Speaking out of both sides of the mouth

The most important opportunity to affect the control the Corporate Agribusiness has over our foods is Proposition 37 on the California ballot in November. Prop. 37 is the Right to Know (what's in our food), mandating GMO labelling.

All Proposition 37 does is require clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified. We already have food labels showing nutrition, allergy information and other facts consumers want to know. This measure simply adds information telling us if food is produced using genetic engineering, which is when food is modified in a laboratory by adding DNA from other plants, animals, bacteria or viruses.    

I think the California vote on Prop. 37 is perhaps even more important that the Presidential vote. After all, no matter who is elected President, he will still have 535 Voting Members of Congress to deal with anything he wants to change or accomplish. However, if Prop. 37 passes, it will ultimately inform every one of us in the U.S. who purchases food because it will be too costly and cumbersome for corporations to have different food labels for foods sold in different states.

Most of us imagine that anything "organic" (by Law non-GMO) would automatically be on the side to defeat the proposition, yet many large corporations that produce or market organic foods have helped put over $26 MILLION into the war chest to defeat the initiative. How can these corporations market some foods as good for us, yet refuse to label what's in the other foods they market?

        Kellogg’s (Kashi, Bear Naked, Morningstar Farms);
        General Mills (Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Larabar);
        Dean Foods (Horizon, Silk, White Wave);
        Smucker’s (R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic);
        Coca-Cola (Honest Tea, Odwalla);
        Safeway (‘O’ Organics);
        Kraft (Boca Burgers and Back to Nature);
        Con-Agra (Orville Redenbacher’s Organic, Hunt’s Organic, Lightlife); and
        PepsiCo (Naked Juice, Tostito’s Organic, Tropicana Organic).

On the other hand, there are many smaller organic leaders supporting the Proposition. By enlarging the poster above, you can see the companies donating to the cause. Please support them and their products when possible!  

The current Administration has deregulated more genetically modified foods than ever. From plums to alfalfa and even sugar beets. But it's not just that so many crops are modified (93% of all soy, 86% of corn, and 93% of canola seeds are now genetically modified) it's that there's currently no labeling system in place so that we know what we're buying. 

We are one of the few industrialized nations that doesn't require labeling of GMO foods. In the past year alone 19 U.S. states have attempted to pass GMO labeling laws, but each time Monsanto and biotech lobbyists have threatened to sue. Only Alaska, with its huge wild salmon industry, has passed a biotech seafood labeling law.

Most of us would like to believe that our foods come from nature, but that's far from the case. In 40 countries, including Australia, Japan and all European Union nations, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production of GMOs because they are not considered proven safe.

Update: Giant pesticide and big food companies have so far donated more than $37 million to defeat Yes on 37 to label GMOs in California. Earlier this spring, the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA), of which Monsanto is a leading partner, declared that defeating Prop 37 was its single highest priority for 2012.

Monsanto just funneled another $2.9 million dollars to defeat California’s Prop 37 to label genetically engineered foods. This comes on top of their $4.2 million dollar pledge only weeks ago and brings Monsanto’s combined total to more than $7.1 million dollars!  That’s a huge pile of cash and it’s dedicated to only one thing – denying us the Right to Know what’s in our food.

My Question: Did Monsanto just kick in more $$ because they are concerned the People might actually WIN??

.

Wikipedia will go dark at midnight

In case you missed the news, Wikipedia will go dark at midnight Eastern time on Tuesday January 17, 2012, and remain unavailable until midnight Eastern time on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 in protest against the two Congressional bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act, often called SOPA, and the Protect IP Act, which is often called PIPA. The bills have attracted fierce opposition from many corners of the technology industry. Opponents say several of the provisions in the legislation, including those that may force search engines and Internet service providers to block access to Web sites that offer or link to copyrighted material, would stifle innovation, enable censorship and tamper with the livelihood of businesses on the Internet.

Visitors around the globe who try to reach the English-version of Wikipedia will be greeted with information about the bills and details about how to reach their local representatives. Mr. Wales said 460 million people around the world visited the site each month, and he estimated that the blackout could reach as many as 100 million people. In addition, some international Wikipedia communities, including the one in Germany, have decided to post notices on their home pages leading to information about the protests, although they will remain functioning as usual.

Wikipedia’s protest will join several other Web sites, including Reddit, the social news site, and BoingBoing, a technology and culture blog, that also plan to black out their sites on Wednesday. Some sites that are not planning to go offline are still finding ways to participate in the protest. For example, WordPress, a blogging platform, is supplying its users with a widget that will add a banner to their Web sites and blogs showing support for the protest. (Read the whole story from the Source.)

I haven't read enough of the pros and cons to have an informed opinion on the pending bills although I am certainly against anything that limits Free Speech... but I do know that the 460 million people (which includes me) around the world visit Wikipedia each month will be affected by the darkened website.  

Kids... you better finish your homework research quickly!

2012... and Beyond

NASA Goddard Photo

The year 2012 should be interesting.

Many folks have an underlying (or at least partial) belief running through their subconscious mind that Nostradamus' and the Mayan "end of the World" scenarios might happen. However, most of our overt behavior indicates total disbelief not only in Doomsday predictions, but also in accepting the critical food/water/health situation worldwide. (Isn't the media wonderful?) Our changing weather patterns continue to impose hardships on many of our lives and gardens, giving credence to possible violent environmental changes that could be coming to this lovely blue planet we occupy.

Personally, I do not believe the "end of the world" will happen in December 2012. However, the environmental, economical and political changes are not only continuing, but increasing... and it could get right nasty down the road.

There is another prediction out there, proclaimed by many, that the "changes" will usher in a "thousand-year era of Peace". IMO, there is much that needs to be significantly altered before real Peace can happen.

On our food and health aspects for change, it is time for us to increase our awareness and ethical/moral responsibility beyond what the for-profit television and advertising media tell us... because ultimately our health/future Is NOT Up to Someone Else.

GMO's have proliferated simply because we didn't raise any flags in the beginning. It is our own fault. For too many years we have allowed ourselves to believe that others ("medical professionals and government officials?") know best, or at least know what they are doing. We are bombarded hundreds of times a day by subtle advertising messages indicating "they" are more educated and/or informed than we are, so the vast majority have given up individual responsibility for our own health and well-fare. Our self-inflicted ignorance has let the government (and us) buy into corporate hype of all kinds (which interestingly also put money in many, many pockets). 

Thus the many corporate tribes and alphabet government agencies motivated by... (power? greed? or something else??) have given us obesity and disease by catering to and building on a human weakness for convenience, sugar and other junk foods. We have become a nation of addicts... and we are addicted to all kinds of substances. For far too many people [including children], it is sugary beverages and junk foods, while for others it might be an escape into alcohol or drugs. But as with any addiction, we never think with 100% clarity under the influence... and will do almost anything to keep getting our "fix" in spite of what our minds know. 

As a nation, we eat more so called "food" and gain less energy (nutrition) from it all the time. The working mother eating the SAD diet (Standard American Diet) has NO energy left to prepare real food meals when she comes home from work, even if she could buy real food anymore in most places. (She says she doesn't have "time" but in reality, she also doesn't have the "energy".) So instead of having enough energy to prepare a real food meal, she barely has the energy to pick up junk fast food on the way home, or frozen boxed junk food to nuke for dinner for the family. Eating this way, she never gains a storehouse of energy for the next day, and simply repeats the process over and over, becoming more frazzled every day from lack of good nutrition. 

Adele Davis always said a food without nutrients would not support life, and her example was a loaf of factory bread left on the counter (unwrapped) for weeks. It might dry out, but it would not support any bacterial life to decompose it. If it won't even support bacterial life, how could it support life for us?? Recently someone left a McD's cheeseburger on the counter for a whole year, and nothing grew there either. It sustained no bacterial life. (Source)

Change is never easy, but for the most part it can be started in small steps. Two years ago when I changed my food intake drastically to eliminate adulterated foods all at once (including foods with added sweeteners), I thought I would starve to death during the first 2-3 weeks. It took a long time for me to learn to think outside the box and change from what I had been accustomed to eating for years, to finding real foods to eat. Then as I started feeling the increased energy every day from eating real food (and probably eliminating some built-up toxins during that time), I began to understand what sugar and chemical-laden foods do to my body.

Unfortunately over the last year, I have slowly added some adulterated foods back to my diet, and I really see the poor consequences, both in my energy levels... and my weight. The good news is that I never deviated from my commitment to eating only grass-fed meats. I'm doing much better now in avoiding chemical-laden packaged foods (thus no GMO's) but where I am still struggling is to get sugars out of my diet again. The traditional and accepted flush of sweet goodies over the holidays put me right back into sugar addiction, and I really cannot totally blame the food industry... They only make the stuff; it's my hand that lifts the cookie to my mouth. 

Then there are the sweets in other foods... "research and development teams have done studies and conducted taste panels that have found sweet sells. The more we sell sweet stuff the more people come to expect it. Sweet is found in loads of savory items. Sweet tomato sauces, crackers, salad dressings, mustards, coated chicken products, sausages, and more. Many of our fresh products are enhanced with sugar also. Butterball turkey, pumped brined pork loins, stewing hens. Our palates are being distorted by sweet." (Source)
 

Some small but positive steps:

Make a commitment to one family meal every week or two that contains only real foods. Nothing from a chemical-laden package (cookie/cake mix, packaged salad dressings, sweetened yogurt, BBQ sauce, yada, yada), no GMO's. You probably cannot escape the GMO's in the meats from factory meat animals, including chickens and their eggs, unless you can afford pastured meats... but start somewhere. No fake butters, no canola or soy oils (both GMO's), no sugar substitutes, nothing fake. I know many of the regular readers of this blog eat real foods almost exclusively... but perhaps just as many readers do not.

Make the time for a friendly email or telephone call to your local congressional representative saying you'd like to see food labels that state GMO or not, and hopefully even whether routine animal antibiotics in healthy animals were used. Tell them politely that you'd like to know what's actually in your food.

It may take years of persistence, but remember the soil in our yards is the result of eons of weathering effects on rocks that turned them into soil.

The Food Threat to Our Health

I don't usually post what others have written, but this is too important not to pass on in case you missed it elsewhere. I generally prefer to write about what we can do at home for ourselves to combat what the government is doing against our Health and Well-Being, but sometimes that is not enough.

Genetically Modified Crops in the Food Supply: The Threat to Your Health
by Judith McGeary, Esq. – May 9, 2011

"The case against genetically modified (GM) crops has been growing for years.  While there are no long-term studies on the health effects of eating food from GM crops, even short-term studies have raised very troubling questions.  For example, a panel of scientists in India recently reviewed studies that purported to show that GM crops modified to produce Bt were safe. The reviewers concluded that the studies did not meet international standards, did not accurately summarize the results, and “ignored toxic endpoints” that occurred in rats that were fed the GM grain for just 3 months.  The rats suffered organ and system damage to ovaries, spleens, and the immune system, and demonstrated toxic effects to the liver [L. Gallagher, BT Brinjal Event EEa: The Scope and Adequacy of the GEAC Toxicological Risk Assessment: Review of Oral Toxicity Studies in Rats (2010)].  Other studies have come to similar conclusions, namely that even a relatively short period of feeding GM foods to lab animals indicate serious potential health impacts.

Despite that, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to allow GM crops to enter our food supply without labeling, leaving the majority of Americans in the dark about the fact that almost every processed food contains ingredients from GM corn, soy, and/ or canola.


As serious as these problems are, the concerns over GM crops rose to an even higher level recently. On January 17, 2011, Dr. Don M. Huber, an internationally recognized plant pathologist and Professor Emeritus from Purdue University, sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack warning him of a previously unknown pathogen that "should be treated as an emergency."  As explained in the letter, the pathogen poses a serious threat to plant health, animal health, and potentially human health – and has been connected to GM crops engineered to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate.

“Roundup Ready” crops, as they are called, allow farmers to spray the herbicide glyphosate to kill weeds throughout the growing season.  This has two effects: it significantly increases the amount of glyphosate used, and results in glyphosate residues on the crop itself.

As outlined in Dr. Huber’s letter and subsequent materials, veterinarians first identified this organism in livestock herds experiencing extremely high rates, up to 45%, of spontaneous abortions and infertility rates of 20% and higher. The vets confirmed that the pathogen was the cause of the problem, and then searched for the source of the pathogen, ultimately finding it in the animals’ feed. The contaminated feeds were made from Roundup Ready soy, Roundup Ready corn, and crops raised for feed in fields treated with glyphosate.

The connection was then made with plant pathologists who have been working to understand the growing scope and severity of plant diseases such as Goss’ Wilt in corn and Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS) in soybeans. When examined, the new pathogen was found in very high levels in the infected crops.

Dr. Huber’s January letter urged Secretary Vilsack not to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa and to conduct research on the relationship between Roundup Ready crops, glyphosate, and this new pathogen. The USDA chose to ignore this warning and less than three weeks later approved two new GMO crops, including Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa, creating a threat to the primary forage feed crop for US livestock.

The letter, although intended to be confidential, was leaked by a third party, after which Dr. Huber gave permission for the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance and others to post it.  The now-public letter unleashed a storm of accusations and recriminations, including a quick response from Monsanto.  Yet, while Monsanto and its allies attacked the letter, they presented no evidence that contradicted it – just their own unsupported claims that circled around Dr. Huber’s statements without addressing them directly.

At the request of other scientists and European leaders, Dr. Huber wrote a second, more in-depth letter in March which can be read at the Farm and Ranch Freedom website. 

Food Democracy Now! released an exclusive 20-minute interview with Dr. Huber.  We encourage everyone to view it and share it with their friends and neighbors.  If you have trouble downloading the full video because of the file size, shorter segments of it are posted on the website of Food Democracy Now!

The FDA should impose an immediate moratorium on GM alfalfa and sugar beets."

Can someone tell me WHY the FDA doesn't put our health interests in the forefront, other than Follow the Money??

Dairy Money in Congress

 Photo from AMagill's photostream

This information should have been included in yesterday's post about Dairy Companies playing dirty, except I didn't have it at the time.

According to MapLight.org, in the 2 year period ending last month, Milk and Dairy Producers have 'contributed' over $3 million to members of Congress. That link page has a list of special interest groups who want something from Congress, and are willing to pay for it with visible 'campaign contributions'. Who knows how many invisible contributions there are?

If you want to see how much money your congressperson has received from special interests, click here, and then click on the name. For example, the House Congressman for my district (one of the poorest districts in Virginia) is Frederick (Rick) Boucher. In the last 2 years he has received $1,764,764 in contributions... and on his tracking page at MapLight, the contributions are broken down by Top 10 Interests, Top 10 Organizations, by geography (90% of his contributions come from outside his district.), and by proximity to the actual Vote in Congress.

MapLight tracks all current legislation, who voted Yes or No, and how much money they received for that piece of legislation.

Vitamins, Couch Potatoes, and Government Regulation

July 4th, Independence Day, the day we celebrate our adoption of the Declaration of Independence, seems a good time to post this. Without any fanfare or media coverage, President Obama quietly signed an Executive Order June 10, 2010, Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council.

Sec. 5. National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy.
Not later than March 23, 2011, shall develop and make public a national prevention, health promotion, and public health strategy (national strategy)

(c) contain a list of national priorities on health promotion and disease prevention to address lifestyle behavior modification (including smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance-use disorder, and domestic violence screenings) and the prevention measures for the five leading disease killers in the United States...

The Surgeon General shall serve as the Chair of the Council, which shall be composed of:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(2) the Secretary of Labor;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Education;
(6) the Secretary of Homeland Security;
(7) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
(8) the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission;
(9) the Director of National Drug Control Policy;
(10) the Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council;
(11) the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs;
(12) the Chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service; and
(13) the head of any other executive department or agency that the Chair may, from time to time, determine is appropriate.

One of the things this order does is to assure the USA becomes fully compliant with Codex:

Sec. 6. Reports.
(g) contains specific plans to ensure that all prevention programs outside the Department of Health and Human Services are based on the science-based guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under subsection (d) of this section.

The CDC doesn't have a good track record with complementary and alternative medicine... and Vitamins and herbs, under Codex, are considered toxic substances which would be under strict regulation.

The U.K. is already under Codex, as are many European nations. Until 1996, the average German citizen could buy 500 mg Vitamin C tablets.. or 400 IU capsules of Vitamin E. Today the highest dosage available without a prescription is 200 mg Vitamin C, and 45 IU Vitamin E. (If I am coming down with a cold, I take 2,000 mg Vitamin C every 4 hours for 24 hours (per Linus Pauling, I think it was.) Works wonderfully.) In addition, our bodies need Vitamin C to work with Vitamins A and D for optimum health, and our foods contain far less of these natural vitamins with the increasing soil nutrient deficit.

In Norway, citizens can purchase 2.4 mg of vitamin B1, 2.8 mg of B2, 4.2 mg of B6, and 32 mg of niacin. Any dosage for these vitamins that exceed this level requires a prescription.
In Canada, any herb making health improvement claims is classified as a drug. In Europe, the European Economic Community (EEC) has said if an herb is medicinal, it is medicine and should be sold as a drug.

The original proposals for Codex came from Germany. They were made by a panel sponsored by three giant drug companies: Hoechst, Bayer and BASF. These companies resulted from the disbandment of I.G. Farben after World War II. BASF (of Germany) and LaRoche Holding AG (of Switzerland) recently pleaded guilty to the largest antitrust conspiracy as yet uncovered to fix vitamin prices. Each paid hefty fines. Source

As you ponder this, understand that Codex decisions override those of individual countries. When complaints are filed, they are settled by world courts with little concern about whether Americans get enough Vitamin C every day. Severe trade restrictions can be used by the World Health Organization to twist arms of nations into compliance.

Another disturbing clause is under Sec. 3, Purposes and Duties:

(b) develop, after obtaining input from relevant stakeholders, a national prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health-care strategy that incorporates the most effective and achievable means of improving the health status of Americans and reducing the incidence of preventable illness and disability in the United States, as further described in section 5 of this order;

Who are the "relevant stakeholders"???

Who will enforce "appropriate exercise"... an armed Homeland Security Officer?

Per the President's order, he expects "changes in Federal policy to achieve national wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and poor nutrition..."

I wonder what effect this might have on all the proven harmful GMO foods on our grocer's shelves? HA! Fat Chance.

There is a silver lining. This is our wake-up call to start eating right and get healthy. We can learn what's really good for us and not go by marketing propaganda, whatever the source. We can grow fruit, vegetables and herbs. We can raise backyard chickens and rabbits. We can plant Rugosa Roses for their wonderful rose hips full of Vitamin C. We can take responsibility for ourselves, our own bodies.

FCC Internet Control worries me

Photo courtesy of blmurch's photostream

Yet another industry under political control... (notice the camera in the photo above?)

The Wall Street Journal carried this story about the Federal Appeals ruling last month that the FCC lacks the authority to regulate the internet, so the government just changed the rules. Slick, huh?

I agree that opens the door for corporate lobbying to bend rules in favor of big business. Actually, I think perhaps some things should be better controlled, such as porn sites because of their easy access by children and teens.

I'm just worried that sooner or later the government will get around to restricting Free Speech in an effort to curb legitimate dissent.

Thoughts after reading the News lastnight...

Many years ago I attended a 3 day class on effective sales marketing and negotiating. The news today just reminded me of a story told to our class:

Years ago during the Cold War, the Russians put some preposterous idea on the table. The Americans said it was ludicrous, and walked out.

Fast forward one year: The Russians again put the same proposal on the table, and again the Americans walked out in disgust.

Next Meeting: the Russians once again put the same proposal on the table, and this time the Americans agreed.

Why? The theory is that when we hear the same untenable thing again and again and again, we become subconsciously accustomed to the idea, it has become familiar... making it more acceptable in our conscious minds.

I noticed a similar syndrome in the news tonight, in a story about the select congressional staffers who were among those who wrote the new health care bill and who will be exempt from mandated inclusion. By saying, "If I have to buy into it, then so should everyone" you are tacitly agreeing to and accepting the bill in your mind, even if you are really against the bill for all the included inequities.

Another item that caught me eye in the news tonight was public job approval ratings. We always hear numbers slung about regarding the President's Job Approval Rating, but tonight I saw a job approval rating for Congress. 77% of the public disapprove!

President Obama said today that Americans in November will not vote out the people who passed the health care bill. I wonder if he saw the public approval ratings for Congress?

Pelosi Speaks...

Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, is second in the line of presidential succession if something should happen to the President; the Vice President is first in line.

Speaking about the Health Care Bill, Pelosi said: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"

HUH??

Work for 224 Days just to pay Federal Spending

Photo from alancleaver_2000's photostream

When I was younger and still in the working class, I remember reading that we worked until sometime in early May each year just to pay for government spending. Last year (2009) that figure rose to 224 days, or August 12, just to pay for federal, state and local governments. That figure is a full 26 days more than the previous year!

That's a whopping 61.34% of national income. Can you imagine what it will be next year and years following, thanks to the Stimulus Package (ARRA), TARP, and other new federal spending? Federal spending has reached a record 28.5% of our GDP (Gross Domestic Product), which is often called GDI (Gross Domestic Income). It is the measured value of all goods and services produced within the borders of a country and is generally used to measure the standard of living.

There's an interesting chart here on tax bites. We pay an average of over 46% tax on cable services (TV and internet) and cell phones, and nearly 52% tax on telephone land lines and gasoline. The so-called "sin" taxes are 56% on beer, 79.6% on distilled spirits and 86.71% on cigarettes.

I bet those so-called "sin" items make up a large percentage of what little we actually still make in this country.

Chicken or the Egg...

Photo from cornalie's photostream

I'm not one for taking pills (pharmaceuticals) even though it looks like another one may be added to my regime, depending on results of the thyroid tests I just had done at the University of Virginia last week.

I have to question my own self whether it's the chicken or the egg syndrome. Do I not like taking pills because of all I've learned about Big Pharma over the years? Or do I just not like relying on something external to fix an internal "dis-ease"?

I'd guess most of us think most drugs are priced way too high so Big Pharma can make big profits, but I'd guess we also accept the costs of research and development are not cheap, either. Then, there's the matter of trust in any drug. I sadly remember the 10,000+ Thalidomide babies born with deformities in the late 1950's and early 1960's.

Recently, a large research fraud was exposed about a doctor who had published dozens of favorable research articles in medical journals for Pfizer and Merck pharmaceuticals. The doctor's study on Celebrex to reduce pain during post-surgical recovery was positive, yet he never even enrolled a single patient in the study!

Another study just released by the Senate Finance Committee shows GlaxoSmithKline deliberately hid evidence of harm from their diabetes drug Avandia. The document even shows FDA's own scientists had concluded that Avandia was responsible for more than 83,000 heart attacks yet still allowed the drug to be marketed.

I said I don't like to take pills, but I'm usually okay with taking an antibiotic if I have an infection, and reluctantly take a beta blocker only because I know I must to prevent additional harm to my body. However, anything I do take gets vetted on the internet for contra-indications, drug reactions, and so on.

That brings me to supplements. I take a few, mostly D3, calcium and Omega-3. I believe there are some supplements (but not all that many) on the market that make vast, unsupported claims and should be controlled or removed. We are too quick to believe the hype without reading the fine print. I also believe that in this age of nutritionally-deficient food, some supplements are necessary even though how much of any of them our bodies can utilize varies.

I was glad to see Senator McCain's Bill (Dietary Supplement Safety Act S-3002) looks dead in it's current form, but I still think Congress will try to pass some legislation to have total control over dietary supplements. Unfortunately, Codex Alimentarius will probably prevail in the long run despite fears of over-regulation: "It is reported that in 1996 the German delegation put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs." The proposal was accepted by the Commission, but not enacted because of protests. (See Codex link for source.)

What frightens me is that on the surface, Codex sounds protective of the public safety, but I fear it merely gives control to Big Pharma. Frankly, I think I am intelligent enough to choose to take any vitamin or dietary supplement without a doctor's visit and subsequent prescription.

My Thoughts on Gun Control

Photo from ell brown's photostream

First off, let me say the only gun I own is a BB Gun, used to attempt to ping stray critters out of my vegetable garden. Sometimes it even works!

I don't own a real gun... not one for protecting my home and self, nor one for hunting. However, it is my right to own one if I choose. It says so in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution (not that I think most politicians pay attention to details like that).

Does anyone really think that gun control laws will stop criminals from having guns? A deranged person or criminal Hell-Bent on using a gun to force themselves into a private home/car, or to abduct and/or kill someone will always find a way to have a gun or do the mayhem another way. All gun control laws will do is disarm law-abiding citizens who could otherwise protect their homes and families.

Over the last several years I have come to fear the authorities more than I fear a common thug. That's partly because many laws now written often contain the clause "...and for other purposes" which are not defined, and allow wide discretion in any law. The enormous powers given to Homeland Security are really scary because now anyone can just whisper terrorist suspect and the authorities can and will do whatever they want to law-abiding citizens, including unlawful search, seizure and incarceration.

Laws already on the books are strange anyway. Who's business is it if I choose not to wear a seatbelt in my car? Who's business is it if my damn' fool neighbor chooses to ride his motorcycle without wearing a helmet? Why are there laws about those things and yet no laws to prevent someone from buying all the saturated fat/cholesterol-laden foods that could eventually kill them? Heart attacks kill more people than guns... make laws about foods to prevent heart attacks.

I just read a story of a law-abiding family man who owned several guns, locked away in a home safe. His wife told the authorities he was collecting guns in fear of a breakdown in our social structure, bringing on martial law. Naturally, the authorities stormed the house and confiscated the guns, which were all legally purchased and registered. The man apparently also had 4 batons like the English Bobbies carry, tear gas canisters and some pepper projectiles; accordingly, he was charged with four counts of possessing “an infernal device” and four counts of possessing a “dangerous weapon.” All because someone whispered to the authorities.

More than a decade ago, the state government of Connecticut enacted a “law” permitting state agents to confiscate firearms from people suspected of 'dangerous' tendencies — a variation on the Soviet idea of preemptive punishment of “socially dangerous persons.”

Be Worried. Be Very Worried.

Another Comment on Banking

Several times I have bemoaned the huge bonuses paid to Big Bankers, and Wall Street.

However, I should make something quite clear: I am NOT opposed to profits in general, nor large bonus checks. What I AM opposed to is paying them out of taxpayer bailout money.

If a business cannot succeed on its own merit, products and methods, it needs to fold. Period. If a person can become the CEO and turn a company into a money-making venture on its own, then the CEO should be compensated as the company sees fit.

It is not the business of government to curb legitimate private enterprise from making money, nor it is the business of government to bail out money-losing private companies, and it is certainly not the business of government to do so with taxpayer money.

What government needs 42,000 paid lobbyists unless government can be bought?

Money, and the American Revolution

We have been taught that the American Revolution against the British was fought over taxation without representation... like the Stamp Act (tea tax) and other related impositions. However, during my history searches for my family genealogy, something else has become clear: money and the banking system... which ties in with our current economic crisis.

In 1764 when Ben Franklin went to London, he found very high unemployment and poverty everywhere. He asked his English friends how England, with all its wealth, could have so much poverty among its working classes. His friends replied that England was a prey to a terrible condition: it had too many workers! The rich said they were already overburdened with taxes, and could not pay more to relieve the needs and poverty of this mass of workers. Being astounded, he was asked why that wasn't also true in the Colonies, and how we raised money for our "Poor Houses". Here's his reply:

“We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps.

In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called 'Colonial Scrip.' We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one."

When the bankers of England understood what Franklin said, they immediately took the necessary steps to have the British Parliament to pass a law that prohibited the Colonies from using their scrip money, and ordered them to use only the gold and silver money that was provided in sufficient quantity by the English bankers but at outrageous interest rates.

Only a year later, Franklin said, the streets of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars, just as they were in England. The money supply had suddenly been reduced by half, leaving insufficient funds to pay for the goods and services these workers could have provided. Then began in America the plague of debt-money, which has almost ever since brought so many curses to the American people.

Franklin maintained that it was "the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament which has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and . . . the Revolutionary War."

This, he said, was the real reason for the Revolution: "the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction."

Is this just ancient history?

No.

The ability for America (and the individual states to create its own credit) has largely been lost to private bankers. The lion's share of new credit creation is done by private banks, so - instead of being able to itself create money without owing interest - the government owes unfathomable trillions in interest to private banks, most notably The Federal Reserve Bank, which name is printed on every bit of US paper money in your wallet.

Are YOU Drinking Dirty Water?

A New York Times analysis of federal data for the last 5 years on drinking water reveals that the water provided to more than 49 million Americans violates key provisions of the Safe Water Drinking Act.

That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage.

In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show.

The majority of drinking water violations since 2004 have occurred at water systems serving fewer than 20,000 residents, where resources and managerial expertise are often in short supply.

An analysis of E.P.A. data shows that Safe Drinking Water Act violations have occurred in parts of every state in the country. Studies indicate that drinking water contaminants are linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year.

In the prosperous town of Ramsey, N.J., for instance, drinking water tests since 2004 have detected illegal concentrations of arsenic, a carcinogen, and the dry cleaning solvent tetrachloroethylene, which has also been linked to cancer.

Today (Tuesday, 9 Dec 2009), the Senate Environment and Public Works committee will question E.P.A. officials about the agency’s enforcement of drinking-water safety laws. The E.P.A. is expected to announce a new policy for how it polices the nation’s 54,700 water systems.

Health Care Legislation

Up to now, I have avoided following the fracas... it's all double-speak anyhow. Has to be, when the public words of our congressmen and women are penned by the lobbyists paid by the drug companies (which some of our representatives have actually admitted!).

BUT... today's mail brought a notice my Medicare Drug Prescription plan will be going up January 1st. so in the next few days I need to do some heavy research. The feds have already said there will be no COLA (cost of living increase) for social security and military retirement recipient. It also looks like the flat $250 our President bandied about in lieu of the COLA won't happen either.

I dare not try to calculate how much my 'real' normal and ordinary expenses have increased in the last year; I only know I have cut down to the bone and it's not enough. There are folks in worse shape, some even living in culverts and sleeping over heating grates in the big metro areas.

I could handle it better if we all shared in the deprivation equally. Instead, the Fat Cats are not only allowed but apparently encouraged to skim the rich, fat cream of the top, leaving a tiny dollop of skim milk for the rest of us... if we are lucky.

How Smart is a "Smart Choice" Label?

There is a new industry-sponsored food label named "Smart Choices"... but some are not really smart choices, like Froot Loops, Cocoa Puffs, Frosted Flakes and Lucky Charms.

The problem is that although there are indeed many healthy foods elgible for the label, the industry-backed board members have good backing. The application process and high fees are less a barrier for the industry giants compared to the unadorned, unprocessed and unbranded foods like fruits and vegetables.

The American Dietetic Association and the American Diabetes Association have already walked away from the Smart Choices Initiative but food companies are maintaining their commitment to it.

In response to the program's questionable decisions, the FDA has announced their intention to study front-of-the-package labels and possibly develop its own, a process that could take years to complete.

Maine Governor Proclaims Civil Emergency

The Bangor Daily News reported on September 2, 2009 that Maine Governor John Baldacci has declared a state-wide civil emergency.

The stated reason for the emergency designation, according to the article, is that it shields the state school system and health care providers from liability claims that could arise from vaccine clinics based out of the public schools this fall to deal with both the seasonal flu and the H1N1 Swine flu.

“Maine has been proactive in its response to this new flu,” Baldacci said in announcing the proclamation, “But as the school year begins, we must continue our vigilance, which will require a responsible and aggressive vaccination and public education campaign."

Refusing swine flu vaccine? Quarantine and $1,000 per day fine

A bill that passed the Massachusetts senate earlier this year gives the government a little too much power.

According to the bill, if there is a Swine Flu pandemic and you don't get the Swine Flu vaccine, you can be ordered into quarantine. If you refuse the quarantine, you can face a fine of $1,000 per day that you resist.

Government officials would also have the right to enter private property to assess the status of the pandemic.

To see the whole story, see the news clip below.





Editor: I read somewhere in the last 2-3 weeks that Massachusetts has deputized hundreds of paramedics, dentists, doctors and health care practitioners to administer the vaccine. My question is WHY they have to be deputized to give someone a shot?

Warning: Swine Flu Shot Linked to Killer Nerve Disease

The letter from the Health Protection Agency, the official [Great Britain] body that oversees public health, was leaked to The Daily Mail, leading to demands to know why the information has not been given to the public before the vaccination of millions of people, including children, begins.

It tells the neurologists that they must be alert for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine. GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, causing paralysis and inability to breathe, and can be fatal.

The letter refers to the use of a similar swine flu vaccine in the United States in 1976 when:

* More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu
* The vaccine may have increased the risk of contracting GBS by eight times
* The vaccine was withdrawn after just ten weeks when the link with GBS became clear
* The U.S. Government was forced to pay out millions of dollars to those affected

Concerns have already been raised that the new vaccine has not been sufficiently tested and that the effects, especially on children, are unknown.

Editor: I can vouch for the GBS link from the 1976 vaccinations in the US because my cousin's daughter contracted it from the vaccination. Also, keep in mind that this time around, the US Government has guaranteed the vaccine manufacturers they will be immune from lawsuits.