My Blog List

Saturday, October 30, 2010

7 Foods So Unsafe Even Farmers Won’t Eat Them

Food Freedom
'Conventionally-grown' apples are saturated with toxic chemicals.
By Laurel House
Planet Green

Smoking was proven to be cancer-causing, tanning beds were shown to be on par with arsenic, but what about canned tomatoes, corn-fed beef, conventionally grown potatoes? What would it take to convince you to clean out your pantry and change your eating habits? Scientists, doctors, even farmers were asked what foods they refuse to eat. The responses had nothing to do with things like donuts due to fat content, or white bread because of the concentration of empty carbs. We’re talking seemingly healthy things like tomatoes, beef, popcorn, potatoes, salmon, milk, and apples. For them, it’s all about how they are produced and packaged.
Seven experts in fields pertaining to both food and the environment answered one simple question: “What foods do you avoid?” Their answers, published in an article entitled “7 Foods the Experts Won’t Eat” on Yahoo! Shine, will make you re-think food. When it comes to food and its affect on your health and the health of this planet, this is what they answered:

1. Canned Tomatoes

The Expert: Fredrick vom Saal, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A.
The Reason: Tin cans are lined with a resin that contains the synthetic estrogen bisphenol-A, which has been linked to a slew of health problems including heart disease, diabetes, reproductive problems, and obesity. But that’s not the biggest problem. The acid in tomatoes breaks down that bisphenol-A, leaching it into the food, and not just in insignificant amounts. According to the article, Saal comments that “you can get 50 mcg of BCA per liter out of a tomato can, and that’s a level that is going to impact people, particularly the young.” That’s why he’s not touching the stuff.
The Solution: If you l0ve the taste of “canned” tomatoes but prefer to skip the bisphenol-A, select glass bottles instead.

2. Corn-Fed Beef

The Expert: Joel Salatin, co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of half a dozen books on sustainable farming.
The Reason: Cattle are naturally grass eaters… not grain eaters. In order to fatten the animals (and profit margins), farmers feed them corn and soybeans. And while the farmers are beefing up their earnings, they are minimizing the nutritional benefits. The article mentions the findings from a recent USDA-conducted study comparing corn-fed beef and grass-fed beef showing that grass-fed beef is “higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium; lower in inflammatory omega-6s; and lower in saturated fats that have been linked to heart disease.”
The Solution: Pretty straight forward: Opt for grass-fed beef instead.
WATCH VIDEO: Why Grass-Fed Beef? Emeril Answers

3.Microwave Popcorn

The Expert: Olga Naidenko, PhD, a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group.
The Reason: It’s not the popcorn itself, but the chemically-saturated lining of the bag including a compound called perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that, according to a recent study from UCLA, may be linked to infertility. Microwaving vaporizes the chemicals as they move from coating the bag to lining the popcorn. But it’s not like this fact is un-acknowledged. In fact the article points out that DuPont, as well as other manufacturers, have “promised to phase out PFOA by 2015 under a voluntary EPA plan, but millions of bags of popcorn will be sold between now and then.”
The Solution: Pop your own popcorn the way they did it in the olden days–in a pot.

4. Conventionally Grown (Not Organic) Potatoes

The Expert: Jeffrey Moyer, chair of the National Organic Standards Board.
The Reason: Herbicides and pesticides may not be sprayed directly on root vegetables (since they’re underground), but they absorb the chemicals through the soil and water. Because potatoes are considered the nation’s most popular vegetable, producing a healthy crop is essential to keep up with demand. In order to maintain their health, the article exposes the scary fact that “they’re treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they’re dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting.” But here’s the scary thing, Moyer says that he’s talked to potato growers “who say point-blank they would never eat the potatoes they sell. They have separate plots where they grow potatoes for themselves without all the chemicals.”
The Solution: Another no-brainer— Only buy organic potatoes.

5. Farmed Salmon

The Expert: David Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany and publisher of a major study in the journal Science on contamination in fish.
The Reason: When salmon is crammed into pens, fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers (obviously an unnatural environment for the up-stream swimmers), they’re levels of healthy vitamin D lowers as the contaminants increases. Those contaminants include carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides (like DDT). The article points out that DDT has been linked to both diabetes and obesity, quoting Carpenter in saying that “You can only safely eat one of these salmon dinners every 5 months without increasing your risk of cancer… It’s that bad.”
The Solution: Avoid farmed salmon and instead select wild-caught Alaskan salmon. But make sure the packaging reads “wild.” If it just says “fresh Atlantic,” according to the article, “it’s farmed.”

6. Milk Produced with Artificial Hormones

The Expert: Rick North, project director of the Campaign for Safe Food at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility and former CEO of the Oregon division of the American Cancer Society.
The Reason: Unlike in the olden days when fresh milk was some of the purest nutrients you could get, dairy cows today are fed growth hormones like rBGH and rBST to increase milk production. Problem is, while they may be making more milk, they are also increasing their chances of udder infections (which can lead to pus in the milk). More than that, the article points out that high levels of IGF-1 from the rBGH may play a role in the development of breast, prostate, and colon cancers… which is why North says that “it’s banned in most industrialized countries.”
The Solution: Read the labels and be sure that your milk doesn’t contain rBGH or rBST and that it is labeled organic or “produced without artificial hormones.

7. Conventional Apples

The Expert: Mark Kastel, former executive for agribusiness and co-director of the Cornucopia Institute, a farm-policy research group that supports organic foods
The Reason: Apples are the recipient of the most pesticides of all Fall fruits. Chemical producers swear that the residue is not harmful for human consumption, but the Yahoo! Article goes on to quote Kastel in saying that “Farm workers have higher rates of many cancers.”
The Solution: Buy organic apples where available or at least thoroughly wash and peel apples before eating them.

Friday, October 29, 2010

5 Dangers To Global Crops That Could Dramatically Reduce The World Food Supply

The Economic Collapse

The world food situation is starting to get very, very tight.  Unprecedented heat and wildfires this summer in Russia and horrific flooding in Pakistan and China have been some of the primary reasons for the rapidly rising food prices we are now seeing around the globe.  In places such as Australia and the African nation of Guinea-Bissau, the big problem for crops has been locusts.  In a world that already does not grow enough food for everyone (thanks to the greed of the elite), any disruption in food production can cause a major, major problem.  Tonight, thousands of people around the world will starve to death.  So what happens if things get even worse?  Many agricultural scientists are now warning that global food production is facing dangers that are absolutely unprecedented.  Crop diseases such as UG99 wheat rust and the "unintended effects" of genetic modification pose challenges that previous generations simply did not have to face.  The outbreak of a real, live global famine looks increasingly possible with each passing year.  So are you and your family prepared if a global famine does strike?

Already, there are huge warning signs on the horizon.  Just check out what agricultural commodities have been doing.  They have been absolutely soaring.  
A recent article on the Forbes website noted a few of the agricultural commodities that have skyrocketed during this year....
Here’s what’s happened to some key farm commodities so far in 2010…
•Corn: Up 63%
•Wheat: Up 84%
•Soybeans: Up 24%
•Sugar: Up 55%
Are you ready to pay 84 percent more for a loaf of bread?
You better get ready - these raw material prices will filter down to U.S. consumers eventually.
So what is going to happen if the world food situation gets even tighter?
Don't think that it can't happen.
The following are 5 potential dangers to global crops that could dramatically reduce the world food supply....

UG99 Wheat Rust

UG99 is commonly known as "wheat rust" or "stem rust" because it produces reddish-brown flakes on wheat stalks.  The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico believes that approximately 19 percent of the global wheat crop is in imminent danger of being infected with UG99.
Ultimately, it is estimated that about 80 percent of the wheat on the globe is capable of catching the disease.
There is no known cure.

This current strain of wheat rust was discovered in Uganda in 1999 and has spread into areas of Kenya, Sudan, Ethiopia, Yemen and Iran.  It is feared that this crippling disease will spread even farther into south Asia, devastating the fertile growing regions of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.
If that happens, you might as well kiss world food stability goodbye.
A recent article in the Financial Times contained an absolutely stunning quote from one prominent agricultural scientist....
“You can talk about crying wolf,” says Ronnie Coffman, director of the Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat project at the University of Cornell in the US, “but it is a wolf”, he asserts, driving across the corn fields of Kansas.
Later on in the same article, Coffman warns that this disease could cause a devastating famine in which literally millions of people would die....
“It can be absolutely devastating if environmental conditions are right,“ he says. “You can count the number of people who could die from this in the millions.”

Mad Soy Disease

Mad Soy disease is spreading at an alarming rate among soy farms down in Brazil.  Previously the disease had been confined to the north part of the country, but now it has been increasingly spreading south.  This disease retards the maturation of infected plants, and it has been causing yield losses of up to 40 percent.  The USDA says that "there are no known effective treatments."

Verticillium Wilt

Verticillium Wilt is a fungus that prevents lettuce from absorbing water, causing it to quickly grow yellow and eventually wilt.  This dangerous fungus is very hard to get rid of totally because it can stay in the soil for up to seven years.
Today, Verticillium Wilt is spreading all over Monterey County, California.  Considering the fact that Monterey County produces more than 60 percent of the lettuce in the United States, that is very bad news.

Late Blight

In 2009, a disease known as "late blight" attacked potato and tomato plants in the United States with a ferocity never seen before.  According to a press release from Cornell University, late blight had "never occurred this early and this widespread in the U.S." when it started showing up all over the place early last year.
Late blight begins as ugly brown spots on the stems of potato and tomato plants, and as the spots increase in size, white fungal growth develops until finally a soft rot completely collapses the stem.
This was the disease that was responsible for the Irish potato famine in the 1850s.  A major new outbreak could occur without warning.

Genetic Modification

While it may or may not technically be a disease (depending on how you look at it), genetic modification is having a very serious affect on crops around the globe.
For example, about 10 years ago Chinese farmers began to widely adopt Monsanto's genetically modified Bt cotton.  Well, researchers have found that since that time, mirid bugs that are resistant to the Bt pesticide have experienced a complete and total population boom.

Today, six provinces in Northern China are experiencing what can only be described as a "mirid bug plague".  Mirid bugs eat more than 200 different kinds of fruit, vegetables and grains.  Chinese farmers in the region are completely frustrated.
In the United States, a different problem is developing.  The complete and total reliance of so many U.S. farmers on Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide has resulted in several varieties of glyphosate-resistant "superweeds" developing in many areas of the United States.

The most feared of these "superweeds", Pigweed, can grow to be seven feet tall and it can literally wreck a combine.  Pigweed has been known to produce up to 10,000 seeds at a time, it is resistant to drought, and it has very diverse genetics.
Superweeds were first spotted in Georgia in 2004, and since then they have spread to South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri.
In some areas, superweeds have become so bad that literally tens of thousands of acres of U.S. farmland have actually been abandoned.
But that is what we get for trying to "play God".
We think that we can just do whatever we want with nature and there will not be any consequences.

One of the most frightening things about genetic modification is that it actually reduces that amount of crop diversity in the world.
For example, if nearly all farmers start using the same "brand" of genetically modified plants that are all virtually identical, it sets up a situation where crop diseases and crop failures can cascade across the planet very easily.
Genetic variety is a very desirable thing, but today our scientists are just doing pretty much whatever they want without really considering the consequences.
It has been said many times that genetic engineering is similar to "performing heart surgery with a shovel".

The truth is that we just do not know enough about how our ecosystems work to be messing around with them so dramatically.
Perhaps even more frightening is that once these genetically engineered monstrosities have been released into our environment, it is absolutely impossible to recall them.  They essentially become a permanent part of our ecosystem.
But can we afford to make any serious mistakes at this point?
The truth is that we already live in a world that is not able to feed itself.
Tonight, approximately 1 billion people across the globe will go to bed hungry.  Every 3.6 seconds someone in the world starves to death, and three-fourths of those who starve to death are children under the age of five.
It is currently being projected that global demand for food will more than double over the next 50 years.

So what is going to happen if we start seeing widespread crop failures in the coming years?

The global food supply is not nearly as stable as most people believe.  At some point, it is going to be tested severely.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Empire's Latest Strike is Very, Very Bad.

Codex Alimentarius

The Empire, the Uber Cartel, is on the march.  They are marching on your Dinner Table, Your Supplement Shelf and Your Personal Freedom.

S. 3767, the "Food Safety Accountability Act of 2101" was introduced yesterday by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). It is a companion fake "Phude" Safety Bill which brings back the horrific criminal penalties which HR 1279 imposed for doing pretty much anything at all that violated the incredibly restrictive requirements which every farm, and every farmer, would have to meet.  The Senate bill, S. 510, while truly frightening, did not include these penalty clauses.

By putting criminal penalties back into the "Phude Safety" arena, the megacorporations which want to drive everyone out of their farmyards and supermarkets will literally be able to criminalize and jail the owners of a company which cites scientific literature showing that their product is beneficial in some specific situation or circumstance.

"Yesterday, in the waning days of the 111th Congress, as We the People prepare to throw the rascals out, Big Agra Biz' friends in Congress have taken the unusual late-session step of introducing a criminal penalty bill. The bill reintroduces a 10 year jail term for anyone who sells what the govt later decides was "adulterated" or "misbranded" food, a provision which had been removed from the House-passed (sic) "Food Safety" version last year (HR.1279). The political insiders plan, our contacts tell us, to add S. 3767 to S.510 so the penalties can be in the final bill approved by the conference committee." Read more here at Trustee Ralph Fuectola's blog on this horrifying development:
The Natural Solutions Foundation has been warning against just such a development when we noted with great concern that Codex, like the US FDA, was making the act of telling anyone about the health benefits of food a forbidden act.  We noted that this suppression of expression and truth was directed against health and food freedom, and has nothing to do with food safety.

Well, here we are: A "Phude Safety" Bill, S. 510, will industrialize your food and its Policeman Brother Bill will put people who support any health freedom competition to the Uber Cartel away for a long, long time, threatening and cowing others who might want to do the same thing.

Not bad enough for you yet?  CDC says that 1 American in 4 will become ill from a food borne illness this year - and that's under the current system when some people are still able to eat food that is clean and unadulterated.  That figure, by the way, refers to conditions like salmonella poisoning.  It does not refer to cancer, a food borne illness that will kill one American in 3 and has just overtaken cardiovascular disease and stroke as the number one killer of Americans.  It does not refer to cardiovascular disease and stroke, which will kill another 1/3 of Americans. Nor does it refer to obesity, diabetis and other nutritional killers.  What that means, of course, is that through eating industrial "Phude", the only kind that S. 510 and S. 3767 will permit, you WILL suffer and die from the "epidemic, preventable, non communacable diseases of under nutrition", to use the phrase so beloved of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organizations, who just happen to be the private, pharma-phunded organizations which run Codex! They openly acknowldge what the FDA tries to hide: fake "Phude" kills.

Consider that: the passage of these twin horror bills means that EVERY AMERICAN [except, perhaps, the elite who have their own very special food systems, as Congress has its own very special health care system] WILL be the victim of food borne diseases, including infertility, auto immune diseases, allergies, cancer, diabetes, etc., etc., etc. 

And you'll use nutrients and nutrtion to treat it, right?  Not if these bills pass.  Only if they do NOT pass.

Well, Who Is In Charge Here? 

Monsanto? Pfizer?  Sen. Lehey? 


You and I and our neighbors, friends, relatives and co-workers are in charge. We, the People have ultimate Power . 

Perhaps you have already taken this Action Item.  The good news is that we have revised it to reflect yesterday's surprise assault so you can take it again, once for every member of your household, and then send it forth, again to let your list know that the other side is not playing for fun, but is engaged in a deadly struggle.  Whose death? Yours, I am afraid, and mine, and our children, and our future.


As of Close of Business today, the official US Senate Calendar does not show S. 510 on its voting schedule.  Given the enormous importance that Agribiz, Biotech and the globalists attach to destroying your access to clean, unadulterated food, this is very good news. But given the fact that we have a long, long drag of days between now and the end of the 111th Congress, we are clearly not out of the woods yet.  We anticipate that the S. 510 and S. 3767 will be introduced close to one another so we will be watching both of them.

To send a letter to any group or person supporting S. 510 and S. 3767, click here:
and make free use of the material there.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Leaked trade agreements and hidden things inside S 510: Corporations plan to end normal farming


The Canadian Farmers Union wants the Canada-EU trade deal scrapped.

Under provisions in CETA [Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement], using saved seed could result in a farmer's land, equipment, and crops being seized for alleged infringement of intellectual property rights attached to plant varieties owned by corporations such as Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, and Bayer.
"It includes the freezing of bank accounts too, so you couldn't even defend yourself in court. And this is for alleged infringement," says NFU [National Farmers Union] president Terry Boehm. ...
"These are the most draconian measures possible and they would literally create a culture of fear in the farm population where, I think, that ultimately farmers would end up buying seeds every year for every acre just to avoid prosecution or the threat of prosecution."

The biotech industry is facing exposure of the health dangers of GMO/pesticide dependent crops, of attacks on scientists (even armed ones), and GMOs' poor crop performance across different crops, public outrage at no labeling of GMOs, media scorn at its humiliatingly poor science, and falling stock value. Is the industry now attempting an end run around all this, by trying to criminalize and thus end normal (organic) farming - its increasingly sought after, healthy, higher-performing competition?

Given the "draconian property rights enforcement measures" the biotech corporations wish put into effect through the Canada-EU free trade agreement, one might wonder.

US farmers face the same assault by their own government on behalf of agribusiness and the biotech industry. S 510, a "food safety" bill waiting for the Senate return, would put the US fully under the WTO and thus harmonize with CETA. It is replete with means to do to American farmers what the EU/Canada CETA plan would do to Canadian ones - and potentially more, including surreptitiously arranging to criminalize agricultural water, manure, essential farming equipment, and seed storage.

41 words inside S 510 would make the US subject to CETA.
    Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.

The significance of those words in S 510 is that they would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection. Under S 510, US law would become subservient to the WTO, a corporate organization. Votes in the US would not matter. The decisions on food, energy, health, resources, and US economic policy would be made the very corporations responsible for contaminating food, oil spills, dangerous drugs, theft of common resources, and destroying the economy.

The enforcement powers created by S 510 (assuming it resembles other "food safety" bills) would be unlimited and apply to everyone in the country who "holds" food (does anyone not?).

S 510, a "food safety" bill, would (using sections from other food safety bills) set up a corporate court outside the constitutional court system. The expectation is that it would be run by Monsanto, just as "food safety" at the FDA is now, with Monsanto involved at every level. It would exist without Congressional oversight, with unlimited and unspecified remedies, "in addition to, and not exclusive of, other remedies that may be available," and without judicial review over even "the validity and appropriateness of the order ..."

That upturning of all sense (orders that don't have to be appropriate or valid) is a window into the extremity of power being sought by the corporations through S 510. That power would include total discretion to punish anyone they may wish. And in removing appropriateness and validity, their orders would not have to relate to food at all and could be used against anyone, applying any form of "remedy" they desire. Nothing whatever is excluded.

The merger of corporate and government power is defined as fascism.

    • LIMITATION ON REVIEW- In a civil action under paragraph (1), the validity and appropriateness of the order of the Administrator assessing the civil penalty shall not be subject to judicial review.
      [Unless someone has died from a food related issue, which would put the case into a real criminal court, everything else would be "dealt with" as a civil penalty. S 510 includes long prison terms for mistakes in paperwork and "labeling" (to be defined at the discretion of those in charge), and from the leaked EU/Canada trade plans, seizures of farmers' crops and equipment and freezing of bank accounts are clearly sought.]
      Remedies Not Exclusive- The remedies provided in this section are in addition to, and not exclusive of, other remedies that may be available.

While not listed as a civil "remedy" but treated as disease prevention, slaughter of their animals is another Orwellian measure within S 510 which goes well beyond seizures to military arrangements with the DOD and DHS. They would come onto farms and slaughter normal animals if any disease outbreak is announced, regardless of harmlessness. "Valid and appropriate" do not matter.

This is not a "food safety" bill, as even a short overview of S 510 makes clear.

S 510 offers numerous ways for corporations to get rid of farmers and take their land. The astounding falsity of forcing farmers (or anyone with a farm animal) to sign onto a international contract in which they lose their rights to their property is transparent. Taking global coordinates of the size and shape of farmers' land and feeding them into a corporate data bank, has nothing to do with tracing animal diseases. Farmers' addresses are known.

But the USDA lie about wanting to stop animal diseases grows especially repugnant when one with awareness that the USDA is actually working against the vehement protests of cattle ranchers, to import potentially diseased animals from Brazil and to transfer an off-shore animal disease lab to Kansas, the heart of cattle country and the most tornado prone state in the country, while it's well known that it was lab leaks in the UK which led to the slaughter of millions of cattle, whether ill or not.

Such mass slaughter of animals is structured by S 510 and is yet another gift to the biotech industry for without the extermination of normal animals, their investment in GE-animals and GMO meat is worthless.

The corporations, faced with public upset at ravages of industrial agriculture and the contaminated food coming out of it, are using fear of food, fear of minor animal diseases (including a faked H1N1 pandemic still promoted by government agencies), and lies and fraud to try to eliminate real farming in the US and to facilitate the theft of all US farmland.

The greed and hubris of S 510 pales in comparison to its unconstitutionality and danger to life.

The grass roots are saying no to S 510, each in their own idioms, whether by referring to the Constitution or to the Founding Fathers and to rights or to patriotism. Across the political spectrum, people are coming together to reject S 510 on constitutional and human rights grounds, and the plans of those behind this extreme corporate bill.

The corporate attempt to end US farming and set up their own court system over all Americans far outstrips the destruction of jobs, the forcing of millions from their homes, Citizens United, and the Wall Street theft. Now, through S 510, the corporations seek to remove all bounds on what they themselves do, on what they can do to any who oppose them, and on what they can seize. And this is only on the food side.

The threats to health are as profound. S 510 would remove the long sought cure for cancer as well as cures for an endless array of diseases, by removing access to supplements (one in particular). S 510 would suppress a medical revolution poised to free mankind from all fear of disease, leaving the country instead at the mercy of a pharmaceutical industry with a disturbing history and recent threatening actions with vaccines.

With S 510, those behind GMOs, vaccines, and drugs seek to remove access to normal farming, normal food and to nutrition (health) itself. They are seeking total dominance over what sustains life and over people.

S 510 is not a food safety bill. What is it, then? Is it a corporate enabling act? Does it open the door to corporate control over all Americans, all food supplies and health resources, and all US farmland?

Canadian Farmers Union are demanding that the draconian trade plans with the EU be scrapped. Will groups here demand the same of S 510?

Monday, October 25, 2010

Voting Lesson 101

Via George Carlin
Blogger note: I have been a faithful voter for 20+ years, and in that short time span I have noticed one theme that unites the two parties, that is , division. If we are to remain a sovereign nation, that is, a republic under the peoples jurisdiction, how can democracy work for us if it is under a despotic foreign power? Can we identify that power? And if so, what is the solution?

Our leadership: Left Vs. Right


Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009

But Now You Know

There is most certainly a pattern to climate change…
…but it’s not what you may think:

For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.

* 1895 - Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
* 1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
* 1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
* 1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
* 1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
* 1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
* 1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
* 1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
* 1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
* 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
* 1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
* 1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
* 1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
* 1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
* 1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
* 1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
* 1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
* 1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
* 1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
* 1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
* 1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
* 1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post
* 1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
* 1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
Cassandras are becoming
increasingly apprehensive,
for the weather
aberrations they are
studying may be the
harbinger of another
ice age
* 1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
* 1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
* 1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
* 1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
* 1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context
* 1989 -”On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989
* 1990 - “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
* 1993 - “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
* 1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
* 2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
* 2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
* 2006 - “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
* Now: The global mean temperature has fallen for four years in a row, which is why you stopped hearing details about the actual global temperature, even while they carry on about taxing you to deal with it…how long before they start predicting an ice age?

The actual Global Warming Advocates' chart, overlayed on the 
"climate change" hysterics of the past 120 years. Not only is 
it clear that they take any change and claim it's going to go on forever
 and kill everyone, but notice that they often get the trend wrong...
The actual Global Warming Advocates' chart, overlayed on the "climate change" hysterics of the past 120 years. Not only is it clear that they take any change and claim it's going to go on forever and kill everyone, but notice that they even sometimes get the short-term trend wrong...

Worse still, notice that in 1933 they claim global warming has been going on for 25 years…the entire 25 years they were saying we were entering an ice age. And in 1974, they say there has been global cooling for 40 years…the entire time of which they’d been claiming the earth was getting hotter! Of course NOW they are talking about the earth “warming for the past century”, again ignoring that they spent much of that century claiming we were entering an ice age.

The fact is that the mean temperature of the planet is, and should be, always wavering up or down, a bit, because this is a natural world, not a climate-controlled office. So there will always be some silly bureaucrat, in his air-conditioned ivory tower, who looks at which way it’s going right now, draws up a chart as if this is permanant, realizes how much fear can increase his funding, and proclaims doom for all of humanity.

* 2006 – “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…” — Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT
* 2006 – “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London
* 2006 - “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930′s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920′s until the 1960′s they warned of global warming. From the 1950′s until the 1970′s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” – Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006
* 2007- “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007
* 2008 – “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress” – Dr. John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA, see above for Hansen quotes.

Next time you see the usual "global warming" chart, look
 carefully: it is in tiny fractions of one degree. The ENTIRE global 
warming is less than six tenths of one degree. Here is the Global 
Warming Advocates' own chart, rendered in actual degrees like sane 
people use. I was going to use 0-100 like a thermometer, but you end up 
with almost a flat line, so I HELPED the Climate Change side by making 
the temperature range much narrower.
Next time you see the usual "global warming" chart, look carefully: it is in tiny fractions of one degree. The ENTIRE global warming is less than six tenths of one degree. Here is the Global Warming Advocates' own chart, rendered in actual degrees like sane people use. I was going to use 0-100 like a thermometer, but you end up with almost a flat line, so I HELPED the Climate Change side by making the temperature range much narrower, and the chart needlessly tall to stretch the up-down differences in the line.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Most school garden produce is forbidden fruit in CPS lunchrooms

Most school garden produce is forbidden fruit in CPS lunchrooms 

Kayla Howard (left) and Destiny Stewart, 7th-grade students at Victor Herbert Elementary school in Chicago, carry plants toward their school's new garden. (Antonio Perez/Tribune)


It's harvest time in Chicago Public School gardens full of chubby tomatoes, heavy squash and fragrant basil.

These urban oases, carefully tended by teachers, students and volunteers, range from several square feet to several acres of fruits, vegetables, herbs and flowers, and some schools even grow plants year-round in school greenhouses.

But one thing the more than 40 gardens have in common is that none of the produce ever finds its way into CPS lunchrooms. Instead, because of rules set by the district and its meal provider, the food is sold or given away.

The policies are in place despite the high obesity rate among Illinois children and experts' concerns that young people are eating few fresh vegetables. Meanwhile, a studies suggest children eat and accept vegetables much more readily when they have helped grow them.

But in a district that touts its use of some local produce in the lunchroom, the most local of all remains forbidden fruit.

Kathleen Merrigan, deputy secretary of agriculture at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, recently toured a CPS school garden at the Academy for Global Citizenship on the Southwest Side. There, two second-grade girls showed her the eggplant, squash and tomatoes they grew, along with the chickens they kept for eggs.

"Ideally, all of those products would make it from the garden to the lunchroom," Merrigan said.

But rules created by CPS and its meals supplier, Chartwells-Thompson, prevent that from happening.

"In order to use food in the school food program, it would need to meet specific/certified growing practices," CPS spokeswoman Monique Bond said.

These requirements would include eliminating all "pesticides and insecticide" applications and using only "commercially prepared organic compost and fertilizers," said Bob Bloomer, regional vice president of Chartwells-Thompson.

Commercial vendors, though, don't have to abide by these rules. They can sell the district produce treated with several pesticides and grown in nonorganic fertilizer.

But produce grown by the Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences on its 25-acre farm wouldn't make the grade because, for example, it treats its corn with a single pesticide.

Instead, the high school ends up selling most of the bounty — including pumpkins, tomatoes, squash, greenhouse basil, farm-raised tilapia, fresh eggs and blueberries. Other schools give away the produce or send it home with kids.

Chef Greg Christian requested permission to serve school garden produce at Alcott Elementary School when he was running its Organic School Project, which ceased this year. But district administrators refused, on the grounds it wasn't safe.

"It was good enough to use for cooking demonstrations and good enough to send home with the kids but not good enough to feed kids in their lunch," Christian said.

Chartwells said its guidelines are designed to protect students.

"Farmers and suppliers of our produce are professionals, and therefore are at less risk of conducting poor agricultural practices," Bloomer said. "Those that are working a school garden may not always be as cognizant of what constitutes good agricultural practices."

Other districts in the region and across the country are planning or have already launched garden-to-school programs. The key, organizers said, is getting support for healthy food and nutrition education straight from the top.

This year, Denver Public Schools students have already harvested more than 1,000 pounds of garden produce for school lunches as part of a program cooked up by school food service director Leo Lesh.

Working with chef Andrew Nowak, who is also an officer for the activist group Slow Food Denver, Lesh put out a call for interested schools with gardens last year.

"We asked them to grow mainly cherry tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and squash for the salad bar," he said.

In this first pilot year, 11 schools supplied up to 20 percent of their produce needs at the peak of the harvest, Nowak estimates. They also harvested and froze hundreds of pounds of pumpkin destined for cranberry-pumpkin breads.

"I can't tell you how proud the kids were to pick vegetables at the beginning of the week and then see them on the salad bar a couple of days later," said Nowak, who helped develop safety guidelines for the growing and handling of the food.

With Denver's limited growing season and the gardens' limited acreage, the program was never designed to replace the district's produce vendors, Nowak said, but to augment the produce and "connect the kids to their food in a meaningful way."

This month, Lesh said, he will write a check to pay for produce the schools harvested.

"I have to buy this anyway," he said. "So why not give the money back to the district schools rather than somebody else?"

The gardens, planted and tended by adult volunteers and students, even provide green summer jobs to students who are willing to water and weed, Lesh said.

Similar garden-to-school programs include Berkeley's Edible Schoolyard Program and the Baltimore school district's 33-acre Great Kids Farm, which provides learning opportunities for students and produce for an after-school meals program.

Closer to home, the Elgin-centered U-46 district, the second largest in the state, is developing a proposal to use up to 5 acres of city land for growing cafeteria produce and for teaching.

Though still in the planning and grant-writing stages, the program's "ultimate goal is to let students experience the whole food cycle," said Claudie Phillips, food service director for district U-46. "When kids are involved in the growing process and buy into the concept and see the end product, that's when the whole thing works."

Phillips said she is grateful for the support of district Superintendent Jose Torres. "It's a dream to have the district head understand that healthier kids are better students and that food and nutrition can play a part," she said.

Merrigan of the USDA said school gardens can help feed students' minds, if not their bellies. She mentioned several recent studies on the topic, including one she co-authored with Michelle Ratcliffe, a doctoral student at Tufts University.

"She found that children who engaged in garden-based learning did better on their standardized test scores, were more environmentally aware and were willing to try and consume more fruits and vegetables, even beyond what they saw in the garden," Merrigan said.

Chef David Blackmon, who oversees CPS career programs in hospitality, the culinary arts and agricultural science, said he believes he can bring the three disciplines together. Despite current regulations, he hopes to persuade the Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences and Marshall High School to allow CPS culinary students to incorporate garden produce into special cafeteria offerings during the next school year.

"If a dish comes from the garden and it's made by one of their friends," Blackmon said, "I think the kids will be much more likely to try it over the same old pizza, nachos, burgers and chicken patties."

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Now FDA Criminalizes Chelation

Daily Bell

Friday, October 15, 2010 – by  Staff Report

No OTC Chelation, FDA Warns ... All over-the-counter sales of "chelation" treatments are illegal, the FDA says. The federal agency sent warning letters to eight companies that sell chelation treatments online. The companies were told to immediately stop selling the products. "These are in fact unapproved drugs," Michael Levy, director of the FDA's division of new drugs and labeling compliance, said at a news conference. "These companies falsely claimed that these drugs treat a variety of ailments, including autism and heart disease." Chelation is a technique for treating people who have been poisoned with heavy metals such as lead, mercury, iron, and arsenic. Approved chelation drugs are available only by prescription and should be administered only by trained health professionals. Several of the companies cited today by the FDA promoted their chelation products as treatments for autism and other chronic diseases. "Unapproved chelation products are dangerously misleading because they target patients and the caregivers of patients with untreatable conditions," Levy said. – Web MD

Dominant Social Theme: Government steps in to save lives once again.

Free-Market Analysis: Well, the FDA is at it again. Now it is chelation that has received the brunt of the FDA's nannyism. Chelation was developed during the World War I to help veterans exposed to poison gas attacks. After World War II, the treatment found favor helping those in the military who had received lead poisoning as a result of painting ships. Sub dominant social theme: "Chelation is a scientifically approved treatment, but it sure can't be administered properly by anyone who is not part of the medical establishment."

How does chelation work? Here's Wikipedia: "Chelation therapy is the administration of chelating agents to remove heavy metals from the body. For the most common forms of heavy metal intoxication—those involving lead, arsenic or mercury—the standard of care in the United States dictates the use of dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA). Other chelating agents, such as 2,3-dimercapto-1-propanesulfonic acid (DMPS) and alpha lipoic acid (ALA), are used in conventional and alternative medicine. No approved medical research has found any benefits to chelation therapy for other diseases or ailments."
Sounds reasonable. The problem that the FDA has with current applications of chelation is that it is being used outside of the traditional mainstream medical community to treat heart conditions and more recently to treat autism. Of course it sad that various Internet forums are jammed with heart-rending comments from parents who want to find a chelation provider for their autistic children but cannot. 

The FDA apparently must save these parents from themselves.
On the other hand we have austism-treatment pioneers such as Professor James Adams who spent a good deal of time conducting a fairly rigorous testing procedure to see if chelation helped children with autism. Here's an excerpt from a late 2009 article (November) over at the Autism Research Institute (based on a press release) commenting on the results:

Two studies published by the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine in the October issue of BMC Clinical Pharmacology investigated the use of oral dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA), a prescription medicine approved by the FDA for treating lead poisoning, and used off-label in these studies for treating heavy metal toxicity in children with autism. In the investigations, DMSA was given to 65 children with autism (ages 3 -8years) to determine its effects. The researchers found that DMSA dramatically increased excretion of several toxic metals, including a 10-fold increase in excretion of lead. In terms of safety, the study found that there was no adverse effect on standard safety tests, including no effect on kidney or liver function.
Of greatest interest was a surprising finding that DMSA therapy had a dramatic effect on glutathione levels. Glutathione is the body's primary defense against toxic metals, and it was very abnormal in children with autism. Treatment with DMSA for only 3 days normalized glutathione levels for at least 1-2 months in almost all children. DMSA therapy also had promising effects on possibly reducing some of the symptoms of autism, including improvements in language, cognition, and sociability. However, a formal randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study is needed to confirm those results.
The study was led by Matthew Baral, N.D., Chair of the Department of Pediatric Medicine and Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine (SCNM) and James B. Adams, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor in the Division of Clinical Sciences at SCNM and Science Director for the Autism Research Institute.

DSMA is a main ingredient in modern chelation treatment. In making its announcement, the FDA seems to have ignored the Baral/Adams results. Perhaps that is because the testing was still not rigorous enough. Or perhaps it has to do with a general FDA crackdown on non-mainstream administered medicine. Last year, the FDA went after numerous firms selling walnuts based on the claim that they were a heart-healthy food.

Diamond Foods was one of the companies that received an FDA warning letter. Diamond Foods reported on the controversy as follows: "The FDA has determined that walnuts sold by Diamond Foods cannot be legally marketed because the walnuts 'are not generally recognized as safe and effective' for the medical conditions referenced on Diamond Foods' website. According to the FDA, these walnuts are now classified as 'drugs' and the 'unauthorized health claims' cause them to become "misbranded," thus subjecting them to government 'seizure or injunction.'"

Diamond Foods goes on to point out that ironically the FDA allows Frito Lay to sell "heart healthy" potato chips and does not seem inclined to do pursue US fast-food vendors that aggressively market artery-clogging meals that are heavily fried and laden with animal fats. Diamond Foods analyzes the Frito Lay "heart-healthy" claims at length, as follows:
You might not associate these mostly-fried snack foods as being good for you, but the FDA has no problem allowing the Frito-Lay® website to state the following:

"Frito-Lay snacks start with real farm-grown ingredients. You might be surprised at how much good stuff goes into your favorite snack. Good stuff like potatoes, which naturally contain vitamin C and essential minerals. Or corn, one of the world's most popular grains, packed with Thiamin, vitamin B6, and Phosphorous – all necessary for healthy bones, teeth, nerves and muscles. And it's not just the obvious ingredients. Our all-natural sunflower, corn and soybean oils contain good polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, which help lower total and LDL "bad" cholesterol and maintain HDL 'good' cholesterol levels, which can support a healthy heart. Even salt, when eaten in moderation as part of a balanced diet, is essential for the body."

Wow! Based on what Frito-Lay® is allowed to state, it sounds like we should be living on these snacks. Who would want to ingest walnuts, pomegranate, or green tea (which FDA now says are illegal drugs) when these fat-calorie laden, mostly-fried carbohydrates are so widely available? According to the Frito Lay® website, Lays® potato chips are now "heart healthy" because the level of saturated fat was reduced and replaced with sunflower oil.45 Scientific studies do show that when a polyunsaturated fat (like sunflower oil) is substituted for saturated fat, favorable changes in blood cholesterol occur.46
Fatally omitted from the Frito-Lay® website is the fact that sunflower oil supplies lots of omega-6 fats, but no omega-3s.47 The American diet already contains too many omega-6 fats and woefully inadequate omega-3. Excess omega-6 fats in the diet in the absence of adequate omega-3s produces devastating effects including the production of pro-inflammatory compounds that contribute to virtually every age-related disease including atherosclerosis. For the FDA to allow Frito-Lay® to pretend there are heart benefits to ingesting their high-calorie snack products, while censoring the ability of walnut companies to make scientifically-substantiated claims, is tantamount of treason against the health of the American public.

Here is perhaps the crux paragraph in the letter the FDA sent to Diamond Foods: "Additionally, your walnut products are offered for conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners; therefore, adequate directions for use cannot be written so that a layperson can use these drugs safely for their intended purposes. Thus, your walnut products are also misbranded under section 502(f)(1) of the Act, in that the labeling for these drugs fails to bear adequate directions for use [21 U.S.C. § 352(f)(1)]."

This is the "hot button" for the FDA which is evidently and obviously beholden to the American medical establishment. The idea that individuals can "self-diagnose" is absolutely anathema to the FDA, which institutionally seems to take the position that American citizens are generally idiots who will hurt themselves without FDA protections. (How could it be otherwise?)

We could go on and on about the FDA's predictable "regulatory capture" by the mainstream medical community, America's largest food-vendors and, of course, Big Pharma itself. The FDA justifies its authoritarianism using the fig leaf of "double blind" tests. Theoretically double blind (or triple-blind) tests are a foolproof scientific construct. But reality is not so clear. If the testing pool is too small, if there are other agents that are not considered but that might somehow have interfered with the testing, or if the testing procedure itself is corrupted purposefully, then the double blind tests are worthless.
Of course, we would have more faith in a real life application of double-blind testing if the FDA hadn't been immersed in so many scandals and recalls. It seems every time one turns around, the FDA is dealing with another failed drug that promised so much on its initial introduction but then ended up causing kidney and liver problems, or cancer or other unanticipated side effects. These recalls occur with depressing regularity despite the "double blind" protocols that are supposed to prevent such occurrences.

With remarkable fortitude, the FDA stumbles on nonetheless. Knowledgeable health care consumers will note that Europe's Codex Alimentarius treaty, which seeks to ban such things as vitamins (without a prescription) is probably what is really being "harmonized" here. On the FDA website itself we find the following: "Under the WHO umbrella, the Codex Alimentarius Commission develops food standards, guidelines and codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programs. FDA participates and exercises leadership in relevant Codex committees. Harmonization and Multilateral Relations representatives coordinate Codex activities within FDA and other U.S. agencies to encourage the development of science-based, international food safety and labeling standards."

The real problem we have with the FDA is something that is never discussed by the mainstream media. It is the same problem we have in fact with libertarian solutions to government initiatives, on occasion (intellectual property comes to mind). Of course, it is actually good to discuss private market solutions and to challenges one's own preconceptions. (Ayn Rand's dictum comes to mind in this regard: "Check your premises.")

In any event, the REAL way that one can winnow out what is efficacious and what is not is to use the market itself and market failure. This is very simple logic, and it is why the regulatory state (regulatory democracy) is ultimately such an abomination. By substituting regulations enforced by massive government programs and subject to the pressures of the regulatory state itself (and its mercantilist tendencies) one inevitably ends up with something that is usually the reverse of what is intended. The most powerful and corrupt entities are able to use the system to legalize what the market might otherwise likely reject while ensuring that competitive products that might provide a rational alternative are kept off the market.

There is no reason not to allow people to seek out chelation if they wish for their autistic children. There is no reason why groups that are not affiliated with mainstream medicine and its licensing ought not to be allowed to provide chelation treatment – much of which is administered by cream rather than intravenous means. There is no reason, either, why vendors selling walnuts ought to be barred from claiming health benefits.

It is in fact (in America) an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech. But that does not seem to trouble the FDA. What will tell in the long run is the truth-telling of the Internet itself, which is giving both the FDA and the mainstream medical establishment a great deal of difficulty. Codex Alimentarius was supposed to "harmonized" with little fanfare and fuss. Instead homeopathy, vitamin therapies, acupuncture and, generally, alternative treatments have exploded in the past decade. The invasive approach to medicine, which stems from the Anglo-American barber shop with its primitive surgeries was supposed dominate in the 21st century. Instead, we would suggest, resistance is growing.
Regulatory democracy is inherently based on the misconception that the West's feudal law system can replace marketplace competition. With increasing vigor, elite promotions focus on presenting the state itself as the fount of wisdom and the appropriate replacement for the greed and venality of the private marketplace. In fact, this stands civil society on its head. Authoritarian constructs are NOT preferable to the laissez-faire "spontaneous order" of a market-based society.

Conclusion: The concept of regulatory democracy has been pushed relentlessly by the elite in the 21st century. Fear-based promotional campaigns have ratcheted up even as their efficacy has been undermined by the truth-telling of the Internet. Still the misery and corruption gets worse and worse with every regulatory "fix." To continue down this road is madness. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." Are Western regulatory democracies, in aggregate, increasingly insane?