The chemical that gives mothballs their smell can also put you at risk for diminished lung function, heart disease, stroke, and cancer: http://www.mercola.com/2006/aug/10/air_fresheners_may_damage_your_lungs.htm.
The chemical that gives mothballs their smell can also put you at risk for diminished lung function, heart disease, stroke, and cancer: http://www.mercola.com/2006/aug/10/air_fresheners_may_damage_your_lungs.htm.
A preliminary survey of beef and poultry sold in U.S. supermarkets conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found relatively high levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to a report presented at the 101st annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in May 2001. FDA microbiologist Dr. David Wagner reported that investigators found "fairly substantial amounts of resistance to a number of drugs." For more information: http://www.organicauthority.com.
Why your kitchen floor may pose a threat to National Security, and other issues relating to the dioxin dangers posed by our widespread usage of PVCs. Orion Magazine, May-June 2005: http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/05-3om/Steingraber.html
From: Dr. William Campbell Douglass II, MD
Dr. Douglass' Real Health Breakthroughs (203-699-4420)
If you've been a reader of mine for any length of time at all, you no doubt know how I feel about soy. If you don't, here's a brief summary of it: soy should be outlawed.
Despite its status as darling of the vegetarian "meat martyrs," soy is NOT a health food. In fact, it's neither healthy nor is it food, if your definition of that word includes some measure of actual nourishment. And it isn't merely worthless as a food, it's downright harmful.
Hundreds of studies have linked soy proteins and derivatives to:
And these are just the NATURAL side effects of soy foodstuffs. I shudder to think of how many other ills we're risking by ingesting the residues of the acid and alkaline baths, petroleum solvents, and God knows how many other hazardous chemicals involved in the manufacture of some of the most common soy variants...
These facts notwithstanding, soy byproducts and proteins have found their way into just about everything - usually in the place of truly healthy animal-based fats: Milk and milk substitutes, cheeses, yogurts, desserts, breakfast foods, and even many burger patties have some degree of soy content nowadays.
In fact, it's estimated that 60% of the refined foods on store shelves and sold in fast-food joints have some kind of harmful soy protein in them. And if those madcaps over at the Food and Drug Administration have it their way, the amount of soy Americans are consuming will likely double in the very near future.
Why? Because they're about to allow the manufacturers of every Twinkie, breakfast cereal, veggie burger, energy bar, milk substitute, and every other doggone thing under the sun with harmful soy protein or byproduct in it to claim that it PREVENTS CANCER.
Yep, you read that right.
Despite the findings of stacks of bona-fide research, the FDA is about to buckle yet again to the Big Food business (like it did with that Food Pyramid farce) and let them claim their soy- and sugar-saturated junk as the key to dodging cancer.
Absurd as the notion is, the FDA is about to give a big rubber stamp to refined-food makers that says "Prevents Cancer" on it. This, despite the fact that many toxicology texts list the plant estrogens found in soy protein products as CARCINOGENS.
How can this happen, you ask? As usual, it's all about money. This move will mean billions in the pockets of American food makers, and who knows how many needless corpses in American morgues... What really kills me is that the FDA doesn't think we're smart enough to see how shamelessly profit-driven this shenanigan is.
Think about it: There are lots of safe, natural substances out there that REALLY DO prevent cancer. But does the FDA allow makers of these things to make that claim? Of course not. The supplement and natural foods industries represent an insignificant source of income for the government next to the food business. Besides, people might stop taking those expensive drugs if they knew about the benefits of vitamins, herbs, minerals, and truly healthy foods - that would mean less money in the Feds' pockets in taxes and drug application and approval fees. But since the food industry will flood the government with corporate tax revenues generated by the sale of soy-inclusive products, they get to claim these foods prevent cancer.
You see, it doesn't matter if it's true, as long as it's truly profitable. As you know, I don't often try to rally my readers to action. With a couple of notable exceptions in the past, I prefer to inform and expose, then let folks decide for themselves whether or not to get involved. But this time, I'm urging anyone who cares about not only their health, but their rights to unbiased government oversight of big business to take action now - because the clock is ticking... The FDA must hear from Americans in sufficient numbers to make them think twice about giving the food industry carte blanche to bill their junk foods as the "magic bullet" for cancer.
[While I don't agree with Dr. Douglass about consuming animal protein, my research into soy is in full agreement with his statements. See http://chidiet.com/problemswithsoy.htm for research links. - Jim]
Two thousand hospitals across the U.S. are finally slamming the door on junk foods and low-grade institutional grub: http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_1182.cfm.
(Vancouver) Models strutted the grocery aisles in Carmen Miranda-esque fruit-laden hats, and a frock fashioned out of live and lush wheatgrass: http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/Fashion/2006/07/21/1695104-sun.html.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has released a survey of scientists who work for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The survey reveals that one-fifth of FDA scientists "have been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or their conclusions in a FDA scientific document."
The study strongly suggests that the FDA is not adequately regulating products that significantly impact public health, including food, drugs, vaccines, and medical devices. The survey also indicates that 61 percent of the respondents knew of cases where FDA political appointees have "inappropriately injected themselves into FDA determinations or actions." Eighty-one percent of FDA scientists in the survey agreed that the "public would be better served if the independence and authority of FDA post-market safety systems were strengthened." http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_1179.cfm
Raw Food is one of top 3 diets among Celebrities - it makes them feel joyfully lovely, with more youthful years, slim, athletically energized, aesthetically beautiful: http://www.rawfoodsnewsmagazine.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=46.
Nearly half a century after DDT was first dumped across acres of North American farmland and three decades after it was banned in the United States and Canada, the toxic pesticide still has damaging effects on local species, according to a new study: http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_1209.cfm.
TAMING THE DRUG MONSTER
- by Patrick Holford, Ph.D.
A major shake down is brewing for the pharmaceutical industry following increasing reports of manipulating drug trial data, doctors and the government to increase sales and profits. A recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine published a correction on a study it published on Rofecoxib (Vioxx) – the now withdrawn pain-killer that is estimated to have damaged or killed up to 140,000 Americans – stating that increased cardiovascular risks were visible as early as four months into treatment, rather than the 18 months that Merck had claimed.
There are now an estimated 10,000 court cases outstanding against Vioxx manufacturer Merck – 400 of which are brought by patients in the UK who claim to have been damaged by the drug and not properly warned about the risks. The cost of legal actions to Merck has been put at between $5 and $50 billion.  As of April 2006, just six cases had been heard. In three, the plaintiffs were awarded damages running into millions of dollars. We don’t hear so much about this in the UK because plaintiffs here have been refused legal aid and insurers will not fund no-win, no-fee cases, so no cases can be brought.
This might sound like old news but this kind of manipulation of data is finally sounding big alarm bells within the medical profession. After all, commercial drug testing centres, funded by the company making the drug, are four times more likely to come up with favourable results than independent ones.  How can doctors know the science they’re being sold is free from spin?
Another shocking example recently emerged on a trial of the anti-depressant Seroxat. The summary at the start of the research paper, which is the only part most doctors read, claimed that Seroxat was ‘well tolerated and effective’. But when a team of independent scientists looked at the whole paper, they found this: ‘Out of 93 children given Seroxat, 11 had serious ADRs [adverse drug reactions] compared with 2 in the placebo group’.  Just how serious? ‘Seven of these children were admitted to hospital during treatment.’
This kind of deceptive reporting in what are supposed to be objective research reports is making the medical profession increasingly nervous. After all, this is what they rely on to practice safe medicine. On 8 July 2006, the British Medical Journal ran an editorial suggesting that drug companies should not be allowed to evaluate their own products. Instead, to get their drugs tested and licensed they would contribute to a central pot for independent, publicly-funded clinical trials.
But, of course, it doesn’t stop there. Clinical practice guidelines advise doctors on the drugs to use for various conditions. However, 80 per cent of the academics who write them have financial links with the companies whose products they are recommending.  
Then, of course, there’s the wining and dining of doctors. Drug companies in America spend around $15 billion a year on marketing, which is about half the amount they spend on research and development.  A big chunk of this is spent selling drugs to doctors who have to clock up a certain number of days of ‘continuing medical education’, paid for, you guessed it, largely by the pharmaceutical industry.
A recent article in the American Medical Association’s journal of ethics wants to put an end to this. ‘Only continuing medical education activities that are entirely free of pharmaceutical industry funding should qualify as education,’ they write. Continuing education should be funded by doctors, not drug companies, say the authors. And just in case you think these companies behave differently elsewhere, in the UK for instance, this is what the 2005 Parliamentary health committee investigation, The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry, found: ‘[it] buys influence over doctors, charities, patient groups, journalists and politicians, whose regulation is sometimes weak or ambiguous.’
In the wake of the Vioxx scandal, the US FDA, the agency charged with protecting the public from the dangers of drugs, has been heavily criticised for not responding fast enough to problems with drugs, for being too close to the drug companies and for not devoting enough attention and resources to safety once a drug had been licensed.
In May, a report by the US government’s General Accounting Office made damning criticisms of the FDA, saying that the agency ‘did not to have clear policies for addressing drug safety issues and that it sometimes excludes its best safety experts from important meetings’. Not only was it slow to respond but ‘the agency’s entire system for reviewing the safety of drugs already on the market is too limited and broadly flawed’. 
The pharmaceutical industry begs to differ. A spokesman from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry explicitly referred to the existing state of affairs between all the parties concerned – except for patients – and implied that as far as they were concerned, it was working fine. ‘The challenge is to acknowledge there is a contract between industry, regulators and health service which recognises that there is a trade-off between risks and benefits.’ 
With an estimated death toll of over 10,000 Britons every year from adverse drug reactions, and over 40,000 made seriously ill enough to require hospitalisation, that’s one hell of a trade off. 
‘Full spectrum dominance’ is the stated aim of the American military. It involves being ready ‘to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations’. Not a bad description of what the pharmaceutical industry has achieved across the whole field of prescription drugs, from creating to selling. Besides dominating the clinical trials production line, the drug companies have also found ways of exerting control over researchers, medical journals, doctors and even patient groups. The industry’s strategy for maintaining their full spectrum dominance all the way down the drug chain is very simple – they pay for it.
‘Something is very wrong,’ writes Dr John Abramson of Harvard University in his brilliant and disturbing book Overdosed America, ‘with a system that leads patients to demand and doctors to prescribe a drug that provides no better relief and causes significantly more side effects’.
These recent and growing recommendations to sever the financial and information stranglehold big pharma has on medicine may, at last, provide a more level playing field in which it will become increasingly obvious that, for most chronic diseases, nutrition works better than drugs. It’s time we stopped swallowing what the drug industry tells us.
1. A Jack, ‘Master or servant: the US drugs regulator is put under scrutiny’, Financial Times, 7 January 2005.
2. J Lexchin et al, Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality, British Medical Journal (2003), vol 326, pp 1167-70.
3. E Marshall, ‘Antidepressants and children: buried data can be hazardous to a company's health’, Science (2004), vol 304 (5677), pp 1576-1577.
4. J N Jureidini et al, ‘Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for children and adolescents’, British Medical Journal (2004), vol 328 pp 879-83.
5. K Niteesh et al, ‘Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry’, Journal of the American Medical Association (2202), vol 287, pp 612-617.
6. R Taylor and J Giles, ‘Cash interests taint drug advice’, Nature (2005), vol 437, pp 1070.
7. Spin Doctored: How drug companies keep tabs on physicians, online journal Slate, 31 May 2005.
8. M Kaufman, ‘FDA Is criticized over drugs' safety problems; response to approved medications cited', The Washington Post, 24 April 2006.
9. The Independent, 23 August 2005.
10. M Pirmohamed et al, Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18,820 patients, British Medical Journal (2004), vol 329, pp 15-19.
(IC Wales, UK) Government experts are looking at reducing the current recommended daily calorie levels - as advertised on the likes of chocolate bars and multi-packs of doughnuts - because the nation is getting fatter: http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/features/tm_objectid=17318883&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=bigger-isn-t-better---it-s-just-fatter-name_page.html.
(The Independent - UK) Ask the natural health groupies and, these days, you'll find they've given the vitamin jar the boot. "Superfoods" are the big nutrition thing. We're not talking about your humble broccoli or nuts. Instead, it's foods such as spirulina, wheatgrass or sprouts that are so packed with nutrients, a mere handful should give you the daily dose of vitamins and minerals you need: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1170365.ece.
Americans adore all things fresh: fresh beginnings, fresh outlooks and now, more than ever, fresh foods. According to a survey conducted by Datamonitor, the natural food and drinks market is expected to surpass $27.5 billion by 2007, and the number of natural-food consumers in the U.S. is expected to grow from 216 million in 2002 to 266 million in 2007.
The bottom line is that Americans are no longer willing to eat whatever is easiest or cheapest. Better-educated consumers are searching for fresh, unprocessed, healthy foods -- and this dietary change is fueling what we predict will be the next big trend in franchising: fresh-food franchises.
(Toronto Star) Shopping at Dufferin Grove farmers' market puts you in a green space, physically and mentally. Young moms with staggering toddlers and Snugli-sized infants stroll, unperturbed, along the sun-dappled pathways. Health food types inspect picture-perfect clusters of honey mushrooms and trade bucks for bread baked by park staff in the outdoor, wood-burning oven. Browsers bite into free-range meat as bongo rhythms waft in the air: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1151404148828&call_pageid=968867496431&col=969048867839.
A new study in the Lancet medical journal (UK) suggests that variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), the human variant of Mad Cow Disease, may not peak in the human population for several decades, by which time many thousands of beef eaters and hospital patients that have received tainted blood transfusions could die.
The study shows how Kuru, a similar fatal brain-wasting prion disease in New Guinea, has been found to have an incubation period of 35 to 41 years. Researchers suspect it could be longer for vCJD because the infection is transmitted between species, from cows to humans.
The 160 fatal human cases of the disease that have already surfaced around the world could represent a distinct genetic subgroup of the population with an unusually short incubation period, according to John Collinge, the study leader and a professor at University College, London.
There could be "substantial underestimations" in recent estimates of the size of the vCJD epidemic, Collinge said in a report in The Lancet medical journal: http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_889.cfm.
|In an unprecedented move, the American Medical Association (AMA) voted on June 13 to call on the U.S. government to require salt warning labels on food products and to cut salt content in manufactured foods by 50% within a decade. |
The AMA, the largest group of physicians in the U.S., is also asking the Food and Drug Administration to revoke salt's status as a food that is "generally recognized as safe," noting there is overwhelming medical evidence that high salt intake dramatically increases risk of heart disease, hypertension and stroke.
Heart disease is the nation's leading cause of death. Foods that would require warning labels would include everything from conventional hot dogs to some canned soups. The Food Products Association, a trade group for the food and beverage manufacturing industry, and one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington D.C. said the new policy is "misguided," claiming there is not enough scientific evidence tying salt to negative health effects: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301245.html.
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, especially in this case. Lloyd Grove, a columnist for the New York Daily News, says that the pharmaceutical lobby in the United States, a group called PhRMA, actually commissioned the writing of a fiction novel designed to scare Americans into avoiding prescription drugs from Canada: http://www.mercola.com/2006/jun/20/a_novel_way_to_scare_americans_away_from_canadian_drugs.htm.
Police stormed a community garden in South Central Los Angeles this week, arresting 25 people including actress Daryl Hannah.
- submitted by Steven Gibb
US climate scientists have recorded a significant rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pushing it to a new record level: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm.
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:34 AM
Subject: Living Foods News - Still Eating Meat?
China Halts Poultry Imports From U.S.
By Stephanie Hoo, Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) -- China banned U.S. poultry imports Tuesday to ease growing fears about bird flu, announcing in an emergency notice that any American fowl that have already arrived at its ports would be returned or destroyed.
China's ban on U.S. poultry follows similar bans by Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and South Korea, after officials in the U.S. state of Delaware reported a mild form of avian flu in a flock there. Prompt reaction to the Delaware outbreak likely prevented the flu from spreading, according to Corrie Brown, an infectious animal disease expert at the University of Georgia's College of Veterinary Medicine. Tests showed nearby flocks to be free of the disease, Delaware officials said. Further test results were pending.
According to China's Agriculture Ministry, in 2003 the country's total import of poultry meats and products was 709,000 tons - 96 percent of which came from the United States. That's a small fraction of China's poultry market; the country produced more than 9.9 million tons of chicken meat alone last year - 20 percent of total worldwide production. China itself is a large chicken-farming country, and a more dangerous form of bird flu is confirmed or suspected in 14 of the nation's 31 far-flung regions.
On Tuesday China confirmed a previously suspected case in its remote northeastern region of Xinjiang, which is more than 1,200 miles from the site of its first confirmed case in the far south. China has slaughtered millions of fowl and inoculated millions more to try to contain the disease. Concerned the virus could spread to endangered birds, the government said Tuesday it also has resettled as many as 250 rare ibis atop a remote mountain.
No human cases have been reported in the country, although at least 19 people have died from the disease in Thailand and Vietnam in recent weeks. China has already banned poultry imports from those countries, as well as other flu-hit areas.
In December, China banned beef products from the United States after a case of mad cow disease was reported there. That prohibition has not been rescinded.
Henry Niman, a Harvard University Medical School instructor and a frequent critic of government SARS responses, said Tuesday he was skeptical of the notion that there were no human cases in a nation of 1.3 billion people with so many poultry infections. "The idea that there are no human cases in China just doesn't really ring true," said Niman, who moderates a widely read e-mail list about SARS and launched its bird-flu equivalent this week.
"It seems that they've got the virus pretty widespread and it's been around for some time," he said. "That leads me to believe that there's more going on in China that the outside world knows about."
The WHO's representative in Beijing also has voiced concern that China may already have human cases of bird flu.
Emphasizing the government's effort to reassure its citizens about food safety, China's agriculture minister joined a parade of officials insisting the poultry supply is safe overall - and backing up their claims by eating chicken publicly.
Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
-- This news comes on the heels of news that Mad Cow Disease is caused by feeding animal byproducts to vegetarian cows. Are YOU still eating meat?