The FDA is pushing your First Amendment rights closer and closer to the edge. Will you push back, before it’s too late? It doesn’t stop there: the FDA has something called its Evidence-Based Review System. It’s just a backdoor tactic to require prohibitively expensive studies—as in hundreds of millions of dollars—if companies want to make any claim about the science behind their supplements. Because natural products can’t be patented, supplement companies can never recoup these astronomical costs. Only Big Pharma and their blockbuster drugs can afford to “pay-to-play:”

Our goal is to raise $40,000 by June 14, so we can kick off our FDA petitions to defend free speech and supplement access.

Please make a tax-deductible gift today! Any amount—even just a few dollars— makes a huge difference. The FDA’s actions leave consumers in the dark about the dietary supplements they are buying for themselves and their families. This can be a matter of safety—for you and the ones you love. The FDA is halfway down the slippery slope of taking away consumer access to supplements. Will you join us in saying, “Enough is enough!”? Yours in the fight, Liz Ardagna Membership Director, ANH-USA P.S.: As an extra bonus, through June 14, your qualifying donation earns you a reusable tote bag, BPA-free water bottle, picnic blanket, or yoga mat that lets you proudly show off your support for ANH-USA. Please make your gift today!]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-violates-free-speech-to-limit-supplement-access-take-action/feed/ 4 http://www.anh-usa.org/compounding-pharmacy-bill-third-draft-still-some-major-problems%e2%80%94and-no-time-to-lose/ http://www.anh-usa.org/compounding-pharmacy-bill-third-draft-still-some-major-problems%e2%80%94and-no-time-to-lose/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 21 May 2013 17:00:05 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=10429 The revised draft bill was released to us today, with no substantive changes. The Senate votes in a couple of days—Action Alert! Senate bill S. 959 is a large and complex piece of legislation on compounded drugs. We received the third draft moments ago. As we reported last week, the second draft was much improved over the first, thanks to your messages, but unfortunately the third draft does not fix the remaining problems. In particular, the bill allows the FDA to disallow entire categories of compounding drugs in “complex dosage forms” such as extended release products or transdermal patches. Millions of women and men depend on compounded time-release thyroid medications in both the complete and active forms, neither of which is available in standard drug form. Another concern: estriol (the bioidentical hormone) has a USP-NF monograph, so legally it can be compounded. But this bill would allow FDA to identify bulk ingredients that are “drugs not suitable for compounding” based on unnecessarily vague “public health concerns,” even though they have a monograph as estriol does! In the past, the FDA has attempted to ban bulk bioidentical estriol at the request of a pharmaceutical company. The current language of the bill could allow FDA to regulate away your access to that medication, currently used by millions of women who refuse to take the synthetic hormone drugs that have been proven to be so dangerous. We must not let the FDA take away bioidentical estriol. We believe this bill simply provides the FDA, which has been historically biased against supplements and integrative medicine, too much discretion to ban compounded drugs, including complete thyroid medications as well as estriol and other hormones. We still hope to get this message across and are working with the Senate HELP Committee to amend the language, to ensure that only compounded drugs for which there is very good reason to believe they can cause harm to consumers should be banned, but we urgently need your help once again—and this alert goes out to the entire Senate, not just the HELP Committee. The bill is scheduled to be marked up in committee tomorrow (Wednesday, May 22). Very soon after that, it is expected to the floor for a vote of the full Senate. Your message to your senators is critical. Please take action immediately!

• GMO labeling;
• Whether the pesticide ethylene may be used on organic produce;
• Organic standards for aquaculture and seaweed; and
• Biofortification of grains.

Like other professionals, dietitians can justify the enactment of licensure laws because licensing affords the opportunity to protect dietitians from interference in their field by other practitioners. Licensure also can protect dietitians by limiting the number of practitioners through restrictions imposed by academic, experience, and examination requirements. This protection provides a competitive advantage and therefore is economically beneficial for dietitians.

New York

Michigan, HB. 4688, would repeal the 2006 the Dietetic/Nutrition Regulation Act, and eliminate the Dietetic/Nutrition Licensing Board.  Michigan residents, please send you message immediately!

Michigan

The bill has some teeth. The question is whether it has legs. Action Alerts!

• Some food companies recently met with the FDA to discuss GMO labeling in a meeting sponsored by the AGree Foundation;
• Walmart announced that the company would no longer take a lead in opposing GMO labeling efforts; and
• Whole Foods says that by 2018, all products sold in their stores throughout the US and Canada must be labeled if they contain GMOs.

• Alaska already has a law requiring labeling of GMO shellfish and fish, and on March 25 the legislature unanimously approved resolution HJR 5, opposing a petition by AquaBounty Technologies to commercialize GM salmon.
• Connecticut: Two GMO labeling bills (HB 6519 and HB 6527) passed out of committee by an overwhelming majority. Supporters have until June 5 to get the full legislature to pass them.
• Maine: LD 718 has more than 120 bipartisan cosponsors. Maine’s legislative session ends on June 13.
• Vermont: H 112 has over 50 sponsors and the support of Gov. Shumlin (despite opposing the bill last year after Monsanto threatened to sue the state if a GMO-labeling bill passed). The bill has already passed the House Ag Committee.
• Washington: After an extensive grassroots campaign, ballot initiative I-522 was able to gather 353,331 valid signatures. The initiative will be on the ballot in November 2013.

• Acute otitis media (when the middle ear gets blocked with fluid and infected with bacteria): a 2012 RCT showed that symptomatic improvement was quicker in the homeopathy group than conventional therapy group, with a much lower antibiotic requirement
• Allergies: a 2012 observational study revealed that homeopathy substantially improved allergy symptoms and conventional medicine dosage could be substantially reduced; a 2013 study listed the effectiveness of different homeopathic treatments for allergies based on the type of allergy
• Asthma: In a study of individualized homeopathic treatment for asthma, there was evidence that it decreased the severity of asthma in children

One of the most prominent [supplement] testing laboratories does not appear to us to be either independent or impartial.

ConsumerLab.com says its stated mission is “To identify the best quality health and nutritional products through independent testing.” Unfortunately, their claim to independence does not appear to us to be valid.

ConsumerLab.com (CL) approaches dietary supplement makers and asks them to enroll in its “voluntary” testing program—for a fee. CL doesn’t publicly disclose its fee schedule, but we know that one company was charged over $4,000 to test a single product. Companies that pay the fee are guaranteed that if one of their products passes the testing under their Voluntary Certification Program, it gets listed on the site and may carry the CL Seal of Approval—and if it fails the testing, the product will never be identified publicly because the results are “proprietary to the manufacturer”!

However, companies that do not agree to pay for the voluntary certification program risk having their products tested anyway through the firm’s “product review program.” If they fail the test, those failures will be publicized on ConsumerLab.com’s website and in the media, with complete details for sale in CL’s Product Review Technical Reports.

This arrangement strikes us as nothing short of scandalous. It sounds like, “Pay up, and you won’t have to worry about the results. Don’t pay up, and you may be exposed to bad publicity.” What kind of game is this?

You might guess from the name “ConsumerLab” that the company was an actual testing facility. But CL actually farms out its product testing. Although the company admits it’s a “third party group” certifying the quality of dietary supplements, CL does not identify the laboratories it uses. Does the company do an annual audit of the labs it uses to make sure they are following Good Laboratory Practices and otherwise operating up to standard? We don’t know, and they’re not saying. Despite all this, CL is often quoted by mainstream media as being experts on supplement safety and testing.

• a diet high in L-carnitine promotes the growth of certain bacteria that metabolize the amino acid;
• during that metabolization, an organic compound called trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) is produced in the blood; and
• this compound increases risk of heart disease.

GMO Freeze-Resistant Eucalyptus Action Alert

GMO Insect-Resistant Soybeans Action Alert

GMO Herbicide-Resistant Cotton Action Alert

GMO Herbicide- and Insect-Resistant Maize Action Alert

GMO Herbicide-Resistant Soybeans Action Alert

• Calm the allergic response. According to a study in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, subjects who took 2600 mg of MSM (methylsulfonylmethane) found their upper and total respiratory symptoms significantly reduced within seven days, and improvement continued for all thirty days of the study. Also, as Dr. Mercola notes, MSM is 34% sulfur, which can help maintain optimal health. Sulfur helps the body detoxify itself, and helps produce glutathione, an important antioxidant. MSM is extremely safe and can be taken at high doses, even if one’s diet is full of raw vegetables and MSM-rich foods. Some of our staff have found complete relief from allergies with this product, but required higher daily doses than 2600 mg.
• Another substance that helps calm down the immune system under a pollen attack is the Alpine herb butterbur. In Scotland, researchers found that butterbur is effective. It can also be used in conjunction with MSM—the sulfur to condition the body, and the herb for acute attacks. Petadolex, a butterbur extract supplement, reduces inflammation so well that it can be used for migraines and other headaches too—it was endorsed as an OTC remedy for migraines by the Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society after their review of 284 scholarly articles on the subject. Butterbur in the wild contains a potentially toxic substance, but Petadolex has removed it.
• Freeze-dried nettles and quercetin are also used to reduce allergic response. They both work—the former sooner, and the latter over time—but they typically reduce rather than eliminate symptoms. Antihistamine drugs were initially developed from quercetin. As is often the case, the drugs had serious side effects (such as drowsiness) while the natural product from which it is derived did not. Another natural product that shows promise is Carnivora, derived from the plant of the same name, although more research needs to be done.
• Remove food allergens (which lightens the antigenic load). As the Townsend Letter points out, allergic/inflammatory processes may first become active in the gut. Then transportation of food proteins across the intestinal wall becomes altered, resulting in increased permeability and motility of the intestine—Leaky Gut Syndrome. Coupled with other conditions, such as intestinal infections, flora imbalance, and decreased immunoglobulin A antibodies, this may lead to further intestinal compromise and increased antigen-immune interaction.
• Get acupuncture. Researchers had 442 people with seasonal allergies receive acupuncture treatments. After eight weeks of acupuncture, a 71% patients reported an improvement in their symptoms (according to a scale used to measure allergy symptoms, the severity of these patients’ symptoms decreased by an impressive 37%).

• Reduce general inflammation in the body. Eating lots of veggies with deep-water fish will decrease inflammation levels. Omega-3s from all sources can reduce inflammation as well. In Traditional Chinese Medicine, licorice, skullcap, cordyceps, and perilla have been shown to have anti-inflammatory properties (though consult a TCM practitioner for guidance).

• Strengthen the immune system. At the head of our list is vitamin D3, which reduces the incidence of respiratory infections. Also get plenty of vitamin E and magnesium, and knock off the sugar, which greatly weakens the immune system. And don’t forget vitamin C: studies indicate it’s a natural antihistamine.
• Relieve congestion gently. Don’t forget neti pots—saline nasal irrigation—which may provide sinus pain relief for allergy sufferers. But you probably won’t need them if you have enough sulfur in your system.

• coconut oil to help prevent or halt the progression of Alzheimer’s;
• nattokinase and niacinamide to halt or even reverse memory loss;
• fish oil that is high in DHA together with PhosChol and Uridine-300, mixed with small amounts of selenium, B vitamins, and alpha-tocopherols; and
• vitamin D for healthy brain function.

Please note: Comments posted below WILL NOT be sent to Congress. To send a message to your representatives, please click on the "Take Action!" button above.

One bill would give the health commissioner the power to ban any supplement deemed “harmful,” no matter how tiny the risk. A state-based Action Alert!

• Seek sound, professional advice before starting a supplementation program.

• Consider whether the supplements are natural or synthetic, and learn whether there are co-factors you should take with any particular supplement.

• Take note of the company making the supplement. Most good supplement companies are easily contacted, and are happy to share with customers their testing procedures.

• FDA also has a database of illegal and/or tainted drugs being marketed as dietary supplements.

1. Send your Action Alert message

2. Phone both your senators

3. Forward this email to as many like-minded people as you can think of, post the Action Alert it to Facebook, and Tweet about it (use the hashtag #GMOrider).

Aspartame is already allowed in your kids’ milk. Now they want to erase it from the labels. Action Alert!

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) are petitioning the FDA to let them remove any reference to non-nutritive sweeteners, mainly aspartame, from milk labels in school lunches. They claim—in one of the most spectacular failures of logic we’ve ever seen—that not labeling the milk “promotes honesty and fair-dealing in the interest of consumers.” Huh?

Non-nutritive sweeteners are already allowed and included in the flavored milk used in school lunch programs. Many school children already drink flavored milk, so this gives the dairy industry a bigger market share while also falling within the low-calorie guidelines of the USDA School Lunch Program.

Of course, the intent of the program guidelines is to provide healthier meals for children, so aspartame already violates the spirit of those guidelines. Aspartame is an extraordinarily dangerous and potentially carcinogenic chemical. Now they’re trying to remove FDA labeling requirements, arguing that labeling requirements makes the milk less attractive to children and might mislead children on the overall nutritive value of the milk—though they provide no data to back up this claim.

Labeling is important for children (and parents), who have a right to choose milk without aspartame or other non-nutritive sweeteners—chemicals which have no place in school lunch program in the first place. By removing this labeling requirement, consumers won’t know the difference between artificially flavored milk and regular milk—and we’d be denied the right to choose milk that doesn’t contain artificial sweeteners and flavorings.

School lunch is big business. USDA provides $1 billion each year to buy food for the program. Dairy has a vested interest in following the guidelines that qualifies them for the program, though they’ve balked at disclosing just how they are meeting those guidelines.

Here’s an example of how powerful the chemical sweetener industry is: a human aspartame study at Harvard spanning a whopping twenty-two years, funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute, found a clear association between aspartame consumption and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukemia in men. But not a half hour after the study results were revealed, Harvard caved to pressure from industry and issued a press release that minimized the impact of the study, calling the findings “equivocal” and the data “weak,” when in fact the opposite was true.

As we reported in 2011, aspartame also decreases the ability of the body to absorb tryptophan and reduces serotonin levels. Ten percent of aspartame is methanol, which is converted to formaldehyde which, in turn, is converted to formic acid—which is used to strip epoxy! The other 90% is composed of phenylalanine and aspartic acid. These amino acids are normally harmless, but in isolation they are neurotoxic. Aspartame has also been implicated in the development of Gulf War syndrome. Huge amounts of diet drinks were shipped to Gulf War troops, who were drinking it in high temperatures. In 1985, Coca-Cola apparently expressed reservations about proposed FDA approval of aspartame for beverages, noting that aspartame is uniquely and inherently unstable and breaks down in the can. When stored or heated above 85 degrees F, aspartame may decompose into formaldehyde (embalming fluid), methanol (wood alcohol), formic acid (ant sting venom), diketopiperazine (an agent in brain tumors), and other toxins. This of course didn’t stop Coke from eventually deciding to use it. Aspartame was approved only because of the revolving door between industry and the FDA.

Not only are such artificial sweeteners unhealthy, but so are the artificial colors found in kids’ drinks, which can lead to hyperactivity, allergic reactions, and possibly even cancer.

The dairy industry petitioners are using school lunch program guidelines as a foot in the door. They also want to remove labeling requirements for seventeen other dairy products included in the petition, even though they have nothing whatsoever to do with the school lunch program.

Action Alert! Please tell FDA to oppose this petition. Tell them how important truthful and complete labeling is—not only for school lunches but on all the foods your family eats. Tell them the dangers of aspartame and other non-nutritive sweeteners, and make them do their job of protecting the public. Send your message today!

Worse, it continues its decades-long vendetta against medical giant Jonathan Wright, MD. Action Alert for Washington State residents!

• In 2007, MQAC sent a letter to Dr. Wright telling him they were investigating the Tahoma Clinic telephone system, alleging that “all incoming calls go to voice mail” with “the potential of harm to the patients.” Although Dr. Wright and Tahoma Clinic wondered how it would be possible to stay in business at all if “all incoming calls go to voice mail,” they were forced to go through the process of defending their telephone system. Two years and $35,000 in attorney fees later, the investigation was dropped—with no changes at all to the telephone system.
• In 2006, MQAC sent a letter to Dr. Wright alleging that a number of procedures described on the Tahoma Clinic website were “inefficacious.” Procedures described on the website included chelation therapy (which has been studied by the National Institutes of Health with generally positive results), colon hydrotherapy, intravenous ozone, and non-invasive sensitivity screening. Legal proceedings ensued; more than $20,000 in legal fees later, the investigation was settled, and descriptions of these procedures were removed from the Tahoma Clinic website. It was later discovered that the entire investigation was based on a single email communication to MQAC by an MD member of “Quackwatch,” who posts on her website that she blogs about “quackery, healthfraud [sic]…and other forms of so-called ‘Alternative’ Medicine.”

Violation/Conduct

[MD #1] failed to appropriately treat a sickle cell crisis in Patient A. Patient A suffered significant, permanent neurologic injury.

Sanction Imposed [by MQAC]

• Submit paper of no less than 1,000 words, with references, regarding current recommendations for prevention and treatment of stroke in pediatric sickle cell patients.
• Reimburse costs to the Commission in the amount of $1000 within 90 days.

[Auditor’s] Comments

Per the sanction guidelines for practice below the standard with significant patient injury, the range is suspension for 5 years to indefinite suspension or permanent revocation.

Violation/Conduct

[MD #2] performed a laparoscopic oophorectomy [ovary removed through a small incision in the abdomen] on Patient A. [MD #2]’s laparoscopic procedure resulted in perforation of the small bowel. This is a rare but recognized complication of this procedure. [MD #2] was not aware of the complication at the time of discharge. [MD #2]’s system of follow up contact with the patient during the first post-operative hours was insufficient to learn of the patient’s signs of distress in time to effect life-saving repair surgery.

Sanction Imposed

• Respondent shall submit a paper of no less than 1000 words within 90 days on trochar [a surgical implement] injuries related to endoscopic procedures and response systems for bowel, ureteral, or bladder injury.
• Within 90 days, submit a policy regarding postoperative follow-up on outpatient surgery patients, and a plan for, or description of, the implementation of this policy.
• Pay $1000 for the administrative costs incurred in this case.

[Auditor’s] Comments

Sanction does not appear to be appropriate because per sanction guidelines, the sanction range for practice below standard with patient harm is probation or suspension for 2 years to suspension for 7 years to revocation.

]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/should-you-have-to-fight-fda-red-tape-to-save-your-life/feed/ 4 http://www.anh-usa.org/organic-standards-in-danger-unless-you-make-your-voice-heard/ http://www.anh-usa.org/organic-standards-in-danger-unless-you-make-your-voice-heard/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 05 Mar 2013 20:00:50 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=9548 It’s like they’re saying, “Ssh! If we keep quiet enough, nobody will complain!” Let’s not let them get away with it. Action Alert!

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) will hold its spring board meeting in April. As you probably know, NOSB is the governing board created by Congress that reviews all synthetic and non-organic materials proposed by Big Farma before they can be used in organic farming or food production.

For thirty days before each meeting, the public is supposed to be invited to scrutinize and comment on the topics that will come up at the NOSB meetings—a wide range of issues that significantly affect organic standards—and the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) is supposed to announce it. This time, however, the NOP failed to send out any public announcement about the thirty-day comment period, not even in their own e-newsletter, before the comment period began. The Cornucopia Institute discovered information about the April meeting, buried deep in the NOP website, after the comment period had already begun. Two days after the Cornucopia article appeared, NOP made the public announcement through their Organic Insider newsletter, costing stakeholders valuable time. Had this information been buried by mistake or on purpose? We don’t know.

Thank goodness Cornucopia discovered it, because public comment is vital to keep the NOSB accountable in the face of an increasingly cozy relationship between NOSB and Big Farma, and a serious dilution of organic standards. For example, the list of synthetic ingredients that are allowed in Certified Organic products is growing. As we reported previously, in 2002, the NOSB allowed only 72 chemicals. Since then, over 250 more chemicals have been added.

The majority of organic brands are owned by the biggest food manufacturers, and some them have seats on the NOSB. In 2011, a General Mills executive was on the board, and this year an exec from Driscoll’s, which markets both conventional and organic berries, held a seat on the board that was supposed to be filled by a farmer. After public outcry she resigned—but rejoined the NOSB in a different capacity.

Issues discussed in the NOSB meeting ahead could seriously undermine organic standards—unless you and other grassroots activists are willing to voice your strong objections:

• How to control GMO contamination of organic seeds? Seed purity is especially important to prevent “creeping contamination.” Not only should there be stricter protocols to ensure pure organic seeds, there should be systematic testing of organic seeds for GMO contamination as part of the certification process. And biotechnology companies should be held accountable for any GMO contamination of organic seeds—even if it was unintentional. Under current organic rules, there are no strict practices ensuring that organic seeds are not contaminated with GMO. GMOs are considered an excluded “method” that should be prevented by best practices, but the actual organic product itself is not tested for GMOs. Testing usually occurs when there is “reason to believe” that organic food is contaminated with GMOs.
• How to deal with GMOs in vaccines? Under current organic regulations, animal vaccines using GMOs are not allowed, unless specifically approved by the NOP. However, the NOP hasn’t identified which vaccines contain GMOs in the first place, resulting in GMO vaccine use and weak enforcement. The NOSB will discuss how to identify GMO vaccines; we believe it should it be defined as any technology that creates a targeted change or mutation in the genome; it certainly shouldn’t be something that is evaluated on a case-by case basis, another option that is being considered. We strongly oppose any GMO vaccines in organic livestock.
• Should “confidential business information” (CBI) be allowed in a petitioner’s request for a synthetic chemical to be added to the organic “allowed” list? Currently, CBI is not disclosed in the technical evaluation report of a chemical, and it’s not available to the NOSB, much less to the public. But such CBI could include important information regarding environmental and health effects of a chemical. We strongly support prohibiting CBI in petitions to ensure transparency in the process—especially if the CBI pertains to serious environmental and adverse health effects. This may also have the positive effect of deterring companies that have something to hide.
• Should a fruit antibiotic that adds to the “superbug” problem be allowed for two more years? The NOSB is considering whether to extend the withdrawal date for the antibiotic oxytetracycline, which is used in apple and pear production to prevent fire blight. It’s sprayed on trees, which exposes bacteria in the orchard and especially the soil to the antibiotic, and directly contributes to the “superbug” issue we’ve told you about—the creation of drug-resistant bacteria. There was a lot of public push-back against placing this on the allowed list in the first place. The board wants to extend the withdrawal date to 2016 and add a phase-out plan, even though organic standards require that practices and inputs must maintain or improve the natural resources of the operation, including soil and water quality. We do not support extending sunset date of oxytetracycline.
• Should sugar beet fiber be allowed in organic food to increase overall fiber content? Most sugar beets are GE, so we oppose such a proposal, and would insist that the final product be tested for GMO. We’re also concerned that the process for adding sugar beet fiber to organic food doesn’t follow organic processes.

At the last NOSB meeting, ANH-USA strongly opposed allowing dangerous synthetic chemicals in organic food, including organic baby formula. And the board rejected most of these chemicals.

It’s important that we all participate in this process to uphold organic standards and prevent corporate interests from destroying truly organic food. Organic certification is often the only thing consumers can use to distinguish between healthy, sustainable food and industrial farmed foods, most of which contain GMOs.

Action Alert! Send your comments to the NOSB and tell them your stance on each of the agenda items above. Please send them your message today!

It won’t help hospital food, already notoriously bad, to outlaw advice from the most qualified nutritionists. Action Alert!

Licensure is not a federal requirement; it is only required for practitioners in those states with laws requiring licensure. Federal regulations specific to dietitians similarly have no independent licensure requirement. In section 482.28(a)(2) of the hospital [Conditions of Participation] defining a “qualified dietitian” in the hospital setting, “[q]ualification is determined on the basis of education, experience, specialized training, State licensure or registration when applicable, and maintaining professional standards of practice.”

• Indiana: HB 1272. We recently sent special action alert to Indiana residents about this.
• West Virginia: HB 2533. We will be emailing a special action alert to WV citizens soon.
• New Jersey: AB 2182/ SB 833. The bills are still “alive” but in a holding pattern.
• In Illinois the law is much improved. We were able to get the Illinois legislature to replace the state’s ten-year-old monopolistic dietitian law to include certified nutritionists. The new law is currently in the rule-writing phase. We will keep you updated.

• Roasting and blanching completely cook the nuts, so they are no longer raw.
• Steam reduces nutrient content and also cooks the nuts.
• PPO, a “probable human carcinogen,” is an extremely volatile liquid now used in the production of polyurethane plastics, and once used as a racing fuel until it was banned for being too dangerous.

Click Here to TAKE ACTION ]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/wireless-smart-meter-opt-out-in-maryland/feed/ 8 http://www.anh-usa.org/mandated-flu-shots-in-connecticut/ http://www.anh-usa.org/mandated-flu-shots-in-connecticut/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:16:28 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=9460 Please support SB55, a bill that would prevent employers from mandating that their employees receive flu vaccines as a condition of their employment. The US flu shot still contains mercury, which among other things is associated with the development of Alzheimer’s. And a recent study indicates that people who received a flu shot were more likely to become infected with the H1N1 flu virus than people who haven’t received the shot. Residents of Connecticut should not be forced to receive an ineffective and potentially dangerous medical procedure.

Click Here to Take Action ]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/mandated-flu-shots-in-connecticut/feed/ 5 http://www.anh-usa.org/compact-fluorescent-light-bulbs-a-new-cancer-risk-in-your-home/ http://www.anh-usa.org/compact-fluorescent-light-bulbs-a-new-cancer-risk-in-your-home/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:00:28 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=9431 Warning: strpos() [function.strpos]: Offset not contained in string. in /usr/local/www/wp-includes/feed-rss2.php on line 58
...]]> Have the government and General Electric lied to us? Action Alert! The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) mandates the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs, and favors energy-efficient compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. Sounds good—until you realize that CFL bulbs contain mercury, and mercury poses a significant cancer risk. A new study shows that CFL bulbs also emit high levels of ultraviolet radiation—specifically, UVC and UVA rays. In fact, the UV rays are so strong that they can actually burn skin and skin cells. Experts say the radiation could initiate cell death and cause skin cancer in its deadliest form—melanoma. In every bulb the researchers tested, they found that the protective phosphor coating of the light bulb was cracked, allowing dangerous UV rays to escape. Healthy skin cells exposed to CFLs showed a decrease in their proliferation rate, an increase in the production of reactive oxygen species, and a decrease in ability to contract collagen. On top of that, it’s a sad fact of life that light bulbs break. How do you clean up the mercury after a bulb breaks? The Institute for Molecular and Nanoscale Innovation measured the release of mercury vapor from broken bulbs. They recorded concentrations near the bulb of up to 800 mcg/m³, which is eight times the average eight-hour occupational exposure limit allowed by OSHA (100 mcg/m³). Even more shocking, the recommended limit for children is a mere 0.2 mcg/m³. A child exposed to a broken CFL bulb will receive eight thousand times the recommended amount of mercury vapor! A broken 13-watt CFL bulb will only have released 30% of its mercury a full four days after it is broken—the remainder is trapped in the bulb. So picking up shards with your bare hands or leaving them in poorly ventilated room while you ponder the best disposal method is a particularly bad idea. Unfortunately, there is no good solution for cleaning up after a broken CFL bulb. Researchers at Brown are testing a cloth made with a nanomaterial (nanoselim) that can capture mercury emissions for proper disposal. But until this is commercially available, it is best to avoid CFLs altogether. And how will we dispose of the clean-up cloth? General Electric claims that CFLs don’t produce a hazardous amount of UV radiation, and that UV is far less than the amount produced by natural daylight. The truth is that all compact fluorescent lights bulbs contain mercury vapor. Once that vapor is hit with an electric current, it emits a great number of UV rays. UV rays are theoretically absorbed by the layer of phosphor that coats the bulbs—but the signature twisted spiral shape makes these bulbs more prone to cracks in the phosphor, which dramatically increases UV/mercury exposure. Researchers found cracks in almost all bulbs purchased from retail stores, indicating that it is a standard design flaw of these bulbs. CFL bulbs contains other cancer-causing chemicals as well. German scientists found that several different chemicals and toxins were released when CFLs are turned on, including naphthalene (which has been linked to cancer in animals) and styrene (which has been declared “a likely human carcinogen”). A sort of electrical smog develops around these lamps, which could be dangerous. CFLs are supposedly better for the environment, but according to the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 98% of CFLs end up in landfills—creating a mercury build-up that can escape into our soil and waterways. We’re happy that the federal government is tackling environmental problems, but this “solution” is especially short-sighted—and not unlike the national smart meter push, is creating serious health risks in the long-term. Worse, soon consumers won’t have the option to buy incandescent lights—they simply won’t be available. The government hasn’t placed an outright ban on incandescent light bulbs. Section 321 of EISA mandates higher efficiency standards for general service lamps. But these standards are high enough that most commonly used incandescent bulbs just won’t meet the new requirements. EISA will effectively eliminate 40-, 60-, 75-, and 100-watt incandescent bulbs. The new efficiency levels will be in full force by 2014. Even the United Nations has acknowledged the problem of mercury in CFL bulbs, and has instated a ban on certain types of CFLs. We won’t know the full implications of that ban until the treaty is made publically available. The good news is that CFLs are not the only energy-efficient bulbs out there. There are also light-emitting diodes (LEDs), which are mercury-free—though LEDs emit blue light, which can be disruptive to sleep, as we noted in our 2012 article. Action Alert! Please contact your legislators immediately and call for a repeal of the ban on incandescent lights. Tell them about the cancer risks and the lack of proper disposal methods. Please take action today!

• Envisioning and implementing innovative ways to grow our donor program
• Expanding prospect pipeline and funding base by accessing new networks and leveraging existing ones
• Identifying, cultivating, and securing five- and six-figure gifts from individual, corporate, and foundation donors
• Developing weekly reports and preparing monthly briefings to the Executive Director on the status of contacts, solicitations, and proposals
• Effectively communicating organizational mission, vision, and strategy to ensure donors are aligned, inspired, and engaged
• Accurately and positively representing the organization to donors, decision makers, and members of the public
• Attending trade shows, conferences, and other events to network with influential persons, potential donors, and existing donors
• Coordinating fundraising efforts with the Membership Director
• Acting as a liaison between major donors and organizational staff to ensure staff are aware of donor concerns

• Ad-hoc research to support the work of the Executive Director
• Working with the Campaigns and Communications Director in the development and promulgation of a policy agenda
• Establishing relationships and working with legislators and their staff to develop, amend, pass, withdraw, and defeat bills as appropriate, including crafting language for legislation, drafting comments on administrative regulations, and authoring policy briefs

• Representing and advocating for ANH-USA and its constituents with federal and state elected and agency officials
• Identifying, tracking, and monitoring the movement of key legislation and policy proposals that may impact the natural health and health freedom communities
• Assisting the Executive Director in developing research-informed positions that ANH-USA may take on policy and legislation, making specific recommendations that seek legislative and/or administrative action at state, local, and/or federal levels
• Supporting the Executive Director in the operation of a functional and productive office and work on various projects as needed

• A history of successfully raising money for politically active non-profits from multiple sources (e.g., individual donors, foundations, and corporations)
• Recent experience personally soliciting five- or six-figure gifts
• Proven success building a portfolio of donors from scratch
• Excellent communication skills with an emphasis on brevity, persuasiveness, and the ability to relate to a number of politically diverse constituencies and audiences
• Passion, energy, and the ability to command the respect of donors
• Personal interest in natural health is essential
• Willingness to travel by airplane for 3 to 5 days per month on average
• The ability to work independently with initiative and efficiency

• 3 to 5 years of experience
• Pre-existing connections to influential persons and/or potential donors in the natural health and integrative medicine community
• Proven success in increasing the visibility of a small organization
• Experience personally closing five- or six-figure gifts
• Experience with Convio CMS
• Experience with a small organization undergoing rapid growth

Will that avoid mass shootings like Sandy Hook—or just put people on the very drugs that can make them homicidal?

• Steven Kazmierczak, who shot five people and wounded twenty-one others, was taking a cocktail of three different prescribed psychiatric drugs, including Prozac and Xanax.
• Jeff Weise, who shot and killed his grandparents before going to his school and killing seven students and a teacher, wounding seven others, then killing himself, was on Prozac.
• Jason Hoffman, who was taking the antidepressants Celexa and Effexor, opened fire on his classmates, wounding three students and two teachers.
• Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed twelve students and a teacher and wounded twenty-six others before killing themselves. Harris was on the antidepressant Luvox.
• Kip Kinkel, who murdered his parents, then at school killed two and wounded twenty-five, had just gone off Prozac.
• Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, was “on medication.” ABC News said he had “mental illness” and a “personality disorder”—the very conditions that would lead one to be treated with psychiatric drugs.

2/13/2013: An earlier version of this article stated that TCAs are a newer class of antidepressants than SSRIs. TCAs are actually older, which the article has been edited to reflect.

Five states have introduced seven different “Ag-Gag bills” to silence people who try to expose CAFO practices. State-based Action Alerts!

• There are approximately 15,000 CAFOs in the US, which raise 50% of all animals used for our food.
• The largest food processors hold the greatest share of the market, so they wield more power, both economic and political.
• CAFOs receive a wide array of subsidies, both direct and indirect, such as crop subsidies on the corn and soybean used to feed CAFO animals. This in turn means more money in the pockets of feed producers like Monsanto.
• Because CAFOs are not held accountable for the environmental and health damage they do, they don’t have to worry about those costs, putting more into their pocket. Those costs are absorbed by the public at large.
• There are also the economies of scale: once a farm is automated for a large number of animals, doubling that number does not mean a doubling of costs. Organic costs more to produce—as much as 20% more—than  CAFOs and factory farms because they require more labor (no use of dangerous of chemicals), more costly fertilizer, higher labor costs for crop rotation, more money spent on organic certification, slower growing time, greater post-harvest handling costs to avoid cross-contamination, and more spacious (and thus more expensive) living conditions for livestock. And of course they don’t receive the aforementioned subsidies.

Arkansas residents

Take Action

Indiana residents

Take Action

Nebraska residents

Take Action

New Hampshire residents

Take Action

Wyoming residents

Take Action ]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/big-farma-hide-dirty-secrets/feed/ 21 http://www.anh-usa.org/vaccine-free-choice-states/ http://www.anh-usa.org/vaccine-free-choice-states/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:02:40 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=9365 There has been a recent spate of bills in state legislatures concerning vaccine rights. If you live in New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, or Virginia, tell your representatives that vaccine free choice is important to you and your family. Act now!

New Jersey Residents - Tell your Legislators to Support Vaccine Free Choice!

New York Residents - Tell your Legislators to Support Vaccine Free Choice!

Oregon Residents - Tell your Legislators to Support Vaccine Free Choice!

Texas Residents -  Tell your Legislators to Support Vaccine Free Choice!

Vermont Residents - Tell your Legislators to Support Vaccine Free Choice!

Virginia Residents - Tell your Legislators to Support Vaccine Free Choice!

Illinois mothers were arrested for preventing the installation of “smart meters” on their properties. It could happen to you. Action Alert!

The current medical literature raises credible questions about genetic and cellular effects, hormonal effects, male fertility, blood/brain barrier damage and increased risk of certain types of cancers from RF or ELF levels similar to those emitted from “smart meters.” Children are placed at particular risk for altered brain development, and impaired learning and behavior….The American Academy of Environmental Medicine finds it unacceptable from a public health standpoint to implement this technology until these serious medical concerns are resolved.

Now they want to vaccinate pregnant women with potentially dangerous vaccines. Where will this lunacy end?

Much of the effectiveness of the whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine is a statistical mirage; it’s hardly surprising that the current US outbreak is occurring against a background of record vaccination rates. Washington, for example, one of the states worst affected by the current outbreak, recorded that 92.9% of children aged 18–36 months received 3 or more doses of the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP) vaccine in 2010–11.

Editor's Note 2/6/2013: An earlier version of this article contained a typo stating that the Lancet study reported that among vaccinated adults 1.2% did not catch the flu, when in fact the study reported that 1.2% did catch the flu.

This new language creates the mechanism for the Dietetics board to harass and undermine unlicensed practitioners as they have been doing in other states.

In the absence of any significant, or vetted, documentation of harm to the public from non-RD practitioners, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has adopted strategy of filing complaints to convince legislators of the need for exclusionary laws. This new language creates the mechanism for the Dietetics board to harass and undermine unlicensed practitioners as they have been doing in other states

Contact your elected representatives in Indiana TODAY and let them know that the Dietetic Association—which is funded by the junk food industry—will not monopolize the nutrition profession in Indiana!

Click Here to Take Action

• Esophageal: 3% for esophageal cancers that metastasize, which is common in this aggressive cancer; the average for all forms of esophageal cancer is 15–20%
• Lung: 4% for lung cancers that metastasize; the average for all forms of lung cancer is 16%
• Pancreatic: 2% for pancreatic cancers that metastasize; the average for all forms of pancreatic cancer is 6%

• Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez’s enzymatic therapy for cancer, which we described in a recent article.
• Dr. Jeanne Drisko’s research on the use of intravenous vitamin C at the University of Kansas.
• Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s pioneering research on a nontoxic gene-targeted cancer therapy called antineoplastons, which has successfully survived attack after attack from conventional medicine and the Texas state medical board.

• “I’d assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.” Lynas says GMO benefits small farmers, who rely on and want the seeds. Not true. Farmers in India went into debt to buy GE seeds, hoping for increased yield, and when those crops failed due to pest infestation, they were left more impoverished with no prospects for the future. Farmers were not told that the crops would require twice the amount of water, and that the crops do not produce viable seeds—which means the farmers would have to keep purchasing new seeds. In response, many farmers killed themselves. The rate of Indian farmer suicides began increasing after the introduction of Monsanto’s Bt cotton in 2002, and two-thirds of farmer suicides occur in five Indian states, which has come to be known as India’s “Suicide Belt.” Over 17,000 farmers in India committed suicide in 2009 alone because of Monsanto and GE seeds. Many of the farmers made their suicides a symbolic act by drinking Monsanto’s pesticide. Lynas’s primary argument here is that GMOs will feed the world and increase crop yields. Our extensive article shows that this simply isn’t true.
• “I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.” True about insecticides, but wrong about the rest—insecticides are not the only chemical problem. GMOs have dramatically increased the use of herbicides. Roundup Ready crops have grown resistant to herbicides, creating superweeds that require even more dangerous and toxic herbicides.
• Lynas calls the regulatory system in Europe burdensome, unnecessarily increasing the cost of GMOs. Not everywhere! Here in the US there is no regulatory system specific to GMOs, turning consumers into human guinea pigs, and concentrating money and power in the hands of few powerful biotech companies, with the USDA rubberstamping GMO deregulation to the benefit of Big Farma.
• “I’d assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding, using mutagenesis for example.” Safer than mutagenesis, a process that involves exposure to radiation and chemicals? Maybe. Safe? Categorically untrue. For someone who says he has come to love the scientific method, this is a remarkably unscientific conclusion, because there have been no long-term human studies supporting the safety of GMOs. What is most notable about the GMO field is the lack of independent, objective, and long-term studies in humans. There have, however, been plenty of animal studies, and here the science is becoming clearer: GMOs may be causing birth defects, high infant mortality rates, fertility problems, and sterility in hamsters, rats, mice, and livestock fed GMO soy and corn, and some hamster pups even began growing hair inside their mouths. Studies indicate other serious health risks as well: immune system dysregulation, with changes in the number of immune response cells showing up in the gut, spleen, and blood—all of which points to an allergenic and inflammatory response to GMOs; increased aging (especially in the liver); dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation; and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen, and gastrointestinal system.

The AAP found no individual health benefit from purchasing organic milk, but emphasizes that all milk should be pasteurized to reduce the risk of bacterial infections. Raw milk increases the risk of serious infection with bacteria including Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, Campylobacter and Brucella.

Recently, we asked for your help to raise $30,000. We told you about the disastrous New Dietary Ingredients draft guidance, how it threatens 29,000 supplements currently on the market, and how we need funds for educational costs and legal fees to fight it. Hundreds have already responded generously—but we still need your help!

We also shared how ANH-USA proudly represented you at the recent Codex meeting in Germany. Codex Alimentarius is a collection of internationally adopted food standards and guidelines that “supporters” (read: Big Business and Pharma) hope will “facilitate international trade” (read: make it easier to make more money with less consumer choice).

So, how do the NDI guidance & Codex threaten your access to quality supplements? Think of it as a domino effect:

• The EU has adopted absurd limits on supplements—either banning them or allowing for sale only dosage strengths so low as to be completely ineffective. Codex could easily follow suit, potentially impacting 185 countries.
• The FDA tends to follow the EU. In fact, the current NDI draft guidance mirrors the EU’s Novel Food Regulation.
• The FDA’s NDI guidance could restrict access to your favorite supplements. Even the thousands of supplements marketed prior to 1994 are in danger, as the FDA requires an unreasonable amount of evidence to prove an ingredient isn’t “new” (marketed after 1994).

In our increasingly interconnected world, the fight to protect supplements is going global. What happens abroad today could affect your access to supplements tomorrow. That’s why we can’t take a single day off—please act now, before it’s too late.

Any size gift makes a huge difference—$5, $50, $500, 
or more! Your donation will be 100% tax deductible—
every single penny goes straight to the Natural Health
Alliance Foundation, the charity that supports ANH-
USA’s legal and educational projects.

With your donation comes our promise: all of us at ANH-USA will do everything we can to protect your access to natural health in 2013. Happy holidays!

I’d like to introduce you to a friend of mine—she’s my personal inspiration to protect our dietary supplements from the FDA’s New Dietary Ingredient(NDI) guidance.

Carly Lockman is a Chicagoan, a mother-to-be, and works in the holistic nutrition field. For years, she suffered not only from hyperthyroidism, but from the endless doctor’s bills and pills that were supposed to cure her. Finally, after a punishing radiation “treatment,” Carly turned to natural health solutions: a diet of whole, organic foods; a toxin-free lifestyle; regular exercise; and nutritional supplements.

Carly is now disease-free and living life to the fullest, and is excited to share the benefits of a holistic lifestyle with her clients, her loved ones, and soon, her daughter.

But the way of life that you, Carly, and I value so highly is under attack: thousands of our nutritional supplements may soon disappear because of the FDA’s NDI guidance.

In June, the FDA revoked the first draft of its NDI guidance. This was a huge victory, and was only possible because you stood up to them with ANH-USA. Thank you! But that was one battle in what will be a long war. We now have a seat at FDA’s table representing consumers as the agency begins the revision process—though we fear the next draft could be even worse.

Your donation today, no matter how small, will allow us to continue the fight against the FDA’s anti-supplement bias.

ANH-USA works hard every day to protect your supplements from threats like these. We are the only consumer advocacy group in talks with the FDA over the next draft of the NDI guidance, because we are one of the few organizations that work on behalf of everyday people like you and Carly. Not Big Business, Big Pharma, or other special interests.

And we’re ready to take the fight to anyone, anywhere! As you read this, my boss and ANH-USA’s executive director, Gretchen DuBeau, is representing you in Germany at the meeting of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU). She’s there to protect the right of American consumers to truly wholesome foods and high-quality supplements.

But protecting access to supplements is expensive. In 2013, ANH-USA will meet with the FDA to monitor its revision of the NDI guidance and will alert you when the second draft guidance is issued (so you can tell the FDA exactly what you think). We will also submit formal comments on behalf of the public and commission an independent legal analysis—but this will easily cost tens of thousands of dollars.

This is why we need your help:

Our goal is to raise $30,000 by December 31 for research, education, and action on the next NDI draft guidance. Will you make a tax-deductible gift today? Every dollar makes a difference.

Thank you so much for your support! Our work would not be possible without it.

P.S.: As an extra bonus, through December 31, your qualifying donation earns you a reusable tote bag, BPA-free water bottle, picnic blanket, or yoga mat that lets you proudly show off your support for ANH-USA. Please make your gift today!

Jonathan V. Wright, MD, writes:

Re your December 4 article on Xyrem, I thought you would be interested to know that Xyrem is actually not a patent medicine (“drug”). It is entirely identical to the natural substance gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB). In the US, it was once used as a sedative. In Europe, it is still used safely as a sedative during childbirth. In the US, by contrast, it was categorized as a Schedule I controlled substance (like heroin) by act of Congress in 2000, principally on the grounds that it had been used for date rape. Alcohol, also associated with date rape, was not included in the same act.

As a controlled substance, GHB cannot be compounded by a compounding pharmacy. It can, however, be sold as Xyrem. Because it is federally approved, it is able to be manufactured by only one company, is sold retail by only one pharmacy, costs (as of 2011) $1,750 per prescription—and is covered by insurance.

As we come to the end of our 20th anniversary year, we celebrate some major victories, thanks to your grassroots activism.

Dietetics Monopoly

Informed Vaccine Choice

Sen. Durbin's PDUFA Amendment

NDI Guidance

Dangerous GMO Riders

Amicus Brief on Raw Almonds

TMB’s Lawsuit against Dr. Burzynski Dismissed

Ask your representative to sign the Dear Colleague letter.

Ask your senators to oppose the biotech rider if the language finds its way in the fiscal package.

• In a participatory wellness program, participation is enough to get the reward (lower premiums, more benefits) or to avoid paying a penalty. The program may include gym benefits, diagnostic testing (blood sugar, BMI, etc.).
• In a health-contingent wellness program, the reward or penalty is tied to certain outcomes. Tobacco cessation programs are tied to actual cessation of smoking. Diagnostic testing programs are tied to meeting required levels—such as a body mass index (BMI) of lower than 200—or else participating in a program that will help lower BMI in order to get the reward or avoid the penalty.

• Genetically engineered plants and animals being globally accepted with little to no scientific vetting;
• Standards concerning “healthy food production systems” (i.e., organics) being dumbed down, and the approval of synthetic additives and processing aids in “organic” food, to better suit profit-driven corporate interests;
• The acceptance of dangerously high pesticide residue levels;
• Banning useful supplements or setting excessively low maximum daily doses based on scientifically flawed risk-assessment methods;
• Creating rules that may force foods or supplements into the drug category; and
• Creating an international requirement for hyper-expensive drug-style clinical trials before one can share any health information about a food or supplement.

• The Food Quality Protection Act states that FDA must consider Codex maximum levels when establishing tolerance for pesticide chemical residue in or on food. If the agency decides to depart from the Codex standards, they have to provide an explanation for public comment.
• Under the Animal Drug Availability Act, in establishing tolerance levels of drugs, the FDA may consider and rely on Codex standards.
• The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (which we reported on extensively) required the FDA to provide recommendations on whether and how US should harmonize with Codex requirements. This opens the door towards much greater harmonization with Codex standards. Fortunately, ANH-USA secured a big victory by exempting dietary supplements from this provision.

I was called in for an “interview” with a senior investigator and a seasoned cardiologist who does professional questioning at these interviews. I will admit I was treated with dignity and respect. I was questioned on ALL my oxidation methods, the science and rationale, since I did them all with this patient, including direct intravenous gas administration. I was questioned on the supplements, on informed consent, and even charting and signing off on notes….

Then [the investigators] got a chance to review a case with an identical cancer that I was simultaneously treating. This patient was 20 years older (76), and his colon cancer, with huge [metastases] to the liver, was terminal. He had only a few weeks (at best) to live….The board’s cardiologist looked at the scans and blood tests I showed him that proved a 100% remission of terminal end-stage cancer, and shook his head side to side, exclaiming, “That’s just unheard of!”

And to paraphrase a famous Californian, “We’ll be back!” Sign the pledge.

• Campbell Soup
• Coca-Cola
• ConAgra
• Del Monte
• General Mills
• Hershey
• Hormel
• Kellogg
• Kraft
• Land O’ Lakes
• Mars
• McCormick
• Nestlé
• PepsiCo
• Sara Lee
• As well as with many other food manufacturers

]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/vote-for-your-family-health-on-november-6/feed/ 6 http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-grandfathered-ingredients-rule-and-vitamin-e/ http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-grandfathered-ingredients-rule-and-vitamin-e/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:00:52 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=8875 Warning: strpos() [function.strpos]: Offset not contained in string. in /usr/local/www/wp-includes/feed-rss2.php on line 58
...]]> Supplements not on an FDA “approved” list could disappear. The NDI guidance interprets the rules for new supplements. After your protests got the first draft scrubbed, work on a second draft continues at FDA. A second meeting between FDA and “stakeholders”—mostly trade groups, with ANH-USA once again the only grassroots consumer group present—took place on October 16. As we reported after the first meeting, the New Dietary Ingredients guidelines still pose a major threat. This is because FDA is trying to reaffirm the policies of the original guidance, particularly the elements that could remove huge numbers of supplements from the market. Much of the meeting was dedicated to a discussion about how to create a list of “grandfathered” dietary ingredients (supplements). These supplements would have been sold prior to 1994, the year the underlying law, DSHEA, was passed and therefore would not require jumping through further regulatory hoops before being sold. The question was: what evidence would be required to show that a supplement was sold prior to 1994? FDA says such a list won’t necessarily be final, and won’t be the only supplements allowed to be sold. But we could easily conceive of that being the outcome if left to the agency. We are also concerned that FDA wants to set the evidentiary bar so high that many supplements which were definitely sold prior to 1994 still won’t pass. According to FDA, any of the following is sufficient to prove that a supplement was marketed before DSHEA was passed: an invoice, a bill of lading, a product label, or a catalog, provided it clearly indicates a date. But many companies don’t have this kind of documentation from eighteen years ago! For example, pyridoxamine (a B6 vitamin) was marketed before DSHEA, but no one in the industry has been able to provide the documentation required by FDA. Even signed affidavits from industry members have been inadequate in FDA’s eyes. What if a dietary ingredient is, and has always been, in our food? Doesn’t that mean it was “marketed” before 1994? Not to the FDA. The supplement must have been separated out of the food, and sold for its own properties. Human beings have consumed the antioxidant resveratrol for millennia because it’s found naturally in the skin of grapes. But no one in the industry has yet been able to prove that resveratrol was marketed as a separate ingredient or was found on the label of a food or supplement before 1994. The problem is a little different with P5P. P5P is the only form of vitamin B6 that the body can use directly. It’s produced naturally in the body: all other forms of B6, whether in food or in supplement form, must be converted to P5P first; without it we die. Most of us don’t get enough B6 in our diet, and some people lack the enzymes needed to convert pyridoxine into P5P. There shouldn’t be any problem grandfathering P5P since there is no question that B6 was sold prior to 1994. But the FDA says no. If the form of B6 sold earlier was not P5P, if the label didn’t say P5P, they won’t grandfather it. As we have previously reported, a drug company, Medicure Pharma, wants sole use of P5P and has petitioned the FDA to ban its use as a supplement entirely. Although Medicure has yet to market a drug made from P5P, it has already petitioned FDA to have the supplement banned now. This idea of taking what we cannot live without and turning it into a controlled prescription drug is shocking. But this could only be the beginning. We are concerned this new “approved” list of supplements will be used by drug companies to knock out competition from other supplements effortlessly. For a supplement to get on the grandfathered list, the FDA says it cannot be “chemically altered”—and the definition of that term was another bone of contention at the meeting. Many grandfathered ingredients, because they now go through different (and often safer) manufacturing processes than they did before 1994, could therefore be considered “chemically altered” by the FDA. So either supplement producers would have to revert to pre-DSHEA manufacturing processes, or else they would no longer be on the grandfathered list! Consumers would get the short end of the stick either way, but the FDA doesn’t care. As we pointed out when the first draft of the guidance was issued, FDA’s stance is so extreme that a ripe apple would be considered “chemically altered” when compared to an unripe apple! Logic would suggest that the production process should not matter if the end ingredient is basically the same. In all of this, FDA seems to be targeting new, improved, or technologically advanced supplements, presumably because they see them as potential competitors to drugs. If they keep cutting-edge supplements off the market, drug companies can also make big money by selling the older version of the supplement, as Pfizer does with its Centrum multivitamin that we discussed last week. Here’s another example of why this question of a grandfathered list is so important. Vitamin E is a powerful antioxidant that prevents cell structure damage, boosts the immune system, reduces cholesterol, lowers the risk of developing cancer, thins the blood, helps skin repair itself, and even strengthens your hair. And everyone “knows” that vitamin E was sold prior to 1994. It currently appears on a trade association’s list of grandfathered dietary ingredients. However, this has not yet been vetted or approved by the FDA. If the proper documentation can’t be found, either vitamin E would be off the grandfathered list, or else some forms of E might be listed and others might not. This is important because different forms of the vitamin work very differently. Vitamin E in the form of mixed tocopherols may prevent breast cancer, among other benefits, whereas the common alpha-tocopherol form may not. Some researchers and integrative doctors actually warn against taking alpha-tocopherol alone because it may interfere with the body’s use of the other forms of vitamin E. Unfortunately, this information has been buried by the media. All of the research on vitamin E that the media has been reporting—and badmouthing—has used alpha-tocopherols instead of mixed tocopherols, as Dr. Jonathan Wright points out in the current issue of his Nutrition and Healing newsletter. We are pleased that the FDA is including stakeholders at the NDI guidance redraft meetings. We are pleased that consumers were included by inviting us. But there are reasons to be very watchful. We don’t want a grandfathered list that will not only exclude many supplements actually sold before 1994, but will also make it easier to reject all newer supplements. With vigilance and your help, we won’t let that happen.

]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-grandfathered-ingredients-rule-and-vitamin-e/feed/ 34 http://www.anh-usa.org/industrial-farming-interests-set-us-up-for-mass-starvation/ http://www.anh-usa.org/industrial-farming-interests-set-us-up-for-mass-starvation/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:30:12 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=8854 Allowing only one color of pig (or cow, corn, wheat, tomato, etc.) is a very bad idea. You can help. Action alert! As we reported in April, Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) issued an Invasive Species Order, or ISO, that was supposed to “help stop the spread of feral swine and the disease risk they pose,” not to mention their “potential for extensive agricultural and ecosystem damage.” Quite intentionally, we believe, the ISO’s unnecessarily broad definition includes heritage or “old world” breeds and open-range pigs raised on small family farms. These are included because they do not have the uniform color and appearance of factory-raised pigs. The order allows DNR to seize and destroy non-conforming animals—some farmers’ principal livelihood and what remains of porcine genetic diversity—and will not compensate farmers whose pigs are destroyed. Even pet pigs could be in danger. Many observers believe that the Michigan Pork Producers Association is behind the order. The MPPA is a coalition of CAFOs or factory farming operations that would view the small pig farmers as undesirable competition. The ISO eliminates this competition and ensures that consumers have no choice but to purchase white pork from the confinement facilities, which are exempt from the ISO. In addition, the order is also described by some farmers as “a brazen power grab” by the Michigan DNR to expand its jurisdiction beyond hunting and fishing to now include farming operations. Since our earlier report, four lawsuits have been filed by small farmers against the DNR to overturn the ISO on the grounds that it is vague and contradictory. Two of the plaintiffs are heritage breed farmers who actually received an order for them to “depopulate.” To say that the order is vague and contradictory is an understatement. We doubt that whoever wrote it ever saw a pig. One of the defining characteristics of a feral swine in the ISO is tail structure: “Sus scrofa exhibit straight tails. They contain the muscular structure to curl their tails if needed, but the tails are typically held straight. Hybrids of Sus scrofa exhibit either curly or straight tail structure.” So in plain English, a pig with either a straight tail or curly tail is either a feral or a non-feral swine! If it is the wrong one, eliminate it! The lawsuits were consolidated into a single hearing to determine whether the ISO—and DNR’s Declaratory Ruling interpreting the ISO—could be voided. A ruling is expected next month. At the same time, there is a campaign to petition the governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, to rescind the ISO. If the governor lets it stand, other states will take note, and we may get the same sort of order from other state agencies. The ISO is not only bad for Michigan local farmers. It would also leave us with only one kind of pig by destroying the genetic diversity of pig genes presently available. If humanity goes down the road it seems to be on and discards its heritage seeds and animals so that powerful corporate interests, assisted by friends in government, can control our food supply, we shouldn’t be surprised if the eventual result is mass starvation. If we stop this outrageous order in Michigan, we won’t just have stopped it there. We will have prevented its spread to other states. Action Alert! If you’re a Michigan resident, please write to Gov. Snyder and ask him to rescind the ISO. Besides being terribly unfair to small farmers, heritage and “old world” breeds of pigs are important to provide genetic variety to an increasingly limited gene pool.

• Sensors—implantable or attachable devices that can monitor the conditions of diabetics, asthmatics, heart patients, and patients with numerous other chronic conditions—will allow patients and doctors to modify therapeutic regimens and tailor treatments to individual needs and responses.
• Genetic testing to see if a patient’s own genes indicate that she or he should take certain drugs or avoid other drugs, tailoring medical treatment to personal needs in a dramatic way.

• To get paid—whether for implanting a sensor or for conducting a genetic test—there has to be a Medicare billing code. If the product or the test is new, getting Medicare to create a new billing code for it can take a long time and cost a significant amount of money.
• Even if there is already a billing code, Medicare must agree to pay for the service. In general, Medicare has not been willing to pay for genetic testing (except in screening for compatibility for kidney and bone marrow transplants), and it is certainly unwilling to do the level of genetic testing needed to do truly personalized medicine.
• Congress has imposed price controls on what Medicare can pay laboratories that conduct genetic testing. So the number and extent of the tests themselves will necessarily be limited.
• Clinical trials are time-consuming and expensive. But the bigger problem is that with personalized medicine, doctors are going to react to the information the sensor provides and change their therapy accordingly. As a result, every patient in the clinical trial could be treated differently—which defeats the whole purpose of a trial. Since random-controlled trials are the “gold standard,” RCTs will be kept, and personalized medicine will be jettisoned.
• Out-of-date and inflexible malpractice laws complicate matters because an electronic sensor can send the doctor a great deal of data at any time day or night. Some doctors worry that buried in the data could be information that the doctor doesn’t see. If a problem later develops, a lawyer might argue that he should have seen it. And that means many doctors simply won’t use sensors, just to be on the safe side.

]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/government-keeps-medicine-in-the-dark-ages-part-3/feed/ 12 http://www.anh-usa.org/turnabout-mainstream-media-vitamins-cancer/ http://www.anh-usa.org/turnabout-mainstream-media-vitamins-cancer/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:00:10 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=8857 These vitamins come from a major drug company. Maybe we should conclude that vitamins made by a drug company reduce cancer and others don’t? A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, favorite home for every would-be debunker of vitamins, finds that a low-dose multivitamin may help prevent cancer in men, cutting their risk by up to 8%. Two facets of the study were especially interesting. The multivitamin tested, Centrum Silver, is made by Big Pharma company Pfizer. And the study specifically tied the benefits to lower doses which, according to the study’s lead author, are to be preferred to higher doses. This conclusion was of course in no way supported by the study itself. We don’t know what the author means by low or high doses. It probably isn’t what integrative MDs and DOs would mean. But we think that just discussing the issue this way reveals a lack of understanding. Supplements need to be combined properly. If used therapeutically, the dose must be tailored to the individual and address his or her specific deficiencies in order to be effective. This is precisely the sort of thing that cannot be studied through double-blind random-controlled trials, or RCTs (the so-called “gold standard” of conventional medicine), which tends to ignore gender, age, and genetic differences in order to achieve a standardized, one-size-fits-all approach. The authors of this new study also write that “the role of food-focused cancer prevention strategy such as targeted fruit and vegetable intake remains promising but unproven, given the inconsistent epidemiologic evidence and lack of definitive trial data.” Well, yes, we can probably learn more from properly conducted studies. But let’s keep in mind that the nutrient content of food varies enormously based on the quality of the soil it is grown in and other factors. The same is true of supplements. It would be interesting to test Centrum to see how good the ingredients are. This is not the multivitamin that most of us at ANH would take. Indeed, we generally don’t buy our supplements at the drug store, where the ingredients are often synthetic (among other issues). We buy from local or online health food stores. And no matter what food or supplement you buy, we have to reiterate: people differ, and they certainly differ in how they use and react to food and supplements. One-size-fits-all is fine for auto manufacture, not for people. In addition, the media response to this study has been big—and overwhelmingly positive. Could this be because the only multivitamin used for the duration of the study was Centrum Silver, a supplement manufactured by Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company? Although Pfizer did not fund the study, it assisted with it by supplying the samples. And Big Pharma keeps mainstream media afloat through its advertising dollars. Not surprisingly, the brand of the supplement is named prominently in almost all the coverage. Without the backing of Big Pharma, media coverage of supplements is usually very different indeed! ]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/turnabout-mainstream-media-vitamins-cancer/feed/ 7 http://www.anh-usa.org/new-bills-could-limit-access-to-natural-compounded-drugs/ http://www.anh-usa.org/new-bills-could-limit-access-to-natural-compounded-drugs/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:00:16 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=8844 Millions rely on compounding pharmacies for natural hormones and other critical drugs. Will we lose them to a congressional/FDA power play? About 14,000 patients received injections in the spine for back pain using steroids from the New England Compounding Center (NECC), based in Framingham, Massachusetts. According to the US Centers for Disease Control, 214 fungal meningitis cases in ten states have been connected to the injections, with the bulk of them in Tennessee (53), Michigan (41), Virginia (34), and Indiana (28). As of Monday, fifteen people have died. Compounding pharmacies are terribly important to the integrative health community for several reasons. They combine or alter ingredients to create custom drugs that meet the specific needs of individual patients, such as a smaller dose or the removal of an ingredient that might trigger an allergy in a patient. Very importantly, they also make compounded bioidentical hormones such as the estriol so many women take instead of dangerous synthetic estrogen replacement products like Prempro or Premarin. There are also complete thyroid products and many others. Compounders may also put natural hormones in a cream to be applied to the skin, which is by far the best way to take them. For some reason, drug companies generally put them into pills that must go through the stomach and liver system, which may change hormones in undesirable ways. The bad steroid shots were different and do not fit this model. They were mass produced and somehow became tainted with fungus. Some older patients (the median age of those affected is 68) have experienced fungal meningitis symptoms, including headache, fever, stiff neck, and sensitivity to light, a few have suffered strokes, and some have died. This is a terrible tragedy that should never have occurred. According to Reuters, emails to a customer indicate that the center sold drugs to doctors without seeing proof of individual patients’ prescriptions as required by Massachusetts law. However, it is not illegal for healthcare providers to buy in bulk from licensed pharmacies like NECC, so further investigation will be necessary before we know all the facts in this case. From a natural medicine perspective, one also has to ask: why are doctors injecting powerful steroids into the backs of elderly people? Ostensibly for pain relief. But is this a safe or effective or lasting approach to pain relief? One thing we know for sure is that such powerful steroids are very hard on the bones, so is it sensible to inject something like this right into the spine? No one in the mainstream media to our knowledge is asking these questions—or is likely to. Reps. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT) and Edward Markey (D-MA) have both announced they will introduce bills focusing on compounding pharmacies. We have also learned that Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) plans to propose giving the US Food and Drug Administration more authority—despite the fact that FDA already has more than enough authority to have prevented this tragedy. In fact, FDA sent the NECC a warning letter in 2006 “detailing significant violations witnessed” by investigators the previous year. The agency identified a problem at the facility but seems not to have followed up. So what is the real purpose of these new bills from Reps. DeLauro and Markey and Sen. Blumenthal? Some of the proposals for the bills being circulated would effectively outlaw all compounded drugs by classifying them as “new” drugs. In current law there is something of a blurry line on when a compounded drug becomes an entirely new one and therefore subject to the FDA drug approval process. In the past, FDA has tried to argue that any changes to the approved drugs used in the compounding formula—even changing the delivery method from oral to intravenous, for example—would make the compounded drug a new drug and therefore subject to the drug approval process. Compounding pharmacists and doctors have argued that this is fully within the practice of medicine, which is regulated at the state level. The courts have agreed that it’s important for doctors to be able to prescribe individually tailored drug formulas for patients if what is needed is not commercially available. If new legislation were to give FDA explicit authority to require compounded drugs to pass through FDA’s outrageously expensive drug approval process, it would dramatically limit the medications that practitioners could prescribe and patients could take. Many compounding pharmacies would be forced out of business. Big Pharma is already using the NECC problem as an opportunity to ramp up attacks on compounded pharmacists. They want to eliminate the competition that compounding pharmacies present. Moreover, they’re suddenly questioning whether bioidentical hormones (which are made by compounded pharmacies) are safe in light of the scandal—they’re trying to scare practitioners with malpractice threats. Bioidentical hormones like  estriol have long been under attack by the FDA and drug companies, essentially working together. Compounding pharmacies may also offer complete, time-release, desiccated thyroid compounds, which can be difficult to find elsewhere. Most thyroid medications made by drug companies are not complete, and some of these important thyroid medications are never available in time-release versions. ANH-USA will be working on Capitol Hill to preempt any bad legislative language, and ensure that any bill that is introduced will not threaten consumer access to compounded drugs. Although Big Pharma has enormous clout on the Hill, a few compounders—generally the ones who mass produce drugs—are big donors too (such as the California compounding company owner who donated over $1 million to a super PAC supporting President Obama). So it is difficult to predict how the money politics will play out. Regardless of who is at fault in the tragic NECC meningitis case, this isolated incident—one where the FDA has full authority to act but failed to do so—should not be used to justify a whole new regulatory paradigm that will benefit the pharmaceutical industry alone while reducing access to important medications for the rest of us—including special-needs populations such as the autistic and those sensitive to particular ingredients or full potency drugs.]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/new-bills-could-limit-access-to-natural-compounded-drugs/feed/ 68 http://www.anh-usa.org/journalist-uncovers-dietetics-board-campaign-to-limit-speech-and-competition/ http://www.anh-usa.org/journalist-uncovers-dietetics-board-campaign-to-limit-speech-and-competition/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:00:49 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=8846 Working on a tip from ANH-USA, a reporter discovers internal documents detailing the true motives of the dietetics board. Action Alert! In July we reported that the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition is being sued because the board wanted to prevent a blogger, Steve Cooksey, from offering free nutrition advice based on personal experience—even to his friends over the phone. ANH-USA has now spoken with several people investigated by that board, and we’ve learned that the Cooksey case was just the tip of an iceberg: the NC Board of Dietetics/Nutrition has been involved in the investigation and surveillance of nearly fifty people and organizations in North Carolina over the past five years. An investigative reporter for the Carolina Journal, Sara Burrows, has obtained a document showing that the board’s investigation included athletic trainers, a nurse, a pharmacist, and even Duke University’s Integrative Medicine department. All have been accused of the same “crime”: practicing nutrition without a license. According to Burrows, the board, which is supposed to represent licensed professionals working in the field of diet and nutrition, is “interested in anyone who gives advice about what people should eat....If the accused is found guilty of ‘assessing’ someone’s dietary needs and ‘counseling’ that person as to what she should eat [without a proper license], he is told to stop. If he refuses, he could be convicted of a misdemeanor, forced to pay fines and even sent to jail.” The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, formerly the American Dietetic Association (AND/ADA), has stated repeatedly that the organization is not against people sharing nutrition information—but as soon as nutrition information addresses a specific health need of an individual, that’s “assessing and counseling,” and you need a license from the nutrition/dietetics board in NC to do it. In North Carolina, if you say, “People should avoid sugar,” that’s OK. But if you say, “If you have diabetes, you should avoid sugar,” then you’re guilty of a Class I misdemeanor which is punishable by fines and prison time. State nutrition boards that are controlled by AND/ADA often pursue complaints against nutrition and health professionals who are not Registered Dietitians. In some states, RDs who file complaints against other nutritionists actually receive prizes! This is true even though RDs are often only college graduates lacking the Masters and PhD degrees of better qualified and more highly trained nutritionists, like those credentialed by the Certification Board for Nutrition Specialists. According to this uncovered AND/ADA document, the organization wants to create the North Carolina type of board in all states. Under the guise of “public safety,” AND/ADA appears to be attempting to limit free speech and competition for the benefit of its corporate sponsors and paid membership. Action Alert! If you are a North Carolina resident, write to your state legislators and ask them to repeal the legislation that created the NC Board of Dietetics and Nutrition—it’s the only way to stop the board’s harassment of other nutrition professionals.

• The primary metabolism of many drugs is governed by cytochrome P450 (CYP), a group of enzymes in many tissues including the intestines and liver. If someone is lacking one of these CYP enzymes, they may be unable to detoxify their body from SSRIs and other drugs, leading to psychotic episodes.
• Other people are deficient in glutathione (or may be lacking a glutathione gene altogether), the molecule that helps detoxify the body, acts as an antioxidant, and strengthens the immune system.
• Other genetic variations affect drug transporters and receptors.

Why don’t they want it? Because some of them know too much. Here’s the whole tawdry tale.

• The government has formed strong partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry. For example, the federal government has just invested $400 million of your money toward the development and manufacture of vaccines and “medical countermeasures” to be used in health emergencies and preparedness protection. Vaccine giants Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Lonza are among those on the receiving end.
• Sometimes, as in the case of Gardasil, the government itself is involved in the vaccine’s development and grants a license to a vaccine maker for profit. The government is also subsidizing the development of adjuvants—that is, vaccine agents designed to increase the immune response—which are often very dangerous substances.
• The government then reviews the product for safety and efficacy and—no big shocker here—approves it.
• It then subsidizes the vaccine’s manufacture—$2.8 billion of taxpayer money in 2005 was spent subsidizing the rapid development of cell-based technology for making the flu vaccine.
• Having demonstrated a complete lack of objectivity, the same government issues guidelines to the states about mandating flu shots for all school children and healthcare workers.
• It then shields the vaccine manufacturer from any liability for adverse reactions to the flu shot, dismisses reports of adverse events, refuses to investigate them or even study whether the vaccine is actually conferring any immunity, which in many instances is highly doubtful.

]]> http://www.anh-usa.org/flu-sho-forced-on-health-workers/feed/ 257 http://www.anh-usa.org/organic-baby-food/ http://www.anh-usa.org/organic-baby-food/#comments http://www.anh-usa.org/new_site/images/default_thumb.jpg Tue, 09 Oct 2012 19:00:48 +0000 ANH-USA http://www.anh-usa.org/?p=8835 The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is even considering allowing genetically engineered vaccines for organic livestock. Action Alert! The NOSB—a division of the USDA—is responsible for regulating all organic crops and determining what can be called “Certified Organic.” The board is meeting next week, and on the agenda will be whether to allow eight synthetic substances in organic baby food, primarily in organic infant formula. The substances in question—ascorbyl palmitate, synthetic beta-carotene, a proprietary form of lutein, synthetic lycopene, synthetic l-carnitine, synthetic l-methionine, synthetic taurine, and nucleotides—all have organic alternatives, are not nutritionally necessary as additives, and might be difficult for the infant’s body to process. In particular, ascorbyl palmitate (AP) and synthetic beta carotene are used as preservatives in infant formula to prevent them from oxidizing and becoming rancid. However, organic standards state that synthetic ingredients cannot qualify as organic if their primary purpose is as a preservative. The International Formula Council, which is trying to get them included, is hoping to sneak around the restriction by never using the word “preservative” in its justification, instead calling them “antioxidants” and saying they “prevent rancidity.” AP has no nutritional value; its sole purpose is to extend shelf life. This is the very definition of a preservative—and the opposite of an organic product. More to the point, organic alternatives exist for AP (such as rosemary extract and tocopherols) and also for synthetic beta carotene. The NOSB background materials say “it remains inconclusive whether or not the body actually utilizes ascorbic acid that is metabolized from ascorbic palmitate,” which makes AP particularly unsuitable for infants. A synthetic substance is never supposed to be in organic food unless (a) it is essential and (b) there is no organic alternative. None of the above substances qualify for either of the two requirements. Manufacture of this particular brand of lutein is a proprietary secret, so even the NOSB does not know if it is synthetic or not. They are thus hardly able to certify that the product is harmless! This, however, may not mean much to the NOSB. As we reported last year, the NOSB approved synthetic ARA and DHA, both of which were genetically engineered and used toxic extraction methods. At this board meeting, the NOSB will also discuss the use of GMO vaccines in livestock. For Certified Organic foods, GMO vaccines cannot be used unless they are specifically added to the approved list (and none has been added to date). However, there have been reports of organic farmers using them anyway, and the National Organic Program has so far been unwilling to enforce the law against them. The NOSB should demand compliance from the NOP, and ask them to review all information on vaccines to determine which are organic and which are prohibited because they are genetically engineered. Why is the NOSB allowing such dilution of the organic standards? The New York Times reports that more than 250 nonorganic substances have been added to the list of allowed substances in organic foods, up from 77 in 2002. Some of these substances are dubious, to say the least: besides the aforementioned GMO DHA, carrageenan—a frequently seen additive in organic foods—has no nutritional value and is only used as a thickening agent; it was approved as a food additive in 1995 based on a deficient technical review by scientists who had corporate ties. The US Department of Agriculture, which took over organic standards in order to control them, is in actuality no fan of organic agriculture. But the department is very responsive to big food companies. And as we noted last month, the vast majority of organic brands are actually owned by Big Food companies, with only a limited number of independent organic brands still around. Some of these major corporations have seats on the NOSB—and they, of course, are the biggest advocates for allowing synthetics. Take a look, for example, at General Mills. Last year, a General Mills exec was sitting on the NOSB when the inclusion of DHA was being decided. The company that manufactures DHA sometimes uses technology licensed from General Mills to make it. Coincidence? Of course not. Big Food has an interest in promoting genetic engineering and nanotechnology, since they have invested so much of their R&D budget into them. Three seats on the board are designated for consumer advocates, but they have never been filled from traditional advocacy groups, instead going to corporate executives. Sometimes Big Food execs are shoehorned into seats on the NOSB: an executive from Driscolls, the huge California berry producer, was given a seat that was supposed to be filled by someone who “owns or operates an organic farming operation.” She resigned after a major public outcry, but later rejoined board in a different capacity. Action Alert! Please write to the National Organic Standards Board. Ask them to prohibit the use of synthetic substances in organic baby food—especially synthetic substances that are used as preservatives and have no nutritional value. Also ask the NOSB to strongly recommend that the National Organics Program exercise its oversight and prohibit GMO vaccines from being used on organic livestock.

They say “stakeholders” have raised concerns about these claims. Could those “stakeholders” possibly be members of the pharmaceutical industry?

• FDA should seek new statutory authority to review structure/function claims to make sure they are truthful and not misleading. This means they think legislation should be introduced to provide FDA with authority to pre-approve structure/function claims before nutritional supplements are marketed.
• FDA should improve market surveillance for illegal structure/function claims, expanding it to include retail establishments, trade shows, and promotional events, to make sure vitamin stores are not making disease claims and are displaying proper disclaimers on their structure/function claims.

• They sampled only 119 supplements out of 90,000 supplements on the market. Why? Because they chose to sample weight loss supplements and supplements for immune support. The researchers knew that weight loss supplements are usually the worst offenders, are certainly not representative of the nutritional supplement industry as a whole, and this intentionally skews the results.
• Companies had to voluntarily submit whatever substantiation they had for their claims (66 of 104 companies did so), which again is hardly representative of the substantiation available for all supplement structure/function claims.
• Not surprisingly, FDA could not readily determine whether manufacturers had submitted the required notification for their claims. FDA could only locate 21 of the 127 notification letters. This points to serious disorganization within the FDA, which calls into question whether FDA even has the capacity for greater enforcement.
• The report says that 7% of the supplements reviewed lacked the required disclaimer, and 20% included prohibited disease claims on their labels. These instances, the report says, raise questions about “the extent to which these structure/function claims are truthful and not misleading.” We would point out that it was 7% of the 127 they selected, which means that only nine supplements lacked the required disclaimer. And not having a disclaimer doesn’t mean the information provided in the structure/function claims are not truthful or are in any way misleading! Moreover, disease claims for supplements are illegal, and FDA already has authority to enforce against them. If companies are making disease claims, they are certainly violating the law—although they are not necessarily being either misleading or untruthful.

If Prop 37 passes in California, GMO foods could be labeled in YOUR state much sooner than you thought possible! Why?

• If GMO labels are required in California, it’s extremely likely that many nationwide food companies will use the same GMO-labeled packaging in all states.
• The passage of Prop 37 could create a “domino effect,” with other states following California’s example to put the GMO labeling issue on their own state ballots.

We need your help to purchase airtime in California for a truthful and hard-hitting ad which the Right to Know Campaign has crafted to keep the GMO labeling issue in front of voters! Click here to watch the ad.

• $20 buys a spot on CNN in El Centro.
• $220 places an ad on the air in Sacramento during Anderson Cooper 360.
• $900 puts our message in front of all major evening news viewers in San Diego.
• $6,000 is enough to buy airtime during all late night news shows in the Los Angeles area!

Help get Prop 37 passed—and your family will benefit!