HOW VACCINES HARM CHILD BRAIN DEVELOPMENT - DR RUSSELL BLAYLOCK MD

VACCINE REFUSERS TO MISS OUT ON $2000 FAMILY PAYMENTS

EXCLUSIVE The Sunday Telegraph & Mikiverse Health August 17, 2013
PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has promised to strip parents who refuse to vaccinate their children of family payments worth more than $2000. 
Why is the government promulgating discrimination?
Should 'we the people' who want to be free to raise our children free from dangerous vaccine poisons be organising a mass tort against the government?
Or, do you realise that the Australian Tax Office is a registered 'for profit' business & that you can save a lot more money by not shopping with that business?
Why is this newspaper not talking about this government discrimination?  
In a get-tough message to ''vaccine refusers'' –notice the nickname? The media always use this tactic when they seek to train you into parroting their slogan as an opinion without giving you an explanation of the facts. A good literary example is in George Orwell's book 'Animal Farm' where the Pigs stymied any discussion that they didn't approve of by having the sheep sing "four legs good, two legs bad"– who ignore advice to immunise children against life-threatening diseases –notice the emotional language? notice that it is used in conjunction with simplistic sloganeering? This is part of the programming that you are subjected to all day everyday when you consume their corporate propaganda. A programming that you cannot overcome until you realise it exists in the first place. So. What are these dangerous diseases that we need protection from?– such as chickenpox, polio and whooping cough, –Where is the proof of this claim?– Mr Rudd will pledge today that if re-elected he will deny them Family Tax Benefit A end-of-year supplements.
The payments are worth $726 per child and are paid when children are one, two and five years of age, when children are fully immunised in accordance with the official schedule of vaccines. –If the vaccines were so safe, then why does the government need to bribe people into doing it?–In total, the family payments are worth over $2000 per child.
The announcement follows The Sunday Telegraph and The Daily Telegraph's No Jab, No Play campaign, –Now the newspaper is claiming the credit, which is both a marketing and political scheme. Marketing, because it could boost sales & advertising revenue in a slumping industry, political, because the paper does not want you to credit the ALP with this lest you go out and vote for those right wing criminal terrorists– which called for the federal and state governments to take action against parents who failed to immunise children.
Our –note the programming language they are using on YOU. This is a newspaper campaign, therefore in order to use the word 'our' there has to be more than one participant. So who are the other parties to this 'campaign'? Well, they are at pains to emphasize that it isn't Rudd, and, no business' are credited as is usual practice, so the other participant is YOU. The paper is trying to fasten you subconsciously to the idea that they and you are working together on this 'campaign'–campaign asked the federal government to restrict childcare rebates for unvaccinated children, and for the state government to allow childcare centres to ban unvaccinated kids if they wished.
Here is a wacky concept. If vaccination was so important, why not have a referendum and make it law?
The federal government has refused to take any action until now, while Premier Barry O'Farrell has introduced laws –actually a bill, which will never be a law, but may become a statute– that require –choice element word designed to look like there is no choice which would be called an 'obligation' in that instance– parents to produce a full vaccination record or a conscientious objection form before enrolling their children in childcare.
Looks like an attempt to control parental behaviour and have them jump to the beat of a public servant's whimsy rather than some noble crusade to protect children from some phantom menace disease.
"The medical science is clear," Mr Rudd said.
Yes. It. Is. Vaccines are dangerous.
"The best way to protect babies and children from diseases like whooping cough is to be fully vaccinated. –The best way to protect the community fro lying politicians is to not vote– I have been very concerned that in recent years there have actually been whooping cough epidemics in some areas. What areas?
"Babies can and do die if they contract this horrible disease. I want these unnecessary tragedies to stop."
Actually, Australia has about a 95% 'take up' rate of the three injections which didn't prevent a major epidemic in 2008 that lasted about four years. Not only that, but, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on March 21, 2012 that;
                                                   "DANGEROUS new strains of whooping cough bacteria are evading Australia's vaccine against the disease and entrenching a four-year epidemic that could spread overseas, Sydney scientists have found in research that raises questions about the national immunisation program."
Not that this stopped Kevin Rudd from trying to use the fear program on you by inferring that babies die from not being vaccinated, and that vaccination gives you some type of an invincibility cloak.  
Senior government sources said the Prime Minister would in future consider restricting access to childcare rebates, but would announce the Family Tax Benefit A supplement promise as a first step.
YOU have been warned & notified. The ALP are running a dishonest 'salami slice' tactic. This could well escalate into outright hostility against people that do not wish to poison their children because the government tells them to. This looks to be part of the Agenda 21 plan, also known as the eugenics agenda. You need to be very careful because these criminals in the media & the government who try to spout the lie that unvaccinated children are a danger to vaccinated children and should be segregated for the safety of vaccinated children. If that was actually true, then this would be proof positive that vaccines DO NOT PROTECT against the stated disease so the question needs to be asked why are these organisations pushing such an obvious lie and where will this lead? Is this going to lead to unvaccinated families being herded into concentrated camps or having to stitch an identifying feature into their clothing like Nazi Germany made the Jews do? Remember that those evil criminals were pushing the lie that the Jews were a danger to the German people and that German's needed protection against Jews. Germany was an advanced western imperialist government in economic decline due to WW1 who used prejudice and lies to murder six million. Australia is also in economic peril and looking for culprits to point the communal finger of blame at alongside so-called terrorists. Where will this end? 
THE EDITOR'S VIEW
KEVIN Rudd's support of our campaign No Jab, No Play campaign is welcomed but given he is unlikely to be prime minister in a few weeks time –they sound very confident. Do they know something about the result that we should all know about?– it's a little too late. We want the government to deny the 50 per cent childcare rebate to all parents who deny lifesaving vaccines to their children. Tony Abbott, it's up to you - vaccine refusers must be penalised.

The 'we' in this sentence is the Daily Telegraph, a Rupert Murdoch owned tabloid toe rag. Is this paper airing Rupert Murdoch's opinion. Is this proof that Rupert is part of the global push to poison us and interfere with our ability to take care of ourselves so that we become dependent on them? How is that any different to the serfs being abused by the landed gentry in feudal times? 
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/vaccine-refusers-to-miss-out-on-2000-family-payments/story-fni0cx12-1226699067433 
ETHICAL DONATORS, COMMUNITY  MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.
AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY MIKIVERSE HEALTH HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS,DIVERSE, AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL.
FOR MORE INFO ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT: themikiverse@gmail.com   

HOW TO DECALCIFY YOUR PINEAL GLAND

JOE ROGAN SEEK TO IMPROVE YOURSELF

EX PHARMA SALES REP SPEAKS THE TRUTH - PHARMA DOESN'T WANT TO CURE YOU

Ex pharma Rep speaks out about Pharma and their real motivations and lack there of to cure , heal and care for you or your best interests. Only to cure the space in their pockets not yet filled with your cash.

THE COKE NIGHTMARE REVEALED – IT MAY REQUIRE “CANCER WARNING” ON BOTTLES

Added by TheTruthIsNow on June 6, 2012.
Saved under HEADLINES, HEALTH ISSUES, LIFESTYLE,POLITICAL
Tags: health issues, lifestyle, political, THE COKE NIGHTMARE REVEALED - It May Require "CANCER WARNING" On Bottles,world elite, world news

By Ethan A Huff
Natural News:

Back in January, the state of California added to its list of cancer-causing chemicals an ingredient commonly used in flavored soda beverages, which has sent major shockwaves throughout the processed food industry. And according to numerous reports, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and even Whole Foods are having to alter their soda beverage recipes in order to avoid being required by the state of California to label their products as causing cancer.

The cancer-causing chemical in question is 4-methylimidazole, or 4-MI, a byproduct formed during the production of caramel color, an additive commonly used in processed cola beverages. According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), caramel color produced using ammonia or ammonia-sulfites creates both 4-MI and 2-MI (2-methylimidazole), which have been shown to be carcinogenic (http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/caramel_coloring_petition.pdf).

CSPI last year petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove its “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) status from caramel colors produced in this way, but the FDA refused, insisting that caramel color with 4-MI is safe. But Californians apparently believe otherwise, as they overwhelmingly voted to have 4-MI added to the list of toxic substances covered under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65.

As a result, corporate beverage giants are having to change the way they produce caramel color in order to maintain levels of 4-MI that are below the threshold limit. In the process, they are having to spin the story publicly to make it seem as though 4-MI is not dangerous, and that altering the beverage formulas will not change the taste, color, or consistency of their beverages.

But a 2008 study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology found that 4-MI is toxic, and that it is linked to causing clonic seizures, hyperactivity, impaired gait, chronic inflammation, focal fatty change in the liver, carcinoma, leukemia, and adenoma, among other conditions. The study essentially confirmed that 4-MI is carcinogenic(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17619857).

If it is possible to make caramel color without 4-MI, why have beverage producers continued to knowingly produce the toxic variety?
In a public statement, Coca-Cola denied that 4-MI is carcinogenic, and openly called the cancer warning mandate “scientifically unfounded.” But the science speaks for itself, particularly in beverage products made by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo that have been shown to have high levels of both 2-MI and 4-MI. CSPI covered this extensively in its petition to the FDA:
http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/caramel_coloring_petition.pdf

It is no big secret, in other words, that 4-MI is an “undesirable” byproduct of the caramel color manufacturing method long-used by both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. And yet these companies have continued to rely on this method, despite obvious awareness about its toxicity, even though less-toxic methods were most obviously a viable alternative.

The CSPI report names Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Inc.’s Dr. Pepper, and Whole Foods’ 365 Cola as having unsafe levels of 4-MI that will have to be reformulated. The same report says the amounts of 4-MI contained in these beverages before the reformulation is responsible for causing roughly 15,000 cancers in the U.S. every year.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.independent.co.uk

http://thetruthisnow.com/headlines/the-coke-nightmare-revealed-it-may-require-cancer-warning-on-bottles/

WHILE GOVERNMENT DISCREDITS RAW MILK, IT KEEPS NAMES OF SALMONELLA OUTBREAK RESTAURANTS SECRET TO PROTECT CORPORATE PROFITS

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer 

(NaturalNews) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is getting increasingly bold these days with openly admitting that it works directly for big industry interests rather than public health interests. In a recent report on why the agency did not disclose Taco Bell as being the "Mexican-style" restaurant chain involved in a recent salmonella outbreak, the FDA essentially admitted that it is more concerned with upholding a close-knit relationship with big industry players like Taco Bell than it is with being transparent and telling the truth for the public interest.

Last fall, at least 68 people in ten states were infected with salmonella poisoning from food sold at an undisclosed Mexican-style restaurant chain, according to an FDA announcement. At least 20 of these people became so ill that they had to be admitted to the hospital for treatment, and yet, the entire time, the FDA refused to disclose the name of the chain, which was later uncovered to be Taco Bell.

Any rational person can see that disclosing such information is not only pertinent and beneficial to public health efforts, but also a necessity if the information itself is to have any benefit or reason for being announced in the first place. But the FDA disagrees, having told ABC News in a recent interview that the agency often does not disclose this crucial information for fear that "it could have the effect of discouraging ... cooperation between our agencies and the food industry."

What this really means, of course, is that the FDA places a higher priority on catering to its special interests, which in this case includes fast food restaurant chains like Taco Bell, than it does to protecting public health. Obviously the public has a right to know if a major food producer is even potentially selling food that is tainted with harmful bacteria, despite what the FDA claims about the situation.

And yet if this same salmonella outbreak had been in any way linked to raw milk, you can be sure the name of the company involved would have been prematurely published far and wide, even if said outbreak later turned out not to have anything to do with raw milk. This is exactly what happened to Organic Pastures Dairy in California back in December when regulators illegitimately framed the company and shut down its business indefinitely (http://www.naturalnews.com).

Regulators know that naming companies can be used as a weapon to destroy their businesses

When responding to why it did not name Taco Bell as the salmonella offender in the outbreak last fall, the FDA declared that the situation was no longer a hazard, and that disclosing it was not necessary. And one of the FDA's allies expressed a key opinion in the matter that has huge implications for why the agency so heavily attacks small farmers and raw milk dairies.

"In any restaurant after the outbreak is over ... the only thing to gain from giving out the name of the restaurant is that it would lose business," said Dr. William Schaffner of Vanderbilt University about the FDA's policy of withholding company names during outbreaks.

This admission illustrates very clearly that the FDA, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and others know that naming companies severely hurts the businesses involved. This is why these agencies so often name companies allegedly linked to raw milk outbreaks, even before actually showing any evidence that there might be a connection.

Sources for this article include:

http://abcnews.go.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/029178_raw_milk_food_freedom.html

ARE YOU EATING THIS ALL-TIME FAVOURITE “CANCER-IN-A-CAN” SNACK?

Posted By Dr. Mercola | November 07 2011

Story at-a-glance

•       Stackable chips oftentimes contain so little actual potato that they cannot, technically, be considered “potato chips”

•       One of the most hazardous ingredients in potato chips is not intentionally added, but rather is a byproduct of the processing. Acrylamide, a cancer-causing and potentially neurotoxic chemical, is created when carbohydrate-rich foods are cooked at high temperatures, whether baked, fried, roasted or toasted

•       According to a 2005 analysis, ALL potato chip products tested exceeded the legal limit of acrylamide by 39 to 910 times, and baked chip products oftentimes contain more acrylamide than their fried counterparts

•       There are more than 800 different heat-induced compounds, 52 of which are potential carcinogens. Three of the most well-known, aside from acrylamide, include Heterocyclic Amines (HCAs), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), and Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs)

•       Ideally, you should consume foods that are raw or minimally processed to avoid these types of toxic byproducts of high-heat cooking and processing. The more raw food, the better, but strive to consume at least one-third of your food raw to protect your health

By Dr. Mercola

To understand the nature of Pringles and other stackable chips, forget the notion that they come from actual potatoes in any recognizable way.

The Pringles Company (in an effort to avoid taxes levied against "luxury foods" like chips in the UK) once even argued that the potato content of their chips was so low that they are technically not even potato chips.

So if they're not made of potatoes, what are they exactly?

The process begins with a slurry of rice, wheat, corn, and potato flakes that are pressed into shape.

This dough-like substance is then rolled out into an ultra-thin sheet cut into chip-cookies by a machine.

According to io9:

"The chips move forward on a conveyor belt until they're pressed onto molds, which give them the curve that makes them fit into one another. 

Those molds move through boiling oil ... Then they're blown dry, sprayed with powdered flavors, and at last, flipped onto a slower-moving conveyor belt in a way that allows them to stack. 

From then on, it's into the cans ... and off towards the innocent mouths of the consumers."

I suspect nearly everyone reading this likely enjoys the taste of potato chips. However, they are clearly one of the most toxic processed foods you can eat—whether they're made from actual potato shavings or not.

Potato Chips are Loaded with Cancer-Causing Chemical

One of the most hazardous ingredients in potato chips is not intentionally added, but rather is a byproduct of the processing.

Acrylamide, a cancer-causing and potentially neurotoxic chemical, is created when carbohydrate-rich foods are cooked at high temperatures, whether baked, fried, roasted or toasted. Some of the worst offenders include potato chips and French fries, but many foods cooked or processed at temperatures above 212°F (100°C) may contain acrylamide. As a general rule, the chemical is formed when food is heated enough to produce a fairly dry and brown/yellow surface. Hence, it can be found in:

•       Potatoes: chips, French fries and other roasted or fried potato foods

•       Grains: bread crust, toast, crisp bread, roasted breakfast cereals and various processed snacks

•       Coffee; roasted coffee beans and ground coffee powder. Surprisingly, coffee substitutes based on chicory actually contains 2-3 times MORE acrylamide than real coffee 

How Much Acrylamide are You Consuming?

The federal limit for acrylamide in drinking water is 0.5 parts per billion, or about 0.12 micrograms in an eight-ounce glass of water. However, a six-ounce serving of French fries can contain 60 micrograms of acrylamide, or about FIVE HUNDRED times over the allowable limit.

Similarly, potato chips are notoriously high in this dangerous chemical. So high, in fact, that in 2005 the state of California actually sued potato chip makers for failing to warn California consumers about the health risks of acrylamide in their products. A settlement was reached in 2008 when Frito-Lay and several other potato chip makers agreed to reduce the acrylamide levels in their chips to 275 parts per billion (ppb) by 2011, which is low enough to avoid needing a cancer warning label.

The 2005 report "How Potato Chips Stack Up: Levels of Cancer-Causing Acrylamide in Popular Brands of Potato Chips," issued by the California-based Environmental Law Foundation (ELF), spelled out the dangers of this popular snack. Their analysis found that all potato chip products tested exceeded the legal limit of acrylamide by a minimum of 39 times, and as much as 910 times! Some of the worst offenders at that time included:

•       Cape Cod Robust Russet: 910 times the legal limit of acrylamide

•       Kettle Chips (lightly salted): 505 times

•       Kettle Chips (honey dijon): 495 times

Beware: Baked Chips May Be WORSE than Fried!

If you think you can avoid the health risks of potato chips by choosing baked varieties, which are typically advertised as being "healthier," think again. Remember that acrylamide is formed not only when foods are fried or broiled, but also when they are baked. And according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data on acrylamide levels in foods, baked chips may contain more than three times the level of acrylamide as regular chips!

Interestingly, the same trend holds true for other foods, too, which suggests that baking processed potatoes at high temperature may be one of the worst ways to cook them. For instance, according to the FDA's data, Ore Ida Golden Fries contained 107 ppb of acrylamide in the regular fried version and 1,098 when baked. So remember, ALL potato chips contain acrylamide, regardless of whether they are natural or not; baked or fried. Likewise, they will ALL influence your insulin levels in a very negative way.

Acrylamide is Not the Only Danger

Acrylamide is not the only dangerous genotoxic compound formed when food is heated to high temperatures. 

A three-year long EU project, known as Heat-Generated Food Toxicants (HEATOX), whose findings were published at the end of 2007, found there are more than 800 heat-induced compounds, of which 52 are potential carcinogens. In addition to their finding that acrylamide does pose a public health threat, the HEATOX scientists also discovered that you're far less likely to ingest dangerous levels of the toxin when you eat home-cooked foods compared to industrially or restaurant-prepared foods.

Additionally, the HEATOX findings also suggest that although there are ways to decrease exposure to acrylamide, it cannot be eliminated completely.

According to their calculations, successful application of all presently known methods would reduce the acrylamide intake by 40 percent at the most—which makes me wonder whether chip manufacturers have really succeeded at this point in reducing acrylamide levels to within legal limits... There's no updated data as of yet, so there's no telling whether they've been able to comply with the 2005 settlement.

For more in-depth information about acrylamide, I recommend reading the online report Heat-generated Food Toxicants, Identification, Characterization and Risk Minimization.  In general however, just remember that cooking food at high temperatures is ill advised. A few of the most well-known toxins created in high-temperature cooking include:

•       Heterocyclic Amines (HCAs): These form when meat is cooked at high temperatures, and they're also linked to cancer. In terms of HCA, the worst part of the meat is the blackened section, which is why you should always avoid charring your meat, and never eat blackened sections.

•       Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): When fat drips onto the heat source, causing excess smoke, and the smoke surrounds your food, it can transfer cancer-causing PAHs to the meat.

•       Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs): When food is cooked at high temperatures (including when it is pasteurized or sterilized), it increases the formation of AGEs in your food. When you eat the food, it transfers the AGEs into your body. AGEs build up in your body over time leading to oxidative stress, inflammation and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and kidney disease.

The Search for a "Healthful" Chip Continues...

Like a modern-day search for the Holy Grail, chip manufacturers keep searching for methods to improve the image of their health-harming but profitable snacks. For example, by the end of 2011, about half of Pepsi's Frito-Lay brand snacks will be reformulated with all-natural ingredients. The switch is part of PepsiCo's master plan to tap into the healthy foods market share. The Wall Street Journal recently reported the company hopes to boost their nutrition business from $10 billion to $30 billion by 2020.

The company will remove dietary hazards like monosodium glutamate (MSG), replacing it with natural seasonings, such as molasses and paprika. Artificial colors will be replaced with beet juice, purple cabbage and carrots. All in all, about different 60 snacks are scheduled to get an all-natural makeover.

This is certainly a good example of how consumer demand can alter the direction of food manufacturers in a positive way.

The reformulated chips may end up being less bad for you than the original formulations. However, chips will never be truly healthful. All-natural chips may be the lesser of two evils, but if consumed regularly, they will still push your health in the wrong direction... There's no getting away from the fact that modern plagues such as cancer, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes have a dietary component, and potato chips and French fries will always be a losing bet if you want to avoid becoming another disease statistic.

How to Avoid Heat-Induced Toxins in Your Diet

Ideally, you should consume foods that are raw or minimally processed to avoid these types of toxic byproducts—the more raw food, the better. My nutrition plan emphasizes the need for at least one-third of your foods to be consumed raw. Personally, I consume about 80 percent of my food raw, and I find it is one of the most important factors that help keep me healthy.

It may take you awhile to switch over to a less processed diet, but throwing out the most obvious culprits would be a great start.

These would include:

•       French fries and potato chips

•       All sodas (both regular and diet, as artificial sweeteners may be more problematic than fructose)

•       Doughnuts

Healthy Eating Made Easy

Aside from creating potentially toxic byproducts, cooking and processing also depletes the food of valuable micronutrients, which is another reason for eating as much raw food as possible. This includes protein sources such as eggs. Raw whole eggs from organic, pastured chickens are an incredible source of high-quality nutrients that many are deficient in. Raw milk is another good example of a food that is beneficial in its raw state but becomes harmful after it is pasteurized.

By opting for foods that will benefit your health, such as raw, preferably organic and/or locally-grown vegetables, organic grass-fed meats, healthy oils, raw dairy, nuts and seeds, you can change your health for the better. These are the foods that are truly natural, and quite easy to prepare once you get the hang of it.

For a step-by-step guide to make the transition to a healthier diet as simple and smooth as possible, simply follow the advice in my optimized nutrition plan.

Remember, eating fresh whole foods is the "secret" to getting healthier, losing weight and really enjoying your food. It's unfortunate that so many are under the mistaken belief that it's "next to impossible" to create a meal without processed foods. Bruce Weinstein and Mark Scarbrough tackle this issue head-on in their book Real Food Has Curves, which is a great starting point to "relearn" the basics of how to enjoy and prepare real food.

Once you get used to it, you'll find you can whip up a healthful meal from scratch in the same amount of time it would have taken you to drive down the street to pick up fast food. The main difference will be greater satisfaction, both physically and mentally, and perhaps even financially, as processed foods typically end up being more expensive than cooking from scratch.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/07/the-shocking-true-story-of-how-pringles-are-made.aspx?e_cid=20111107_DNL_art_1

RENSE & JONATHAN EMORD - FDA NEW, STEALTH DIRTY TRICK TO TAKE YOUR SUPPLEMENTS

HEALTH CONCERNS ABOUT DAIRY PRODUCTS

Originally posted within the mikiverse, August 11, 2010.

Many Americans, including some vegetarians, still consume substantial amounts of dairy products—and government policies still promote them—despite scientific evidence that questions their health benefits and indicates their potential health risks.

Osteoporosis
Milk’s main selling point is calcium, and milk-drinking is touted for building strong bones in children and preventing osteoporosis in older persons. However, clinical research shows that dairy products have little or no benefit for bones. A 2005 review published in Pediatrics showed that milk consumption does not improve bone integrity in children.¹ Similarly, the Harvard Nurses’ Health Study,²which followed more than 72,000 women for 18 years, showed no protective effect of increased milk consumption on fracture risk. While calcium is important for bone health, studies show that increasing consumption beyond approximately 600 mg per day—amounts that are easily achieved without dairy products or calcium supplements—does not improve bone integrity.²

In studies of children and adults, exercise has been found to have a major effect on bone density.^3-5

You can decrease your risk of osteoporosis by reducing sodium and animal protein intake in the diet,^6-9 increasing intake of fruits and vegetables,^9,10 exercising,^4,11 and ensuring adequate calcium intake from plant foods such as kale, broccoli, and other leafy green vegetables and beans. You can also use calcium-fortified products such as breakfast cereals and juices, although these products provide more concentrated calcium than is necessary.

Fat Content and Cardiovascular Disease
Dairy products—including cheese, ice cream, milk, butter, and yogurt—contribute significant amounts of cholesterol and saturated fat to the diet.¹² Diets high in fat and saturated fat can increase the risk of heart disease, among other serious health problems. A low-fat vegetarian diet that eliminates dairy products, in combination with exercise, smoking cessation, and stress management, can not only prevent heart disease, but may also reverse it.^13,14 Non-fat dairy products are available; however, they pose other health risks as noted below.

Cancer
Prostate and breast cancers have been linked to consumption of dairy products, presumably related to increases in a compound called insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I).¹⁵ IGF-I is found in cow’s milk and has been shown to occur in increased levels in the blood of individuals consuming dairy products on a regular basis.¹⁶ Other nutrients that increase IGF-I are also found in cow’s milk.

Case-control studies in diverse populations have shown a strong and consistent association between serum IGF-I concentrations and prostate cancer risk.¹⁷ One study showed that men who had the highest levels of IGF-I had more than four times the risk of prostate cancer compared with those who had the lowest levels.¹⁸ Other findings show that prostate cancer risk was elevated with increased consumption of low-fat milk, suggesting that too much dairy calcium could be a potential threat to prostate health.^19,20

Ovarian cancer may also be related to the consumption of dairy products. The milk sugar lactose is broken down in the body into another sugar, galactose. Research suggests that the dairy sugar galactose might be toxic to ovarian cells.²¹ In a study conducted in Sweden, consumption of lactose and dairy products was positively linked to ovarian cancer.²² A similar study, the Iowa Women’s Health Study, found that women who consumed more than one glass of milk per day had a 73 percent greater chance of ovarian cancer than women who drank less than one glass per day.²³

Lactose Intolerance
Lactose intolerance is common among many populations, affecting approximately 95 percent of Asian Americans, 74 percent of Native Americans, 70 percent of African Americans, 53 percent of Mexican Americans, and 15 percent of Caucasians.²⁴ Symptoms, which include gastrointestinal distress, diarrhea, and flatulence, occur because these individuals do not have the enzyme lactase that digests the milk sugar lactose. For those who can digest lactose, its breakdown products are two simple sugars: glucose and galactose. Nursing children have active enzymes that break down galactose. As we age, many of us lose much of this capacity.²⁵ Additionally, along with unwanted symptoms, milk-drinkers also put themselves at risk for development of other chronic diseases and ailments.

Vitamin D
Individuals often drink milk in order to obtain vitamin D in their diet, unaware that they can receive vitamin D through other sources. The natural source of vitamin D is sunlight. Five to fifteen minutes of sun exposure to the arms and legs or the hands, face, and arms can be enough to meet the body’s requirements for vitamin D, depending on the individual’s skin tone.²⁶ Darker skin requires longer exposure to the sun in order to obtain adequate levels of vitamin D. In colder climates during the winter months the sun may not be able to provide adequate vitamin D. During this time the diet must be able to provide vitamin D. Fortified cereals, grains, bread, orange juice, and soy- or rice milk are healthful foods that provide vitamin D. All common multiple vitamins also provide vitamin D.

Contaminants
Milk contains contaminants that range from pesticides to drugs. Milk naturally contains hormones and growth factors produced within a cow’s body. In addition, synthetic hormones such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) are commonly used in dairy cows to increase the production of milk.²⁷ Because treated cows are producing quantities of milk nature never intended, the end result can be mastitis, or inflammation of the mammary glands. Treatment of this condition requires the use of antibiotics, and antibiotic traces have occasionally been found in samples of milk and other dairy products. Pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins are other examples of contaminants found in milk. These toxins do not readily leave the body and can eventually build to harmful levels that may affect the immune and reproductive systems. The central nervous system can also be affected. Moreover, PCBs and dioxins have also been linked to cancer.²⁸

Milk Proteins and Diabetes
Insulin-dependent (type 1 or childhood-onset) diabetes is linked to consumption of dairy products.²⁹ A 2001 Finnish study of 3,000 infants with genetically increased risk for developing diabetes showed that early introduction of cow’s milk increased susceptibility to type 1 diabetes.³⁰

Health Concerns of Infants and Children
Milk proteins, milk sugar, fat, and saturated fat in dairy products pose health risks for children and encourage the development of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that infants below one year of age not be given whole cow’s milk,³¹ as iron deficiency is more likely on a dairy-rich diet. Cow’s milk products are very low in iron.³² If dairy products become a major part of one’s diet, iron deficiency is more likely. Colic is an additional concern with milk consumption. Up to 28 percent of infants suffer from colic during the first month of life.³³ Pediatricians learned long ago that cow’s milk was often the reason. We now know that breastfeeding mothers can have colicky babies if the mothers consume cow’s milk. The cow’s antibodies can pass through the mother’s bloodstream, into her breast milk, and to the baby.^34,35 Additionally, food allergies appear to be common results of cow’s milk consumption, particularly in children.^36,37 Cow’s milk consumption has also been linked to chronic constipation in children. Researchers suggested that milk consumption resulted in perianal sores and severe pain on defecation, leading to constipation.³⁸

Milk and dairy products are not necessary in the diet and can, in fact, be harmful to health. It is best to consume a healthful diet of grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and fortified foods including cereals and juices. These nutrient-dense foods can help you meet your calcium, potassium, riboflavin, and vitamin D requirements with ease—and without health risks.

References
1. Lanou AJ, Berkow SE, Barnard ND. Calcium, dairy products, and bone health in children and young adults: a reevaluation of the evidence. Pediatrics. 2005;115(3):736-43.
2. Feskanich D, Willett WC, Colditz GA. Calcium, vitamin D, milk consumption, and hip fractures: a prospective study among postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;77(2):504-11.
3. Lunt M, Masaryk P, Scheidt-Nave C, et al. The Effects of Lifestyle, Dietary Dairy Intake and Diabetes on Bone Density and Vertebral Deformity Prevalence: The EVOS Study. Osteoporos Int. 2001;12:688-698.
4. Prince R, Devine A, Dick I, et al. The effects of calcium supplementation (milk powder or tablets) and exercise on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res. 1995;10:1068-75.
5. Lloyd T, Beck TJ, Lin HM, et al. Modifiable determinants of bone status in young women. Bone. 2002;30(2):416-21.
6. Finn SC. The skeleton crew: is calcium enough? J Women’s Health. 1998;7(1):31-6.
7. Nordin CBE. Calcium and osteoporosis. Nutrition. 1997;3(7/8):664-86.
8. Reid DM, New SA. Nutritional influences on bone mass. Proceed Nutr Soc. 1997;56:977-87.
9. Lin P, Ginty F, Appel L, et al. The DASH diet and sodium reduction improve markers of bone turnover and calcium metabolism in adults. J Nutr. 2001;133:3130–3136.
10. Tucker KL, Hannan MR, Chen H, Cupples LA, Wilson PWF, Kiel DP. Potassium, magnesium, and fruit and vegetable intakes are associated with greater bone mineral density in elderly men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69:727-36.
11. Going S, Lohman T, Houtkooper L, et al. Effects of exercise on bone mineral density in calcium-replete postmenopausal women with and without hormone replacement therapy, Osteoporos Int. 2003;14(8):637-43.
12. Warensjo E, Jansson JH, Berglund L, et al. Estimated intake of milk fat is negatively associated with cardiovascular risk factors and does not increase the risk of a first acute myocardial infarction. Br J Nutr. 2004;91:635-42.
13. Szeto YT, Kwok TC, Benzie IF. Effects of a long-term vegetarian diet on biomarkers of antioxidants status and cardiovascular disease risk. Nutrition. 2004;20:863-6.
14. Ornish D, Brown SE, Scherwitz LW, et al. Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? Lancet. 1990;336:129-33.
15. Voskuil DW, Vrieling A, van’t Veer LJ, Kampman E, Rookus MA. The insulin-like growth factor system in cancer prevention: potential of dietary intervention strategies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:195-203.
16. Cadogan J, Eastell R, Jones N, Barker ME. Milk intake and bone mineral acquisition in adolescent girls: randomised, controlled intervention trial. BMJ. 1997;315:1255-60.
17. Cohen P. Serum insulin-like growth factor-I levels and prostate cancer risk—interpreting the evidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:876-9.
18. Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 and prostate cancer risk: a prospective study. Science. 1998;279:563-5.
19. Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Ma J, Gann PH, Gaziano JM, Giovannucci E. Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk in the Physicians' Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;74:549-54.
20. Tseng M, Breslow RA, Graubard BI, Ziegler RG. Dairy, calcium and vitamin D intakes and prostate cancer risk in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Epidemiologic Follow-up Study cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;81:1147-54.
21. Cramer DW, Greenberg ER, Titus-Ernstoff L, et al. A case-control study of galactose consumption and metabolism in relation to ovarian cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000;9:95-101.
22. Larsson SC, Bergkvist L, Wolk A. Milk and lactose intakes and ovarian cancer risk in the Swedish Mammography Cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80:1353-7.
23. Kushi LH, Mink PJ, Folsom AR, et al. Prospective study of diet and ovarian cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149:21-31.
24. Bertron P, Barnard ND, Mills M. Racial bias in federal nutrition policy, part I: the public health implications of variations in lactase persistence. J Natl Med Assoc. 1999;91:151-7.
25. Swallow DM. Genetics of lactase persistence and lactose intolerance. Annu Rev Genet. 2003;37:197-219.
26. Holick M. The vitamin D epidemic and its health consequences. J Nutr. 2005;135:2739S-48S.
27. Outwater JL, Nicholson A, Barnard N. Dairy products and breast cancer: the IGF-1, estrogen, and bGH hypothesis. Med Hypothesis. 1997;48:453-61.
28. Baars AJ, Bakker MI, Baumann RA, et al. Dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs: occurrence and dietary intake in the Netherlands. Toxicol Lett. 2004;151:51-61.
29. Saukkonen T, Virtanen SM, Karppinen M, et al. Significance of cow’s milk protein antibodies as risk factor for childhood IDDM: interaction with dietary cow’s milk intake and HLA-DQB1 genotype. Childhood Dibetes in Finland Study Group. Dibetologia. 1998;41:72-8.
30. Kimpimaki T, Erkkola M, Korhonen S, et al. Short-term exclusive breastfeeding predisposes young children with increased genetic risk of Type I diabetes to progressive beta-cell autoimmunity. Diabetologia. 2001;44:63–69.
31. Gartner LM, Morton J, Lawrence RA, et al; American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Breastfeeding. Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Pediatrics. 2005;115(2):496-506.
32. Pennington JAT, Douglass JS. Bowes and Church’s Food Values of Portions Commonly Used. 18th ed. Baltimore, Md: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
33. Lucassen PL, Assendelft WJ, van Eijk JT, Gubbels JW, Douwes AC, van Geldrop WJ. Systematic review of the occurrence of infantile colic in the community. Arch Dis Child. 2001;84:398–403.
34. Jarvinen KM, Makinen-Kiljunen S, Suomalainen H. Cow’s milk challenge through human milk evoked immune responses in infants with cow’s milk allergy. J Pediatr. 1999;135:506-12.
35. Paronen J, Bjorksten B, Hattevig G, Akerblom HK, Vaarala O. Effect of maternal diet during lactation on development of bovine insulin-binding antibodies in children at risk for allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000;106:302-306.
36. Sampson HA. Food allergy. Part 1: immunopathogenesis and clinical disorders. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;113:805–819.
37. Host A. Frequency of cow’s milk allergy in childhood. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2002;89(6 Suppl 1):33-7.
38. Iacono G, Cavataio F, Montalto G, et al. Intolerance of cow’s milk and chronic constipation in children. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(16):1100-4.

THE FLUORIDE DECEPTION EXPOSES THE TRUTH ABOUT WATER FLUORIDATION AND THE PHOSPHATE MINING INDUSTRY

COKE/PEPSI AS PESTICIDE

FIRE WATER:DR. ANDREW HARRIS INTERVIEW

CHOOSING HEALTHY FOODS NOW CALLED A MENTAL DISORDER

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) In its never-ending attempt to fabricate "mental disorders" out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most ridiculous disease they've invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.

This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you're "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa -- which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating."

But they can't just called it "nervous healthy eating disorder" because that doesn't sound like they know what they're talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn't). That's where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a name like osteoporosis (which means "bones with holes in them").

Getting back to this fabricated "orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."

Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there's something wrong with you.

But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be "normal?" If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that's okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.

What is "normal" when it comes to foods?

I told you this was coming. Years ago, I warned NaturalNews readers that an attempt might soon be under way to outlaw broccoli because of its anti-cancer phytonutrients. This mental health assault on health-conscious consumers is part of that agenda. It's an effort to marginalize healthy eaters by declaring them to be mentally unstable and therefore justify carting them off to mental institutions where they will be injected with psychiatric drugs and fed institutional food that's all processed, dead and full of toxic chemicals.

The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, "The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished."

Follow the non-logic on this, if you can: Eating "good" foods will cause malnutrition! Eating bad foods, I suppose, is assumed to provide all the nutrients you need. That's about as crazy a statement on nutrition as I've ever read. No wonder people are so diseased today: The mainstream media is telling them that eating health food is a mental disorder that will cause malnutrition!

Shut up and swallow your Soylent Green

It's just like I reported years ago: You're not supposed to question your food, folks. Sit down, shut up, dig in and chow down. Stop thinking about what you're eating and just do what you're told by the mainstream media and its processed food advertisers. Questioning the health properties of your junk food is a mental disorder, didn't you know? And if you "obsess" over foods (by doing such things as reading the ingredients labels, for example), then you're weird. Maybe even sick.

That's the message they're broadcasting now. Junk food eaters are "normal" and "sane" and "nourished." But health food eaters are diseased, abnormal and malnourished.

But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.

Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they're told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what's really happening in the world around them.

In contrast to that, people who eat health-enhancing natural foods -- with all the medicinal nutrients still intact -- begin to awaken their minds and spirits. Over time, they begin to question the reality around them and they pursue more enlightened explorations of topics like community, nature, ethics, philosophy and the big picture of things that are happening in the world. They become "aware" and can start to see the very fabric of the Matrix, so to speak.

This, of course, is a huge danger to those who run our consumption-based society because consumption depends on ignorance combined with suggestibility. For people to keep blindly buying foods, medicines, health insurance and consumer goods, they need to have their higher brain functions switched off. Processed junk foods laced with toxic chemicals just happens to achieve that rather nicely. Why do you think dead, processed foods remain the default meals in public schools, hospitals and prisons? It's because dead foods turn off higher levels of awareness and keep people focused on whatever distractions you can feed their brains: Television, violence, fear, sports, sex and so on.

But living as a zombie is, in one way quite "normal" in society today because so many people are doing it. But that doesn't make it normal in my book: The real "normal" is an empowered, healthy, awakened person nourished with living foods and operating as a sovereign citizen in a free world. Eating living foods is like taking the red pill because over time it opens up a whole new perspective on the fabric of reality. It sets you free to think for yourself.

But eating processed junk foods is like taking the blue pill because it keeps you trapped in a fabricated reality where your life experiences are fabricated by consumer product companies who hijack your senses with designer chemicals (like MSG) that fool your brain into thinking you're eating real food.

If you want to be alive, aware and in control of your own life, eat more healthy living foods. But don't expect to be popular with mainstream mental health "experts" or dieticians -- they're all being programmed to consider you to be "crazy" because you don't follow their mainstream diets of dead foods laced with synthetic chemicals.

But you and I know the truth here: We are the normal ones. The junk food eaters are the real mental patients, and the only way to wake them up to the real world is to start feeding them living foods.

Some people are ready to take the red pill, and others aren't. All you can do is show them the door. They must open it themselves.

In the mean time, try to avoid the mental health agents who are trying to label you as having a mental disorder just because you pay attention to what you put in your body. There's nothing wrong with avoiding sugar, soy, MSG, aspartame, HFCS and other toxic chemicals in the food supply. In fact, your very life depends on it.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to join the health experts who keep inventing new fictitious diseases and disorders, check out my popular Disease Mongering Engine web page where you can invent your own new diseases at the click of a button! You'll find it at: http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...

Sources for this story include:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...

THIS COULD THREATEN THE FUTURE OF FOOD – DESTROYING THE ENTIRE FOOD CHAIN…

Posted By Dr. Mercola February 02 2011

Roundup, Monsanto's glyphosate-based herbicide, is causing Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease, in many fields. Study after study shows that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but also to the outbreak of numerous other diseases.

Glyphosate is the world's bestselling weed killer; it was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced "Roundup Ready" crops -- genetically modified (GM) plants that can withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.

But the herbicide doesn't destroy plants directly; instead, it creates a unique perfect storm of conditions that activates disease-causing organisms in the soil, while at the same time wiping out plant defenses against those diseases.

The Institute for Responsible Technology reports:

"By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don [Huber, a plant pathologist], 'There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate …'

Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that can end up in food and feed ... They've 'been linked to the plague epidemics' of medieval Europe, 'large-scale human toxicosis in Eastern Europe,' esophageal cancer in southern Africa and parts of China, joint diseases in Asia and southern Africa, and a blood disorder in Russia."

Sources:

Institute for Responsible Technology January 14, 2011

More than:

• 75 percent of soybeans
• 65 percent of cotton
• 10 percent of corn grown in the United States

… contain the genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready gene, which allows farmers to spray Monsanto's Roundup herbicide directly onto their fields, killing weeds without harming the crops … theoretically.

However, this convenience comes at a steep price, as evidence shows that Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, is actually devastating crops and human and animal health around the world, even when the exposure is restricted to residues leftover in the soil.

"The Perfect Storm" for Plant Devastation

Glyphosate is the world's bestselling weed killer, and it's found in more than 30 percent of all herbicides. While Roundup Ready crops can withstand the toxin because of GM genetic material from viruses and bacteria, the weed killer is thought to be contributing to Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a deadly plant disease that causes plants to turn yellow and die.

As reported by GM expert Jeffrey Smith, numerous studies have linked glyphosate to increases in SDS, including in crops that have never been sprayed with the herbicide but were planted in a field that received an application the previous season.

As Smith points out:

"The herbicide doesn't destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited."

In fact, Roundup herbicide weakens plants and promotes disease in a number of ways, including:

• Acting as a chelator of vital nutrients, depriving plants of the nutrients necessary for healthy plant function
• Destroying beneficial soil organisms that suppress disease-causing organisms and help plants absorb nutrients
• Interfering with photosynthesis, reducing water use efficiency, shortening root systems and causing plants to release sugars, which changes soil pH
• Stunting and weakening plant growth
• Promoting disease-causing organisms in soil, which then overtake the weakened crops

So the glyphosate in Roundup is not only weakening plants, it's changing the makeup of soil and boosting the number of disease-causing organisms, a deadly recipe for crops around the globe.

As Don Huber, a plant pathologist at Purdue University, stated:

"There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease."

As the use of Roundup has increased, so too has the prevalence of potentially devastating plant diseases, which could threaten future food crops and the food chain that depends on them.

Dangers for People and Animals Too

It's not only plant life that's threatened by the use of Roundup -- human and animal toxins are created too. As Smith reported, glyphosate promotes the formation of certain types of fungi that are dangerous to people and contaminate food and animal feed. One such fungi, the Fusarium fungus, has been linked to plague epidemics, cancer, infertility and animal diseases.

Residues of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide found in GM food and feed have also been linked to cell damage and even death, even at very low levels. Researchers have also found it causes membrane and DNA damage, and inhibits cell respiration.

It's also possible that glyphosate is significantly altering the nutrient content of our food, through its chelating mechanism, leading to widespread mineral deficiencies in animals and humans. Smith writes:

"The same nutrients that glyphosate chelates and deprives plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron, and others. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases …

Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated. Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable.

Glyphosate can tie up minerals for years and years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans. If we combine the more than 135 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides applied in the US in 2010 with total applications over the past 30 years, we may have already eliminated millions of pounds of nutrients from our food supply."

Roundup in the Environment

Monsanto long used the slogans, "It's Safer than Mowing," "Biodegradable," and "Environmentally Friendly" to describe Roundup -- until the real effects of this toxic herbicide were revealed and they were forced to discontinue their deceptive advertising.

The truth is Monsanto's own tests showed that only 2 percent of the herbicide broke down after 28 days, which means it readily persists in the environment. Glyphosate is actually the most commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among landscape maintenance workers in California. Additionally:

• The surfactant ingredient in Roundup is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself, and the combination of the two is even more toxic.
• Glyphosate is suspected of causing genetic damage.
• Glyphosate is acutely toxic to fish and birds and can kill beneficial insects and soil organisms that maintain ecological balance.
• Laboratory studies have identified adverse effects of glyphosate-containing products in all standard categories of toxicological testing.

In one animal study, rats given 1,000 mg/kg of glyphosate resulted in a 50 percent mortality rate, and skeletal alterations were observed in over 57 percent of fetuses!

And just so you understand, GM crops that are resistant to Roundup are the most widely sold GM varieties. So if you eat GM foods, there is a very good chance those foods contain Roundup residues -- and possibly hefty amounts of them.

According to Smith, by 2004 farmers used an estimated 86 percent more herbicide on GM soy fields compared to non-GM. Higher levels of herbicide residue in this GM soy might cause health problems, and many symptoms identified in one UK soy allergy study are also related to glyphosate exposure.

The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints including acne and eczema, all related to soy consumption.

Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin. It is also possible that glyphosate's breakdown product AMPA, which accumulates in GM soybeans after each spray, might contribute to allergies.

Again, the use of Roundup herbicide has increased dramatically since the GM Roundup Ready crops were introduced. In the first 13 years, American farmers sprayed an additional 383 million pounds of herbicide due to these herbicide-tolerant crops. And now the repeated exposures have given Mother Nature all she needs to stage her comeback in the form of devastating superweeds.

How Can You Avoid Roundup and Roundup Ready Crops?

Did you know that genetically modified foods are so prevalent in the United States that if you randomly pick an item off your grocery store's shelves, you have a 75 percent chance of picking a food with GM ingredients?

It's true. At least seven out of every 10 processed food items have been genetically modified, and there's more to come.

The potential health ramifications of these world-wide experiments with our food supply are frightening to say the least. If you care about the health and future of your family, I strongly urge you to refuse to participate in this destructive trend.

How?

It's actually simpler than you might think... By buying only non-GM foods.

The True Food Shopping Guide is a great tool for helping you determine which brands and products contain GM ingredients. It lists 20 different food categories that include everything from baby food to chocolate.

Additionally, here are four simple steps to decrease your consumption of GM foods as much as possible:

• Reduce or eliminate processed foods in your diet. The fact that 75 percent of processed foods contain GM ingredients is only one of the many reasons to stick to a whole foods diet.
• Read produce and food labels. Conventionally raised soybeans and corn make up the largest portion of genetically modified crops. Ingredients made from these foods include high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), corn flour and meal, dextrin, starch, soy sauce, margarine, and tofu.
• Buy organic produce. By definition, food that is certified organic must be free from all GM organisms, produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers and from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed GM corn feed.

You can also get involved in helping to defeat GM crops at the regulatory level. Right now the USDA is considering the approval of Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa, which would lead to the application of millions more pounds of Roundup herbicide each year.

You can urge U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to NOT approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, which would lead to the addition of more Roundup on U.S. fields and in our food, by using this action form from the Institute for Responsible Technology