Jamie Oliver Influences Change in McDonald's Hamburger Recipe

Hamburger chef Jamie Oliver has just won a battle against one of the largest fast food chains in the world. After Oliver showed how McDonald’s hamburgers are made, the franchise announced it will change its recipe.

According to Oliver, the fatty parts of beef are “washed” in ammonium hydroxide and used in the filling of the burger. Before this process, according to the presenter, the food is deemed unfit for human consumption.

According to the chef and presenter, Jamie Oliver, who has undertaken a war against the fast food industry: “Basically, we’re taking a product that would be sold in the cheapest way for dogs, and after this process, is being given to human beings.”

Besides the low quality of the meat, the ammonium hydroxide is harmful to health. Oliver calls it “the pink slime process.”

“Why would any sensible human being put meat filled with ammonia in the mouths of their children?” asked the chef, who wages a war against the fast food industry.

In one of his initiatives, Oliver demonstrates to children how nuggets are made. After selecting the best parts of the chicken, the remains (fat, skin and internal organs) are processed for these fried foods.

The company, Arcos Dorados, the franchise manager in Latin America, said such a procedure is not practiced in the region. The same applies to the product in Ireland and the UK, where they use meat from local suppliers.

In the United States, Burger King and Taco Bell had already abandoned the use of ammonia in their products. The food industry uses ammonium hydroxide as an anti-microbial agent in meats, which has allowed McDonald’s to use otherwise “inedible meat.”

Even more disturbing is that because ammonium hydroxide is considered part of the “component in a production procedure” by the USDA, consumers may not know when the chemical is in their food.

On the official website of McDonald’s, the company claims that their meat is cheap because, while serving many people every day, they are able to buy from their suppliers at a lower price, and offer the best quality products.

In addition, the franchise denied that the decision to change the recipe is related to Jamie Oliver’s campaign. On the site, McDonald’s has admitted that they have abandoned the beef filler from its burger patties.

Originally Posted On: http://www.nashville.com/news/national-news/jamie-oliver-influences-change-in-mcdonalds-hamburger-recipe

CDC admits, then retracts statistics reporting that 98 million Americans were injected with vaccines containing cancer virus

The Centers for Disease Control recently published valuable information about polio vaccines on their site, but afterwards retracted the information. Why has that information been taken down? Regardless, a Google snapshot of this information as it appeared on July 11, 2013 is cached here: http://www.yaplakal.com/pics/pics_original/4/2/3/2090324.jpg

The saved CDC information comes right out and admits that more than 98 million Americans during a span of eight years were injected with a cancer-causing polyomavirus called SV40.

This fact alone should serve as a testament to anyone: always question medical professionals who say that you or your child needs a certain vaccine or prescription. So much "medicine" today is actually poison. Professionals are often duped into believing in the safety of a vaccine or prescription, when all along it may be laced with cancer-causing, health ravaging virus, heavy metals, fungus, formaldehyde, or neurotoxins.

What is SV40?

SV40 stands for Simian vacuolating virus 40 and was found in monkeys in 1960. This polyomavirus existed in contaminated batches of polio vaccinations in the 50s and early 60s. Fragments of this virus have shown up in human brain, bone, and lung cancers. This virus is known for causing cancerous tumors.

Uniquely, humans have built in tumor-suppressing genes. The SV40 virus effectively disables those genes, suppressing them through the SV40 T-antigens. This leads to mutated genes that spawn uncontrollable cellular proliferation, leading to cancer.

Michele Carbone, Assistant Professor of pathology at Loyola University in Chicago, has recently found fragments of the SV40 virus in 40% of human bone cancers and in 60% of mesothelioma cancers.

Experts in the field are beginning to conclude that the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines were responsible for injecting cancer-causing viral strains into people, mutating their genes and welcoming epidemics of cancer.

The contaminated vaccine has been estimated to have adversely affected 10 to 30 million people.

The discovery of SV40

SV40 was first found by Dr. Bernice Eddy when she studied the minced kidney cells of rhesus monkeys. "The cells would die without any apparent cause," she reported. Taking the cells from the monkey's kidney cultures, Dr. Eddy injected them into hamsters. Merck & Co. soon discovered this virus, which was identified and isolated by Dr. Eddy. It was named Simian Virus 40 because it was the 40th virus found in monkey kidney cells. In 1960, the discovery was complete. Merck scientists Dr. Benjamin Sweet and Dr. Maurice Hillman published the findings. Dr. Eddy went on to publish more information about the SV40 virus. A single dose was injected into 13 newborn hamsters and 10 newborn mice. What followed was cellular neoplasms that developed between 156 and 380 days.

Still though, at the time, medical professionals defended the SV40 tainted polio vaccines, despite the published dangers of the SV40 virus contaminating the vaccines.

A more recent report, published in 2005 by the the National Network for Immunization Information, downplays the situation:

"Although SV40 has biological properties consistent with a cancer-causing virus, it has not been conclusively established whether it has caused cancer in humans," said the report. "Epidemiological studies of groups of people who received polio vaccine during 1955-1963 do not show an increased
cancer risk."

With the CDC coming out and admitting that millions of Americans were exposed to cancer causing SV40 viruses in the polio vaccines between 1955 and 1963, there will be increased skepticism about vaccinations in the years to come.

Maybe that's why billionaire vaccine pushers made the CDC take this important information off their site.

Regardless, now you know. Always make an informed decision. Don't automatically trust a medical professional when they say, 'you need this vaccine.'

Sources for this article include:

http://www.wakingtimes.com

http://www.realfarmacy.com

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://worldtruth.tv

http://science.naturalnews.com


Originally Posted On: http://www.naturalnews.com/041411_SV40_hidden_cancer_viruses_polio_vaccines.html#ixzz2aq50VSnw

Survey: only 15% of farmers would eat GMO food

The British survey was funded by Barclays Bank and done in collaboration with Farmers Weekly.

Only 15% of farmers polled said they would eat GMO food. Talk about a blanket rejection. It can't get much clearer than that.

Obviously, these backward farmers want to protect their own health. Who ever heard of such a thing! How dare they! They're supposed to follow the party line. They're supposed to say, "Yum yum, give me some GM."

Well, funny things happen when people consider their own bodies. They tell you what they really think.

You see, 61% of the farmers said they'd grow GMO crops "if they had the opportunity." In other words, they'd willingly endanger other people's health, but not their own.

"Just business, nothing personal."

Reminds me of the idea of sending government officials who declare war into the field with weapons.

"No, I said the war was necessary. I didn't say I'd risk my own life out there with all those crazies running around. Besides, I suffer from migraines and my doctor told me I have to avoid stress."

Or: "Everybody is hereby ordered to go on the Obamacare plan. Except those of us in the Congress who have our own plan."

The farmers survey should have included the following questions, for the 61% of farmers who said they'd grow GMO crops if given the chance: "Would you eat what you sell every day of your life?"

"And if not, what is wrong with you?"

On a related note, we have this from Mike Adams at Natural News: "Polls were taken by accomplished scientists at the McGill Cancer Center from 118 doctors who are all experts on cancer. They asked the doctors to imagine they had cancer and to choose from six different 'experimental' therapies. These doctors not only denied chemo choices, but they said they wouldn't allow their family members to go through the process either!"

Oh, and lest I forget, we have the famous vaccine proponent, Dr. Paul Offit, who said babies can handle "10,000 vaccines at once." Well, since babies have only partially developed immune systems and Offit is an adult, I'd be willing to take a crash course in how to give an injection and pop Offit with 10,000 vaccines, as a test. Why not? What could go wrong?

And while I'm at it---all those clinical trials of new drugs using volunteers who don't have a clue about what they're getting into? Seems only fair to include the researchers who developed the drugs and other doctors and pharmaceutical execs as volunteers in the trials. In fact, they should be first in line. If they fall over dead or develop life-threatening conditions, then everyone else will know there's a slight problem.

Moving along, if the government is spying on all of us, for our own good, and in order to protect the country, then we should spy on them for the same reasons. Let them experience their own programs up close and personal. Long ago, when funding for NSA started to accelerate into the wild blue yonder, the Congress should have offered themselves up on a platter, to set a good example.

"You boys know our phone numbers, email addresses, and where we live and play. So please, spy on us 24/7, because we're about to let you do it to all Americans."

No? Am I missing something here? Don't government officials endanger the nation? Haven't they already proved that over and over? Shouldn't they be watched carefully, as you would watch wild animals in a zoo?

The examples keep multiplying, don't they? Oil spills, radiation leaks from nuclear reactors. Why aren't the heads of companies and governments involved, who are telling us it's all okay...why aren't they living close to the reactors and seas where it's "so safe?" What could give us greater assurance and peace of mind?

Just trying to be helpful.

What if certain government officials, who've been praising programs to fund the resurgence of inner cities, had to live in St. Louis and Detroit and experience the results/non-results of the federal programs?

What if conservative legislators, who've never met a big corporation they didn't love, lived on farms where Monsanto's vaunted Roundup Ready tech isn't working at all, and the farmers have to do burn-downs, using far more toxic herbicides, to destroy the superweeds that are thriving and taking over the land?

If you're a president with a Nobel Peace Prize in your pocket, and you're ordering drone strikes, wouldn't you benefit from actually being there and seeing the explosions on the ground and the bodies?

At least the British farmers are being honest. Only 15% would eat GMO food.

Source: GM Watch, "UK citizens reject GM food and even farmers don't want to eat it"



Originally Posted On:
http://www.naturalnews.com/041377_farmers_GMO_food_survey.html#ixzz2aoiF5AnI

Ben & Jerry’s goes 100% GMO-Free by 2014, Company Says

As awareness surrounding genetically modified organisms continues to balloon around the world as more and more companies are choosing to steer clear of GMOs. Extending the list of companies that are either labeling or avoiding GMOs even further, Ben & Jerry’s has announced that it will completely stop using GMOs in their ice cream by 2014.

Claiming to be offering food that is already 80% GMO-free, Ben & Jerry’s has announced that it will be phasing out ALL GMOs by 2014. Going by what is presented on the company’s website, the move is inspired for all the right reasons: GMOs have been linked to numerous health and environmental issues including cancer, kidney damage, increased health-compromising pesticide use, superweeds, and superbugs, and most importantly – the public has a right to know what’s in their food.

From the Ben & Jerry’s website:

“…But in the United States, companies are not required to disclose whether they are using GMO ingredients. Ben & Jerry’s has a history of going to bat for consumers’ right to know. In fact we led the fight over 10 years ago on behalf of companies who wanted to label their products as coming from cows that were not treated with the genetically engineered growth hormone, rBGH. We believe it’s a fundamental right to know what is in the products you buy and the foods you eat. Seems like a no brainer, really.”

It seems that Ben & Jerry’s is listening to the public’s outcry, and has been for years now. If you love the companies products, you can see its current status on GMOs here:

“Here’s our status: currently, in the United States and Canada, 80% of Ben & Jerry’s ingredients by volume are sourced non-GMO.  We commit to sourcing non-GMO ingredients for all our products everywhere by year-end 2013. In fact all our products made in Europe are already non-GMO.

We will track our progress as we complete this conversion, with public updates on this site. Beginning now, and throughout 2013, we will transition packaging so that all Ben & Jerry’s products will be labeled with respect to GMO by the end of 2014.”

Of course Ben & Jerry’s is just one of many companies moving toward a healthier body and planet – at least on the surface. Super store giant, Target, has recently announced they will be adding a new brand to their shelves that will phase out genetically modified ingredients by the end of 2014, and Chipotle Mexican Grill has become the first US restaurant chain to label all GMOs.

With the continuation of the fight against GMOs and Monsanto, there is no doubt that we will continue to positively impact not only the food and environment here in the U.S., but also the world.

Originally Posted On: http://tv.naturalsociety.com/ben-jerrys-gmo-free-2014-company-says/ 

New monstrous breeds of GMO tomato coming to a store near you

The first commercially available, genetically modified crop was the tomato, which first made its debut in the United States in 1994 but which disappeared soon after under a cloud of controversy. New, giant breeds of GM tomatoes; however, are set to make a comeback at a grocery store near you, but not without most of the same old health issues.

According to a report from PreventDisease.com, this early form of GM tomato failed to live up to expectations because the bioengineered modifications did not deliver as promised. The early forms included the transgenic tomato (the "FlavrSavr"), which contained a "deactivated" gene which prevented the tomato plant from producing polygalacturonase, an enzyme involved in fruit softening.

"The premise," writes April McCarthy, "was that tomatoes could be left to ripen on the vine and still have a long shelf life, thus allowing them to develop their full flavor. Normally, tomatoes are picked well before they are ripe and are then ripened artificially."

They didn't work that way; however. Though they were approved for sale in the U.S. and a number of other countries, these early delayed-ripening tomatoes peaked in the marketplace in 1998, but then disappeared from supermarkets.

Rollout into grocery stores is expected

The new biogenetic push these days is to grow GM tomatoes which produce a peptide "that mimics the actions of HDL cholesterol (the good kind) that biotechnology groups are promoting to supposedly reduce heart disease," McCarthy writes.

The effort is being led by Dr. Alan Fogleman, a professor and researcher at the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA). In a recent study, he supposedly found that consumption of GM tomatoes result in a reduction of plaque build-up in arteries.

"To our knowledge this is the first example of a drug with these properties that has been produced in an edible plant and is biologically active when fed without any isolation or purification," he said.

No timeline has been established for introducing these tomatoes in stores because research is still being conducted, McCarthy wrote, but "the rollout into major grocery retailers is expected" nonetheless.

The UCLA team modified tomatoes to produce 6F, a small peptide that mimics the action of ApoA-1, the main protein of high-density lipoprotein (HDL).

Fogelman and his research team then fed the tomatoes to mice that did not have the ability to remove LDL, or low-density lipoprotein, from their blood, which meant they developed inflammation and atherosclerosis when eating a high-fat diet.

Similar gene modification techniques; however, were devised for GM foods that were linked to the formation of tumors in a long-term and widely publicized study on GM corn-fed rats.

'We simply don't know the long-term effects'

In that study, the rats - which were only fed a popular genetically modified corn - were photographed with large, grotesque tumors, which raised serious concerns among scientists about the safety of GM food.

"The first lifetime trials involving rats fed on GM corn found a raised incidence of breast tumors, liver and kidney damage," Britain's Daily Mail reported.

Said Dr. Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at King's College, in London, who helped conduct the study: "It shows an extraordinary number of tumors developing earlier and more aggressively - particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts."

The study, which was led by molecular biologist Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, a critic of GM technology, and published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, said the GM corn and Roundup weedkiller "may cause hormonal disturbances in the same biochemical and physiological pathway."

Other scientists share similar concerns about the safety of GM foods.

"The problem remains as with all GM techniques, that we simply don't know what the long-term effects of consuming such foods will be since short-term studies can never tell us," says Prof. Thomas Tranter, a researcher and geneticist, in summing up that concern.


Originally Posted On:
http://www.naturalnews.com/041418_tomatoes_GMOs_groceries.html#ixzz2aivzRdwg

Monsanto's History

The new Monsanto has clearly come to dominate the American food chain with its genetically modified (GM) seeds. It's a master at enforcing its 674 biotechnology patents, using tyrannical and ruthless tactics against small farmers. This new Monsanto has also moved into the production of milk with it artificial growth hormones, seeking to dominate the dairy industry as effectively as it has the seed business. Has this new corporate image made us forget about the old Monsanto's decades long history of scorched earth and toxic contamination?

An article in the May, 2008 edition of Vanity Fair chronicles the history of Monsanto from its beginnings to its efforts to shed itself of the image of toxic environmental and human threat.

A short history

Monsanto was founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny who had an idea to make money manufacturing saccharin, an artificial sweetener then imported from Germany. He called his company Monsanto Chemical Works. The German cartel then controlling the market for saccharin tried to force Queeny out of business, but his persistence and the loyalty of one steady customer, Coca-Cola, kept the company going. Vanillin, caffeine, sedative drugs, laxatives and aspirin had been added to the arsenal of products when supplies were cut off from Europe during World War I, forcing Monsanto to manufacture its own, and positioning it as a leading force in the American chemical industry.

In the 1920's, Queeny's son took over and built Monsanto into a global powerhouse, extending into the production of an astounding array of plastic, rubber and vinyl goods, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.

In the 1970's Monsanto moved into biotechnology. By 1982 it had become the first to genetically modify a plant cell, making it possible to introduce virtually any gene into plant cells to improve crop productivity. According to Vanity Fair writers Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, Monsanto sought to portray GM seeds as a panacea for alleviating poverty and feeding the hungry.

During the late 1990's, Monsanto spun off its chemical and fibers businesses into a new company called Solutia. It then reincorporated itself and emerged as an agricultural company.

Company literature refers to Monsanto as a "relatively new company" with the primary goal of helping "farmers around the world in their mission to feed, clothe and fuel" the planet. The listed corporate milestones are from the recent era. There is no mention of the old Monsanto's potential responsibility for more than 50 Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites. And it does not mention that the reason for the formation of Solutia was to channel the bulk of the mounting chemical lawsuits and liabilities into the spun off company, keeping the new Monsanto name tarnish-free.
But keeping the new corporate image polished may be a tough task. For many years Monsanto produced two of the most toxic substances ever known –- polychlorinated biphenyls, known as PCBs, and dioxin. Several court proceedings regarding these substances remain unresolved.

Toxic storm

In the town of Nitro, West Virginia, Monsanto operated a chemical plant from 1929 to 1995, making an herbicide that had dioxin as a by-product. The name dioxin refers to a group of highly toxic chemicals that have been linked to heart and liver disease, human reproductive disorders, and developmental problems. Dioxin persists in the environment and accumulates in the body, even in small amounts. In 2001, the U.S. government listed dioxin as a "known human carcinogen".

In 1949, at the Nitro plant, a pressure valve blew on a container of this herbicide, producing a plume of vapor and white smoke that drifted out over the town. Residue coated the interior of buildings and those inside them with a fine black powder. Within days, workers experienced skin eruptions, and many were diagnosed with chloracne, a long lasting and disfiguring condition. Others felt intense pains in their chest, legs and trunk. A medical report from the time said the explosion "caused a systemic intoxication in the workers involving most major organ systems." Doctors detected a strong odor coming from the patients they described as men "excreting a foreign chemical through their skins".

Monsanto downplayed the incident, saying that the contaminant was "fairly slow acting" and only an irritant to the skin.

Meanwhile, the Nitro plant continued to produce herbicides, In the 1960's it manufactured Agent Orange, the powerful herbicide used by the U.S. military to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War, and which became the focus of lawsuits by veterans contending they had been harmed by exposure to the chemical. Agent Orange also created dioxin as a by-product.

At the Nitro plant, dioxin waste went into landfills, storm drains, streams, sewers, into bags with the herbicide, and then the waste was burned out into the air. Dioxin from the plant can still be found in nearby streams, rivers, and fish. Residents have sued Monsanto and Solutia for damages, but Monsanto claims "the allegations are without merit" and promises to vigorously defend itself. The suit may drag on for years. Monsanto has the resources to wait; plaintiffs usually don't.

Poisoned earth

From 1929 to 1971, the Anniston, Alabama plant produced PCBs as industrial coolants and insulating fluids for transformers and other electrical equipment. PCBs became central to American industries as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and sealants. PCBs are highly toxic members of a family of chemicals that mimic hormones, and have been linked to damage in the liver and nervous system, as well as immune, endocrine and reproductive disorders. The Environmental Protective Agency (EPA), and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of Health and Human Services, classify PCBs as "probably carcinogens".

Today, after tons of contaminated soil have been removed in an effort to reclaim the Anniston site, the area around the old Monsanto plant continues to be one of the most polluted spots in the U.S. While the plant was in production, excess PCBs were dumped in a nearby open-pit landfill or allowed to flow off the property with storm water. Some were poured directly into a creek running alongside the plant and emptying into a larger stream. PCBs are contained in private lawns fertilized with soil from the plant.

The people of Anniston have breathed air, planted gardens, drunk from wells, fished in rivers, and swum in creeks contaminated with PCBs without knowing the danger. As public awareness grew in the 1990's, health authorities found elevated levels of PCBs in houses, yards, streams, fields, fish –- and people. The cleanup is now underway, and will take years, but once PCB is absorbed into human tissue, it is there forever.

Monsanto closed its PBC plant in Wales in 1977. In recent years, residents of Groesfaen, in southern Wales, have noticed vile odors emanating from an old quarry outside their village. As it turns out, Monsanto dumped thousands of tons of waste from its nearby PCB plant into the quarry. British authorities have identified the site as one of the most contaminated places in Britain.

What did Monsanto know about the potential dangers of the chemicals it manufactured? Information from court records indicates Monsanto knew quite a lot. The evidence that Monsanto refused to face questions about the toxicity of PBCs is clear.

In 1956, the company tried to sell its PCB containing hydraulic fluid, Pydraul 150, to the navy. Monsanto supplied the navy with test results from the product, but the navy decided to do its own testing. As a result, navy officials informed Monsanto that they would not buy the product, saying that "application of Pydraul 150 caused death in all of the rabbits tested" and indicated "definite liver damage". According to an internal Monsanto memo divulged during a court proceeding, "no matter how we discussed the situation, it was impossible to change their thinking that Pydraul 150 is just too toxic for use in submarines", stated Monsanto's medical director.

In 1966, a biologist conducting studies for Monsanto in streams near the Anniston plant submerged test fish. He reported to Monsanto that, "All 25 fish lost equilibrium and turned on their sides in 10 seconds and all were dead in 3 ½ minutes."

The company swung into action to limit the PR damage when the Food and Drug Administration found high levels of PCBs in fish near the Anniston plant in 1970. An internal memo entitled "Confidential –- F.Y.I. and Destroy" from a Monsanto official, reviewed steps to limit disclosure of the information. One aspect of the strategy was to get public officials to fight Monsanto's battle: "Joe Crockett, Secretary of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission will try to handle the problem quietly without release of the information to the public at this time," according to the memo.

The plant manager of Monsanto's Anniston site "convinced" a reporter for The Anniston Star that there was nothing to worry about. An internal memo from Monsanto's headquarters in St. Louis, summarized the story that subsequently appeared in the newspaper: "Quoting both plant management and the Alabama Water Improvement Commissions, the feature emphasized the PCB problem was relatively new, was being solved by Monsanto and, at this point, was no cause for public alarm."

The real truth is that there was huge cause for public alarm for the harm done to the public by Monsanto. But that was the old Monsanto, not today's shiny new Monsanto. Today's Monsanto says it can be trusted –- that its biotech crops are "as wholesome, nutritious and safe as conventional crop", and that the milk produced from cows injected with its artificial growth hormones is identical to the milk from untreated cows.

Originally Posted On: http://www.naturalnews.com/023254_Monsanto_PCB_toxic.html#ixzz2aisi9qvK

Fast Food Hamburgers contain as little as 2% Meat

Does that mean the companies are making false claims? Would it make since if 2% of that meat is made from 100% beef?

If you need yet another reason to avoid the junk, here it is: According to a study published in the journal Annals of Diagnostic Pathology, some fast food hamburgers may contain as little as 2% actual meat.

For the study, researchers analyzed the content of 8 fast food hamburger brands. To ensure that there was no bias in the results, they assigned each hamburger with an anonymously designated name, ranging from H1 to H8. While it would only logical to assume that hamburgers are made up primarily of meat, much of the 5 billion hamburgers consumed by Americans annually actual contain very little meat (and could contain a whole host of other ingredients.

Study Breakdown

Here is a breakdown of what you might find in a fast food hamburger according to the study’s findings:

• Water content by weight ranged from 37.7% to 62.4% (mean of49%).

• Meat content in the hamburgers ranged from 2.1% to 14.8% (median of 12.1%).

• The cost per gram of hamburger ranged from $0.02 to $0.16 (median of $0.03).

• Relatively preserved skeletal muscle was observed.

• A variety of tissue types besides skeletal muscle were observed including connective tissue, blood vessels, peripheral nerve, adipose tissue, plant material, cartilage, and bone.

• In 2 hamburgers, intracellular parasites were identified.

The study concludes with:

“Fast food hamburgers are comprised of little meat (median, 12.1%). Approximately half of their weight is made up of water. Unexpected tissue types found in some hamburgers included bone, cartilage, and plant material; no brain tissue was present. Sarcocystis parasites were discovered in 2 hamburgers.”

Unfortunately, the study abstract nor the 4 pages of the study (you can sign up for free to view the study for 5 minutes) reveal where the 8 hamburgers came from, which most individuals will be upset about (including myself). But the study most likely involved at least some popular fast food hamburgers, leaving you to make your own educated conclusion.

Continue Reading: http://naturalsociety.com/fast-food-hamburgers-contain-2-percent-actual-meat/#ixzz2aillAhR7 
Follow us: NaturalSociety on Facebook

Cosmetic Lawn Pesticide Use Outlawed In Takoma Park, MD

In a sweeping victory for the protection of human health and the environment, the Takoma Park, Maryland City Council on July 22, 2013 unanimously passed the Safe Grow Act of 2013, which generally restricts the use of cosmetic lawn pesticides on both private and public property throughout the Maryland city. This is the first time that a local jurisdiction of this size has used its authority to restrict pesticide use broadly on private property, exercising it responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its residents through its local government. This landmark legislation stops involuntary poisoning and non-target contamination from pesticide drift and volatility that occurs as these toxic chemicals move off of treated private yards. The new law fits into the city’s strategic plan to lead community efforts in environmental sustainability, protection and restoration, and secures Takoma Park’s role as a leader in sustainability in the state of Maryland and the nation. The action in Takoma Park brings to the U.S. an approach to outlawing cosmetic pesticide use on lawns and landscapes that has been in place in Canadian provinces for many years.

The role of local government in imposing pesticide use requirements is important to the protection of public health and the environment. This right was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wisconsin Public Intervenor, Town of Casey v. Mortier, June 21, 1991. In this case, the Court affirmed the rights of U.S. cities and towns to regulate pesticides that are not explicitly curtailed by state legislatures. The Court found that in conferring on states the authority to “regulate the sale and use of pesticides so long as the state regulation does not permit a sale or use prohibited by the Act [USC 136v(a)],” the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) “leaves the allocation of regulatory authority to the ‘absolute discretion’ of the states themselves, including the option of leaving local regulation of pesticides in the hands of local authorities.” After the Supreme Court ruling, the chemical industry, both manufacturer and service provider trade groups, went to state legislatures across the country and lobbied the states to take away or restrict the authority of local political subdivisions to restrict pesticide use on private property. Maryland is one of nine statesthat does not prohibit the adoption of local pesticide legislation. In protecting the rights of local political subdivisions within Maryland to exercise their authority to impose pesticide use restrictions, the state is enabling the protection of the health and welfare of Maryland residents.

The ordinance in Takoma Park was drafted by residents Julie Taddeo and Catherine Cummings, who both recognized a need to reduce pesticide use in their community for the long-term health and safety of their children. Ms. Taddeo and her family have lived in Takoma Park for 7 years; when she finally moved into a house with a yard after living in an apartment building for a long time, she was dismayed and baffled to see neighbors spray their yard for dandelions. It clicked for Ms. Cummings when she initially read about the cosmetic pesticide ban in Canadian provinces from Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News. When she realized that a “gold standard” had been created not too far from here, she thought there was no reason that Takoma Park couldn’t do it as well. What began as an effort to educate neighbors in their community grew into a full-fledged campaign, and the creation of Safe Grow Zone.

The City Council hopes that this ordinance will serve as a model for other communities. “Keep going with this,” Councilmember Kay Daniels-Cohen (Ward 3) urged Ms. Taddeo and Ms. Cummings. “You can take this to the next level. You can take it to the county, and keep going all the way through the state of Maryland . . . I think there’s more people out there than you realize who are in your courts.”

In addition to the Canadian laws which helped inspire the Takoma Park ordinance, two of the city’s neighbors have passed laws that restrict pesticide use on public land. Washington, DC enacted the Pesticide Education and Control Amendment Act of 2012 which offers protections from restricted use pesticides on public property near waterways, schools, daycare centers and city-owned property. To the East, the Sustainable Land Care Policy of 2011 in Greenbelt, MD strictly prohibits the use of synthetic chemical pesticides on all city-owned land. Using these policies as guidance, Takoma Park took it a step forward by including private property restrictions. Maryland is one of only nine states that allow local governments to enact stronger protections from pesticides on private property because of preemption laws which prevent municipalities from passing pesticide policies that limit pesticide use restrictions to land owned by the local jurisdictions.

 

The Takoma Park law focuses on providing public educational materials, including brochures, classes, and public forums to the community on environmentally-friendly practices and compliance with the new restrictions on pesticides. Under the law, homeowners in Takoma Park can still use approved pesticides on gardens, invasive and noxious weeds and insecticides on disease-carrying insects. The Act specifically restricts pesticides for use on lawns that are: classified as “Carcinogenic to Humans” or “Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Classified by EPA as a “Restricted Use Product”; Classified as a “Class 9” pesticide by the Ontario, Canada, Ministry of the Environment; and any pesticide classified as a “Category 1 Endocrine Disruptor” by the European Commission.

Of the 30 most commonly used lawn pesticides, 17 are possible and/or known carcinogens,  18 have the potential to disrupt the endocrine (hormonal) system, 19 are linked to reproductive effects and sexual dysfunction, 11 have been linked to birth defects, 14 are neurotoxic, 24 can cause kidney or liver damage, and 25 are sensitizers and/or irritants. Children are especially sensitive to pesticide exposure as they take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults and have developing organ systems that are more vulnerable and less able to detoxify toxic chemicals. Thinking of her children and future generations in Takoma Park, Ms. Cummings believes this ordinance is “close to the best thing we can offer for our kids.”

Read More: http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=11318

Pesotum, Illinois Teen Farmers Sprayed With Fungicide In Corn Field

URBANA, Ill. -- Almost 80 teenagers were expected to be sent home from an eastern Illinois hospital Thursday after being accidentally sprayed with fungicide from a crop-dusting plane as they worked in corn field, officials said.

The 79 teens were decontaminated by firefighters at the field just outside Pesotum and then taken to the Carle Foundation Hospital's emergency room in Urbana to be treated for what appeared to be minor ailments, hospital officials said.

Emergency room director Allen Rinehart said some of the teen workers had irritated skin but that they were all stable and being released to their parents as they were seen.

"There's been a couple that have had minor irritations, but nothing significant," Rinehart said as the last group of teens, wearing blue jumpsuits and many carrying coolers and lunch boxes, stood nearby waiting to enter the emergency room. Many joked and talked as they waited.

The teenagers were detasseling corn when the chemical drifted over them from a plane that was crop-dusting an adjacent field, said Tom Helscher, a spokesman for Monsanto, the St. Louis-based company using the field to produce seed corn. Pesotum is about 15 miles south of Urbana.

Brad Rollings' 13-year-old son, Tyler, was one of those sprayed with the chemical.

"He said that he heard the plane go over the top and it felt like it was raining for a minute, and then he said they hollered at them to get out of the field," Rollings, who is from nearby Villa Grove, said outside the hospital. He said his son seemed fine and expected him to be released soon.

"As soon as he called me, he kept telling me over and over, `Dad, I'm fine, you don't need to come pick me up,'" Rollings said.

The accident happened just before 8:40 a.m., Champaign County acting Deputy Fire Chief Dave Ferber said. The department's firefighters helped decontaminate the teens with soap and water, he said.

Spokesmen for the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and state Bureau of Environmental Programs said the agencies are investigating the incident.

Detasselers _commonly teenagers looking for summer jobs – pull the pollinating tassels off the top of corn plants that will produce seed for future planting.

The teens were working for Team Corn, a Princeton, Ill.-based company that contracts for Monsanto, a woman who answered the company's phone said before referring further questions to Monsanto.

It wasn't immediately clear what the chemical was or who flew the plane.

Federal workplace safety regulations allow children as young as 12 to work on farms in jobs that OSHA doesn't consider hazardous provided their parents' consent. Detasseling is one of those jobs. Even younger children can do some types of farm work under certain conditions.

Team Corn's website says the company hires detasselers as young as 12 for work across Illinois, while teens have to be 14 to be hired in Iowa and Indiana.

Pay ranges from $7.25 to $10 an hour, depending on the workers' speed and ability, according to the website. Work crews are led by leaders who must be at least 17, according to the site.

In 2011, two 14-year-old girls working as detasselers in a corn field near Tampico in northwest Illinois for Monsanto and another company were electrocuted by irrigation equipment. OSHA found the companies weren't at fault and that lightning may have struck the irrigation system. The parents filed wrongful death lawsuits against the companies which are still pending.

Rollings said he worked as a detasseler as a child and wouldn't hesitate to let his son return to the job.

"I have no concerns about it whatsoever," he said.

Originally posted on: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/pesotum-illinois_n_3654884.html

Genetically modified cows produce 'human' milk

Scientists have created genetically modified cattle that produce "human" milk in a bid to make cows' milk more nutritious.

The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk.

Human milk contains high quantities of key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections.

The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute.

They hope genetically modified dairy products from herds of similar cows could be sold in supermarkets. The research has the backing of a major biotechnology company.

The work is likely to inflame opposition to GM foods. Critics of the technology and animal welfare groups reacted angrily to the research, questioning the safety of milk from genetically modified animals and its effect on the cattle's health.

But Professor Ning Li, the scientist who led the research and director of the State Key Laboratories for AgroBiotechnology at the China Agricultural University insisted that the GM milk would be as safe to drink as milk from ordinary dairy cows.

He said: "The milk tastes stronger than normal milk.

“We aim to commercialize some research in this area in coming three years. For the “human-like milk”, 10 years or maybe more time will be required to finally pour this enhanced milk into the consumer’s cup.”

China is now leading the way in research on genetically modified foodand the rules on the technology are more relaxed than those in place in Europe.

The researchers used cloning technology to introduce human genes into the DNA of Holstein dairy cows before the genetically modified embryos were implanted into surrogate cows.

Writing in the scientific peer-reviewed journal Public Library of Science One, the researchers said they were able to create cows that produced milk containing a human protein called lysozyme,

Lysozyme is an antimicrobial protein naturally found in large quantities in human breast milk. It helps to protect infants from bacterial infections during their early days of life.

They created cows that produce another protein from human milk called lactoferrin, which helps to boost the numbers of immune cells in babies. A third human milk protein called alpha-lactalbumin was also produced by the cows.

The scientists also revealed at an exhibition at the China Agricultural University that they have boosted milk fat content by around 20 per cent and have also changed the levels of milk solids, making it closer to the composition of human milk as well as having the same immune-boosting properties.

Professor Li and his colleagues, who have been working with the Beijing GenProtein Biotechnology Company, said their work has shown it was possible to "humanise" cows milk.

In all, the scientists said they have produced a herd of around 300 cows that are able to produce human-like milk.

The transgenic animals are physically identical to ordinary cows.

Writing in the journal, Professor Li said: "Our study describes transgenic cattle whose milk offers the similar nutritional benefits as human milk.

"The modified bovine milk is a possible substitute for human milk. It fulfilled the conception of humanising the bovine milk."

Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, he added the “human-like milk” would provide “much higher nutritional content”. He said they had managed to produce three generations of GM cows but for commercial production there would need to be large numbers of cows produced.

He said: “Human milk contains the ‘just right’ proportions of protein, carbohydrates, fats, minerals, and vitamins for an infant’s optimal growth and development.

“As our daily food, the cow’s milk provided us the basic source of nutrition. But the digestion and absorption problems made it not the perfect food for human being."

The researchers also insist having antimicrobial proteins in the cows milk can also be good for the animals by helping to reduce infections of their udders.

Genetically modified food has become a highly controversial subject and currently they can only be sold in the UK and Europe if they have passed extensive safety testing.

The consumer response to GM food has also been highly negative, resulting in many supermarkets seeking to source products that are GM free.

Campaigners claim GM technology poses a threat to the environment as genes from modified plants can get into wild plant populations and weeds, while they also believe there are doubts about the safety of such foods.

Scientists insist genetically modified foods are unlikely to pose a threat to food safety and in the United States consumers have been eating genetically modified foods for more decades.

However, during two experiments by the Chinese researchers, which resulted in 42 transgenic calves being born, just 26 of the animals survived after ten died shortly after birth, most with gastrointestinal disease, and a further six died within six months of birth.

Researchers accept that the cloning technology used in genetic modification can affect the development and survival of cloned animals, although the reason why is not well understood.

A spokesman for the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals said the organisation was "extremely concerned" about how the GM cows had been produced.

She said: "Offspring of cloned animals often suffer health and welfare problems, so this would be a grave concern.

"Why do we need this milk – what is it giving us that we haven't already got."

Helen Wallace, director of biotechnology monitoring group GeneWatch UK, said: "We have major concerns about this research to genetically modify cows with human genes.

"There are major welfare issues with genetically modified animals as you get high numbers of still births.

"There is a question about whether milk from these cows is going to be safe from humans and it is really hard to tell that unless you do large clinical trials like you would a drug, so there will be uncertainty about whether it could be harmful to some people.

"Ethically there are issues about mass producing animals in this way."

Professor Keith Campbell, a biologist at the University of Nottingham works with transgenic animals, said: "Genetically modified animals and plants are not going to be harmful unless you deliberately put in a gene that is going to be poisonous. Why would anyone do that in a food?

"Genetically modified food, if done correctly, can provide huge benefit for consumers in terms of producing better products."

Originally Posted On: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.html

Cheetos: The truth behind the delicious cheesy snack

Have you ever been in a relationship where you make up and break up over, and over again, until one day, you simply cannot take the heartache any more…

This describes my unfortunate, ongoing relationship with Cheetos, and in my case it was usually heartburn that would strike when I cheated on Cheetos with his smokin’ hot cousin, Flamin’ Hots, but, I digress. I have decided to resign, once and for all, my throne and title as “Cheeto Queen” (seriously, my nickname among close friends and family became the Cheeto Queen, how sad is that) Since my resignation, I’ve taken the time to analyze what exactly these “things” are.

So, for any of you who have spent your life pondering what exactly makes up the little cheese munchkins, I am here to share with you what I have found. Unfortunately, despite what I am about to write below, I cannot say that I will forever disown the Cheeto name, though I certainly will not be indulging as I once did, for there is a reason I waited to do this investigation after I felt I would no longer be eating them!
Cheetos Ingredients [with annotations by (the former) Cheeto Queen  ]

Enriched Corn Meal- Here we can presume the term “enriched” means “to make better; to add to the nutritive value of corn meal by adding vitamins and nutrients”. And they certainly have added a few ingredients, but how much nutritional value does it honestly add? GMO

Before we get into the enriching ingredients, Corn Meal itself is ground up dried out corn kernels, and is what makes up the main “body” of the Cheeto.  Cornmeal is gluten free! And now for the ingredients that enrich:

• Ferrous Sulfate (aka Iron III Sulfate)- it’s iron, we need it for healthy blood…
• Niacin-(Also referred to as Vitamin B3)- Now, this one seems obvious. B3 is part of the B vitamin complex which is necessary to convert our food to energy, as well as for healthy skin, and digestive functioning…BUT! My research has shown that vitamin isolates which are synthetically made (which is anything that doesn’t come from an actual food source, and though I am not 1000% sure it did not, the following vitamin isolates give me reason to believe this is also synthetically made!) are no more real vitamins than O’Doul’s is a real beer
• Thiamin Mononitrate- ( also referred to as Vitamin B1) Another one in the B-Vitamin family, which is, again, normally healthy…yet “when it is synthesized it becomes a solid salt such as thiamin hydrochloride or thiamin mononitrate ” and neither of these are naturally occurring in nature or the human body (uh oh!). In fact, they are normally made from Grewe diamine (a coal tar derivative) processed with ammonia and other chemicals [1]. Nothing like a little tar to add a boost to your day! Mmm!
• Riboflavin- ( referred to as Vitamin B2)- though once again, probably a synthetic isolate…we saw what the last one was made of…
• Folic Acid- Synthetic Isolate of Vitamin B9. Vitamin B9 occurs naturally in the body and nature as Folate or pteroylglutamate, folic acid is a chemically created version of Folate [1]

So, perhaps the “enriched” corn meal is not as enriched as they would like to have us believe…Though I cannot say I’m surprised the Cheetos manufacturer doesn’t go out of their way to add natural healthy ingredients to what is a naturally unhealthy snack

Next ingredient on the label…
Cheese Seasoning- An ingenious concoction of sorts that tricks your brain into tasting delicious cheese, when in reality you’re probably eating something that has a similar chemical makeup to rats poop. Hungry yet? I’m only joking, I think. Now for the moment of truth, it’s time to find out what exactly makes up the Cheetos Cheese Seasoning…

•  Whey- This is the liquid remaining after milk has been curdled and strained
•  Cheddar Cheese- Chedddaaaarrrr (Goofy Movie, anyone?)
•  Canola Oil- Oil from Canola seeds… simple enough!’ GMO
•  Maltodextrin- polysaccharide (aka complex carbohydrate) made from starch that is used as a food additive.. traditionally adds a bit of sweetness to foods  GMO
•  Salt- ‘nuff said
•  Whey Protein Concentrate- Mainly composed of Beta-lactoglobulin and Alpha-lactalbumin which help to build muscle; whey proteins are ones that are found in whey, obviously. And whey protein concentrate has some of these good proteins, but also can contain a lot of fat and lactose, up to around 70% in volume [2]
• Monosodium Glutamate-also known as MSG… this little flavor enhancer has managed to develop quite the controversy in the food community. It is traditionally a cheap way to achieve a desirable taste by mimicking the flavor functioning of the glutamate amino acid which occurs naturally in foods (so basically a genetically modified ingredient…yes one of those). However, not suprisingly, food companies have been working to hide the name MSG from consumers if it is in products because there have been outburst of reports claiming that MSG, is the source of brain damage, endocrine disorders, behavior disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, and other adverse reactions [3]
•  Natural Flavors-The definition of natural flavor under the Code of Federal Regulations is: “the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional” (21CFR101.22).

Riiiggghhhttt…What did I just read again??? A natural flavor  is anything derived from a food , simply put, and a way for Cheetos to keep part of their recipe secret! (Queue Evil Laugh)

• Artifical Flavors- Anything derived from things other than food, simply put. Namely, these are chemicals that are used to create smells and tastes of real food, and they are often used to cut back on costs of manufacturing the food

Artificial flavors sample list (not necessarily the ones in Cheetos, but probably) benzyl isobutyrate, ethyl acetate, ethyl methylphenylglycidate (petroleum derivative), methyl benzoate (petroleum derivative), hydroxyphenyl-2-butanone.

• Lactic Acid-In your body it is critical for generating energy during exercise! In food, it is placed in as a preservative…keeps the Cheetos nice and fresh year after year! This is an unfortunate side effect for someone like me, who actually thoroughly enjoyed stale Cheetos! : o
•  Citric Acid-That stuff in fruits and veggies! Adds flavor and acts as a preservative
•  Artificial Color (Yellow 6)- Because we all know we wouldn’t eat Cheetos if they were the nasty pale uncolored thing they look like when you suck all the Cheese Seasoning off! If you don’t know what I’m talking about, try it..it is not a pretty site! Though, all jokes aside, it is a lovely synthetic dye produced from petroleum [4], and who the heck knows what else..I’m afraid to look too much into it, quite honestly

Continue reading: http://inthecitytv.com/438/