Food wars: It's us (consumers) v. them (the processors)

Please excuse the occasional scatological language the author uses in The 6 Most Horrifying Lies The Food Industry is Feeding You. The information is solid. And, I hope, will alarm you enough to take action . . . at least to avoid the most egregious offenders. Someone needs to stand up against the processed foods juggernaut.

Ever since I realized I had to begin eating gluten-free, Sarita and I have attempted to become more diligent about reading our food labels (when we buy processed foods).

There are times--when we go out to eat--that we do the equivalent of the two (out of three) "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil" monkeys. We cover our eyes and ears and simply eat what is put before us . . . as long as they tell us the food is gluten free.

But for everyday eating, we have become ever-more-diligent about reading our labels. Perhaps this article will encourage you to begin doing that, too.

In preparation for some of your label-reading, you can't do much better than The 6 Most Horrifying Lies The Food Industry is Feeding You.

I've known about the top four lies ("Bulls**t Health Claims," "'Free Range' Chickens That Are Crammed Into a Giant Room." "Fake Berries," and "Ammonia-Infused Hamburger"). But I didn't know about Number 5 ("Zombie Orange Juice"--referring to that premium "Not From Concentrate" juice I have loved ever since I first discovered it) or Number 6 ("The Secret Ingredient: Wood").

Rather maddening--no, infuriating--to find out what the FDA permits in our food and to be said or implied about our food--so long as it has been processed.

Even more maddening what they won't permit to be said about natural, unprocessed foods . . . like walnuts and cherries.

Never too old . . .

As my high school classmates and I are turning 56 this year, I thought the following stories deserve our attention.

Let's not think of ourselves as old. Not when we've got a 61-year-old Vietnam vet playing college football and a 73-year-old playing college basketball.

Rick Perry's Gardasil problem

I've noticed that "conservative" news sources seem to be touting Rick Perry for president. What's strange: Just a couple of days before, I ran across a story about his ties to the drug company Merck . . . and how, it appears, he abused his power as governor of Texas to attempt to grant Merck a tremendous boon, in terms of sales, at the awful expense of the people of Texas, whose interests you would hope he would have held of highest importance.

Considering that background story, and considering how it appears the U.S. government is already controlled, to too great an extent, by Big Pharma and Corporate Agriculture interests--both of which might reasonably be shown to be contributing to the destruction of Americans' and, in fact, almost all humans' health--I wonder: do we really want a Rick Perry kind of person representing us as president?

I first ran across this story in a poorly-researched--or, at least, horribly worded!--article by Christina Luisa in NaturalNews.com.

In February of 2007, [Rick Perry,] the governor of Texas[,] issued an executive order that bypassed the will of the Texas people and the entire legislature, mandating the vaccination of young girls -- in Grade 6 in Texas -- with the HPV vaccine Gardasil.

Merck, the pharmaceutical company in charge of the . . . venture and the chief distributor of the vaccine, was the same drug company that was reported to have given thousands of dollars to Perry's campaign efforts.

The vaccine was given FDA approval in June 2006 then rushed to the market without proper testing through clinical trials. . . . Only 8 months later Gov. Perry signed the executive order mandating this vaccine to all young girls (and later young boys). . . .

Although there are over 25 million people in the state of Texas, as a justification for his actions, Perry reported that there were . . . 391 deaths of women by cervical cancer -- [none of which deaths had] been proven to be caused by the HPV virus to begin with. . . .

[O]nly four months after Perry signed his order for mandated Gardasil vaccines, there were 13 cases of adverse vaccine reactions reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS] database. There were thousands more negative reactions reported that were never touched by the mainstream media. By this alone, Rick Perry should have dismantled his executive order - but did he? Certainly not. . . .

I think Ms Luisa's heart is in the right place, but as numerous other sources have noted,

Just six weeks after Perry put pen to paper, the Texas House rebuked him on March 14, 2007, passing HB 1098, overturning his executive order by a vote of 119-21. The Senate followed suit the following month by a vote of 30-1.

Realizing both chambers had large enough majorities to override a veto, Perry opted to let the bill [overturning his order] become law without his signature. On May 8, the day the law went into effect, Perry held a press conference surrounded by women touched by cervical cancer. He bemoaned the tenor of a debate that he asserted had been "hijacked by politics and posturing," and blamed future cervical cancer deaths on those who opposed his mandate -- many of whom were fellow Republicans.

So I'm not sure why Luisa talks about Perry failing to dismantle his executive order.

But, nonetheless, there is a serious story here. And I'm led to wonder: Do we want a man to serve as president who is so willing to permit special interest groups like Merck to bully hundreds of thousands of people to use their children as guinea pigs for expensive medical experiments (Gardasil required/requires a series of three shots, each costing approximately $120!) . . . and then attempt to turn the tables on those who call him for his bad judgment by suggesting that they lack compassion for women and girls:

On May 8, the day the law went into effect, Perry held a press conference surrounded by women touched by cervical cancer. He bemoaned the tenor of a debate that he asserted had been "hijacked by politics and posturing," and blamed future cervical cancer deaths on those who opposed his mandate -- many of whom were fellow Republicans.

In a grand flourish, Perry thanked the small minority of legislators who sided with him: "They will never have to think twice about whether they did the right thing. No lost lives will occupy the confines of their conscience, sacrificed on the altar of political expediency."

In response, the sponsor of HB 1098, Republican state Rep. Dennis Bonnen, [said,] "Just because you don't want to offer up 165,000 11-year-old girls to be Merck's study group doesn't mean you don't care about women's health, doesn't mean you don't care about young girls." . . .

And, in fact, two years later the National Vaccine Information Center issued a report raising serious questions over the harmful side effects of the drug. A few months after that, an editorial on Gardasil in the Journal of the American Medical Association declared that "serious questions regarding the overall effectiveness of the vaccine" needed to be answered and that more long-term studies were called for.

But perhaps we should ignore these concerns. Perry had it on good authority that the vaccine was wonderful. After all,

his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck and . . . his chief of staff's mother-in-law, Rep. Dianne White Delisi, was the state director of an advocacy group bankrolled by Merck to push legislatures across the country to put forward bills mandating the Gardasil vaccine for preteen girls.

Shouldn't he be able to trust such people to give him the real scoop on the efficacy of Merck's drugs?

Unintended consequences of national health care: incentives

I met with a new vitality and longevity doctor last Friday. We had a great time swapping stories and perspectives.
"I'm all for evidence-based medicine," he said. "The only problem is, whose evidence? And how much is required?"

I will give just two examples from my own experience:

• Thyroxine: Kaiser Permanente (at least the doctors I've been dealing with) takes the perspective that a TSH (Thyroid Stimulating Hormone) test is "good enough" to tell whether and how much you need thyroxine supplements. Problem is--and I've seen it in my own body, not to mention read enough stories of others: Your TSH may come back in the "normal" range but the actual thyroxine hormones--T4 or T3 (not to mention Reverse T3)--may be completely wacked out. Or, as many (primarily women) have discovered, their T3 levels may, according to the standards of the laboratory, be within the low "normal" range, but they are feeling sluggish and exhibiting all the signs of significantly low thyroxine. "But the test shows you are normal," says their conventional doctor. "Yeah, but my body says I am low."
  
  Guess who's going to "win" this particular battle?
  
  The only way the woman is going to win is to find a doctor who is willing to consider the broader range of diagnostic symptoms than the TSH test and the supposedly "normal" range.
  
• Testosterone: Yipes!
  
  According to the latest LabCorp standards, "normal" serum levels go all the way from 193ng/dL on the low end up to 740ng/dL on the high. Strangely, up until sometimes late last year, their "normal" range went from 280ng/dL to 800. And while that was LabCorp's standard, my longevity and vitality doctor was recommending a range of 700 to 900 as optimal.
  
  Well, I can tell you from experience that, at least for this guy, at 441, I was definitely below optimal. From the mid-500s up to 900, I was doing very well. When I hit 194 last year (supposedly "normal," right????), I was in major trouble. I had no physical response at all. Without getting graphic, let's say it was as if all the nerves had been cut to a certain portion of my anatomy that, when healthy, would have plenty of neurological receptors.
  
  But there was nothing.
  
  Kinda scary when you think you might have a few years, yet, to live! Or, at least, you'd like to imagine you might have a few more years left.
  
  But "evidence-based medicine" would have told me that my labs were "normal," even if they did come back at the bottom edge of normalcy.

So my doctor and I were discussing things like that.

He brought up the upcoming/expected healthcare program from our federal government.

"The bill is 2,000 pages long," he said. "We are told we can expect that there will be approximately 100 pages of regulations for every page in the bill. In other words, 200,000 pages of regulations.

"Guess what the penalties are if a doctor breaks one of the regulations?"

"I have no idea," I said.

"A $100,000 fine for the first offense," he said, "and it goes up from there."

According to Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment blog,

The National Coordinator for Health Information Technology “will determine treatment at the time and place of care”. They are charged with deciding the course of treatment for the diagnosis given by the doctor.

Now it becomes obvious why there has been a big push towards the implementation of universal electronic medical record use. It becomes a tool to completely control the physician and the patient. Those physicians and hospitals that choose to practice individualized patient care in consultation with their patients will be punished because they are not “meaningful users of the system over time.”

Beginning January 1, 2013 penalties for doing the right thing for a patient will cost the doctor $100,000 for the first offense and jail for the second offense. This will have a chilling effect and may be the straw that completely breaks the foundation of good medicine – the doctor patient relationship.

And then he said almost exactly the same thing my last pre-Kaiser general practitioner said to me: "I'm going to quit practicing medicine. It's not worth the risk."

My last pre-Kaiser GP, who may be about 60 years old at this point (he would have been in his low 50s back when I dealt with him) said he had made only $75,000 a year in the last three years of his practice; he felt he received no honor anymore as a doctor; all of his decisions were second-guessed and overridden by the insurance companies ("A high school graduate reads down a list and tells me, 'Yes, you can do that,' or, 'No. You may not provide that kind of service to your patient.'). My brother-in-law, who owns a carpet store can win trips to Hawaii, but if I so much as accept a pen from a pharmaceutical salesperson, I am charged with ethics problems. . . ."

He quit.

The doctor with whom I was speaking last Friday made another comment that struck me with respect to my old GP's comment about honor: "We are no longer called 'doctor,' anymore. We are called the same thing as nurse practitioners, chiropractors, and hospital orderlies: We are all 'healthcare providers' or 'healthcare workers.'"

"Why would anyone go through all the pain and agony of a full medical education to wind up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt . . . and earning $75,000 a year?" asked my old GP.

"Why would anyone want to go through the pain and agony of a full medical education only to become a 'healthcare worker' on the same level as a nurse?" asked my vitality and longevity doctor.

One last comment he made:

"I did my residency in what was, arguably, the very best hospital in the country at the time. But I am paid no more by the government than the person who was trained at ___________" (and he mentioned a fine, but certainly not nationally-recognized facility). "What's the point?"

I'm sure there will still be those who desire to do the best or be the best, no matter what. But one does have to begin questioning the impact of incentives.

Food sovereignty

One of my sisters-in-law sent me a link to an article titled Maine Town Declares Food Sovereignty. Hunh? "Food sovereignty"? What's that?

Well, here's what it means to Sedgwick, Maine citizens:

the right “to produce, process, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing.” This includes raw milk, locally slaughtered meats, and just about anything else you can imagine. It’s also a decided bucking of state and federal laws. . . .

The proposed warrant added, “It shall be unlawful for any law or regulation adopted by the state or federal government to interfere with the rights recognized by this Ordinance.” In other words, no state licensing requirements prohibiting certain farms from selling dairy products or producing their own chickens for sale to other citizens in the town.

What about potential legal liability and state or federal inspections? It’s all up to the seller and buyer to negotiate. “Patrons purchasing food for home consumption may enter into private agreements with those producers or processors of local foods to waive any liability for the consumption of that food. Producers or processors of local foods shall be exempt from licensure and inspection requirements for that food as long as those agreements are in effect.”

Imagine that--buyer and seller can agree to cut out the lawyers. That’s almost un-American, isn’t it?

There's a lot more about this ground-breaking legal attempt to break free from Big Brother. Check it out!

School lunches

I was reading the latest This is True and ran across a most amazing story about a woman who works in a public school and decided to eat the same lunch that the kids are served every day. She blogged about it for the full year.

Her entire view of food was transformed during that year.

I just looked at the so-called "food" the children are being served and was appalled.

Check out the article by Rebecca Dube about the Fed Up With School Lunch blog: Year of mystery meat.

[O]n the first day of school last January, [Mrs. Q, an employee in a Chicago area school] made her way to the cafeteria with the kids. Since that day, her commitment to eat lunch there every day has been tested by the prepackaged peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich that literally made her sick; by the monotony of processed, spongy meat patties; and by fears of being found out and losing her job. . . .

Day after day, patty after patty, she ate and she blogged, and began to find her voice: Her initial just-the-facts descriptions of gross meals evolved into funny stories about the kids at school and personal musings about food. She learned to drink the juice from the bottom of her fruit cup, just as the kids did. . . .

Mrs. Q almost didn’t do the lunch blog because of concerns it would take too much time away from her son, now 2, who suffered from chronic ear infections and colds when she started the project. But, ironically, he’s been the one to benefit most. As she wrote and thought more about food, and communicated with commenters on her blog, she realized her son’s health problems might be related to what he was eating. She cut out gluten and dairy from his diet, and his health improved dramatically.

“I wouldn’t have made those connections if I had not done this blog. I’ve seen a complete change in my son,” she said.

She and her husband are eating differently, too: “I would never have thought of feeding my family quinoa. It sounded too hippie. Now I like it.”

There's more in the story. And a whole lot more in the blog itself . . . which is continuing today with stories and photos of Mrs. Q's new and nutritious gluten- and dairy-free lunches.

"Roundup Ready" GMOs tied to MAJOR life and health risks

I've been "sitting" on this one. I first heard about it in January and several times in February. I've "just" wanted all my ducks in a row. But I'm out of time.
Happily, Judith McGeary, founder and Executive Director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA), has given me permission to copy her news item. She speaks in rather understated terms. Go to the original documents to which she refers, and we're talking about a warning letter from a man who has served for 40 years "in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks."

"Based on this experience," he says, "I believe the threat we are facing . . . is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency."

What is he talking about? A "micro-fungal-like organism" that is causing "infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%."

"In summary," he concludes,

because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA’s participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.

Dr. Don Huber, Emeritus Professor, Purdue University, and APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System, sent this letter to Thomas Vilsack, United States Secretary of Agriculture, on January 17th. And what did Vilsack do with it?

He completely ignored it!

Here is Judith McGeary's summary:

Watch the video interview with Dr. Huber about the new pathogen that's threatening our food! And then tell President Obama to say "no" to GMO Alfalfa and Sugar Beets On January 17, 2011, Dr. Don Huber, an internationally-recognized plant pathologist and Professor Emeritus at Purdue University, sent a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack alerting him to a serious problem facing U.S. agriculture. This letter warned Secretary Vilsack of a previously unknown pathogen that "should be treated as an emergency." Dr. Huber’s letter discussed the new pathogen in dire terms, saying that a top team of scientists had discovered a link between the new pathogen, the steady rise of plant diseases in Roundup Ready corn and soybean crops, and the high rates of infertility and spontaneous abortions of animal livestock consuming feed that had been treated with the weed killer Roundup. The letter urged Secretary Vilsack not to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa because of the high levels "of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions," and to conduct research on the relationship between Roundup Ready crops, glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup), and this new pathogen. The USDA chose to ignore this warning and less than three weeks later approved two new GMO crops, including Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa, creating a threat to the primary forage feed for US livestock. The letter, although intended to be confidential, was leaked by a third party, after which Dr. Huber gave permission for FARFA and others to post it. The now-public letter unleashed a storm of accusations and recriminations, including a quick response from Monsanto. Earlier this spring, FARFA worked with Food Democracy Now! on an interview with Dr. Huber to investigate these new findings and understand the latest science. We were greatly alarmed by what we learned and appreciate Dr. Huber’s courage in coming forward to warn the government about this serious threat to the livelihoods of farmers, animal livestock, and our global food supply. Watch the full interview with Dr. Huber on Vimeo (the interview is a large file, so if you have trouble viewing it, you can also view individual short segments on Food Democracy Now's website) More Information: Read Dr. Huber's second explanatory letter here Read an in-depth interview with Dr. Huber by Acres USA It’s planting season now. If these new Roundup Ready alfalfa seeds go in the ground, it will be too late to stop them from making their way up the food chain -- putting America’s crops, livestock, and ultimately our families at risk. TAKE ACTION 1) CALL THE WHITE HOUSE Phone: (202) 456-1111 Fax: (202) 456-2461 Online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ MESSAGE: "I'm appalled that President Obama and Secretary Vilsack ignored Dr. Huber's warnings about the threat posed by a new pathogen linked to genetically modified crops and Roundup. It was wrong to approve GMO alfalfa and sugar beets without more research. I insist that President Obama place an immediate moratorium on the planting of these GMO crops." 2) SIGN THE PETITION Together with Food Democracy Now!, we have drafted a letter to President Obama and Secretary Vilsack insisting that they suspend the sale and planting of Monstanto’s Roundup Ready Alfalfa seeds until independent third party scientific research can be conducted proving the safety of GMO crops. Will you please sign on? You can view the video and sign the petition on Food Democracy Now's website -- scroll to the bottom of the page for the petition. (note: because of the software, you will be automatically signed up for Food Democracy Now's email alerts, but you can choose to unsubscribe if you prefer)

See an HTML version of Huber's original letter about halfway down the page here . . . along with several other supporting documents.

Oh. Lest someone charge me with being "head in the sand."

* Yes, there are stories that Huber's colleagues at Purdue have claimed his concerns are overblown. "The proof isn't in."

* Okay. Maybe it's not all in. But that's really what Huber said, isn't it? He said, "Let's get the research right before unleashing this stuff in the wild." Specifically:

[W]e request USDA’s participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.

It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data.

So why did Vilsack approve it? Why would our government keep marching forward despite the warning? Gotta keep Monsanto in profits? (See also this and this and this.) (???!!! USDA Allows Monsanto to Approve its Own Crops???!!!!)

* Or how's this for a more thoughtful perspective?