Cancer is the biggest public health burden of mankind today. It kills 7 million annually, not to mention stripping the livelihood, dignity and future health of survivors who have treated it with radiation and chemotherapy. Pharmaceutical companies don’t want alternative health to pose any impositions to their stronghold on cancer “treatment.” An insane amount of annual revenue chemotherapy and radiation produces is at stake.
Body and hand lotions are some of the most used skin products on earth. Many people keep lotions at their work desk, beside their beds or in their bathrooms. The marketing pitches by these creams contend that use of the products can cause anti-aging effects as well as soften skin. But the fact is, these type of lotions really are just chemicals. Have you ever read the ingredients on a bottle? There are lots of natural solutions available in place of these.
Today, saying that soda is bad for kids is a relatively acceptable statement. Most people, in general, understand that soda drinks simply aren’t good for us. Soda producers know this as well seeing they’ve reacted creating “diet” versions of their core products which typically end up as worse, more dangerous, versions of their original counterparts. Coca-Cola is notorious for their advertisement campaigns that paint a completely opposite story, typically a world uniting narrative featuring the thin and healthy.
Unfortunately, soda is making everyone fat. And now Coca-Cola, in desperation, is trying to change the persona of their prized sodas.
A new write up by investigative journalist, Paul Thacker, alleges that Coca-Cola paid off journalist in order to influence them. Essentially, Coca-Cola was hoping to downplay the sugar and obesity connection. The documents were obtained under Freedom of Information laws. Thacker even claims Coca-Cola paid off journalism conferences. 4
Industry money was used to covertly influence journalists with the message that exercise is a bigger problem than sugar consumption in the obesity epidemic, documents obtained under freedom of information laws show. The documents detail how Coca-Cola funded journalism conferences at a US university in an attempt to create favourable press coverage of sugar sweetened drinks. When challenged about funding of the series of conferences, the academics involved weren’t forthcoming about industry involvement.
Thacker goes on to note that products such as Coca-Cola notoriously relate their sugar-laden drinks to a sport so that they can make it seem that it is OK to drink their sodas so long as people exercise.
As Yoni Freedhoff, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Ottawa, told The BMJ, “For Coca-Cola the ‘energy balance’ message has been a crucial one to cultivate, as its underlying inference is that, even for soda drinkers, obesity is more a consequence of inactivity than it is of regularly drinking liquid candy.”
Making the connection to paid off journalist following through with their good press coverage…
The six figure bill for funding these journalism conferences was more than repaid in favourable press coverage, say critics. Documented evidence of the industry’s covert influence on the media is rare. In 2004, researchers examined secret documents made public during tobacco litigation. Attempting to derail the effect of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s 1993 report on secondhand smoke, the tobacco industry successfully placed stories in major print publications about the report’s “scientific weakness” to help “build considerable reasonable doubt . . . particularly among consumers,” the researchers wrote.1 They concluded that even journalists can fall victim to well orchestrated public relations efforts, regardless of the quality of the science used in these PR exercises.
The article goes on to cite a number of examples. Coca-Cola “donated $1m to the University of Colorado, home institution of the Global Energy Balance Network’s president, James Hill, a professor of pediatrics.” Another baffling example was CNN. “A CNN reporter attended the 2014 journalism conference and later contributed to a story that argued that obesity’s cause could be a lack of exercise, not the consumption of sugary soft drinks.”
“Critics told The BMJ that Coca-Cola’s $37,000 support for that particular conference and the resulting story was a better bargain than an advertisement placed on CNN’s website.”
Some months after the event, Hill emailed a Coca-Cola executive and described the conference as a “home run,” adding, “The journalists told us this was an amazing event and they generated a lot of stories.” Hill continued, “You basically supported the meeting this year . . . I think we can get many more sponsors involved next year.”
Journalist Kristin Jones called the entire scam out, but was told it was no big deal. The Foundations President, Bob Meyers, essentially fired off Jones’ complaints to professors at the University of Colorado.
“The funding for this came from our general educational grant resources.” Months later, Peters emailed Coca-Cola executives a report on the 2014 journalism conference, thanking them for the “educational grant that supported this work.”
“I feel like I was lied to,” Jones told The BMJ. Jones no longer works as a journalist but said that she would not have attended the conference had she known of Coca-Cola’s funding.
Monsanto, of course, is appealing….
SACRAMENTO – Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® and many other weed killers, is being added to California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced today.
The effective date of the listing will depend on the outcome of a request for a stay in the Fresno County Superior Court case Monsanto v OEHHA. The lawsuit challenged OEHHA’s ability to list the chemical. The trial court ruled in OEHHA’s favor, but Monsanto is appealing the decision and asking the Court of Appeal to issue a stay that would block the listing while the appeal is pending. OEHHA is opposing Monsanto’s request.
Proposition 65 is a right-to-know law that California voters approved in 1986. It requires the state to maintain a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Proposition 65 does not ban or restrict the use of listed chemicals. Instead, it requires businesses to provide warnings prior to causing a significant exposure to a listed chemical. It also prohibits discharges of the chemical into sources of drinking water.
The requirement to provide warnings takes effect one year after a chemical is added to the list. Warnings must be clear and reasonable and can be provided in a variety of ways, including on product labels or on signs near where the exposure can occur.
OEHHA is also proposing a regulatory “safe-harbor” level for glyphosate of 1100 micrograms per day, which means that exposures below that level are not considered a significant risk and would not require a warning. The proposal begins a 45-day public comment period that will end on May 22.
The safe-harbor level helps businesses determine when a warning is required. Once the warning requirement takes effect, businesses with 10 or more employees who cause exposures above the safe harbor level may need to provide warnings. It is not known at this time which products and exposures would exceed the safe-harbor level and require warnings.
Glyphosate is being added to the list because it was identified by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as causing cancer in animals. Proposition 65 requires that certain chemicals identified as carcinogens by IARC under the California Labor Code must be added to the list.
OEHHA is the lead agency for implementation of Proposition 65 and has established a website that provides information for Californians about their exposures to toxic chemicals from the products they buy and the places they go. The website – www.p65warnings.ca.gov (link is external) – is a central part of OEHHA’s efforts to update and improve the implementation of Proposition 65. The office also maintains and updates the Proposition 65 list of chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive effects.
In addition, OEHHA is the primary state entity for the assessment of risks posed by chemical contaminants in the environment. Its mission is to protect and enhance public health and the environment by scientific evaluation of risks posed by hazardous substances.
Contact: Sam Delson
(916) 324-0955 (O)
(916) 764-0955 (C)
Many people turn to tea as a healthier option. In many cases, people are avoiding coffee or sodas and are persuaded by others that tea is a less harmful caffeine infusion. But many of our most popular brands of teas are laden with pesticides and even fluoride. Less expensive teas are often the corrupted versions.
The core issue is that many tea leafs are sprayed with pesticides so that the tea leaf producer doesn’t experience losses. Often, those tea leafs simply aren’t washed before they are placed in tea bags. Once bagged, your options to wash it yourself have greatly dwindled. Pesticides have been linked to carcinogenic toxins.
Additionally, fluoride has been found to be present in these non-organic versions of tea as well. The tea leafs are exposed to the ground and soil, which is often where the fluoride originates from.
A list of compromised tea companies was disclosed by Canadian research team. Those teas were Signal, Tetley, King Cole, Lipton, Uncle Lee’s Legends of China, Twinnings.
Uncle Lee’s Legends of China contained 20 different types of pesticides.
The list of safe teas were as follows, Amazon links included: Organic Traditional Medicinals, Organic Tazo, Two Leaves, Choice Organic Teas, Organic Stash, EDEN Organic, Rishi Tea, Numi Tea, Red Rose.
Some tips on avoiding toxic teas.
White tea is made of younger tea leaves, making their exposure to environmental toxins much less than other teas that have aged more in the soil and air. Buying the tea leaves, rather than prebagged, is always helpful. Obviously, you want to go organic. You want to avoid added flavors (your tea shouldn’t need a flavor added unnaturally). Teas you purchase at restaurants is likely not a good source.
But all’s not bad when it comes to tea, so long as you know the facts and how to approach your tea experience. Teas can be incredibly beneficial to your health. For one, many teas, most notably green tea, contain an amino acid called L-Theanine. L-Theanine helps to take the edge off the caffeine. It is one fo the world’s most powerful mood enhancers. You can take it as a supplement directly (here’s L-Theanine on Amazon). Of, just drink green tea and get your fill. This is why green tea has a less edgy, harsh effect than coffee.
Tea is full of antioxidants. Antioxidants fight free radicals from wreaking havoc on the body. Because of this, tea may help in the fight against many degenerative diseases, including cancer. Tea has also been said to boost the immune system. I drink green tea daily. Coffee is simply too harsh and causes me anxiety and insomnia (even when I only drink it in the mornings). It is also an easy way to get fluids into your body. Green teas contain the highest amounts of polyphenols, and the main type, catechin, which is said to be a pretty good nutrient for weight loss. This also means protecting the cells from damage. And THIS can mean less effects of aging in the human body.
There are also compounds in green tea which improve brain function. The caffeine mixed with the L-Theanine vastly improves people’s focus. L-Theanine increases the activity of the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA. It also pumps up your alpha waves, making your sleep pretty amazing (and sometimes weird). You can drink green tea, or purchase Sun Theanine (the only pure form of L-Theanine outside of green tea). It really is a game changer. I’d never go back to coffee, though some people say they take L-Theanine simply so they can have a better experience on coffee. I’m so used to green tea, I couldn’t imagine going back to coffee, though.
So all is not lost when it comes to drinking tea, you just need to be wise in your approach. Proceed with caution by knowing the facts about tea and you should be able to experience some powerful health benefits. The good news is that tea is very convenient and easy to make for yourself. You aren’t dependent on stores or cafes for it. You can make it in the safe, toxin-free confines of your own home.
Monsanto is embroiled in a bitter lawsuit with farmers, among many, who claim that their exposure to Roundup’s glyphosate chemical caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. During a court proceeding, it came to light that Monsanto potentially authored their own studies and simply had scientists sign the studies. The studies were centered around whether or not to include glyphosate as a carcinogen. According to Monsanto ghostwriters, glyphosate should not be considered a cause of cancer.
Essentially, a PR piece was accepted by the EPA as a standard, reliable study. No joke.
According to Yahoo!
Among the documents unsealed Tuesday was a February 2015 internal e-mail exchange at the company about how to contain costs for a research paper. The plaintiff lawyers cited it to support their claim that the EPA report is unreliable, unlike a report by an international agency that classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.
Monsanto Loses Bid to Keep Glyphosate Off List of Carcinogens
“A less expensive/more palatable approach” is to rely on experts only for some areas of contention, while “we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections,” one Monsanto employee wrote to another. “…but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak,” according to the e-mail, which goes to on say that’s how Monsanto handled the 2000 study.
The case is In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2741, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco). According to Monsanto writers, their company is doing great and everyone adores them. Not really, but maybe so….
The PLU code is what stores use to scan items for pricing at the register. It is also a way to file products. And further than that, it is a great way to figure out if you are buying organic produce or GMO produce.
Here’s how it works:
1. A four-digit code beginning with a 3 or a 4 means the produce is probably conventionally grown. The last digits of the code represent the kind of the fruit or vegetable you are buying. For example, bananas are always labeled with the code of 4011.
2. If there are five numbers, and the first is “8?, then the product is genetically modified. The label on genetically modified banana (GE-genetically engineered of GMO) would contain the numbers 84011.
3. A five-digit number that starts with a 9 means the item is organic. Organic bananas are labeled with 94011.
More and more fruits and vegetables are going the way of Monsanto. With the United States propping the massive GMO company up, the sky is the limit for them. We must be more vigilant when it comes to finding local growers who haven’t already been bullied into switching over to GMO. Our children’s futures depend on it.
The more we understand labels, the healthier we can opt to feed ourselves and our families. Details matter. Knowledge is key. Big Food is constantly fighting honest labeling legislation and for good reason: they stand to lose a lot. The more educated the masses become regarding their food’s ingredients, the more likely it is that people will opt to buy healthier, non-GMO versions. Big Food prefers to keep everyone in the dark so they can continue to funnel the masses down unhealthy roads.
Learn to read labels and sign petitions that support fair labeling practices. Stay aware and stay involved in your community. Maybe one day reading a label won’t be as complicated as the above illustration and video make it out to be.
Hardly anyone these days is under the impression that drinking sodas is in any way, healthy. In fact, sodas may well be the very unhealthiest of all the unhealthy possible options available to us. Soda serves no health benefit. They have no fiber to help blunt the massive sugar loads they deliver. They aren’t a natural source of vitamins or minerals. They aren’t calorically dense. In fact, as you will see in the graphic below courtesy of the RenegadePharmacist, they add in chemicals to help you refrain from vomiting the poison sugar loads.
And don’t think for a second that “diet” versions of these drinks are any better. In fact, many studies show them to actually be worse than their regular version counterparts. Sounds insane, right? Well often times the body treats fake sugar like real sugar, elicit an insulin response. Many people report huge weight loss and big health benefits just from ceasing consumption of sodas. If you still drink sodas, you might consider this.
image credit: pixabay
Argentinian Federal Prosecutor Fabián Canda has filed a request to the highest court in Argentina asking the country to prohibit any sales of GMO seeds inside of Argentinian borders. These are seeds which are able to bypass pesticides, such as Round Up, which is also produced by the same company. The basis of the request is that Glyphosate is shown to be a carcinogen.
Canda has also asked for a ban on aerial spraying of glyphosate herbicides and a 5 km no-spray zone surrounding population centers, schools, villages, farm houses, rivers, lakes and groundwater wells.
Canda stated, “scientific studies and technical reports carried out at the local and international level, including reports produced by control bodies such as the Auditor General’s Office and the Ombudsman’s Office.” He went on, “these reports and the references in them reveal at least the probable harm being caused by glyphosate-based herbicides” and to ignore them “is to assume a position that contradicts the jurisprudence of the Federal Court on Environmental Matters, regarding the application of the precautionary principle by Argentinian judges.”
The United States is one of the loosest countries on earth when it comes to GMOs.
Mom of 6 Leanne discovers the secrets to being more Sugar Smart and you won’t believe how easy it is. Watch as Leanne and her family tackle the challenges and see what changes they make with the help of Change4Life and the Sugar Smart app.
Maybe a good app to help monitor sugar in your kids during the New Year? Would you ever use an app like this?
So how much does sugar affect your children’s lives? Some experts have linked symptoms of ADHD to a high sugar diet in kids. Kids intelligence may suffer from high sugar loads as well, according to recent studies.
But in the end, the subject is polarizing amongst parents, teachers and the medical community. Some believe sugar has been unfairly demonized. In the end, it comes down to what you feel as a parent.