Natural Communities Magazine A magazine devoted to the local natural wellness culture.

The Senate is still wrangling over the 2007-2012 Farm Bill. One new consumer-friendly amendment, vehemently opposed by the biotech industry, would force the FDA to reverse its current controversial regulations on milk from cloned animals. Despite widespread opposition from the OCA and other consumer groups, the FDA has approved the commercialization of milk from cloned animals as “safe” and will not require labels. The newly proposed Mikulski amendment to the 2007 Farm Bill would require the FDA to place a temporary moratorium on cloned milk and examine its potential health hazards for animals and humans. We have updated our Farm Bill alert to address this issue. To Contact your Senators here: (Click here)

Have you noticed over the last year how virtually every large corporation is trying to make consumers believe their products are “Earth friendly?” Everything from toxic cosmetics to smog-producing cars are now being positioned as “green” products, and just recently I actually saw a package of mercury-containing compact fluorescent lights with a marketing logo that claimed the product was, “Helping protect the planet!” I have yet to understand the logic of how buying and throwing away mercury-contaminated products has any real benefit to the planet.

Defenders of CFLs claim these lights are good for the environment because even though they contain toxic mercury, they use less energy than incandescent lights. And since coal-fired power plants release mercury into the atmosphere, the use of less energy means less overall mercury is being introduced to the environment. While this sounds sensible at first, it’s still junk logic: How does harming the planet slightly less than before deserve a “green” claim of any kind? If I poke you with ten sharp sticks, and then reduce it to just five sharp sticks, I cannot claim that my actions are suddenly “good for your health!” It’s still a harmful action with negative consequences.

Corporations, it seems, can claim that practically anything is eco-friendly or environmentally friendly, regardless of all the toxic chemicals it contains or produces. That’s what this article is all about: “Greenwashing” or the practice of corporations claiming their products are green when, in reality, they’re not at all impressive as eco-friendly products.

I recently saw paper plates positioned as “eco-friendly biodegradable tableware.” I remember when we used to just call them “paper plates” and we avoided buying them because we wanted to save the trees. But today, paper plates are positioned as green living products. Fascinating how things shift so quickly, isn’t it?

Nowhere is greenwashing more overhyped than in the ethanol biofuels industry, where gullible consumers are being told that we can simply farm our way out of an oil crisis by — get this — converting most of our food into fuel! Ethanol from corn is so energy inefficient that it takes almost exactly one barrel of oil from somewhere else to farm, harvest, process and produce one barrel of oil equivalent energy from corn. In other words, it’s just a massive U.S. energy shell game with absolutely no net gain in energy production, but a huge net loss in food production. Corn prices are already skyrocketing because of the ramp up in ethanol production from corn.

The only people promoting ethanol production from corn are corn farmers, politicians or complete idiots. Some people are all three.

But let’s face it: Consumers like to buy products that they think are “green” in some way, even if the green-ness of those products is highly exaggerated or even entirely fictitious. Why? Because it removes their guilt for driving SUVs, eating meat products and spraying pesticides on their lawns. Somehow, buying a little corn ethanol and a few packages of paper plates puts it all back into balance for these people — folks who live remarkably unsustainable lifestyles that would require five Earths to support if everyone lived that way. Simply eating meat products is so destructive to the environment that you could actually do more to reduce global warming by going vegetarian than by ditching your car.

Magically, the purchasing of a handful of green products each week causes all that guilt to just melt away. The more green products we buy, many consumers believe, the greener the planet will be! Americans are the only people in the world who believe we can save the Earth by going shopping.

Be skeptical of manufacturers’ claims

It’s more important now than ever to be skeptical of “green” claims by product manufacturers. Everybody’s on the green bandwagon, it seems, and even products that are extremely hazardous to the environment often carry some type of green claim. Consumers need to be sharp and do their research on these corporations before blindly buying into their claims of being Earth friendly.

Most fabric softener products (dryer sheets), for example, are positioned as being at least somewhat Earth friendly thanks to a claim in the ingredients list that reads “Biodegradable fabric softeners.” Unfortunately, the second ingredient in fabric softeners is “fragrance,” and the fragrance chemicals are so highly toxic that they cause cancer in humans and are extremely destructive to aquatic ecosystems downstream. Merely drying your clothes with common dryer sheets, then washing them the next time you do laundry unleashes a chemical tidal wave of toxicity that is shockingly harmful to the environment. But that doesn’t stop these companies from positioning their fabric softener sheets as being green, does it?

There are too many examples to cover here, but they’re easy to find if you just look around with some degree of intelligent skepticism. Many products that carry “green” claims may in fact be slightly less damaging to the environment in one particular and narrowly-defined way, but if you look at the overall product and consider where it came from, how it was manufactured and what impact it will have downstream, you’ll realize it’s actually quite harmful to the environment.

No regulation of “green” claims

Today, there is absolutely no regulation of claims of “green” or “Earth friendly” products in the U.S. marketplace. Manufacturers can essentially print anything they want on their products, and there’s no requirement that such claims reflect reality.

Some certification companies are trying to change all that, but none have yet achieved a critical mass of consumer recognition. GreenSeal is one such organization (www.GreenSeal.org) that’s trying to publicize its certification of environmental responsibility, but many corporations don’t like to participate in the GreenSeal program because they don’t want to have to reformulate their products using more environmentally responsible (and more expensive) chemical alternatives. The current list of GreenSeal-approved products and companies is frighteningly short: http://www.greenseal.org/findaproduct/index.cfm

The FDA, for its part, has no interest whatsoever in requiring that the products it regulates are Earth friendly. And you know why? Because the fastest growing source of harzardous consumer products are, in fact, pharmaceuticals, and if the FDA admits it needs to start enforcing environmental safety in food and drug products, it would have to face up to the fact that medications are now a primary source of global pollution of rivers and oceans. (Take a guess what all those HRT drugs are causing down stream…)

So what about the EPA? Why doesn’t the EPA regulate pharmaceuticals as environmental pollutants? The answer is obvious: Because the EPA mirrors the FDA in its kow-towing to the financial interests of powerful corporations, and it’s far easier for the EPA to bury its head in medication-contaminated sand than to take meaningful action to protect the environment from Big Pharma.

Greenwashing is big business, and so is pushing more toxic products to consumers that they will spray on their lawns, shove down their throats, put in their cars or pee away into the sewer system. Most consumer products are highly toxic for people, animals and nature, and before long, nearly all of them will likely carry some kind of greenwashing claim that declares how good they are for the environment.

It’s the Big Lie of consumerism, and the American economy depends so much on the continued purchasing of throwaway products that it simply cannot survive unless people keep buying — and tossing — products that are mostly harmful to the environment. We’ve already sent the climate into a tailspin with carbon dioxide emissions and global warming, but that’s only the beginning of this story. The Earth is being poisoned, day by day, by greenwashing corporations and gullible consumers, and it’s only a matter of time before it all comes back to bite us so hard that we become a race of chemically-induced genetic mutants.

Mike Adams

www.Newstarget.com

---

There are many toxic substances, like mercury and asbestos, which continue to cause cancers like mesothelioma in many individuals. Living with cancer due to exposure to toxins is very difficult, so if you’ve been affected, contact a personal injury or mesothelioma lawyer for medical compensation.

The Sun’s Warmth is a service company to assist the homeowners and business owners through the process of determining the what and the how to achieve effective energy efficiency, renewable energy, healthy construction methods, and sustainable designs.

The goal is to provide you the information needed to reduce your energy costs and provide a portion or all of your heat, hot water and electricity from clean safe renewable energy sources.

Educating how to increase the energy efficiency of energy using equipment, determining the amount of renewable energy production available, requesting/evaluating bids from vendor/contractors, project management and more are services that can be provided.

My wife and I moved into our off the grid home over five years ago and have had more than 700 people visit the project as part of the National Solar Home Tour and other events.

The Sun’s Warmth will support your goal of owning a healthy, sustainable, renewable energy home and lifestyle.

28609 Walnut Run Way
Red Wing, MN 55066

651-301-3271

www.sunswarmth.com

Let’s be honest for a moment. There’s no question that over the years I’ve tweaked the FDA, Canadian, and European regulators for some of the outrageously absurd positions they’ve taken when it comes to alternative health and supplements. Then again, I’ve also praised them on those occasions that I believe they’ve done the right thing. But of all their positions and all their calls, none brings their credibility more into question than their position regarding stevia. Understand, I have no investment in stevia. I use it in a couple of formulas, but it is hardly essential to what I do. That said, I believe that an exploration of the regulators’ position on stevia speaks volumes as to their overall position on alternative health. So, without further ado…

What is stevia?

Stevia is a tropical plant native to South America. Its extract has up to 300 times the sweetness of sugar. Although some people complain of its staying power in the mouth or its sometimes licorice-like aftertaste, it is a popular natural alternative sweetener. As a sweetener, it is low glycemic and has added benefits in potentially helping to control obesity, enhance glucose tolerance, and reduce blood pressure. You would think that with this kind of pedigree, it would qualify as the perfect sugar substitute and be approved for use as an alternative sweetener everywhere. You would be half right. It is widely used throughout Asia (particularly Japan) and South America — not so in the US, most of Europe, and Canada, where it is banned as a food additive. In the United States, and Canada it’s allowed as a supplement, but not in food. In Europe, it’s only allowed as an additive to animal feed.

This whole separation thing between food additives and supplements as seen in the US and Canada is actually very nebulous — and deliberately so. Although the rulings as written by the various government agencies might appear clear, government authorities choose to interpret them as the mood suits. A good example is the recent censure of Celestial Seasonings teas. Celestial Seasonings followed the letter of the law by labeling their Zingers tea an herbal supplement and including a supplements facts panel on the label, but as it turns out, that didn’t matter. To quote from the FDA notice, “Notwithstanding your use of the term ‘Herbal Supplement’ to identify the product and your use of a supplement facts label for nutrition labeling, your Zingers Tangerine Orange Tea is subject to regulation as a conventional food and not a dietary supplement… Therefore, your stevia-containing Zingers Tangerine Orange Tea is adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C) of the Act.”

To better understand the situation, let’s take a more detailed look at stevia.

What are the studies that support it?

In fact, stevia has been studied extensively. In addition to the studies cited above showing its benefits in regard to obesity, glucose tolerance, and high blood pressure, there are numbers of other studies proving its safety. For example, a 1991 study in Thailand found that even at doses 1,000 times normal human dosage, hamsters demonstrated no difference in growth rate or sexual performance — even through three generations.

In 2004, researchers at the KU Leuven (Belgium) organized an international symposium on ” The Safety of Stevioside.” Scientists from all over the world who attended concluded that stevioside is safe:

• Stevioside is not carcinogenic. On the contrary, studies in Japan have proven that stevioside reduces breast cancer in rats as well as skin cancers in animals models.
• Stevioside is not absorbed by the human gut. Only bacteria of the colon degrade stevioside to steviol. Part of this steviol is absorbed through the intestine but is quickly metabolized to steviol glucuronide and excreted in the urine. No free steviol is detected in the blood.
• Although steviol showed a weak mutagenic activity in one very sensitive strain of bacteria, even high concentrations of oral steviol were harmless (up to 2 g/kg body weight)!

What are the problematic studies?

So is everything rosy for stevia? Not necessarily. There have been some problematic studies. For example:

• A 1984 study found that although stevioside was not cancer causing, steviol, a metabolite of stevioside, is indeed mutagenic in the presence of a specific metabolic activation system — although subsequent studies have either not found it so, or found the effect to be so low as to be insignificant (1, 2). And again, as discussed earlier, any steviol that passes through the intestinal tract is metabolized to steviol glucuronide and excreted in the urine. In fact, some studies have shown that stevia may actually be cancer preventive.
• There were also studies that indicated stevia might negatively affect fertility in rats, but those studies were later refuted by more reliable studies involving higher numbers of rats and more controlled protocols. And this merely reinforces the results of numerous other studies.

The bottom line is that there is no compelling evidence that stevia in any reasonable dosage causes cancer. In fact, it is worth noting that the incidence of cancer in Japan is very low, although stevioside has been used there for over 25 years. And as for the fertility issue, there is no meaningful laboratory evidence that stevia has any effect on male or female fertility, nor on the development or state of the fetus. And again, despite a quarter of a century of use in Japan, there is no actual evidence of any negative effect on fertility or any other aspect of health for that matter.

It should also be noted that all of the problematic studies have used purified stevia at levels far, far, far higher than would ever happen in a normal human diet. Is this important (after all, testing for mutagenic effects at high doses is standard procedure)? The problem is that just because it’s standard doesn’t make it meaningful. Keep in mind that even things that are healthy can become deadly if taken in large amounts. For example, if you have 100 times the normal dosage of protein each day, you will destroy your liver in short order. If you have a 100 times the normal dosage of water, you will die in a single day — in a rather messy explosion.

The bottom line here is that all of the problematic studies have been conducted on rats and hamsters with absurdly high doses. In the real world, stevia has been in use with hundreds of millions of people throughout Asia and South America for as much as a quarter of a century. We’re talking billions of doses and no sign of increased cancer or lowered fertility. If only the alternative sweeteners that the regulators allow could match that kind of track record.

What are the absurdities of the regulators’ positions on sweeteners?

But all that aside, it would at least be understandable if the regulators played with a fair deck and applied equal standards to all alternative sweeteners. But they do not.

Aspartame

• According to the FDA’s own audit on aspartame, the Bressler Report, aspartame triggers brain tumors, mammary tumors, pancreatic tumors, ovarian tumors, pituitary adenomas, uterine tumors, etc. A senior FDA toxicologist, the late Dr. Adrian Gross, who tried to prevent the approval of aspartame, told Congress that it violated the Delaney Amendment because it triggered brain tumors (Congressional Record SID835:131 - 8/1/85).
• Aspartame has also been shown to trigger birth defects and miscarriages — not just if the mother uses it, but the father also.
• Before aspartame was approved in beverages in 1983, the National Soft Drink Association created a THIRTY PAGE PROTEST (that was later read into the Congressional Record) declaring that aspartame was NOT stable, and that it could actually make unwary users FATTER!

The bottom line on aspartame is that its safety record and evaluation record do not even come close to matching the safety of stevia. In fact, FDA’s own evaluation committees rejected aspartame. But in 1983, the Commissioner of the FDA, Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, overrode his own committees and approved NutraSweet (aspartame) for soft drinks two months before leaving office. A couple of months later, after he had retired from the FDA, he accepted a position as Senior Medical Advisor to Burson Marsteller, the public relations firm that promoted NutraSweet for G.D. Searle, NutraSweet’s manufacturer — at the rate of $1,000 per day. An unfortunate coincidence, one might say.

Sucralose

If you think that sucralose, the new darling of the regulatory agencies, has better science behind it than aspartame, you would be sadly mistaken. As Dr. Mercola points out, as of 2006:

• “Only six human trials have been published on sucralose. Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. The two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects…The longest trial at this time had lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.”

In addition, pre-approval research shows that sucralose causes up to 40% shrinkage of the thymus gland and enlarges the liver and kidneys.

High fructose corn syrup

And, of course, high fructose corn syrup, the number one sweetener used in the world today is a health disaster.

What lies in the future?

One has to wonder why aspartame, sucralose, and high fructose corn syrup — all with proven major negative health effects — are approved by regulatory agencies in the US, Canada, and Europe and are currently in widespread use; whereas stevia is not. Not to be cynical, but perhaps the companies behind aspartame, sucralose, and high fructose corn syrup (G.D. Searle, Royal DSM, Tate and Lyle, and ADM) have a political clout that small independent stevia producers cannot muster for a non-patentable natural sweetener.

If that’s true, we can be fairly sure that we will never see stevia approved for commercial use in Europe, Canada, and the US until one of those large corporate entities finds a way to patent it. But wait! Forgive my cynicism! Cargill and Coca Cola are doing just that even as we speak! I think we can look forward to an approval of stevia — in a patented form — in the not too distant future. Will this version be safer? No, of course not. It will merely have a different name, Rebiana. Oh yes, and Coke and Cargill will back it. In the world of nutrition regulation, it appears that money talks… and real nutrition walks. It’s enough to give you high blood sugar, tiny thymuses, brain tumors, and shrunken sex glands!

Conclusion

I originally titled this article the Stevia Shibboleth. A shibboleth, as described in the Bible, was a secret word used by the ancient Gileadites to identify outsiders who were unable to pronounce the word correctly. In a sense, we can see that stevia is being used as a shibboleth by regulatory agencies to separate the insiders (the large commercial entities with major political influence) from the outsiders (the purveyors of all-natural healthy products). And just as the Gileadites put outsiders who failed the test to death, so it would seem our regulators would do the same to manufacturers such as Celestial Seasonings who fail the modern Shibboleth test and pronounce their sweetener: stevia.

This article was originally written as a newsletter which is read by tens of thousands of people in over 120 countries. Of those thousands of subscribers, six have email addresses that carry the @fda.gov ID. This particular issue was written for them — and for the other handful of subscribers who represent the European regulatory agencies.

Guys, as long as you approve aspartame, sucralose, and high fructose corn syrup as healthy and refuse to allow stevia to be used, calling it unsafe, despite all reasonable evidence to the contrary, you will have no credibility among thinking people. It is tantamount to an open admission that approval has nothing to do with safety — only what’s bought and paid for.

Since we’re running a Biblical motif with our shibboleth reference, let’s conclude with another for our regulator friends. To paraphrase Moses, “Let my stevia go!”

To see more articles like this, please visit our website at http://www.jonbarron.org.

About the author
About Jon Barron and The Baseline Of Health Foundation
Founder and Director of the Baseline of Health Foundation, Jon Barron has lead much of the pioneering work in the study of nutrition, disease prevention, and anti-aging for the last 40 years. He is editor and publisher of the Baseline of Health Newsletter and the Barron Report, which are both read by thousands of doctors, health experts, and nutrition consumers in over 140 countries. For more information, visit www.jonbarron.org.

www.newstarget.com

Autism is on the rise, both in prevalence and incidence, and there is growing evidence that environmental insults, such as pesticides, are linked to this developmental disability. According to the latest study, published in the October issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, children born to mothers living near fields where pesticides are applied are more likely to develop autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). The authors ofMaternal Residence Near Agricultural Pesticide Applications and Autism Spectrum Disorders among Children in the California Central Valley compared maternal pesticide exposure for 465 children with ASDs and 6,975 children without ASDs living in the same area. The research reveals that mothers who lived within 500 meters of fields sprayed with organochlorine pesticides, specifically endosulfan and dicofol, during their first trimester of pregnancy had a six times higher chance of having children with autism compared to mothers who did not live near the fields. Mark Horton, M.D., director of the California Department of Health, said the findings are exploratory and indicate that more research of the relationship between organochlorines and ASDs is needed. (See Daily News Blog posting from July 31, 2007 for further reactions from health care officials and more details about this study.)

ASDs include a range of developmental disabilities that are characterized by substantial impairments in social interaction and communication and the presence of unusual behaviors and interests. The symptoms range from mild to very severe, appearing before the age of 3 and lasting throughout a person’s life. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one of every 150 eight-year old children has an ASD, a prevalence rate of almost 7 per 1,000 children that is the same across multiple areas of the US. ASD prevalence shot up in 1990s, reaching levels of 2.0-7.0 per 1,000 children, greater than a tenfold increase from the prevalence rates identified in the 1980s, 0.1-0.4 per 1,000 children. There are indications that the rates, while still rising, may be leveling off at present, but this may reflect improvements in diagnostic screening and increased parental awareness as much as changes in the underlying factors. ASDs were first identified as a specific disorder in 1943, and since then the criteria for diagnoses have changed many times. Comparisons of rates over time may not be entirely consistent or thoroughly systematic, but the prevalence has reached a point where it is a condition of concern for parents and school officials.

Federal health authorities believe that ASDs probably result as an interaction between genetics and environmental factors. Despite the high degree of heritability of ASDs, genetic factors cannot completely account for the incidence of autism. After extensive genetic testing, researchers have not been able to pinpoint a specific genetic locus or set of genes linked to autism. Among identical twins, if one child has autism, there is a 75% chance that the other child is affected, but there can be significant differences in the symptoms displayed in twins. Because the concordance rate among identical twins is not 100% and the number of autism cases is rising, it seems likely that environmental causes are key factors. A 2000 report by the National Academy of Sciences indicates that as many as 25 percent of all developmental disabilities in children may be caused by environmental factors.

The relative rarity of autism in the Amish community around Middlefield, Ohio, where only one per 15,000 children has an ASD, provides promise for uncovering environmental factors that cause the disorder. One explanation for the lower prevalence was that Amish children, who are religiously exempt from immunizations, were not exposed to thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative in vaccines. While the CDC acknowledges the possibility of a link between thimerosal and autism, they point out that there have been studies that discredit this causal relationship. (See Daily News from June 13, 2005 for more on Amish rates of autism).

Other substances that have been implicated as risk factors for autism include viruses, industrial chemicals and electromagnetic radiation. A few individual cases of ASDs have been linked to prenatal exposure to valproic acid, as well as to infectious agents such as the rubella and influenza viruses. Some drugs taken by mothers during pregnancy are also linked to a higher risk of autism in children, especially the prescription drug thalidomide, which in the past was administered as a sleeping pill and used to treat morning sickness. Yet, for all these factors, there is less than perfect concordance, which suggests that a genetic predisposition is necessary for the chemical or microbial factors to lead to autism.

However, the role of environmental insults in the development of autism has been documented and cannot be ignored in future research. Research of autistic children in the San Francisco Bay area,Autism spectrum disorders in relation to distribution of hazardous air pollutants in the San Francisco bay area, found a potential association between autism and concentrations of mercury, cadmium, nickel, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride in ambient air around birth residence. A 1998 article in Toxicology and Industrial Health,Autism: xenobiotic influences, looked at 18 autistic children and found that 16 of these children had levels of toxic chemicals in their blood that exceeded the adult maximum tolerance. Similarly, the authors ofPorphyrinuria in childhood autistic disorder: implications for environmental toxicity describe how urninary levels of porphyrin, a biomarker of environmental toxicity, were elevated in autistic children relative to control groups. Porphyrin levels were not significantly different in children with Asperger’s disorder, distinguishing it from autism.

Men, Boys and Environmental Threats, a 2007 report by the Canadian Partnership for Children’s Health and Environment, highlights how boys are more susceptible to environmental risks than girls, which is especially relevant to autism. Boys are four times more likely than girls to be diagnosed with autism, in addition to outnumbering girls in the incidence of learning disabilities overall, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Tourette’s syndrome, cerebral palsy and dyslexia. For several reasons, boys brains may be more vulnerable during development to damaging substances found in the environment, including lead, mercury, arsenic, radiation, dioxins, PCBs, solvents and some pesticides, and (See Daily News from July 16, 2007 for more information on why boys are more prone to environmentally related health conditions.)

Gustavo C. Roman, M.D., suggests that substances that interfere with thyroidal activity may produce morphological brain changes leading to autism, in a 2007 article,Autism: transient in utero hypothyroxinemia related to maternal flavonoid ingestion during pregnancy and to other environmental antithyroid agents. Scientists have identified specific changes to brain cells during development that are particular to autism, and these processes are regulated by hormones produced by the mother’s thyroid gland. Dr. Roman notes that environmental contaminants interfere with thyroid function, including 60% of all herbicides, in particular 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), acetochlor, aminotriazole, amitrole, bromoxynil, pendamethalin, mancozeb, and thioureas. Other antithyroid agents include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), perchlorates, mercury, and coal derivatives such as resorcinol, phthalates, and anthracenes. Mercury acts as an antithyroid substance by causing inhibition of deiodinases and thyroid peroxidase. A leading ecological study in Texas,Environmental mercury release, special education rates, and autism disorder: an ecological study of Texas, correlated higher rates of autism in school districts affected by large environmental releases of mercury from industrial sources.

Warren Porter, Ph.D. argues that the connections among the nervous, endocrine and immune systems need to be looked at when asking how do pesticides affect learning and behavior.Studies show that pesticides can function as nerve poisons and as pseudo hormones, modify hormone levels, and/or impact immune system function, he writes. Learning is dependent on immune system processes & hormonal changes, so any changes to these systems could lead to developmental disabilities. Dr. Porter was first drawn to the relationship between pesticides and learning when he looked at a 1997 survey of student disabilities in the Madison Metropolitan School District (WI). From 1990-1995, the number of children in Madison with learning disabilities increased 70%, children that were emotionally disturbed increased 87%, and children with birth defects increased 83%. Dr. Porter writes that similar changes are seen globally, and that the data from Madison are indicative of a worldwide phenomenon of increasing behavioral and learning disabilities among children, who face more and more contaminants and toxic chemicals in the environment.

To address the public health concern that autism has become and explore the potential environmental factors related to the developmental disorder, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created four new children’s environmental health research centers in 2001. Over the past five years, twelve such research centers nationwide were funded $1 million a year. Additionally, CDC’s Centers for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Research and Epidemiology (CADDRE) have teamed up on a large, population-based study, the Study to Explore Early Development (SEED), to uncover the risk factors for and causes of autism. If successful, researchers will better know how to develop strategies to prevent this complex disorder.

Irva Hertz-Picciotto, epidemiologist at the University of California, Davis, and a member of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) panel, believes that the government’s proposed projects can provide some answers, but not a definite cause for autism. I’m optimistic that we will have identified some environmental risk factors, and may have excluded a few others, between 2008 and 2010, but by no means will we have the final word. The genetics and the gene environment interactions may be even tougher. Unfortunately, I don’t see enough groups working on the environmental contribution to autism, so it may be slower than projected, she says. Mark Blaxill, vice president of SafeMinds, a parent-led advocacy group, also thinks that more attention should be paid to environmental risk factors.The CDC has not addressed the crisis in autism responsibly, he says.They should be raising the alarm, and they have failed to do so. They should be asking why so many children are sick. Instead, they’ve tried to suggest a degree of doubt about the increases, and that diverts attention and funding from environmental causes.
 www.beyondpesticides.org

---

There’s no doubt that pesticides and chemicals like benzene are harmful to our health. Water contamination cases have been filed all over the country, and have caused serious health problems in their wake. There are many lawyers, from personal injury attorneys to mesothelioma attorneys, who can handle cases such as these and help victims receive compensation.

Grass-fed meat will soon only be allowed to use the “grass-fed” label if the animals ate nothing but grass after being weaned, according to new standards from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The grass-fed label is currently unregulated and can be used for animals that were fattened on grains in the final weeks before processing.

The new rules, which take effect November 15, 2007, require that grass-fed animals eat nothing but grass and stored grasses, and have access to pasture during the growing season, which is defined as from last frost to first frost.

However, according to the American Grassfed Association, which represents many raisers of grass-fed animals, the definition of “growing season” means that animals could be confined for long periods, and kept off of pasture even when there is grass growing.

The new rules also do not restrict the use of antibiotics and hormones in the animals.

The American Grassfed Association is planning to set up its own certification system that would require animals to be on pasture year-round, and be free of antibiotics and hormones.

Increasing numbers of people are eating grass-fed meat because they believe it is better for the environment and healthier, with higher levels of omega-3 fats, than meat raised on grains.

The New York Times October 19, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

This is a great step in the right direction, as currently it is virtually impossible to trust that any meat labeled grass-fed is truly fed on pasture year-round. That is, unless you have spoken to the farmer who raised the meat.

However, it is a small step, as the USDA regulatory system has a tendency to favor big business, which can easily afford the USDA’s costly certification fees. Small farmers, who are often raising food in traditional, healthy ways, then are not able to legally call their products “organic” or now “grass-fed” just because they haven’t paid the USDA for the privilege.

While farmers will have to allow the USDA to inspect their farm and records, to use a “U.S.D.A. Process Verified” seal, the new regulations say farmers can still label their meat as grass-fed (without the seal) if they submit documents showing their animals were raised as such. So that may be a way for small farmers to still benefit from the grass-fed label.

Why All the Fuss About Grass-Fed Meat?

Grass-fed beef is vastly superior to grain-fed beef, and in fact it’s the clear beef of choice you should be eating. It is far more important to choose grass-fed than to choose organic, as most grass-fed beef are also organic.

Not only is it raised in a more sustainable way for the environment, and a more humane way for the animal, but it’s the superior choice for your health.

Grass-fed beef, for instance, is lower in fat than regular beef and, more importantly, contains higher amounts of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a fatty acid. Grass-fed animals have from three to five times more CLA than grain-fed animals.

CLA has been making headlines for its extreme health benefits, which include:

• Fighting cancer and diabetes
• Helping you lose weight
• Increasing your metabolic rate, a positive benefit for promoting normal thyroid function
• Helping you maintain normal cholesterol and triglyceride levels
• Enhancing your immune system

Keep in mind that grass-fed meat is almost always preferable to certified organic meat also because most organic beef is fed organic corn, which is what causes the myriad of health problems associated with eating beef. If you can find organic, grass-fed meat, that would be ideal.

Remember, grass-fed meat doesn’t have to be “certified” grass-fed for it to give you health benefits. If you get in touch with a local farmer (try finding a farmer’s market or community-supported agriculture program in your area to do this) who can verify that the products are raised on pasture, without antibiotics and pesticides, you’re likely getting the absolute best meat there is, USDA-certified or not.

www.mercola.com

A growing number of small farmers in the United States, fed up with federal regulations that they say favor big business, are facing felony charges and possible jail time.

Farmer Richard Bean, who runs Double H Farm in Charlottesville, Virginia, and his partner are being charged with felony intent to defraud, which carries the possibility of three years in jail for a conviction, for selling meat improperly labeled “certified organic” along with seven misdemeanor charges.

“We were trying to skirt the system. A small farm, making it work,” Bean said. “We were able to earn a significant amount more per animal, and that’s how we are able to compete with corporate agriculture.”

Among the farm’s offenses were not slaughtering animals at a state-inspected facility, and placing certified organic stickers on meat that had been raised according to organic standards, but was not certified as such.

Government officials say the federal and state rules are designed to protect consumers from unsafe foods. However, proponents of local foods (locavores) and small farms, believe the regulations are forcing small farms out of business, and that government-certified organic foods are inferior to locally produced ones.

Small farmers and locavores are calling for unregulated direct sales of locally grown foods that allow people to obtain fresh foods that are better for the environment and the local economy.

The Washington Post October 19, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Sadly, our food supply seems to be crumbling before our eyes, and the government is single-handedly allowing, and actually encouraging, it to happen.

It’s not bad enough that multi-national corporations are forcing small farmers out of business. Now the last remaining farmers who are trying to raise food by traditional, safer, standards are being prosecuted and sent to jail — for selling food that is of better quality than any factory farm could ever hope for.

In the United States (and much of the world), money talks. One of the best ways to voice your opinion about this injustice is to spend your money with local small farms, farmers’ markets, and community-supported agriculture programs, and NOT with supermarkets and big-name retailers like Wal-Mart.

Please forward this article to your friends and family to help spread the word. If enough of you decide to support only naturally raised food from local farms, the industry will have no choice but to change its ways.

Fortunately, the “locavore” movement is already strong and growing in the United States, and it’s being fueled by people like you who are in-tune with the way nature works. You trust the farming methods of your ancestors over a government-approved sticker.

The absolute best food options for you are in-season varieties of produce and naturally raised meats that are grown locally. Many of them will likely also be organic, even though the farmer may not be able to afford the federal certification process to legally call them that.

Food from local sources is fresher, does not waste fuel being transported to you, and tastes like real, home-grown produce should: delicious!

For an excellent list of sustainable agricultural groups in your area, please see Promoting Sustainable Agriculture.

And remember, if you stick to foods raised in a natural, healthy way, nature will take care of your health.

www.mercola.com