PoliticalAction.com Blog

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Power-hungry statists are never satisfied.

Now they’re attempting to use a massive egg recall to shove S. 510, the so-called “Food Safety Modernization Act,” down our throats.

S. 510, through a patchwork of rules and regulations on the food “industry,” will throw America’s heartland under the government-subsidized corporatist bus as it crushes local and community producers of healthy food.

Contact your senators today to tell them to oppose S.510!

Like Cap and Tax, which will guarantee higher energy bills during these rough economic times, S. 510 will further drive up the costs of living by adding more layers of bureaucracy on food production – ensuring you pay more to meet an essential need.

Congress certainly won’t be the one tightening its belt. Section 401 of S. 510 authorizes nearly $1 billion to grow the FDA’s reach and calls for almost 4,000 new bureaucrats to be hired in fiscal year 2010 alone.

This onerous new law will apply harshly to reputable food producers like the independent family farm, where the free market works every day to provide the public with healthy choices.

Meanwhile, Big Agriculture will continue to use its well-entrenched connections to make sure it escapes serious scrutiny.

The statists have worked to replace “credible evidence” with “reasonable probability” in the U.S. Code, giving the FDA power to invade, quarantine, or shut down private property in search of any foodborne illness.

They also changed “presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals” to “is adulterated or misbranded.” What exactly constitutes adulterated? That glass of raw milk? An FDA bureaucrat will decide.

It gets worse.

The bill also grants blanket authority for federal agencies to impose international guidelines and standards on domestic food producers – giving agencies authority to harmonize all American food production and processes in line with the globalist Codex.

It should be noted that Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Richard Burr (R-NC) coordinated to reach a “bipartisan” agreement to forge ahead with the otherwise stalled bill.

If you are a constituent of any of these senators, they especially need to hear from you.

Big Brother and Big Agriculture are combating the truly modern way to improve food safety by targeting the rapidly growing number of food producers who, through the free market, provide diversity and give us choices.

The establishment is pushing for more consolidation and is looking to control your food choices to make it happen. Don’t stomach another round of tyranny. Contact your senators today.

In Liberty,

John Tate

President

P.S. Gluttonous statists are drooling to pass not only this bill, but other assaults like DISCLOSE and Cap and Tax. If you are able, please chip in $10 today so Campaign for Liberty can stay on the offensive against any infringements on our freedoms. Use the “Share” button below to forward this message to your friends and family.

It all started in the 1920’s with Yellow Journalism.

William Randolph Hearst, who arrived on the scene in 1887, was already in control of the headlines on a day-to-day basis because of his efficient business practice within the industry. He was able to produce his Newspapers at next to nothing by manufacturing the tree pulp used and controlling the channel of production down to his papers, the San Francisco Examiner, and eventually the New York Journal (Which became a leading Newspaper).

He teamed up with Henry Dupont to manufacture the ink used in the New York Journal and the partnership began to grow.

ALONG CAME HEMP

Hemp grows 4 times faster than the timber used for tree pulp by Hearst.

Hemp grows annually and can be grown more times

Hemp produces a better quality paper.

Hemp can be grown in any region of the United States.

Since Hemp grew so fast and it grew in every region, Hearst could not stop the middle class farmer from decentralizing the industry. Hearst knew that he could not provide the intellectual property to keep Hemp from destroying his industry and replacing it with middle class producers

In other words he was afraid of the free market. He was afraid of us… he had to stop it!

Dupont and Hearst knew then that not many Americans understood the difference between Hemp and Cannabis. So they used it against the Americans by claiming Cannabis will make you rape and kill your sister if smoked, illustrating the dangers of inhaling by using grim reapers in their newspapers with joints. And people believed it!

Time and Time again they would use this propaganda through the New York Journal, claiming that Mexicans bringing Marijuana across the border would sleep with White Wives and take White Jobs. They were also saying this about Black Americans who took up smoking and started the Jazz movement.

Dupont’s banker was Andrew Mellon, Mellon bank of Pittsburgh (5th largest bank at the time). Andrew Mellon had a Nephew, Harry Anslinger. Andrew Mellon financially backed Anslinger and threw all of his weight into convincing the U.S. treasury that Marijuana is dangerous and it should be heavily regulated by way of taxation and prohibition.

The treasury could use a program that would generate that much income for the government so in June of 1930 the treasury gave birth to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Ansligner hated Mexicans, Blacks, and Cannabis. He was on a mission to eliminate all of them. Immediately Ansliger waged war on Cannabis regurgitating claims made by Hearst in his Newspapers. (Success stories followed in the New York Journal).

Then, in 1937 Anslinger approached congress with intent to fully regulate all Cannabis. The entire meeting was comprised of Ansliger making emotional outbursts and attempting to offer evidence, all of which was newspaper clippings out of Hearst’s Newspapers.

With the exception of one congressman, all agreed and the act passed, Marijuana became criminal giving birth to the Drug War.

Not to mention Hearst, Dupont, and Mellon were all filthy rich now and had their hands in official pockets.

But the story doesn’t stop here. Andrew Mellon had to study the enemy, He saw what happened with Alcohol Prohibition and he knew it wouldn’t be long before the public caught on.

Mr. Mellon then financed Pharmaceutical companies through government grants and private equity to try to create a synthetic substitute for the over 60 different medicinal properties Cannabis contains. (They have yet to accomplish this goal)

If you look into the history you will find that fossil fuels would have never existed if it wasn’t for this intervention in the market place.

CANNABIS CAN SUPPLY THE ENTIRE NATION WITH ENERGY ON ONLY 1% OF U.S. LAND. ALL CARBON CLEAN.

(AND REMEMBER IT GROWS EVERYWHERE)

This is where the Federal Reserve comes in. The Federal Reserve System does not want to see the decentralization of resources towards localism because if that were to happen the Fed would lose a stronghold on the liquidity pools it artificially creates. It would also mean they couldn’t use the Carbon Tax to consolidate wealth across the world.

With Cannabis being legal and having over 25,000 uses there would be no way to compete against local and more sustainable banks.

So, the Federal Reserve uses banks like the Mellon to fund the DEA and keep money flowing and keep marijuana illegal. The Fed knows that with Cannabis being legal our GDP would boom but not in favor of large monopolies like the FED, but quite the contrary.

This is why I always say… the day we legalize it is the day we end the FED!

Despite years of warnings by public interest organizations such as the Organic Consumers Association and the Humane Society of the U.S., earlier this year, drugged-out pigs and chickens on intensive confinement factory farms have incubated a highly infectious H1N1 virus that set off a global pandemic.

This so-far only moderately virulent but rapidly spreading strain of influenza, which contains genetic material from pigs, birds and humans has already infected 162,000 people and killed hundreds of people across the world, including the United States. The World Health Organization has warned that although the current H1N1 Swine Flu is far less deadly than the Bird Flu, it could mutate into a much more dangerous strain. As the flu season approaches in the Northern Hemisphere, profit-obsessed drug-makers are racing to supply governments with vaccines and medicines. There are numerous concerns about the safety of these messures, including:

A leaked memo revealed that the swine flu vaccine has been linked to paralysis.

The fast-tracked vaccine contains novel adjuvants, including dangerous squalene which was in all probability responsible for Gulf War syndrome.

If the greed of drug companies prevails over safety concerns, vaccines will be pushed on a frightened, ignorant and passive public through the school system, work places and free vaccination programs. Schoolchildren could be first in line for the swine flu vaccine this fall — and schools are being put on notice that they might be turned into shot clinics.

It is important to know that you can avoid quasi-forced vaccinations of yourself and your children. Plus, there are homeopathic alternatives for treating and building a natural immunity to the swine flu.

Please click here to tell Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Congress and the President that you reject forced vaccinations and vaccines rushed to market without proper safety testing. Tell them you want them to address the root cause of swine & bird flu: factory farms. Then, contact your local officials with the same message. Many decisions about who will be vaccinated or recieve medical treatment and how will be made at the local level.

Yet another bill that would give the Food and Drug Administration new powers over our food supply has been introduced and passed in the House of Representatives. This new bill, known as the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (H.R. 2749), was passed on July 30 by a vote of 283-142.

H.R. 2749 is just one of several bills in Congress that would expand the powers of the FDA. What are the differences between one bill and another? Anyone’s guess is as good as another! This bill, like many others, was literally rushed through the voting process leaving House members little-to-no time to read, debate, or offer any significant amendments on the legislation.

A recent blog post on JBS.org stated, “One version [of H.R. 2749] was introduced at 12:15 a.m., one at 9:36 a.m., and 10:50 a.m. on Wednesday morning. By Thursday the bill was again on the table, this time with the option that representatives could offer amendments. One was offered. No action was taken on it, which leaves the question, again, how many representatives voting on this stealth bill actually read it.”

Much like the previously reported H.R. 875, or other legislation that would further federalize our food supply, H.R. 2749 would threaten the livelihood of small farms and other food producers by placing costly and burdensome restrictions on the companies and potentially forcing them out of business.

Opponents of the bill argue that small farmers and local vendors would be held to the same standards of multinational companies. This would place heavy restrictions on anyone hoping to sell their products to consumers who frequent farmer’s markets, fruit stands or other venues of that nature.

Use The John Birch Society’s legislation alert system to write your Senators and urge them to oppose H.R. 2749 and any other legislation that would centralize our food system.

Thank you,
Your friends at The John Birch Society

Fund Announces New Affiliate Membership Program In Celebration of National Farmer’s Market Week

Offering Legal Services to Rapidly Growing and Increasingly Regulated Direct-to-Consumer Groups

Falls Church, Virginia (August 7, 2009) – Even as the USDA commends Farmer’s Markets in the week-long National Farmer’s Market Week, August 2 – 9, 2009, State and local health and agriculture departments are making participation difficult and expensive by cracking down on participating farmers.

Some Farmer’s Markets have become a victim of their own success, as regulators swarm over these events and nit-pick the farmers for fees, licenses and permits.

“We are seeing farmers quit the markets because they are besieged with burdensome regulations and overlapping licensing requirements that make doing business at the farmer’s market too costly,” said Fund President Pete Kennedy, Esq. The Fund seeks to support Farmer’s Markets and other direct-to-consumer food outlets with a new Affiliate Membership program that provides affordable, accessible legal guidance for these organizations.

“When Farmer’s Markets are open early in the morning or on the weekend, their Market Manager can call our Emergency Hotline to talk directly with legal counsel about a market problem” says Kennedy.

“When I joined the Fund I never thought I would ever need to call to the Emergency Hotline. In less than thirty seconds there was Pete Kennedy calling me back”, says Pam Lunn, owner of the Dancing Goat Dairy in Tampa, Florida. Pam had been ordered to stop selling milk by a misinformed inspector at the Saturday Market. “The money I spent on joining was the best money I have ever spent in a lifetime!”

Farmer’s Markets are the flagship of the innovative and rapidly expanding direct-to-consumer food trend fueled by the public demand for fresher, more nutritious food that is produced closer to home. Millions of food-savvy consumers are bypassing the grocery stores and flocking to innovative outlets like Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), Cow-Share Programs, Private Buyers Clubs and Food Co-ops to access food for their families which is not available elsewhere in their communities. Because of the many recent food recalls, the draw to these outlets is fresh, safe, nutritious and non-toxic foods from known sources – local sustainable farmers.

The USDA reports that direct-to-consumer market is the fastest growing sector of the agricultural economy: “Over the past decade, the growth of direct-to-consumer food marketing across all regions far exceeded the growth of total agricultural sales. From 1997-2007, direct-to-consumer food marketing grew by 104.7 percent in the United States, while total agricultural sales increased by only 47.6 percent.” (USDA Facts on Direct-to-Consumer Marketing, May 2009).

“As our name suggests, the Fund was originally created to support the Farmer and the Consumer. Now, we feel it’s essential to support the “to” in our name, the non-profit groups and local food entrepreneurs who are recreating the way that America shops for food,” says Kennedy.

“Our Affiliate Membership Program is the next critical step in our mission to expand and encourage direct-to-consumer trade and ultimately provide our neighbors and communities with easy access to local, fresh and safe sustainably farmed products.” Candidates for Affiliate Memberships include Farmer’s Markets, Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs), Cow or Goat-Share Programs, Private Buyers Clubs and Food Co-ops.

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund defends the rights and broadens the freedoms of sustainable farmers, and protects consumer access to raw milk and local, nutrient-dense foods. Concerned citizens can support the Fund by joining at www.farmtoconsumer. org or by contacting Fund at 703-208-FARM (3276).

The Fund’s sister organization, the Farm-to-Consumer Foundation works to promote consumer access to raw milk and local, nutrient-dense food, and support for farmers engaged in sustainable farm stewardship. Visit www.farmtoconsumerf oundation. org.

Contact:

Taaron G. Meikle

Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund

703-860-1010

The man that brought you Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone is now america’s food safety czar.

The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.

Here’s the back story.

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply — the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods — secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried “serious health hazards,” and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.

But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn’t going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies

When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to “different risks” than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them — companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled — from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.

In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world’s top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation

In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies “systematically overlook the side effects” and significantly underestimate “the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others.”

The Fox Guarding the Chickens

If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto’s attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto’s vice president and chief lobbyist.

This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America’s food safety czar. What have we done?

The Milk Man Cometh

While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90’s, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) — injected into cows to increase milk supply.

The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk — unless it was organic and therefore untreated.

Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA’s approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.

Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.

Taylor’s disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto’s own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor’s white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.

Will Monsanto’s Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?

As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such. Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania — Dennis Wolff. As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn’t afford to create separate packaging for just one state.

Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania’s Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff’s madness. But Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor’s FDA disclaimer on the package.

President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!

Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania’s governor is supporting Wolff’s appointment is to get him out of the state — after he “screwed up so badly” with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.

Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus

Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania’s lead by requiring Taylor’s FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size. This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio. Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland’s office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.

Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration.

To hear what America is saying about GMOs and to add your voice, go to our new non-GMO Facebook Group.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa-surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.

Last week The John Birch Society updated our subscribers on the Clean Water Restoration Act (S. 787) which would place virtually all waters of the United States under the control of the federal government.

As if that is not enough, there is another bill in the House that would place federal control on much of the food industry.

Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (H.R. 875) on February 4, 2009. The bill, which currently carries 40 cosponsors, would effectively transfer all state control over food regulation to the Food Safety Administration (FSA), a newly established federal bureaucracy to be created within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). It would very likely contribute to the eventual abandonment of all independent, family farms as well as all organic farming operations due to the high probability of overbearing federal regulations arbitrarily determined by FSA in favor of corporate factory farms.

H.R. 875 would violate the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by delegating what should be state-level authority to the federal government. The burdensome record keeping that would be required by the FSA would threaten the success of small agricultural businesses and family-owned farms who may not be able to comply with new federal restrictions.

While all Americans should be concerned about yet another power grab at the hands of the federal government, family farm and other small agricultural businesses should be especially cautious of H.R. 875 as it threatens their own businesses and way of living.

Please take a few moments of your time and urge your representative to oppose the passage of H.R. 875 and support the future success of family farms and small agricultural businesses.

Thank you,

Your friends at The John Birch Society

Click the link below to log in and send your message:

http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/jbs34968879.aspx

We, the undersigned professionals, come from a variety of disciplines but all have an abiding interest in ensuring that government public health and environmental policies be determined honestly, with full attention paid to the latest scientific research and to ethical principles.

EIGHT recent events make action to end water fluoridation urgent.

1. The publication in 2006 of a 500-page review of fluoride’s toxicology by a distinguished panel appointed by the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC, 2006). The NRC report concluded that the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) safe drinking water standard for fluoride (i.e. maximum contaminant level goal or MCLG) of 4 parts per million (ppm) is unsafe and should be lowered. Despite over 60 years of fluoridation, the report listed many basic research questions that have not been addressed. Still, the panel reviewed a large body of literature in which fluoride has a statistically significant association with a wide range of adverse effects. These include an increased risk of bone fractures, decreased thyroid function, lowered IQ, arthritic-like conditions, dental fluorosis and, possibly, osteosarcoma.

The average fluoride daily intakes (*) associated with many of these adverse effects are reached by some people consuming water at the concentration levels now used for fluoridation — especially small children, above average water drinkers, diabetics, people with poor kidney function and other vulnerable sub-groups. For example, the average fluoride daily intake associated with impaired thyroid function in people with iodine deficiency (about 12% of the US population) is reached by small children with average consumption of fluoridated water at 1 ppm and by people of any age or weight with moderate to high fluoridated water consumption. Of special note among the animal studies is one in which rats fed water containing 1 ppm fluoride had an increased uptake of aluminum into the brain, with formation of beta-amyloid plaques, which is a classic marker of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in humans. Considering the substantial variation in individual water intake, exposure to fluoride from many other sources, its accumulation in the bone and other calcifying tissues and the wide range of human sensitivity to any toxic substance, fluoridation provides NO margin of safety for many adverse effects, especially lowered thyroid function.
* Note: “Daily intake” takes into account the exposed individual’s bodyweight and is measured in mg. of fluoride per kilogram bodyweight.

2. The evidence provided by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2005 that 32% of American children have dental fluorosis – an abnormal discoloration and mottling of the enamel. This irreversible and sometimes disfiguring condition is caused by fluoride. Children are now being overdosed with fluoride, even in non-fluoridated areas, from water, swallowed toothpaste, foods and beverages processed with fluoridated water, and other sources. Fluoridated water is the easiest source to eliminate.

3. The American Dental Association’s policy change, in November 2006, recommending that only the following types of water be used for preparing infant formula during the first 12 months of life: “purified, distilled, deionized, demineralized, or produced through reverse osmosis.” This new policy, which was implemented to prevent the ingestion of too much fluoride by babies and to lower the risk of dental fluorosis, clearly excludes the use of fluoridated tap water. The burden of following this recommendation, especially for low income families, is reason alone for fluoridation to be halted immediately. Formula made with fluoridated water contains 250 times more fluoride than the average 0.004 ppm concentration found in human breast milk in non-fluoridated areas (Table 2-6, NRC, 2006).

4. The CDC’s concession, in 1999 and 2001, that the predominant benefit of fluoride in reducing tooth decay is TOPICAL and not SYSTEMIC. To the extent fluoride works to reduce tooth decay, it works from the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. It makes no sense to drink it and expose the rest of the body to the long term risks of fluoride ingestion when fluoridated toothpaste is readily available.

Fluoride’s topical mechanism probably explains the fact that, since the 1980s, there have been many research reports indicating little difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Leverett, 1982; Colquhoun, 1984; 1985 and 1987; Diesendorf, 1986; Gray, 1987; Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Spencer,1996; deLiefde, 1998; Locker, 1999; Armfield and Spencer, 2004; and Pizzo 2007 – see citations). Poverty is the clearest factor associated with tooth decay, not lack of ingested fluoride. According to the World Health Organization, dental health in 12-year olds in non-fluoridated industrialized countries is as good, if not better, than those in fluoridated countries (Neurath, 2005).

5. In 2000, the publication of the UK government sponsored “York Review,” the first systematic scientific review of fluoridation, found that NONE of the studies purporting to demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation to reduce tooth decay were of grade A status, i.e. “high quality, bias unlikely” (McDonagh et al., 2000).

6. The publication in May 2006 of a peer-reviewed, case-controlled study from Harvard University which found a 5-7 fold increase in osteosarcoma (a frequently fatal bone cancer) in young men associated with exposure to fluoridated water during their 6th, 7th and 8th years (Bassin et al., 2006). This study was surrounded by scandal as Elise Bassin’s PhD thesis adviser, Professor Chester Douglass, was accused by the watchdog Environmental Working Group of attempting to suppress these findings for several years (see video). While this study does not prove a relationship between fluoridation and osteosarcoma beyond any doubt, the weight of evidence and the importance of the risk call for serious consideration.

7. The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America’s drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion (Fox, 1999; Hazan, 2000; Plaisier, 2000; Thurnau, 2000).

8. The publication in 2004 of “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson. This meticulously researched book showed that industrial interests, concerned about liabilities from fluoride pollution and health effects on workers, played a significant role in the early promotion of fluoridation. Bryson also details the harassment of scientists who expressed concerns about the safety and/or efficacy of fluoridation (see Bryson interview).

We call upon Members of Congress (and legislators in other fluoridating countries) to sponsor a new Congressional (or Parliamentary) Hearing on Fluoridation so that those in government agencies who continue to support the procedure, particularly the Oral Health Division of the CDC, be compelled to provide the scientific basis for their ongoing promotion of fluoridation. They must be cross-examined under oath if the public is ever to fully learn the truth about this outdated and harmful practice.

We call upon all medical and dental professionals, members of water departments, local officials, public health organizations, environmental groups and the media to examine for themselves the new documentation that fluoridated water is ineffective and poses serious health risks. It is no longer acceptable to simply rely on endorsements from agencies that continue to ignore the large body of scientific evidence on this matter — especially the extensive citations in the NRC (2006) report discussed above.

The untold millions of dollars that are now spent on equipment, chemicals, monitoring, and promotion of fluoridation could be much better invested in nutrition education and targeted dental care for children from low income families. The vast majority of enlightened nations have done this (see statements).

It is time for the US, and the few remaining fluoridating countries, to recognize that fluoridation is outdated, has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, violates sound medical ethics and denies freedom of choice. Fluoridation must be ended now.

By Rod Nickel; Editing by John Picinich
Reuters, Jun 1, 2009
Straight to the Source

[Editors Note: Read the statement the Organic Consumers Association joined in opposition to GE wheat here. Take Action.]

SASKATOON, Saskatchewan (Reuters) – Farm and environment groups opposed to genetically modified wheat are countering a call from other farm organizations for biotech companies to commercially develop it.

Fifteen groups in the top wheat-exporting countries of Canada, the U.S. and Australia released a joint statement of opposition to GMO wheat on Monday. It follows the May 14 call by GM wheat supporters in the three countries for synchronized production of GM wheat.

“Genetic engineering for wheat would be a calamity for all wheat farmers,” said Julie Newman, a member of the Network of Concerned Farmers in Australia. “Consumers across the world have already rejected the idea of GE wheat.”

Monsanto Co shelved plans for a herbicide-tolerant GMO wheat in 2004 in the face of opposition from U.S. wheat buyers, farmers and exporters such as the Canadian Wheat Board that feared a loss of overseas customers. Major export markets in Europe and Asia are particularly sensitive to concerns about GM food.

The farm groups’ main concern is that loss of markets will hurt prices for farmers, said Katherine Ozer, executive director of the Washington D.C.-based National Family Farm Coalition.

“If (genetically engineered) wheat is released commercially, contamination would be inevitable and markets would view all wheat produced from these areas as GE unless proven to be non-GE,” the groups stated. “Farmers growing GE wheat will take on all of the responsibilities, costs and liabilities, with little available legal recourse to recover their losses.”

Other groups signing the statement include the National Farmers Union, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, the Organic Federation of Australia, Biological Farmers of Australia, Greenpeace and the U.S.-based Organic Consumers Association.

Farmers who support development of GMO wheat say genetic engineering would help wheat stay competitive with other key crops like corn, soybeans and canola that have GM seed options. But GMO opponents counter that unlike GMO crops grown primarily for feed, oil and fiber, wheat is mainly used for human consumption and would be subject to labeling requirements in many countries.