BERLIN, GERMANY - FEBRUARY 26: A children's doctor injects a vaccine against measles, rubella, mumps and chicken pox to an infant on February 26, 2015 in Berlin, Germany. The city of Berlin is facing an outbreak of measles that in recent weeks has led to over 700 cases and one confirmed death of a little boy who had not been vaccinated. Vaccination in Germany is not compulsory by law though the vast majority of parents have their children vaccinated. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
(Natural Blaze by Brandon Turbeville) Because mass media and technology are geared to shift from one topic to the next with no real depth or understanding of the subject matter, the vast majority of people, even those who are generally more intelligent, simply cannot remember important events that took place only a year ago. For that reason, it is occasionally important to revisit recent occurrences in order to refresh the collective memory.
Nearly ten years later, many will simply not remember that the UK government, which today nauseatingly pushes vaccines and vaccine propaganda, allowed a dangerous MMR shot (more dangerous than regular MMR shots) to be sold on the market for two years in the UK, putting millions of children at risk in addition to the already toxic and deadly nature of the vaccine at play.
Government officials were made aware of some problems with a version of the MMR vaccine in other countries but still introduced it in Britain in the late 1980s, newly released documents show.
The MMR vaccine with the Urabe strain of mumps was first used in Britain in October 1988. It was blamed for the deaths of several children after being withdrawn by the Department of Health in September 1992.
Previously confidential documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show how officials gradually learned of the dangers of the Urabe strain MMR which caused encephalitis-type conditions, including meningitis. Involving swelling of the brain or of the lining of the brain or spinal chord, they can lead to brain damage, deafness or even death.
The papers show that many months before the Urabe MMR vaccine was introduced in the UK, officials were made aware of problems in America, Sweden and Canada.
The first warning came when an unnamed official at a meeting of the Government’s Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunisation in May 1987 “expressed his reservations concerning reported adverse reactions to MMR in the USA”.
The second came in a letter from the Central Microbiological Laboratory in Sweden in September that year, where authorities reported “52 cases of febrile convulsions probably associated with MMR vaccination”.
Then, a Government working party on the introduction of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, learned of “a report of cases of mumps encephalitis” in Canada at a meeting in Feb 1988.
The documents show that the statistical risk from Urabe MMR was considered to be low. The UK went ahead with its nationwide MMR programme in October 1988 in which 85 per cent of the triple-vaccinations contained Urabe.
The minutes of another meeting of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, in May 1990, show that there was “especial concern” about “reports from Japan of a high level of meningoencephalitis associated with the administration of MMR”.
Yet the government waited another two years before ending its use of the Urabe MMR vaccine. That decision to stop using the Urabe vaccine, however, only came after the manufacturer informed the government that they were going to stop making it.
The Telegraph continued by writing,
The minutes were obtained by the FOIA Centre, a specialist research company, on behalf of one of the parents of a child in a group bringing litigation at the High Court. The Government insists it acted swiftly as soon as it became aware of the dangers of Urabe MMR in September 1992.
Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, told one of the parents in a letter: “As soon as the Department of Health had clear evidence that there was a risk with Urabe-containing MMR and that there was no such associated risk with a different strain of mumps virus (the Jeryl Lynn strain) used in an alternative MMR vaccine, the department moved quickly to discontinue use.”
Prof Kent Woods, chief executive officer of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, confirmed that the UK authorities had been aware of “sporadic cases” in Canada. However, the risk of meningoencephalitis from Urabe MMR was lower than the risk of the same condition resulting from “wild-type mumps virus”, he said.
Urabe MMR was withdrawn “following reports of generally mild transient meningitis caused by the mumps vaccine virus in some children who recently received the Urabe mumps vaccine containing products”.
Yet, in typical fashion, the government admitted no wrongdoing, instead doubling down on its collectivist view that the “benefits outweigh the risks” and that you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Too bad if you’re the egg.
The Telegraph wrote,
A Government spokesman said: “The UK investigated the evidence and acted promptly when this problem with Urabe strain of mumps vaccine was identified.
“On the basis of information obtained in studies, the UK was in a position to make an informed decision on whether to continue using the Urabe vaccine, as there was an alternative vaccine strain, called Jeryl Lynn, which did not appear to have the same risk.”
The spokesman added: “In 1992 the Committee on Safety of Medicine considered all of the evidence and concluded that the benefits of vaccinating with Urabe mumps strain vaccines still outweighed the risks.”
Although haven taken place in 2007, it is important to revisit incidents such as these in order to show how much things change while they remain exactly the same.
(Dr. Mercola) According to a study by AARP,1 93 percent of Americans are concerned with their brain health, but very few understood some of the natural strategies they could use to improve it. Contrary to popular belief, your brain function and cognitive performance do not have to decline with age. There are steps you can take that influence your memory, processing, executive functions and more.
Even if you are already in your “golden years,” simple changes may prompt brain health for the better. For instance, where once it was believed that neurons were only generated early in life, scientists now know that neurogenesis (generation of new neurons) continues into adulthood.2 Exactly what influences the rate of new neuron growth is still being explored, as are other factors that play a role in brain health.
Recent research, for instance, has uncovered damage canola oil consumption triggers in your brain and the effect this may have on your memory and learning ability.3 The study, published in the journal Nature, also found the consumption of canola oil increased weight gain.
Canola Oil Negatively Affects Brain Health and Weight Management
The study was led by researcher Dr. Domenico Praticò from Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Praticò commented to the Los Angeles Times that canola oil is perceived by many to be healthy — a widespread misconception:4
“Canola oil is appealing because it is less expensive than other vegetable oils, and it is advertised as being healthy. Very few studies, however, have examined that claim, especially in terms of the brain.”
Researchers used an animal model to evaluate the effect canola oil has on the brains of mice genetically engineered to develop Alzheimer’s disease.5 Canola oil developed a reputation of being healthy when doctors began warning people to reduce their saturated fat intake and consume vegetable oils instead. Canola has the lowest percentage of saturated fat of all commonly used vegetable oilsand is relatively inexpensive, but is actually one of the worst oils for your health.
Canola oil is often used in homes and restaurants for baking, sautéing, frying and other forms of cooking, with consumers being deceived into believing it’s better for them than saturated fats. The mice were split into two groups; one group was fed the usual chow and the second group was fed chow with the human equivalent of 2 teaspoons of canola oil per day.
At the end of the experimental six months, researchers observed that the mice eating chow laced with canola oil were significantly heavier than the mice that did not eat canola oil. Additionally, the mice who had eaten canola oil demonstrated significant declines in working memory together with a decreased level of post-synaptic density protein-94, a marker of synaptic integrity. The researchers found canola oil had a negative effect on health and concluded:6
“Taken together, our findings do not support a beneficial effect of chronic canola oil consumption on two important aspects of AD [Alzheimer’s disease] pathophysiology which includes memory impairments as well as synaptic integrity.”
Your Brain Needs Healthy Fats
The same researchers used a similar model to evaluate the effects of olive oil on the brain function of mice.7 In that study,8,9 neither group was heavier than the other, and the mice fed chow enriched with extra-virgin olive oil performed significantly better on testing that evaluated the animals’ working memory, spatial memory and ability to learn.
The brain tissue of these mice, genetically engineered to develop Alzheimer’s disease as they age like the mice in the featured study, also revealed dramatic differences. The mice fed olive oil demonstrated preserved synaptic integrity and an increase in nerve cell autophagy, ultimately responsible for a reduction in amyloid plaques common in the brain of those with Alzheimer’s disease.10
Healthy fat is an essential component of the structure of your brain, which is composed of nearly 60 percent fat.11 It should come as no surprise that your brain needs quality fat to function optimally. Although your brain is a small part of your complete bodyweight, it uses 20 percent of your metabolic energy. Essential fatty acids are required but cannot be synthesized in your body, and so must come from dietary sources.
Most people get well over what is needed of omega-6 fats, which are found in most vegetable oils, and not nearly enough omega-3 fats. One omega-3 fat, DHA, has been linked with the growth of your retina and visual cortex during development,12 visual acuity and reduction in depression. Research has found those suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have lower levels of DHA, and DHA may play a role in neuroprotection.
Unlike the highly damaged fats in vegetable oil, saturated fat is the optimal “clean” fuel for your brain and is one of the main components of brain cells. As such, it’s excellent for brain health, with one study demonstrating that those who ate more saturated fat reduced their risk of developing dementia while those who favored carbohydrates had a significantly increased risk.13
To maintain optimal brain function, you need high-quality, undamaged omega-3s and omega-6 along with antioxidants to protect them from oxidation — not processed vegetable oils like canola oil. In summary, processed vegetable oils are bad for your brain health for a number of reasons, including the following:
They are loaded with damaged omega-6 fatty acids without protective antioxidants
They strip your liver of glutathione, which produces antioxidant enzymes, which further lowers your antioxidant defenses
Most vegetable oils are made with genetically engineered (GE) crops designed to resist herbicides like glyphosate. As such, they may be more contaminated with glyphosate than non-GE crops, and glyphosate has been shown to disrupt the tight junctions in your gut and increase penetration of foreign invaders, especially heated proteins, which can cause allergies
Vilification of Healthy Fats Has Contributed to Rising Rates of Disease
Defaming healthy fats over the past decades has contributed to a rising rate of disease. Although healthy fats are used as fuel and leave you feeling full, many turned to eating carbohydrates when fats were discouraged. Carbs are metabolized and burned quickly, using insulin to usher blood glucose into the cell.
However, carbs trigger insulin resistance over time and increase the potential for crashing blood sugar levels two to three hours after a meal, leaving you hungry once again and increasing your food intake. This one mechanism increases your risk for obesity, which in turn increases your potential risk for insulin resistance, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke.
In a time when healthy saturated fats and dietary cholesterol were publicly slandered, Canada developed an alternative oil that met with the approval of the American Heart Association (AHA) — canola oil.14 Now sitting in the first position of recommended oils for healthy cooking on the AHA website, author Praticò had this to say about the results of his canola oil study:15
“Amyloid-beta 1-40 neutralizes the actions of amyloid 1-42, which means that a decrease in 1-40, like the one observed in our study, leaves 1-42 unchecked. In our model, this change in ratio resulted in considerable neuronal damage, decreased neural contacts, and memory impairment.”
In other words, consuming canola oil may increase your risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, as the oil decreases the production of a protein that protects your brain against neuronal damage and cognitive impairment.
Toxicity of Canola Oil May Result From the Seed, Source or Processing
This short video shows you the conditions under which canola oil is manufactured and produced, including the deplorable number of chemicals and bleaches added to the product to achieve the clear liquid you see on your grocery store shelves. Just the way the oil is processed should be enough to encourage you to steer clear of consuming the product. But the risk associated with canola oil doesn’t stop with processing.
The canola plant was developed from rapeseed plants by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the University of Manitoba using plant breeding techniques. In fact, the Canola Council of Canada calls the development, “Canada’s greatest agricultural success story.”16Rapeseed oil was originally used as a motor lubricant during World War II.17 Once the war ended, demand plummeted and Canada began an intensive program to make the product edible.
Before it could be ingested the erucic acid and glucosinolates had to be bred out of the plant, as they are dangerous to human health.18By the late 1970s, both chemicals were reduced to lower levels, and the plant was officially accepted as consumable. In the 1980s, research focused on shelf stability of the oil, animal diets and gaining a wider consumer acceptance.
By 2012, nearly all low-erucic acid rapeseed plants were genetically engineered to increase yield. Today, what began as a motor lubricant is now one of Canada’s most profitable crops.
The erucic acid is a long-chain fatty acid that is especially irritating to mucous membranes. Consuming canola oil has been associated with the development of fibrotic lesions on the heart, lung cancer, anemia, central nervous system degenerative disorders and prostate cancer.19
The featured study evaluated the effect of canola oil on brain function without identifying which characteristic of the product triggers the problems. However, as most canola oil is produced from GE seeds, using plants originally unfit for human consumption and taken through a process that injects multiple chemicals and bleaches, it isn’t surprising the study was so conclusive.
Genetic Engineering Raises Health Risk With Each GE Food Consumed
This documentary details what happens when we use GE foods. Scientists are only beginning to uncover the long-term effects of splicing the genes of one living creature into another or developing a plant immune to the effects of herbicides.
However, some companies are not convinced by independently funded research and have relied on information from organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA) and World Health Organization (WHO), which claim there is no credible evidence that GE foods are unsafe. However, even WHO admits:20
“Different GM [genetically modified] organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.”
In 2015, the European Commission decided it was in the best interest of their citizens to say “no” to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within their borders, and all 28 countries required labeling of foods containing GMO products.21 This is in stark contrast to the U.S., where most canola grown is GE22 and products created from it not labeled as such.
Healthy Cooking Options
Cooking with nearly all vegetable oils is problematic as they don’t tolerate high heat. Healthier options for cooking include pastured, organic butter, virgin coconut oil, ghee (clarified butter) and lard. Olive oil and sesame oil add wonderful flavor and healthy fats to your foods, but they have very low smoke points and should be used unheated in salad dressings or drizzled over meats or vegetables for flavor.
Boosting Brain Health Naturally
It is never too late to support your neurological health. Remember, even small changes you make each day reap big rewards over time. Seek to change your habits consistently and persistently to support your memory, cognitive function and ultimately your enjoyment of everyday life. Here are several strategies you may use to improve your brain health:
Vitamin D
There are strong links between low levels of vitamin D in Alzheimer’s patients and poor outcome on cognitive testing. Optimal vitamin D levels may protect brain cells by increasing the effectiveness of the glial cells in restoring damaged neurons. Additionally, vitamin D has anti-inflammatory properties.
Carotenoids
These antioxidant compounds are found most often in orange colored vegetables, such as sweet potatoes and carrots. Some carotenoids, such as lutein and zeaxanthin, are found in dark green vegetables, namely kale and spinach (as well as egg yolks). Lutein and zeaxanthin are best known for the role they play in vision health, but accumulating evidence suggests they play a role in cognitive health as well by enhancing neural efficiency.23
Probiotics
You are likely familiar with the importance of probiotics for your gut health but may not know of the role they play in your cognitive health. Certain beneficial bacterial strains, such as those found in fermented foods, have a positive effect on your brain function.
In a study by the University of California Los Angeles, scientists found women who regularly consumed beneficial bacteria via yogurt experienced changes in multiple areas of their brain, including those related to sensory processing, cognition and emotion.24
Exercise
Physical activity produces biochemical changes that strengthen and renew not only your body but also your brain — particularly areas associated with memory and learning.
Diet
Reducing overall calorie and carbohydrate consumption, while increasing healthy fats, has a powerful effect on your brain health. Beneficial health-promoting sources of healthy fats that your body — and your brain in particular — needs for optimal function include organic grass fed raw butter, olives, organic virgin olive oil and coconut oil, nuts like pecans and macadamia, free-range eggs, wild Alaskan salmon and avocado, for example.
Increasing your omega-3 fat intake and reducing consumption of damaged omega-6 fats (i.e., processed vegetable oils) in order to balance your omega-3-to-omega-6 ratio also has a significant benefit for your brain.
Sleep
Sleep not only is essential for regenerating your physical body, but imperative for reaching new mental insights and being able to see new creative solutions to old problems. Sleep removes the blinders and helps “reset” your brain to look at problems from a different perspective.
Research from Harvard indicates that people are 33 percent more likely to infer connections among distantly related ideas after sleeping,25 but few realize that their performance has actually improved. Sleep is also known to enhance your memories and help you “practice” and improve your performance of challenging skills. In fact, a single night of sleeping only four to six hours can impact your ability to think clearly the next day.
(Natural Blaze) One of the world’s most common food ingredients is finally being outed as a big, fat fraud. We hope you are sitting down for this one!
This polyunsaturated oil is touted as healthy by the big food industries, fast food industries, the natural health communities (!), and even our regulatory agencies.
We’re talking about canola oil! One of the worst food creations in modern history if you can even call it a food product. A study came out showing that canola oil was like battery acid to the cardiovascular system – and no one listened. Cooked polyunsaturated oils were recently linked to cancer….nothing but crickets.
This oil is everywhere – in most restaurants, in pretty much all fast food items, every packaged snack you can think of, in everything you can store in a cabinet and worst of all – in nearly all natural health snack goods.
Canola oil was recently linked to declining memory, learning deficits and… obesity!
After the public health scare in the 1970s over animal fats, sales of vegetable oils of all types increased. It was the established wisdom that those oils high in polyunsaturated fatty acids were especially beneficial. However, more research into vegetable oils continues to surface showing their damaging effects on health. A new study published online in the journal Scientific Reports shows that consumption of canola oil in the diet with worsened memory, worsened learning ability and weight gain.
[…]
….In the journal Scientific Reports by researchers at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University (LKSOM) associates the consumption of canola oil in the diet with worsened memory, worsened learning ability and weight gain in mice which model Alzheimer’s disease. The study is the first to suggest that canola oil is more harmful than healthful for the brain.
Canola oil contains a long-chain fatty acid called erucic acid, which is especially irritating to mucous membranes; canola oil consumption has been correlated with development of fibrotic lesions of the heart, CNS degenerative disorders, lung cancer, and prostate cancer, anemia, and constipation.
Not only are canola, soybean and corn oil now coming from genetically modified crops, but their processing is beyond toxic to human metabolism.
Any health claims for the brain regarding canola oil appear to be patently false according to the lead study author, Domenico Pratico, MD, who also directs an Alzheimer’s center at LKSOM.
Pratico and Elisabetta Laurett originally used this same Alzheimer’s mouse model while investigating olive oil earlier this year. They actually found that “Alzheimer mice fed a diet enriched with extra-virgin olive oil had reduced levels of amyloid plaques and phosphorylated tau and experienced memory improvement.” They were actually checking to see if canola oil could do the same.
The researchers started by dividing the mice into two groups at six months of age, before the animals developed signs of Alzheimer’s disease. One group was fed a normal diet, while the other was fed a diet supplemented with the equivalent of about two tablespoons of canola oil daily.
The researchers then assessed the animals at 12 months. One of the first differences observed was in body weight — animals on the canola oil-enriched diet weighed significantly more than mice on the regular diet. Maze tests to assess working memory, short-term memory, and learning ability uncovered additional differences. Most significantly, mice that had consumed canola oil over a period of six months suffered impairments in working memory.
Examination of brain tissue from the two groups of mice revealed that canola oil-treated animals had greatly reduced levels of amyloid beta 1-40. Amyloid beta 1-40 is the more soluble form of the amyloid beta proteins. It generally is considered to serve a beneficial role in the brain and acts as a buffer for the more harmful insoluble form, amyloid beta 1-42.
As a result of decreased amyloid beta 1-40, animals on the canola oil diet further showed increased formation of amyloid plaques in the brain, with neurons engulfed in amyloid beta 1-42. The damage was accompanied by a significant decrease in the number of contacts between neurons, indicative of extensive synapse injury. Synapses, the areas where neurons come into contact with one another, play a central role in memory formation and retrieval.
“Amyloid beta 1-40 neutralizes the actions of amyloid 1-42, which means that a decrease in 1-40, like the one observed in our study, leaves 1-42 unchecked,” Dr. Pratico explained. “In our model, this change in ratio resulted in considerable neuronal damage, decreased neural contacts, and memory impairment.”
In other words, long-term consumption of canola oil – which is what most Americans are currently doing – is not beneficial to the brain at all.
“Even though canola oil is a vegetable oil, we need to be careful before we say that it is healthy,” Dr. Pratico said. “Based on the evidence from this study, canola oil should not be thought of as being equivalent to oils with proven health benefits.”
They want to conduct shorter duration studies to see when is the shortest amount of time for “exposure necessary to produce observable changes in the ratio of amyloid beta 1-42 to 1-40 in the brain and alter synapse connections.”
Pratico concludes:
We also want to know whether the negative effects of canola oil are specific for Alzheimer’s disease. There is a chance that the consumption of canola oil could also affect the onset and course of other neurodegenerative diseases or other forms of dementia.
There you have it – if you don’t want to chance it with your memory and Alzheimer’s, then drop that french fry and step away from the snack section at the health food store. At the very least, canola oil’s damaging health effects have already been established for the heart, inflammation and obesity.
(Natural Blaze) The laws of a country are, generally, designed to protect its citizens. How this ideal is interpreted is a topic of debate in various circles, but its goal is lofty, if not quite perfect. Of specific necessity are laws aimed at protecting children, including child abuse, welfare, and labor laws. Of zero necessity, in my view, is the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act(NCVIA), which sounds like it has the best interests of this nation’s young citizens in mind, but actually serves a much different purpose.
Congress passed the NCVIA in 1986, and President Ronald Reagan signed it into law soon after. Taken at face value, the law has some admirable provisions: it established improved communication regarding vaccines across all Department of Health and Human Service agencies; required health care providers who administer vaccines to provide a vaccine information statement to the person getting the vaccine or his or her guardian; and established a committee from the Institute of Medicine to review the literature on vaccine reactions.
Dig a little deeper, however, and the NCVIA does less to protect patients than it does drug companies making vaccines. When Reagan signed the NCVIA, he also created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which allows anyone—children and adults—who have suffered an injury (or worse) following a vaccination to file a claim. To date, it has paid out nearly $4 billion in compensation since 1988, including the 2008 case of Hannah Poling, whose family received more than $1.5 million in a landmark court award for a vaccine-autism claim.
Lifting liability
While this might sound like a good thing, one must read between the lines. The NCVIA also sets limits on the liability of vaccine manufacturers. They don’t have to pay a dime, in most cases, if someone is injured as a result of a product they make. Is there any other industry afforded such immunity? The pharmaceutical industry makes billions of dollars annually producing, promoting, and injecting a product that is known to injure people in myriad ways, and bears zero responsibility when a child—or an adult—suffers as a result.
The system is broken, and it’s why the founders of the nonprofit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), which worked with Congress in the 1980s to get the NCVIA passed, began calling in 2015 for its repeal. In a press release, NVIC co-founder Barbara Loe Fisher noted that the federal vaccine injury compensation program has become “a drug company stockholder’s dream and a parent’s worst nightmare.” In the same document, co-founder Kathi Williams argues that the provisions that their organization helped secure in the law are not being enforced, and most children getting government-recommended vaccines are denied vaccine injury compensation.
That zero liability rests on the vaccine manufacturers is a travesty of epic proportions.
I echo their calls for repeal. Children are given between 53 and 56 vaccine doses containing 177 to 232 antigens between birth and age 18. Vaccine reactions range from a mild fever, muscle/joint pain, and injection site swelling to seizures, trouble breathing, vomiting, and permanent brain damage. Though considered “rare” by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, these more serious effects admittedly occur, and people suffer. That zero liability rests on the vaccine manufacturers is a travesty of epic proportions.
And yet, is anyone truly surprised? This is the same cast of characters that knowingly inserts neurotoxins such as mercury and aluminum into its products, and uses advertising and public awareness campaigns to further enrich themselves and ensure that vaccine injury stories are never shown to the public.
Vaccines and vaccine safety are emotionally charged issues. But setting aside the history of this controversy and its consequences, the passage of NCVIA raises an overarching issue that should concern consumers of any product, vaccine or otherwise.
Perhaps not surprisingly, vaccine safety deteriorated when consumers were no longer able to sue vaccine manufacturers.
Safety vs. profit
A 2017 study published in the Review of Industrial Organization looked at whether removing the right to sue—called “delitigation”—affects product safety, and highlighted specifically the effects of NCVIA on the vaccine industry. Perhaps not surprisingly, vaccine safety deteriorated when consumers were no longer able to sue vaccine manufacturers.
Author Gayle DeLong, PhD, an economist at Baruch College, attributes this decrease in safety to the expanded array of vaccines allowed by NCVIA, and argues that some vaccines likely never would have been developed at all if consumers had retained the right to sue. Losing the ability to sue companies for bad products results in the production of more bad products, or maybe not as many good ones, because the companies are inoculated from harm.
The VICP is a no-fault program designed specifically and intentionally to shield vaccine manufacturers, rather than protect the people harmed by vaccines. This system has lined the pockets of pharmaceutical companies for decades, while simultaneously giving them the green light to continue making unsafe vaccines that put people—particularly children—at risk for lifelong, serious health problems and even death.
Rewarding bad behavior
Rather than continue under an arrangement that essentially rewards bad behavior, NCVIA should be repealed and eventually replaced with more thoughtful legislation regarding vaccines. Given the sheer number of things with which we inject millions of children on a daily basis in this country, shouldn’t someone be held responsible when things go awry? The knee-jerk reaction of our government shouldn’t be to protect the entity that is hurting people. It should be to clearly and concisely articulate how vaccines can be made safer, and penalize those who don’t comply.
We all try to take personal responsibility in our lives, whether for our own actions or for those of our children. We try to teach them right from wrong, to admit when they’ve done something they shouldn’t have, and show them how to correct it. It’s unfortunate that the same standards that apply to seven-year-olds don’t apply to pharmaceutical companies.
(Dr. Mercola) As consumer food preferences are rapidly changing, with more people looking for and buying healthier foods, the food industry is struggling to come up with a coordinated response to win back consumer confidence and recoup sagging sales. As noted by Politico,1“As legacy brands lag, food companies have two options: Change to compete or buy up the new brands that are already growing rapidly.”
Nestlé’s recent departure from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the largest and most powerful lobbying group for the processed food industry, is just one piece of evidence signaling the development of a deep rift within the industry. According to the featured article, “Long the attack group for large companies like Kraft and General Mills on legislative and regulatory issues, GMA now has members like Nestlé opposing some of its positions.”2 Mars Inc. has also confirmed it will not renew its membership with GMA.3
Leaving the GMA is not the only way Nestlé is changing. The processed food giant recently purchased Atrium Innovations — the Canadian parent company of the organic supplement brand, Garden of Life — for $2.3 billion.4 Garden of Life is said to make up the largest chunk of Atrium’s annual sales. The irony of the buyout is pretty obvious. As noted by Reuters,5 “Nestlé [is] expanding its presence in consumer healthcare as it seeks to offset weakness in packaged foods.” Atrium will become part of the Nestlé Health Science division, which already sells nutritional products. The purchase reflects Nestlé’s new “strategic priority,” namely consumer health.
Other major players have also chosen to part ways with GMA, suggesting Big Food is in fact starting to pay attention to consumers’ demand for honesty and transparency. Three years ago, I wrote about how the GMA was suing states for the right to deceive you, and how it got caught laundering money during the Washington campaign to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The association was ultimately fined a record $18 million for its illegal side-stepping of the state’s campaign finance laws, but by then the damage was already done and Washington did not get the votes required to enact GMO labeling. (The GMA has contested the guilty verdict, so the legal wranglings are not yet over.)
Around that same time, I also dubbed GMA “the most evil corporation on the planet,” since it consists primarily of pesticide producers and junk food manufacturers who have gone to great lengths to violate some of your most basic rights, just to ensure that subsidized, genetically engineered (GE) and chemical-dependent, highly processed junk food remains the status quo.
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) also called for a boycott on every single product owned by GMA members, including organic and natural brands, to send a clear message to the industry that we will no longer tolerate being bamboozled by their deceptive and illegal strategies. Since then, some of the heavy-hitters have indeed left — or are considering leaving — the GMA. This suggests your participation in the GMA boycott has indeed been wildly successful. According to Politico:6
“… Campbell decided to stop fighting and instead embrace GMO labeling early last year, believing that consumers want more information about what’s in their food and where it comes from — not less. Other major food companies are also eyeing the door: Dean Foods, the largest dairy company in the country, has quietly decided to leave the association. Several others … are considering it …
‘Companies that get it have said, ‘Why are we paying GMA more than $1 million a year to lobby for things that our brands don’t support?” said Jeff Nedelman, founder of the public relations firm Strategic Communications that works with health and wellness brands, and a former VP of communications at GMA during the 1980s and ’90s.
‘To me, it looks like GMA is the dinosaur just waiting to die,’ Nedelman added … As more millennials become parents, food companies will have to adapt and change even more … as the majority of shoppers will be looking for brands and companies and products with aligned their values.”
Changing Consumer Tastes Have Thrown Food Industry Into Disarray
People are becoming increasingly cognizant of the connection between food and health, and are seeking out healthier fare. American consumers are also paying greater attention to labeling, favoring companies that provide clear disclosures. Organics, grass fed meats and products that do not contain artificial colors are all becoming increasingly popular.
Just a few years ago, the industry saw “real food” and organics as a niche market, and there were even attempts to squash it by labeling people who sought out such foods as wealthy food snobs. It’s now becoming clear that such derogatory labels don’t work (and don’t fit the majority of organic consumers). According to a recent market analysis, the top 20 food and beverage companies in the U.S. lost $18 billion of their market share between 2011 and 2017.7
In an effort to stop the bleeding and recapture sales, many started buying up popular organic brands. PepsiCo bought Naked Juice and Coca-Cola snapped up Honest Tea, while General Mills acquired Larabar and Kellogg’s bought Kashi. The question is whether these processed food giants really have the “heart,” not to mention financial incentive, to maintain the quality and purity consumers came to expect from organic brands.
The food industry is also at odds over the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) updated Nutrition Facts label,8 which will require manufacturers to list added sugars, both in grams and percentage of total daily calories. While Nestlé and Mars supported the change, others vehemently opposed it.
One of the main arguments against listing added sugars on the label is that it will confuse consumers, but in all reality, the only thing that will happen is that it will allow consumers to actually see and compare how much sugar is in their beloved staples, which just might trigger a switch to less health-harming foods.
Food companies have until January 2020 to comply with the label changes, but some have stated they will voluntarily update their labels well before that deadline, all in an effort to appease consumer demand for transparency.
Plant Based Foods Association — The New Kid on the Block
After leaving GMA, Campbell joined the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA), which presently claims to have 92 corporate members.9 The association’s stated mission is “To ensure a fair and competitive marketplace for businesses selling plant-based foods intended to replace animal products such as meats, dairy and eggs, by promoting policies and practices that improve conditions in the plant-based foods industry, and educating consumers about the benefits of plant-based foods.”10
While most people would certainly benefit from eating more plant foods, I can foresee the potential for trouble with such a narrow industry mission. Organic, grass fed animal foods have a unique and valuable place not only in the human diet but environmentally as well, as livestock is an important part of regenerative agriculture.
PBFA also represents manufacturers of meat substitutes, and while the industry claims getting rid of animal meat altogether is the answer to many of our health and environmental problems, the evidence suggests this simply isn’t true.
A healthy ecosystem needs grazing animals, and there’s very little if any evidence to support the idea that meat substitutes are in fact healthy. For example, the FDA has raised concerns about Impossible Burger’s meat substitute made from soy, wheat, coconut oil, potatoes and plant-based “heme” derived from genetically engineered (GE) yeast.
Safety concerns also surround Quorn, another meat substitute made from a fungus-based ferment. I find it difficult to understand how a manufactured food product that has been accused of causing death could ever be sold as a healthier option than grass fed beef raised on a regenerative farm.
Why Junk Food Is Still Advertised to Children
Over the years, it’s become increasingly clear that the processed food industry has little concern for public health. It’s really all about maintaining sales, even when this means twisting the facts to make a product appear healthy — logic and science be damned. As noted by Scientific American in 2013,11 Congress commissioned the Inter-agency Working Group (IWG) to develop standards for the advertising of food to children in 2009.
Its report, released in 2011, turned out to be a devastating blow to food companies, as foods marketed to children had to contain “at least 50 percent by weight one or more of the following: fruit; vegetable; whole grain; fat-free or low-fat milk or yogurt; fish; extra lean meat or poultry; eggs; nuts and seeds; or beans.” According to General Mills, the guidelines would bar 88 of the 100 most commonly consumed products in the U.S. from being advertised to children.12
Moreover, General Mills estimated that if all Americans ate a healthy diet, the food industry would lose $503 billion in annual sales.13 If you’ve been paying attention to what your children are told to eat while watching their favorite program, I’m sure you’ll agree none of the items conform to the guidelines suggested by the IWG. That’s because the industry fought the guidelines, and won.
Dietitians Lectured on Social Media Conduct
Food industry rifts have also become evident in the field of nutrition. The Washington Post recently ran a story about Rebecca Subbiah, a registered dietitian and organic farmer who recounts being harassed and shamed by other dietitians online.14 According to the article, Subbiah “unwittingly stepped into an online debate about industrial farming practices. She tweeted that she personally prefers organic foods because she believes they’re better for the environment.”
She describes the responses she received as “terrible” and “very toxic,” saying the name-calling and questioning of her intellect made her cry. According to The Washington Post, the conversation about organics has “grown so heated that the country’s certifying body for dietitians issued guidance to its members asking them to avoid ‘belittling’ or ‘humiliating’ colleagues in online discussions,” and to sign a public pledge of professional civility.
Six other dietitians interviewed for the article agree that harassment “has become common in the field,” and believe the “hostility reflects deepening ideological divides in both the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the professional group — and in nutrition, in general.” It’s quite sad when an organization has to actually instruct its members to remember to interact professionally when engaging in online discussions about nutrition.
It’s also a potent reminder to patients and clients — your dietitian may well be mired in outdated and unhealthy opinions cultivated by the processed food and chemical technology industries. This isn’t so surprising when you consider the fact that junk food companies have a hand in educating dietitians on what’s healthy and what’s not.
Dietitians Have Become an Increasingly Divided Lot
The American Dietetic Association’s (ADA) annual conference has long been monopolized by the likes of Coca-Cola, Mars, Kellogg’s and General Mills. Rarely if ever will you find organic food experts included in the speaker lineup at these events.
One cannot help but wonder if the harassment of dietitians who support and promote organics and a nonprocessed food diet doesn’t originate from junk food purveyors and pesticide companies in the GE seed business. After all, the industry has become expert at secretly employing professionals and academics who then spread the corporate gospel under the cloak of independent opinion and expertise.
Melinda Hemmelgarn, who was attacked on social media for months after giving a public talk about the “unintended consequences of GMOs,” told The Washington Post she believes online “incivility is just a symptom of the actual problem: deep divides between dietitians regarding the state of the modern food system.”
As noted in the article, dietitians historically did not get involved with issues such as the environmental impacts of food production, but in recent years, such topics have become increasingly important to consumers, and hence the industry of nutrition. The issue was further brought to the fore when, in 2015, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee specifically noted that eating more plant foods would be beneficial for the environment.
Don’t Let Your Diet be Dictated by Corporate Agendas
It’s really unfortunate that so many dietitians are still under the delusion that you can eat a processed food diet and regain or maintain good health, but such is the power of corporate brainwashing. For instance, many dieticians still believe artificial sweeteners are a sensible alternative to sugar, and that low-fat, low-calorie microwavable meals are a “healthy” dinner, when this could not be further from the truth.
Fortunately, at the forefront of any revolution is knowledge, and that is the stage many are at right now with regard to the food system. Finally, many are beginning to realize that the bulk of the packaged, processed foods found in supermarkets are not real “food” at all, but cheap concoctions of subsidized farm crops and chemicals manipulated to taste and look edible.
The easiest way to break free of this trap through your diet is by focusing on whole — ideally organic, or better yet, biodynamic — unadulterated foods, meaning foods that have not been processed or altered from their original state. I’ve compiled many tips on how to do this without breaking the bank in these past articles:
Coming Attraction: Fruit and Veggie Marketing Machine
Also remember that if a food is heavily advertised, there’s a good chance it is unhealthy. Real foods like grass fed beef, raw butter, organic cage-free eggs, organic vegetables and the like are not the subject of commercial jingles or billboards, but they are the types of foods that will support optimal health. You can find more examples of real, healthy, non-corporate food in my nutrition plan.
Fortunately, signs of change are evident here as well. In an effort to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables, Partnership for a Healthier America (PHA) has started a fruits and vegetable campaign15 (branded as FNV16) to improve public perception and acceptance of plant produce. The video above is a preview of FNV’s “fruit and veggie marketing machine” — ads that are as enticing as those produced by junk food manufacturers.
According to the PHA, the new campaign is already starting to change behavior. Toni Carey, senior manager, communications and marketing for PHA, told Forbes that “80 percent of people bought or consumed more fruits and veggies after seeing FNV advertising” and that “over 90 percent have a favorable impression of FNV and would engage with the brand in some way.”17
Where to Find Healthy Foods
While many grocery stores now carry organic foods, it’s preferable to source yours from local growers whenever possible, as much of the organic food sold in grocery stores is imported. If you live in the U.S., the following organizations can help you locate farm-fresh foods:
The goal of the American Grassfed Association is to promote the grass fed industry through government relations, research, concept marketing and public education.
Their website also allows you to search for AGA-approved producers certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100 percent forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; born and raised on American family farms.
EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce raw dairy products as well as grass fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass fed products.
Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.
This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass fed meats and many other goodies.
The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, hotels and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs and markets near you.
The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO “organic” production from authentic organic practices.
If you’re still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund18 also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.19 California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.
Biotech Companies Are Gaining Power by Taking Over the Government
There is no doubt in my mind that GMOs and the toxic chemicals used along with them pose a serious threat to the environment and our health, yet government agencies turn a blind eye and refuse to act — and the reason is very clear: They are furthering the interests of the biotech giants.
It is well known that there is a revolving door between government agencies and biotech companies such as Monsanto. Consider the hypocrisy of the FDA. On paper, the U.S. may have the strictest food safety laws in the world governing new food additives, but this agency has repeatedly allowed GMOs and their accompanying pesticides such as Roundup to evade these laws.
In fact, the only legal basis for allowing GE foods to be marketed in the U.S. is the FDA’s claim that these foods are inherently safe, a claim which is patently ridiculous. Documents released as a result of a lawsuit against the FDA reveal that the agency’s own scientists warned their superiors about the detrimental risks of GE foods. But their warnings fell on deaf ears.
The influence of the biotech giants is not limited to the U.S. In a June 2017 article, GMWatch revealed that 26 of the 34 members of the National Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology of Argentina (CONABIA) are either employed by chemical technology companies or have major conflicts of interest.
You may be aware that Argentina is one of the countries where single-crop fields of GE cotton, corn and soy dominate the countryside. Argentina is also a country facing severe environmental destruction. Argentinians are plagued with health issues, including degenerative diseases and physical deformities. It would appear that the rapid expansion of GE crops and the subsequent decline in national health indicators are intrinsically linked.
Don’t Be Duped by Industry Shills!
Biotech companies’ outrageous attempts to push for their corporate interests extend far beyond the halls of government. In a further effort to hoodwink the public, Monsanto and its cohorts are now zealously spoon-feeding scientists, academics and journalists with questionable studies that depict them in a positive light.
By hiring “third-party experts,” biotech companies are able to take information of dubious validity and present it as independent and authoritative. It’s a shameful practice that is far more common than anyone would like to think. One notorious example of this is Henry Miller, who was thoroughly outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California.
Miller, falsely posing as a Stanford professor, promoted GE foods during this campaign. In 2015, he published a paper in Forbes Magazine attacking the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, after it classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. After it was revealed that Miller’s work was in fact ghostwritten by Monsanto, Forbes not only fired him, but also removed all of his work from its site.
Industry front groups also abound. The Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council for Science and Health are both Monsanto-funded. Even WebMD, a website that is often presented as a trustworthy source of “independent and objective” health information, is acting as a lackey for Monsanto by using its influence to promote corporate-backed health strategies and products, displaying advertisements and advertorials on Biotech’s behalf, furthering the biotech industry’s agenda — all for the sake of profit.
Monsanto has adopted underhanded tactics to peddle its toxic products, but the company is unable to hide the truth: Genetic engineering will, in no way, shape or form, make the world a better place. It will not solve world hunger. It will not increase farmers’ livelihoods. And it will most certainly not do any good for your health — and may in fact prove to be detrimental.
There’s No Better Time to Act Than NOW — Here’s What You Can Do
So now the question is: Will you continue supporting the corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system that Monsanto and its industry shills and profit-hungry lackeys have painstakingly crafted? It is largely up to all of us, as consumers, to loosen and break Monsanto’s tight hold on our food supply. The good news is that the tide has been turned.
As consumers worldwide become increasingly aware of the problems linked to GE crops and the toxic chemicals and pesticides used on them, more and more people are proactively refusing to eat these foods. There’s also strong growth in the global organic and grass fed sectors. This just proves one thing: We can make a difference if we steadily work toward the same goal.
One of the best things you can do is to buy your foods from a local farmer who runs a small business and uses diverse methods that promote regenerative agriculture. You can also join a community supported agriculture (CSA) program, where you can buy a “share” of the vegetables produced by the farm, so that you get a regular supply of fresh food. I believe that joining a CSA is a powerful investment not only in your own health, but in that of your local community and economy as well.
In addition, you should also adopt preventive strategies that can help reduce the toxic chemical pollution that assaults your body. I recommend visiting these trustworthy sites for non-GMO food resources in your country:
Monsanto and its allies want you to think that they control everything, but they do not. It’s you, the masses, who hold the power in your hands. Let’s all work together to topple the biotech industry’s house of cards. Remember — it all starts with shopping smart and making the best food purchases for you and your family.
