Roundup is more toxic than declared proves

Alarming new research on the health hazards of Roundup weed killer is shining a harsh light on a regulatory process that was meant to protect us.

To protect our health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets maximum legal residue levels for every pesticide, for dozens of crops. But a new study in the respected journal Toxicology has shown that, at low levels that are currently legal on our food, Roundup could cause DNA damage, endocrine disruption and cell death.The study, conducted by French researchers, shows glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic to human reproductive cells.

The potential real-life risks from this are infertility, low sperm count, and prostate or testicular cancer. But, “Symptoms could be so subtle, they would be easy to overlook,” says Theo Colborn, president of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange. “Timing is of critical importance. If a pregnant woman were to be exposed early in gestation, it looks like these herbicides could have an effect during the sexual differentiation stage. They really lock in on testosterone.” The bottom line is more research is needed before we can fully understand the effects of glyphosate exposure.

A Perfect Poison





The researchers’ most disturbing findings were not only the cytotoxic and hormonal responses to low-dose exposures, but the fact that the “active” ingredient - glyphosate - had much less of a toxic impact alone than the branded chemical mixtures sold to homeowners and farmers nationwide.

Solvents and surfactants, legally considered “inert ingredients,” are mixed with glyphosate in products such as Roundup weed killer to create chemical formulations that increase mobility and more direct access to the cells. "Those same factors that aid penetration into a plant, also aid penetration into the skin," says Vincent Garry, professor emeritus of pathology at the University of Minnesota. ”These chemicals are designed to kill cells.”

Despite being termed “inert,” these added (and usually secret) ingredients are anything but benign, as the manufacturers have claimed for decades. The new French research found the surfactants not only amplify the effects of glyphosate, but glyphosate also amplifies the effects of the surfactants. Basically, one plus one equals something larger than two.

Herbicide manufacturers are subject to fewer rules in the testing of inert ingredients than they are for active ingredients, explains Caroline Cox, research director at the Center for Environmental Health in Oakland, Calif. “The tests the EPA requires for inert ingredients cover only a small range of potential health problems,” Cox says. “Testing for birth defects, cancer and genetic damage are required only on the active ingredients. But we’re exposed to both.”

The Rise of Roundup

Glyphosate, mostly in the form of Roundup products manufactured by the Monsanto Co., has been widely used in the United States since the 1970s. Today, we spray more than 100 million pounds on our yards and farms every year, making it the most popular of the Monsanto chemicals. Monsanto continues to assure us its product is safe. “It’s used to protect schools,” a Monsanto spokesperson told Scientific American. Protect schools?! From what, killer weeds?

Glyphosate use has skyrocketed in recent years because of the widespread adoption of genetically modified corn, soy and cotton varieties that Monsanto developed to be resistant to glyphosate, according to the Center for Food Safety. Although the companies promoted glyphosate-resistant crops as a way to reduce herbicide use, there’s actually been a sharp increase in use on corn, soybeans and cotton since 2002, thanks to the emergence of resistant weeds. Farmers are battling glyphosate-resistant weeds with more glyphosate and other herbicides.

Most of the food we eat that contains corn or soy was sprayed with glyphosate herbicide, and we’re being exposed to higher and higher levels of residue. In response to petitions from Monsanto, the EPA has approved up to 20-fold increases in the legal residue limits for food crops.

"Our bodies are gigantic spider webs of chemical communications that work in the parts-per-trillion range," says Warren Porter, professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin. "When you put so-called ‘insignificant’ amounts of toxic chemicals into the mix, you have a molecular bull in a china shop. The possibilities for impact are endless." 

http://www.sott.net/article/209506-Roundup-Kills-More-Than-Weeds

Roundup is more toxic than declared proves new Seralini study

In a new research paper published in the high ranked scientific journal Toxicology, Robin Mesnage, Benoît Bernay and Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, from the University of Caen, France, have proven (from a study of nine Roundup-like herbicides) that the most toxic compound is not glyphosate, which is the substance the most assessed by regulatory authorities, but a compound that is not always listed on the label, called POE-15. Modern methods were applied at the cellular level (on three human cell lines), and mass spectrometry (studies on the nature of molecules). This allowed the researchers to identify and analyse the effects of these compounds.

Context:

Glyphosate is supposed to be the “active ingredient” of Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, and it is present in a large group of Roundup-like herbicides. It has been safety tested on mammals for the purposes of regulatory risk assessment. But the commercial formulations of these pesticides as they are sold and used contain added ingredients (adjuvants). These are often classified confidential and described as “inerts”. However, they help to stabilize the chemical compound glyphosate and help it to penetrate plants, in the manner of corrosive detergents. The formulated herbicides (including Roundup) can affect all living cells, especially human cells. This danger is overlooked because glyphosate and Roundup are treated as the same by industry and regulators on long-term studies. The supposed non-toxicity of glyphosate serves as a basis for the commercial release of Roundup. The health and environmental agencies and pesticide companies assess the

long-term effects on mammals of glyphosate alone, and not the full formulation. The details of this regulatory assessment are jealously kept confidential by companies like Monsanto and health and environmental agencies.

Conclusion and consequences:

This study demonstrates that all the glyphosate-based herbicides tested are more toxic than glyphosate alone, and explains why. Thus their regulatory assessments and the maximum residue levels authorized in the environment, food, and feed, are erroneous. A drink (such as tap water contaminated by Roundup residues) or a food made with a Roundup tolerant GMO (like a transgenic soya or corn) were already demonstrated as toxic in the recent rat feeding study (2) from Prof. Séralini team. The researchers have also published responses to critics of the study (3). This new research explains and confirms the scientific results of the rat feeding study.

Overall, it is a great matter of concern for public health. First, all authorizations of Roundup-type herbicides have to be questioned urgently. Second, the regulatory assessment rules have to be fully revised. They should be analyzed in a transparent and contradictory manner by the scientific community. Agencies that give opinions to government authorities, in common with the pesticide companies generally conclude safety. The agencies’ opinions are wrong because they are made on the basis of lax assessments and much of the industry data is kept confidential, meaning that a full and transparent assessment cannot be carried out. These assessments are therefore neither neutral nor independent. They should as a first step make public on the Internet all the data that underpin the commercial release and positive opinions on the use of Roundup and similar products. The industry toxicological data must be legally made public.

Adjuvants of the POE-15 family (polyethoxylated tallowamine) have now been revealed as actively toxic to human cells, and must be regulated as such. The complete formulations must be tested in long-term toxicity studies and the results taken into account in regulatory assessments. The regulatory authorisation process for pesticides released into the environment and sold in stores must urgently be revised. Moreover, since the toxic confidential adjuvants are in general use in pesticide formulations, we fear according to these discoveries that the toxicity of all pesticides has been very significantly underestimated.

This study was conducted in the University of Caen with the structural support of CRIIGEN in the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility

Source:
http://www.occupymonsanto360.org (http://s.tt/1A8OY)

The True Food Shoppers’ Guide to Avoiding GMOs

Today, thousands of products on supermarket shelves are made with ingredients from genetically modified (also known as genetically engineered [GE]) crops. But GM foods are not labeled in the U.S., despite warnings from doctors and scientists that these foods may not be safe in the diet or the environment. This lack of mandatory labeling can make it difficult to determine which products are made with GM ingredients and which are not. The True Food Shoppers Guide is designed to give you the tools you need to make informed purchasing decisions.

The True Food Shoppers Guide also arms you with valuable information regarding common GM ingredients, as well as brands to look for, and to look out for. The application includes a “Four Simple Tips” section, which offers easy ways to avoid GM ingredients, a “Supermarkets and GMOs” section to help consumers identify GM and non-GMO private-label store brands, and a rbGH and rbGH-free dairy guide.

In addition to a list of brands that produce foods with no GM content, the application also offers contact information for companies that do use GM ingredients. This feature enables consumers to personally voice their opposition to the use of GM foods directly to the parties involved. As a result, the app serves not only as a shopping guide and teaching tool, but one that can be used for widespread advocacy as well. The app also has a “Take Action” section allowing people to contact state and federal agencies and officials to demand better regulatory oversight, safety testing and labeling laws for GM foods and crops.

The True Food Shoppers Guide was compiled because you have the right to know what’s in your food!
The Guide was compiled primarily from direct communications with food producers. In some cases, we received company policy statements from consumers who passed these on to us. In addition to written statements, we spoke to many company representatives to clarify or assess their position. Products on the RED list contain ingredients that come from the most common GE crops (corn, soy, canola, cotton). Companies with products on this list have confirmed that their products may have or are likely to be made with GE ingredients, or have not denied using GE foods when given the opportunity to do so. Companies on the GREEN list have made a concerted effort to avoid GE ingredients and have company policies asserting their position on avoiding GE foods.
As ingredients change in products all the time, the best thing is to check the ingredients list of the products you buy often. Keep a look out for:
Corn: corn oil, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, corn meal
Soy: soy protein, soy lecithin, soy oil, soy sauce, soy isolates
Canola: canola oil
Cotton: cottonseed oil
http://truefoodnow.org/shoppers-guide/

Organic companies against labeling GMOs?

If Proposition 37 in California passes, foods that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients would be required by law to have a label saying so. This would be a huge step forward for those of us who care about not eating GM food. It would also be a step forward for those who think we just have the right to know what is in our food.
Unfortunately, while the proposition has a lot of people support, it has significantly less funding in support of it. Companies have raised $23.5 million to fight Prop 27, while only $2.78 million has been raised in support of it. With GM ingredients in so many store-bought brands, it is hardly surprising that money is being thrown against this prop. However, what is surprising is how some of our organic purchases could be helping the cause against labeling GM foods!
The Cornucopia Institute released a fact sheet sharing many brands that were under a “corporate parent” that gave even millions of dollars to fight against GM labeling. These brands include Larabar, Naked, Horizon Organics, Odwalla and other familiar brands.
http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/blogs/organic-companies-against-labeling-gmos

Free boycode guide
http://truefoodnow.org/shoppers-guide/

Scientists Successfully Implant Chip That Controls The Brain

Scientists working at the University of Southern California, home of the Department of Homeland Security’s National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, have created an artificial memory system that allows thoughts, memories and learned behavior to be transferred from one brain to another.

In a scene right out of a George Orwell novel, a team of scientists working in the fields of “neural engineering” and “Biomimetic MicroElectronic Systems” have successfully created a chip that controls the brain and can be used as a storage device for long-term memories. In studies the scientists have been able to record, download and transfer memories into other hosts with the same chip implanted. The advancement in technology brings the world one step closer to a global police state and the reality of absolute mind control.

More terrifying is the potential for implementation of what was only a science fiction fantasy – the “Thought Police” – where the government reads people’s memories and thoughts and can then rehabilitate them through torture before they ever even commit a crime based on a statistical computer analysis showing people with certain types of thoughts are likely to commit a certain type of crime in the future.
We already pre-emptively invade nations and torture alleged terrorist suspects with absolutely no due process of law, so the idea of pre-emptively torturing a terrorist suspect beforehand to prevent them from committing an act of terrorism in the future really isn’t that far fetched of an idea.Perhaps a less sensational example than those I just depicted from Orwell’s famous dystopian novels would be using the technology as it is depicted the modern dayMatrix movies, in which computer programs are uploaded into people’s brains allowing them to instantly learn how to perform a wide variety of tasks.

http://mind-computer.com/2012/04/21/scientists-successfully-implant-chip-that-controls-the-brain-allowing-thoughts-memory-and-behavior-to-be-transferred-from-one-brain-to-another/

That is exactly the example that Smart Planet uses in their write-up on the USC press release.

The Matrix reality: Scientists successfully implant artificial memory system

Johnny Mnemonic and Neuromancer back in the 1980s of neural implants linking our brains to machines have become a reality.

Back then it seemed unthinkable that we’d ever have megabytes stashed in our brain as Keanu Reeves’ character Johnny Mnemonic did in the movie based on William Gibson’s novel. Or that The Matrix character Neo could have martial arts abilities uploaded to his brain, making famous the line, “I know Kung Fu.”   (Why Keanu Reeves became the poster boy of sci-fi movies, I’ll never know.)  But today we have macaque monkeys that can control a robotic arm with thoughts alone. We have paraplegics given the ability to control computer cursors and wheelchairs with their brain waves. Of course this is about the brain controlling a device. But what about the other direction where we might have a device amplifying the brain? While the cochlear implant might be the best known device of this sort, scientists have been working on brain implants with the goal to enhance memory. This sort of breakthrough could lead to building a neural prosthesis to help stroke victims or those with Alzheimer’s. Or at the extreme, think uploading Kung Fu talent into our brains.

Decade-long work led by Theodore Berger at University of Southern California, in collaboration with teams from Wake Forest University, has provided a big step in the direction of artificial working memory. Their study is finally published today in the Journal of Neural Engineering. A microchip implanted into a rat’s brain can take on the role of the hippocampus—the area responsible for long-term memories—encoding memory brain wave patterns and then sending that same electrical pattern of signals through the brain. Back in 2008, Berger told Scientific American, that if the brain patterns for the sentence, “See Spot Run,” or even an entire book could be deciphered, then we might make uploading instructions to the brain a reality. “The kinds of examples [the U.S. Department of Defense] likes to typically use are coded information for flying an F-15,” Berger is quoted in the article as saying.
[…]
In this current study the scientists had rats learn a task, pressing one of two levers to receive a sip of water. Scientists inserted a microchip into the rat’s brain, with wires threaded into their hippocampus. Here the chip recorded electrical patterns from two specific areas labeled CA1 and CA3 that work together to learn and store the new information of which lever to press to get water. Scientists then shut down CA1 with a drug. And built an artificial hippocampal part that could duplicate such electrical patterns between CA1 and CA3, and inserted it into the rat’s brain. With this artificial part, rats whose CA1 had been pharmacologically blocked, could still encode long-term memories. And in those rats who had normally functioning CA1, the new implant extended the length of time a memory could be held.
[…]
Source: Smart Planet

The Smart Planet article goes on to point out that the next phase in testing will be done on primates and will eventually be tested on humans.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/06/scientists-successfully-implant-chip.html

The Artificial Womb Is Born And The World of the Matrix begins

”One by one the eggs were transferred from their test-tubes to the larger containers; deftly the peritoneal lining was slit, the morula dropped into place, the saline solution poured . . . and already the bottle had passed on through an opening in the wall, slowly on into the Social Predestination Room.” Aldous Huxley, ”Brave New World”

The artificial womb exists. In Tokyo, researchers have developed a technique called EUFI — extrauterine fetal incubation. They have taken goat fetuses, threaded catheters through the large vessels in the umbilical cord and supplied the fetuses with oxygenated blood while suspending them in incubators that contain artificial amniotic fluid heated to body temperature.

Yoshinori Kuwabara, chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Juntendo University in Tokyo, has been working on artificial placentas for a decade. His interest grew out of his clinical experience with premature infants, and as he writes in a recent abstract, ”It goes without saying that the ideal situation for the immature fetus is growth within the normal environment of the maternal organism.”

Kuwabara and his associates have kept the goat fetuses in this environment for as long as three weeks. But the doctor’s team ran into problems with circulatory failure, along with many other technical difficulties. Pressed to speculate on the future, Kuwabara cautiously predicts that ”it should be possible to extend the length” and, ultimately, ”this can be applied to human beings.”

For a moment, as you contemplate those fetal goats, it may seem a short hop to the Central Hatchery of Aldous Huxley’s imagination. In fact, in recent decades, as medicine has focused on the beginning and end stages of pregnancy, the essential time inside the woman’s body has been reduced. We are, however, still a long way from connecting those two points, from creating a completely artificial gestation. But we are at a moment when the fetus, during its obligatory time in the womb, is no longer inaccessible, no longer locked away from medical interventions.

The future of human reproductive medicine lies along the speeding trajectories of several different technologies. There is neonatology, accomplishing its miracles at the too-abrupt end of gestation. There is fetal surgery, intervening dramatically during pregnancy to avert the anomalies that kill and cripple newborns. There is the technology of assisted reproduction, the in-vitro fertilization and gamete retrieval-and-transfer fireworks of the last 20 years. And then, inevitably, there is genetics. All these technologies are essentially new, and with them come ethical questions so potent that the very inventors of these miracles seem half-afraid of where we may be heading.

Between Womb and Air

Modern neonatology is a relatively short story: a few decades of phenomenal advances and doctors who resuscitate infants born 16 or 17 weeks early, babies weighing less than a pound. These very low-birthweight babies have a survival rate of about 10 percent. Experienced neonatologists are extremely hesitant about pushing the boundaries back any further; much research is aimed now at reducing the severe morbidity of these extreme preemies who do survive.

”Liquid preserves the lung structure and function,” says Thomas Shaffer, professor of physiology and pediatrics at the School of Medicine at Temple University. He has been working on liquid ventilation for almost 30 years. Back in the late 1960′s, he looked for a way to use liquid ventilation to prevent decompression sickness in deep-sea divers. His technology was featured in the book ”The Abyss,” and for the movie of that name, Hollywood built models of the devices Shaffer had envisioned. As a postdoctoral student in physiology, he began working with premature infants. Throughout gestation, the lungs are filled with the appropriately named fetal lung fluid. Perhaps, he thought, ventilating these babies with a liquid that held a lot of oxygen would offer a gentler, safer way to take these immature lungs over the threshold toward the necessary goal of breathing air. Barotrauma, which is damage done to the lungs by the forced air banging out of the ventilator, would thus be reduced or eliminated.

Today, in Shaffer’s somewhat labyrinthine laboratories in Philadelphia, you can come across a ventilator with pressure settings that seem astoundingly low; this machine is set at pressures that could never force air into stiff newborn lungs. And then there is the long bubbling cylinder where a special fluorocarbon liquid can be passed through oxygen, picking up and absorbing quantities of oxygen molecules. This machine fills the lungs with fluid that flows into the tiny passageways and air sacs of a premature human lung.

Shaffer remembers, not long ago, when many people thought the whole idea was crazy, when his was the only team working on filling human lungs with liquid. Now, liquid ventilation is cited by many neonatologists as the next large step in treating premature infants. In 1989, the first human studies were done, offering liquid ventilation to infants who were not thought to have any chance of survival through conventional therapy. The results were promising, and bigger trials are now under way. A pharmaceutical company has developed a fluorocarbon liquid that has the capacity to carry a great deal of dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide — every 100 milliliters holds 50 milliliters of oxygen. By putting liquid into the lung, Shaffer and his colleagues argue, the lung sacs can be expanded at a much lower pressure.

”I wouldn’t want to push back the gestational age limit,” Shaffer says. ”I want to eliminate the damage.” He says he believes that this technology may become the standard. By the year 2000, these techniques may be available in large centers. Pressed to speculate about the more distant future, he imagines a premature baby in a liquid-dwelling and a liquid-breathing intermediate stage between womb and air: Immersed in fluid that would eliminate insensible water loss you would need a sophisticated temperature-control unit, a ventilator to take care of the respiratory exchange part, better thermal control and skin care.

The Fetus as Patient

The notion that you could perform surgery on a fetus was pioneered by Michael Harrison at the University of California in San Francisco. Guided by an improved ultrasound technology, it was he who reported, in 1981, that surgical intervention to relieve a urinary tract obstruction in a fetus was possible.

”I was frustrated taking care of newborns,” says N. Scott Adzick, who trained with Harrison and is surgeon in chief at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

When children are born with malformations, damage is often done to the organ systems before birth; obstructive valves in the urinary system cause fluid to back up and destroy the kidneys, or an opening in the diaphragm allows loops of intestine to move up into the chest and crowd out the lungs. ”It’s like a lot of things in medicine,” Adzick says, ”if you’d only gotten there earlier on, you could have prevented the damage. I felt it might make sense to treat certain life-threatening malformations before birth.”

Adzick and his team see themselves as having two patients, the mother and the fetus. They are fully aware that once the fetus has attained the status of a patient, all kinds of complex dilemmas result. Their job, says Lori Howell, coordinator of Children’s Hospital’s Center for Fetal Diagnosis and Treatment, is to help families make choices in difficult situations. Terminate a pregnancy, sometimes very late? Continue a pregnancy, knowing the fetus will almost certainly die? Continue a pregnancy, expecting a baby who will be born needing very major surgery? Or risk fixing the problem in utero and allow time for normal growth and development?

The first fetal surgery at Children’s Hospital took place seven months ago. Felicia Rodriguez, from West Palm Beach, Fla., was 22 weeks pregnant. Through ultrasound, her fetus had been diagnosed as having a congenital cystic adenomatoid malformation a mass growing in the chest, which would compress the fetal heart, backing up the circulation, killing the fetus and possibly putting the mother into congestive heart failure.

When the fetal circulation started to back up, Rodriguez flew to Philadelphia. The surgeons made a Caesarean-type incision. They performed a hysterotomy by opening the uterus quickly and bloodlessly, and then opened the amniotic sac and brought out the fetus’s arm, exposing the relevant part of the chest. The mass was removed, the fetal chest was closed, the amniotic membranes sealed with absorbable staples and glue, the uterus was closed and the abdomen was sutured. And the pregnancy continued — with special monitoring and continued use of drugs to prevent premature labor. The uterus, no longer anesthetized, is prone to contractions. Rodriguez gave birth at 35 weeks’ gestation, 13 weeks after surgery, only 5 weeks before her due date. During those 13 weeks, the fetal heart pumped normally with no fluid backup, and the fetal lung tissue developed properly. Roberto Rodriguez 3d was born this May, a healthy baby born to a healthy mother.

This is a new and remarkable technology. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of California at San Francisco are the only centers that do these operations, and fewer than a hundred have been done. The research fellows, residents working in these labs and training as the next generation of fetal surgeons, convey their enthusiasm for their field and their mentors in everything they say. When you sit with them, it is impossible not to be dazzled by the idea of what they can already do and by what they will be able to do. ”When I dare to dream,” says Theresa Quinn, a fellow at Children’s Hospital, ”I think of intervening before the immune system has time to mature, allowing for advances that could be used in organ transplantation to replacement of genetic deficiencies.”

But What Do We Want?

Eighteen years ago, in-vitro fertilization was tabloid news: test-tube babies! Now IVF is a standard therapy, an insurance wrangle, another medical term instantly understood by most lay people. Enormous advertisements in daily newspapers offer IVF, egg-donation programs, even the newer technique of ICSI intracytoplasmic sperm injection as consumer alternatives. It used to be, for women at least, that genetic and gestational motherhood were one and the same. It is now possible to have your own fertilized egg carried by a surrogate or, much more commonly, to go through a pregnancy carrying an embryo formed from someone else’s egg.

Given the strong desire to be pregnant, which drives many women to request donor eggs and go through biological motherhood without a genetic connection to the fetus, is it really very likely that any significant proportion of women would take advantage of an artificial womb? Could we ever reach a point where the desire to carry your own fetus in your own womb will seem a willful rejection of modern health and hygiene, an affected earth-motherism that flies in the face of common sense — the way I feel about mothers in Cambridge who ostentatiously breast-feed their children until they are 4 years old?

I would argue that God in her wisdom created pregnancy so Moms and babies could develop a relationship before birth, says Alan Fleischman, professor of pediatrics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, who directed the neonatal program at Montefiore Medical Center for 20 years.

Mary Mahowald, a professor at the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago, and one of her medical students surveyed women about whether they would rather be related to a child gestationally or genetically, if they couldn’t choose both. A slight majority opted for the gestational relationship, caring more about carrying the pregnancy, giving birth and nursing than about the genetic tie. ”Pregnancy is important to women,” Mahowald says. ”Some women might prefer to be done with all this — we hire our surrogates, we hire our maids, we hire our nannies — but I think these things are going to have very limited interest.”

Susan Cooper, a psychologist who counsels people going through infertility workups, isn’t so sure. Yes, she agrees, many of the patients she sees have ”an intense desire to be pregnant but it’s hard to know whether that’s a biological urge or a cultural urge.”

And Arthur L. Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, takes it a step further. Thirty years from now, he speculates, we will have solved the problem of lung development; neonatology will be capable of saving 15- and 16-week-old fetuses. There will be many genetic tests available, easy to do, predicting the risks of acquiring late-onset diseases, but also predicting aptitudes, behavior traits and aspects of personality. There won’t be an artificial womb available, but there will be lots of prototypes, and women who can’t carry a pregnancy will sign up to use the prototypes in experimental protocols. Caplan also predicts that ”there will be a movement afoot which says all this is unnecessary and unnatural, and that the way to have babies is sex and the random lottery of nature a movement with the appeal of the environmental movement today.” Sixty years down the line, he adds, the total artificial womb will be here. ”It’s technologically inevitable. Demand is hard to predict, but I’ll say significant.”

It all used to happen in the dark — if it happened at all. It occurred well beyond our seeing or our intervening, in the wet, lightless spaces of the female body. So what changes when something as fundamental as human reproduction comes out of the closet, so to speak? Are we, in fact, different if we take hands-on control over this most basic aspect of our biology? Should we change our genetic trajectory and thus our evolutionary path? Eliminate defects or eliminate differences or are they one and the same? Save every fetus, make every baby a wanted baby, help every wanted child to be born healthy — are these the same? What are our goals as a society, what are our goals as a medical profession, what are our goals as individual parents — and where do these goals diverge?

”The future is rosy for bioethicists,” Caplan says.

Perri Klass’s most recent book is ”Baby Doctor.” She is a pediatrician at Boston Medical Center.

Source:  http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/29/magazine/the-artificial-womb-is-born.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2013/10/the-artificial-womb-is-born-and-the-world-of-the-matrix-begins-2647320.html?currentSplittedPage=2

Monsanto and Pepsi trying to stop GMO labeling law in Washington State

A Washington State ballot measure to label food featuring genetically modified crops is under fire as food and chemical corporations pour millions of dollars against the campaign.

On November 5, voters will head to the polls to decide whether or not to label food containing crops that have been genetically modified, but what started out as a landslide victory in the making has turned into a tight contest amidst massive corporate spending.

Supporters of ballot measure I-522 argue that this is an issue of transparency, and letting consumers know when their food contains genetically modified organisms (GMO) would enable them to make more educated decisions. They also say that GMO are not safe for human or animal consumption, and cause environmental problems by promoting the use of certain farming chemicals.

Opponents, spearheaded by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), claim that not only is genetically modified food safe to eat, but also that the initiative would mistakenly cause people to think there’s something wrong with products featuring GMO labels. The end result would be that the cost of food at grocery stores would rise and place an unnecessary burden on shoppers.

"It would require tens of thousands of common food and beverage products to be relabeled exclusively for Washington state unless they are remade with higher-priced, specially developed ingredients," Brian Kennedy, GMA spokesman, said to Al Jazeera America. "The measure will increase grocery costs for a typical Washington family by hundreds of dollars per year."

Both sides have raised about $28 million combined in campaign spending, but the vast majority of the cash – $22 million, to be precise – has come from groups opposing the bill. The GMA, a group acting on the behalf of more than 300 different food and beverage companies, has raised $11 million to push back against I-522. Other corporations like PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle, and Monsanto are major fundraising contributors. Monsanto alone contributed roughly $5.4 million in funds, according to Reuters.

Read more: http://rt.com/usa/washington-gmo-law-food-980/

Understanding The Dangers of Fluorescent Light Bulbs

You see them in every grocery store and home center – those funny-looking curly compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) that are rapidly replacing the old round bulbs. And pretty soon, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 kicks in, requiring bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient by 2012 to 2014, and 70 percent more efficient by 2020, effectively phasing out traditional incandescent bulbs as a way to save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The energy efficiency of CFLs may be significant, but unlike traditional light bulbs, there is a hidden danger sealed inside each little bulb that requires special handling and disposal.

Mercury – a potent, developmental neurotoxin that can damage the brain, liver, kidneys and central nervous system. Infants and young children are particularly vulnerable to mercury’s toxic effects. Even at low levels, mercury is capable of causing a number of health problems including impair motor functioning, cognitive ability and emotional problems. Higher or prolonged exposure can result in much more serious health problems.

CFLs are marketed as “safe” and don’t pose any health risks as long as the glass remains intact. The danger comes if the bulbs are cracked, broken or not disposed of properly. Although it sounds like a miniscule amount – 4 to 5 milligrams – there is enough mercury in just one fluorescent light bulb to contaminate 6,000 gallons of water.

So what does that mean if a CFL is cracked or breaks in our homes, releasing mercury vapors in an enclosed area?

Consumers – especially those with young children –need to know what to do when a CFL breaks and the proper way to dispose of used bulbs. It’s no longer as easy as changing a light bulb.

MERCURY WARNING:

Compact fluorescent light-bulbs contain very small amounts of mercury and care must be taken in disposing of them or when they break.

The EPA suggests the following:

o People and pets should immediately leave the room.

o Open a window and/or door and Air out the room for 5 to 10 minutes.

o Turn off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system.

o Thoroughly collect broken glass and visible powder using wet cloths. Never use vacuum cleaners or brooms.

o Put all debris and cleanup materials in a sealable container and put outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly. Do not leaving bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.

o If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.

http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html

Also check out these frequently asked questions about CFLs below

Frequently Asked Questions Information on Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) and Mercury November 2010

All of this needs to be done to protect people from the tiny amount of mercury in one fluorescent light bulb. Which begs the question, are these lights really safe and are the risks worth it?

Another equally important concern is what happens to the environment – the air, soil and water – when tons of discarded bulbs, along with the mercury, are dumped into local landfills?

The threat posed by billions of broken CFLs lying in landfills has resulted in some communities requiring their citizens to discard used and broken CFLs in designated recycling centers or in a hazardous-waste collection facility.

Given the known deleterious effects caused by mercury, it would seem logical to assume there will be some unintended consequences resulting from the switch to compact fluorescent lights.

Only time will tell how significant those consequences will be.

If you are concerned about the possible health risks associated with CFLs, LED or halogen lights are good alternatives. Both cost a little more but are as efficient as CFLs and can be recycled easily.

For more information about mercury and compact fluorescent light bulbs go to

http://www.epa.gov/cfl/

For information about your communities recycling program go to http://epa.gov/cfl/cflrecycling.html

Compact Fluorescent Lamps are designed to fit standard light sockets as an energy-saving alternative to traditional incandescent bulbs. CFLs have spiraling or elongated U-shaped tubes known as a single-envelope unit; the double-envelope or encapsulated bulbs have the tubes inside a glass bulb. Consumers should be aware of dangers associated with CFL bulbs before bringing the units into the home, school or workplace.

Mercury Content

Although CFLs are considered extremely energy efficient, each bulb contains about 5mg “elemental mercury,” says U.S. Army-Ft. Wood. General Electric, a manufacturer of CFL bulbs, notes the amount equivalent to the tip of a ballpoint pen. GE further claims the mercury is an “essential, irreplaceable element” that allows the bulb to perform as an efficient light source, posing no danger during regular use. Elemental mercury is a bioaccumulative neurotoxin that effects multiple neurological responses. High exposures may affect the kidneys, lead to respiratory failure and death. In addition, mercury accumulates in the environment, vaporizing into the air and leaching into water supplies.

Radiation Emissions

• CFL bulbs are subject to scrutiny by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as electronic products that emit ultraviolet radiation. However, as of May 2011, the FDA did not have “specific standards or annual reporting requirements” for manufacturers because the bulbs are considered of little concern, having insignificant levels of radiation. CFLs emit a small amount of UVA, UVB and infrared radiation, according to the FDA. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency tested CFLs from various manufacturers. With the exception of people with photosensitive medical conditions, such as lupus, ARPANSA noted that CFLs are suitable for use at distances beyond 10 inches. However, when using desktop and other close lamps, it’s advisable to utilize double-envelope or encapsulated bulbs. 

Electrical Sensitivity

• Electrical sensitivity, also known as electrical hypersensitivity and electromagnet hypersensitivity, is a recognized disability with chronic and systematic reactions to electromagnet fields given off by wiring, electrical equipment, transformers and florescent lighting — including CFLs. Approximately 8 million Americans experience electrical sensitivities, according to the Research & Training Center on Independent Living. It causes nervous system symptoms such as headache, fatigue, stress and sleep disturbances; skin symptoms including prickling, burning sensations and rashes, and pain and ache to muscles, as well as many other health problems. CFLs contribute to electrical sensitivity by emitting electromagnetic radiation.

  

Electromagnetic Radiation

• Electromagnet radiation, also known as electromagnetic frequencies — EMF — is a naturally occurring energy. Technological advances such as CFL bulbs have increased the EMF in modern environments. The electromagnet radiation bundle includes dirty electricity — sometimes called dirty power — electrical pollution and radio waves. Most of the EMF fields experienced every day and emitted from CFL bulbs are non-ionizing radiation and considered safe. However, for people with electrical sensitivity, CFL bulbs have significant accumulative dangers, according to ElectroSensitivity UK News.

  

  Source: http://worldtruth.tv/understanding-the-dangers-of-fluorescent-light-bulbs/

  
  

JUNK FOOD IS ADDICTING AND IT'S KILLING PEOPLE

100,000 people in a town called Tecoma, in Victoria, Australia, are fighting a battle to keep McDonald’s away from their town, where McDonald’s wants one of its junkstores to be built near the school, naturally, because when you push food that addicts people like drugs do, you want to be where you can create customers for life. The people of the town have even taken the fight to Chicago. Their slogan is aptly named BurgerOff. Their website ishttp://www.burgeroff.org/.

The evils of junk food are even worse than most people know. The following is Chapter 27 from my book You’re not Fat, You’re Toxic, which explains how the growing obesity epidemic, along with increasing diseases such as diabetes, is caused by toxins (like those in junk food from supermarkets, as well as from fast food), NOT by calories, which is what the corporations would like us to believe:

TOXIC FOOD #14, JUNK FOOD = JUNK BODY

Fast food is part of junk food, but it’s not the only source of it, because supermarkets are full of junk food. Since so many people know that junk food is fattening and unhealthy, one would think that all fast food outlets would have closed down by now. However, since so many people still give their money to junk food companies, and because junk food is a major cause of obesity, I thought I would include information on it, not because it’s high in calories, but because it is so toxic, in the hope that this will encourage you to never give them another dollar of your money, until they change their ways. Fast food does not have to be so toxic and fattening.

Why do people keep eating fast food when obviously everyone wants to be slim, so that they can look and feel great? Why do we have to have organizations like “Overeaters Anonymous” for people who believe, as they say on the website, “Our symptoms may vary, but we share a common bond: we are powerless over food and our lives are unmanageable (1).
”It’s because junk food works like drugs. That is, junk food is addictive. People who can’t control their eating are not addicted to food. It’s just that the particular foods that they eat are addictive. When these people make the switch to a diet made of vegetables, fruit, nuts, seeds and legumes, with a few other foods such as organic eggs and millet bread, they will see their hunger and cravings go down.

Nature programmed us to want to get the most energy-dense foods. This was designed to help us to stay alive when food was scarce, so that we could pack maximum energy into a small stomach. Therefore, nature gave us pleasure-circuits in our brain that cause feelings of euphoria and excitement when we eat foods that have lots of energy in a small volume (2). The trouble is that now we can increase calorie density artificially, by processing and adding sugar and fats.

The junk food companies know this, but they don’t care, because it makes them rich. I like to think of them as a part of the Food Mafia. They are little more than drug pushers. To make matters worse, companies such as McDonald’s add emotional addiction to the chemical addiction. Why else do they continue to sell so-called “Happy meals” to children, and advertise on children’s programs, if not to addict people at a young age and keep them customers for life? Other methods used include free toys, selling toys in toy stores that are designed by them, and providing play centers.

Every time you think of McDonald’s, they want you to have feelings that are based on happy, fun times. Since most people don’t think about where their feelings come from, these people will have false urges to eat McDonald’s to relive those feelings, until they recognize and refuse those urges.

In the brilliant documentary Forks over Knives, Dr. Terry Mason MD, Commissioner of Health for the City of Chicago, tells us that unfortunately, it’s often poor people who eat fast food. This is particularly sad when you work out that fast food these days is expensive, especially if you work out how much actual nutrition you get dollar for dollar. Five dollars buys one fast food hamburger, or a large amount of nutritious lentils and carrots. Dr. Mason says that unfortunately poor people are poor in everything, not just money, but they are also poor in health and poor in their choices.

If you eat any junk food, or smoke cigarettes, realize that you are a slave to the multinational companies. They are living off your work and your body so that they can be rich. And, of course, they are killing you while they do it.

I was shocked with what I saw on a TV show run by a doctor, that was meant to be about health. This same doctor had done some good work previously telling people to avoid GMOs, and therefore to not eat any dairy that was not organic. But on this particular show, the doctor asked two other doctors to go and find a healthy fast food meal. (Is that possible?) Strangely, only three fast food outfits were chosen for this task; McDonald’s, Domino’s Pizza and Subway. Nothing else was considered. I wonder if those companies paid for the privilege, just as most authors have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to appear on all the top talk shows?

The overweight heart surgeon picked chicken McNuggets. That was unbelievable! There are few things as toxic as McDonald’s chicken McNuggets. First of all, there is little chicken in them. They are 56% corn, mostly GMO corn (3), and the chickens are also fed GMOs and other toxic stuff, including their own manure. Then the McNuggets are super heated in toxic oils, so that they are full of trans fats and AGEs. Worst of all, there are a massive total of 38 ingredients, including tertiary butylhydroquinone, a lighter fluid (4). Are chicken McNuggets really food?

Moral of this story: Keep an eye on who is benefiting financially when watching any so-called ‘health show’.

The other doctor chose pizza with pepperoni. Pepperoni is embalmed meat. And this piece came just after a part where the doctor had restaurant insiders admit that pizzas have sugar added to them.

If you ever eat any fast food at all, please watch the fabulous movie Super Size Me. While it’s mostly about McDonald’s, many of the lessons learned in this movie apply to all fast food outlets. Even if you have seen this documentary, you may have missed some of the more important points, as I did on first viewing the movie. So I will outline some of them here.

In the documentary Morgan Spurlock, writer and director, begins with a court case where two overweight girls, one 14 years old, 4’10” and 170 lb and the other 19 years old, 5’6” and 270 lb, sued McDonald’s in 2002, for making them fat. The girls ended up losing the court case. But, just in case something like this happened again, in 2004 congress passed the ‘cheeseburger bill’ which made it illegal for people to sue food companies for making them obese. You see, Congress currently works to protect corporations, not you.

The judge said the lawsuit was “frivolous” because “the dangers of eating its food is universally known.” Yet, despite this, McDonald’s has 30,000 outlets in over 100 countries. 46 million people are served daily, even in hospitals! No wonder obesity is global.

The judge further said that if the plaintiffs could show that McDonald’s intend for people to eat McDonald’s every meal of every day, and that doing so would be reasonably dangerous, they may be able to state a claim.

So Morgan decided to go on a diet of nothing but McDonald’s food and drink, three times a day, for one month. During the month, he ate everything on the menu. In addition, since most Americans don’t get any exercise, he got very little exercise as well. This was ground breaking research because it was being done on a real human in a real-life situation, not just a few rats in a lab. And the research was independent of any large organization that might interfere with the conclusions. Morgan definitely showed that, for him, it was very dangerous.

First he visited three medical professionals, including a cardiologist and General Practitioner, as well as an exercise physiologist. His blood pressure was normal and his blood tests were excellent. His general health was determined to be outstanding. The doctors thought that the McDonald’s diet would be no big deal. The cardiologist thought that his triglycerides would go up but nothing else would change. The MD thought his cholesterol and weight would ‘probably’ go up. They were all in for a massive shock, because it did not occur to any of them how bad this diet would be for him, or that it would prove to be incredibly toxic. In fact, it became so toxic that it became life-threatening! Here are some of the results for Morgan after only 30 days:

• He gained 25 lbs (185 to 210).
• Body fat percentage (BMI) went from 11% to 18%.
• Cholesterol went from 65 points to 230.

At day 14, two different liver enzymes skyrocketed. One enzyme went from 21 to 130, the other went from 20 to 290. The massive increase in liver enzyme activity showed that the diet was highly toxic. The MD said after just day 14, “If someone was doing this with alcohol, they could theoretically wipe out their liver”. (Note: If you don’t have a functioning liver, you are not going to get rid of fat, assuming you stay alive).

At day 21 the MD said after a blood test, “For the first time we’re seeing uric acid elevated. The danger of this is gout and kidney stones”. (Note: Gout, a very painful disease ‘of the past’ is now on the rise). “The results for your liver are obscene beyond anything I would have thought….My advice to you, as a physician, is that you’ve got to stop. You’re pickling your liver. And you’re kicking it while it’s down…If you were an alcoholic, I’d say, “You are going to die.”

I guess the doctor did not want to say the obvious on video: That means that McDonald’s can kill you.

Despite this warning, and feeling chest pains and depressed and moody most of the time, which was unusual for him, Morgan completed the 30-day McDonalds’ diet. Perhaps most importantly of all for anyone who wants to get thin, he noticed that he got hungry soon after eating. Whereas, when you go on a wheat-free, soy-free, whole-foods plant-based diet, with lots of raw plant food, you will notice that you seldom get hungry. The more totally raw meals you have, the less hungry you will get.

In just 30 days, Morgan ate 30 lb of sugar from the food alone, not counting drinks. That’s one pound a day, because nearly everything on the menu has sugar added to it, even the salads. You see, sugar is addictive, and cheap, so that makes good financial sense. During the month, Morgan craved the food more and more, and got massive headaches when he did not eat it. Those are signs of addiction.

After the McDonald’s diet, Morgan went on a vegan diet to detox (5). It took 8 weeks for his cholesterol and liver to go back to normal. Then he gave up being vegan. It took him 5 months to lose 20 pounds, and another 8 months to lose the last 5 pounds.

It was truly amazing and sad that after this fantastic documentary came out, it barely made a difference to any fast food outlets, except that they made a little effort to appear as though they were offering healthier food, by adding a few salads with toxic dressing, but they did little if anything to alter the basic toxic menu items.

We have to break the addiction to junk food. Addictive food is high in calories and toxins. Unfortunately, there are two kinds of addiction that we get from fast food.

TWO KINDS OF ADDICTION FROM JUNK FOOD

1. Chemical addiction

Dr. Neal Barnard MD, of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, has this to say (6),

There is a drug used in emergency rooms called naloxone. It’s used for heroin overdose. A guy comes in overdosed on heroin, comatose, he’s going to die. If you inject him with this drug and it blocks the opiate receptors in the brain, heroin doesn’t work, he wakes up. If I give that same drug to a real chocolate addict, a person who just shovels it in, you find the most amazing thing. They lose much of their interest in chocolate. They take a bite, they set it back down.

In other words, it’s not the “taste in the mouth” feel, it’s the drug effect of the food in the brain which keeps us coming back.

Dr. Barnard further explains –

If you look at the menu at a fast food restaurant, they use all of the addicting components. They’ll take a slab of meat, cover it with cheese – cheese, of course, which is filled with casomorphins, the opiates that are found in cheese protein. And then they serve it with a sugary soda, which has the addictive power of sugar, with plenty of added caffeine. (Caffeine is a highly addictive drug. Plus, you learned in the chapter on wheat that wheat also has opiate-like substances in it).

This chemical addiction is so bad, that scientists found that rats fed nothing but junk food from the supermarket (bacon, sausage, cheese cake etc.) for long enough, not only got obese – they voluntarily starved themselves when later offered nothing but healthy food (7).

We need to make new laws where addictive food is concerned. As Pediatric Endocrinologist Dr. Robert Lustig says, free speech does not work with addictive substances, especially where children are concerned (8).

2. Emotional addiction

Banzhaf III, Law Professor, George Washington University (9) has this to say:

A secret study by one of the tobacco companies had the ominous title of something like ‘Brand Imprinting for later actuation in life’.

You can bet that the junk food companies have something similar. That’s why junk food companies spend so much on advertising to children. They want you to have commands in your brain to eat their food, combined with good feelings from childhood, buried in your mind. For example, the average American child sees a whopping 10,000 ads per year for things to eat and drink. 95% of these ads are for fast food, candy, soft drinks and cereals, none of which are nutritious.

Don’t go thinking it’s just McDonald’s, either. All junk food and pre-packaged food is contributing to fat gain, because of the toxins and excess calories which they contain.

Any food outlet which does not give you a list of all their ingredients is suspect. I am not talking about a chart that says how many calories or grams of fat are in the food, but what is in the food. In fact, even with the list of ingredients, you still don’t get to know the quantity of each ingredient.

Listen to a quote from the lawsuit against McDonald’s:

McDonald’s claims that …it is… a matter of common knowledge that any processing that its foods undergo serve to make them more harmful than unprocessed foods.

DON’T LISTEN TO THE MOUTHPIECES FOR THE CORPORATIONS

Be very, very wary of anyone who has a story of getting thin from a fast food outlet, rather than preparing their own fresh food at home. Subway is a case in point. They have this guy Jared who says he lost hundreds of pounds from eating their food. Note that he went from doing no exercise to doing quite a bit of walking (10). I wonder how much? Subway had nothing to do with that.It broke my heart to watch a young, very overweight 14-year-old girl say about Subway, in Super Size Me, after listening to a speech by Jared;

It’s kind of hard. I can’t afford to go there every single day and buy a sandwich two times a day. And that’s what he’s talking about. That’s the only solution….But I can’t do it.

The only solution? Telling people that eating a whole lot of baked wheat and meat will work for them? This is terrible. So many people have big guts from the many toxins in wheat, and whatever else they add to the bread that makes it so fluffy.

However, pictures of Jared in 2009 show the weight coming back on (11). That was no surprise to me, since he said he had caffeine and diet drinks, and anyone who lives off a diet of food that is not prepared at home will end up getting toxic, and therefore putting on weight, in the long run. (See my chapter “Health is like a bank account”).

Please, anytime you hear anyone saying that they lost weight from eating a particular brand of food, ask yourself how much money that person makes from telling you that.

MOST SCHOOL FOOD IS JUNK FOOD

It’s no wonder that, for the first time in history, children are getting obese,. When you watch Super Size Me you will see that schools now serve up cakes, chips, fries, Gatorade (which is toxic sugar plus other toxins), sugared drinks, candy bars and pizza. For many students, that’s all they eat. Fresh fruit cannot be seen, and even if healthy food is offered as an alternative, when children have been addicted to junk food, the changes are not going to happen by themselves.Who profits from junk food? Super Size Me shows an example of one such company, Sodexho, which serves 400 school districts, as well as prisoners.There is one public school in the USA where this is not the case. The Appleton Central High School, Wisconsin, used to have children who were out of control. Children even brought weapons to school. But in 1997. a private group called Natural Ovens installed a healthy lunch program. Fast-food burgers, fries, candy and sodas were replaced with fresh fruit and salads, baked rather than fried meat and whole grain bread and good drinking water arrived. The teachers saw a major change in the children.As reported in a newsletter called Pure Facts, “Grades are up, truancy is no longer a problem, arguments are rare, and teachers are able to spend their time teaching.” And while they did not mention it, you can bet that these children are not going to have weight problems as serious as those where junk food is the norm.Surprisingly, the cost is about the same. So why aren’t all schools doing this? Paul Stitt MS, Founder of Natural Ovens Bakery, explains:

There’s an awful lot of resistance from the junk food companies that are making huge profits off the school system at this time. They don’t want to be kicked out of the school system. They want to be there to addict the children for life.

What a great scam! Get taxpayers to pay for their companies to addict children to their cheap, toxic and fattening junk food, for the rest of the children’s lives! It sure beats advertising.

If only accurate muscle testing was taught in all schools. I have found that when I show children, especially small children, how junk food is weakening, rather than just ‘bad’ for them, they become very committed to not consuming that product any more. Some children like being bad, but no child wants to be weak. (Please see Chapter 12 on kinesiology and muscle testing, for more information).

The food industry is an enormous business in the United States. It therefore employs very well-paid lobbyists, who work with the government to make you eat more of their product. I strongly believe that one of the best ways to counteract the effects of the wrong messages we are being sent from big corporations and government, as well as from the addictive toxins in our food, is for each and every person to learn how to do accurate muscle testing of food. Even children as young as 12 years old or less can learn how to do this. Children as young as six years old can be muscle tested. When a person has experienced for themselves how just thinking of a toxic food makes their arms and legs go weak, their brain often finds the extra willpower that is needed to take personal responsibility, and to eat and drink only healthy food instead.

Remember, wild animals keep slim by eating the food that nature designed them to eat. That’s what you need to do. You are a herbivore. Eat plants. That is, fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds and legumes, as unprocessed as possible. And also have as much raw food as possible. People need to learn new ways of shopping and preparing food. Please see my shopping list in this book. Learn how to prepare food by going to the Internet and searching for a vegan and/or raw recipe for the food you bought. The recipes in this book will give you a good place to start. And boycott the Food Mafia whenever you can.

Source:

Activist Post