Prop 37 and Corporate Lies in the Post Truth Era

As a historic vote with profound implications for the future of our food system nears, the question becomes whether a campaign with limitless resources and a disdain for the truth can defeat an overwhelmingly popular idea supported by a grassroots army, and over 3000 public interest organizations: the right to know what's in the food we eat and feed our families.

Poll after poll showed 90% of Americans (and Californians) favored labeling foods that have been genetically engineered (GMOs) and nearly a million signatures were gathered by California volunteers in just 10 weeks - easily qualifying Prop 37 for the ballot. And as of the first week of October, the Yes on 37 campaign enjoyed a 2 to 1 lead in the polls.

This broad statewide (and national) support - across party lines - made perfect sense. Prop 37 posits a simple question: Do we have the right to know what's in the food we eat and feed our children, or is that a decision better left to the pesticide and junk food companies bankrolling the opposition campaign?

Prop 37 isn't a referendum on genetically modified foods. It's not a ban, or a warning, it's a label. 

The debate over the efficacy of genetically engineered foods should and will continue. In the meantime, Californians have a right to know, and for good reason.

A growing body of research links GMO foods to potential health risks, increased pesticide use,biodiversity loss, the emergence of super bugs  and  "super weeds" and the unintentional contamination of conventional crops.

Prop 37 simply adds a line of ink to a label -- as is currently required for 3,000 other ingredients -- so consumers know which products have been altered in a laboratory. 61 other countries have provided their citizens with this right, and choice, it's time we do the same.  

Corporate Backlash Against Our Right to Know

In response to this growing outcry for food transparency a who's who of the world's most notorious corporate bad actors, with long histories of deceiving the public, polluting the environment, and endangering public health, converged on California to convince us we don't deserve this basic, human right. A right that nearly half the world's population already enjoys.

The No on 37 campaigns two largest contributors are pesticide giants Monsanto ($8.1 million) and Dupont ($5.4 million) - who for decades assured us Agent Orange, DDT, and Tobacco were safe. At the same time, Monsanto has actively advocated for labeling in Europe

So how do companies like these go about persuading us that we don't deserve the right to know what they're doing to our food?

The Only Recourse: An Unprecedented Campaign of Deception 

The campaign against the right to know has relied on three essential components: unlimited resources, a willingness to repeatedly lie, and a willingness to double and triple down on those lies-even when they are debunked by independent fact checkers.

Seriously, when was the last time giant, out-of-state pesticide and junk food companies spent $45 million to improve your health, protect the environment or save you money?

Spoiler Alert-they never have.    

The No On 37 campaign knows that the less you know about your food, the more money they are likely to make.  Their goal is literally that simple, even though their campaign of deception is far more elaborate.

They've set up phony AstroTurf groups, misrepresented spokespeople and embellished their credentials, and misrepresented leading science, government, professional and academic organizations-including (but not limited to) the National Academy of Sciences, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,US Food and Drug Administration and World Health Organization. They've bankrolled demonstrably phony "economic studies," made repeated false statements in advertisements, deceived voters with mailers sent by obvious front groups, and repeated one falsehood after another---hoping somehow that no one would ever notice.

Well, someone just did. We filed a complaint to the Department of Justice about the potentially fraudulent use of the FDA seal in No on 37 campaign propaganda, and the DOJ has referred the matter to FDA to look into. 

The No on 37 Campaign and the "Post Truth Era" 

After four weeks of million dollar a day advertising by out of state pesticide and junk food corporations, No on 37 shrunk a 40 point deficit into a lead.  Not because they were right on the facts-because they don't care about the facts.  

No on 37's red herring arguments around common sense exemptions, phony lawsuit scares, bogus "big bureaucracy claims", and "cost increase hysteria", has been painstakingly documented.

Ultimately, we believe that "No on 37's" financially motivated corporate "sting operation" constitutes a profound disdain for the democratic process and the citizens of this state.

Why Spend $45 Million To Prevent A Simple Label? 

Just follow the money: If we know what's in our food, and what's being done to our food, many of us will seek alternatives, and that would reduce the profit margins of companies like Monsanto and DuPont.

Their fears are well founded: since Europe instituted labeling 15 years ago, only 7 percent of its food now contains genetically engineered ingredients - compared to approximately 70% in the United States. Imagine what that would mean to these corporations if a similar shift in purchasing habits took place in California?

Multi-billion dollar pesticide and junk food companies believe there is no greater threat than an informed consumer - and with transparency comes accountability.

Prop 37 threatens their monopoly of our food system - which prevents small farmers, the organics industry, and truly natural food producers from competing on an equal playing field.

Whose Side Are You On? 

On Tuesday more than a label is on the ballot. Democracy itself is. Will voters allow out of state, multinational pesticide and junk food corporations tell us what we can and can't know about the food we eat, and what they're doing to that food? Are we going to allow television ads based on one demonstrable lie after another convince us that information is somehow a radical concept that we don't deserve?

This right to know movement began with a farmer, a grandmother, and former midwife, organizing women across the state two years ago toward a 2012 ballot drive.  

Prop. 37 is about one and only one thing-- our right to know what's in our food, and make an informed choice about what we eat and feed our children.  

We can't allow our democracy to be hijacked by unscrupulous corporate interests willing to say and spend anything to protect their profits at the expense of real people, and our rights as free citizens.

We must ask every voter that will take the time to listen a few simple questions:

• Who do you trust with the health of your family: Pesticide and junk food companies and the $45 million they've spent lying to you, or Prop 37 supporters like the California Nurses Association, the Breast Cancer Action Fund, the California Council of Churches, and the American Public Health Association? 
• Who do you trust when it comes to protecting our natural environment and food supply: Monsanto and DuPont, or Prop 37 supporters like the Sierra Club, California League of Conservation Voters, and the Natural Resources Defense Council? 
• And finally, who do you trust to make decisions about what you know about the food you eat, pesticide and junk food companies or Prop 37 supporters like the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and Public Citizen?

Prop 37 is not just about our health and our environment, and the future of our food supply. It's also about the health of our democracy, and whether something so simple, so popular, and so "people driven" can be stomped out by giant out of state corporations polluting our state with $45 million of lies to protect their profits, at our expense.

Say yes to democracy. Say yes to your right to know. Vote Yes on Prop 37. And please tell everyone you know to do the same.

http://www.nationofchange.org/prop-37-and-corporate-lies-post-truth-era-1351921033

Frankenstorms and the Fukushima Factor

As Hurricane Sandy barreled towards the Northeastern US, 60 million coastal and inland residents suddenly found themselves in the crosshairs of climate change. Large enough to hammer the eastern third of the country with record-breaking winds, rain and floods, the Halloween Hurricane packed an unprecedented punch—it was set to collide head-on with a massive blizzard storming in from the northwest.

With the Eastern Seaboard about to become the Ground Zero of Extreme Weather, homeowners, first responders, and public officials prepared to deal with potentially historic damage to buildings, farms, and roads as well as region-wide disruptions of fuel and power.

And then there is the issue of nuclear power plants.

Nuclear reactors are barely mentioned when disaster preparedness agencies begin issuing storm warnings. This is a mistake. In the past, floods, storms, lightening strikes and earthquakes have repeatedly knocked US reactors offline. On several occasions, extended power outages have put reactors at risk of core damage. In a few cases, some of these high-risk atomic steam kettles came within hours of a meltdown before critical power was restored.

Hurricanes, Tornadoes and Floods, Oh My!

Hurricanes, tornadoes, and epic floods have measurably increased in frequency and intensity since the 1990s. Residents of the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico have seen neighborhoods ravaged by more than one “once-in-a-lifetime” hurricane.

More than 20 nuclear power plants are located in Hurricane Sandy’s immediate path—including reactors at Beaver Valley, Calvert Cliffs, Limerick, Millstone, Three Mile Island, Salem, Seabrook, Susquehana, Surry and at Indian Point (24 miles north of New York City).

Especially worrisome are several GE Mark 1 reactors that share the same design flaws as the three GE-built reactors that lost power, suffered meltdowns and exploded in Fukushima, Japan. The eight Fukushima-style reactors located in Sandy’s path are: Fitzpatrick (New York), Hope Creek (New Jersey), Nine Mile Point 1 (New York), Oyster Creek (New Jersey), Peach Bottom 1 & 2 (Pennsylvania), Pilgrim (Massachusetts), and Vermont Yankee (Vermont).

A History of Weather-related Near Misses

Even without Fukushima-scale temblors and tsunamis, reactors remain surprisingly vulnerable to major storms.

In 1992, Hurricane Andrew slammed into Florida’s Turkey Point reactor near Miami, forcing the plant to rely on its emergency power generators. When the plant came dangerously close to running out of diesel fuel, Turkey Point’s operators had to commandeer fuel from nearby hospitals to keep the generators running and prevent a meltdown.

In June 1998, Ohio’s Davis-Besse reactor was hit by a tornado that cut the plant off from the electric grid. Emergency generators kicked in, but the power outage lasted so long that the generators nearly failed. Without emergency cooling, the spent fuel in the facility’s on-site storage pools could have overheated, leading to a potential ignition and massive radiation release. Fortunately, outside power was restored shortly before the emergency generators would have run out of fuel.

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina forced the shutdown of the Waterford nuclear plant in Louisiana and storm-related flooding along the Mississippi scuttled the state’s River Bend reactor.

In 2010, a tornado took down the power grid near Monroe, Michigan, damaging the 1,140-megawatt Fermi 2, and leaving the largest Fukushima-style Mark 1 reactor on earth without access to outside power needed to continue running emergency generators. Fermi’s storage pool contains more high-level waste than the four damaged Fukushima reactors combined.

In August 2011, 14 nuclear plants from Maryland to New Hampshire were put under an NRC storm watch as Hurricane Irene approached. The 2,1110 MW Millstone plant in Connecticut and the Brunswick plant on the North Carolina coast were both forced to power-down. In New Jersey, the Oyster Creek reactor went off-line. The worst damage was recorded at Maryland’s Calvert Cliff plant, where the Unit 1 reactor was forced into automatic shutdown when a transformer was damaged by flying aluminum siding ripped loose by the storm.

US storm watchers predict Hurricane Sandy could cut power to 10 million Americans for a week to ten days. If outside electricity fails, nuclear reactors must rely on emergency cooling systems to prevent a meltdown. The generators providing this protection typically have no more than a week’s supply of diesel fuel on site—insufficient to ride out a blackout lasting ten days.

The Hidden Risk of Inland Tsunamis

The United States has recently seen how reactors can be threatened by “inland tsunamis” released by extreme storms that cause rivers to overflow. In the US, 64 reactors sit near rivers or reservoirs that are prone to flooding. In the 1990s, flooding on the Missouri River caused the loss of emergency backup systems at Nebraska’s Cooper plant. Similar flooding along the Mississippi damaged emergency systems at the Prairie Island reactor in Minnesota.

In April 2011, the Fort Calhoun reactor, 20 miles north of Omaha, was engulfed by floodwaters as the rain-swollen Missouri overflowed its banks. The flooding was followed by an electrical fire in a critical safety system. Faced with $134 million in added repair costs, the reactor remains closed.

In mid-September, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was rocked by scandal when several NRC engineers revealed agency officials had suppressed a 2011 safety report. NRC engineer Richard Perkins claimed the NRC had “intentionally mischaracterized… safety information” to conceal the risk that “failure of one or more dams upstream from a nuclear plant may result in flood levels at a site that render essential safety systems inoperable.”

Climate-related damage—to roads, bridges, and reactors—is only expected to increase as the planet’s weather grows more unruly. As the watchdog group Beyond Nuclear notes: “When reactors partially power down, or shut down entirely . . . it often happens at a time when reliable electricity supplies are needed most.”

The irony in this, for those who would call for a “Nuclear Renaissance,” is that it is renewable energy—not nuclear power—that is proving itself to be “more reliable in a global-warming world.”

The Facts About Fluoride & Human Intelligence

In the initial version of this article, we estimated that “over 200,000″ Americans drink water with 1.8 to 2.0 ppm. Based on data from the National Research Council, however, it appears that a more accurate estimate is “about 600,000.” We have changed our estimate accordingly.

In July, a team of Harvard and Chinese scientists published a study that warned of fluoride’s potential to reduce human intelligence.  The researchers issued their warning after reviewing dozens of studies from the past two decades that have linked elevated fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children. Although the National Research Council issued a similar warning in 2006, advocates of fluoridation continue to push ahead with plans to fluoridate yet more water supplies in what is already the most fluoridated nation on Earth: the United States.Fluoridation advocates — including both scientists and city officials — are seriously misrepresenting, and in some cases making outright false statements, about the Harvard team’s study. To help remedy this situation, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is releasing the results of its six-month investigation into fluoride’s effects on the brain, and thyroid gland. In the course of this investigation, FAN has located, obtained, and — in many cases — translated dozens of studies on all facets of fluoride’s neurotoxicity, including studies detailing fluoride’s effects on the thyroid gland. In total, FAN has identified 34 studies which detected an association between fluoride and reduced IQ in human populations. FAN has also identified dozens of other studies which correlate fluoride exposure with impaired learning and memory, altered neurobehavioral function, fetal brain damage, and altered thyroid hormone levels.

Legislators who continue to mandate the addition of fluoride to public water without fully apprising themselves of this research are doing a profound disservice to the health and welfare of their constituents.

The Harvard Study

A research team led by scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) sparked national headlines in July when they reported that the vast majority of research that has been conducted on fluoride and human intelligence has found significant reductions in childhood IQ. Twenty-six of the twenty-seven studies that fit the Harvard team’s criteria found a relationship between fluoride and reduced IQ, with 20 of the studies finding a statistically significant effect.

Although some of the IQ studies have used simple designs, the Harvard team concluded that study deficiencies were unlikely to explain why 26 of the 27 studies found associations between fluoride and reduced IQ. The Harvard team thus concluded that fluoride’s effect on children’s developing brain should be a “high research priority” in countries like the U.S. where, despite mass fluoridation programs, no studies have yet been conducted to investigate the issue.

Protecting Public Policy Instead of Public Health

Despite the Harvard team’s findings, U.S. fluoridation proponents have continued their “full speed ahead” approach of forcing every individual, including toddlers and children, to ingest fluoride through public tap water and all of the processed foods and beverages made with it. Rather than pausing to consider that current fluoride exposures (from all sources, including fluoridated water, fluoridated dental products, pesticides, tea, and processed beverages) might be permanently damaging the brain of some children in the United States, particularly those children with nutrient deficiencies (e.g., iodine) and the 3.6% of children who now have moderate/severe fluorosis, proponents have concluded (based on assumptions, not data) that fluoride cannot be causing reduced IQ in the United States.

False & Misleading Claims

The quick dismissal by fluoride advocates of the Harvard team’s findings is rooted, in part, on demonstrably false and misleading claims. Two of the most common claims are that (1) the size of the IQ reduction from fluoride is “meaningless,” and  (2) the fluoride levels were too high to be relevant to U.S. populations. Both of these claims will now be addressed:

The Size of the IQ Reduction

Dr. Myron Allukian, a longtime fluoridation proponent, has stated that the Harvard team found only “a half point difference in IQ” between the children from high-fluoride and low-fluoride areas. According to Allukian, “a half point difference in IQ is meaningless. That’s like saying, we measured all the people in New York and Chicago and in New York they were a half millimeter taller.” Several other fluoridation “experts” made similar statements at a September 6th hearing before the city council of Portland, Oregon.

The problem with Allukian’s claim is that it is completely false — a fact that can be readily verified by actually reading the Harvard study. The Harvard team found that high-fluoride exposure was associated with a 0.45 reduction in the “standardized mean difference” (SMD) in intelligence. Dr. Allukian and other fluoridation proponents have mistakenly interpreted this to mean that a half-point reduction in SMD equates to a half-point reduction in IQ. This, however, is NOT the case. As the Harvard team has recently confirmed, a reduction of 0.45 SMD is “approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores.”

If Allukian and other fluoridation “experts” had read the Harvard study and understood the SMD concept, they would have known this. Instead, it appears they relied on second-hand accounts of the Harvard study, including an HSPH press release. After FAN Researcher Chris Neurath brought the error to HSPH’s attention, a correction was made. The “experts” however continue to repeat the error as if it were true. It goes without saying that experts and policy officials should not be basing public statements about the Harvard team’s findings without having read the study themselves. The lack of diligence by these “experts” and public officials on an issue involving permanent potential damage to some children’s brains is as breathtaking as it is appalling.

The Relevance of the IQ Studies to Fluoridated Populations

Another misleading claim made by fluoridation proponents is that the fluoride levels in the IQ studies were far higher than the fluoride levels to which children are exposed in the United States. Fluoridation proponents have reached this conclusion by (a) focusing on the highest water fluoride level (11.5 mg/L) studied in 1 of the 27 studies, and then (b) insinuating that this high level is representative of all of the studies. The Pew Children’s Dental Campaign (which now promotes fluoridation schemes across the U.S.) initiated this line of reasoning within days of the Harvard study’s release. According to the Pew campaign:

“In many cases, the high-fluoride areas were significantly higher than the levels used to fluoridate public water systems in the U.S.  In fact, the high-fluoride areas in these foreign countries reached levels as high as 11.5 mg/L, which is more than 10 times higher than the optimal level used in the U.S.”

Other fluoridation proponents, including Sam Adams, the Mayor of Portland, Oregon, have since repeated Pew’s claim. What these proponents have failed to acknowledge is that only ONE of the studies that the Harvard team reviewed had fluoride levels as high as 11.5 mg/l.  By contrast, the majority of the studies that the Harvard team reviewed investigated fluoride levels that are still considered “safe” in the United States.  Of the twenty studies that investigated the effect of fluoride intake from water, twelve examined communities with a fluoride content less than 4 mg/l. This is a level that is still considered “safe” by the U.S. EPA. Every one of these twelve studies found reduced IQ in the “high-fluoride” community when compared to a low-fluoride community. Of these twelve studies:

• Seven studies found reduced IQs among children drinking water with fluoride levels between 2.1 mg/l and 4 mg/l — levels that 1.4 million Americans drink everyday.(Poureslami 2011; Seraj 2006; Hong 2001; Wang 2001; Lu 2000; Yang 1994; An 1992)
• Four studies found effects at levels between 1.8 mg/l and 2.0 mg/l — levels thatabout 600,000 Americans drink everyday. (Xiang 2004; Yao 1997; Yao 1996; Xu 1994)
• One study (sponsored by UNICEF) found reduced IQ at just 0.88 mg/l – a level within the “optimal” range of fluoride that is added to the drinking water of over 200 million Americans. (Lin 1991)

Far from being irrelevant to U.S. exposures, these fluoride levels are actually being consumed on a regular basis by  millions of Americans. Further, the fluoride levels that have been detected in the children’s urine in five of these studies (1.5 to 3 mg/l) were found to be exceeded by many adults living in fluoridated populations in England. (Mansfield 1999) While there is a striking absence of urinary fluoride data among both children and adults in the United States, the high exposure to fluoride toothpasteamong young children is almost certain to produce urine fluoride levels that match the levels documented in the Chinese children.

Another population at clear risk from fluoride are children born to women who drink large amounts of low-quality teas. Research from China has repeatedly found that high fluoride exposure during pregnancy can damage the brain of the fetus in ways that can permanently reduce the intelligence of the child. (Yu 1996; Dong 1993; Du 1992; Han 1989) Damage to fetal brain has been found in women with urinary fluoride levels of just 4.3 ppm. (Yu 1996). Notably, this is a level of fluoride that heavy tea drinkers in the U.S. and England are known to exceed. (Izuora 2011; Whyte 2005; Mansfield 1999). The neurological impact of heavy-tea consumption during pregnancy has never been studied.

The “Margin of Safety” Problem

Fluoridation proponents’ dismissal of the IQ studies has also been based on a failure to address the “margin of safety” problem. The concept of a margin of safety is a deeply rooted cornerstone in all modern risk assessments; yet fluoridation proponents act as if they don’t even know the concept exists. As demonstrated here, this failure to address the margin of safety issue is a critically important omission.

In conventional risk assessment, the U.S. EPA uses a default margin of safety often. Translated, this means EPA seeks to limit exposure to chemicals to levels that are ten times less than the levels that cause adverse effects. With fluoride and IQ, however, the levels of fluoride (in water and urine) that have repeatedly been linked to IQ reductions are — at most — just two or three times more than tens of millions of American children now receive on a daily basis. From a risk assessment perspective, this is an extremely unnerving situation, one almost certain to cause neurological harm in an untold number of children. The situation is particularly unnerving, and particularly serious, for those children who have a heightened vulnerability to fluoride’s neurological toxicity.

While there are occasions where the EPA will accept a margin of safety lower than ten, it only does so when there is clear data demonstrating that the default margin of safety is unnecessary. This exception does not apply to fluoride and IQ because a safe level of fluoride exposure for the neurological health of all children has not yet been demonstrated.

Vulnerable Children Are Being Disregarded and Ignored

Human studies have repeatedly found that some children are at a much greater risk of suffering neurological damage from fluoride than others. A UNICEF-funded study, for example, found that children with iodine deficiencies suffered reductions in IQ at fluoride levels of just 0.88 mg/L. (Lin 1991) Other research — both animal and human — has repeatedly confirmed that children with iodine deficiency suffer greater neurological disorders when exposed to elevated fluoride than they do from the iodine deficiency itself. This is a striking fact when considering that, according to the CDC, the rate of iodine deficiency in the U.S. has increased significantly in the past three decades, and now affects up to 12% of the population.

Since U.S. Health Authorities Aren’t Doing Their Job, FAN Will Do It for Them

It has become obvious in recent weeks that U.S. health authorities are more interested in convincing communities to fluoridate their water than honestly communicating the facts about fluoride and intelligence. Because of their systemic, ongoing failure to honestly address this serious public health issue, FAN has expended a significant amount of time and money searching for, accessing, and translating all studies on fluoride and intelligence, whether they be in English, Chinese, or other languages.

In total, FAN has identified 40 studies that have investigated fluoride’s impact on human intelligence, as well as 16 studies that — in carefully controlled laboratory conditions — have examined fluoride’s impact on the learning and memory capacity of animals. As we document here, 34 of the 40 human studies have detected reductions in IQ from fluoride exposure, while 15 of the 16 animal studies have found fluoride exposure impairs the ability to learn and remember.

To facilitate public understanding of this research, FAN is making all of its translations publicly available, including the studies that did not find a relationship between fluoride and reduced IQ. FAN’s summary of this research, as well as links to full-text copies of the studies, can be accessed at the following links

Conclusion

At FAN, we believe that better information produces better results. For decades, proponents of water fluoridation have decided that it is better to convince communities to fluoridate water than inform the public about the true state of knowledge about fluoride’s toxicity, including the breathtaking uncertainties and reasonably looming hazards. As the public learns the deeply disturbing details that have been systematically omitted by fluoridation proponents we have no doubt that fluoridation of water will end. The fate of those who helped perpetuate this ill-conceived program is less clear.

REFERENCES:

• An J, et al. (1992). The effects of high fluoride on the level of intelligence of primary and secondary students. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 7(2):93-94. [See study]
• Choi AL, et al. (2012). Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 2012 Jul 20. [Epub ahead of print] [See study]
• Dong Z, et al. (1993). Determination of the contents of amino-acid and monoamine neurotransmitters in fetal brains from a fluorosis-endemic area.Journal of Guiyang Medical College 18(4):241-45. [See study]
• Du L. (1992). The effect of fluorine on the developing human brain. Chinese Journal of Pathology 21(4):218-20. [See study]
• Han H, et al. (1989). Effects of fluorine on the human fetus. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 4:136-138. [See study]
• Hong F, et al. (2001). Research on the effects of fluoride on child intellectual development under different environments. Chinese Primary Health Care 15(3):56-57 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41(2):156–60). [See study]
• Izuora K, et al. (2011). Skeletal fluorosis from brewed tea. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 96(8):2318-24.
• Lin F, et al (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Endemic Disease Bulletin 6(2):62-67 (republished inIodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter Vol. 7(3):24-25).  [See study]
• Lu Y, et al (2000). Effect of high-fluoride water on intelligence of children. Fluoride 33:74-78. [See study]
• Mansfield P. (1999). The distribution of urinary fluoride concentration in the U.K.Fluoride 32(1):27-32. [See study]
• Poureslami HR, et al. (2011). Intelligence quotient of 7 to 9 year-old children from an area with high fluoride in drinking water. Journal of Dentistry and Oral Hygiene 3(4):61-64.
• Seraj B, et al. (2006). [Effect of high fluoride concentration in drinking water on children’s intelligence]. [Study in Persian] Journal of Dental Medicine 19(2):80-86. [See abstract]
• Wang X, et al. (2001). Effects of high iodine and high fluorine on children’s intelligence and thyroid function. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 20(4):288-90. [See study]
• Whyte MP, et al. (2005). Skeletal fluorosis and instant tea. American Journal of Medicine 118:78-82.
• Xiang Q, et al. (2003a). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94. [See study]
• Xiang Q, et al. (2003b). Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study. Fluoride 36: 198-199. [See study]
• Xu Y, et al. (1994). The effect of fluorine on the level of intelligence in children. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 9(2):83-84. [See study]
• Yang Y, et al. (1994). The effects of high levels of fluoride and iodine on intellectual ability and the metabolism of fluoride and iodine. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology 15(4):296-98 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41:336-339). [See study]
• Yao Y, et al. (1997). Comparative assessment of the physical and mental development of children in endemic fluorosis area with water improvement and without water improvement. Literature and Information on Preventive Medicine 3(1):42-43. [See study]
• Yao Y, et al. (1996). Analysis on TSH and intelligence level of children with dental Fluorosis in a high fluoride area. Literature and Information on Preventive Medicine 2(1):26-27. [See study]
• Yu Y, et al. (1996). Neurotransmitter and receptor changes in the brains of fetuses from areas of endemic fluorosis. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 15:257-259. [See study]

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2012/11/03/the-facts-about-fluoride-human-intelligence/

Bill Gates Funding Drone Technology to Deliver Vaccines

I think everyone knows how I feel about vaccines. My calm, (somewhat) rational opinion is this: They are, for the most part, not necessary, not working, and not safe. The lack of science—not to mention common sense—behind the dozens of vaccines injected into our children is beyond appalling.

There are two things, however, that the vaccine program definitely isn’t lacking. One is money. The other is imagination.

Billions of dollars are being spent on developing new vaccines. Improving vaccination rates worldwide. Ensuring that vaccines are available to everyone on the planet. All through phenomenally creative methods.

We have—or soon will have—needle-free vaccines. Vaccines with micro needles. Sublingual vaccines. Vaccine patches. Inhalable powder vaccines. The old Star Trek type of vaccines. Even mail-order vaccines. Vaccines that are easier and faster to produce.

No more accidental needle sticks and cross-contamination of deadly diseases. No more refrigeration or syringes. No more vaccine phobia. No more pain. No more tears.

BILL GATES AND “BOLD IDEAS”

When it comes to money and imagination, Bill Gates seems to have an endless supply of both. That man is a tough act to follow. In 2010 he announced a $10 billion pledge over the next decade, saying, “We must make this the decade of vaccines.” [1]

One of his latest financial donations is the subject of this article, which is perhaps the most difficult I’ve written for Vactruth. What I read as I was doing my research left me with a lot of unanswered questions and disturbing thoughts.

Thanks to a sizable grant from the Gates Foundation (with oversight from WHO and UNICEF), $100,000 is being provided to 17 different initiatives, for a total of $1.7 million. [2] The purpose is—and I quote Michel Zaffran, Director of project Optimize and Senior Adviser for WHO’s Department of Immunization, Vaccines, and Biologicals—“to ensure new vaccines reach the millions of people in the poorest countries. The time for ‘business as usual’ has passed—it’s time for bold ideas.” [3]

One “bold idea” is unmanned aerial vehicles to quickly and inexpensively deliver vaccines to hard-to-reach areas. The vehicles will be deployed remotely by healthcare workers. The winner of this project is the Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology Division, with five students under the direction of Professor George Barbastathis. [4] Projects that are successful may be eligible for another grant of $1 million. [5]

A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON TECHNOLOGY

If you’re wondering how aerial vaccines are possible, all you have to do is consider the technology that is already in place. Let’s look at three examples.

Military drones

Since the Vietnam War, the U.S. has been using modern drones that are operated by a remote control and monitored through a live-streaming screen thousands of miles away from the target area. The vehicles hover silently, undetectable by radar. For more information on the use of drones and their controversy, see Michael Hastings’ article in Rolling Stone. [6]

Rabies bait

The oral rabies vaccine is nothing new. In this country, 12+ million doses of Raboral V-RG are dropped from unmanned aircraft every year. Worldwide, more than 100 million doses since the late 1980s. [7] The cost? In the U.S. and Canada, approximately $130 million in a decade. [8]

The ketchup-sized packets, usually dipped in fish oil and coated with fish meal, have been dropped in numerous states. The Texas Department of State Health Services claims to have virtually annihilated rabies in coyotes and foxes, which provides protection for other wildlife, livestock, and domestic animals. Texas has not had a case of human rabies since they began aerial drops in 1995. [9]

If you poke around the Internet a little, you’ll find some “safety” instructions. Basically, the claim is that the bait isn’t harmful for humans or pets (although wildlife is less likely to eat a packet that’s been touched by humans). A few precautions for pet owners: Keep pets inside or tied in the backyard for a week after the bait is dropped. If a domestic animal like a cat or dog eats the bait, avoid coming in contact with the saliva for 24 hours. [10] If you handle the bait, use paper towels or wear gloves. If the vaccine liquid gets on your skin, wash with soap and water, and call the local health department (or the number on the packet). [11]

Sounds relatively safe, right? I thought so, too—until I read the Merial Material “Safety” Data Sheet. It states that the RABORAL V-RG is “potentially hazardous to health if any of the following should occur: ingestion, parenteral inoculation, droplet or aerosol exposure of mucous membranes or if broken skin is exposed to infectious fluids or tissues. All people should avoid contact, but young children, pregnant women, individuals with immune deficiencies or those on steroids should avoid contact with this vaccine.” It also says: “Do not allow undiluted product or large quantities of it to reach ground water, water course or sewage system.” [12]

After further research, I found some adverse side effects. Side effects backed up by lab tests, including “vaccinia virus DNA and rabies virus G protein DNA in papule material and serologic evidence of rabies virus neutralizing antibodies” as well as Simian Green Monkey virus, Epstein-Barr virus capside, and Cytomeglia virus. [13]

South Wales microbiologist Doug Dorst says: “For every fear that biotech propaganda proliferates about deadly diseases and how vaccines prevent them, it is one more lie to incrementally convince the masses that vaccines are effective. … There is a real potential risk to exposure from aerial exposure to aerial DNA virus vaccines. The risk certainly exceeds any benefits …” [14]

If you’ve read my story, you know that the RabAvert rabies vaccine given to my grandson in 2006 wasn’t safe. (Actually, several batches used in that same year were recalled because of a partially inactivated virus.) Many people think “it’s just a rabies vaccine.” My daughter and I know from personal experience that there’s no such thing.

Questions

• Is an oral rabies vaccine that’s safe for coyotes and raccoons, for example, safe for other animals, such as birds? Does “one size fit all?”
• How long does the vaccine last?
• What about the packets that aren’t consumed? Where do they end up? In our water? In our food? Is that safe?
• If the packet ruptures, can it harm plant life and crops?
• Can the vaccine create resistance to the rabies virus?
• What if a hunter kills an animal, such as a squirrel, who has ingested the bait, and eats it?

West Nile Virus spray

Aerial spraying of pesticides has been going on for decades, especially for the West Nile Virus (WNV). This year the virus has been more prevalent, with half the cases in Texas. WNV can be deadly, but most people who contract it never have any symptoms. Between 1999 and 2008, out of almost 30,000 cases, there were approximately 1,100 deaths. [15]

The financial cost? Spraying one county in Texas cost $1 million. [16] Throw in the cost of testing the safety of a pesticide for years at a price of up to $200 million … well, the financial fallout is unfathomable. [17]

The pesticide kills between 60 and 90 percent of mosquitoes in sprayed areas (depending on which article you’re reading). [18] But there are more than a few people who don’t believe these numbers. A former EPA employee and Director of New England Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Kyla Bennett attempted to acquire the data proving the 60 percent effectiveness rate for mosquitoes carrying eastern equine encephalitis in Massachusetts. She did not get the information she asked for.

The Huffington Post, after being told by the state health department that no one was available to speak, also filed a formal public records request for the data. I don’t know for sure, but I doubt they got the “proof” either. [19]

“Dirt Doctor” radio show host Howard Garrett says the pesticide doesn’t work. His suggestion? Organic pesticides on the ground to kill mosquito eggs and larvae. [20]

All the pesticides, even though they come in different combinations, contain known toxins that don’t just kill mosquitoes. They cause serious damage to fish and other aquatic animals and pets. They’ve been linked to breast and liver cancer and endocrine disruption. They’ve been blamed for the “die off” of bees and potentially disrupting “our natural ecosystem.” [21]

One chemical, according to a study that appeared in the journal Pediatrics, can disrupt brain development in the womb. Another, a weapon used during WWII and described by its manufacturer as “a possible carcinogen,” can damage a child’s nervous system. [22]

“The cure is worse than the disease,” says Organic Sacramento, a nonprofit organization. “You’re spraying poison over thousands of people for the potential of maybe helping a handful of people.” [23]

I can’t help but think of one of the recently proposed causes of autism. Household dust while the baby is in the womb—a cause that is the subject of an NIH-funded research study. I don’t understand how that can possibly be a concern to a government that maintains it’s perfectly safe to inhale aerial pesticides that are sprayed into the environment.

Questions

• Is a 60 percent effectiveness rate—if that’s indeed true—“effective?” That leaves almost half of the mosquitoes alive and potentially spreading the virus.
• What if the spray kills mosquito predators? Wouldn’t we end up with more mosquitoes?
• What does the spray do to our crops?
• Can mosquitoes and other exposed creatures develop resistance to the virus?
• Could the WNV spraying be responsible for pertussis outbreaks? [24] After all, cases have doubled in the last year—a year in which a lot of spraying has been going on. [25] 
• If it’s so safe, why, when the Dallas area was going to be sprayed in August, were the pilots instructed to avoid the home of former President Bush? [26] 

AERIAL VACCINES ARE ON THE WAY—BUT WHY?

You could read about drones, the aerial delivery of rabies bait, and pesticide spraying and learn something new with every article. I’ve explored the current technology because the information is relevant to the aerial spraying of vaccines.

I’m certainly not minimizing rabies, but why spend all that money and go to so much trouble for a disease that kills one or two humans a year? It just doesn’t make sense. Not coming from a government that claims far more deaths from childhood diseases, like measles and whooping cough—not to mention the flu.

Would they really do this for rabies for almost 20 years and not have already come up with a similar scheme for these other diseases? I can’t believe that their concern is for wildlife, livestock, and domestic animals. There has to be another reason, another explanation. Maybe …

The rabies virus has been eliminated. Safely. Quickly. Or so we’re told. Assuming that our ketchup packets (or some other food or our water) don’t already contain vaccines, the only obvious next step is using the drones to spray all kinds of vaccines. The MMR, DTaP, flu … No one will even know. There will be no informed consent. No declining vaccine rates—they would literally explode overnight. I’m extrapolating here, but when you think about it, it’s really not that much of a stretch.

What I can’t figure out—what is keeping me awake at night—is why? What’s in it for “them?” Where’s the money? The vaccine industry as we know it is a $2 billion a year business. Will aerial spraying make it even more lucrative? The grant winners got a small piece of the pie. What about the people who remote-control the drones? The people who actually manufacture them? Or those who outfit the drones with the vaccine spray? Is this really about money?

Where’s the quality control? I realize those are words we don’t usually connect with vaccines, but who will be in charge of this program? We all remember past problems—failed freezers, reused syringes, accidental needle sticks, and, of course, the time Baxter Pharmaceuticals shipped live avian flu virus (mixed with vaccine material) to medical distributors in 18 countries. [27] So many opportunities for dangerous, if not fatal, mistakes.

Could this be about power? Control? It’s so easy to scare people. Fear is powerful and controlling. You know, we have this deadly pertussis outbreak. Everybody better get a pertussis vaccine. That is, if they don’t decide to spray them on us. Or maybe they’ll encourage both methods of delivery.

If you do as much research as I’ve done, you’ll end up with your head spinning. Some of my thoughts are unthinkable. Not impossible. Just unthinkable. I used to think that people who suggested vaccines as a means to population control were crazy. Now I’m not so sure.

Take Bill Gates, for instance. At the 2010 TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference, he stated: “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” [28]

http://vactruth.com/2012/11/03/bill-gates-funding-drone-vaccines/

New Report Confirms Fracking is Reckless

A new report¹ on shale resources and hydraulic fracturing from the Government Accountability Office (GAO)—an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress—concludes that fracking poses serious risks to health and the environment. The report, which reviewed studies from state agencies overseeing fracking as well as scientific reports, found that the extent of the risks has not yet been fully quantified and that there are many unanswered questions and a lack of scientific data.

Major reports and studies were also released in Europe the past two months, all of which came to the conclusion that fracking poses serious risks to water, public health, and the environment, and that additional scientific study is necessary. Meanwhile, in NY hundreds² of doctors, scientists, and medical organizations have renewed calls for an independent, comprehensive health impact assessment and additional scientific research.

“The big-money gas industry is at it again,” said John Armstrong of Frack Action on behalf of New Yorkers Against Fracking, a broad coalition of New Yorkers opposed to fracking. “Rather than allow a comprehensive independent health assessment that can study the dangers fracking poses to our water and health, they just want to frack as quickly as possible and take their profits back to Texas.”

Given the conclusions from the broad NY, U.S., and world-wide scientific and medical community that fracking poses serious public health and environmental risks and needs further scientific study, the gas industry and the Joint Landowners Coalition’s rush to frack is dangerously reckless and irresponsible.

The Government Accountability Office report, which includes review of the New York Department of Conservation’s study of fracking, finds that there is insufficient data and scientific study to determine the extent of risks fracking poses to groundwater and avenues for groundwater contamination, but it does note that such contamination can take place. For example, the report states that, “Underground migration can occur as a result of improper casing and cementing of the well bore as well as the intersection of induced fractures with natural fractures, faults, or improperly plugged dry or abandoned wells. Moreover, there are concerns that induced fractures can grow over time and intersect with drinking water aquifers” (page 46).

The GAO’s concerns about improperly plugged and abandoned wells strike an unnerving note in New York especially, given that the Associated Press recently found³ that Department of Environmental Conservation records, “reveal thousands of unplugged and abandoned wells and other industrial problems that could pose a threat to groundwater, wetlands, air quality and public safety.”

The GAO report also raises many other concerns long held by NY health professionals and scientists, such as the negative impacts that fracking will mean for air quality. The GAO report concludes that, “Construction of the well pad, access road, and other drilling facilities requires substantial truck traffic, which degrades air quality. Air quality may also be degraded as fleets of trucks travelingnewly graded or unpaved roads increase the amount of dust released into the air—which can contribute to the formation of regional haze” (page 33).

GAO goes on to raise concerns that silica sand—commonly used as a proppant in the hyrdaulic fracturing process—may pose a risk to human health. GAO notes that according to a federal researcher from the Department of Health and Human Services, particles from the sand “can lodge in the lungs and potentially cause silicosis” (page 33).

That the gas industry and the Joint Landowners Coalition would push to frack, rather than listen to the science and medical experts and wait for the necessary studies such as an independent, comprehensive health impact assessment⁴ to be undertaken, is indicative that they are comfortable putting profits before health and are unwilling to participate in a debate based on the science and facts.

On behalf of New Yorkers Against Fracking, Armstrong said, “Fracking proponents continue their reckless and irresponsible push to frack even in the face of an overwhelming body of science showing that fracking poses serious risks to health and the environment and consensus among experts and government agencies that we need more scientific study on fracking. Our water, air and health are priceless.”

The new reports from Europe include a comprehensive report⁵ from the European Commission’s Environment Directorate-General, a joint report⁶from Germany’s Federal Environment Agency and Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, and a year-long German Hydrofracking Risk Assessment⁷ study from a panel of independent experts.

Among the conclusions⁸ from the European Commission’s Environment Directorate-General’s comprehensive report⁵ are that there is “a high risk of surface and groundwater contamination at various stages of the well-pad construction, hydraulic fracturing and gas production processes, and well abandonment, and cumulative developments could further increase this risk.” The report also points to air emissions impacts that pose “potentially significant effect on air quality including ozone levels.”

The conclusions⁸ from the joint report⁶ by Germany’s Federal Environment Agency and Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety include that fracking can lead to groundwater contamination,that experts advise against large-scale fracking and that there should be a ban in areas that provide drinking water, and that more scientific study is necessary to evaluate environmental risks.

Germany’s year-long Hydrofracking Risk Assessment⁷ by a panel of independent experts similarly found⁸ that fracking entails serious risks, that it can do substantial harm to water resources, and pointed to greater concerns about fracking in areas that supply drinking water.

Why Sea Level Is Rising Faster Than Predicted

Sea levels are rising faster than expected from global warming. The last official IPCC report in 2007 projected a global sea level rise between 0.2 and 0.5 meters by the year 2100. But current sea-level rise measurements meet or exceed the high end of that range and suggest a rise of one meter or more by the end of the century. Its, faster rise than estimate, reason is baffling scientists.

University of Colorado geologist Bill Hay has a good idea regarding the why*. 

"What's missing from the models used to forecast sea-level rise are critical feedbacks that speed everything up," says Hay. He will be presenting some of these feedbacks in a talk on Nov. 4, at the meeting of The Geological Society of America in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.

One of those feedbacks involves Arctic sea ice, another the Greenland ice cap, and another soil moisture and groundwater mining.

"There is an Arctic sea ice connection," says Hay, despite the fact that melting sea ice -- which is already in the ocean -- does not itself raise sea level. Instead, it plays a role in the overall warming of the Arctic, which leads to ice losses in nearby Greenland and northern Canada. When sea ice melts, Hay explains, there is an oceanographic effect of releasing more fresh water from the Arctic, which is then replaced by inflows of brinier, warmer water from the south.
"So it's a big heat pump that brings heat to the Arctic," says Hay. "That's not in any of the models." That warmer water pushes the Arctic toward more ice-free waters, which absorb sunlight rather than reflect it back into space like sea ice does. The more open water there is, the more heat is trapped in the Arctic waters, and the warmer things can get.

Then there are those gigantic stores of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. During the last interglacial period, sea level rose 10 meters due to the melting of all that ice -- without any help from humans. New data suggests that the sea-level rise in the oceans took place over a few centuries, according to Hay.

"You can lose most of the Greenland ice cap in a few hundred years, not thousands, just under natural conditions," says Hay. "There's no telling how fast it can go with this spike of carbon dioxide we are adding to the atmosphere."

This possibility was brought home this last summer as Greenland underwent a stunning, record-setting melt. The ice streams, lubricated by water at their base, are speeding up.

Hay notes, "Ten years ago we didn't know much about water under the Antarctic ice cap." But it is there, and it allows the ice to move -- in some places even uphill due to the weight of the ice above it.

"It's being squeezed like toothpaste out of a tube," explains Hay. The one thing that's holding all that ice back from emptying into the sea is the grounded ice shelves acting like plugs on bottles at the ends of the coastal glaciers. "Nobody has any idea how fast that ice will flow into the oceans once the ice shelves are gone."

Another missing feedback is the groundwater being mined all over the world to mitigate droughts. That water is ultimately added to the oceans (a recent visualization of this effect in the U.S. was posted by NASA's Earth Observatory: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79228).

All of these are positive feedbacks speeding up the changes in climate and sea-level rise.

"You would expect negative feedbacks to creep in at some point," says Hay. "But in climate change, every feedback seems to go positive." The reason is that Earth's climate seems to have certain stable states. Between those states things are unstable and can change quickly. "Under human prodding, the system wants to go into a new climate state."

* ScienceDaily, “Why Seas Are Rising Ahead of Predictions: Estimates of Rate of Future Sea-Level Rise May Be Too Low”, Nov. 1, 2012,

Why Sea Level Is Rising Faster Than Predicted http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121101153549.htm

http://www.countercurrents.org/cc031112.htm

Supplements not on an FDA approved list could disappear

Supplements not on an FDA “approved” list could disappear.

The NDI guidance interprets the rules for new supplements. After your protests got the first draft scrubbed, work on a second draft continues at FDA. A second meeting between FDA and “stakeholders”—mostly trade groups, with ANH-USA once again the only grassroots consumer group present—took place on October 16.

As we reported after the first meeting, the New Dietary Ingredients guidelines still pose a major threat. This is because FDA is trying to reaffirm the policies of the original guidance, particularly the elements that could remove huge numbers of supplements from the market.

Much of the meeting was dedicated to a discussion about how to create a list of “grandfathered” dietary ingredients (supplements). These supplements would have been sold prior to 1994, the year the underlying law, DSHEA, was passed and therefore would not require jumping through further regulatory hoops before being sold. The question was: what evidence would be required to show that a supplement was sold prior to 1994?

FDA says such a list won’t necessarily be final, and won’t be the only supplements allowed to be sold. But we could easily conceive of that being the outcome if left to the agency. We are also concerned that FDA wants to set the evidentiary bar so high that many supplements which were definitely sold prior to 1994 still won’t pass.

According to FDA, any of the following is sufficient to prove that a supplement was marketed before DSHEA was passed: an invoice, a bill of lading, a product label, or a catalog, provided it clearly indicates a date. But many companies don’t have this kind of documentation from eighteen years ago! For example, pyridoxamine (a B6 vitamin) was marketed before DSHEA, but no one in the industry has been able to provide the documentation required by FDA. Even signed affidavits from industry members have been inadequate in FDA’s eyes.

What if a dietary ingredient is, and has always been, in our food? Doesn’t that mean it was “marketed” before 1994? Not to the FDA. The supplement must have been separated out of the food, and sold for its own properties. Human beings have consumed the antioxidant resveratrol for millennia because it’s found naturally in the skin of grapes. But no one in the industry has yet been able to prove that resveratrol was marketed as a separate ingredient or was found on the label of a food or supplement before 1994.

The problem is a little different with P5P. P5P is the only form of vitamin B6 that the body can use directly. It’s produced naturally in the body: all other forms of B6, whether in food or in supplement form, must be converted to P5P first; without it we die. Most of us don’t get enough B6 in our diet, and some people lack the enzymes needed to convert pyridoxine into P5P.

There shouldn’t be any problem grandfathering P5P since there is no question that B6 was sold prior to 1994. But the FDA says no. If the form of B6 sold earlier was not P5P, if the label didn’t say P5P, they won’t grandfather it.

As we have previously reported, a drug company, Medicure Pharma, wants sole use of P5P and has petitioned the FDA to ban its use as a supplement entirely. Although Medicure has yet to market a drug made from P5P, it has already petitioned FDA to have the supplement banned now.

This idea of taking what we cannot live without and turning it into a controlled prescription drug is shocking. But this could only be the beginning. We are concerned this new “approved” list of supplements will be used by drug companies to knock out competition from other supplements effortlessly.

For a supplement to get on the grandfathered list, the FDA says it cannot be “chemically altered”—and the definition of that term was another bone of contention at the meeting. Many grandfathered ingredients, because they now go through different (and often safer) manufacturing processes than they did before 1994, could therefore be considered “chemically altered” by the FDA. So either supplement producers would have to revert to pre-DSHEA manufacturing processes, or else they would no longer be on the grandfathered list! Consumers would get the short end of the stick either way, but the FDA doesn’t care.

As we pointed out when the first draft of the guidance was issued, FDA’s stance is so extreme that a ripe apple would be considered “chemically altered” when compared to an unripe apple! Logic would suggest that the production process should not matter if the end ingredient is basically the same.

In all of this, FDA seems to be targeting new, improved, or technologically advanced supplements, presumably because they see them as potential competitors to drugs. If they keep cutting-edge supplements off the market, drug companies can also make big money by selling the older version of the supplement, as Pfizer does with its Centrum multivitamin that we discussed last week.

Here’s another example of why this question of a grandfathered list is so important. Vitamin E is a powerful antioxidant that prevents cell structure damage, boosts the immune system, reduces cholesterol, lowers the risk of developing cancer, thins the blood, helps skin repair itself, and even strengthens your hair. And everyone “knows” that vitamin E was sold prior to 1994. It currently appears on a trade association’s list of grandfathered dietary ingredients. However, this has not yet been vetted or approved by the FDA. If the proper documentation can’t be found, either vitamin E would be off the grandfathered list, or else some forms of E might be listed and others might not. This is important because different forms of the vitamin work very differently. Vitamin E in the form of mixed tocopherols may prevent breast cancer, among other benefits, whereas the common alpha-tocopherol form may not. Some researchers and integrative doctors actually warn against taking alpha-tocopherol alone because it may interfere with the body’s use of the other forms of vitamin E.

Unfortunately, this information has been buried by the media. All of the research on vitamin E that the media has been reporting—and badmouthing—has used alpha-tocopherols instead of mixed tocopherols, as Dr. Jonathan Wright points out in the current issue of his Nutrition and Healing newsletter.

We are pleased that the FDA is including stakeholders at the NDI guidance redraft meetings. We are pleased that consumers were included by inviting us. But there are reasons to be very watchful. We don’t want a grandfathered list that will not only exclude many supplements actually sold before 1994, but will also make it easier to reject all newer supplements. With vigilance and your help, we won’t let that happen.

http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-grandfathered-ingredients-rule-and-vitamin-e/

Andrew Leonard - Joseph Stiglitz: “Romney’s Plan is Based on Magic”

Joseph Stiglitz has a decent résumé. He won the Nobel Prize in economics and served as chairman of Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers before being named chief economist of the World Bank. His C.V. , however, pales before his passionate commitment to pushing for economic policies that help the poor and powerless — inside and out of the United States. For Stiglitz, economics and social justice can’t be separated.

Since the election of Barack Obama, Stiglitz has also been something of a thorn in the side of the current administration, consistently critiquing the White House for falling short. He wasted no time in pointing out that Obama’s stimulus was too weak and his housing policy woefully ineffective — and he’s been particularly biting on the topic of Obama’s subservience to banking interests. But with Election Day fast approaching, it’s always useful to look at what the other guys would do, instead. Stiglitz took some time out to explain to Salon why, when the topic is economy, there’s really no choice for progressives in this election.

Read More:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/11/02-5

Sarah van Gelder - What Climate-Driven Hurricane Sandy Teaches about Cooperation

2012 may well be remembered as the year the climate crisis got real. Superstorm Sandy followed a summer of record-breaking heat, wildfires, and droughts, during which more than half of U.S. counties were declared disaster zones. We may at last be to a point where we can all agree that it's time to tackle the climate crisis.

But there’s another issue that Sandy raises. Climate models suggest we'll be facing similar disasters with increasing frequency. So will we, as neighbors and as a nation, come to the aid of those who lose their home, business, or farm because of flood, drought, fire, or other climate-related disaster? Are we a country that comes together in hard times, or do we come apart? In other words, when things get tough, do we turn to each other? Or do we turn on each other? The answer to these questions will define much about how we live together as we face increasing climate weirdness in coming decades.

Read More:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/11/02

Ralph Nader - Waiting for Obama, Democrats Will Lose the House of Representatives

Will the Congressional Democrats recover the House of Representatives from the clutches of the cruelest, most corporately monetized, anti-people Republican Party since 1858? (see the House Democratic Caucus report) Amazingly, the answer, less than a week before the election, is no, according to veteran House Democrats, pollsters and the Washington D.C. punditry. In fact, that negative prediction has been consistent for at least 8 months.

Two more years of Reps. John Boehner, Eric Cantor and their gang blocking Barack Obama (if he gets elected), should he want to champion any significant legislation. Why can’t the Democrats landslide these Republicans as FDR, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson would surely have done?

The answers lie in the grotesque unmentioned ways that the incumbent Democrats have tied themselves up in knots that spell centralized paralysis. The following highlights how they have made themselves dysfunctional.

Read More:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/11/02-1