Health News: The cows you eat are on drugs!
08 Sep 2010 Leave a Comment
in Green Living, Health News, organic food Tags: Antibiotic resistance, antibiotics in poultry, cows, FDA, health, penicillin
Writing in the New York Times, former FDA Commissioner Donald Kennedy warns that the widespread use of antibiotics in livestock is a major threat to human health.
“More than 30 years ago … we proposed eliminating the use of penicillin and two other antibiotics to promote growth in animals raised for food,” Kennedy writes. “When agribusiness interests persuaded Congress not to approve that regulation, we saw firsthand how strong politics can trump wise policy and good science.
Already in the 1980s, Kennedy notes, scientists knew that the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics to prevent infection in healthy animals and make them grow faster was leading to the evolution of drug-resistant bacteria. To make matters worse, the antibiotics used in animals are largely the same as those used in humans, meaning that when these livestock-produced superbugs infect humans, doctors have few ways to deal with them.
An estimated 90,000 people die from hospital-acquired infections in the United States every year. Seventy percent of these infections are antibiotic resistant.
The livestock industry insists that it needs to use antibiotics to keep its animals healthy. But according to the Union for Concerned Scientists, 70 percent of the antibiotics used in agriculture are given to healthy animals that are only at risk of infection because they are kept in crowded, unsanitary confinement. And after Denmark banned non-therapeutic antibiotic use in the 1990s, the prevalence of drug-resistant bacteria in farm animals plummeted, while costs to livestock producers increased only slightly.
In 2005, the United States banned the use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics in poultry. Now the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act has been introduced, which would ban any non-therapeutic antibiotic use in animals unless drug companies could prove there was no risk of contributing to the development of superbugs.
A ban on non-therapeutic antibiotics in agriculture is supported by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Pharmacists Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Public Health Association, and the National Association of County and City Health Officials.
Sources for this story include: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/o….
by David Gutierrez, staff writer
Health News: Coming to you soon—and you probably won’t know that you’re eating it.
31 Aug 2010 Leave a Comment
in genetically modified, Green Living, Health News Tags: AquaBounty Technologies, FDA, frankenfish, Genetic engineering, Genetically modified organism, GMO fish, GMO salmon
I had to share this fantastic article by the Alliance for Natural health on GMO fish, the first of its kind. Scary People!
Genetically modified salmon—the first GMO animal for human consumption—is reaching the final stages in its approval. Most terrifying: they might not have to tell us if our fish is GM or not!
This week the FDA announced a 60-day period of consultation and public hearings over whether to permit a genetically modified strain of salmon (“frankenfish” to its critics) to be eaten by humans. The approval process could take less than a year, and if it gets the green light the fish could be on the market in eighteen months.
There are two sets of hearings: whether the FDA should approve this “new animal drug application,” and whether the fish (if approved) must be labeled as genetically engineered or not. Because it is new ground for the FDA and there are no regulations about genetically engineered animals, it is being evaluated as if it were an animal treated with drugs.
AquAdvantage Salmon, designed to grow twice as fast as traditional fish, is an Atlantic salmon containing the Chinook salmon growth hormone gene, plus an antifreeze protein gene from the ocean pout—an eel-like creature from a different family of marine organisms.
The fish has been created by AquaBounty Technologies of Boston, Massachusetts, and was developed over the past fourteen years at a cost of $50 million. The explanation of the genetic modification on the company’s publicity literature, aimed at reassuring the public, makes no mention of the ocean pout gene: “The chinook growth hormone is the same as the Atlantic salmon growth hormone; it is simply regulated differently. Their ability to grow faster does not change the biological make-up of the fish.”
AquaBounty says the fish will be raised in inland waters to ensure that the modified salmon do not enter the oceans. The GM salmon will also be sterile, which eliminates the threat of interbreeding among themselves or with native populations, eliminating the risk to wild populations or the environment.
ANH-USA has consistently opposed genetically modified organisms because of both the documented and the unknown health risks. If GMO products are approved, however ANH-USA strongly supports labeling. We do not have true health freedom if we are prevented from choosing non-GMO foods—which is precisely the result if there are no labels indicating that a particular food has been genetically modified. We do not like untested, new-to-nature substances being forced onto us, but we value the freedom of conscious consumer choice even more.
Eric Hallerman, head of the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences at Virginia Tech University, said, “This is the threshold case. If it’s approved, there will be others. If it’s not, it’ll have a chilling effect for years.”
One question the hearings will try to determine is whether and how AquaBounty salmon is “materially different” from regular Atlantic salmon. In past hearings on GMOs, the FDA has never found that genetic engineering in itself constitutes a material difference, and the FDA cannot require labeling based on differences in the production process if the resulting products are not materially different.
Any specific scientific data that might support material differences for this GM salmon will be released anywhere from two weeks to two days before the hearing, which will hardly be enough time for thorough scientific evaluation. The FDA says that if the Agency is unable to provide the materials before the meeting, they will be available at the hearing! This says it all about the FDA’s bias. Can you imagine telling a prosecutor or defense lawyer that the evidence would be withheld until the trial?
To date, FDA has refused to require GMO labeling based on consumer interest alone, and the courts (in Stauber v. Shalala and Alliance for Bio-integrity v. Shalala) have upheld the FDA’s decision.
The problem, of course, is that we don’t yet know what negative health effects such bio-engineering might cause in the salmon. We do know that genetically modified foods affect the human physiology in negative ways. One example: Filipinos who ate GMO corn found that their bodies developed antibodies to Bt toxin—that is, their bodies processed the corn’s engineered traits into their guts and reacted to them. These same consumers also developed a resistance to the antibiotic ampicillin.
Moreover, there are significant nutritional differences between GM and non-GM foods generally:
- GMO soybean varieties produce greater amounts of oleic acid than other soybean varieties. The FDA even acknowledged the differences in the oil they produce, concluding that the term “soybean oil” no longer adequately described the nature of the food but that a term like “high oleic acid” would be required to appear as part of the name of the oil.
- Roundup Ready beans were significantly lower in protein and amino acid, according to Jeffrey Smith in his book Genetic Roulette.
- In 1996, animal tests proved that there was a severe danger from genes spliced from Brazil nuts and soybeans—allergic reactions so severe that the individuals could suffer anaphylactic shock, possibly leading to death.
- We recently reported to you that GM soy made hamsters sterile, but that the effect did not hit until the third generation, a frightening thought if it applies to humans.
One major problem is that the FDA has historically rushed to approve genetically modified products that are later found to be dangerous. For example, the Flavr Savr tomato was genetically engineered in the early 1990s by Calgene Inc. (now owned by Monsanto); it was designed to stay fresh on store shelves longer than regular tomatoes. Even though the FDA’s own scientific advisers were concerned over Calgene’s findings, which showed stomach lesions in lab rats that ingested the GM tomato, the Flavr Savr went to market!
The FDA should certainly have required the Flavr Savr to be labeled as GM: not only were there significant “material differences” between it and a non-GM tomato in terms of its taste, its risk of fungal diseases, and other physical problems, but more importantly, the Flavr Savr tomato was never deemed safe. According to biologist Arpad Pusztai, “the claim that these GM tomatoes were safe as conventional ones is at best premature and, at worst, faulty.” The tomato was withdrawn from the market in 1997.
In the case of the GM salmon, there are two different FDA hearings—one on the AquAdvantage product, and one on the need for a labeling requirement—so we need your help with a two-pronged Action Alert. Please contact the FDA and voice your opinions on genetically modified salmon and on full disclosure in labeling. As always, we’ve drafted sample letters to help you. Please TAKE ACTION now!
| TO SEND YOUR MESSAGE TO THE FDA ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED SALMON
Click THIS LINK to go to the AquAdvantage Salmon Hearing |
TO SEND YOUR MESSAGE TO THE FDA ON LABELING FOR GMO FOODS
Click THIS LINK to go to the |
| Once there, fill out the form with your name and address, etc., and customize your letter. We have a suggested message for you, but please feel free to add your own comments to the letter. | |
News: Scientists Say F.D.A. Ignored Radiation Warnings
12 Apr 2010 Leave a Comment
in cancer, Health News Tags: cancer, FDA, radiation
WASHINGTON — Urgent warnings by government experts about the risks of routinely using powerful CT scans to screen patients for colon cancer were brushed aside by the Food and Drug Administration, according to agency documents and interviews with agency scientists.
After staying quiet for a year, the scientists say they plan to make their concerns public at a meeting of experts on Tuesday called by the F.D.A. to discuss how to protect patients from unnecessary radiation exposures. The two-day meeting is part of a growing reassessment of the risks of routine radiology. The average lifetime dose of diagnostic radiation has increased sevenfold since 1980, driven in part by the increasing popularity of CT scans. Such scans can deliver the radiation equivalent of 400 chest X-rays.
An estimated 70 million CT (for computed tomography) scans are performed in the United States every year, up from three million in the early 1980s, and as many as 14,000 people may die every year of radiation-induced cancers as a result, researchers estimate.
The use of CT scans to screen healthy patients for cancer is particularly controversial. In colon cancer screening, for instance, the American College of Radiology as well as the American Cancer Society have endorsed CT scans, in a procedure often called a virtual colonoscopy, while the American College of Gastroenterology recommends direct examinations in which doctors use a camera on a flexible tube.
For patients, navigating the debate can be difficult because doctors, patient advocacy groups and manufacturers often endorse positions that are in their economic self-interest. Radiologists, who often own and use CT machines, for instance, often endorse their use; while gastroenterologists, who often own and use camera scopes, often favor their own methods. Patient groups often get financing from drug and device makers, or physician-specialty groups.
The Food and Drug Administration, charged with sorting out such competing claims, has been just as torn on the issue. The internal dispute has grown so heated that a group of agency scientists who are concerned about the risks of CT scans say they will testify at the Tuesday meeting that F.D.A. managers ignored or suppressed their concerns, and that the resulting delay in making these concerns public may have led hundreds of patients to be endangered needlessly.
Scores of internal agency documents made available to The New York Times show that agency managers sought to approve an application by General Electric to allow the use of CT scans for colon cancer screenings over the repeated objections of agency scientists, who wanted the application rejected. It is still under review.
After an agency official recommended approving G.E.’s application, Dr. Julian Nicholas, a gastroenterologist who trained at Oxford University and the Mayo Clinic and worked under contract with the agency, responded by e-mail that he felt strongly that approving the application could “expose a number of Americans to a risk of radiation that is unwarranted and may lead to instances of solid organ abdominal cancer.”
Dr. Robert Smith, a former professor of radiology at both Yale and Cornell and an F.D.A. medical officer, wrote that he agreed with Dr. Nicholas because “the increased radiation exposure to the population could be substantial and would raise a serious public health/public policy issue,” documents show.
Alberto Gutierrez, deputy director of the F.D.A. office with responsibility over radiological devices, said in an interview that the right course on CT colonography was far from clear.
“This device that you’ve mentioned has not been cleared or approved at this time, and that should tell you that the process we go through is not done,” Dr. Gutierrez said.
Arvind Gopalratnam, a spokesman for G.E. Healthcare, wrote in an e-mail message that research had shown that “CT colonography can be a very valuable, noninvasive screening tool to help diagnose colorectal cancer at early stages and ultimately improve overall survival rates.”
For decades, scientists at the F.D.A. approved many radiological medical devices with minimal oversight, declaring them modest improvements over older devices and thus not needing extensive reviews or clinical trials to prove their safety and efficacy. But these devices now play a central role in American medicine, helping not only to diagnose a wide array of ailments, but also to treat cancers.
And the agency has done little to assess whether the rapid proliferation of scans is in the best interests of patients, and whether the machines themselves properly protect patients or are beneficial for all of their now-routine uses.
The Times ran a series of articles this year documenting the harm that can result from mistakes involving medical radiation, leading to a House subcommittee hearing last month and a chorus of calls by radiology groups, researchers, medical physicists and equipment manufacturers for stronger patient protection.
Even President Obama’s recent physical examination became part of the debate when the president had a virtual, rather than an actual, colonoscopy.
Growing awareness of the risks of scanning led F.D.A. scientists several years ago to begin demanding more and better information from manufacturers to prove that their devices actually were effective for such clinical applications as cancer screening and mapping blood flows in the brain.
But agency managers responded that suddenly changing the rules for the devices would be inappropriate and unfair to manufacturers, documents and interviews show.
The battle between the two sides intensified over a push by some device manufacturers and radiologists to use CT scans routinely to screen healthy patients for lung, colon and other cancers. At stake was another rapid increase in radiation exposures and scans worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
MSG, None for Me – Nasty Dye’s, Just say Goodbye Part Two
06 Apr 2010 1 Comment
in Baby & Child Health, cancer, Nursing Super Mommy, organic food, Toxic Food Ingredients/Additives Tags: add, artificial food coloring, carmine, coal-tar derivatives, diet and adhd, epa, fd&c blue, FDA, food dyes and children, petroleum, sun chips, yellow 6
OK so you read the first part of this article where I covered MSG. So now we move on to bigger and better toxic additives like food coloring. But not your organic and naturally occurring food coloring such as orange from carrots or red from beets. Nope we are talking about artificial food coloring made in a lab not grandmas kitchen.
It’s no secret that artificial food colorings have been found to cause all kinds of health problems, including ADHD, tumors, cancer and asthma in children.
So what are we talking about? Here is a list of artificial food dyes currently used in the US:
- FD&C Blue No. 1 – Brilliant Blue FCF, E133 (Blue shade)
- FD&C Blue No. 2 – Indigotine, E132 (Dark Blue shade)
- FD&C Green No. 3 – Fast Green FCF, E143 (Bluish green shade)
- FD&C Red No. 40 – Allura Red AC, E129 (Red shade)
- FD&C Red No. 3 – Erythrosine, E127 (Pink shade) [4]
- FD&C Yellow No. 5 – Tartrazine, E102 (Yellow shade)
- FD&C Yellow No. 6 – Sunset Yellow FCF, E110 (Orange shade)
If you are interested in reviewing information on the effects these dyes have in children click here
Next time you reach for that bag of chocolate that melts in your mouth consider if satisfying your chocolate craving is worth sacrificing your health.
These dangerous food colorings are made with petroleum and contain coal-tar derivatives. And guess what; they are in more foods than you think. So what can you do? READ READ and then READ some more! After your done reading labels make it a point not to purchase any products that contain these dyes.
So with what you know so far on artificial food colorings do you think it’s OK to give little Billy a bag of candy loaded with these toxic chemicals or use those colorful sprinkles on cupcakes for your little girl? What about you pregnant mommies? Can you picture your baby floating around in your tummy and getting this junk to eat via his only life line – the umbilical cord?
I don’t know what’s worse, the toxins disguised as food that cover the shelves of our supermarkets or the fact that the EPA and FDA does not require detailed testing of chemicals to determine the effects on humans. Yes its true – these chemicals just get made by mad scientists and then poof like an act of magic they are in your foods, no testing required.
Lets just review a few of these colors. Yellow 6 is widely used in jello, baked goods, drinks, sausages and other foods. In studies Yellow 6 has been linked to kidney and adrenal gland tumors.
You can find Red 40 in Sun Chips, Goldfish and many other snacks. It has been linked to hyperactivity disorders and severe migraines.
Blue 1 and 2 has been linked to cancer in mice. In 2003 Blue 1 leaked into a septic hospital patient’s bloodstream and caused death. Following this the FDA issued an advisory for the public. You can read more about that here
I could go on and on but the facts are quite clear. This stuff is poison – stay away from it and definitely don’t give it to your children.
Oh and just in case this article doesn’t phase you I thought I would mention that when you eat most non organic yogurt and candy said to have strawberry flavor or strawberries in them your actually eating bug juice. Its a red color ingredient called Carmine and its made by mashing up bugs and getting out the juice from them. This is done in developing nations then it is sold and shipped to ignorant buyers in the US. Not only do I find this nasty but there are potential health risks associated with this red bug juice. If you don’t believe me click here
Remember – colors are your friends when they are naturally found in foods such as sweet potatoes, beets, carrots, spinach, curcumin and many other life building foods. But beetle juice and mad scientist coloring additives are the enemy so run my friend and don’t look back lest you get trapped!
Who's saying what