Look for this seal on your food

Look for this seal on your food
Live Chemical Free or Die Toxic

Friday, October 30, 2009

GMO Giant Monsanto Loses Another Day in Court

(www.borganic.org) France`s highest court has ruled that Monsanto lied about the safety of its weed killing herbicide Roundup. The decision came just days ago and confirms an earlier court judgment in France finding that Monsanto had falsely advertised Roundup as being "biodegradable" and that it "left the soil clean."

The original case was brought to court in 2001 by several French environmental groups alleging that Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, has a classification as "dangerous to the environment" by the European Union. That case drug on for years and finally ended in a ruling against Monsanto in 2007. 1

The GMO giant quickly appealed and that appeal was heard in 2008 in the Lyon court. Monsanto lost that case as well. They appealed again. This time it went to France's Supreme Court; it lost that hearing and now faces fines and nowhere else to go for further appeals.

The court levied a 13,800 Euro fine against the company (about $22,400USD). Monsanto is also looking at continued losses with fourth quarter losses of $233 million (US), mostly due to plummeting sales of the Roundup brand.2 So far, Monsanto has made no public statement about the court`s ruling, but it is also possible that the ruling could mean civil cases from farmers and communities harmed by the false advertising. That could mean millions of dollars more in losses.

Roundup is the world`s best-selling herbicide and is marketed as a weed-killer to both commercial farmers and home owners. Monsanto is also the world`s largest purveyor of genetically modified seeds (GMO seeds). Often, the seeds are sold in conjunction with Roundup, the seeds being modified to be "herbicide tolerant" (HT-ready).

Some have argued that these GM crops and seeds are worse for the environment and could be a real problem. Crop failures of GMO seeds in Africa have highlighted the lack of a crop diversity issue while other studies have found that GM versus non-GM seeds have little or no bearing on higher yields, as seed companies like Monsanto have claimed.

Currently, in the United States, nearly all of our soybean plants and most of our corn crops are now GMO, and most of the seed crops for those plants are Monsanto-owned. In fact, at least 68% of corn and 90% of soy is a GMO (HT-ready) crop in the U.S. now and Monsanto is working hard to make that a fact worldwide.3

Recent decisions, such as this one in France and a court finding in the U.S. earlier this month, as well as a common blockade in many European countries, are pushing back against the Monsanto takeover of our food crops. Other initiatives, such as Shelly Roche`s "Replace Roundup Challenge," are using consumer boycotts to further take it to Monsanto`s pocketbook.4, 5, 6

1- BBC News Monsanto guilty in `false ad' row: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8...

2- BBC News Low herbicide sales hit Monsanto: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business...

3 - Huffington Post Racing Towards a Roundup-Ready Food Future: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy...

4 - NaturalNews Judge rules GMOs violate environmental law: http://www.naturalnews.com/027177_f...

5 - NaturalNews How to fight back against genetically modified foods: http://www.naturalnews.com/026908_f...

6 - Bytestyle.tv Take the "Replace Roundup" Challenge: http://bytestyle.tv/content/take-re...

Aaron Turpen GMO Giant Monsanto Loses Another Day in Court

Get your news from www.borganic.org

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Vitamin D: How to Determine Your Optimal Dose

(www.Borganic.org) In the wide world of supplements, vitamin D is the superstar. For the last few years, this humble nutrient has been featured prominently in allopathic and alternative circles alike. It has basked in the rays of media publicity, and has survived an onslaught of scientific scrutiny. And while such widespread publicity is often good cause for skepticism in the realm of health and medicine, vitamin D appears to be the real deal. Whether we`re talking about heart disease, cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, or Alzheimer`s disease, the "sunshine vitamin" delivers benefits unseen before our time (1).

Given the remarkably powerful benefits of vitamin D, many find themselves wondering how to actually go about obtaining it. We know that vitamin D is good for us, but how much do we need, and where do we get it? Most people know that sunlight is somehow involved in vitamin D production, but is sunlight alone sufficient to produce the incredible results demonstrated by recent vitamin D research? What about supplements? There are so many different preparations - with doses ranging from 400 IU to 50,000 IU - that it can get a little confusing. Are such supplements necessary, and if so, how much should we be taking?

Everyone is Different

One might suppose that this question is as easily answered as saying, "Everyone needs to spend 15 minutes in the sun every day." Or, "Everyone needs to take x amount of vitamin D per day." But it`s not like that. Not at all. There are a multitude of variables unique to you that determine how much vitamin D is required on a daily basis (2). And because there are so many individual variables, it really is impossible to recommend a single amount for everyone. Fortunately, however, there are many circumstantial clues to look for that will suggest whether you need to be paying better attention to your vitamin D status. Furthermore, personally optimizing your vitamin D level is fairly easy and inexpensive.

Are you at risk for vitamin D deficiency?

-How much sun exposure do you get every day?
-Where do you live? Above or below the 35 N latitude line? (3)
-What is your age? Over 40?
-Is your skin light, dark, very dark?
-Are you overweight?
-Do you have a chronic illness?

How do each of these factors affect vitamin D status?

Sun Exposure: Catching some rays each day is definitely desirable, and healthy young people can usually get the vitamin D they need from around 10 to 30 minutes of sun exposure per day - depending on their location and the time of year. Most adults in today`s modern world, however, do not even attempt to get this much sun exposure - much less achieve it. But even if they did, would it matter, or are there other variables standing in the way?

Location: Vitamin D is produced in the skin from a cholesterol derivative when we are exposed to UVB radiation from the sun. However, because of the axial tilt of the earth, the further north one lives, the less the sun`s UVB rays will be able to activate vitamin D in the skin. So sun exposure does not necessarily equal optimal vitamin D status if you`re living in the wrong location. Living down south is better, of course (south of the 35 N latitude line seems to be the best), but there is still more to consider.

Age: Say you do live close to the equator, or are significantly below the 35 N latitude line. That`s a good thing, and it probably helps. If you`re around 35-40 years old or above, however, you`re likely losing the ability to activate sufficient levels of vitamin D in your skin, even in the unlikely event that you`re getting adequate UVB sun exposure (4).

Dark Skin: What if you have dark skin? If you have a lot of pigment in your skin, this is going to shield you from the UVB radiation you need, and you`re probably deficient in vitamin D.

Weight: Vitamin D requirements are also relative to body weight. If you`re overweight, your body requires more vitamin D than if you are not overweight. If you get a lot of sun, but are on the heavy side, you`re probably still not getting enough vitamin D.

Chronic Illness: Chronically ill? Have cancer? The body demands more vitamin D when you`re sick, and is probably using it up faster than you can get it from the sun.

When one considers that many Americans are victims of not just one but many of the above drawbacks, it becomes readily obvious as to why there is such a widespread vitamin D deficiency epidemic. Not getting enough sun is bad enough, but lack of sun exposure combined with being middle-aged, overweight, and chronically ill is an absolute disaster - and it is the devastating situation that many (most?) Americans find themselves in today.

Is Sun Exposure Really Not Enough?

Yes, sun exposure is a good thing, but too often, it`s simply not sufficient to achieve the kind of levels necessary for disease prevention and treatment. This applies even in places like Hawaii, where individuals get plenty of sun exposure, and the latitude is around 21 (5, 6). The role of sunlight should not be downplayed too much, however. If you`re healthy, young, and live in a subtropical region, then you might have sufficient vitamin D levels. In fact, some young people in the subtropics who get sun exposure all day long have levels between 80-100 ng/ml. This is incredible, and it means that sun exposure really does work provided the conditions are right.*

The point being made in this article is simply that not everyone is young, not everyone is healthy, not everyone lives in Houston, and not everyone gets enough sun exposure every day. It is those people who need to supplement with vitamin D. This also happens to be most people.

Blood Testing is Crucial

How do you know if you`re getting enough vitamin D, and how much is enough? The only way to know is by testing your blood. Fortunately, testing vitamin D, as far as blood testing goes, is pretty cheap. You can set this up with your doctor, order tests online and get blood drawn at a local lab, or order a vitamin D home test kit, whereby you simply order the test, prick your finger, send in the blood, and wait for the results to come back to you.

Here are some basic guidelines:

-Make sure you are getting the right test. You must test for 25(OH)D, not 1,25(OH)D. They look similar, but 1,25(OH)D is a measure of kidney function, and is not the test you want for measuring vitamin D levels.

-Ideally, your blood level should be around 60-80 ng/ml, as this allows the body to have some vitamin D in reserve, and it duplicates the higher levels found in young, healthy individuals who spend a decent amount of time in a sun-rich environment.

-Begin taking vitamin D at least eight weeks prior to being tested. This will help you customize your dose once you receive your test results. To determine a basic, starting dose, it has been suggested, as per Dr. John Cannell of the Vitamin D Council (7), that you take 1,000 IU per 25 pounds of body weight. A person who weighs 150 pounds, for instance, would take 6,000 IU per day as a starting dose (150/25 = 6. 1,000 x 6 = 6,000). Do this for at least eight weeks, and then test. Perhaps this dose will put you in the ideal range, but there`s no guarantee since we are all so different, and have unique vitamin D receptor genotypes. The idea is to hopefully get somewhere in the ballpark with this method and then tweak your daily dose once the test results come back. If your results are still suboptimal, Dr. Cannell has estimated that each 1,000 IU increase in supplemental vitamin D will generally produce a 10 ng/ml increase in the vitamin D blood level (8). For example, if you have been taking 5,000 IU per day for 8+ weeks, and your results come back at 40 ng/ml, you would want to increase your dose to at least 7,000 IU (2,000 IU = ~20 ng/ml rise in blood level) to achieve a minimum of 60 ng/ml. Again, keep in mind that this is necessarily generalized, and additional blood testing every several months is recommended to further customize the dose appropriate to you.

What Kind of Supplements Should I Use?

In order to achieve consistent and predictable results, it is important to use the proper carrier form of vitamin D supplements. The absolute best form is an oil-based vitamin D preparation. Dry preparations, like tablets and capsules, should be avoided. Vitamin D is fat soluble, and needs to be taken with fat in order to be properly absorbed - hence the oil-based recommendation.

Oil-based versus dry preparations aside, there are two common types of vitamin D: Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) and Vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol). You will need to avoid supplementing with vitamin D2 (9), which is a synthetic product made by exposing certain plants to ultraviolet radiation. D2 is not what the human body naturally uses, and compared to D3 it falls far short in terms of efficacy (of course, D2 happens to be what many vitamin D prescriptions are made of). D3 is what your body uses and prefers. No prescription necessary.

You can buy D3 in oil-based softgels, or, if you don`t like taking pills or have trouble doing so, you can get it in liquid drops.**


Vitamin D status is important year around, but whenever fall and winter are upon us, the importance of evaluating this vital nutrient is even more urgent. In summary, here are the steps you should take if you are wanting to optimize your vitamin D level:

1) Start taking oil-based vitamin D3 according to your body weight, as explained above.

2) After at least 8 weeks, have your blood tested by a good lab. There are home finger-prick test kits that are also very good.

3) Remembering that the goal should be blood levels of 60-80 ng/ml of 25(OH)D, adjust your vitamin D3 dose to achieve this level. Each 1,000 IU increase will generally lead to a 10 ng/ml increase in blood levels.

4) Recheck blood levels every several months to make sure you are still in the optimal range and taking the proper dose.

*It is beyond ironic that for quite some time now, everyone has been encouraged by the "authorities" to avoid the sun in order to keep from getting cancer, yet it is that very sun exposure that would help in avoiding cancer in the first place! "Avoid midday sun, or you`ll get melanoma!" we`re told. But melanoma is mostly triggered by UVA rays from the sun - not UVB. When is cancer-causing UVA exposure the lowest? Right around midday. When is UVB exposure the highest? Also right around midday. A high UVB:UVA ratio (high UVB and low UVA) is the best for creating vitamin D in the body, and this occurs when the sun is highest in the sky - exactly the time (ironically) that is often suggested to be avoided.

**Supplementation is not recommended for everyone. Certain conditions, such as sarcoidosis and some lymphomas, can produce excessive amounts of vitamin D, and in these instances, one should move forward cautiously under the supervision of a healthcare professional.


(1) (PDF) http://www.grassrootshealth.net/med...

(2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...

(3) http://www.satsig.net/maps/lat-long...

(4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...

(5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...

(6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...

(7) http://www.vitamindcouncil.org

(8) http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/news...

(9) http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/ful...

By David Rostollan Read full article here

Get your news at www.Borganic.org

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Non Organic Pesticides Destroying 60 Percent of Honeybees

(www.Borganic.org) The pesticides used in industrial agriculture may eventually undermine its very existence by destroying the honeybees upon which the system depends, experts are warning.

"When I was teaching at Humboldt State University in northern California 20 years ago, I invited a beekeeper to talk to my students," wrote former Environmental Protection Agency analyst Evaggelos Vallianatos on the Web site Truthout.org. "He said that each time he took his bees to southern California to pollinate other farmers' crops, he would lose a third of his bees to sprays. In 2009, the loss ranges all the way to 60 percent."

Honeybees are responsible for pollinating more than 90 crops in the United States, for a total value of $15 billion per year in 2007 alone. Yet in the last 20 years, overall honeybee numbers have declined by 30 percent. The population collapse is so severe that U.S. agriculture now depends upon imported bees for pollination.

One of the primary culprits in this collapse is agricultural insecticides, to which bees are exposed every time beekeepers release them to pollinate a non-organic field. According to bee experts, insecticides are well known to cause brain damage and disorientation to bees, sometimes making it impossible for them to navigate back to the hive.

The hallmark feature of colony collapse disorder is hives entirely or almost entirely abandoned by their bees.

According to entomologist Carl Johansen of Washington State University-Pullman, "the most destructive bee poisoning insecticide ever developed" is a time-release chemical microcapsule known as methyl parathion.

Methyl parathion was first developed as a nerve gas by the Nazi company IG Farben in the 1940s. In its time-release formulation, it slowly releases poison gas over the course of several days. Bees that visit plants treated with the insecticide can bring back the still-releasing capsules to their hives, poisoning an entire colony.

It's not just the bees that suffer. Parathion also contaminates the honey produced by these bees, entering the human food supply.

Nevertheless, beekeepers regularly recycle the wax from parathion-contaminated hives, and sell the poisonous honey to the public.

Sources for this story include: www.truthout.org.

By David Gutierrez Read full article here

Get your news from www.borganic.org

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

killing hundreds of thousands of cows in hope prices will rise

(www.borganic.org) DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — After burning through $1 million in savings and seeing no end to their losses, dairy farmers Jake and Lori Slegers figured they didn't have much choice — they had to kill the cows.

So one day last summer their sons tagged all 1,571 cows, loaded them onto trailers at their farm south of Fresno, Calif., and watched them rumble away to a slaughterhouse.

Lori Slegers said her husband came into the house and broke down.

"He said it was the hardest thing he ever had to do," she said. "Luckily, my boys could do it."

Growing demand in developing nations drove up milk prices when times were good, and dairy farmers expanded their herds. But the global recession hurt exports and left farmers with too much milk on their hands. Milk processors cut the price they were willing to pay farmers, in many cases below what it cost to produce milk.

In the past year, hundreds of farmers have come to the same conclusion as the Slegers: The only way to raise prices is to reduce the supply, and that means killing cows. In some cases, whole herds have been turned into hamburger. In others, farmers have kept their best producers and sent the rest to slaughter.

The Slegers turned to an industry-run program called Cooperatives Working Together, or CWT, which pays farmers going out of business to kill — rather than sell — their cows and help remaining dairy operations by reducing the milk supply. Until this year, the 6-year-old program had paid for about 275,000 dairy cows to be slaughtered. This year alone, it has paid for more than 225,000 to be killed.

In addition, individual farmers are sending cows to slaughter at a pace of about 55,000 per week, said Robert Cropp, a professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin. At that rate, about 3 million cows could be killed in a year.

Lifelong dairy farmers Keith Sammon, 55, and his brother, Mark, 53, decided to sell their herd to CWT last summer after considering the low milk prices, the cost of modernizing their operation and some personal health issues.

Keith Sammon recalled the somber mood as he loaded the 80 cows onto livestock trailers one Sunday morning at their farm in Faribault, Minn.

"As we milked the cows ... it was pretty quiet, but then my son came out with my granddaughter, who was 10 months old and she was just beginning to walk around. Just having her around made it easier," Keith Sammon said. "We would load the cows for a while and then go back and play with her for a while. It kind of took your mind off of it."

The slaughter has helped some. Dairy farms pay CWT 10 cents for every hundred pounds of milk they produce. As the cows have been killed, the price processors pay for milk has gone up an average of 66 cents per hundred pounds of milk, said Scott Brown, an assistant research professor for dairy livestock at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

Consumers haven't seen prices go up because processors still pay dairy farmers much less than the retail price, Cropp said. In fact, grocery store prices may still drop some because the milk supply remains much greater than the demand, he said.

That's because even as thousands of cows are killed and many farmers call it quits, others are increasing their herds. In Wisconsin, the nation's second-largest dairy producer after California, the number of cows increased to about 1.25 million in August, up about 5,000 from the year before, according to state figures.

Most of the growth was the result of state tax credits and grants approved a couple of years ago to help the industry modernize and expand. When those credits were approved, the industry was booming.

Also, Wisconsin farmers haven't been hit as hard as those in western states such as California, where farmers must buy more of their feed. High feed, utility and other costs have compounded the losses created by the drop in milk prices.

CWT spokesman Christopher Galen said most of the cows slaughtered in the program have come from western farms.

For the Slegers, the future is cloudy. They are still farming corn, sorghum and winter oats this year but are looking at moving away and starting over. They're not sure what they would do.

"We still don't know if it was the smartest move we ever made," Lori Slegers said. "One day, when the dairy business turns around, will we kick ourselves? We promised we wouldn't do that."

By Associated Press Writer

Get your news from www.borganic.org

Monday, October 26, 2009

Dairy Beware of the Great White Hype, go organic

(www.Borganic.org) Milk, it is said, is "the" source of calcium that helps kids grow up big and strong. Milk is alleged to contain vital nutrients and to help prevent osteoporosis. The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, through its food dietary guidelines, says that everyone should get 2-3 servings of dairy every day. Milk is advocated by various government agencies, hoards of physicians, and a $200 million annual advertising budget of the dairy industry. Can we ever forget the mustachioed faces of countless numbers of celebrities decorating everything from newspaper ads to roadside billboards?

And yes, America has a love affair with milk. So much so that the average person consumes 600 pounds of dairy products every year, including about 420 pounds of fluid milk and cream, 70 pounds of various milk-based fats and oils, 30 pounds of cheese, and 17 pounds of ice cream (obesity epidemic anyone?). In total, the U.S. dairy farmers produce about 163 billion pounds of milk and milk products a year. It is udderly horrendous, if you'll pardon the pun.

But what if the celebrities we love and trust were lying to us? What if milk doesn't do a body good? Instead, what if milk is a major contributor to breast and prostate cancer, heart disease, asthma, diabetes, and more? What if the U.S. government and dairy industry are in bed together to hide the ill effects of dairy consumption? They wouldn't do that, would they? Well, according to Amy Lanou, Ph.D., the nutrition director of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), besides the above, "milk has been linked to anemia, allergies, obesity, and ovarian cancer".

So why, then, is milk regarded as wholesome, especially with the U.S. Dept of Agriculture? According to its mission statement, it is charged with "enhancing the quality of life for the American people by supporting the production of agriculture"?

Today's USDA has the dual responsibility of assisting dairy farmers while promoting healthy dietary choices for Americans. Would you think that this creates a conflict of interest that puts at risk the objectivity of government farm policy and the health of the dairy-consuming public? Duh! Six of the eleven members assigned to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee have financial ties to the meat, dairy, and egg interests. Prior to the PCRM winning a lawsuit against the USDA claiming that they "unfairly promoted the special interests of the meat and dairy industries through its official dietary guidelines and the Food Pyramid", the USDA refused to disclose such conflicts of interest to the public.

Historically, the USDA's dietary guidelines have consistently reflected the industry's push for greater consumption of both flesh and dairy. The USDA counters this by saying that the guidelines should be "reality-based", arguing that what people should really be eating is moot because it doesn't fit with the American lifestyle. Whaaat? What they are saying is that the USDA doesn't even think it is reasonable to aspire to what constitutes as a healthy diet.

May 13, 2002 marked the passage of the farm bill in which dairy farmers and processors received, over 3 1/2 years, an additional $2 billion in subsidies, largely realized through price supports that inflate costs for consumers. Understand that dairy subsidies are a carryover from the Depression era when survival of small dairy farmers was considered essential to maintaining a national food supply. By the way, most of that $2 billion went to larger dairy farms in 12 northeastern states, hanging small farmers out to dry and actually encouraging the demise of family farms.

Another assertion of the suit brought by the PCRM against the USDA is that milk, as a staple in school lunch programs unfairly discriminates against non-whites who have a high incidence of lactose intolerance. There are about 50 million lactose intolerant adults in the U.S., including 15% of the white population, 70% of the blacks, and 80 to 97% of Asian, Native Americans, and Jews of European descent. These 50 million people suffer from a variety of digestive symptoms resulting from milk consumption and other dairy products, including gas, bloating, diarrhea, constipation and indigestion.

Currently, the USDA requires that every public school in the country serve milk with a push by some of our elected officials to offer financial incentives to schools that install milk vending machines. To add insult to injury, students cannot get free or subsidized alternatives to milk, like juice or soy milk, without a doctor's note. So, for the 70% of the black kids and the 90% of the Asian kids in public schools, a negative response to lactose intake is practically mandated by the U.S. Government. In essence, these huge dairy subsidies and broad-based promotions of milk by the government's school lunch program is a form of economic racism that isolates minorities and encourages them to ingest something they are intolerant of or allergic to.

Girls in the U.S. are beginning to menstruate at younger and younger ages. According to the Cancer Prevention Coalition, some girls are now experiencing the effects of puberty as young as three years of age. Fifty years ago the incidence of breast cancer risk among U.S. women was one in twenty. As of 2001, that percentage has grown to one in eight women.

Why is that? Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH)! BGH is a naturally occurring hormone produced by milk cows. Closely resembling the natural growth hormones in human children, the presence of BGH in milk has been shown to significantly elevate hormone levels in people, creating many growth problems. And that's not even accounting for the use of artificial hormones. Enter Recombinant BGH (rBGH), an unnaturally occurring, genetically engineered hormone produced by Monsanto. As you know, Monsanto has made other fine humanitarian and ecological contributions such as Agent Orange and PCBs.

Through a series of research cover-ups and a network of conflicting interests with government policymakers, and we'll get to that in Part 3, Monsanto, in 1994, managed to get approval for Posilac, which is Monsanto's commercial form of rBGH and increases cow's milk production by 15-25%. According to Monsanto, over a quarter of U.S. milk cows are now herds supplemented with Posilac. The majority of the country's 1,500 dairy companies mix rBGH milk with non-RBGH milk during processing to such an extent that an estimated 80-90% of the U.S. dairy supply is contaminated.

What Monsanto doesn't tell consumers is that this supplementation of additional growth hormones is causing secondary sex characteristics to appear earlier in young children, especially girls. Monsanto also doesn't tell consumers that rBGH injected cows produce extremely high levels of Insulin Growth Factor -1 (IGH-1), a cancer promoter that occurs naturally in the human bloodstream at levels that generally do not result in tumors. Monsanto and the FDA refuse to acknowledge research directly linking elevated levels of IGF-1 to increased risk of breast and prostate cancer. To make matters worse, Monsanto and the FDA colluded in '93 and '94 to block labeling requirements for rBGH milk (even today Monsanto and the FDA block labeling of genetically engineered food). So, the average dairy consumer has no idea that they are increasing their own risk of getting cancer.

Since 1994, every industrialized country in the world, except the U.S., Canada, and Japan, and the 15 nations of the European nations, have banned rBGH milk. Yet, in the face of facts and the majority opinion of the global political and scientific community, Monsanto and the U.S. continue to endorse rBGH milk for general consumption. At the same time try to figure out why there is an increase in breast cancer deaths and the continually declining age of puberty for girls.

It's not rocket science to see that milk is bad for people and that money is more important than concern for the welfare of the people, but what about the effect on the cows that produce that milk? The life expectancy of the average cow under natural conditions is about 25-30 years; on the typical factory farm, where well over half of U.S. milk cows live, they live only 4-5 years. Think about how you would feel if your life span was decreased by over 80%. What happens, because of adding Monsanto's Posilac to the cow's feed, is that it causes them to suffer from mastitis, which is a bacterial infection of the udder, cystic ovaries, and uterus disorders. Aside from the harm to the cows, guess where these illnesses wind up? Yes, through discharges that go into the milk and ultimately to you.

By keeping dairy cows constantly pregnant, which is the only way the cow can produce milk, it creates baby calves. Enter the veal industry. Since the male calves are useless to the farmers and have no economic value, an economic value had to be created. "Hey, let's figure out a way to sell 'em and make money". As the true caring and compassionate farmers that they are, these male calves are taken away from their mothers, immobilized in small wooden crates to keep their flesh tender, and fed fake food so people can "enjoy" their soft flesh after they are slaughtered. In 2001, over a million veal calves were slaughtered in the U.S.

The bottom line is that it boils down to an all familiar story: big business and the U.S. Government have joined forces to dupe the American consumer. The USDA tells us to drink more milk while subsidizing large dairy farms and federally mandating dairy consumption and flesh eating for schoolchildren. The government spends billions to buy unused milk and dairy products, while the industry spends almost $200 million every year promoting dairy consumption. Meanwhile, the FDA and Monsanto conspire to pollute the already unhealthy dairy supply with a genetically engineered hormone banned virtually everywhere else in the world. Ain't the road to profit at any cost, grand?

So while the American public can answer the absurd industry question, "Got Milk?" with a resounding, mustachioed "YES", the better question might be whether people have gotten screwed in the process. In 1990, the Monsanto Company commissioned scientists to inject a bunch of laboratory rats with an early variant of recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST), aka rBGH. The 90-day study demonstrated that rBGH was linked to development of prostate and thyroid cancer in rats.

Monsanto, our friend who gave us Agent Orange and spent 40 years covering up the effects of PCBs, was about to seek approval for Posilac, the company's commercialized form of rBGH. The study linking rBGH to cancer was submitted to the FDA , but somehow Posilac was still approved in 1994. With fingers pointing in both directions, those with opinions argue about who had the bigger part in the cover-up - Monsanto or the FDA. The results of the study, in fact, were not made available to the public until 1998, when a group of Canadian scientists obtained the full documentation and completed an independent analysis of the results. Among other instances of neglect, the documents showed that the FDA had never even reviewed Monsanto's original studies (on which the approval of Posilac had been based), so in the end the point had no bearing on whether or not the report had contained all of the original data.

The FDA's complicity continued; Michael Taylor, a Monsanto lawyer for many years, left in 1976 to become a staff lawyer for the FDA (Taylor was recently appointed by President Obama as the Dept of Agriculture head). In 1991, Taylor was appointed to the office of FDA's Deputy Commissioner, serving in that capacity until 1994. The administration approved rBGH in 1993. While at the FDA, Taylor also wrote the policy exempting rBGH and other biotech foods from special labeling, considered by most to be a major victory for Monsanto. Ten days after Taylor's policy was finalized, his old law firm, still representing Monsanto, filed suit against two dairy farms that had labeled their milk rBGH free.

As soon as the Government Accounting Office released a report covering all of this, Taylor was removed to work for the USDA, as the Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, a position he held from 1994 to 1996. After holding positions at both the FDA and the USDA, Taylor went back to working for Monsanto, this time directly as the corporation's Vice President of Public Policy.

Michael Taylor wasn't the only government employee with an obvious conflict of interest. At the same time that Taylor left Monsanto for the FDA, Dr. Margaret Miller, once Monsanto's top scientist, was also hired by the FDA to review her own scientific research conducted during her tenure at Monsanto. This is worth repeating. A woman who was once Monsanto's top scientist was hired by the FDA to review her own scientific research while she was with Monsanto. So much for "...for the people". In her role as FDA scientist, Miller made the official decision to increase the amount of permissible antibiotic residues in milk by a hundred-fold, in part to counter the increase of mastitis in cows due to overuse of artificial growth hormones. These incestuous relationships between industry and the U.S. government are the norm rather than the exception. Decisions at the FDA are made primarily by advisory boards comprised of scientists and executives from the dairy and meat industries, with a few university academics thrown in for good measure.

A word of good advice to adhere to: If man made it and you can't pronounce it, don't eat it!

We live in a world governed by greed, dishonesty, and lack of compassion. To survive we must rely on our innate intelligence and on what our bodies tell us. We must shake ourselves free from the pharmaceutical-medical-insurance cartel and put the control of our health back into our hands. We, in order to achieve good health and a good quality of life, must transcend the endless messages we are bombarded with through the various media outlets and be sensible. To get on the road to recovery, to lose our dependence on prescription meds, to cure our ills and not just relieve symptoms, we must eliminate the causes from touching our lips. Flesh foods, found in anything that walks, runs, flies, crawls, or swims and dairy products, are loaded with artery clogging saturated fat.

Processed foods, refined grains, sugary foods like sodas, cookies, cakes, etc., and eggs, have to go. The yolks are high in cholesterol and the whites because of their hardening effect, are used as a base in aircraft paint because they can withstand the effects of extreme weather conditions.

If you don't believe this and you still eat eggs, the next time you eat eggs, don't wash your dish for a day or two and see what happens. Then decide if you want to continue putting this in your body.

Take the time to prepare you own meals, slow down, and try to relax. Even get involved in a meditation process. There are so many avenues of education available to you.

Life is too short to not make the most of it. Only you can make you truly well. You are your own best investment.

Let today be the day you take the first step in the marathon of life.


By Hesh Goldstein Read full article here

Get your news from www.borganic.org

Friday, October 23, 2009

Organic Astragalus herb really helps fight the flu (influenza)

(www.borganic.org) The FTC and FDA are terrorizing Dr. Andrew Weil over his true statements about the immune-boosting properties of astragalus. According to the FDA, astragalus has no antiviral or antibacterial properties whatsoever and is of absolutely no use in the human body. Sound bizarre?

I thought so too. That's why I asked NaturalNews researchers to assemble a collection of statements in support of Dr. Weil's astragalus statements. This medicinal herb does, indeed, boost healthy immune function and offer protection against influenza. And because it's a multifaceted, complex plant-based medicine, it's not outsmarted by one particular viral configuration... it's useful against any flu (including H1N1 swine flu).

Here's what the experts have to say about astragalus and influenza...

Astragalus beats the flu

Clinical Applications: Astragalus is antiviral, carminative, antispasmodic, and hepatic. It improves glucose tolerance and acts as a vasodilator. In China, astragalus has been used as an energy tonic for deficient spleen qi and yang conditions. It has been used to treat wasting and thirsting conditions, as well as diarrhea, fatigue, and prolapse of the uterus. Astragalus is used to control fluids in cases of excess sweating and to reduce fluid retention.
- Fundamentals of Naturopathic Endocrinology by Michael Friedman, ND

Other Chinese doctors have found that astragalus offers more effective relief than the drug nifedipine (Procardia) for angina pain. More than 80 percent of angina patients improved on astragalus treatment without the dizziness, giddiness, heartburn, or headache that nifedipine can cause. Animal studies suggest that astragalus can help prevent the development of cholesterol plaques after an arterial wall has been damaged, which can keep the coronary arteries from becoming too narrow. Astragalus also is useful in the treatment of viral myocarditis, a flulike infection that affects the heart.
- Prescription for Herbal Healing: An Easy-to-Use A-Z Reference to Hundreds of Common Disorders and Their Herbal Remedies by Phyllis A. Balch, CNC

Also, since flu vaccines are formulated based on viruses that have caused outbreaks in the past, they may or may not be effective in preventing flu caused by this year's virus. Astragalus helps to build the immune system, and thus make you less vulnerable to the flu. Take 250 to 500 milligrams in the morning three times a week during the flu season. Note: Do not take this herb if you have a fever. American ginseng helps to boost the immune system and strengthen the body. Take 200 milligrams one-half hour before breakfast once or twice a week during the winter months.
- Smart Medicine for Healthier Living : Practical A-Z Reference to Natural and Conventional Treatments for Adults by Janet Zand, LAc, OMD, Allan N. Spreed, MD, CNC, James B. LaValle, RPh, ND

Consider taking ginseng or astragalus to promote health, stamina, and viral immunity. Take colostrum, beta-glucan, and other immune-boosting supplements. Take extra vitamin C and zinc. Follow the recommendations in this book on how to take natural medicines for beating the flu. For frail, older people, reduce the dosage by half.
- Beating the Flu: The Natural Prescription for Surviving Pandemic Influenza and Bird Flu by J. E. Williams

Astragalus alone, however, is effective in preventing depletion of white blood cells during chemotherapy. A clinical study involving 115 patients receiving various forms of chemotherapy found that 83 percent had higher white blood cell counts when given astragalus. Common cold - Chinese studies have shown that using astragalus during cold season reduces the number of colds caught and shortens the duration of those that are caught. If you tend to get colds and flu often, astragalus can help you build up a natural resistance.
- Prescription for Herbal Healing: An Easy-to-Use A-Z Reference to Hundreds of Common Disorders and Their Herbal Remedies by Phyllis A. Balch, CNC

In a study of 28 people, astragalus given orally over a 2-month period significantly increased the production and secretion of interferon compared with controls. Remarkably, the levels of interferon remained high for 2 months after astragalus treatment ended. These results have been duplicated in laboratory studies. Astragalus also increases levels of natural killer (NK) cells, which roam the body via blood and lymph fluid, destroying a wide variety of invaders, including cancer cells and virus-infected body cells.
- The Encyclopedia of Popular Herbs by Robert S. McCaleb, Evelyn Leigh, and Krista Morien

In the exotic language of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), astragalus boosts the immune system by "stabilizing the exterior" and strengthening the "chi." The Chinese knew thousands of years ago that astragalus could strengthen our shield ("exterior") against disease and increase overall vitality (chi), long before anyone knew about bacteria, white blood cells, or the immune system. You may already be accustomed to taking echinacea at the first sign of a cold or flu, or when people around you are getting sick. How is astragalus different?
- The Encyclopedia of Popular Herbs by Robert S. McCaleb, Evelyn Leigh, and Krista Morien

Adaptogens, which include eleuthero, Asian ginseng, astragalus, and schisandra, are thought to help keep various body systems - including the immune system - functioning optimally. They have not been systematically evaluated as cold remedies. However, one double-blind trial found that people who were given 100 mg of Asian ginseng extract in combination with a flu vaccine experienced a lower frequency of colds and flu compared with people who received only the flu vaccine.
- The Natural Pharmacy: Complete A-Z Reference to Natural Treatments for Common Health Conditions by Alan R. Gaby, M.D., Jonathan V. Wright, M.D., Forrest Batz, Pharm.D. Rick Chester, RPh., N.D., DipLAc. George Constantine, R.Ph., Ph.D. Linnea D. Thompson, Pharm.D., N.D.

The Chinese have been using astragalus for thousands of years for immune-system strengthening. Studies have proven that this herb can reduce the frequency and duration of colds and the flu by boosting the immune system rather than by killing viruses directly. Astragalus can be taken as an extract, or the root can be added to soups.
- The Complete Encyclopedia of Natural Healing: A Comprehensive A-Z Listing of Common and Chronic Illnesses and Their Proven Natural Treatments by Gary Null, Ph.D.

Modern research suggests that astragalus stimulates the immune system (though in my opinion, it's not quite as effective as echinacea), counteracts fatigue, treats many infections (including flu), and supports the kidneys. I grow astragalus, but I don't harvest it. Herbalists recommend taking 3 to 5 milliliters of tincture three times a day, or two 400-milligram capsules three times a day. If I wanted to use astragalus, I'd buy a commercial preparation and follow the package directions for proper dosage. The herb appears to be safe.
- The Green Pharmacy Anti-Aging Prescriptions: Herbs, Foods, and Natural Formulas to Keep You Young by James A. Duke, Ph.D.

Immune System (to Tonify It) General Herbal Treatments: For immunodeficiency and to accompany chemo and/or radiotherapy, combine 9 grams each of ligustrum berries and dendrobium with 15 grams of astragalus root; if there is digestive upset and nausea, add 9 grams each of pinellia and citrus peel. For immunodeficiency with symptoms of frequent colds and influenza and to prevent colds and influenza, combine 9 grams each of astragalus root, atractylodes bai zhu, and ledebouriella root.
- The Way of Chinese Herbs by Michael Tierra, L.Ac, O.M.D.

I haven't heard of any safety problems with ashwagandha, though the literature says that abdominal cramps are possible. Also known as huang qi, astragalus is one of the premier immune-system boosters in traditional Chinese medicine. Practitioners prescribe the herb to treat colds, flu, bronchitis, sinus infections, and other infectious ailments. They also recommend it for people whose immune systems have been suppressed by chronic illnesses such as AIDS. These uses are supported by modem research.
- The Green Pharmacy Anti-Aging Prescriptions: Herbs, Foods, and Natural Formulas to Keep You Young by James A. Duke, Ph.D.

Investigators at the University of Texas have reported strong immune-restorative effects in test-tube studies of cancer cells treated with astragalus extracts. And certain cells treated with astragalus extracts in culture survive 50 percent longer, according to some U.S. researchers. Chinese studies suggest that astragalus, in addition to boosting immunity and detoxifying a number of drugs and some metals, is also an anti-viral, a diuretic and a coronary artery dilator. They believe it is particularly effective in warding off flu and some other respiratory infections.
- The Doctor's Vitamin and Mineral Encyclopedia by Sheldon Saul Hendler

The antiviral activity of Astragalus is most likely to be due to increased immunity and possibly enhanced interferon production. In support of this, Astragalus demonstrated slight inhibitory activity against adenovirus type 7 in vitro. Natural and recombinant interferon enhanced the inhibitory activity of Astragalus. It also promoted the production of interferon by mouse lung against parainfluenza virus type I and Newcastle disease virus in vitro.
- Principles and Practice of Phytotherapy: Modern Herbal Medicine by Simon Mills and Kerry Bone

Unlike echinacea, astragalus may be taken long-term during cold and flu season. Chinese studies have found it to be an effective preventive against the common cold.
- The Herbal Drugstore by Linda B. White, M.D.

By Mike Adams Dr. Weil was right: Astragalus herb really helps fight the flu (influenza)

Get your news from WWW.borganic.org

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Americans are increasingly using organic alternative medicine

(www.borganic.org) Acupuncture, biofeedback, herbs, meditation, yoga, massage therapy and other forms of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are not routinely used by conventional Western medicine. In fact, they are often dismissed as worthless and unproven or attacked as downright quackery. But an increasing number of Americans apparently disagree.

Here's proof: a just released report from the National Center for Health Statistics and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) concludes people in the U.S. are using natural, non-medical healing methods more frequently than ever.

The researchers analyzed data collected in 2007 and compared it to the last time this information was collected, back in 2002. In all, the 2007 National Health Interview Survey found approximately four out of 10 Americans used some form of CAM during the year. Clearly, people want to use these modalities and are willing to pay for the help they provide because alternative and complementary therapies are rarely covered by health insurance. Overall, CAM now accounts for 11.2 percent of total out-of-pocket health care expenses -- and that adds up to a whopping $33.9 billion spent yearly.

Acupuncture, naturopathy, biofeedback, guided imagery, meditation, deep breathing exercises and yoga are among the alternative approaches to health that have particularly grown in popularity over the last few years, according to the survey. In a statement to the media, the researchers noted: "It is clear from this data that Americans are utilizing CAM treatments -- and psychophysiological interventions (i.e., treatments that affect both the mind and the body such as biofeedback and various forms of relaxation therapies) -- with increasing frequency."

Following on the heels of the 2007 National Health Interview Survey results comes another study documenting the popularity of CAM. Research just released at the 2009 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) Annual Meeting held in San Diego suggests that a growing number of people with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) are turning to complementary and alternative medical therapies for help.

CRS involves inflammation in one or more of the paranasal sinuses and can cause nasal discharge, facial pain, decreased sense of smell, cough, fever and other symptoms that continue for at least 12 weeks. The condition results in around 22 million office visits to doctors and more than 500,000 emergency department visits in the U.S. annually, according to some estimates.

In a paper presented at the AAO-HNSF annual meeting, scientists from Scotland found that 65 percent of clinic patients surveyed over a two month period used CAM -- including herbal and non-herbal alternative therapies (such as acupuncture, massage, aloe vera, and cod liver oil). Thirty percent of these patients used it to treat their chronic rhinosinusitis.

The researchers noted that only 43 percent of CAM users told their medical doctors that they had turned to alternative and complementary therapies. That finding and the results of the National Center for Health Statistics and NCCAM survey suggest mainstream medical doctors may not have a true picture about just how many of their patients are using and benefiting from the natural healing methods that comprise CAM.

By S. L. Baker Americans are increasingly using organic alternative medicine

Get your news from www.borganic.org

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Use Traditional Chinese Medicine to Prevent or Recover from Swine Flu (H1N1)

(www.Borganic.org) There is a lot of fear of Swine flu (H1N1) this season, but Traditional Chinese Medicine has effective techniques both to boost immunity and recover from flu, which are thousands of years old.

In Chinese Medicine, flu and colds are considered an invasion of the body of external pathogens, either cold or heat. Cold often turns to heat in the body, and we have signs of sore throat, fatigue, achiness, headache and cough. When our body`s Qi (Energy) - especially Wei Qi (Immune Energy) is strong, we are able to fight off these invasions. The energy pathways responsible for keeping the Qi strong are the Digestive energy and Lung Energy (which controls the Wei Qi.)

To keep our Qi strong and prevent the flu and common cold:

  • Eat a Healthy Diet, full of fresh raw fruits and vegetables
  • Cut out sugar, especially white and brown sugar, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup. These lower our immunity
  • Wash your hands frequently with regular soap and water
  • Get outside in the fresh air. Take walks and expose yourself to sunshine (Vitamin D).
  • Receive Acupuncture treatments to balance energy - Acupuncture strengthens the entire body, balances energy, and strengthens the Qi and Wei Qi.
  • Herbal Medicine and Supplements can keep the immune system strong:

    • Astragalus is an excellent immune tonic
    • Medicinal mushrooms such as Reishi and Maitaki can bolster the immune system, especially when the immune system is compromised
    • Four Gentlemen Formula - a classic Chinese herb formula to keep the Qi strong
    • Bu Zhong Yi Qi Tang, a combination of ginseng and astragalus, used in specific cases to strengthen the body`s Qi
    • Gui Pi Tang is used when both qi and blood need a boost, with signs such as insomnia, irritability and anxiety

Once someone comes down with symptoms of the flu, the treatment focus switches from formulas that tonify the qi to formulas which expel the invading pathogen. There are western herbs and nutritional remedies such as Vitamin C and Echinacea, which are beneficial.

In Chinese medicine, classic herbal formulas are used, including:

  • Yin Qiao - This formula contains cooling detoxifying herbs such as forsythia and honeysuckle.
    It is used when just getting sick, with symptoms which include sore throat, headache, and a yellow tongue coat.
  • Gan Mao Ling - if you find yourself in the midst of a bad cold or flu

Another way to keep your immunity strong either to prevent or to recover from the flu is to make sure your digestion is strong, such as:

  • Eat plenty of fresh Raw Foods, which are full of natural enzymes and vitamins and minerals, which keep your body nourished and functioning at its best
  • Take digestive enzymes with food, to make digestion easier
  • Bao He Wan is an excellent Chinese herbal formula to help with digestion, especially if there is a feeling of fullness, bloating, gas and slow digestion after eating
  • Eating fermented or cultured foods like yogurt, kefir, miso, and live cultured vegetables
  • Taking Probiotic supplements

Chinese medicine, as well as the flu, have been around for thousands of years. The healthier people are, the more resistant they are to colds and flu, and the faster they will recover if they find themselves sick. Strengthening the digestion and tonifying the body`s energy (qi) and immune energy (wei qi) are good ways to prevent becoming sick. If someone is sick, the focus switches to expelling the pathogenic influence and building the immunity again.


Center for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/ABOUT/QA/thi...

Xinnong, Cheng, Chief Editor. Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion. Foreign Language Press, Beijing. 1990.

Bensky, Dan and Gamble, Andrew. Chinese Herbal Medicine, Materia Medica. Eastland Press, Inc. Seattle, WA. 1986.

Bensky, Dan and Gamble, Andrew. Chinese Herbal Medicines: Formulas and Strategies. Eastland Press, Inc. Seattle, WA. 1990

By Melissa Sokulski Use Traditional Chinese Medicine to Prevent or Recover from Swine Flu (H1N1)

Get your news from www.borganic.org

Monday, October 19, 2009

Ten questions about flu vaccines that doctors and health authorities refuse to answer

(www.Borganic.org) Vaccine mythology remains rampant in both western medicine and the mainstream media. To hear the vaccination zealots say it, vaccines are backed by "good science," they've been "proven effective" and they're "perfectly safe."

Oh really? Where's all that good science? As it turns out, there's isn't any. Flu vaccines (including swine flu vaccines) are based entirely on a vaccine mythology that assumes all vaccines work and no vaccines can be scientifically questioned. Anyone who dares question the safety or effectiveness of vaccines is immediately branded a danger to public health and marginalized in the scientific community.

Here are ten questions vaccine-pushing doctors and health authorities absolutely refuse to answer:

#1) Where are the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies proving flu vaccines are both safe and effective?

Answer: There aren't any. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_v...)

#2) Where, then, is the so-called "science" backing the idea that flu vaccines work at all?

Answer: Other than "cohort studies," there isn't any. And the cohort studies have been thoroughly debunked. Scientifically speaking, there isn't a scrap of honest evidence showing flu vaccines work at all.

#3) How can methyl mercury (Thimerosal, a preservative used in flu vaccines) be safe for injecting into the human body when mercury is an extremely toxic heavy metal?

Answer: It isn't safe at all. Methyl mercury is a poison. Along with vaccine adjuvants, it explains why so many people suffer autism or other debilitating neurological side effects after being vaccinated.

#4) Why do reports keep surfacing of children and teens suffering debilitating neurological disorders, brain swelling, seizures and even death following flu vaccines or HPV vaccines?

Answer: Because vaccines are dangerous. The vaccine industry routinely dismisses all such accounts -- no matter how many are reported -- as "coincidence."

#5) Why don't doctors recommend vitamin D for flu protection, especially when vitamin D activates the immune response far better than a vaccine? (http://www.naturalnews.com/027231_V...)

Answer: Because vitamin D can't be patented and sold as "medicine." You can make it yourself. If you want more vitamin D, you don't even need a doctor, and doctors tend not to recommend things that put them out of business.

#6) If human beings need flu vaccines to survive, then how did humans survive through all of Earth's history?

Answer: Human genetic code is already wired to automatically defend you against invading microorganisms (as long as you have vitamin D). (http://www.naturalnews.com/027231_V...)

#7) If the flu vaccine offers protection against the flu, then why are the people who often catch the flu the very same people who were vaccinated against it?

Answer: Because those most vulnerable to influenza infections are the very same people who have a poor adaptive response to the vaccines and don't build antibodies. In other words flu vaccines only "work" on people who don't need them. (And even building antibodies doesn't equate to real-world protection from the flu, by the way.)

#8) If the flu vaccine really works, then why was there no huge increase in flu death rates in 2004, the year when flu vaccines were in short supply and vaccination rates dropped by 40%? (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_v...)

Answer: There was no change in the death rate. You could drop vaccination rates to zero percent and you'd still see no change in the number of people dying from the flu. That's because flu vaccines simply don't work.

#9) How can flu vaccines reduce mortality by 50% (as is claimed) when only about 10% of winter deaths are related to the flu in the first place?

They can't. The 50% statistic is an example of quack medical marketing. If I have a room full of 100 people, then I take the 50 healthiest people and hand them a candy bar, I can't then scientifically claim that "candy bars make people healthy." That's essentially the same logic behind the "50% reduction in mortality" claim of flu vaccines. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_v...).

#10) If flu vaccines work so well, then why are drug makers and health authorities so reluctant to subject them to scientific scrutiny with randomized, placebo-controlled studies?

Answer: Although they claim such studies would be "unethical," what's far more unethical is to keep injecting hundreds of millions of people every year with useless, harmful vaccines that aren't backed by a shred of honest evidence.

Vaccine voodoo?

The vaccine industry is about making money, not actually offering immune protection against the flu. Whether people get the flu or not is irrelevant to the bottom-line profits of the drug companies. What matters most is that people continue to take the flu shots, and making that happen depends entirely on pushing the vaccine mythology that infects the minds of doctors and health authorities today.

There was a time when all "good" doctors believed in bloodletting. Sickness was caused by evil spirits, they thought, and releasing pints of blood from the patient would clear the evil spirits and accelerate healing. Any doctor who questioned the science behind bloodletting was called a "denier." All the "good" doctors said, "We know bloodletting works, so we don't need science to back it up."

Today, you hear the exact same thing about vaccines. "We know they work," doctors claim, "so we don't need any real science to back it up." Anyone who questions the safety of flu vaccines (or H1N1 vaccines) is branded a "denier." Anyone who asks for solid scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of vaccines is called a troublemaker. They don't need any evidence. They already know vaccines work.

With that being the case, why bother calling it medicine at all? Why not just call it VOODOO? Why not accompany vaccines with the wave of a magic wand and some shamanic chanting? Maybe doctors should tell their patients to cross their fingers before being injected with a vaccine because "that makes it work better."

Seriously. Everything that doctors accuse "quacks" of doing with homeopathy, or herbs, or energy medicine is now being done by the doctors themselves when it comes to vaccines. They are following the exact same "quackery" they accuse other of pursuing.

This brings me to an important observation about modern medicine: MY quackery is okay, but YOUR quackery isn't!

That's the attitude of vaccine-pushing doctors and health authorities. As long as the quackery is widely agreed upon by the medical masses, then to heck with actual scientific evidence.

Quackery only needs good company, not good science, to be accepted as true.

Why natural medicine is inherently safer

Of course, these vaccine devotees might say, well, you don't have any good evidence to support your anti-viral herbs, or your medicinal teas, or your vitamin D nutrition either. But in saying that, they miss the whole point: Foods, herbs and nutrition are all natural, biocompatible healing elements that have been part of the human experience for as long as humans have roamed this planet. A chemical injection with a sharp needle that pierces the skin, on the other hand, is extremely interventionist. It's unnatural and in many ways quite radical. As such, it demands a higher burden of scientific proof than something that human beings have evolved with over time.

Foods, herbs and natural medicines have been around for millions of years. Vaccines have existed for less than a hundred years, and routine season flu vaccinations have really only been pushed hard for less than twenty years. They have no track record of success. They aren't natural, they aren't compatible with human biology, and they contain extremely toxic substances that clearly do not belong in the human body.

Given such extremes, the burden of proof for both safety and efficacy of vaccines falls onto those who would advocate them. And yet, to this day, no such proof has been offered... or is even pursued. There isn't even a plan in place to someday find out if flu vaccines really work. The whole plan is to just pursue "business as usual" and keep injecting people whether it really works or not.

Vaccine needles would be far more honest if they were shaped like question marks.

By Mike Adams Read full article here

Get your news from www.borganic.org

Friday, October 16, 2009

Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery

(www.Borganic.org) Prepare to have your world rocked. What you're about to read here will leave you astonished, inspired and outraged all at the same time. You're about to be treated to some little-known information demonstrating why seasonal flu vaccines are utterly worthless and why their continued promotion is based entirely on fabricated studies and medical mythology.

If the whole world knew what you're about to read here, the vaccine industry would collapse overnight.

This information comes to you courtesy of a brilliant article published in The Atlantic (November 2009). The article, written by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, isn't just brilliant; in my opinion it stands as the best article on flu vaccines that has ever been published in the popular press. Entitled Does the vaccine matter?, it presents some of the most eye-opening information you've probably ever read about the failure of flu vaccines. You can read the full article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/2009...

Perhaps its impressive narrative shouldn't be too surprising, though, since writer Shannon Brownlee is also the celebrated author of a phenomenal book on modern medicine entitled Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer (http://www.amazon.com/Overtreated-M...) (http://www.naturalpedia.com/book_Ov...).

While I've never done this before, I'm going to summarize this article point by point (along with some comments) so that you get the full force of what's finally been put into print.

This information is so important that I encourage you to share the following summary I've put together. Email it to family, friends and coworkers. Or post it on your blog or website (with a link and proper credit to both NaturalNews and The Atlantic, please). Get this information out to the world. People need to know this, and so far the mainstream media has utterly failed to make this information known.

(The really good information begins after around a dozen bullet points, so be sure to keep reading...)

Does the vaccine matter?

What follows is my point-by-point summary of this groundbreaking article by Shannon Brownlee, originally published in The Atlantic. My opinion statements are shown in brackets and italics.

• Vaccination is the core strategy of the U.S. government's plan to combat the swine flu.

• The U.S. government has spent roughly $3 billion stockpiling vaccines and anti-viral drugs.

• The CDC is recommending that 159 million Americans receive a swine flu vaccine injection (as soon as possible).

• What if vaccines don't work? More and more researchers are skeptical about whether they do.

• Seasonal flu (that's the regular flu) currently kills an estimated 36,000 people each year in the United States. [But most people who die are already suffering from existing diseases such as asthma.]

• Most "colds" aren't really caused by the flu virus. As few as 7 or 8 percent (and at most, 50 percent) of colds have an influenza origin. There are more than 200 viruses and pathogens that can cause "influenza-like" illnesses (and therefore be easily mistaken for the flu).

• Viruses mutate with amazing speed, meaning that each year's circulating influenza is genetically different from the previous year.

• The vaccine for each upcoming flu season is formulated by health experts taking a guess [a wild guess, at times] about what strain of influenza might be most likely to circulate in the future.

• The 1918 Spanish Flu infected roughly one-third of the world population and killed at least 40 million.

• In the U.S., the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology predicted that H1N1 influenza could infect up to one-half of the U.S. population and kill 90,000 Americans.

[Keep reading, the good part is coming...]

• Of those who have died from the Swine Flu in the U.S., roughly 70 percent were already diseased with some serious underlying condition such as asthma or AIDS.

• Public health officials consider vaccines to be their first and best weapon against influenza. Vaccines helped eradicate smallpox and polio. [I don't agree with that assessment. Vaccines did relatively little compared to improvements in public sanitation.]

• Each year, 100 million Americans get vaccinated, and vaccines remain "a staple" of public health policy in the United States.

Why the research is bogus

• Because researchers can't exactly pin down who has influenza and who doesn't, the research conducted on the effectiveness of vaccines simply calculates the death rate from all causes among those who take the vaccine vs. those who don't. [This includes deaths from accidents, heart attacks, medications, car wrecks and everything.]

• These studies show a "dramatic difference" between the death rates of those who get the vaccines vs. those who don't. People who get vaccinated have significantly lower death rates [from ALL causes, and herein lies the problem...].

• Flu shot propaganda cites these studies, telling people that if they get their flu shots every year, they will have a significantly reduced chance of dying. But this is extremely misleading...

• Critics question the logic of these studies: As it turns out, compared to the number of deaths from all causes, the number of people killed by influenza is quite small. According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, deaths from influenza account for -- at most -- 10 percent of the total deaths during the flu season (and this includes all indirect deaths aggravated by the flu).

• This brings up a hugely important dilemma: If influenza only accounts for roughly 10 percent of all deaths during the flu season, how could an influenza vaccine reduce total deaths by 50 percent? (As is claimed by the vaccine manufacturers.) [It doesn't add up. Even if the vaccines were 100% effective, they should only reduce the total death rates by 10%, given that only 10% of the total deaths are caused by influenza.]

• Here's a direct quote from the story: Tom Jefferson, a physician based in Rome and the head of the Vaccines Field at the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international network of researchers who appraise medical evidence, says: "For a vaccine to reduce mortality by 50 percent and up to 90 percent in some studies means it has to prevent deaths not just from influenza, but also from falls, fires, heart disease, strokes, and car accidents. That's not a vaccine, that's a miracle." [Emphasis added.]

The failure of cohort studies

• So how do the vaccine companies come up with this "50% reduction in death rate" statistic? Through cohort studies.

• Cohort studies compare the death rates of large groups of people who received the vaccine to large groups of people who did NOT receive the vaccine. But there's a fatal flaw in this approach: People self-select for vaccinations. And what kind of people? As it turns out: People who take more precautions with their health!

[Thus, you automatically have a situation where the more health-cautious people are getting the vaccines because they THINK it's good for them. Meanwhile all the masses of people who don't give a darn about their health tend to skip the seasonal flu vaccines. And these people tend to not take very good of their health in lots of other ways. In other words, in terms of the masses, people who get vaccines are more likely to avoid junk food and live a more health-cautious lifestyle. This explains the differences in the death rates between the two groups! It has nothing to do with the vaccine...]

• There is extreme "cult-like" peer pressure put on doctors and researchers to swallow the vaccine mythology without question. Quoted from the story: Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center, in Seattle, began wondering aloud to colleagues if maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine, the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science. "People told me, 'No good can come of [asking] this,'" she says. "'Potentially a lot of bad could happen' for me professionally by raising any criticism that might dissuade people from getting vaccinated, because of course, 'We know that vaccine works.' This was the prevailing wisdom." [In other words, don't dare question the vaccine, and don't ask tough scientific questions because the vaccine industry runs on dogma, not science... and if you ask any questions, you might find yourself out of a job...].

[Here's where the really good part begins...]

• Lisa Jackson was not deterred. She and three other researchers began to study the widely-quoted vaccine statistics in an attempt to identify this "healthy user effect," if any. They looked through eight years of medical data covering 72,000 people aged 65 or older and recorded who received flu shots and who didn't. Then they compared the death rates for all causes outside the flu season.

The vaccine made no difference in mortality

• What she found blows a hole right through the vaccination industry: She found that even outside the flu season, the death rate was 60 percent higher among those who did not get vaccines than among those who do. [In other words, even when you take the flu season completely out of the equation, elderly people who don't get vaccines have other lifestyle factors that makes them far more likely to die from lots of other causes.]

• She also found that this so-called "healthy user effect" explains the entire apparent benefit that continues to be attributed to vaccines. This finding demonstrates that the flu vaccine may not have any beneficial effect whatsoever in reducing mortality.

• How well done were these particular studies? Quoted from the story: Jackson's papers "are beautiful," says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology. "They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done."

• Many pro-vaccine experts simply refused to believe the results of this study [because it conflicts with their existing belief in vaccine mythology]. The Journal of the American Medical Association refused to publish her research, even stating, "To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat!" [Which just goes to show you how deeply ingrained the current vaccine mythology is in the minds of conventional medical practitioners. They simply cannot imagine that vaccines don't work, so they dismiss any evidence -- even GOOD evidence -- demonstrating that fact. This is what makes the vaccine industry a CULT rather than a science.]

• Jackson's papers were finally published in 2006, in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

[And here's the really, really juicy part you can't miss...]

Vaccine shortage proves it never worked in the first place

• The history of the flu vaccine reveals some huge gaps in current vaccination mythology, essentially proving they don't work:

• For example: In 2004, vaccine production was low and there was a shortage in vaccines (a 40 percent reduction in vaccinations). And yet mortality rates did not rise during the flu season. [Clearly, if vaccines actually worked, then a year when the vaccine wasn't even administered to 40% of the people who normally get it should have resulted in a huge and statistically significant increase in mortality. It should have spiked the death rates and filled the morgues... but it didn't. You know why? Because flu vaccines don't work in the first place.]

• In the history of flu vaccines, there were two years in which the formulated flu vaccine was a total mismatch to the widely-circulating influenza that made people sick. These years were 1968 and 1997. In both of these years, the vaccine was a completely mismatch for the circulating virus. In effect, nobody was vaccinated! [Knowing this, if the vaccine itself was effective at reducing death rates, then we should have once again seen a huge spike in the death rates during these two years, right? Seriously, if the vaccine reduces death rates by 50% as is claimed by vaccine manufacturers, then these two years in which the vaccine completely missed the mark should have seen huge spikes in the winter death rates, right? But what really happened was... nothing. Not a blip. Not a spike. Nothing. The death rates didn't rise at all.]

• If vaccines really worked to save lives, then the more people you vaccinate, the lower death rates you should see, right? But that's not the case. Back in 1989, only 15 percent of over-65 people got vaccinated against the flu. But today, thanks to the big vaccine push, over 65 percent are vaccinated. And yet, amazingly, death rates among the elderly have not gone down during the flu season. In fact, they've gone up!

• When vaccine promoters (and CDC officials) are challenged about the "50 percent mortality reduction" myth, they invoke dogmatic language and attack the messenger. They are simply not willing to consider the possibility that flu vaccines simply don't work.

• Scientists who question the vaccine mythology are routinely shunned by the medical establishment. Tom Jefferson from the Cochrane Collaboration is an epidemiologist who questions the claimed benefits of flu vaccines. "The reaction [against Jefferson] has been so dogmatic and even hysterical that you'd think he was advocating stealing babies" said a colleague (Majumdar).

• Jefferson is one of the world's best-informed researchers on the flu vaccine. He leads a team of researchers who have examined hundreds of vaccine studies. To quote directly from the article: The vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. "Rubbish is not a scientific term, but I think it's the term that applies [to these studies]."

[And here's the real kicker that demonstrates why flu vaccines are useless...]

Flu vaccines only "work" on people who don't need them

• Vaccines supposedly "work" by introducing a weakened viral strain that causes the immune system to respond by building influenza antibodies. However, as Jefferson points out, only healthy people produce a good antibody response to the vaccine. And yet it is precisely the unhealthy people -- the ones who have a poor immune response to the vaccine -- who are most at risk of being harmed or killed by influenza. But the vaccines don't work in them!

[In other words -- get this -- flu vaccines only "work" in people who don't need them!]

[At the same time, it's also accurate to say that vaccines don't work at all in the very people who theoretically could benefit from them. They only produce antibodies in people who already have such a strong immune response that they don't need the vaccine in the first place.]

• Jefferson has called for randomized, placebo-controlled studies of the vaccines. But vaccine pushers are resisting these clinical trials! They call the trials "unethical" [but, in reality, they know that a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study would reveal the complete failure of flu vaccines, and they will do anything to prevent such a trial from happening. Don't you find it amazing that drug pushers and vaccine advocates claim they have "science" on their side, but they won't submit their vaccines to any real science at all?]

[No placebo-controlled studies have ever been conducted on flu vaccines because the industry says they would be "unethical." So where do these people get off claiming their vaccines work at all? The whole industry is based on fabricated statistics that are provably false... and the injections continue, year after year, with absolutely no benefit to public health whatsoever...]

Why anti-viral drugs don't work either

• On the anti-viral drug front, hospitals are urged to hand out prescriptions for Tamiflu and Relenza to almost anyone who is symptomatic, whether they actually have swine flu or not. Concern is growing about the emergence of drug-resistant strains of swine flu. " Flu can become resistant to Tamiflu in a matter of days..." says one researcher.

• In 2005, the U.S. government spent $1.8 billion to stockpile antiviral drugs for the military. This decision was made during the time when Donald Rumsfeld was Defense Secretary. Rumsfeld also held millions of dollars worth of stock in Gilead Sciences, the company that holds the patent on Tamiflu. That company saw its stock price rise 50 percent following the government's stockpiling purchase of Tamiflu.

• The evidence supporting Tamiflu's anti-viral benefits is flimsy at best. Even worse, as many as one in five children taking Tamiflu experience neuropsychiatric side effects including hallucinations and suicidal behavior. [In other words, your kid might be "tripping out" on some bad Tamiflu...]

• Tamiflu is already linked to 50 deaths of children in Japan.

• The evidence supporting Tamiflu is based on cohort studies, just like the vaccines, which may distort or exaggerate the apparent benefits of the drug.

• Even supporters of Tamiflu admit it's never been proven to help. A CDC official says that randomized trials to determine the effectiveness of Tamiflu would be "unethical."

• In all, neither vaccines nor anti-viral drugs have any reliable evidence that they work against influenza at all. Both are being promoted based entirely on pure wishful thinking, not hard science.

• The history of pharmaceutical medicine is littered with other examples of drugs that doctors "knew worked" but which later turned out to harm or kill patients. [All along, the proper scientific studies were avoided because, hey, if you already know everything, why bother conducting any actual science to prove anything?]

• The hype about vaccines provides a false sense of security, taking away attention from other things that really do work to prevent influenza deaths. That's why, except for "hand washing," virtually no advice has been offered to the public on preventing influenza beyond vaccines and anti-viral drugs.

• Concluding quote from the author: "By being afraid to do the proper studies now, we may be condemning ourselves to using treatments based on illusion and faith rather than sound science."

A recap of these astonishing points

Let's recap what we just learned here (because it's just mind-boggling):

• There have been no placebo-controlled studies on flu vaccines because the vaccine pushers say such clinical trials would be "unethical." Thus, there is actually no hard scientific evidence that they work at all.

• The "50 percent reduction in mortality" statistic that's tossed around by vaccine pushers is a total fabrication based on "rubbish" studies ("cohort" studies).

• Scrutinizing the existing studies that claim to support vaccines reveals that flu vaccines simply don't work. And when vaccines aren't available or the formulation is wrong, there's no spike in death rates, indicating quite conclusively that these vaccines offer no reduction in mortality.

• Flu vaccines only produce antibodies in people who don't need vaccines. At the same time, they fail to produce antibodies in people who are most vulnerable to flu. Thus, vaccines only work in people who don't need them.

• The entire flu vaccine industry is run like a cult, with dogma ruling over science. Anyone who asks tough, scientific questions is immediately branded a heretic. No one is allowed to question the status quo. (So much for "evidence-based medicine," huh?)

As you can see from all this, the flu vaccine is pure quackery. Those who administer vaccines are, by inference, QUACKS. They claim to have scientific minds, and yet they are the most gullible of all: They will believe almost anything if it's published in a medical journal, even if it's complete quackery.

Today, countless doctors, nurses and pharmacists across North America and around the world are pushing a medically worthless, scientifically-fabricated chemical injection that offers absolutely no benefit to public health... and yet they're convinced it's highly effective! It just goes to show you how easy it is to brainwash people in the field of conventional medicine.

They've abandoned real science long ago, you know. Now the whole industry is just run on the momentum of dogmatic arrogance and the illusion of authority. From the CDC and FDA on down to the local pharmacist at the corner store, the American medical system is run by some seemingly smart people who have been brainwashed into become full-fledged members of the Cult of Pharmacology where vaccine mythology overrules real science.

The vaccine industry is perhaps the greatest medical scam ever pulled off in the history of the world. Don't fall for it.

And don't forget to read the full article in The Atlantic by Shannon Brownlee: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/2009...

Why people get vaccinated: Superstition

Reading everything you've read here, you might wonder: Why do people get vaccinated at all?

The reason is because no one knows whether they work or not, so people keep on taking them "just in case." It's exactly the kind of superstitious ritual that "science-minded skeptics" rail against on a regular basis... unless, of course, it involves their vaccines, in which case superstition is all okay.

People take vaccines for the same reason they rub a rabbit's foot. It's a good luck ritual that may or may not work, but no one really knows. And besides, what's the harm in it? (They think...)

Personally, I'd rather get some vitamin D and have a healthy, functioning immune system. But for those who prefer to play the lotto, gamble in Vegas or bet their lives on medical superstitions, flu vaccines are readily available.

So what are you waiting for? Shoot up a few flu vaccines, rub your lucky rabbit's foot, then spin around clockwise seven times and you, too, may be able to generate enough luck to avoid the flu this winter.

By Mike Adams Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Why organic and How to Avoid GMO Foods

(www.borganic.org) The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) states, "Genetically Modified foods have not been properly tested and pose a serious health risk. There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation." The AAEM also called for a moratorium on GMO's in food and for physicians to advise their patients to avoid GM foods. Since the massive invasion of GMO's into the food supply from 1996, chronic diseases and food allergies have doubled.

Now that President Obama has appointed Michael Taylor as Food Czar to his cabinet, the struggle is destined to become more difficult unless more consumers knowingly boycott GMO products. Michael Taylor was a vice president and chief lobbyist for Monsanto prior to his cabinet selection. Did you know that the stated aim of Monsanto is to own the patents for all the food crop seeds in the world? And now they're in the White House!

Why Avoid GMO Foods?

From anti-GMO activist and best selling author Jeffrey Smith's recent News With Views Internet article, "Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Foods," "World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans".

"Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that 'children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems' related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become 'the experimental animals.'"

In addition to you and your family's personal health risks, the whole human race is endangered as Monsanto pursues it's stated goal of owning the world's food supply. Genetic engineering alters genetic codes of the DNA in organism by splicing in other genes from other forms of life, including other plant forms, insects, bacteria and even viruses. This creates mutant organisms and dangerously mutating genes, solely for sociopathic commercial demands on different forms of produce.

These commercial demands never consider the negative effects on human and animal health, nor the future of the food chain. Pollen pollution from GMO crop fields has already infected formerly pristine crops on small farms and indigenous farming groups. This pollution can cause permanent genetic mutations. And when Monsanto officials determine where these pollen drift pollutions occur, they sue the farmers of the polluted crops for patent violations! So farmers who avoid GMO planting are at risk.

As a matter of fact, there are several documents recovered from lawsuits and from the Freedom of Information Act that show FDA scientists had even urged long term studies before releasing GMO products. This was back in the early 1990's when the genome biotechnology industry was coming out of the closet. So how were they over ruled?

Along came Michael Taylor from Monsanto, you know, the current Food Czar guy, taking a key position in the FDA to create policy regarding GMO foods. The policy he instated essentially decrees that it's all food; there is no difference from any other food, and if the biotech company that created the GM foods say they're safe that's good enough! That FDA policy for GM food remains the same to this day.

Recovered documents from the biotech companies and independent testing prove that the GMO firms not only do very little testing, but they also often test improperly, cheat on the testing, and lie about the results! This junk science and PR lying is what gets to the mainstream media and press, via the FDA or even from biotechnology press releases. Meanwhile, research that prove GMO dangers is suppressed.

How To Avoid GMO Foods

Avoid the big four, which has become five now: The highly genetically engineered crops are soy, corn, canola and cottonseed. Add sugar beets, which are now becoming GMO.

Most blended oils in North America contain canola and cottonseed oils. Use extra virgin olive oil instead. Avoid all soy products and oils as well. The healthy alternative is usually not so healthy after all, since most soy is GMO unless it is specifically labeled non-GMO.

Most corn is GMO. Items like corn flakes and corn chips are from GM corn. Corn based products, corn starch, corn oil, corn syrup, and high fructose corn syrup appear on the ingredients labels of many processed foods. Corn in various forms is prevalent in the vast fast food supply that dominates our culture.

GMO corn is fed to cattle and other livestock. If you eat beef, pork or fowl, you are probably a second hand consumer of GM corn. So dig a little deeper and buy grass or alfalfa fed or free range livestock meats only.

Sugar beets are added to the big four to make it five. Now more and more sugar beets are GMO. Sugar from sugar beets is less expensive than cane sugar for refined sugar; therefore, it is popular with food processing groups. So if you haven't stopped using sugar or products with refined sugar, you might want to reconsider now.

A handy guide for consumers are PLU codes that are labeled or stamped onto fruits and vegetables. PLU stands for Price Look Up. The PLU codes are for input into electronic cash registers to determine prices for bulk items, such as apples and cabbage. The codes identify exactly what the item is with its current pricing, while giving the consumer a handy tag for identifying GMO produce.

Each PLU code has five digits. If the first digit is a 9, the item is organic. If it is an 8, it is GMO! Conventionally grown produce has a 0 for the first digit, but usually the 0 is dropped. So most conventionally grown produce will actually have only 4 digits on the PLU tag if you don't see a 0 at the beginning. The 8 gives you the worst of two worlds, GMO and heavy chemical spraying!

Those are your three main categories. PLU codes do not usually appear on packaged produce or items such as string beans that are too small to label or stamp.

Obviously, buying organic and from local farmers is ideal. Forget convenience. Buy bulk and eschew packaged foods. So what if you have to soak legumes the night before cooking them. If you buy locally, through a local health food store or at a farmers' market, you can determine by direct communication how the crops were raised.

Need more details? You can download a free, very detailed Non GMO Shopping Guide (pdf) created by The Center for Food Safety here: http://www.responsibletechnology.or...

The Genesis of GMO Madness

[The following passage is excerpted from "Commentary on Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods", By Edem Srem Sept. 2, 2009 GBC News]

The history of controlling the food industry in the world by the then American Government in 1973 under President Nixon started by introducing the "Food for Peace" programme which was led by Henry Kissinger, Nixon's Secretary of State and National Security Adviser.*

According to the New African Magazine, Kissinger controlled absolutely the US foreign policy and summarized his activities as "Control oil and you control nations, control food and you control the people". His idea of capturing the worldwide food industry started with the introduction of what was termed as the gene revolution. [End of article excerpt]

That gene revolution evolved to the biotechnology industry in food. Under Bush senior, biotechnology was given the deregulation green light possibly more than any other industry. Connect all these dots to Michael Taylor's revolving door passages from corporate (Monsanto) to government (FDA) and back again to Monsanto then tapped as Food Czar.

The picture becomes apparent: the thrust to completely control food world wide is being pursued by an alliance of USA government policy and multi-national agribusiness and food processing corporation ambition. Don't expect government to come to the rescue!

Grass Roots Activism Too Shut Down GMO Foods

The agenda for controlling the world food supply through patented GMO seeds has hit a few glitches, thanks to the word getting out and food consumer boycotts. Monsanto's target for accomplishing this was up years ago! But of course, they haven't given up.

Monsanto is a multi-national company that created PCB's, Agent Orange, Aspartame, rBGH, Terminator Seeds and Round Up weed killer, for which GMO crops were created to withstand its heavy spraying, creating more toxic chemical residue to the GM crops than even conventionally grown crops. Would they care about anything but their food fascism control agenda? With Food Czar Monsanto Mike in the White House, they have their point man in position.

What Jeffrey M. Smith, Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette proposes is that enough people get educated and boycott GMO products to diminish market demand. This can create a tipping point, where the balance of supply and demand shifts enough for the market place venues to drop GMO products.

He claims this has been achieved in the USA with rBGH or bovine growth hormones. And thanks to an honest scientist, Arpad Pusztai, who lost his lab funding for exposing GMO dangers in Scotland, the EU is GMO free.

The same link provided above for the GMO Shopping Guide leads to the Institute for Responsible Technology where Jeffrey Smith's powerful, live 84 minute power point presentation on the whole GMO situation is available free.


Institute for Responsible Technology (for Non GMO Food Guide and J. Smith free video presentation)

Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Foods by Jeffrey M. Smith

Organic Vegetable PLU Codes

GMO Free Ebook by Greg Ciola (scroll down list to find Greg's book)

Commentary on Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods

By Paul Fassa

Get your news from www.borganic.org

Health Tips

Antidepressant Herbs | St. John's wort, Ginkgo, Lavender

Ginger | Dispel stagnancy and congestion.

Juice of the week Recipe

Immune system body booster Juice Recipes

Food And Flowers Without Chemicals!

News you will never hear.

In the foreword to his 1986 book If I Were an Animal, Prince Philip wrote, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus | Hippocrates The father of western medicine said "Let your food be your medicine and let your medicine be your food"

Expose the globalist depopulation plan