches 65 years of age in the United States, he takes an average of 15 prescribed and over the counter medications daily – when it all began with one or two conditions that could have been treated naturally. When your only marketplace is the human body, it is a wonderful plan to protect and increase profits, but a horrible one for humanity.

Industry

Since the beginning of the industrial age and the coal burning plants, every year an increasing amount of literally thousands of metric tons of chemical pollutants, including carcinogens and thousands of other highly toxic chemicals and compounds such as mercury, lead, PCP, arsenic, etc., are spewed into our environment, polluting the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. While the National Institute of Health has recognized 133 chemical compounds which are, or may be, carcinogens, well over ten thousand industrial compounds have not been tested for safety either singly or in combination, and the number of new compounds introduced to the environment grows by leaps and bounds each year.

Not only have the vast majority of our industries resisted having their growing list of thousands of chemical compounds properly tested for safety, they have resisted controls on the use and emissions of the ones known to be harmful. Shamefully, it has been revealed that the medical industry that benefits financially from increased illness has often supported industry efforts to control their chemical contaminants that make us ill (see Devra Davis important new book, The Secret History of the War on Cancer). Virtually all of our industries, including the food and medical industries, have for the sake of profits corrupted the agencies entrusted with their oversight into agencies that serve their profits first and the citizens they should serve second. No one outside of industry should begrudge them making a reasonable profit; however, no one inside industry can reasonably argue that they should not make their profits while operating morally and being good neighbors who strive to protect the health and welfare of the consumers.

Government

The government should be the greatest protector of the health and well being of its citizens, but the influence and money of the greedy have corrupted it to a government of the corporation which gives mostly lip service to actually serving its citizens first and foremost. The United States of America was founded as a constitutional republic to protect and insure the unalienable rights of every citizen to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All levels of government, with the federal level having the least powers of all in most areas, were supposed to derive their powers from the consent of the governed. Thanks to the relentless pursuit of wealth and power, and the use of that wealth and power to buy votes and influence, our government has become a top down corruption that our founding fathers would surely rise up against in renewed revolt.

No greater example of this corruption of masters and priorities can be found than the FDA (United States Food and Drug Administration). Although the public widely believes that the FDA is out to protect them, what it actually does is run a protection racket for mainstream medicine, especially the world pharmaceutical empire. Who the FDA really serves and protects becomes crystal clear when you examine their actions. On the one hand, they twist the rules and impose their own definitions of what constitutes a drug to keep safe and natural competition off the market by actions such as persecuting and threatening cherry growers, and the makers and sellers of products like bitter melon, Stevia and colloidal silver, none of whom have ever caused a single death and each of which has hundreds of Pub Med and other studies vouching for their effectiveness. On the other hand, they foully delay action, hide studies and outright lie about the safety of products like Vioxx, Bextra, Alleve, Aspartame, Avandia, Fosamax, Gardasil, and a host of others which have been blamed with hundreds of thousands of deaths and illnesses in order for their big pharma and big chemical industry masters to reap billions in profits while the public suffers.

In the words of the last FDA commissioner to stand up for the safety of the citizens and resist the lobbying and pressure of Big Pharma:

“The FDA ‘protects’ the big drug companies and are subsequently rewarded, and using the government’s police powers they attack those who threaten the big drug companies. People think that the FDA is protecting them.

It isn’t.

What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day.”

Dr. Herbert Ley

And thus concludes this introduction to a new series of articles by the author, ones which may someday comprise a new book. In future installments we will take an in depth look at each of the “Four Horsemen” and those who are responsible for robbing our health for the sake of their greed, the increasing rates of cancer and heart disease, the reasons for autism and other conditions which have exploded among our children, and we will examine why we spend more money by far on healthcare in the United States than anywhere else in the world, yet have seen our life expectancy drop from 14th to 42nd in the world in just two decades.

We will also examine what we as individuals and as a nation can do to take back control of our health, our bodies and the agencies that are supposed to serve us.

Until next time, live long, live healthy, live happy!

About the author

Tony Isaacs, is a natural health advocate and researcher and the author of books and articles about natural health including “Cancer’s Natural Enemy” and “Collected Remedies“as well as song lyrics and humorous anecdotal stories. Mr. Isaacs also has The Best Years in Life website for baby boomers and others wishing to avoid prescription drugs and mainstream managed illness and live longer, healthier and happier lives naturally. He is currently residing in the scenic Texas hill country near Utopia, Texas where he serves as a consultant to the Utopia Silver colloidal silver and supplement company and where he is working on a major book project due for publication later this year. Mr. Isaacs also hosts the CureZone “Ask Tony Isaacs” forum as well as the Yahoo Health Group “Oleander Souphttp://www.naturalnews.com/z022828.html

March 26, 2008

The Dangers of Artificial Food Colorings

Filed under: autism/adhd, big agriculture, FDA — Tags: , , , , , , — sesame seed @ 3:09 pm

Many people with autism/adhd have had great success following the Feingold diet, which, in part, eliminates all foods with conventional (read: unnatural) food colorings. Do a web search for the “Feingold diet.” In general, white/refined sugar and wheat, colorings, and flavors aren’t good for anyone, but especially not autistics.

——-

How food companies fool consumers with food coloring ingredients made from petrochemicals

by Mike Adams

Have you ever wondered why companies use artificial colors? You might think it’s because they want to make their food look good, but there’s another reason — a far deeper reason — why companies use artificial colors to make their foods more appealing to consumers. Keep reading to learn what that is.

Why do foods with more vibrant, saturated colors look more appealing to consumers? Why does a bright-red apple look more appealing than a dull-red apple or a green apple? Why are foods sold to us in neon green, yellow and orange packages? The reason is that of the color of food speaks to humans’ innate perceptions about the value of food items.

Humans are born with brains that are preprogrammed with the ability to learn language; or to recognize certain inherent dangers such as falling off a ledge. We also have all kinds of behaviors built in for survival. One of the survival strategies our ancestors developed was the ability to recognize foods containing usable energy or nutrition. They could walk through a field and instantly spot foods that contained potent, healing phytonutrients and calories that would give them usable energy, healthy brain function, boost immune function and boost overall survivability. The natural medicines found in food often appear in bright colors, and calorie-rich foods designed to appeal to primates (such as apples or berries) are also brightly colored. It is these colors that appeal to our built-in perceptions about the value of food. (Birds have a similar system and also tend to judge food by its color.)

Color is a reliable indicator of the healthful quality of foods. An apple that has red in its peel, for example, actually sends a message: “Hey, I’m here. I have some healing medicine in my skin.” That’s why humans are naturally attracted to more vibrant-looking apples. Berries, fruits, root vegetables and other foods broadcast similar messages through their own coloring.

Eating the rainbow diet

You may have heard of the rainbow diet, in which you eat foods of different colors. It is based on the idea that different foods carry different energies and provide different types of nutritional medicine. There is a real science to that, and an art as well. You can examine phytochemicals and their healing effects, and categorize them by color. There are foods that are purple, blue, green, yellow, red, orange, brown — all the colors of the spectrum — and each food has a different medicine. Our ancestors learned to recognize foods by their color, and they also learned that foods with more vibrant colors in their natural environment contain a lot more medicine.

For example, a red cabbage that is actually a dull grey doesn’t look very appealing, but a purple cabbage with a saturated, bright-purple color looks fantastic. That’s because we have an innate perception gauge telling us we should be attracted to these foods — they are healthier for us, and the health quality is indicated by the saturation of the color.

This is what food-manufacturing companies are exploiting when they enhance colors artificially.

Food makers use harmful dyes to get you to buy

When you shop for oranges, you’re looking for a bright, deeply colored orange. You don’t want a yellowish orange, because that tells you it’s not ripe; if it’s not ripe, it hasn’t developed all its medicine. (That’s one reason why so much of the produce available in grocery stores lacks real nutrition these days — it’s all picked before it has a chance to ripen on the plant.)

Growers know about this color preference, so some of them — in Florida for example — hijack that instinctual process by dipping some of their oranges in a cancer-causing red dye that makes the peel look more orange. The FDA has banned that dye from use in foods, because it is a carcinogen, but they say it’s okay to dip an orange in it, because people don’t eat the peel. If a consumer is comparing two oranges — one of them is yellow, and one of them is deep, rich orange — most consumers are going to pick up the deeper, richer looking orange.

Food manufacturers use artificial colors because, when they make their foods more colorful, it turns on the light switch in our brains that says, “This is good stuff.” We’ve been fooled; we’ve been drawn like a moth to a flame. If you took one nacho chip with flavors but no color and put it beside another nacho chip with the exact same flavors but lots of artificial colors to make it look more orange, and you asked people to pick which chip they think would taste better, almost everyone will choose the chip with the color. The color can actually fool your mind into thinking that these foods taste better.

Food colors are made from petroleum

Coal tar and petrochemicals are the sources of the artificial colors that go into our foods, and these artificial coloring ingredients are dangerous to our health. The human body was not designed to eat petrochemicals. You don’t see people digging up petroleum and drinking it with a straw. That’s not the kind of energy we’re designed to run on. So why are we putting petrochemicals in our foods?

The food companies are doing it to sell a product and generate a profit, regardless of the health effects on consumers — and the health effects have been worrisome. In fact, more than one artificial color has been banned and pulled off the market over the last several decades because it was ultimately found to cause cancer. The safety of those still allowed on the market is highly questionable.

Eventually, artificial colors used in the food supply will likely be outlawed because they contribute to all sorts of health problems, the most notable of which are the symptoms diagnosed as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a behavioral pattern often brought on by Yellow #2 food dye. Children are being fed these chemicals in such large quantities that they begin to have nervous system malfunctions that ultimately are misdiagnosed as ADHD, learning disabilities, or violent behavior.

If you want to reverse these so-called diseases in your children, one of the best things you can do is stop feeding them petrochemicals. That means you, as the parent, have to understand that your very instincts are being hijacked by food companies’ use of artificial colors to sell their garbage products. It’s automatic, it’s innate and it’s unconscious. You look at foods and you instantly evaluate them by their color. It’s something that you can’t stop doing because it’s part of your perception hardware. Food companies know this and they exploit it to sell you unhealthy foods artificially colored to look nutritious.

How to defend yourself against dishonest food companies

So what’s your defense against this? How can you take control over your own mind and make better decisions at the grocery store? You’re taking the first step right now by reading this: you’re educating yourself. All you have to do is take this information and apply it by reading ingredient labels. Look for artificial food coloring ingredients like Yellow #2, Red #5 or Blue Lake #40, and then avoid them. Don’t buy those products. It’s as simple as that. Instead, you look for natural food coloring ingredients. There are products colored with beet juice, a much healthier way to color food; annatto, a very healthy plant source; or turmeric, a fantastic herb with anticancer, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties.

With a little checking around, you will discover that all the cheap, low-grade, disease-promoting products in the grocery store tend to use these artificial colors. You will also find that the same snack chips, processed foods, boxed dinner meals, and junk food made by the biggest food companies also contain refined white flour, MSG and hydrogenated oils. It’s really no surprise they mostly all contain an artificial color of one kind or another.

Also, you should watch out for artificial colors in fruit drinks and candy. There are loads of artificial colors in candy, which makes for a very bad combination — especially for children. If you give kids a load of sugar and petrochemicals together in the same meal, their nervous systems go crazy. That’s why you have kids climbing the walls after feeding them candy and sugary drinks with artificial colors.

Another repeat offender in this category is “sport drinks,” which are loaded with petrochemical artificial colors that have no purpose other than to make the beverage visually appealing to consumers. There’s no nutritional value whatsoever to using artificial colors, which means most sports drinks are a complete waste of money: they’re just salt water with sugar and artificial colors added. If you want a real sports drink, you should juice some celery and cucumber, or just drink coconut water. That’s real replenishment.

The confectionery industry relies heavily on artificial colors to make its foods — like cake and icing — look appealing as well. Icing is usually made of hydrogenated soybean oil, which is a nerve toxin, combined with refined sugars, which are dietary poisons that cause diabetes. The petrochemical-based artificial colors are used to top it off. If you really want to commit nutritional suicide, eat a lot of icing. Get yourself some iced doughnuts, cakes and pastries, and load up.

You’ll notice artificial colors in foods like blueberry muffins or blueberry bagels, too. Read the ingredients on blueberry bagels at your local grocery store next time, and you’ll find that there are really no blueberries but plenty of artificial blue and green colors to create the impression of little blueberry bits. They can’t even put blueberries in their bagels. They have to trick you with artificial colors.

Do you know what liquid they’re using to hold the color? Propylene glycol — the same chemical you put into your RV when you want to winterize it. It is antifreeze. You’re eating antifreeze and petrochemicals — and that’s just the blueberry part. We haven’t even gotten to everything else, like refined sugars, chemical preservatives and refined bleached white flour, which has diabetes-causing contaminants. A blueberry bagel is no longer a blueberry bagel. When you really understand what’s in the foods, it’s mind blowing.

Artificial colors sometimes find their way into salmon before it even becomes food

Artificial colors turn up in a lot of interesting places. Many salmon farms are adding artificial color to their food to make the salmon flesh appear more red because that’s what consumers will buy. They’ll buy red or pink salmon over grey salmon any day of the week because their instincts tell them deeper, richer colors are healthier. Imitation crab meat has artificial colors added to make part of the meat look red — but at least the label includes the word “artificial,” so you can avoid it if you read labels.

The biggest form of dishonesty across the entire food industry is the use of artificial colors that influence you to buy and consume foods that actually harm your health (such as snack chips made with MSG). The food companies have figured out how to hack into your perception hardware. They send one message to your eyes, but they manufacture foods out of something entirely different. The bottom line is that foods, through the use of artificial colors, are sending an incongruent message: “I’m a healthy food.” But the reality is, “I’m harmful junk food.”

These companies employ tens of thousands of food scientists in the United States alone. They figure out how to make foods more palatable and less expensive by using the cheapest ingredients possible while prettying them up with artificial food colors made from petrochemicals.

Food coloring from insects

I have one more interesting tidbit I’d like to share with you. You may be familiar with a red color ingredient called carmine; it can be found in strawberry yogurt and a variety of other products. Carmine is sourced from a mash made by grinding up beetles grown in Peru and the Canary Islands. The mash is strained out to obtain a red liquid. That liquid, made from insects, is then shipped to the United States to food companies, where it is dumped into the yogurt to make it look like there are strawberries in there. Folks, it’s not strawberry. It’s insect juice. That’s what’s in your yogurt (and a lot of candy and children’s foods as well).

Some people have a dangerous allergic reaction to this ingredient. They can go into anaphylactic shock, which puts them in a coma (or worse!). As this demonstrates, some of these color additives can be extremely dangerous, but you’ll notice companies don’t put this information on their labels. “Insect juice” is never listed on your yogurt. They merely list “carmine,” and they leave it up to you to figure out what that means. Ninety-nine percent of people in this world have no idea what carmine really is, but now you do.  

http://www.naturalnews.com/z022870.html

Trouble in Paradise: Whole Truth on Whole Foods

Filed under: FDA — Tags: , , , — sesame seed @ 3:05 pm

Interesting article. Again, where’s our FDA on allowing WF and others to sell rGBH, MSG, etc? Why is it completely permissible to sell these toxins in foods? Where’s the oversight? And where’s the consumer action? It’s great to have informed consumers, but who’s protecting the most vulnerable and least informed?

——–

The Whole Story About Whole Foods Market

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 by: Barbara L. Minton (see all articles by this author)
| Key concepts: whole foods, Wild Oats and MSG(NaturalNews) Organic food has become the mantra of consumers who are aware of the dangers of pesticides, chemicals and hormones used in the growing and processing practices of the commercial food industry. Many of us have come to trust stores making the implied agreement with us that the food they are selling is largely organic, pure and free from pesticides, chemicals and hormones. We enjoy those stores where we can revel in nature’s bounty, enjoy righteous culinary delights, and take home whatever appeals to us because we’re sure it’s also good for us. Unfortunately, the merger of Whole Foods and Wild Oats may be a signal that it’s time to take off the rose colored glasses.

Behind the Merger

It came as no surprise that this merger was allowed even though it effectively wiped out the major competition in the organic market segment. The surprise involved the bizarre, pseudonymous behavior of Whole Foods CEO John Mackey during the six years between the first offer Whole Foods made to acquire Wild Oats, which was rebuffed, and the second offer made in February, 2007.

During those years Mackey posted almost daily on the Yahoo message board for Wild Oats’ stock under the name of “Rahodeb” (an anagram of his wife’s name). In these posts he belittled Wild Oats whenever its stock price rose, without disclosing who he was. In a post written in March of 2006, Mackey as Rahodeb said, “Whole Foods says they will open 25 stores in OATS territories in the next 2 years. The end game is now underway for OATs… Whole Foods is systematically destroying their viability as a business – market by market, city by city.”

These posts were designed to keep down the price of Wild Oats shares. The lower the Wild Oats stock price, the sweeter would be the merger price for Whole Foods. Mackey’s efforts to hold down the price may have also helped create pressure by OATS shareholders for their board to accept the depressed bid when it finally came. This sort of conventional commitment to the bottom line belies the feel-good healthy vibes pumped out by the Whole Foods publicity department, and it smacks of the behavior of more traditional corporate scoundrels.

Whole Foods: Image vs. Reality

Mackey has had great success at marketing Whole Foods to the typical affluent, well-educated, liberal organic supermarket customer. This is a lifestyle customer with a need to feel that he or she is contributing to the betterment of himself, mankind and the earth.

But it is harder than ever to make the case that shopping at Whole Foods is socially commendable. Whole Foods has faced well-deserved criticism for the effects it has on the environment, and its employees. In Michael Pollan’s bestseller, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, he describes Whole Foods as an “industrial organic” company that has done away with the counter-cuisine and local distribution that were the center of the 1960’s back-to-nature movement. As Pollan points out, there is nothing environmentally friendly or health conscious about Whole Food’s practice of flying asparagus from Argentina in January.

Whole Foods has responded to criticism by initiating programs to fund low-interest loans to local farmers, and put farmer’s market space in their parking lots. Follow-through on this initiative has been minimal although the store windows have been plastered with posters extolling the benefits of eating locally grown foods and spotlighting individual farmers.

But again, as one tours the produce section there is the perception that image and reality are quite different. In displays of largesse, fruits and vegetables are heaped into towering displays. Most of them have tags declaring their points of origin, and these points are California and Mexico for the most part, no matter where the store is located, no matter what the season.

Labor unions are also upset with Mackey. Although the image of the stores is abundance, bounty and the good life, Whole Foods is the second largest union-free food retailer, behind Wal-Mart. In its twenty-seven year history, only its store in Madison, Wisconsin successfully unionized, and that fell apart with no contract to show for the efforts of workers. Whole Foods has taken the position that unions are not valid, and has a pamphlet to give workers titled “Beyond Unions”. The chain has also fended off unionizing attempts in Berkeley, California; St. Paul Minnesota; and Falls Church, Virginia.

Quality Standards at Whole Foods

According to the Quality Standards page of the store’s website, Whole Foods features products that are “natural”, meaning “free of artificial colors, flavors, sweeteners, and hydrogenated oils”. It does not claim that all their products are free of such ingredients, just the featured products. They claim commitment to foods that are fresh, wholesome and safe to eat. This is the extent of the quality pledge the store makes to its customers. It does not claim that all the foods it sells are organic or free of everything troublesome.

There is an extensive Unacceptable Food Ingredients list posted on the website, and the impression is that these ingredients are not to be found in any foods sold at Whole Foods. Notably missing from this list is any mention of recombinant bovine growth hormone.

The quality standard for meat and poultry is “best tasting, freshest and most wholesome, naturally raised meat available”. There is no promise that its meat and poultry is free range, vegetarian fed, rBGH free, pastured or organic, although it does carry some organic meats. The word ‘naturally’ is not defined, nor does it have an industry standard definition. As applied to meat and poultry it can apparently mean anything from ‘free of all chemical additives’ to ‘not born with two heads’.

For produce the quality standard is “colorful and lovingly stacked”. Clearly Whole Foods shines in its variety of fresh organic fruits and vegetables, most of which has come a long distance from large corporate farms. There is little locally grown produce. Along side the organics are colorful and lovingly stacked conventional fruits and vegetables, priced as though they were organic.

Whole Foods conventional produce is grown under the same conditions as produce at the ‘regular’ supermarkets. This means it may be grown in depleted soil and fertilized with chemical fertilizers. Unless conventional produce is tagged as being pesticide free, it probably isn’t. And remember that other countries do not generally have the level of laws restricting the use of extremely toxic chemicals on produce that are in force in the US. Growers will tend to use the most cost effective pesticides rather than the least harmful.

Grocery items including cleaning products, pet foods, dairy and bulk are held to the standard of being “natural”. Many grocery items contain organic ingredients. Some of them are formulated identically with items sold at ‘regular’ stores, but sell at much higher prices.

Many of the canned or boxed items such as, soups, chili, stews, gravies, and prepared frozen or boxed entrees and meals contain MSG although it is on Whole Foods list of unacceptable food ingredients. Because MSG is so ubiquitous in formulations, you can suspect its presence in large numbers of bagged, bottled, frozen or canned foods at all stores including Whole Foods, but it is often hidden under another name. When you see any of these ingredients, you know the product contains MSG:

* Vegetable Protein Extract

* Gelatin

* Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein

* Autolyzed Vegetable Protein

* Textured Vegetable Protein

* Yeast Extract

* Autolyzed Yeast Extract

* Sodium Caseinate

* Calcium Caseinate

* Soup Base

* Textured Whey Protein

Foods containing these ingredients often contain MSG:

* Malted Barley

* Maltodextrin

* Broth

* Bouillon

* Carrageenan

* Protein Isolate

* Pectin

* Enzymes

* Seasonings

* Spices

* Soy Protein or Soy Protein Isolates

* Cornstarch

* Rice or Oat Protein

* and anything fermented or modified with enzymes

None of these appear on the unacceptable food ingredients’ page. Apparently if it’s called something else, MSG is acceptable at Whole Foods.

Dairy products may or may not contain rBGH. The ones that don’t are displayed next to the ones that do. Some are organic, some are not.

Bakery items contain no bleached or bromated flour. Many do contain processed white sugar.

Personal care products contain many of the ingredients listed on the unacceptable food ingredients’ list. Apparently if it enters your body through the skin instead of the mouth it is okay with them.

The crown jewel of Whole Foods is probably its hot and cold prepared foods. Again, the quality standard for these foods is the nebulous word ‘natural’. There are no artificial sweeteners, colors, flavors, or synthetic preservatives in their prepared foods.

The salad bar contains a few organic items, denoted by red tongs. Most items on the salad bar are conventional, the kind that are found in salad bars everywhere.

The deli dishes as well as those on the hot bar are also made to the ‘natural’ standard. They contain almost no organic ingredients. Some contain MSG in the form of vegetable/beef/chicken stock, or hydrolyzed vegetable proteins. Many are liberally laced with canola oil.

What it All Means

Whole Foods is a Fortune 500 Company, a huge and highly profitable corporation that owes its allegiance to its shareholders. As every good corporation yearns to do, Whole Foods is exploiting a niche market in which it is the only big player. Since it has cleared the field of major competitors, it is free to raise prices and reduce quality. But if prices go too high or quality too low, another competitor will come along. This is the way of big business. That the schism between image and reality may be less at Whole Foods than at many corporations is of some comfort.

About the author

Barbara is a school psychologist, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using “alternative” treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all things natural.

http://www.naturalnews.com/022881.html

Soy: Not a Health Food

 there’s no getting around it: you need to incorporate more whole, organic, unprocessed foods. the fewer hands it touches, the better.

——–

Soy Industry Promotes Health Myths to Sell More Soy Products, Says Author

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 by: David Gutierrez | Key concepts: cancer, soy industry and breast cancer Want stories like this e-mailed to you? Click here for free email alerts

(NaturalNews) Author Kaayla T. Daniel is challenging what she calls the myth that soy prevents breast cancer. “The truth is that soy protein contains dangerous levels of plant estrogens. Although not identical to human estrogens, these have been proven to increase breast cell proliferation, a widely accepted marker of breast cancer risk.” said Daniel, author of “The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food.”

“The soy industry consistently plays down the evidence that soy can promote breast cancer,” Daniel said. “It is even using Breast Cancer Awareness Month as an excuse to push its products on unsuspecting women.”

Daniel disputes the idea that soy is responsible for lower breast cancer rates among those who consume traditional Asian diets. She cites a recent study in the journal “Cancer Causes and Control,” which found that Asians who ate more soy did not have lower cancer rates than Asians who ate less.

“The soy industry … heavily promotes the myth that Asians have lower rates of breast cancer because of soy consumption,” Daniel said. “In fact, Asians eat soy in very small quantities, as a condiment in the diet and not as a staple food. What’s more, they eat old-fashioned, whole soybean products such as miso, tempeh, natto and tofu, not the new heavily processed products marketed by the soy industry such as soy milk, veggie burgers and ‘energy bars.'”

Government officials in Israel and France have concluded that high soy consumption may indeed pose a breast cancer risk. Israeli Health Ministry guidelines recommend that women “exercise caution” in soy consumption, and the French Food Agency has decided to require soy products to contain warning labels.

“The risks are well established,” Daniel said. “Soy is clearly not the answer for breast cancer prevention. The evidence is mounting that soy may even be part of the problem.”

http://www.naturalnews.com/022882.html

March 20, 2008

Are US Taxes Legal?

Ron Paul is the only candidate standing up to this. Watch “America: Freedom to Fascism.” Go to restoretherepublic.com. Learn about the Federal Reserve and how our tax dollars are feeding the bankers.

——-

http://www.naturalnews.com/z022856.html

NaturalNews.com printable article

Originally published March 18 2008

Americans Question the Legality of the Income Tax

by Barbara L. Minton (see all articles by this author)

(NaturalNews) There’s nothing that gets me all tingly like the coming of spring. It’s always been my favorite time of the year. Just one problem stands between me and total rapture – the need to complete a tax return and file it along with the money I always owe. This year the filing of the tax return feels particularly odious, because this year is when I began to find out that there is no law that actually requires me to file a return, and no law that actually requires me to pay tax on what I earn.

It all began when I saw the feature film/documentary, America: Freedom to Fascism directed by six time academy award nominee Aaron Russo, a self-described freedom fighter. The troublesome central point of this film is that Americans are not required by law to pay a federal income tax. It is overwhelming to think that such a fraud as this could have been perpetuated on the American people for so long. In the film, Russo expresses this feeling to IRS employees and simply asks them to cite where it says an unapportioned income tax is required of all of us. And incredibly, they can’t.

One telling segment involves Sheldon Cohen, former IRS commissioner, who goes so far as to reject Supreme Court rulings and the Constitution as benchmarks over what is legal with regard to taxation. The film also includes interviews with members of the Tax Honesty Movement as well as former IRS agents who concur that there is no law on the books that requires any US citizen to send the government part of his hard earned paycheck. Russo also highlights court cases where those accused of tax evasion have won their cases precisely because the prosecution could not provide evidence of a legal federal income tax law.

The film hammers you again and again with endless examples of people who figured out what was up and have not paid taxes for years. By the time it’s over, you feel like a big fool who has thrown money away year after year for nothing.

Since feeling foolish doesn’t do much for my ego, I got online to see for myself that there really is a law the says I have to pay income tax. Here’s what I found.

The Case of Joe Banister

On June 23, 2005, a federal jury found former IRS Criminal Division Special Agent and CPA Joseph Banister not guilty of all counts of criminal tax fraud and conspiracy related to actions he took on behalf of a California business owner who had openly defied the IRS over several years by discontinuing withholding of income and employment taxes from the paychecks of his employees.

The Department of Justice was unable to present any evidence that Banister had either acted in a conspiracy or had acted unlawfully when he advised Thompson that based on findings from his legal research, he had no obligation to withhold taxes from his employees. The Justice Department also concluded that when Banister filed corrected tax returns for Thompson claiming that Thompson’s taxable income was zero, rather than the $42,251 he had claimed on his first filing, he was operating within the framework of the law.

Banister, who was forced to resign from the IRS in 1999 after questioning IRS officials about their legal authority, gave Thompson’s employees a presentation in 2000 detaining his investigative research of US tax law. Findings were that not only did the IRS lack any authority to impose income taxes on workers, but there was no legal requirement for the business to withhold any taxes from the employee’s paychecks.

Banister is reportedly part of a nationwide effort seeking to force the US government to respond to a series of detailed legal Petitions for Redress of Grievances directly challenging the authority of the IRS. The We The People Foundation has initiated a landmark lawsuit with 2000 plaintiffs against the government because it has refused to answer the Petitions. This Right-To-Petition lawsuit, of which Banister is a plaintiff, is the first time in the history of the US that the courts have been asked to define the meaning of the final ten words of the First Amendment.

Conclusions of the We The People Foundation

The website of the We The People Foundation begins with the premise that there is no law that requires most citizens to file and pay federal income taxes. They summarize the key steps of their argument:

There is a federal law that imposes a requirement upon some citizens and foreigners to file and pay an income tax. The question is, to what proportion of citizens does the requirement apply? We The People answers that question with an examination of statutes and regulations, despite the lack of direction supplied by the IRS.

They conclude that “no tax liability applies to the vast majority of citizens, who have been misled into believing they must file and pay income taxes noted in section 61, the section that calls for determination of “gross income”. Instead, tax liability applies to US citizens only insofar as they have foreign earned income. This tax liability also applies to aliens and foreign companies doing business in the US. In fact, the Secretary of the Treasury acknowledged that Form 255 was the form most frequently required to be filed by citizens, and only if they had foreign income.

They elaborate, “We can see that the government, by means of such a circuitous and disconnected trail of rules and regulations, has made it extremely difficult for most ordinary people to figure out that they are not liable for the income tax. We can see that the government is duping most people into voluntarily filing returns, assessing themselves, waiving their 5th amendment rights, and erroneously paying an income tax for which they are not liable.” They note that statutes and regulations for other taxes are clearly stated, without ambiguity, concluding that “This trickery and deception serves a function of avoiding violations of the Constitution which would be more transparent otherwise.”

Additionally, they conclude that “employers are being duped into submitting false information about most employees, withholding their money, making it appear they are liable, and thereby putting them on the defensive, since they must then dispute that their wages are taxable.”

Finally, a look at the laws regarding liability for the Social Security tax reveals that they are derived from the International Labor Agreement of the 1930s and do not apply to most US citizens, but to aliens and to some citizens based on foreign income or income from US overseas possessions.

And Then There’s Irwin Schiff

Irwin Schiff is billed as the nation’s leading authority on income tax and how the government illegally collects it. He is the motivating factor of the Tax Honest Movement, and claims to have written more books on the subject than any other American. His most recent book The Federal Mafia promises to show you how you can immediately stop having income taxes taken from your pay, get back every dime you paid in income taxes this year, stop IRS agents from seizing your property because they have no power to do so, and break “offer and compromise” agreements you might have made with the IRS, since these agreements were entered into on the basis of fraud and intimidation.

Among the arguments raised by Schiff are: (1) that no statutory deficiency in Federal income tax can exist until an assessment has been made (2) that no tax assessment can be made unless a tax return has been voluntarily filed (3) that the IRS, in enforcing the income tax seeks to impose a tax not authorized by the taxing clauses of the US Constitution (4) that the US has no jurisdiction, and (5) that the US Tax Court is not a court.

Another argument made by Schiff is that on the Form 1040, you should report ‘zero’ income regardless of how much you received in: wages, commissions, interest, alimony, capital gains or from operating a business. For tax purposes, ‘income’ only means corporate ‘profit’. Therefore, no individual receives anything that is reportable as ‘income’. This argument has been rejected by the lower courts, as well as the US court of appeals.

What Schiff is seeking to accomplish will not be accomplished easily. In the 1970’s, Schiff made an appearance on The Tomorrow Show where he argued his views on federal income tax. This appearance was followed six days later by his being charged for willful failure to file tax returns, for which he was convicted. During the 1980’s and 90’s additional convictions were obtained and upheld, proving that what Schiff is seeking to do will not be done easily.

In February, 2006, at the age of 78 years, Schiff was sentenced to 12 years, 7 months in prison and was ordered to pay over $4.2 million in restitution to the IRS. He was also sentenced to an additional 12 months for contempt of court.

About the author

Barbara is a school psychologist, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using “alternative” treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all things natural.
 

March 19, 2008

Outrage of the Day: Protest the MOTHERS Act

If you need an explanation of why antidepressants aren’t good for fetuses (let alone adults and teens), I don’t know what to say. Read the article, sign the petition, contact your representatives. Psychotropic drugs–> mind control. Herbs, diet, and exercise–> things Big Pharma can’t profit from. We must be the change! Social change can come from good health and good nutrition. Don’t make yourself a hostage to Big Pharma!

NaturalNews.com printable article

Originally published March 6 2008

MOTHERS Act Seeks to Drug Expectant Mothers with Antidepressants to “Treat” Postpartum Depression

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) A new law being considered in the U.S. Congress would attempt to prevent postpartum depression in new moms by drugging them with SSRI antidepressant drugs while they’re still pregnant. This legislation is being aggressively pushed by pro-pharma front groups in an effort to expand the customer base for SSRI drugs by targeting pregnant women as new “customers” for the chemicals. It’s an example of the latest insanity from Big Pharma, whose drugs are already killing over 100,000 Americans each year while inciting violence and suicides in teens. Every single shooting massacre we’ve seen in the last ten years has been carried out by a person taking SSRI antidepressant drugs. The mainstream media pays no attention to this link, and the FDA ignores the reports in order to keep these drugs on the market.

SSRI drugs have never been approved for use on newborns, yet this new MOTHERS Act will effectively drug unborn babies and newborns with drugs like Prozac. This will certainly have an impact on their developing brains, and the bulk of the research available today shows that the impact will be negative. Will these children be more prone to violent thoughts and behavior? Will they contemplate suicide at younger ages? And what will be the impact of the drugs on the mother?

For one mother who was drugged with antidepressants — Amy Philo — the drugs caused her to experience thoughts of violence against her own newborn babies. After taking antidepressants prescribed by her doctor, she had visions of killing them (and herself). Upon returning to her doctor, Amy was told to increase the dosage! Eventually, Amy realized the drugs were wrecking her own brain chemistry, and she stopped taking the pills entirely, causing the thoughts of violence and suicide to subside.

Now, Amy is leading a campaign to stop the MOTHERS Act. She’s posted a heart-wrenching 5-minute video on YouTube that tells her story (with pictures of her babies, too!):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQW23XCmOCw

A local news station also covered her story, and that report can be viewed here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W4B8I_8wz6I

An article explaining more about the effort to stop the MOTHERS Act is found here:
http://birthfriend.wordpress.com/2008/0…

As you’ll learn from these videos and articles, the real purpose of the MOTHERS Act is to drug the mothers. Thus, it should really be called the Drug the MOTHERS Act! It’s being pushed by drug companies, of course, and backed by psychiatrists and corrupt government officials who have close ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The whole point of this act is not to protect mothers from depression, but to recruit mothers as patients and, by doing so, also expose newborns to psychiatric drugs that will destroy their normal brain function and turn them into lifelong customers requiring ongoing chemical treatment.

We must stop the MOTHERS Act. It is a dangerous law created for marketing purposes, not medical purposes. Treating pregnant women with antidepressant drugs (and thereby exposing their unborn babies to those drugs) is one of the most outrageous pro-pharma ideas to come along in many years. It’s not enough to drug the teenagers and children with these dangerous pharmaceuticals, now Big Pharma wants to start drugging children before they’re even born!

If this law is passed and implemented, I fear for the future of our babies. Imbalanced by these dangerous pharmaceuticals, mothers are likely to commit acts of extreme violence against their children. Then they will be thrown into the prison system, of course, where they will be drugged with yet more psychiatric drugs (generating yet more profits for Big Pharma). Their children, meanwhile, will be taken away by Child Protective Services and treated with psychiatric drugs under the care of a “psychiatric doctors” who, of course, will poison that child’s brain with a never-ending regimen of Big Pharma’s chemicals. Do you see the scam here? By “screening” pregnant women for depression, they can create TWO new patients for psychiatric drugs, even though a family is destroyed in the process.

This is precisely the aim of Big Pharma: Sell more drugs, create more markets, and earn more profits regardless of the cost in human suffering. Big Pharma has zero concern for families and zero compassion for human beings. It only seeks to poison the minds of the people through television advertising and psychiatric drugs, all while maximizing its own profits.

What you can do to stop the MOTHERS Act

We must work together to stop this dangerous act that would recruit mothers to be treated with dangerous psychiatric drugs (while exposing their unborn babies to those same drugs).

Sign the petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-t…

Also, see Unite For Life at:
http://uniteforlife.org/MOTHERSact.htm#…

By the way, this is not an article about pro-life vs. pro-choice on the issue of unborn babies, and I use the term “unborn babies” in a purely humanitarian sense, because a child that’s in the womb and about to be born is clearly an “unborn baby” whose health must be protected. I am opposed to the drugging of mothers during any trimester. Pharmaceuticals simply do not belong in expectant mothers. Those pharmaceuticals pass straight through to the blood of the fetus. Regardless of whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice on the issue of abortion, I hope you agree that pregnant women should not be drugged with antidepressants!

Press release from UNITE / CHAADA

UNITE / CHAADA / ICFDA / COPES Foundation Objection to the Proposed MOTHERS Act – Bill before Senate Puts Young Children and Mothers in Serious Danger

To the HELP Committee of the United States Senate:

For years, the March of Dimes has warned not to use meds while pregnant. Why now encourage mothers to take drugs?

Please register this extreme objection to the proposed MOTHERS Act (S. 1375) which is now before you in committee. It is my earnest hope that you will immediately defeat this bill in committee. The bill has been brought to you under the guise of ensuring safety or support for new mothers; however, nothing could be further from the truth.

The bill was originally proposed in response to the death by suicide of Melanie Stokes, a pharmaceutical rep. who took her own life by leaping from a balcony several stories off of the ground. Contrary to popular understanding it was not post-partum depression that killed Melanie, but the numerous antidepressant drugs she was taking, which the FDA confirmed double the suicide risk.

Nobody is suggesting that new moms do not ever experience mood swings, depression, or even psychotic episodes. The more important issue is what the effect of this bill will be and why nobody is addressing potential methods of prevention. Everyone knows how many young moms experience gestational diabetes, but who is addressing the even higher rate of gestational hypoglycemia, which often initially manifests as depression? This is a physical condition that is treated with diet and is exacerbated by antidepressants (which list hypoglycemia as a side effect).

To simply screen women for post-partum mood disorders and ensure that they get “treatment,” we would be setting families up for the expectation of tragedy and increasing the chances of that actually happening when we refer them to medical “professionals” who are oblivious to the negative mind-altering effects of psychiatric drugs. A popular opinion among medical caregivers these days is that “post-partum mood disorders” must be a sign of an underlying biochemical imbalance and would be corrected with drugs.

Current drugs used on post-partum women include SSRIs, atypical antidepressants, and even antipsychotic drugs. These pose a significant risk to the immediate safety and health of women as well as their children and families. SSRIs carry a black box warning for suicide and the most popular one, Effexor (the same medication Andrea Yates was taking when she drowned her 5 children), has the words “homicidal ideation” listed as a side effect. Nearly every recent case of infanticide which has made news can be clearly linked back to a psychiatric drug. These drugs endanger babies and mothers.

Additionally, the drugs can be extremely addictive and also pose a risk to nurslings or babies exposed in subsequent pregnancies. Some babies have died from SIDS linked to exposure from pregnancy or nursing; others have experienced coma, seizures, GI bleeding, heart defects, lung problems, and many babies died before reaching full term or soon after birth.

The bill does not address the fact that studies show that biological agents (antidepressants for example) cited in the bill and already prescribed to pregnant women can cause congenital heart birth defects where children have had to undergo open-heart surgeries to correct this. Also, some babies are being born with organs outside their bodies, requiring immediate surgery.

In closing I want to re-emphasize the total lack of any real answer to post-partum depression posed by this bill. If we can prevent post-partum depression or support moms through it, or offer proven SAFE and EFFECTIVE natural alternatives to dangerous drugs, then we should. However we should never, ever become party to a pharmaceutical campaign to push drugs on the public. We will set ourselves up for disaster if we allow an invasion into the privacy of every family in the country and suggest to our most vulnerable citizens that they might be mentally ill.

We must do everything in our power to protect innocent children, and giving their mothers addictive drugs which pose a significant risk of causing suicide and violence does not protect anyone. It does cause the child to become addicted while still in the womb and sets up drug dependence which can be lifelong.

We still have no idea what effect most drugs have on developing brains. It might take decades for the impact on the developing brain to become apparent.

For information on the research pertaining to the risks of antidepressants and other treatments for new moms and their babies, details about the Melanie Stokes case (or you can read the letter by Dr. Ann Blake Tracy at http://uniteforlife.org/MOTHERSact.htm#…), as well as information on prevention strategies and safe, effective treatments for post-partum mood disorders, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Amy Philo
Founder, www.uniteforlife.org
Co-Founder, www.chaada.org

Camille Milke
Founder, www.copesfoundation.com
New Mexico State Director of the ICFDA http://www.drugawareness.org/home.html
Mother of a victim of psychiatric drug-induced suicide and grandmother to a now motherless child

Dr. Ann Blake Tracy
Executive Director of the ICFDA
http://www.drugawareness.org/home.html
Author of Prozac: Pancaea or Pandora? Our Serotonin Nightmare

March 15, 2008

Why We Can’t Impeach Bush and Cheney

They didn’t have a sex scandal.

Lying about weapons of mass destruction, wiretapping citizens, and torturing–waterboarding–detainees is not enough.

We need to find that they hired a prostitute–that’ll get them out of office.

We must pray for our moral development.

Vote Ron Paul–the candidate who can’t be bought.

March 12, 2008

Genetically Modified Foods and Crops–Good for Monsanto, Bad for the Entire World

It really is that dramatic. Corporate accountability NOW!

GM foods, untested and likely harmful, brought to you by the same lovely people who put hormones in your milk and brought you deadly aspartame.

Food ain’t what it used to be. Go organic and preserve your health, save the environment, and support SMALL, independent farmers–not BIG agribusiness:

Get educated. Spread the word. Change your community. Support small farmers and eat organic. Eat more unprocessed foods. GM foods aren’t labelled, but f it has something you can’t pronounce or if it’s something you have to look up in an encyclopedia, it doesn’t belong in YOUR body. Your health is more important than Monsanto’s bottom line. Mass consumer boycotting CAN make a difference.

—-

from news with views:

 

AN FDA-CREATED HEALTH CRISIS CIRCLES THE GLOBE
PART 1 of 2

 

 

 

By Jeffrey Smith
October 21, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Government officials around the globe have been coerced, infiltrated, and paid off by the agricultural biotech giants. In Indonesia, Monsanto gave bribes and questionable payments to at least 140 officials, attempting to get their genetically modified (GM) cotton approved.[1] In India, one official tampered with the report on Bt cotton to increase the yield figures to favor Monsanto.[2] In Mexico, a senior government official allegedly threatened a University of California professor, implying “We know where your children go to school,” trying to get him not to publish incriminating evidence that would delay GM approvals.[3] While most industry manipulation and political collusion is more subtle, none was more significant than that found at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The FDA’s “non-regulation” of GM foods

Genetically modified crops are the result of a technology developed in the 1970s that allow genes from one species to be forced into the DNA of unrelated species. The inserted genes produce proteins that confer traits in the new plant, such as herbicide tolerance or pesticide production. The process of creating the GM crop can produce all sorts of side effects, and the plants contain proteins that have never before been in the food supply. In the US, new types of food substances are normally classified as food additives, which must undergo extensive testing, including long-term animal feeding studies.[4] If approved, the label of food products containing the additive must list it as an ingredient.

There is an exception, however, for substances that are deemed “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS). GRAS status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing. According to US law, to be considered GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe. GM foods had neither. Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move that some experts contend was illegal, in 1992 the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labels whatsoever. A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency.

Such a lenient approach to GM crops was largely the result of Monsanto’s legendary influence over the US government. According to the New York Times, “What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto and, by extension, the biotechnology industry got. . . . When the company abruptly decided that it needed to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the White House quickly ushered through an unusually generous policy of self-policing.” According to Dr. Henry Miller, who had a leading role in biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994, “In this area, the U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do.”

Following Monsanto’s lead, in 1992 the Council on Competitiveness chaired by Vice President Dan Quayle identified GM crops as an industry that could increase US exports. On May 26, Quayle announced “reforms” to “speed up and simplify the process of bringing” GM products to market without “being hampered by unnecessary regulation.”[5] Three days later, the FDA policy on non-regulation was unveiled.

The person who oversaw its development was the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Michael Taylor, whose position had been created especially for him in 1991. Prior to that, Taylor was an outside attorney for both Monsanto and the Food Biotechnology Council. After working at the FDA, he became Monsanto’s vice president.

Covering up health dangers

The policy he oversaw needed to create the impression that unintended effects from GM crops were not an issue. Otherwise their GRAS status would be undermined. But internal memos made public from a lawsuit showed that the overwhelming consensus among the agency scientists was that GM crops can have unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. Various departments and experts spelled these out in detail, listing allergies, toxins, nutritional effects, and new diseases as potential problems. They had urged superiors to require long-term safety studies.[6] In spite of the warnings, according to public interest attorney Steven Druker who studied the FDA’s internal files, “References to the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists).”[7]

FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl wrote about the policy, “What has happened to the scientific elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general, ‘What do I have to do to avoid trouble’-type document. . . . It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects.”[8]

The FDA scientists’ concerns were not only ignored, their very existence was denied. Consider the private memo summarizing opinions at the FDA, which stated, “The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.”[9] Contrast that with the official policy statement: “The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.”[10] On the basis of this manufactured and false notion of no meaningful differences, the FDA does not require GM food safety testing.

To further justify their lack of oversight, they claimed that GM crops were “substantially equivalent” to their natural counterparts. But this concept does not hold up to scrutiny. The Royal Society of Canada described substantial equivalence as “scientifically unjustifiable and inconsistent with precautionary regulation of the technology.” In sharp contrast to the FDA’s position, the Royal Society of Canada said that “the default prediction” for GM crops would include “a range of collateral changes in expression of other genes, changes in the pattern of proteins produced and/or changes in metabolic activities.”[11]

Fake safety assessments

Biotech companies do participate in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA, but it is derided by critics as a meaningless exercise. Companies can submit whatever information they choose, and the FDA does not conduct or commission any studies of their own. Former EPA scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, who analyzed FDA review records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, states flatly, “It is clear that FDA’s current voluntary notification process (even if made mandatory) is not up to the task of ensuring the safety of future GE [genetically engineered] crops.” He says, “The FDA consultation process does not allow the agency to require submission of data, misses obvious errors in company-submitted data summaries, provides insufficient testing guidance, and does not require sufficiently detailed data to enable the FDA to assure that GE crops are safe to eat.”[12] Similarly, a Friends of the Earth review of company and FDA documents concluded:

If industry chooses to submit faulty, unpublishable studies, it does so without consequence. If it should respond to an agency request with deficient data, it does so without reprimand or follow-up. . . . If a company finds it disadvantageous to characterize its product, then its properties remain uncertain or unknown. If a corporation chooses to ignore scientifically sound testing standards . . . then faulty tests are conducted instead, and the results are considered legitimate. In the area of genetically engineered food regulation, the ‘competent’ agencies rarely if ever (know how to) conduct independent research to verify or supplement industry findings.”[13]

At the end of the consultation, the FDA doesn’t actually approve the crops. Rather, they issue a letter including a statement such as the following:

Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA. . . . As you are aware, it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe, wholesome and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.”[14]

The National Academy of Sciences and even the pro-GM Royal Society of London[15] describe the US system as inadequate and flawed. The editor of the prestigious journal Lancet said, “It is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992. . . . The policy is that genetically modified crops will receive the same consideration for potential health risks as any other new crop plant. This stance is taken despite good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist. . . . Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”[16]

Promoting and regulating don’t mix

The FDA and other regulatory agencies are officially charged with both regulating biotech products and promoting them—a clear conflict. Suzanne Wuerthele, a US EPA toxicologist, says, “This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.”

Canadian regulators are similarly conflicted. The Royal Society of Canada reported that, “In meetings with senior managers from the various Canadian regulatory departments . . . their responses uniformly stressed the importance of maintaining a favorable climate for the biotechnology industry to develop new products and submit them for approval on the Canadian market. . . . The conflict of interest involved in both promoting and regulating an industry or technology . . . is also a factor in the issue of maintaining the transparency, and therefore the scientific integrity, of the regulatory process. In effect, the public interest in a regulatory system that is ‘science based’—that meets scientific standards of objectivity, a major aspect of which is full openness to scientific peer review—is significantly compromised when that openness is negotiated away by regulators in exchange for cordial and supportive relationships with the industries being regulated.”[17]

The conflict of interest among scientists at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GMO Panel is quite explicit. According to Friends of the Earth, “One member has direct financial links with the biotech industry and others have indirect links, such as close involvement with major conferences organized by the biotech industry. Two members have even appeared in promotional videos produced by the biotech industry. . . . Several members of the Panel, including the chair Professor Kuiper, have been involved with the EU-funded ENTRANSFOOD project. The aim of this project was to agree [to] safety assessment, risk management and risk communication procedures that would ‘facilitate market introduction of GMOs in Europe, and therefore bring the European industry in a competitive position.’ Professor Kuiper, who coordinated the ENTRANSFOOD project, sat on a working group that also included staff from Monsanto, Bayer CropScience and Syngenta.” The report concludes that EFSA is “being used to create a false impression of scientific agreement when the real situation is one of intense and continuing debate and uncertainty.”[18] This parallels the deceptive façade at the FDA.

 

The pro-GM European Commission repeats the same ruse. According to leaked documents obtained by Friends of the Earth, while they privately appreciate “the uncertainties and gaps in knowledge that exist in relation to the safety of GM crops . . . the Commission normally keeps this uncertainty concealed from the public whilst presenting its decisions about the safety of GM crops and foods as being certain and scientifically based.” Further, in private “they frequently criticize the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and its assessments of the safety of GM foods and crops, even though the Commission relies on these evaluations to make recommendations to member states. . . [and] to justify its decisions to approve new GM foods.”[19] For example, the Commission privately condemned the submission information for one crop as “mixed, scarce, delivered consecutively all over years, and not convincing.” They said there is “No sufficient experimental evidence to assess the safety.”[20]

AN FDA-CREATED HEALTH CRISIS CIRCLES THE GLOBE
PART 2 of 2

 

 

 

By Jeffrey Smith
October 21, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Evaluations miss most health problems

Although the body of safety studies on GM foods is quite small, it has verified the concerns expressed by FDA scientists and others.

  • The gene inserted into plant DNA may produce a protein that is inherently unhealthy.

  • The inserted gene has been found to transfer into human gut bacteria and may even end up in human cellular DNA, where it might produce its protein over the long-term.

  • Toxic substances in GM animal feed might bioaccumulate into milk and meat products.

  • Farmer and medical reports link GM feed to thousands of sick, sterile, and dead animals.

But there is not a single government safety assessment program in the world that is competent to even identify most of these potential health problems, let alone protect its citizens from the effects.[21]

A review of approved GM crops in Canada by professor E. Ann Clark, for example, reveals that 70% (28 of 40) “of the currently available GM crops . . . have not been subjected to any actual lab or animal toxicity testing, either as refined oils for direct human consumption or indirectly as feedstuffs for livestock. The same finding pertains to all three GM tomato Decisions, the only GM flax, and to five GM corn crops.” In the remaining 30% (12) of the other crops tested, animals were not fed the whole GM feed. They were given just the isolated GM protein that the plant was engineered to produce. But even this protein was not extracted from the actual GM plant. Rather, it was manufactured in genetically engineered bacteria. This method of testing would never identify problems associated with collateral damage to GM plant DNA, unpredicted changes in the GM protein, transfer of genes to bacteria or human cells, excessive herbicide residues, or accumulation of toxins in the food chain, among others. Clark asks, “Where are the trials showing lack of harm to fed livestock, or that meat and milk from livestock fed on GM feedstuffs are safe?”[22]

Epidemiologist and GM safety expert Judy Carman shows that assessments by Food Safety Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) similarly overlook serious potential problems, including cancer, birth defects, or long-term effects of nutritional deficiencies.[23]

A review of twelve reports covering twenty-eight GM crops – four soy, three corn, ten potatoes, eight canola, one sugar beet and two cotton – revealed no feeding trials on people. In addition, one of the GM corn varieties had gone untested on animals. Some seventeen foods involved testing with only a single oral gavage (a type of forced-feeding), with observation for seven to fourteen days, and only of the substance that had been genetically engineered to appear [the GM protein], not the whole food. Such testing assumes that the only new substance that will appear in the food is the one genetically engineered to appear, that the GM plant-produced substance will act in the same manner as the tested substance that was obtained from another source [GM bacteria], and that the substance will create disease within a few days. All are untested hypotheses and make a mockery of GM proponents’ claims that the risk assessment of GM foods is based on sound science. Furthermore, where the whole food was given to animals to eat, sample sizes were often very low – for example, five to six cows per group for Roundup Ready soy – and they were fed for only four weeks.”[24]

Hidden information, lack of standards, and breaking laws

Companies claim that their submissions to government regulators are “confidential business information” so they are kept secret. Some industry studies that have been forced into the public domain through Freedom of Information requests or lawsuits have been appalling in design and execution. This is due in part to the lack of meaningful and consistent standards required for assessments. Gurian-Sherman says of the FDA’s voluntary consultation, “Some submissions are hundreds of pages long while others are only 10 or 20.”[25] A Friends of the Earth report on US regulation and corporate testing practices states, “Without standardization, companies can and do design test procedures to get the results they want.” [26]Regulators also reference international standards as it suits them. According to the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, for example, FSANZ “relaxed adherence to international standards for safety testing when that better suited the Applicant’s submitted work, and imposed international standards whenever that was a lower standard than we recommended.”[27]

Regulators also break laws. The declaration of GRAS status by the FDA deviated from the Food and Cosmetic Act and years of legal precedent. In Europe, the law requires that when EFSA and member states have different opinions, they “are obliged to co-operate with a view to either resolving the divergence or preparing a joint document clarifying the contentious scientific issues and identifying the relevant uncertainties in the data.”[28] According to FOE, in the case of all GM crop reviews, none of these legal obligations were followed.[29]

Humans as guinea pigs

Since GM foods are not properly tested before they enter the market, consumers are the guinea pigs. But this doesn’t even qualify as an experiment. There are no controls and no monitoring. Without post-marketing surveillance, the chances of tracing health problems to GM food are low. The incidence of a disease would have to increase dramatically before it was noticed, meaning that millions may have to get sick before a change is investigated. Tracking the impact of GM foods is even more difficult in North America, where the foods are not labeled. Regulators at Health Canada announced in 2002 that they would monitor Canadians for health problems from eating GM foods. A spokesperson said, “I think it’s just prudent and what the public expects, that we will keep a careful eye on the health of Canadians.” But according to CBC TV news, Health Canada “abandoned that research less than a year later saying it was ‘too difficult to put an effective surveillance system in place.’” The news anchor added, “So at this point, there is little research into the health effects of genetically modified food. So will we ever know for sure if it’s safe?”[30]

Not with the biotech companies in charge. Consider the following statement in a report submitted to county officials in California by pro-GM members of a task force. “[It is] generally agreed that long-term monitoring of the human health risks of GM food through epidemiological studies is not necessary because there is no scientific evidence suggesting any long-term harm from these foods.”[31] Note the circular logic: Because no long-term epidemiological studies are in place, we have no evidence showing long-term harm. And since we don’t have any evidence of long-term harm, we don’t need studies to look for it.

What are these people thinking? Insight into the pro-GM mindset was provided by Dan Glickman, the US Secretary of Agriculture under President Clinton.

What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. Without thinking, we had basically taken this issue as a trade issue and they, whoever ‘they’ were, wanted to keep our product out of their market. And they were foolish, or stupid, and didn’t have an effective regulatory system. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.”[32]

Fortunately, not everyone feels that questioning GM foods is disloyal. On the contrary, millions of people around the world are unwilling to participate in this uncontrolled experiment. They refuse to eat GM foods. Manufacturers in Europe and Japan have committed to avoid using GM ingredients. And the US natural foods industry, not waiting for the government to test or label GMOs, is now engaged in removing all remaining GM ingredients from their sector using a third party verification system. The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America will circulate non-GMO shopping guides in stores nationwide so that consumers have clear, healthy non-GMO choices. With no governmental regulation of biotech corporations, it is left to consumers to protect themselves.

To learn how to opt-out of the eating GMOs and to find non-GM alternative brands, click here.

New Book Genetic Roulette Documents Serious Health Dangers

The sourcebook for the Campaign is the newly released Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. With input from more than 30 scientists over two years, it presents 65 health risks of GM foods and why current safety assessments are not competent to protect us from most of them. The book documents lab animals with damage to virtually every system and organ studied; thousands of sick, sterile, or dead livestock; and people around the world who have traced toxic or allergic reactions to eating GM products, breathing GM pollen, or touching GM crops at harvest. It also exposes many incorrect assumptions that were used to support GM approvals. Organizations worldwide are presenting the book to policy makers as evidence that GM foods are unsafe and need to be removed immediately.

But we don’t need to wait for governments to step in. We can make healthier choices for ourselves, our families, and our schools now, and together we can inspire the tipping point for healthier, non-GM eating in America. We believe that this can be achieved within the next 24 months.

The GM crops sold in the US include soy (including soy lecithin used in chocolate and thousands of other products as an emulsifier), corn (including high fructose corn syrup), cottonseed and canola (both used in vegetable oil), Hawaiian papaya, and a small amount of zucchini and crook-neck squash. There is also alfalfa for cattle (the sale of which was halted by a federal judge on March 13, 2007), GM additives such as aspartame, and milk from cows treated with GM bovine growth hormone.

There is not yet any GM popcorn, white corn or blue corn. And the industry is threatening to introduce GM sugar from sugar beets next year. To learn more, for online shopping guides and to find out how to get involved, click here.

The Institute for Responsible Technology’s plans to achieve the tipping point on GMOs through consumer education has inspired the Mercola.com Foundation to match donations and membership fees to the Institute at this time. Please help end the genetic engineering of our food supply by contributing to the implementation of this important project. Click here.

 

Footnotes:

1,Monsanto Bribery Charges in Indonesia by DoJ and USSEC,” Third World Network, Malaysia, Jan 27, 2005,
2,Greenpeace exposes Government-Monsanto nexus to cheat Indian farmers: calls on GEAC to revoke BT cotton permission,” Press release, March 3, 2005,
3, Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, (Iowa: Yes! Books, 2003), 224.
4, See Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
5, Dan Quayle, “Speech in the Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive Office Building,” May 26, 1992
6, See Smith, Seeds of Deception; and for copies of FDA memos, see The Alliance for Bio-Integrity,
7, Steven M. Druker, “How the US Food and Drug Administration approved genetically engineered foods despite the deaths one had caused and the warnings of its own scientists about their unique risks,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity.
8, Louis J. Pribyl, “Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92,” March 6, 1992
9, Linda Kahl, Memo to James Maryanski about Federal Register Document “Statement of Policy: Foods from Genetically Modified Plants,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity(January 8, 1992)
10, “Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” Federal Register 57, no. 104 (May 29, 1992): 22991.
11, “Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada; An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by The Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada” The Royal Society of Canada, January 2001.
12, Doug Gurian-Sherman, “Holes in the Biotech Safety Net, FDA Policy Does Not Assure the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods,” Center for Science in the Public Interest,
13, Bill Freese, “The StarLink Affair, Submission by Friends of the Earth to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel considering Assessment of Additional Scientific Information Concerning StarLink Corn,” July 17-19, 2001.
14, FDA Letter, Letter from Alan M. Rulis, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA to Dr. Kent Croon, Regulatory Affairs Manager, Monsanto Company, Sept 25, 1996. See Letter for BNF No. 34
15, See for example, “Good Enough To Eat?” New Scientist (February 9, 2002), 7
16, “Health risks of genetically modified foods,” editorial, Lancet, 29 May 1999
17, “Elements of Precaution,” The Royal Society of Canada, January 2001.
18, Friends of the Earth Europe, “Throwing Caution to the Wind: A review of the European Food Safety Authority and its work on genetically modified foods and crops,” November 2004
19, Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace, “Hidden Uncertainties What the European Commission doesn’t want us to know about the risks of GMOs,” April 2006
20, European Communities submission to World Trade Organization dispute panel, 28 January 2005
21, Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007
22, E. Ann Clark, “Food Safety of GM Crops in Canada: toxicity and allergenicity,” GE Alert, 2000
23, FLRAG of the PHAA of behalf of the PHAA, “Comments to ANZFA about Applications A372, A375, A378 and A379.”
24, Judy Carman, “Is GM Food Safe to Eat?” in R. Hindmarsh, G. Lawrence, eds., Recoding Nature Critical Perspectives on Genetic Engineering (Sydney: UNSW Press, 2004): 82-93.
25, Doug Gurian-Sherman, “Holes in the Biotech Safety Net, FDA Policy Does Not Assure the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods,” Center for Science in the Public Interest
26, William Freese, “Genetically Engineered Crop Health Impacts Evaluation: A Critique of U.S. Regulation of Genetically Engineered Crops and Corporate Testing Practices, with a Case Study of Bt Corn,” Friends of the Earth U.S
27, M. Cretenet, J. Goven, J. A. Heinemann, B. Moore, and C. Rodriguez-Beltran, “Submission on the DAR for Application A549 Food Derived from High-Lysine Corn LY038: to permit the use in food of high-lysine corn, 2006
28, EU Regulation 178/2002 (Article 30)
29, Friends of the Earth Europe, “Throwing Caution to the Wind: A review of the European Food Safety Authority and its work on genetically modified foods and crops,” November 2004
30, “Genetically modified foods, who knows how safe they are?” CBC News and Current Affairs, September 25, 2006
31, Mike Zelina, et al., The Health Effects of Genetically Engineered Crops on San Luis Obispo County,” A Citizen Response to the SLO Health Commission GMO Task Force Report, 2006
32, Bill Lambrecht, Dinner at the New Gene Café, St. Martin’s Press, September 2001, pg 139

© 2007 Jeffrey M. Smith- All Rights Reserved

 

—————–

related information to convince you of how bad GMs are–labelling is required in Europe, but not the US (where 50% of corn TODAY is GM–wonder why? it’s an uncontrolled social experiment and it’s an effort by companies making GM foods to protect themselves by preventing liabilities to be traced back to them.)

————————-

 

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/AboutGMFoods/GMFoodsAtAGlance/index.cfm

Genetically Modified Ingredients Overview

Here is a summary of what crops, foods and food ingredients have been genetically modified as of July, 2007:

Currently Commercialized GM Crops in the U.S.:
(Number in parentheses represents the estimated percent that is genetically modified.)

Soy (89%)
Cotton (83%)
Canola (75%)
Corn (61%)
Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%)
Alfalfa, zucchini and yellow squash (small amount)
Tobacco (Quest® brand)

Other Sources of GMOs:

  • Dairy products from cows injected with rbGH.

  • Food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing agents, including the sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet®) and rennet used to make hard cheeses

  • Meat, eggs, and dairy products from animals that have eaten GM feed

  • Honey and bee pollen that may have GM sources of pollen

  • Contamination or pollination caused by GM seeds or pollen

Some of the Ingredients That May Be Genetically Modified:

Vegetable oil, vegetable fat and margarines (made with soy, corn, cottonseed, and/or canola)

Ingredients derived from soybeans: Soy flour, soy protein, soy isolates, soy isoflavones, soy lecithin, vegetable proteins, textured vegetable protein (TVP), tofu, tamari, tempeh, and soy protein supplements.

Ingredients derived from corn: Corn flour, corn gluten, corn masa, corn starch, corn syrup, cornmeal, and High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).

Some Food Additives May Also Be Derived From GM Sources:

The list may change as we encounter new information: ascorbic acid/ascorbate (Vitamin C), cellulose, citric acid, cobalamin (vitamin B12), cyclodextrin, cystein, dextrin, dextrose, diacetyl, fructose (especially crystalline fructose), glucose, glutamate, glutamic acid, gluten, glycerides (mono- and diglycerides), glycerol, glycerol, glycerine, glycine, hemicellulose, , hydrogenated starch hydrolates, hydrolyzed vegetable protein or starch, inositol, invert sugar or inverse syrup, (also may be listed as inversol or colorose), lactic acid, lactoflavin, lecithin, leucine, lysine, maltose, maltitol, maltodextrin, mannitol, methylcellulose, milo starch, modified food starch, monooleate, mono- and diglycerides, monosodium glutamate (MSG), oleic acid, phenylalanine, phytic acid, riboflavin (Vitamin B2) sorbitol, stearic acid, threonine, tocopherol (Vitamin E), trehalose, xanthan gum, and zein.

Some of the Foods That May Contain GM Ingredients:

Infant formula
Salad dressing
Bread
Cereal
Hamburgers and hotdogs
Margarine
Mayonnaise
Crackers
Cookies
Chocolate
Candy
Fried food
Chips
Veggie burgers
Meat substitutes
Ice cream
Frozen yogurt
Tofu
Tamari
Soy sauce
Soy cheese
Tomato sauce
Protein powder
Baking powder (sometimes contains corn starch)
Powdered/Confectioner’s sugar (often contains corn starch)
Confectioner’s glaze
Alcohol
Vanilla
Powdered sugar
Peanut butter
Enriched flour
Vanilla extract (sometimes contains corn syrup)
Pasta
Malt
White vinegar

Non-Food Items That May Contain GM Ingredients:

Cosmetics
Soaps
Detergents
Shampoo
Bubble bath

Sources for “Genetically Modified Ingredients Overview:

Natural Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, US Department of Agriculture: Acreage. Available at: http://www.thecampaign.org/Acre-06-30-2006.pdf (2006)

Cornell Cooperative Extension, GEO-PIE (Genetically Engineered Organisms Public Issues Education) Project. http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/crops/ingredients.html

Ruth Winter , A Consumer’s Dictionary of Food Additives: Descriptions in plain English of more than 12,000 ingredients both harmful and desirable found in foods, 6th ed. (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004).

Robert S. Igoe , The Dictionary of Food Ingredients, 2nd ed. (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989).

Research Triangle Institute, “Economic Characterization of the Dietary Supplement Industry” March 1999. Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~acrobat/ds-econ.pdf

Codex General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) Online Database of the World Health Organization(WHO) Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) of the United Nations and the reports of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Available at: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/gsfaonline/additives/index.html

The University of Maryland Medical Center database of supplements by name: http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsLookups/Supplements.html

Archives of the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/

Reports of the European Commission Scientific Committee for Food: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/reports_en.html

U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) PubMed Central (PMC): http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/

Also consulted the following industry sites:

http://www.corn.org/web/bioprod.htm
http://www.confectionerynews.com/news/ng.asp?n=70687-danisco-xylitol-sugar
http://www.grainprocessing.com/food/malinfo.html
http://www.cargillfoods.com/pdfs/sweeteners.pdf/ca198.pdf

 

NAU: The Truth is Hitting Critical Mass–Vote for a Candidate who will OPPOSE IT!

Ron Paul–the only candidate taking a stand on the looming North American Union (NAU). Learn more.

________

NaturalNews.com printable article

Originally published February 25 2008

The North American Union – You Could Be Voting Your Rights Away

by Barbara L. Minton (see all articles by this author)

(NaturalNews) One issue that is conspicuously absent from the rhetoric of the presidential candidates is the North American Union (NAU). The questions of immigration and border security are frequently raised and the candidates claim to realize the need for a clear immigration policy and effort to secure the borders of the United States. Yet when you begin to understand the purposes of the North American Union and the agenda of its proponents, you will understand why this will never happen. And you may also begin to see that you are being manipulated by the major candidates.

The NAU, a goal of the Council on Foreign Relations, follows a plan laid out by Robert Pastor. It is currently promoted by the Bush administration to expand the size and scope of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). Its goal is to effectively create a North American trading block by erasing the borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada resulting in free, unimpeded movement of people and goods across those borders. It is also a political union that would integrate the governments of the three countries. And clearly it is an economic union with the intention of equalizing the wages and standard of living of all but the ruling elitists.

Sounds a lot like the European Union, doesn’t it? There are even plans for a common currency called the amero. But there is one glaring difference. The people of the United States have never been asked if they want to become integrated with Mexico and Canada, two countries of enormously different laws, culture, economic systems, standards of living, and acceptance of the role of government.

The European Union followed years of open debate at all levels, intense coverage of the ramifications and implications in major media, and a vote of the people.

History and Origins of NAU

President Bush signed the Declaration of Quebec City in April, 2001, making a “commitment to hemispheric integration”. After Hugo Chavez of Venezuela voiced opposition, these plans were scaled back to include only North America.

The Independent Task Force on North America, a project organized by the Council on Foreign Relations and co-chaired by Robert Pastor, was launched in October, 2004. This group published two documents: Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010 (March, 2005), and its final report Building a North American Community (May, 2005). This Task Force had as its central recommendation the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community. The boundaries of this community would be defined by a common external tariff and outer security perimeter. Also called for is the replacing of all three branches of the US government with a North American version effectively ending U.S. representative government.

In March 2005, at their summit meeting in Waco, Texas; Bush, President Fox of Mexico and Prime Minister Martin of Canada issued a joint statement announcing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The creation of this agreement was never submitted to Congress for discussion or decision. The U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division implementing working groups to advance a North American Union agenda. This agenda included movement of goods, finances, e-commerce, environment, business facilitation, food and agriculture, and health. The result is an action agreement to be implemented immediately and directly by regulations, without any envisioned Congressional debate or oversight.

In September 2006, Rep. Virgil Goode (Va), Rep. Ron Paul (Tx), Rep. Walter Jones (NC), and Rep. Tom Tancredo (Co) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 487, expressing concerns about the NAU. Resolution was passed by the House of Representatives with the Senate concurring that the U.S. should not enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; the U.S. should not engage in the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway System, and the President should indicate strong opposition to these or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the U.S.

In October 2006, Congressman Paul formally denounced the formation of the SPP and the plans for the North American Union and the SPP as “an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments”. Paul says that the real issue raised by the SPP is nation sovereignty. “Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution – which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.” In this speech Paul predicts that the NAU will become a sleeper issue for the 2008 election, stating that “any movement toward a NAU diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live.”

A report authored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIC) was presented to all three governments in September 2007. CSIC is a political influence group of internationalists who have crafted many of the government policies of the past several years. At the core of the report is its plan for America’s future, North American “economic integration” and “labor mobility”. The plan for government integration is also revealed as the report states: “to remain competitive in the global economy, policymakers must devise forward-looking, collaborative policies that integrate governments”. Also called for is the adoption of “unified North American regulatory standards”.

Features of NAU:

The Trans-Texas Corridor and the NAFTA Superhighway

The NAFTA Superhighway and its entry point at the trans-Texas corridor were first proposed in 2002. It consists of a 1,200 foot wide highway that also carries utilities such as electricity, petroleum and water as well as railway tracks and fiber-optic cables. When completed, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the U.S. through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union. With Mexican drivers and without the involvement of the teamsters union, the Mexican trucks will drive straight into the heart of the US, crossing the border in fast lanes, and checked only by a new electronic system. The first customs stop will be the new Smart Port complex in Kansas City. From there the trucks may disperse into the U.S. or continue northward into Canada, again crossing the border with only an electronic checkpoint.

Millions of acres of land for the completion of this highway will be taken under the new laws of eminent domain.

A government pilot program has allowed Mexican trucking companies to make deliveries anywhere in the U.S. since April 2007, even before the completion of the superhighway. There is no limit on the number of trucks the 100 companies in the pilot program can operate. Eventually all Mexican trucking companies are to be granted the same access. These Mexican drivers are paid substantially less that their U.S. counterparts, their operations are not regulated, and they are driving on U.S. taxpayer subsidized roads.

The Amero

This is the name of what may be the North American Union’s counterpart to the euro. It was first proposed by Canadian economist Herbert G. Grubel in his book The Case for the Amero published in 1999, the same year the euro became currency. Robert Pastor supported Grubel’s idea in his book Toward A North American Community published in 2001. If implemented, the Amero’s debut may come later in the progression of the NAU, with exchange rates that depend on market forces at the time, after the economies of the three countries have been integrated and homogenized.

The North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza

Finalized and released at the September 2007 summit of the SPP, this plan calls for a “comprehensive coordinated North American approach during outbreaks of influenza.” It gives authority to international officials “beyond the health sector to include a coordinated approach to critical infrastructure protection,” including “border and transportation issues”.

It sets up a “senior level Coordinating Body to facilitate the effective planning and preparedness within North America for a possible outbreak of avian and/or human influenza pandemic under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).” The SPP is to act as “decision-makers.” “The chair of the SPP Coordinating Body will rotate between each national authority on a yearly basis” resulting in foreign decision making for Americans in two out of every three years.

The plan suggests that these powers will include “the use of antivirals and vaccines… social distancing measures, including school closures and the prohibition of community gatherings, isolation and quarantine.”

Council on Foreign Relations

Since its inception in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has attracted men and women of power and influence. Its stated intentions are to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. The ultimate, declared aim of the CFR is to create a one-world government, and to make the U.S. a part of it. The stated intentions of the CFR are clearly treasonous to the U.S. Constitution.

The influence of the CFR is wide. Not only does it have members in the U.S. government, but its influence has also spread to other vital areas of American life. Members have run, or are running, NBC and CBS, the New York Times, and The Washington Post, and many other important newspapers. The leaders of Time, Newsweek, Fortune, Business Week, and numerous other publications are CFR members.

The organization’s members also dominate the political world. U.S. presidents since Franklin Roosevelt have been CFR members with the exception of Ronald Reagan. The organization’s members also dominate
the academic world, top corporations, unions and military. They are on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rudy Guiliani are all either members of the CFR or have close ties with it. Mike Huckabee is reportedly not a member, but following his interaction with the group in September, he has become a favored candidate in the eyes of the media. Republican Ron Paul is the only remaining significant candidate who does not have ties with the CFR. He has has voiced opposition to the NAU for several years.

Where Do You Stand on This Issue?

There is an ideological battle being waged between the forces supporting globalism and the forces supporting national sovereignty. If you plan to participate in the 2008 presidential election, you will need to answer these questions for yourself: Do you believe in the timelessness of the Constitution, or do you believe that the Constitution has served its usefulness and it’s time for another model for government? Are you in favor of international government and more regulation by the United Nations, or do you favor continuation of the institutions that have served the U.S. in the past? Do you want big government with its attendant costs and regulations, or do you favor small government that allows for self direction?

About the author

Barbara Minton is a school psychologist by trade, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using “alternative” treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all things natural.

http://www.naturalnews.com/z022707.html

How do you spell “Recession”? D-I-S-C-O-N-T-E-N-T

and P-O-V-E-R-T-Y.

from truthout.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013108B.shtml

America’s Middle Classes Are No Longer Coping
By Robert Reich
The Financial Times

Tuesday 29 January 2008

It is an election year and the US economy is in peril of falling into recession or worse. Not surprisingly, Washington is abuzz with plans to prevent it. President George W. Bush has proposed a $150bn stimulus package and all the main presidential candidates are offering similar measures, including middle-class tax cuts and increased spending on infrastructure.

Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve have reduced interest rates another three-quarters of a point. But none of these fixes will help much because they do not deal with the underlying anxieties now gripping American voters. The problem lies deeper than the current slowdown and transcends the business cycle.

The fact is, middle-class families have exhausted the coping mechanisms they have used for more than three decades to get by on median wages that are barely higher than they were in 1970, adjusted for inflation. Male wages today are in fact lower than they were then: the income of a young man in his 30s is now 12 per cent below that of a man his age three decades ago. Yet for years now, America’s middle class has lived beyond its pay cheque. Middle-class lifestyles have flourished even though median wages have barely budged. That is ending and Americans are beginning to feel the consequences.

The first coping mechanism was moving more women into paid work. The percentage of American working mothers with school-age children has almost doubled since 1970 – from 38 per cent to close to 70 per cent. Some parents are now even doing 24-hour shifts, one on child duty while the other works. These families are known as Dins: double income, no sex.

But we reached the limit to how many mothers could maintain paying jobs. What to do? We turned to a second coping mechanism. When families could not paddle any harder, they started paddling longer. The typical American now works two weeks more each year than 30 years ago. Compared with any other advanced nation we are veritable workaholics, putting in 350 more hours a year than the average European, more even than the notoriously industrious Japanese.

But there is also a limit to how long we can work. As the tide of economic necessity continued to rise, we turned to the third coping mechanism. We began to borrow, big time. With housing prices rising briskly through the 1990s and even faster between 2002 and 2006, we turned our homes into piggy banks through home equity loans. Americans got nearly $250bn worth of home equity every quarter in second mortgages and refinancings. That is nearly 10 per cent of disposable income. With credit cards raining down like manna, we bought plasma television sets, new appliances, vacations.

With dollars artificially high because foreigners continued to hold them even as the nation sank deeper into debt, we summoned inexpensive goods and services from the rest of the world.

But this final coping mechanism can no longer keep us going, either. The era of easy money is over. With the bursting of the housing bubble, home equity is drying up. As Moody’s reported recently, defaults on home equity loans have surged to the highest level this decade. Car and credit card debt is next. Personal bankruptcies rose 48 per cent in first half of 2007, probably even more in the second half, which means a wave of defaults on consumer loans. Meanwhile, as foreigners begin shifting out of dollars, we will no longer have access to cheap foreign goods and services.

In short, the anxiety gripping the middle class is not simply a product of the current economic slowdown. The underlying problem began around 1970. Any presidential candidate seeking to address it will have to think bigger than bailing out lenders and borrowers, or stimulating the economy with tax cuts and spending increases.

Most Americans are still not prospering in the high-technology, global economy that emerged three decades ago. Almost all the benefits of economic growth since then have gone to a small number of people at the very top.

The candidate who acknowledges this and comes up with ways not just to stimulate the economy but also to boost wages – through, say, a more progressive tax, stronger unions and, over the longer term, better schools for children from lower-income families and better access to higher education – will have a good chance of winning over America’s large, and increasingly anxious, voters.

———

The writer is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He is former US secretary of labour and author of Supercapitalism


    Go to Original

Pro-Business Bias Survives Economic Bust
By Max J. Castro
Progresso Weekly

31 January to 05 February 2008 Issue

Boasting about the strength of the economy has been a staple of Bush administration propaganda for a long time. In fact, while the rate of economic growth and the level of unemployment have been pretty good for the last few years, throughout the Bush era the economy has been “strong and getting stronger” only for those at the very top of the income distribution.

It is a trend that began long before George W. Bush became president but which has been aggravated by his policies. Since 1973 and especially in the last ten years, those in the top one-tenth of one percent of income earners have done spectacularly well. Those in the top one percent of the income ladder have done very well, and those merely in the top ten percent have made much less impressive but real gains in income. In contrast, and in spite of vast economic growth, between 1973 and 2005 everybody else, the remaining 90 percent of the population, experienced a significant drop in real income!

The current administration’s policies of giving huge tax breaks to the very rich, restricting government spending on middle class and low income programs, and giving business a free hand in every sphere have been a major factor in bringing about the obscene levels of inequality in existence today. But these policies have done more than just deepen inequality. By undermining regulation and oversight, these policies have led to many corrupt and irresponsible business practices, with results such as the Enron scandal and the current sub-prime lending crisis.

The regulatory mechanisms that emerged in the wake of the 1929 Wall Street crash and the Depression of the 1930s were not the product of a socialist conspiracy or anti-business ideology. They were lifesaving devices for the capitalist system and the American economy.

The administrations that have run the country for the last three decades seemed to have forgotten this and, in a frenzy of free market faith that has been particularly intense during Republican rule but has also been present during Democratic presidents, have poked huge holes not only in the social safety but also in the economic and financial safety net.

Now the myth of a perfectly self-regulating market has burst, starting with the housing market crisis and spreading through the economy. Many analysts are predicting a recession. The Federal Reserve Board, which usually acts with caution, was so alarmed as to carry out a record decrease in interest rates in order to boost the economy and prop up sinking stock market prices. The administration acted too, but as usual it saw the drama of millions of Americans in danger of losing their houses and their jobs as first and foremost an opportunity to further its ideological agenda in line with the interests of corporations and the very rich. The Democrats in Congress pushed a different set of policies to ward off recession, but in the end once more largely caved in to Congressional Republicans and the administration.

Democrats in Congress wanted to increase food stamps and extend unemployment benefits, measures that would have helped those hurt worst by an economic downturn but also the groups most likely to spend any additional income quickly, exactly what is needed to give the economy a quick boost.

Republicans were adamant against this approach. The GOP’s priority was to continue and expand tax cuts for business and the rich. The Republican argument is that this will stimulate the economy by encouraging investment.

Despite controlling Congress, the Democrats ultimately gave in on almost every issue except making the 2001 Bush tax cut permanent, which the Republicans dropped. The compromise that was approved by the House of Representatives and Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not include increased funds for food stamps or unemployment benefits. It does include new tax breaks for business investment. Pelosi did manage to obtain some payments for those too poor to pay taxes and to reduce tax rebates for households with higher incomes.

Despite these small Democratic wins, the irony is that a program intended to provide relief for a looming crisis caused to a significant degree by policies wildly biased in favor of business is itself rife with some of the same biases.

An economy in which income is increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and that withholds its rewards from the vast majority of the population even in the best of times is not sustainable politically, socially, economically, or morally. The lesson of the compromise economic stimulus package is that neither Republicans nor Democrats are ready to confront this reality.

GNP not an indicator of reality–more proof economics is elitist code/lingo–fight for progress

from truthout:

Our Three-Decade Recession
By Robert Costanza
The Los Angeles Times

    Monday 10 March 2008

The American quality of life has been going downhill since 1975.

    The news media and the government are fixated on the fact that the U.S. economy may be headed into a recession – defined as two or more successive quarters of declining gross domestic product. The situation is actually much worse. By some measures of economic performance, the United States has been in a recession since 1975 – a recession in quality of life, or well-being.

    How can this be? One first needs to understand what GDP measures to see why it is not an appropriate gauge of our national well-being.

    GDP measures the total market value of all goods and services produced in a country in a given period. But it includes only those goods and services traded for money. It also adds everything together, without discerning desirable, well-being-enhancing economic activity from undesirable, well-being-reducing activity. An oil spill, for example, increases GDP because someone has to clean it up, but it obviously detracts from well-being. More crime, more sickness, more war, more pollution, more fires, storms and pestilence are all potentially positives for the GDP because they can spur an increase in economic activity.

    GDP also ignores activity that may enhance well-being but is outside the market. The unpaid work of parents caring for their children at home doesn’t show up in GDP, but if they decide to work outside the home and pay for child care, GDP suddenly increases. And even though $1 in income means a lot more to the poor than to the rich, GDP takes no account of income distribution.

    In short, GDP was never intended to be a measure of citizens’ welfare – and it functions poorly as such. Yet it is used as a surrogate appraisal of national well-being in far too many circumstances.

    The shortcomings of GDP are well known, and several researchers have proposed alternatives that address them, including William Nordhaus’ and James Tobin’s Measure of Economic Welfare, developed in 1972; Herman Daly’s and John Cobb’s Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, developed in 1989; and the Redefining Progress think tank’s more recent variation, the Genuine Progress Indicator. Although these alternatives – which, like GDP, are measured in monetary terms – are not perfect and need more research and refinement, they are much better approximations to a measure of true national well-being.

    The formula for calculating GPI, for instance, starts with personal consumption expenditures, a major component of GDP, but makes several crucial adjustments. First, it accounts for income distribution. It then adds positive contributions that GDP ignores, such as the value of household and volunteer work. Finally, it subtracts things that are well-being-reducing, such as the loss of leisure time and the costs of crime, commuting and pollution.

    While the U.S. GDP has steadily increased since 1950 (with the occasional recession), GPI peaked about 1975 and has been relatively flat or declining ever since. That’s consistent with life-satisfaction surveys, which also show flat or dropping scores over the last several decades.

    This is a very different picture of the economy from the one we normally read about, and it requires different policy responses. We are now in a period of what Daly – a former World Bank economist now at the University of Maryland – has called “uneconomic growth,” in which further growth in economic activity (that is, GDP) is actually reducing national well-being.

    How can we get out of this 33-year downturn in quality of life? Several policies have been suggested that might be thought of as a national quality-of-life stimulus package.

    To start, the U.S. needs to make national well-being – not increased GDP – its primary policy goal, funding efforts to better measure and report it. There’s already been some movement in this direction around the world. Bhutan, for example, recently made “gross national happiness” its explicit policy goal. Canada is developing an Index of Well-being, and the Australian Treasury considers increasing “real well-being,” rather than mere GDP, its primary goal.

    Once Americans’ well-being becomes the basis for measuring our success, other reforms should follow. We should tax bads (carbon emissions, depletion of natural resources) rather than goods (labor, savings, investment). We should recognize the negative effects of growing income disparities and take steps to address them.

    International trade also will have to be reformed so that environmental protection, labor rights and democratic self-determination are not subjugated to the blind pursuit of increased GDP.

    But the most important step may be the first one: Recognizing that the U.S. is mired in a 33-year-old quality-of-life recession and that our continued national focus on growing GDP is blinding us to the way out.

    ——–

    Robert Costanza is the director of the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont.

March 11, 2008

Is it the 21st century yet, or are we back in the times of petty bread & cricuses?

Filed under: criminalization of citizens — Tags: , , , , , — sesame seed @ 6:53 pm

Look, Spitzer isn’t perfect. Prostitution should be legalized anyway–as long as it’s a consensual, non-abusive transaction. It should be legalized because enforcement around prostitution is selective and often biased. Laws that are biased are unjust. Spitzer maybe didn’t cover his tracks, but were these WIRETAPS legal? That’s the question that’s getting very little media play, and it should worry all of us. Illegally procured evidence isn’t admissible, is it now? Or shall we just install the new camera-boxes in our new glass houses to make things easier on Big Bother?

see article & comments on alternet: http://www.alternet.org/rights/79297/

You know what should be illegal? Capitalism–exploiting another person to maximize your profit.

Selling tainted food should be a high crime and misdemeanor.

Approving chemicals for people to use as “Artificial sweeteners”  when they are deadly should be illegal. Millions have suffered numerous synergistic health effects from aspartame, sucralose, etc.

Downing two towers in 2001 to start a profiteering war should be illegal.

Intimidating small farmers and trying to genetically modify all food and cause food shortages should be illegal.

Prostitution is a venal sin compared to those. A trifle. These women weren’t living in FEMA trailers.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.