Is It Organic Fertilizer or Toxic Sewer Sludge>

Toxic sludge is good for you?

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, along with municipal governments across the US, want farmers, school, and backyard gardeners to grow their veggies using toxic sludge, spreading the outrageous lie that municipal wastewater sewage plants can somehow magically transform hazardous materials into "organic fertilizer."

Toxic sludge is poison.

Listen

John Mayer and John Stauber of Organic Consumers Association talk about toxic sludge and how San Francisco's "green" mayor has sludge on his hands. 

Listen on Raising Sand Radio.
Listen on the Peter Collins Show. 

Scientific evidence has confirmed that municipal sewage sludge contains hundreds of dangerous pathogens, toxic heavy metals, flame-retardants, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, pharmaceutical drugs and other hazardous chemicals coming from residential drains, storm water runoff, hospitals, and industrial plants.

Sewage sludge contains everything the sewage treatment plant was able to remove from the sewage - plus every new chemical and pathogen formed in the mad synergy of this chemical soup, including virulent, antibiotic-resistant bacteria created through horizontal gene transfer.

San Francisco public officials have helped the toxic sludge industry score a major victory in the Bay Area, where they've been able to convince hundreds of regional (non-organic) farmers to spread the hazardous material on farm land and pasture, and have actually been able to get city residents to take hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic sludge and spread it over their backyard and community gardens.

San Francisco is a strategic battleground to stop the sludge industry from poisoning more farms and communities. In 1998 the organic community rose up and banned the use of sewage sludge in organic farming. Now it's time to ban its use on farms, gardens, lawns, and land in general.

Sewage sludge is a form of hazardous waste and needs to be contained and isolated as such.

California proposition 65 (P65) requires the listing of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Chemicals known to the SFPUC that are in San Francisco sewage sludge that are also found on the California P65 list include:

Mercury - Molybdenum - Cobalt - Antimony Chromium - Dibenzofurans - Naphthalene - 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (Dbcp) - Di (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate (Dehp) - Tcdd Equivalents (Dioxins) Such As Octachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxins (Ocdd)

Stop Sludge!

Click here to download OCA's Sludge Leaflet (PDF)

Organizations that have signed onto the letter asking Mayor Newsom to stop spreading toxic sludge on the city include:

Organic Consumers Association - Consumers Union - Arc Ecology - California Communities Against Toxics - California Food & Justice Coalition - Center for Food Safety - Center for Health, Environment & Justice - Earth Share California - East Bay Green Tours - Food First (Institute for Food and Development Policy) - GAIA (Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives) - Green Cafe Network - Help for Sewage Victims - Lessing/Sears Community Garden - Local Harvest - MOMAS (Mothers of Marin Against the Spray) - North Berkeley Harvest - Our City - People's Grocery - Planting Justice - Raising Sand Radio/Motherspeak - Safe Food and Fertilizer - San Francisco Green Party - Teamsters Union - United Sludge -Free Alliance

New Study Shows GMO Causes Leukemia

Last September, the causal link between cancer and genetically modified food was confirmed in a French study, the first independent long-term animal feeding study not commissioned by the biotech corporations themselves. The disturbing details can be found here: New Study Finds GM Corn and Roundup Causes Cancer In Rats

Now, a new study published in the Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases indicates that the biopesticides engineered into GM crops known as Bacillus Thuringensis (Bt) or Cry-toxins, may also contribute to blood abnormalities from anemia to hematological malignancies (blood cancers) such as leukemia.[i]

A group of scientists from the Department of Genetics and Morphology, Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia/DF, Brazil set out to test the purported human and environmental biosafety of GM crops, looking particularly at the role that the Bt toxin found within virtually all GM food crops plays on non-target or non-insect animal species.

The research was spurred by the Brazilian Collegiate Board of Directors of the National Sanitary Surveillance Agency (ANVISA), who advocated in 2005 for evaluations of toxicity and pathogenicity of microbiological control agents such as Bt toxins, given that little is known about their toxicological potential in non-target organisms, including humans.

While Bacillus Thurigensis spore-crystals have been used since the late 1960's in agriculture as a foliar insecticide, it was only after the advent of recombinant DNA biotechnology that these toxin-producing genes (known as delta endotoxins) were first inserted into the plants themselves and released into commercial production in the mid-90's, making their presence in the US food supply and the bodies of exposed populations ubiquitous.

What the new study revealed is that various binary combinations and doses of Bt toxins are capable of targeting mammalian cells, particularly the erythroid (red blood cell) lineage, resulting in red blood cell changes indicative of significant damage, such as anemia. In addition, the study found that Bt toxins suppressed bone marrow proliferation creating abnormal lymphocyte patterns consistent with some types of leukemia.   

EPA Approves HIGHER Levels Of Monsanto's Roundup Glyphosate

When does one plus one not equal two? When mounting evidence says glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide, does more damage to our health and environment than we thought. And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responds by approving higher, not lower, allowable limits of the pesticide residue.

Please sign the letter below. Tell the EPA you want lower, not higher, limits on Monsanto’s glyphosate and Roundup!

This month (May 2013) the EPA announced a final ruling to increase, yet again, the allowed residue limits in food and animal feed of glyphosate, the key active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Under the ruling, the allowed glyphosate level in animal feed will rise to 100 parts per million (ppm) and 40 ppm in oilseed crops.

There is precedence for final rulings to be revisited, even reversed, if enough people voice their opposition. The EPA will take comments on the ruling until July 1, 2013.

The EPA ruling defies sound science and undermines public health. Peer reviewed studies show rats fed diets as low as 2ppm of glyphosate were 70 percent to 80 percent more likely to develop tumors. Infertility, affecting both the sperm and the egg, was documented in animals subjected to glyphosate residue levels as low as .05 ppm. Birth defects in frog and chicken embryos resulted after being subjected to glyphosate residues of just 2.03 ppm.

Yet the EPA claims glyphosate is only “minimally toxic” to humans, and 40 ppm is nothing to worry about?

The EPA’s decision is all the more unjustifiable in light of two recently published, peer reviewed studies revealing glyphosate to be a far greater threat to human health than previously determined.

According to a study published in the journal Entropy in April 2013, glyphosate is related to debilitating diseases like gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. The study says the negative impact on the human body is “insidious and manifests slowly over time, as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body… it may in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment.”

A 2012 study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology showed Roundup is toxic to human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications. Industry regulators and long-term studies look at glyphosate in isolation, instead of looking at Roundup’s full formulation, which includes secret added ingredients. These “confidential” and unlabeled ingredients, when measured as a whole, affect all living cells, including human cells.

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world. According to the EPA, at least 208 million tons of Roundup were sprayed on GE crops, lawns and roadsides in the years 2006 and 2007. In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used just six years ago.

A 2009 study found that Americans use about 100 million pounds of glyphosate annually on their lawns and gardens. It’s safe to assume all these number are much higher now. Why? Because GE crops are now being invaded by new strains of herbicide-resistant “superweeds” requiring higher and higher doses of poison.

Beyond Pesticides has assembled extensive documentation of past research linking glyphosate to increased cancer risk, neurotoxicity and birth defects, as well as eye, skin, respiratory irritation, lung congestion, increased breathing rate, damage to the pancreas, kidney and testes.

Glyphosate also endangers the environment, destroys soil and plants, and is linked to a host of health hazards. The EPA’s decision to increase the allowed residue limits of glyphosate is out of date, dangerous to the health of people and the environment and scientifically unsupportable.

Please sign the letter below. Tell the EPA you want lower, not higher, limits on Monsanto’s glyphosate and Roundup! I am very concerned about the increase in glyphosate residue limits proposed for food and commodity crops. Mounting evidence points to the need to lower, not raise, the allowable limits of glyphosate residue.

Peer reviewed studies show rats fed diets as low as 2ppm of glyphosate were 70 percent to 80 percent more likely to develop tumors. Infertility, affecting both the sperm and the egg, was documented in animals subjected to glyphosate residue levels as low as .05 ppm. Birth defects in frog and chicken embryos resulted after being subjected to glyphosate residues of just 2.03 ppm.

One recent study, http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416 published in the journal Entropy in April 2013, revealed glyphosate to be a far greater threat to human health than previously determined. According to the study, glyphosate is related to debilitating diseases like gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. The study says the negative impact on the human body is “insidious and manifests slowly over time, as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body… it may in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment.”

The EPA’s science on glyphosate is outdated. I urge you to do a complete review of the toxicity of glyphosate and adjust the tolerance levels allowed in the U.S. feed and food supply downward, not upward. Thank you.

Uruguay: Birth of a Movement Against Mining and Extractivism

On March 7 one of Uruguay’s strongest myths was broken: trust in state enterprises. That day those who turned on their faucets were met with a foul smell and those who were drinking coffee or maté found a strange taste. The company in charge of the water supply, the State Sanitary Works (OSE), had to confess that there was “an episode” of algae contamination in the Santa Lucia River Basin, which supplies six out of ten Uruguayans.
Despite this, the state company said that the water was potable. 

A statement released days later said: “In relation to the event of the taste and odor perceived several days ago by the population of the metropolitan area, OSE informs that it was entirely due to a substance released by a type of microscopic algae in the Santa Lucia River. This substance, called Geosmin, has no bearing on the health of the population “[1].

The authorities closed ranks and denied emphatically the contamination of water sources, which had always been of high quality. However, much of the population did not believe the State’s arguments, buying bottled water and depleting stocks.


This event wouldn’t have had much significance if it were not for a movement that has grown in recent years against the installation of an Indian owned, open pit, iron mine called Aratirí. The movement has also been protesting the extensive use of pesticides and fertilizers that have polluted the soy crop and recently re-forested areas. In fact, environmental consciousness has grown widely due to a debate following the installation of a massive pulp mill on the Uruguay River.


At that time (approximately 2003 – 2008), amid the euphoria of to the rise to power of the Fente Amplio (2004) and an atmosphere of nationalism exacerbated by disputes between environmentalists and the Argentine government, the majority of the population supported the Uruguayan government. Now things have changed. The rural population (only 5% of the total) began to feel the harmful effects of agricultural development and small-scale traditional farmers (including livestock herders) began to mobilize.


A Contaminated Country


It’s difficult to accept that Uruguay’s rivers are polluted. The country was always a natural paradise, with few cars and light industry, with extensive ranches and grain farming. But in the last decade, with agricultural and mineral speculation, things have changed drastically.

The main changes that have been occurring over the last ten years have been concentrated in rural production. 

The price of land has increased six fold ($500 to $3,000 per hectare on average). Thirty-eight percent of agricultural land has been sold, and 41% has been leased [2]. Between 2000 and 2008 Uruguayan owners lost 1.8 million hectares that went to corporations that acquired a similar surface quantity.


There is a strong concentration of land owned by multinational corporations with one million hectares belonging to just 14 groups. Montes del Plata (Chilean-Swedish-Finnish) has 234,000 hectares followed by Forestal Oriental (Finnish) with 200,000 hectares. The U.S. company, Weyerheuser has 140,000 hectares and the Argentine owned El Tejar and Agronegocios de Plata (ADP) have 140,000 and 100,000 hectares respectively, completing the list of the largest foreign investments.


In the 2001-2002 season there were only 29,000 hectares of soybeans planted. In 2012 it exceeded 1 million hectares. Another million hectares of land was forested. This represents an exponential increase in the use of pesticides and fertilizers that have been washed by rain into rivers. This has initiated a drama that the people are beginning to feel.


A study of the Santa Lucia River (which provides 60% of the drinking water) conducted by the National Direction of the Environment (DINAMA) resulted in scandal. Internationally accepted phosphorus levels in water are 25 micrograms per liter, but the count detected in the river ranged between 70 and 12,900 micrograms per liter. [3] Scientists and environmentalists have been ringing alarm bells about the pollution, but the state has done little.


Biologist Luis Aubriot of the Sciences Department told reporters that “if there is no reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus” then the water problems will not be solved [4]. Another biologist, Mario Calcagno, recalled that in addition to the pesticides and fertilizers used for soybeans, the Santa Lucia River is polluted by refrigerator effluents, food industries and urban centers, and that native forest on its banks have been disappearing. “It’s a disaster,” he said [5].


Diego Martino, who represented Uruguay at the United Nations Program for the Environment, presented one of the strongest arguments: “In 2010, levels of atrazine were detected in the water. It is one of the components of glyphosate. There is no nationwide study that says what the consequences of very low levels of atrazine could be when consumed over ten years “[6].


In his opinion the main problem is the inability of the State to make and regulate decisions. He gave an example: How long did it take for the DINAMA to change the distance of 50 meters to 500 meters for spraying [pesticides] around a rural school? Years”. It’s not known how many children were made ill by this delay.


One of the main problems are [agricultural] reservoirs, which are used mostly for irrigation and rice cultivation. In a small country like Uruguay there are over a thousand dams that with the summer heat become incubators for algae growth because of the concentration of agrochemicals. Rain the water in the reservoirs overflows into rivers. All the rivers of Uruguay, including the extremely wide Río de la Plata, are green with pollution.


Livestock is also being affected. A rancher from the central part of the country, whose sheep drink in the large Rincón del Bonete dam, suffered the loss of 56 sheep in one year, all intoxicated [7]. The Director of Renewable Resources of the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries acknowledged, “Uruguay does not have a diagnosis of the state of its water”. The same official affirms that soy is grown only four meters from lakes, rivers and streams, even though there is legislation that establishes a distance of [at least] eight meters, which is also insufficient. [8]


The director of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences at the Sciences department, Daniel Panario, received in 2012 the National Award for Citizen Excellence. He is the country’s most distinguished and combative scientist that has been denouncing pollution for over 20 years. In his opinion, the best example [of pollution] linked to water is lead.


“In the 1940s in England it was concluded that the poor performance of children in schools was due to lead and immediately all the water pipes were changed. In Uruguay this conclusion was made in the 1970s. We are now in 2013 and they have still yet to finish changing out the lead pipes in Montevideo. They say they have other priorities and that it’s expensive”[9].


In addition to the State, the university is an obstacle in allowing the population in knowing the truth. “One does not have complete freedom to investigate issues of national interest. When one goes to talk they risk having to deal with the authorities. A few days ago the [university] president said that I did not speak representing the university and that I was damaging the [image] of the department”[10].


Here appear two problems: academics prioritize research that can be published in journals, usually in English, to which ordinary people do not have access. On the other hand, universities depend on conventions and funds from various international organizations and private companies that have no interest in making public criticisms of the products they sell.


Universities themselves often boycott researchers like Panario, despite their national and international recognition. He applied twice for the national research fund and was rejected both times. He had to appeal to higher authorities for admission. He now seems happy with the growth of the movement against open-pit mining.


A Different Movement


Iron ore prices were stable for twenty years. In 1985 a dry metric ton was worth $26. In 2004 it had reached $38 and climbed to $140 in 2008. In 2009 the price dropped to $101 per ton, but now it’s rising once again. Iron ore is not just any other metal, as it represents 95 percent of all metals used in the industry.


Aratirí Mining belongs to Zamin Ferrous, an Indian company based in London. It has seven projects in South America, five in Brazil, one in Peru and one in Uruguay, and expects to produce about 50 million tons of iron ore across the continent in 2013. But the company’s potential in the region amounts to 10 billion tons.

In Uruguay they were licensed to mine about 110 thousand hectares in areas devoted to cattle ranching and forestry, where exploratory drilling had been performed to detect areas of greater density of iron ore. The mining project has three parts: the area where the mining will be conducted, about 220 kilometers of pipeline to the Rocha coast and finally a freight terminal. The total investment is estimated to be $2 billion.


In late 2010, when Parliament passed the Mining Code, small-scale rural producers of Valentines and Cerro Chato (180 and 3,000 inhabitants each), the areas where Aratirí installed [it’s project], began to mobilize. In January 2011 neighborhood commissions from the coast, where a port will be installed to export the iron, started a petition against the project.


From there [opposition] activity intensified. First they attended a session of parliament to explain the reasons for opposing the project. Small-scale livestock ranchers would see disruptions in their production because they will either face land expropriations and thus be forced to emigrate or they will be forced to migrate because of air and water pollution. The coastal villagers would suffer a loss to their fisheries and tourism will become scarce.


Later they held dozens of informational events in different places, such as small towns of 50 to 100 people. Finally in May 2011 they convened the first national march in Montevideo with the slogan “No to mining, yes to natural resources”. 

The [mining] company held its own march in Cerro Chato mobilizing merchants and workers. The next day the [small-scale, opposition] producers doubled the number of people mobilized, challenging the multinational [company] that had also began conducting its own informational events that were boycotted by those opposed to mining.


In July 2011 the Confederation of Coastal villages was created with representatives from seven communities of the Rocha Department: La Paloma (pop. 3,500), Aguas Dulces (400), Punta del Diablo (800), Valizas (330), La Pedrera (200), La Esmeralda (57) and Cabo Polonio. These communities oppose the construction of a port in La Paloma designated for the export of wood to be sent to paper factories, and another port designated to export iron.


On October 12 the second national march was held with a confluence of collectives from the north, central region, south and coastal zone, made up of small-scale producers and rural workers. Several celebrities participated in a video against mega-mine projects. Since then each region now focuses on local activities and the Permanent National Assembly in Defense of the Land and Natural Assets was created with about 36 grassroots collectives [11].
In mid-2012 the government confirmed the construction of a deepwater port for the export of iron, wood and other products near La Paloma. In August the movement against mining held its first national assembly in Tacuarembó (North) attended by 300 people from 35 collectives.


In attendance were three unions, indigenous groups, community radios, small-scale producers and rural workers. Members of the coastal towns opted for direct action to prevent the construction of the port near La Paloma. On October 12 the third national march was held in Montevideo with 10 thousand people participating, dozens of gauchos on horseback, tractors, flags of indigenous peoples, environmentalists and unions.


The movement against mining in Uruguay has three unprecedented features.

 The first is that it was born in the rural central region, in villages of about 50 to 3,000 people, and then it appeared in the departmental capitals and later in Montevideo, where the first groups are still being organized. This is a reversal of what has happened throughout the country’s history of social struggles, where almost all have been born in the capital.


Secondly, it’s a grassroots, assembly based, horizontal movement, linked to land and territory. It finds its inspiration from rural populist identities rather than unions and labor of the traditional left. Although these sectors are integrated and participate they do not assume a hegemonic role. The speech and language invoke the independence struggle of 200 years ago led by Jose Artigas, also emphasizing that everything relates to the land.


The third is that the movement has thus far rejected being institutionalized. NGOs have their hands bound. Political parties are kept silent. But was is most interesting is that the movement hasn’t chosen the path of a national referendum, the modality that has been adopted by all the great Uruguayan movements since the restoration of democracy, beginning with human rights.


There are local collectives that gather signatures for departmental referendums, and after extensive discussions the choice to move to a national referendum has been avoided. The experience of over 20 years indicates that this path leads to the dismantling of the movement since it infringes upon the popular will.


This is the first social movement that was born under a progressive government. It directly questions the extractive model and the pollution of water only supports the movement’s arguments especially for gaining public support. As Panario said reflecting on the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in New York and the overall climate change debate: “You must have a catastrophe for the people to become aware.”

Still Eat Conventional Meat?

Still Eat Conventional Meat or Poultry? Preservatives, Antimicrobials, Antifungals, and Viral Sprays Saturate Factory Farmed Sources

70 percent of all beef and chicken sold in the United States, Canada, UK and Australia and many other countries contain a growing number of preservatives, meat glues, and antibacterial/antifungal/antiviral sprays. They also are commonly treated with carbon monoxide gas injections to make meat appear more fresh than it actually is.

Synthetic preservatives are added to 70 percent of all factory farmed meat and poultry to prevent spoilage, rancidity and mould growth.

Sodium Benzoate, Sodium Proprionate and Benzoic Acid

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has amended regulations that once banned the use of sodium benzoate, sodium propionate and benzoic acid in meat and poultry products, the Food and Drug Administration has announced.

In combination with ascorbic acid (vitamin C, E300), sodium benzoate and potassium benzoate form benzene, form known carcinogens. If a individual happens to consume any of these toxins after consuming ascorbic acid, a carcinogenic process may initiate.

The three preservatives had been on the list of prohibited antimicrobial substances the FSIS considered to have the potential to conceal damage or inferiority in meat and poultry.

The change follows a petition by Kraft Foods Global Inc., which wants to use the substances to help inhibit the growth of bacteria.

After consideration, the FSIS said it has "determined that sodium benzoate, sodium propionate and benzoic acid, under the conditions proposed in the petitions, are both safe and suitable for use as antimicrobial agents in certain RTE (Ready-to-Eat) meat and poultry products."

Nitrites/Nitrates

Nitrites and nitrates are also added to meat products during processing to inhibit the growth of bacteria and enhance color. Nitrites may be added directly to the meat product, but more frequently nitrates are added. Nitrites are used in pork, beef and poultry products to enhance colour. For example, nitrates are added to ham and bacon, giving them their characteristic pink colour. Some countries even permit the use of nitrites in fish products.

When nitrites combine with certain amino acids, N-nitroso compounds or nitrosamines are formed and these have been shown to be carcinogenic (cancer-causing). Our primary source of exposure to nitrates and nitrites is through the food we consume, however exposure to these compounds can also occur through drinking water.

Sulphites

They are used widely as preservatives in food to maintain food colour and prolong shelf-life. Sulphites can also be used in some pharmaceutical medications as a way of maintaining their potency.

Sulphites can trigger asthma or an anaphylactic-type reactions. Certain individuals, particularly those with asthma, may react to sulphites with allergy-like symptoms. It's one reason most pre-packaged foods are required to have an ingredients listing on the presence of sulphites on the label. The pre-packaged food product label will state “may contain” or “may contain traces of” sulphites and sulphite derivatives.

It is important to always read the ingredients’ lists and remember that sulphite derivatives exist and may be listed as:

E 220, E 221, E 222, E 223, E 224, E 225, E 226, E 227, E 228 (European names)
Potassium bisulphite/metabisulphite
Sodium bisulphite/dithionite/metabisulphite/sulphite
Sulfur dioxide
Sulphiting agents
Sulphurous acid

Meat Glue

Produced as Activa by Japan's Ajinomoto Company, it's scientific name is "transglutaminase" and it belongs to the family of clotting enzymes which are eight in number.

Meat glue is thrombin, a coagulation protein which together with the fibrous protein fibrin can be used to develop a "meat glue" enzyme that can be used for sticking together different pieces of meat. It can be made from blood taken from either cows or pigs.

The European Parliament had voted to ban bovine and porcine thrombin. The House said the meat glue has no proven benefit for consumers and might mislead them instead. One year later, all but one of the European Union nations voted in favor of using Thrombian, or Transglutaminase (TG). They now joining other developed nations such as the U.S., Canada, and Australia who approved the product.

This sort of thing has been a boon to the food industry, which can now treat all sorts of proteins like meat or fish as just another material to be processed, but in the hands of molecular gastronomists it's become a way to manipulate food in a way that would have been previously impossible. It's possible, for example, to make tenderloin rolls wrapped in bacon that hold together perfectly without the need for twine or toothpicks.

Viral Sprays

The FDA also approved a virus-cocktail spray that might prevent listeriosis. The spray, called LMP 102, is a mixture of six different special viruses called bacteriophages -- viruses that infect only bacteria, not people, animals or plants.

Bacteriophages, like all viruses, contain protein. These proteins can cause allergic reactions, just like milk proteins cause milk allergies.
The bacteriophages might also get into battle with the friendly bacteria in the digestive system, making it harder for the body to digest food. But that's a risk the FDA already takes by allowing the use of antibiotics on farms.
The FDA currently allows bacteriophages to be used in pesticides, including those sprayed on crops. But this is the first time that the FDA has regulated the use of bacteriophages as a food additive. Other countries actually use bacteriophages in antibiotic drugs.

The idea here is that these six bacteriophages will infect and kill any listeria bacteria that might linger on meats.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, use of this spray will have to be marked on the food just like any other ingredient on the label.
Consumers might soon see the words "bacteriophage preparation" on cold cuts. As always, although the virus spray is intended to make food safer, it does not come without its own risks.
Carbon Monoxide Treatment

Carbon monoxide (often referred to as CO) is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas, one measly oxygen molecule away from the carbon dioxide we all exhale. But that one molecule makes a big difference in that it does very, very bad things to the human body at very, very low concentrations.
CO is toxic because it sticks to hemoglobin, a molecule in blood that usually carries oxygen, even better than oxygen can. When people are exposed to higher levels of CO, the gas takes the place of oxygen in the bloodstream and wreaks havoc. Milder exposures mean headaches, confusion, and tiredness. Higher exposures mean unconsciousness and death, and even those who survive CO poisoning can suffer serious long-term neurological consequences.
Keeping meat at healthy temperatures is very challenging for grocery retailers. The actual surface temperature of displayed fresh meat is often much higher than the thermometer of the display case due to UV radiation from the display case lighting which penetrates the meat packaging and heats the surface just as the sun can cause a sunburn on a cold winter day. Various studies have found that the internal temperature of meat from display cases does exceed 50 degrees Celsius which is more than 10 degrees higher than recommended temperatures.

The meat consequently decomposes very quickly, so the meat industry heavily invested in modified atmospheric packaging which utilizes carbon monoxide gas to extend the shelf life and resist spoilage.

In a carbon monoxide system, with low oxygen, the carbon monoxide will react with the myoglobin and give the meat a bright red colour. The low oxygen mixture artificially limits the growth of spoilage organisms that are commonly caused by increased levels of heat in display cases.

So although carbon monoxide is a gas that can be fatal when inhaled in large quantities, the meat industry insists that it is not harmful to human health when ingested via atmospheric packaging.

This is not true of course since C. perfringens bacteria, the third-most-common cause of food-borne illness, has been proven to grow on what is considered fresh meat right out of the supermarket that is well within the expiry dates on the labels. Marissa Cattoi a lab tech who analyzes meat samples for a health and safety agency says the bacteria are commonly found on fresh grocery meat. "We commonly test for C.perfringens bacteria and about half of the fresh meat products that come in are positive despite them being within the expiry period. 100% of the these cases come from packagers who adopted atmospheric packaging methods such as the use of carbon monoxide gas," she stated.

Most atmospheric packaging will not be labeled. There also many foods that do not have to declare the presence of preservatives, unless the amount of the preservative is naturally occurring in, or added to, the product exceeds a certain concentration.

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food

By Thierry Vrain

I retired 10 years ago after a long career as a research scientist for Agriculture Canada. When I was on the payroll, I was the designated scientist of my institute to address public groups and reassure them that genetically engineered crops and foods were safe. There is, however, a growing body of scientific research – done mostly in Europe, Russia, and other countries – showing that diets containing engineered corn or soya cause serious health problems in laboratory mice and rats.

I don’t know if I was passionate about it but I was knowledgeable. I defended the side of technological advance, of science and progress.

In the last 10 years I have changed my position. I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food.
I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.

There are a number of scientific studies that have been done for Monsanto by universities in the U.S., Canada, and abroad. Most of these studies are concerned with the field performance of the engineered crops, and of course they find GMOs safe for the environment and therefore safe to eat.

Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others.
We should all take these studies seriously and demand that government agencies replicate them rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies.

The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.

There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely.

These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.

Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.

The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.

I have drafted a reply to Paul Horgen’s letter to the Comox Valley Environmental Council. It is my wish that it goes viral as to educate as many people as possible rapidly. Any and all social media is fine by me. This can also be used as a briefing note for the councilors of AVICC or anywhere else. Thank you for your help. [Click here for original source with replies from Dr. Paul Horgen]
— Thierry Vrain, Innisfree Farm

I am turning you towards a recent compilation (June 2012) of over 500 government reports and scientific articles published in peer reviewed Journals, some of them with the highest recognition in the world. Like The Lancet in the medical field, or Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, or Biotechnology, or Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, European Journal of Histochemistry, Journal of Proteome Research, etc … This compilation was made by a genetic engineer in London, and an investigative journalist who summarized the gist of the publications for the lay public.

GMO Myths and Truths – an evidence based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. A report of 120 pages, it can be downloaded for free from Earth Open Source. “GMO Myths and Truths” disputes the claims of the Biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, that they save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat.

 Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution. Did I mention superweeds, when RoundUp crops pass their genes on to RoundUp Resistant weeds.

Apparently over 50% of fields in the USA are now infested and the growers have to go back to use other toxic herbicides such as 2-4 D. Many areas of Ontario and Alberta are also infested. The transgenes are also transferred to soil bacteria. A chinese study published last year shows that an ampicillin resistance transgene was transferred from local engineered crops to soil bacteria, that eventually found their way into the rivers. The transgenes are also transferred to humans.

 Volunteers who ate engineered soybeans had undigested DNA in their intestine and their bacterial flora was expressing the soybean transgenes in the form of antibiotic resistance. This is genetic pollution to the extreme, particularly when antibiotic resistance is fast becoming a serious global health risk. I can only assume the American Medical Association will soon recognize its poorly informed judgement.

In 2009 the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium of GM foods, safety testing and labeling. Their review of the available literature at the time noted that animals show serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.

 Monsanto writes “There is no need to test the safety of GM foods”. So long as the engineered protein is safe, foods from GM crops are substantially equivalent and they cannot pose any health risks.” The US Food and Drug Administration waived all levels of safety testing in 1996 before approving the commercialization of these crops. Nothing more than voluntary research is necessary, and the FDA does not even want to see the results.

 And there is certainly no need to publish any of it. If you remember 1996, the year that the first crops were commercialized, the research scientists of the US FDA all predicted that transgenic crops would have unpredictable hard to detect side effects, allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases. That was published in 2004 in Biotechnology if you recall seeing it.

I know well that Canada does not perform long term feeding studies as they do in Europe. The only study I am aware of from Canada is from the Sherbrooke Hospital in 2011, when doctors found that 93% of pregnant women and 82% of the fetuses tested had the protein pesticide in their blood.

This is a protein recognized in its many forms as mildly to severely allergenic. There is no information on the role played by rogue proteins created by the process of inserting transgenes in the middle of a genome. But there is a lot of long term feeding studies reporting serious health problems in mice and rats. The results of the first long term feeding studies of lab rats reported last year in Food and Chemical Toxicology show that they developed breast cancer in mid life and showed kidney and liver damage.

The current statistic I read is that North Americans are eating 193 lbs of GMO food on average annually. That includes the children I assume, not that I would use that as a scare tactic. But obviously I wrote at length because I think there is cause for alarm and it is my duty to educate the public.

One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been sick or died after a meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM food. Nobody gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarette either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer.

 Except this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it’s the whole food system that is of concern. The corporate interest must be subordinated to the public interest, and the policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it is clearly untrue.

Thierry Vrain is a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada. He now promotes awareness of the dangers of genetically modified foods.

Use GMO Food Pyramid To Plan Diet of Disease & Death

How Can You Tell If You're Eating Real Chicken?

By Dr. Mercola

The six decades’ old fast food franchise KFC recently rolled out Original Recipe boneless chicken in its 4,500 US locations.¹ The new slogan: “No mess. No fuss. No bones about it.”

The company is so convinced boneless chicken is the way of the future that they’re actually considering eliminating on-the-bone chicken from its menu altogether. According to the featured article:

“McDonald’s execs began experimenting with a range of non-burger options: chicken pot-pies, bone-in fried chicken, deep-fried onion chunks. None of them were successful, until they offered customers deep fried chicken chunks. The McNugget was born.

That was 1980, when about 80 percent to 85 percent of chicken consumed in the US was unprocessed... Ten years later, the numbers had almost reversed...

While the rotisserie chicken made a bit of a comeback in the mid-‘90s, the idea of eating the whole bird was, for the most part, a thing of the past... According to internal KFC surveys, nearly four out of five servings of chicken in the US today are off-the-bone, the inverse of 30 years ago.”

Why might this be “a big deal”? Well, for one, processed chicken nuggets, regardless of brand, are far more likely to contain all sorts of additives and fillers you’d be better off without.

For example, I wrote about the questionable ingredients of McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets back in 2010. Only half of Chicken McNuggets are actual meat. The other 50 percent includes corn derivatives, sugars, leavening agents and completely synthetic ingredients.

In a 2003 lawsuit against McDonald’s, Federal Judge Robert Sweet² even questioned "whether customers understood the risks of eating McDonald's chicken over regular chicken." But there’s yet another reason for my questioning the trend of going boneless, and it’s even less savory than that...

The Future of Food: Bioengineered Meat

Few are talking about this, but scientists have been working on bioengineering "cultured" meat for the past decade. According to a September 2011 Huffington Post article,³ scientists at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands claimed to be as little as 12 months away from delivering the world’s first bioengineered synthetic hamburger.

As of this writing, the hamburger has yet to be presented, although I doubt that means the plan has been abandoned.

The article also pointed out that London's Royal Society had released a global food supply report, in which they called for a synthetic meat solution to feed the world’s growing population without causing environmental destruction.

“The only barriers? Overcoming the social stigma and the RS scientists say it could take another decade before it rolls out to the masses,” the article states.

Then, in February 2012, The Economist⁴ followed up on the research. Other Dutch scientists, led by Dr. Mark Post at the Eindhoven University in the Netherlands, expressed hopes of decimating animal husbandry altogether by altering how meat for the masses is produced. The article explains how this laboratory-created meat is created:

“Dr. Post's cultures, grown from stem cells, are sheets 3cm long, 1.5cm wide and half a millimeter deep. To make the world's most expensive hamburger 3,000 of them will be needed. The stem cells themselves are extracted from cattle muscle and then multiplied a millionfold before they are put in Petri dishes and allowed to turn into muscle cells.

When they have done so, they are encouraged to exercise and build up their strength by being given their own gym equipment (pieces of Velcro to which they can anchor themselves in order to stretch and relax spontaneously). The fatty cells of adipose tissue, needed for juiciness, are grown separately and then combined with the muscle cells before the whole thing is cooked.

Producing meat in Petri dishes is not commercially viable, but Dr. Post hopes to scale things up—first by growing the cells on small spheres floating in tanks and ultimately by using scaffolds made of biodegradable polymer tubes, which would both add the third dimension needed for a juicy steak and provide a way of delivering nutrients and oxygen to the steak's interior.”

Sure, companies like KFC may have a point when they say they’re just changing their meals to meet the needs of the “chicken nugget generation.” But a side effect of getting used to the idea that chicken meat doesn’t have bones is that, at any point, the meat used in these processed nuggets could be exchanged for bioengineered meat, and no one would be the wiser...

I sincerely doubt bioengineered meat would be advertised, since it’s hardly a selling point—at least in the beginning. What the potential health ramifications might be from eating such meats are completely unknown, but it’s clearly not going to be identical to meat from an animal.

More Data Ties Human Illness to Farm Antibiotics

Seeing how commercially available bioengineered meat is still a ways away from being a reality you have to contend with, let’s bring the focus back to something more relevant to the present day, namely antibiotics in CAFO meats. Animals are often fed antibiotics at low doses for disease prevention and growth promotion. These agricultural uses account for about 80 percent of all antibiotic use in the US,⁵ so it's a MAJOR source of human antibiotic consumption.

According to a recent NPR report,⁶ data published by a joint government program⁷ from tests conducted on supermarket meat samples collected in 2011 by the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, reveals the presence of several disease-causing bacteria, including the super-hardy antibiotic-resistant versions of salmonella, Campylobacter and E. coli. According to NPR:⁸

“The implications were significant — that the bacteria had become resistant to antibiotics back at the farm because farmers were overusing them. The findings, released through the joint program of the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, got little attention when they were published in February. But this week, the Environmental Working Group, which opposes some of the livestock industry's use of antibiotics, analyzed the government data and highlighted some of their startling implications in a report.”

The report⁹ in question, aptly named “Superbugs Invade American Supermarkets,” points out that many of the meats tested contained “startlingly high levels” of antibiotic-resistant bacteria on:

• 81 percent of ground turkey
• 69 percent of pork chops
• 55 percent of ground beef
• 39 percent of chicken breasts, wings and thighs

Want Safer Meat? Buy Organic Pastured/Grass-Fed

Writing for the New York Times,¹⁰ David A. Kessler, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1990 to 1997, also recently sounded warning bells over the rise of antibiotic-resistant pathogens in livestock, urging the FDA to take the matter seriously. So far, the agency has only restricted on class of antibiotics, cephalosporin, from routine use in livestock.¹¹

“While the FDA can see what kinds of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are coming out of livestock facilities, the agency doesn’t know enough about the antibiotics that are being fed to these animals,” he writes. “This is a major public health problem, because giving healthy livestock these drugs breeds superbugs that can infect people. We need to know more about the use of antibiotics in the production of our meat and poultry. The results could be a matter of life and death.”

The misuse of antibiotics in livestock has now become “a direct source of foodborne illness,” EWG points out. Worse yet, because animals are given these antibiotics continuously, in low doses, pathogens are becoming increasingly resistant to the drugs, which means they no longer work to treat human disease either. The end result is that people are dying from infections that were once easily treatable.
Despite this, organic foods, which are by law produced without such pathogen-promoting methods, are the ones being consistently targeted “for safety reasons.” The truth of the matter is, conventionally grown mass-produced foods pose the greatest danger to your health, in multiple ways, and are the ones to be avoided if you’re at all concerned about food safety.

“To be safe, consumers should treat all meat as if it may be contaminated, mainly by cooking thoroughly and using safe shopping and kitchen practices (see EWG's downloadable Tips to Avoiding Superbugs in Meat),”¹² EWG suggests.¹³

One of the best ways to avoid contaminated meat is to avoid meat from animals raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), aka “factory farms,” and buying organic, pastured or grass-fed meats instead. Growth promoters such as antibiotics are not permitted in organic animal farming, and organically-raised animals are also healthier as a result of being pastured, so overall you’re getting far “cleaner,” healthier meat.

Organic, Cage-Free, Free-Range, or Pasture-Raised?

When it comes to chicken, there are a number of designations floating around, such as “organic,” “free-range,” “pastured” and “cage-free.” But while you may think these are interchangeable, they’re actually not. In many ways these labels are little more than creative advertising.

The definitions of "free-range" are such that the commercial egg industry can run industrial farm egg laying facilities and still call them "free-range" eggs, despite the fact that the birds' foraging conditions are far from what you'd call natural. For example, regulations on the use of the term "free-range" do not specify the amount of time the hens must spend outdoors or the amount of outdoor space each hen must have access to. Nor do they indicate that the hen must have access to a pasture diet.

True free-range hens (and eggs), now increasingly referred to as “pasture-raised,” are from hens that roam freely outdoors on a pasture where they can forage for their natural diet, which includes seeds, green plants, insects, and worms.

Large commercial egg facilities typically house tens of thousands of hens and can even go up to hundreds of thousands of hens. Obviously they cannot allow all of them to forage freely. They can still be called “cage-free” or “free-range” though, if they’re not confined to an individual cage. But these labels say nothing about the conditions they ARE raised in, which are still deplorable.

So, while flimsy definitions of "free range" and “cage-free” allow such facilities to sell their products as free range, please beware that a hen that is let outside into a barren lot for mere minutes a day, and is fed a diet of corn, soy, cottonseed meals and synthetic additives is NOT a free-range hen, and simply will not produce the same quality meat and/or eggs as its foraging counterpart.

Certified organic poultry is also the only poultry product that is 100 percent guaranteed to be antibiotic-free.¹⁴

So to summarize, what you’re really looking for is chicken and eggs that are both certified organic and true pasture-raised. Barring organic certification, which is cost-prohibitive for many small farmers, you could just make sure the farmer raises his chickens according to organic, free-range standards, allowing his flock to forage freely for their natural diet, and aren’t fed antibiotics, corn and soy.

Last year, I visited Joel Salatin at his Polyface farm in Virginia. He's truly one of the pioneers in sustainable agriculture, and you can take a virtual tour through his pasture-raised chicken farm operation in the following video.

Shopping Guidelines for Real, Health-Promoting Food

It is very difficult to control the quality of your food if you’re eating in a restaurant, which is why I recommend that you prepare the vast majority of your food yourself. If you’re going to occasionally dine out, you would be best served to avoid fast food places. Reclaiming your kitchen is part and parcel of healthful living, so you know exactly what you're putting in your body.

Whether you are grocery shopping or looking for dining options, the table that follows lists criteria to look for in identifying high-quality, health-promoting foods. If the food meets these criteria, it is most likely a wise choice and would fall under the designation of "real food."

Grown without pesticides and chemical fertilizers (organic foods fit this description, but so do some non-organic foods)	Not genetically modified
Contains no added growth hormones, antibiotics, or other drugs	Does not contain any artificial ingredients, including chemical preservatives
Fresh (keep in mind that if you have to choose between wilted organic produce or fresh conventional produce, the latter may be the better option)	Did not come from a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO)
Grown with the laws of nature in mind (meaning animals are fed their native diets, not a mix of grains and animal byproducts, and have free access to the outdoors)	Grown in a sustainable way (using minimal amounts of water, protecting the soil from burnout, and turning animal wastes into natural fertilizers instead of environmental pollutants)

If you're "hooked" on fast food and other processed foods, please review my article about how to wean yourself off fast food in seven easy steps. If you're currently sustaining yourself on fast food and processed foods, this is probably the most positive life change you could ever make.

And if you have children, remember that feeding your children home cooked meals can have far reaching benefits, extending even to your future grandchildren. Yes, that's right! It is now well known that dietary changes can prompt epigenetic DNA changes that can be passed on to future generations. For instance, pregnant rats fed a fatty junk food diet had daughters and granddaughters with a greater risk of breast cancer. Making wise food decisions can literally "override" genetic predispositions for disease.

 Grassland Beef

offers  grass fed and free range beef, chicken, pork and more....these premium quality meats don't taste like what you may be used to buying.

Food & Water Watch Releases Report on the Corporate Giant Monsanto

Anyone and everyone who is even slightly into food, politics, or government conspiracy theories has at least heard something about Monsanto.

Whether it's the company's development of Agent Orange or farmer lawsuits, the consensus is that the company is pretty evil.

Well, to separate fact from fiction, Food & Water Watch compiled a report, Monsanto: A Corporate Profile, documenting the company's history and influence. Read on for details.

See Also:
- Oregon Saying No to GMO Frankenfish: Florida Senate GMO Labeling Bill Waiting to Be Added to Agriculture Committee Agenda
- Obama Signs Monsanto Protection Act
- GE Mandatory Labeling Laws Introduced in Florida

Food & Water Watch's team of researchers put together the report that outlines the corporation's history and strong ties to lawmakers, regulators, and academic researchers.
According to Lynna Kaucheck, senior organizer for Food & Water Watch, "We wrote the report to show that Monsanto is responsible for the fact that the vast majority of our food supply is both genetically engineered and not labeled as such."

Currently, Monsanto holds patents on 1,676 seeds, plants, and other agricultural applications. These products are grown on more than 282 million acres across the world, including 40 percent of croplands in the United States.

Started in 1901 by John Francis Queeney, the company released its first product, the sugar substitute saccharin -- a product feared to cause cancer. Since its inception, Monsanto has gone on to produce the notorious Vietnam War chemical Agent Orange, Roundup herbicide, GE Roundup Ready seed, and the dairy industry artificial growth hormone rBGH.

Sounds healthy, huh?

The report goes on to call out the numbers. In 2011, Monsanto brought in $11.8 billion in net sales. From 2000 to 2012, the corporation donated $829,662 to U.S. political campaign contributions. In addition, during the same period, Monsanto spent $62,356,730 on U.S. lobbying efforts.

Not exactly a bunch of farmers with pitchforks.

Food & Water Watch's report concludes with recommended actions for regulators.
"From seeds to grocery stores and every place in between, our food system is tremendously consolidated with a handful of corporations dictating what we eat," said Kaucheck. "This new report shows just what a huge influence Monsanto has on the entire food system, and I hope it will motivate concerned citizens everywhere to join the fight to label GE foods, because we all deserve the right to know what we are feeding our families."

In Florida, there are two mandatory labeling bills stuck in committee. Sponsored by Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda,  H.B. 1233 is awaiting approval from the Agriculture Natural Resources subcommittee in the House. Sen. Maria Sach's S.B. 1728 has not been added to Monday's Committee on Agriculture in the Senate.

To view the full Food & Water Watch Report, click here.

The Elite's Elixir Of Death

Water is amazing, a cleanser, a life giver, an object of beauty and we, as human beings, consist of around 80% water. Some scientists are now beginning to take a closer look into the qualities of water and finding some quite remarkable attributes that exist in our life giving elixir.

As reported on the Natural News website, Dr. Jacques Benveniste discovered certain scientific properties of water that cannot be explained by conventional physics. He found that water has a memory that we can digitally record. Also of interest here is that Dr. Masaru Emoto has proven that water is affected by thought. So what is this life sustaining liquid on our planet? I am sure there are many more exciting discoveries for us to uncover. So why in the name of goodness was Sodium Fluoride added to our drinking water en masse.

The story of Edward Bernays propaganda campaign to get Sodium Fluoride into our drinking water is well documented. This action should be understood and researched, as it really does start to uncover the mass mind control we are under from the TV and main stream media outlets.

This is all to protect the ‘self termed ‘Elite’ class of people, to maintain their control on the common man, and to carry on living in a manner of great privilege, at our expense. Once you understand this position, then you can see why Sodium Fluoride was introduced into the water. It truly is ‘The Elites Elixir of Death’. It is also found in many other substances such as toothpaste and insecticides for example. We are ingesting this toxin without even knowing about it

I am pleased to report that Walter Graham has agreed to be an adviser to the Committee of 100 Ministry of Health department on Sodium Fluoride and Electro Magnetic Frequencies. I asked him ‘What are the detrimental effects of consuming Sodium Fluoride?’

To understand fluoride and fluoridation, let me start with a summery of the issues it raises, followed by an outline of the main issues:

Firstly, it is a breach of Human Rights to drug a population against its’ will. Secondly, fluoride is not what the government is dumping in British drinking water. They use hydrofluosilicic acid, the toxic waste of the fertilizer and aluminum industries, which is contaminated with lead, mercury, arsenic, uranium, strontium, chromium, aluminum and 22 other cumulative substances including fluoride.

 The government pretends this chemical cocktail is fluoride and that it has no side effects other than Dental fluorosis, which is characterized by pitting, white flecks and brown staining of developing teeth. Typically 50% of any fluoridated area gets this damage to their teeth.

There are in fact thousands of published studies proving harm and none proving fluoride safe. The side effects range from thyroid dysfunction, irritable bowel syndrome, bone damage, cancer, neurological damage and lower IQ. This is the reason why 98% of Europe has rejected fluoridation.

 Since 99% of the water is lost in underground leaks, used by industry and farming, as well as flushing toilets, it is economically senseless as well. This is legalized dumping on a massive scale, without any environmental impact study or proof of safety.

Lastly the dose can not be controlled as it is in all food and drinks using the water supply, as well as toothpaste, mouth wash, drops, tablets, chewing gum, used as a killing agent in pesticides, herbicides and rat poison, coal burning, unleaded petrol fumes, prozac, rohipnol, etc., thereby accumulating in bones, the pineal gland and other tissue. Fluoride is more toxic than lead and its forced addition to water is an affront to humanity.

DENTAL FLUOROSIS

The one side-effect the government do admit to is Dental Fluorosis, which 50% of the population get, in any fluoridated area. The following dental fluorosis photo shows how much structural damage fluoride causes. Amazingly the government claim that fluoride MIGHT reduce dental caries in a few children, while giving 50% of the entire population a new oral disease that is a sign of skeletal poisoning!

As the teeth are the only visible part of the skeleton, if it is doing damage to the teeth isn`t it possible that it is also doing damage to the bones? There are a growing number of published studies that show increased hip fractures in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated. The government put in 1 part per million fluoride, which is like a pin dot in a swimming pool.

According to the BMAs Guide to New Drugs and Medicines, fluoride causes dental fluorosis at 2ppm! And at “very high levels (over 8ppm) may also lead to bone disorders and degenerative changes in the kidneys, liver, adrenal glands, heart, central nervous system and reproductive organs.”

FLUORIDE BRAIN DAMAGE
 

What do pesticides, herbicides, rat poison, anesthetics, Saran the nerve gas, Rohypnol (the date rape drug), and Prozac have in common? They all work on the central nervous system and they contain FLUORIDE!

A recent Harvard University study has shown that fluoride can lower children’s IQ. It is the 33rd study to find a link to lowered IQs in fluoridated areas. Here is the opening line from a Chinese IQ study: “It has been reported that fluoride can penetrate the blood -brain barrier and accumulate in cerebral tissue before birth, thereby apparently affecting children`s intelligence.”

Do we really want to allow the unaccountable government to dump fluoride acid into our drinking water with proven side-effects like this! Or should we get active and bring this issue to our politicians, churches, unions, schools and any other group that will help before this madness goes ahead.

POISON WARNING

All US toothpaste tubes have a poison warning on them by Federal law. Our tube says; keep out of the reach of children… supervise brushing… don’t swallow… use no more than a pea sized amount. The US tube continues on with; IF YOU ACCIDENTALLY SWALLOW MORE THAN THE PEA SIZED AMOUNT, CONTACT A POISON CONTROL CENTER IMMEDIATELY! <br><br>

The reason this warning appears is because there is enough fluoride in a tube of toothpaste to kill a child! The amount in the tube is 1/5th of a level teaspoon. Amazingly fluoride is a cumulative poison and is more toxic than lead. However, you have a choice whether you use it or not. Once it gets dumped in your drinking water all choice goes out the window.

What they are proposing to dump in is not fluoride… it is hydrofluorosilicic acid

 Which is the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer and aluminium and nuclear industries. It has uranium, strontium, lead, arsenic, mercury, aluminum, and 25 other contaminants, as well as toxic fluoride. It is a toxic cocktail being promoted as FLUORIDE. They get away with this because the government and industry are keeping you in the dark and getting you to pay for their toxic waste, which would cost them money to safely bury it.

EU & FLUORIDE

98% of Europe has banned or rejected water fluoridation. Why, don`t they want good teeth?

 A lot of European countries have better teeth than the Republic of Ireland, who have been fluoridated for 45 years! What is worse, Spain and Holland have a fluoride toxic dumping problem caused by their industries and their solution is to ship it to Britain and Ireland and get you to eat it!

 Holland stopped adding fluoride after a group of doctors carried out a double blind study proving that fluoride caused osteoporosis and arthritic pains, IBS, thyroid dysfunction, Skin rashes and dental damage called Dental Fluorosis.. After these doctors ended fluoridation, they fought on and got the Constitution rewritten to prevent fluoride from ever being added again!

TOXIC WASTE OF MONEY

Economically, fluoridation makes no sense. The water department admit to loosing 40% of its water in underground leaks – that is 40% of our tax money wasted! Out of the 60% that`s left, industry and farming use 7/8ths of the water – more tax money wasted! Out of the 1/8th that comes into your house, you drink 1%. The rest is flushed down the toilet, washing clothes, dishes, etc

The small target audience of children with the really bad teeth make up 3% of the population. So the massive dumping of fluoride acid into our water is a total waste of our taxes.
Most importantly, Fluoridation is a breach of FREEDOM of CHOICE. Why should you drink someone else’s drug for the rest of your life just because a small group of kids don`t brush their teeth? This is a breach of European Human Rights, but your government don`t care because they haven`t signed up to them.

FLUORIDE FACTS

• Fluoride acid added to water is mass-medication.
• Fluoride acid has never been tested for safety or effectiveness.
• Fluoride acid is contaminated with uranium, lead, mercury, arsenic, and 25 other chemicals.
• Fluoridation is environmental pollution on a grand scale.
• There is enough fluoride in a tube of toothpaste to kill a child.
• 98% of Europe has rejected water fluoridation.
• Fluoride has been shown to cause an increase in cancer.

I`m writing this article to help the Committee of 100 warn as many people as possible of this impending disaster. We need another form of government that doesn`t give in to pressure from rich industries and put our health at risk. Join groups fighting fluoride and help stop this before it gets going!

Walter Graham gives a very comprehensive and easy to understand argument on why we shouldn’t have fluoride in our water. I also asked Dounne Alexander, another advisor to the Ministry of Health, about her knowledge on the use of fluoride and she answered with this.

FLUORIDE IN WATER:

The best way to remove fluoride and 99% of all impurities from our drinking water is by ‘reverse osmosis filtration’. Our water supply is so heavily polluted, plus as it’s essential to drink ‘PURE Water’, I always recommend reverse osmosis filter. Fresh Water Filter manufacturers we use, gives 15% discount to our customers. Therefore, if your readers quote GRAM033377, they will also receive the discount (www.freshwaterfilter.com : TEL 0208 558 7495). Additionally ‘activated Charcoal Powder’ will also remove fluoride from our body. I’ve included a short extract on fluoride below. It’s not only in our drinking water but also toothpaste and mouthwash.<br><br>

1. FLUORIDE POISONING

• FLUORIDE was first introduced and given to the Jews during ‘world war ll and was put in their drinking water to make them complacent, docile and easy to control. It is also used in today’s prisons to dumb-down prisoners; keep them docile and under control.

• FLUORIDE is the main ingredient in rat poison (as sodium fluoride) and is also in the anti-depressant drug ‘Prozac’.

* FLUORIDE is actually an industrial toxic waste product manufactured by fertilizer industries (producing millions of tons annually) and contains aluminum, phosphoric acid and phosphates. In the 1930′s the manufacturers used to discharge it in the air and waterways, which caused serious health damage (such as destroy the immune, digestive & respiratory systems, cancer, blood circulation, liver, kidneys, thyroid, brain function and premature aging); resulting in expensive lawsuits.

Therefore, instead of paying out millions for disposal, the manufacturers cleverly convinced the Government, Medical Institutions to brain wash the general population that FLUORIDE is safe and beneficial for oral hygiene. It is now used throughout the world.

• FLUORIDE also causes hyperactivity and lowers IQ in children. Fluoride also affects unborn babies when ingested by the mother. The babies blood brain barrier is not fully developed and this allows fluoride, a neurotoxin, to penetrate and damage the brain more easily.

So why is it being including in our drinking water, toothpaste & mouthwash?

Exactly, why is fluoride being added to our drinking water. Here at the Ministry of Health are looking for activists who want to start up a campaign to bring fluoride awareness to the masses. You can contact us through the website.

NOTE:  One of the most effective ways I've seen corporations and government agencies sit up take notice, and change legislation is through change.org  

This is where anyone can start a petition and good causes typically gather supporters, and groups of supporters in the 5 and 6 figures!