How to Protect Yourself from Chemical Exposure

How to Protect Yourself from Chemical Exposure:
Posted By Dr. Mercola

A growing body of research links five of the most commonly used chemicals in the world to a host of ailments, including cancer, sexual problems and behavioral issues. Here's what CNN suggests you can do about them:

1. BPA — Bisphenol A

   BPA is used to make lightweight, clear, heat-resistant plastic. It's also used in epoxy resins.

   A growing body of research suggests that BPA poses a potential cancer risk and may disrupt the extremely sensitive chemical signals in your body called the endocrine system.

   To avoid it, buy stainless steel bottles and glass food storage containers. Switch to fresh or frozen vegetables instead of canned. If you buy plastic, check for the number on the bottom — if there is a number 7, assume the container contains BPA unless it explicitly says otherwise.

2. Phthalates

   This family of chemicals softens plastics. Phthalates are considered endocrine disrupters. Research has also shown phthalates disrupt reproductive development. Avoid shampoos, conditioners and other personal care products that list "fragrance" as an ingredient.

3. PFOA — Perfluorooctanoic acid (also called C8)

   PFOA is used to make Teflon and other nonstick and stain- or water-repellent products. PFOA causes cancer and developmental problems. You can reduce your potential exposure by using stainless steel or cast iron cookware. If you use nonstick cookware, do not overheat it — this releases toxic gas.

4. Formaldehyde

   Formaldehyde is an ingredient in resins that act as a glue in the manufacture of pressed wood products. It is a known human carcinogen, causing cancers of the respiratory or gastrointestinal tract.

   Buying furniture free from formaldehyde eliminates much of the exposure you face from the chemical. If you have wood products containing formaldehyde, increase ventilation, reduce humidity with air conditioning or dehumidifiers and keep your home cool.

5. PBDEs — Polybrominated diphenyl ethers

   PBDEs are a group of chemicals used as flame retardants. Toxicology tests show PBDEs may damage your liver and kidneys and affect your brain and behavior. Try to find products without PBDE flame retardants and be sure to sweep up dust.

Sources:

CNN May 31, 2010

Thanks to the spoils of the industrial revolution, your body is now home to a growing cocktail of chemicals.

Intermingling with your red and white blood cells, your endocrine system, brain, tissues and other organs are chemicals used to make epoxy resins, non-stock cookware, flame-resistant upholstery and plastic -- clearly substances that have no business taking residence in a living, breathing creature such as yourself.

Your Body Probably Contains Over 200 Chemicals

A typical American comes in regular contact with 6,000 chemicals and an untold number of potentially toxic substances on a less frequent basis. There are about 75,000 chemicals regularly manufactured and imported by U.S. industries, so you could potentially be exposed to any number of them.

Given the vast amounts of chemicals in the environment, it's not too surprising that the CDC's Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals found an average of 212 chemicals in Americans' blood or urine.

Likewise, an Environmental Working Group study found that blood samples from newborns contained an average of 287 toxins, including mercury, fire retardants, pesticides, and Teflon chemicals, and this is from exposures they received before birth.

When it comes to the potentially hazardous chemicals you and your family are exposed to as you go about your daily lives, it can easily feel overwhelming. There are chemicals literally everywhere, but rather than feeling burdened by the thought I encourage you instead to focus on simple steps you can take to reduce your risk.

A good starting point, as CNN as suggested above, is to focus on avoiding some of the most pervasive, and most toxic, chemicals that are virtually guaranteed to be in your home right now.

Five Top Common Chemicals to Avoid …

The five chemicals listed by CNN are definitely worthy of eliminating from your life as much as possible, and given that they are among the most widely used chemicals around, doing so will make a serious positive impact on your chemical exposure.

They gave a great summary above, but I'll touch on them again briefly here:

• BPA: BPA is one of the world's highest production-volume chemicals and is widely used in the production of plastics, canned foods and soda cans, food packaging, baby bottles and toys and more.

  The chemical can lead to heart disease, diabetes and liver problems in adults, and previous research has linked BPA to serious developmental and reproductive problems.

  You can find 10 tips to minimize your BPA exposure here.

• Phthalates: Phthalates, or "plasticizers," are a group of industrial chemicals used to make plastics like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more flexible and resilient. They're also one of the most pervasive of the endocrine disrupters.

  These chemicals have increasingly become associated with changes in development of the male brain as well as with genital defects, metabolic abnormalities and reduced testosterone in babies and adults.

  You can help reduce your exposure by using the tips in this past article.

• PFOA: Teflon-coated cookware is the primary source of dangerous perfluorinated chemicals (PFOAs). Teflon pans quickly reach temperatures that cause the non-stick coating to begin breaking down, releasing toxins that have been linked to cancer, birth defects and thyroid disease into the air in your kitchen.

  I highly recommend you throw away this type of non-stick cookware immediately and replace it with either ceramic or glass. My personal choice is ceramic cookware, because it's very durable and easy to clean, and there's absolutely no risk of exposure to harmful chemicals.

• Formaldehyde: Formaldehyde, most commonly known as embalming fluid, serves a number of purposes in manufactured products. It is actually frequently used in fabrics to give them a variety of "easy care properties" as well as being a common component of pressed-wood products.

  Formaldehyde has been shown to cause cancer in animals, and may cause cancer in humans. Other common adverse health effects include fatigue, skin rashes, and allergic reactions. Choosing all natural materials for your clothing and furniture can help cut down on your exposure.

• PBDEs: These flame-retardant chemicals have been linked to altered thyroid levels, decreased fertility and numerous problems with development when exposure occurs in utero. PBDEs are commonly found in household items like upholstery and television and computer housings. Fortunately, several states now ban the use of PBDEs, so there is some progress toward reducing exposure.

  Another common source of PBDEs is your mattress, and since you can spend up to a third of your life in bed, this is a significant health concern. Mattress manufacturers are not required to label or disclose which chemicals their mattresses contain. Look for 100 percent wool, toxin-free mattresses.

  Another viable option is to look for a mattress that uses a Kevlar, bullet-proof type of material in lieu of chemicals for fire-proofing. Stearns and Foster uses this process for their mattresses, which is sufficient to pass fire safety standards.

What Else Can You do to Reduce Unnecessary Chemical Exposure to Your Family?

Rather than compile an endless list of what you should avoid, it's far easier to focus on what you should do to lead a healthy lifestyle with as minimal a chemical exposure as possible:

1. As much as possible, buy and eat organic produce and free-range, organic foods to reduce your exposure to pesticides and fertilizers.
2. Rather than eating conventional or farm-raised fish, which are often heavily contaminated with PCBs and mercury, supplement with a high-quality purified krill oil, or eat fish that is wild-caught and lab tested for purity.
3. Eat mostly raw, fresh foods, steering clear of processed, prepackaged foods of all kinds. This way you automatically avoid artificial food additives, including dangerous artificial sweeteners, food coloring and MSG.
4. Store your food and beverages in glass rather than plastic, and avoid using plastic wrap and canned foods (which are often lined with BPA-containing liners).
5. Have your tap water tested and, if contaminants are found, install an appropriate water filter on all your faucets (even those in your shower or bath). My personal favorite, and the one I personally use, is a high-quality reverse osmosis (RO) filter. You just need to add a few minerals back to the water, but RO reliably removes virtually every possible contaminant that could be in the water.
6. Only use natural cleaning products in your home.
7. Switch over to natural brands of toiletries such as shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants and cosmetics. The Environmental Working Group has a great safety guide to help you find personal care products that are free of phthalates and other potentially dangerous chemicals. I also offer one of the highest quality organic skin care lines, shampoo and conditioner, and body butter that are completely natural and safe.
8. Avoid using artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners or other synthetic fragrances.
9. Replace your Teflon pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware or a safe nonstick pan.
10. When redoing your home, look for "green," toxin-free alternatives in lieu of regular paint and vinyl floor coverings.
11. Replace your vinyl shower curtain with one made of fabric, or install a glass shower door.

It is important to make these positive and gradual steps toward decreasing your chemical risk through healthy lifestyle choices. While you make the switch to remove and reduce chemicals around your home, remember that one of the ways to significantly reduce your toxic load is to pay careful attention to what you eat.

Organically-grown, biodynamic whole foods are really the key to success here, and, as an added bonus, when you eat right, you're also optimizing your body's natural detoxification system, which can help eliminate toxins your body encounters from other sources.

Related Links:

Six Risky Chemicals You're Carrying in Your Body

9 Hidden Toxins Lurking in Your Food

232 Toxic Chemicals found in 10 Babies

humans lived in tribes

"All humans lived in tribes for 99% of our time on earth. The present nuclear family system is only the result of the more natural tribal society being destroyed by kings and emperors who wanted slaves and wanted everyone to depend on their government rather than on one another."

Consumer Beware: Antibiotic Free Meats That Aren't | The Healthy Home Economist

Consumer Beware: Antibiotic Free Meats That Aren't | The Healthy Home Economist:
Wellness information stripped of the ever present, cleverly disguised profit motive that is behind health messages in the media. True Health and Wellness Information that is a Refuge from the Propaganda!
Friday, August 13, 2010

Consumer Beware: Antibiotic Free Meats That Aren't

Reading food labels is a confusing experience for the majority of consumers. This confusion is purposely engineered in many instances to keep consumers guessing and product sales flowing. MSG, for example, hides behind over 50 different labeling names. Overwhelmed consumers are often deceived into buying products loaded with MSG that they would never buy if labeling policies required full disclosure.

This very effective cat and mouse game is also played with other neurotoxins like aspartame (nutrasweet), splenda, neotame and other artificial sweeteners consumers actively attempt to avoid. These pseudo sugars are frequently hidden in sports drinks and other "low carb" fare using the overly broad "natural" or "artificial" flavorings labels that allow food manufacturers to hide the exact names of undesirable chemicals away from the concerned eyes of the consumer.

To avoid undesirable additives, consumers must battle an ever changing landscape of labeling gamesmanship played by food manufacturers that is aided and abetted by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Is Your Meat Truly Free of Antibiotics?

Neurotoxins aren't the only chemicals consumers are trying to avoid in their food. An ever growing segment of the consumer market is seeking meat from animals raised without antibiotics due to concern over the rapid rise of superbugs like MRSA and the ever plummeting age in which young girls are experiencing the onset of puberty - both of which are linked to low dose antibiotics in animal feed.

In Denmark, a ban on the use of antibiotics in animal feed drastically reduced antibiotic resistant infections in people. "The Danish Experiment", a source of pride for the country's 17,000 farmers, provides strong evidence that feeding antibiotics to animals has deadly consequences in humans.

Low dose antibiotics fed to livestock via feed causes them to mature more quickly, and this may be one cause of early development in girls who consume meat and milk produced from such animals.

Just another reason to avoid taking your children to fast food restaurants where the meats are an antibiotic residue pharma fest. Ah, but I digress ....

Antibiotics in drinking water is yet another environmental problem linked to the use of these drugs by agribusiness. A shocking 70% of all antibiotics used in the United States every year is purchased by agribusiness for otherwise healthy livestock!


There's The Rub

Do you want meat from this animal?

Consumers concerned about the problems described above and wishing to avoid antibiotics in their food are falling all over themselves to buy meat and milk from animals not subjected to the daily insult of antibiotics in their feed. As with other undesirables like MSG and aspartame, antibiotics are hiding behind confusing labeling nuances.

According to the USDA (Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 250; December 30, 2002), a product labeled "Not Fed Antibiotics" or "No Subtherapeutic Antibiotics Used" may actually come from an animal that was given antibiotics for illness or injury. An FDA antibiotic withdrawal period prior to "harvest" (slaughter) to reduce (but not necessarily eliminate) antibiotic residue in the meat must be observed for either of these labels to be used.

Even more vague are meats with the label "No Detectable Antibiotic Residue". Products with this label mean that "a statistical sampling analysis using a science based protocol" was unable to detect any antibiotic residue. In other words, the animals could have been eating antibiotic laced feed for the entire production phase but the farmer simply followed the prescribed FDA withdrawal phase before slaughter. If subsequent "science based" tests failed to find antibiotic residue, the label is permitted.

The best labels for consumers seeking no antibiotic meats at the store are "No Antibiotics Used" or "Raised Without Antibiotics". These labels mean that the animal was raised from birth to slaughter with no antibiotics used at any time.

Best Way to Source Truly Antibiotic Free Meats

Interestingly, the USDA prohibits the label "Antibiotic Free" for some reason. It seems to me that if a consumer wants to source truly antibiotic free meats, it would be best to go to a local farmer where you can familiarize yourself with how the animals are raised and observe production procedures.

I personally feel more comfortable trusting an actual person I've had a conversation with about how the animals are treated in both illness and health than a label that may or may not be accurate or whose semantics has deceived my buying intentions!

*A special thanks to Stanley Fishman, author of Tender Grassfed Meat, for helping me track down the USDA reference material for this article.

Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist

This post is submitted to Fight Back Friday

Picture1 Credit

Picture2 Credit

The Codex, Fluoride, Auschwitz, Monsanto Connection | Farm Wars

The Codex, Fluoride, Auschwitz, Monsanto Connection


By Barbara H. Peterson
Farm Wars
What do Codex Alimentarius with its official food standards, the fluoridation of our water and food supply, genocide at the Auschwitz concentration camp, and Monsanto, the company responsible for genetically altering the world’s food supply all have in common? Is there a connection that binds these seemingly diverse organizations together? Yes, there is. In fact, they are so inextricably bound that separating them is all but impossible.

Let’s start at the beginning with Auschwitz and connect the dots.

Auschwitz
Auschwitz was known for its “network of concentration and extermination camps built and operated in Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. It was the largest of the German concentration camps (Wikipedia).”
Auschwitz also had a factory called I. G. Auschwitz:
I.G. Auschwitz, founded in Kattowitz on April 7, 1941, was intended to be the largest chemical factory in Eastern Europe and at the same time a building block in the process of “Germanizing” the region. According to the plan, the production facilities were to supply the Eastern European market with plastics in peacetime, following their use for wartime production. In addition to German skilled workers and forced laborers from all over Europe, increasing numbers of prisoners from the Auschwitz concentration camp were deployed at the gigantic construction site in Auschwitz. In 1942 I.G. Auschwitz built its own corporate concentration camp, Buna/Monowitz. (Wollheim Memorial)
In fact, I.G. Auschwitz was designed from the very first to be an extremely complex chemical factory, producing, besides Buna, high-performance fuels (including aviation gasoline and fuel oil for naval use), various plastics, synthetic fibers, stabilizing agents, resins, methanol, nitrogen, and pharmaceuticals. (Wollheim Memorial)

I.G. Farben, which consisted of BASF, Bayer, and Hoechst (now known as Aventis), owned I.G. Auschwitz. A man called Frits ter Meer was on the I.G. Farben Managing Board from its foundation, and was responsible for I.G. Auschwitz. I. G. Auschwitz had a cozy relationship with the Auschwitz concentration camp, in that it used forced labor of the prisoners to work in its factory, and also used them as guinea pigs.
Under Frits ter Meers direction, I.G. Farben used a fluoridation program to control the population at the Auschwitz concentration camp in any given area through the mass medication of drinking water supplies.“By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication (fluoride) that would produce sterility in women, and so on.” (ShopUSI)
Frits ter Meer was ultimately convicted at Nuremberg of plundering and slavery, but his sentence was commuted due to friends in high places. Fritz then went on to become one of the architects of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 1962/3.
Codex Alimentarius
Codex was created by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations (UN). According to the Codex official site:
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.(Codex Alimentarius)
The Codex Alimentarius Commission implements the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program, the purpose of which is to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the food trade.(Organic Consumers)
In other words, under the auspices of “protecting the public health and ensuring fair trade practices,” the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program is implemented by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The FAO and WHO set the standards, and the Codex Commission implements them. All members of the UN are obligated to comply with these standards.
So, what does Codex have to do with fluoridation, and just how could a mass fluoridation program be implemented without our knowledge or consent under Codex guidelines?
The answer is – WHO has already determined that fluoride should be included in our food and water supply because it is “necessary for public health:”
Many countries that are currently undergoing nutrition transition do not have adequate exposure to fluoride. There should be promotion of adequate fluoride exposure via appropriate vehicles, for example, affordable toothpaste, water, salt and milk. It is the responsibility of national health authorities to ensure implementation of feasible fluoride programmes for their country. Research into the outcome of alternative community fluoride programmes should be encouraged.


Here is the reference document:
Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases PDF
A 1994 World Health Organization expert committee suggested a level of fluoride from 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per litre) (Wikipedia)
Currently, compliance with WHO’s directive of the fluoridation of water, salt, and milk varies from country to country. Water fluoridation has been introduced by varying degrees in many countries. View each country HERE. An interesting fact to note is that drinking water is not fluoridated in any part of Germany. Is it mere coincidence that one of the founders of the Codex Alimentarius Commission just happened to be in charge of the fluoridation program at Auschwitz, and that Germany is somehow exempt from fluoridation? Or, maybe they know something that we don’t.

The Public Fluoridation Deception
Most are aware of the water fluoridation program that has been foisted upon us as a “treatment for dental disease” and cure for cavities. This is proven propaganda and has been disputed in the EPA’s own documents, which list fluoride as a contaminant, as well as in countless other professional publications. Yet, the mass water fluoridation program continues, causing food and liquids that use this contaminated water to contain fluoride also. According to our own CDC Department of Health and Human Services:
“fluoridated water is diffused throughout the population as residents of non-fluoridated communities increasingly consume foods and beverages processed and bottled in fluoridated communities. Thus, many individuals residing in non-fluoridated communities have benefited from fluoridation policies.”
This is called “Building Capacity to Fluoridate.” (CDC)
So you see, our country is complying with the UN/WHO/FAO/Codex fluoridation policy and we the people don’t even know it. Just like the prisoners at Auschwitz most likely didn’t know that they were being subjected to a fluoridation program and being poisoned with their water until it was too late. If food is produced using fluoridated water, then it contains fluoride. All you have to do is contaminate the water, and the food issue takes care of itself.
The following chart shows just how “in compliance” the U.S. is: Percent of U.S. Population Receiving Fluoride
And if some of you are still wondering if we are really following Codex mandates, wonder no more. Many do not know this, but ‘Codex’ already consists of around 300 official food standards, some of which have been in ‘global effect’ since as long ago as 1966 (Rath Foundation). So it shouldn’t come as a big surprise to find out that fluoridation is just another facet of this program. Here is a list of foods from the Codex Alimentarius site.
The Monsanto Connection
Monsanto, Cargill, BASF, Bayer, and Aventis (or I.G. Farben) are all in partnership under the banner of Crop Science. They are partnered in various ways, such as:
BASF Plant Science and Monsanto to expand their collaboration in maximizing crop yield.
Monsanto, Bayer team up on herbicide tolerance
Mergers and acquisitions
Monsanto and Cargill team up
Monsanto and Cargill are in a 50/50 joint venture partnership. Monsanto makes the seeds, which make the crops, and Cargill makes the fertilizer. Cargill also just happens to be responsible for 70-75% of the hazardous waste hydrofluosilicic acid used in fluoridation programs. (Fluoride Action Network)
The U.S. government considers the basic chemical composition of hydrofluosilicic acid, a toxic waste, and fluoride to be the same when dumped in the water supply:
Due to the obviously intriguing aspect of this “waste disposal policy”, there has naturally been quite a bit of curiosity concerning the safety of this public health practice. Apparently, however, there are no government safety studies currently available on fluosilicic acid. This is because the government is basing their fluoridation policy on the assumption that there is no chemical difference, after dilution into the water supply, between pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride and the industrial grade hydrofluosilicic acid.(Fluoride Action Network)
Oregon, which is very low on the compliance list with only 19.4% fluoridation, is attempting to increase that level considerably. In 2007, HB 3099, the Oregon water fluoridation bill, would have required community water suppliers serving more than 10,000 people to “optimally fluoridate.” Fortunately, it was not passed. If passed, it would have increased the fluoride levels in Oregon to 68%. Good for Cargill and Monsanto, bad for us.
Reasons Not to Fluoridate
The following partial list is compiled from Fluoride Alert:
Fluoride is a cumulative poison.
Chromosome damage
Kidneys
Brain
Alzheimers
Rats dosed prenatally demonstrated hyperactive behavior. Those dosed postnatally demonstrated hypoactivity (i.e. under activity or “couch potato” syndrome)
Lowering of IQ
Early onset of puberty
Affects thyroid gland
Arthritis
Cancer
Infertility
Harms bones – brittle

It is up to us to stand up and say no to mass water fluoridation. If someone wants fluoride, then let him/her take it. I have no problem with that. But to forcibly administer this poison to an unsuspecting and unwilling populace without prior knowledge or consent is criminal. We are not Auschwitz prisoners….yet.
© 2010 Barbara H. Peterson

Company Research on Genetically Modified Foods is Rigged

Company Research on Genetically Modified Foods is Rigged:
In 2004, the peer-reviewed British Food Journal published a study claiming that when shoppers in a Canadian farm store were given an informed, unbiased choice between genetically modified (GM) corn and non-GM corn, most purchased the GM variety.

The research, which was funded by the biotech industry and conducted by four staunch proponents of GM foods, other findings around the world that show how people avoid genetically modified organisms (GMOs) when given a choice.

The controversial article was nonetheless given the Journal's prestigious Award for Excellence for the Most Outstanding Paper of 2004. It is often cited by biotech advocates as proof that people are embracing GM foods.

Fortunately Stuart Laidlaw, a reporter from Canada's Toronto Star, had visited the farm store several times during the study and described the scenario in his book Secret Ingredients. Far from offering unbiased choices, huge signs placed over the non-GM corn bin read, "Would you eat wormy sweet corn?" It further listed the chemicals that were sprayed during the season.

By contrast, the sign above the GM corn stated, "Here's What Went into Producing Quality Sweet Corn." No wonder 60 percent of shoppers avoided the "wormy corn." In fact, it's a testament to people's distrust of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that 40 percent still went for the "wormy" option.

In addition to the signs, the "consumer education fact sheets" in the store were nothing more than pro-GM propaganda. And the lead researcher, Doug Powell, was even seen trying to convince a customer who purchased non-GM corn to switch to the GM variety.

The Science of Rigging Studies

Cambridge University's Dr. Richard Jennings, a leading researcher on scientific ethics, described the study as "flagrant fraud." But there are plenty more examples of "cooked" research in the much more critical area of GMO safety assessments.

• When dairy farmers inject cows with GM bovine growth hormone (rbGH), there are plenty of changes in the milk—including an increase of that hormone itself. To allay fears, the FDA claimed that pasteurization destroys 90 percent of the hormone.

  In reality, the researchers of this drug (then owned by Monsanto) pasteurized the milk 120 times longer than normal. But they only destroyed 19 percent. So they spiked the milk with a huge amount of extra growth hormone and then repeated the long pasteurization. Only under these artificial conditions were they able to destroy 90 percent.

• To demonstrate that rbGH injections didn't interfere with cows' fertility, Monsanto appears to have added cows to their study that were pregnant BEFORE injection.
• When Aventis CropScience prepared samples to see if the potential allergen in StarLink GM corn was intact after cooking, instead of using the standard 30-minutes, they heated the corn for 2 hours.
• When independent researchers published a study in July 1999 showing that Monsanto's GM soy contains 12-14 percent less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens, Monsanto responded with its own study, concluding that soy's phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis.

  Researchers failed to disclose, however, that they had instructed the laboratory to use an obsolete method of detection—one that had been prone to highly variable results.

• To prove that GM protein breaks down quickly during simulated digestion, biotech companies use thousands of times the amount of digestive enzymes and a much stronger acid than what the World Health Organization recommends.
• Monsanto told government regulators that the GM protein produced in their high-lysine GM corn was safe for humans, because it is also found in soil. Since people consume small residues of soil on fruits and vegetables, the protein has a long safe history as part of the human diet.

  But the actual amount of the GM corn protein an average US citizen would consume (if all their corn were Monsanto's variety), would be "about 30 billion-4 trillion times" the amount normally consumed in soil residues. For equivalent exposure, people would have to eat as much as 22,000 pounds of soil every second of every day.

• Monsanto's high-lysine corn also had unusual levels of several nutritional components, such as protein and fiber. Instead of comparing it to normal corn, which would have revealed this significant disparity, Monsanto compared their GM corn to obscure corn varieties that were also far outside the normal range on precisely these values. On this basis, Monsanto could claim that there were no statistically significant differences in their GM corn.

Methods used by biotech companies to hide problems are varied and plentiful. For example, researchers:

• Use animals with varied starting weights, to hinder the detection of food-related changes;
• Keep feeding studies short, to miss long-term impacts;
• Test Roundup Ready soybeans that have never been sprayed with Roundup—as they always are in real world conditions;
• Avoid feeding animals the GM crop, but instead give them a single dose of GM protein produced from GM bacteria
• Use too few subjects to obtain statistical significance
• Use poor or inappropriate statistical methods, or fail to even mention statistical methods, or include essential data
• Employ insensitive detection techniques—doomed to fail

Monsanto's 1996 Journal of Nutrition study, which was their cornerstone article for "proving" that GM soy was safe, provides plenty of examples of masterfully rigged methods:

• Researchers tested GM soy on mature animals, not the more sensitive young ones. GMO safety expert Arpad Pusztai says the older animals "would have to be emaciated or poisoned to show anything."
• Organs were never weighed.
• The GM soy was diluted up to 12 times which, according to an expert review, "would probably ensure that any possible undesirable GM effects did not occur."
• The amount of protein in the feed was "artificially too high," which would mask negative impacts of the soy.
• Samples were pooled from different locations and conditions, making it near impossible for compositional differences to be statistically significant.
• Data from the only side-by-side comparison was removed from the study and never published. When it was later recovered, it revealed that Monsanto's GM soy had significantly lower levels of important constituents (e.g. protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid) and that toasted GM soy meal had nearly twice the amount of a lectin—which interferes with your body's ability to assimilate nutrients.

  Moreover the amount of trypsin inhibitor, a known soy allergen, was as much as seven times higher in cooked GM soy compared to a cooked non-GM control.

In December 2009, a team of independent researchers published a study analyzing the raw data from three Monsanto rat studies. When they used proper statistical methods, they found that the three varieties of GM corn caused toxicity in the liver and kidneys, as well as significant changes in other organs.

Monsanto's studies, of course, had claimed that the research showed no problems. The regulators had believed Monsanto, and the corn is already in our food supply.

Safe eating.

[Citations for studies are available in Part 3 of Genetic Roulette, by Jeffrey M. Smith, www.geneticroulette.com.]

To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.

About the Author

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods.

His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world's bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced.

Mr. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply.

Take Action Now by clicking on the following link to understand all the myths and realities behind GE crops. Education of GMO is the best step to avoiding them and spreading awareness of this increasing threat in our food supply that can rob you of your health.

For a straightforward guide to shopping Non-GMO, see the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.

Related Links:

Warning: This Common Food Causes Devastating Offspring Defects in New Research Study

Refined Foods are Bad, But These May Be Far Worse

Genetically Engineered Soybeans May Cause Allergies

The Many Misconceptions About Genetic Engineering and Organic Agriculture

The Many Misconceptions About Genetic Engineering and Organic Agriculture: "everything we eat has been genetically manipulated in some way. That nothing we eat really has been gathered from the wild. It turns out a lot of people think that for example, organic farmers gather the seed and plant it in the garden, and the seeds that they gather are from the wilderness! And so when you tell people that everything we eat is essentially influenced by human hands (except maybe some wild blueberries or chanterelles), everything we eat has been manipulated. In fact very little that we eat would actually survive out in a natural ecosystem because it needs a farmer to take care of it.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Jimmy Keller is Another Victim in the War on Cancer Cures

Jimmy Keller is Another Victim in the War on Cancer Cures:
The war on cancer that is being won is actually the war on cancer cures. That war's direct casualties are the courageous, independent individuals, whether MDs, holistic practitioners, or laypeople who have discovered a safe, efficacious cure for cancer that has better results than orthodox medicine's chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.

The collateral damage from government agency raids on alternative cancer cure clinics are the cancer victims successfully receiving treatments and those of us who prefer to stay out of the extremely expensive, dangerous and ineffective medical mafia matrix.

Jimmy Keller's Story

Jimmy Keller's dedication to curing his own cancer motivated him to share his discoveries by practicing medicine without a license in his home state of Louisiana. Jimmy's success and passion for natural cancer curing attracted the medical mafia, forcing him to set up a small clinic in Mexico. From there, he was kidnapped at gunpoint in 1991, and railroaded into prison by Federal Prosecutors in a Brownsville, Texas kangaroo court.

Jimmy Keller's story is covered compassionately and completely in Ellen Brown's book Forbidden Cure, as appropriate a title that a title can be. Think of those two words: it indicates that an actual cure is being forbidden, which has been the case with several casualties of the war on cancer cures for almost a century.

Jimmy's drama started when he was a victim of severe facial skin cancer while operating a successful water treatment business in Louisiana. The surgery permanently disfigured his face. Consequently, his appearance impacted his business and sales career. Then his cancer came back painfully in other areas of his body.

Depressed and afraid to undergo more 'orthodox' treatment, Jimmy went into an emotional decline. His parents received word of an alternative cancer treatment center in Dallas, TX. Jimmy went hopelessly to Dallas just to please them, but he was surprised that his condition improved considerably without pain or side effects.

That Dallas clinic was shut down by the Feds in 1969 before Jimmy made a full recovery, but he had learned a lot there and was determined to continue his treatments. He moved back to his home town in Louisiana and managed an out of home alternative cancer cure co-op, where often cancer patients administered laetrile shots and other treatments to each other. As the ban on laetrile became enforced, Jimmy's research led to developing his own solutions.

Jimmy's Treatments

His protocol involved good diet with supplements and enzymes, and his own solution was based on L-arginine, an amino acid known to soften cancerous tumors, and histidine, another amino acid that enhances tissue health among other attributes. His injected solution included different forms of vitamin B12 as well as the complete B-complex and vitamin C. Jimmy's treatments would sometimes include DMSO, Pau d'Arco tea, an iodine supplement, an immunity nutraceutical, injectable Essiac tea, mistletoe extract, and cesium chloride.

Jimmy adjusted his treatments slightly according to daily kinesiology or muscle testing. He had an 80% remission success rate, with many permanently cured. But sometimes the cancer would return. He would have treated those with returned cancers if he were allowed to continue. But because he was stopped, they became "collateral damage" from the war on cancer cures.

Conclusion

After his release, Jimmy suffered a stroke and was paralyzed. He died at the age of 75 in 2009. Jimmy knew he could be hijacked back into the States to be imprisoned if he didn't stop treating patients. His compassion and dogged persistence for continuing to help patients effectively once started made him fair game for our fascist medical system.

Sources for More Information Include:

Author/Attorney Ellen Brown's article: Discover a Cancer Cure and Go to Jail
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/...

Jimmy's abduction by one whose wife had a dramatic improvement but later became "collateral damage".
http://www.karlloren.com/Jimmy_Kell...

Major Jimmy Keller Source Page
http://www.karlloren.com/Jimmy_Kell...

LA Times dramatic story of JK's capture and trial
http://quanta-gaia.org/health/Kelle...

Jimmy Keller's son Jim's 2009 Eulogy
http://forbiddenmedicine.blogspot.com/

The German nutraceutical Jimmy often used in addition to his solution
http://www.carnivora.com/