|
|
|
Alternative Medicine in the News
May 2010 edition 72
published weekly
|
|
Drink to your kidney health with lemonade to avoid kidney stones
Kidney stones are solid pieces of material that form in a kidney. They
can stay there or they may travel down the urinary tract until they are
eliminated naturally. Unfortunately, kidney stones can also get stuck
in the ureter, bladder or urethra. The result can be bleeding, blockage
of urine flow and excruciating pain. Thankfully, there are natural ways
to greatly reduce your risk of having this most common disorder of the
urinary tract, including simply drinking lemonade.
If you've
ever experienced the agony of having kidney stones stuck in your
urinary tract, you know this is no minor problem. In fact, kidney
stones can lead to serious infections and major surgery.
"Back
and abdominal pain, blood in the urine, and nausea or vomiting, are the
three classic symptoms of kidney stones," Roger L. Sur, MD, director of
the University of California at San Diego Comprehensive Kidney Stone
Center said in a press statement. "You don't have to have all three,
but any of them will come on quickly and be hard to ignore. When you
have extreme pain, you should see your doctor or go to an emergency
room right away, especially if a fever is present. The presence of
fever indicates that you may have an infection in your blood stream
which can be life threatening."
Dr. Sur explained that kidney
stones composed mostly of calcium can be caused by too much salt in the
diet. Excess salt stimulates calcium excretion in urine and that can
lead to stone formation. Another type of fairly common kidney stones is
formed from uric acid, a waste product that may be caused by a
high-protein diet.
Treatment for kidney stones can involve
drugs, surgery, or a shock wave procedure called lithotripsy that
breaks up the stones. But even after medical treatment, they can come
back. "There is a 50 percent chance of getting another stone within
five to ten years if you've already had one," Dr. Sur explained.
Of
course the best strategy for kidney stones is to avoid getting them in
the first place. Reducing dietary salt, excess calcium and protein and
drinking plenty of fluids can slash the risk of kidney stones - and now
it turns out lemonade can help, too. In a recent study headed by
Dr. Sur, lemonade therapy consisting of drinking four ounces of
reconstituted lemon juice in two liters of water per day was found to
significantly decrease the rate of kidney stone formation from 1.00 to
0.13 stones per patient.
So what is it about lemonade
that zaps kidney stones? Dr. Sur pointed out in a media statement that
lemons have the highest concentration of citrate of any citrus fruit --
and citrate naturally inhibits kidney stone formation. Other fruit
juices not only have less citrate but they are also sometimes
supplemented with calcium and oxalate, the very compounds that make up
the majority of kidney stones.
Natural health tip: skip
homemade or store bought lemonade if it's loaded with sugar. Instead,
sweeten lemonade to taste with healthier choices -- honey or stevia.
For more information :
http://health.ucsd.edu/news/2010/4-...
http://www.naturalnews.com/kidney_s.
|
More US states move to ban BPA even while US FDA does nothing
An increasing number of USA states are considering banning bisphenol-A
(BPA) from food and drink containers in response to growing concerns
that the chemical causes cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and other
serious illnesses. Despite disregard by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) about its potential dangers, states like
Connecticut and Massachusetts have passed legislation outlawing the
chemical from being used in food and drink containers.
For
years, the FDA has denied that BPA is dangerous, even when numerous
studies have indicated that the chemical leeches into food and disrupts
hormones. After being pressed to reevaluate its position by the
National Toxicology Program and others who disagreed with the FDA's
position, the agency reluctantly agreed to take a look at the evidence
once more.
Last month, the FDA announced that it now has "some
concerns" about BPA's effect on brain development in children and
babies, but would not admit that the chemical is dangerous or unsafe.
The agency has stated it will not issue a ban on BPA, even though it
agrees that the chemical is likely problematic.
Spokesmen from
the American Chemistry Council (ACC) agreed with the FDA's decision,
insisting that a ban on BPA is unnecessary. According to ACC, research
indicates that BPA is perfectly safe.
Industry rhetoric is not
enough to convince the public, however, which is increasingly opposed
to the chemical's use in food containers. Many manufacturers have
responded to the outcry over BPA by voluntarily eliminating it from
their containers and noting on labels that the products are "BPA free".
In
addition to Connecticut and Massachusetts, the city of Chicago and
Suffolk County, New York have also banned BPA from food containers as
has the entire nation of Canada. New Mexico, Maryland, Missouri,
California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.,
also have pending legislation to ban the chemical as well.
According
to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), plastic
containers whose bottoms bear a 3 or 7 in the triangle recycling logo
likely contain BPA. Those with a 1, 2, 4, 5, or 6 most likely do not.
HHS also recommends not using plastic containers that are scratched
since they are more likely to leech toxic chemicals.
It is
always good practice not to put really hot liquids into plastic
containers, since doing so can encourage leeching of chemicals like
BPA. Freezing plastic bottles is also a bad idea because it can
encourage leeching as well.
Sources for this story include:
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...
|
If you think you have a food allergy, don't see your doctor
12 May 2010
If you think you have a food allergy, don't go and see your doctor. He
or she may not be able to identify the allergy in the first place, and
almost certainly won't have a good way of testing for it.
Researchers from Stanford University discovered medicine's ignorance
and uncertainty about food allergies when they sifted through thousands
of research papers. There isn't even an agreed definition of what a
food allergy actually is, or how it differs from a food intolerance,
and nobody seems to agree on a reliable test.
The standard test - where a doctor gives a sample of the suspected
allergy, and checks for allergic reaction - usually requires
specialised staff, and is expensive. Other tests include pricking the
skin or taking blood, but they rarely produce absolute proof of an
allergy.
Too often, the doctor diagnoses a food allergy when, in fact, the
patient has an intolerance. It's a life-changing diagnosis, and it's
often wrong, say the Stanford researchers.
(Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, 2010; 303:
1848-56).
|
Food Allergies
Harald Gaier; is a registered naturopath, homeopath and osteopath.
(c) 1995 Harald Gaier
Locating allergies can be one of the most difficult of detective
jobs. Most elimination diets are too simplistic, which is why they
don't seem to help people. The biggest problem is that allergies are
far more complicated than most people appreciate.
First suspect
foods that are normally eaten more than twice a week (wheat, potato,
cow's milk products, tomato, eggs, yeast, sugar, tea, coffee, cocoa,
maize (American corn), rice and one or more spices, although other
foods may be suspect, too).
Exclude the suspect food components
from your diet for at least six days. In most cases, you will improve,
should the excluded food or foods be to blame for your problems.
If
you suspect quite a number of foods, you may spread the testing over
two or three periods of six days, spaced a week apart, eliminating
different foods during different six-day periods. This will also avoid
creating even a temporary nutritional imbalance.
Various
allergic reactions tend to disappear during different test periods, so
that, for example, frequent headaches and dry skin patches may
disappear during the first six days; insomnia during the second, and
loose bowel (or constipation) and congested sinuses during the third.
An
unusually strong craving may point to a food to which you are
sensitive. You can confirm your suspicion by re-introducing a single
food you think most likely to be the major "offending" item, for up to
the first three days of a seven-day period at the beginning of which
you are free of your symptoms. Make sure to keep other variables stable
during these challenge tests. You should also keep a food diary when
doing these challenges, recording next to the food the time you've
eaten it, and then the time, duration and type of reaction, with a
grading for severity.
Seven common pitfalls and conundrums:
All
foods are members of many diverse food families. Two well known food
"families" include those containing gluten wheat, rye, barley (or
malt), and oats and the nightshade family: potato, tomato, tobacco,
aubergine (eggplant), peri-peri, chili, bell peppers and paprika. If
you are sensitive to one food, it's likely that you're also be
sensitive to others in the particular food family.
Many
foods are composites. For example, sandwich loaf bread usually contains
milk, sugar and yeast, in addition to wheat; ketchup contains sugar and
citric acid, in addition to tomato. It's essential to find out the
complete ingredients of what you eat so as to eliminate offenders
completely.
People often feel worse initially. They can
experience headaches, wooziness, or flu-like symptoms, particularly on
days two and three of the elimination. It means there probably is a
sensitivity to the eliminated foods.
There could be
delayed reactions that overlap the six-day periods. If you suspect
this, increase the spacing between the food challenges.
Your
body does not regard all allergens as equally threatening. Minor
threats are often ignored, as long as major threats are about. This can
account for the disappearance of previously experienced allergies.
These will reappear a little while after the elimination of the major
allergen, which was distracting your immune system.
Remember
that domestic gas, nutritional supplements, medicines, aromatic and
other oils, paraffin (kerosene in America), cosmetics, paints and
varnishes and even toothpaste can also be a source of your problems.
Your
body can take from one week to as long as six weeks before improving
after some foods have been eliminated, but this is rare.
I
tend to prefer this procedure over blood tests, which may indicate an
allergy but not which food is linked to symptoms. Testing can also not
tell you about food "intolerances", where your body, say, lacks some
enzyme and cannot properly cope with the corresponding food.
Prick
or scratch tests are less reliable for identifying food sensitivities,
but very useful for environmental allergens like fungus spores, pollen,
house dust mites, animal hair and the like.
|
Look at Medicine and its Cross-Eyed View of Nearsightedness
People prescribed glasses for myopia (near-sightedness) find their
error of refraction to increase by an average of -.25 diopters per
year. Glasses do not cure myopia but rather treat symptoms of dis-ease.
What is the cause of myopia?
One
popular textbook cites research that showed that myopia "can be
produced by changing refraction during development." This means that
glasses are found to cause the problem they purport to correct. Fit an
animal with glasses and they will misshape their eyes.
The
textbook states, "The shape of the eye appears to be determined in part
by the refraction presented to it," and later adds that, "extensive
close work [and] studying accelerates the development of myopia." The
paragraph concludes that the "defect" of myopia can be corrected by
glasses.
How can glasses be recommended to correct the defect of myopia when glasses are known to cause myopia?
If
studying can accelerate the development of myopia and if glasses cause
myopia, shouldn`t that be a sign that alternative treatment must be
found and that the education system itself must be looked at more
clearly?
An eye surgeon named William Horatio Bates concluded
that glasses are in fact more harmful than helpful, and he discovered
that through teaching relaxation, his patients improved their eyesight
dramatically.
He discovered this because he found a trend among
patients that returned to him after losing their glasses. Their
eyesight had improved!
What happens when people stop straining
so much? Do people that remove the causes of strain improve their
eyesight and retrain their brain?
Dr. Meir Schneider is an
example of a man that has gone beyond the realm of possibility for most
people. He is a man who improved his eyesight from a condition
determined by doctors to be permanent blindness and now operates the
School for Self Healing in San Francisco.
Dr. Schneider believes
that we shouldn`t be spending much money at all on doctors and health
care but that we should be healing ourselves, being more aware of how
we move our bodies and having faith.
One of the methods Dr.
Schneider teaches his students wishing to improve their eyesight is
called palming. It is a method that Dr. Bates developed and taught his
students and patients.
What is palming?
Palming is
putting your palms over your eye socket and breathing, relaxing, and
imagining darkness. According to Dr. Schneider it takes six minutes to
have complete relaxation with palming.
Dr. Schneider personally
used palming to improve his eyesight from a condition worse than
20/2000 to 20/60 and to qualify him for an unrestricted driver`s
license.
It is no wonder he has so much faith since he has
helped people overcome arthritis, muscular dystrophy, and a host of
other maladies, including, of course, myopia.
Now when will the
mainstream catch on? Over 180 million Americans use corrective lenses.
Will mainstream medicine evolve or will it continue to attempt to shut
down this information of once again a simple practically free cure for
a very common problem?
Sources for this story include: Review of Medical PhysiologyGanong, William F., an in person interview with Dr. Meir Schneider, http://self-healing.org, and http://visionimprovementcenter.com
|
|
MalariX now on sale
Homeopathic anti-malarial medicine now available
 We are happy to announce that our excellent malaria medicine is now registered with the Kenyan Pharma and Poisons Board and is available though tel: +254710620323 sales@abhalight.org - Healthy U outlets
Elixir, Village Market ABC Pharmacy
|
|
Quick Links
:: :: ::
We source our articles from the below links. There's a lot of information out there, perhaps you'd like to subscribe directly to these links free e-zines.
Natural News
Emaxhealth.com
Ray Collins Good Life Letter
Hpathy.com
Zeus Info Service
What the Doctors won't Tell You
:: :: ::
Did you miss an earlier edition?
You can visit our archive of previous mini-e-zines. click here
:: :: ::
Why not forward this mini-ezine to a friend or two?
|
|
|
Special Intro Offer
Save 35%
Ksh 12,000 8,900 for
26-day plan if you need to lose 9.5 kg or
less
Ksh 16,800 12,450 for
40-day plan if you need to lose more
than 9.5 kg
|
HCG Diet Kenya is offering a 35% discount from our weight loss
programme.Here's what you get when you join up:
Personal Guidance & Support
26-Day or 40-Day Supply of HCG Oral Drops
The HCG Diet Manual
HCG Diet Protocol
Helpful tips & Grocery List
visit: www.HCGDietKenya.com and download the free booklet POUNDS & INCHES. | |
Offer Expires: 30 August 2010
|
Raw milk battle reveals FDA abandonment of basic human right to choose your food
[comment from DIDI: Well, could the same be what happened in KENYA, when KEBS banned raw milk from being sold in the markets? I wonder what we can do about it?]
The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), an organization whose
mission includes "defending the rights and broadening the freedoms of
family farms and protecting consumer access to raw milk and nutrient
dense foods", recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA for its ban on
interstate sales of raw milk. The suit alleges that such a restriction
is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless,
the suit led to a surprisingly cold response from the FDA about its
views on food freedom (and freedoms in general).
In a dismissal notice issued to the Iowa District Court where the suit was filed,
the FDA officially made public its views on health and food freedom.
These views will shock you, but they reveal the true evil intent of the
FDA and why it is truly a rogue federal agency.
The FDA essentially believes that nobody has the right to choose what to eat or drink. You are only "allowed" to eat or drink what the FDA gives you permission to. There is no inherent right or God-given right to consume any foods from nature without the FDA's consent.
This is no exaggeration. It's exactly what the FDA said in its own words.
You have no natural right to food
The
FTCLDF highlighted a few of the key phrases from the FDA's response
document in a recent email to its supporters. They include the
following two statements from the FDA:
"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [p. 26]
"Plaintiffs'
assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical
health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume
for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because
plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they
wish." [p.26]
There's a lot more in the document, which
primarily addresses the raw milk issue, but these statements alone
clearly reveal how the FDA views the concept of health freedom.
Essentially, the FDA does not believe in health freedom at all. It believes that it is the only entity granted the authority to decide for you what you are able to eat and drink.
The State,
in other words, may override your food decisions and deny you free
access to the foods and beverages you wish to consume. And the State
may do this for completely unscientific reasons -- even just political reasons -- all at their whim.
This
has all emerged from the debate over whether raw milk sales should be
legal. But the commonsense answer seems obvious: Of course raw milk
should be legal! Since when did the government have any right to
criminalize a farmer milking his cow and selling the raw, unpasteurized
milk to his neighbor at a mutually-agreeable price?
The U.S. government's secret agenda to eliminate raw milk
Raw
milk has been in the spotlight recently as defenders of the food are
constantly battling with state and federal authorities over the freedom
to buy and sell it. At the national level, the FDA has been on a
ruthless crusade to eliminate all sales of raw milk everywhere. Lately,
the agency seems to have shifted its tactics from attacking raw milk
dairy farmers directly to going after raw milk "buying clubs" and
"cow-share" programs, which effectively bypass the draconian laws in
many states by establishing private contracts between individuals.
In
a cow-share program, you buy a share of the cow's produced milk, and
you pay a cost of the cow's upkeep. It's sort of like CSA shares for
farm veggies, but with cow's milk instead of veggies. This arrangement
drives the FDA absolutely batty because it bypasses their authority and allows free people to engage in the free sales of raw dairy products produced on small family farms.
But
why is the FDA hell-bent on stopping raw milk from being sold in the
first place? Think about it: What is it about this particular whole
food that has regulators working overtime to make sure you don't drink
it?
It certainly has nothing to do with food safety, as the FDA
commonly claims is its reason for opposing it. Raw milk's track record
of safety is phenomenal, and all legitimate studies indicate that it's
actually less prone to harbor harmful bacteria than the pasteurized stuff (which is all dead, modified milk anyway).
According to a Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) report,
between 1980 and 2005, there were ten times more illnesses from
pasteurized milk than there were from raw milk. And most of the reports
that link illness outbreaks with raw milk provide little or no evidence
that raw milk was even the culprit.
But apparently the facts
don't really matter to the FDA (is anyone surprised?) because the
agency continues to repeat false talking points about how raw milk is
inherently dangerous and that drinking it is "like play Russian
Roulette with your health".
Big Dairy behind push to eliminate raw milk
The
real reason why the FDA opposes raw milk is because Big Dairy opposes
raw milk. Just like Big Pharma, Big Dairy has worked very hard behind
the scenes to steer FDA policy in its favor. And according to some recent reports, Big Dairy is one of the primary forces trying to eliminate raw milk because it threatens the commercial milk business.
Recently in Massachusetts, for example, the state's Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) has been targeting raw milk buying clubs
that purchase raw milk from rural dairy farms and have it delivered to
urban drop-off points where many of the customers live. Raw milk sales
are legal in Massachusetts as long as they are done at the farm, and
the state has long tolerated buying clubs, which are convenient for
customers and technically perfectly legal.
But this situation
now seems to have changed. MDAR recently sent cease-and-desist letters
to four buying clubs even though there is no Massachusetts law that
prohibits their existence. When club members challenged the legitimacy
of the warnings, MDAR decided to propose a new regulation to
specifically outlaw buying clubs. (They just can't stand the fact that
people are buying raw milk, can they?)
Get this: Scott Soares, a
Massachusetts legislator who is friends with the MDAR commissioner,
held a preliminary meeting in advance of the May 10th proposal hearing
to discuss the matter with interested parties. Fifteen educated and
passionate consumers and farmers of raw milk showed up to challenge
Soares, who ended up revealing to them that "large dairy producers" had
contacted him to push for raw milk restrictions.
To make matters
worse, it was revealed that Soares failed to follow proper protocol by
not opening a docket to keep a record of all interactions relating to
the proposal. So not only did Soares reveal that he's basically bowing
to political pressure from Big Dairy by supporting the restrictions,
but he's also violating proper legislative procedure in the process.
So
what we have here is a classic case of a large and powerful industry
pushing government regulators to outlaw competing products so that it
can monopolize the market. It's the same thing that Big Pharma does in
getting the FDA to destroy nutritional supplement companies. But now
it's happening with raw milk, too.
What's next? Will all farmer's markets be outlawed because the veggies haven't all been irradiated or pasteurized?
As
usual, it's all about the money, and as you follow the money trail all
the way up to the federal level, you find the same thing happening
everywhere: At the FDA, USDA, FTC and so on. U.S. government regulators
have become monopoly market enforcers for Big Business, and they won't let anything get in their way... not even personal health freedoms or just basic access to food.
I'm
sensing a Ghandi moment coming on here. Somebody is going to have a
powerful public demonstration against tyranny by drinking raw milk in
the same way that Ghandi led his followers to harvesting salt. People have a natural-born right to real food, and the FDA is violating human rights by attacking producers of raw milk.
Unconstitutional position of the FDA
It's
not really news to the folks in the natural health community that the
FDA opposes personal health freedoms, but according to the FTCLDF, the
FDA's recent response to its lawsuit is one of the agency's boldest
statements yet about how it views health freedom in America. It
practically turns the FDA into a dictatorial Gestapo-like agency whose mission is to destroy the U.S. Constitution and deprive people of their natural rights.
Not only does the FDA think it has the power to regulate interstate trade; it also thinks it can regulate intrastate
trade (which means buying and selling within state borders). In fact,
the agency made this very clear on page 6 of its dismissal when it
wrote, "It is within HHS's authority...to institute an intrastate ban
[on unpasteurized milk] as well."
This is the FDA trying to run rampant over States' rights.
The federal government, after all, isn't satisfied to exercise control
over the limited powers granted to it by the U.S. Constitution -- it
wants to overthrow the tenth Amendment and dictate rules, regulations and laws that the states are being forced to follow.
This
is blatantly unconstitutional. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution forbids the federal government from intruding on the laws
of individual states, and is only allowed to wield powers expressly
granted to it by the Constitution (powers granted by the People, in
other words).
There is no power granted to the federal
government to ban the sales of raw milk. I've read the U.S.
Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and I never saw it mentioned in
there. The very idea, by the way, would have seemed bizarre (and
downright stupid) by our nation's founders, many of whom actually
operated farms and drank raw milk themselves.
According to the
FTCLDF suit, the FDA is clearly operating outside Constitutional
authority by forbidding raw milk from being transported across state
lines from states where it is legal to sell it. And for the FDA to
arrogantly announce that it has the authority to ban intrastate raw
milk sales shows just how tyrannical and oppressive the agency has now
become.
The FDA, bluntly states, has become an enemy of the People.
It is taking away the rights that your forefathers helped protect
(often with their lives). The FDA is destroying what your fathers and
grandfathers fought for in World War II. It is attempting to terrorize
the raw milk producers of America and run them out of business through
a campaign of threats and intimidation. This is the agency that's
supposed to be working for the People? Give me a break...
Even private contracts aren't a fundamental right, according to the FDA
But it gets even worse. On page 27 of the dismissal, the FDA also states that Americans do not have a fundamental right to enter into private contractual agreements with one another, either.
Huh? Are you kidding me?
Buying
clubs, cooperatives and community supported agriculture programs (CSAs)
all rely on private contractual agreements in order to operate. People
contract with each other to obtain clean, healthy food from the sources
of their choice without government intrusion. But now the FDA is saying
that people don't actually have this right. To enter into such a
private contract to purchase food, milk or even water is a violation of
federal law, the FDA now claims.
You are just a subject of the King,
you see, and you have no rights. You must eat and drink what you are
told. You must behave in a way that is allowed by your King. You have
no rights, no protections and no freedoms. You are a slave, Neo.
The
"substantive due process" clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, however, assures people of this right when it states that
no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due
process of law." And being able to make personal food choices without
having to obtain permission from Big Brother is definitely included
under this clause.
But the FDA -- aw, heck, all of Washington
for that matter -- doesn't honor the U.S. Constitution in any way,
shape or form. The document is little more than a tattered piece of
American history according to the Nazi nut jobs running federal
agencies today. They are no more likely to respect the Constitution as
they are to leap from their desk job chairs and magically transform
into flying elephants.
But all hope is not lost... there are things you can do to fight for your freedoms.
What you can do to protect food freedom
According to David Gumpert from The Complete Patient,
raw milk is a proxy issue that really addresses food freedom at large.
Whatever is decided about raw milk will set a precedent for everything
else.
That's why it's so important to support raw milk freedom
whether you drink milk or not (I don't drink milk, but I support raw
milk freedoms nevertheless). Not only is legalized raw milk beneficial
to small, family farmers who are able to maintain livelihoods because
of it, it also supports the local food economy. It's also, by the way,
a whole lot healthier than pasteurized milk!
On January 28,
2009, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced HR 778, a bill that would
end all federal restrictions on interstate traffic of raw milk. It's
along the same lines as the current lawsuit which challenges the
constitutionality of such restrictions in the first place. You can read
the entire bill at the following link:
(http://www.ftcldf.org/docs/HR_778_I...)
The FTCLDF has a petition page
where you can contact your Congressmen and urge support for HR 778. You
can even ask your Senators to cosponsor it. Please support this effort
by signing this online petition.
Even more urgent than this is the need to express your opposition
to a "food safety" bill going before the U.S. Senate called the "FDA
Food Safety Modernization Act". Also known as S. 510, this bill, if
passed, will drastically increase the FDA's power over food and make it
very difficult to obtain natural, unprocessed foods of any kind. It
would give the FDA completely power to irradiate, fumigate, pasteurize
or otherwise destroy every item you consume, from fruits and vegetables
to dairy products.
Remember how I said that the FDA (wrongly)
thinks it has the power to regulate intrastate trade? Well S. 510 would
specifically grant the agency this power. The FDA would then have the
power to destroy all small, local farming, gardening or dairy
operations in your home town, even if your state expressly defends your rights to engage in such activity.
Can you imagine a SWAT team of FDA agents showing up at your door because you grew organic broccoli
and sold some at the weekend farmer's market without fumigating it with
poisons first? That's what's coming to your home town, everywhere
across America.
S. 510 is the final version of H.R. 2749, which
was passed last summer by the House of Representatives. There's still
time to stop it, but we need your help. So please sign the petition
linked above.
I know sometimes it seems like the politicians
aren't listening, and for the most part that's true, but a massive
outcry against this attempted takeover of food is sure to get their
attention and may even force them to back down.
You can read all about both bills at the following link:
(http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-foo...)
|
|
|
|
Medical Disclaimer:
The information contained within does not take the place of medical diagnosis or
prescription. See your health care provider in case of sickness.
Editorial Disclaimer: Publication of these articles are to promote food for thought. The opinions expressed in these articles may not be the opinion of editors.
|
|
|
