Thursday, July 18, 2013

All Corn Syrup Contains MSG

© Prevent Disease
All Corn Syrup Contains MSG
July 18, 2013 | Prevent Disease | Natasha Longo

Processed free glutamic acid (MSG) is deadly and it's unlabeled in hundreds of foods. One of the tricks played by the food industry is the deceptive insertion of "no MSG added" on food labels. While there may be no "extra" MSG added, there is sufficient amounts through processing and hidden within many ingredients which cause havoc to our health. One those ingredients found in many foods is corn syrup.

 What is MSG?

Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) is not a nutrient, vitamin, or mineral and has no health benefits. The part of MSG that negatively affects the human body is the "glutamate", not the sodium. The breakdown of MSG typically consists of 78% glutamate, 12% sodium, and about 10% water. Any glutamate added to a processed food is not and can not be considered naturally occurring. Natural glutamate in plants and animals is known as L-glutamic acid.

In contrast, processed free glutamic acid (MSG) contains both L-glutamic acid and D-glutamic acid, and is also accompanied by pyroglutamic acid and other impurities. The impurities differ according to the starting materials and methods used to produce the glutamic acid (MSG). It is only acid hydrolyzed proteins that contain mono and dichloro propanols (which are carcinogenic), and it is only reaction flavors that contain heterocyclic amines (which are also carcinogenic).

By FDA definition, processed free glutamic acid (MSG) is "naturally occurring," because the basic ingredients are found in nature. "Naturally occurring" does not mean that a food additive is being used in its natural state. "Naturally occurring" only means that the food additive began with something found in nature. By FDA definition, the ingredient "monosodium glutamate" is natural. So is hydrochloric acid. So is arsenic. "Natural", especially in our beloved food industry, doesn't mean "safe."

Processed free glutamic acid (MSG) is created when protein is either partially or fully broken apart into its constituent amino acids, or glutamic acid is secreted from selected bacteria. A protein can be broken into its constituent amino acids in a number of ways (autolysis, hydrolysis, enzymolysis, and/or fermentation). When a protein is broken down, the amino acid chains in the protein are broken, and individual amino acids are freed. These processes are discussed in some detail in food encyclopedias -- wherein articles on glutamic acid and "monosodium glutamate" are generally written by persons who work for Ajinomoto, Co., Inc., the world's largest producer of the food ingredient "monosodium glutamate."

It used to be that when any ingredient contained 78%-79% processed free glutamic acid (MSG), and the balance was made up of salt, moisture, and up to 1 per cent impurities, the FDA required that the product be called "monosodium glutamate", and required that the product be labeled as such. The FDA required that other MSG-containing ingredients be identified by names other than "monosodium glutamate." Never has the FDA required mention of the fact that an ingredient contains processed free glutamic acid (MSG).

While the glutamic acid in "monosodium glutamate" is generally produced through bacterial fermentation, the glutamic acid in the other MSG-containing ingredients is made through use of chemicals (hydrolysis or autolysis), enzymes (enzymolysis), fermentation, or a complex cooking process wherein reaction flavors are produced from a combination of specific amino acids, reducing sugars, animal or vegetable fats or oils, and optional ingredients including hydrolyzed vegetable protein.

It is now essentially unregulated when it comes to labeling standards. A label may say "yeast extract", "calcium caseinate", or "beef flavoring", but the product still contains varying amounts of "free" glutamic acid. This makes it very difficult for consumers who are trying to avoid it. It is also very dangerous for those who suffer severe reactions to it. Many people who are very sensitive to MSG experience respiratory, neurological, muscular, skin, urological and even cardiac symptoms.

Some of the common ingredients which contain MSG are: Plant Protein, Hydrolyzed Corn Gluten, Hydrolyzed Pea Protein, Textured Protein, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Autolyzed Plant Protein, Yeast Extract, Calcium Caseinate, Sodium Caseinate, Gelatin, Disodium Guanylate, Disodium Inosinate, Carrageenan, Xanthum Gum, Maltodextrin, Natural Flavor, Barley Malt, Malt Extract, Soy Protein Isolate, Ultra-pasteurized Soy Sauce, Whey Protein Concentrate, Soy Protein Concentrate, Whey Protein Isolate, Protease Enzymes, Protein Fortified anything, Enzyme Modified anything and Citric Acid.

MSG in Corn Syrup


All corn syrup contains some processed free glutamic acid (MSG). In producing corn syrup, producers do not take the time nor undertake the expense to remove all proteins. The remaining protein is broken down during production, resulting in processed free glutamic acid. The final product would also contain free aspartic acid, free phenylalanine, and the free form of the other amino acids found in corn protein.

"There is no corn syrup without free glutamic acid present, it doesn't exist," said food scientist Mae Geraldine. "It is a byproduct of processing and the expense to remove it would exceed production costs."

High fructose corn syrup may be worse for an MSG-sensitive person than is plain corn syrup because an enzyme is added to high fructose corn syrup, further breaking down any protein that may be present.

A study published in Genes & Nutrition suggests that eating high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) may boost risk of various liver diseases such as adiposity, hepatic steatosis, hepatic fibrosis and liver damage like cirrhosis.

Previous studies show that a variety of dietary components such as fat, sugars, and neonatal treatment with MSG contribute to the development of liver disease. Exposure to HFCS promoted hepatic fibrosis and markers of liver dysfunction

MSG within corn syrup can cause harmful effects on the function of hypothalamus-pituitary-target gland system. It leads to erosive and ulcerative lesions of the gastric mucosa and an increased secretion of hydrochloric acid and an increased body weight.

Cycle of MSG leading to Obesity:

1. MSG is eaten.
2. Cells in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus that produce dopamine and regulate appetite are destroyed.
3. Hypothalamus becomes leptin-resistant
4. Glutamate activates AMPK, which slows metabolism AND desire for physical activity ("lazy mice").
5. The fat cells release leptin to stop AMPK, but the hypothalamus ignores the signal.
6. Appetite stays high, activity is depressed. Calorie intake goes up, calories expended by metabolism go down, calories expended in activity go down.
7. MSG although it is an amino acid, signals the pancreas to release insulin
8. Insulin drops our blood sugar - causing increased hunger at the same time it packs away excess calories as fat
9. Obesity


ALWAYS Contain MSG
OFTEN Contain MSG
  • Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)
  • Glutamate anything
  • Glutamic Acid
  • Hydrolyzed anything
    • Hydrolyzed Corn Gluten
    • Hydrolyzed Pea Protein
  • Plant Protein
  • Textured Protein
  • Autolyzed anything
    • Autolyzed Yeast Extract
    • Autolyzed Plant Protein
  • Yeast Extract
  • Yeast Nutrient
  • Caseinate anything
    • Calcium Caseinate
    • Sodium Caseinate
  • Gelatin
  • Aspartame (any artificial sugar)
The next ingredients listed do not contain MSG, but are added to activate MSG already contained in the food product. These two chemicals are very expensive and have no other function. If you find them on the label you can be assured that MSG is present.
  • Disodium Guanylate
  • Disodium Inosinate



  • Carrageenan (ingredient in Chocolate Milk)
  • Xanthum Gum (ingredient in Salad Dressings)
  • Maltodextrin (ingredient in Splenda)
  • Flavor(s) and Flavoring(s) anything
    • Malt Flavoring
  • Natural Flavor(s) & Flavoring(s) anything
    • beef, pork, chicken, etc
  • Bouillon and Broth anything
  • Barley Malt
  • Malt Extract
  • Soy Sauce Extract
  • Soy Protein Isolate
  • Ultra-pasteurized Soy Sauce
  • Whey Protein Concentrate
  • Soy Protein Concentrate
  • Pectin Soy Protein
  • Whey Protein Isolate
  • Whey Protein Protease
  • Protease Enzymes
  • Protein Fortified anything
  • Enzyme Modified anything
  • Enzymes anything
  • Fermented anything
  • Citric Acid
  • Seasoning(s) (the actual word)
  • Spice(s) (the actual word)

ALWAYS Contain MSG
OFTEN Contain MSG
  • Ranch Salad Dressing (Most salad dressings are of concern, but Ranch is the worst.)
  • Vegetable Dips
  • All Flavored Chips
  • Sun Chips
  • Doritos
  • Flavored Potato Chips
  • Bouillon (including those that claim MSG Free)
  • Meat and Vegetable Stock and Broth (including those that claim MSG Free)
  • Baby Formulas and Foods
  • Hair Care Products
  • Hair Shampoo
  • Hair Conditioner
  • Toothpaste
  • Teeth Whitening Agents
  • Fluoride Treatments
  • Teeth Cleaning Pumice at the Dentist
  • Medication
  • Gel Capsules (contains Gelatin)
  • Children's Cough Syrup




Sources:

msgmyth.com
nih.gov
preventdisease.com

Natasha Longo has a master's degree in nutrition and is a certified fitness and nutritional counselor. She has consulted on public health policy and procurement in Canada, Australia, Spain, Ireland, England and Germany.

Evidence-Based Medicine: A Marketing Ploy

© Gaia Health Blog
Evidence-Based Medicine: A Marketing Ploy
July 18, 2013 | Gaia Health Blog


Evidence-based medicine is little more than a marketing ploy. Both JAMA and the Cochrane Collaboration agree that little of what’s done in clinical medicine has anything to do with evidence. Studies are hidden when they don’t provide desired results, and what’s reported tends to be selective. The result is that patients are routinely treated based on what Big Pharma wants to sell.

Nearly two years ago, Gaia Health predicted that the plans of JAMA and the Cochrane Collaboration would go nowhere … and that’s just what seems to have happened. Here’s what was said back then:
 
The prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association and the Cochrane Collaboration have jointly and officially concluded, albeit tacitly, that evidence-based medicine does not generally exist. To counter that lack, they are suggesting voluntary changes in how medical studies are reported.

JAMA’s article on the subject, “A Model for Dissemination and Independent Analysis of Industry Data“, starts with the statement:
Each day, patients and their physicians make treatment decisions with access to only a fraction of the relevant clinical research data.
Cochrane’s statement, “The Cochrane Collaboration Supports Free Access to all Data from all Clinical Trials“, says:
Selective reporting of trial results occurs frequently, leading to exaggerated findings of the beneficial effects of healthcare interventions and underestimates of their harms. As a consequence, many patients are unknowingly treated with interventions that have little or no effect, and may be harmed unnecessarily. This is unethical and has been said to violate the implicit contract between healthcare researchers and patients, where the aim of research is to improve treatment of future patients.
Gaia Health applauds this acknowledgement by JAMA and Cochrane. However, the two journals suggest dramatically different approaches to resolving the problem. JAMA suggests only voluntary commitment by industry, whereas Cochrane advises laws with teeth in them. Neither one, in the view of Gaia Health, goes far enough.

The Acknowledged Problem


As Gaia Health keeps noting, so-called evidence-based medicine is nothing of the sort. The studies on which the concept stands only too often are little more than jury-rigged systems designed to produce the results desired by profiteering corporations. Conclusions are often not supported by the evidence given. Yet, that is merely the tip of the iceberg. As JAMA and Cochrane both admit, most of the data isn’t even provided!
Nonetheless, we’re expected to accept and believe Big Pharma and doctors’ claims about the efficacy and safety of the treatments given. Over and over—generally after countless numbers of people have been harmed or killed—we find that the claims were utterly false. The most commonly cited case is that of Vioxx, which killed tens of thousands.

However, the case of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is far more egregious, and we haven’t begun to count the maiming and deaths caused by it, though the incidence of invasive, usually deadly, breast cancer was increased many times over. HRT was sold through study after fraudulent study claiming it reduced the risks of many diseases, including heart attacks and cancer. The real experiment, the application of HRT on millions of women routinely prescribed estrogen and progesterone, demonstrated that it increased the incidence of those diseases, among others.

Fraudulent junk science pays off in big profits.

The Offered Solutions


The JAMA Solution


The JAMA solution suggests voluntary cooperation by the medical industry. On the surface, that appears to be little more than a show. Most significantly, it still keeps the data itself away from the general public, allowing access to data only by those who meet internal standards set up by an “independent coordinating organization”. How such an “independent coordinating organization” would be set up and who would be on it is unstated—and that is a fatal flaw.

The FDA is supposed to be independent. So are the NIH and CDC. None of them are. All are neck-deep in Big Pharma money. Gaia Health does not believe that such an organization could possibly remain independent of Big Pharma. Add to that the fact that only people who have been named by this organization would have access to the data, and we’d be looking at little more than an agency that would end up fronting for Big Pharma, while giving the gloss of legitimacy to its products.

The Cochrane Solution

The Cochrane Collaboration offers a more acceptable solution. They say that free access to all data from all studies must be made available to everyone at no cost, including in electronic format. They also suggest that governments make laws requiring the release of this data within one year of the end of a randomized phase of a trial. While this sounds good, it doesn’t go far enough:
  • First, it covers only randomized trials, which is not all medical trials, so it would allow a significant number of them to slip through the cracks. Gaia Health can easily imagine a new paradigm emerging, one suggesting something other than randomized trials as the best source of evidence, to counter this approach.
  • Second, it waits until the end of the randomized phase of a trial. However, this phase often lasts for years, whereas early reports are often released based on less complete data. Therefore, a simple method of evading this law would be to never officially end a trial.
  • Third, waiting a year to provide actual data would allow bad products to be marketed before they’ve been properly examined. While it’s certainly better than the existing state of data never being released, it isn’t adequate.
Cochrane does make a suggestion with which Gaia Health wholeheartedly agrees. They suggest that there be punitive damages for anyone not providing the required data.

The most significant and favorable part of the Cochrane suggestions is the availability of open access to everyone. They also imply, though don’t specifically state, that studies with results contrary to those desired would also have to provide all relevant information, including data.

The Likely Winner: JAMA or Cochrane?


Overall, with the exceptions noted above, Gaia Health is delighted with the Cochrane Collaboration’s suggestions. Such openness could only benefit the public, and possibly end part of the scourge of junk science. Sadly, it doesn’t go far enough and wouldn’t end all of it—and the likelihood of Big Pharma slipping around it is high. The simple expedient of redefining or even just renaming studies as something other than random would evade Cochrane’s approach.

Will Cochrane’s approach be accepted? Not likely—not while Big Pharma money rules. Because the corruption within the world of medical science is becoming more and more apparent to more and more people, the industry needs to do something to give the impression that it’s doing something.

If they can get away with a marketing approach to the problem, they will. In all likelihood, we’ll see a voluntary system that still allows the data to be hidden away and only studies it chooses to be subjected to pseudo-independent analysis. Such a system would likely be met with fanfare and a big show to give the impression that it’s working. Within a short time, though, it would, at best, become an arm of Big Pharma.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Massive Bumblebee Die-Off Prompts Temporary Pesticide Ban in Oregon

Activist Post: Massive Bumblebee Die-Off Prompts Temporary Pesticide Ban in Oregon
July 17, 2013 | Waking Times | Alex Pietrowski

In what may be the single largest mass bumblebee die-off on record, some 50,000 plus bees were recently found littering the parking lot of a Target store in Wilsonville, Oregon recently after a landscaping company sprayed surrounding trees with the insecticide Safari. Concerning shoppers and the community, the event also raised significant alarm amongst the Oregon Department of Agriculture, which has now enacted a temporary ban on the pesticide used in this incident, and for an additional 17 other insecticide products containing the chemical dinotefuran.

Dinotefuran, a popular insecticide found in agricultural, professional and household products is an insecticide of the neonicotinoid class, a class of insecticides widely suspected to be the primary cause of the global bee and pollinator die-off we are witnessing today. Neonicotinoids include a number of other insecticides other than dinotefuran, and have for decades been suspected of being especially dangerous to bees:

Neonicotinoids are a relatively new class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death. They includeimidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. According to the EPA, uncertainties have been identified since their initial registration regarding the potential environmental fate and effects of neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly as they relate to pollinators. Studies conducted in the late 1990s suggest that neonicotinic residues can accumulate in pollen and nectar of treated plants and represent a potential risk to pollinators. [Beyond Pesticides]
Representing over 300 colonies and many potential future queen bees, the Oregon die-off has caused considerable alarm and the Oregon department of health is acting swiftly:

To prevent another bee killing, the Oregon Department of Agriculture is also temporarily banning the use of 18 pesticide products. Pesticides containing dinotefuran can no longer be used on plants, or at least not until the ban is lifted. 
ODA officials said they’re acting “in an abundance of caution” in issuing the ban. Director Katy Coba said she hopes the decision minimizes the potential for more bee deaths connected to pesticide products while the state continues to investigate and gather information. – Fox
 This is certainly encouraging news, yet oddly enough dinotefuran products and other neonicotinoids will still be available for sale in Oregon and only licensed pesticide applicators will be liable in this ban.

“We’re not trying to get it off the shelves, or trying to tell people to dispose of it, we’re just telling people not to use it,” said Bruce Pokarney, a spokesperson for the department of agriculture. [Oregon Live]
The mindset behind this action is telling, especially when considering the gravity of the implications of a global collapse in pollinators. If the single largest bee die-off in history, known to have been directly caused by neonicotinoid insecticides, doesn’t prompt a more thorough and meaningful ban on the widespread use of these dangerous chemicals, then what will it take?

The complete list of temporarily banned products can be seen here:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PEST/docs/pdf/DinotefLimitList06272013.pdf.

Sources:

http://inhabitat.com/oregon-temporarily-bans-pesticides-to-investigate-bee-deaths/

http://www.kptv.com/slideshow?widgetid=83253

http://blog.beealive.com/2013/07/in-wake-of-massive-bee-kills-oregon.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinotefuran

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pollinators/chemicals.php

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science/science-a-environmental/43996-in-wake-of-massive-bee-kills-oregon-temporarily-bans-some-pesticide-uses.html

About the Author

Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com and an avid student of Yoga and life.

'Hidden Dangers' of Mammograms Every Woman Should Know About

© Green Med Info
'Hidden Dangers' of Mammograms Every Woman Should Know About
July 16, 2013 | Green Med Info | Sayer Ji

Millions of women undergo them annually, but few are even remotely aware of just how many dangers they are exposing themselves to in the name of prevention, not the least of which are misdiagnosis, overdiagnosis and the promotion of breast cancer itself. 

A new study published in the Annals of Family Medicine titled, Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography, brings to the forefront a major underreported harm of breast screening programs: the very real and lasting trauma associated with a false-positive diagnosis of breast cancer.[1]

The study found that women with false-positive diagnoses of breast cancer, even three years after being declared free of cancer, "consistently reported greater negative psychosocial consequences compared with women who had normal findings in all 12 psychosocial outcomes."

The psychosocial and existential parameters adversely affected were:
  • Sense of dejection
  • Anxiety
  • Negative impact on behavior
  • Negative impact on sleep
  • Degree of breast self-examination
  • Negative impact on sexuality
  • Feeling of attractiveness
  • Ability to keep 'mind off things'
  • Worries about breast cancer
  • Inner calm
  • Social network
  • Existential values
What is even more concerning is that "[S]ix months after final diagnosis, women with false-positive findings reported changes in existential values and inner calmness as great as those reported by women with a diagnosis of breast cancer."

In other words, even after being "cleared of cancer," the measurable adverse psychospiritual effects of the trauma of diagnosis were equivalent to actually having breast cancer.

Given that the cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography is at least 50%,[2] this is an issue that will affect the health of millions of women undergoing routine breast screening.

The Curse of False Diagnosis and 'Bone-Pointing' 

Also, we must be cognizant of the fact that these observed 'psychosocial' and 'existential' adverse effects don't just cause some vaguely defined 'mental anguish,' but translate into objectively quantifiable physiological consequences of a dire nature.

For instance, last year, a groundbreaking study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that, based on data on more than 6 million Swedes aged 30 and older, the risk of suicide was found to be up to 16 times higher and the risk of heart-related death up to 26.9 times higher during the first week following a positive versus a negative cancer diagnosis.[3]

This was the first study of its kind to confirm that the trauma of diagnosis can result in, as the etymology of the Greek word trauma reveals, a "physical wound." In the same way as Aborigonal cultures had a 'ritual executioner' or 'bone pointer' known as a Kurdaitcha who by pointing a bone at a victim with the intention of cursing him to death, resulting in the actual self-willed death of the accursed, so too does the modern ritual of medicine reenact ancient belief systems and power differentials, with the modern physician, whether he likes it or not, a 'priest of the body.'; we must only look to the well-known dialectic of the placebo and nocebo effects to see these powerful, "irrational" processes still operative.

Millions Harmed by Breast Screening Despite Assurances to the Contrary

Research of this kind clearly indicates that the conventional screening process carries health risks, both to body and mind, which may outstrip the very dangers the medical surveillance believes itself responsible for, and effective at, mitigating.  For instance, according to a groundbreaking study published last November in New England Journal of Medicine, 1.3 million US women were overdiagnosed and overtreated over the past 30 years.[4] These are the 'false positives' that were never caught, resulting in the unnecessary irradiation, chemotherapy poisoning and surgery of approximately 43,000 women each year.  Now, when you add to this dismal statistic the millions of 'false positives' that while being caught nevertheless resulted in producing traumas within those women, breast screening begins to look like a veritable nightmare of iatrogenesis.

And this does not even account for the radiobiological dangers of the x-ray mammography screening process itself, which may be causing an epidemic of mostly unackowledged radiation-induced breast cancers in exposed populations.

For instance, in 2006, a paper published in the British Journal of Radiobiology, titled "Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme," revealed the type of radiation used in x-ray-based breast screenings is much more carcinogenic than previously believed:
Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times - but possibly as much as six times - more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.[5]
Even the breast cancer treatment protocols themselves have recently been found to contribute to enhancing cancer malignancy and increasing mortality. Chemotherapy and radiation both appear to enrich the cancer stem cell populations, which are at the root of breast cancer malignancy and invasiveness. Last year, in fact, the prestigious journal Cancer, a publication of the American Cancer Society, published a study performed by researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center showing that even when radiation kills half of the tumor cells treated, the surviving cells which are resistant to treatment, known as induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSCs), were up to 30 times more likely to form tumors than the nonirradiated breast cancer cells. In other words, the radiation treatment regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor, eventually leading to the iatrogenic (treatment-induced) death of the patient.[6]

What we are increasingly bearing witness to in the biomedical literature itself is that the conventional breast cancer prevention and treatment strategy and protocols are bankrupt.  Or, from the perspective of the more cynical observer, it is immensely successful, owing to the fact that it is driving billions of dollars or revenue by producing more of what it claims to be fighting.

The time has come for a radical transformation in the way that we understand, screen for, prevent and treat cancer. It used to be that natural medical advocates didn't have the so-called peer-reviewed 'evidence' to back up their intuitive and/or anecdotal understanding of how to keep the human body in health and balance. That time has passed. GreenMedInfo.com, for instance, has over 20,000 abstracts indexed in support of a return to a medical model where the 'alternative' is synthetic, invasive, emergency-modeled medicine, and the norm is using food, herbs, minerals, vitamins and lifestyle changes to maintain, promote and regain optimal health.

[1]John Brodersen, Volkert Dirk Siersma. Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Ann Fam Med. 2013 Mar-Apr;11(2):106-15. PMID: 23508596

[2] Rebecca A Hubbard, Karla Kerlikowske, Chris I Flowers, Bonnie C Yankaskas, Weiwei Zhu, Diana L Miglioretti. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18 ;155(8):481-92. PMID: 22007042

[6]GreenMedInfo.com, Study: Radiation Therapy Can Make Cancers 30x More Malignant, June 2012

About the Author

Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation.
 

He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Chris Hedges: Urban Poverty Made Me Ask Questions

Chris Hedges: Urban Poverty Made Me Ask Questions
July 16, 2013 | Truthdig.org

The Truthdig columnist tells The Real News how his experience living in the inner city in Boston shaped his perspective as a journalist.
And I think for a white person of relative privilege to confront the cruelty of what we do to poor people of color in this country and to begin to understand institutional forms of racism, all the mechanisms by which we ensure that the poor remain poor in, you know, what Malcolm X and Martin Luther King correctly called these internal colonies really rattled me, really shook me. It made me question all sorts of things—the myth we tell ourselves about ourselves, the nature of capitalism, the nature of racism, exploitation. So those two and a half years I spent in Roxbury were quite profound—not that, of course, I wasn’t stunned at the evils of empire in places like El Salvador or Gaza or anywhere else. But Roxbury was quite a shock for me.

10 Things most Americans don't know about America

SOTT: 10 Things most Americans don't know about America
July 10, 2013 | Markmanson Net | Mark Manson

Imagine you have a brother and he's an alcoholic. He has his moments, but you keep your distance from him. You don't mind him for the occasional family gathering or holiday. You still love him. But you don't want to be around him. This is how I lovingly describe my current relationship with the United States. The United States is my alcoholic brother. And although I will always love him, I don't want to be near him at the moment.

I know that's harsh, but I really feel my home country is not in a good place these days. That's not a socio-economic statement (although that's on the decline as well), but rather a cultural one.

I realize it's going to be impossible to write sentences like the ones above without coming across as a raging prick, so let me try to soften the blow to my American readers with an analogy:

You know when you move out of your parents' house and live on your own, how you start hanging out with your friends' families and you realize that actually, your family was a little screwed up? Stuff you always assumed was normal your entire childhood, it turns out was pretty weird and may have actually fucked you up a little bit. You know, dad thinking it was funny to wear a Santa Claus hat in his underwear every Christmas or the fact that you and your sister slept in the same bed until you were 22, or that your mother routinely cried over a bottle of wine while listening to Elton John.

The point is we don't really get perspective on what's close to us until we spend time away from it. Just like you didn't realize the weird quirks and nuances of your family until you left and spent time with others, the same is true for country and culture. You often don't see what's messed up about your country and culture until you step outside of it.

And so even though this article is going to come across as fairly scathing, I want my American readers to know: some of the stuff we do, some of the stuff that we always assumed was normal, it's kind of screwed up. And that's OK. Because that's true with every culture. It's just easier to spot it in others (i.e., the French) so we don't always notice it in ourselves.

So as you read this article, know that I'm saying everything with tough love, the same tough love with which I'd sit down and lecture an alcoholic family member. It doesn't mean I don't love you. It doesn't mean there aren't some awesome things about you (BRO, THAT'S AWESOME!!!). And it doesn't mean I'm some saint either, because god knows I'm pretty screwed up (I'm American, after all). There are just a few things you need to hear. And as a friend, I'm going to tell them to you.

And to my foreign readers, get your necks ready, because this is going to be a nod-a-thon.

A Little "What The Hell Does This Guy Know?" Background:

I've lived in different parts of the US, both the deep south and the northeast. I have visited most of the US's 50 states. I've spent the past three years living almost entirely outside of the United States. I've lived in multiple countries in Europe, Asia and South America. I've visited over 40 countries in all and have spent far more time with non-Americans than with Americans during this period. I speak multiple languages. I'm not a tourist. I don't stay in resorts and rarely stay in hostels. I rent apartments and try to integrate myself into each country I visit as much as possible. So there.

(Note: I realize these are generalizations and I realize there are always exceptions. I get it. You don't have to post 55 comments telling me that you and your best friend are exceptions. If you really get that offended from some guy's blog post, you may want to double-check your life priorities.)

OK, we're ready now. 10 things Americans don't know about America.

1. Few People Are Impressed By Us

Unless you're speaking with a real estate agent or a prostitute, chances are they're not going to be excited that you're American. It's not some badge of honor we get to parade around. Yes, we had Steve Jobs and Thomas Edison, but unless you actually are Steve Jobs or Thomas Edison (which is unlikely) then most people around the world are simply not going to care. There are exceptions of course. And those exceptions are called English and Australian people. Whoopdie-fucking-doo.

As Americans, we're brought up our entire lives being taught that we're the best, we did everything first and that the rest of the world follows our lead. Not only is this not true, but people get irritated when you bring it to their country with you. So don't.

2. Few People Hate Us

Despite the occasional eye-rolling, and complete inability to understand why anyone would vote for George W. Bush, people from other countries don't hate us either. In fact - and I know this is a really sobering realization for us - most people in the world don't really think about us or care about us. I know, that sounds absurd, especially with CNN and Fox News showing the same 20 angry Arab men on repeat for ten years straight. But unless we're invading someone's country or threatening to invade someone's country (which is likely), then there's a 99.99% chance they don't care about us. Just like we rarely think about the people in Bolivia or Mongolia, most people don't think about us much. They have jobs, kids, house payments - you know, those things called lives - to worry about. Kind of like us.

Americans tend to assume that the rest of the world either loves us or hates us (this is actually a good litmus test to tell if someone is conservative or liberal). The fact is, most people feel neither. Most people don't think much about us.

Remember that immature girl in high school, who every little thing that happened to her meant that someone either hated her or was obsessed with her; who thought every teacher who ever gave her a bad grade was being totally unfair and everything good that happened to her was because of how amazing she was? Yeah, we're that immature high school girl.

3. We Know Nothing About The Rest Of The World

For all of our talk about being global leaders and how everyone follows us, we don't seem to know much about our supposed "followers." They often have completely different takes on history than we do. Here were some brain-stumpers for me: the Vietnamese believe the Vietnam War was about China (not us), Hitler was primarily defeated by Russia (not us), Native Americans were wiped out largely disease and plague (not us), and the American Revolution was "won" because the British cared more about beating France (not us). Notice a running theme here?

(Hint: It's not all about us.)

We did not invent democracy. We didn't even invent modern democracy. There were parliamentary systems in England and other parts of Europe over a hundred years before we created government. In a recent survey of young Americans, 63% could not find Iraq on a map (despite being at war with them), and 54% did not know Sudan was a country in Africa. Yet, somehow we're positive that everyone else looks up to us.


4. We Are Poor At Expressing Gratitude And Affection

There's a saying about English-speakers. We say "Go fuck yourself," when we really mean "I like you," and we say "I like you," when we really mean "Go fuck yourself."

Outside of getting shit-housed drunk and screaming "I LOVE YOU, MAN!", open displays of affection in American culture are tepid and rare. Latin and some European cultures describe us as "cold" and "passionless" and for good reason. In our social lives we don't say what we mean and we don't mean what we say.

In our culture, appreciation and affection are implied rather than spoken outright. Two guy friends call each other names to reinforce their friendship; men and women tease and make fun of each other to imply interest. Feelings are almost never shared openly and freely. Consumer culture has cheapened our language of gratitude. Something like, "It's so good to see you" is empty now because it's expected and heard from everybody.

In dating, when I find a woman attractive, I almost always walk right up to her and tell her that a) I wanted to meet her, and b) she's beautiful. In America, women usually get incredibly nervous and confused when I do this. They'll make jokes to defuse the situation or sometimes ask me if I'm part of a TV show or something playing a prank. Even when they're interested and go on dates with me, they get a bit disoriented when I'm so blunt with my interest. Whereas, in almost every other culture approaching women this way is met with a confident smile and a "Thank you."

5. The Quality of Life For The Average American Is Not That Great

If you're extremely talented or intelligent, the US is probably the best place in the world to live. The system is stacked heavily to allow people of talent and advantage to rise to the top quickly.

The problem with the US is that everyone thinks they are of talent and advantage. As John Steinbeck famously said, the problem with poor Americans is that "they don't believe they're poor, but rather temporarily embarrassed millionaires." It's this culture of self-delusion that allows America to continue to innovate and churn out new industry more than anyone else in the world. But this shared delusion also unfortunately keeps perpetuating large social inequalities and the quality of life for the average citizen lower than most other developed countries. It's the price we pay to maintain our growth and economic dominance.

In my Guide to Wealth, I defined being wealthy as, "Having the freedom to maximize one's life experiences." In those terms, despite the average American having more material wealth than citizens of most other countries (more cars, bigger houses, nicer televisions), their overall quality of life suffers in my opinion. American people on average work more hours with less vacation, spend more time commuting every day, and are saddled with over $10,000 of debt. That's a lot of time spent working and buying crap and little time or disposable income for relationships, activities or new experiences.

6. The Rest Of The World Is Not A Slum-Ridden Shithole Compared To Us

In 2010, I got into a taxi in Bangkok to take me to a new six-story cineplex. It was accessible by metro, but I chose a taxi instead. On the seat in front of me was a sign with a wifi password. Wait, what? I asked the driver if he had wifi in his taxi. He flashed a huge smile. The squat Thai man, with his pidgin English, explained that he had installed it himself. He then turned on his new sound system and disco lights. His taxi instantly became a cheesy nightclub on wheels... with free wifi.

If there's one constant in my travels over the past three years, it has been that almost every place I've visited (especially in Asia and South America) is much nicer and safer than I expected it to be. Singapore is pristine. Hong Kong makes Manhattan look like a suburb. My neighborhood in Colombia is nicer than the one I lived in in Boston (and cheaper).

As Americans, we have this naïve assumption that people all over the world are struggling and way behind us. They're not. Sweden and South Korea have more advanced high speed internet networks. Japan has the most advanced trains and transportation systems. Norwegians make more money. The biggest and most advanced plane in the world is flown out of Singapore. The tallest buildings in the world are now in Dubai and Shanghai. Meanwhile, the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

What's so surprising about the world is how unsurprising most of it is. I spent a week with some local guys in Cambodia. You know what their biggest concerns were? Paying for school, getting to work on time, and what their friends were saying about them. In Brazil, people have debt problems, hate getting stuck in traffic and complain about their overbearing mothers. Every country thinks they have the worst drivers. Every country thinks their weather is unpredictable. The world becomes, err... predictable.

7. We're Paranoid

Not only are we emotionally insecure as a culture, but I've come to realize how paranoid we are about our physical security. You don't have to watch Fox News or CNN for more than 10 minutes to hear about how our drinking water is going to kill us, our neighbor is going to rape our children, some terrorist in Yemen is going to kill us because we didn't torture him, Mexicans are going to kill us, or some virus from a bird is going to kill us. There's a reason we have more guns than people.

In the US, security trumps everything, even liberty. We're paranoid.

I've probably been to 10 countries now that friends and family back home told me explicitly not to go because someone was going to kill me, kidnap me, stab me, rob me, rape me, sell me into sex trade, give me HIV, or whatever else. None of that has happened. I've never been robbed and I've walked through some of the shittiest parts of Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe.

In fact, the experience has been the opposite. In countries like Russia, Colombia or Guatemala, people were so friendly it actually scared me. Some stranger in a bar would invite me to his house for a bar-b-que with his family, a random person on the street would offer to show me around and give me directions to a store I was trying to find. My American instincts were always that, "Wait, this guy is going to try to rob me or kill me," but they never did. They were just insanely friendly.

8. We're Status-Obsessed And Seek Attention

I've noticed that the way we Americans communicate is usually designed to create a lot of attention and hype. Again, I think this is a product of our consumer culture: the belief that something isn't worthwhile or important unless it's perceived to be the best (BEST EVER!!!) or unless it gets a lot of attention (see: every reality-television show ever made).

This is why Americans have a peculiar habit of thinking everything is "totally awesome," and even the most mundane activities were "the best thing ever!" It's the unconscious drive we share for importance and significance, this unmentioned belief, socially beaten into us since birth that if we're not the best at something, then we don't matter.

We're status-obsessed. Our culture is built around achievement, production and being exceptional. Therefore comparing ourselves and attempting to out-do one another has infiltrated our social relationships as well. Who can slam the most beers first? Who can get reservations at the best restaurant? Who knows the promoter to the club? Who dated a girl on the cheerleading squad? Socializing becomes objectified and turned into a competition. And if you're not winning, the implication is that you are not important and no one will like you.

9. We Are Very Unhealthy

Unless you have cancer or something equally dire, the health care system in the US sucks. The World Health Organization ranked the US 37th in the world for health care, despite the fact that we spend the most per capita by a large margin.

The hospitals are nicer in Asia (with European-educated doctors and nurses) and cost a tenth as much. Something as routine as a vaccination costs multiple hundreds of dollars in the US and less than $10 in Colombia. And before you make fun of Colombian hospitals, Colombia is 28th in the world on that WHO list, nine spots higher than us.

A routine STD test that can run you over $200 in the US is free in many countries to anyone, citizen or not. My health insurance the past year? $65 a month. Why? Because I live outside of the US. An American guy I met living in Buenos Aires got knee surgery on his ACL that would have cost $10,000 in the US... for free.

But this isn't really getting into the real problems of our health. Our food is killing us. I'm not going to go crazy with the details, but we eat chemically-laced crap because it's cheaper and tastes better (profit, profit). Our portion sizes are absurd (more profit). And we're by far the most prescribed nation in the world AND our drugs cost five to ten times more than they do even in Canada (ohhhhhhh, profit, you sexy bitch).

In terms of life expectancy, despite being the richest country in the world, we come in a paltry 38th. Right behind Cuba, Malta and the United Arab Emirates, and slightly ahead of Slovenia, Kuwait and Uruguay. Enjoy your Big Mac.

10. We Mistake Comfort For Happiness

The United States is a country built on the exaltation of economic growth and personal ingenuity. Small businesses and constant growth are celebrated and supported above all else - above affordable health care, above respectable education, above everything. Americans believe it's your responsibility to take care of yourself and make something of yourself, not the state's, not your community's, not even your friend's or family's in some instances.

Comfort sells easier than happiness. Comfort is easy. It requires no effort and no work. Happiness takes effort. It requires being proactive, confronting fears, facing difficult situations, and having unpleasant conversations.

Comfort equals sales. We've been sold comfort for generations and for generations we bought: bigger houses, separated further and further out into the suburbs; bigger TV's, more movies, and take-out. The American public is becoming docile and complacent. We're obese and entitled. When we travel, we look for giant hotels that will insulate us and pamper us rather than for legitimate cultural experiences that may challenge our perspectives or help us grow as individuals.

Depression and anxiety disorders are soaring within the US. Our inability to confront anything unpleasant around us has not only created a national sense of entitlement, but it's disconnected us from what actually drives happiness: relationships, unique experiences, feeling self-validated, achieving personal goals. It's easier to watch a NASCAR race on television and tweet about it than to actually get out and try something new with a friend.

Unfortunately, a by-product of our massive commercial success is that we're able to avoid the necessary emotional struggles of life in lieu of easy superficial pleasures.


Throughout history, every dominant civilization eventually collapsed because it became TOO successful. What made it powerful and unique grows out of proportion and consumes its society. I think this is true for American society. We're complacent, entitled and unhealthy. My generation is the first generation of Americans who will be worse off than their parents, economically, physically and emotionally. And this is not due to a lack of resources, to a lack of education or to a lack of ingenuity. It's corruption and complacency. The corruption from the massive industries that control our government's policies, and the fat complacency of the people to sit around and let it happen.

There are things I love about my country. I don't hate the US and I still return to it a few times a year. But I think the greatest flaw of American culture is our blind self-absorption. In the past it only hurt other countries. But now it's starting to hurt ourselves.

So this is my lecture to my alcoholic brother - my own flavor of arrogance and self-absorption, even if slightly more informed - in hopes he'll give up his wayward ways. I imagine it'll fall on deaf ears, but it's the most I can do for now. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some funny cat pictures to look at.

Monday, July 15, 2013

Toxic chemicals in personal care products causing 'epidemic' of skin allergies

© Natural News
Toxic chemicals in personal care products causing 'epidemic' of skin allergies
July 14, 2013 | Natural News | Ethan A. Huff

Be careful which facial creams, shampoos, moisturizing soaps and other personal care products you buy and use, as many of them apparently contain a chemical linked to causing what some experts have now dubbed an "epidemic" of skin allergies and other dermal issues. A new report compiled by dermatologists reveals how the preservative chemical methylisothiazolinone, or MI for short, has led to a massive increase in eczema and other skin allergies in recent years, and calls on regulators to ban the chemical.

Long used in many conventional care products as a deterrent for bacteria and other harmful pathogens, and as an alternative to toxic parabens, MI is generally recognized by regulatory authorities in both the U.S. and Europe as safe and non-toxic. But its practical use in the real world tells a much different story, with many people reporting severe allergic and other negative reactions when exposed to it. The situation has gotten so out of control, according to reports, that some dermatologists are now calling for an immediate moratorium.

"We are in the midst of an outbreak of allergy to a preservative which we have not seen before in terms of scale in our lifetime," says Dr. John McFadden, a consultant dermatologist at St. John's Institute of Dermatology in London, as quoted by the Telegraph. "Many of our patients have suffered acute dermatitis with redness and swelling of the face. I would ask the cosmetics industry not to wait for legislation but to get on and address the problem before the situation gets worse."

Levels of MI in personal care products have increased over the years 

In years past, MI was mixed with other preservatives, so its concentration was relatively low. But as these other chemicals were phased out due to their own tendencies to cause skin allergies, MI stuck around as an isolated chemical. According to the Telegraph, concentrations of MI in personal care products today are as high as 100 parts per million (ppm), up 2,500 percent from around 4 ppm in previous formulations.

"This new epidemic of allergic contact dermatitis from isothiazolinones is causing harm to European citizens," wrote Margarida Goncalo, President of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD), in a recent letter to the European Commission. "Urgent action is required."

According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a consumer watchdog organization, MI is moderately hazardous, having been linked to various allergies and immune disorders. Studies identified by the group also link MI to brain cell damage, and the chemical has been implicated in causing nerve damage in humans.

Avoid products that contain MI by consulting the GoodGuide 

Some companies have already begun to quietly and voluntarily phase out the use of MI in their products, but many other brands such as Nivea, Wet Ones, and Dove still use it, according to reports. Even some popular "natural" brands like Seventh Generation and Burt's Bees use MI in their product formulations.

You can view a complete list of known products that contain MI by visiting GoodGuide.com:
http://www.goodguide.com

"[A] brief exposure to methylisothiazolinone, a widely used industrial and household biocide, is highly toxic to cultured neurons," explains a 2002 study out of the University of Pittsburgh that was published in the Journal of Neuroscience. "Because of their widespread use, the neurotoxic consequences of both acute and chronic human exposure to these toxins need to be evaluated."

Sources for this article include:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk

http://metro.co.uk

http://www.ewg.org

http://www.annmariegianni.com

http://www.skininc.com

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Sunday, July 14, 2013

2012: The Top Fifteen Selling Vaccines

2012: The Top Fifteen Selling Vaccines
July 14, 2013 | Activist Post | Norma Erickson

The ‘medical miracle’ of vaccines has proven quite miraculous on at least one front, the financial one. Investors in the manufacture, distribution and administration of vaccines have reaped handsome rewards since the creation of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA).

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC):

The topic of vaccine safety became prominent during the mid 1970s with increases in lawsuits filed on behalf of those presumably injured by the diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus (DPT) vaccine. Legal decisions were made and damages awarded despite the lack of scientific evidence to support vaccine injury claims. As a result of these decisions, liability and prices soared, and several manufacturers halted production. A vaccine shortage resulted and public health officials became concerned about the return of epidemic disease. To reduce liability and respond to public health concerns, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) in 1986.
This change in liability created an environment where vaccine manufacturers could evolve from threatening to get out of the vaccine production business to generating the following sales in 2012:(1)

  1. Prevnar 13® – $3.718 billion – Pfizer
  2. Gardasil® – $1.900 billion – Merck & Co/Sanofli Pasteur MSD
  3. PENTAct-HIB – $1.522 billion – Sanofli/Sanofli Pasteur MSD
  4. Infanrix/Pediarix – $1.183 billion – by GlaxoSmithKline
  5. Fluzone – $1.152 billion – by Sanofli/Sanofli Pasteur MSD
  6. Hepatitis franchise – $986 million – by GlaxoSmithKline
  7. Varivax – $846 million – by Merck & Co/Sanofli Pasteur MSD
  8. Menactra – $735 million – by Sanofli/Sanofli Pasteur
  9. Zostavax – $651 million – by Merck & Co/Sanofli Pasteur
  10. RotaTeq® – $648 million – by Merck & Co/Sanofli Pasteur
  11. Synflorix® – $587 million – by GlaxoSmithKline
  12. Pneumovax®23 – $580 million – by Merck & Co/Sanofli Pasteur
  13. Rotarix – $549 million – by GlaxoSmithKline
  14. Adacel – $469 million – by Sanofli/Sanofli Pasteur MSD
  15. Prevnar – $399 million – by Pfizer
For the five producers of the top 15 vaccines, this is a total of $15.925 billion; not at all bad for an industry that was threatening to close down operations 30 years ago. Apparently, limited liability does wonders for the bottom line.

Whether the miraculous nature of the limited liability vaccination programs instituted since the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created extends to safety and efficacy remains hotly debated.

 For instance, in 1980 there were three recommended vaccines given in five shots before age 2; DPT (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis), MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) and OPV (oral polio vaccine). The autism rate in 1980 was estimated at 2/10,000. Now, children could receive as many as 24 shots by 2 years of age and five shots in a single visit (2) and the autism rate is now 1/88. (3)

No, this information does not prove causation. However, any reasonable person can see that a correlation exists. This correlation needs to be thoroughly investigated by people who are not stakeholders in vaccines or vaccination programs.

Until that research is completed, exercise your right to informed consent.(4) Do your research.

Get these questions answered before you decide if a vaccine is right for you or your child:

  • How serious is the disease being vaccinated against?
  • What are the chances of being exposed to this disease?
  • What is the normal outcome of contracting this disease?
  • What is the worst case scenario of contracting this disease?
  • What are the ingredients in this vaccine?
  • Do I have an allergy to any of the vaccine ingredients?
  • How effective is this vaccine?
  • What are the adverse effects currently associated with this vaccine?
  • Have I experienced an adverse reaction to any prior vaccination?
  • Does my family’s health history make me more likely to suffer an adverse reaction to this vaccine?
  • Does my current state of health indicate I can be vaccinated now, should wait to vaccinate later, or not vaccinate at all?
  • What are the alternative ways to protect against this disease?
Above all, remember vaccines can and do cause injury or death for some individuals.

Don’t play vaccine roulette – evaluate the risks, benefits, and alternatives – be a wise medical consumer!

References:

Top 15 Selling Vaccines of 2012, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, July 2013
History of Vaccine Schedule, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, reviewed by Paul A. Offit, MD
Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), CDC
Informed Consent, Medline Plus, National Institutes of Health

Norma Erickson is the President of SaneVax, Inc. Please visit for the latest vaccine and health news.

Interview with Vandana Shiva: Sowing Seeds of Health, Hope and Humanity

Interview with Vandana Shiva: Sowing Seeds of Health, Hope and Humanity
July 13, 2013 | Green Med Info | Linda Sechrest

Interview by Linda Sechrist

About Vandana Shiva, Ph.D.: a scientist, philosopher, environmental activist, author and eco-feminist. The founder of Navdanya, a seed freedom movement in India to promote native seeds, Shiva is a formidable opponent in the global battle over genetically modified seed, which she links to problems in our ecology, economy and humanity. Shiva is a keynote speaker at the Great Lakes Bioneers Chicago conference this month.
You believe that we need a new paradigm for living on the Earth because the old one is not working. What does that new paradigm look like?
The old paradigm is based on fragmented thought, mechanistic science and on a deepening division between humans on the basis of class—the 1 percent versus 99 percent of the Occupy movement—as well as on gender, race and greed as a virtue. The emerging paradigm, which many of us are now seeing, is based on interconnectedness and equality as diversity, rather than on uniformity, as well as sharing and caring as virtues.
How does your education in quantum theory and the science of interconnection play into the new paradigm?
I wrote my Ph.D. thesis on the Foundations of Quantum Theory, especially the aspect of non-locality or nonseparability, which acknowledges the interconnectedness of the universe.

Quantum theory—the science of interconnectedness, which is the nature of reality—teaches us nonseparability, which is built into the new science of quantum theory and the new biology. Separation between humans and nature was intrinsic to the old mechanistic assumptions developed during the 1600s and 1700s by French philosopher and mathematician, René Descartes; English scientist, Francis Bacon; and English physicist, Sir Isaac Newton.

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox, developed by Albert Einstein and his colleagues, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, has shown that when a quantum system is subdivided and the two subsystems are separated in space and time, their state is nonseparable. I agree with physicists such as Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Ernst Pauli and David Bohm, who stressed the non-separable wholeness of the universe of physical phenomena.
Which epic myths are you debunking about our industrialized food system?
The first myth is that it is efficient. Using 10 units of energy to produce one unit of food as energy is not efficient.

The second myth is that it improves farmers' livelihoods. In India, 270,000 farmers have been pushed to suicide, and the majority of family-owned farms in the U.S. have disappeared.

The third myth is that it produces more food. Our study and numerous studies conducted by the United Nations show that ecological farming produces more food.

Most industrial-farmed food now is dedicated to ethanol production for cars and to feeding animals in factory farms. It is not food for people. We have food deserts in cities and in the countryside.
What is the Declaration on Seed Freedom? Why is it important that people sign it?
It is important for everyone to sign the Declaration on Seed Freedom because seed is the first link in the food chain. If we lose seed freedom, we lose food freedom. Seed freedom is threatened by genetically engineered seeds, which are contaminating our farms, thus closing the option for GMO-free food for all.

The seed freedom of farmers is threatened when, after contaminating our crops, corporations sue farmers for "stealing their property." It is also threatened by the deliberate transformation of the seed from a renewable, self-generative resource to a non-renewable, patented commodity. The most extreme case of non-renewable seed is the "Terminator Technology", developed with the aim to create sterile seed.

Thirty years ago, most North American and European seed companies were small, family-owned businesses that specialized in varieties adapted to regional climates, with resistance to local pests and diseases. Today, just 10 companies control 30 percent of the commercial seed market worldwide. Just five vegetable seed companies control 75 percent of the global vegetable seed market. Some of these companies, such as Monsanto, are imposing genetically engineered, patented seed on small farmers and are denying citizens' labeling. In effect, they are robbing us of our most fundamental freedom, our food freedom.
What is the Earth Democracy movement?
I refer to the new paradigm as Earth Democracy, which recognizes that the Earth and all her beings, including humans, have rights and freedoms; that we are interconnected in a web of life, and are all members of an Earth Family. Earth Democracy enables us to make transitions to a living democracy, living economy and living cultures that celebrate life.
How is what is happening in India important here in the U.S.?
The U.S. and India have become deeply intertwined through dominant corporate globalization and Earth Democracy. Monsanto; Cargill, Incorporated; and Walmart are trying to take over India's food and agriculture like they took over food and agriculture in the U.S. Our movements to resist corporate takeover of our seed, our food and our markets need to be connected.
Can Navdanya, the seed freedom movement you founded in India, be repeated in other countries?
At the Navdanya biodiversity and organic farm in Doon Valley, in Uttarakhand, North India [set at the foothills of the Himalayas], more than 630 varieties of plants are growing, butterflies are flourishing, and earthworms fertilize our soils. People from all over the world come here to learn and observe. For example, our A-Z course on organic farming attracted 55 people from 12 countries.

My colleagues in Italy have started Navdanya there. And the Seed Freedom movement spreading across the world shows that what is being done by Navdanya in India is relevant worldwide.
How has your experience at Navdanya shown you that the future of cities, in any country, lies in gardens and organic connections to the countryside?
As we evolved Navdanya on the basis of diversity and decentralization to offer an alternative to the monoculture and centralization, it became evident that cities can be sources of their own food through urban gardens, and can create their own foodshed by more intimate connections with the countryside. This improves the well-being of the country, those who farm in the country, and those who live in cities. It is a concrete step towards creating Earth Democracy.
What has led you to the conclusion that living cities should be cultivated organically and that living food is the basis for living communities?
Over the past three decades, beginning with my study on the Green Revolution, I realized that chemicals, monoculture and giant farms as the basis of food security constitute a lie that we have been sold.

During the past 25 years, my Navdanya experience has helped me to realize that good farming is like gardening. Biodiverse small farms produce more food and nutrition than large industrial farms. Navdanya's concept of "Health per Acre" measures nutrition and quality of food instead of the "yield" of commodities.

Industrial food has created a killing culture, which is killing biodiversity, the soil, farmers and our health. Organic agriculture creates living food and living communities.
How does ecological connectedness promote a sense of common humanity?
Ecological interconnectedness is based on Earth citizenship. As citizens of the Earth, we breathe the same air, drink water in the same hydrological cycle, and eat food from a common food web. This makes us aware of our common humanity, and our common rights and responsibilities to the Earth and each other.
Do you have any suggestions for how people in the U.S. can fight for food labeling of genetically engineered food?
The California vote is only one step in labeling of GMOs. Other steps need to be based on creating local, organic, GMO-free food systems.
You have fought Coca-Cola and other multinational giants over the privatization of water in your native India. Now you are doing battle with Monsanto over genetically modified seeds. What keeps you going?
We have a beautiful text in India, the Bhagavad Gita, in which [Hindu deity/avatar] Krishna gives a simple lesson: Do not measure the fruit of your action; rather, measure your obligation of action. You have to find out what is the right thing to do. That is your duty. Whether you win or lose is not an issue. The obligation to do the right thing is the issue.

From childhood, I have been an ecologist and nature lover. My right thing and duty is to protect the diversity of species and their intrinsic value. Their integrity is vital, as are the rights of our farmers to have seed—the most fundamental source of livelihood in a poor country. Today, 80 percent of the world's food is produced by small farmers such as those that we have in India. Our small farmers are 1.2 billion East Indians.

I believe that we have forgotten what smallness means when it is multiplied many times. We've also become accustomed to the dinosaur mentality. We only see the big and have forgotten that dinosaurs are extinct.

To learn more about Navdanya and its mission to protect nature and people's rights to knowledge, biodiversity, water and food, visit Navdanya.org. For information and to register for the Great Lakes Bioneers Chicago conference, visit BioneersChicago.org.

About the Author 

Linda Sechrist is the Senior Staff writer, editor and National Director for Community Outreach for Natural Awakenings, a healthy lifestyle magazine actively publishing in 80 U.S. major markets, with 3 million readers a month. She is the founder of ItsAllAboutWe.com and radio host of the upcoming Greenmedinfo.com sponsored show, part of the World Health Freedom forum, the official radio network of the National Health Federation.