Posts tagged natural
Do you remember last fall when Whole Foods got slandered by the organic, anti-GMO community for willingly selling products containing genetically modified ingredients? Well, it seems as though it’s had a change of heart.
As was reported by the Associated Press, Whole Foods markets has announced that by 2018, all of its North American stores will have products containing GMOs labeled as such. Regardless of Whole Foods being known as a “natural” and organic supermarket, it does indeed sell products that contain genetically modified ingredients, such as soy lecithin and modified cornstarch.
Its disposition to sell such products is what got them in trouble with passionate organic and non-GMO shoppers. Many were discouraged to discover that their trustworthy supermarket had essentially sold its soul to the devil by offering those potentially dangerous products.
A.C. Gallo, president of Whole Foods, mentioned that currently, the Inc. is experiencing an increasing demand for products that are made or grown without genetically engineered organisms. He also noted that products that are labeled as “Non-GMO” yield sale growths from fifteen to thirty percent.
Many shoppers are undoubtedly jovial over Whole Foods’ decision to please the consumer, and label its products containing GMOs. This is an outstanding example of what a free market is all about and why it is unnecessary for the government to intervene when it comes to the food industry.
If shoppers are angered about a company’s products (Whole Foods selling GMOs), then it is up to the shoppers to protest and not help the company thrive. Because Whole Foods shoppers stopped giving their business to their market that had disappointed so many, it realized it needed to turn around if it wanted to continue to pull in successful trades.
Not only is this decision by Whole Foods proving to be a success for organic, anti-GMO consumers, but it’s also a success for free market advocates.
Researchers have found a better and a cheaper way to restore human sight by implanting a contact lens containing stem cells that will repair the human cornea.
Scientists from the University of Sheffield hope that the biodegradable implant disc’s stem cells will multiply in the eye, thus rebuilding the transparent layer on the front of the eye, known as the cornea, the degradation of which is one of the major causes of blindness in the world, a study published in Acta Biomaterialia journal revealed.
Since stem cells have the ability to renew themselves through mitotic cell division and differentiation into a diverse range of specialized cell types, scientists hope that it will allow the eye to heal naturally as new implants are designed to form thin membranes by grafting the cells onto the eye itself.
Traditional treatment for cornea damage includes transplanting stem cells into the eye using donated human membranes. But in some cases this procedure fails, as in time the repaired eyes lose the retention of these stem cells, which are required to carry out repairs of the cornea.
What makes the new research different is that the new biodegradable lens contains small pockets of stem cells that protect them and serve as a constant repair utility.
“The material across the center of the disc is thinner than the ring, so it will biodegrade more quickly, allowing the stem cells to proliferate across the surface of the eye to repair the cornea,” Ílida Ortega Asencio, from Sheffield’s Faculty of Engineering, was quoted as saying in Daily Mail.
Without stem cells, thick white scar tissue develops in the cornea, causing partial or complete sight loss.
The clinical trials are expected to begin in India as “the overall treatment using these discs will not only be better than current treatments, it will be cheaper as well,” Frederick Claeyssens from University of Sheffield said.
By Blake Taylore
Liberty, freedom, and owning oneself are always good things. How humans lost the acknowledgement and community support of their unalienable right to exist on earth, and own themselves is probably lost in history. And yet, there were always people, throughout history, who understood their own value as individuals, and how they had a right to own their lives, while deciding their own destinies, making their own choices, and keeping what they made. They understood nature’s laws; the human right to own themselves, and keep the fruit of their labor. They understood unalienable rights to be a gift from nature that every human can claim just for being born.
Unfortunately most people, early on, were tricked out of this innate gift of owning themselves. Yet, throughout the ages enlightened, and freedom loving humans fought to bring this truth to light, and to have their unalienable rights be acknowledged, and supported by their communities. Some freedom lovers fought for unalienable rights with their pen, some within their legal structure, and some by the sword. They all fought to have human-made governments obey the laws of nature that governed their unalienable rights.
But it wasn’t until the birth of America, when humans, educated with book and instinctual knowledge of what was right and wrong, would stand together, using both the pen and the sword, to build a nation with a foundational base of nature’s laws. Ever since the Declaration of Independence, America has been a symbol of freedom that many in the rest of the world looked to as a beacon of hope for liberty in their lives. Unfortunately, here in America, once again, throughout the recent decades, those who have based their lives on greed and power, buried the principles of nature’s inalienable rights, enslaving all Americans, stripping us of our privacy, dignity, rights, and wealth. We now all jump as high as TSA, FEMA, the now militarized police, or any other federal agency tells us to, without a blink of the eye. America has let the world down.
This is the now-famous video that was censored by YouTube. It shows Whole Foods employees LYING about the GMOs being sold by the store.
Fact: Whole Foods is a massive retailer for Monsanto’s GM corn, which is found in all sorts of products on the shelves at Whole Foods. This is the same strain of genetically engineered corn that French researchers recently linked to massive cancer tumors in rats.
As of this writing, Whole Foods has offered ZERO support for Proposition 37 and has made NO effort to require GMO labeling for the products it sells.
SHARE this video. Spread the truth about Whole Foods and GMOs.
Read the full story at:
By Anthony Gucciardi
Woops! Study Accidentally Finds Chemotherapy Makes Cancer Far Worse
A team of researchers looking into why cancer cells are so resilient accidentally stumbled upon a far more important discovery. While conducting their research, the team discovered that chemotherapy actually heavily damages healthy cells and subsequently triggers them to release a protein that sustains and fuels tumor growth. Beyond that, it even makes the tumor highly resistant to future treatment.
Reporting their findings in the journal Nature Medicine, the scientists report that the findings were ‘completely unexpected’. Finding evidence of significant DNA damage when examining the effects of chemotherapy on tissue derived from men with prostate cancer, the writings are a big slap in the face to mainstream medical organizations who have been pushing chemotherapy as the only option to cancer patients for years.
The news comes after it was previously ousted by similarly-breaking research that expensive cancer drugs not only fail to treat tumors, but actually make them far worse. The cancer drugs were found to make tumors ‘metasize’ and grow massively in size after consumption. As a result, the drugs killed the patients more quickly.
For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government’s use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if — had drones existed at the time — King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect that Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as one who is urging the use of violence against the government.
Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes, and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. The folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.
Don’t believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the “recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel inside the United States and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them “to collect information about U.S. persons.”
It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or “military commander” for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. And any “incidentally acquired information” can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What’s next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the U.S.?
The quoted phrases above are extracted from a now-public 30-page memorandum issued by President Obama’s secretary of the Air Force on April 23, 2012. The purpose of the memorandum is stated as “balancing … obtaining intelligence information … and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution….” Note the primacy of intelligence gathering over freedom protection, and note the peculiar use of the word “balancing.”
Do you like eating natural, raw, or unprocessed food?
Republican Senators Corker and Alexander in Tennessee have just voted against food freedom by allowing the FDA to raid farmers, natural food stores, and people who sell/posses raw unprocessed foods at gunpoint!!!
Small-government Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky offered an amendment which would prevent the FDA from carrying firearms or making arrests during raids without a warrant. Senators Corker and Alexander voted AGAINST Rand Paul’s amendment by voting to table it.
Senators Corker and Alexander must think it is ok for the FDA to point a gun at you if you like eating healthy food.
If you want more details read these two blog posts:
Watch Senator Rand Paul’s speech on the FDA and raw foods:
Here are videos of actual raids that have taken place by the FDA – don’t think it can’t happen to you:
Reason.tv: Rawesome Foods Raided… Again!
Zach Weissmueller | August 4, 2011
A little more than a year ago, Rawesome Foods, a health food co-op based in Venice, California was the target of an armed raid by several agencies, and the resulting video went viral.
On August 3, 2011, Rawesome experienced another multi-agency raid, but this one resulted in the arrest of the establishment’s owner James Stewart.
Stewart, and Sharon Palmer, the farmer who supplies him with raw goat milk, are being held on bails in excess of $100,000 and are each charged with four felonies and several more misdemeanors. Some examples of the charges are “processing unpasteurized milk,” “improper labeling of food,” and “improper egg temperatures.”
The government has kept pursuing Stewart and his club for years, despite a lack of any reports of illness or injury from consumption of his foods. Rawesome members argue that they are part of a private club, not subject to government regulation, and that they are being persecuted for their alternative lifestyles.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office would not comment for this video, but offered this press release and also released a list of the charges against Stewart and Palmer.
Reason.tv covered the first Rawesome raid shown below.
Reason.tv: Raw Foods Raid – The Fight for the Right to Eat What You Want
Zach Weissmueller | November 17, 2010
This summer armed government agents raided Rawesome Foods, a Venice, California health food co-op. What were the agents after? Unpasteurized milk, it turns out.
Raw milk raids are happening all over the United States. The Food and Drug Administration warns that raw milk consumption can cause health problems, but a growing community of raw foods enthusiasts are ignoring government recommendations and claiming that they are getting tastier, more nutritious food by going raw.
Reason.tv visited Rawesome to examine the circumstances of the raid and discovered that this particular raw foods case stretches across county lines and involves at least five separate government agencies, despite the fact that not a single member of Rawesome has complained or been harmed by the raw foods. In fact, members have to sign a contract stating that they understand and accept the risks of consuming raw foods before they are allowed to step inside.
If members of a private club sign a waiver stating that they want to drink a certain type of milk, why is the government getting involved? As Jarel Winterhawk, a manager at Rawesome, puts it, “This is America. How are you going to tell me what I can and cannot eat?”
Though no charges have yet resulted from the raid, Rawesome is threated with shutdown due to the involvement of yet another government agency, Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, and the club’s raw goat milk supplier, Healthy Family Farms, has had its dairy license suspended.
“Raw Foods Raid” is written and produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Alex Manning and Weissmueller. Senior Producer is Ted Balaker. Music by Jami Sieber, Five Star Fall, and Kammen and Swan (Magnatune Records).
By Dr. Mercola
Did you know it’s currently illegal for a food or supplement producer to tell you about their products’ scientifically proven health benefits?
As unbelievable as it sounds, a person can be thrown in jail for telling you the walnuts they grow may slow down the growth of prostate tumors, or cherries ease symptoms of arthritis and gout, even though this is truthful, accurate and helpful information for a consumer to know.
This is why a case that was recently heard before U.S. District Court Judge Vanessa L. Bryant could turn out to be a landmark event, as she ruled that the “FDA went too far” in censoring health claims related to green tea and cancer.
FDA Wording Too Strong, “Effectively Negates” Qualified Health Claims
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows food and supplement manufacturers to use a qualified health claim (QHC) when “there is emerging evidence for a relationship between a food, food component, or dietary supplement and reduced risk of a disease or health-related condition.”i
However, because the evidence is still emerging, the FDA requires “qualifying language” to be included with the claim “to indicate that the evidence supporting the claim is limited.” In the case of Fleminger, Inc., which sells green tea and filed a health claim petition in 2004 to highlight green tea’s anti-cancer properties, the FDA suggested that this disclaimer be added to the health claim:
“FDA concludes that it is highly unlikely that green tea reduces the risk” of breast cancer or prostate cancer.
Obviously, this essentially contradicts the health claim. So, in 2010 (after a petition to review the FDA’s disclaimer was denied), the FDA threatened to seize Fleminger’s products if they did not use the exact disclaimer above. Eventually the FDA sent a revised claim, which still negated the point of the health claim:
“Green tea may reduce the risk of breast or prostate cancer. FDA does not agree that green tea may reduce the risk because there is very little scientific evidence for the claim.”
This is a major win for natural food and supplement producers alike, as the FDA is being required to revise the disclaimer so as not to negate the health claim being made. At this point, Fleminger took the case to court, where Judge Bryant ruled:
“The FDA’s language “effectively negates the substance–disease relationship claim altogether….There are less burdensome ways in which the FDA could indicate in a short, succinct and accurate disclaimer that it has not approved the claim without nullifying the claim altogether.”
Why Can’t Foods Have Truthful Health Claims on Their Labels?
This is perhaps the underlying question: why must manufacturers petition the FDA to make truthful, science-based health claims in the first place and then have them subjected to disclaimers? This is a serious waste of tax dollars – not to mention an assault on your freedom of access to information (and for the manufacturers, on their freedom of speech).
The fact is, QHCs are currently the only way that companies can make truthful health claims about natural foods or supplements. However, they are not easy to come by (the FDA approved only 12 QHCs from 1999 to 2010). Under current FDA law, if a food or natural supplement makes a medical claim without a QHC, it’s automatically classified as a drug. The Alliance for Natural Health explains:
“Outside of QHCs, food and supplements are not allowed to speak of the specific health benefits of their products because the FDA takes the position that any such statement magically turns them into drugs. And, as drugs, they would have to go through exorbitantly expensive drug trials, a cost which the manufacturer could never recoup, since food and supplements are natural products and cannot be patented. Without a patent, anyone can sell them, so paying as much as a billion dollars for a drug trial is essentially money down the drain.”
Believe it or not, the FDA recently sent a warning letter to Diamond Food for making truthful, science-backed health claims about the omega-3 fats in walnuts. But because the research cited health claims that omega-3 fats in walnuts may prevent or protect against disease, the FDA said walnuts would be considered “new drugs” and as such would require a new drug application to become FDA-approved.
The FDA’s current position is that foods such as walnuts, cherries, broccoli, turmeric, green tea and the like should be subjected to the full FDA approval process. But obtaining a new drug application, as the FDA suggests, can cost billions of dollars. And let’s face it – small food and supplement producers cannot come close to affording that!
In related news, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also suffered a loss in its efforts to hold Garden of Life, the marketer of various dietary supplements, in contempt of a previous consent order. The FTC alleged that Garden of Life violated the order by making false and baseless claims about its vitamin C and omega-3 fat based products, but the court ruled that the FTC had failed to prove that any of the challenged claims violated the consent order. It’s a small win, but it could have major repercussions for other natural supplement makers who are being unjustly attacked by the FTC or another government agency.
Final Episode of Freedom Watch: When the Government Fears the People, There Is Liberty
Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!