Posts Tagged EPA
EPA Gives More Credibility To Industry-Funded Studies Than Peer-Reviewed Science When Approving Pesticide Use
November 9, 2014
A memo from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) highlights the way that this agency gives more weight to poorly conducted, industry-funded studies than to the overwhelming body of evidence showing that pesticides are harmful.
The memo concerns an insecticide named chlorpyrifos (trade name Lorsban), manufactured by Dow Chemical. Until 2000, the chlorpyrifos was widely used in household bug sprays such as Raid. But due to strong evidence that the chemical was poisonous, especially to children, the EPA struck an agreement with Dow that the chemical could continue to be used for agriculture if it were banned from indoor use.
“These data do suggest that inhalation or dermal exposure can lead to life-threatening effects,” the EPA said at the time.
Still harming children’s brains
Dow has been on the defensive about chlorpyrifos for years. Even before restricting the chemical’s use, the EPA fined Dow $876,000 for 327 separate counts of violating the Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide, and Fungicide Act (FIRFA) with regard to chlorpyrifos. FIRFA requires pesticide manufacturers to report all complaints about pesticide poisoning within 30 days.
In 2004, the New York Attorney General’s office fined Dow $2 million for falsely claiming, for decades, that the chemical was safe, even after it was proven otherwise.
Studies have also shown that chlorpyrifos continues to be harmful even in agricultural uses. For example, a 2008 study found that pregnant women exposed to the pesticide gave birth to children with lower IQs, while a 2011 study found that chlorpyrifos-exposed children had reduced problem-solving ability.
“Toxic exposure during this critical period can have far-reaching effects on brain development and behavioral functioning,” said Virginia Rauh of Columbia University, who was not involved in those studies. “Some small effects occur at even very low exposures.”
The CHAMACOS (Center for Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas) study, conducted on farm workers between 1998 and 2011, found that children exposed to organophosphate pesticides (including chlorpyrifos) either before or after birth had lower cognitive abilities. Mothers with higher levels of the chemical in their urine had children with lower IQs and decreased verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory and mental processing speed.
by: Christina Sarich
November 3, 2014
There is a good reason that Kellogg’s spent over $1,012,552 on media propaganda in California & Washington to defeat voter ballot initiatives that would have required the labeling of GMO foods, and now are contributing again to the defeat of labeling initiatives in Oregon (contributing $250,000).
A consumer recently sent a box of Froot Loops to a lab for genetic testing and found that the corn and soy used in the cereal are 100% RoundUp Ready GMO. So is the sugar. Never mind the other toxic ingredients in the cereal. This means that in one box of Kellogg’s cereal (and likely all their cereals contain similar GMO products), you are dining on a double dose of glyphosate and Bt toxins – glyphosate being patented as an ‘antibiotic’ by Monsanto in 2011.
Kellogg’s has been making cereal since 1898, but I seriously doubt its founders ever thought it would be poisoning the world at breakfast every morning.
Not only is the corn in Froot Loops sprayed with RoundUp, but it is a pesticide in its own right, registered with and regulated by the EPA. But it isn’t just Froot Loops that is of concern, for all of you who avoid sugar-laden cereals. The ‘healthful’ Kellogg’s brands are full of the stuff, too.
by: Dr. Mercola
August 7, 2012
Scientists in Norway have released results from experimental feeding studies carried out over a 10-year period, and the verdict is in: If you want to avoid obesity, then avoid eating genetically engineered (GE) corn, corn-based products, and animals that are fed a diet of GE grain.
As reported by Cornucopia.org1, the project also looked at the effects on organ changes, and researchers found significant changes that affected weight gain, eating behaviors, and immune function.
How Genetically Engineered Corn and Soy Can Wreak Havoc on Your Health
According to the featured article2:
“The results show a positive link between GE corn and obesity. Animals fed a GE corn diet got fatter quicker and retained the weight compared to animals fed a non-GE grain diet. The studies were performed on rats, mice, pigs and salmon, achieving the same results.
… Researchers found distinct changes to the intestines of animals fed GMOs compared to those fed non-GMOs. This confirms other studies done by US researchers. Significant changes occurred in the digestive systems of the test animals’ major organs including the liver, kidneys, pancreas, genitals and more.”
Their findings (which were published July 11, 2012 in Norway by Forskning.no, an online news source devoted to Norwegian and international research3) showed that animals fed genetically engineered Bt corn ate more, got fatter, and were less able to digest proteins due to alterations in the micro-structure of their intestines.
They also suffered immune system alterations. The impaired ability to digest proteins may be of particular concern as this can have far-reaching implications for your health. If your body cannot digest proteins, your body will be less able to produce amino acids, which are necessary building blocks for proper cell growth and function.
As noted by Cornucopia.org:
“This not only may relate to a rise in obesity, but to increases in many modern diseases. These diseases include diabetes, digestive disorders, inflammatory bowel disease, colitis, autism spectrum disorders (ASD) (ADD), autoimmune diseases, sexual dysfunction, sterility, asthma, COPD and many more.
…[Lead author] Professor Krogdahl explains: “It has often been claimed that the new genes in genetically modified foods can’t do any damage because all genes are broken down beyond recognition in the gut. Our results show the contrary; that genes can be taken up across the intestinal wall, is transferred to the blood and is left in the blood, muscle and liver in large chunks so that they can be easily recognized… The biological impact of this gene transfer is unknown.”
Bt Toxin Found in Blood of Women and Fetuses
This is not the first time scientists have revealed significant biological impacts and related health problems as a result of eating a diet of genetically engineered foods. More often than not, unless the research is tainted by industry ties, studies into the effects of genetically engineered foods demonstrate that it is anything but safe. This isn’t so surprising when you consider that simple logic will tell you it’s probably not wise to consume a plant designed to produce its own pesticide, for example.
So-called “Bt corn” is equipped with a gene from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis(Bt), which produces Bt-toxin—a pesticide that breaks open the stomach of certain insects and kills them. This pesticide-producing corn entered the food supply in the late 1990’s, and over the past decade, the horror stories have started piling up.
Monsanto and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) swore that the toxin would only affect insects munching on the crop. The Bt-toxin, they claimed, would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and would not have any impact on animals and humans. The biotech companies have doggedly insisted that Bt-toxin doesn’t bind or interact with the intestinal walls of mammals, and therefore humans.
The featured research proves all such claims false.
- 93 percent of pregnant women tested
- 80 percent of umbilical blood in their babies, and
- 67 percent of non-pregnant women
Bt-toxin breaks open the stomach of insects. Could it similarly be damaging the integrity of your digestive tract? If Bt-toxins can damage the intestinal walls of newborns and young children, the passage of undigested foods and toxins into the blood from the digestive tract could be devastating to their future health. Scientists speculate that it may lead to autoimmune diseases and food allergies. Furthermore, since the blood-brain barrier is not developed in newborns, toxins may enter the brain causing serious cognitive problems. Some healthcare practitioners and scientists are convinced that this one mechanism for autism.
If Bt genes are colonizing the bacteria living in the digestive tract of North Americans, we might expect to see an increase in gastrointestinal problems, autoimmune diseases, food allergies, and childhood learning disorders since the advent of Bt crops in 1996, and that’s exactly what’s being reported. For example, between 1997 and 2002 the number of hospitalizations related to allergic reactions to food increased by a whopping 265 percent. One out of 17 children now has some form of food allergy and allergy rates are rising.
Genetically Engineered Foods Trigger Adverse Immune System Responses
There’s plenty of evidence showing that the Bt-toxin produced in genetically modified Bt crops like corn and cotton plants is toxic to humans and mammals andtriggers immune system responses. For example, in government-sponsored research in Italy5, mice fed Monsanto’s Bt corn showed a wide range of immune responses, such as:
- Elevated IgE and IgG antibodies, which are typically associated with allergies and infections
- An increase in cytokines, which are associated with allergic and inflammatory responses. The specific cytokines (interleukins) that were found to be elevated are also higher in humans who suffer from a wide range of disorders, from arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, to MS and cancer
- Elevated T cells (gamma delta), which are increased in people with asthma, and in children with food allergies, juvenile arthritis, and connective tissue diseases.
Rats fed another of Monsanto’s Bt corn varieties called MON 863, also experienced an activation of their immune systems, showing higher numbers of basophils, lymphocytes, and white blood cells6. These can indicate possible allergies, infections, toxins, and various disease states including cancer. There were also signs of liver and kidney toxicity.
by: Dr. Mercola
August 7, 2012
This benefit is dubious at best, as there is practically no difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, and no difference between states that fluoridate a high versus low percentage of their water.
Yet, while fluoride in drinking water does NOT decrease rates of tooth decay, numerous studies show that this chemical has a wide array of devastating health effects – one of them being lowered IQ.
Yet Another Study Links Fluoride to Lower IQ Levels
A review of brain studies involving the use of fluoride has concluded that one of the adverse effects of fluoride exposure on children is damage to their neurological development.1 According to the Harvard researchers, children who lived in high-fluoride areas had “significantly lower IQ than those in low fluoride areas,” with the authors noting:
“The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment.“
This just adds to the growing number of animal and human studies demonstrating the damage fluoride inflicts on your brain, including your pineal gland. The results of one study looking at children’s intelligence in two towns – one with fluoridated water and one without – were particularly revealing, with about 28 percent of the children in the low-fluoride area scoring as “bright, normal or higher intelligence” compared to only 8 percent in the high-fluoride area.2
Further, 15 percent of children in the high-fluoride city had signs of mental retardation, compared with only 6 percent in the low-fluoride city. And the study even accounted for other potential variables, such as lead exposure, iodine deficiency or a history of brain disease or head injury. There have been over 23 human studies and 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage.
EPA Violated 10th Amendment & State Rights – Virginia Coalition Files Federal Suit Over Unconstitutional Rain Water Collection Mandate
Monday, August 06, 2012
By: J. D. Heyes
[NaturalNews] The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights’ catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation’s founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states – as sovereign entities – are free to do as they please.
It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, “Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
In other words, the federal government’s powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.
But that was then. It certainly isn’t that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.
Well, the time seems to have come when states – some of them at least – appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.
A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy – the Environmental Protection Agency – has stepped way over the central government’s constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.
According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a “coercive … unfunded mandate” on a watershed, “to implement a federal program – one not imposed by or under Virginia Law.”
New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars
The group says the EPA’s rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms – the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom – that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.
The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA’s mandate at about $225 million.
“If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC’s territory,” says the law clinic, on its Web site.
The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is “impaired,” under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.
“To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget,” says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. “Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day.”
That “standard” is what is being challenged by OWC.
Trampling the sovereignty of the state
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed,” said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.
“Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests,” he said. “Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance.”
In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.
“This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize – commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments,” the complaint says.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
By: Gabriel Cousens, MD, MD(H), DD
[NaturalNews] Radioactive waters from the Fukushima disaster now buffet the coasts of North America. We have known since 1987 – when in the 8 months following Chernobyl, a 245% to 900% increase in infant mortality was observed in the northern coastal areas of the US – that out-of-control radiation leaks are a proven worldwide problem.
What we also know is immediate crises, such as the radioactivity from Fukushima, only add to the literal sea of continual radiation exposure.
We are exposed to “routine” nuclear medical equipment leaks, checkpoints with full-body scans, nuclear submarine crashes, depleted uranium ammunition fallout, mammograms, CT scans, x-rays, radioactive-contaminated tobacco smoke, microwave ovens, food irradiation accidents, and more.
To share a few examples:
- Nuclear mishaps and accidents – Over a 15-year study, ending in 1985, there were 151 significant nuclear accidents in 14 western countries with a total of over 2,7000 mishaps at nuclear plants.
- X-rays – Dr. Alice Stewart, a recognized world authority on nuclear epidemiology, discovered that women exposed to diagnostic X-rays during pregnancy had offspring with two times the likelihood of developing leukemia as did children who had not been exposed in utero.
- Cigarette smoke – Cigarette smoke contains and gives off the radioactive particles radium 226, which is found in phosphate fertilizers used in commercial tobacco farming; polonium 210, lead 210, which are breakdown products from radium 226; and potassium 40.
Our big picture is not just surviving the immediate Fukushima crisis, but protecting ourselves and our families from the cumulative daily radiation dangers that build up over a long period of time.
My radiation protection approach is built on six principles:
I. Selective uptake
If one has enough minerals in the system, the cells become saturated with healthy minerals. Once cellular mineral saturation occurs, there is less opportunity for radioactive minerals to be absorbed into the system.
Certain foods actively draw the radioactive materials to them and pull them out of the body via the bowel and kidney excretion process. The kelp family of sea vegetables are highest in the natural chelator, sodium alginate. Work by J.F. Sara at the Environmental Toxicology Laboratory of the EPA, and A. Huag, as reported in The Composition and Properties of Alginates, show that alginates bind other metal pollutants, such as excess barium, lead, plutonium, cesium and cadmium. Use kelp (5-10 tablets) for chelating I-131, anduse dulse for chelating plutonium. Obviously, make sure your sea vegetables come from as safe an ocean source as possible.
III. Increase your antioxidant intake
Keeping the body high in antioxidant nutrients and enzymes will nullify the free radicals created by the radiation exposure.
by: Anthony Gucciardi
July 26, 2012
If the scientific link between fluoride exposure and a noted decreased in IQ is a conspiracy theory, then perhaps the Harvard researchers who just confirmed such a link should be tarred and feathered by the ‘evidence-based’ medical media. In a telling review of a variety of studies that have demonstrated just how significantly fluoride can damage the brain and subsequently your IQ, Harvard University scientists stated ”our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment.”
The most outstanding component to the study is where it was published. Authors published their conclusion online in the July 20th edition of the prominent journal Environmental Health Perspectives, a federal government medical journal stemming from the United States National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The very same government that has continually asserted that water fluoridation is both perfectly safe and ‘effective’ at aiding the health of citizens who consume it on a daily basis.
In the past, the US government has actually been forced to call for lower fluoridation levels as previous research had also drawn a link between fluoride exposure and a host of neurotoxic effects. In the latest research by Harvard, it is made even more explicitly clear just how toxic fluoride can be to the body. In a written statement, researchers state:
“The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas.”
Fluoride Lowers IQ, Sparks Tumor Growth
This should come as no surprise to those who have followed fluoride research over the past several years. As far back as 1977, for instance, epidemiological studies performed by the head of the Cytochemistry Section at the National Cancer Institute Dr. Dean Burk revealed that fluoride exposure led to increased tumor growth – even at levels as low as 1 ppm (the standard for United States drinking water). Beyond revealing an accelerated tumor growth rate of 25% in his research, fluoride was found to produce melanotic tumors, transform normal cells into cancer cells and increases the carcinogenesis of other chemicals.
In 1977, Dr. Burk estimated that fluoridation has actually caused about 10,000 deaths according to his research.
It will come as no surprise, then, that even the EPA — an agency charged with protecting the people — has classified fluoride as a substance with ”with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.” Perhaps the EPA is also run by blubbering conspiracy theorists. In another entry by study authors, it is explained how fluoride actually attacks the brain in unborn children and essentially launches a direct assault on their neurological development:
”Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature.”
But will the United States government answer to the study? As mentioned, many studies have exposed the same correlation of IQ-crushing fluoride intake. Paul Connett, Ph.D. and director of the Fluoride Action Network was one of the many activists to speak out regarding the last study to highlight the association. At the time, there were 23 former studies on the matter, and Connett felt that this 24th study was by far the strongest. And what was done? Unfortunately, it was brushed under the rug by mainstream health organizations who continue to assert that fluoride is perfectly safe. Some even recommend supplementing with fluoride pills.
In regards to the last breaking study, Connett stated:
“In this study we found a significant dose-response relation between fluoride level in serum and children’s IQ…This is the 24th study that has found this association, but this study is stronger than the rest.”
Will the latest Harvard-backed study be ignored by major public health organizations, or will serious change be initiated?