Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Dramatic Health Recoveries Reported From Patients Who Quit Eating GMO Foods

Are genetically modified (GM) foods making you sick – I mean really sick? Up until recently, all that we could say was thank goodness you’re not a lab rat; GM feed messes them up big time. GMOs (genetically modified organisms) appear to trigger the immune systems of both mice and rats as if they were under attack. In addition, the gastrointestinal system is adversely affected, animals age more quickly, and vital organs are damaged. When fed GM foods, lab animals can also become infertile, have smaller or sterile offspring, increased infant mortality, and even hair growing in their mouths.
Have I got your attention?

Biotechnology corporations such as Monsanto try to distort or deny the evidence, sometimes pointing to their own studies that supposedly show no reactions. But when scientists such as French toxicologist G.E. Seralini re-­analyzed Monsanto’s raw data, it actually showed that the rats fed GM corn suffered from clear signs of toxicity – evidence that industry scientists skillfully overlooked.

Doctors Prescribe Non-GMO Diets; Remarkable Recoveries Result

Although there have been no human clinical trials, experts conclude that there is sufficient evidence from animal feeding studies to remove GMOs altogether. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called for a moratorium in 2009 based on their review of the research. According to their former president, Dr. Robin Bernhoft, the Academy “recommends that all physicians should prescribe non-genetically modified food for all patients, and that we should educate all of our patients on the potential health dangers, and known health dangers of GMO food.”

Today, thousands of physicians and nutritionists do just that, and they report that a wide variety of health conditions improve after people make the change. Here’s some recent examples:

1) Trial consultant LaDonna Carlton, had to take two pills, three times a day to suppress the painful cramps and constant diarrhea associated with her irritable bowel syndrome. “My doctor told me I would be on this forever,” says LaDonna. But then she met a new doctor, internist Emily Lindner, MD. “The first thing she did,” says LaDonna, “was take me off GMOs,” including soy, corn, canola oil, and sugar. “Within two months,” she says, “I didn’t need the medication any longer.”
Since LaDonna stopped preparing foods with GMOs, her husband Fred was swept along with the new diet. And he’s glad he was. “I feel 10 times better,” he says. At 73, Fred plays full court basketball, even with two artificial knees. The new diet, he says, “made me feel much younger... I feel like I’m 50.”

2) Interior designer, Carol Salb, also recovered from irritable bowel syndrome, as well as cold hands and feet, thinning hair, allergies, and daily congestion. “I felt better in two and half weeks [after going GMO-free],” she says. That was six years ago and she’s still going strong.

3) We interviewed former school teacher Theresa Haerle on her 25th day on a GMO-free diet, and she had already shed more than 10 pounds. Even more remarkable was her recovery from 30 years of colitis – by the third day of her diet. In addition, her skin problems started to clear, she had more energy than she’d had in years, and it no longer hurt to get out of bed in the morning.

4) Kids are also recovering. One middle schooler changed his diet and no longer suffers from incapacitating migraines and asthma. Another recovered from horrible pain in his gut.

Although these patient interviews had been set up by physicians, at the Institute for Responsible Technology we’ve heard similar stories for a long time. Laurie lost 35 pounds in one year. Paul’s restless leg syndrome is gone – unless he accidentally eats a GMO. Many say their symptoms go away when visiting Europe, where food companies removed GMOs long ago due to consumer rejection.

Dr. Lindner says, “I tell my patients to avoid genetically modified foods because in my experience, with those foods there is more allergies and asthma,” as well as digestive issues such as gas, bloating, irritable bowel, colitis, and leaky gut. “And what emanates from that,” she says, “is everything. Lots of arthritis problems, autoimmune diseases, anxiety... neurological problems; anything that comes from an inspired immune system response.”

The speed of recovery varies, usually depending on the symptom. “When I change people from a GMO diet to a GMO-free diet,” she says, “I see results instantaneously in people who have foggy thinking and people who have gut symptoms like bloating, gas, irritation. In terms of allergies, it might take two to five days. In terms of depression, it starts to lift almost instantaneously. It takes from a day, to certainly within two weeks.” Full results usually take about four to six weeks. Dr. Lindner doesn’t just eliminate GMOs in her dietary regimen, but that, she says, is the most critical component.
People who switch to non-GMO diets often do so by buying organic foods – which are not allowed to use GMOs. This raises a critical point in the analysis. Were the health recoveries stemming from eliminating GMOs or from other co-factors such as the reduction in chemicals and increased nutrition found in organics? Similarly, since most GMOs in our diet are found in processed foods, some people reduced GMOs by cooking from scratch. So they simultaneously eliminate additives that may contribute to disorders. And for others, they may also eliminate food categories, such as gluten or dairy, based on a diagnosis. So what’s really causing these dramatic recoveries?

Similar Livestock Stories – Without The Co-factors

Fortunately, the experience of numerous veterinarians and farmers around the world gives us insight. When they take livestock off GMO soy or corn and substitute the non-GMO equivalent, they don’t have these pesky co-factors. The animals are not eating organic, there’s no change in nutrients or additives, and yet the results are still impressive.
When a Danish pig farmer switched to non-GMO soy in April 2011 for his 450 sows and their offspring, within two days the animals’ serious diarrhea problems virtually disappeared. During the following year, death from ulcers and bloat, which had claimed 36 pigs over the previous two years, vanished. Conception rate was up, litter size was up, diseases were down, and birth defects were eliminated.

An Iowa farmer saw immediate changes in his 3,000 pig nursery after switching to non-GMO corn last December. Not only is there a lower rate of disease and medical bills, he says, “Our pigs are happier and more playful.”

A feedlot operator with 5,000 head of cattle also switched to non-GMO corn and reported, “We’ve had a lot less pneumonia and health issues since that time.” Like the pig farmer, the behaviour changed noticeably. His “cattle have been a lot calmer.” Many farmers who were struggling with high rates of infertility and miscarriages in their livestock say they turned the situation around after switching to non-GMO feed.

Renowned veterinarian and author Michael W. Fox, whose syndicated column has reached tens of millions, says that when GMOs were introduced to the marketplace, cats and dogs started suffering from much higher rates of allergies, itching, and gastrointestinal problems. He now has a file drawer full of letters from happy pet owners confirming that his advice to switch the pets to non-GMO and organic feed cleared up the problem.

Repeating Symptoms: From Lab Rats to Consumers

What is striking about all these reports is the similarity of experiences. Many of the same categories of disorders identified in animal feeding studies by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, (e.g. gastrointestinal, immune, and reproductive), also clear up in humans and livestock when they switch to a non-GMO diet. Moreover, these same problems are on the rise in the U.S. population since GMOs were introduced in 1996. Inflammatory bowel disease is up 40 percent. Multiple chronic illnesses nearly doubled in nine years. Food allergies, infertility, asthma, autoimmune diseases, etc., have accelerated among U.S. consumers, nearly all of whom eat GMOs without even knowing it.
Even autism rates may be impacted. When an autism specialist heard a scientist lecture about the behavioural, neurological, and physiological changes in mice, rats, and livestock fed GMOs, he told the speaker afterwards: “That’s exactly what we are finding in our autistic children.” Many parents report significant improvements in behaviour and gastrointestinal disorders in their autistic children, after they remove GMOs from the diet. (See resource list.)

How Could GMOs Be So Bad?

To understand how genetically engineered crops might contribute to so many serious disorders, it is helpful to understand a few details of the technology. GM crops have foreign genes inserted into their DNA, which is followed by cloning of those cells into plants.

1) Irrespective of which foreign gene is used, the very process of insertion and cloning causes massive collateral damage to the plants’ natural DNA. This has resulted, for example, in a new allergen in Monsanto’s GM corn and a huge allergen increase in their GM soy. Most of these types of unexpected side effects, which can add toxins or carcinogens to our meals, are never even screened for.

2) The GM crops on the market contain added genetic material from bacteria and viruses. These pieces of DNA, as well as the RNA and proteins they produce, have never before been part of the human diet; that can be a problem for the immune system. According to Martha Grout, MD, “Genetically modified foods create inflammation in the system.” Inflammation, in turn, can lead to a wide variety of diseases, including allergies, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, and heart disease. Dr. Emily Lindner likewise interprets the impact of GMOs as “an immune or inflammatory response” and treats it accordingly.

3) The gene inserted into certain GM corn and cotton varieties is designed to provoke a response – in insects that is. The gene produces a poison called Bt-toxin that kills certain bugs by breaking holes in their digestive tracts. In spite of assurances by the biotech industry to the contrary, a study published this year confirmed that the toxin also breaks holes in human cells. A Canadian study in 2011 found Bt-toxin from Monsanto’s corn circulating in the blood of 93 percent of the pregnant women tested, as well as in 80 percent of their unborn fetuses. Bt corn might therefore not only provoke an inflamed, leaky digestive tract, it might wreak havoc in our bloodstream, and in the delicate brains of infants whose blood brain barriers are not developed.

4) Three minor GM crops, papaya (grown in Hawaii and China exclusively), zucchini, and yellow crookneck squash, contain inserted virus genes designed to fend off disease. Eating these, however, may have the exact opposite effect on us. Viral genes can produce viral proteins, which as a class are well-known to suppress the body’s defences against viral infection. They can also be toxic. 

5) The most widely used GMOs are called “herbicide tolerant,” including soy, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, and alfalfa. This trait allows farmers to spray Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup, for example, on their Roundup Ready crops without killing them. The genes inserted into these plants produce proteins with allergenic properties. Perhaps of greater concern is that the sprayed toxins are concentrated into the food portion of the plant and end up in our diet. Roundup is linked to cancer, Parkinson’s, birth defects, and endocrine disruption.

6) And now the bad news. The only human feeding study confirmed that part of the gene inserted into Roundup Ready soybeans can transfer into DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines. If the transferred genes continue to produce proteins (and there is evidence suggesting it does), then we may have allergens, viral proteins, or even Bt-toxin continuously manufactured within our own digestive tracts.

OK, The Good News

Fortunately, as people learn about the health dangers of GMOs, feel better from non-GMO diets, and tell others, the non-GMO movement grows. There are now millions who seek healthier non-GMO foods. Since GMOs offer no consumer benefits; and since the major food companies in North America have already removed GMOs from their European brands due to consumer rejection, any measurable drop in sales that is linked with growing anti-GMO sentiment here will likely trigger a rapid race to non-GMO status.

The tipping point threshold is likely to require only about five percent of consumers.

A critical vote in California this November may accelerate the non-GMO revolution. A measure requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs is on the ballot. If passed, we think food companies would rather avoid GMOs than admit they use them. Especially since 53 percent of Americans say they would choose the non-GMO brands once labels give them a clear choice.

I’ll bet that after learning about the evidence of health dangers, that percentage is likely to grow.


Is the food we eat today linked to the dramatic increase in Inflammatory Bowel Disease?

What are children eating these days that are causing more cases of inflammatory bowel disease? Could it be the gluten from genetically changed grains, other GMO foods, or additives and chemicals to fight infection in the animals or milk products eaten by kids either at home, in restaurants, or in schools?
A new study finds a dramatic increase in hospitalization of US children with inflammatory bowel disease. Researchers from the University Hospitals Case Medical Center (UH) Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital report reasons behind the increase are unclear. The complete study can be found online in the Journal of Investigative Medicine.
The largest investigation to date has found a dramatic increase in the number of hospitalizations for children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) during the past decade in the United States. The new study, published online and scheduled for the August 2013 print issue of the Journal of Investigative Medicine, found a 65 percent increase in IBD hospital discharges from 2000 to 2009. The number increased from 11,928 discharges in 2000 to 19,568 discharges in 2009.


IBD refers to a group of inflammatory conditions of the colon and small intestine
The major types of IBD are Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). When looking at these two types of IBD individually, the authors found a 59 percent increase in CD discharges and a 71 percent increase UC discharges.
The study looked at more than 11 million hospitalization records of patients 20 years old and younger using a federal children's inpatient database. For the decade, they identified more than 61,000 pediatric discharges with an IBD diagnosis.
According to the study's principal investigator, Thomas J. Sferra, MD, Division Chief of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition at UH Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital and Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, this increasing trend was present in each age category and across all geographic regions (Northeast, Midwest, South and West).
"The reason for this large increase in hospitalizations of children with IBD is not clear," explains Dr. Sferra in the June 25, 2013 news release, Study finds dramatic increase in hospitalization of US children with inflammatory bowel disease.
Dr. Sferra observes, "We also found an increase in IBD-related complications and co-existing conditions which suggest an increase in the severity of this disease has contributed to a greater need for hospitalization. However, we will need to perform more research to determine whether patients were admitted to the hospital due to IBD or for an unrelated medical condition. Also, while we're seeing more kids being discharged with IBD, we cannot with certainty say that the incidence and prevalence of childhood IBD has increased in U.S."
The trend found by this nationwide study reflects what appears to be a phenomenon that has been reported for specific regions within the US and for other countries -- Canada, Scotland, and Finland. Other authors of this study are with the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and Cleveland Clinic. No support or grant was received for this study.

EPA Raised Residue Limits of Monsanto’s Toxic Chemical Glyphosate Herbicide

Washington, DC--(ENEWSPF)--July 1, 2013.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is poised to raise the allowable limits of the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) in certain food commodities like carrots, sweet potato, and mustard seeds. 
Some of the allowable limits, or tolerances, will more than double! Increasing the levels of Roundup on food will pave the way for an overall increase in the use of this chemical in agriculture. The problem is Roundup is toxic to human and environmental health. In fact, a recent MIT study finds that glyphosate’s interference with important enzymes in the body can lead to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. Drinking water contaminated with Roundup can lead to congestion of the lungs and increased breathing rate, as well as kidney damage and reproductive effects. Increasing tolerances on glyphosate means not only higher dietary exposure but also more glyphosate use.
While EPA in the tolerance setting process has focused on human health effects from dietary exposure, the agency as a part of this process must consider that its tolerance decision also drives the allowable use patterns of glyphosate. Therefore, this tolerance decision affects overall environmental health, which EPA is obligated to consider in its rulemaking when adjusting tolerances. Without this analysis of environmental impacts associated with tolerance setting, EPA is not fulfilling its statutory responsibility under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to protect against “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” [7 U.S.C. 136a] Food tolerances should serve as a deterrent to pesticide misuse and abuse. Theoretically, tolerance limits help ensure that pesticide applications do not exceed federal application rates, and that the human population is not exposed to residues that can adversely impact health. These set limits must be based on human health data and should not be amended without complete information or to simply accommodate special interests.
While major commodities like corn and soybeans are not affected by the tolerance adjustments, increasing tolerances can pave the way for further increases in glyphosate applications given the prevalence of genetically engineered (GE) crops tolerant to glyphosate (Roundup Ready crops), including a new number of stacked versions being petitioned, and the simultaneous increase in glyphosate resistant weed species across the country.
Adjusting tolerances for crops like carrots, sweet potato, and oilseed crops should not be done without adequate review of all the current independent, peer-reviewed science on glyphosate. While EPA suggests that increases in glyphosate exposure and use do not pose unreasonable risks to human and environmental health, recent independent, scientific, peer reviewed data paint a very different picture.
Given that alternative methods of growing food and managing weeds are available, like those that exist in organic agriculture, it is unreasonable for EPA to increase human exposures to Roundup.
--------------------------
"EPA to raise limits for radiation exposure while Canada turns off fallout detectors"
Do you see a pattern? The government is not looking out for us, it's looking out for the corporations!
-------------------
Originally Posted On: http://www.enewspf.com/opinion/commentary/43950-tell-epa-today-to-reject-more-glyphosate-before-comment-period-closes.html

____________________________________________________________________

Another Win for Monsanto: US Raises Allowable Levels of Glyphosate Roundup Herbicide in Food Crops


Biotech giant Monsanto has been awarded yet another victory by the federal government thanks to a recent Environmental Protection Agency decision to allow larger traces of the herbicide glyphosate in farm-grown foods. 
Despite a number of studies linking exposure to the chemical with diseases including types of cancer, the EPA is increasing the amount of glyphosate allowed in oilseed and food crops.
The EPA announced their plans on May 1 and allowed critics two months to weigh in and object to the ruling. Following little opposition, though, the EPA is on path to soon approve of levels of glyphosate being found in crops several times over the current concentration.
Glyphosate, a weed-killing chemical developed by Monsanto in 1970, is the key ingredient in the company’s “Roundup” label of herbicides. In the decades since, Monsanto has created and patented a number of genetically-modified organisms and genetically-engineered crops resisted to glyphosate that are sold worldwide under the company’s “Roundup Ready” brand. Those GMO products are then planted in fields where glyphosate, namely Roundup, is used en masse to eliminate weeds from taking over harvest. With scientists linking that chemical to cancerous diseases, though, critics decry the EPA decision and caution it could do more harm than good.
Through the EPA’s new standards, the amount of allowable glyphosate in oilseed crops such as flax, soybeans and canola will be increased from 20 parts per million (ppm) to 40 ppm, which GM Watch acknowledged is  over 100,000 times the amount needed to induce breast cancer cells. Additionally, the EPA is increasing limits on allowable glyphosate in food crops from 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm.
Just last month, The Cornucopia Institute concluded a study by finding glyphosate “exerted proliferative effects in human hormone-dependent breast cancer.” A similar study released in April concluded that “glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins.”
Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body,” independent scientist Anthony Samsel and MIT’s Stephanie Seneff concluded in the April study. “Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.”
Dr. Don M. Huber, emeritus professor of plant pathology at Purdue University, found in yet another examination that “Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things,” in turn removing most nutritional value from GMO foods.
A press release issued by the group Beyond Pesticides criticized the decision as well. “Given that alternative methods of growing food and managing weeds are available, like those that exist in organic agriculture, it is unreasonable for EPA to increase human exposures to Roundup,” they wrote.
In the past, Monsanto has long-defended their use of the chemical. “We are very confident in the long track record that glyphosate has,” Jerry Stainer, Monsanto’s executive vice president of sustainability, stated previously. “It has been very, very extensively studied.”
Originally Posted On: http://www.globalresearch.ca/another-win-for-monsanto-us-raises-allowable-levels-of-glyphosate-roundup-herbicide-in-food-crops/5344323

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Fluoride Chemicals Leach Lead Into Water Supplies

Fluoride chemicals, combined with other water additives, pull health-damaging lead from plumbing systems into drinking water, according to University of North Carolina researchers reported a North Carolina newspaper on May 18, 2005 (a). Fluoride is added to water supplies to prevent cavities, not purify it as some believe.
A combination of chloramines and fluorosilicic acid, especially with extra amounts of ammonia, leaches lead from meters, solder and plumbing systems, according to Richard P. Maas, PhD and Steven C. Patch PhD, co-directors of the Environmental Quality Institute at the University of North Carolina, Asheville.
Chloramine, a combination of chlorine and ammonia, is a water supply disinfectant. Fluorosilicic acid, the chemical used by over 91% of U.S. fluoridating communities, attempts to improve dental health in those who drink it. About 2/3 of U.S. public water supplies are fluoridated but tooth decay remains a national epidemic, according to the U.S. Surgeon General. (b)
Maas said, “Tests showed lead levels three and four times higher in water with that combination of chemicals …About 500 systems, across the country, have switched to chloramine treatment since 2001…and most also use fluorosilicic acid,” according to the North Carolina newspaper, the News & Observer.
Maas said this chemical interaction could be responsible for the elevated lead levels recently plaguing Greenville, North Carolina (c). Health authorities issued a lead advisory for water from the Greenville Utilities Commission when elevated lead levels showed up in 26 of 106 sampled homes.
Water leaving the plant and its distribution lines do not contain lead. But testing showed two children with harmful lead levels, leading health officials to speculate that corrosion of pipes within the home may be the cause. Greenville authorities warned pregnant and breastfeeding women and children under age six to avoid the tap water until it is tested for lead.
Maas, who heads a lead poisoning prevention program in Western North Carolina funded by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said his lab has tested more than 150,000 homes across the country in the past 18 years and found that 10 to 15 percent have a significant lead contamination problem, according to the News & Observer article.
“No amount of lead is safe for a young child’s developing brain,” says Paul Connett, PhD, Professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology at St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY and Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network.
“If this new data is confirmed, it will further underscore the negligence of U.S. authorities using fluorosilicic acid as a fluoridating agent in the absence of any research establishing the safety of this particular fluoride chemical,” says Connett.
These new findings may help explain earlier published, peer-reviewed research by Roger Masters, PhD of Dartmouth College and Myron Coplan. Their studies show a link between water fluoridation status and elevated blood lead in children. (d)
Elevated blood lead levels are linked to developmental delays in children under age six and fetuses. Lead can adversely affect almost every organ and system in the body. The most sensitive is the central nervous system, particularly in children. Lead also damages kidneys and the reproductive system. The effects are the same whether it is breathed or swallowed.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted.” (e)
“It really doesn’t make any sense to ingest fluoride chemicals, anyway. Fluoridation is an outdated concept, wastes money, jeopardizes health and should be stopped everywhere,” says Connett.
REFERENCES:
(a) North Carolina News & Observer, “Water treatment process called potential risk Chemicals’ mix with plumbing could put lead in tap water”
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/health_science/story/2417101p-8794959c.html
(b) “First-ever Surgeon General’s Report on Oral Health Finds Profound Disparities in Nation’s Population,” News Release, May 25, 2000 National Institutes of Dental and Craniofacial Research
http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/NewsAndReports/NewsReleases/NewsRelease05252000.htm
(c) “Pitt County Issues Advisory After Lead Discovered In Children.” May 3, 2005, WFMY News – Greensboro, NC
http://www.wfmynews2.com/news/local_state/local_article.aspx?storyid=40346
(d) Masters RD, Coplan MJ, et al., “Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead,” Neurotoxicology. 2000 Dec;21(6):1091-100.
http://tinyurl.com/8m7dm
(e) “Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States,” August 2001
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
Originally Posted On: http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/maas-2005b/

Pesticides again tied to Parkinson's disease

Exposure to pesticides and other chemicals is linked to an increased risk of developing Parkinson's disease, according to a fresh look at some past research.
Dr. James Bower, a neurologist from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said the finding is consistent with previous research but the study still can't prove that pesticides cause people to develop the neurological condition.
"We're definitely learning that Parkinson's disease is not caused by one thing. We're finding a lot of risks for Parkinson's and pesticides are just one of many," said Bower, who wasn't involved with the new study.
In 2011, a study of U.S. farm workers from National Institutes of Health found some pesticides that are known to interfere with cell function were linked to the development of Parkinson's disease.
Another study that was published in 2012 also reported that people with Parkinson's disease were more likely to report exposure to pesticides, compared to people without the condition (see Reuters Health story of Nov 13, 2012 here: reut.rs/17ndoUU.)
The disease affects about 500,000 Americans.
For the new study, Dr. Emanuele Cereda, of the IRCCS University Hospital San Matteo Foundation in Pavia, Italy, and his coauthor pulled data from 104 studies that were published between 1975 and 2011 and examined the link between pesticides and Parkinson's disease.
Overall, they found exposure to pesticides was tied to a 58 percent increased risk of developing the disease.
That increase, according to Bower, would be equivalent to 10 more Parkinson's cases among every 1,000 40-year-old residents living in Olmstead County, Minnesota.
Currently, Bower said about 17 of every 1,000 40-year-old Olmstead County residents will go on to develop Parkinson's disease.
The new study's researchers also found that certain pesticides - such as the plant killer paraquat and fungus killers maneb and mancozeb - were tied to a doubling of Parkinson's disease risk.
Bower said these findings are more applicable to farm workers who regularly use pesticides - not necessarily people who use weed killers around their homes.
Cereda told Reuters Health in an email that the study's results suggest that people should avoid contact with pesticides or - at least - wear proper protection when handling the chemicals.
"The use of protective equipment and compliance with suggested, or even recommended, preventive practices should be emphasized in high-risk working categories (such as farming)," he wrote.
Bower echoed that statement and said people who work with pesticides should wear protective equipment that is recommended by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration - also known as OSHA.

SOURCE: bit.ly/Zc2z2q Neurology, May 28, 2013.
Originally posted on: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/28/us-parkinsons-disease-idUSBRE94R0TL20130528

How to Get Fluoride Out of Water

By 


I like fluoride in my toothpaste, but I'm opposed to fluoridation of public drinking water and prefer not to drink it. Even if fluoride hasn't been added to your water, it may contain fluoride anyway. If you don't want to drink fluoridated water, you have a couple of options. You can buy bottled water that has been purified using reverse osmosis or distillation [Which I do not recommend - Admin B]. If neither of those purification processes is specifically listed on the package, assume the water is fluoridated. Your other option is to remove the fluoride from water yourself. You can't boil it out -- that actually concentrates the fluoride in the remaining water. Most home water filters won't take out fluoride. The types of filters that do remove fluoride are activated alumina filters, reverse osmosis units, and distillation setups. Of course, you ingest fluoride through more than just water. If you're trying to cut back on your intake, I've put together a list of ways you can reduce your fluoride exposure.

As a side note, when you're buying bottled water, keep in mind 'distilled water' is not always suitable for use as drinking water. There may be nasty impurities in distilled water that are bad for you. So, using a product labeled 'distilled drinking water' is fine. Drinking any old distilled water... not such a great plan."

Originally Posted On: http://chemistry.about.com/b/2010/01/25/how-to-get-fluoride-out-of-water.htm


_________________________________________________________________________

How to Remove Fluoride from Drinking Water

Preventing Fluorosis


Most people are aware that there is a controversy surrounding public fluoridation of drinking water. Here is
a list of ways to obtain drinking water without fluoride. In addition, I've listed water purification methods which do not remove fluoride from water.
Ways to Remove Fluoride from Water
  • Reverse Osmosis Filtration
    This is used to purify several types of bottled water (not all), so some bottled waters are unfluoridated. Reverse osmosis systems are generally unaffordable for personal use.
  • Activated Alumina Defluoridation Filter
    These filters are used in locales where fluorosis is prevalent. They are relatively expensive (lowest price I saw was $30/filter) and require frequent replacement, but do offer an option for home water filtration.
  • Distillation Filtration
    There are commercially available distillation filters that can be purchased to remove fluoride from water. On a related note: When looking at bottled water, keep in mind that 'distilled water' does not imply that a product is suitable for drinking water and other undesirable impurities may be present.
These Do NOT Remove Fluoride
  • Brita, Pur, and most other filters.
    Some websites about fluoride removal state otherwise, but I checked the product descriptions on the companies' websites to confirm that fluoride is left in the water.
  • Boiling Water
    This will concentrate the fluoride rather than reduce it.
  • Freezing Water
    Freezing water does not affect the concentration of fluoride.
Steps to Reduce Fluoride Exposure
  • Don't take fluoride supplements.
  • Read labels on bottled beverages.
    Unless they are made using distilled or reverse-osmosis water, they are probably made with fluoridated public water.
  • Consider using unfluoridated toothpaste.
  • Avoid drinking black or red tea.
    There are many health benefits associated with chemical compounds found in tea, but this may be a beverage to avoid if you need to reduce your fluorine intake. Black and red tea come from two different types of plants, but both leaves naturally contain high amounts of fluorine.
  • Be wary of tinned fish and canned food items.
    Fluoride may be used as a preservative.
  • Avoid black or red rock salt or items containing black or red rock salt.
  • Avoid using chewing tobacco.
  • Avoid long term use of medication that contains fluorine.
    Certain antidepressants and medications for osteoporosis contain fluorine.
Originally posted on: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryhowtoguide/a/removefluoride.htm

Helpful link: http://www.antigmofoods.com/2013/05/a-question-that-has-been-asked-100_17.html

Monday, July 1, 2013

INDUSTRY-BACKED BILL PROTECTS PESTICIDE PROFITS OVER CHILDREN’S HEALTH

Dow AgroSciences, one of the nation’s largest pesticide makers, along with various food companies, have persuaded several members of Congress to endorse a bill that directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reverse a proposed phaseout of sulfuryl fluoride, a highly toxic food fumigant and potent greenhouse gas. If passed, the bill would make the United States one of only two western nations to allow sulfuryl fluoride on food, increase the number of American children ingesting unsafe levels of fluoride, and create a food poisoning risk for consumers who purchase food that contains permissible levels of the fumigant.
The Pest Free Food Supply Act, sponsored by Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA) and 14 others, seeks to prevent the proposed phaseout of sulfuryl fluoride from taking effect. The phaseout, which EPA proposed in January 2011, was prompted by a joint petitionfrom the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Beyond Pesticides.

In seeking to prevent the phaseout from taking effect, the bill’s sponsors have adopted Dow’s widely discredited talking points on the safety and necessity of sulfuryl fluoride fumigation. The public should know:
• Of the few western nations that allow food facilities to be fumigated with sulfuryl fluoride only the U.S. and Australia allow fumigation to occur while food is still on the premises.

• EPA based the proposed phaseout on its finding that many children are currently being overexposed to fluoride, and that there is no safe room for additional fluoride exposures. Under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), the EPA cannot approve a pesticide if people are currently receiving too much of the pesticide chemical (in this case, fluoride) from other sources.
• Despite claims that sulfuryl fluoride produces a “tiny” increase in fluoride exposure, the maximum permissible levels in some fumigated foods are high enough to produce acute toxic reactions, such as nausea, vomiting, and headache. A child eating a single portion of pancakes made with flour fumigated at the maximum permissible level (125 ppm F) would ingest enough fluoride to be at risk for flu-like symptoms. The risk is worse for powdered eggs, which are permitted to contain toothpaste-strength levels (900 ppm F). The FDA mandates that fluoride toothpastes warn users to immediately contact a poison control center if they accidentally swallow the paste. Unlike toothpaste, dried eggs are meant to be swallowed.
• Fluoride is neurotoxic. Over 30 published studies have reported an association between fluoride and reduced IQ in children, Dow’s own animal studies show that the brain is the main target for sulfuryl fluoride’s effects, and fumigation workers who use sulfuryl fluoride have been found to suffer impaired cognitive function.
• Sulfuryl fluoride is a potent greenhouse gas. Because of this, the Sierra Club, Center for Environmental Health, Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for Biological Diversity oppose Dow’s efforts to expand sulfuryl fluoride production.
Jay Feldman, director of Beyond Pesticides, says “before the agricultural processing industry uses its muscles to retain the use of sulfuryl fluoride it should carefully research what other industrialized societies are using to protect food in processing and storage facilities. Some like Canada only allow the treatment of empty facilities before the introduction of food products; others use non-toxic methods like heat, refrigeration and carbon dioxide. In the U.S. some of these treatments would require the upgrading of old leaky storage facilities. This would be a far more sensible approach not only to protect our food supply but also to protect our children from unnecessary exposure to yet another toxic substance in their early lives.”
According to Sonya Lunder, Senior Analyst with the EWG, “There is a growing consensus that American children are exposed to too much fluoride, in part because of the use of sulfuryl fluoride. To prevent the adverse health effects of overexposure to fluoride, EPA should finalize its proposal to phase out this pesticide and tackle the issue of fluoride in drinking water.” 
Paul Connett, PhD, director of FAN, notes that “fluoride is too neurotoxic to be allowed on children’s food and EPA’s pesticide division deserves credit for taking the correct course of action in protecting the health of infants and children, rather than the profits of Dow AgroSciences.”
FAN, Beyond Pesticides and EWG will vigorously oppose efforts to overturn EPA’s proposed phase-out of sulfuryl fluoride on food, and will fight to uphold the FQPA.
Originally posted on: http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/sf_legislation/

8 Facts about Fluoride and Tooth Decay

FACT 1: FLUORIDE’S PRIMARY EFFECT IS TOPICAL, NOT SYSTEMIC
Water fluoridation began in the 1940s under the premise that swallowing fluoride is the most effective way to strengthen teeth. It is now known, however, that fluoride’s main benefit comes from topical contact with teeth, not from ingestion. Even if fluoridated water has a benefit, therefore, there is no need to swallow it.
FACT #2: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN TOOTH DECAY BETWEEN FLUORIDATED AND NON-FLUORIDATED COUNTRIES.
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control has called water fluoridation one of the “top 10 public health achievements of the twentieth century.” Yet, according to comprehensive data compiled by the World Health Organization, there is no discernible difference between the few western countries that fluoridate their water, and the majority that do not. WHO’s data also shows that, over the past 40 years, non-fluoridated countries have experienced the same (and ofter greater) declines in tooth decay as fluoridated countries.
FACT 3: FLUORIDATION’S “BENEFITS” HAVE NEVER BEEN PROVED BY A “RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL”
A number of studies have purported to demonstrate very large benefits from drinking fluoridated water. In 2000, these studies were critically reviewed by an expert committee commissioned by the UK government (the “York Review”) and found to be of extremely poor quality. Few of the studies had controlled for factors that can greatly affect tooth decay (e.g., poverty), and no study had ever employed a “randomized controlled trial” method — the gold standard in medical research and required before most drugs can enter the market.
FACT 4: MODERN STUDIES SHOW FLUORIDATED WATER DOES NOT REDUCE THE NUMBER OFDECAYED, MISSING OR FILLED TEETH
In the early days of water fluoridation, researchers studied its effectiveness at reducing tooth decay by using the “DMFT” index (“Decayed, Missing, or Filled Teeth”). Although early researchers stated that fluoridation reduced DMFT by over 60% (Hodge 1950), modern, large scale studies have repeatedly failed to detect any significant difference in DMFT between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.
One of the first studies to demonstrate this was a 1986-87 national study of oral health by the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR), which examined over 39,000 children in 84 areas of the United States. When the results of NIDR’s study were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, it was found that American children who had lived their whole lives in fluoridated areas did not have less tooth decay than children who had lived their entire lives in non-fluoridated areas. Other studies have since reported the same result.
FACT #5: FLUORIDATED WATER HAS A TRIVIAL EFFECT ON THE NUMBER OF DECAYED TOOTH SURFACES
Due to the difficulty of detecting differences in tooth decay using the DMFT index, most studies on water fluoridation now use a more sensitive measure called DMFS, which focuses on the number of affected tooth surfaces. Although differences in tooth decay have been found when using DMFS as the measure, the magnitude of the effect is extremely small. In the NIDR’s national survey, for example, NIDR statisticians reported an average difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas of just 0.6 tooth surfaces, which is less than 1% of the 100+ tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth. Other large, modern studies have found similar results, with some studies finding no difference, and others finding average differences of just 0.12 to 0.3 tooth surfaces per child.
FACT 6: FLUORIDATED DOES NOT PREVENT ORAL HEALTH CRISES IN LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES.
In the United States, the Surgeon General has identified a “silent epidemic” of tooth decay in low-income communities and communities of color, with health departments across the country calling it an “oral health crisis.” Many of the communities with oral health crises, particularly in urban areas, have been fluoridated for decades. In Cincinnati, the city’s Dental Director described the state of oral health after 23 years of water fluoridation as follows:
‘We cannot meet the demand. It’s absolutely heartbreaking and a travesty. We have kids in this community with severe untreated dental infections. We have kids with self-esteem problems, and we have kids in severe pain and we have no place to send them in Cincinnati. People would be shocked to learn how bad the problem has become.’”
It is becoming increasingly evident, therefore, that water fluoridation cannot prevent the disastrous effects that poverty and a broken health care system have on oral health. Low-income communities need dental care, not cheap industrial chemicals in their water.
FACT #7: TOOTH DECAY DOES NOT GO UP WHEN FLUORIDATION IS STOPPED.
Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, the rate of tooth decay did not increase. Instead, studies of these communities have documented that the rate of tooth decay continued to decline after fluoridation ended.
FACT #8: FLUORIDATION IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO CAUSE DENTAL FLUOROSIS THAN REDUCE DECAY
When the water fluoridation program was endorsed by U.S. health authorities in the 1950s, proponents argued that fluoridation would produce a very sharp reduction in tooth decay with only a very minimal effect on dental fluorosis. This prediction did not prove true — a fact this is readily apparent when comparing the predicted relationship with the actual relationship (as observed in the NIDR’s national survey):


References and originally posted on: http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/teeth-facts/

Sharing Is Caring