Posts Tagged FDA
November 7, 2014
Did you know that walnuts have been classified as ‘drugs’ by the US Food & Drug Administration, and that some companies have been accused of misbranding them, only to be subject to government“seizure or injunction.” That’s a little harsh, but why?
Diamond Foods, who sells walnuts, was forced to remove certain statements about the healing properties of walnuts from their website because of the FDA’s interference. (You can see the warning letter Diamond Foods received from the FDA, here.) So – while the FDA promotes GMOs, vaccines, pharmaceutical meds that actually hurt people, chemotherapy, and radiation, they have a big problem with walnuts?
It is more likely that Big Pharma is intimidated by these small packages of healing power – that cost only about $3 a pound in some places. Is this why the FDA has censored information on walnuts?
There are over 57 different ways that walnuts promote overall health – but here are just a few concerning heart-health for your perusal:
Walnut Consumption Reduces Heart Disease Risks
Though walnuts are high in fat (they are healthful, beneficial fats) numerous studies have shown that eating nuts reduces the chance of having a heart attack by eliminating blood clots. Walnuts also provide a unique blend of polyunsaturated fatty acids (including omega-3s), along with nutrients like gamma-tocopherol which have demonstrated heart health benefits. The New England Journal of Medicine published the first clinical study showing significant reductions in LDL and improvement in the lipoprotein profile in response to moderate consumption of walnuts.
Additional studies have shown that walnuts improve endothelial function in ways that are independent of cholesterol reduction. Walnuts are so powerful that they help endothelial functioning by 64% when substituted for other fats in a person’s diet. Much of the underlying cause for heart disease is atherosclerosis, a progressive endothelial dysfunction in the body.
Walnuts Contain a Variety of Heart-Healing Nutrients
Aside from endothelial function support, walnuts also contain a host of healing nutrients, including arginine, polyphenols, copper, manganese, and again, omega-3s which support the inner arterial lining and guard against abnormal platelet aggregation in the body.
The US National Library of Medicine database contains more than 35 peer-reviewed published papers supporting a claim that ingesting walnuts improves vascular health and may reduce heart attack risk – and then some.
November 1, 2014
The nefarious nature of the FDA, much like the CDC, begun to be exposed quite some time ago. Part 1 below covers evidence of the FDA’s subversive tactics. Part two adds more evidence to the matter at hand.
In the spirit of continuing to show the reliability [or lack thereof] of some government institutions, and the blind trust some people have of the establishment, we are going to take a deeper look at the Food & Drug Administration [FDA]
The FDA, which was founded on June 30, 1906, features on its website the slogan ‘Protecting and Promoting Your Health.’ Have they been up to the task?
Unbeknownst to the public are the plethora of instances – going back decades – in which the FDA has conducted itself directly against the American Public’s interests.
We really need to ascertain the true reputation of institutions that not only have untold power, but can also guide millions astray if we remain averse to looking at the compendium of facts.
For totality’s sake, examples of this will be quoted at length from Jeff T. Bowel’s intriguing book, The Miraculous Results Of Extremely High Doses Of The Sunshine Hormone Vitamin D3:
“In 1952, the FDA [Food & Drug Administration] tried to outlaw the introduction of anything “new” into foods and consumables unless given advance affirmative permissible by the FDA. This power grab was rejected by the courts.
“In 1957 the FDA started prosecution of vendors of “malnutrition remedies” [aka vitamins] and began using the term quack.
“In 1960 the FDA tried to limit the amount of folic acid in vitamins to .4 of a milligram even though years later this amount would be found to be too low and higher amounts were recommended for pregnant mothers to prevent neural tube defects in their newborns.
“In 1966 again the FDA tried to restrict access to vitamins by the food industry by proposing new controls on Vitamin D fortification
“In 1973 the FDA banned the sale of higher dose Vitamin A and Vitamin D Pills. This was later challenged by Linus Pauling, the Nobel Prize winning chemist, a friend of the court in a law against the FDA.
“In 1974 Congress reigned in the FDA’s overreach and forced them to regulate vitamins as food and not drugs.
“In 1976 Congress also passed a bill blocking the FDA and the drug industry’s attempts to block the sale of high dose vitamins.
“In 1977 FDA dropped its plans to require a doctor’s prescription for high dose vitamins.
“But in 1979, the FDA tried again to get some vitamins classified as non-prescription drugs…another small first step towards later banning.”
“The FDA with Texas state health inspectors raided vitamin retailers/health food stores across the state and seized inventories and put people in jail accusing the businessmen of making false health claims about vitamins.”
“FDA planned to regulate vitamins again and health claims about them.”
“Finally: in 1994 the people of the US had had enough and they forced Congress to pass the US Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act [DSHEA] which is basically “health-freedom” legislation. DSHEA defines supplements as foods, and puts the onus on the United States Food And Drug Administration to prove that a supplement poses significant or unreasonable risk of harm rather than on the manufacturer to prove the supplement’s safety, reversing the burden of evidence required of medicines.
“In 2011, some corrupt, bought and paid for, nanny-statist US politicians tried to back door maneuver to regain control over vitamins and supplements by the FDA with their Introduction of the Dietary Supplement Labeling Act.
“Their intent was to overthrow the effect of the 1994 DSHEA law which led to consumers having accesss to dietary supplements. They wanted to change what was essentially a notification process into a costly approval process. The net effect of the proposed regulation was to reclassify many nutritional compounds currently on the market as new dietary ingredients requiring FDA approval. Luckily for the US population this recent power grab attempt also failed. But you can bet the corrupted, nanny-state politicians owned by Big Pharma will be at it again sooner or later – stay tuned.”
The above list is not exhaustive. It does however show more than ample evidence of the oppressive nature of the FDA.
Can an institution such as this going against its edict be counted on to do the right thing even though its extensive history says otherwise?
 The Miraculous Results Of Extremely High Doses Of The Sunshine Hormone Vitamin D3 by Jeff T. Bowel. Pg. 153-5.
Google complies with FDA demands to secretly disable Adwords accounts of nutritional detox companies
by: Mike Adams
August 8, 2012
[NaturalNews] The latest attack on free speech in America comes from the FDA and is supported by Google Adwords. NaturalNews has learned that the FDA is quietly, and without notice to affected companies, commanding Google to disable the full Adwords accounts of nutritional supplement companies offering “detox” or “chelation” nutritional products.
This secret war against nutritional supplement companies is being waged entirely outside the law, as the FDA gives no notice to affected companies and does not give them any opportunity to respond in their defense. No judge, no jury, no notice, no due process. The FDA simply bypasses legal notice requirements and goes straight to Google, which complies by disabling Adwords accounts, shutting off an important source of revenue for nutritional supplement companies.
An economic embargo ordered by the FDA and obeyed by Google Adwords
This action is just the latest round in the FDA’s war on nutritional supplement companies, which have been subjected to armed raids, threatening warning letters, product seizures, and even international kidnapping by the FDA itself (http://www.naturalnews.com/027750_Greg_Caton_FDA.html).
In this case, the FDA is conducting an economic embargo on the company known as Global Healing Center (www.GlobalHealingCenter.com), founded by Ed Group III. Dr. Group is not a medical doctor, but he is a globally-recognized formulator of nutritional detoxification products that really work to help eliminate heavy metals from the body.
Ed Group’s company has been a long-time advertiser with Google Adwords, using the service to not only bring Google hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in revenue, but more importantly to help reach people with high-quality nutritional products that are revered throughout the industry for their safety, potency and efficacy.
None of this seemed to matter to Google Adwords, which shuttered his entire account without notice, then claimed the FDA told them to do so (see below).
“On June 29th we noticed our sales had dropped off about 25-30% over the previous week,” Dr. Group told NaturalNews. “After some research we found it was due to Google blocking our AdWords account from advertising. We tried contacting Google to see why our account had been blocked, but it wasn’t until July 27th (almost a month later) that we received the answer below.”
He goes on to explain:
The FDA contacted Google and demanded Google shut down our ads containing our heavy metal cleansing keywords. Google then shut down our ENTIRE account including all other non-chemical and heavy cleansing related ads resulting in a loss of approximately $70,000 in sales over a period of 3-4 weeks. The FDA did not contact us directly nor did Google contact us to let us know before shutting down our account. It seems as if the FDA has started a gestapo campaign to attack supplement companies indirectly through Google advertising.
[This was] an intentional campaign by the FDA to take money from our pockets because we never even had a product on our site which mentions chelation and the FDA has never contacted us or issued a warning to us as they are required to do by law. The FDA inspects our facility one to two times each year and have never mentioned any concern to us.
Monday, February 06, 2012
By: Jonathan Benson
[NaturalNews] Correction: The original version of this article stated that some U.S. Department of Agriculture certified organic products may contain neotame. Since the publishing of this article, NaturalNews has obtained a letter from the USDA’s National Organic Program Deputy Administrator, Miles McEvoy, explaining that neotame is NOT permitted for use in products labeled certified organic, or in products that contain the label “made with organic [specified ingredient or food group]. You can view a copy of this letter here:
And while Monsanto was the original creator of neotame back when it owned the NutraSweet Company, J.W. Childs Equity Partners II, L.P. today owns the NutraSweet Company, which includes ownership of neotame as well.
It could be lurking in the foods you eat every single day and you would never even know it. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that one of Monsanto’s creations, a synthetic sweetener chemical known as neotame, does not have to be labeled in food products, including even in organic food products.
A modified version of aspartame with even more added toxicity, neotame received quiet and unassuming FDA approval back in 2002, even though no safety studies have ever been conducted on the chemical (http://www.neotame.com/pdf/neotame_fda_US.pdf). In fact, an investigation conducted by Feingold.org found only four studies relating to neotame in the MEDLINE database.
Two of these “studies” were not studies at all, and the other two were actually one duplicate study conducted by NutraSweet, the company that produces and sells neotame.
So just like with aspartame, the FDA has once again approved for use a dangerous sweetener chemical that metabolizes into formaldehyde when consumed. Except this time, the chemical contains added 3-dimethylbutyl, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has listed as one of the most hazardous known chemicals, and it does not have to be labeled on any of the products to which it is added.
“Neotame has similar structure to aspartame — except that, from it’s structure, appears to be even more toxic than aspartame,” writes HolisticMed.com on its page about neotame. “Like aspartame, some of the concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage from the combination of the formaldehyde metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and the excitotoxic amino acid” (http://www.holisticmed.com/neotame/toxin.html).
The FDA, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) all consider neotame to be safe for use, despite the fact that WHO actually published a paper seeking to establish acceptable daily intake levels for neotame. If neotame is so safe that it does not even have to be labeled, according to the FDA, then why do acceptable daily intake levels have to be established? And what is the point of establishing them in the first place?
This dog and pony show of special interest regulatory corruption is a travesty that will have global negative health consequences. Like most other toxins added to foods, neotame will most likely cause chronic damage over a long period of time, which means mainstream health authorities will get away with never having to admit that neotame is a dangerous toxin.
Sources for this article include:
By: Sayer Ji
August 3, 2012
The company, Proteus Digital Health, gained FDA approval for its 1 square millimeter device (the size of a grain of sand), which it believes will “shift the care paradigm” into an era of digital medicine.
According to Proteus Digital Health’s website:
Digital Medicines are the same pharmaceuticals you take today, with one small change: each pill also contains a tiny sensor that can communicate, via our digital health feedback system, vital information about your medication-taking behaviors and how your body is responding.
The company added “As a result, you can be sure you’re taking your medicines as prescribed, while at the same time receiving unprecedented feedback on your physical response to treatment.”
The aim of the “ingestible sensor” is to electronically verify patient compliance in taking the medication.
by: Mike Barrett
August 2, 2012
Some excitingly call it the ‘beginning of an era in digital medicine,’ while others view it as a technological movement toward absolute lunacy – despite the positive-sounding advancements. Scientists are moving to put digestible microchips inside of prescription drugs so that your doctor knows if you’re actually taking your medication or not.
Doctors Could Monitor You with Digital Pills
How exactly could these microchips track your medication consumption? The sensor, which is about the size of a grain of sand, generates a voltage in response to digestive juices. The voltage response ultimately transfers a signal to the skins surface, where a patch worn by the person then sends the information to a doctor’s phone.
Although the sensors within the microchip are the first digestible devices actually approved by the FDA, the approval is only based on studies using placebo pills that show it’s safety and efficacy. Of course, digestible microchip creator Proteus would love nothing more than to have the device approved for the massive amounts of pharmaceutical drugs given out today – many of which are taken for a lifetime.
“About half of all people don’t take medications like they’re supposed to. This device could be a solution to that problem, so that doctors can know when to rev up a patient’s medication adherence,” said Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla,California. While Topol isn’t affiliated with Proteus Digital Health, the company that manufactures the futuristic device, he embraces what it has to offer, and says“It’s like big brother watching you take your medicine.”
July 31, 2012
Recent research and data are challenging long held beliefs about the benefits of pasteurization, and a vigorous debate is currently underway in the medical profession over the safety and benefits of raw, organic dairy products.
Whatever side of this argument any individual comes down on in the scientific debate, the policy and law that comes out of that debate has to be seen in the larger societal and historical context. If farmers have enjoyed the freedom to grow and process their foods as they see fit for centuries, and customers likewise have enjoyed the freedom to purchase those foods from those producers they personally trust, how and why did the FDA gain the authority to interfere in that process? By what jurisdiction does a federal regulator have the authority to legislate what foods people are allowed to put into their own bodies?
by: Lisa Garber
July 30, 2012
What do latchkey kids, college students, and busy parents have in common? Well, one thing is that they save valuable time and money by cooking with canned foods. The bad news? Tagging along with these foods is a hefty dose of bisphenol A.
According to a past study conducted by the nonprofit Consumers Union, 18 of 19 canned foods contained 22 micrograms of BPA per serving—116 times more than the ‘daily recommended limit.’ Progresso, Del Monte, Campbell’s, Annie’s, and Hormel soups took the BPA lead. Unfortunately, BPA still continues to taint food cans today.
BPA Affects Fertility
Researchers have linked BPA consumption to hyperactivity, aggression, depression, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, various cancers, and reproductive difficulties including Anogenital distance. Males with short AGD have been found to have 7 times the chance of being sub-fertile. This is a troubling statistic given that prenatal BPA exposure through parental consumption is associated with shortened AGD.
Men alone are not at risk, however. The journal Human Reproduction published a study that found women who miscarried three or more times had markedly high levels of BPA compared to mothers of successful pregnancies.
Food Industry’s Ties to BPA
That the food industry has remained largely silent despite this barrage of research means one thing: they’re making too much money to change. As said by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the FDA has repeatedly failed “to safeguard the food supply.” Even the Environmental Protection Agency left BPA off the list of chemicals needing stricter regulation after a heart-to-heart with lobbyists.
Though even while, until now, both companies and manufacturers have been slow to remove BPA, the chemical is slowing inching it’s way out of food and consumer products. One most recent decision was made by the FDA to ban BPA in baby bottles. But even with BPAs departure, companies are beginning to use a close relative of BPA known as bisphenol-S. Unfortunately, this BPS chemical is also toxic.
Still, there’s no need to despair. Just because the industry isn’t on the side of healthful eating doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy the convenience of canned foods. Eden Foods lines most of its cans with oleoresin (a plant-based lining) and puts acidic foods like tomatoes in paper cartons often used for soups.
You can even DIY canned foods with a home canning kit and BPA-free lids. Parents wary of BPA’s effects on their children’s health as well as their future fertility can even make canning a family venture, with benefits to be reaped for months!
To naturally reverse the effects of BPA, try drinking black tea and eating foods—like sauerkraut and kimchi—high in probiotics.