Tag Archives: health

Featured, Health, Podcast, US

Truth In Media with Ben Swann, Episode 36: C0R0NAVlRUS Cases Surging, but Deaths are Not- Here’s Why

Video Leave a comment

With new cases of C0R0NAVlRUS surging across the country, the nation is panicking once again talking about the need for more masks, more lock-downs and asking when we can finally get that vaccine. But hold on, because once again new numbers show that the number of people who have already had this virus is vastly higher than what’s being reported… and as the number of cases is surging, the number of deaths is not- here’s why.

********

Support Truth in Media by visiting our sponsors: 

 

Create Tailwind:  https://createtailwind.com  

 

Pulse Cellular: Use code “TRUTH” for 10% off every plan for life. 

https://truthinmedia.com/phone 

 

Pure VPN: Military grade VPN protection.

https://truthinmedia.com/vpn 

 

Brave Browser: Open source and built by a team of privacy-focused, performance-oriented pioneers of the web.

https://truthinmedia.com/brave

Featured, Health, International, Opinion

UN Report Warns of Low Numbers of Bees and Pollinators

Leave a comment

Last Friday, a new examination of several studies on the decline of pollinators was approved by a congress of 124 nations meeting in Kuala Lumpur. The report was conducted by a team of scientists from around the world who worked with the United Nations for more than two years to assess the Earth’s biodiversity.

The study will help provide world leaders with an idea of what is happening to the Earth’s biodiversity and what can be done to prevent a loss of diversity. The researchers found that many species of wild bees, butterflies and other pollinators are quickly moving towards extinction.

“We are in a period of decline and there are going to be increasing consequences,” said report lead author Simon Potts, the director of the Centre for Agri-Environmental Research at the University of Reading in England.

One of the consequences would be a loss of food that is dependent on pollinators including fruits, vegetables, coffee, and chocolate. The report states that 2 out of 5 species of invertebrate pollinators, such as bees and butterflies, are on the path toward extinction. Vertebrate pollinators, such as hummingbirds and bats, are facing extinction at a rate of 1 out of 6 species.

The report pointed out a handful of sources for the decline in biodiversity, including pesticide use, habitat loss to cities, disease, parasites and pathogens, and global warming.

“The variety and multiplicity of threats to pollinators and pollination generate risks to people and livelihoods,” the report stated. “These risks are largely driven by changes in land cover and agricultural management systems, including pesticide use. Pesticides, particularly insecticides, have been demonstrated to have a broad range of lethal and sub-lethal effects on pollinators in controlled experimental conditions.”

One of the more controversial class of pesticides are known as neonicotinoids. The “neonics” are a class of pesticide that has previously been linked to declines in bee populations. Neonics were developed in 1991 and commercial use began in the mid-1990s. Several studies have indicated that neonics may cause harm to local pollinators.

Commercial beekeepers began reporting around 2006 what is now known as colony collapse disorder, where entire colonies of bees die off with no obvious cause. The disorder has been reported in commercial colonies all over the world.

Potts did state that the number of managed hives has risen slightly from 2.5 million in 2012 to 2.7 million in 2016. Between 1961 and 2012, the United States saw an estimated loss of 3 millions hives due to colony collapse disorder.

Although pesticides are only one of several possible sources responsible for the threat to pollinators, it should be noted that the United States has experienced controversy over neonicotinoid research.

In May 2015, Truth In Media reported that 25 organizations representing farm workers, food safety organizations, and the environment sent a letter to officials with the USDA and Environmental Protection Agency. They called for an investigation into claims that scientists are facing pressure and retaliation for research that presents the controversial neonicotinoid insecticide in a negative light.

The groups said they were concerned about a report from Reuters that detailed threats to scientists who spoke out about the dangers of the pesticide. These threats included suspension without pay and threats of damage to careers. The scientists filed a petition in March 2015 seeking more protection.

Will the United Nations report affect the United States’ use of pesticides? What steps can individuals take to remedy the situation? These are important questions for each of us to ponder. The loss of biodiversity and subsequent loss of food diversity is a reality that all humanity will soon have to face. The more prepared and educated we are the more likely we will be able to care for and protect our families well into the future.

Activism, Health

Yurok Tribe of California Passes Ordinance Banning Genetically Engineered Foods

Leave a comment

Klamath, CA. — In early December, the Yurok Tribal Council unanimously voted to enact the Yurok Tribe Genetically Engineered Organism (“GEO”) Ordinance, according to a press release from the tribe. The Tribal GEO Ordinance prohibits the propagation, raising, growing, spawning, incubating, or releasing genetically engineered organisms within the Tribe’s territory and declares the Yurok Reservation to be a GMO-free zone.

In their monthly newsletter the Yurok wrote, “The Tribe’s position is to support of the protection of Klamath River Wild Salmon and indigenous plants and berries. The Tribe has taken a firm stand against the use of Genetically Modified salmon for any purpose, as it is a threat to the health and wellbeing of our community. An ordinance about GEOs would further the Tribe’s interest in protecting Wild Salmon and against any genetic alteration to Klamath River Salmon.”

Violations of the ordinance will be enforced through the Yurok Tribal Court.

“It is the inherent sovereign right of the Yurok People to grow plants from natural traditional seeds and to sustainably harvest plants, salmon and other fish, animals, and other life-giving foods and medicines, in order to sustain our families and communities as we have successfully done since time immemorial; our Court will enforce any violations of these inherent, and now codified, rights,” Yurok Chief Judge Abby Abinanti stated.

The Yurok People live on the Klamath River in northern California. The tribe has relied upon the salmon for generations and are dependent upon the health of the wild, native Klamath River salmon species and other traditional food resources which could be threatened by the introduction of genetically engineered species.

James Dunlap, Chairman of the Yurok Tribe, said his people “have the responsibility to care for our natural world, including the plants and animals we use for our foods and medicines. This Ordinance is a necessary step to protect our food sovereignty and to ensure the spiritual, cultural and physical health of the Yurok People.” Dunlap said the Yurok are taking a stand against GE food production systems because they are “inherently dependent on the overuse of herbicides, pesticides and antibiotics, are not our best interest.”

In April 2013, the Yurok Tribe also passed a resolution opposing genetically engineered salmon. In November 2015, after years of controversy surrounding the safety of GE salmon, the FDA announced that the AquAdvantage salmon is as safe and nutritious to eat as the non-genetically engineered variety.

The FDA stated, “The FDA scientists rigorously evaluated extensive data submitted by the manufacturer, AquaBounty Technologies, and other peer-reviewed data, to assess whether AquAdvantage salmon met the criteria for approval established by law.”

The FDA says the data shows “that the inserted genes remained stable over several generations of fish, that food from the GE salmon is safe to eat by humans and animals, that the genetic engineering is safe for the fish, and the salmon meets the sponsor’s claim about faster growth.”

Despite the FDA’s decision, AquaBounty has faced criticism and lawsuits for their products. After the decision, The Guardian reported that several environmental groups are suing the Canadian government in an attempt to end the production of GE salmon eggs. The lawsuit claims AquaBounty is operating a “huge live experiment” with the genes of the wild Atlantic salmon. The Canadian government previously gave AquaBounty permission to create GE salmon eggs in Canada and ship them to Panama to be grown before selling them on the market in the U.S. and Canada.

In addition to the GE ban from the Yurok Tribe, Kroger and Safeway, the nation’s two largest grocery chains, announced they would not sell the genetically engineered salmon. The two chains joined Target, Whole Foods, and Trader Joe’s in their opposition to the GE salmon.

Government Accountability, Health

Lawmakers Attempt to Add ‘Monsanto Rider’ to Government Budget Bill

Leave a comment

Critics of a food labeling bill recently passed by the House fear that it could be added as a last-minute provision to the looming federal budget bill.

Known as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act to supporters and the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act by critics, the law would effectively nullify Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) labeling measures like the bill recently passed in Vermont. The Vermont law is scheduled to go into effect July 2016. Maine and Connecticut have also passed laws requiring labeling, but those measures will not go into effect until bordering states also pass legislation.

Genetically modified or engineered seeds are engineered to have certain traits, such as resistance to herbicides. The majority of the United States’ corn and soybean crops are now GE, including a large portion which goes to animal feed.

The labeling act would create a federal voluntary standard for GMO labeling and block mandatory labeling efforts by states. The AP reports that “the food industry wants the labeling to be voluntary, and it hopes to get a provision in a massive spending bill that Republicans and Democrats want to wrap up this week.”

“It is imperative that Congress take action now to prevent a costly and confusing patchwork of state labeling laws from taking effect next year and spreading across the country,” a coalition of groups representing growers and the food industry said in a letter to House and Senate leaders.

Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, told the AP, “We have a lot of folks on our side of the aisle that are very opposed.” Sen John Hoeven of (R-ND) said he is “trying to come up with a compromise that brings both sides together, and it doesn’t seem like we’ll have that by year-end.”

Reuters reports that a vote on the budget will happen on Friday before the midnight deadline for funding the federal government. According to Reuters, “lawmakers have been unable to reach agreement on a number of policy “riders” some lawmakers would like to add to the bill.” These “riders” include the DARK Act provision.

In response to the criticism of the DARK Act, the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture Nutrition & Forestry recently held a hearing titled Agriculture Biotechnology: A Look at Federal Regulation and Stakeholder Perspectives.

The committee heard testimonies from several speakers representing farmers, the GMO lobby, and consumer groups. Officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency also testified. The hearing was criticized for being one-sided and favoring corporations who will directly benefit from the passage of the bill.

As Reuters reported, “the Consumers Union and five other consumer organizations sent a letter to the Senate committee complaining that the lineup of speakers was not balanced and did not include a consumer representative.” Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives for Consumers Union said, “Time and again, a large majority of consumers have expressed strong support for GMO labeling.”

Ronnie Cummins, international director for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and a speaker at the hearing, released a scathing review of the events. “Today’s hearing on H.R. 1599 made a total mockery of democracy. Of the eight witnesses allowed to testify, only one could be remotely considered as someone who represents the interests of consumers and public health,” Cummins said. “The other seven have ties to the biotech and corporate food industries, and were there to represent the interests of corporations, not people.”

Please stay tuned to TruthInMedia.com for development on this story and the “government shutdown.”

Featured, Government Accountability, Politics

Report: U.S. Bio-Threat Program May Not Be Capable of Detecting Threats

Leave a comment

The U.S. federal government’s BioWatch system was launched shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001 in an attempt to detect potential biological terrorist attacks. The system’s effectiveness has been criticized by the media in the past, and a new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office does not encourage renewed faith in the BioWatch program.

The GAO report says there is a lack of reliable information about the current system to determine if it would actually detect a biological attack. Generation-2 is a flawed system that makes it impossible for the GAO to suggest improvements, the report states.

The Washington Post reported that “DHS officials defended BioWatch program, which consists of aerosol collectors deployed in more than 30 cities nationwide that draw in air through filters. The filters are collected and taken to laboratories for analysis to check for the presence of anthrax and other pathogens. The system was first deployed in 2003, in response to Sept. 11 and the anthrax attacks that followed.”

The GAO report stated:

[pull_quote_center]DHS lacks reliable information about BioWatch Gen-2’s technical capabilities to detect a biological attack and therefore lacks the basis for informed cost-benefit decisions about possible upgrades or enhancements to the system.[/pull_quote_center]

“The nation’s ability to detect threats against its security requires judicious use of resources directed toward systems whose capabilities can be demonstrated,” the report also stated.

The report recommends the Department of Homeland Security not be allowed to upgrade or enhance BioWatch until they can establish “technical performance requirements” to help improve the system. The recommendations echo a 2010 report by the Institute of Medicine which said “the BioWatch system requires better testing to establish its effectiveness and better collaboration with public health systems to improve its usefulness.”

The GAO also said any autonomous detection system must minimize false positive readings, meet sensitivity requirements and secure information technology networks. BioWatch currently operates in 31 cities including Washington D.C., New York City, Houston, and Los Angeles.

S.Y. Lee, a DHS spokesman, said the program “remains a critical part of our nation’s defense against biological threats.” Despite continuing to defend BioWatch, the DHS did support the GAO’s recommendations.

In 2014, the DHS also cancelled plans to upgrade the BioWatch system because of concerns of high cost and low effectiveness. The upgrade from Generation 2 to Generation 3 technology was expected to cost $3.1 billion during its first five years of operation.

Government Accountability, Health, Politics

FDA Approves Genetically Engineered Salmon as ‘Safe to Eat’

Leave a comment

Following several years of controversy surrounding the safety of genetically engineered (GE) salmon, the FDA has announced that AquAdvantage salmon is as safe and nutritious to eat as the non-genetically engineered variety.

The FDA stated, “The FDA scientists rigorously evaluated extensive data submitted by the manufacturer, AquaBounty Technologies, and other peer-reviewed data, to assess whether AquAdvantage salmon met the criteria for approval established by law.”

The FDA says the data shows “that the inserted genes remained stable over several generations of fish, that food from the GE salmon is safe to eat by humans and animals, that the genetic engineering is safe for the fish, and the salmon meets the sponsor’s claim about faster growth.”

Assessments of the environmental impact of the GE salmon found that “the approval would not have a significant impact on the environment of the United States.” Critics have long feared that GE salmon might escape from AquaBounty facilities and disrupt salmon in the wild. However, the FDA writes that “the multiple containment measures the company will use in the land-based facilities in Panama and Canada make it extremely unlikely that the fish could escape and establish themselves in the wild.”

Several consumer advocacy and anti-genetic engineering groups condemned the decision. The group Food and Water Watch has launched a petition asking President Obama to overturn the FDA’s approval.

A statement from the Consumers Union reads, “Unfortunately, the evidence of FDA’s evaluation of the AquAdvantage salmon suggests that FDA has set the bar very low.” The group accused the FDA of “sloppy science, small sample sizes, and questionable practices.” The organization also challenged the FDA’s analysis of growth hormone levels in the flesh, accusing the agency of making a decision “despite having no data at all on growth hormone levels due to use of insensitive test methodology.”

The FDA released two guidance documents discussing their position on labeling and outlining what types of voluntary labeling would be accepted for non-GE salmon. The agency said food manufacturers may use phrases like “Not genetically engineered,” “Not genetically modified through the use of modern biotechnology,” and “We do not use Atlantic salmon produced using modern biotechnology.”

Despite the FDA’s decision, AquaBounty has faced criticism and lawsuits for their products. On Tuesday the Guardian reported that several environmental groups are suing the Canadian government in an attempt to end the production of GE salmon eggs. The lawsuit claims AquaBounty is operating a “huge live experiment” with the genes of the wild Atlantic salmon. The Canadian government previously gave AquaBounty permission to create GE salmon eggs in Canada and ship them to Panama to be grown before selling them on the market in the U.S. and Canada.

In April 2013 Food and Water Watch reported:

“When FDA first announced its intent to approve AquaBounty’s application in the fall of 2010, the public sent more than 400,000 comments in opposition. Now that opposition has grown to nearly 1.5 million people.”

The following year Kroger and Safeway, the nation’s two largest grocery chains, announced they would not sell the genetically engineered salmon. The two chains joined Target, Whole Foods, and Trader Joe’s in their opposition to the GE salmon. So although the FDA has approved the fish for human consumption, it may be unlikely that Americans will encounter the product at their local grocer.

What are your thoughts? Will you eat the GE salmon?

Featured, Government Accountability, Health

EPA Proposes Ban on Common Pesticide

Leave a comment

Last Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new proposal which would ban the use of chlorpyrifos on citrus fruits, almonds and other crops. Chlorpyrifos is a common insecticide which is used on a number of crops that also includes oranges, apples, cherries, grapes, broccoli and asparagus.

The Associated Press reports:

“The pesticide, in use since 1965, has sickened dozens of farmworkers in recent years. Traces have been found in waterways, threatening fish, and regulators say overuse could make targeted insects immune to the pesticide. U.S. farms use more than 6 million pounds of the chemical each year – about 25 percent of it in California.”

The EPA stated that a recent analysis did not show risks from exposure to chlorpyrifos in food, but combined with estimates for exposure from drinking water, the “EPA cannot conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure meets the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act safety standard.”

The agency will take public comments on the proposed ban for at least two months. A final ruling is expected in December 2016 with the rule going into effect in 2017.

In the early 2000’s the EPA banned home use of chlorpyrifos and in 2012 placed “no-spray” buffer zones around schools and other sensitive areas.

The AP reported the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a federal lawsuit asking for a national ban on chlorpyrifos, citing evidence the chemical interferes with brain development of fetuses, infants and children.

Veena Singla, a scientist with NRDC’s health and environment program, said that the proposal “is a huge step in the right direction, but we think there’s enough evidence to ban all its uses now.”

The proposal from the EPA came just days after a researcher with the United States Department of Agriculture filed a whistleblower complaint alleging his supervisors suspended him in retaliation for his research on pesticides. The complaint follows calls for investigation of both the USDA and the EPA.

The Anti Media reported that Jonathan Lundgren, an entomologist and 11-year veteran of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, filed the complaint with the federal Merit Systems Protection Board after his supervisors allegedly began to “impede or deter his research and resultant publications.” Lundgren is well-known in the scientific community for previously alleging that the USDA attempted to prevent him from speaking about his research for political reasons.

Lundgren previously published a study that found soybean seeds pre-treated with neonicotinoid pesticides “offer little benefit to soybean producers.” He also served as a peer reviewer in a report published by the Center for Food Safety. That study found further evidence that neonicotinoids adversely affect bees.

Although Lundgren’s work is examining a different class of pesticides, his story highlights a dangerous trend around the science of pesticides: the suppression of research and retaliation against those who challenge the safety of pesticides.

In early May of this year, Truth In Media reported that 25 organizations representing farm workers, food safety organizations, and the environment issued a letter to officials with the USDA and EPA. They called for an investigation into claims that scientists are facing pressure and retaliation for research that presents the controversial neonicotinoid insecticide in a negative light.

A number of pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides have now been linked to health problems in animals and humans, as well as environmental degradation.

In March of this year it was reported that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report on the herbicide glyphosate which concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”  The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the EPA had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985.

The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Since the IARC’s rulings, Monsanto has faced a wave of lawsuits as personal injury lawyers are now looking for plaintiffs who have been harmed by the corporations products. 

The rise in the use of pesticides and herbicides comes with the increased use of genetically engineered or genetically modified crops. In September 2014, I wrote about the USDA’s decision to approve GE corn and soy and how this decision would lead to an increase in pesticide use.

This happens because the food products being approved by the government are engineered to resist widely-used chemicals such as glyphosate. This has led to an increase in “super-weeds” which are immune to the effects of glyphosate. This leads to an increase in spraying of these chemicals, as well as newer, stronger chemicals to fight the super weeds.

This cycle of spraying, and nature responding and adapting, will likely continue as the USDA recently approved another GE corn from Monsanto. Fellow bio-tech giant Syngenta is also applying for approval of a glyphosate-resistant GE corn. The USDA’s preliminary findings stated the risk of herbicide-resistant weeds will be an ongoing problem as long as herbicides are used.

The EPA’s latest proposal to ban the use of chlorpyrifos may indicate a shift towards more nuanced policies on herbicides, pesticides, and insecticides.

Health

Monsanto Seeks Third-Party Review of Cancer Claims

3 Comments

In March of this year TruthInMedia reported that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

 The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985. The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Glyphosate is not only the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in Bio-Tech giant Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products. At the time Reuters reported that Philip Miller, Monsanto’s vice-president of global regulatory affairs, was unsure “how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.” The corporation stated that scientific data does not match the claims and called for an emergency meeting between Monsanto and WHO officials.

Now Reuters reports that Monsanto has announced they have hired Intertek Scientific & Regulatory Consultancy to form “a panel of internationally recognized scientific experts to review IARC’s work. The experts include medical doctors, cancer experts, and individuals with doctoral degrees who are specialists in public health, the Creve Coeur, Missouri-based company said.”

Monsanto President Brett Begemann told Reuters that Monsanto is “confident in the safety of its herbicide products” but the review is being done to reassure consumers of the safety of the popular herbicide.

“It has created a lot of confusion,” Begemann told Reuters. “This panel is going to review the data thoroughly, and they are going to make their findings available to everyone for review.”

 

Monsanto promised a fair and transparent review.

Glyphosate is only one of Monsanto’s products that have been recently connected to cancer, however. In June the IARC also found that the  weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, “possibly” causes cancer in humans.

The IARC reviewed the latest scientific research before deciding to classify 2,4-D as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” a step below “probably carcinogenic”. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been receiving pressure to restrict or prohibit the use of 2,4-D, while some farm group and pesticide industry groups say the chemical does not need any more restriction.

Of particular interest with the recent findings is the fact that in April the EPA approved the use of Dow AgroScience’s Enlist Duo herbicide which contains 2,4-D and glyphosate. Enlist Duo is part of a partnership between Monsanto and Dow known as the Enlist Weed Control system.

Monsanto has not released a statement on whether or not they will also convene a panel to study the IARC’s claims about 2,4-D.

 

Health, Politics

New Bill Could Ban Genetically Engineered Labeling Laws

9 Comments

Recently the House Agriculture Committee approved a controversial bill that would ban states from enacting mandatory labeling laws  as well as regulations on genetically engineered foods.

House Resolution 1599, known as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act to supporters and the DARK act by critics, would overturn current state laws requiring labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, as well as prevent future labeling laws from being passed on the state or local level.

Now that the Committee has approved the bill it moves towards a full vote in the House before moving on to the Senate where it will likely face opposition from Democrats. The bill currently has 106 cosponsors, 91 Republicans and 15 Democrats.

After the committee approved the measure Pamela Bailey, CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), released a statement claiming that the legislation will ensure that Americans have accurate, consistent information about their food rather than a 50 state patchwork of labeling laws that will only prove costly and confusing for consumers, farmers and food manufacturers.”

The GMA is calling on the House to approve the measure before the coming August recess.

Scott Faber, executive director of Just Label It, said the fight has just begun. “The real fight will be in the Senate. This is from over.”

Currently three states have passed GE labeling bills, Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut. Maine and Connecticut’s laws do not go into effect unless their surrounding neighbor states also pass similar legislation.

Supporters of labeling say that consumers have a right to know if their food is genetically engineered. Some critics also fear the increasing use of herbicides and pesticides resulting from the proliferation of genetic engineering. The crowds are split between blanket opposition to genetically engineered foods and those who are calling for more studies to trace the effect on human consumption. Others oppose the GMO industry for limiting research and questionable business practices.

Supporters of the bill say that the labels will cause food prices to rise and cause confusion about the safety of GE food. At the committee hearing, Gregory Jaffe, Biotechnology Project Director with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, stated that since there were no known nutritional or safety issues connected to GE food, there should be no need for labels.

What are your thoughts? Are GMOs safe? Should they be labeled? Should the government ban labeling?

 

Government Accountability, Health

New Study Says Water Fluoridation Does Not Reduce Cavities

2 Comments

A prominent independent network of researchers recently examined every available study on water fluoridation and found that the practice does not reduce cavities.

The Cochrane Collaboration, a  global independent network of researchers, professionals, and patients, narrowed the review down to the most comprehensive, well-designed and reliable papers, before analyzing and publishing their conclusion.

According to Newsweek:

“The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom.

The scientists also found “insufficient evidence” that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults (children excluded).

From the review, we’re unable to determine whether water fluoridation has an impact on caries levels in adults,” Glenny says.”

 Trevor Sheldon, dean of the Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom, conducted a review of water fluoridation in 2000. Sheldon concluded that the process is not effective. “I had assumed because of everything I’d heard that water fluoridation reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of evidence,” he told Newsweek. “My prior view was completely reversed.”

Sheldon points out that some studies have actually shown that when water fluoridation was ceased, cavities went down a small percentage among schoolchildren.  This includes a 2001 study of two British Columbia communities that was included in the Cochrane review.

The Cochrane team also found that most studies confirming the effectiveness of fluoridation were completed prior to the widespread use of dental products such as mouth rinses and toothpastes. The study did find evidence that fluoridation was linked to a 26 percent decrease in cavities. However, this study was also done before the growth of modern dentistry. The researchers write, “We have limited confidence in the size of this effect due to the high risk of bias within the studies and the lack of contemporary evidence.”

Critics have long argued that any benefits of fluoride are only effective when applied topically, directly to the teeth. This would make water fluoridation largely a waste of resources. Moreover, exposing the internal organs to fluoride might actually be harmful to health. The possibility of harmful side effects from water fluoridation is still heavily debated.

In early June, the Health Research Board (HRB) completed an in-depth review of the effects of water fluoridation. The review was conducted at the behest of the U.S. Department of Health. After examining all internationally peer-reviewed papers on the topic of fluoride and health effects from 2006 to 2014, the HRB “found no definitive evidence that community water fluoridation is associated with positive or negative systemic health effects.”

Both the HRB review and the Cochrane review concluded that the majority of studies on fluoride, either for or against, were significantly flawed. The researchers found that around 70 percent of the studies did not account for conflicting factors, including sources of fluoride beyond tap water, diet, and ethnicity.

Despite the new findings from the Cochrane Review the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stands by their support of water fluoridation.  Barbara Gooch, a dental researcher with CDC’s Division of Oral Health, told Newsweek that the review does not reduce the government’s “confidence in water fluoridation as a valuable tool to prevent tooth decay in children as well as adults.”

The new data comes just months after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a report recommending water fluoridation levels be lowered.

The HHS released their final Public Health Service (PHS) for fluoride, calling for a change from the recommended 0.7 -1.2 milligrams per liter to a maximum of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water.

The HHS says the change is in response to growing cases of dental fluorosis, which causes yellowing and pitting of the teeth. A 2010 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Survey found that approximately 41% of 12-15 year olds suffer from dental fluorosis, a consequence of fluoride overexposure. The Cochrane review also concluded that water fluoridation is leading to an increase in dental fluorosis.

For more on the history of Fluoride, health issues, and conflicts of interests with the CDC, check this article.

Government Corruption, Health

Another Popular Herbicide Ingredient ‘Possibly Causes Cancer’

1 Comment

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has found another popular herbicide “possibly” causes cancer in humans.

The weed killer 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, known as 2,4-D, is the latest herbicide to be linked to cancer just months after the IARC found that Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicide, “probably” causes cancer. 

The IARC reviewed the latest scientific research before deciding to classify 2,4-D as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” a step below “probably carcinogenic”. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been receiving pressure to restrict or prohibit the use of 2,4-D, while some farm group and pesticide industry groups say the chemical does not need any more restriction.

Of particular interest with the recent findings is the fact that in April the EPA approved the use of Dow AgroScience’s Enlist Duo herbicide which contains 2,4-D and glyphosate. Enlist Duo is part of a partnership between Monsanto and Dow known as the Enlist Weed Control system. 

The weed controls system is the latest effort to combat the growing problem of so-called “super weeds” that have resulted from the abundant use of glyphosate-based herbicides. In order to fight off the tougher weeds, Dow and Monsanto partnered together to produce Enlist Duo.

At the time of the EPA’s approval of Enlist Duo, the Environmental Working Group condemned the decision, stating that it endangers humans, animals, and the environment. The USDA expects use of 2,4-D to increase by 200 to 600 percent by 2020.

The new herbicide works in conjunction with Genetically Modified Corn and Soybean seeds from Dow AgroSciences that are engineered to withstand both chemicals. Last fall the United States Department of Agriculture announced that it would approve the GE seeds.

Dow did not comment on the IARC classification of 2,4-D. The IARC said it chose “possibly” rather than “probably” because there was “inadequate evidence in humans and limited evidence in experimental animals” of ties between 2,4-D and cancer. The IARC said, “epidemiological studies did not find strong or consistent increases in risk of NHL (non-Hodgkin lymphoma) or other cancers in relation to 2,4-D exposure.”

Dana Loomis, a deputy section head for IARC, told Reuters the review showed mixed results, and that a “sizable minority” judged the evidence as stronger than others did.

The announcement comes just one month after 25 organizations representing farm workers, environment, and food safety organizations sent a letter to officials with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency calling for an investigation into claims that scientists are facing pressure and retaliation for research that presents the controversial neonicotinoid insecticide in a negative light.

The groups say they are concerned with a report from Reuters detailing threats to scientists who speak out about the dangers of the pesticide. These threats included suspension without pay, and threats of damage to careers. The scientists filed a petition in March asking for more protection

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility executive director Jeff Ruch told Common Dreams that the petition was “based on the experiences of 10 USDA scientists” who allegedly faced backlash for research on neonicotinoid insecticides and glyphosate, as well as other topics, including genetically modified crops.

Government Accountability, Health, US

UPDATE: Environmental Protection Agency May Begin Testing Food For Glyphosate Residue

6 Comments

Following a recent study which found the popular herbicide Glyphosate  ‘probably’ causes cancer, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has stated they may begin testing food for residue of the product.

On Friday the EPA released a statement to Reuters discussing the possible changes.

“Given increased public interest in glyphosate, EPA may recommend sampling for glyphosate in the future.”

The move comes after a study in March by the World Health Organization‘s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The IARC published a report in The Lancet Oncology detailing evaluations of organophosphate pesticides and herbicides. The report concluded that there was “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.” The evidence for this conclusion was pulled from studies of exposure to the chemical in the US, Canada and Sweden published since 2001.

The researchers found “convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” The report points out that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) had originally classified glyphosate as possibly carcinogenic to humans in 1985. The IARC Working Group evaluated the original EPA findings and more recent reports before concluding “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” Despite the WHO’s findings, the EPA approved Monsanto’s use of glyphosate as recently as 2013.

Glyphosate is not only the most widely-used herbicide, it is a key ingredient in Bio-Tech giant Monsanto’s popular RoundUp products. Reuters reports that Philip Miller, Monsanto’s vice-president of global regulatory affairs, was unsure “how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.” The corporation says scientific data does not match the claims and called for an emergency meeting between Monsanto and WHO officials.

However, WHO scientists say they stand behind their assessment. Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute and lead author of the study, told Reuters, “There was sufficient evidence in animals, limited evidence in humans and strong supporting evidence showing DNA mutations and damaged chromosomes.”

The battle around glyphosate is also closely linked to the debate around Genetically Engineered or Modified foods. The herbicide is typically used on GM crops such as corn and soybeans that have been specifically modified to survive the harmful effects of the herbicide. Corporations like Monsanto are heavily invested in the success of the chemical. The herbicide has been found in food, water, and in the air in areas where it has been sprayed.

Currently, the EPA tests thousands of food for pesticide residues, but does not test for glyphosate. This is because the EPA, and the European Union, believe glyphosate to be safe. The agency also told Reuters that the decision to test depends on the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its Pesticide Data Program. However, Peter Wood, spokesman for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, told Reuters that the “EPA makes the determination which commodities and pesticides are tested.” Until the WHO study, the EPA was unwilling to believe glyphosate might be harmful and previously said the chemical did not pose a risk to human health.

What are your thoughts? Is the fear of glyphosate and Monsanto legitimate? Is it unnecessary?

Health, US

To fight obesity, scientists suggest a tax on sugary foods

15 Comments

While obesity continues to threaten the lives of many Americans, a government advisory committee has suggested placing a tax on sugary food items to drive people away from the foods in order to fight the heath threat.

The Dietary Guideline Advisory, which consists of fourteen health experts according to CBS Boston, released a report saying the health and well-being of Americans would benefit from a tax on sugary foods and drinks. The committee recognizes though, they do not make any policies concerning the public, rather they simply make suggestions.

The report reads, “Taxation on higher sugar-and sodium-containing foods may encourage consumers to reduce consumption and revenues generated could support health promotion efforts… Alternatively, price incentives on vegetables and fruits could be used to promote consumption and public health benefits.”

Economic and social costs were also considered in the report, with the committee saying, as time goes on and people continue to neglect their physical wellness, the costs would be irreversible as people would require more healthcare in order to live.

“What we’re calling for in the report in terms of innovation and bold new action in health care, in public health, at the community level, is what it’s going to take to try and make a dent on the epidemic of obesity,” said committee chairwoman Barbara Millen according to Bloomberg Business. 

CNBC also reports the committee suggested nutrition programs should be made available at the federal, state, and local levels in order to promote a healthier lifestyle for all citizens.

The report made other suggestions for living a healthier lifestyle as well. Namely, the report suggests eating less red and processed meats, and eating more farm-raised fish instead.

Drug War, Featured, Marijuana Prohibition, US

U.S. Surgeon General Admits That Pot Has Benefits

8 Comments

Appearing on CBS This Morning, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said this: “We have to use that data to drive policy making,” he said, adding later, “I’m very interested to see where that takes us.”

Murthy is the first U.S. Surgeon General to admit this.

He joins the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and the California Medical Association who also agree.

Though his statement could signify that the tides are turning, the Department of Health & Human Services followed it up with a lukewarm statement: “Marijuana policy — and all public health policies — should be driven by science,” the statement read. “I believe that marijuana should be subjected to the same, rigorous clinical trials and scientific scrutiny that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) applies to all new medications. The Federal Government has and continues to fund research on possible health benefits of marijuana and its components. While clinical trials for certain components of marijuana appear promising for some medical conditions, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the standards for safe and effective medicine for any condition to date.”

While marijuana is still considered a Schedule I narcotic, it will be hard to study.

According to Vice, the only legal supplier of research-grade marijuana in the country is the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). As its name implies, the institute has a congressionally-mandated mission to research abuse and addiction, not the potential therapeutic effects of drugs.

Hopefully, this will be changing as well. According to the Daily Beast, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is considering introducing rescheduling legislation.

“It’s a work in progress,” the aide said, but couldn’t offer any specifics.

Civil Liberties, Health, US

UPDATE: Connecticut Supreme Court rules teen must continue chemotherapy

49 Comments

The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled a teen must continue to undergo chemotherapy to fight her cancer, despite her wish to not undergo treatment.

The story posted earlier this week described a 17-year-old named “Cassandra C.” in court papers, who was diagnosed with Hodgkins Lymphoma. She, with the support of her mother, Jackie Fortin, refused to undergo treatment, but the state of Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families was granted temporary custody of Cassandra so they could force chemo on the teen.

A legal battle ensued over the right for the teen to refuse the treatment, but the Supreme Court of Connecticut has ruled in favor of the DCF.

The chemotherapy treatment Cassandra is undergoing is believed to offer her an 85 percent chance of survival, according to medical experts who testified at the trial. However, these same experts said if she continued to refuse treatment, the teen would likely be dead within two years.

“This is her decision and her rights, which is what we are here fighting about,” said Fortin. “We should have choices about what to do with our bodies.”

Fortin and Cassandra have been asking the courts to recognize the “mature minor doctrine” which would allow a minor who shows the maturity of an adult to be able to make choices in the same capacity as an adult. The Courts ruled, however, Cassandra is not mature in this regards and the doctrine does not therefore apply to her.

Peter Johnson Jr., a legal analyst for FOX News, has said the family in this instance is wrong to think Cassandra can simply refuse treatment, given she is a minor. “The state of Connecticut has an obligation to prevent suicide. If she does not get this treatment, this is a form of suicide, and frankly the American Civil Liberties Union is complicit in her death if she dies,” said Johnson.

Since being under the custody of the DCF, Cassandra has undergone the chemotherapy and doctors have said she is responding well to it.

John E Tucker, the assistant Connecticut attorney general, told NBC News, “To interrupt that treatment would be devastating, even more devastating than delaying the treatment in the initial instance.”

“She knows I love her and I’m going to keep fighting for her because this is her decision,” said Fortin, according to NPR. “I know more than anyone, more than DCF, that my daughter is old enough, mature enough to make a decision. If she wasn’t, I’d be making that decision.”

Health, US

New EPA rules could be ‘most expensive’ set of regulations

7 Comments

President Obama has unveiled a series of new regulations for the EPA aimed at cutting levels of smog, especially the types of pollution which have been linked to inducing lung damage, asthma, and other health problems in humans.

The new regulations would mostly affect the power plants and factories in the Midwest which contribute large amounts of air pollution.

Currently, the EPA allows up to 75 parts per billion of air pollution to be emitted, a standard set by former President George Bush in 2008.  The EPA’s scientists have said, according to the Press Telegram, they would prefer a lower standard of air pollution of 60 parts per billion.  New regulations are thought to put the pollution emitted between 65 and 70 parts per billion however.

The new rules, which would not go into affect until after 2020, are estimated to cost the EPA about $3.9 billion to meet the 70 parts per billion level, but the cost is estimated to jump to $15 billion in order for companies to meet the lower level of 65 parts per billion.

The administration says the cost is worth the health benefits which would include, according to Politico, fewer deaths and hospitalizations as well as fewer missed days of school and work because of issues related to asthma and bronchitis.

Paul Billings, a senior vice president of the American Lung Association said, according to the New York Times, “Ozone is the most pervasive and widespread pollutant in the country… Ozone is not killing people, but causing tens of millions of people to get sick every day.

While environmentalists and health advocates have lauded these new regulations, some Republicans, as well as fossil fuel industry promoters, have criticized this plan, calling it another instance of government overreach.

The director of regulatory affairs for the American Petroleum Institute, Howard Feldman, said, “Air quality has improved dramatically over the past decades, and air quality will continue to improve under the existing standards.”  It is important to note though the American Petroleum Institute is an oil industry lobby group which spent $78 million to support the oil industry.

Harold Wimmer, the president of the American Lung Association said 60 parts per billion would be the most beneficial to the health of citizens, and he called these new regulations “long overdue.”

The proposed regulations can be found here.

International, Politics

Absent leader raises questions from around the globe

5 Comments

While part of the propaganda machine within North Korea thrives on presenting their country and leader as strong, powerful, and unconquerable, the recent absence of the country’s leader, Kim Jong-un, has many people asking what is happening with the supreme leader?

The last time Kim was seen in public was at the beginning of September when the leader was seen at a concert with his wife within the “hermit kingdom.”  Since then, Kim has missed several high profile events, according to Chron, and the absence of Kim’s media presence has led many to speculate on his disappearance.

One theory is the leader has been ousted from power by way of a coup, and an image showing a bloody Kim being seemingly dragged out of a hallway was said to be “evidence.”  However, this theory was proven false as the urban legend and rumour website Snopes pointed out the image in question was a near identical photo to one captured a few years ago while Kim visited a unit of the Korean People’s Army.

Health problems are a more plausible explanation for the leader’s absence, but what kind of health problems?

Gout, diabetes, a heart ailment, mental illness, a leg injury, and a brain hemorrhage, are all reasons people have said Kim has been absent, but none are confirmed. One North Korean lawmaker even asked Amd. Choi Yoon-hee, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in North Korea, if Kim was brain dead.  Choi promptly said there were no problems with Kim “severe enough to disrupt his status as ruler of the country.”

In fact, North Korea’s UN ambassador, Hyan Hak Bong, told the BBC Kim was healthy and there was no reason to worry about his health, despite North Korean media reports in early September saying Kim was suffering “discomfort.”

While the world is questioning Kim’s absence from the media, Scott Snyder, an expert on Korea who has been working with the Council on Foreign Relations, says the cult of personality established within the country is so strong, “the people feel Kim’s presence even when he is absent.”

Kim currently has no known heir, and the line of succession has followed the Kim family since Kim Il-sung ceased power in 1948.  This has led some to say Kim is indeed ill and his sister, Kim Yo-jong, has been acting with Kim’s voice.

What is strange though is in Kim’s absence, a three-man delegation was sent to Seoul, accompanied by a personal message to South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye, with the intention of opening North-South dialogue.  So if Kim is currently unable to make decisions from health ailments, or is incapacitated in some way, who is trying to open these dialogues?

Health, International, US

About 100 people were in contact with Dallas Ebola patient

1 Comment

Health officials in Texas are now reporting the patient in Dallas who has contracted the Ebola virus, has been in contact with approximately 100 people.

Erikka Neros, spokeswoman for the Dallas County Health and Human Services Department has said there are between 12 and 18 people who were in direct contact with the patient, while the number of “contact traces” is now 80.

All of those who came into some sort of contact with Thomas Duncan, the Ebola patient in question, are being monitored closely.

Carrie Williams, the Texas Department of State Health Services, said in a statement, according to NPR, “Out of an abundance of caution, we’re starting with this very wide net, including people who have had even brief encounters with the patient or the patient’s home. The number will drop as we focus in on those whose contact may represent a potential risk of infection.”

Initially, the number of those who came in contact with Duncan was closer to 18 people, according to RT.

An early report from the Dallas Morning News said Duncan arrived at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital on Sept. 25.  He told health staff at the time he was suffering from fever and stomach aches, and he had recently been to Liberia, one of the Ebola stricken nations in Africa.

CDC guidelines say Duncan should have been placed in isolation and tested for Ebola immediately, but the news of Duncan’s travel did not reach key medical staff at the hospital.  As a result, Duncan was given a combination of antibiotics and then sent home, according to FOX News.

The family of Duncan are amongst those being monitored, and Texas health officials have quarantined the family.  They are not allowed, under a state “control order,” to leave their home or have any contact with anyone outside of their home for 21 days, and all family members must be available at all times for health tests, according to USA Today.

If any of the family members break this “control order,” they could potentially face criminal charges.