Thursday, January 30, 2014

Monsanto’s Bt-Toxins Found to Kill Human Embryo Cells

People show be interested to know that Monsanto’s (NYSE:MON) Bt-toxin is far from ‘safe’ as the chemical company claimed it would be when filing their papers with the FDA.

New research from Canada show that BT toxins are showing up in pregnant women, and low and they are killing human embryo cells.

Y 2014 is the Year of the Horse, but advocated not through beating this horse to death.

It is called reproductive toxicology, and just like their suicide seeds, these Bt toxins are starting to kill unborn children. This is no exaggeration.

Advocacy groups are saying now is the  time to put Monsanto to “rest” amnd  bankrupt them, and let the world know their ‘Secrets.’

Bt toxins are prominent in genetically altered crops (GMOs) such as Corn, Soybean, Wheat, and others, called Cry1Ab, and they can be lethal according to the  study

Not only do these cry-toxins target the kidney cells of developing human fetuses, but when Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac are combined with RoundUp, they can delay apoptosis of human cancer cells.

What is  worse, glyphosate, the main ingredient in RoundUp, also causes necrosis , i.e. the death of human tissue, and this happens even when the substance is found in much smaller amounts than what is currently being used on our agricultural crops, it is carcinogenic in the parts per trillion range.

In its rush to stay the ‘agricultural leader’ of the world, the US government erected defunct regulatory bodies that have no means to truly examine the ramifications of biotechnology on our food.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) is a joke and the FDA gave Monsanto a pass to run rampant over the the food supply.

The Organic Seed Grower’s Association sued Monsanto in Y 2011, and Idaho Wheat growers are suing Monsanto for cross-contamination.

The Big Q: what about parental groups?

Mother’s Against Drunk Driving was formed when a mom lost her baby to a drunk driver. Perhaps the mothers who face reproductive failure due to Monsanto’s hand can sue them too.

The FDA’s internal memos about their concerns surrounding GMO seed crops recently surfaced in a lawsuit, though the public was not meant to see them.

GMO foods are not the foods we have always eaten, to say we have is a lie.

Be safe, avoid GMOs while you write your Senators, Representatives, Congressman, and President, protest, let them know you, and your love ones want to live…

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Simple Way to Make Stem Cells Hailed as Major Discovery

A radical and remarkably easy way to make cells that can grow into any tissue in the body has been developed by scientists in Japan.

The feat has been hailed as a major discovery by researchers familiar with the work, and if it can be repeated in human tissue, could lead to cheap and simple procedures to make patient-matched stem cells that could repair damaged or diseased organs.

In a series of elegant experiments, researchers showed that cells plucked from animals could be turned into all-powerful master cells simply by immersing them in a mildly acidic solution for half an hour.

To demonstrate the potential of the cells, the scientists injected them into mouse embryos and showed that they grew into tissues and organs throughout the animals' bodies.

Haruko Obokata at the Riken lab in Kobe, Japan, told the Guardian that her team had created several dozen mice that had tissues grown from the cells, and had followed their health for one to two years. "So far they appear to be healthy, fertile, and normal," she said.

The finding has stunned many researchers because previous attempts to make stem cells have been fraught with difficulties. One route is cloning, which is controversial because it involves the creation and destruction of embryos. A more recent method, called induced pluripotency, uses genetic manipulation to convert adult cells into a more flexible, immature state.

The work, reported in two papers in the journal Nature, was "a major scientific discovery that will be opening a new era in stem-cell biology," said Dusko Ilic, a stem-cell scientist at King's College London.

His enthusiasm was shared by Chris Mason, a stem-cell expert at University College London. "If it works in man, this could be the game changer that ultimately makes a wide range of cell therapies available using the patient's own cells as starting material," he said.

Obokata started work on the procedure five years ago while working at Harvard Medical School. The idea came to her after noticing by chance that cells that had been squeezed through a thin tube shrank to the size of stem cells. She went on to look more closely at what effects different kinds of stress – from heat, starvation and acidic conditions – had on cells.

After years of perfecting the experiments, Obokata showed that she could convert white blood cells taken from newborn mice into cells that behaved very much like stem cells. She went on to do the same with brain, skin, muscle, bone marrow, lung and liver cells. "It was very surprising to see that such a remarkable transformation could be triggered simply by stimuli from the outside," she said.

Much More Here

Stem cell therapy for various diseases – all your queries answered

Medical science has come a long way and scientists are finding better and more efficient ways to cure diseases. Stem cell therapy is one of the methods that has the potential to cure a wide range of diseases in the future and some say it is the future of all treatments. A lot of parents are even preserving stem cells of their newborn baby in order to ensure treatment for them when they grow older. In this post, we’ll tell you more about stem cell therapy and the various diseases it may treat.
What is it?
Stem cells are derived from human umbilical cord or bone marrow. Also called the ‘basic cells’ of our body they have the power to mature into any type of tissue cell in the body. Stem cell therapy is based on the principle that stem cells migrate to the site of the injury and transform themselves to form new tissue cells that can replace the damaged ones. They have the capacity to multiply and renew themselves almost indefinitely and can form mature nerve cells, muscle cells and blood cells. In this therapy they are taken out of the body, and kept under artificial conditions (also called as induction of the stem cells) where they mature into the type of cells that are required to heal a particular part of the body. 
There are two types of treatments:
Autologous stem cell therapy: This method uses the patient’s own stem cells (adult stem cells) which are obtained from the blood, bone marrow etc.
Allogenic stem cell therapy: This therapy uses donated stem cells. The disadvantage in this therapy is that in a number of cases these donor stem cells may be rejected. This method of stem cell therapy has not yet been legalised in India.
What are the diseases that can be cured using stem cell therapy?
Stem cells can be used to treat a variety of blood cancers, blood disorders including anaemic anaemia, tumours, immune disorders and metabolic disorders. Also clinical trials on which suggest that in the future stems from the umbilical cord can be used to treat Alzheimer’sParkinson’shydrocephalusliver cirrhosisstrokes and traumatic brain injuries. Research is also on to check its application for treating type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy and rheumatoid arthritis. Besides these, here are some diseases and conditions that may be cured using stem cell therapy.
Peripheral nerve injury
A team of researchers has successfully rescued peripheral nerves in the upper arms of a patient suffering peripheral nerve damage by using skin-derived stem cells (SDSCs) and a previously developed collagen tube designed to successfully bridge gaps in injured nerves in rat models. (Read more..)
A recent research by Markus J. Maeurer and colleagues from Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm found the potential of bone marrow stem cell therapy to treat MDR- TB and extensively drug resistant TB (XDR-TB) patients. The study found that patients infused with new mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) derived from their own bone marrow showed boosting response rates against the MDR-TB bacteria. Out of 30 MDR-TB patients involved in the study, 16 patients showed no signs of infection by the end of 18 months. Moreover, the therapy didn’t show any serious adverse effects. (Read more..)
Hair loss
Stem cells are also used to treat hair loss. In this process, a small amount of fat is taken from the waist area of the person whose hair is being treated through a mini-liposuction process. This fat, which contains dormant stem cells, is then put in a centrifuge and spun to separate the stem cells from the fat. Once that is done, an activation solution is added to these cells. The cells might have to be multiplied in number depending on the size of the bald area that needs coverage. Once activated, the solution is washed off so that only cells remain. Now, the stem cells are injected into the scalp where hair loss has appeared. One can find some hair growth in about two to four weeks. (Read more…)
Restores eyesight
Rods and cones in the eyes are the most important photoreceptors. In humans, rods provide night vision, while cones offer a full-colour look at the world during the day. Now, damaged cones in retinas could be regenerated and eyesight restored to people through stem cells from the staple of genetic research, the zebrafish. Researchers say this shows some hope for stem cell therapy that could regenerate damaged cones in people, especially in the cone-rich regions of the retina that provide daytime/colour vision. (Read more…)
Facilitates kidney transplants
Kidney transplants could become more common and less cumbersome, thanks to  a new procedure which adds a second transplant of stem cells from the donor. Normally patients who get organ transplants face a lifetime of expensive anti-rejection drugs but this may change with a new procedure in which a second transplant – this time of the organ donor’s stem cells. Normally donors have to take anti-rejection drugs all their lives since the immune system is geared to fight foreign substances. Unless there is a perfect match donor match, patients have to wait for a long time for an organ transplant. Though in its early stages, the new study is being hailed as a potential game-changer in the field of transplantation, a development which could aid millions of potential organ transplant recipients. (Read more…)
In a path-breaking breakthrough two American are believed to have overcome HIV after undergoing stem-cell therapy! The news has met with widespread elation with experts believing that a cure might be on the cards. Doctors from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston announced that two previously HIV-positive patients no longer had detectable virus levels in their blood or tissue after having bone marrow stem-cell transplants to treat cancer between two and four years ago, the Age reported. (Read more…)
A Bangalore based hospital claims that it has successfully come out with a treatment for spine repair and a stem cell therapy to correct paralysis. At a press meet, the hospital shared the stories of paralysed patients it has successfully treated in the past few months.
The Bangalore Institute of Regenerative Medicine at Live 100 Hospital announced that the treatment involves a number of steps and while some patients gain sensation in the lower half of their bodies within three months from commencing of the treatment, others take a little longer. (Read more..)
Multiple sclerosis
Doctors at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) have conducted an autologous stem cell therapy for multiple sclerosis which could be the first recorded case in the country. In an autologous stem cell transplant the donor and recipient is the same person.
Body immunity generating stem cells were first extracted from the patient. His faulty immune response system was weakened through a high-dose chemotherapy regimen that destroys new blood cells forming bone marrow and existing blood cells. Later, his own stem cells were injected back into his body which created a new immune response system by forming the bone marrow and all cells in the blood. The doctors believe that the new immune response system will not have the faulty autoimmune tendency. (Read more…)
Hip joint disorder
A multi-specialty hospital in Bangalore has successfully used stem cells to cure a hip joint disorder, relieving affected patients from expensive surgery and conservative treatment. ‘We have so far treated seven patients, including two non-resident Indians (NRIs) suffering from hip joint disorder using their stem cells and helped them to resume normal life within months,’ Live 100 Hospital chairman H.N. Nagaraj told IANS. (Read more…)
Heart failure
Researchers have highlighted, for the first time, the natural regenerative capacity of a group of stem cells that reside in the heart. According to the new study these cells are responsible for repairing and regenerating muscle tissue damaged by a heart attack that leads to heart failure.
The study shows that if the stem cells are eliminated, the heart is unable to repair after damage. If the cardiac stem cells are replaced the heart repairs itself, leading to complete cellular, anatomical and functional heart recovery, with the heart returning to normal and pumping at a regular rate.
Also, if the cardiac stem cells are removed and re-injected, they naturally ‘home’ to and repair the damaged heart, a discovery that could lead to less-invasive treatments and even early prevention of heart failure in the future. (Read more…)
How is it done?
The entire procedure can be broken down into three steps: bone marrow collection, laboratory processing and stem cell implantation (bone marrow stem cell or cord derived stem cell). Your doctor may administer a ‘stem cell stimulant’ medication to enhance the transplantation process.
Bone marrow collection: in this process a sample from the hip or thigh region is taken. The procedure takes about 20 to 30 minutes, and is done on an in-patient basis.
Laboratory processing: Once the sample is taken, it is sent to the laboratory for testing. First the stem cells are separated from blood and plasma, the numbers of stem cells present are counted and their vitality is checked.
Stem cell implantation: In this step, the doctor will administer the harvested stem cells to the patient. The first dose is either intrathecal (injected directly into the damaged area or cerebrospinal fluid) or intradermal (injected into the skin). After a few weeks, the patient will be given a second round of harvested stem cells.
The patient usually will notice improvement within 8 weeks to 1 year depending on the severity of the condition.
Who can use it?
Stem cell therapy has been used experimentally on a number of disorders including certain types of cancer, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s disease and ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) and traumatic spinal cord injuries.
Disadvantages of Stem cell therapy
Stem cell therapy has not shown to have too many disadvantages, except that the patient is in some amount of discomfort after the extraction process. Taking a sample for the transplant involves taking marrow from the hips or thigh, this can be painful and the patient may experience nausea, headache and pain in the legs for a few days after the process.
This new therapy is currently being widely used in cases where patients have suffered from a traumatic spinal injury or neurological disorders. A spinal injury is usually caused due to a sudden and traumatic blow to the spine that fractures or dislocates the vertebrae. The damage is instantaneous, and begins the moment the fragmented bone or displaced vertebrae crushes the spine. According to statistics, in India, about 15 lakh people live with a spinal cord injury. While the degree of the injury varies, a number of people who suffer are left paralysed either partially or completely. In the recent past stem cell therapy for spinal cord injuries has become feasible, giving completely paralysed patients a chance to regain mobility.
You too can donate your stem cells!
We spoke to Dr Sunil Parekh, the Chairman of the MDRI who tells us everything we need to know about stem cell donation:
How does stem cell donation work? How can donors help? 
Dr Parekh: The healthy stem cells harvested from a voluntary donor will rescue the recipient (patient), restore his health and permanently cure his otherwise fatal blood disorder. This donation is specific only for the patient with whom there is a perfect HLA (human leukocyte antigen) match. The donor’s healthy stem cells work by permanently replacing the defective or cancerous stem cells of the patient. Incidentally, this ‘matched unrelated transplant’ (MUD) is the best treatment option for such patients in whom all other conventional treatments have failed or are simply not available. Other patients, who are anxiously waiting to find HLA matched donors from the donor registries, will be greatly relieved to know that such transplants are indeed now possible in our country and can be successfully done in many centres in India.
What are the common myths that you’ve come across about stem cell donation?  Are there any objections on religious grounds?
Dr Parekh: Due to a lack of awareness (and education), most lay people believe that this procedure is not safe and that they will ‘lose their stem cells permanently’. Actually, like all blood cells, stem cells also regenerate rapidly, and the same donor will be fit to donate again for another matching patient after a suitable interval. People are also apprehensive about pain related to the procedure, persisting thereafter for a long period of time. Actually, a conventional blood donation uses the same needle (inserted into the vein in front of the elbow), that is used for stem cell collection. Religion and politics have no business in interfering with evidence-based life saving medical treatments like haematopoietic cell transplantations. (Read more:  Be a superhero, be a stem cell donor – save a life (Expert Interview))

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

US farmers dumping GMO seeds as eco-crops more profitable and cheaper to grow

A growing number of farmers are abandoning genetically modified seeds because non-GMO crops are more productive and profitable, the Global Research reports. Growing non-GMO crops are cheaper and more profitable.

"We get the same or better yields, and we save money up front," crop consultant and farmer Aaron Bloom, who has been experimenting with non-GMO seeds for five years, said.

Farmers are switching back to natural seed because it is more profitable — not because of any ideology, Modern Farmer magazine discovered.

"Five years ago the [GMO seeds] worked," said farmer Christ Huegerich, who along with his father planted GMO seeds. "I didn’t have corn rootworm because of the Bt gene, and I used less pesticide. Now, the worms are adjusting, and the weeds are resistant. Mother Nature adapts."

In addition, nowadays farmers are paid more for conventional corn than GMO corn, as the eco-markets gain more popularity.

In addition, the Modern Farmer article, called the Post GMO-Economy, highlights main point why farmers dump GMO. For instance, the cost of growing one acre of non-GMO corn is $680.95, the cost of growing an acre of GMO corn is $761.80, that means it costs $80.85 more an acre to raise GMO corn. The price of GMO seeds can cost up to $150 a bag more than regular seeds.

The market of non-GMO seed is growing. Sales of such seeds have doubled for the last several years. And the general market for non-GMO foods has risen to $3.1 billion in 2013 from $1.3 billion in 2011, partially because some Asian and European countries don’t want GMO seeds.

Such bloom of cultivating non-GMO seeds might indicate that era of GMO is ending, and consumers make conscious choice of non-GMO products.

EU lacks evidence on the safety of GMO, says no to its production

The Members of European Parliament (MEPs) called on the European Commission (EC) not to allow the genetically modified maize crop Pioneer 1507 on the EU market. This insect-resistant crop could be dangerous to harmless butterflies and moths, said a resolution approved on Thursday 16 January 2014. “Based on this proposal, we are clearly lacking evidence on the safety of this new GMO strain to have it on the EU markets" said Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, a German member of the S&D group, who opposed approval along with other members of the environment committee.

Since the non-renewal of a couple of other authorisations in the mid-1990s, there is only one variety of maize - the MON 810 from Monsanto - which is currently authorised to be cultivated for commercial use in the EU. This one would be the second one.

In the case of maize 1507 from Pioneer, MEPs have decided to object to this proposal for an authorisation because they were very surprised by the Commission attitude to take a positive decision which had been opposed by 12 member states (with only six Member States voting in favour of the authorisation).

The risk assessments from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) show that highly sensitive butterflies and moths may be at risk when exposed to maize 1507 pollen. Yet, Pioneer refused to present additional documents regarding monitoring and risk mitigating measures for these non-target species.

Lastly, the Commission took this decision of authorisation arguing that it had been condemned by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) last September. However, the ECJ has only ruled that the Commission had failed to act. It has not prevented the Commission from presenting a new proposal recommending not to authorise maize 1507.

MEPs cannot know when the decision of the Council will come. Yet, what I can say is that any new authorisation for GMO cultivation is an issue, as it is always a challenge for the Council to find a majority either in favour or against such a decision. This is the reason why requests for authorisation can remain a very long time without a final decision.

Last July, Monsanto announced it will withdraw pending approval requests to grow new types of genetically modified crops in the EU, explaining that there was a lack of commercial prospects for cultivation. It is true that the regulatory environment is made difficult due to the fact that several member states are not in favour of new authorisation for cultivation. It must also been said that the lack of evidence provided by the industry on the safety of new GM crops does not help to dispel EU citizens’ recurring doubts on GMOs.

This is why for the time being the majority (61%), of Europeans are opposed to the development of GM food in Europe (Eurobarometer of November 2010). They consider GMOs as not offering benefits, as unsafe, as inequitable and as worrying.

Several Good Links HERE

Agent Orange Linked to Skin Cancer Risk

Decades Later, High Rates of Non-Melanoma Invasive Skin Cancer in Exposed Vietnam Veterans

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL, Jan 28, 2014 (Menafn - Marketwired via COMTEX) --Vietnam War veterans exposed to the herbicide Agent Orange appear tobe at high risk for certain types of skin cancer, suggests a report in the February issue of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the official medical journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons(ASPS).

The study adds to previous evidence that risk of non-melanoticinvasive skin cancer (NMISC) is increased even four decades after Agent Orange exposure, with at least some exposed veterans having unusually aggressive non-melanoma skin cancers. The lead author was ASPS Member Surgeon Dr. Mark W. Clemens of The University of Texas MDAnderson Cancer Center and colleagues.

Skin Cancers Present in About Half of Vets Exposed to Agent Orange

During the Vietnam War, Agent Orange was widely used as herbicide and jungle defoliant. It has been linked to a wide range of cancers and other diseases, caused by the highly toxic dioxin contaminant TCDD. "TCDD is among the most carcinogenic compounds ever to undergo widespread use in the environment," according to Dr. Clemens and coauthors.

The researchers analyzed medical records of 100 consecutive men who enrolled in the Agent Orange registry at the Veterans Affairs Hospital of Washington, DC, between August 2009 and January 2010. Exposure to TCDD consisted of living or working in contaminated areas for 56 percent of veterans, actively spraying Agent Orange in 30 percent, and traveling in contaminated areas for 14 percent. The study was limited to men with lighter skin types.

The rate of NMISC in TCDD-exposed veterans was 51 percent -- about twice as high as the rate expected in men of similar age group. The risk of skin cancer increased to 73 percent for veterans who actively sprayed Agent Orange. Exposed men with the lightest skin types and those with lighter eyes were also at higher risk.

Forty-three percent of the veterans had chloracne, a skin condition specifically caused by exposure to dioxins. For this group, the rate of NMISC was more than 80 percent.


Sunday, January 26, 2014

Light Chains are Looking Great!

We'll be getting his M-Spike and other numbers this week:

Light Chains

Kappa  3.3 – 19.4
Labda  5.71 – 26.3
Ratio  0.26 – 1.65

(A Downward Trend in all of these is GOOD.)

Dom’s Light Chains:

March ’13:  19.19
Oct. ’13       14.92
Jan ’14         13.82

March ’13    19.21
Oct. ’13        16.77
Jan ’14         15.69

March ’13     1.00
Oct. ’13          0.89
Jan ’14           0.88

Friday, January 24, 2014

Chronological Order of Reports and Scientific Studies on AGENT ORANGE- Cover Letter


I want to tell you a tragic story, long under wraps and cruelly distorted.  It must be told once and for all, clearly, provably, and completely free of political or partisan bias.  It is a story of  how hundreds of thousands of American and Vietnamese children, born and yet-to-be born, became innocent victims of AGENT ORANGE (AO) during the Vietnamese War.  It is a story of American malfeasance and cover-up, falsifications and deceptions at the highest levels of government.

Agent Orange is a powerful and deadly concoction.  It contains TCDD (2,3,7,8–tetrachlogodibenzo-para-dioxin), one of the most toxic manmade chemicals known to humankind–150,000 times the toxicity of arsenic.  And it was on millions of our soldiers that this destructive concoction was wantonly expended.

The objective key to the whole is shown in the attached CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF REPORTS AND SCIENTIFIC STUDIES in which the overriding opinions from the scientific community should have been warning enough for anyone, even in time of war.  All reports and studies shown in Column A were paid for, or manipulated by, our Federal Government.  The reports and studies listed in Column B were conducted by independent scientists.  (The differences are well defined in the two columns A and B.)

The tragedy started in the early 1960s with the spraying of AO in the Vietnam War.  Based on
documented facts our Government knew as early as 19521* that AO was dangerous to health, but it told our soldiers and the international community that it was not harmful.  However, in November 1961 President Kennedy approved the use of Herbicide (Dioxin) spraying in Vietnam.  For the following year, Presidential approval was required to spray Herbicides on any Vietnam target, troops or villages.  Then in late 1962 President Kennedy delegated limited authority to order defoliation missions (herbicide spraying) to the U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam and our military leaders and they were continued until April 15, 1970.  On this day the U.S. Surgeon General issued a warning that Agent Orange might be hazardous to our health.  Simultaneously the Secretaries of Agriculture, Health, Education and Welfare and the Interior jointly announced the suspension of it use.  Why?  Because Agent Orange (2,4,5-T) caused birth defects.  By then the international community was of one voice in condemning the use of Agent Orange in combat operations and against civilian populations.  However, one name stands out, the name of a widely admired and openly honest American military leader: Admiral Zumwalt, Chief of Naval Operations.  Throughout all the studies, arguments, counter-arguments and cover-ups, this great man held on to and articulated the real truth about the evil of Agent Orange.  He was ignored.

* A 1 or 4, etc. at the end of a word refers to the  source of the information provided, which is located on pages 15-17 of the Chronological listing of reports and scientific studies.

The Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") estimated that 4,200,0004 of our Vietnam veterans were exposed to AO.  Many of the children they fathered were born with major deformities and illnesses.  Independent Scientific Studies proved these deformities and illnesses were the result of their fathers' DNA being altered by AO.14/15  Hidden Federal Government studies also confirm this fact.7  Yet the denial of truth continued.  WHY?  Why would any government do this?  The answer lies in a series of memos from President Regan's Agent Orange Work Group ("AOWG") that ordered the manipulation of data and the altering of scientific conclusions to hide the truth that AO was the cause of deformed children fathered by Vietnam Soldiers exposed to AO.40/45/47  The White House had determined that the Federal Government could not afford the cost of caring for these deformed and ill children.28  When these soldiers were sent to war in the 1960s they were lied to about AO.  When they returned home they were deliberately abandoned to suffer the life-long consequences of AO exposure to the children they fathered.

Today, we have hundreds of thousands of families, both in the United States and Vietnam, struggling with the burden of caring for children suffering from their fathers' exposure to AO.  Our Government denies its complicity.  The fact that the White House ordered the alteration and manipulation of data to hide the truth is shocking.  It is also shocking that the Oval Office ordered the herbicide spraying as early as 1961.

In the ongoing research that I was conducting, a local Vietnam veteran, Al Martinelli, came to my attention.  His story is typical of countless ones available to anyone who cares.  His story is being cited here because it generated real interest on the part of the local Coeur d'Alene Press which then prompted The Press to conduct its own due diligence.  Since then over 40,000 copies of this story have been downloaded, shared or mailed.  The story is as follows.

Al Martinelli was a Navy Reservist stationed on the USS Cleveland LPD7 (the "Cleveland") from November 1967 to December 1968.  The Cleveland operated between DaNang and Hue, very near the coast and at the mouth of the Qua Viet and Hue Rivers.  The ship was close enough to the shore to be exposed to offshore drift of spraying operations by C-123 aircraft at the mouth of the Qua Viet River.  The Cleveland (an amphibious transport dock ship, crewed by 164 officers, 396 enlisted and 840 troops,) supported the "Mike Boats;" delivering troops and supplies to the battle fields and retrieving troops after they patrolled in the rivers and operated on land.  When the Mike Boats returned to the Cleveland with soldiers covered with dirt, mud and water contaminated with Agent Orange, Al and his fellow crewmen became contaminated as they worked on the Boats and helped our battlefield soldiers.  

Al fathered two children, each born with major anomalies.  After his first child was born with nervous system defects and skeletal defects (Hypo Condroplasia), he and his wife (Sharon) consulted with a team of doctors and asked if they dared to have any more children.  The doctors searched the Martinellis' medical records for any history of birth deformities–none existed.  Al and Sharon were advised that the chances of having another deformed child was one in a million.  So they had another boy.  He was born with Down's Syndrome, defects of the digestive system and hip abnormalities, deformities totally unrelated to the first child.  The doctor that worked with the Martinellis was shocked.  Based on their medical history, such deformities were impossible!  When Al took the 2012 North Idaho Vietnam Veterans Agent Orange Survey he realized and confirmed that his two sons' deformities were the result of his exposure to Agent Orange during the 1968 Tet Counter-offensive in Vietnam. 

The Coeur d'Alene Press published the Martinelli story - Fighting for the next generation.  It is attached.

In conducting its own due diligence, the CDA Press contacted the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA").  Randy Noller, a spokesman for the VA in Washington DC, responded to the documented government denial of responsibility for Agent Orange deformities by saying, ". . . VA makes these decisions relying on our scientific advisors from the independent Institute of Medicine [IOM] of the National Academy of Sciences [NAS]."  "IOM has ongoing analysis of the scientific literature looking at questions of health effects from exposure to Agent Orange, including birth defects."  However, let's look at the actual history in the attached Chronological Order of Reports and Scientific Studies:

A1969 - Page 3, right column, paragraph 3 states, ". . .NAS Research Council Committee received a "confidential" report prepared by the Bionetrics Research Council Committee "BRC" that 2,4,5-T (which contains TCDD) showed a significant potential to increase birth defects."  Contrary to Mr. Noller's statement, this NAS sponsored report was ignored - not relied upon.  

B.  1970 - Page 4, right column, paragraph 3. - Use of 2,4,5 - T (which contains TCDD, or 2,3,4,8-tertrachlogodibenzo-para-dioxin) was a "teratogen" (causing developmental malfunctions & monstrosities (birth defects).  Dow also confirms the BRC/NAS report,  when dioxin was disbursed in quantities exceeding production specifications, birth defects did occur.  Again, the VA ignored these findings that supported the conclusions of the NAS in 1969.  

C.  1974 - Page 5, right column, paragraph 2 - NAS expressed concern over TCDD because of (1) it's very high toxicity to animals, (2) it's presence in Agent Orange, (3) preliminary reports of presence of TCDD in fish in Vietnam, and (4) the lack of any data permitting assessment of TCDD effects on humans.  The NAS recommendation that long-term studies be made did not start until 18 years later and birth defects were not included in the studies.

D.  1980 - Page 6, right column, paragraph 2. - An anonymous memorandum sent to Senator Daschle on VA stationary which stated; ". . . Agent Orange and Agent Blue, are mutagenic and teratogenic.  This means they intercept the genetic DNA message processed on an unborn fetus, thereby resulting in deformed children being born.  Therefore the veteran would appear to have no ill effects from exposure but he would produce deformed children due to the breakage in his genetic chain . . ."

E.  2010 - Page 13, right column, paragraph 3. - IOM Veterans and Agent Orange: Update.  IOM stated "Work needs to be undertaken to resolve questions regarding several health outcomes, most importantly COPD, tonsil cancer, melanoma, brain cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and paternally  transmitted effects to offspring."  As late as 2010 the VA has continued to ignore the IOM's recommendations regarding birth defects.  Clearly, birth defects had not been researched by the IOM or NAS.

 Mr. Noller's statement that the IOM has an ongoing analysis ". . .including defects" is blatantly false.  The 1991 Agent Orange Act (P.L. 102-4) instructed the VA to commission the IOM to conduct an analysis of the effect of Agent Orange on the health of Vietnam soldiers.  However, birth defects were not included.  (Note page 11 of the attached Chronological Study, right column, starting at paragraph 4.)
Mr. Martinelli's case is but one of tens of thousands that could be cited, all of which prove out the warnings of the majority scientific community, of Admiral Zumwalt and other highly respected and credible participants in the debate.  Furthermore, the havoc wrought upon hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese children is as much a part of the story as anything else.

The problem is not just the VA's denial, it is the failure of Congress to properly oversee the Department of Veteran Affairs.  The data outlined in the Chronological Order of Reports and Scientific Studies is not new.  The real tragedy is: (1) the continued failure of the Oval Office to recognize the enormous harm the Federal Government has inflicted on the soldiers it sent to Vietnam and the children these soldiers fathered, and (2) the failure of Congress to fix a problem they have known about for decades.  Where does the buck stop?  What must we, the 21,000,000 Veteran families, mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers do?   These families consist of at least 60,000,000 voters.  The answer is simple, the task daunting.

We must act as one and demand that our White House and Congress: (1) stop the ongoing cover-up, falsifications and deceptions that have caused the early death of hundreds of thousands of our Vietnam veterans and the birth of untold thousands of ill and deformed children, (2) complete the Agent Orange Exposure Study that was ordered by Congress four decades ago, but cancelled by the White House to hide this massive, life destroying cover-up, and (3) establish a Trust Fund to care for these children who, because of the failures of Congress, cannot care for themselves.  The Trust Fund can also advance scientific research to reverse the damage done to the DNA of our Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange.

The cost of this is primarily your time.  Will you devote the time to flood our Congressional leaders with your demands to fix the problem?  VST has the legal talent to help make this happen.  We need your help and will provide you all of the materials and contacts you will need.  Let VST know you are on board by e-mailing us at and simply say: "YES, I will help to get Congress to fix the problem."  Please send this letter and Chronological Study to everyone you know.  Ask them to join in the battle.

I want to stress that my passion (and I hope yours, too) is generated by conscience, by a plea for the exercise of universal moral values, a plea to protect and care for our children, born and yet-to-be born.  It is not driven by politics, or partisan flimflammery.  It is an outright plea for justice and rightness and plain, unqualified honesty by our Federal Government.

Can you imagine the impact of mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers joining with Al and Sharon Martinelli and countless thousands of others in seeking the truth and identifying  wrongdoing – Fighting for the next generation?
 Description: REP-Sig
Richard Phenneger
President VST

A special note - the four-year cost of developing the Chronological Order of Reports and Scientific Studies has been totally born by trusted friends, educators, writers, attorneys, committed volunteers and scientists who care.  Without them we would have failed.  They have created the foundation upon which we stand.  If you can help going forward, it would be wonderful.  $5.00 will go a long way.  Veteran Services Transparency, Inc. (“VST”) is a 501(c)(19) Corporation - Federal Tax ID #27-1042577

Thursday, January 23, 2014

The Dirt on "Agent Orange" GMOs

Last week, news broke that the USDA is recommending the approval of new, herbicide-resistant, genetically engineered corn and soybeans, sometimes referred to as “Agent Orange” GMOs. Here’s what you need to know:

Right after the announcement, concerns sprung up that this new GMO would be “an environmental catastrophe,” since the herbicide, 2,4-D, was an ingredient in the Vietnam War defoliant Agent Orange.

The USDA issued its initial draft of its environmental impact statement on the corn and soybeans (engineered by Dow AgroSciences and branded under the name Enlist), while the Environmental Protection Agency is working to decide on the environmental effects of the new herbicide, Enlist Duo. So, there’s still a chance that a pin could get put in the whole operation. Good news, of course, for those who are worried about the outcome.

So what’s really at stake? According to, if Enlist is approved, there are some positives and negatives. The positive part is that fewer farmers would “adopt aggressive tillage strategies,” according to the USDA assessment. “Aggressive tilling releases a lot of greenhouse gas and leads to topsoil erosion and water pollution.” However, on the negative side, farmers will be spraying more herbicide. “We are already looking at a 75 percent increase in the use of 2,4-D in U.S. agriculture by 2020 even if Enlist flunks the regulatory process.” If approved, “2,4-D use will further increase by another two fold to six fold,” according to the USDA.

Many are wondering if an approval will mean that more and more of these types of GMOs are released. The thing is – 2,4-D-resistant weeds already exist. So the hope is that no matter what happens, Enlist farmers will be willing to change up their weed management practices more often, slowing the spread. But what if it’s used willy-nilly? USDA responds to that questioning saying that it “depends on management practices” and “cannot be predicted.” Not exactly comforting.

The fact remains that while 2,4-D was in Agent Orange, it wasn’t the really nasty stuff. We know a lot about it, given its history and the microscope it’s under. You can check this out for details on toxicity.‘s Nathanael Johnson maintains that “we’ve got to figure out a better way of doing conservation tillage rather than just relying on more and more herbicides. It would be nice if the government could use its regulatory authority to promote big-picture solutions. But in this case, the USDA is firmly focused on the small-picture tradeoff between tilling and herbicide. And in that small picture, it has determined that tilling is more harmful.”

Some of the potential dangers of ‘Agent Orange’ via

Corn with 2,4-D resistance could be dangerous to eat because a metabolite of 2,4-D is known to cause skin sores, liver damage and sometimes death in animals. 2,4-D is a potential endocrine disruptor and can affect development.

Rats exposed to 2,4-D exhibited depressed thyroid hormone levels, which can affect normal metabolism and brain functioning.  Studies found that men who applied 2,4-D had lower sperm counts and more sperm abnormalities than those unexposed to the herbicide.

Not only is 2,4-D dangerous for human health, but it also spurs weed resistance. According to the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds, there have been 29 weeds found to be resistant to 2,4-D’s family of synthetic auxin herbicides.

The FDA’s Biotechnology Consultation Note for 2,4-D-resistant corn lists several amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals that differed from conventional corn and were statistically significant, including glutamic acid, oleic acid, vitamin C and zinc.

On February 23, 2012, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit against the EPA for failing to respond to a 2008 petition to cancel registration of 2,4-D, citing its common use despite links to cancer, cell damage, reproductive problems and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. With the approval of 2,4-D resistant corn, NRDC claims that use of 2,4-D could grow 50-fold.

Aside from its harmful endocrine and carcinogenic effects, 2,4-D is a very volatile herbicide, which can easily drift onto nearby crops, vegetables and flowers. In fact, a comparative risk assessment found that 2,4-D was 400 times more likely to cause non-target plant injury than glyphosate (also known as Roundup, the herbicide many currently used GE crops are engineered to survive.)

If you’re concerned about the USDA approving 2,4-D herbicide, sign the petition below.


Links and Petition HERE

Long-term aspirin use decreased risk for multiple myeloma

Regular, long-term aspirin use was associated with a decreased risk for multiple myeloma, according to results of a prospective analysis.

The association appeared stronger among men than women, results showed.

Researchers assessed whether regular use of aspirin affected multiple myeloma risk in patients included in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study and the Nurses’ Health Study.

The investigators used biennially updated data to characterize aspirin use from baseline until 2008, cancer diagnosis or mortality. The researchers included a 4-year lag on exposure classification to reduce the influential affect preclinical disease may have had on aspirin use.

Researchers reported 328 incident diagnoses during 2,395,458 person-years of follow-up. This included 265 cases with probable data on typical aspirin dose and frequency.

Patients who used a cumulative average of five or more 325 mg aspirin tablets per week had a 39% decreased disease risk (HR= 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.94) compared with non-aspirin users. The risk was further decreased among those who used aspirin for 11 years or more (HR= 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.95).

“This prospective study of aspirin use and multiple myeloma supports an etiologic role for aspirin-inhibited pathways,” the researchers wrote. “The utility of aspirin for multiple myeloma chemoprevention warrants further evaluation.”


Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Recent Advances in Multiple Myeloma Drugs

Pomalidomide (Pomalyst) rode impressive trial results to accelerated FDA approval last year, and Kenneth Anderson thinks it will prove a valuable new tool in the fight against multiple myeloma.

Better still, Anderson sees equally promising compounds at various stages of development and equally promising treatment trends that range from the transition to oral treatment regimes to the evaluation of early intervention efforts.

“The last two big drugs to be approved, pomalidomide and carfilzomib [Kyprolis], are second-generation compounds that work along similar principles as earlier medications in these classes, but to much greater effect,” Anderson said. “Looking down the road, however, the most promising names mostly belong to new monoclonal antibodies that haven’t been used against multiple myeloma before.”

Among the most exciting of the experimental compounds is elotuzumab, a monoclonal antibody currently in phase III trials for advanced disease in previously treated patients. In earlier trials, elotuzumab combined with lenalidomide (Revlimid) and dexamethasone (Decadron) has produced responses in up to 92% of such patients. Progression-free survival times have approached 3 years.

“Those numbers are really quite remarkable,” said Anderson, who hopes the drug replicates those figures in the last trial phase and wins approval in the next year or two.

Looking further down the development pipeline, Anderson noted that the FDA has awarded breakthrough status to daratumumab based on phase I trial results. The IgG1k monoclonal antibody, which targets the CD38 surface protein on myeloma cells, produced significant benefit in 47% of patients, most of them with advanced double-refractory disease. Progression-free survival exceeded 8 months for some patients, even though treatment stopped after eight cycles.

Moving from individual medications to trends, Anderson sees great potential in trials that combine classes of medications in new and potentially more effective ways. For example, researchers are pairing HDAC inhibitors with proteasome inhibitors, and also with immunomodulatory drugs. The potential exists, down the road, for a four or five-tier treatment that adds a monoclonal antibody to the mix in such a way that the benefit of each drug is additive or synergistic—hopefully enough to achieve cure.

So many medications could not have been used together a couple of decades ago, Anderson noted, because the side effects of each existing treatment was severe. Today’s medications, however, are not only more effective but also well tolerated, so we can contemplate using them in novel ways.

Another potentially transformative example of this, according to Anderson, is using the treatments to nip the disease in the bud by treating smoldering myeloma rather than waiting to see which cases progress.

“We don’t know that we can prevent development of active multiple myeloma,” Anderson said, “but our tools for both diagnosis and treatment have improved to the point that early treatment to prevent active disease can now be studied.”

Kenneth C. Anderson, MD, is program director and chief of the Division of Hematologic Neoplasias at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Kraft Family Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts. -


The GMO-Free Stream Is Turning Into a Flood

Like cracks in a dam that lead to the whole structure crumbling, the move toward removing genetically modified foods from the food supply, or at least informing the consuming public about how much of the food they eat has been altered in the lab, is spreading. It's only leaking through in droplets now, but soon it may become a torrent.

Aside from halfhearted attempts by the government to mandate GMO labeling, industry itself is beginning to see the benefit in identifying the products that have been modified, or more correctly, highlighting those that are GMO-free.

When it rains, it pours
The latest large food company to join the cascading list of those providing a product that isn't affected by genetic modification, Post Holdings , just unveiled that its Grape-Nuts Original will be Non-GMO Project-verified as of this month, and it also notes its Grape-Nuts Vintage is GMO-free as well. By avoiding the inclusion of soy, the most genetically modified food crop in existence, with some 94% of all seed being altered in the lab, Post is able to "clean up" the perception of a popular brand.

DuPont is the largest manufacturer of genetically modified soy seeds, ahead of even Monsanto, and it's estimated that about 60% of all processed foods on the market today contain soy. With at least 85% of all soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and canola grown from GMO seeds -- most of which are made by Monsanto -- it means if the label contains at least one of those ingredients, there's a good chance it's been modified on a genetic level, further suggesting some 60% to 70% of all food on the supermarket shelf is GMO.

Post's move, however, follows closely on the heels of General Mills , which recently announced its original Cheerios cereal is now GMO-free -- though unlike Grape-Nuts, it isn't verified by a third party. And Kellogg has said that by the end of this year all existing Kashi cereals and Chewy Granola Bars -- two of Kashi's biggest products -- will sport Non-GMO Project verification. In 2015, all of new foods Kellogg introduced under the Kashi brand will be Non-GMO Project Verified and will also be at least 70% organic.

Although many of the food makers like General Mills have contributed millions of dollars to defeat labeling initiatives -- even if it might be the right thing to do for the wrong reason -- they've recognized there's a profit to be made from consumers desiring clean and healthy foods, so that momentum is building to at least create a segregated food list.

Rain o'er me
With the push led by the likes of Whole Foods Market , which is undertaking an initiative of its own to inform customers by 2018 which foods it sells contain such ingredients, enough pressure can mount for manufacturers and suppliers to follow suit. It's not going to happen overnight or even anytime soon, but when there's enough of a backlash by consumers against products that don't carry a third-party verification seal -- call it guilt by disassociation -- we're going to see a stampede of companies culling GMO foodstuffs out of their product lines and demanding growers avoid them as well.

Already there are anecdotal media reports of an organic food shortage, and though "organic" usually means GMO-free (the USDA has a couple of small loopholes), it does signal consumers are giving more thought to what they're eating.

The main players in genetic modification remain Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow Chemical, along with Bayer and Syngenta. Over the past two decades, they've together purchased more than 200 seed companies and now completely dominate the seed market. Only when consumers push back against food product companies will the manufacturers force changes at their suppliers, who will cause the farmers to change their agricultural practices.

Cry me a river
When Kellogg announced the change at Kashi, it admitted the brand had gotten "too mainstream" and it wanted to restore its growth cycle. If a company is counting on being GMO-free as a means to exciting growth, it's understandable why proponents are worried and why the anti-GMO trickle is about to turn into a flood.


Friday, January 17, 2014

10 American Foods that are Banned in Other Countries

Americans are slowly waking up to the sad fact that much of the food sold in the US is far inferior to the same foods sold in other nations. In fact, many of the foods you eat are BANNED in other countries. Here, I’ll review 10 American foods that are banned elsewhere, which were featured in a recent MSN article. 1 Seeing how the overall health of Americans is so much lower than other industrialized countries, you can’t help but wonder whether toxic foods such as these might play a role in our skyrocketing disease rates. 

#1: Farm-Raised Salmon If you want to maximize health benefits from fish, you want to steer clear of farmed fish, particularly farmed salmon fed dangerous chemicals. Wild salmon gets its bright pinkish-red color from natural carotenoids in their diet. Farmed salmon, on the other hand, are raised on a wholly unnatural diet of grains (including genetically engineered varieties), plus a concoction of antibiotics and other drugs and chemicals not shown to be safe for humans. This diet leaves the fish with unappetizing grayish flesh so to compensate, they’re fed synthetic astaxanthin made from petrochemicals, which has not been approved for human consumption and has well known toxicities. According to the featured article, some studies suggest it can potentially damage your eyesight. More details are available in yesterday’s article.
Where it’s banned: Australia and New Zealand 

How can you tell whether a salmon is wild or farm-raised? The flesh of wild sockeye salmon is bright red, courtesy of its natural astaxanthin content. It’s also very lean, so the fat marks, those white stripes you see in the meat, are very thin. If the fish is pale pink with wide fat marks, the salmon is farmed.

Avoid Atlantic salmon, as typically salmon labeled “Atlantic Salmon” currently comes from fish farms. The two designations you want to look for are: “Alaskan salmon,” and “sockeye salmon,” as Alaskan sockeye is not allowed to be farmed.

Please realize that the vast majority of all salmon sold in restaurants is farm raised.

So canned salmon labeled “Alaskan Salmon” is a good bet, and if you find sockeye salmon, it’s bound to be wild. Again, you can tell sockeye salmon from other salmon by its color; its flesh is bright red opposed to pink, courtesy of its superior astaxanthin content. Sockeye salmon actually has one of the highest concentrations of astaxanthin of any food.

 #2: Genetically Engineered Papaya Most Hawaiian papaya is now genetically engineered to be resistant to ringspot virus. Mounting research now shows that animals fed genetically engineered foods, such as corn and soy, suffer a wide range of maladies, including intestinal damage, multiple-organ damage, massive tumors, birth defects, premature death, and near complete sterility by the third generation of offspring. Unfortunately, the gigantic human lab experiment is only about 10 years old, so we are likely decades away from tabulating the human casualties.
Where it’s banned: The European Union 

Unfortunately, it’s clear that the US government is not in a position to make reasonable and responsible decisions related to genetically engineered foods at this point, when you consider the fact that the Obama administration has placed former Monsanto attorney and Vice President, Michael Taylor, in charge of US food safety, and serious conflicts of interest even reign supreme within the US Supreme Court! That’s right. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is also a former Monsanto attorney, but refuses to acknowledge any conflict of interest.

#3: Ractopamine-Tainted Meat The beta agonist drug ractopamine (a repartitioning agent that increases protein synthesis) was recruited for livestock use when researchers found that the drug, used in asthma, made mice more muscular. This reduces the overall fat content of the meat. Ractopamine is currently used in about 45 percent of US pigs, 30 percent of ration-fed cattle, and an unknown percentage of turkeys are pumped full of this drug in the days leading up to slaughter. Up to 20 percent of ractopamine remains in the meat you buy from the supermarket, according to veterinarian Michael W. Fox.

Since 1998, more than 1,700 people have been “poisoned” from eating pigs fed the drug, and ractopamine is banned from use in food animals in no less than 160 different countries due to its harmful health effects! Effective February 11, 2013, Russia issued a ban on US meat imports, slated to last until the US agrees to certify that the meat is ractopamine-free. At present, the US does not even test for the presence of this drug in meats sold. In animals, ractopamine is linked to reductions in reproductive function, increase of mastitis in dairy herds, and increased death and disability. It’s also known to affect the human cardiovascular system, and is thought to be responsible for hyperactivity, and may cause chromosomal abnormalities and behavioral changes. Where it’s banned: 160 countries across Europe, Russia, mainland China and Republic of China (Taiwan) 

#4: Flame Retardant Drinks If you live in the US and drink Mountain Dew and some other citrus-flavored sodas and sports drinks, then you are also getting a dose of a synthetic chemical called brominated vegetable oil (BVO), which was originally patented by chemical companies as a flame retardant.

BVO has been shown to bioaccumulate in human tissue and breast milk, and animal studies have found it causes reproductive and behavioral problems in large doses. Bromine is a central nervous system depressant, and a common endocrine disruptor. It’s part of the halide family, a group of elements that includes fluorine, chlorine and iodine. When ingested, bromine competes for the same receptors that are used to capture iodine. This can lead to iodine deficiency, which can have a very detrimental impact on your health. Bromine toxicity can manifest as skin rashes, acne, loss of appetite, fatigue, and cardiac arrhythmias. According to the featured article: “The FDA has flip-flopped on BVO’s safety originally classifying it as ‘generally recognized as safe’ but reversing that call now defining it as an ‘interim food additive’ a category reserved for possibly questionable substances used in food.” Where it’s banned: Europe and Japan 

#5: Processed Foods Containing Artificial Food Colors and Dyes More than 3,000 food additives — preservatives, flavorings, colors and other ingredients — are added to US foods, including infant foods and foods targeted to young children. Meanwhile, many of these are banned in other countries, based on research showing toxicity and hazardous health effects, especially with respect to adverse effects on children’s behavior. For example, as reported in the featured article:

“Boxed Mac & Cheese, cheddar flavored crackers, Jell-O and many kids’ cereals contain red 40, yellow 5, yellow 6 and/or blue 2, the most popularly-used dyes in the United States. Research has shown this rainbow of additives can cause behavioral problems as well as cancer, birth defects and other health problems in laboratory animals. Red 40 and yellow 6 are also suspected of causing an allergy-like hypersensitivity reaction in children. The Center for Science in the Public Interest reports that some dyes are also “contaminated with known carcinogens.” 

In countries where these food colors and dyes are banned, food companies like Kraft employ natural colorants instead, such as paprika extract, beetroot, and annatto. The food blogger and activist Vani Hari, better known as “Food Babe,” recently launched a petition2 asking Kraft to remove artificial dyes from American Mac & Cheese to protect American children from the well-known dangers of these dyes. Where it’s banned: Norway and Austria. 

In 2009, the British government advised companies to stop using food dyes by the end of that year. The European Union also requires a warning notice on most foods containing dyes.

#6: Arsenic-Laced Chicken Arsenic-based drugs are approved for use in animal feed in the US because they make animals grow quicker and make the meat appear pinker (i.e. “fresher”). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated these products are safe because they contain organic arsenic, which is less toxic than the other inorganic form, which is a known carcinogen.

The problem is, scientific reports surfaced stating that the organic arsenic could transform into inorganic arsenic, which has been found in elevated levels in supermarket chickens. The inorganic arsenic also contaminates manure where it can eventually migrate into drinking water and may also be causing heightened arsenic levels in US rice.

In 2011, Pfizer announced it would voluntarily stop marketing its arsenic-based feed additive Roxarsone, but there are still several others on the market. Several environmental groups have filed a lawsuit against the FDA calling for their removal from the market. In the European Union, meanwhile, arsenic-based compounds have never been approved as safe for animal feed. Where it’s banned: The European Union 

#7: Bread with Potassium Bromate You might not be aware of this, but nearly every time you eat bread in a restaurant or consume a hamburger or hotdog bun you are consuming bromide, as it is commonly used in flours. The use of potassium bromate as an additive to commercial breads and baked goods has been a huge contributor to bromide overload in Western cultures.

Bromated flour is “enriched” with potassium bromate. Commercial baking companies claim it makes the dough more elastic and better able to stand up to bread hooks. However, Pepperidge Farm and other successful companies manage to use only unbromated flour without any of these so-called “structural problems.” Studies have linked potassium bromate to kidney and nervous system damage, thyroid problems, gastrointestinal discomfort, and cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies potassium bromate as a possible carcinogen. Where it’s banned: Canada, China and the EU 

#8: Olestra/Olean Olestra, aka Olean, created by Procter & Gamble, is a calorie- and cholesterol-free fat substitute used in fat-free snacks like chips and French fries. Three years ago, Time Magazine3 named it one of the worst 50 inventions ever, but that hasn’t stopped food companies from using it to satisfy people’s mistaken belief that a fat-free snack is a healthier snack. According to the featured article:

“Not only did a 2011 study from Purdue University conclude rats fed potato chips made with Olean gained weight, there have been several reports of adverse intestinal reactions to the fake fat including diarrhea, cramps and leaky bowels. And because it interferes with the absorption of fat soluble vitamins such as A, D, E and K, the FDA requires these vitamins be added to any product made with Olean or olestra.” Where it’s banned: The UK and Canada 

#9: Preservatives BHA and BHT BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole) and BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene) are commonly used preservatives that can be found in breakfast cereal, nut mixes, chewing gum, butter spread, meat, dehydrated potatoes, and beer, just to name a few. BHA is known to cause cancer in rats, and may be a cancer-causing agent in humans as well. In fact, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program’s 2011 Report on Carcinogens, BHA “is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” It may also trigger allergic reactions and hyperactivity, while BHT can cause organ system toxicity. Where it’s banned: The UK doesn’t allow BHA in infant foods. BHA and BHT are also banned in parts of the European Union and Japan. 

#10: Milk and Dairy Products Laced with rBGH Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is the largest selling dairy animal drug in America. RBGH is a synthetic version of natural bovine somatotropin (BST), a hormone produced in cows’ pituitary glands. Monsanto developed the recombinant version from genetically engineered E. coli bacteria and markets it under the brand name “Posilac.”

It’s injected into cows to increase milk production, but it is banned in at least 30 other nations because of its dangers to human health, which include an increased risk for colorectal, prostate, and breast cancer by promoting conversion of normal tissue cells into cancerous ones. Non-organic dairy farms frequently have rBGH-injected cows that suffer at least 16 different adverse health conditions, including very high rates of mastitis that contaminate milk with pus and antibiotics.

“According to the American Cancer Society, the increased use of antibiotics to treat this type of rBGH-induced inflammation ‘does promote the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the extent to which these are transmitted to humans is unclear,’” the featured article states.

Many have tried to inform the public of the risks of using this hormone in dairy cows, but their attempts have been met with overwhelming opposition by the powerful dairy and pharmaceutical industries, and their government liaisons. In 1997, two Fox-affiliate investigative journalists, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, attempted to air a program exposing the truth about the dangers of rBGH. Lawyers for Monsanto, a major advertiser with the Florida network, sent letters promising “dire consequences” if the story aired.

Despite decades of evidence about the dangers of rBGH, the FDA still maintains it’s safe for human consumption and ignores scientific evidence to the contrary. In 1999, the United Nations Safety Agency ruled unanimously not to endorse or set safety standards for rBGH milk, which has effectively resulted in an international ban on US milk.4 The Cancer Prevention Coalition, trying for years to get the use of rBGH by the dairy industry banned, resubmitted a petition to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, MD, in January 2010.5 Although the FDA stubbornly sticks to its position that milk from rBGH-treated cows is no different than milk from untreated cows, this is just plain false and is not supported by science. The only way to avoid rBGH is to look for products labeled as “rBGH-free” or “No rBGH.” Where it’s banned: Australia, New Zealand, Israel, EU and Canada