Thursday, February 23, 2006
US wins one in the world court
It seems the US has scored one on its European competitors.
In a suit against European Union countries brought by the United States, Canada and Argentina, the World Trade Organization has ruled that they must allow genetically modified (GM) crops and foods. Details of the ruling are secret, but it is generally viewed as a big boost for US exports and the biotech industry, led by Monsanto.
Europeans are not so sure about the decision. One poll suggests that 54% of European consumers think GM foods are dangerous. Another poll puts the number at 62%.
Europeans need to be concerned. No comprehensive, independent studies have been done on the safety of GM foods. Industry studies say it is safe. No surprise! The few independent studies suggest we need to be worried.
See Kerry Capell. (2006, February 9) Now, will Europe swallow Frankenfoods? Business Week Online.
In a suit against European Union countries brought by the United States, Canada and Argentina, the World Trade Organization has ruled that they must allow genetically modified (GM) crops and foods. Details of the ruling are secret, but it is generally viewed as a big boost for US exports and the biotech industry, led by Monsanto.
Europeans are not so sure about the decision. One poll suggests that 54% of European consumers think GM foods are dangerous. Another poll puts the number at 62%.
Europeans need to be concerned. No comprehensive, independent studies have been done on the safety of GM foods. Industry studies say it is safe. No surprise! The few independent studies suggest we need to be worried.
See Kerry Capell. (2006, February 9) Now, will Europe swallow Frankenfoods? Business Week Online.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Is aspartame safe?
On February 12 the Calorie Control Council issued a statement that a rat study conducted by Italy's Ramazzini Institute is totally contradictory to the extensive scientific research and regulatory reviews conducted on aspartame. The statement further indicated that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has said they are not recommending any changes in the use of aspartame. According to Dr.George Pauli of the FDA, "FDA requested the data from the Ramazzini study in July 2005 but we have as not yet received the data. The agency cannot, therefore, comment on the study until it has the opportunity to review the study data, in depth. Based on the large body of evidence we have reviewed, including several studies on carcinogenicity, which showed no adverse effects and data on how aspartame is metabolized by humans, we have no reason to believe that aspartame would cause cancer. Thus, it remains FDA's position that use [of aspartame] is safe."(PR News Wire. (February 12, 2006). Overwhelming Scientific Evidence Confirms Safety of Aspartame; FDA, Others Affirm Safety of Aspartame.)
The statement was issued on the same day that the New York Times ran an article entitled "The lowdown on sweet?" which described the findings of Dr. Morando Soffritti, a cancer researcher in Bologna, Italy. A seven year study he conducted found that the sweetener was associated with unusually highrates of lymphomas, leukemias and other cancers in rats that had been given doses of it starting at what would be equivalent to four to five 20-ounce bottles of diet soda a day for a 150-pound person. The study, which involved 1,900 laboratory rats and cost $1 million, was conducted at the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, a nonprofit organization that studies cancer-causing substances.
According to the New York Times, "The findings, first released last July, prompted a flurry of criticism from the Calorie Control Council, a trade group for makers of artificial sweeteners that has spent the last 25 years trying to quell fears about aspartame. It said Dr. Soffritti's study flew in the face of four earlier cancer studies that aspartame's creator, G. D. Searle & Company, had underwritten and used to persuade the Food and Drug Administration to approve it for human consumption."
So who do we believe?
According to Jeffrey Smith, about 165 peer reviewed studies were conducted on aspartame by 1995. They were divided almost evenly between those who found no problems and those who raised questions about its safety. Of those that found no problem with aspartame, 100 percent were paid by GD Searle, the manufacturer of the sweetener. During the period of the studies, GD Searle was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Monsanto.
Now that raises questions in my mind about the validity of those studies that support aspartame. As a matter of fact, according to Smith, research in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that studies of cancer drugs funded by non-profit groups were eight times more likely to reach unfavorable conclusions than studies funded by pharmaceutical companies. Another study of 800 scientists showed that a third had financial interests in the companies they were doing research for. This raises real questions about the ethics of research and conflicts of interest.
As for my conflicts of interest, I'm married to a woman who firmly believes in natural remedies and sells Tahitian Noni Juice. Am I unbiased? Heck no! But who is?
See Jeffrey M. Smith. (2003). The Seeds of Deception. Fairfield, IA: Yes! Books.
The statement was issued on the same day that the New York Times ran an article entitled "The lowdown on sweet?" which described the findings of Dr. Morando Soffritti, a cancer researcher in Bologna, Italy. A seven year study he conducted found that the sweetener was associated with unusually highrates of lymphomas, leukemias and other cancers in rats that had been given doses of it starting at what would be equivalent to four to five 20-ounce bottles of diet soda a day for a 150-pound person. The study, which involved 1,900 laboratory rats and cost $1 million, was conducted at the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, a nonprofit organization that studies cancer-causing substances.
According to the New York Times, "The findings, first released last July, prompted a flurry of criticism from the Calorie Control Council, a trade group for makers of artificial sweeteners that has spent the last 25 years trying to quell fears about aspartame. It said Dr. Soffritti's study flew in the face of four earlier cancer studies that aspartame's creator, G. D. Searle & Company, had underwritten and used to persuade the Food and Drug Administration to approve it for human consumption."
So who do we believe?
According to Jeffrey Smith, about 165 peer reviewed studies were conducted on aspartame by 1995. They were divided almost evenly between those who found no problems and those who raised questions about its safety. Of those that found no problem with aspartame, 100 percent were paid by GD Searle, the manufacturer of the sweetener. During the period of the studies, GD Searle was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Monsanto.
Now that raises questions in my mind about the validity of those studies that support aspartame. As a matter of fact, according to Smith, research in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that studies of cancer drugs funded by non-profit groups were eight times more likely to reach unfavorable conclusions than studies funded by pharmaceutical companies. Another study of 800 scientists showed that a third had financial interests in the companies they were doing research for. This raises real questions about the ethics of research and conflicts of interest.
As for my conflicts of interest, I'm married to a woman who firmly believes in natural remedies and sells Tahitian Noni Juice. Am I unbiased? Heck no! But who is?
See Jeffrey M. Smith. (2003). The Seeds of Deception. Fairfield, IA: Yes! Books.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Research needed about GM foods
"The C.D.C. now says that food is responsible for twice the number of illnesses in the United States as scientists thought just seven years ago. Many of the illnesses stem from improper handling of food, either by kitchen workers or consumers themselves, but some health officials say this has always been the case and, if anything, treatment of food has improved over the years. At least 80 percent of food-related illnesses are caused by viruses or other pathogens that scientists cannot even identify." Greg Winter. (2001, March 21). "Contaminated Food Makes Millions Ill Despite Advances." New York Times.
According to Jeffrey Smith (Seeds of Deception, 2003, p. 39), this increase in illnesses roughly corresponds with the time that Americans have been eating genetically modifed (GM) foods. Obesity has skyrocketed during the same period. Diabetes rose 33 percent and we are seeing the increase in incidence of many other illnesses, as well.
Smith asks, "Is there a connection to GM foods?" We don't know because no one has looked for a connection.
The reason, according to Smith, is that scientists are afraid to research in the area. The amount of public humiliation that follows is not worth it. If the pattern is followed with previous research, the biotech industry and its allies do as much as possible to discredit the researchers. (Smith describes in detail how the GM industry in the United Kingdom tried to discredit Arpan Pusztai.)
Government has bought into the biotech revolution and so there is no money available for research that doesn't support the industry. For whatever reason (possibly big advertising dollars), the US media virtually ignores the dangers of GM foods or runs stories supportive of the industry.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has adopted a policy that GM foods are assumed to be safe unless research proves otherwise (Smith, 2003, p. 11). The result has been that 80 percent of the soy and 38 percent of the corn planted in the US in 2003 was genetically engineered. These crops are found in about 70 percent of processed foods (p. 38). Farmers have bought into GM crops because they have been engineered to kill insects and allow for spraying for weeds.
It's time our legislators demand the research that will clear up this issue. The news media need to put public interest first and provide the indepth reporting that will educate the US public. Researchers need to put the public interest ahead of their careers. We need to know for sure the effects of eating GM foods.
According to Jeffrey Smith (Seeds of Deception, 2003, p. 39), this increase in illnesses roughly corresponds with the time that Americans have been eating genetically modifed (GM) foods. Obesity has skyrocketed during the same period. Diabetes rose 33 percent and we are seeing the increase in incidence of many other illnesses, as well.
Smith asks, "Is there a connection to GM foods?" We don't know because no one has looked for a connection.
The reason, according to Smith, is that scientists are afraid to research in the area. The amount of public humiliation that follows is not worth it. If the pattern is followed with previous research, the biotech industry and its allies do as much as possible to discredit the researchers. (Smith describes in detail how the GM industry in the United Kingdom tried to discredit Arpan Pusztai.)
Government has bought into the biotech revolution and so there is no money available for research that doesn't support the industry. For whatever reason (possibly big advertising dollars), the US media virtually ignores the dangers of GM foods or runs stories supportive of the industry.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has adopted a policy that GM foods are assumed to be safe unless research proves otherwise (Smith, 2003, p. 11). The result has been that 80 percent of the soy and 38 percent of the corn planted in the US in 2003 was genetically engineered. These crops are found in about 70 percent of processed foods (p. 38). Farmers have bought into GM crops because they have been engineered to kill insects and allow for spraying for weeds.
It's time our legislators demand the research that will clear up this issue. The news media need to put public interest first and provide the indepth reporting that will educate the US public. Researchers need to put the public interest ahead of their careers. We need to know for sure the effects of eating GM foods.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Is it not time to take action against Mexico?
The January 15, 2006 edition of the Ontario, California Daily Bulletin reported that Mexican military and police have made 216 incursions into the United States since 1996. This includes incidents where U.S. officials and citizens have been fired upon. Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff claims the stories have been over blown.
However, the latest incident which occurred January 24 was not overblown. Hudspeth County Sheriff deputoes and Texas Department of Public Safety troopers chased drug runners to the Rio Grande. They came face-to-face with men in Mexican military uniforms who had set up machine guns on the American side of the border. They backed off when they realized they were outgunned. The Mexican soldiers helped the drug smugglers cross the river, at one point trying to pull a smugglers' SUV out of the river. Before abandoning the SUV, the Mexicans torched it.
U.S. officials have been instructed to avoid confrontations at the border "no matter what." Is it not time to make Mexico accountable for these acts of aggression? See William F. Jasper ( 2006, February 5). "Mexican Military Incursions Into U.S. " The New American. Retrieved February 14, 2006 from http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_3228.shtml
However, the latest incident which occurred January 24 was not overblown. Hudspeth County Sheriff deputoes and Texas Department of Public Safety troopers chased drug runners to the Rio Grande. They came face-to-face with men in Mexican military uniforms who had set up machine guns on the American side of the border. They backed off when they realized they were outgunned. The Mexican soldiers helped the drug smugglers cross the river, at one point trying to pull a smugglers' SUV out of the river. Before abandoning the SUV, the Mexicans torched it.
U.S. officials have been instructed to avoid confrontations at the border "no matter what." Is it not time to make Mexico accountable for these acts of aggression? See William F. Jasper ( 2006, February 5). "Mexican Military Incursions Into U.S. " The New American. Retrieved February 14, 2006 from http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_3228.shtml
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Government in the Shadows
On September 11, 2001, the day of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, President Bush (or was it Vice President Dick Cheney) reinstituted a practice started by Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s. They established a shadow government which would take over if the current government leaders were murdered. No one in Congress was informed - not even Majority Leader Dennis Hastert or senator Robert C. Byrd, the president pro tempore of the Senate, the elected officials who were by law the first and second in line of succession after the vice president.
Immediately after 9/11, according to James Bamford (A Pretext for War, Anchor Books, 2004), nearly one hundred officials were secreted away in two "doomsday" sites in Virginia and Pennsylvania. President Bush hid in the Virginia site at Mount Weather; Vice President Cheney in the Pennsylvania site near Camp David. Soon after the "shadow" government was established at these two protected sites, Congressional leaders were also brought there.
This story has all the elements of a Hollywood blockbuster - another "Manchurian Candidate." Surely somone in government must have recognized how stupid it was to bring all the nation's leaders under two roofs. Even if the bunkers couldn't be penetrated from the outside, it is a situation ripe for a coup from the inside. Congressional leaders would have been safer in their home ridings.
The formation of a secret shadow government is unconstitutional. Any such body would have to be approved by Congress. Afterall Senate ascent is required for any executive appointments. If by some unforseeable chance both the president and vice president were to die at the same time, the rules of succession allow for a new executive and process for the appointment of government officials. Let the rule of law prevail rather than contravening the law by appointing a "shadow" government that has no basis in law.
Immediately after 9/11, according to James Bamford (A Pretext for War, Anchor Books, 2004), nearly one hundred officials were secreted away in two "doomsday" sites in Virginia and Pennsylvania. President Bush hid in the Virginia site at Mount Weather; Vice President Cheney in the Pennsylvania site near Camp David. Soon after the "shadow" government was established at these two protected sites, Congressional leaders were also brought there.
This story has all the elements of a Hollywood blockbuster - another "Manchurian Candidate." Surely somone in government must have recognized how stupid it was to bring all the nation's leaders under two roofs. Even if the bunkers couldn't be penetrated from the outside, it is a situation ripe for a coup from the inside. Congressional leaders would have been safer in their home ridings.
The formation of a secret shadow government is unconstitutional. Any such body would have to be approved by Congress. Afterall Senate ascent is required for any executive appointments. If by some unforseeable chance both the president and vice president were to die at the same time, the rules of succession allow for a new executive and process for the appointment of government officials. Let the rule of law prevail rather than contravening the law by appointing a "shadow" government that has no basis in law.
President Bush and the NSA
President Bush's empowerment of the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without court authorization directly contravenes the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which protects Americans "against unreasonable searches and seizures." Not since Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus has the U.S. constitution been at such risk.
Bush claims expediency and the need for speed required his actions. However, according to The New American (February 6, 2006), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) already provides that the Attorney General can apply for a warrant within 72 hours after initiating surveillance. FISA judges have only turned down five requests of 19,000 made since 1979.
In a Dec. 17, 2005 radio broadcast, President Bush argued that his actions would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists who crashed a plane into the Pentagon. They had made phone calls overseas to other members of al Qaeda prior to the attack. However, these terrorists and other 9/11 murderers were already under FBI surveillance but upper echelons in government wouldn't act upon the FBI agents' warnings. The President's current actions in circumventing the Constitution would not have helped the incompetence surrounding the 9/11 tragedy.
What is required is greater vigilance and greater cooperation among U.S. agencies (which now may be happening). In addition, the U.S. needs to close its borders to illegal immigrants and imprison and immediately expel foreigners who violate their visas. This president is unwilling to do that and until Congress is persuaded to act against illegal immigrants, nothing will happen.
Bush claims expediency and the need for speed required his actions. However, according to The New American (February 6, 2006), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) already provides that the Attorney General can apply for a warrant within 72 hours after initiating surveillance. FISA judges have only turned down five requests of 19,000 made since 1979.
In a Dec. 17, 2005 radio broadcast, President Bush argued that his actions would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists who crashed a plane into the Pentagon. They had made phone calls overseas to other members of al Qaeda prior to the attack. However, these terrorists and other 9/11 murderers were already under FBI surveillance but upper echelons in government wouldn't act upon the FBI agents' warnings. The President's current actions in circumventing the Constitution would not have helped the incompetence surrounding the 9/11 tragedy.
What is required is greater vigilance and greater cooperation among U.S. agencies (which now may be happening). In addition, the U.S. needs to close its borders to illegal immigrants and imprison and immediately expel foreigners who violate their visas. This president is unwilling to do that and until Congress is persuaded to act against illegal immigrants, nothing will happen.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
