Flawed organic foods study really just a media psyop to confuse the public about organics while pushing GMOs

Mike Adams
Natural News.com
September 4, 2012

If you read the mainstream news headlines today, you might be shocked to see headlines that say things like, “Organic foods no healthier than conventional foods” or “Organic foods may not be healthier for you.” You’ll see these headlines all across the usual disinfo outlets: NPR, Associated Press, Reuters, Washington Post, WebMD and elsewhere.

The problem with these headlines is that they are flatly false. The study these news outlets are quoting actually confirms that organic foods are far healthier for you than conventional foods.

So how is the mainstream media lying about this? By fudging the facts, of course.

For starters, the “study” isn’t even a study. It was just a review of other studies. No new laboratory analysis was done whatsoever!

The “review” was conducted at Stanford University and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. You can read the abstract here:

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1355685
As the study itself concludes:
• Exposure to chemical pesticides was significantly lower in organic foods (roughly 30% less than conventional foods).
• Exposure to “superbugs” in meat (antibiotic-resistant bacteria) was also significantly lower in organic foods (roughly a 33% risk difference).
• The study conclusion says, right out, that “Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

How the media lied
Somehow, the mainstream media took this study and then lied to their readers, claiming organic food is “no different” than conventional food. That is a flat-out lie, of course. Because it fails to mention all the following:
• GMOs are not allowed in organic foods. So GMO exposure is many orders of magnitude higher in conventional foods, where GMOs are commonplace.

• Artificial chemical sweeteners are not allowed in organic foods. But conventional foods are often sweetened with toxic chemicals such as aspartame or saccharin.

• The study completely failed to look at the use of genetically-modified bovine growth hormones (rBGH) in conventional milk versus organic milk.(CONTINUE READING)

Health department tyrants raid local 'farm to fork' picnic dinner, orders all food to be destroyed with bleach

Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

naturalnews.com
November 11, 2011

It is the latest case of extreme government food tyranny, and one that is sure to have you reeling in anger and disgust. Health department officials recently conducted a raid of Quail Hollow Farm, an organic community supported agriculture (CSA) farm in southern Nevada, during its special "farm to fork" picnic dinner put on for guests -- and the agent who arrived on the scene ordered that all the fresh, local produce and pasture-based meat that was intended for the meal be destroyed with bleach.

For about five years now, Quail Hollow Farm has been growing organic produce and raising healthy, pasture-based animals which it provides to members as part of a CSA program. And it recently held its first annual "Farm to Fork Dinner Event," which offered guests an opportunity to tour the farm, meet those responsible for growing and raising the food, and of course partake in sharing a meal composed of the delicious bounty with others.

But when the Southern Nevada Health District (SNHD) got word of the event and decided to get involved, this simple gathering of friends and neighbors around a giant, family-style picnic table quickly became a convenient target for the heavy hand of an out-of-control government agency. And Monte and Laura Bledsoe, the owners and operators of Quail Hollow Farm, were unprepared for what would happen next.

CONTINUE READING AND WATCH VIDEO AT: http://www.naturalnews.com/034125_food_freedom_picnic.html#ixzz1dQ5PdN7v

Organic farmers sue Monsanto

Organic farmers sue Monsanto

permalink email story to a friend print version

Published: 28 July, 2011, 20:50

Organic farmers are taking on corporate America.

TAGS: Health, USA, Corporate news, Agriculture, Culture

Nearly 300,000 organic farmers are filing suit against corporate agriculture giant Monsanto, who have in recent years squashed independent organic farms from coast to coast.
270,000 organic farmers filed a lawsuit in March 30 in an attempt to keep a portion of the world’s food supply organic. The plaintiffs in the case are members of around 60 family farms, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations.
Led by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, the suit lashes out at Monsanto to keep their engineered Genuity® Roundup Ready® canola seed out of their farms. Organic agriculturalists say that corn, cotton, sugar beets and other crops of theirs have been contaminated by Monsanto‘s seed, and even though the contamination has been largely natural and unintended, Monsanto has been suing hundreds of farmers for infringing on their patent for incidentally using their product.
Not only are organic farmers trying to keep things — well, organic — but now many of them are being forced to throw in the towel as Monsanto unfortunately continues a successful war on the competition by suing indie growers that run organic farms. In recent years, Monsanto has acquired more than 20 of the biggest seed producers and sellers in the country, and The Street reports that they have instituted a policy whereas their customers are forced to use their bionengineered seeds — and purchase them each and every year — lest they want to be blacklisted forever.  (CONTINUE READING)

Consolidation of seed companies leading to corporate domination of world food supply

July 27, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

naturalnews.com

(NaturalNews) Throughout the history of agriculture across the globe, farming has always been a diversified sector of the economy. Small, self-sustaining, family farms were the order of the day in most cultures. Even as small farms grew larger and more specialized over time, many of them still saved seeds or purchased them from other farmers, which kept control of farming in the hands of the people.

But today everything has changed, as large chemical and agribusiness firms have acquired or merged with seed companies and other agricultural input companies. They have successfully gained a foothold on genetically-modified (GM) crops with transgenic traits.

These primary factors and several others have facilitated a crescendo towards the global domination of agriculture by corporations, and thus the world's food supply.

The dismal state in which we find ourselves today did not come overnight, of course, but it did pick up rapid speed after the introduction of GM crops in the mid-1990s. Since that time, multinational corporations like Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta have seized a significant amount of control over the global seed industry, which has greatly limited agricultural diversity and freedom.

The ability to patent both seeds and seed traits has also added injury to insult, as the ability to obtain natural or heirloom seeds is becoming increasingly difficult, and many farmers feel they have no choice but to go with the flow.

Professor Philip H. Howard from the Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies at Michigan State University published a study in 2009 entitled Visualizing Consolidation in the Global Seed Industry: 1996 - 2008 that analyzes the trend in agriculture towards corporate dominance.

The report, which was featured in a special issue of the journal Renewable Agriculture, provides both an extensive data analysis of agriculture's dramatic transformation over the past several decades, as well as a highly-informative visual analysis of this truly shocking hostile takeover situation.

The 'Big Six" pharmaceutical and chemical companies have acquired, created joint ventures with hundreds of seed companies over the past 15 years

In order to help assist his readers in understanding the state of the seed industry, Prof. Howard developed a very informative graphic that displays the reality of who really controls the seed industry.

Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, and BASF collectively own or partially-own hundreds of formerly-independent seed companies -- and Monsanto, of course, dominates them all.

You can view the graphic for yourself at the following link:
http://www.naturalnews.com/files/se...

As you will see, the blue circles in the diagram represent seed companies, while the red circles -- which happen to all be chemical or pharmaceutical companies -- control the vast majority of them. Solid gray arrows indicate complete ownership of a company, while gray lines indicate partial ownership.

One of the most obvious first impressions to be gathered from the diagram is Monsanto's excessive and widespread control over the seed industry. According to Prof. Howard's analysis, Monsanto acquired more than 50 seed companies just during the time represented by his study period, which spans the years between 1996 and 2008.

Monsanto had little-to-no involvement in the seed industry prior to the mid-1980s, but since that time has been rapidly eating up seed companies and furthering its development and control over the food supply through GMOs. Today, Monsanto is the world's largest seed company, and the transnational behemoth continues to acquire or otherwise create "partnerships" with various independent seed companies that are still in existence.

Behind Monsanto, the other five of the "Big Six" that Prof. Howard illustrates -- DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, and BASF -- collectively own or control a great portion of the remaining major seed companies not owned or controlled by Monsanto. And one of the biggest factors that has contributed to this dismal setup is GMOs and transgenic, patentable seed traits that are shared among the industry players.

The "Big Six" each have agreements with one or more of the others; their overall success has largely hinged on GMOs and increased control of agricultural inputs

The only thing worse than Monsanto and the dominance of the seed market are the cozy relationships with one another. Prof. Howard's analysis reveals that every company in the "Big Six" has at least one mutual relationship with one another, and they together share corporate control of the seed industry. (CONTINUE READING)

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033148_seed_companies_Monsanto.html#ixzz1TMYvyCL9

USDA trying to run organic leafy green growers out of business

Sunday, July 17, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Results of the passage of S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, are beginning to come into play -- and in this case the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), rather than the FDA, has decided to take the helm.

A recent Action Alert posted by the Cornucopia Institute (CI) warns that current efforts by handlers and marketers of green leafy vegetables are attempting to formulate one-size-fits-all "food safety" standards for the entire industry that threaten to put small, organic growers at a competitive and economic disadvantage. They may even put small, family-scale growers out of business.

NaturalNews and many other news sources put out repeated warnings last year about the ill intentions of S. 510, including that the small growers would be uprooted by its provisions if it passed (http://www.naturalnews.com/S_510.html).

Now that it has, we are beginning to see the consequences of this bill come into play. Difficult guidelines for all growers, are being proposed.

According to the alert, corporate agribusiness is attempting to form a "National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement" with the USDA that will allegedly set standards to help prevent contamination and disease outbreaks. But as many NaturalNews readers already know, leafy greens are not dangerous. It is large-scale factory animal farms that pollute air and water that are mostly to blame. (CONTINUE READING)

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033021_leafy_greens_food_safety.html#ixzz1SNufc0N4

The worlds largest human experiment: GMOs, Roundup and the Monsanto monstrosity – part one

Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Informed consent is one of the most basic aspects of patient-physician relations, as well as subject-researcher relations in the case of research studies. This involves making the patient aware of and verifying that they understand the risks, benefits, facts, and the future implications of the procedure or test they are going to be subjected to.

In the case of genetically modified organisms we have not been made aware of the risks. In fact, the GMO industry has deliberately hidden the real dangers behind the seeds and herbicides they peddle.  The Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America has defined informed consent in the following bureaucratic jargon:  (CONTINUE READING)

New documentary investigates war being waged by biotechnology companies against scientists who expose the truth about GMOs

Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews)
 In order to maintain its massive charade of deception in claiming that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are the safe, practical solution to the world's food problems, the biotechnology industry has had to silence and destroy the lives of many in the scientific community. In the hard-hitting new documentary Scientists Under Attack - Genetic Engineering in the Magnetic Field of Money, German filmmaker Bertram Verhaag explores the heavy hand of the biotechnology industry in steering "science" towards its own interests, and eliminating the actual, legitimate science that exposes genetic engineering (GE) as the fraud that it is.

In the film, Verhaag speaks to various experts in the industry, including two scientists in particular whose lives have been ruined as a result of their inquiry into GE. Going against the flow, Arpad Pusztai and Ignacio Chapela questioned the "science" being peddled by the likes of Monsanto about GE, and instead sought to discover the real truth. In the process, they both ended up being threatened by the biotechnology industry and essentially losing their careers

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032110_scientists_GMOs.html#ixzz1JtcZoiH1

Choose organics to avoid artificial dyes, pesticides linked to ADHD

(NaturalNews) The US food supply is riddled with petroleum-based, artificial food dyes and synthetic chemical pesticides, both of which have been linked to causing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other behavioral problems in children. So in order to avoid them, the Organic Trade Association (OTA) is urging parents to shop certified organic, as this is the only food category that is designed to be free of these harmful toxins.

A 2007 study conducted by researchers at the University of Southampton in the UK is what initially prompted a review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) into the safety of artificial food colors and pesticides. That study found a direct correlation between consumption of artificial additives and a spike in ADHD rates among children (http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychia...).

In 2008, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) also petitioned the FDA to ban nine specific color additives used in the UK study that were linked to causing problems. Though CSPI has not always shown favor to the natural health industry, including in 2010 when the organization made proposals that threatened freedom of health speech (http://www.naturalnews.com/028114_C...), its efforts to eliminate harmful food dyes are noteworthy. (CONTINUE READING)

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032077_food_dyes_ADHD.html#ixzz1JWV1odMb

Locavorism: A Passing Trend or Lasting Benefit?

By David Kretzmann  February 28th, 2011

I had never heard the term “locavore” before coming to Berea College in 2010. I have been interested in localism and sustainability for quite some time, but I didn’t realize the local food movement had established its own descriptive term. The locavore movement presents an opportunity for people to reexamine how they live their lives; are people comfortable buying food from halfway around the country or the world? Do people place value on the security of knowing who grows their food? Locavorism’s relatively small-scale success so far has come by appealing to people’s ecological values, and presenting what looks like a viable alternative to highly industrial food systems that make up the majority of food production today. The locavore movement has a good deal of substance, but the movement’s lasting potential is threatened with narrow and rigid goals.
Personally, I find “locavore” to be a limiting term. From my experience growing up in Nevada City, California, many people are interested in localizing their lives far beyond the food they eat. In lieu of the volatility and inconsistency of the U.S. economy, people are attempting to regain control over their finances and banks by joining institutions such as credit unions, which promise more local control and input compared to national corporate banks. It is possible that my perspective is slightly biased having grown up in an area with very independent individuals who seem to constantly investigate new possibilities of engaging in transactions with others. However, it is apparent that more businesses and institutions are succeeding based on their commitment to local ownership and transactions. Daniel F. Agan Jr., President of the Massachusetts Credit Union League, recently explained, “Credit union growth is being fueled by their commitment to the local community.” [i]
Despite the passion and claims of some, I do not believe the locavore or local movement in general will expand primarily because of environmental concerns. People’s environmental concern will play a role in it, but I have my doubts that environmentalism alone will lead to a sustainable route of localism. People have different ideas of what constitutes environmental sustainability and how to achieve those goals. Very few would state that the heart of the environmental movement comes down to the food that we choose to eat. Locavorism can play a major part in environmental awareness and concern, but environmental issues stretch beyond whether we buy our food from the farmer down the street or from farmers in South America. In other words, you are likely some form of an environmentalist if you are a locavore, but you do not have to be a locavore to be an environmentalist. Locavores will limit the potential of local food expansion if they publicize the movement largely on environmental grounds, because there are numerous other environmental movements competing for attention and support from the very same crowd.
Economic influences and preferences drive individual decisions more than anything else. People vote with their dollars and naturally support businesses and systems they value over other current options. For example, just because Wal-Mart offers the cheapest produce doesn’t mean that people won’t support a local farmer for a few extra dollars; if it is fresh, locally grown produce people value, they are probably willing to dish out some extra cash if necessary. Every action comes down to the personal value people place on something. This is what the movement of locavorism must publicize if they want to send a sustainable and lasting message to people. Preserving the environment is great, but if locavores can show people that they can preserve the environment and maybe save a few bucks by supporting local agriculture, the movement will have a much higher likelihood of sticking around for the long haul. If you don’t appeal to the economic interests of people, your movement will have a very difficult time sticking.  (CONTINUE READING)

Industrial Farming: Immorality, Subsidized

By David Kretzmann  Feb 7th, 2011

As a lifelong vegetarian, no style of meat production is particularly appealing or justifiable to me. However, despite my herbivore bias, I still see an ethical dilemma present in current industrial meat facilities. Little respect is given to the conditions and treatment of the animals in industrial facilities. Animals rarely see the light of day for any substantial amount of time and they are raised on concrete floors; they are treated as mere products without regard for their status as living, breathing beings. The greatest crime, however, is that industrial facilities survive purely out of price floors, legal code, and other direct government subsidies that hinder competition from natural, local food systems.
A superior product in the marketplace should not require extra help from a government agency, whether it be in the form of a price guarantee for corn (the main substance fed to livestock in industrial facilities), legal code that mandates industrial farming (or heavily restricts other methods of non-industrial farming), or other government subsidies. The fact that industrial livestock facilities rely on government assistance for survival is a testament to their flawed, unnecessary, and undesirable business practices. (If they don’t require government assistance for survival, why continue providing subsidies and other competitive advantages to these corporate industrial livestock giants?) If people prefer to purchase industrial livestock meat over locally grown free range meat, there is no need for subsidies or other governmental involvement. Clearly, subsidies are needed only when a corporation or industry (such as industrial livestock producers) offers a lousy product that people won’t normally desire.
Government subsidies merely provide the illusion of cheap prices, which goes a long way in distorting the prices and actions of people in the marketplace. The fact that industrial meat is the cheapest does not mean it’s a better product or business model, particularly when you account for the government assistance needed to lower the price in the first place. Of course, it is us, the taxpayers, who are providing the subsidies, so the cost we pay for “cheap” food at the grocery store isn’t actually very cheap. We pay taxes to provide farm and grain subsidies, fund the bureaucracies who regulate and administer fines to farmers who don’t cooperate with the industrial system, among other taxpayer-funded programs.

Society is not bearing the cost of water pollution, of antibiotic resistance, of food-borne illnesses, of crop subsidies, of subsidized oil and water- of all the hidden costs to the environment and the taxpayer that make cheap food seem cheap. No thinking person will tell you they don’t care about all that. I tell them the choice is simple: You can buy honestly priced food or you can buy irresponsibly priced food. – Joel Salatin [i]

Clearly the industrial food system has government tilted in its favor; its products are cheap not because of their superior taste or flavor, but because they have managed to successfully crawl into bed with government to dismantle other legitimately competitive businesses. The philosophy of the industrial food system can be summed up in this statement: if people won’t buy your lousy, nauseating product, lobby government for subsidies and other protectionist interventions to dismantle competitors who actually offer a product desirable to the public. (CONTINUE READING ARTICLE)

The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?

• By Ronnie Cummins
  Organic Consumers Association, Jan 27, 2011
  Straight to the Source
  www.organicconsumers.org
  

"The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must." - Whole Foods Market, Jan. 21, 2011

 In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto's Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation's 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America's organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it's time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto's controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for "coexistence" with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack.

In a cleverly worded, but profoundly misleading email sent to its customers last week, Whole Foods Market, while proclaiming their support for organics and "seed purity," gave the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the "conditional deregulation" of Monsanto's genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa. Beyond the regulatory euphemism of "conditional deregulation," this means that WFM and their colleagues are willing to go along with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa; guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation; guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals; guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers and destruction of the essential soil food web by the toxic herbicide, Roundup; and guaranteed to produce Roundup-resistant superweeds that will require even more deadly herbicides such as 2,4 D to be sprayed on millions of acres of alfalfa across the U.S.
In exchange for allowing Monsanto's premeditated pollution of the alfalfa gene pool, WFM wants "compensation." In exchange for a new assault on farmworkers and rural communities (a recent large-scale Swedish study found that spraying Roundup doubles farm workers' and rural residents' risk of getting cancer), WFM expects the pro-biotech USDA to begin to regulate rather than cheerlead for Monsanto. In payment for a new broad spectrum attack on the soil's crucial ability to provide nutrition for food crops and to sequester dangerous greenhouse gases (recent studies show that Roundup devastates essential soil microorganisms that provide plant nutrition and sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases), WFM wants the Biotech Bully of St. Louis to agree to pay "compensation" (i.e. hush money) to farmers "for any losses related to the contamination of his crop." (READ FULL ARTICLE)

Industry bought Congressional votes to pass S. 510 food safety bill

Wednesday, December 01, 2010 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Despite an incredible outpouring of public opposition to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "Food Safety Modernization Act", or S. 510, the Senate voted 73 to 25 to pass the bill anyway. And data presented by Maplight.org, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization, shows that big industry groups and large food producers spent millions of dollars buying off Congressmen to garner support for it.

According to the site, Senators that ended up supporting the bill received nearly $10 million in political contributions from interest groups that also supported the bill. This amount was more than four times as much as groups opposed to the bill spent on overall contributions.  (READ ENTIRE ARTICLE)

To see a full list of the Senators who supported S. 510, visit:

http://www.naturalnews.com/030577_S...

The Health Tyrants: Codex Alimentarius, part 2

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
November 22, 2010
Excerpt from Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom
The health commission of Codex Alimentarius, and the subsequent legislation to come from it, has provable roots to Nazism, Communism, eugenics, and one-world government initiatives. Let’s put forth a few of the names and philosophies of the tyrants responsible for this proposed global health tyranny.

	The globalists plans of a one-world state built upon eugenics were not born with Adolph Hitler and they certainly did not die with him.

I.G. Farben was not isolated to Germany. Not only were they a conglomerate of Bayer, Hoechst, BASF and other companies, I.G. Farben was also welded to Shell Oil of Britain and Standard Oil and DuPont of the United States by 1929. This occurred after I.G. Farben discovered how to make petroleum out of coal. Subsequently, there was an agreement for I.G. Farben to stay out of the petroleum market if Standard Oil would stay out of the chemical market.[1]
Hermann Schmitz, who was chairman of the board for I.G. Farben, as mentioned above, had a large amount of stock in Standard Oil New Jersey, while the Rockefeller Foundation likewise owned a substantial amount of stock in I.G. Farben.[2] So much stock that when I.G. Farben’s holdings were completely sold off in 1962, the Rockefellers were the dominant holders involved in the transactions.[3] This is significant because the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller family in general were major supporters not just of the Nazi regime and eugenics, but the creation of the United Nations.[4]
Indeed, the connections between the Rockefellers and the atrocities of Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Communist China are so plentiful as to preclude them from being dealt with in much detail in this article. This evidence is readily available to anyone who wishes to investigate and is made much easier because, in large part, the Rockefellers do not deny it. In addition to open support for eugenics, the Rockefellers are also committed globalists, again a philosophy which is readily admitted. The Rockefeller connections to globalist organizations such as the United Nations,[5] the Council on Foreign Relations,[6] and the Trilateral Commission[7] to name a few are widely documented and discussed. Indeed, it was John D. Rockefeller that donated the land on which the United Nations headquarters was built.[8]
As one digs deeper and deeper into the history of the United Nations and even the concept of globalization itself, one encounters more and more of the Rockefeller family tree along the way. It eventually becomes obvious that the Rockefellers, along with other elite families, had a vested interest in the creation of an international governing body as well as a powerful hand in its creation through organizations such as those mentioned above, specifically the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, and the Royal Institute of International Affairs.[9] All of these groups and organizations exist for the stated purpose of world government, with the UN in particular being a vital piece of the infrastructure used to facilitate it. Indeed, much evidence has shown definite links between these organizations and the creation of the United Nations. (READ ENTIRE ARTICLE)

Senate Bill 510 Food Safety? The FDA has killed far more people than contaminated eggs or lettuce

Saturday, November 20, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

(NaturalNews) Proponents of Senate Bill 510 -- the Food Safety and Modernization Act -- keep trying to claim that we need the FDA to protect us from tainted eggs, lettuce, onions and spinach. On the surface, it seems like a reasonable argument: No one should ever die from unsafe food in America, right?

But to accomplish a net reduction in deaths, you'd need to grant power over the food supply to some organization that actually respects human life... and the FDA is not that organization. In fact, as we have documented here on NaturalNews over the last seven years, the FDA is responsible for far more deaths of Americans than all the terrorist events in the history of the world -- combined!

How is that so?

How the FDA has killed millions of Americans
Well, for starters, the FDA has a long and rather dubious history of keeping dangerous, deadly drugs on the market even after it knows those drugs are killing people. The FDA has even gone out of its way to ignore critical evidence about dangerous drugs in order to appease its Big Pharma clients and keep those high-profit drugs selling while people are dying.

To see one example of this, look at the history of Vioxx -- a drug the FDA kept on the market while it racked up well over 60,000 deaths according to the FDA's own scientists! (http://www.naturalnews.com/011401_D...)

As Dr David Graham said in an interview, "The FDA is responsible for 140,000 heart attacks and 60,000 dead Americans. That's as many people as were killed in the Vietnam War. Yet the FDA points the finger at me and says, Well, this guy's a rat, you can't trust him,' but nobody is calling them to account. Congress isn't calling them to account."

If you want more evidence of the FDA's outrageous disregard for human life, look at the agency's handling of the drug Ketek (http://www.naturalnews.com/019698.html). Or check out how the FDA kept the liver-damaging drug Rezulin on the market while diabetic Americans were dropping dead.

The FDA's own scientists have repeatedly accused the agency of engaging in routine intimidation of scientists who try to call attention to dangerous products (http://www.naturalnews.com/025298_t...).

The FDA censors natural remedies that could save lives
On top of all that corruption and fraud leading to negligent deaths caused by the FDA, this agency also censors the scientific truth about natural remedies and nutritional supplements that could save millions of lives each year. The FDA won't, for example, allow vitamin D supplement companies to tell the truth about how vitamin D prevents cancer or how vitamin D prevents the flu and makes seasonal flu vaccines obsolete (http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_v...).

The FDA also won't allow any supplement companies to tell the truth about their natural remedies for preventing or even reversing diabetes, heart disease, breast cancer and more.

In doing this, the FDA is complicit in the deaths of at least 250,000 Americans each year. According to the groundbreaking 2003 medical report Death by Medicine, by Drs Gary Null, Carolyn Dean, Martin Feldman, Debora Rasio and Dorothy Smith, 783,936 people in the United States die every year from conventional medicine mistakes. The FDA has a hand in at least one-third of those deaths, mostly from its willful corruption and fraud in the world of deadly pharmaceuticals, which have proven to be far more deadly than terrorists (http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html).

If you do the math on all this, you are forced to reach some startling mathematical conclusions:

• The FDA is more dangerous than all the terrorists and terror events in the history of the United States.

• The FDA has killed more Americans than the entire Vietnam War.

• Even more than that, over the last 20 years the FDA has killed more Americans than the total number who died in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and even the Civil War -- combined!

• The FDA is the single most deadly agency that has ever existed in the history of the United States. It is responsible for more body bags, more funerals, more pain and suffering than even the Department of Defense!

• The FDA does not value human life. It has no compassion for real people. It is driven by politics and money, and it answers to the demands of powerful corporations who control its agenda (http://www.naturalnews.com/019497.html).  (READ ENTIRE ARTICLE)

What’s Holding Americans Back?

by Gerald Celente
trendsreasearch.com

   What had happened to that rebellious Yankee spirit and the American mind? Could it have been the food that overstuffed and immobilized them?
   The Pop-Tarts® and Egg McMuffins® washed down with Coke® for breakfast? The Baconator® Triple, The Whoppers®, The Big Macs®, the $5 Foot-Long Subs, the bucket-of-chicken and 32oz. Big Gulp®? Too many trips to the All-You-Can-Eat-Buffet or The Never Ending Pasta Bowl®? Or was it the Slurpees, tubs of ice cream, or boxes of donuts grabbed at the convenience store?
Could it have been the factory-farmed, battery-raised, hormone implanted, antibiotic-laced, pesticide sprayed, genetically modified beef, fish, chicken, eggs, dairy, vegetables, grains that were used in the highly processed, synthetic, ultra pasteurized, artificially sweetened, colored and flavored “product” passed off as food?
What drove a nation with a relatively well-off and well-educated population to inflict such suicidal behavior upon itself? It was easy to point to the poor for buying cheap and eating stupid. But what excused the smartest of the smart and the richest of the rich from buying cheap and eating stupid?
A case in point: celebrated for “powering his way through the day with a punishing Diet Coke regimen,” even Obama’s chief economic advisor – the always “brilliant” Larry Summers (who brilliantly jumped the sinking ship of state when his “brilliant” economic strategy to rescue America failed brilliantly) – was too stupid to eat smart.
A look around the cabinet, survey of Capital Hill, AMA, ABA, PTA or powwow of American Indian chiefs proved he was not alone. America had become one big “Mike & Molly” sitcom. Yet, even though just about everybody knew better, just about everybody made the same excuse for abusing the body and deadening the mind: it was cheap and/or it was convenient.
Sure, money was tight and time was precious, but plenty of people were still going to the malls and spending big on hi-tech, high-end running shoes, taking vacations, eating out and buying new cars. Even low-end shoppers at Dollar Stores – while saving a buck – were filling their carts with junk snacks, junk soft drinks and junk “Made in China” bric-a-brac.
Or was it something in the polluted air and fluoride-treated water that deadened individual pride, courage, passion and self respect? Could it have been the quadzillions of tons of chemical mix poisoning the planet that made everyone susceptible?
Or could it have been the medicine chests full of Lipitor®, Oxycontin®, Xanax®, Celebrex®, Paxil® … or the Ritalin® force-fed to kids and gobbled down like M&Ms® that deadened heir minds or whacked them out? Whether prescribed indiscriminately as quick fix, symptom-relief solutions by legal “pushers” (a.k.a. doctors) or unwittingly washed down with a glass of municipally doctored “pharma-water,” voluntarily or involuntarily, a large segment of the populace was doing drugs.
(READ ENTIRE ARTICLE)